Talk:Seasteading

April 2008 TalkPage

I have added the {{advert}} template because this entire article, rather than being about the concept of seasteading, instead talks about the Seasteading Institute. Much of the content appears to have been taken from a press release by the institute. Examples of inappropriate advertisement type phrases include (all emphasis are added) "will focus on building a community, doing research and building the first Seastead in the San Francisco Bay." and "...find profitable ways of exploiting a Seastead." and "...adventurous nature of this project..." and finally "...entrepreneur and philanthropist Peter Thiel gave the project a headstart by pledging $500,000." The institutes website is given multiple times, and the whole page is pushing the values and ideals of the institute, such as the pro-anarchist statement "The latter example shows that existing governments do not like competitors, but it also shows that competition helps to force existing governments to innovate. This is one of the major goals of the Seasteading Institute." The page needs massive cleanup in order to achieve a neutral point of view and encyclopedic content. For these reasons I have tagged it with its most aggregiouse error, as an advertisement for an institute and its values. Please assist in bringing this article up to wikipedia standards. Thank You F-451 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• It can't be an advertisement for the Seasteading Institute, as most text was already written before the institute existed. There have been numerous attempts at creating new land at sea. The reason Seasteading is the only viable project at this time is because it is funded and active. The factual information about who's behind the project, and who funded it should be in it, though you may want to describe it in less POV wording. It would be better if someone else does that as i'm not an native speaker (obviously :)). The most notable objections against Seasteading are in an article by China Mieville, you might want to add those as well to make the article more balanced. Joepnl (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have retagged the article as NPOV. Dissenting opinions from your suggested link and others should be incorporated into the text and the passages I previously emphasised still need to be reworded to conform to a neutral viewpoint. Thank You. F-451 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• I tried to cleanup the NPOV language, but it still needs for someone familiar with the issues to provide a more balanced (meaning neutral) viewpoint. F-451 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, i reread Mieville's article and it is not so much against Seasteading but against the until now failed Freedom Ship and libertarianism (while Seasteading is not a libertarian project per se) in general, which can be expected from a Trotskyist writer. May be his comments should be inserted in the Freedom Ship article. I haven't found much other critique anywhere, apart from "it's not very realistic" which is up to the reader to decide I think. The article looks perfectly neutral to me now. By the time people have had the time to think about it probably more fundamental criticism can be found and inserted. (Added an interesting link to a Reason Magazine article). Joepnl (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, the article is fine on neutrality, but now it needs to be expanded, if there are no objections, i'm going to retag it as until someone can add some more information on the topic. F-451 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's definately a lot more information to talk about so your tag is fine with me. The FAQ on their site may be a good source [1], especially the "generic responses" ([2]) should be in the article somehow because they counter every criticisim I've seen so far (I've read each and every comment on seasteading, and they are all answered by "look at cruise ships, 10 million people go on vacation on a cruise ship each year without having the problems (health, security, safety) you say will not be available at Seastead"). I'm not exactly sure how the article should be expanded though. We could include more information about how living at sea needs innovation and sustainable ways to obtain energy, food etc. (because "importing" them would be very expensive) but those things are not really special to seasteading or even Ocean colonization. One thing that should be added though is that one of the goals of the project is to create a competitive market for governments (it's a lot easier to switch from seastead to seastead compared to emigration) which really is a new and imho splendid idea. Joepnl (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Seasteading institute appropriate as link but not as reference/source

Yes, it is an extensive, professional looking website. And I think it should be linked to on this page, and discussed as an organization to the extent to which we can find reliable third-party sources for it, but I don't think it's valid as a reference. Its very purpose as an organization is to define, discusse, and promote this new term, so it's not a reliable source for this article. Cazort (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

this book seems to provide a lot of information that is reprinted (I would guess with permission) in this Article. Cite it correctly and I think it would be useable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that look valid and certainly on-topic. Care to take a stab at it? Trasel (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of self-published source

I removed a reference to a book that had been published through iUniverse, and the material accompanying this reference. Wikipedia's Policies on Self-Published sources say that self-published sources "are largely not acceptable" and outlines the criteria necessary to accept a self-published source. This source hardly comes close to meeting those criteria. I ran a google scholar search and found that (1) this book has not been cited in any scholarly literature, (2) The author of the book has not published any books or articles on the topic through a reliable publisher or in any peer-reviewed journals. I do not think this or any similar sources are acceptable to include on this page. If the book later becomes referenced as authoritative by reliable sources, or if the author later becomes an established expert in the topic in such a way that is verifiable in reliable sources (which would probably involve his book receiving many citations), then we can add it back as a source. Cazort (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While I generally agree that self-published books are not the best references... Considering that it the ONLY published book on Seasteading, I believe that removing it as a reference was not appropriate. This article is on a truly "niche" topic. Trasel (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page itself is at the very border of WP:Notability, and I believe that the material I deleted lies outside of this border. Whether or not the source is the only published book on a topic is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source. If it is not a reliable source, as I argued above, it is inappropriate for inclusion/use in wikipedia. I would certainly not object, however, to including a link to that page under "External Links". I am going to make this change. Cazort (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As we have found out from the recent AFD, the implication that this Article is "at the very border of WP:Notability", is just not true (a almost unanimous keep). I also believe you are in error as to the removal of the mention of using a boat as a seastead, as nowhere can I see where the paragraph contravenes WP:SELFPUB. Or are you looking to have a reference more like [3]. Please, explain your views. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not an article is at the border of notability has nothing to do with whether or not a consensus was reached in the deletion discussion. The deletion process is not a voting process; it's based on consensus. Ideally, the decision would be unanimous even in the most borderline cases. Cazort (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I will defer to your insistence. Please let me know if you find any further hard copy references. This article sorely needs some! Cordially, Trasel (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all these ~40 sources are useful but some are and only a few of them have been integrated into the page: [4]. Cazort (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly, Patent, or Industrial References Needed

The topic of this article provides little traction for intelligent discourse, when there are precious few publications outside of the core group of Seasteading advocates. (And all of those seem to be on-line, only.) Are there any scholarly pieces extant on large scale open-ocean structures? Surely, with all of the oil drilling platforms that have been built (including spar platform designs), there must be something in print. My web searches have been fruitless. I suspect that many of these papers are either A.) Proprietary information, and held closely by oil exploration firms, or B.) In hard copy in some file cabinet at Wood's Hole Institute or somesuch. Any suggestions, ladies and gentlemen? This article really needs expansion, with some good references. Thanks, Trasel (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Search for "Artificial Island" under google scholar: [5]. I'm not sure how many of those articles are directly relevant to this page, probably most of them cover material that belongs more on the article artificial island itself, but you may find some relevant articles in there--there are 2800+. Cazort (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is still interest in the question, see my comment in the Engineering and practicle matters section, below. I mention the one paper I have read on the matter and where to find a citation. N2e (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain focus

I've been doing some small edits, and the confusion I have is whether this article is about a term invented by a small group and the dreams they're building around that term; a general concept that covers things like pirate ratio stations as well as those other dreams of permanent colonies; or the physical methods of creating them. I guess it's about all three, sort of, but it's hard to un-weave them. - DavidWBrooks 13:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this article is about the ideological-economic movement. The physical methods mostly go under artificial island. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If so, the introduction needs to be rewritten to reflect that, making it sound less like existing reality and more like utopian dreams. It needs to be clear that "seasteading" - permanent inhabited places outside reach of existing governments - doesn't actually exist. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(Devil's Advocate) But how would you prove that it does not exist. There are books and Articles that tell of the "Hows and Whys" (keeping it as a viable WP Article) but none that I can see that would be a RS for there non-existense. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia articles, in the absence of multiple reliable sources verifying that something exists, we should write the article under the assumption that it doesn't. The reliable sources covering this topic are sparse. See google news archive search: [6]. Furthermore, these articles all reinforce that this is a fringe subject. To write the article from any other perspective would be entirely inaccurate. Unfortunately, people keep editing this page to try to make this concept appear more mainstream and less hypothetical than it actually is. We should be consistent in demanding that this article stay accurate both in content and tone. Cazort (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I guese that I am seeing what you are not seeing then. I believe that the Article currently does have varied & enough RS's to assume that the concept does exist. CBS, Irish Times, World Arch. News, & Wired magazine ... multiple RS's? And that is what the Article is about, the concept. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the concept exists, and it has gotten some attention in more mainstream outlets lately. But we should write the article as if it's a concept, not using language that implies or connotes that certain things exist or have happened when they're still just ideas. I'm basically just agreeing with DavidWBrooks's comments above. Cazort (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Seasteading Institute

There was little content on the Seasteading Institute page, and the few sources on the institute: [7] overlap almost entirely with the sources for this page...the concept and the institute seem inextricably linked at this point. If the section for the institute grows to be bigger we can split it off again but for now I think that it's clearer and more useful to have them together in one page. Cazort (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Seasteading Institute is notable enough in its own right that it should have its own page (45,300 hits on Google, for example, and a host of major news articles). Where was the discussion on your merging these two? You wrote that the concept and the institute seem inextricably linked at this point, but how does that matter? Of course the two are linked. They'll be linked forever, no matter how much more popular the institute becomes. If a city is ever floating on an ocean, its article will be inextricably linked to seasteading --- the process that allows it to float. I don't fully understand your point.

In any case, I've started editing, and I've expanded the section on TSI. I've also incorporated the section on political philosophy into the section on TSI. I'm going to continue expanding, and in a week or two I'm going to create a new page for the institute.--J.Dayton (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Engineering and practical matters

To date, there is not much in the article about the practical aspects of operating a floating platform facility in the sea. Have there been any reliable sources where these issues have been addressed? What about powering the remote facility at sea? I mean here not just preliminary architectural high-level designs that show a few small windmills or solar collectors on the roof, but rather serious power. Other editors may be interested in the floating wind turbine article which has recently been updated to reflect the first deep-water, full-scale (2.3 MW), floating wind turbine became operational in the North Sea earlier this month, with citations. It seems that such technology could be applied to the seasteading concept. There is also a paper cited in that article that speaks to the floating oil platform technology and it's applicability to non-oil-extraction uses. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heard of CLEAN GREEN NOVA TESLA LAND Seasteadung idea Floating power plants,islands/

Hear of plan for a Nova Tesla Land after Energy Pioneer Nikola Tesla(1856-1943) for floating or anchored Micronation Islands that produce energy by ocean currents (turbines moved by sea currents) Solar and Wind too! To transit this power to other nations(For a price!) They claim to be FIRST CLEAN GREEN powered World Nation! Is this so?CraddockKin (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Can someone add the Prospect (magazine) April 2010 article on the subject please. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MAR Proteus

Perhaps the MAR Proteus image can also be added here. Idea is that (as it has been designed to also be able to function as a seaborne laboratory, ...) this vessel design could be used as a model for seasteads. KVDP (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

shouldn't it mention that these people are cranks

whether from engineering, legal, economic, or political perspectives, none of this makes any sense. but the article by failing to mention that basically becomes free advertising for libertarian cranks, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.122.156 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add any valid third party press references that cite criticism of the group. But please turn down the Snide-o-meter. This ain't Judgmentalpedia.BobbieCharlton (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)-

Thumbs up BobbieCharlton! --68.82.185.210 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard to find serious commentary on these aspects that isn't at the meta level, as there doesn't seem to be a specific legal framework, economic plan, or engineering design to critique. As far as politics, a large part of the movement is about separating themselves from the political status quo. This new article[8] covers, and indulges in, the cultural spectacle, saying (without explanation or support as I can tell, that the Seasteading Institute is "billed as 'Burning Man meets Silicon Valley meets the water'" (emphasis added). There are several interesting threads coming together: (1) utopian industrialists building autonomous business-friendly enclaves that they believe will better society - something as old as America; (2) skepticism, derision, and mocking by the establishment; and (3) a tendency of idealist movements to attract iconoclasts and eccentrics. It's hard to know how and where to treat the cultural perception / phenomenon in an article like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of other things that lack a specific legal framework, economic plan, or engineering design and yet Wikipedians have managed to find reliable sources that criticize them. If you want to add criticism, just find a citation that meets Wikipedia standards. Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Honduras

I have removed these two sections, pastedbelow, because they're not about projects in the ocean and thus don't belong on this article:

Future Cities Development Inc. Inspired by Paul Romer's charter cities, Future Cities Development Inc. intends to create cities with cutting-edge legal systems. In February 2011 Honduras amended its constitution to permit the creation of special autonomous zones exempt from local and federal laws. Future Cities, through its CEO Patri Friedman, signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding to build a city in a Honduran special autonomous zone in 2012.

Free Cities Group Grupo Ciudades Libres (Free Cities Group) is the brainchild of Michael Strong and Kevin Lyons, two entrepreneurs and libertarian activists. It also intends to create a special autonomous zone in Honduras. [reference] [reference 2]

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Should you not just type in this info in a other artickel (and let sombodey lelse improve it ) and put a link to it insted ?

Hmm maybe link it ti this stuff: lLAS PORTADAS Be us it look to me did a gogel scarch that it was /is a kind of project to build libertarian freetrade zones autonmus in countrys lik burma thailand sudan and south america and haiti by x new utopia govonuer ian swayer and a libertarian idialist called jhon fredric kosanke in 2000s after new utopia failed true ?by some x members of govonouer boared in new utopia (anybody know if and what happens to this project?)and some invetsores left and wanted to start a new freezone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.90.149 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

seasted instetu dowen

look like the saestaeding website are dowen... maybe add a mirror site or some problems ? 82.147.33.187 (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC) murakaim

The announcement says "maintenance" issues, so let's wait and see. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cruise ships

Surprised that MS The World is not mentioned in the article -- should it be? 84.202.41.158 (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so; it's just a cruise ship with an unusual financial arrangement between it and some customers; it has the same supply issues as any other ship. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Radio Broadcasters are prohibited by the UN Charter on the Sea

Article109

Unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas

1. All States shall cooperate in the suppression of unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas.

2. For the purposes of this Convention, "unauthorized broadcasting" means the transmission of sound radio or television broadcasts from a ship or installation on the high seas intended for reception by the general public contrary to international regulations, but excluding the transmission of distress calls.

3. Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of:

(a) the flag State of the ship;

(b) the State of registry of the installation;

(c) the State of which the person is a national;

(d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or

(e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.

4. On the high seas, a State having jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 3 may, in conformity with article 110, arrest any person or ship engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and seize the broadcasting apparatus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.170.130 (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ephemerisle

This section contained no third-party references - all were to the Seasteading Institute or the Ephemerisle site itself, and one was using a wiki as a reference. That and the peacock language meant this section read like advertising. Is there independent coverage (i.e., not by Seasteading Institute-affiliated persons) that shows this is of actual mainstream verifiable notability that would pass WP:RS? Deletion for the record - note lack of third-party refs in the removed material, and certainly nothing within a mile of WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I found a credible, third-party source to add information about Ephemerisle. The Sacramento Bee also did a story on it on Jul 22, 2017 titled "Ephemerisle festival points the way to floating ocean colonies" but there's a paywall on it, if someone wants to add more information. Should pass WP:RS.DFS (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Substantive rewrite, added History, Criticism sections

Merged some sections and removed others to improve readability and remove redundancies. Also added a history, criticism section. Populated the criticism section, but haven't cited the criticisms yet. Crasch (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Good updates - this article has mostly been fanboy territory for a long time, but as the goofy idea starts to seem less goofy it deserves better coverage. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seasteading. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419055150/http://seasteading.org/files/annualreportfinal.pdf to http://seasteading.org/files/annualreportfinal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Shimizu

Is the referenced company this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimizu_Corporation (If so, link?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 Linked. It's the same company. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://freedomhaven.org. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

give The Seasteading Institute its own article

Propose we stop adding history to this section and instead shorten it and give it its own page. I suspect it to be notable enough at this point. MarshallKe (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)