This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, when it received 9,580,409 views.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks in advance, I'll go read some articles in the meantime. GR Kraml (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yup, right place. I'll leave commenting on the content until later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love to see the independent, reliable sources. The Bannertalk 17:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the draft, a separate article about the border dispute itself might also be a good idea. The Bannertalk 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 12:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The draft, I have corrected that. The Bannertalk 12:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you think the draft compares to the existing article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negatively.
I have actually send out e-mails asking for any progress on the border-dispute and Liberland. No replies yet. The Bannertalk 10:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 10:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I also think this draft is better than the current version. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 16:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hidden behind a paywall. But seeing the title I doubt if it is a usable source. The Bannertalk 12:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So this is again not an independent source but an interview. Still not a suitable source, in my opinion. The Bannertalk 07:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean not suitable? How do you think facts about states get disseminated? If reporters go to the German chancellor and interview them about what is happening in Germany, then that is a secondary source reporting on what's going on. This is no different. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source reporting is not secondary unless it is analyzing what the chancellor says. Merely relaying what they say is still primary. JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Liberland make official claim to the island? 2007GabrielT (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The organization that calls itself "Liberland" claims the island, but they do not control the island, and I do not know of any recognized organization or agency where they could register the claim. "Official" is meaningless in those circumstances. Donald Albury 15:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that Infobox micronation has been revived recently by User:Ahecht. It seems like it's being used in some places, for example the articles Sealand and Ladonia which I've mentioned earlier, in the discussions where I've talked about treating the micronation topic equally no matter what entity is being described (if notable enough, of course).
The newly revived template could be seen as distinct enough from the one that caused the previous controversy: the Infobox nation template that had a simple "micronation=yes" parameter at the top. Can an infobox now finally be included to summarize this article, or is there still something unresolved from the earlier debate? Is there a reason to treat this particular case differently? - Anonimski (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it would be the natural result to apply the infobox to the article. Miffedpenguin (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will be a good idea, as it gives the suggestion that you are talking about a valid, recognized country instead of a personal hobby. The Bannertalk 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner talk 10:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
