Talk:Liberland#Proposal to remove the infobox

Would it be worth adding Jedlička's claims of terra nullius, Liberland under the Montevideo Convention, as well as maybe mentioning https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/extremely-loud-and-incredibly-close-still-so-far-assessing-liberlands-claim-statehood? I get that some regard Liberland as a big joke or maybe the daydreams of a libertarianist, but I think it's worth writing at least something about. Essentially: should we put some sort of legal analysis under 'Legal analysis'? or no? The section appears to mainly be about the lack of diplomatic recognition. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:From the website cited: "The Chicago Journal of International Law (CJIL) (ISSN 1529-0816) is published twice yearly by students at the University of Chicago Law School". [https://cjil.uchicago.edu/about] A student webpage is unlikely to be recognised as meeting WP:RS. As for adding anything else, in addition to being WP:RS, it would also have to be directly discussing Liberland. Barring that, maybe the section title need tweaking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::I would think that for us to accept a legal analysis on the status of Liberland as a reliable source that the author or authors would have to be recognized experts in international law, and not run-of-the-mill lawyers or law students. Donald Albury 19:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe there could be a middle ground where we do cite the article but only in a way that mentions the Liberland people keep trying to cite it as a legitimate source while emphasizing its precise nature of being a student journal. Miffedpenguin (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::::We base article content on what WP:RS have to say on the subject. Not on what partisan boosters would like it to say. And I've seen nothing suggesting that this particular student journal opinion piece has been of any particular significance to informed debate regarding the legal credibility of Jedlička's claims. In fact I'm not even sure it has been discussed at all, in the sorts of sources we should be basing article content on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I meant adding that together with basically what you said there. Wouldn't it be better than people just taking the paper at face value from the Liberlanders? Miffedpenguin (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I didn't mean to say that it was a reliable source, but only that I've seen it mentioned more than once by Liberish writers as "valid". If there's some way we can use multiple sources to create a neutral analysis, instead of having ideas on Liberland's claims to Gornja and Donja Siga either being "legal" or "nonsense" being thrown around without reasons. I've seen arguments that Liberland met the Montevideo Convention at some point before their removal, as well as others regarding it as "temporarily Croatian-administered Serbian territory". I just mean that Wikipedia should probably provide accurate information in response to either. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, we base article content on material published in reliable sources. And unless such sources have discussed the student journal piece directly, we have nothing to go on. You seem to be suggesting we engage in synthesis to create our own response to the article - we don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I believe we're supposed to explain multiple potentially opposing viewpoints in Wikipedia. So I mean to say we should write what particular groups think about this legally. For example, see "[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-making-of-a-president.html Welcome to Liberland, the World's Newest Country (Maybe)]" from NYT:

::::

The Croatians regarded Liberland as Serbian territory; if you crossed overland, from the Croatian side, you were thus performing an illegal international crossing outside an official border checkpoint. If you crossed by water from the Serbian side, the Croatian police were technically arresting someone for crossing from Serbia to Serbia.

::::and "The man who created a tiny country he n:

::::

In 2015 Liberland seemed to be a rare example of what the law calls terra nullius - land claimed by no state.

::::Qoppa-kappa (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Refresh-send glitch, sorry. But essentially, we shouldn't make something new, but explain what people are saying. NYT and BBC may claim some form of terra nullius with uncertainty, others (who I look for at the moment to cite) claim it's currently administered and in dispute, and therefore not terra nullius. So we should write something along the lines of "these say [X]", "these say [Y]", to make things clear. That's not synthesis, I would argue. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::While the NYT and BBC are generally accepted as reliable sources, I doubt the articles in question were written by qualified legal experts in international law. Now, if you can find articles written by recognized experts in international law that were published in quality journals that cover international law, that would be a different matter. Donald Albury 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding how to prove the unreliability of a particular article from a generally reliable source? Or do we just take it as is? Qoppa-kappa (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::We have a noticeboard - WP:RSN - for addressing such questions. You will need however to explain in more detail exactly what changes you are proposing for this article. Note however that it isn't Wikipedia's job to 'prove unreliability'. Rather we assess reliability with regard to specific article content, and then make an editorial decision, based around WP:RS policy, as to whether we cite the source for the content in question. If we consider a source unreliable, we don't use it. And that's the end of the matter. Our own assessment of a source is not a valid topic for article content. And nor is anyone else's unless it is directly discussed in sources we do consider reliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed an edit on Talk:Liberland/Temp. Do we still need this draft for any reason? The Banner talk 19:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:There may be some useful sources cited in it. I'd say keep it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't there the "Infobox micronation" like the one on the Principality of Sealand article?

{{Infobox micronation}} Pantarch (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liberland/Archive_6#c-Hemiauchenia-20241030211000-Infobox_again] Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I briefly read the discussion and noticed that some points raised are red herrings or straw man arguments. Micronations aren't sovereign countries or states. There's no need for a source claiming that it's a sovereign country.

::Neither Seborga, Sealand, nor any other micronation we have articles about are sovereign countries Pantarch (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Why isn't there an infobox? Because it had been systematically abused to promote this fantasy 'micronation'. Essentially, there is nothing that could be legitimately sourced which said anything more about it than that it is a fictitious entity. We can explain that better in the article text. Infoboxes are supposed to summarise properly-sourced content, not give bogus credibility to pipe dreams. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::All micronations are fictional. For example, legally speaking, there is no such thing as the Principality of Seborga. Pantarch (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed, they are all fictional. Which is why Wikipedia needs to do a better job in eliminating the relentless promotion so many have been subject to on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree that micronations are simply commercial projects to sell merchandise, and so on. However, micronations aren't microstates, and since the template is universally used across all related articles—see the Republic of Molossia, the Most Serene Federal Republic of Montmartre, and the Space Kingdom of Asgardia—it should be included here as well. Pantarch (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Note that there was consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes that it is okay to use an infobox such as {{tl|Infobox micronation}} for micronation articles as long as it is limited to {{tq|type, proponents, dates claimed, and location; and image options limited to images of the country and/or its geographic location on a map}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)