This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think this part of the article is too long and I will shortne it but I want to keep the list easily accessible in case someone wanted to add news about the courts decisions etc on some of the incidents. Feel free to remove it from here if you think it is not appropriate. WikiHannibal ( talk) 10:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Croatian authorities have frequently blocked access to the area since the beginning of May 2015. [1] Vít Jedlička was twice detained for less than a day by Croatian authorities in the same month. Croatia has deployed police units to prevent Liberland staff and supporters from reaching the area. [1] Initially, Czech reporters were able to enter the area with Jedlička. [2] A team of journalists from the Serbian public broadcast service Radio Television of Vojvodina attempted to visit the area to make a news report. They reported that the Croatian border police denied them access without providing any clear explanation, and told them the flag had been taken down. [3] A Bosnian group of journalists from Dnevni Avaz who attempted to visit the area were told by Croatian police that Croatia enforces a fine of kn 2,500 for those that enter the zone near the border with a car. They borrowed bicycles from a local, but as they attempted to reach the area again, they met another patrol, and they couldn't continue past the border gate. [4] In May 2015, Vít Jedlička and his translator Sven Sambunjak were shortly detained by Croatian police after making an attempt to cross the border. Jedlička spent one night in detention and then was convicted and ordered to pay a fine for illegal crossing of the Croatian border [5] but appealed the verdict. He claimed that there were at least three Liberland citizens inside the area, who came from Switzerland. [6] He didn't view the arrest as something negative, but rather as an opportunity to discuss politics and get insights on the thoughts among those who work for the Croatian police and government. According to Jedlička, the police officers were friendly and curious about the project. [7] [8] [9] A few days after his detention, six other people (from the Czech Republic, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and the US) were detained and fined. A complaint to the Danish Embassy in Zagreb was made because they allege they were prevented from contacting anyone during the apprehension and detention. Their goal, under the auspices of the Swiss non-profit organization Liberland Settlement Association, was to settle the disputed area. [10] According to the Liberland website, Jedlička and 10 other people were detained again 16 May 2015 by Croatian police. Jedlička was released after a court hearing 17 May 2015. [11] Croatian police have continued detaining anyone that entered the area. [12] self-published source On 13 June 2015, four people who managed to land on the beach were detained for illegal border crossing by boat, and brought before court the next day. [13] On 18 June 2015, Danish activist Ulrik Grøssel Haagensen accessed the area in a small boat and was followed onto land by Croatian police. Haagensen claimed he had the right to access the territory, but was arrested, dragged off, and placed in a Croatian police vessel. The incident was caught on video. Jedlička stated his intention to bring Croatia to court for crossing an international border and invading Liberland. [14] [15] Several appeals court decisions from Croatia were published in early May 2016. The court upheld that crossing into Liberland from Croatia is illegal, but found the convictions for entering Liberland from Serbia improper. The court said that the lower court committed "a fundamental breach of misdemeanor proceedings" and "essential procedural violations". It further ruled that "the facts were incorrectly and incompletely established [by the prosecutor] which could lead to misapplication of substantive law". A retrial was ordered in 6 of the 7 appeals. The lower court is required to determine the location of the border and the border crossing. [16] self-published source
Hi, for the record, I just want to point out that User:Guido den Broeder, who made substantial edits to this article in April-June 2017 (see discussion above, and article history), was banned indefinitely (in June - sockpuppets; more new since then, discussion here). However, what is more important, is information from that discussion that Guido den Broeder is "the founder and prince" of Paraduin, the micronation promoted by Guido even in this article. I believe we have to reconsider many of his edits as deliberately non neutral, COI, etc. I am not at all saying, that all of them were wrong but I will probably re-add some of the sourced info he removed. WikiHannibal ( talk) 10:03, 2 October 2017 (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Unlike micronations, Somaliland is a de-facto nation with complete independence from Somalia. It just lacks international recognition. It doesn't seem right to place Somaliland in the same category as the Kingdom of North Sudan and other micronations. Somaliland should either be placed in "Official statements from states" or in a new section (for example) "Official statements from de-facto states". JackTheOre ( talk) 07:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This article begins by claiming that "Liberland is a micronation...", when it's clearly not. The fact that the terrain is not inhabited and that the supposed president and his cabinet have no access to it since it was closed off would challenge the notion that it's an operating micronation. The lead should read "proposed micronation", "disputed micronation" or something of the sort until they acquire some form of legitimacy. Likewise, ATM any monetary transactions involving Liberland are only cryptocurrency exchanges between a handful of individuals (not unlike going on a shopping spree with Bitcoin) , not anything international. El Alternativo ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added the following section, which contains extremely relevant information on the topic, that is being suppressed by user Thomas.W. Furthermore after reverting my edits he writes, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges."
The section I added, while referncing the Liberland site, uses the entity's actual Constitution as source material - very relevant showing that Liberland is not a republic, but a privately controlled entity, masquerading as a public entity. It's important that people interested in this subject be aware of the misrepresentation being perpetrated by the owners of this private venture. I would ask that a higher level editor review my submission and note that is contains important, factual information of value to the public who are interested in this topic.
On 5/2018 in Liberland's user forums, user VictorH pointed out that, while Liberland calls itself a "Constitutional Republic", it may not fit the definition of Republic due to the built-in legislative oversight of a body called, "The Council" which are not democratically elected, nor a public entity, as per Liberland's constitution: [17]
VictorH stated, "Based on this Liberland is an oligarchy. It is a private business owned by the shareholders aka 'Councillors' who hold the stock of the Liberland private company. It is like if the USA was owned by let's say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg who could veto any law." [18]
Furthermore, at the end of Liberland's published Constitution there is a graphic showing the legislative process [19] which omits the Constitutionally-specified Councillary oversight and approval of all legislation. [20]
-- Markness88 ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
References
radimpanenka
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Stop removing Czech. It is there for a purpose. Read the article. -- Ishmailer ( talk) 13:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone is persistent in his denialism over the facts. If there is any evidence, it needs to be presented, or no tag. The point is simple. Ishmailer ( talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate fully protecting an article. Looks like it's necessary. When y'all achieve a consensus, please feel free to ping me for removal of protection. Any admin may undo at their discretion.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 11:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
To Whom it may concern. Please allow the Liberland Team to continue their work on Wiki. I enjoy this project very much. It is amazing to think that citizens are not confined to be stuck in one geographical nationality, like cattle in a farm. Whoever is sabotaging the Liberland Wiki is working against the project for a hostile reason.
Good luck Liberland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.1.18.157 ( talk) 23:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.769294,18.8778137,3997m/data=!3m1!1e3
You can see two important things:
Those should help show that this whole "Liberland" affair is just a publicity stunt.
Thus I propose considering merging this article into Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and just say there that Jedlička's claim is infeasible and considered a publicity stunt. Notrium ( talk) 01:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, Liberland is not just a publicity stunt, but also a scam; because surely they take money from chumps for "citizenship" or something similar which will not ever be realized. EDIT: they indeed charge for "citizenship", this is now in the article. Notrium ( talk) 03:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Dude, Terrorist96. You are the one who should read WP:BRD. Here is a quote from its lead:
Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.
EDIT: some more quotes from BRD:
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
If you guys have something against an edit of mine, I would not even mind if you reverted it or refined it, but you just revert everything with no rationale. Notrium ( talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The Liberland project may be considered a publicity stuntappears to be your opinion, which Wikipedia won't accept.
The Croatian claim is generally internationally recognizedneeds a citation to a reliable source. The Flag section of the article should not have been removed. Linking the article to "Fraud" and "Publicity stunt" smacks of POV push. That said, your sourced additions, at first glance, don't appear to be a problem to me. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Remove infobox meant for countries. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw unless you are intimately aware of templates, parameters, and specifically this IB template. Guess what? A new user with just over 100 edits is unlikely to know any of this. Once again, you assume unwarranted foreknowledge.
His edits were too BOLD<- No such thing. I have rewritten large passages of articles in a single edit without being challenged, here you have over a dozen edits being summarily reverted in a single stroke. There is no rule that you may only edit a specific amount at a single time. Summarily reverting 21 edits, not all of which are a problem, is bad practice. It's particularly bad when you remove new sourced additions alongside the problem removals without, seemingly, a care in the world. Here are some edits which you and WikiHannibal reverted without explanation: 1 (the second part of that edit can be removed without touching the first, manually, if you're not too lazy), 2, 3, 4 (this one needs contextualization), 5+ 6, and 7. Are you challenging any of those additions/changes? If no, why have you removed them? if yes, what and why? On the other hand, why is a twitter ref needed when other refs are already presented? and do you know under what specific circumstances SPS are acceptable sources to use? because nobody bothered explaining SPS to Notrium when re-adding a bunch of them. While this shouldn't have been simply removed, do you want to try and explain how this relates to "Citizenship" in any way shape or form? Yes, they have a POV. Yes, it shows when they edit. No, having a POV does not preclude you from editing, or making good edits. The above is, what, nine potentially positive contributions and deductions.
[A]nd then he's surprised he gets reverted– if I'd made these edits, I'd be pretty surprised if somebody walked over and asserted that they were all bad, particularly removing a twitter reference which is a weak source to use in the very best of circumstances. It is not infeasible to prune their editing, explain to them where and what the problems are, without trampling over everything as you have done. Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
All kinds of non-notable trivia, sourced only to Liberland press releases, is repeatedly being added to the article, usually by editors who have never edited the article before, making me believe that it's the organisation behind Liberland that is trying to use Wikipedia as an outlet for their press releases. Which isn't what Wikipedia is for. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This article has many faults, assuming it is supposed to be an entry in something which aspires to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a Wiki for creators of fantasy nations. Perhaps the most egregious however is the way it uncritically represents as fact even the most dubious assertions from its proponents. In particular, I noticed that the infobox claimed that the micronation had a population of 1000. As far as I'm aware, no independent source has ever suggested that 'Liberland' has since its founding ever had a resident population greater than zero. Give that this ridiculous assertion (which didn't even seem to be supported by the entirly non- WP:RS Liberland-promoting website it cited) lacked a proper third-party source (for 'population', not for people who claim to be 'citizens' of an entirely unrecognised micronation) I have corrected the infobox. If I had the time, I could quite justifiably remove most of the other vacuous self-sourced puffery presented in the article, but frankly I can't be bothered to do so. If this is the best that Wikipedia can do when it comes to preventing article space from being taken over by partisan promoters, I should probably write it off as a lost cause. 109.159.72.250 ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I tend to agree that we shouldn't be citing those things to primary sources - they are, at a glance, trivial, and more importantly they're cited almost entirely to primary sources, further underlining their lack of significance. It reads like it's trying to convince the reader of something, which is a problem when using primary sources in particular because they can't be used for interpretation or analysis (ie. if we had a secondary source saying "Liberland is important and gains some legitimacy from recognition by X, Y, and Z" we could include that; but using primary sources to imply that fact is a problem.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The use of 'Infobox country' in this article is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Nobody beyond the supporters of this unrecognised zero-population 'micronation' considers it to be a 'country'. To suggest otherwise, as the infobox, with its 'Flag', 'motto', 'anthem', 'march', 'government' etc, etc does is grossly misleading. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of imaginary entities, I shall be deleting the infobox in the next few days, unless someone can come up with an alternative that doesn't present fantasy as fact. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is highly outdated, there's lots of new and more detailed info that could go up. I'm not qualified to write anything here. Maybe someone with an NPOV could?
- INSERT VALID NAME- (
talk) 18:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Do Serbia and Croatia recognise Liberland? -- 85.249.41.228 ( talk) 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a claim that Liberland and Somaliland have recognized each other. The only reliable source I have found for any connection is this 2017 report from the BBC that someone claiming to represent Liberland had visited Somaliland, and the two entities had discussed how to "strengthen cooperation". Donald Albury 23:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been an attempt to add a claim that Liberland and Haiti have signed a "cooperation agreement". I cannot read the cited source, which is in Serbo-Croation, but it seems to be a news report. I have found, however, a US Foreign Agents Registration Act report filed by Steven Melnik, in which he states that he had signed an agreement with an unnamed representative of the Republic of Haiti on behalf of Liberland "to work cooperatively to develop a working relationship between the two parties". [3] Melnik, who is located in New York, describes himself as a "Global Honorary Ambassador-at-Large @ Liberland" (at https://rocketreach.co/steven-melnik-email_17557084, which is a blacklisted site). I'm guessing here, but I suspect this agreement is related to a report from the Liberland Aid foundation that it has provided humanitarian aid to Haiti, "working with Liberland's diplomatic team and the government of Haiti". [4] The Liberland Aid Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered in the State of Florida. [5]
Without stronger evidence from independent, reliable sources, this looks like the government of Haiti allowed the Liberland Aid Foundation to donate humanitarian aid to Haiti. None of this rises to much newsworthiness, and it certainly does not establish any kind of diplomatic or other governmental relationship between the so-called Republic of Liberland and the Republic of Haiti. This does not belong in the Liberland article. - Donald Albury 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Another editor has drawn my attention to this again. I don't see how this article has any merit, as it seems to have been some sort of a publicity stunt of some sort by a politician foreign to the territory in question and then it fizzled out, as a few years later, there are no updates to its frivolous real-world status and no confirmation of any long-term significance of this matter. Fundamentally, the concerns I raised way back at Talk:Liberland/Archive 2 are unresolved. This is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation, and we should replace it with a redirect to the border dispute article that can mention it in encyclopedic context. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Says no diplomatic recognition from any "recignized" country. So what's a "regognized" country? By who? Stop propaganda. Mailballs 9900 ( talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
|
Sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Essential here. Egypy borders a micronation even if Egypt has no intention of claiming it. -- Ethnotrex ( talk) 13:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
|
This
edit request to
Liberland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Arabik4892 ( talk) 12:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)I want to make a transition to the Russian article Liberland merit
An editor is refusing to add a WikiProject talk page banner to this page, despite it fitting into the wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones project scope. This user has a history of quarrels with me for some reason, and I believe the user is acting uncivilly, and I would like to get a 3rd opinion about what should happen here.
I will be adding the talk page banner onto this page until this RFC decides what action should be taken. Mr vili ( talk) 13:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I will be adding the talk page banner onto this page until this RFC decides what action should be taken—this statement by the proposer shows a complete lack of understanding of RFCs as well as collaboration. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC) —
This
edit request to
Liberland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2023, YouTuber Niko Omilana stepped foot on Liberty Island, part of Liberland. He was presented with a Liberland passport issued by the Liberland president. Dannycoombs95 ( talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk) 14:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)(316) Recorded documentation of land. Editer Like You ( talk) 15:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Reponse to the revert by User:AndyTheGrump. The two journalist teams have very obviously visited the area, with its opened border. Should the text perhaps be more clear that there has been no official statement from Croatia about this whole affair? Omitting this thing would make the article a bit outdated. - Anonimski ( talk) 20:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Added a more brief summary about their unofficial access to the area from August, and visits by journalist crews, without too broad claims, and without reference to their self-description as "settlers". Anonimski ( talk) 12:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with this edit, reporting on actions by the Croatian police. [9] Working via Google Translate, it seems that the source cited [10] bases its story entirely on material originating from the Liberland supporters website. Article content needs to be based around independent sourcing, and shouldn't merely repeat one side of a story. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think this part of the article is too long and I will shortne it but I want to keep the list easily accessible in case someone wanted to add news about the courts decisions etc on some of the incidents. Feel free to remove it from here if you think it is not appropriate. WikiHannibal ( talk) 10:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Croatian authorities have frequently blocked access to the area since the beginning of May 2015. [1] Vít Jedlička was twice detained for less than a day by Croatian authorities in the same month. Croatia has deployed police units to prevent Liberland staff and supporters from reaching the area. [1] Initially, Czech reporters were able to enter the area with Jedlička. [2] A team of journalists from the Serbian public broadcast service Radio Television of Vojvodina attempted to visit the area to make a news report. They reported that the Croatian border police denied them access without providing any clear explanation, and told them the flag had been taken down. [3] A Bosnian group of journalists from Dnevni Avaz who attempted to visit the area were told by Croatian police that Croatia enforces a fine of kn 2,500 for those that enter the zone near the border with a car. They borrowed bicycles from a local, but as they attempted to reach the area again, they met another patrol, and they couldn't continue past the border gate. [4] In May 2015, Vít Jedlička and his translator Sven Sambunjak were shortly detained by Croatian police after making an attempt to cross the border. Jedlička spent one night in detention and then was convicted and ordered to pay a fine for illegal crossing of the Croatian border [5] but appealed the verdict. He claimed that there were at least three Liberland citizens inside the area, who came from Switzerland. [6] He didn't view the arrest as something negative, but rather as an opportunity to discuss politics and get insights on the thoughts among those who work for the Croatian police and government. According to Jedlička, the police officers were friendly and curious about the project. [7] [8] [9] A few days after his detention, six other people (from the Czech Republic, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, and the US) were detained and fined. A complaint to the Danish Embassy in Zagreb was made because they allege they were prevented from contacting anyone during the apprehension and detention. Their goal, under the auspices of the Swiss non-profit organization Liberland Settlement Association, was to settle the disputed area. [10] According to the Liberland website, Jedlička and 10 other people were detained again 16 May 2015 by Croatian police. Jedlička was released after a court hearing 17 May 2015. [11] Croatian police have continued detaining anyone that entered the area. [12] self-published source On 13 June 2015, four people who managed to land on the beach were detained for illegal border crossing by boat, and brought before court the next day. [13] On 18 June 2015, Danish activist Ulrik Grøssel Haagensen accessed the area in a small boat and was followed onto land by Croatian police. Haagensen claimed he had the right to access the territory, but was arrested, dragged off, and placed in a Croatian police vessel. The incident was caught on video. Jedlička stated his intention to bring Croatia to court for crossing an international border and invading Liberland. [14] [15] Several appeals court decisions from Croatia were published in early May 2016. The court upheld that crossing into Liberland from Croatia is illegal, but found the convictions for entering Liberland from Serbia improper. The court said that the lower court committed "a fundamental breach of misdemeanor proceedings" and "essential procedural violations". It further ruled that "the facts were incorrectly and incompletely established [by the prosecutor] which could lead to misapplication of substantive law". A retrial was ordered in 6 of the 7 appeals. The lower court is required to determine the location of the border and the border crossing. [16] self-published source
Hi, for the record, I just want to point out that User:Guido den Broeder, who made substantial edits to this article in April-June 2017 (see discussion above, and article history), was banned indefinitely (in June - sockpuppets; more new since then, discussion here). However, what is more important, is information from that discussion that Guido den Broeder is "the founder and prince" of Paraduin, the micronation promoted by Guido even in this article. I believe we have to reconsider many of his edits as deliberately non neutral, COI, etc. I am not at all saying, that all of them were wrong but I will probably re-add some of the sourced info he removed. WikiHannibal ( talk) 10:03, 2 October 2017 (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Unlike micronations, Somaliland is a de-facto nation with complete independence from Somalia. It just lacks international recognition. It doesn't seem right to place Somaliland in the same category as the Kingdom of North Sudan and other micronations. Somaliland should either be placed in "Official statements from states" or in a new section (for example) "Official statements from de-facto states". JackTheOre ( talk) 07:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This article begins by claiming that "Liberland is a micronation...", when it's clearly not. The fact that the terrain is not inhabited and that the supposed president and his cabinet have no access to it since it was closed off would challenge the notion that it's an operating micronation. The lead should read "proposed micronation", "disputed micronation" or something of the sort until they acquire some form of legitimacy. Likewise, ATM any monetary transactions involving Liberland are only cryptocurrency exchanges between a handful of individuals (not unlike going on a shopping spree with Bitcoin) , not anything international. El Alternativo ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added the following section, which contains extremely relevant information on the topic, that is being suppressed by user Thomas.W. Furthermore after reverting my edits he writes, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges."
The section I added, while referncing the Liberland site, uses the entity's actual Constitution as source material - very relevant showing that Liberland is not a republic, but a privately controlled entity, masquerading as a public entity. It's important that people interested in this subject be aware of the misrepresentation being perpetrated by the owners of this private venture. I would ask that a higher level editor review my submission and note that is contains important, factual information of value to the public who are interested in this topic.
On 5/2018 in Liberland's user forums, user VictorH pointed out that, while Liberland calls itself a "Constitutional Republic", it may not fit the definition of Republic due to the built-in legislative oversight of a body called, "The Council" which are not democratically elected, nor a public entity, as per Liberland's constitution: [17]
VictorH stated, "Based on this Liberland is an oligarchy. It is a private business owned by the shareholders aka 'Councillors' who hold the stock of the Liberland private company. It is like if the USA was owned by let's say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg who could veto any law." [18]
Furthermore, at the end of Liberland's published Constitution there is a graphic showing the legislative process [19] which omits the Constitutionally-specified Councillary oversight and approval of all legislation. [20]
-- Markness88 ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
References
radimpanenka
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Stop removing Czech. It is there for a purpose. Read the article. -- Ishmailer ( talk) 13:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone is persistent in his denialism over the facts. If there is any evidence, it needs to be presented, or no tag. The point is simple. Ishmailer ( talk) 02:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I hate fully protecting an article. Looks like it's necessary. When y'all achieve a consensus, please feel free to ping me for removal of protection. Any admin may undo at their discretion.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 11:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
To Whom it may concern. Please allow the Liberland Team to continue their work on Wiki. I enjoy this project very much. It is amazing to think that citizens are not confined to be stuck in one geographical nationality, like cattle in a farm. Whoever is sabotaging the Liberland Wiki is working against the project for a hostile reason.
Good luck Liberland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.1.18.157 ( talk) 23:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.769294,18.8778137,3997m/data=!3m1!1e3
You can see two important things:
Those should help show that this whole "Liberland" affair is just a publicity stunt.
Thus I propose considering merging this article into Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and just say there that Jedlička's claim is infeasible and considered a publicity stunt. Notrium ( talk) 01:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, Liberland is not just a publicity stunt, but also a scam; because surely they take money from chumps for "citizenship" or something similar which will not ever be realized. EDIT: they indeed charge for "citizenship", this is now in the article. Notrium ( talk) 03:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Dude, Terrorist96. You are the one who should read WP:BRD. Here is a quote from its lead:
Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.
EDIT: some more quotes from BRD:
BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.
BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.
If you guys have something against an edit of mine, I would not even mind if you reverted it or refined it, but you just revert everything with no rationale. Notrium ( talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The Liberland project may be considered a publicity stuntappears to be your opinion, which Wikipedia won't accept.
The Croatian claim is generally internationally recognizedneeds a citation to a reliable source. The Flag section of the article should not have been removed. Linking the article to "Fraud" and "Publicity stunt" smacks of POV push. That said, your sourced additions, at first glance, don't appear to be a problem to me. Mr rnddude ( talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Remove infobox meant for countries. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw unless you are intimately aware of templates, parameters, and specifically this IB template. Guess what? A new user with just over 100 edits is unlikely to know any of this. Once again, you assume unwarranted foreknowledge.
His edits were too BOLD<- No such thing. I have rewritten large passages of articles in a single edit without being challenged, here you have over a dozen edits being summarily reverted in a single stroke. There is no rule that you may only edit a specific amount at a single time. Summarily reverting 21 edits, not all of which are a problem, is bad practice. It's particularly bad when you remove new sourced additions alongside the problem removals without, seemingly, a care in the world. Here are some edits which you and WikiHannibal reverted without explanation: 1 (the second part of that edit can be removed without touching the first, manually, if you're not too lazy), 2, 3, 4 (this one needs contextualization), 5+ 6, and 7. Are you challenging any of those additions/changes? If no, why have you removed them? if yes, what and why? On the other hand, why is a twitter ref needed when other refs are already presented? and do you know under what specific circumstances SPS are acceptable sources to use? because nobody bothered explaining SPS to Notrium when re-adding a bunch of them. While this shouldn't have been simply removed, do you want to try and explain how this relates to "Citizenship" in any way shape or form? Yes, they have a POV. Yes, it shows when they edit. No, having a POV does not preclude you from editing, or making good edits. The above is, what, nine potentially positive contributions and deductions.
[A]nd then he's surprised he gets reverted– if I'd made these edits, I'd be pretty surprised if somebody walked over and asserted that they were all bad, particularly removing a twitter reference which is a weak source to use in the very best of circumstances. It is not infeasible to prune their editing, explain to them where and what the problems are, without trampling over everything as you have done. Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
All kinds of non-notable trivia, sourced only to Liberland press releases, is repeatedly being added to the article, usually by editors who have never edited the article before, making me believe that it's the organisation behind Liberland that is trying to use Wikipedia as an outlet for their press releases. Which isn't what Wikipedia is for. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This article has many faults, assuming it is supposed to be an entry in something which aspires to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a Wiki for creators of fantasy nations. Perhaps the most egregious however is the way it uncritically represents as fact even the most dubious assertions from its proponents. In particular, I noticed that the infobox claimed that the micronation had a population of 1000. As far as I'm aware, no independent source has ever suggested that 'Liberland' has since its founding ever had a resident population greater than zero. Give that this ridiculous assertion (which didn't even seem to be supported by the entirly non- WP:RS Liberland-promoting website it cited) lacked a proper third-party source (for 'population', not for people who claim to be 'citizens' of an entirely unrecognised micronation) I have corrected the infobox. If I had the time, I could quite justifiably remove most of the other vacuous self-sourced puffery presented in the article, but frankly I can't be bothered to do so. If this is the best that Wikipedia can do when it comes to preventing article space from being taken over by partisan promoters, I should probably write it off as a lost cause. 109.159.72.250 ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I tend to agree that we shouldn't be citing those things to primary sources - they are, at a glance, trivial, and more importantly they're cited almost entirely to primary sources, further underlining their lack of significance. It reads like it's trying to convince the reader of something, which is a problem when using primary sources in particular because they can't be used for interpretation or analysis (ie. if we had a secondary source saying "Liberland is important and gains some legitimacy from recognition by X, Y, and Z" we could include that; but using primary sources to imply that fact is a problem.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The use of 'Infobox country' in this article is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Nobody beyond the supporters of this unrecognised zero-population 'micronation' considers it to be a 'country'. To suggest otherwise, as the infobox, with its 'Flag', 'motto', 'anthem', 'march', 'government' etc, etc does is grossly misleading. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of imaginary entities, I shall be deleting the infobox in the next few days, unless someone can come up with an alternative that doesn't present fantasy as fact. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is highly outdated, there's lots of new and more detailed info that could go up. I'm not qualified to write anything here. Maybe someone with an NPOV could?
- INSERT VALID NAME- (
talk) 18:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Do Serbia and Croatia recognise Liberland? -- 85.249.41.228 ( talk) 19:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I reverted a claim that Liberland and Somaliland have recognized each other. The only reliable source I have found for any connection is this 2017 report from the BBC that someone claiming to represent Liberland had visited Somaliland, and the two entities had discussed how to "strengthen cooperation". Donald Albury 23:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There has been an attempt to add a claim that Liberland and Haiti have signed a "cooperation agreement". I cannot read the cited source, which is in Serbo-Croation, but it seems to be a news report. I have found, however, a US Foreign Agents Registration Act report filed by Steven Melnik, in which he states that he had signed an agreement with an unnamed representative of the Republic of Haiti on behalf of Liberland "to work cooperatively to develop a working relationship between the two parties". [3] Melnik, who is located in New York, describes himself as a "Global Honorary Ambassador-at-Large @ Liberland" (at https://rocketreach.co/steven-melnik-email_17557084, which is a blacklisted site). I'm guessing here, but I suspect this agreement is related to a report from the Liberland Aid foundation that it has provided humanitarian aid to Haiti, "working with Liberland's diplomatic team and the government of Haiti". [4] The Liberland Aid Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered in the State of Florida. [5]
Without stronger evidence from independent, reliable sources, this looks like the government of Haiti allowed the Liberland Aid Foundation to donate humanitarian aid to Haiti. None of this rises to much newsworthiness, and it certainly does not establish any kind of diplomatic or other governmental relationship between the so-called Republic of Liberland and the Republic of Haiti. This does not belong in the Liberland article. - Donald Albury 13:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Another editor has drawn my attention to this again. I don't see how this article has any merit, as it seems to have been some sort of a publicity stunt of some sort by a politician foreign to the territory in question and then it fizzled out, as a few years later, there are no updates to its frivolous real-world status and no confirmation of any long-term significance of this matter. Fundamentally, the concerns I raised way back at Talk:Liberland/Archive 2 are unresolved. This is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation, and we should replace it with a redirect to the border dispute article that can mention it in encyclopedic context. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Blocked sockpuppet |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Says no diplomatic recognition from any "recignized" country. So what's a "regognized" country? By who? Stop propaganda. Mailballs 9900 ( talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
|
Sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Essential here. Egypy borders a micronation even if Egypt has no intention of claiming it. -- Ethnotrex ( talk) 13:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
|
This
edit request to
Liberland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Arabik4892 ( talk) 12:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)I want to make a transition to the Russian article Liberland merit
An editor is refusing to add a WikiProject talk page banner to this page, despite it fitting into the wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones project scope. This user has a history of quarrels with me for some reason, and I believe the user is acting uncivilly, and I would like to get a 3rd opinion about what should happen here.
I will be adding the talk page banner onto this page until this RFC decides what action should be taken. Mr vili ( talk) 13:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I will be adding the talk page banner onto this page until this RFC decides what action should be taken—this statement by the proposer shows a complete lack of understanding of RFCs as well as collaboration. — Neonorange ( talk to Phil) (he, they) 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC) —
This
edit request to
Liberland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2023, YouTuber Niko Omilana stepped foot on Liberty Island, part of Liberland. He was presented with a Liberland passport issued by the Liberland president. Dannycoombs95 ( talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
M.Bitton (
talk) 14:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)(316) Recorded documentation of land. Editer Like You ( talk) 15:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Reponse to the revert by User:AndyTheGrump. The two journalist teams have very obviously visited the area, with its opened border. Should the text perhaps be more clear that there has been no official statement from Croatia about this whole affair? Omitting this thing would make the article a bit outdated. - Anonimski ( talk) 20:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Added a more brief summary about their unofficial access to the area from August, and visits by journalist crews, without too broad claims, and without reference to their self-description as "settlers". Anonimski ( talk) 12:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy with this edit, reporting on actions by the Croatian police. [9] Working via Google Translate, it seems that the source cited [10] bases its story entirely on material originating from the Liberland supporters website. Article content needs to be based around independent sourcing, and shouldn't merely repeat one side of a story. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)