Talk:Empire of Atlantium/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 →

Could we get some more detail here? -- Zoe

Done.

Vanity web-site, or serious political statement? A money-making scheme or the vanguard of the transition to non-territorial states? Something between these extemes, I would guess, but still nothing that deserves an ENCYCLOPEDIA article of its own. I've modified the completely uncritical advocacy article to bring a greater level of neutrality here just in case the article is retained. I do find it interesting that its citizens appear to be more interested in publicizing themselves (and their "Emperor") than they are in contributing to articles around which they assert their non-territorial sovereign state is based: global citizenship, freedom of movement, the right to assisted suicide, and decimal calendar reform, all go without articles, and the article on the right to abortion is apparently without Atlantian contributors. --- Someone else 09:40 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

As it appears - based on the most recent "revision" of this article - that the Wikipedia project has no desire to present factual information in anything approximating an informed and/or balanced manner (at least insofar as this particular subject is concerned), I wish to request the immediate removal of this and all other articles referencing Atlantium from Wikipedia.

Request denied. --Eloquence

Atlantium supporters keep on changing this article back to their POV: I have appended two different POV versions of this article, and look forward to the Wikipedia NPOV process integrating the text in these two versions into a single article in the NPOV style. The Anome 23:54 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Yes a merge is needed. The current rewrite deleted valid information. --mav
It should be noted that the "critical" article contains several errors of fact relating to claims made on the official website. The liberal use of inverted commas by this author to imply that the claims they describe are in some way spurious is also entirely unneccesary, as the "non-critical" article already makes quite clear the officially unrecognised nature of the entity in question without resorting to derogation. George
If there are errors of fact then fix them, don't delete them. --mav

We should really put all these hobby projects under "micronationalism". Otherwise, every website that calls itself a "nation" will want to write themselves into Wikipedia -- and this seems to be happening in recent weeks, with Atlantium, Lavalon, Tallini et. al. all busily writing themselves in. This is not a good thing for a serious encyclopedia. Do they all share a mailing list, perhaps? The Anome 00:19 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Every Simpsons character and most Middle-earth characters have their own pages. Not to mention a great many other fringe things. These articles just need to be written from an NPOV (which, admittedly, isn't possible for non-famous entities or people, so those should stay out - Atlantium isn't in this category though)--mav

I think they are "allies". Vera Cruz

I do think if they actually have the thousand members that they claim, then they deserve some form of article. Vera Cruz

Errors of fact that don't require deletion are not, by definition, errors of fact - they are facts, ergo, they don't require deletion. Conversely, errors of fact that have already been corrected elsewhere are redundant and may be deleted - as I have repeatedly sought to do, only to have them repeatedly reappear.

At the risk of repeating myself for the umpteenth time: Atlantium has a fully independently verifiable existence stretching over more than two decades. The fact that you may not have *heard* of it until recently does not in any way change that reality. Indeed I suspect some of you were not even alive for much of it. Ample external evidence exists in support of this claim in the media and elsewhere, so if you are in any way serious about maintaining Wikipedia as a credible academic project I urge you get off your fat asses and go look for it. A list of contact phone numbers as long as your arm is also publicly available and you may use it to your heart's content. Still too bloody difficult to comprehend? Well any of you who wish to visit us in Sydney, the street address for Atlantium's main office is Unit 1, 126 Victoria Street, Potts Point, telephone +61 2 9356 2838, and we look forward to hearing from you in due course.

If none of that is good enough then I'm afraid Wikipedia and Atlantium clearly inhabit different universes (and it is not ours that is based on fantasy), and in that case I again urge you to delete all references to Atlantium from this "project". I have attempted to maintain an even-handed approach in the face of arrant stupidity on this subject, however my patience for this foolishness is at an end, and more importantly I have a lunch date in the real world that promises to be far more stimulating. George

--Is anybody doubting that Atlantium was founded in 1981? Vera Cruz

Moved this sentence to here: "Atlantium claims that at least one of its representatives is also an accredited diplomatic representative of a United Nations member state. " In what way is this pertinent? -- Someone else 01:20 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

This is Atlantium's way of trying to argue that they have informal UN recognition, and are thus more than a micronation. Vera Cruz

That's not what it says. I don't think they contend the UN recognizes them. -- Someone else 01:43 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

but if UN accredited diplomats recognize them, than informally the UN does. or so one might construe. Vera Cruz

....even though neither Florida nor New Jersey are sovereign states capable of recognizing diplomats."

If it is true that these states can't recognize foreign diplomats then the above is relevant and should be in the article. --mav

The point is not whether FL and NJ are capable of receiving diplomats or not (they aren't). The point is that diplomatic representatives may reside in any location desired by the country doing the appointing. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Australia maintains consulates in New York and California, yet neither state maintains separate "relations" with Australia. In this particular case, irrespective of whether Atlantian representatives are "recognised" or not, we have chosen to appoint an individual with a title of our creation to represent our interests within the said state subdivisions of the United States of America. The semantics of the terminology we choose to use is irrelevant. The capability of the states of NJ and FL to "recognise" the appointment is irrelevant. Either state the appointment as a fact (which it is), or remove it altogether.
Australia does not have a diplomatic representative TO New York, or TO California, because its relations are with the United States of America. Appointing a diplomatic representative to a non-diplomatic entity is bizarre, and worth mentioning. -- Someone else 03:22 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)
If you find the use of one preposition over another "bizarre" then you probably have way too much time on your hands to engage in semantic hair-splitting. The intent of our representative's title is more than abundantly clear to all but the most deliberately obtuse or blatantly moronic reader.
If you think that the use of "to" vs. "in" is not a matter over which real diplomats expend much effort, you need to attend more closely to them. -- Someone else 07:43 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)
I think it's abundantly clear. They're trying to obfuscate. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe
I'm starting to bore myself with the need for constant repetition here. None of your attempts at generating a circular argument on this subject bear the slightest of relevance to the legal status of the appointment itself, nor with the capability of any legacy government within said territories to "recognise" the appointee. These "arguments" are therefore entirely specious. Our choice of titular nomenclature is precisely that - our choice; it is not a subject for debate, nor does it require explanation beyond that which has already been amply provided. If you are incapable of grasping both the topic at hand and the subtleties of the English language those are problems that *you* need to deal with.

202.138.198.36, marking non-minor changes as minor is inappropriate. -- Someone else 08:16 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

Open letter to the Atlantium dudes:

  1. check your spelling on your site: "and it's most historic symbol..."
  2. in your form you appear to define marriage as a relationship of more than 10 months, and single as "never married, not in a relationship". That leaves only "Divorced" for those no longer in a relationship. What about widowhood?

You appear to be a bunch of complete nuts. Lose the freakishly computer-game-Nazi eagle logo & I'm a member! -- Tarquin 14:36 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

Check your wallet first, Tarquin. The Altantium constitution says all citizens have a duty to pay taxes. -- Someone else 20:27 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)
I only skim-read their site. I thought they meant taxes to their country of residence. Besides, I might be a freeloader after Atlantium state benefits .... mwahahaha! -- Tarquin
If their taxes aren't TOO high, maybe you could bargain for an appointment as their Grand High Vice-Ambassador to K-Mart and Lake Erie... -- Someone else
Thanks for the insightful commentaries. Offending apostrophe deleted. The eagle stays. No taxes are presently levied, and there are no plans for their introduction. Titles are earned, not bought or sold. All official positions are voluntary, and appointments made on the basis of personal skill sets. Any other questions: information@atlantium.org

How does Atlantium compare to a bunch of Wyoming wack jobs in camos with illegal automatic weapons and a web site holed up in a cabin somewhere refusing to pay their taxes to the Zionist Occupation Government? Just asking. Ortolan88

No provocations, please - we have already agreed that it's encyclopedia-worthy, so now it's about presenting the facts in the most balanced manner possible. --Eloquence
Orto, they do actually state in their FAQ that Atlatium citizens are not exempt in any way from taxes and other obligations in their state of residence & their other nationality. -- Tarquin

I made some wording changes to better reflect the fact that this state is not taken seriously by established nations—it is an understatement to say it is not recognized. Iran does not recognize Israel, and most countries do not recognize Taiwan, but the sense in which Atlantium is "not recognized" is a different matter entirely. --Delirium 05:57, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

I reinserted my wording changes. The article must say that it "claims to be" organized as a state, as no established states nor authorities on governance recognize this: it is only claimed by the state (or "state", if you prefer) itself. In addition, unless there is evidence that Australia no longer exercises territorial control over this appartment (for example, not levying taxes on it, or not subjecting the activities within it to its laws), then we can safely say that Australia in practice exercises jurisdiction over the self-declared sovereign territory. --Delirium 11:13, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Your first change is illogical. Atlantium does not CLAIM to be organised in the manner of a state. It IS organised in that manner; that is a verifiable reality (. Indeed, it possesses NO OTHER organisational paradigm apart from the one commonly adopted by contemporary sovereign states. Whether it is "recognised" as a state by others bears no relevance whatsoever to this point of discussion. Likewise, the fact that its appointed diplomatic representatives are unaccredited means exactly that they do not fall under the established UN protocols governing consular and ambassadorial activity, and therefore do not commonly interact with persons who do. Your change in this context is entirely redundant. Re-stating something that has already been stated does not make it any more true, nor does it add any useful data to the article. --Gene Poole
I see no evidence that it is organized in the manner of a state. A state is organized in a manner that actually exerts authority over territory, and is characterized by such things as a police force, a military, a recognized government, fire-response service, tax collection, and so on. I see no evidence that Atlantium is organized in such a way. It is quite possible that there are other modes under which a state can be organized, but until evidence emerges from third-party neutral sources that Atlantium is organized in such a way, we can't report the claim as fact.
I would suggest it does indeed possess a different organization paradigm: that commonly adopted by fictitious nations.
As for representatives, that sentence does more correctly characterize their status. Saying merely that they are "unaccredited" gives the impression that they meet with their counterparts in an unofficial fashion, much like the US's unaccredited representatives to Taiwan do. However, this is not the case. --Delirium 03:48, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
If you're going to say that it only "claims" to be organized in the form of a sovereign state, you might as well go all the way and say that it claims to be a sovereign state. I'd recommend being more specific about exactly how it is organized if you want to re-add this information without qualification. And if you're going to do so, the first sentence wouldn't be the place to do it. Anthony DiPierro 04:05, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is really becoming quite tiresome. Do any of you people ever bother to exercise anything approaching intellectual rigour, or do you actually derive some level of perverse pleasure from confusing unsubstantiated personal opinions for facts?

If anyone here would like to reference some documented real-world facts, might I suggest independently researching the following. This should go some way towards comprehensively refuting the erroneous statements and circular arguments to which the discussion has fallen victim:

1. Contact the the official press photographer of President Hippolito Mejia of the Dominican Republic and request photographic evidence of the recent meeting between the President and the Atlantian unaccredited diplomatic representative in Brazil, Dr Lamarine de Hollanda Jr, during which the President accepted a gift presented on behalf of the Atlantian government.

2. Contact the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to confirm the fully-accredited attendance of an Atlantian representative at said Commission's Working Group on Indigenous Peoples conducted in mid-2003 in Geneva.

3. Contact the Recife office of the Brazilian Central Bank's Mint Museum, to verify the acceptance by said institution of an example of Atlantian coinage into the Mint Museum's official collection by the Museum Director.

Gene Poole

Wik: From http://www.atlantium.org/emperor.html:

His Imperial Majesty was born George Francis Cruickshank on 13 Octavus 10485 (7 December 1966) in Sydney, Australia. He played a pivotal role in the development of Atlantium, and became Emperor by unanimous acclamation at the time of its Foundation.

Looks like he was elected "unanimously" - whether that was by himself, or himself and the mentioned social club of 3 teens, or more people, is in interesting question. Pakaran. 04:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, like the website run by Cruickshank himself would prove anything. There isn't even independent verification that anyone else besides him is involved in this at all. --Wik 04:08, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
From the biographies page...
A project to synthesize and reconfigure many of the concepts he and his two cousins had explored into a coherent world view eventually crystalized into the idea of a global sovereignty project - The Empire of Atlantium - of which he was acclaimed Sovereign Head of State on 3 Decimus 10500 (27 November 1981) at the age of 14.
So basically he and his cousins decided he should be emperor. As for whether anyone is involved... right now all we know about Atlantium is that someone is paying 13 bucks a year for a domain for it. Research needs to be done, I'd say. Pakaran. 04:11, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'm in the process of finding someone to lock this page. Pakaran. 04:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have protected this page. I have not followed the edit war here, and do not know the merits of either side, nor do I care to. I'm simply locking it to prevent its flipping back and forth. I'll leave it to other to decide the content. Fuzheado


This is utterly pointless. Grow up, both of you. Secretlondon 19:10, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Right. NPOV is utterly pointless. And, who are you referring to by "both of you?" Anthony DiPierro
Wow, you don't have to be a genius to realize whom he is referring to. ugen64 22:33, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

User:Viajero protected the wrong version. 62.169.220.232 19:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This page has been protected again. I reverted to the version unprotected by Tannin several days ago. -- Viajero 19:16, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's perfect. Sorry about the previous uninformed comment. thanks for fighting wicked admins. 62.169.220.232 19:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

User:Viajero protected the wrong version. --Wik 19:29, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

You're a comedian, aren't you? RickK 19:35, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik, please stop trolling! do you want a ban? 62.169.220.232 19:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wonder who this IP belongs to? Alexandros perhaps? Secretlondon 19:41, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

No, it resolves to Greece. -- Viajero 19:43, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Poll

What phrasing is better?

Pretends

The Empire of Atlantium is a social and political advocacy group based in Sydney, Australia, that pretends to be a sovereign state. It claims to have been established in 1981, by a group of three teenagers, and to have now approximately 1,000 members, in over 60 countries. George Francis Cruickshank plays the role of head of state as "Emperor George II".
  1. "claim" implies a measure of substance or legitimacy. -- Viajero 16:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Atlantium has both "substance" (ie has verifiably produced physical products and been involved in events in the "real world"), and a "degree of legitimacy" (ie verifiable interactions with "legitimate" organizations, states and international Non-Government Organizations and their representatives). Gene Poole
  2. agree with Viajero. Maximus Rex, 08:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. It's not sovereign. It's nowhere near sovereign. ugen64 21:11, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
  4. All in favor of not giving an imaginary country the status of Palestine, say "aye". Ashibaka ✎ 20:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  5. Gady 18:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) though purports is also fine.

Claims

The Empire of Atlantium is a social and political advocacy group based in Sydney, Australia, that claims to be a sovereign state. It claims to have been established in 1981, by a group of three teenagers, and to have now approximately 1,000 members, in over 60 countries. George Francis Cruickshank acts as head of state with the title "Emperor George II."
  1. Anthony DiPierro
  2. moink
  3. Gene Poole - no evidence has been advanced to justify use of the "pretends" version promoted by the troll who has been regularly vandalising this article.
  4. Delirium - but should also mention the word micronation with a link, for an explanation of the whole phenemenon
  5. Meelar Agree with Delirium
  6. Ryan_Cable
    • -- The unvandalised article already clearly states the "micronation" connection. Gene Poole
  7. IMSoP - as far as I can see, it's undeniable that they claim this status, and saying so neither validifies nor refutes this claim.
  8. PenguiN42 - I fail to see how "claim" implies anything other than the fact that they made a claim, which they did. However, "pretend" is hugely POV. Pretend explicitly means "To give a false appearance of/To claim or allege insincerely or falsely/To represent fictitiously in play; make believe." Saying "pretend" is tantamount to giving the point of view that their claim is illegitimate. Saying "claimed" is simply relaying the facts with a NPOV.
  9. Angela. This one sounds more NPOV without being untrue.
  10. Bryan. IMO it is a statement of fact when one says that someone claims something, but it is a statement of opinion when one says that someone is pretending something.
  11. silsor 22:59, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  12. TKinias. As crackpot as the whole thing is, ‘pretends’ is not very NPOV... —Tkinias 11:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  13. Frazzydee 00:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC): well, if it does CLAIM that it was founded by a group of teenagers, then why not say it as it is? It does not say anywhere that it really was, just that "Atlantium" says that it was. 'Pretends' means that it is not true, so until proof comes along to disprove its supposed founding, I believe that "claim" is the word to use here.
  14. Neutrality 00:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pretends or Claims

Both are better.

  1. Optim
  2. Sam [Spade]

Purports, states that it is, or claims

  1. Pakaran. I'd be ok with any of these, and it seems more neutral.
  2. Anthony DiPierro
  3. NerdOfTheNorth. Personally, I prefer "states that it is", it seems the most NPOV of them all.
  4. PenguiN42 - these are all neutral enough imho, as opposed to "pretends."

Note: I only recognize votes on subjective matters. Here, however, the facts are plain: Atlantium is not a state. (A state is a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority. Gene Poole's living room is of course subject to the authority of Australia.) So any such claim is flat-out wrong. And to make a false claim = to pretend. So my version is simply more precise and not POV at all. --Wik 09:51, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • What about saying they "wrongly claim" it then? Angela. 10:04, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • One cannot "wrongly claim". A claim is a claim is a claim. One can either make a claim or not make a claim. The perceived legitimacy of the claim is entirely unrelated to the act of claiming. If a documented claim is made then it is a fact, pure and simple - and facts are encyclopaedic. Gene_Poole
I disagree that "to pretend" is equivalent to "to claim incorrectly". "Pretend" has connotations of deliberate misleadingness, or triviality or childishness (or it does to me, anyway; connotations are subjective). "Claim", however, has the connotation of one person saying one thing, while others disagree - a difference of viewpoints (possibly with the weight of international law behind one party and not the other, but nonetheless both sides may well believe their claims). To give a larger-scale example, "For years, the Republic of China (generally known as "Taiwan") claimed authority over mainland China." - it was plain as day that they didn't, in practice, have it, but no one would have accused them of "pretending", surely. - IMSoP 13:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, it is deliberately misleading. If I were to "claim" that 2+2=5 would it be wrong to say I pretend this? As to the Republic of China, it doesn't pretend to have actual control over the mainland (which would be a false claim), it just claims the territory based on the fact that it previously did control it. The difference is that Atlantium 1) does not control any territory (the ROC controls Taiwan) and 2) isn't recognized by anyone (the ROC is recognized by 27 countries). Any serious claim requires at least one of the two: either actual control of a territory or recognition by established countries. As I said before, this article should be deleted entirely. After all, I could right here and now proclaim the Kingdom of Wik and it would have exactly the same legitimacy and significance as Atlantium - none. But if it can't be deleted, I will at least point out its absurdity. --Wik 13:34, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Individuals who cannot distinguish the difference between unsubstantiated personal opinions and facts that can be verified using multiple documented non-internet-based sources, or who, despite being apprised of the existence of those sources continue to blithely and wilfully promote those same unsubstantiated personal opinions as fact advocate through their actions nothing less than the explicit inclusion of deliberately false and misleading data within Wikipedia. Such individuals have no place within a project seeking to comprehensively documentat the factual reality of the human achievement. --Gene_Poole

OK, I have another suggestion: what about ...that claims to be a "non-territorial state". Since there is no accepted definition against which to compare, this would seem to me to (to some extent) get around the issue of "not being subjective", while at the same time correctly reporting the action taken - i.e. that they make such a claim. Note also that sovereign state is (currently) a redirect to state, so the rewording doesn't actually change the destination of the link. In fact, I've just had a further thought - ...claims - controversially - to be... Your opinions are, of course, welcome. - IMSoP 01:13, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, that's not better. "Claims" gives it a false legitimacy. There is no "controversy" in the real world. A tiny group makes a ridiculous claim, the rest of the world ignores it. --Wik 13:34, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
None the less, they make that claim, and surely we should report that they do so - no more, no less. To use your example above, "Professor Arbuthnot is a mathematician who claims that 2+2=5" would seem to me completely neutral. If you wanted to draw attention to the fact that nobody else agreed, you could say "...who claims - controversially - that 2+2=5". In my opinion, "pretends" doesn't have the same meaning at all. - IMSoP 13:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't even report about anyone making such a claim. I could make the claim right now - can I start an article about my theory? In any case, we might certainly write in articles that 2+2=4 as a matter of fact, without qualification. Therefore, we could describe any claim that 2+2=5 as factually wrong, not just "controversial". And likewise, we can describe the claim that "Atlantium is a state" as factually wrong. And we can say "pretends" instead of "makes the factually wrong claim". --Wik 14:16, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I was starting from the assumption that we had decided to include an article on this Professor (which decision was taken wrt this page before I got here), in which case the fact that he made such a claim would be very much worthy of inclusion. And I still don't think "pretends" is equivalent to "makes the factually wrong claim", even if the latter were correct. In this case, I think it depends a lot on your definition of "state", and while most people would disagree with their one, that doesn't make it a "pretence", merely a minority opinion.
Another suggestion has occurred to me: "...that claims to be a sovereign state, although this conflicts with traditional usage of that term." A bit long for the very first sentence, perhaps, but makes the key point that their claim is near-universally rejected (we could actually say "...is near-universally rejected", but that might suggest more attention than they actually get). - IMSoP 15:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I can take a mouse and call it an elephant by adopting a different definition of "elephant" which most people would disagree with - would that be a minority opinion or would it be patent nonsense? The term "sovereign state" has a clear meaning and Atlantium isn't one. And of course Gene Poole knows that, so "pretends" is quite correct. Your suggestion about "traditional usage" suggests there is some new usage emerging, which is also misleading. You might say "...that claims to be a sovereign state, although it isn't one." But "pretends" is a more efficient way to say that. --Wik 15:36, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, from State: "The legal criteria for statehood are generally accepted to be...". It seems to me there is some debate on the precise meaning of the term, otherwise I wouldn't have made the suggestion in the first place. It's not so much like calling an elephant a mouse as calling a mushroom a plant; or perhaps calling Sedna (and/or Pluto) a planet. - IMSoP 15:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
From state: "a state is a political entity possessing sovereignty, i.e. not being subject to any higher political authority." Does that apply to Atlantium? I don't think so. --Wik 15:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

In addition to "voting" above, I'll just make a few further suggestions, feel free to respond to each in turn:

  • the second sentence could perhaps become "It was established in 1981 by a group of three teenagers, and now claims approximately 1,000 members, in over 60 countries." since we have no reason to deny when it was set up - and as far as I know, there is no legally challengable definition of "set up", so it's down to the memory of the 3 original "citizens".
  • "though in practice this territory is under the jurisdiction of Australia." could become "though in practice this territory remains under Australian jurisdiction." - a subtle change, but I think it subtracts less from the Atlantian claim.
  • "Atlantium is considered by some people to be a micronation. Atlantium's web-site currently refers to itself using several different formulations, including the assertions that it is a "self-declared State" and an "aspirant microstate"." could become "Atlantium is considered by some people to be a micronation, while its own web-site currently uses several different formulations, including the assertions that it is a "self-declared State" and an "aspirant microstate"." - which apart from anything else is better stylistically.
  • otherwise, I think the current version is fairly decent. Particularly, I think that "acts as head of state" is reasonable enough, given that every country is free to define its own head of state. Perhaps it would benefit from linking to "head of state"?

IMSoP 20:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe any factual claims from their website, sorry. Provide independent verification, or mark it as a claim as opposed to fact. --Wik 13:34, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
But my point is, what "independent verification" do you need or expect that three teenagers did something more than twenty years ago? If they are the same people, and that is what they remember, then that's as close to verifiable fact as you're going to get, surely? - IMSoP 13:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, of course it's hard to verify even if true. But that's your problem: if you want to present it as fact, you have to provide verification. As long as we don't have that, we can only say that's what they claim. --Wik 14:16, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
OK, point taken; however, it wasn't so much that I wanted to present it as fact as that I thought having "claims" as every other word was rather ugly, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we could perhaps take their word for it on this one detail since it doesn't seem to make much odds either way. - IMSoP 15:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not taking their word for it on anything. --Wik 15:36, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
So I gathered. - IMSoP 15:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Since the page is currently unprotected, I implemented the 2nd and 3rd suggestions here, and hoped that they would be uncontroversial as they are mainly stylistic improvements. However, Wik seems to have decided otherwise, and is reverting to a version which predates them. I would be interested to know whether, in fact, he disagrees with them (but has perhaps not had time to comment on them here), or whether he is merely dogmatically assuming that any change other than his own is automatically incorrect in some way. - IMSoP 22:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm indifferent on those minor changes, but as you made them on top of Anthony's version, I had to revert them. --Wik 23:11, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
Depending on your definition of "had to", of course, but I take your point: it was easier to revert to a version you knew was "acceptable" (to you) than to check exactly which changes were "unacceptable" and "needed" reverting. (Sorry for all the quotation marks, but this is highly subjective stuff, and I don't want to be interpretted as agreeing with the reversions). I'll put my changes back in. Any comments on my suggestion for the second sentence anyone? - IMSoP 23:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The user you refer to is well-known on Wikipedia as a vexatious reversionist. He/she rarely offers any explanation for his/her actions - aside from the occasional piece of specious personal opinion presented as fact. When presented with evidence that inconveniently refutes his/her subjective insertions/deletions he/she simply ignores it and reverts until protection is forced on the article in question. Gene_Poole

I am very stupidly jumping into the fray, and I promise not to touch this article afterwards. I propose a compromise on the first point... "The group was established.... and claims to have". Notice the preposition "to". Saying that it claims 1000 members somehow lends too much credence to their claims (hence Wik is right here), but saying that they claim to have should be just about right. Secondly, we shouldn't really dispute that they were established by three guys in 1981 (IMSoP is right there). There. That's me adding my stupid 2 centimes. -- Kowey 18:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Darn! I missed the vote

The Empire of Atlantium has been in existence since the 1980s, . . . "claiming as sovereign territory" a 61 square metre enclave in Potts Point, in the City of South Sydney. This claim remains uncontested by the Commonwealth of Australia.

Bear in mind that 61 square meters translates to 18 feet by 36 feet. That's not a whole heck of a lot of territory! :-)

And our micronation article states:

  • A micronation (cybernation, fantasy country, model country, new country project, pseudonation, counternation, ephemeral state, online nation, and variants thereof) is an entity intended to replace, resemble, mock, or exist on equal footing with recognized independent states. Some micronations are created with serious intent, while others exist as a hobby or stunt. For the most part they exist only on paper, on the internet, or in the minds of their creators and participants.

Thus I propose flatly stating that Atlantium IS a micronation. --Uncle Ed 13:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not that is true (and it isn't, but whatever), by what stretch of the imagination can it be called an empire? Adam Bishop 17:25, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I guess that's just its name - silly, but nothing we can do about it; it's like changing your name to Screaming Lord Sutch by deed poll, and thus being legally called "Lord" without being in any way a lord!
I just found a somewhat prophetic comment on the archived VfD debate:
"...Just don't go nuts over NPOV, and everything will work out fine..." (Rickyrab)
I think Ed hit the nail on the head when he suggested everyone lighten up a bit - does it really matter? - IMSoP 22:14, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the page protection because there has been no dicussion on this article for over a week. --"DICK" CHENEY 18:33, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's protected again I suppose. FWIW, I don't really like using the country infobox on this article, and would prefer that were reserved for countries more widely considered countries. --Delirium 10:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
I protected it again since Wik and Gene launched another edit war. -- Viajero 10:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Given that Wik has specifically publicly targeted this article for ongoing vexatious vandalism, I suggest that it be left under protection until such time as he/she is banned or or has his/her malicious activities otherwise curtailed.--Gene_poole 11:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Given that the rogue user who has been disrupting the ongoing editing of this page has been banned it may be worthwhile to unprotect it now.--Gene_poole 04:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the site should be left as it is the amount of space it occupies on the wikipedia server is so miniscule that it really doesn't matter. However a List of Micronations should be used in the future. I see no reason to take this site down but I believe that others need not sping up.
Daniel,levine 04:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Why this page?

Can I yet again raise the question of why we have an article on this nonsense? I mean, Sealand is an entity worthy of note. This is not. Unless someone can provide a compelling reason why the "Empire of Atlantium" is any more notable than the dozens of vanity articles that get regularly deleted, other than the fact that the article's been around for two years, I'm going to list for deletion.john 05:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It's already been listed for deletion twice in three months and has survived because it is clearly encyclopaedic. Suggest you go do some research before sharing sweeping, unsupported assertions with us. --Gene_poole 07:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I assumed it's been listed before. It needs to keep getting listed until we get agreement to delete it, imo. What do you mean by "clearly encyclopedic," at any rate? The article is well-written and NPOV, certainly. But the topic is not encyclopedic at all. I see nothing about the "Empire of Atlantium" which warrants an encyclopedia article about it. john 15:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • A google search for "Empire of Atlantium" retrieves 264 URLs. That's enough for me to support this article's existence. Kingturtle 05:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
How many of those are from Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirror sites? On the first page, we get the official Atlantium site, various sites that sell coins and flags for micronations, and the wikipedia article. Then we get a messageboard, various micronation pages, references on some national anthem enthusiast sites...nothing to indicate this is worthy of serious consideration in an encyclopedia. john 15:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
We have articles of all sorts of obscure things. Wikipedia has the luxury of tons of space for articles. We have the advantage to supply readers with obscure information. Why are you so opposed to this article? What is bothering you so much? Kingturtle 16:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It is an insignificant vanity article. I still have seen no reason for why it is being kept, when numerous other similar articles about vanity political parties, or vanity religious organizations, are routinely put on Votes for Deletion and deleted. Please explain how the "Empire of Atlantium" is any different. Some notice in the mainstream press, for instance, would be convincing. john 18:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

There is no reason to repeat for your sole benefit what has already been repeated ad nauseum in discussions that you can access with a simple mouseclick at the top of this page - and that includes multiple verifiable mainstream media references and interactions with heads of state and international agencies.--Gene_poole 23:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It ought to be noted that the votes in both of the votes for deletion were about even between deleting and keeping. It should also be noted that a mention in a single Guardian article is hardly evidence of any particular significance. On the other hand, VfD seems unlikely to succeed. So I suppose we're stuck with this nonsense. john 23:59, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you go do some real research if you intend contributing anything useful to this discussion. There's a damned sight more than a "single Guardian article" on the public record. A great deal of it has been directly linked to and discussed previously. Some of it can be sourced from the Atlantium website itself. The fact that there is a relatively even split between deletionists and inclusionists on the subject shows that the article is of sufficient interest to be considered encyclopedic, particularly given that we have long ago established that the subject is real and verifiable. You seem to be falling into the common Wikipedia error of imposing your personal opinions of a subject's perceived "worth" onto the discussion. You may well consider it "nonsense", but a significant number of others (amongst them the members of Atlantium) clearly do not. Ultimately the only criteria that matter are (1) does it exist, and (2) is there a reasonable expectation that someone, somewhere, is likely to hear about it and want to research it on Wikipedia. The answer to both in this case is without a doubt, affirmative.--Gene_poole 02:55, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I would guess that some, at least, of the members of Atlantium, would agree that it is nonsense, but you presumably have better insight into that than I. I would question to what extent the subject is verifiable. I mean, there is a website, and there are occasional major media references - but the Guardian article, at least, could easily have been created without any real research to determine what this thing really means. I mean, the whole problem with things like Atlantium is that they are essentially unverifiable - any random person with some money to spare can create a webpage, coins, and postage stamps for their micronation. john 03:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if something is obscure. If an article is well-written, and concerns a topic that is interesting to some people, I support it. Kingturtle 03:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It's not that it's obscure. It's that it's entirely insignificant and basically unverifiable. If I declared that my Wikipedia user page is actually the Grand Duchy of Flossistorenburg, and that I am Grand Duke John VI, and then designed a flag and coat of arms and started issuing passports, could I then write a wikipedia article on the Grand Duchy of Flossistorenburg. So long as it's well-written, and I could find a couple of people who are interested in my grand duchy, you would not support deletion? john 03:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, yes. That sounds like a cool idea; if you want assistance, look at Start Your Own Country for assistance. Why are you so opposed to creativity? Yahoo and Excite have a subcategories for Micronations. Micronations are a phenomenon you are going to have to accept (see Norton Awards). Don't be so serious all the time - the mention of Empire of Atlantium at Joels Coins is very entertaining. Thank God you weren't around when the Church of the SubGenius or the Invisible Pink Unicorn were trying to get off the ground. Other Wikipedia articles like this that also exist are Discordianism and Kibology. Relax my friend. Have some fun. Kingturtle 03:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I were, in fact, to do that, I would suggest that the article would almost certainly be put very quickly on VfD, and very quickly deleted. That is to say, your views on this subject are not in tune with those of others. As to the thanking God about my absence when various silly things that are now widely known were being devised, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to help weird organizations or Usenet terms gain wide acceptance. The purpose is to describe these things when they are already well known. The examples you give (or, at least, the first one), and, say, the Raving Monster Loony Party, or whatever, are well known and significant enough to have articles. Other similar ideas simply are not. Which category Atlantium falls into is open to dispute, but I think it's ridiculous to say that anything anybody makes up on the internet is deserving of an encyclopedia article. john 04:01, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

You're arguing on spurious grounds; Does Atlantium exist? Yes. Does it produce physical evidence of its existence? Yes. Is it comprised of real people who identify with it and act on its behalf? Yes. Does it interact with established international organisations and governments? Yes. Can ALL of this be verified? Yes. If you wish to make assertions to the contrary please provide evidence to support them. Your personal opinion as to its "relevance" is entirely POV and does not constitute evidence.--Gene_poole 04:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Gah, I'm sick of this. Note to self: no further intervention on micronations, will only lead to frustration and patronizing lectures from Gene Poole. john 06:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

If you want to conduct a debate that's supported solely by your POV rather than actual evidence, then frustration will be an inevitable outcome. You can hardly blame me for that.--Gene_poole 06:24, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
The more articles like this that exist in the Wikipedia, the harder it is to single one of them out for deletion. An advocate for non-deletion has only to point to the numerous other articles on various nonsensical, vanity, and non-notable subjects, and ask how the article in question is any worse. Wikipedia will be whatever there is a constituency for amongst its editors. There seems to be a significant constituency that Wikipedia embrace all forms of nonsense, and that seriousness is a non-goal (as long as the nonsense is minimally coherent and "neutral") So the decision has been made that Wikipedia will contain nonsense, a lot of it. User:24.218.179.253 06:47, 20 Sep 2004

Stalking or what?

What is your problem with my edits, Gzornenplatz? You revert them all but mention only the unquoting of "prime minister". And how come you show up at every controversial page I edit like clockwork? VV 22:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The unquoting is precisely the problem. And I have edited this page before (in fact, I originally wrote the sentence about the "prime ministers"). If anything, you're stalking me. Gzornenplatz 22:15, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Do you seriously expect me to believe this? I've edited this page before too, thank you much, but this issue is new. VV 22:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The editor you refer to is well-known for adopting the technique stated as a way of interpolating both his/her POV and irrefutably false content into articles. --Gene_poole 22:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who?? VV 22:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Back pockets?

all of these funds actually end up in the emperors back pocket. This is not only massive PoV, it's missing an apostrophe. Pakaran. 13:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Empire unmanned during office hours

Given that the contact number above goes to voice mail during the day, perhaps it might be pertinent to indicate that its a "fly-by-night" nation.Fifelfoo 04:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Emperor obviously works abroad ;) Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I unlock this page, will there be an edit war? Pakaran (ark a pan) 01:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1980s claims

Hello all. I've just stumbled across this in doing some research for an article, and notice that there seems to be some controversy about the alleged 1981 foundation date. If it's of interest, I've actually been in recent telephone contact with the group and as a result I've been able to uncover a number of references to the "Empire of Atlantium" in the Australian national stamp magazine "Stamp News" in the period 1984-85. AFAIC that is solid proof that they existed in the early 1980s. Shouldn't the wording be changed to reflect this? Should I add my references to the article? There are about half a dozen all told. --Centauri 00:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should place a vote for the wording of this one sentence below. Samboy 05:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why? I don't think any of the suggested versions is appropriate.--Centauri 05:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. Time to add a hird option, then. Samboy 05:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I think adding references and what not is appropriate. Samboy 05:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have changed the article to what I think it should be by adding an extra sentence mentioning the media references in 1984. I have also added the earliest reference that I have to the bottom of the page. I hope this is OK. --Centauri 06:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The changes look good. Thanks for the contribution! Samboy 07:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a further half dozen references from 1984-85 media articles as per discussion below. Once I figure out how to post graphic files I'll upload a scan of one of them. --Centauri 03:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Even if you are Gene Poole (just saying not accusing) it is good to have the outside confirmation that the "empire" existed in the mid-80s. I think the article as it is now should be wholly unexceptionable to both sides of this particular dispute. Please do upload the scan. It'll be well worth seeing even if we only linked to it.Dr Zen 04:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problemo. It's a fascinating subject. Sounds like I really need to go read The Wonderful Adventures of Mr Poole in the Land of Wikipedia if I'm going to have people expecting me to be him. Perhaps we can start by having me acclaimed emporer :-) --Centauri 04:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock it! You'll get your face on a stamp.Dr Zen 05:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You mean like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stamp_News_091984.jpg ? --Centauri 05:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant! I'd be all for cropping this and using it as an illustration if George agrees to release the image.Dr Zen 05:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe the Empire is a signer to the Berne Convention. I'd check the government's website for info on their policy on copyright of government works, but the country must be having serious information infrastructure problems today. :) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:14, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe someone should ask him? He seems a pretty agreeable chap. Then again, who owns the copyright - him or the magazine? --Centauri 05:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The edit war between Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily

This edit war is getting tiring. I think it is more productive to bring this issue to a vote:

Should the reading be this (reading number one)

The group claims to have been established in 1981 by three teenagers. One of those, George Francis Cruickshank (born 1966) ...

Or this (reading number two):

The group, founded by three then-teenagers, dates its establishment to 1981. One founder, George Francis Cruickshank (born 1966) ...

If you prefer the first reading, put your vote here for the first reading. If you prefer the second reading, vote here for the second reading. Samboy 02:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here are the current votes:

Reading number one:

  1. I see no reason to believe anything from the Atlantium website, which is not an authoritative source. The information is simply not verifiable. Gzornenplatz 02:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  2. It has to be reading one, if either. It does "date its establishment" to 1981, but to say that it was founded by then-teenagers accepts the claim by the back door. We can only report the claim. Now, come on guys, this is quite clear. And Samboy, you don't need a reason to doubt a claim. Claims are inherently dubious. Without evidence, they cannot be taken for fact.Dr Zen 00:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reading number two

  1. I see no reason to doubt this claim. Samboy 02:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. The word claim misleads. Dates its establishment does not endorse the (seemingly uncontroversial) date of founding but also does not imply it's dubious. VeryVerily 05:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. I support the version of the paragraph that does not include the word "claims". The edit history does not seem to line up with your assessment of the votes as related to the numbering here. I support the paragraph listed as "paragraph two" above, which makes your statement of what I support incorrect. This also means that I support the current (15:07, Dec 12, 2004) version. (Now, someone explain to me why I'm so confused.) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keith, they make a claim. It is not "POV" to say that they claim they founded it then. It is the plain fact of the matter. It is, though, POV to state that they were teenagers when they founded it, because they claim they were teenagers when they founded it. You are endorsing the claim by saying they were teenagers at the foundation of the "empire".Dr Zen 02:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I claim my name is Keith D. Tyler. Have you any reason to doubt the veracity of that claim? Did you assume that it was not my name? More to the point, would your biography of me include the statement "he clams his name is Keith Tyler?" No, you would not, unless you wanted to suggest that I was making it up.
Now, furthermore, if you accept George Cruickshank's claim that he was born on 7 December, 1966 [1], then in 1984 at the date of the article researched by User:Centauri, he would still be a teenager. Unless he managed to found the micronation after the article was printed, that sounds pretty undubious to me. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 03:13, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Because you claim your name is Keith D. Tyler I'm supposed to take that as a fact, unless I have particular evidence to disbelieve it? I don't have a particular reason to doubt it, but nor do I have particular reason to believe it is correct. I just don't know. There are enough people here who use names sounding like real names which aren't their real real names (just ask "Kate Turner"). And to include a fact in an encyclopedia you have to be quite confident that the fact is correct, and this requires a credible source - which the Atlantium website certainly isn't. Gzornenplatz 03:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
That is really interesting logic. Why is it "ridiculous" to believe that a person's stated name and age are not their stated name and age - particularly when there are photographs of the person available from various sources that show them to be the same sex and approximate age that they themselves claim to be, and when records of their birth are readily available? If the person's own website was the only source then it would not be credible or verifiable, as you say, but there are many sources available in this case, for example the State Library of NSW, the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages, Reuters, Fairfax Publications and high schools for starters. Have you researched any of these? --Centauri 04:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. I agree that "claims" implies doubt. "Dates" is neutral, so it is better. Maurreen 06:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    "Dates" is neutral? That's simply not true. "The Japanese Emperor dates the establishment of his divinity to 2000BC when his ancestor was the son of Amaterasu." Do you see? Dr Zen 02:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the below discussion, it appears that Gzornenplatz and Dr Zen want reading one, and that Keith D. Tyler, myself, and VeryVerily want readin two. In light of this, I'm going to say the votes are for reading number two Samboy 03:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, dude, there's no consensus for either reading. You'll have to try to find a version everyone is happy with.Dr Zen 02:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, my vote was for no change. But while we're on the subject, I did state that version one is rooted in POV. So what wins -- your search for consensus of your opinion, or NPOV? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler

[flame]]] 04:13, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think there is such a thing as NPOV for this micronation. If no change is your vote, then you're voting for the pre-Gzornenplatz version of the page. Here is the first time Gzorn put in the "claims" section on the page, before this it was reading one. Samboy 08:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. My head is simply spinning. For the record, I support the version of the paragraph that does not include the word "claims". The edit history does not seem to line up with your assessment of the votes as related to the numbering here. I support the paragraph listed as "paragraph two" above, which makes your statement of what I support incorrect. This also means that I support the current (15:07, Dec 12, 2004) version. (Now, someone explain to me why I'm so confused.) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion; I mixed up reading number one and reading number two. I've cleaned things up, and have added votes to the tally above. Samboy 05:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • I see no reason to believe anything from the Atlantium website, which is not an authoritative source. The information is simply not verifiable. Gzornenplatz 02:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Place a vote then. Samboy 04:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Um, that was one. Gzornenplatz 11:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I see no reason not to believe anything from the Atlantium website, or more to the point, to believe that there exist more accurate versions of anything from the Atlantium website.

That's besides the point. The Atlantium website makes a claim. It does not document a fact. I don't have a problem so much with "dates its establishment" as I do with "then-teenagers". They *say* they were teenagers when they formed it. Clearly there is a POV that they were not. Without any other evidence but the POVs of the two sides, you simply cannot state as fact one version or the other.

  1. If you believe that micronations are legitimately valid organizations, then there is no reason to disbelieve the information on the organizations' official website, unless you have evidence of fraudulence (which would not be a legitimately valid organization.)
  2. If you do not believe that micronations are legitimately valid organizations, then any detail about them must by nature be imaginary, and therefore there is either no such thing as an accurate version of such details, or those details are wholly within the mythology of the organization -- just as if you were editing e.g. a Star Trek pseudotechnology article.
Either way, the official source is an equally valid source for details.
- [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 18:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Erm. I'd accept your argument if you put in a disclaimer at the beginning of the article that this is an entirely fictional entity and none of the "facts" in the article are anything but fiction.Dr Zen 02:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has to be reading one, if either. It does "date its establishment" to 1981, but to say that it was founded by then-teenagers accepts the claim by the back door. We can only report the claim. Now, come on guys, this is quite clear. And Samboy, you don't need a reason to doubt a claim. Claims are inherently dubious. Without evidence, they cannot be taken for fact.Dr Zen 00:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How does saying they were teenagers in 1981 accept anything by the back door? All it accepts is their approximate age, and someone's own statement of their rough age without contrary evidence or even any reason to doubt it is good enough evidence. We don't ask for birth certificates for all our biography articles. VeryVerily 05:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It does not in fact say they were teenagers in 1981. It says it was founded by three teenagers. This is the whole substance of Gzornenplatz's dispute with it.Dr Zen 02:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fine, then (oh, shoot me):
The group dates its establishment to 1981 by three then-teenagers. One founder, George Francis Cruickshank (born 1966) ...
-[[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 05:18, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


I don't see an essential difference between either paragraph. They are rewrites of the same fundamental statement. The impetus behind including the word "claim" is a POV one, intended deliberately to suggest that the organization's statements of its creation are bogus. I am not aware of other places where it is considered acceptable or necessary to do this. And you are right, the revert war is complete absurdity, driven by one editor's desire to discredit another. Considering the functional and informational similarity between the versions, it is on par with a revert war over American and British spellings. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 04:52, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Bingo. The word claim misleads. Dates its establishment does not endorse the (seemingly uncontroversial) date of founding but also does not imply it's dubious. VeryVerily 05:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that "claims" implies doubt. "Dates" is neutral, so it is better. Maurreen 06:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is doubt. Jeez. They claim now to have been founded then. It's not that we know they were around then from other sources. We have only their claim to go on. It is exactly in keeping with Wikipedia policy to state what people claim as their claim and not as a fact. Dr Zen 02:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We have other sources that show they were around in 1984. This is in alignment with their own claims, so what reason is there to disbelieve those claims? --Centauri 02:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All we have is you being in alignment with yourself. Maybe you can provide a scan of the 1984 article? On http://www.atlantium.org/media.html, there's no press report from before 2000. Gzornenplatz 03:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
Me being in alignment with myself? What does that mean? I've already said above that I have documented a half dozen articles from 1984-85, and I've already added one of them to the list of references. I'm happy to add the rest if you like. And yes, I do have scans of them. --Centauri 03:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Centauri

Even if Centauri were a Gene_Poole sockpuppet, I wasn't aware that the arbitration involving him had been completed. What policy then would lead to automatic reversion of his edits? I must be missing something. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 20:28, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I put my comments on Gzorn's last revert on his talk page. Samboy 21:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK - I'll bite. Who is Gene Pool? --Centauri 21:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ask your contacts. :) - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]]

Ok now I'm really confused. Is this some sort of secret society thing? --Centauri 22:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gene Poole is the psudonym that George Francis Cruickshank (the guy who started the Empire of Atlantium) uses here on Wikipedia. While some editors have never had a problem with him, I have gotten in to some pretty nasty conflicts with him. Gzornenplatz thinks you're him because you've added content to this page. You can get a sense of the kinds of heated discussions I have had with him here and here. Samboy 22:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right. Interesting. Well I've spoken on the phone with Mr Cruickshank once and by email several times. I'm a writer, and he's assisting my research. We both live in Sydney and are planning to meet up in the new year. So far this morning I've been wrongly accused of violating copyright and being someone I'm not, and I'm a bit over it to tell you the truth. Is this normal around here?--Centauri 22:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This place is populated by a bunch of geeks who should probably work on becoming attractive to women instead of writing an online encyclopedia.  :-) So, yeah, people can get pretty heated here. I hope you don't get put off and leave here; there's a lot of pleasure in making a positive contribution to this encyclopedia. Something Pjacobi has not made clear and should make clear is that it is important for people to not plagerise when writing content here. The reason is because all content here is released under the GFDL; if people just copy stuff from web sources and put it here, it will make Wikipedia subject to lawsuits. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information.
The rules for writing stuff here are the same as writing a term pager for college: Yes, use information obtained from other sources, but re-write the information in your own words. Cut and paste is a bad idea, even for a single sentence.
Anyway, I'm glad you're here and I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Samboy 23:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As I pointed out to the writer of the German silver article my contribution was not a plagiarisation. The article I wrote was original, and in my own words, derived from 3 different sources. He accused me of copying it verbatim, which is just plain wrong.--Centauri 23:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More information on the issue is here. The issue in question is that information was copied verbatum from three different sources. Yes, only a sentence or so was copied verbatum (or almost verbatum) from each source, but the copies were verbatum copies. Does this constitute plagarism? I think so; you obviously disagree. Samboy 00:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) (revised Samboy 00:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC))
It falls under fair use when the length is very tiny compared to the whole work. Pilk 02:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The German Silver argument is going on in three separate places now: here, this page, and Here. Samboy 00:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article needs some clean up by using more neutral terms, rather than words that have POV in them. CHALK 07:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I vote second statement Paladine