Talk:Liberland/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Access trim

I think this part of the article is too long and I will shortne it but I want to keep the list easily accessible in case someone wanted to add news about the courts decisions etc on some of the incidents. Feel free to remove it from here if you think it is not appropriate. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Croatian authorities have frequently blocked access to the area since the beginning of May 2015. Vít Jedlička was twice detained for less than a day by Croatian authorities in the same month. Croatia has deployed police units to prevent Liberland staff and supporters from reaching the area. Initially, Czech reporters were able to enter the area with Jedlička. A team of journalists from the Serbian public broadcast service Radio Television of Vojvodina attempted to visit the area to make a news report. They reported that the Croatian border police denied them access without providing any clear explanation, and told them the flag had been taken down. A Bosnian group of journalists from Dnevni Avaz who attempted to visit the area were told by Croatian police that Croatia enforces a fine of kn 2,500 for those that enter the zone near the border with a car. They borrowed bicycles from a local, but as they attempted to reach the area again, they met another patrol, and they couldn't continue past the border gate. In May 2015, Vít Jedlička and his translator Sven Sambunjak were shortly detained by Croatian police after making an attempt to cross the border. Jedlička spent one night in detention and then was convicted and ordered to pay a fine for illegal crossing of the Croatian border but appealed the verdict. He claimed that there were at least three Liberland citizens inside the area, who came from Switzerland. He didn't view the arrest as something negative, but rather as an opportunity to discuss politics and get insights on the thoughts among those who work for the Croatian police and government. According to Jedlička, the police officers were friendly and curious about the project. A few days after his detention, six other people (from the Czech Republic, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and the US) were detained and fined. A complaint to the Danish Embassy in Zagreb was made because they allege they were prevented from contacting anyone during the apprehension and detention. Their goal, under the auspices of the Swiss non-profit organization Liberland Settlement Association, was to settle the disputed area. According to the Liberland website, Jedlička and 10 other people were detained again 16 May 2015 by Croatian police. Jedlička was released after a court hearing 17 May 2015. Croatian police have continued detaining anyone that entered the area. On 13 June 2015, four people who managed to land on the beach were detained for illegal border crossing by boat, and brought before court the next day. On 18 June 2015, Danish activist Ulrik Grøssel Haagensen accessed the area in a small boat and was followed onto land by Croatian police. Haagensen claimed he had the right to access the territory, but was arrested, dragged off, and placed in a Croatian police vessel. The incident was caught on video. Jedlička stated his intention to bring Croatia to court for crossing an international border and invading Liberland. Several appeals court decisions from Croatia were published in early May 2016. The court upheld that crossing into Liberland from Croatia is illegal, but found the convictions for entering Liberland from Serbia improper. The court said that the lower court committed "a fundamental breach of misdemeanor proceedings" and "essential procedural violations". It further ruled that "the facts were incorrectly and incompletely established [by the prosecutor] which could lead to misapplication of substantive law". A retrial was ordered in 6 of the 7 appeals. The lower court is required to determine the location of the border and the border crossing.

Edits by User:Guido den Broeder

Hi, for the record, I just want to point out that User:Guido den Broeder, who made substantial edits to this article in April-June 2017 (see discussion above, and article history), was banned indefinitely (in June - sockpuppets; more new since then, discussion here). However, what is more important, is information from that discussion that Guido den Broeder is "the founder and prince" of Paraduin, the micronation promoted by Guido even in this article. I believe we have to reconsider many of his edits as deliberately non neutral, COI, etc. I am not at all saying, that all of them were wrong but I will probably re-add some of the sourced info he removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, for the record, the same holds true for the account called The Jolly Bard (talk), with whom we wasted our time in 2015. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberland. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avaz.ba/clanak/174932/potraga-za-liberlandom-reporteri-avaza-na-nicijoj-zemlji-izmedu-srbije-i-hrvatske
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706222616/http://www.thecairopost.com/news/146887/news/foreign-min-warns-egyptians-against-emigrating-to-liberland to http://www.thecairopost.com/news/146887/news/foreign-min-warns-egyptians-against-emigrating-to-liberland

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) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland in Micronation section

Unlike micronations, Somaliland is a de-facto nation with complete independence from Somalia. It just lacks international recognition. It doesn't seem right to place Somaliland in the same category as the Kingdom of North Sudan and other micronations. Somaliland should either be placed in "Official statements from states" or in a new section (for example) "Official statements from de-facto states". JackTheOre (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

This article begins by claiming that "Liberland is a micronation...", when it's clearly not. The fact that the terrain is not inhabited and that the supposed president and his cabinet have no access to it since it was closed off would challenge the notion that it's an operating micronation. The lead should read "proposed micronation", "disputed micronation" or something of the sort until they acquire some form of legitimacy. Likewise, ATM any monetary transactions involving Liberland are only cryptocurrency exchanges between a handful of individuals (not unlike going on a shopping spree with Bitcoin) , not anything international. El Alternativo (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Liberland seems to fit the definition of micronation used (with source) in micronation. However, to prevent confusion it would be better to add a source (there are plenty) to Liberland calling it a micronation. WikiHannibal (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. It still seems like a misnomer, especially after learning that most of them were failures to launch and rest went broke midway trough. El Alternativo (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there any update on whether or not they've been let back in? I still would consider it a micronation even if they're disbarred from the territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishpolitical (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with user Thomas.W over important information being suppressed

I've added the following section, which contains extremely relevant information on the topic, that is being suppressed by user Thomas.W. Furthermore after reverting my edits he writes, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges."

The section I added, while referncing the Liberland site, uses the entity's actual Constitution as source material - very relevant showing that Liberland is not a republic, but a privately controlled entity, masquerading as a public entity. It's important that people interested in this subject be aware of the misrepresentation being perpetrated by the owners of this private venture. I would ask that a higher level editor review my submission and note that is contains important, factual information of value to the public who are interested in this topic.

Question over Liberland being a "republic" or a private entity

On 5/2018 in Liberland's user forums, user VictorH pointed out that, while Liberland calls itself a "Constitutional Republic", it may not fit the definition of Republic due to the built-in legislative oversight of a body called, "The Council" which are not democratically elected, nor a public entity, as per Liberland's constitution:

§IV.22. All Bills which have been passed by the Assembly in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be considered by the Council.

§IV.22(1) The Council shall be composed of Individuals who hold shares of the Fund of the Free Republic of Liberland.

§IV.22(3) The position of the Councillor shall not be considered to be public office.

§IV.23. The Council shall debate and vote on all Bills passed by the Assembly.

§IV.23(3) Should a Bill be rejected by the Council, it shall be discarded.

VictorH stated, "Based on this Liberland is an oligarchy. It is a private business owned by the shareholders aka 'Councillors' who hold the stock of the Liberland private company. It is like if the USA was owned by let's say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg who could veto any law."

Furthermore, at the end of Liberland's published Constitution there is a graphic showing the legislative process which omits the Constitutionally-specified Councillary oversight and approval of all legislation.

--Markness88 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Copied from User talk:Markness88:

Go find reliable sources independent of the subject of the article, i.e. Liberland, if you want to add material here. Because, as I have already pointed out to you, Wikipedia is not an extension to Liberland's own web site! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In short, no this isn't acceptable material. Wikipedia summarizes only that which is written by reliable secondary sources. Forum posts from unknown individuals (having a name means nothing) is not an acceptable source to use. Refer to WP:RS, to help you identify reliable sources, and WP:SPS, for why we don't use self published materials. With regard to the last paragraph, you should refer to WP:OR. Using sources that you've found to formulate your own conclusions about what they convey is even less acceptable than using a forum post.
On a separate point, please refrain from hyperbole. We have methods of suppression here, and reverting is not one of them. There's also no such thing as a "higher level editors". We have admins, but they don't have any power over content. Refer WP:CONSENSUS. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. It seems the issue here is, while the information that has been discovered is important and relevant, because it hasn't yet been reported by an independent source, Wikipedia will not make note. Hopefully somebody in the media will note what I have discovered to be potentially misleading/fradulent material on the Liberland project (the owners are hiding a private, for-profit entity inside of a so-called "public republic" and using this to generate personal income for a phony "micronation" that does not materially exist). Is it safe to assume if we can get a reliable third party source to report on the information, it's worthy of inclusion in the article? I still think under no circumstances was that passage "disruptive" according to the earlier editor. --Markness88 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Think of it like this: in the US, you are required to pay taxes. In return, you get representation in government (generally). In Liberland, those who volunteer to pay taxes get shares in return, and that can be used to vote on the council, similar to a stockholder voting at a meeting. So no, it's not an oligarchy. Anyone who has shares can vote on the council.Terrorist96 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is always behind everyone else. We're a tertiary source: a source that summarizes existing literature/sources on a given topic. If there are reliable secondary (third-party as you put it) sources reporting on this, then generally speaking yes it can be added. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

References

To Thomas W

Stop removing Czech. It is there for a purpose. Read the article. --Ishmailer (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• The Czech name for Liberland is totally irrelevant here, on the English-language Wikipedia. And it's a micronation, not a self-declared state, since the definition for "self-declared state" that is used here requires a permanent population, which Liberland doesn't have, and with all probability never will get. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Thomas.W ^talk. Please stop edit warring. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

COI template inapposite

Someone is persistent in his denialism over the facts. If there is any evidence, it needs to be presented, or no tag. The point is simple. Ishmailer (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W added the template here [1]; and there seems to be no current consensus to remove it, since Mr rnddude has replaced it after you tried several times to remove it. Please read Help:Maintenance template removal. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is occasionally edited by SPA accounts pushing the "sovereign state" and "terra nullius" narratives. The dispute over the land is more complicated then that.[2] That template is not just there because of Ishmailer. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Show me the SPA investigation and subsequent results. After this, we'll discuss COI, otherwise you're putting the cart before the horse --Ishmailer (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

full protection

I hate fully protecting an article. Looks like it's necessary. When y'all achieve a consensus, please feel free to ping me for removal of protection. Any admin may undo at their discretion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

To Whom it may concern. Please allow the Liberland Team to continue their work on Wiki. I enjoy this project very much. It is amazing to think that citizens are not confined to be stuck in one geographical nationality, like cattle in a farm. Whoever is sabotaging the Liberland Wiki is working against the project for a hostile reason.

Good luck Liberland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.1.18.157 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia for the publicity stunt - Merge proposal

Take a look at: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.769294,18.8778137,3997m/data=!3m1!1e3

You can see two important things:

• See those lines on the Gornja Siga (the land in question, should be in the center of the window) that are approximately "parallel" with the Danube, all over Gornja Siga? Those are formed by the Danube when it floods the area, which happens all the time. Thus the "Liberland" land is very hard to make habitable.

• Google does not mark the area as disputed, rather it recognizes the Croatian claim of the land belonging to Serbia. That is because Serbia is basically the only state to claim otherwise, the Croatian claim is generally accepted internationally.

Those should help show that this whole "Liberland" affair is just a publicity stunt.

Thus I propose considering merging this article into Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and just say there that Jedlička's claim is infeasible and considered a publicity stunt. Notrium (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, Liberland is not just a publicity stunt, but also a scam; because surely they take money from chumps for "citizenship" or something similar which will not ever be realized. EDIT: they indeed charge for "citizenship", this is now in the article. Notrium (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

HI, please familiarise yourself at least with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I understand you have a stance on this topic but please try not to show it while building an encycopedia here. As soon as there are sources for "scam", feel free to add that info into the article. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The scam/fraud status is secondary to what I wrote before that sentence. I am proposing the article get merged into another one, but in the meantime I will try to find some references and change the article too with a note about fraud. EDIT: Done. Notrium (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Also should read WP:BRD. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Revertions

Dude, Terrorist96. You are the one who should read WP:BRD. Here is a quote from its lead:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.

EDIT: some more quotes from BRD:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.

BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

If you guys have something against an edit of mine, I would not even mind if you reverted it or refined it, but you just revert everything with no rationale.Notrium (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive and POV pushing. Some of your edits may be acceptable if cited properly, but most of your edits, like removing the infobox, which was the subject of long debate that you ignored, and pushing your own POV about Liberland, cannot stand, so the article has been reverted to the last good version by two different people. And FYI, if you revert once more, you will be in violation of WP:3RR and could be blocked from editing.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Then you should have reverted just the edit that removed the infobox. Also, how I am supposed to know about the Infobox discussion? Notrium (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist96 - your accusations here smack of bad faith and bite. You should not expect Notrium to be aware of every discussion that has been hosted here, particularly those from years ago. Making them aware of it is one thing, chastising them for ignoring something they were unlikely to have known existed is quite another. You're also incorrect about 3RR, Notrium has the same number of reverts as you (2). Neither of you are at 3RR. That is not to suggest that edit-warring should be continued. Get a consensus for these changes first.
Notrium - the problems with your edits extend beyond the removal of the infobox – which, ftr, the rationale for removing the IB was perfectly reasonable. The Liberland project may be considered a publicity stunt appears to be your opinion, which Wikipedia won't accept. The Croatian claim is generally internationally recognized needs a citation to a reliable source. The Flag section of the article should not have been removed. Linking the article to "Fraud" and "Publicity stunt" smacks of POV push. That said, your sourced additions, at first glance, don't appear to be a problem to me. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The rational for removing the infobox was not reasonable, as it is an infobox for micronations... which Liberland is... And I'm not the first person to accuse them of violating NPOV. His edits were too BOLD and disruptive and then he's surprised he gets reverted?Terrorist96 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. There is no infobox for micronations. The IB used is Template:Infobox country – which has a parameter for micronations, but is not specifically for micronations and is why you get the edit summary Remove infobox meant for countries. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw unless you are intimately aware of templates, parameters, and specifically this IB template. Guess what? A new user with just over 100 edits is unlikely to know any of this. Once again, you assume unwarranted foreknowledge.
His edits were too BOLD <- No such thing. I have rewritten large passages of articles in a single edit without being challenged, here you have over a dozen edits being summarily reverted in a single stroke. There is no rule that you may only edit a specific amount at a single time. Summarily reverting 21 edits, not all of which are a problem, is bad practice. It's particularly bad when you remove new sourced additions alongside the problem removals without, seemingly, a care in the world. Here are some edits which you and WikiHannibal reverted without explanation: 1 (the second part of that edit can be removed without touching the first, manually, if you're not too lazy), 2, 3, 4 (this one needs contextualization), 5+6, and 7. Are you challenging any of those additions/changes? If no, why have you removed them? if yes, what and why? On the other hand, why is a twitter ref needed when other refs are already presented? and do you know under what specific circumstances SPS are acceptable sources to use? because nobody bothered explaining SPS to Notrium when re-adding a bunch of them. While this shouldn't have been simply removed, do you want to try and explain how this relates to "Citizenship" in any way shape or form? Yes, they have a POV. Yes, it shows when they edit. No, having a POV does not preclude you from editing, or making good edits. The above is, what, nine potentially positive contributions and deductions. [A]nd then he's surprised he gets reverted – if I'd made these edits, I'd be pretty surprised if somebody walked over and asserted that they were all bad, particularly removing a twitter reference which is a weak source to use in the very best of circumstances. It is not infeasible to prune their editing, explain to them where and what the problems are, without trampling over everything as you have done. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to perform the manual labor of restoring his constructive edits since you've already gone through each single one of his edits to prove your point.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Liberland using Wikipedia as an extension to their own website, and an as outlet for press releases

All kinds of non-notable trivia, sourced only to Liberland press releases, is repeatedly being added to the article, usually by editors who have never edited the article before, making me believe that it's the organisation behind Liberland that is trying to use Wikipedia as an outlet for their press releases. Which isn't what Wikipedia is for. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you give us some diffs to the edits you are referring to? I see some edits where the person making them was reverted and blocked, which should have fixed the problem. Are there some other edits we should be looking at? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

'Population'

This article has many faults, assuming it is supposed to be an entry in something which aspires to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a Wiki for creators of fantasy nations. Perhaps the most egregious however is the way it uncritically represents as fact even the most dubious assertions from its proponents. In particular, I noticed that the infobox claimed that the micronation had a population of 1000. As far as I'm aware, no independent source has ever suggested that 'Liberland' has since its founding ever had a resident population greater than zero. Give that this ridiculous assertion (which didn't even seem to be supported by the entirly non-WP:RS Liberland-promoting website it cited) lacked a proper third-party source (for 'population', not for people who claim to be 'citizens' of an entirely unrecognised micronation) I have corrected the infobox. If I had the time, I could quite justifiably remove most of the other vacuous self-sourced puffery presented in the article, but frankly I can't be bothered to do so. If this is the best that Wikipedia can do when it comes to preventing article space from being taken over by partisan promoters, I should probably write it off as a lost cause. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Recognition from minor / unimportant places via WP:PRIMARY sourcing.

Regarding this edit, I tend to agree that we shouldn't be citing those things to primary sources - they are, at a glance, trivial, and more importantly they're cited almost entirely to primary sources, further underlining their lack of significance. It reads like it's trying to convince the reader of something, which is a problem when using primary sources in particular because they can't be used for interpretation or analysis (ie. if we had a secondary source saying "Liberland is important and gains some legitimacy from recognition by X, Y, and Z" we could include that; but using primary sources to imply that fact is a problem.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox country

The use of 'Infobox country' in this article is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Nobody beyond the supporters of this unrecognised zero-population 'micronation' considers it to be a 'country'. To suggest otherwise, as the infobox, with its 'Flag', 'motto', 'anthem', 'march', 'government' etc, etc does is grossly misleading. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of imaginary entities, I shall be deleting the infobox in the next few days, unless someone can come up with an alternative that doesn't present fantasy as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Should this be agreed upon as consensus, I would be fine with that, although for consistency the infoboxes of other similar entities (such as those listed at Micronation#List_of_micronations would need to be removed as well. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:HapHaxion, maybe, maybe not. Other "micronations" may have the things that your infobox claimed this one had. I'm glad to see you on the talk page: please do not pull any more stunts. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologise if I came off in the wrong way; it was not my intention. Also in terms of the organisational structure claimed by this entity, I obtained the information from the draft constitution linked in the article body. I believe that the information should be fine to include, as the fact that Liberland is unrecognised and effectively only acts as claimed territory is already mentioned in the article. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The 'draft constitution' of an unrecognised zero-population 'micronation' isn't a reliable source for anything beyond the aspirations of its promoters. Nothing in it should be presented as fact by Wikipedia, in an infobox or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not being presented as fact. The article states in multiple places that the entity and most "legal" definitions claimed by it are likely dubious, and are just that-- claims. That does not mean that we should remove the information though, as the entity itself passes the notability threshold. Otherwise we would need to go through all the other micronations and do the same, as well as remove the micronation parameter from Template:Infobox country if it is not to be used regardless. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 16:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The infobox asserts as fact the aspirations of Liberland's promoters, in a prominent place at the top of the article. Nothing in Wikipedia policy suggests that it is ok to violate NPOV on one part of a page because you contradict it somewhere else. And as for other 'micronation' articles doing the same thing, getting things wrong elsewhere is no justification for doing so here. As for notability, it is third-party coverage of the promoters' claims that need to meet notability requirements, rather than a zero-population unrecognised 'entity'. Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia need not consider it an 'entity' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I also support removing the country infobox from this article. The fact that other articles about so-called micronations also have such infoboxes does not justify the retention of the infobox in this article. The presence of country infoboxes in other articles about micronations needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, although I suspect I would support the removable of said infoboxes from many, if not most, of them. - Donald Albury 17:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought there was a dedicated infobox for micronations? Anyway, we definitely shouldn't use infobox-country, yes. Infoboxes and the like should only be used for uncontroversial stuff or things that are plainly established in the article and its sources; obviously Liberland being a country isn't widely-accepted. --Aquillion (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is clear: no infobox. Or not this one. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There was already an RFC on this very topic several years ago that ended with "There is broad consensus that an infobox is supported. (I was not aware that the nation infobox had a parameter for ... this kind of thing.)" with Drmies being the closer with that summary. I would ask that it be respected, otherwise start a new RFC if consensus has changed. AndyTheGrump already tried to get rid of the infobox six years ago but did not have consensus. See here for more discussions on this topic. I oppose removing the infobox. Your issue seems to be with the fact that an infobox with the micronation parameter even exists. I would advise you to go discuss the inclusion of this parameter over there. Though it looks like the previous editor from 5-6 years ago who also opposed this infobox was not successful in their attempt. In light of the previous 5+ year status quo, I would suggest we revert back until we have real consensus.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change, Terrorist96. An RfC doesn't need another RfC to change it, although that's preferable. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, consensus can change, which is why I think since consensus was formed with an RfC last time, the same should be done if we want to deviate. Otherwise what's the point of an RfC if it can just be overridden quietly with just a handful of people years later? I don't see consensus. I see a couple people who didn't get consensus several years ago try to get it again now that some of the previous editors aren't here to defend their views from before.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not participate in the previous RfC (I don't remember being aware of it). I'm already on record above as being opposed to the use of infoboxes in most, if not all, articles about micronations, and if there is another RfC, I will state my opposition in it. - Donald Albury 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The micronation parameter exists, and this article is an appropriate use of it. If not, then where would it be appropriate? You say you are opposed to its use in most, if not all, micronation articles. Thus your opposition is to the existence of the micronation parameter for the infobox ab initio. Therefore, in my view, you would be best to take your opposition to the infobox page I linked to above, not edit war individual micronation articles that correctly use the infobox. And please do not kneejerk revert my edit. I added way more than just the infobox. If that was your only objection, you could have removed just the infobox, not all the new sources I added to support the previously deleted text.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging longtime editors as per xtools for their views. @Anonimski: @WikiHannibal: The Jolly Bard(excluding cuz banned) @Twalls: Guido den Broeder(excluding cuz banned) @Thomas.W: @Alumnum:.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Liberland.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

content

This article is highly outdated, there's lots of new and more detailed info that could go up. I'm not qualified to write anything here. Maybe someone with an NPOV could?

- INSERT VALID NAME- (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on what sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Recognition by Serbia and Croatia

Do Serbia and Croatia recognise Liberland? --85.249.41.228 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It states in the article that the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs has rejected Liberland as a joke, and the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that Liberland is seen as "frivolous". - Donald Albury 21:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It also states in the article that Serbia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs is completely indifferent to the matter and would not object to a new state being formed on its border. Hence Croatia is the only nation to block the independence of Liberland, both in the legal domain and by using physical force to arrest and expel any "Would-be-Liberlandians" from the area, which Croatia itself does not want to form a part of Croatia, which is kind of ironic. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Connection with Somaliland

I reverted a claim that Liberland and Somaliland have recognized each other. The only reliable source I have found for any connection is this 2017 report from the BBC that someone claiming to represent Liberland had visited Somaliland, and the two entities had discussed how to "strengthen cooperation". Donald Albury 23:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

In any case, Somaliland hasn't been officially recognised itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreement with Haiti?

There has been an attempt to add a claim that Liberland and Haiti have signed a "cooperation agreement". I cannot read the cited source, which is in Serbo-Croation, but it seems to be a news report. I have found, however, a US Foreign Agents Registration Act report filed by Steven Melnik, in which he states that he had signed an agreement with an unnamed representative of the Republic of Haiti on behalf of Liberland "to work cooperatively to develop a working relationship between the two parties".[3] Melnik, who is located in New York, describes himself as a "Global Honorary Ambassador-at-Large @ Liberland" (at https://rocketreach.co/steven-melnik-email_17557084, which is a blacklisted site). I'm guessing here, but I suspect this agreement is related to a report from the Liberland Aid foundation that it has provided humanitarian aid to Haiti, "working with Liberland's diplomatic team and the government of Haiti".[4] The Liberland Aid Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered in the State of Florida.[5]

Without stronger evidence from independent, reliable sources, this looks like the government of Haiti allowed the Liberland Aid Foundation to donate humanitarian aid to Haiti. None of this rises to much newsworthiness, and it certainly does not establish any kind of diplomatic or other governmental relationship between the so-called Republic of Liberland and the Republic of Haiti. This does not belong in the Liberland article. - Donald Albury 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It certainly appears, looking at the source cited via Google Translate, [6] that they are basically regurgitating Melnik's version of this. And no, it isn't evidence of 'recognition'. It is however evidence that the promotors of this supposed micronation are trying hard to give the impression that they are gaining recognition. Wikipedia is under no obligation to assist them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Melnik's FARA report is full of ambiguities. He doesn't name the Haitian representative, the agreement is to "develop a working relationship", which doesn't oblige anyone to do anything, and the "two parties" the agreement is between are not specified, and could be Melnik and the Haitian representative. Also note that Melnik states that he did not think the FARA report was necessary, presumably because he believed that he was not in fact acting as the agent of a foreign power. The promotional force is strong, the facts of the matter are very weak. - Donald Albury 16:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

followup years later - redirect to border dispute

Another editor has drawn my attention to this again. I don't see how this article has any merit, as it seems to have been some sort of a publicity stunt of some sort by a politician foreign to the territory in question and then it fizzled out, as a few years later, there are no updates to its frivolous real-world status and no confirmation of any long-term significance of this matter. Fundamentally, the concerns I raised way back at Talk:Liberland/Archive 2 are unresolved. This is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation, and we should replace it with a redirect to the border dispute article that can mention it in encyclopedic context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if it isn't redirected, it needs fundamental work to remedy the obvious WP:NPOV violation involved in presenting it as a 'micronation', with such things as a 'government'. No sources (even unreliable ones) appear to suggest that the population of this alleged nation has ever exceeded zero. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Recognized nation

Blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Says no diplomatic recognition from any "recignized" country. So what's a "regognized" country? By who? Stop propaganda. Mailballs 9900 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC) See diplomatic recognition. There is no propaganda involved in stating properly-sourced factual statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC) It's recognized by Somaliland, and it recognizes Somaliland back. So there's two mutual diplomatic recognitions for starters. I think what you're trying to say is that Liberland at present doesn't currently have recognition from any member of the UN. Would that be more accurate? Mailballs 9900 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Somalialand is likewise unrecognised. And as far as I'm aware, has made no formal statement suggesting it has given recognition to 'Liberland'. They have talked of 'cooperation' but that isn't the same thing. And I'd strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies before editing the article further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC) This one's obvious. You & Brown-fingers is 1 account, and your using this one now. Mailballs 9900 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Reported at WP:ANI - where repeated personal attacks will also be noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrus nullius and Egypt

Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Essential here. Egypy borders a micronation even if Egypt has no intention of claiming it. --Ethnotrex (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Why 'essential'? Do sources on Liberland generally discuss Egypt? It looks entirely off-topic to me, and cited no source at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Without looking, I'd say on balance of probability, no. I would never have contemplated including Egypt had not it need for the fact that Egypt is located at the fringe of something similar. Coverage on Liberland is minimal anyhow. But to give you a similar example, sources of Palestine don't mention Western Sahara, but Morocco still has its points on recognising Palestine, and mention on this site of Western Sahara features on every article. QED. Ethnotrex (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what you are trying to argue there, but 'QED' it clearly isn't. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources have to say about the subject, and not on confusing analogies with articles on entirely different subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC) I've reverted myself. I'll come back to this thread later and explain what I mean. Ethnotrex (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Arabik4892 (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)I want to make a transition to the Russian article Liberland merit

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump undoing changes to add WikiProject Autonomous Zones banner to talk page

An editor is refusing to add a WikiProject talk page banner to this page, despite it fitting into the wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones project scope. This user has a history of quarrels with me for some reason, and I believe the user is acting uncivilly, and I would like to get a 3rd opinion about what should happen here.

I will be adding the talk page banner onto this page until this RFC decides what action should be taken. Mr vili (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The claim that I have 'a history of quarrels' with Mr vili is entirely false. As far as I am aware, I have never interacted with this contributor before today. As for the Wikiproject banner, this Wikiproject, which was only created two days ago, and has almost no support from established contributors, seems to have an implausibly-broad and ill-defined scope, apparently invented by Mr vili alone. Liberland is not an 'autonomous zone'. The area concerned has never been part of any 'autonomous zone', and the promotors of this 'micronation' are advocating an independent state, not an autonomous zone.

Futhermore, this is not a properly-constituted RfC. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mr vili:, I think you are showing a lack of good faith in accusing AndyTheGrump of having a history of quarrels with you and of acting uncivilly. You are also pushing inclusion of this article in a very broadly-defined WikiProject that you just created. I notice a statement on the project page that claims that the project has been started by "several Wikipedians", but you are the only one who has edited the project page. For the record, I do not see how Liberland can be considered an "autonomous zone", and so feel that including it in the said project is not appropriate. Donald Albury 15:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC) Edited 15:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

This RFC is malformed—not neutral—I will be adding the talk page banner onto this page until this RFC decides what action should be taken—this statement by the proposer shows a complete lack of understanding of RFCs as well as collaboration. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC) —

• (summoned by the bot) What is an autonomous zone? Wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones does not answer this question, and Autonomous zone redirects to Temporary Autonomous Zone, an article about a book. I'm inclined to oppose adding this banner to any articles until the scope of the WikiProject is clarified. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• @Mr vili: You need a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC for this? I see no evidence of WP:RFCBEFORE; normally I'd say to leave a note on the talk page of the WikiProject directing the WikiProject's members to this discussion (which should be a normal talk page discussion, not an RfC), but I see problems with this. First, the talk page doesn't even exist yet; second, the WikiProject seems to have only four members, including yourself. Indeed, you appear to have created the WikiProject all by yourself, without first proposing it at WP:COUNCIL. Whilst Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Autonomous Zones does exist, it was created after the WikiProject page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Inclined to agree with Andy here. This whole WikiProject seems nonsensical. What are we defining as an "autonomous zone" exactly? Criticalus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have closed the RFC, as per discussion above and at this time agree to remove the WikiProject Banner to this specific talk page Mr vili (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

In 2023, YouTuber Niko Omilana stepped foot on Liberty Island, part of Liberland. He was presented with a Liberland passport issued by the Liberland president. Dannycoombs95 (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless and until this YouTuber publicity stunt gets meaningful coverage in independent reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The border incident (which actually happened in April 2023) has been covered in traditional media, however almost all of it is in Croatian and Serbian news sources (Jutarnji List, B92, Novosti, etc.). However, we can't really describe the piece of land as "Liberty Island" on Wikipedia, at least not in such a context. Anonimski (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ping User:AndyTheGrump and User:Floquenbeam. I added a summary of the 2023 border crossing incident under "Access", based on media sources. This should hopefully resolve the issue and avoid the "spammy" edits after the extended-protection expires. - Anonimski (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Still it sounds like an overblown affair by a provocative prankster (as stated in the sources). The Banner talk 12:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Earlier (2018-2022) there was a Template:Outdated in that section, since newest thing mentioned was quite old. I guess the incident is suitable enough to describe a somewhat recent (and more or less unchanged) situation with people that try to cross the border. It got attention from media and had millions of views, so it's more notable than the random people making undocumented attempts. It's at least more notable than the other border-crossing attempt by Drew Binsky. Anyway, it's probably clear to the reader that it was done by some sort of entertainer/comedian, I made sure to mention it in the description of the event. Anonimski (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Liberland flag planted on Liberland. A transaction was made using liberland currency.

(316) Recorded documentation of land. Editer Like You (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Provide one. Then we might have a clue what you are referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

See for yourself. It's all documented in this video:

[7]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb8T9X5K1AA Leighannlittle (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we've seen that. Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of YouTube videos however, which is why we cite what secondary sources have to say - see the paragraph recently added to the 'Access' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there are parallels here to the in-universe problem. Ah well, we can wait to see what reliable sources say. Donald Albury 19:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the revert

Reponse to the revert by User:AndyTheGrump. The two journalist teams have very obviously visited the area, with its opened border. Should the text perhaps be more clear that there has been no official statement from Croatia about this whole affair? Omitting this thing would make the article a bit outdated. - Anonimski (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, like so much reporting on Liberland, the two sources you cite do little more than repeat what Jedlička and his reporters tell them. Neither can be used for any assertions regarding recognition, 'opened' borders, policing, or 'settlement'. All they really show is that a few individuals have gained access to the disputed territory on this occasion, with the apparently reluctant acquiescence of Croatian border police who are clearly monitoring them closely, and that they have been making grandiose (and 'pompozno' - pompous - per telegram.hr) claims about future plans. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they are any nearer to achieving recognition, or that they have the capacity to create any sort of permanent settlement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My edits were not related to anything about a "recognition". The possibility to cross the border has been observed and described by two teams of journalists. Regarding speculation about their abilities to achieve their goals, my edits in this Wikipedia article were not about that, it was a topic that I didn't include. - Anonimski (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edits included that statement that "Croatia granted the Liberland movement access to the land parcel in August 2023". Which is not supported by any source which confirms that the Croatian government 'granted' anything to anyone. You also referred to the individuals visiting the island as "settlers", again without valid sourcing. As for the 'possibility' of crossing the border, all we can say is that it was permitted in this instance. We cannot infer anything more from this, or assume that the border police will behave the same way in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Added a more brief summary about their unofficial access to the area from August, and visits by journalist crews, without too broad claims, and without reference to their self-description as "settlers". Anonimski (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a very minor piece of news with no lasting significance, but there are all too many such nothing-bits of news in Wikipedia, and I will not personally fight it now. I will support keeping it out if other editors agree. Donald Albury 13:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a minor piece of news, but it brings the section "Access" up-to-date. The videos show some minor construction going on there (basically wooden huts), but I left it out. As AndyTheGrump implied earlier, it's possible that it's something temporary and won't last further than this particular instance.

However, I'd still support removal of the "Population=0" parameter. The situation is more unclear than earlier, when the Gornja Siga area was constantly empty aside from border patrols. That edit got reverted though. - Anonimski (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no independent sourcing has been provided that supports in any shape or form the suggestion that the island has a 'population' in any meaningful sense. That is spin, pure and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but stating an absence of people there, is also not supported. In the default case, it would have motivated a "Population 0" entry. Now, there are news reports about people being present at the parcel and building stuff. That's why I thought the parameter could be removed, when I did the older edit. - Anonimski (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd have more sympathy for an argument that the 'population' parameter need not be there at all if there weren't so many edits trying to claim e.g. that the island had 'settlers', accepted 'visitors' and similarly had the characteristics of some sort of ongoing settlement. If and when independent sources ever start describing the place as permanently settled and having a population greater than zero we could do the same - and I'm sure Liberland supporters would insist on us doing so. After all, they've attempted to edit-war unsupported (and frankly ridiculous) population numbers into the infobox in the past. [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What type of sources are those to telegram.hr links? Twitter/Reddit-cloon? Or a reliable source? The Banner talk 23:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This assessment of the Croatian Telegram by Eurotopics sounds promising. Donald Albury 01:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything much wrong with Telegram.hr as a source, as long as the article in question is cited for what it is - a nice little tale of landing on a muddy bit of Danube floodplain, accompanying Jedlička and his fellow 'Liberlanders' as they explain their grandiose plans for the island. What it isn't, needless to say, is a source suitable for making claims about legal recognition, agreements about access, the actual creation of any sort of permanent settlement etc. Responsible media (which seem to include Telegram) will leave that until there is more to report on than Jedlička's aspirations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the usability of a source is always dependent on context as well as reliability. Donald Albury 13:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 Croatian police intervention.

I'm not entirely happy with this edit, reporting on actions by the Croatian police. [9] Working via Google Translate, it seems that the source cited [10] bases its story entirely on material originating from the Liberland supporters website. Article content needs to be based around independent sourcing, and shouldn't merely repeat one side of a story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the fact that footage exists of the incident, then I wouldn't have used the source. As User:Donald_Albury mentioned in the previous thread, the usability of a source is dependent on context. In the last part of the edit, I made sure to clarify that the participants complained about confiscations, rather than making a stronger statement such as "property was confiscated". - Anonimski (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The footage shows people in hard hats moving things around, while police and some other individuals look on. It does nothing to verify anything of consequence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If I read (through Google Translate) the article, it states that it is based on their own website "Liberland Press". Not an independent source. Beside that, is there any evidence that the clip is actually filmed in Liberland? The Banner talk 13:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Earlier articles with videos and photos have shown the same location. About the original source not being independent - it is true that the source only covers Liberland's side of the confrontation. I looked around on other articles that have been published recently, but none of them had included any statements from Croatia's point of view, about all of this. - Anonimski (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is no coverage not relying on Liberland sources, we probably shouldn't include anything at all. Certainly nothing that claims in Wikipedia's voice that the Croatian police 'launched an intervention'. That isn't remotely neutral language, and is entirely unsupported by any independent source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was being neutral by saying "intervention"! You know, there are some sources that take the POV phrasing verbatim and say "invazija" etc. Either way, I found and added a source that explicitly mentions that the Croatian police confirmed the action (and it also mentions number of arrests). Look for the phrases with "potvrdila". As for journalists gathering info from non-independent sources when they interact with the wider world - that's something normal, and more of an issue about how to judge the collected data and describe events without letting bias affect the description. - Anonimski (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Even when there are more clips of this location, we need proof that this is indeed a location in Liberland. The Liberland Press looks more like a part of marketing department of Liberland (see here) and not a reliable source. The Banner talk 15:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been assessed by traditional media as genuinely from that location. Try to google something like "liberland" and "policija" and use the filter for recent search results. There are also clips here [11] if you want to see it from more angles. - Anonimski (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It would not be the first time when traditional media just copies the press release... The Banner talk 16:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I don't think that we should just add a YouTube playlist to the list of sources. The link with the videos that I posted, was only due to this dilemma about "Are we sure that conventional media sources that are considered reliable, have gotten trustworthy data in the first place?". - Anonimski (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)