Jump to content

Talk:Liberland/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

RFC: Infobox or not?

There is broad consensus that an infobox is supported. (I was not aware that the nation infobox had a parameter for ... this kind of thing.) Drmies (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Support Infoboxes are meant to be informative and (alledgedly) non-existant claims of territory can be explained by a well made infobox. The current version does clearly state territorial boundaries are claimed and disputed, however it could use some work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only in death (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 November 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Support As described, the infobox has a Micronation parameter and is supposed to be used this way. This should be a discussion on the template talk page, if there's a problem with how the template is defined. Right now the Liberland article is using it in a proper way. - Anonimski (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I've now done this for you, Only in death. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think it was "disingenuous" to remove something with an optional micronation parameter and say that it can't be used for a notable micronation. Don't you think that debating the template design itself would be more constructive than trying to state "don't use" for this micronation article? - Anonimski (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't work by way of "you people have concluded something after a month, I don't agree with it, so I'm going to try to re-frame the debate in a way that contradicts the earlier conclusion". That's the very opposite of constructive - it shows everyone you have no respect for the time and effort expended by everyone else and makes them think that it was useless to engage in a debate with you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
My post was about the micronation parameter, which is part of the infobox design, which is meant to be used in the way it's designed. So there's that "disingenious" thing going on again... Anyway, if we jump to the other aspect of the debate - it's apparent that we didn't have any solid conclusion on this topic. - Anonimski (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The RFC question literally asked whether we should remove the country infobox. The decision of consensus had to have taken that into account. If so many of you can't read that from there, then we need to institute some reading comprehension requirements before engaging in these kinds of discussions, because this is beyond the pale. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
There was no consensus in that RFC. We have stated this 3 times now. You also need to be neutral about this @Joy:, whether or not you agree articles are treated from a neutral standpoint. It's a basic rules from Wikipedia's pillars! Adog104 Talk to me 19:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Each time you have stated this, it was still plain false... If you don't like how an RFC was concluded, use the proper procedure at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Doing this, on the other hand, is completely counter-productive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The closure cut right in the middle of an active debate which hadn't gone anywhere. As for proper procedures - I'd prefer that the ArbCom once and for all goes through how these political phenomena known as micronations should be treated. The opinions are so divided that the only real influence on the content will be the random distribution of people that happen to be around when an important question is raised. - Anonimski (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything was cut anywhere - the arguments were laid out clearly, there was no active ongoing discussion, and it had been going on over a month. But, again, yes, please go to ArbCom instead of slapping a new RFC on top of that one. The latter is not the proper procedure by any stretch of imagination. The impropriety is exacerbated by the fact that none of the participants in the previous discussion were even notified (pinged) about the new one. This is a glaring violation of WP:CANVASS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI: WP:Canvass is a guideline that contains many many qualifiers like 'may' and 'can'. There is nothing that says people who contributed to a prior RFC *are required* to be directly notified of a current one. In fact its generally expected they would have the page on watchlist anyway and be aware of it. As it was, anyone with the page on watchlist will be aware of it, ANI is aware of it, and Cordless Larry above has gone the extra step and formally notified the relevant boards. (Which was a step I avoided for a specific reason - as I was attempting to not attract the infobox warrior crowds) Only notifying people who commented before would actually be more likely to fall foul of canvassing due to stacking the deck. Its a simple yes/no question which can be resolved by local consensus. Had you actually worded the RFC as to your intent (remove the infobox) and treated the issue of event vs country separately, the closer might have addressed it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is inseparable, because the basis for the question is WP:V. IOW I find your statement to be sophistry. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Infoboxes are meant to be informative, this infobox is blatantly misleading as it lends an official aura to a non-existing nation; it's almost on level with having an country-infobox for Narnia. Jeppiz (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a country infobox, but a micronation infobox. It just so happens that the two templates have been combined into one. For a fantasy land infobox it could be efficient to use the same template, too. Jyl (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment; Stated, other micronations have country infoboxes whether recognized or not. (i.e. Principality of Sealand, Conch Republic, Aerican Empire, Republic of Molossia, etc.) Adog104 Talk to me 21:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
        • That's so misguided I don't even know where to start. This is an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia describes. It does not prescribe. If something is a country, it should be described as a country. If something is a household appliance, it should be described as a household appliance. Using the same description for different things is wrong - it's confusing and misleading to readers, and it makes them think that the encyclopedia is promoting an unrealistic interpretation of a concept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Well reliable sources describe it as a micro-nation, and the micro-nation infobox it has. It doesnt have a household appliance infobox. It may not be the *best* infobox there could be given its circumstances, but until someone comes up with a better one, its the one that is available. There is literally nothing that is preventing you or anyone else from writing/creating a better one, except that you dont think it should have an infobox and lots of other people are satisfied the current one is sufficient. I generally give readers more credit to their intelligence that they can read a clear infobox and article that states the territory 'claimed'. We are not designing for the lowest common denominator here.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Ignoring for a fact that we have little to no idea what are the reliable sources on micronations when the whole thing is a neologism, but do please explain which are these reliable sources that support the "information" laid out in this infobox. Which reliable source on flags supports those images? Which reliable source on geography supports that map? Which reliable source on politics supports the statements on constitutional structure? Which reliable source on time zones supports that bit? Do you see how ridiculous this is now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Well I see how ridiculous you are being yes. SPS are perfectly valid for claims about the purported country by the country itself (This is our flag, this is our motto etc, we claim this territory and so on) regardless of their acceptance by others - as long as it is clearly stated that is what they are claiming. You dont need a ref from 'Flags of the World' to state what a country says its flag is. That is indeed, ridiculous. Refs in the article clearly support Liberland's categorisation as a 'micro-nation' as discussed in the media. It seems your problem is that you dont want Liberland to be classed as a micro-nation, which is even less-likely to be accepted as what sources are available discuss it as such. Nor do you want to accept that it claims it exists as a country, again this is irrelevant to if the article should have an infobox or not, which is why your RFC above was badly formed if removing the infobox was your intention. See the link below for Narnia_(country), completely fictional countries have infobox's that include maps and 'ethnic residents', it might be worth trawling the fantasy fiction for a more appropriate one if you feel the current one is too misleading. You could also look at the micro-nation which physically didnt exist until it was created by dumping a load of sand on a reef, and now doesnt exist due to a combination of invasion by Tongon army and the sea/time reclaiming it. That has an infobox that is arguably even more misleading. Now I could sit here and point out why your arguments are weak, but the point of a tightly focused RFC is that people support/oppose with their arguments and it gets closed once consensus is clear. Not having endless back and forth arguments about *why* people hold the opinion they do. It wastes time and ultimately has no bearing on the closer. If you oppose, oppose and state clearly your objection, and the eventual closer will take note of it. If you dont want to participate, dont participate, but stop badgering people because you disagree with them. As it is, this will be my last response directly to yourself on this issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Also Jeppiz you may want to check out Narnia_(country). Fictional countries do actually have pseudo-country infoboxs already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
          • A cat is not a dog but they still use the same template. That's the whole point of templates. You only need to make one and then you can apply it to many different things. Jyl (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Cats and dogs are both real animals. Counties and Liberland are both... concepts, I guess? Because one is an actual socio-political construct, and the other is an idea whose basis in reality is limited to a history of events. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Quite again @Joy: from what you said, it seems that all we have to do it make the article more like describing a country then an event and then problem of the infobox would be resolved. Also I'm not trying to misguide, I'm trying to add an infobox to an area that needs one. If some guy in the United States can claim his property as his own country or some naval base in Europe can be its own country, then the Republic of Liberland can be a country if it claims to be one. If we just fixed the article then the infobox is rightly fixed. AND before there is remark about the last RFC, like the user who closed it said, the consensus of the RFC can change. Adog104 Talk to me 14:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Infoboxes are useful; to the extent anyone suggests an infobox lends some legitimacy to micronations, that is silly. If a micronation is notable, and not propped up by internet jihadists such as the "citizens" of the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis, I'd like an infobox to help me decipher the fever dreams of the creators who got enough press coverage to reach notability. Liberland reached that threshold, so give them an infobox, its not a seat at the United Nations.--Milowent • hasspoken: That's the whole point. Very few of the items in the current infobox have had press coverage, and even that has been in the novelty reporting form that is considered fodder and usually ignored, except apparently by a handful of overzealous Wikipedia editors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Infoboxes are definitely useful. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some kind of infobox probably might be useful for those fictional creations, still those should not be just any infobox. Maybe if we have infobox Fictional nation than it should be added. Otherwise I do not see what would be non-biased selection of existing infoboxes that do not actually fit (infobox for company, organisation, NGO, country, settlement...). Also I noticed that many of those interesting fictional creations are actual places operated as those micro-nations (like Principality of Sealand) while some of those that actually do not exist in reality and represent just one idea or "pretension" of some people about some distant territory actually just work as a redirection link or not even like that (As the thing called North Sudan that send a reader to Bir Tawil-very similar case). Maybe information about Liberland should be in article Croatia–Serbia border dispute in first place?--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
"Micronations [distinguish] from imaginary countries and from other kinds of social groups ... by expressing a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty over some physical territory..." (from the micronation Wikipedia page) doesn't this clearly define Liberland as a micronation rather than an imaginary country? Adog104 Talk to me 03:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure since there is not just issue that their sovereignty is not formally recognised but they are actually doing their business there and nobody care. There is no any kind of Liberland infrastructure nor did people from this group ever actually visited that place. Yes, they do claim some teritory and did got some space in media as interesting curiosity. But it would be as if I right now create Great Nation of Antarctica at the place of Marie Byrd Land, make some web page and get this info published in few newspapers. Even if there is actual teritory I might claim (Marie Byrd Land) I still do think it would be imaginary country and not micronation. Also, I can create 7 additional fictional countries at the same place that Liberland claims. Since I do not live far from there, imagine I get to enter that place in the name of one of them and get to build some structure there. I think only this one might fit the definition of micronation while other ones would be imaginary countries.--MirkoS18 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, Liberland is in the area no claimed by either side, but Croatia claims to be it the land of Serbia while it controls it (which doesn't make a while lot of sense unless they're leasing the land)...and there has been many attempts by people who support Liberland or who are interested in the micronation that have attempted to get onto the land, however were arrested by Croatian police (such as when Vít Jedlička tried visiting and was arrested or when groups of people attempt to set foot or go near Liberland and are turned around by Croatian boats or police which is easily searchable on YouTube or other news media web sites). If they didn't care so much about the land, why is Croatia arresting people who are attempting to plant a flag or even visit the land? Adog104 Talk to me 20:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess they might formally consider it illegal crossing of the border but it is irrelevant right now. Also, I actually mentioned Marie Byrd Land since it is also unclaimed territory. Anyway, it might be useful to have some kind of infobox in article but it should not be infobox country since it might lead reader to misunderstanding (e.g. there are "real" microstates with permanent population such as Liechtenstein). Maybe I should have more trust in users capacities but I think we should avoid anything that might be perceived as biased editing that tend to favor one interpretation. I don't even claim that problem is in non-recognition. Infobox country is legitimately used for de jure non recognized but de facto existing entities such as Transnistria. I think that difference in treatment of those urecognized states and micronations shows us that this enciclopedia should not consider micronatons as states in the usual meaning of that word. As you can see, even entities such as Luhansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic do not use infobox state, and they much more might fit those "new nation" projects.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Also I was considering that infobox on my response to Joy about how it should be a geopolitical state infobox in the country infobox, but I came across the micronation template redirect which made me cross my mind out for the more direct evidence. Besides the RFC does say if the micronation needs an infobox, not a specific type of infobox. At this point, its been supporting an infobox (mostly the country infobox since it supports the idea of micronationship), but opposing the country infobox. I think a mid ground should be the Geopolitical organization infobox so...
Looking at the evidence I would happily support a Geopolitical organization infobox instead of a country infobox w/micronation from the Template:country infobox since as of November 2015, even though Liberland is established, its not established fully by people yet.
Now going back that what you said before I responded and then you responded while I was typing this... (Side note about the country claim) You couldn't claim on Antarctica because of the Antarctica Treaty as Article 4 which states "[the] treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force...". However I would give you the absolute best of total props if you claimed the other area of land and attempted to establish the claim as a country like Liberland has, that I cannot dispute. I've got to hand it to you, you've provided the best opposing evidence so far, but hopefully we can come to an agreement soon. Adog104 Talk to me 21:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I actually could make a claim on Antarctica but it simply would not be recognized by any sovereign entity based on Antarctica Treaty (and similar to Antarctica Treaty there was also thing called Badinter Arbitration Committee that basically make any claim from non-former-Yugoslav federal subjects baseless). In the same way Liberland claim is not recognized by any sovereign entity-based on that I can claim the same place that Liberland claim. I think that exactly that shows us that Liberland is more a fictional state than micronation. As you can see, there are really some people on this platform called Principality of Sealand, while in the case of Liberland we have empty parcel that is called Siga and that is part of border dispute between two of former republics of Yugoslava. Some people claim that this empty parcel next to the Danube river have different name, flag, official languages, moto... and all of it while can be interesting idea, is in the end just fiction. Just as the Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four correspond to real world geography but are still fictional nations. As for the initial question in your RfC (does micronation needs an infobox) I would say I am not sure, but if the decision is that it needs one, than it also should state that it should not be infobox country.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the territory is not populated by the people claiming it isn't a disqualifier if we look at Wikipedia's earlier treatment of micronation topics. And it's not really empty, there are police forces there due to the dispute. - Anonimski (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Parameter or no parameter, the infobox country is inappropriate. It doesn't matter what kind of a technicality implements it, it's still a collection of claims unsupported by the relevant reliable sources. Even Infobox fictional location would be more helpful to readers compared to this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Then it's a discussion for the template talk page, to avoid the awkward situation that an eventual change only becomes implemented here and nowhere else. And the locations of micronations are usually non-fictional (such as this one). The political structure of this claimed country is just in an advanced planning stage, it's neither recognized nor established beyond the micronation level - and the article is honest about that. - Anonimski (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Already brought it up at Template talk:Infobox country#Infobox micronation redirect. BTW "advanced planning stage" is synonymous to WP:CRYSTAL :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not WP:CRYSTAL if we stick to being honest about that it's just a set of goals and intentions by the organization behind the micronation, and not a political process that's making some sort of progress. Anyway, it's good that the micronation coverage gets some sort of review. My stance is that metadata should be presented in an infobox (but it could be a new infobox instead of Template:Country, I'm open for an alternative solution). - Anonimski (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to Template:Infobox_country

A user is proposing changes to Template:Infobox_country which would impact the infobox displayed on Liberland. Given that similar changes have been proposed and debated in recent RFCs here, editors might be interested in giving their opinion at: Template_talk:Infobox_country#Infobox_micronation_redirect. TDL (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

New York Times article

Long New York Times article on the subject: [1]. Doesn't seem to be cited in the article. John Nagle (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Constitution

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

I don't appreciate having the work I did on summarizing the Constitution removed. Especially since no one bothered to respond to me here before deciding to remove it all. User:John Terrorist96 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@John: Since I've received no reply, I'm undoing John's edit that removed the information about the proposed draft constitution. Feel free to contest this by discussing it here instead of removing it without discussion. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have re-removed it. It was too detailed, and not properly sourced. We could never carry material like this. Sorry. --John (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I re-added (originally) the shortened paragraph that has been reverted to by John. Just to make clear I feel the constitution should be mentioned, but not in the detail of the original form. Its really not encyclopedic to have it. Its not the US constitution which has considerable RS' discussion all its sections/amendments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@John: Regarding it being to detailed: perhaps the text could be retained, but have it hidden in an expandable table so those that are interested can manually click to expand and read further regarding it? Similar to how some climate data tables are collapsed by default but can be expanded to reveal the detailed information. And regarding it not being properly soueced: I linked to the github page where the revisions are being done and the official Liberland page where the current draft version is posted. There isn't really any other source to link to since it's a proposed draft, work in progress. How else could it be properly sourced? Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Its a notability thing. While that it *has* a draft constitution is surely an interesting thing for a self-declared micronation, a large point by point of the full text/wording of it is not. I would support having an external link to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

removal of trivia

I've removed the pictures of the flag and coat of arms and the time zone for obvious reasons, and because I didn't see them reproduced in references. I also wanted to drop the motto, but I did actually see that reproduced in several of the article references, so I left it in. There's an implicit bias there, reproducing short phrases will be common in newspaper coverage, but oh well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

http://qz.com/549116/welcome-to-liberland-turns-out-launching-your-own-country-is-harder-than-it-looks/ and http://www.theworldweekly.com/reader/view/magazine/2015-04-30/welcome-to-liberland-the-worlds-newest-self-proclaimed-nation/3700 Terrorist96 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Quartz article you linked to isn't from the novelty phase, but it's still a primary source that directly quotes the founder a lot, meaning it's hardly any better than a self-published source. It in turn links to http://qz.com/392004/liberland-the-words-newest-micro-nation-is-already-a-leader-in-nation-branding/ which also does the same. The latter text also includes an interesting sentence:
But even if the legal premise of Liberland is shaky, it is looking more and more like a legitimate state, thanks to its well-developed nation-branding. In fact, the prospective nation is now essentially a design rendering, a mockup of what a brand new nation looks like, on the page and the screen, in 2015.
Such a thing seems like a critical piece of information to convey to Wikipedia readers. Why are you not doing that? Why do you prefer to pretend that these sources just literally support Jedlička's claims? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You wanted articles that used the flag. I gave you them. Now stop removing stuff from this article. I never pretended the sources support the claim. Where did I say that? Are you assuming bad faith? I think so.... Now please stop, it's getting old. Terrorist96 (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Why would you ever think that an article just can't have anything removed from it? This kind of coarse language seems like a case of WP:OWN. You need to take a step back and consider whether you're making these edits for the benefit of the encyclopedia or for some other reason, such as the promotion of the article topic, and/or treating editing as a battleground. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I could say the same exact thing about you and your disruptive edits. Terrorist96 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see what exactly is disruptive with my edits. How exactly do you think an adherence to our basic policies harmful? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a personal problem to me. You've done nothing to contribute to this article and have looked for ways at undermining it at every turn by removing other people's work. I'm sure you'd love to see this article deleted, but it's not happening. I'm sure you'd love for the infobox to be removed, but it's not happening. And now, you're trying to remove relevant information from the infobox. I could spend my time finding relevant WP rules pages to cite for your behavior, but I'm not so inclined to do so. For the last time, either contribute constructively or leave. Terrorist96 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Had I wanted to nominate the article for deletion, I would have done that already, but I have said explicitly the first time I noticed this group of articles this year that this one has a standing chance at notability (unlike the others, that are now redirected). I'm simply putting more weight on the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's work and then there's work. Some work is appropriate, some isn't, and the purpose of the editorial process is to work out which is which.
OTOH telling people they have a 'personal problem', that they're 'undermining' an article, that they're not being constructive, threatening them to leave -- simply because you disagree with them -- is indeed disruptive. Given your previous history of disparaging me, I'm filing another complaint to see if anyone else finds this to be as inappropriate as I do. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Terrorist96 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You can't have looked very hard. Images of the flag have been widely reproduced by reliable sources. See for example, the Guardian, Telegraph, CNN, AP, BBC, Metro, New York Times, EU Observer, Discovery, etc. etc. etc. TDL (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but most of that coverage is from the novelty phase (April) and not really meant in a literal sense that is appropriate for the encyclopedia to consider these reliable sources in a manner that is implied by the information's placement in the infobox. The Guardian's article title has scary quotes around the word country, the Telegraph's title and subtitle have "claiming" and "self-proclaimed", the NYT Magazine's August article is a travelogue with Jedlička, etc. We always go back to the core issue - this is a project that wants to emulate all aspects of a country, and it is covered exactly as such, which is what the encyclopedia article should reproduce. It should not perform improper synthesis to imply that the project has already succeeded. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In retrospect, I realize how this disagreement is subtle. I'm thinking of the scenario of a naive student reading Wikipedia and seeing the country article infoboxes, the infoboxes about cities, people, etc, and then coming to rely on these to present core bits of information in a straightforward and neutral manner. Such a reader will see these elements of the infobox but won't necessarily note the fact that they're all wishful thinking. The existence of the flag is certainly a valid piece of information, but without context, it's easily misleading. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
It would have to be an naive AND illiterate student reading the article, since all of this is explained in the lead. And if they've seen Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940), Hindenburg disaster or RMS Titanic, for example, they certainly wouldn't share your misconception that infoboxs are only for "successful projects". Obviously an infobox does not imply success.
If there is some content in the infobox that is "wishful thinking" then it should be removed. But clearly the flag is not wishful thinking. It exists, it's been used, it's been reproduced by some of the largest publishers on the planet. It doesn't get any more real than that. TDL (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
How are those three examples relevant? They're all about conventional things where there is no lack of consensus that they at some point existed exactly as what they purported to be - the bridge was a bridge; the airship was an airship; the ship was a ship.
The symbols have certainly been used in that sense, but they weren't used in the conventional sense of how national symbols are used, and that is the sense implied by readers of infoboxes. There's incidents of the Liberland flag being raised on the relevant territory, and of being summarily disposed of by the authorities. This would be similar to putting a gang or a hooligan flag in the infobox of a city neighborhood - there's certainly numerous verifiable incidents of symbols being used in such a manner, but it still wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia to do so. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You argued above that infoboxes imply that the subject succeeded. The examples above are of spectacularly unsuccessful projects which have infoboxes, demonstrating that they imply nothing about the success of the project. Thus the premise of your argument does not hold.
And like those other examples, there is no lack of consensus on what Liberland is: a micronation. Not a "real country", a micronation, which is precisely what the infobox presents it as.
And your analogy with respect to gangs completely misses the point. If Liberland was about the geographic region of Gornja Siga then you would have a point and I would agree that the infobox/flag would not be appropriate. But Liberland is not about a geographic area (ie neighbourhood), it is about the organization (ie the gang). If a gang uses a flag and is strongly associated with it, it's most certainly appropriate to put it in the infobox. See for example Hells Angels which does precisely that. TDL (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The motorcycle club emblem is conventionally recognized exactly as such, it doesn't purport to be anything other than what it is, so there's little in the way of misleading the readers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Joy, the flag shouldn't be there per MOSFLAGS. While MOSFLAGS doesn't prohibit flags from being in the infobox, it does state that they can be removed if they convey no other information about the article, the flags don't, also, is this micronation even notable? I doubt it. KoshVorlon 16:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I reversed your edit because the article mentions the raising of the flag on April 13, 2015. Removing the flag from the infobox leaves people wondering what the flag looks like. Thus, it does provide additional information to the article as a whole. Terrorist96 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, check MOSFLAGS , the rationale from removing the flag is : Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. . Having the flag image doesn't add any additional information that the text doesn't. I won't revert you, but instead would ask you to revert on your own. KoshVorlon 17:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I did check it and as I said, it conveys information about what the flag looks like. The article mentions the flag was raised and was subsequently removed by Croatian police. Not having the image of the flag available leaves readers wondering what this flag looks like. It thus provides additional information that the text does not. Otherwise, we could make the case that all flags should be removed from Wikipedia. Would it not? Terrorist96 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@KoshVorlon: The policy you cited is only applicable to WP:ICONs, not all usages of flag images. So for example things like {{Flag}} should generally not be used in infoboxes to indicate someone's nationality. On this article, the image of the flag in the infobox is not an icon and hence WP:ICON does not apply. Like all logos of organizations, the flag is the primary means of identification of the subject and helps illustrate it's branding and hence has educational value to the article. TDL (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
And the micronation flag is presented as precisely that: the flag of a micronation. We don't purport it to be anything else. Given the disclaimer directly above the flag explaining this, I fail to see how anyone could be mislead. TDL (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This explanation will work in the future, when the term "micronation" which is linked above becomes less of a neologism. Right now, it's insufficient because the reader has to go elsewhere (follow the link, read the lead section, ...) to actually get a proper sense of what it means (that it's not a synonym for "microstate" but rather something unofficial). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to propose alternative wording for the template if you don't think it is sufficiently clear. TDL (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the only remaining issue the flag? If the coat of arms or time zone or whatever remain at issue, may I suggest someone start a separate section on them to focus the concerns. Also, for all the "MOSFLAGS" citations, can someone succinctly point out their basis for removing the flags under what part of WP:MOSFLAG? It's not a small section. Is the concern soverignty, rewriting of history or something else? I see bits of all that here. A brief review of other micronation articles show the flag being include, albeit not always in the infobox. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
KoshVorlon has cited the only part of MOSFLAGS that could apply. I actually disagree with him on this one however, (which is one of the few times I do disagree with KV) and concur with TDL's post above. Quoted here: "The policy you cited is only applicable to WP:ICONs, not all usages of flag images. So for example things like {{Flag}} should generally not be used in infoboxes to indicate someone's nationality. On this article, the image of the flag in the infobox is not an icon and hence WP:ICON does not apply." Essentially the flag in the userbox is a picture of the flag - the only information it needs to provide is what the flag looks like. Given that at least one source is about the raising of the flag, I dont see any real reason not to include what it looks like in the article (infobox or otherwise). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Danlaycock,Only in death,...icons are images, so yes MOSFLAGS still applies (don't worry, I'm not going to touch the flags tho! ) KoshVorlon 12:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
But not all images are Icons ;) Essentially an icon is an image used to represent something else (or such is how TDL and I seem to use the term) here the image is being used to accurately depict the flag. Rather than the image of the flag being used to represent the nationality for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
What Only in death said. Flags can be used as icons, but not all flags are icons. In this case the flag is not being used as an icon. TDL (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Only in death, you state that icons are images, therefore we agree MOSFLAG indeed applies, further the Wikipedia definition of icon also defines icons as small images. I'm not seeing a reason that MOSFLAG wouldn't apply. Again, I won't touch the flag as both yourself and Daycock disagree with me on this. KoshVorlon 17:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not what Only in death said: "not all images are Icons". An icon is defined as "a usually pictorial representation". The key point is that an image can or cannot be an icon, depending on how it's used. So for example:
* Icon: Barrak Obama is the president of the United States.
* Not icon: The flag of the United States is .
You can tell whether an image is being used as an icon because if it is you should be able to tell what it is being used to represent (ie replace the icon with text). In the former the image is being used as an icon to represent the country, in the latter it's not representing anything, and hence it isn't an icon. TDL (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's being used in the infobox. It's not an icon like being listed on the Olympics pages or whatever. The flag is in many infoboxes for a number of micronations (and many regular country articles) so is that it? United States uses the flag in the infobox even. Quit being vague with "it's the only part that applies." I don't care about MOSFLAGS and I'm not a MOS expert. What is the actual point at issue? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Well quite. However to state up front: I hate infoboxs. I think they are a lazy addition in order to satisfy certain editors need for statistics, uniformity and completeness - my preferred solution would be to not have one, and where the subject comes up where an illustration would be helpful, it is included in the prose of an article. However since infobox wars is not something I am remotely interested in, if there is already an infobox on an article, with an available field, it should probably be populated with the relevant information. RE Flags: the general consensus across micronation articles that the flag (if one exists) is included somewhere in the article, usually in the infobox. Specifically in relation to this article - there is no real consensus either way (in the discussion above) to add or remove it with relevant arguments on both sides. At which point the status quo kicks in - which for micronations means flags. The problem with MOS is that it is also a guideline designed to be a best practice. It is not rigid policy. MOSFLAG as far as myself and TDL is concerned doesnt apply for the icon/image reason. However even if we accepted it did, that doesnt actually mean MOSFLAG has to be obeyed when (to some) an image of the flag is perfectly acceptable as a visual aid to what the flag looks like. Its a flag, it is inherantly designed to be a visual pictorial recognition. Not by prose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but there is an infobox, that's great that you hate them, I do too but to resolve the actual question here, what do you want? Do you want it to be like Tomás Cloma and separate the flag from the infobox? Are you still against the flag at all? The MOS isn't a policy, it is a style guideline but it's not like there's a right answer here anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out that infoboxes create machine-readable data. They don't exist simply to exist. clpo13(talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Danlaycock Don't worry, I read you loud and clear:

You: images =\= icons
Me: images = icons
We disagree on that, and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, no point to a long drawn out argument on it. Do you believe that the Flag icons in the infoboxes conveys information in addition to the text? KoshVorlon 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well for my part it conveys the information 'this is what the flag looks like'. Which while this *can* be done via prose, it ends up reading like a heraldic description of a coat of arms. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I've mostly been watching this page for troll-hunting reasons, but just to add an outside opinion to this whole discussion, I think that both the flag and the prose serve their purpose. The flag gives visually oriented people a visual to look at, and shows at a glance what the flag looks like. The prose can give a description in more technical, heraldic terms, potentially drawing the user's focus to certain elements. If you decide to go with one or the other, though, I'd go with the icon. It's much clearer to the average user than delving through an entire article for a textual description. (And as for the relevant MOS guideline, I'd say IAR on this one, because the flag's image is so much more succinct and clear than the prose.) – Robin Hood  (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey since coming along here again seeing another text of wall about something that should or shouldn't be in the article (cough cough infobox cough cough), I think we should host another RFC for whether or not the Flag should be used in the article/infobox or not have it at all. I feel like we come to more conclusions rather than arguing it out because clearly there is the two sides again that need to get an answer and the last RFC seemed to help. Adog104 Talk to me 00:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Visit via Danube-river

How can they visit Liberland via the Danube river starting from Czeck Republic (as stated in chapter 'Citizenship'), if the Danube river does not pass Czech Republic? Stephanvaningen (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
From river Morava which flows into Danube. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

self-published sources

I do not think that it is possible having entire sections sourced by facebook or other self-published sources. Please try to found better sources instead of removing maintenance templates.--Jklamo (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:ABOUTSELF.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Which supports what Jklamo says. Most of the article is selfserving and raises doubts (or is clearly false or misleading). There is altogether too much self-published material. Independent critical sources are missing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Since User:WikiHannibal has failed to discuss his reverts, I am again attempting to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on sources. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, pal, based on your behaviour it is clear I would be wasting my time discussing with you. Your edits from 29 April were improvements (apart from overtagging, of course, but that is just a poor advert for you) but if you want to remove the only recent piece of news about attempts to reach Liberland because of the word "settlers" (acc to the description of your edit, "no reliable source mentions a settlement"), I see that your idea of improving articles vastly differs from that of mine. For the record, WP:ABOUTSELF does not support what Jklamo says: "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." For example, the "other activities" you removed was sourced by 3 independent sources. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can't stay civil and co-operate with other editors, you should stay away from this topic. You are clearly emotionally attached. Provide a reliable source for a Liberland settlement and I'll be the first to want to add it, but as things stand, there is no verified recent activity. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Statements from other micronations

There exist thousands of micronations so if two of them wish Liberland good luck - that's all there is - it's hardly worth mentioning. More weight should be given to the circumstance that several other micronations contest Liberland's claim. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Guido den Broeder:This edit summary seems disingenuous. Literally from their website: screenshot. Paragraph 5 from North Sudan's statement: WHEREAS, It is altogether proper and fitting for the Sovereign of the Kingdom of North Sudan to recognize the Free Republic of Liberland...'
Since you claim to have looked at their site, why completely remove the information instead of improving upon it? Try to fix it rather than delete it.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's also Sealand's statement. Furthermore, only Paraduin claimed the Siga area before Liberland. But you can't find them mentioned in any WP:RS so mentioning it at all is WP:UNDUE.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Has the news content of the North Sudan site just changed? The Declaration of Sovereignty still calls their claim the last terra nullius on Earth, but, oh well. With respect to Paraduin, the oldest claim, the article contained a RS before, I think. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

>Has the news content of the North Sudan site just changed?
Is this a rhetorical question?
>the article contained a RS before
Can you show me?
Otherwise, I'd ask that you revert your edits. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I put North Sudan back in while you typed, that seems fair even though it lacks a reliable independent source. Paraduin was mentioned in the article version of 30 October 2015, sourced, but got deleted by an anon representing another claim right before some editwar. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

South Maudlandia's claim, on 18 March 2015, was also before Liberland's. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The 30 Oct 2015 version of the page uses a self-published source as the source, not a third party Reliable Source.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberland/Archive_3&oldid=1136905320"