Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:51, 11 December 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Micronations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Serbia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Liberland. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Liberland at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from Liberland appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the libertarian micronation Liberland was proclaimed on 13 April 2015 by Czech politician Vít Jedlička on unclaimed land between Croatia and Serbia? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liberland.

Merger with border dispute article?

Whilst Hutt River and Sealand have there own articles, they also have permanent populations. But I think this is notable enough to warrant keeping the information on Misplaced Pages, so perhaps adding it as a section on the Croatia-Serbia border dispute article would be best? It can be split back into a separate article if it doesn't fizzle out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.192.161 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nearly 400 000 people have mentionne their will to get the Liberland nationality, hunderds of liberlanders have visited the island or its shore (depending on croatian authorities represive mood), therefore we can consider Liberland mobilizes sufficient interest for providing a WP article.--Xavdr (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Demonym

Has anyone found a good English-language source with the demonym? In a Czech source the word "Liberlanďan" (Liberlandian) has been mentioned. Link: http://www.parlamentnilisty.cz/politika/politici-volicum/Pajonk-Svobodni-V-Evrope-vznikl-novy-stat-Liberland-370869) - Anonimski (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski: the BBC just called it Liberland. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, although I started this thread about the demonym: the name of the inhabitans/citizens... - Anonimski (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

I'm against deletion because I came to this article from Yahoo news: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/welcome-tiny-liberland-worlds-newest-tax-haven-194241346.html#f1i2lh9 the language could be toned down but I think a total deletion is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.151.116 (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. Sealand and nearly all microstates have their own article even though it is not recognized by any state, so I see no reason why Liberland should be deleted. Bowwow828 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I’m voting against deletion. BTW, on liberland.org it says that people shall write in English, so English would be at least the second official language. 177.4.255.73 (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That belongs in the AfD discussion. And about the language - I'm updating it now since they've added English on the official website. - Anonimski (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

He's too late though. The area was already claimed in March as part of the micro nation Paraduin. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Liberland is merely a fictional state so as long as they're not doing anything illegal that's probably not a problem. ;) The Jolly Bard (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to the merits of keeping or deleting this page; however, I can say that I was just told about Liberland today, and that it prompted questions in my mind which were answered by this article. ~

Liberland flag is removed, Croatian government said: "Virtualne dosjetke, ma koliko one ponekad bile i zanimljive, ostaju to što jesu…virtualne dosjetke, a za njih nemamo nikakav službeni komentar." translated "Virtual jokes, no matter how they were sometimes interesting, remains what it is ... a virtual one-liners, and for them we do not have any official comment." source: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1093939563955389&id=506453726037312 This can mean only one thing, this microstate as it started will end.

No, it just means that it's fictional. There is no international law against fictional states. The planting of a flag, however, violated the rights of the actual owner of the land. But, as they say, we still have the pictures. :-) Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

So the land has an owner? Who, residing where? —Tamfang (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the property of the state of Paraduin. They claimed it first, on March 5. I don't think anybody is actually living there though, at least not permanently. The mosquitoes would kill them. The Jolly Bard (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A claim is not synonymous to ownership. There are now two micronation projects that are known to have staked out claims. One that seems to be humouristic, and one that seems to have political goals. Both define the land as owned by them, although no ownership is recognized internationally. Anonimski (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Staking a claim is how one gains ownership in the absence of an existing owner. According to the Montevideo criteria, recognition is not required. A newcomer can then attempt to conquer the land, but hey, they failed. The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ownership is something defined within a political system - and there can be several systems with different definitions. It's not universal, and usually it's the most widely accepted definition that's the most notable. - Anonimski (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but notability is not all that important when it comes to ownership. Liberland's craving for publicity doesn't work so well in the Balkans. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure for what aspect of the article you're making an argument for...but the publicity aspect was the main part of the project in the beginning, and it seems to have been a success for them. The Czech-language editorial at Mises.cz described it quite well in the beginning, and this article has had millions of pageviews already... - Anonimski (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that you let yourself be overwhelmed by all the publicity. It makes the article unbalanced. Too much fluff and too little knowledge. The Jolly Bard (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that I've done a lot to clarify that most parts of the project still are in an early planning stage, just like the source material said. - Anonimski (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

History - expansion of the section

During the history, the area of Liberland was part of the area of Vučedol culture, whose center was located nearby present-day Libeland, downstream from it, also on the right side of Danube. Later, the area of Liberland was part of Roman Empire, the Hunnic Empire, the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths, the Kingdom of the Lombards, the Avar Kingdom, the Frankish Empire, the Balaton Principality, the Bulgarian Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Austrian Empire, the Austria-Hungary, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later renamed as Kingdom of Yugoslavia), the Kingdom of Hungary and the Communist Yugoslavia. During the Croatian War of Independence, territory was occupied by Serbia's puppet state Republic of Serbian Krajina. After the war, territory came under the administration of Croatia.

The area of Liberland, part of the region of Baranja was settled by the Slavs in the 6th century, and in the 9th century, it was part of the Slavic Balaton Principality. Hungarians arrived to the area in the 9th century, and Baranya county arose as one of the first comitatus of the Kingdom of Hungary, in the 11th century. The area of Liberland was it's part. This county included not only present-day region of Baranya, but also one part of present-day Slavonia, on the southern side of the river Drava.

In the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire captured Baranya, and included it into the sanjak of Mohács, an Ottoman administrative unit, with the seat in the town of Mohács. In the end of the 17th century, area of Liberland was captured by the Habsburg Monarchy, and was included into restored Baranya County within the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary. Croats moved from Bosnia into Slavonia and Baranja en masse after the Ottoman retreat, and this population is today known as the Šokci.

1. Hadžihusejnović-Valašek, Miroslava (March 1993). "Baranja je "tvrd orah". Analiza istraživanja i popularizacije tradicijske baranjske folklorne glazbe" (PDF). Studia ethnologica Croatica (in Croatian). 4 (1). Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb: 194. ISSN 1330-3627. Retrieved 2012-02-12. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

For a short time (in 1918-1919), Liberland was part of Banat, Bačka and Baranja region, which was governed by the People's Administration from Novi Sad. By the Treaty of Trianon (part of the Versailles peace) in 1920, the area of Liberland became part of the territory of newly formed state of Yugoslavia. It was part of Novi Sad county between 1918 and 1922, part of Bačka Oblast between 1922 and 1929, and in 1929 it was included into the Danube Banovina, a province of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In 1941, the it was occupied by Hungary, but it was returned to Yugoslavia in 1944. In 1944-1945, it was part of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, while in 1945 it was assigned to the People's Republic of Croatia according to Serbian side in the dispute. Croatia claims it was assigned to the People's Republic of Serbia, being part of Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, which would make it part of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina today.

During the War in Croatia in 1991 it came under control of the SAO Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem, which became part of the serbian puppet state Republic of Serbian Krajina. After the war ended (in 1995), it was peacefully integrated into Croatia in 1998, by the Erdut Agreement. Today, it is de facto, not de jure administered as part of the Osijek-Baranja county of Croatia.

Comment: I get your point, but that kind of description would be more suitable if Liberland had residents or any cultural and economic significance to the region. Right now it's just a project by a group of politicians. - Anonimski (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not history, I think, and certainly not a history of Liberland. No civilization ever existed there. The area just changed hands on paper as an addendum to the habitable parts of the region. More recently it was used for hunting, rights residing with some obscure organization. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that no civilization ever existed there, the old and important town of Bodrog was situated on the territory of present-day Liberland. 2A02:8084:1080:7B00:F11F:B091:6FD9:24D8 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not certain. The exact location of the sunken town of Bodrog is unknown. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Unclaimed?

It is simply stated as a fact that this territory is unclaimed. However there needs to be some evidence for this and discussion. It seems improbable that neither adjourning country claims the territory.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

See Croatia–Serbia border dispute. The short version is that each country claims the border in a way that considers this particular enclave to be a part of the other country. This means that Croatia does not consider its own law to apply there, and the same for Serbia. This is quite tricky because under their own laws, exercising sovereignty over the area would imply that they consider it theirs, and therefore invalidate their own claim to the border. CodeCat (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Added source. From Vice:

"We have been overwhelmed with citizenship applications," the 31-year-old told VICE News, a week after he and two fellow Czech libertarians established "Liberland" on a patch of unclaimed, no man's land between Croatia and Serbia and invited prospective citizens join him.

It's also in CNN, but vice is sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not unclaimed. Two other micronations claimed the area before Liberland did, and are maintaining those claims. Contrary to Liberland's announcement, it didn't begin settling the land on May 1, so the Czech claim looks rather weak for now. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

They're selling shares and plots of land now, so Liberland has progressed to being a scam if it wasn't that already from the very beginning. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The island of Liberland is refered as a no mens land in the press e.g. InSerbia. Serbia officially states this island is not in its territory. Croatia wants it to be a part of Serbia following the croatian definition of the border however Serbia does not want. Since nono of these states consider it as a part of their territory it was a no mens land when Liberland claimed it. --Xavdr (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No. The location of the border is disputed. That is the only known fact here. Unless and until the border dispute is settled, Jedlička's claim has no legal status, regardless of how many times he repeats it. This article must not represent disputed claims as facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-free media rationale templates needed for the flag and the coat-of-arms

It would also be good if someone could try contacting the organization to get some official statement on whether they claim copyrights or not. - Anonimski (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that they respond to questions. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"Statements from other micronation projects"

Whoever keeps on adding back the eponymous section, perhaps he should take a look at Misplaced Pages's policy regarding self-published sources and credibility of sources. --Escargoten (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is about Liberland, not about yourself; nor is the author an established expert, so 2. doesn't apply either. --Escargoten (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The policy rightly says 'information', not 'article'. The Jolly Bard (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as the information comes from a reliable source, yes. This is not the case here however - the criteria for reliability are available here, the website from which the content originated is a teenager's personal blog and the only criteria it possibly meets is the penultimate one. --Escargoten (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That is merely an essay, but you should look at the next paragraph. There are furthermore four different sources, all of them quite reliable regarding information about themselves. The Jolly Bard (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I could make a dozen of such websites in less than an hour, all belonging to different "micronations" and all mentioning Liberland - does it mean they all would deserve addition to the article? If those micronations, whose websites were provided, were mentioned in Misplaced Pages, it would be other story, but since none of them are notable enough to earn an article here, I'm not sure why would their news be considered notable either. --Escargoten (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So you are abandoning your previous argument. That's a step ahead, I guess.

Sources don't need to be notable, just reliable. It's what they source that counts here, as it relates to Liberland. One is the only nation sharing mutual recognition with Liberland. The others have claims and designs that precede Liberland's. That is why they are mentioned and your websites would likely not be. The Jolly Bard (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mind providing a source for Liberland recognizing South Sudan? Maybe they recognize Liberland, but Liberland most certainly doesn't recognize them, this mutual recognition clearly doesn't exist. And you think laying a claim to the same territory is sufficient to deserve a mention in the article? Well, I guess let's wait until all the micronations claim this area, perhaps they all shall be added then.

And my point stands: notability matters too. Again, I can make a dozen of websites, post on them something related to Liberland and they would be as worthy of being added as those that are there already. --Escargoten (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, your newest argument relating to the notability of the information (rather than of the source) is indeed what must be considered.

Yes, it is the current consensus that a competing claim to the same territory is special enough to deserve a mention, just as in similar articles. If there were a great many of such claims, a reliable overview would likely exist and we would use that as a source. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the discussion where this consensus was reached? Because on this page I only see us two discussing it. --Escargoten (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You were promptly reverted by four different users. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The references to the micronations South Maudlandia and Confederation of Âûtia are unreliable, Nort Sudan is mentioned in a Slovakian online magazine and confirmed on the website of that micronation.

Again, self-published sources are considered reliable when it comes to information about themselves. The Jolly Bard (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The websites of South Maudlandia and Âûtia are indeed blogs of some teenagers and those micronations have been never mentioned before in some reliable sources about micronations. What about the statements of the more professional micronations like Atlantium, Molossia, Flandrensis, Reunion, Ladonia, etc., these are micronation who have a page on Misplaced Pages and have the notability. If you search the internet you will also their statements. But without any hesitate: please remove South Maudlandia and Âûtia. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide these other statements, and do they also claim the same area? Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you believe, for some reason, that any mention of South Maudlandia and Âûtia be removed, then fair enough. But oughtn't Paraduin also be removed using the same logic (or lack thereof)? If you look at their main website, it sprouts nonsense about gateways to parallel universes and suchlike. If anything, I'd sooner take Paraduin out than the other two. Anyhow, shouldn't we either keep them all or take them all out? Why does this double standard exist? MrCrazyFrog (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If I claim today the territory of Liberland and publish that on my personal blog on Wordpress: would you mention my name and claims in the article? I don't think so and the same for South Maudlandia and Âûtia. The complete article is based on reliable sources in several media, as long other micronations are not mentioned (related to Liberland) they don't belong in the article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point I was trying to make. Whether you choose to keep them or remove them is, to me, a lesser issue than the double standard of keeping one and not the other two. Anyway, someone appears to have added them all back again. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, none of the three deserve to be mentioned, due to none of those micronations being notable. With South Sudan it might be different, at least an independent newspaper mentions their claim. --Escargoten (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Both Paraduin and South Maudlandia (mostly the first though) have been mentioned in independent articles on Liberland. Representatives of Âûtia went to the location. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have looked through Google; it seems that the only place where Paraduin has been mentioned in connection with Liberland is in user comments, where the "founder" of Paraduin makes a point of saying (I should say spamming) that he claimed the land first. Plus, judging from the Paraduin website, it seems to be publicity for a fantasy novel. And the "nation" was established on 1 April this year - but somehow claimed that piece of land before that date. Originally, he claimed both his residence and Siga as of 1 April, but pushed back the date after the declaration of Liberland. Compare and . - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Google timestamp confirms March 5. The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But the article itself says that he claims Siga as of 1 April. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that they discovered the territory on 5 March, but didn't properly claim it until 1 April. However, when South Maudlandia and Liberland popped up, they backdated and said they had claimed it since 5 March, so as to look like they had the better claim. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Google and Facebook say different. You might want to refrain from such accusations. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't accuse anyone of anything, at least I wasn't trying to. I said it was a possibility, simply because I'm attempting to comprehend the legal situation of their claim. If you would like to inform me differently, then by all means do so. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

They also have a monarch, a flag, a motto and a constitution, and one house more than the Liberland republic. The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So what? They haven't attracted coverage by reliable third-party sources, as far as I know (spamming by the project's founder doesn't count). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's early days. The quantity of publicity on Liberland as such doesn't make them notable either, it's what they are doing. So far Liberland has achieved nothing. Paraduin is writing a book, which makes for an interesting combination, and remains a contender for the land. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The "nation" of Paraduin hasn't achieved anything, either - it doesn't exist, except as publicity for the book that the "founder" is writing. Liberland has at least attempted to make the idea reality, even though they were quickly stopped by the authorities of Croatia and Serbia. And yes, Liberland has attracted coverage by reliable third-party sources (which is the primary inclusion/notability criterion), unlike Paraduin. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh - as an involved editor you can't use your moderator buttons to protect this article from edits by users - the majority, even - that don't agree with your personal point of view. The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been banned from editing this article for making the same changes as the The Jolly Bard. Mike Rosoft is abusing his power as moderator to re-inforce his personal point of view. He should be removed from this position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.124.172 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully that's not necessary, and Mike will lift the protection.

The issue at hand, Mike Rosoft, is not whether Paraduin or the other micronations deserver their own article, but whether their interactions with Liberland are notable. Currently the majority view among editors here is still that they are. A new consensus can potentially emerge that says different, but that hasn't happened yet. The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, there's already clear consensus that that the (fictitious) micronations of Autia, South Maudland, and Paraduin, including their interaction with Liberland, are not notable and have not attracted any coverage in reliable third-party sources. The first two are some kinds of blogs or Internet roleplaying, the latter only exists as publicity for a fantasy novel; nobody, not even you, dispute that. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the majority of editors engaged here in the discussion believe that those pieces of info about the 3 micronations discussed above should not be included in the article. And I am one of them. --WikiHannibal (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to agree with The Jolly Bard at this point, and say that mentions of all three micronations ought to be included in the article. The extent of press coverage shouldn't matter. What does matter is that there is a quadrilateral territorial dispute. Self-published sources should be considered reliable when they pertain to information about themselves, naturally. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, let's hear your arguments.

Mike Rosoft, that seems original research on your part. What I am disputing though is that it matters. The notability of Liberland carries over and is sufficient to make the existence of these contenders notable. The article needs to reflect that there are in fact rivals for the same territory. In that, it matters not that Liberland has substantial news coverage and the others have not. Otherwise the article is not balanced and borders on promotion. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I hereby declare myself a rival for the same territory. I wish to call it "Wikiland". Does the notability "carry over" to my claim as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Jolly Bard, I have no intention to discuss with you, as you are clearly able to repeat your arguments to any number of editors. Your arguments were refuted by several editors, most comprehensively by Mike Rosoft. I just challenged your claim that "currently the majority view among editors" supports your position. When you made it, it was Escargoten, Lyam Desmet (partially), Mike Rosoft vs The Jolly Bard. Now it seems its is Escargoten, Lyam Desmet (partially), Mike Rosoft, WikiHannibal, Guy Macon vs The Jolly Bard, MrCrazyFrog, 203.25.149.10. The consensus is quite opposite. --WikiHannibal (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You conveniently forget another five anonimous editors in favor of inclusion, and some of those against have merely stated incorrectly that the sources are unreliable. The Jolly Bard (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please back up your claim (5 editors) with IP adresses. Please note that my list of editors included only those that took part in this discussion. If you count those who edited the article in a way that supports your position, you also have to add those who reverted or removed the content you and MrCrazyFrog are trying to promote. As for "some of those against have merely stated incorrectly that the sources are unreliable" - please write who you believe it was; as for "incorrectly" - that is not the opinion of the author of the statement, am I right? Who decided they stated it incorrectly? --WikiHannibal (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The community did, by supplying the relevant policies I've mentioned. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jolly it should stand there in the article. It is important for readers to see that there are more claimants. User Mike Rosoft is abusing his powers as moderator by locking.--203.25.149.10 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertion that it doesn't matter that the three fictitious micronations and their claims have not attracted coverage in reliable sources flies in the face of the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. See:

• "What Misplaced Pages is not" - in particular, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information;
• Verifiability;
• Notability (coverage in reliable sources is the primary criterion).

Mike Rosoft (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

In particular balance and neutrality, which are now violated by the omission of this information. The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You know about the due/undue weight guideline, so let's apply it. The three micronations are fictitious - you still haven't disputed the fact - and have not attracted any third-party coverage - which you don't dispute either. So they fail both verifiability and undue weight, and as such, they won't be mentioned in the article.

Really, I recommend you to just drop the issue. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Liberland is no less fictituous, it just has more publicity which doesn't count here at all. The weight will change if Liberland receives recognition, but that hasn't happened yet. The Jolly Bard (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Not true. As I have said above: Mr. Jedlička was serious about making the "nation" reality, unlike the other three fictitious projects. And that Liberland has attracted third-party coverage and the other three projects haven't is very relevant; it's a part of one of the basic policies of Misplaced Pages (verifiability), as well as of an important content guideline (notability). And speaking about due and undue weight: let's see what the policy page says. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So things that haven't attracted any coverage in reliable third-party sources have zero weight. Nada, zilch, zip, nothing. Got it? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fictitious" being used in conjunction with "micronation" leaves a high level of ambiguity. This is chiefly due to the fact that, in the minds of their creators and citizens, micronations are as real as any sovereign nation, but simply figments of vivid imaginations to everyone else. Just like the other three micronations, Liberland is no exception. Your labeling of South Maudlandia, Paraduin and Autia as "fictitious" lacks specificity, and I urge you to elaborate on this description. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already done so. South Maudlandia and Autia only exist as blogs/discussion boards/Internet roleplaying, while Paraduin has been declared for the purpose of publicity for a fantasy book. Their founders haven't taken any concrete actions to make them real. (I see that you still don't dispute these facts, and instead argue about semantics.) Unlike the three nanonations, Mr. Jedlička has taken concrete steps to actually found Liberland - enough to provoke Serbia and Croatia to take action against it. (They have blocked the prospective settlers from reaching the territory, and briefly arrested him.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I haven't disputed these facts is, quite simply, because I don't deny their truths. In effect, I can see nothing about these facts to dispute. I agree that no micronation except Liberland has taken physical action that is likely to be universally considered an "assertion of sovereignty". However, the question still stands: should this matter? Should it matter that only Liberland marched into Siga and planted a flag, even if there were prior claimants to the territory? Oughtn't these other micronations get a mention in the article? If you still believe they shouldn't, then fine, it's great to have an opinion of your own. I won't hold this against you, I will simply try and persuade you otherwise. Oh, and while we're on the subject of semantics, I refer you to the title of the very section we are currently debating, and also to Misplaced Pages's "Micronation" article. Do South Maudlandia, Paraduin and Autia not qualify as "micronation projects"? MrCrazyFrog (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I say: no, they don't, because they don't really exist. But that doesn't matter that much; Misplaced Pages has many articles about things that don't exist, either, like unicorns. Among micronations, the main micronation article lists Talossa (a political simulation and roleplaying) and Aerican Empire (a joke entity), both of them having articles - among other examples.

So what is the difference? The micronations mentioned in the article, even though most of them never really existed as nations, have engaged in various real-life activities, and have attracted significant third-party coverage. How much coverage in reliable third-party sources have South Maudlandia, Autia, or Paraduin attracted? Very little or none.

As User:Guy Macon has noted, anybody can create a website claiming to have established a nation and sovereignty over the territory. Would that mean that such a claim should be mentioned on Misplaced Pages? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I must say, you do put forward an extremely sound argument for you case. It truly isn't easy to refute the points you make, seeing as most of them are perfectly accurate. It is true that, unlike Liberland and North Sudan, none of South Maudlandia, Paraduin or Autia have attracted notable third-party media coverage. However, I maintain that the point I made about all three being classifiable as "micronations" still stands, and thus, semantically speaking, it would be illogical not to mention them, given the title of the section. Should the general consensus still be against the mentioning of these three nations in the article, there is another alternative. This would be to instead change the name of the section, so as to encourage only the addition of statements from "notable" micronations. MrCrazyFrog (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that the three micronations should be included. I think Mike Rosoft should face up to reality and back down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.55.36 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In principle, you are right. Except for that you need to replace "should be included" with "should not be included", and "Mike Rosoft" with "The Jolly Bard". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mike Rosoft, Not 'things', but viewpoints. These aren't viewpoints. And, as quoted above, the notability guideline doesn't apply here at all. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Now you are getting desperate. If WP:UNDUE isn't relevant, why did you bring it? And the claim that the area of Liberland was previously claimed by other entities manifestly is a viewpoint. And that Misplaced Pages does not cover trivia not verifiable by reliable sources is still one of the core policies. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Except of course that I didn't. Due weight is covered in other sections as well, where it pertains to facts. And again, the sources are quite reliable on the topic of themselves. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right that notability does not by itself apply to article content; the bar for inclusion in an article is lower than for having a dedicated article. But it is not zero. Misplaced Pages will not include in the article about the Moon a claim like "Joe Bloggs wrote on his blog that the Earth orbits the Moon, rather than the other way round" (even though the blog would have been a reliable source about itself - if there were any need for Misplaced Pages to cover the blog in the first place). As you have said (and then abandoned the claim when it didn't support your point of view), it's the principle of due and undue weight that applies here. The fact remains: the "micronations" (I might invent a new term for nations that only exist on the web or in the imagination of their founders, and call them "nanonations" instead) have not attracted any coverage in reliable third-party sources. That's why they won't be mentioned in this article, either. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Jolly Bard, what Mike Rosoft used ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.") is also mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Your recent edits and your participation in the discussions show that you are deliberately trying to vandalize the article and are to be dealt with accordingly. I will wait for your response to the consensus you claim favors your point of view, though. --WikiHannibal (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert warring by unregistered users and single-purpose accounts does not make consensus, either. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In view of the current aggression directed at me personally, I have posted a request for more experienced editors to get involved and will refrain from editing until that happens. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Czech Danube

The article says that Jedlicka plans to travel

all the way from the Czech Republic to Liberland on the Danube river

Should we mention that you cannot travel anywhere from the Czech Republic "via the Danube river"? He probably means "via Morava and Danube". --192.114.88.67 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I tried to correct that, but got reverted by two users from Czechia... The Jolly Bard (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems pretty much over with mr. president and most of his men arrested again. The Jolly Bard (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add an English translation of the official statement from Czech ministry of foreign affairs. - http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/udalosti_a_media/prohlaseni_a_stanoviska/x2015_05_14_prohlaseni_mzv_ke_kauze.html

Also, there should be new version of the coat of arms as it's displayed on official webpage - https://liberland.org/en/about/ Kreibich cz (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please mention the specific changes you want made in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 23:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The information belongs in the article, but as an exact quote I think. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Capital

There is no such thing as Liberpolis. Please delete it and don't undo that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreibich cz (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Political Parties

Swiss Independence Party (www.up-schweiz.ch), has supported the creation of Liberland and demanded the recognition of Liberland by the Swiss Government Axl Rose (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Swiss Independance Party. "up! fordert Anerkennung der freien Republik Liberland". Retrieved 22 May 2015.

Paraduin - again

TheJollyBard, I am glad that you edited the content you had added and removed some of the instances of misrepresenation of sources. Still, the main issues stay the same: 1) The first sentence, "The self-proclaimed state of Paraduin maintains its claim to Siga, which predates Liberland's claim by over a month." uses a self-published source in a way that is against wiki verifiability. It is a source you have used before, and it was removed by consensus. Also, the sentence misrepresents the source, because the source does not say anything about "maintaining". This is Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. 2) The second statement ("Paraduin's motto is 'freedom in solidarity'. It supports the idea of a basic income, and the Occupy movement.") is only about Paraduin and has nothing to do with the article on Liberland. The first source used for this statement uses Paraduin website (=the self-published source from 1)) as the only source of Paraduin's claim; the second source contains no connection to Liberland. That is why I removed these sentences form the article. Please do not add this info again. --WikiHannibal (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) WikiHannibal, self-published sources are perfectly reliable when it comes to information about themselves. I've had to point this out three times already re this article, despite the fact that the policy is quite explicit about this. The source was not removed by consensus because it was deemed unreliable, but disappeared because some editors from Czechia (not the consensus) opined that Paraduin was not notable at the time for lack of coverage.

(2) The second statement is important because it indicates the nature of the conflict between the two claimants. It is quite normal to include that - with appropriate weight - in the article, and it is furthermore quite alright that a secondary source has a primary source as a reference. What matters is that the publisher found it interesting enough to add to its notability.

Obviously you do not own this article and it's not your personal right to come up with policies specifically for this lemma that are at odds with existent ones established by the community. I will not be bullied. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

1) Using self-published sources should meet certain criteria, see below. The source you keep using does not meet the 1st, 2nd, and 4th criterium. The majority of editors voiced their opinions on the talk page and by editing the article; according to both counts they were against the inclusion of this piece of information about Paraduin because of the source. See this discussion at 17:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC). You did not provide data that prove otherwise.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

2) I am not sure what do you mean. The sources do not talk about a conflict - that is your original research. Please stop implying that I am bullying you. Many editors have tried to show where they think you were wrong; now you only use the same arguments and sources again. It is a waste of time for everybody, it does not help the article and wiki in general. --WikiHannibal (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how you figure that. Why would this be exceptional? There are hundreds of micronations. Which third parties and how are they involved? What doubt about authenticity? You need to be more explicit than this.

Do not falsely present the opinion of other editors and do not make false accusations at my address. The majority of editors was already in favor of including the claims of other micronations (not just Paraduin). After all, the policy of neutrality requires this. The Czech minority then silenced the opposition by semi-protecting the article. Even so, I waited for a better time to avoid more editwarring.

I readded the material (again, the neutrality policy demands this) because there is a new source, and I gave this source: an article in a reputable journal. The Jolly Bard (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Arrests

As far as I know, no other people have been detained or fined here by the Croatian police, just Liberlanders. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive bot

Anyone who knows how to set up the automatic talk page archiver? It could be good to do it here... - Anonimski (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tax haven

Somehow the purpose of Liberland, to create a tax haven, is not mentioned anywhere in this text although it has been discussed in the media many times. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Move recognition into single paragraph

Can we move the oodles of "recognitions" into a single paragraph. Currently the amount of space devoted to it is UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree partially. Recognition by tiny political parties doesn't seem so notable to me that they all need to be mentioned by name. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed several that were a far cry from official. The Jolly Bard (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that a political party (as opposed to a government) can give 'official recognition' to a state is dubious at best, I'd say. Such parties may well offer words of support, but they are in no position to confer any legal or diplomatic status, and accordingly there is nothing 'official' about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Jolly Bard: Thanks! @AndyTheGrump: I agree. Those should be removed as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD discussion for related article

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Constitution of the Free Republic of Liberland. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Now deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Given that 'Liberland' is a self-proclaimed 'micronation' with no recognition whatsoever, and no real prospect of receiving such recognition, it seems to me that the infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV policy, in that it asserts as fact that this 'republic' has both territory and a government. Is there any legitimate reason why it should not be removed, and replaced with a simple graphic showing the location of the claimed territory? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Some micronations have territory, like Sealand, but indeed Liberland has not. The rest of the information in the infobox seems OK though. Therefore, I would keep the infobox, but remove from it the map and the area statistics. Or at least clearly indicate that it's not really theirs. The map in the text also falsely suggests that they own the land. Liberland is not 'situated' anywhere, Siga is. Cheers, Jarold (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Claim by Serbia and Croatia.

Here it says: "Jedlicka in April planted Liberland's yellow-and-black flag on muddy land a little bigger than The Vatican. He says that the particular area was chosen because it is a rare 'unclaimed' territory in Europe. The truth is that both Serbia and Croatia claim that land and still need to settle their border dispute stemming from the 1990s Balkan wars." And here: "Jedlička declared the “Free Republic of Liberland” on the area of seven square kilometers called Siga, a locality in the Danube meander to the west of the Serbian town Sombor, on April 13. Jedlička asserts that neither Croatia nor Serbia show interest in it. However, both Croatia and Serbia deny it and they claim this area." Jedlička says that he is the only one who claims the area, but both Croatia and Serbia disagree. As it says in the second source, Jedlička's argument is based on the fact that the Danube river shifts in its bed (and his parsing of the two claims based on how they're stated), but neither side accepts his argument and both currently claim the area he has focused on. Another source here: "Serbia and Croatia have both claimed the patch of woodland in a dispute dating back to the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Nevertheless, Jedlicka considered it up for grabs..." --Aquillion (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources can be wrong. Neither Serbia nor Croatia claims this land for themselves. Both do claim that it belongs to one of them, and not to anyone else, but opinions differ with regard to the legal oonsequences of such a stance for third parties. What certainly isn't right though is to say that the area is Liberland. Jarold (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have spent the last hour or so looking into this, and am having trouble finding out exactly who has claimed what. Some news articles say that both Serbia and Croatia claim it, and some say neither do (eg. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-22/don-t-laugh-off-liberland-s-dream). But i can't find anything directly from Serbian or Croatian authorities about it (perhaps someone who speaks the language could find this?). My understanding is that Jarold's post is correct, but the page currently says that both Serbia and Croatia claim it. I'm going to change it to say that the claims are unclear; perhaps someone with a better understanding can come fix it once and for all.63.153.147.85 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The only verifiable fact here is that Serbia and Croatia have had a long-running dispute over where exactly the border between their territories lies. There is no evidence whatsoever that the 'Liberland' claim has even the slightest legitimacy under international law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that liberland's claim is legitimate, I just don't think it is clear that "the land Jedlička has targeted is claimed by both" Croatia and Serbia (second sentence under "Geography"). Also, after posting above, i found out i cannot edit the article, as it is semi-protected. if somebody else could fix this so it is more clear, that would be cool. thanks63.153.147.85 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Croatia has issued a statement through their UK Embassy here, informing the public that the area is a delimitation zone. I.e., it will eventually belong to either Serbia or Croatia, and not to anyone else. That seems a clear point of view to me. Rothly (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change: "Since the Yugoslav Wars, some borderland territories between Serbia and Croatia have been disputed, such as the Island of Vukovar and the Island of Šarengrad; legal experts agree that the land Jedlička has targeted is claimed by both those nations" to "Since the Yugoslav Wars, some borderland territories between Serbia and Croatia have been disputed, such as the Island of Vukovar and the Island of Šarengrad; Serbia's and Croatia's claims about the ownership of the land Jedlička has targeted are unclear"

Because: there are some news sources that report: neither country claims the territory as their own (eg. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-22/don-t-laugh-off-liberland-s-dream), and there are news sources that report: both countries claim the territory as their own (see current page for sources). Until there are official statements from Serbia and Croatia, it makes no sense to choose one news agency over another. As the issue currently stands, Serbia and Croatia's claims about the land are unclear, and the article should reflect this. Alternatively, if there are official statements from Serbia and Croatia, these could be used as sources. I didn't find any. 63.153.147.85 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Done TrueCRaysball | 00:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

facepalm

So, is there any actual reason for this article to exist? It's a glaring WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:UNDUE violation. There was certainly a splash of interest in the topic for a while, and then it ceased. A month ago, the Croatian police formally pronounced (cf. article in Večernji list) that they'll treat every attempt to enter the territory as a violation of the agreement with Serbia about the temporary border regime on the Danube. This topic is worthy of no more than a section with a couple of paragraphs in the border dispute article, as it is otherwise entirely inconsequential. --Joy (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There has already been a deletion nomination, which resulted in keep. Rothly (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That was while the topic was still novelty. --Joy (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Which shouldn't make a difference because Misplaced Pages is also not the encyclopedia of today. ;) Rothly (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere I was told there's an existing article that explicitly states how there are claims and how they are void - is there any objection to redirecting this article to Terra nullius#Land portions along the Danube river? --Joy (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It would probably wise to tell us where 'elsewhere' is first... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There's three of these, and the other two are Talk:Principality of Ongal and Talk:Kingdom of Enclava. --Joy (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Those I would change into a redirect, but Liberland is notable (notorious?) enough to have its own article. Rothly (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

But is it really? How do we treat other events that have transpired and left no real-world consequences and that aren't mentioned in any actual books? If we don't have a standalone article for Kim Kardashian's posing for Paper, this should be treated the same, given that it received less mainstream press coverage. --Joy (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Rothly, can you elaborate your revert, please? My edit wasn't a blanking, it's turning the article into a redirect to another article that explains the same topic in appropriate encylopedic context. (This one doesn't.) --Joy (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages seems to be generally inclusionist towards micronation projects that reach some sort of notability. I do agree on deleting the more unknown ones such as Kingdom of Enclava. As for Liberland, it should stay because the project became famous and led to many political debates. The party behind it is also well-established and got one of the Czech seats in the European elections. And police action against a group is not really a reason to remove its corresponding entry from Wikpedia (one could even argue for the opposite in such cases).

Furthermore, choosing the Liberland talk page for debating a cleanup of micronation articles is a strange choice of forum, since Liberland one of the few that have solid notability from all the worldwide media reports, discussions, clashes with police and other controversies. It's also an interesting contemporary addition to articles about libertarianist movements. - Anonimski (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited - just because a notable person said or did something that doesn't necessarily make that statement or action sufficiently notable for a standalone article. I don't recall the many political debates - where did they occur? Were they as notable as any of the dozens of political debates that regularly occur with regard to the borders of Croatia? If we were to document every meaningless transgression of a law in every country as a separate article that was reported in the press elsewhere, there would be no end to that, because there's a lot of trivial repetitive coverage of everything these days. WP:NOT#NEWS is not an optional guideline, it is policy. You need to cite a half-decent book or an in-depth news report that supports your statements. A bunch of "some guy does something strange today" from newspaper run-off-the-mill crime or novelty sections does not imply notability.

For example, the English-language sources currently cited in the that appear to have a hint of reliability:

• http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-32332473 - BBC "News from Elsewhere" - 3 paragraphs
• http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/05/09/microstate-tax-haven-in-the-balkans-not-that-easy AP wire story, does not have many coherent paragraphs because most of it is verbatim quotes
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/11/liberlands-leader-detained-while-trying-to-enter-the-country-he-just-invented/ WaPo story - granted - but cites the thing's Internet website, Facebook page, Internet message board

I wanted to go on, but I just don't see the WP:POTENTIAL here, and particularly because most of the mainstream coverage is ridicule. Misplaced Pages should not be a vehicle for self-promotion nor should it be used for shaming people. It's just not what an encyclopedia does. --Joy (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The movement managed to draw enough attention worldwide, and has had lots activity beyond mere publishing of press releases. It's more than some random border violation that managed to get attention from a news crew, they've made repeated and deliberate attempts to establish a state based on their ideological opinions. As for the sources - I wouldn't expect paperback books to be published so quickly after a movement becomes known to a wider public, and news providers that live up to Misplaced Pages's reliability norms are also acceptable references for a topic. Misplaced Pages isn't a news provider, but there are articles where the sourcing is inherently news-heavy, such as the 2014 protests in Bosnia, if we use another example from the region. But if you're looking for an example of notability in an academic context, there's the fact that he got invited by Vysoká škola ekonomická to hold a lecture about Liberland and statehood. If you want an example on their direct political impact: the mutually unclaimed territories were once easy to visit, but now they are heavily guarded against people that want to enter, and this has happened in a very noteworthy way beyond some official saying "Hey, let's put more guards here".

Then there's also that Misplaced Pages doesn't have some kind of hierarchy where the English-speaking world's sources somehow should have a higher rank in determining importance. There is even a Wikiproject focused on countering systemic bias. Many of the Czech-language sources (some which I personally added) are much more extensive in detail and from known news publishers (and they are a small part of what's been written about the Liberland movement). Then there are Balkan sources, too. You also forgot Vice when listing the current English-language sources. I do know that the people in movement have faced obstacles and repeatedly failed to reach their goals (as you observed, the police and border guards have been increasingly successful in their new approach to blockade the area), but that doesn't subtract from their noteworthiness.

As for potential - the article has already had its fair share of Misplaced Pages users adding relevant content to it, and there haven't been so many new interesting things to write about lately. - Anonimski (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no systemic bias because the most pertinent Croatian mainstream coverage is also basically ridicule. In a sense, you could say that this project has been an abject failure in encyclopedic terms but a great success as far as promotional activities go. So the encyclopedia could be fair to them by describing this as such - a promotional activity - but it doesn't actually do that. --Joy (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that describe Liberland as a promotional activity? (Promoting what?) If such sources don't exist, it's merely your original research and that's not what we're here for. Rothly (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but that cuts both ways. There is no reliable source saying this thing is an actual country/nation, yet the Misplaced Pages article presents it as such. --Joy (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The article presents it as a micronation, which it is. A country is something else. Rothly (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the article uses infobox country and the sectioning reminds of the WP Countries template. That is egregiously misleading for Misplaced Pages readers. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There is one infobox for both countries and micronations, see Template:Infobox micronation. Rothly (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A technicality is hardly an excuse for anything. --Joy (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Joy, political movements are promotional movements for ideologies, what else would they be? However, that phrasing is usually seen in contexts where products are promoted, because it is usually understood that a political movement wants to promote their messages to a wider crowd. The article clearly covers their goals - founding a nation governed by libertarian ideological principles (or at least spreading the idea to the public, if the obstacles keep being too large to overcome).

And yes, much of the material from the Croatian side has been ridicule. From Serbian media, the reaction has been relatively neutral. And from the Czech side there has been a lot of curiosity. All this, and the attention from other parts of the world, makes the topic well within the margins of noteworthiness.

If you browse around a bit, you can see that Misplaced Pages has for a long time been relatively inclusionist to micronation projects that have managed to reach some sort of fame or notability. There might be a need for a policy change on this, or there might not. However, Liberland should be remain, along with Sealand, Rep. of Minerva, and some other micronations - even if a more strict policy is implemented one day, because it actually has had some sort of political impact even if the claim to control territory has been unsuccessful so far. - Anonimski (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sealand actually consisted of a real-world off-shore platform where some people lived and did some business, if I recall correctly. Not some people who were prevented from ever boarding an off-shore platform. It's impossible to ignore that distinction and remain honest towards readers. --Joy (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also that I agree that "curiosity" applies to a huge amount of this coverage. "Novelty" also comes to mind. If we were like them, we would be using some sort of an analogous encyclopedic style. As opposed to confusing fiction with fact. --Joy (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that some visits and ceremonies have been done successfully, and that police is much more active in blocking similar attempts today. I don't see dishonesty in how the chain of events is described and that the group managed to make their activities known to both the libertarian and the non-libertarian public. - Anonimski (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a country article, which is basically dishonest. --Joy (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And that's also side-stepping the generally accepted concepts of "history" and "nations" and fantasies... --Joy (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Infobox country" is the name of a template used in contexts not limited to countries. Svalbard, for example (have a look at the source code), is not a contry, it's an external territory of Norway. There is nothing about that infobox that presents "This is a country" to the reader, and the wider usage of the template is already established as a normal practice on Misplaced Pages. If you think that the template name is problematic - a good way of resolving that would be to move it, but "Infobox territory" already exists as a link to "Infobox settlement". Other than that, the text in the article is clear about its status as disputed zone and a target for a political project. - Anonimski (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to say this, but there is a real-world consensus that Svalbard exists. Side-stepping this distinction does not make it go away. --Joy (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought that your remark was about country vs. non-country. Anyway, Liberland (as a movement) also exists, and their status in relation to the claimed territory is clearly explained. Coverage of known micronation projects isn't really a new thing on Misplaced Pages. - Anonimski (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Its status is very misleadingly explained if we present it as if it was a country article. --Joy (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Both the introduction and the infobox clearly present that it's a micronation, it's even wikilinked for those who don't know about the expression... - Anonimski (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me try and put this into more plastic terms. The first thing that catches the eye when an unsuspecting reader stumbles upon the article is the title and the colored pictures - but the pictures are entirely meaningless. Neither the flag nor the coat of arms have been displayed in the real world in any consequential capacity, nor are they covered in reliable sources. I didn't do an exhaustive search but a quick search finds me no relevant sources on vexillology with these symbols. Likewise with the motto etc. This kind of a Misplaced Pages article is entirely misleading. --Joy (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yup. The issue with the infobox is that it misrepresents the future objectives of Liberland proponents as current facts. Liberland does not exist as any sort of recognised entity. Claims that it has a flag, an organisational structure, official languages, a time zone or whatever are just that: claims made by partisan promoters. It violates WP:NPOV to represent such statements as factual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Liberland project has an official flag, coat of arms, official languages, etc. They are represented with the infobox while at the same time stating it's a micronation. Sealand activities to attempt exercizing sovereignty around that British oil platform are not recognized internationally either, if we want to have a parallel example. - Anonimski (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about Liberland is 'official'. It has no recognised existence, no population, no territory, nothing. It is not a 'micronation', it is a fantasy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't have official recognition, beyond what's self-declared and has been reported through various media sources and political projects. That's why it's a micronation and is being presented as such. - Anonimski (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: micronation promotional elements

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the article be edited to make it less like a country article, including but not limited to a country infobox, and instead be made into more of an event article, possibly also merged elsewhere? Please see the discussion above. --Joy (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment As I already have argued for before - the article about the Liberland micronation is informative and very clear that it's a micronation. There isn't really much out of the ordinary when compared to Misplaced Pages's total coverage of micronation projects. It has also reached notability in media globally - but the primary attention has been in the region as well as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. There is an existing discussion in the previous section of the talk page for those that want to see the argumentation which has already been put forth by both sides in this issue. - Anonimski (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Which third party sources state that it is a micronation, rather than a self-declared one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The quotation marks are there because it's an uncommon word that the author introduces to the reader through the article... - Anonimski (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Question. Do we have third-party sources that make unqualified statements to the effect that Liberland is a micronation? We know that proponents describe it as such, and we know that they have been reported as doing so, but a statement that a micronation actually exists needs independent sourcing, as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, here's one source, Liberland is described as a micronation together with an overview of what it actually means: http://uk.businessinsider.com/liberland-new-micronation-2015-4?r=US&IR=T - Anonimski (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The source has "micronation" in quotation marks, and makes it entirely clear that it is reporting Jedlicka's claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, I did Google searches like others have noted they have, Liberland does not seem to have much third party commentary about it being a legitimate "micronation." Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes (made into a non-country article) and yes (merged elsewhere). The article treats the topic in more or less the same way as other articles about "micronations". I don't think this is a good thing. Granted, by including a piece of info in the infobox, one still doesn't claim it's the "official truth". However, e.g. in the Misplaced Pages mobile app, infoboxes are displayed as collapsible sections titled "Quick facts", and here it's dubious whether these can be really called facts. Apart from that problem, the article badly fails the ten-year test. In fact, Liberland is for all real-life intents and purposes almost completely irrelevant even now, except as news media fodder. It is a purely virtual nation, as it does not meet the declarative criteria for statehood (population, territory, sovereign rule over the territory), and should be presumed non-notable for purposes of WP:GNG. That's why I'd like to see something like List of virtual nations (or "micronations", if you must - the term is deceptive, which is why I'm using the quotation marks), and more or less all articles such as this one merged into it. GregorB (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The term micronation is what is commonly used. It is a well-defined concept. Nations are not states, so you can't demand that they should satisfy requirements for statehood before they can be considered notable. Rothly (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should not describe something as a 'micronation' unless the term is used by independent sources - this has nothing to do with recognition as a state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The threshold for the creation of a micronation is obviously much lower than for the creation of an actual state: one simply has to declare something (and, presumably, let the media know). Also, real-life implications of such an event are usually negligible. That's why I believe that, generally speaking, meeting WP:GNG is not enough to establish the notability of a micronation. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the assertion that 'micronation' is a well-defined term. It's a neologism; we should generally avoid focusing articles on neologisms, or using neologisms in article text in ways that imply endorsement of them (that is, we must avoid using the term micronation as much as possible.) My feeling is that topics like this are best covered as events, since covering them in any other way lends credence to the views of their supporters, which seem obviously WP:FRINGE. I think we might need a broader RFC about how Misplaced Pages covers so-called 'micronations' like these, since my feeling is that their proponents tend to come here to use Misplaced Pages to promote their extremely marginal views on international law. Obviously, an attempt to push back on that would require deletions on some of the categories, templates, and so on that micronation proponents have created over time to try and promote their favored micronations here, but I think that those deletions have a decent chance of going through. --Aquillion (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aquillion here, I have never heard of the term "micronation," and I consider myself well informed. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this RfC is confusing two different issues - whether the topic is notable, and whether our coverage is compliant with Misplaced Pages neutrality policy. The first is determined by proof of significant coverage in independent sources, and if disputed should probably be the subject of another AfD discussion. Neutrality however needs to be addressed here - and I think that it is clear enough that the article has problems in this regard. The most evident one is illustrated by the title - it suggests that 'Liberland' is the subject, whereas the sources are actually reporting on disputed claims regarding a territory that only one party in the dispute has entitled 'Liberland'. This is reinforced by an infobox which reports as fact assertions again made by an involved party. The simple facts are that 'Liberland' has no existence beyond the disputed claims - and accordingly we should not be reporting as fact the existence of 'organizational structures', 'official languages', 'time zones' or anything else. We can certainly, if appropriately sourced, report that 'organizational structures' etc have been proposed - but that is the full extent to which we should be reporting them. If we do away with the partisan infobox, and report claims as claims rather than as fact, we will be well on the way to solving the neutrality issues, but I think that a full resolution would require renaming the article, with a title accurately summarising what the sources report - I would suggest moving it to 'Liberland' claim or something similar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If, when you say that notability is "determined by proof of significant coverage in independent sources", you refer to WP:GNG, it is important to note WP:GNG determines what is necessary for notability, not what is sufficient. This means that a topic may meet WP:GNG, yet still be non-notable (which, I'd argue, might be the case here). GregorB (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's scope isn't limited to what achieves notability in the English-speaking world (or what Croatian media and politicians approve of, for that matter). The scope is global and should ideally be without bias. In the Balkan region, in the Czech Republic, and in Slovakia, this micronation has achieved notability. It has also been covered by media sources globally. As a micronation it's not diplomatically recognized and that's very clear for someone that actually reads some of the article.

I would add that Misplaced Pages guidelines are guidelines, they're not carved in stone. I agree, notability among English "Westernized" nations is not a legitimate requirement since certainly the populations involved in micronations find the phenomena notable. Damotclese (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And even if we accept the notion that English-speaking world should decide notability in this case, there are still issues. When another user from Croatia came up with a list of English-language sources as an argument, Vice was omitted despite the fact that it's a widely read source that covers sensitive topics like this with great depth (and geopolitical neutrality). - Anonimski (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, did I just see a hint of anti-Croatian sentiment here? ;) There is no bias whatsoever in observing the simple fact that there is no factual, real-world presence of this entity in the domain that it aspires to have. I have had no idea what this "Vice" source is prior to reading about it here, which may not be indicative of much, but I am pretty sure that if you went into any other article related to geography and argued for e.g. Japanese sources for a Brazilian village, eyebrows would be raised, and very much logically so. Even still, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and read through, and all that I found was three quote farms, i.e. not really secondary sources. At least I don't see the assertions by two VICE News reporters that the thing "exists" as building upon the topic, and there's certainly no benefit of hindsight when they were providing direct coverage of the events at the time. --Joy (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And just to make sure, I went and googled for the topic on the same website in the last three months after those three stories, and only got something in Spanish, nothing in English. That, perhaps, is the benefit of hindsight. This is almost a non-story now, and they stopped caring. --Joy (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pointing out something which I see as a very narrow way of interpreting what Liberland is and is not, and what other users already have written and edited. The attention, debates and events that the project sparked in the Czech Republic is enough to establish notability alone - and together with all the other coverage the project has got, it takes a lot of directed intent to create a conclusion where Liberland doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages's range of micronation articles. - Anonimski (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole range needs to be evaluated the same way, then. Cf. Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. --Joy (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Event seems more logical. Greetings, I was called by the bot and wanted to note that I have never heard of the term "micronation" before (and I consider myself to be well-informed.) :) Aside from that, checking the article and some of the commentary which preceded the RFC, I have to ask whether "Liberland" actually exists despite the commentary and article, and despite the opinion of the politicians and citizens who live there say about it. I have to wonder if Misplaced Pages would treat the pretend Republic of Texas right wing extremists as a "micronation" since they, also, pretend that they are a nation (albeit one embedded inside of the United States.)

I'm probably being dense here, but if Liberland gets classifies as a legitimate micronation, than so should the secessionists of Texas who declared themselves to be their own nation also. So I think this should classify as an event, not as a legitimate micronation. Damotclese (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (summoned by bot): There do seem to be quite a few sources referring to Liberland as a micronation, but this may well be lazy journalism that simply uses the same language as the founders of Liberland without subjecting it to critical analysis. Certainly, I think we'd need high-quality sources to definitively call it a micronation (as opposed to saying something like "According to journalist X, it is a micronation"). I am intrigued by Damotclese's mention of a "legitimate micronation". Is there some sort of organisation that classifies entities as micronations, as I thought the whole point was that they were not recognised by any sovereign states? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Among those sources, there are many that style it "self-proclaimed micronation" and almost all of them either use other forms of disclaimers or even mock it. None of that is really relevant for an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Some micronations are active at micronation.org, but not all. In Indonesia alone, there exist hundreds of micronations, with territory, that you'll never hear about. Rothly (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment about the event/micronation thing: the unrecognized status is quite central to the whole micronation concept, otherwise it would be more like a regular nation. As was mentioned before, Misplaced Pages's handling of micronations probably needs a review, but this article is about a micronation project that has had a longer duration than simply organizing one event and falling into obscurity. - Anonimski (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles about events aren't necessarily descriptions of a single event. There's articles about crime events that span decades, from the original event to the judicial resolutions of the relevant cases. --Joy (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Mu (it currently does not look like a country article) and no (it should not be merged elsewhere).
  First, the term "micronation" is not exactly a neologism, as our article confirms. Book search shows it came to prominence in 1990s, with whole books devoted to the subject How To Start Your Own Country, Micronation, and several others discussing it in other contexts (Habitus of the Hood, Island Environments in a Changing World). WP:IDIDNTHEARABOUTIT is not a particularly convincing argument.
  Second, since we have reliable sources calling Liberland a "micronation" (and indeed, it looks like one and quacks like one), it only makes sense to cover it in the same fashion as other articles in Category:Micronations. Judging by the press coverage of Liberland, at least in Serbia and Croatia, it far exceeds one-man projects such as Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića (ok, I admit, IDIDNTHEARABOUTIT).
  Maybe the article needs some cleanup (which one does not), but in my opinion it is just fine, NPOV-wise. (and, btw, "micronation" is by definition "self-proclaimed" and "unrecognized" – there's nothing particularly ridiculing in that statement. The point of most micronations' founders is attention-seeking, much less a serious attempt at nation-building. Jedlička did receive attention, which in Misplaced Pages terms translates to WP:N. No such user (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

With regard to looking as a country article, you should just compare this article with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries/Templates#Article template. With this amount of similarities, it's hardly accidental.

The ridicule doesn't come from those adjectives, it tends to come from the general tone of many articles.

Mere attention doesn't actually mean WP:SIGCOV, esp. not one sufficient to translate into a 2000-word encyclopedia article. Yes, if we indiscriminately transcribe all the various newspaper coverage, that will add up, but that will also be a blatant WP:NOT#NEWS violation. --Joy (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Refugees in Liberland: citizenship for for sale

On 24/09/2015 I add extra information to the section "Citizenship": In September 2015 Jedlička claimed in an interview that Liberland will welcome 22,000 Syrians into Liberland, as long as they pay $10,000 for the citizenship. Together with this money and crowdfunding he hopes to establish a permanent settlement on Liberland. My update was reverted by another user with motivation "not neutral". My source is an article based on an interview with the founder of Liberland: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3244360/Founder-self-declared-micro-nation-Liberland-Croatian-border-welcomes-Syrian-refugees-help-build-new-tax-free-libertarian-utopia.html and if you Google you find other artciles related to this subject. Suggestions to formulate this more neutral? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Update: even the Washington Post wrote an article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/24/almost-10000-syrians-have-registered-to-live-in-a-country-that-might-not-exist/) and I quote: "Jedlicka notes that in addition to the background requirements, applicants need to collect "10,000 Liberlandian merits" to become a citizen. "Merits can be either obtained by providing services to government like working at our future embassies or simply by donating money to Liberland in exchange rate one to one with American dollar," he notes." The Liberlandians even post the article on their official Facebookpage: https://www.facebook.com/liberland?fref=ts --Lyam Desmet (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't just re-insert it when you already know it's not formulated in a neutral manner. There are no tens of thousands of refugees trying to get to Liberland. They walk past closely enough but none is even a-visiting. Rothly (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not an argument to delete everything, the item of refugees is mentioned in several reliable sources and confirmed by Liberland, related to the refugee crisis and the phenomenon of micronationalism and sovereignty this is relevant for the article. About the formulation I will add what Jedlicka literally said in the interview so it's neutral enough. Be free to rephrase my addition to improve the article:

In September 2015 some media published an interview with Jedlička about the refugee crisis in Europe and its influence on Liberland. After the many applications from refugees for the Liberlandian citizenship Jedlička claimed that Liberland is open to welcome 22,000 Syrians into Liberland. Jedlicka notes that in addition to the background requirements, applicants need to collect "10,000 Liberlandian merits" to become a citizen. Merits can be either obtained by providing services to government like working at our future embassies or simply by donating money to Liberland in exchange rate one to one with American dollar. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is this a non-neutral manner? The edit never claimed that the refugees are trying to get to Liberland, rather that Liberland tries to get those refugees to pay 10,000 USD for Liberlandic residency (for which were presented proofs). Clearly this statement of Mr Jedlička deserves a mention in the article. --Escargoten (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say that if this type of promotion creeps back in, I'm inclined to side with those in favour of deleting the entire article. Rothly (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the proper action is to delete the content which violates Misplaced Pages standards and block users that abuse Misplaced Pages. If we started deleting whole articles for reasons like that, it could be used as a way to remove a topic that otherwise follows the rules, and this would not be a good development. - Anonimski (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, after all media attention Liberland is still relevant as micronation. But Misplaced Pages is not a promotion tool, relevant but negative information (based on reliable sources) is also correct information and not a reason to delete a complete article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal that is also related to the discussion of "Statements of other micronation projects". Prof. Chris Roth is the author of the book "Let's split", a book about separatist, nationalist, and independence movements described range from serious and violent to cheeky and imaginative. He has also a blog named "Springtime of Nations" and he recently published an article about "Liberland’s Empty Promises to Syrian Refugees Scorned by Other Micronations": http://springtimeofnations.blogspot.be/2015/10/liberlands-empty-promises-to-syrian.html Quite interesting but is this information relevant to update the section about micronational statements? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is a much better piece of journalism, with a realistic view. Rothly (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

From another article on his blog I found out that he was one of the academic speakers on the international conference of micronations this summer in Italy. I add this on the page in the section "Statements of other micronation projects". I also add the official communiqué of the french micronational community that I found in the article, I don't know if this is necessary but by my opinion very interesting. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

My update has been reverted with the argument "an opinion blog post on an external site is note relevant to the article". Reasonable, but the source does provide a lot of information about the other micronations (include the most well-known on Misplaced Pages)and their opinion about Liberland. I consider the source of Prof. Chris Roth more reliable and relevant than the state of Paraduin for example. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox #2 & possible page protection

Since the Liberland article does not contain an infobox, are we able to fit it with a Country or Territory/Settlement infobox to enable a quick summary of the disputed territory*? It seems that the infobox was deleted in short notice even though previous talk pages supported it, but disputed what type of infobox the disputed territory is cast under.

...and if someone could propose a pending changes protection or semi-protection on this article would be grateful since the backlog consists of minor and major edit wars between IP and registered users. Final thought, possible template(s) should be added to the top of the article stating disputed information and other information about whats going on. Users editing this back and forth seem to be like Liberland v. Croatia & Serbia in the sense which needs to stop. Adog104 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, don't support the removal of the infobox. The country infoboxes have an optional "Micronation" parameter, so they're obviously intended to be used in micronation contexts too... - Anonimski (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there should at least be an infobox since it's partially supported by other countries and the infobox helps establish a quick summary about the article. There was no talk about opposing the infobox besides its removal by a few users who seem to be very personal about this disputed territory.

Also since looking, other 'micronations' contain Country Infobox's even if they're not recognized by anyone (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.) which seems to be totally appropriate for this article. Adog104 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favor of blocking Joy from making any further edits to this article. They are a resident of Croatia and can't be trusted to inject a neutral POV, as evidenced by the unilateral removal of the infobox. Terrorist96 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Adog104, we just had an RFC above, where the removal of the infobox and other unsupported promotional elements was discussed at length. It was concluded, and the conclusion went unopposed for a bit. What new argument are you bringing to the table that would be in favor of undoing that consensus that has recently reached about the issue? (And do you realize how WP:IDHT your comment about short notice and previous talk sounds given that the RFC is still right here on this page?)

User:Anonimski, we've mentioned those things in the RFC. I didn't see those technicalities as a coherent argument before, I don't recall anyone backing you up on it, and you're not proposing a new interpretation for it now. How is this not a rehashing of a recently resolved issue?

User:Terrorist96, your comment is an assumption of bad faith based on nationality, which is pretty much the very thing we have WP:ARBMAC for. I'm reporting this comment so another uninvolved administrator can sanction this abuse. --Joy (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you go and remove the infoboxes from all other micronation articles? Why are you fixated on removing it from Liberland's article only? Terrorist96 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have infinite free time, and if you think I'm going to spend it on indulging the whims of people who insult me, you're sorely mistaken. --Joy (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski, I just noticed the edit on the article. Your edit summary that says The blanking of the infobox was done in a hasted manner - there is no clear consensus in the question is patently false. Please re-read the RFC where this is spelled out in no uncertain terms. --Joy (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, there are commenters outside the RfC subsection too, with various opinions on the infobox. And there seems to be a lack of awareness that the country infobox itself has a parameter named "Micronation". At its present version, it's meant to be used in both country and micronation contexts. - Anonimski (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As I was saying, @Joy: there is no infobox discussion within the talk page to suggest deletion of any kind besides your opinion. There is clear evidence that other micronations have country infobox's and you're assuming bad faith for not giving Liberland the same chance as other micronations. As you have a close tie to this topic, (according to you, you are Croatian) you are reminded to be neutral about the micronation since WP:YFA and WP:NPOV explain you must have a neutral stand point and if you're close to a topic at hand you have to be neutral about it. Adog104 19:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. Am I using some form of English that is incomprehensible to you? The RFC question said literally Should the article be edited to make it less like a country article, including but not limited to a country infobox, and instead be made into more of an event article, possibly also merged elsewhere?. The person who closed the debate assessed the consensus by saying Should the article be made into an event article. There is consensus for this. What is so unclear about this that you connect the notions of yes to event article, but also yes to infobox of a non-event article? Do we need to get User:AlbinoFerret back in here so that he spells out again that he did in fact read and assess that same RFC, just like he wrote there a few days ago? --Joy (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Pinged, so I thought a clarifying post was appropriate. Though I dont understand what is not clear about the close. The consensus was that the article should be an event article. This is because, from the responders, this is how it is described in reliable sources. As a side note, unless you have sources that say it exists, and not that it was announced, saying it is in fact a micronation is original research. AlbinoFerret 20:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Joy:First, Joy you don't have to be rude, this is mere discussing about an infobox which you seem to be taken very personally about. @AlbinoFerret: And second, what about other micronations then, how do these miconations have an infobox when Liberland can't (besides that Liberland is an 'event')? Finally if I am correct, if I or another could provide a reliable source saying that Liberland is a country/state/territory then could this comply with the issue? Adog104 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Adog104. I am an uninvolved editor, as such I am not going to get into infobox's. I will address supplying sources. Consensus can change, supplying sources could change consensus. What I would advise is starting a section, presenting the sources and any change you want to make and see if consensus changes. Until that point the consensus of the RFC should stand. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: ...So like the conversation featured below since people (like myself) have started to consensus on the infobox? Also thank you, I appreciated your kindness. Adog104 21:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would start a simple talk page section, rather than go strait to a RFC. RFC's can be long and drawn out. If you have good reliable and verifiable sources consensus can form in a talk page section. AlbinoFerret 21:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: Thank you! Adog104 21:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You got into the issue of infoboxes already because it was discussed in the RFC, explicitly. I had a look once again and it was mentioned not only by myself but by two other people. --Joy (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

When I started this talk, I didn't read the RFC. The infobox was only mentioned, not fully discussed either. The consensus was to make the article an event, but the event infobox doesn't clearly fit a self-proclaimed piece of land very well. Adog104 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Infobox or not?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Should this article contain an infobox (see current revision for an example)? Please indicate support inclusion, oppose inclusion with a short explanatory paragraph. If you would support an infobox but not in its current version, please indicate what changes you would like to see.

• Support Infoboxes are meant to be informative and (alledgedly) non-existant claims of territory can be explained by a well made infobox. The current version does clearly state territorial boundaries are claimed and disputed, however it could use some work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only in death (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 November 2015‎ (UTC)

• Support As described, the infobox has a Micronation parameter and is supposed to be used this way. This should be a discussion on the template talk page, if there's a problem with how the template is defined. Right now the Liberland article is using it in a proper way. - Anonimski (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support It's informative and gives a good visual summary of Liberlannd. As mentioned, other micronations have infoboxes without any controversy (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.). The only reason to not include the infobox for Liberland, but keep it for the other articles is if you're prejudiced towards Liberland's existance. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Only in death, if you want to start an RfC, you need to follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. At present, you're only likely to attract people who watch this page already, which isn't really the point of an RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've now done this for you, Only in death. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Time-out - we had another RFC on this same topic last month. This is a disingenuous attempt to side-step a discussion that already happened in this exact same forum! --Joy (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it was "disingenuous" to remove something with an optional micronation parameter and say that it can't be used for a notable micronation. Don't you think that debating the template design itself would be more constructive than trying to state "don't use" for this micronation article? - Anonimski (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't work by way of "you people have concluded something after a month, I don't agree with it, so I'm going to try to re-frame the debate in a way that contradicts the earlier conclusion". That's the very opposite of constructive - it shows everyone you have no respect for the time and effort expended by everyone else and makes them think that it was useless to engage in a debate with you. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

My post was about the micronation parameter, which is part of the infobox design, which is meant to be used in the way it's designed. So there's that "disingenious" thing going on again... Anyway, if we jump to the other aspect of the debate - it's apparent that we didn't have any solid conclusion on this topic. - Anonimski (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The RFC question literally asked whether we should remove the country infobox. The decision of consensus had to have taken that into account. If so many of you can't read that from there, then we need to institute some reading comprehension requirements before engaging in these kinds of discussions, because this is beyond the pale. --Joy (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that RFC. We have stated this 3 times now. You also need to be neutral about this @Joy:, whether or not you agree articles are treated from a neutral standpoint. It's a basic rules from Misplaced Pages's pillars! Adog104 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Each time you have stated this, it was still plain false... If you don't like how an RFC was concluded, use the proper procedure at Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Doing this, on the other hand, is completely counter-productive. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The closure cut right in the middle of an active debate which hadn't gone anywhere. As for proper procedures - I'd prefer that the ArbCom once and for all goes through how these political phenomena known as micronations should be treated. The opinions are so divided that the only real influence on the content will be the random distribution of people that happen to be around when an important question is raised. - Anonimski (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything was cut anywhere - the arguments were laid out clearly, there was no active ongoing discussion, and it had been going on over a month. But, again, yes, please go to ArbCom instead of slapping a new RFC on top of that one. The latter is not the proper procedure by any stretch of imagination. The impropriety is exacerbated by the fact that none of the participants in the previous discussion were even notified (pinged) about the new one. This is a glaring violation of WP:CANVASS. --Joy (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI: WP:Canvass is a guideline that contains many many qualifiers like 'may' and 'can'. There is nothing that says people who contributed to a prior RFC *are required* to be directly notified of a current one. In fact its generally expected they would have the page on watchlist anyway and be aware of it. As it was, anyone with the page on watchlist will be aware of it, ANI is aware of it, and Cordless Larry above has gone the extra step and formally notified the relevant boards. (Which was a step I avoided for a specific reason - as I was attempting to not attract the infobox warrior crowds) Only notifying people who commented before would actually be more likely to fall foul of canvassing due to stacking the deck. Its a simple yes/no question which can be resolved by local consensus. Had you actually worded the RFC as to your intent (remove the infobox) and treated the issue of event vs country separately, the closer might have addressed it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue is inseparable, because the basis for the question is WP:V. IOW I find your statement to be sophistry. --Joy (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support; As I've clearly stated before, other micronations have country infobox's whether recognized or not. Liberland is still considered a micronation, and has recognition as such a state from at least 3 countries. Adog104 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support; I don't see why it shouldn't contain the infobox. It helps reader realise what he or she deals with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleak933 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Infoboxes are meant to be informative, this infobox is blatantly misleading as it lends an official aura to a non-existing nation; it's almost on level with having an country-infobox for Narnia. Jeppiz (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a country infobox, but a micronation infobox. It just so happens that the two templates have been combined into one. For a fantasy land infobox it could be efficient to use the same template, too. Jyl (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment; Stated, other micronations have country infoboxes whether recognized or not. (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.) Adog104 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That's so misguided I don't even know where to start. This is an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia describes. It does not prescribe. If something is a country, it should be described as a country. If something is a household appliance, it should be described as a household appliance. Using the same description for different things is wrong - it's confusing and misleading to readers, and it makes them think that the encyclopedia is promoting an unrealistic interpretation of a concept. --Joy (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Well reliable sources describe it as a micro-nation, and the micro-nation infobox it has. It doesnt have a household appliance infobox. It may not be the *best* infobox there could be given its circumstances, but until someone comes up with a better one, its the one that is available. There is literally nothing that is preventing you or anyone else from writing/creating a better one, except that you dont think it should have an infobox and lots of other people are satisfied the current one is sufficient. I generally give readers more credit to their intelligence that they can read a clear infobox and article that states the territory 'claimed'. We are not designing for the lowest common denominator here.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Ignoring for a fact that we have little to no idea what are the reliable sources on micronations when the whole thing is a neologism, but do please explain which are these reliable sources that support the "information" laid out in this infobox. Which reliable source on flags supports those images? Which reliable source on geography supports that map? Which reliable source on politics supports the statements on constitutional structure? Which reliable source on time zones supports that bit? Do you see how ridiculous this is now? --Joy (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Well I see how ridiculous you are being yes. SPS are perfectly valid for claims about the purported country by the country itself (This is our flag, this is our motto etc, we claim this territory and so on) regardless of their acceptance by others - as long as it is clearly stated that is what they are claiming. You dont need a ref from 'Flags of the World' to state what a country says its flag is. That is indeed, ridiculous. Refs in the article clearly support Liberland's categorisation as a 'micro-nation' as discussed in the media. It seems your problem is that you dont want Liberland to be classed as a micro-nation, which is even less-likely to be accepted as what sources are available discuss it as such. Nor do you want to accept that it claims it exists as a country, again this is irrelevant to if the article should have an infobox or not, which is why your RFC above was badly formed if removing the infobox was your intention. See the link below for Narnia_(country), completely fictional countries have infobox's that include maps and 'ethnic residents', it might be worth trawling the fantasy fiction for a more appropriate one if you feel the current one is too misleading. You could also look at the micro-nation which physically didnt exist until it was created by dumping a load of sand on a reef, and now doesnt exist due to a combination of invasion by Tongon army and the sea/time reclaiming it. That has an infobox that is arguably even more misleading. Now I could sit here and point out why your arguments are weak, but the point of a tightly focused RFC is that people support/oppose with their arguments and it gets closed once consensus is clear. Not having endless back and forth arguments about *why* people hold the opinion they do. It wastes time and ultimately has no bearing on the closer. If you oppose, oppose and state clearly your objection, and the eventual closer will take note of it. If you dont want to participate, dont participate, but stop badgering people because you disagree with them. As it is, this will be my last response directly to yourself on this issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
              • I can only suggest that you re-read WP:SPS. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Also Jeppiz you may want to check out Narnia_(country). Fictional countries do actually have pseudo-country infoboxs already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
        • A cat is not a dog but they still use the same template. That's the whole point of templates. You only need to make one and then you can apply it to many different things. Jyl (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Cats and dogs are both real animals. Counties and Liberland are both... concepts, I guess? Because one is an actual socio-political construct, and the other is an idea whose basis in reality is limited to a history of events. --Joy (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Quite again @Joy: from what you said, it seems that all we have to do it make the article more like describing a country then an event and then problem of the infobox would be resolved. Also I'm not trying to misguide, I'm trying to add an infobox to an area that needs one. If some guy in the United States can claim his property as his own country or some naval base in Europe can be its own country, then the Republic of Liberland can be a country if it claims to be one. If we just fixed the article then the infobox is rightly fixed. AND before there is remark about the last RFC, like the user who closed it said, the consensus of the RFC can change. Adog104 14:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Those ifs are big ifs, because not every micronation situation is the same. Do you have a reliable source on countries that recognizes micronations and describes all three in the same context? That would be refreshing to see. --Joy (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Stated in the article, Switzerland party also recognized it, but that information was deleted for some reason. Adog104 00:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Infoboxes are useful; to the extent anyone suggests an infobox lends some legitimacy to micronations, that is silly. If a micronation is notable, and not propped up by internet jihadists such as the "citizens" of the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis, I'd like an infobox to help me decipher the fever dreams of the creators who got enough press coverage to reach notability. Liberland reached that threshold, so give them an infobox, its not a seat at the United Nations.--Milowent • : That's the whole point. Very few of the items in the current infobox have had press coverage, and even that has been in the novelty reporting form that is considered fodder and usually ignored, except apparently by a handful of overzealous Misplaced Pages editors. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • • Re your comment "very few of the items in the current infobox have had press coverage". Then maybe the infobox should have less information. This one doesn't strike me as too terrible, sure it has a motto and flag, but it is not a cornucopia of fan fiction.--Milowent • 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Isn't this description a bit disingenuous? The only thing not covered is the time zone. In the news coverage that's out there you can find statements describing it's location, official languages, size, motto (with various translations), planned political structure, founder, etc. - Anonimski (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, but "statements describing" isn't akin to WP:RS. You need to have a look at WP:IRS. For example, these days there's currently several "statements describing" the Pyramids as storage for Biblical grain in the mainstream US news, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should accommodate that in the relevant article about the topic. --Joy (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
        • We've already gone through the concept of micronations and all that. They, along with their attributes, aren't recognized in international law. They wouldn't be micronations otherwise. They are only organizations of people that try to gain recognition for the nation-like structures that they have created. - Anonimski (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
          • So a country infobox for an article describing an organization? :) --Joy (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
            • ...but their not organizations, that why they're classified as micronations. Independent states not officially recognized by world countries/govnerments/organizations. They can be classified as a new country project which in itself is a type of country. Another item that supports the fact that micronations can use country infobox's is that Template:Infobox micronation redirects to Template:Infobox country. :) Adog104 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Infoboxes are definitely useful. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some kind of infobox probably might be useful for those fictional creations, still those should not be just any infobox. Maybe if we have infobox Fictional nation than it should be added. Otherwise I do not see what would be non-biased selection of existing infoboxes that do not actually fit (infobox for company, organisation, NGO, country, settlement...). Also I noticed that many of those interesting fictional creations are actual places operated as those micro-nations (like Principality of Sealand) while some of those that actually do not exist in reality and represent just one idea or "pretension" of some people about some distant territory actually just work as a redirection link or not even like that (As the thing called North Sudan that send a reader to Bir Tawil-very similar case). Maybe information about Liberland should be in article Croatia–Serbia border dispute in first place?--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"Micronations from imaginary countries and from other kinds of social groups ... by expressing a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty over some physical territory..." (from the micronation Misplaced Pages page) doesn't this clearly define Liberland as a micronation rather than an imaginary country? Adog104 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure since there is not just issue that their sovereignty is not formally recognised but they are actually doing their business there and nobody care. There is no any kind of Liberland infrastructure nor did people from this group ever actually visited that place. Yes, they do claim some teritory and did got some space in media as interesting curiosity. But it would be as if I right now create Great Nation of Antarctica at the place of Marie Byrd Land, make some web page and get this info published in few newspapers. Even if there is actual teritory I might claim (Marie Byrd Land) I still do think it would be imaginary country and not micronation. Also, I can create 7 additional fictional countries at the same place that Liberland claims. Since I do not live far from there, imagine I get to enter that place in the name of one of them and get to build some structure there. I think only this one might fit the definition of micronation while other ones would be imaginary countries.--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, Liberland is in the area no claimed by either side, but Croatia claims to be it the land of Serbia while it controls it (which doesn't make a while lot of sense unless they're leasing the land)...and there has been many attempts by people who support Liberland or who are interested in the micronation that have attempted to get onto the land, however were arrested by Croatian police (such as when Vít Jedlička tried visiting and was arrested or when groups of people attempt to set foot or go near Liberland and are turned around by Croatian boats or police which is easily searchable on YouTube or other news media web sites). If they didn't care so much about the land, why is Croatia arresting people who are attempting to plant a flag or even visit the land? Adog104 20:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess they might formally consider it illegal crossing of the border but it is irrelevant right now. Also, I actually mentioned Marie Byrd Land since it is also unclaimed territory. Anyway, it might be useful to have some kind of infobox in article but it should not be infobox country since it might lead reader to misunderstanding (e.g. there are "real" microstates with permanent population such as Liechtenstein). Maybe I should have more trust in users capacities but I think we should avoid anything that might be perceived as biased editing that tend to favor one interpretation. I don't even claim that problem is in non-recognition. Infobox country is legitimately used for de jure non recognized but de facto existing entities such as Transnistria. I think that difference in treatment of those urecognized states and micronations shows us that this enciclopedia should not consider micronatons as states in the usual meaning of that word. As you can see, even entities such as Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic do not use infobox state, and they much more might fit those "new nation" projects.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Also I was considering that infobox on my response to Joy about how it should be a geopolitical state infobox in the country infobox, but I came across the micronation template redirect which made me cross my mind out for the more direct evidence. Besides the RFC does say if the micronation needs an infobox, not a specific type of infobox. At this point, its been supporting an infobox (mostly the country infobox since it supports the idea of micronationship), but opposing the country infobox. I think a mid ground should be the Geopolitical organization infobox so...

Looking at the evidence I would happily support a Geopolitical organization infobox instead of a country infobox w/micronation from the Template:country infobox since as of November 2015, even though Liberland is established, its not established fully by people yet.

Now going back that what you said before I responded and then you responded while I was typing this... (Side note about the country claim) You couldn't claim on Antarctica because of the Antarctica Treaty as Article 4 which states " treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force...". However I would give you the absolute best of total props if you claimed the other area of land and attempted to establish the claim as a country like Liberland has, that I cannot dispute. I've got to hand it to you, you've provided the best opposing evidence so far, but hopefully we can come to an agreement soon. Adog104 21:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I actually could make a claim on Antarctica but it simply would not be recognized by any sovereign entity based on Antarctica Treaty (and similar to Antarctica Treaty there was also thing called Badinter Arbitration Committee that basically make any claim from non-former-Yugoslav federal subjects baseless). In the same way Liberland claim is not recognized by any sovereign entity-based on that I can claim the same place that Liberland claim. I think that exactly that shows us that Liberland is more a fictional state than micronation. As you can see, there are really some people on this platform called Principality of Sealand, while in the case of Liberland we have empty parcel that is called Siga and that is part of border dispute between two of former republics of Yugoslava. Some people claim that this empty parcel next to the Danube river have different name, flag, official languages, moto... and all of it while can be interesting idea, is in the end just fiction. Just as the Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four correspond to real world geography but are still fictional nations. As for the initial question in your RfC (does micronation needs an infobox) I would say I am not sure, but if the decision is that it needs one, than it also should state that it should not be infobox country.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the territory is not populated by the people claiming it isn't a disqualifier if we look at Misplaced Pages's earlier treatment of micronation topics. And it's not really empty, there are police forces there due to the dispute. - Anonimski (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Once again, the rules of notability trump all else. In the entry itself lies the answer: "There has been no diplomatic recognition of Liberland by any country from the United Nations." Hence, this is not a country, no matter how some of us would like it to be a country or consider it as a country. Hence, no country infobox. The current status of so-called "Liberland", as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned is an oddity, a whim, a fantasy land - in short, a micronation. If we have an infobox for cases like this, by all means use it. Otherwise, there should be no nation-infobox. -The Gnome (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The infobox used is the micronation infobox. As has been pointed out above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Also lots of micronations are real and have existing lands that are occupied by their governments or citizens, take Sealand. Adog104 19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The infobox reads "infobox country." A micronation is an altogether different institutional species. Apologies to those who are keen to lump such entities together with countries but this is not how the sources we must use have it. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That's merely the name of the template, it is not displayed to readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Question to "oppose" voters - is it a general vote against having a micronation parameter in the template itself, or is it something like "keep the micronation parameter but exclude Liberland from it"? If it's the second option, then it would be good to see some argumentation behind making such a specific exception. - Anonimski (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Parameter or no parameter, the infobox country is inappropriate. It doesn't matter what kind of a technicality implements it, it's still a collection of claims unsupported by the relevant reliable sources. Even Infobox fictional location would be more helpful to readers compared to this. --Joy (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Then it's a discussion for the template talk page, to avoid the awkward situation that an eventual change only becomes implemented here and nowhere else. And the locations of micronations are usually non-fictional (such as this one). The political structure of this claimed country is just in an advanced planning stage, it's neither recognized nor established beyond the micronation level - and the article is honest about that. - Anonimski (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Already brought it up at Template talk:Infobox country#Infobox micronation redirect. BTW "advanced planning stage" is synonymous to WP:CRYSTAL :) --Joy (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not WP:CRYSTAL if we stick to being honest about that it's just a set of goals and intentions by the organization behind the micronation, and not a political process that's making some sort of progress. Anyway, it's good that the micronation coverage gets some sort of review. My stance is that metadata should be presented in an infobox (but it could be a new infobox instead of Template:Country, I'm open for an alternative solution). - Anonimski (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support with caveat: I'm a strong supporter of infoboxes in general — I believe it makes us a better encyclopædia for basic information about an article to be visible at a glance. If there is a way for {{Infobox country}} to make it clear that this is an unrecognised micronation, then this article should definitely use it. The discussion about whether or not unrecognised micronations can use Infobox country should take place on Template talk:Infobox country and be applied to all such articles. I support Joy on that particular issue, but I definitely believe this article should have some infobox, no matter which template is used to generate it. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) via the feedback request service
• Support - the concerns raised above do not justify its removal, and can be solved through the usual proceses of talk page discussion and WP:DR if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the infobox implementation and this RfC per User:Joy above (and I am a fan of infoboxes). This is clearly an attempt to avoid the prior discussion and the closer's findings. The inclusion of an "Country Infobox" in the article negates the discussion of just a couple of months ago that many people participated in. Have all their time and efforts meant nothing? The finding in that was that the article's subject and notability is the declaration of Liberland as an event, not a country. Adding the box totally overrides that finding and WILL mislead our readers. GenQuest 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • User:GenQuest the closer of that RfC, User:AlbinoFerret, clearly said that his closure did not address an infobox. That's why we're having this new RfC. Furthermore, the article is clearly about the Micronation Liberland, not the event of its declaration. How is its declaration more worthy of an article rather than an article about the nation as a whole? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=689083608 Terrorist96 (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Possibly check Infobox #2 & possible page protection as it was discussed their earlier too with AlbinoFerret. Adog104 07:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• support keeping an infobox, but also support removing any inappropriate material, and/or making modifications to the infobox code to better conform to the needs of micronation articles. Frietjes (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Update - So since the tags for the RFC was removed, should the RFC be closed? Adog104 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Constitution

I have added a brief summary of the proposed draft constitution. If anyone has any feedback, I welcome it. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Micronations articles
• High-importance Micronations articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• Low-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• C-Class Serbia articles
• Low-importance Serbia articles
• WikiProject Serbia articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles