Talk:Liberland/Archive 2

facepalm
So, is there any actual reason for this article to exist? It's a glaring WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE violation. There was certainly a splash of interest in the topic for a while, and then it ceased. A month ago, the Croatian police formally pronounced (cf. article in Večernji list) that they'll treat every attempt to enter the territory as a violation of the agreement with Serbia about the temporary border regime on the Danube. This topic is worthy of no more than a section with a couple of paragraphs in the border dispute article, as it is otherwise entirely inconsequential. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There has already been a deletion nomination, which resulted in keep. Rothly (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was while the topic was still novelty. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which shouldn't make a difference because Wikipedia is also not the encyclopedia of today. ;) Rothly (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere I was told there's an existing article that explicitly states how there are claims and how they are void - is there any objection to redirecting this article to Terra nullius? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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


 * There's three of these, and the other two are Talk:Principality of Ongal and Talk:Kingdom of Enclava. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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


 * But is it really? How do we treat other events that have transpired and left no real-world consequences and that aren't mentioned in any actual books? If we don't have a standalone article for Kim Kardashian's posing for Paper, this should be treated the same, given that it received less mainstream press coverage. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Rothly, can you elaborate your revert, please? My edit wasn't a blanking, it's turning the article into a redirect to another article that explains the same topic in appropriate encylopedic context. (This one doesn't.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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


 * Notability is not inherited - just because a notable person said or did something that doesn't necessarily make that statement or action sufficiently notable for a standalone article. I don't recall the many political debates - where did they occur? Were they as notable as any of the dozens of political debates that regularly occur with regard to the borders of Croatia? If we were to document every meaningless transgression of a law in every country as a separate article that was reported in the press elsewhere, there would be no end to that, because there's a lot of trivial repetitive coverage of everything these days. WP:NOT is not an optional guideline, it is policy. You need to cite a half-decent book or an in-depth news report that supports your statements. A bunch of "some guy does something strange today" from newspaper run-off-the-mill crime or novelty sections does not imply notability.
 * For example, the English-language sources currently cited in the that appear to have a hint of reliability:
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-32332473 - BBC "News from Elsewhere" - 3 paragraphs
 * http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/05/09/microstate-tax-haven-in-the-balkans-not-that-easy AP wire story, does not have many coherent paragraphs because most of it is verbatim quotes
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/11/liberlands-leader-detained-while-trying-to-enter-the-country-he-just-invented/ WaPo story - granted - but cites the thing's Internet website, Facebook page, Internet message board
 * I wanted to go on, but I just don't see the WP:POTENTIAL here, and particularly because most of the mainstream coverage is ridicule. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for self-promotion nor should it be used for shaming people. It's just not what an encyclopedia does. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * There is no systemic bias because the most pertinent Croatian mainstream coverage is also basically ridicule. In a sense, you could say that this project has been an abject failure in encyclopedic terms but a great success as far as promotional activities go. So the encyclopedia could be fair to them by describing this as such - a promotional activity - but it doesn't actually do that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide reliable sources that describe Liberland as a promotional activity? (Promoting what?) If such sources don't exist, it's merely your original research and that's not what we're here for. Rothly (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that cuts both ways. There is no reliable source saying this thing is an actual country/nation, yet the Wikipedia article presents it as such. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * No, the article uses infobox country and the sectioning reminds of the WP Countries template. That is egregiously misleading for Wikipedia readers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * A technicality is hardly an excuse for anything. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Sealand actually consisted of a real-world off-shore platform where some people lived and did some business, if I recall correctly. Not some people who were prevented from ever boarding an off-shore platform. It's impossible to ignore that distinction and remain honest towards readers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also that I agree that "curiosity" applies to a huge amount of this coverage. "Novelty" also comes to mind. If we were like them, we would be using some sort of an analogous encyclopedic style. As opposed to confusing fiction with fact. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * It looks like a country article, which is basically dishonest. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's also side-stepping the generally accepted concepts of "history" and "nations" and fantasies... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * I can't believe I have to say this, but there is a real-world consensus that Svalbard exists. Side-stepping this distinction does not make it go away. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Its status is very misleadingly explained if we present it as if it was a country article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Let me try and put this into more plastic terms. The first thing that catches the eye when an unsuspecting reader stumbles upon the article is the title and the colored pictures - but the pictures are entirely meaningless. Neither the flag nor the coat of arms have been displayed in the real world in any consequential capacity, nor are they covered in reliable sources. I didn't do an exhaustive search but a quick search finds me no relevant sources on vexillology with these symbols. Likewise with the motto etc. This kind of a Wikipedia article is entirely misleading. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. The issue with the infobox is that it misrepresents the future objectives of Liberland proponents as current facts. Liberland does not exist as any sort of recognised entity. Claims that it has a flag, an organisational structure, official languages, a time zone or whatever are just that: claims made by partisan promoters. It violates WP:NPOV to represent such statements as factual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

Refugees in Liberland: citizenship for for sale
On 24/09/2015 I add extra information to the section "Citizenship": ''In September 2015 Jedlička claimed in an interview that Liberland will welcome 22,000 Syrians into Liberland, as long as they pay $10,000 for the citizenship. Together with this money and crowdfunding he hopes to establish a permanent settlement on Liberland.'' My update was reverted by another user with motivation "not neutral". My source is an article based on an interview with the founder of Liberland: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3244360/Founder-self-declared-micro-nation-Liberland-Croatian-border-welcomes-Syrian-refugees-help-build-new-tax-free-libertarian-utopia.html and if you Google you find other artciles related to this subject. Suggestions to formulate this more neutral? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: even the Washington Post wrote an article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/24/almost-10000-syrians-have-registered-to-live-in-a-country-that-might-not-exist/) and I quote: "Jedlicka notes that in addition to the background requirements, applicants need to collect "10,000 Liberlandian merits" to become a citizen. "Merits can be either obtained by providing services to government like working at our future embassies or simply by donating money to Liberland in exchange rate one to one with American dollar," he notes." The Liberlandians even post the article on their official Facebookpage: https://www.facebook.com/liberland?fref=ts --Lyam Desmet (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't just re-insert it when you already know it's not formulated in a neutral manner. There are no tens of thousands of refugees trying to get to Liberland. They walk past closely enough but none is even a-visiting. Rothly (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not an argument to delete everything, the item of refugees is mentioned in several reliable sources and confirmed by Liberland, related to the refugee crisis and the phenomenon of micronationalism and sovereignty this is relevant for the article. About the formulation I will add what Jedlicka literally said in the interview so it's neutral enough. Be free to rephrase my addition to improve the article:

''In September 2015 some media published an interview with Jedlička about the refugee crisis in Europe and its influence on Liberland. After the many applications from refugees for the Liberlandian citizenship Jedlička claimed that Liberland is open to welcome 22,000 Syrians into Liberland. Jedlicka notes that in addition to the background requirements, applicants need to collect "10,000 Liberlandian merits" to become a citizen. Merits can be either obtained by providing services to government like working at our future embassies or simply by donating money to Liberland in exchange rate one to one with American dollar.'' --Lyam Desmet (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but how is this a non-neutral manner? The edit never claimed that the refugees are trying to get to Liberland, rather that Liberland tries to get those refugees to pay 10,000 USD for Liberlandic residency (for which were presented proofs). Clearly this statement of Mr Jedlička deserves a mention in the article. --Escargoten (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me just say that if this type of promotion creeps back in, I'm inclined to side with those in favour of deleting the entire article. Rothly (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the proper action is to delete the content which violates Wikipedia standards and block users that abuse Wikipedia. If we started deleting whole articles for reasons like that, it could be used as a way to remove a topic that otherwise follows the rules, and this would not be a good development. - Anonimski (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, after all media attention Liberland is still relevant as micronation. But Wikipedia is not a promotion tool, relevant but negative information (based on reliable sources) is also correct information and not a reason to delete a complete article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Another proposal that is also related to the discussion of "Statements of other micronation projects". Prof. Chris Roth is the author of the book "Let's split", a book about separatist, nationalist, and independence movements described range from serious and violent to cheeky and imaginative. He has also a blog named "Springtime of Nations" and he recently published an article about "Liberland’s Empty Promises to Syrian Refugees Scorned by Other Micronations": http://springtimeofnations.blogspot.be/2015/10/liberlands-empty-promises-to-syrian.html Quite interesting but is this information relevant to update the section about micronational statements? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a much better piece of journalism, with a realistic view. Rothly (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From another article on his blog I found out that he was one of the academic speakers on the international conference of micronations this summer in Italy. I add this on the page in the section "Statements of other micronation projects". I also add the official communiqué of the french micronational community that I found in the article, I don't know if this is necessary but by my opinion very interesting. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My update has been reverted with the argument "an opinion blog post on an external site is note relevant to the article". Reasonable, but the source does provide a lot of information about the other micronations (include the most well-known on Wikipedia)and their opinion about Liberland. I consider the source of Prof. Chris Roth more reliable and relevant than the state of Paraduin for example. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: micronation promotional elements
Should the article be edited to make it less like a country article, including but not limited to a country infobox, and instead be made into more of an event article, possibly also merged elsewhere? Please see the discussion above. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As I already have argued for before - the article about the Liberland micronation is informative and very clear that it's a micronation. There isn't really much out of the ordinary when compared to Wikipedia's total coverage of micronation projects. It has also reached notability in media globally - but the primary attention has been in the region as well as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. There is an existing discussion in the previous section of the talk page for those that want to see the argumentation which has already been put forth by both sides in this issue. - Anonimski (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which third party sources state that it is a micronation, rather than a self-declared one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The quotation marks are there because it's an uncommon word that the author introduces to the reader through the article... - Anonimski (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, here's one source, Liberland is described as a micronation together with an overview of what it actually means: http://uk.businessinsider.com/liberland-new-micronation-2015-4?r=US&IR=T - Anonimski (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source has "micronation" in quotation marks, and makes it entirely clear that it is reporting Jedlicka's claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, I did Google searches like others have noted they have, Liberland does not seem to have much third party commentary about it being a legitimate "micronation." Damotclese (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes (made into a non-country article) and yes (merged elsewhere). The article treats the topic in more or less the same way as other articles about "micronations". I don't think this is a good thing. Granted, by including a piece of info in the infobox, one still doesn't claim it's the "official truth". However, e.g. in the Wikipedia mobile app, infoboxes are displayed as collapsible sections titled "Quick facts", and here it's dubious whether these can be really called facts. Apart from that problem, the article badly fails the ten-year test. In fact, Liberland is for all real-life intents and purposes almost completely irrelevant even now, except as news media fodder. It is a purely virtual nation, as it does not meet the declarative criteria for statehood (population, territory, sovereign rule over the territory), and should be presumed non-notable for purposes of WP:GNG. That's why I'd like to see something like List of virtual nations (or "micronations", if you must - the term is deceptive, which is why I'm using the quotation marks), and more or less all articles such as this one merged into it. GregorB (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The term micronation is what is commonly used. It is a well-defined concept. Nations are not states, so you can't demand that they should satisfy requirements for statehood before they can be considered notable. Rothly (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not describe something as a 'micronation' unless the term is used by independent sources - this has nothing to do with recognition as a state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The threshold for the creation of a micronation is obviously much lower than for the creation of an actual state: one simply has to declare something (and, presumably, let the media know). Also, real-life implications of such an event are usually negligible. That's why I believe that, generally speaking, meeting WP:GNG is not enough to establish the notability of a micronation. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the assertion that 'micronation' is a well-defined term. It's a neologism; we should generally avoid focusing articles on neologisms, or using neologisms in article text in ways that imply endorsement of them (that is, we must avoid using the term micronation as much as possible.)  My feeling is that topics like this are best covered as events, since covering them in any other way lends credence to the views of their supporters, which seem obviously WP:FRINGE. I think we might need a broader RFC about how Wikipedia covers so-called 'micronations' like these, since my feeling is that their proponents tend to come here to use Wikipedia to promote their extremely marginal views on international law.  Obviously, an attempt to push back on that would require deletions on some of the categories, templates, and so on that micronation proponents have created over time to try and promote their favored micronations here, but I think that those deletions have a decent chance of going through. --Aquillion (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Aquillion here, I have never heard of the term "micronation," and I consider myself well informed. :) Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this RfC is confusing two different issues - whether the topic is notable, and whether our coverage is compliant with Wikipedia neutrality policy. The first is determined by proof of significant coverage in independent sources, and if disputed should probably be the subject of another AfD discussion. Neutrality however needs to be addressed here - and I think that it is clear enough that the article has problems in this regard. The most evident one is illustrated by the title - it suggests that 'Liberland' is the subject, whereas the sources are actually reporting on disputed claims regarding a territory that only one party in the dispute has entitled 'Liberland'. This is reinforced by an infobox which reports as fact assertions again made by an involved party. The simple facts are that 'Liberland' has no existence beyond the disputed claims - and accordingly we should not be reporting as fact the existence of 'organizational structures', 'official languages', 'time zones' or anything else. We can certainly, if appropriately sourced, report that 'organizational structures' etc have been proposed - but that is the full extent to which we should be reporting them. If we do away with the partisan infobox, and report claims as claims rather than as fact, we will be well on the way to solving the neutrality issues, but I think that a full resolution would require renaming the article, with a title accurately summarising what the sources report - I would suggest moving it to 'Liberland' claim or something similar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If, when you say that notability is "determined by proof of significant coverage in independent sources", you refer to WP:GNG, it is important to note WP:GNG determines what is necessary for notability, not what is sufficient. This means that a topic may meet WP:GNG, yet still be non-notable (which, I'd argue, might be the case here). GregorB (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's scope isn't limited to what achieves notability in the English-speaking world (or what Croatian media and politicians approve of, for that matter). The scope is global and should ideally be without bias. In the Balkan region, in the Czech Republic, and in Slovakia, this micronation has achieved notability. It has also been covered by media sources globally. As a micronation it's not diplomatically recognized and that's very clear for someone that actually reads some of the article.
 * I would add that Wikipedia guidelines are guidelines, they're not carved in stone. I agree, notability among English "Westernized" nations is not a legitimate requirement since certainly the populations involved in micronations find the phenomena notable. Damotclese (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And even if we accept the notion that English-speaking world should decide notability in this case, there are still issues. When another user from Croatia came up with a list of English-language sources as an argument, Vice was omitted despite the fact that it's a widely read source that covers sensitive topics like this with great depth (and geopolitical neutrality). - Anonimski (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, did I just see a hint of anti-Croatian sentiment here? ;) There is no bias whatsoever in observing the simple fact that there is no factual, real-world presence of this entity in the domain that it aspires to have. I have had no idea what this "Vice" source is prior to reading about it here, which may not be indicative of much, but I am pretty sure that if you went into any other article related to geography and argued for e.g. Japanese sources for a Brazilian village, eyebrows would be raised, and very much logically so. Even still, I gave it the benefit of the doubt and read through, and all that I found was three quote farms, i.e. not really secondary sources. At least I don't see the assertions by two VICE News reporters that the thing "exists" as building upon the topic, and there's certainly no benefit of hindsight when they were providing direct coverage of the events at the time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And just to make sure, I went and googled for the topic on the same website in the last three months after those three stories, and only got something in Spanish, nothing in English. That, perhaps, is the benefit of hindsight. This is almost a non-story now, and they stopped caring. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out something which I see as a very narrow way of interpreting what Liberland is and is not, and what other users already have written and edited. The attention, debates and events that the project sparked in the Czech Republic is enough to establish notability alone - and together with all the other coverage the project has got, it takes a lot of directed intent to create a conclusion where Liberland doesn't belong in Wikipedia's range of micronation articles. - Anonimski (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the whole range needs to be evaluated the same way, then. Cf. Other stuff exists. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Event seems more logical. Greetings, I was called by the bot and wanted to note that I have never heard of the term "micronation" before (and I consider myself to be well-informed.) :) Aside from that, checking the article and some of the commentary which preceded the RFC, I have to ask whether "Liberland" actually exists despite the commentary and article, and despite the opinion of the politicians and citizens who live there say about it. I have to wonder if Wikipedia would treat the pretend Republic of Texas right wing extremists as a "micronation" since they, also, pretend that they are a nation (albeit one embedded inside of the United States.)
 * I'm probably being dense here, but if Liberland gets classifies as a legitimate micronation, than so should the secessionists of Texas who declared themselves to be their own nation also. So I think this should classify as an event, not as a legitimate micronation. Damotclese (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (summoned by bot): There do seem to be quite a few sources referring to Liberland as a micronation, but this may well be lazy journalism that simply uses the same language as the founders of Liberland without subjecting it to critical analysis. Certainly, I think we'd need high-quality sources to definitively call it a micronation (as opposed to saying something like "According to journalist X, it is a micronation"). I am intrigued by Damotclese's mention of a "legitimate micronation". Is there some sort of organisation that classifies entities as micronations, as I thought the whole point was that they were not recognised by any sovereign states? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Among those sources, there are many that style it "self-proclaimed micronation" and almost all of them either use other forms of disclaimers or even mock it. None of that is really relevant for an encyclopedia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some micronations are active at micronation.org, but not all. In Indonesia alone, there exist hundreds of micronations, with territory, that you'll never hear about. Rothly (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


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


 * The articles about events aren't necessarily descriptions of a single event. There's articles about crime events that span decades, from the original event to the judicial resolutions of the relevant cases. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Mu (it currently does not look like a country article) and no (it should not be merged elsewhere). First, the term "micronation" is not exactly a neologism, as our article confirms. Book search shows it came to prominence in 1990s, with whole books devoted to the subject How To Start Your Own Country, Micronation, and several others discussing it in other contexts (Habitus of the Hood, Island Environments in a Changing World). WP:IDIDNTHEARABOUTIT is not a particularly convincing argument. Second, since we have reliable sources calling Liberland a "micronation" (and indeed, it looks like one and quacks like one), it only makes sense to cover it in the same fashion as other articles in Category:Micronations. Judging by the press coverage of Liberland, at least in Serbia and Croatia, it far exceeds one-man projects such as Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića (ok, I admit, IDIDNTHEARABOUTIT). Maybe the article needs some cleanup (which one does not), but in my opinion it is just fine, NPOV-wise. (and, btw, "micronation" is by definition "self-proclaimed" and "unrecognized" – there's nothing particularly ridiculing in that statement. The point of most micronations' founders is attention-seeking, much less a serious attempt at nation-building. Jedlička did receive attention, which in Wikipedia terms translates to WP:N. No such user (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to looking as a country article, you should just compare this article with WikiProject Countries/Templates. With this amount of similarities, it's hardly accidental.
 * The ridicule doesn't come from those adjectives, it tends to come from the general tone of many articles.
 * Mere attention doesn't actually mean WP:SIGCOV, esp. not one sufficient to translate into a 2000-word encyclopedia article. Yes, if we indiscriminately transcribe all the various newspaper coverage, that will add up, but that will also be a blatant WP:NOT violation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox #2 & possible page protection
Since the Liberland article does not contain an infobox, are we able to fit it with a Country or Territory/Settlement infobox to enable a quick summary of the disputed territory*? It seems that the infobox was deleted in short notice even though previous talk pages supported it, but disputed what type of infobox the disputed territory is cast under.


 * (Depending where you're from and what opinion you have about this state; remember Wikipedia is a Neutral Ground zone so any information added or deleted about this article should be consulted on the talk page rather than deleted without probable cause and agreement with other users)

...and if someone could propose a pending changes protection or semi-protection on this article would be grateful since the backlog consists of minor and major edit wars between IP and registered users. Final thought, possible template(s) should be added to the top of the article stating disputed information and other information about whats going on. Users editing this back and forth seem to be like Liberland v. Croatia & Serbia in the sense which needs to stop.  A dog 104  Talk to me 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Agreed, there should at least be an infobox since it's partially supported by other countries and the infobox helps establish a quick summary about the article. There was no talk about opposing the infobox besides its removal by a few users who seem to be very personal about this disputed territory.
 * Also since looking, other 'micronations' contain Country Infobox's even if they're not recognized by anyone (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.) which seems to be totally appropriate for this article.  A dog 104  Talk to me 21:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


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


 * User:Adog104, we just had an RFC above, where the removal of the infobox and other unsupported promotional elements was discussed at length. It was concluded, and the conclusion went unopposed for a bit. What new argument are you bringing to the table that would be in favor of undoing that consensus that has recently reached about the issue? (And do you realize how WP:IDHT your comment about short notice and previous talk sounds given that the RFC is still right here on this page?)
 * User:Anonimski, we've mentioned those things in the RFC. I didn't see those technicalities as a coherent argument before, I don't recall anyone backing you up on it, and you're not proposing a new interpretation for it now. How is this not a rehashing of a recently resolved issue?
 * User:Terrorist96, your comment is an assumption of bad faith based on nationality, which is pretty much the very thing we have WP:ARBMAC for. I'm reporting this comment so another uninvolved administrator can sanction this abuse. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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


 * I don't have infinite free time, and if you think I'm going to spend it on indulging the whims of people who insult me, you're sorely mistaken. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Anonimski, I just noticed the edit on the article. Your edit summary that says The blanking of the infobox was done in a hasted manner - there is no clear consensus in the question is patently false. Please re-read the RFC where this is spelled out in no uncertain terms. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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


 * As I was saying, there is no infobox discussion within the talk page to suggest deletion of any kind besides your opinion. There is clear evidence that other micronations have country infobox's and you're assuming bad faith for not giving Liberland the same chance as other micronations. As you have a close tie to this topic, (according to you, you are Croatian) you are reminded to be neutral about the micronation since WP:YFA and WP:NPOV explain you must have a neutral stand point and if you're close to a topic at hand you have to be neutral about it.  A dog 104  Talk to me 19:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. Am I using some form of English that is incomprehensible to you? The RFC question said literally Should the article be edited to make it less like a country article, including but not limited to a country infobox, and instead be made into more of an event article, possibly also merged elsewhere?. The person who closed the debate assessed the consensus by saying Should the article be made into an event article. There is consensus for this. What is so unclear about this that you connect the notions of yes to event article, but also yes to infobox of a non-event article? Do we need to get User:AlbinoFerret back in here so that he spells out again that he did in fact read and assess that same RFC, just like he wrote there a few days ago? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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


 * First, Joy you don't have to be rude, this is mere discussing about an infobox which you seem to be taken very personally about. And second, what about other micronations then, how do these miconations have an infobox when Liberland can't (besides that Liberland is an 'event')? Finally if I am correct, if I or another could provide a reliable source saying that Liberland is a country/state/territory then could this comply with the issue?  A dog 104  Talk to me 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Adog104. I am an uninvolved editor, as such I am not going to get into infobox's. I will address supplying sources. Consensus can change, supplying sources could change consensus. What I would advise is starting a section, presenting the sources and any change you want to make and see if consensus changes. Until that point the consensus of the RFC should stand. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ...So like the conversation featured below since people (like myself) have started to consensus on the infobox? Also thank you, I appreciated your kindness.  A dog 104  Talk to me 21:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would start a simple talk page section, rather than go strait to a RFC. RFC's can be long and drawn out. If you have good reliable and verifiable sources consensus can form in a talk page section. AlbinoFerret  21:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  A dog 104  Talk to me 21:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You got into the issue of infoboxes already because it was discussed in the RFC, explicitly. I had a look once again and it was mentioned not only by myself but by two other people. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When I started this talk, I didn't read the RFC. The infobox was only mentioned, not fully discussed either. The consensus was to make the article an event, but the event infobox doesn't clearly fit a self-proclaimed piece of land very well.  A dog 104  Talk to me 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)