Talk:Liberland

Proposal to remove the infobox

As a micronation, using "infobox country" as if like other users of that infobox, it is an actual country, is inappropriate. The information can be readily conveyed in the text of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been saying the same thing for some time. Infoboxes should be used for undisputed factual content, not the claims of websites promoting imaginary countries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Insofar as the article exists about the very concept that this so-called "website promoting imaginary countries" created, it is undisputed factual content. This is no different to The Lord of the Rings having an Infobox claiming to be set in "Middle-earth". Getsnoopy (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither the existence nor non existence of a Wikipedia article, or an infobox in said article, have the slightest bearing on whether the subject of an article actually exists. Facts don't work like that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The political movement "Liberland" exists along with the people in it, and the piece of land that they claim also exists. The controversies that they triggered also happened. Look at Ladonia (micronation) that I mentioned in the other thread, an art project by a famous Swedish artist, for a parallel example (although perhaps a bit less politically controversial). - Anonimski (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Hemiauchenia and AndyTheGrump. Donald Albury 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. The Banner talk 22:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

this does not seem like a good idea, as it appears that most every listing at Template:Micronations uses the country infobox. if this is to be done it should be a centralized discussion to remove or replace all of them, not single this one out. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that were Wikipedia policies concerning WP:NPOV, WP:RS etc properly adhered to, the 'micronations' list would be substantially shorter. A good few of them appear to be nothing but fancruft, lacking even the limited real-world substance that Liberland supporters present. The inclusion criteria currently appear to be 'mentioned by some dubious source or other, somewhere', with the vast bulk of content then being primary-sourced promotional BS, originating with whoever has proclaimed themselves President, Emperor, or Pastafarian Pontiff. If we are to hold a centeralised discussion, the starting point should probably be how much cruft we can properly consign to the bit-bucket, rather than concerning ourselves with infoboxes for concoctions that shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You should step out from this discussion. You have shown a heavy display of WP:BIAS. You do realise that there are settlers in Liberland and prior to that, 'Liberlanders' have been arrested, deported and more since 2015? Croatia MOFA have released statements too so clearly there is a notable impact. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is you who have shown a heavy display of WP:BIAS., not Andy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh please. You want infoboxes taken from a well known micronation. Whether you agree with Liberland's existence or not, you are doing everything you can to suppress it. You might as well continue and remove the infoboxes of all micronations at this rate. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Andy's proposal is to remove the "country" infobox. Thar is hardly "suppressing" the existance of Liberland, which after all, exists only in the minds and press releases of it supporters. It is not a "country", but rather a concept with no physical existence. Donald Albury 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

People live there now... with Liberland flags. Research first MicroSupporter (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have independent sources about that fact? The Banner talk 12:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, here is one MicroSupporter (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That report is based on a youtube video. Did the news source independently validate the contents of the video, or is the article more of an opinion piece?. The reporting does sound a bit breathless. To the extent that it acurately portrays what has happened, the video appears to show that some people have illegally entered the disputed territory and hastily erected crude shelters. I have a few questions. Who consecrated the so-called "church"? (Placing a cross over the entrance to a dugout does not make it a church.) Who issued the wedding license? How do helicopter tours establish occupancy? Donald Albury 15:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JlZs1lp-bwI

Two people delivering supplies to a houseboat parked on Liberland.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=YB8NCJB5HD8

Inside of a building.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9MfOdT6RugA

Preparations for the wedding.

https://www.youtube.com/live/_hLf4AMMk38

Livestream of the wedding.

Due to these videos, it is my opinion that after the Liberlanders got kicked out of their mainland, they moved shop to the small island off the riverbank and has permanently parked a houseboat on said island.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GrVPzc0za6w

Said houseboat recently got its engine serviced, apparently. 180.231.250.240 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We need independent and reliable sources. Not home made videos. The Banner talk 10:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks reliable to me as you can tell by the surroundings they are clearly there. Stop making excuses. I already gave you a independent source and you can search for some yourself. Go bully other micronations like Sealand too MicroSupporter (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not bullying any micronation or promotional gimmick. I just ask for independent, reliable sources. The Banner talk 19:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it a 'promotional gimmick' if they are there in person? Here is another source.https://reason.com/2023/10/05/the-croatian-invasion-of-the-micronation-of-liberland/ MicroSupporter (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are actually incapable of understanding why an interview of Vít Jedlička along with one of "Liberland's minister of foreign affairs, Thomas D. Walls" is not an independent reliable source, I have to question why you should be allowed to continue to contribute to this topic. Or any other, for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that you're getting close to beginning to look willfully helpless, but I'll answer your question anyway, just for the record:

It's promotional because Jedlicka makes good money selling fantasy passports; vaguely gesturing at possible future settlement is how he keeps his grift in the news.

It's a gimmick because "they" are not in fact "there in person". Jedlicka will waive the payment for the passport, which usually sells at several thousands of euros, if you spend a few handfuls of days camping in the swamp. Jedlicka and the rest of the inner circle do not camp there themselves, they just try to keep a rotating gaggle of chumps going for a couple of weeks during dry season. GR Kraml (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether people are camping on a houseboat on the Danube or not is utterly irrelevant to this article anyway. They don't constitute a 'population' unless and until credible reliable sources (e.g. legal/academic ones with relevant specialist expertise, rather than journalists parroting Jedlička for page-filler) describe them as such. Journalists (even credible ones) rarely have expertise in the complexities of international law, and the suggestion that they could meaningfully determine that mooring a boat on the banks of an international waterway constituted legitimate grounds to make territorial claims on the adjacent river bank is absurd. Press coverage of Jedlička's publicity stunts (clearly ramping up with current ongoing promotion of his cryptocurrency) cannot under any circumstances be Wikilawyered into pseudolegal assertions regarding the status of Liberland. Citing any press material in that manner would constitute clear and unambiguous WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, that too. GR Kraml (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Liberland is not inhabited. The Liberland project's own marketing material pretty freely admits this.

One reason Liberland is not inhabited is that both Gornja Siga (the mainland portion) and Donja Siga (the island) have spent most of the winter living up to their floodplain classification and being literally underwater.

Donja Siga can be seen almost completely submerged in this video uploaded to the Liberland Youtube channel 23 November. The few isolated spots of Donja Siga that remain unflooded in the video are roughly 86 meters above sea level, suggesting that roughly half of Gornja Siga may have remained unflooded as well at this point, even though the tree cover makes it hard to be sure.

In this video uploaded 19 December, the northern part of the Gornja Siga access road is under water. At 88 to 89 meters above sea level, the relevant portion of the access road is one of Gornja Siga's highest-elevation stretches; this is the part of Gornja Siga that was farthest from the Danube before hydraulic engineering changed its course and created the floodplain as it exists today. No point of Gornja Siga is more than 90 meters above sea level.

In this blog post dated 31 December, the water has reached the second (inner, southern) green gate. As this video demonstrates around the 02:50 mark, the two green gates are located right at the start of the downslope from usable land onto the floodplain.

The last video also demonstrates the other reason Liberland is uninhabited: Croatia is now actively policing the area, making it difficult to do any stealth encampment or construction there. There is no evidence that any of the participants are challenging the presence of the supposedly foreign police officers in their supposed sovereign country. On the contrary, the video makes it clear there has been some sort of actual interaction between the two cyclists and the cops but is unsubtly edited to omit the encounter.

The video, along with lots of other material, shows that the participants referred to as "settlers" living "in Liberland" are actually living in a houseboat in the Danube. The Danube is an international waterway that Croatia could not conclusively deny them the use of if it wanted to. The presence of the participants in the houseboat, in other words, is tolerated precisely because they are not actually "in Liberland". They therefore cannot be meaningfully described as "settlers", much less as inhabitants.

Since flags were mentioned: there are three boats involved and therefore three flags with actual legal significance, although much of the marketing material is staged and edited to make them hard to find:

1. The Liberty can be seen flying the Serbian state flag as its ensign in the second photo in this Instagram post and in multiple photos in this Alamy set of publicity shots. According to this houseboat rental site the vessel is homeported in the Serbian town of Apatin, consistent with its use of Serbia as its flag state.
2. The Swan can be seen flying the Hungarian civil ensign in this photo from the same set.
3. The "Freedom Boat" can be seen flying the Croatian civil ensign in this video.

There is no evidence that any of the participants have ever used the Liberland flag in a way that could be considered an attempt to stake a legal claim.

It seems worth nothing that while the Swan was only built last summer, Jedlička had been planning to pivot to houseboats since May 2022 at the latest. The Liberland project, it would appear, has been aware of the hopelessness of any actual attempt at actually "settling" in the swamp for some time now. GR Kraml (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting I support the inclusion of an infobox here (I don't know the tally of !votes here). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There was never a vote (or !vote). It was a discussion, where arguments were given for and against inclusion of the infobox. If you wish to participate in the (rather stale) discussion, you need to present an argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I stated in the 'unrecognised in lede' section why (and also indirectly on the current RFC in infoboxes), when I say 'votes' I mean how heavily stacked the consensus was for removing it. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking through this section after seeing the giant ANI thread, I'm a little confused at how this could be construed as "consensus to remove" -- it's a few people arguing about whether the infobox should be included, with six saying it shouldn't and four saying it should. But there wasn't an RfC or anything, just a few paragraphs of desultory arguing. It seems like kind of a stretch to say that the discussion concluded with a consensus to keep, or remove, or indeed that it concluded at all (seeing as we are still arguing in it). jp×g🗯️ 19:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

(seeing as we are still arguing in it) That is not correct. We are again discussing this because someone restarted the discussion. The Banner talk 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The vote, to the degree that it was a vote, seems to have been 4:2 in favour of removal at the time Hemiauchenia removed the infobox. The consensus was acknowledged as such by at least one editor who was on the pro-infobox side originally but later changed their mind off-page. (I suspect one factor that made some people change their mind was the fact that certain members of the pro-infobox side were serially confabulating and that certain others were very quick to resort to ad hominems. But strictly speaking I can't be sure they weren't simply won over by the arguments.) GR Kraml (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The RfC on the Vilage Pump page about micronations using an inbox ended with the following statement:

(1) Principally, consensus is for option B. This option is widely preferred as being distinctive from the regular country infobox, and having better parameters. Regarding certain parameters:

(a) Consensus is against generally including the flag, coat of arms, and other purported symbols of the micronation, though it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The ultimate conclusion is that these symbols are often not recognized or reliably verifiable, and could easily mislead a reader; that they are not used in the same way as countries, and so should not be treated in the same way. Certain symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add, as important information.

(b) There is no consensus about the inclusion and use of certain other parameters, which are subject to the claims of the micronation itself. For example, key officials or currency, which are not easily verifiable by reliable sources, and therefore run afoul of WP:V. Though the provided option B does not include these parameters, there is a meaningful amount of discussion regarding it. Participants are generally at an impasse about the propriety of including these parameters when they hold no outside recognition or verifiability. Otherwise, the parameters are in accordance with the original option B.

(2) Consensus is against the idea that it is a WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE violation for micronations to receive infoboxes. This argument is similar to the "trade dress" problem addressed in paragraph (1)(a): it is an endorsement and legitimization of their claims, in violation of WP:NPOV. But the consensus is that it is appropriate to state verifiable claims, which are identified as such, even within infoboxes.

(3) Consensus is for including "unrecognized" to clearly identify micronations as not being the same as a "true" country—this is echoed in the choice to use an infobox which is distinctive from the country infobox. The primary motivations were avoiding at-a-glance mistakes, and preventing a reader from having to do further research, in accordance with MOS:NOFORCELINK.

(4) Consensus is against any reference to micronations as "fictitious" in the same sense as "literary fiction". To do so would contradict WP:NPOV and substitute editors' views for reliable sources'. In that vein, it is wholly inappropriate to use the fictional location infobox.

Therefore with these statements above I support the idea that, according to the consensus opinion of the RfC, a very truncated infobox presented as option B in said RfC should be added to the page. This means that said infobox will only include non-contentious subjects such as who claims it, where it is on the map, date of claim, et cetera. I also believe that 'certain other parameters... which are subject to the claims of the micronation itself' should NOT be included in the infobox as the previous discussion here shows that consensus opinion is against it. 183.104.163.239 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sursum capita

I'm going to do a gradual rewrite of this article over the course of the next few weeks.

In its current form the thing is not just incomplete, i.e. lacking in a way that could by fixed by sprinkling some extra words here and there, but also bloated and misfocused. It ignores much of the history of the physical place, most of the actual activities of the company and effectively all of the peer-reviewed scholarly literature on the complex of topics. What it features instead is copious amounts of useless trivia and promotional disinformation, sometimes laundered through cheap churnolists, sometimes sourced directly to blog posts.

The very first sentence has a POV problem. The lead section contains a hard factual error. The Legal Analysis section mentions just two of the four different pieces of outsider legal theory the Liberlanders have thrown out there over the years. It spends many, many words giving undue weight to one particular fringe response to their autodidactic clownshow. It somehow also manages to contain original research.

There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of quality of sources, in terms of economy of language, in terms of overall information density. GR Kraml (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are confident you can do this, go ahead. One suggestion though - it might perhaps be preferable, if you are doing a complete rewrite, to prepare it as a draft first, and then ask for comments. This will probably make the inevitable discussions about content, sourcing etc less fraught, or at least less liable to involve edit wars and similar strife. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it a formal draftspace draft you have in mind, or were you thinking more like ad hoc staging area? We're not going to want to do a destructive page move over an article with this much history, right? GR Kraml (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I was thinking more on the lines of the ad hoc approach. I've seen this done with other articles, though I can't remember the specifics. I'll see if I can find any advice on the best approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, I'll go read some articles in the meantime. GR Kraml (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Subpages, the best approach seems to be to create a page entitled [[Talk:Liberland/Temp]] or similar: that way the history of the draft is preserved as long as the article is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Like this? GR Kraml (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup, right place. I'll leave commenting on the content until later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I love to see the independent, reliable sources. The Banner talk 17:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, a separate article about the border dispute itself might also be a good idea. The Banner talk 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

We already have Croatia–Serbia border dispute. 11:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. The Banner talk 12:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe my draft article is functionally complete. It provides reasonably well-rounded coverage, with the amount of treatment each topic receives roughly proportional to the amount of attention it has received in the public discourse. With respect to most topics, this is also roughly proportional to the amount of treatment in encyclopedia-grade reliable sources.

I have either removed or contextualised all the promotional fluff cited to activist web sites and content mills. I also got rid of some amount of undue trivia – the one where Liberland has full diplomatic recognition from the Republic of One Bored Pensioner, the one where Liberland has the undying love of the Principality of Alcoholic Between Jobs, the one where a Croatian bureaucrat has sent an internal policy memo to a coworker, the one where the Egyptian foreign ministry doesn’t really know what this "Liberland" thing is supposed to be but advises potential travellers to exercise common-sense caution, things of that nature.

The article could be much, much longer than it already is, but there are diminishing returns. At some point the stuff we’re adding is no less trivia than the trivia we just got rid of.

Since the whole point of doing this in draft space was not having an edit war, let’s try not having an edit war. Let’s have a conversation instead. GR Kraml (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll start the conversation by congratulating you on coming up with such a well-researched and well-structured draft. And yes, it is probably somewhere about the optimum length in regards to getting down to necessary detail while avoiding bloat through trivia. I'll probably have some minor suggestions re wording etc, to discuss later, but it seems to me that it is fundamentally complete, and as far as I'm concerned it is far better than the current article, by more or less every measure. If it was my decision (it isn't), I'd simply replace the existing article with the new draft immediately, leaving further refinement to normal the editing process.

I suspect though that others may possibly be less inclined to see the draft as an improvement, particularly those who have in the past made their support for the Liberland project clear, and who may not like the way it places less emphasis on what Liberland supporters themselves have said or done, and more on secondary commentary and analysis. Such individuals are of course welcome to raise any Wikipedia-policy-based objections, for further discussion. If we can come to a consensus decision regarding the draft without the need e.g. for an RfC (which would be premature at this point) that would seem ideal. So let the conversation begin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll probably have some minor suggestions re wording etc This is my first formal draft so I'm unclear about the rules, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to go to work. I've reached the stage of acceptance wrt the fact that I'm not a writer. Just be aware that I made a pretty serious effort to be succinct and densely cited at the same time, so text-source integrity is a bit brittle in some places. Meanwhile, thank you sincerely for your kind words; they're appreciated. GR Kraml (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What I miss in this draft is that nowhere is mentioned that it is a vanity project by Jedlička. The history part looks nice but has little or no relevance towards Liberland. In my opinion, this whole piece is a nicely dressed up advertisement. The Banner talk 12:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the existing article, or the draft? I'd have difficulty seeing the latter as any sort of advertisement, given the way it demonstrates, through secondary analysis, how little legal standing etc there is for the Liberlander's claims. As for 'vanity project', it is clearly more than that - substantial sums of money are involved, e.g. in the current cryptocurrency project, the sale of passports etc, and while I don't give credence to Jedlička's wilder assertions regarding numbers, there is clearly some level of support for the proposed 'micronation' or the cryptocurrency project for one wouldn't have been viable. If we have sources describing this as a 'vanity project' we can consider citing them, but we can't make that determination for ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The draft, I have corrected that. The Banner talk 12:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

And how do you think the draft compares to the existing article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Negatively.

I have actually send out e-mails asking for any progress on the border-dispute and Liberland. No replies yet. The Banner talk 10:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you could be a bit more specific as to what exactly you are objecting to in the draft, as compared to the existing article. And personal emails are an irrelevance to this article (or any other), as you must be well aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

An update about a possible solution of the border dispute is - in the long run - relevant for this article.

But it is clear that my - negative - opinion is unwanted, so I will wait on others to comment. The Banner talk 10:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, further and newer sources concerning the border dispute would be welcome. If and when they are published. Meanwhile, the draft cites a whole lot more on that topic than the existing article. And cites more independent sources generally - which is what I thought you were asking for above. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

idk, both Andy and I have told you that your opinion is very much wanted. The current live version relies heavily on self-published primary sources, plus a far-out conspiracy theory site. You said this is not what you want from the article. The live version also works hard to stress those aspects of the Liberland enterprise that make it look serious and sincere, and to sweep everything under the rug that makes it look bad – the grandiose announcements, the alleged billions of pledges, the projects that don't go anywhere, the sleazy associates, the passport grift, the crypto song and dance. It even pretty aggressively quotemines legal scholarship to make it look like Liberland has a credible legal case. You said this is also not what you want from the article. The draft version does… none of these things. You have got to understand we're not going to see what the problem is until you tell us. GR Kraml (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

And personal emails are an irrelevance to this article It's a moot point. I didn't bother to explain this in the draft because WP:CRYSTAL and everything, but there isn't going to be any movement on the border dispute until the very final stages of Serbia's accession negotiations. It's not as simple as Croatia gets what it wants because it has a veto; the dynamics are a lot more complex and the legal fictions involved a lot more unhelpfully semi-shady than is obvious to normies. GR Kraml (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This is wild. I was prepared for being accused of a doing a hatchet job, not the opposite. Is there any specific part of the draft that you think is being nice to the guy? GR Kraml (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been much more thorough than I would have had the patience for. I support moving your draft over the existing article. Donald Albury 16:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think this draft is better than the current version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Fourthed. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that we seem to have a clear majority supporting replacing the existing article content with the draft, and it's been ten days, I think GR Kraml should probably go ahead and do this without further delay. It will obviously still be open to a potential revert per WP:BRD, though reverting is going to have to provide policy-based arguments to justify doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do the replacement some time tonight. I'm supposed to include a link to the specific revision being copied in the edit summary, right? Are there any examples for me to look at so I don't screw this up? GR Kraml (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia I don't think that attribution is strictly required when you are the sole author of the text being copied, but it won't hurt to provide a full link. It's probably more important to indicate that the change is being made per this talk page thread, so anyone seeing it will know that it has been discussed first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the implementation of the new article. I have noticed a lot of WP:BIAS and information that is exaggerated and untrue. e.g. "Liberland asserts that Croatia's statements regarding the possible trade are tantamount to a quitclaim and have rendered the pocket ownerless, a theory dismissed as unfounded by the local and international legal community.". The last piece of the sentence has no references and is one-sided. There are plenty of studies arguing both for and against Liberland's legitimacy based on the grounds of terra nullius. There is also a push on Liberland's passports being marked as fantasy just like many other passports on the EU's websites. It looks like an attempt to trash Liberland as much as possible while maintaining a 'light' neutrality. There is not enough neutrality on the article, and clearly the writers are against the existence of Liberland and other micronations judging by their user contributions. Even to the point of the removal of the infobox which merely provides essential information and has 'Micronation' at the top anyway. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are 'plenty of studies' supporting the Liberland supporters 'terra nullius' claim, cite them. As for the statement regarding the EU and 'fantasy passports' it is sourced, and pertinent. And as for your more general claims of 'bias', I'd advise you to be very careful about throwing such terms around without providing anything substantial to back it up, given your own editing history. And, per the conversation currently going on on your talk page (see [2]), remind you that canvassing for support is frowned upon, and that nobody 'owns' an article. You don't get to veto content you don't like. Regarding the infobox, you are as free as anyone else to participate in the discussion going on at WP:VPP. [3] As of right now, the broader community seems anything but convinced that the way infoboxes have been used in 'micronation' articles is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the user contacted me. I don't see how it is an example of WP:CANVAS. You also do not get to veto content that you do not like. I find it ironic you mention that as you are often in hot water judging by your old talk pages. The infobox should be kept until the final decision on WP:VPP. Keeps it in line with the rest of the micronation articles. Also, I am not going to waste my time citing them right now. I already cited a few in the past such as Chicago Journal on International Law (which yes, while arguing that Liberland would be right in international law, there are doubts, however, it does not argue in favour of the doubts). The only studies I have found that are against Liberland are unknown writers compared to the school in Chicago which is quite prestigious. It is not worth calling it 'unfounded' or 'rightful' unless there is a heavy weight showing one or the other.

Also, on WP:VPP, the community has indicated that you have a personal problem with micronations. So yes, you have WP:BIAS. My main focus is unrecognised states and micronations. I have made sure to put WP:NPOV on every article I have written. This new Liberland article is very clearly not neutral.

Anyway, as for the passports, I am not sure why they should be mentioned at the start. You might as well mention Egypt's position, Czechia's position, etc. Just throw it into one of the contents, not the first few paragraphs... or put the mention of the EU and UN's ban on Northern Cypriot passports on the main paragraphs of that article. Do you see where I'm going? MicroSupporter (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, this is how it is going to go. The next time you accuse me of 'bias', I am going to take it to WP:ANI, where people will be able to look at my long and diverse contribution history, and compare it to your single-focus one. And no doubt take note of your obviously poor grasp of policies regarding notability, sourcing, neutrality and the rest. You are in a very poor position to be bandying around unsubstantiated accusations of bias.

Regarding the specifics of whether the EU passports matter belongs in the lede, we can of course discuss that: it self evidently isn't on its own a reason to reject the entire revision. Not when it has significant support from almost everyone who has commented on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You appear to take any user that frustrates you to WP:ANI judging by your now deleted talk page. You just prove my point! We are not talking about me, we are talking about you. I just happen to have a job so I do not have as much focus on Wikipedia. What childish behaviour. You are biased and against micronations as mentioned by users on the discussion on the infoboxes. I am not the only one saying this. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, the only people in support of this revision are you, and 3 other people who seem to have a problem with not just Liberland but all others micronations. You have all made attempts to thwart micronations off wikipedia in the past from what I have seen. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the above escalation (attacking everyone not in agreement with their PoV), I have now started a thread on MicroSupporter's ongoing behaviour at WP:ANI. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Everyone being the 3/4 people who will collaborate together but not take any opposition input and all agree on the removal of micronations from Wikipedia as a whole, so decide to focus on editing information on one without allowing any external input. Grow up. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have anything else in store than personal attacks? Your way of editing on this page is also a good example of bias. So please stop. The Banner talk 16:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have written completely in WP:NPOV. I have not shown any bias except for the article to be kept neutral and not leaning towards support or against. Like what Wikipedia is made for. Also ironic for either of you to call me out for personal attacks seeing both of your archived talk pages. Oh dear. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, your last edits were not about the subject at hand but about AndyTheGrump personally. (Including digging in his talk page history.) It is clear that you are in attack mode. And pushing your personal opinion. Please stop with that, as it is disruptive. The Banner talk 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I already cited a few in the past such as Chicago Journal on International Law The Rossman paper simply does not say what you claim it says. It isn't going to start saying what you claim it says if you keep stomping your feet for another few years. The current live article was wildly misrepresenting Rossman before TrangaBellam's applaudable cleanup. The draft article explains what Rossman is actually saying and how mainstream legal scholarship more generally feels about Liberland in perfectly sufficient detail; you can educate yourself at any time you like.

The only studies I have found that are against Liberland are unknown writers compared to the school in Chicago which is quite prestigious. This is not how arguments from prestige are made here in the legal community. More generally, the way you keep malapropisming your way through what you think it legal jargon makes it very obvious to basically everyone that you have no idea what you're talking about. Your claim to have done some sort of independent evaluation of "studies" you have "found" on the subject is risible. Stop embarrassing yourself.

So yes, you have WP:BIAS. I can't speak for Andy but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Wikipedia is a dialectic conversation, not a monastery. You don't get points for performing detachment, you get points for making competent and constructive edits. One corollary is that you can be openly biased and a very respected contributor at the same time. The poster child for this fact in the Liberland-adjacent crypto grift space is David Gerard, who explains to people why crypto grifters are stupid and wrong for a living and who still gets to have more influence on Wikipedia crypto grift pages than all the faux-neutral crpyto grift pushers combined. TL;DR Your endless ad hominems against Andy are missing the point and aren't going to work.

as for the passports Reliable sources appear to indicate that the passports are Liberland's only real and dependable source of income. The passports are how Jedlicka can keep buying boats and paying dumb kids to risk drowning in the Danube for the greater glory of the blockchain. Except for a few glorified press releases effectively saying LOL, LMAO EVEN and a couple dozen trespass convictions, the passports are also the only reason Liberland appears in official government documents, and the only official statement on the project on the part of the European Union. If you have reliable sources documenting evidence to the contrary, feel free to cite them. GR Kraml (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Another article just came out about Liberland, in case it's of some use as a source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/viva-liberland-i-visited-the-made-up-country-with-its-jet-skiing-president-mffwfx526#Echobox=1711827251 *Dan T.* (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hidden behind a paywall. But seeing the title I doubt if it is a usable source. The Banner talk 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Sadly the Internet Archive has been hobbled to the extent that they won't archive complete Times articles at all, but if all it is is another interview with Jedlička, regurgitating his usual stuff, it is highly unlikely to add anything of substance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You can access it with archive.is.

Some useful bits:

Construction work on a building in Jefferson Square has been interrupted by the Croats although recently more visitors have been allowed in than expelled — including 200 who came on Friday because they had heard that the president was trying to visit, probably the most to have set foot there at the same time.

While keeping one hand on the steering wheel, he made a conference call with builders trying to erect the nation’s first house in Jefferson Square, the heart of Liberland

Residents of Liberland have been camping on the land for a year

There is no shortage of recruits. Besides the 1,200 registered citizens who have paid up to $10,000 for their blue passports, another 735,000 people from around the world have applied but not yet paid. “That’s almost the population of Prague,” Jedlicka said. People who move to Liberland and stay for at least a week qualify for free citizenship and can earn “merits”, a second local currency, if they help with the construction. Foreign currency is worthless there.

The president had to content himself with waving his flag at the few Liberlanders who had gathered on a beach to welcome him. “I’ll be back,” he yelled before we left. “We love you too,” came the reply. 211.251.171.197 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So this is again not an independent source but an interview. Still not a suitable source, in my opinion. The Banner talk 07:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

'Unrecognised' in lede, and in short description

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

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

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

Further to this, how often do the sources we cite even use the term 'micronation' in regard to Liberland? I've not done an exhaustive check, but from a quick check of the first few English-language sources cited in the existing article, it certainly doesn't seem to be the norm, and where it is used, it is explicitly qualified: e.g. "self-proclaimed micro-nation of Liberland". [5] The media clearly don't think that obscure terms are appropriate, and prefer instead to explain to their their readers what they are actually referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good question. Not sure if it indicates much (probably not) but the Google Ngram viewer shows the word coming from almost nothing at around the same time that Wikipedia started using it. [6] Cause, effect, or both? Given the way that some micronationists have engaged with Wikipedia, I think it's safe to assume that they wanted to increase currency (and credibility) of the term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's about proper use of language

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

"Compact CD"

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my solution:

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

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

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

Above, you link a definition that states that a micronation is 'a political entity', with 'representatives' making 'claims'. representatives don't 'consist in' (or 'consist of' [7]) 'notions', they promote them. And said 'representatives' aren't advancing some sort of abstract theory that there is 'a country' on the banks of the Danube, they are arguing that they should be allowed to create one for themselves. Proper use of language as a means of communication begins with accuracy and precision, not mismatched phraseology and vagueness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We could do it like this:

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

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

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

As long as necessary, and preferably not much longer. Achieving that though, requires some sort of agreement as to what the subject actually is. And to me, the subject of this article isn't an 'unrecognised entity'. That isn't what the sources are actually describing. Not the ones worth citing anyway. Take a look at how the BBC reported the early days of 'Liberland': A Czech man claims to have established a new state on the west bank of the Danube, it's reported. Vit Jedlicka, a member of the Eurosceptic, conservative Party of Free Citizens, has declared that a 7-sq-km (2.7-sq-mile) patch between Serbia and Croatia is now the sovereign state of Liberland. Mr Jedlicka, Liberland's self-proclaimed "president", says it sits on an area of no-man's land - or terra nullius - between the two countries which isn't claimed by either of them. [8] The BBC aren't describing an 'entity', they are describing ongoing efforts to create one. Later sources (ones worth citing) do more than repeat Jedlicka's claims - they report reactions to them. And then sources go further, they take a critical look at the reasoning behind Jedlicka's claims, and the reasoning behind the reactions. They provide context - legal, historical, political - and assess the validity and/or viability of Jedlicka's project. What they don't do is write about 'Liberland' as if it were already the entity that Jedlicka desires. There is clearly to much opposition (or scepticism, or sometimes indifference) to make that tenable. Wikipedia though, seems intent on making an entity out of an argument, on slapping a label or two on it, and on building an article around the labels. Poor logic and bad writing at the best of times, and particularly concerning when it results in the entirely undue promotion of a commercial enterprise that assuredly directly benefits from Wikipedia's 'Liberland the entity' take on what should more properly be reported as 'Liberland the claim', and/or 'Liberland the argument'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

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