Talk:Liberland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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.

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 [1] 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)

"Statements from other micronation projects"

Whoever keeps on adding back the eponymous section, perhaps he should take a look at Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] and [3]. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Google timestamp confirms March 5.[4] The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But the article itself says that he claims Siga as of 1 April. [5] - 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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See:

• "What Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia'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; Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? - 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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.[6] 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.[7] The Jolly Bard (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

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 ^{Talk to me!} _{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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

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

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

AfD discussion for related article

See Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia, 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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015

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 | ^#RaysUp 00:30, 7 August 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)