Talk:Liberland

Did some of my own research, but parts of these are more educated conclusions by other statements than exact statements.

1. Isn't Liberland on ecologically sensitive floodplain? If so (which I believe it is), wouldn't it be self-contradicting because it harms the environment libertarians claim it helps? (This may be a bit of a stretch, as, from what I know, only some branches of libertarianism claim to do so.)
2. Are Gornja and Donja Siga (and, by potential extension, Bir Tawil) truly terra nullius? I would argue against it— they're more either than neither. Terra nullius itself, from what I know, is pretty fuzzy of a concept anyways in modern "applications"— there is usually at least one person who manages anywhere by law, in a way, so it's incorrect to say it's "nobody's land" as it is "international land". Forestry organisations manage the disputed Danube floodplains, so there isn't "nobody" in control. Governments make decisions regarding there, so, it is clearly in control of governments, just that in the case of the particular border, which one is disputed.
3. Shouldn't the above two be clarified in a way on the Wikipedia page? There were too many relatively shallowly-researched sources with articles about Liberland that I myself believed (wrongly). I get the sense that someone else reading might do something similar— take the claims that Liberlanders make at face value since no other easily accessible explanation is given —and I had to reach a conclusion through finding out for myself through way more sources than usual. Most of what I could find were their (pro-Liberland biassed) rephrasings of situations, or short, technically true, but shallow descriptions that when briefly investigated ended at those rephrasings, so, I think it would be better if there were slightly deeper explanations on the article if possible— plain statements on what's known for sure, so that Liberlanders can't try to cherrypick their facts off of here.

I'm a bit of an inexperienced user when it comes to significantly adding to Wikipedia articles, so if I'm suggesting something that can't be added, just let me know. Qoppa-kappa (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Everything that is in a Wikipedia article has to be verifiable from reliable sources. Original research and synthesis are not allowed. You are not allowed to add any of the things you mention above to the article unless you can cite reliable sources that support each point. Stick around and you will get used to searching for reliable sources before making substantive changes to content. Personally, I enjoy searching for sources as much as I do editing. Donald Albury 17:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I added this link because Cospaia seems like a successful historical version of Liberland. It was independent for a similar reason: a loose border between large states. It also had a fair amount of practical freedom for its inhabitants, and its motto reflected this. I removed the link to the list of micronation flags because it's a pointless article with virtually no sources. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

While I can see your argument, I still don't really think the link is justified. Republic of Cospaia wasn't a self-declared 'micronation'. Instead, at least according to our article (of which some of the sourcing looks questionable, and there are clearly further issues as noted by the templates at the top), it was an already-inhabited anomaly created by accident. If we include this, what is to stop people adding all sorts of other anomalous states, micronations etc, on similar grounds? I'd say that we'd need more to go on to justify it: e.g. a reliable source explicitly making the connection. Maybe we should wait and see if anyone else has comments though, there's no hurry.

(And yes, the list of flags shouldn't have been added. I'd missed that) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I don't quite understand why there would be a mass addition of other anomalies. And even if there were, it wouldn't be a major problem, it probably wouldn't overload the server, especially since Liberland is surrounded by controversy and the article will likely be subject to editing restrictions for a long time. Cospaia's case seems to be the only one with two clear points in common with Liberland, and the only country that managed to be established in an area surrounded by imprecise defined borders. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

'Overloading the server' isn't the issue. Per the manual of style, however, "Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number... articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. As for countries "established in an area surrounded by imprecise defined borders", I thought that the point with Cospaia was the the border had been defined - just with two different definitions. If it holds that in common with Liberland (which is clearly a matter of dispute, since neither of the countries bordering it offer the slightest recognition of the island in question as anything but territory belonging to the other, as part of a broader disagreement) what is the other 'clear point'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump The second point I had in mind was the symbolic appeal to freedom. The motto on the church gate (and occasional council building) in Cospaia is "Eternal and steadfast freedom." Because it was a community of several hundred people, it lacked most of the institutions that Liberland wouldn't want to have if it were actually inhabited. In my opinion, the link to Cospaia fits the guidelines.

The "server overload" was a joke. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should take 'appeals to freedom' from the promoters of an unrecognised zero-population 'micronation' into consideration. This is an article about Liberland, not an article to assist their sloganising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump I have the impression you're treating Liberland like a real country and then trying to prove it's not. In reality, the "Free Republic of Liberland" is an organization promoting its idea of ​​establishing a small state on the Danube. The concept of this state is broadly similar to something that happened to arise in late medieval Italy. I don't see why mentioning it would legitimize Liberland in any way.Swiãtopôłk (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If you think I'm "treating Liberland like a real country", you are severely mistaken. As for the rest, none of it appears relevant to the criteria set out in the MoS. And please don't repeat yourself - you've already stated that you see similarities. And I've already asked if there are reliable sources that do the same. How about providing one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump My point was that you're applying the criteria as if it were a state (and repeating that it doesn't meet them), rather than what Liberland currently is, a postulate and an organization that desperately wants to implement it but is unable to.

What would such a source say, ? Liberland and Cospaia are cited as examples of libertarian countries. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Any publication that describes Liberland as a 'country' isn't going to meet WP:RS criteria, obviously. It is uninhabited (and quite possibly, largely uninhabitable at this time of year, given that it floods annually) It has no economy. No infrastructure. Nothing. It is essentially nothing but an aspiration (and evidently a useful excuse for selling cryptocurrency, which last time I looked was what the high-ups behind this fictive territory were up to, having apparently given up on their pointless publicity-stunt antics on the island). It has nothing in common with the Republic of Cospaia, for the most basic of reasons. One existed. The other doesn't. One can't get much more different than that. And Wikipedia, rightly, takes very little note of what the Libertarian fringe has to say about anything. They hype all sorts of stuff. We aren't obliged to take it seriously. Show me a legitimate historian making the comparisons. And at no point did I say anything about particular MoS criteria for states. Please don't invent straw-man arguments. As for your sources, the first appears to be a self-published e-book by an author with no particular credentials If it is WP:RS, the page you link argues (via Google translate) that "Libertarian arguments often fall into fallacies, and their claims are rarely verifiable in reality." and the second source states (again via Google translate) that "Libertarians often cite Cospaia as an example of how a society can function without a state . But upon closer examination, it becomes clear that its success was more a geographical and economic accident than proof of libertarian principles." Which is another reason to reject comparisons. You have just cited sources that appear to invalidate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Sorry, but now I don't understand what you're trying to say. I sent you proof that Liberland and Cospaia are sometimes compared to each other, and your conclusion is that they should not be compared because libertarianism does not work as a system. You've proven once again that Liberland isn't a state because it doesn't meet the criteria, yet you still treat it like a geopolitical entity. I don't mean that you think of it as a state, but that you don't treat it as what it actually is. The article we're discussing tells the story of a concept/demand/idea and the history of the organization working to realize it. Can Cospaia be compared to the concept of Liberland? I think I gave two reasons why and also an example of how such comparisons appear in the public space.I see we're going full circle and there's something we don't understand about this communication. I suggest you answer two questions:

What Liberland is at this point? , but not by explaining what it is not.

What is the problem with placing "Cospaia Republic" in the "see also" section? As for the attribution of undeserved dignity and legitimacy to Liberland, please explain, because I don't think so.

Swiãtopôłk (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing this conversation, since you seem incapable of actually responding to what I write, rather than the straw-man arguments you keep concocting. We clearly aren't going to agree, which leaves us a few options. The first is to leave this for a few more days, in the hope that someone else wishes to comment. Failing that, there are several options offered via Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which you are free to pursue. Of the options, I'd have to say that I'd prefer an RfC, were there not a risk that this might be seen as a rather trivial matter to be bothering the community with. And ask, in passing, whether perhaps your time might be better spent trying to fix the issues already noted with the Cospaia article first? You can then concern yourself with drawing the attention of readers to it when it is in a better state to merit such attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The file was removed from the page by @AndyTheGrump for the following reason: "Given the complete lack of any external recognition by either party, this is clearly just a publicity stunt. We are under no obligation to assist, so the image seems undue. Please discuss on talk if you wish to suggest otherwise."

However, the reason why the memerandum was added was due to this passage of the article: "There has been no diplomatic recognition of Liberland by any member nation-state of the United Nations. Jedlička has visited another unrecognized republic, Somaliland, a self-declared state that proclaimed its independence from Somalia in 1991, and discussed mutual recognition with them". There is no available image for the meeting that is free use as far as i could find, however, i thought the paper was a good way as to showcase such meeting and to give imagery to the "Legal analysis and lack of diplomatic recognition" section for encyclopedic purposes. It had no political or encouragement intent. VitoxxMass (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Why should we 'showcase' this? The image is sourced to an absurdly promotional press release. It has no legal significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. People claiming to represent Liberland have shown a pattern of persuading (dare I say tricking) officials of countries, recognized and unrecognized, into signing some sort of cooperation agreement, and then claiming recognition. We should not be facilitating self-serving promotionalism of fantasy projects. Donald Albury 15:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)