Talk:Liberland/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Official language

An official language was added to the infobox. As the Liberland organization does not control any territory, and the territory they claim has no population, I do not see how Wikipedia can list an "official language" for the territory in Wikivoice. Donald Albury 22:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Beside that, it was not backed up by an independent source. The Banner talk 00:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

In the same way that all of the other facts established in the article stand while the fact that the organization still doesn't control any territory or have any population, the official language stands as well. "Official" means by declaration/law, and the organization has clearly declared that its official language is "English" on its website. This is not different to how the organization has declared that its president is Vit Jedlicka, which we apparently have no qualms about displaying in the Infobox.

Point #3 of WP:VOICE is relevant here: I'm not sure why we're making judgements about whether the government controls land or how many people live there or if the people who might live there actually speak the language the government purports is the official language. We're not talking about the "most popular language" or "de facto language"; we're talking about the de jure language, and that is English. That's a simple fact, and we should not be trying to frame that as an opinion.

This is no different to the Central Tibetan Administration, for example, which similarly doesn't control any land, yet it has an official language, and we show it without any problems. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of us have considerable qualms about describing Jedlicka as president in the infobox. Liberland has no 'government'. It has no population to govern. No law. no law enforcement. It is nothing more than a website with delusions of grandeur. It is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to misrepresent the fantasies of a few self-publicists as objective fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to misrepresent the fantasies of a few self-publicists as objective fact. No, it isn't; the lead has the statement "unrecognised micronation" and there is a "Recognition" section that outlines how few countries recognize it, both of which cover these cases, not to mention the numerous instances of "disputed", "claims", etc. throughout the text.

It is objective fact that there is an entity named Liberland, which claims that parcel of land, and also makes statements about what its official president, language, etc. are. Violating NPOV would be when the article would not acknowledge that the country is unrecognized or have a Recognition section, which is not the case here. The article is about the disputed entity and the facts surrounding its claims, not about whether the entity itself is legitimate.

Liberland has no 'government'. It has no population to govern. No law. no law enforcement. Having no population to govern does not preclude one from having a government (see above about the Central Tibetan Administration), and similarly for having law: one does not need law enforcement in order to have law (Somalia and Haiti come to mind here). It seems to me that you're the one violating NPOV because you personally don't like the entity. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy: The Liberland organization saying something is "official" does not have any meaning outside of the fantasy world that organization is pushing. The comparison to the Central Tibetan Administration is spurious, as the Central Tibetan Administration has elements of a Government in exile and is composed of exiles from Tibet, while Liberland has no history, no territory, and no displaced Liberlanders or Liberlanders in exile. There are, in fact, no Liberlanders who have ever lived in the territory claimed by Liberland. Liberland is a fantasy. Also, please read the policy at Wikipedia:Edit warring. 3RR applies to an editor who makes three reverts in an article within a 24 hour period. Please note that, with regard to the infobox entry about the "official language", Guillaumeroy added it on September 21, The Banner reverted the edit the next day, Guillaumeroy reverted The Banner on September 25, AndyTheGump reverted Guillaumeroy the same day, then you reverted Andy on November 13, I reverted you, also on November 13, and you reverted me the same day. So, The Banner, Guillaumeroy, AndyTheGump, and I each have made one revert (all but mine were 6 weeks ago), while you have reverted twice in the same day. Donald Albury 14:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The comparison to the Central Tibetan Administration is spurious Not really, considering that many would disagree that Tibet was anything more than fantasy at all, seeing as it too has no territory. What you're describing can be applied to many entities, not least of which is the Principality of Sealand—it's all about perspective. Liberlanders who have been expelled by Croatian forces (as the article cites examples of) can easily be considered "displaced Liberlanders" and "Liberlanders in exile".

The point here, though, is that insofar as there is an entity named Liberland, this article exists, and discusses its claims. You'd actually have a point if the article framed the facts as if Liberland is a fully recognized country or such, which is clearly not the case. This is no different to the Principality of Sealand, for example. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this article does not discuss an 'entity named Liberland'. No such entity exists. It discusses the fantasies of individuals who have no relationship, economic, political or through descent, with the land in question. As for the Sealand article, the infobox there likewise misrepresents fantasy as fact. At some point, Wikipedia is going to have to tackle this systematic misrepresentation perpetrated by the 'micronation' fantasists, CoI editors and sockpuppets who have been peddling their nonsense around this subject for years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you should be stepping away from this article, as you've made it amply clear that you take a personal disliking to the topic it discusses; this is far too much bias for an editor to be involved with an article. Getsnoopy (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a good idea when you step away, @Getsnoopy:. You are involved in a slow editwar and you fail to provide independent, reliable sources. The Banner talk 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been so friendly to request temporary full protection of this article to avoid an edit war.

About the official language: do you have any independent sources that confirm English as the official language of this uninhabited area? The Liberland-website is clearly not independent.. The Banner talk 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There is this one, for example. There are others as well. Getsnoopy (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Huffpost: Our official language will be English, so no independent source. The second looks like a Wikipedia clone and the third a promo-piece for the use of bitcoins. So they fail on the part of being a reliable source. The Banner talk 11:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Getsnoopy needs to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

And both of you apparently need to read WP:PRIMARY, which clearly states that for descriptive statements of fact, primary sources are just fine.

Nevertheless, so a source confirming or reiterating a piece of information ultimately being set by the entity that proclaims such things (which is also the entity that this article is about), on top of being a reliable source unto itself, is not a reliable source? This is like saying if the official Israeli government website declares its official language is Hebrew, it can't be posted on WP because The Guardian or whatever secondary source didn't regurgitate the same information. And even if it does, it's apparently still not enough because we're going to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a fact from a source with the authority of settings those facts.

And while we're at it, we're going to wave our hands and dismiss other sources because we don't like them. Really, it's seeming to me that both of you are far too biased to be editing this article (especially since I'm sensing that you don't think it should exist in the first place because you don't like it). Getsnoopy (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I'm biased. Biased against infoboxes that misrepresent the claims of promotors of imaginary entities as fact. Wikipedia is built around such biases, as core policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

"Vít Jedlička wants it on record that he does not consider Liberland a 'micronation'..."

Just throwing this out there. A quote from an update to an article from the Reason.com website:

Vít Jedlička wants it on record that he does not consider Liberland a "micronation," for one reason because a nation is a people separate from a specific area and he considers all 700,000 online signups to be part of the nation of Liberland. [1]

There have been questions in the past as to the reliability of Reason magazine and its related website, but it would seem unlikely that they'd misreport this. In practical terms, it would appear to make no real difference as far as our article is concerned, since we aren't bound by Jedlička's personal definitions of words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you still have the issue of independent sourcing. This reads like a press release case. The Banner talk 23:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump that we can keep using the term "micronation" on the Wikipedia article. The important part from a Wikipedia perspective is how the wider world describes it. At most, Jedlička's viewpoint could be mentioned and described, but even that might be trivial information, since it's an opinion that all micronations may have in one way or another. - Anonimski (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to settle on a generic infobox solution for micronations

Over the years, there have been some attempts to argue that the Liberland article shouldn't have any infobox at all. However, this is not the norm for micronation articles on Wikipedia today. For example, the Sealand and Republic of Minerva articles both have their own infoboxes with some basic information there. Even "art project" micronations have their infobox: see Ladonia (micronation). One question comes to my mind - why should this article in particular be without infobox?

Today, "Template:Infobox micronation" is a redirect to "Template:Infobox country", and editors are instructed to add "micronation=yes" as a parameter, so that it would be marked properly and reduce the risk of confusion. Removing it for just Liberland, and keeping the box for micronations of similar (or even lower) notability doesn't make any sense at all. Having a box with a slightly different appearance (for example using shades or colors) would perhaps be better.

I still don't understand why the removal discussion is specific for this article. The Liberland article is of considerably high notability in the Micronations topic. And, by the way, it's not just the infobox that has been targeted - look at the three (!) deletion attempts for this entire article, despite the fact that it's been well-covered in various forms of media in many countries.

The proper way to do this, is to try a wider discussion with editors that have written about other micronation topics, and settle on a generic solution for how they should be visually presented on Wikipedia. It's doesn't look very good to just gang up on one article in particular and push deletionism for one particular example. Topics related to Eastern Europe and the Balkans might have aspects that make people stubborn about their views about what's worthy enough to write about, due to the political history of certain parts. But that's not an excuse to try to "snipe" this article in various ways. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

As for my opinion - I think that the infobox should have a slightly different visual design in the general case, in all articles about micronations. And of course, "Micronation" should remain in the top part with a wikilink, for those who don't know what the word means. - Anonimski (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this doesn't require 'discussion with editors that have written about other micronation topics'. Or at least, not with them alone. It requires a discussion involving the Wikipedia community as a whole over the issues raised, since it is that community that sets the standards regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing etc that frequently appear to have been ignored by the small proportion of the community that have been responsible for these articles. And no, this has absolutely nothing to do with the political history of the Balkans, or any other specific region. It is instead an instance (sadly not unusual) of content on a specific topic being unduly influenced by individuals often more concerned with promoting either a specific 'micronation', or 'micronations' in general, to the detriment of encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. I can think of no other subject on Wikipedia that quite as readily takes highly-questionable primary-sourced promotional claims as sufficient for infobox content, or that as readily acts as a conduit for such self-serving material more generally. Articles 'n 'micronations' must be made to conform with normal Wikipedia standards. 17:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

A wider discussion is fine too, perhaps even better. I just think it's so strange to focus so much of the "infobox removal topic" on this article. I do have understanding for why it may feel strange to use Template:Infobox country for these things, but we should instead have a true Template:Infobox micronation with a distinct graphical appearance. Having a "micronation=yes" parameter might feel like a lazy patch (and perhaps it is), but total removal would be fixing a wrong with a worse wrong. Many other "categorizable" topics have infoboxes for their purposes, summarizing certain types of content. - Anonimski (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete infobox completely Not by far there is proof that Liberland is a country at all. So giving it a country-infobox would be a knee-jerk towards reliability. There is enough spam and self-promo in that "article". The Banner talk 17:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  If I haven't made it clear - I am against presenting micronations in a manner identical to established countries. It's just the total removal of infobox that I'm questioning the motives of. And what spam are you talking about? Even though it's not about a "real country", the events and political controversies that relate to this topic have been covered quite well by external sources (and a wide variety of them). In the past, when I've searched for and added material to this article, I've considered the topic to be of similar notability as Sealand. - Anonimski (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  The spam? A lot of additions were (as they are mostly removed by now) backed up by their own website. And other "sources" often quote Vít Jedlička, the promoter of this subject. The Banner talk 00:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Some additions weren't just backed up by their website. A (former?) ' Minister of Justice' added himself in person. Can't have a better source than that. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that this question is clearly of wider concern, and appears not to have been settled, I have now started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) [3]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

There has been historical progress in the territorial issue. Since August 2023, the Croatian local police has allowed liberlanders to establish permanent presence in the territory as the solo traveller and YouTuber "Beertiligo" checked and filmed in the end of 2023. He went into the territory and uploaded footage showing the current situation. He also interviewed two of the eight people that are right now permanently guarding the territory. The Croatian police is allowing this and not using violence against them anymore.

Video footage with interviews and border situation: Liberlanders allowed to establish permanent bases in Siga territory since August 2023 Nachomn11 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This is contradicted by later videos uploaded to official Liberland Youtube channels. Croatian police are continuing to evict squatters, tear down illegal structures, control access, and confiscate equipment. In addition, the entirety of Gornja Siga up to and including most of the access ramp was under water for several consecutive weeks late December to early January. The Liberlanders appear to have mostly given up (again) for the time being. GR Kraml (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a poor way to change the narrative to get what you want. Liberlander's were on Siga Island until the floods. They are still there even though buildings on-land have been taken off. They are usually camping on a houseboat beached in Liberland. There is a 24/7 presence. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable (among others, no social media) sources? The Banner talk 13:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Jedlicka's own words, reported in reliable sources, the whole point of the pivot to houseboats is that they get to be "as close as possible to the land" (exact quote) without actually being on the land. They're deliberately staying in international waters. They're flying the Hungarian flag. They're not making any claim to rights Croatia has reason to care about. GR Kraml (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

'Unrecognised' in lede, and in short description

Sooo, we now have an edit war about the infobox and some back-and-forth about recognition? Absolutely great. The Banner talk 16:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we just describe it as an unrecognized claimed polity and wikilink that to micronation? JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We are currently discussing a draft replacement for the existing article, which rather than using the term 'micronation' describes in detail what the Liberland project actually is. See above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Further to this, how often do the sources we cite even use the term 'micronation' in regard to Liberland? I've not done an exhaustive check, but from a quick check of the first few English-language sources cited in the existing article, it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm, and where it is used, it is explicitly qualified: e.g. "self-proclaimed micro-nation of Liberland". [4] The media clearly don't think that obscure terms are appropriate, and prefer instead to explain to their their readers what they are actually referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite a handful actually, but they're usually poking fun at the concept, poking fun at the self-seriousness of the project, experiencing a thesaurus accident, using a language other than English, or all of the above. The Lewis-Kraus NYT story for example contains two occurrences of the word "micronational" in a slightly snarky tone of voice. The Rossman paper uses "micronation" with apparent sincerity, but the exact phrase is "autonomous micronation", which tells you Rossman hadn't quite thought this through yet at the time of typing. The Paukszteło paper also uses "micronation" with apparent sincerity but it’s in Polish.

(A few ideologues favourable disposed towards Liberland actually use "microstate", which is of course wrong. The Petrović paper implicitly describes it as a thing that could be a "microstate" if it somehow obtained recognition, which is of course technically correct but also vacuous.)

For what it's worth, the European Commission internally mostly uses "fantasy state", which is the more or less literal translation from the relevant German and Slavic analogues and which complements the established term of art of "fantasy passport". GR Kraml (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Just walking in here to say I support the inclusion of the infobox, at least until the article gets rewrote. Currently, the article looks ugly without it. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Have restored the infobox! MicroSupporter (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox is gone again. Liberland is not a nation. The Banner talk 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted. You are aware there's a currently-open thread at the Village Pump about whether micronations should have infoboxes (or whether the infoboxes should be derisive etc), with an RfC that hasn't been closed; I know you're aware because you commented in it. jp×g🗯️ 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The editor placing the infobox was also aware of that discussion/RFC. The Banner talk 18:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox was there last September -- ? jp×g🗯️ 19:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been there for years (pre 2020) in its current shape and form ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox was removed after a discussion earlier on this page. The Banner talk 09:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't the Village Pump RFC was created as a continuation of the discussion on this page?? 211.251.171.197 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In order for Wikipedia to get things done, consensus decisions sometimes need to be implemented before we know with absolute certainty they'll be valid until the end of time. GR Kraml (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The decision to remove the infobox was made in November 2023. Long before the RFC started. And long before the bias-accusations started. The Banner talk 11:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No, there is an RfC restricted to which infobox should be used when the article uses an infobox. Whether there should be an infobox at all was explicitly excluded from the question. And wtf is this aspersion that the RfC question is about "whether the infoboxes should be derisive"?? You think an infobox template containing fewer parameters, as per MOS:INFOBOX, is somehow derisive? JoelleJay (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Returning the the question of whether we should describe Liberland as 'unrecognised' in the lede, I note that yet again, the same arguments about the definition of 'micronation' implying lack of recognition have been given, and making the term 'unrecognised' redundant. This removal, as I see it, is entirely unjustified. We cannot expect readers to be familiar with the exact definition of the word 'micronation' (if there is one - we certainly can't cite the Wikipedia article as a definition), and nor should we expect them to click through on a link to understand it. A lede is supposed to clarify what the article is about: i.e. a tract of land claimed by a fringe group of supporters to be an independent sovereign entity regarding which more or less every credible source we cite emphasises unrecognised status explicitly. Nit-picking about definitions to the detriment of clarity for our readers is utterly wrong-headed. The sources we cite don't engage in such nonsense and nor should we. We are supposed to be writing for the benefit of our readers, and not as some sort of exhibition of how many word definitions we know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of unrecognised. For a unfamiliar reader, it's easy to confuse micronation and microstate, which are very different concepts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it is distinct even from other micronations in that the people calling themselves citizens not only don't live there, but also basically have never been allowed to set foot there ever. jp×g🗯️ 06:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I come to question whether Wikipedia should be using the term 'micronation' at all in article ledes etc. It isn't a word in common circulation, it is easy to misinterpret if you don't know its meaning (if there is actually an agreed one), and Wikipedia has been applying it in all sorts of different contexts, implicitly implying that article topics share common features that they don't necessarily have. The way the articles are framed around the term tends to give undue weight to supporters claims that they are real entities - 'nations' of some sort - rather than following sources and describing claims as claims, making explicit the self-appointed nature of 'presidents' etc. Articles need to describe their topics, not label them and then build content around the label. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Just how much has the use of the term in Wikipedia contributed to whatever currency the term has outside of Wikipedia? Donald Albury 11:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Not sure if it indicates much (probably not) but the Google Ngram viewer shows the word coming from almost nothing at around the same time that Wikipedia started using it. [5] Cause, effect, or both? Given the way that some micronationists have engaged with Wikipedia, I think it's safe to assume that they wanted to increase currency (and credibility) of the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Micronations have been around for hundreds of years. The term itself though has become more frequent to show the difference between them and unrecognised states that actually control their land. Removing the term is removing vital information as the term is becoming more notable and is also covered on Britannica Encyclopedia. You need to stop pushing this claim that the micronation community even want to use micronations. The owner of MicroWiki who 'rules' Austenasia refers to it as a 'autonomous territorial entity which claims to be a sovereign state but is more commonly referred to as a micronation by external observers.'. Most micronationalists do not want to use the term micronation as they see themselves as real, regardless of their claim to legitimacy. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to reliable sources that say "micronations" have been around for hundreds of years? Are you perhaps thinking of "microstates", which is also a modern concept. Before the mid-nineteenth century there were many political entities in Europe of varying sizes. Most of those, however, were not sovereign, but were subjects of larger entities. For example, during the Late Middle Ages-early modern period in Europe, the political entities in the Holy Roman Empire that were direct subjects of the Emperor ranged from kingdoms down to individual Imperial Knights. All but two of those entities, one of which is Liechtenstein, have since been absorbed into one of the Empire's successor states. Another part of the Holy Roman Empire, Monaco, passed to Genoa, then was annexed by the French Republic. After Napolean was defeated, Monaco passed to the Kingdom of Sardinia, which held it until the unification of Italy, when Monaco came under French protection. It was only in 2002 that France agreed that Monaco would remain independent even if the Grimaldi line fails. The smallest sovereign entities of the time in Europe were city-states who were strong enough or isolated enough to withstand attempts by larger neighbors to collect taxes from them. San Marino is the last surviving member of that group. Andorra was the subject of a dispute as to whether the bishop of Urgell or the count of Foix could collect taxes there, and it ended up a co-principality (which it still is, technically). Vatican City, of course, was unilaterally created by Mussolini in 1929. Donald Albury 18:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My view here would be that I think the term 'micronation' is needed to emphasise there scope. The lead is hyperlinked to the article about what a 'micronation' is. I think 'unrecognised micronation' is the equivalent of saying 'its not recognised as a micronation', which confuses new viewers. The issue of using something else like 'unrecognised state', is that it puts it into in the same category as an actual inhabited and functional states such as Somaliland.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We could use brackets for there intended purpose: 'a micronation (an unrecognised state)'. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see the merit of using the term if we explain it in brackets, but 'unrecognised state' isn't, in my opinion, accurate. The average reader will surely assume that if something is a 'state', it has the characteristics of one: e.g. a permanent settled population, infrastructure, an economy etc. And from a sociological/anthropological perspective, definitions of statehood tend to focus around monopoly on the legal use of force, which the Liberlander's clearly don't have, unless they have suddenly taken to arresting and jailing the Croatian police for impinging on 'their territory'. 'Liberland' isn't a state, it is a name used by people who wish to create one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Most sources I see referring to Liberland use the phrase "self proclaimed". Maybe that phrase could be worked in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is what the draft article is doing. GR Kraml (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup. telling the readers what the article is about rather than what labels we might apply to it seems an entirely valid approach to me. Though maybe it's too radical a proposal for Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You and I are both here because hope dies last. GR Kraml (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that when going through category:micronations for research for this comment, most of the pages I looked at were in the category despite zero mention of "micronation" in the article, and of the ones that did, a large proportion had no citations supporting the designation. (Obviously I chose ones that did have attribution to list in my examples). JoelleJay (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It's about proper use of language

@AndyTheGrump: "unrecognized micronation" is a WP:PLEONASM because micronation is a a political entity whose representatives claim that they belong to an independent nation or sovereign state, but which lacks legal recognition by any sovereign state. Therefore saying "unrecognized micronation" is saying "unrecognized political entity whose representatives claim that they belong to an independent nation or sovereign state, but which lacks legal recognition by any sovereign state", which is clearly redundant and nonsensical. Unrecognized as lacking recognition?

"Compact CD"

Per WP:TONE. Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. There's no "use dumbed-down English" in there. There's no "when there's a big word in the text, put a simple word next to it, even if entirely redundant, to signal what the big word means". There's "fairly academic approach" however. If something is not sufficiently clear, dumbing the language down by using pleonasms is not the solution. There are solutions but dumbing it down is not the solution.

So I oppose this revert of yours of my edit in which I removed the word "unrecognized" from "... is an unrecognised micronation". You should give up on insisting that "unrecognized" be included in this sentence because it makes the article worse.—Alalch E. 18:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Making content understandable for a readership that cannot be expected to know the meaning of obscure and ill-defined words like 'micronation' is not under any circumstances making an article worse. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't personalise this - I am far from alone in objecting to the way articles on the fringe claims of 'micronation' proponents are presented as if they are describing objective fact. There is nothing 'formal' whatsoever in misleading readers. The word for that is 'dishonest'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your alternative to the ugly pleonasm? —Alalch E. 18:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The lede from GR Kraml's draft, or something similar: a lede should describe the topic, not label it. More so when the label applied is obscure and potentially misleading, and results in the entire article being framed around implications that a 'micronation' is actual sovereign territory, with the consequent properties a reader might expect to go along with it. This isn't an article about a territory: it is an article about the fringe legally-dubious claims of individuals seeking to create their own sovereign territory on a tract of floodplain the disputed border between Serbia and Croatia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's my solution:

Liberland, also known as "Free Republic of Liberland", is a micronation that consists in the notion that there is a country in an uninhabited parcel of the floodplain on the western bank of the Danube, in Southeast Europe. The claim is promoted by the Czech right-libertarian politician and activist Vít Jedlička, who proclaimed Liberland as a country on 13 April 2015. The claimed entity lacks legal recognition by any sovereign state. The parcel of land is controlled by Croatia and is locally known as Gornja Siga. —Alalch E. 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am having trouble reconciling that exercise in word-mangling with 'proper use of language'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Please be a little bit more specific. —Alalch E. 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Above, you link a definition that states that a micronation is 'a political entity', with 'representatives' making 'claims'. representatives don't 'consist in' (or 'consist of' [6]) 'notions', they promote them. And said 'representatives' aren't advancing some sort of abstract theory that there is 'a country' on the banks of the Danube, they are arguing that they should be allowed to create one for themselves. Proper use of language as a means of communication begins with accuracy and precision, not mismatched phraseology and vagueness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the more detailed response. They are not arguing that something should be created they are asserting, holding a notion, that it exists. It's not an "abstract" theory but it is a fringe legal theory apparently underpinned by a libertarian ideology of the inventor of the thing. The thing does not consist in "notions" as a set of notions but is entirely a notion, an idea. —Alalch E. 23:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think your proposal constitutes a clear description of the subject of the article, I don't. And as of now, we have an existing article, protected against any editing, and a proposal (with a fair degree of support, it would seem) to replace it entirely. Accordingly, there seems little urgency in the matter, and even less point in arguing over it between just the two of us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I also support the draft, and there is no urgency. The problem with the first sentence in the draft is that it assigns subjecthood to Liberland when it says that it "is an unrecognised self-proclaimed country and cryptocurrency project that aims to establish ...". This thing does not have subjecthood. It is not incorporated and not credibly organized. It can't speak for itself. It does not have agency to proclaim itself and to aim to establish something. We should not shy from "micronation" as a term. It does not give undeserved credibility to the claim. The definition of micronations given in the micronations article is not such a bad one. Not including the term micronation for Liberland and all other such entities which are specifically called micronations in sources is unsustainable. It's the genus for a certain number of subjects and as long as that article exists and sources on those subjects use the term to describe them, evading this tem will create tension within the encyclopedia that will be resolved eventually (by including it again). Unnecessary contrivance when the definition is acceptable. —Alalch E. 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, you both have a point – unrecognised micronation is pleonastic and inelegant; micronation unqualified is also not ideal because it is guaranteed to mislead some significant percentage of readers. On the other hand, the problem instantly goes away if we simply don't insist on including the word micronation in the anchor text. And why would we. It's neither a real term of art, nor is it all that widely used.

As an aside, it's not NPOV to say Gornja Siga is in Southeast Europe; local and regional mainstream opinion places Croatia in Central Europe. My draft describes Gornja Siga's location as "on the Croatian bank of the Danube", which avoids both being needlessly wordy and being hopelessly unspecific. Finally, "of floodplain" is better than "of the floodplain" because there isn't one continuous stretch of floodplain running the length of the river. It's more like a series of distinct patches, effectively alternating between banks. GR Kraml (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't qualify a thing by it's defining element. We can't qualify "chair" by saying "legged chair". I agree that only saying "x is a micronation" can mislead those who don't know what the word micronation means but the first paragraph can say more and everything does not need to fit in the first sentence. I wrote to AndyTheGrump in my 23:56, 15 March 2024 comment above yours that I worry that avoiding the term "micronation" is not a sustainable long term plan. I agree with you about Gornja Siga. —Alalch E. 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefer clear information in the form of a pleonasm than unclear information. The Banner talk 23:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but pleonasms don't make things clearer. —Alalch E. 23:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So you prefer a complicated, unclear sentence over a clear statement? The Banner talk 00:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We could do it like this:

"In 2015, Czech right-libertarian politician and activist Vít Jedlička began claiming that Gornja Siga, an uninhabited stretch of floodplain on the Croatian bank of the Danube, is the territory of a new independent country which he named "Free Republic of Liberland" (more commonly called Liberland). The unrecognized entity has since become one of the best known examples of a micronation." —Alalch E. 00:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I call this a waste of time and not in the best interest of the reader? The Banner talk 00:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I do. I think that we should make something as long as necessary to give the reader the best understanding of the subject. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As long as necessary, and preferably not much longer. Achieving that though, requires some sort of agreement as to what the subject actually is. And to me, the subject of this article isn't an 'unrecognised entity'. That isn't what the sources are actually describing. Not the ones worth citing anyway. Take a look at how the BBC reported the early days of 'Liberland': A Czech man claims to have established a new state on the west bank of the Danube, it's reported. Vit Jedlicka, a member of the Eurosceptic, conservative Party of Free Citizens, has declared that a 7-sq-km (2.7-sq-mile) patch between Serbia and Croatia is now the sovereign state of Liberland. Mr Jedlicka, Liberland's self-proclaimed "president", says it sits on an area of no-man's land - or terra nullius - between the two countries which isn't claimed by either of them. [7] The BBC aren't describing an 'entity', they are describing ongoing efforts to create one. Later sources (ones worth citing) do more than repeat Jedlicka's claims - they report reactions to them. And then sources go further, they take a critical look at the reasoning behind Jedlicka's claims, and the reasoning behind the reactions. They provide context - legal, historical, political - and assess the validity and/or viability of Jedlicka's project. What they don't do is write about 'Liberland' as if it were already the entity that Jedlicka desires. There is clearly to much opposition (or scepticism, or sometimes indifference) to make that tenable. Wikipedia though, seems intent on making an entity out of an argument, on slapping a label or two on it, and on building an article around the labels. Poor logic and bad writing at the best of times, and particularly concerning when it results in the entirely undue promotion of a commercial enterprise that assuredly directly benefits from Wikipedia's 'Liberland the entity' take on what should more properly be reported as 'Liberland the claim', and/or 'Liberland the argument'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I like Liberland the claim. Donald Albury 13:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)