Talk:Empire of Atlantium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Empire of Atlantium has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Micronations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of micronations. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Empire of Atlantium, has edited Wikipedia as Gene Poole (talk · contribs). This user's editing has included this article. Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia. |
 |
Empire of Atlantium is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
| 1, 2 |
Contents |
[edit] Notability
Why is this organisation notable? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Please read the notability guideline that you linked to. PubliusFL (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- CarbonLifeForm, it's included in the Lonely Planet guide to micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lonely Planet
Regarding the Lonely Planet to Micronations: I suggest we remove that as a source. It says clearly in the front cover "This book is intended for entertainment only. While the authors and Lonely Planet have taken all reasonable care to verify the information within, we make no warranty about its accuracy or completeness and, to the maximum extend permitted, disclaim all liability arising from use of the book" (emphasis added). I know it may seem like a standard disclaimer (like Wikipedia has), but it goes further to state that it's "for entertainment only" (a disclaimer like a psychic or The Onion would). Many of the "facts" in the book are clearly tongue-in-cheek jokes. Please let me know what you guys think (and please let me know about any COI). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that too - removing Lonely Planet as a source wouldn't really affect this article becuase much of the information can be found on Atlantium's website. Lonely Planet itself is reliable, but what is written at the front of the book does, in this case, affect that reliability. I would suggest replacing the information from the book with the exact same information from Atlantium's website. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think that would be a very bad idea. The Lonely Planet book is the most authoritative publication on the subject of micronations to appear in several decades. While it is written in a light-hearted tone, there is no question that the entities that it documents (both micronational and commercial) exist as described (even if only in the imagination of some of their creators), and that the authors' commentaries about them constitute valid, eminently quotable opinions based on fact-checked research. The authors themselves have made that clear in a number of third party interviews on the subject (eg here and here). There would be a problem if the book were a work of fiction - but that is very clearly not the case. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- "For entertainment only" means do not use this for real research. It means do not use it as a source; it means do not use it to build an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that the book is a work of fiction. I read your first interview and listened to the other interview and it's very clear that they meant for this to be a book people would find interesting, but if it was expected to be used as a source, then they wouldn't have said the exact opposite at the front. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It is abundantly clear that the authors researched their subjects and fact checked their sources. That's really all that matters. If you believe the LP Guide to be unreliable you should produce evidence to support that contention. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Gene on this. It's a standard disclaimer used to avoid lawsuits. I've never heard of a book that cannot be used as a source due to a disclaimer; there's no such thing. The book is perfectly acceptable as a source for this article under every guideline imaginable. Its status as entertainment, fiction, or otherwise is irrelevant. If you want to address this in the article, it is acceptable to make a note of the disclaimer in a footnote. —Viriditas | Talk 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem to be the standard disclaimer. Clearly, the Lonely Planet series would suffer dramatically if it were ever found to have been less than completely factually accurate. It does not employ the encyclopedic tone that we do, however, and on that basis it is reasonable for the publisher to include such a disclaimer in the event that an author makes a less than serious statement which others might take literally and find offensive. But that is no reason to believe that the objective information presented is not sufficiently reliable to include. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Gene on this. It's a standard disclaimer used to avoid lawsuits. I've never heard of a book that cannot be used as a source due to a disclaimer; there's no such thing. The book is perfectly acceptable as a source for this article under every guideline imaginable. Its status as entertainment, fiction, or otherwise is irrelevant. If you want to address this in the article, it is acceptable to make a note of the disclaimer in a footnote. —Viriditas | Talk 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It is abundantly clear that the authors researched their subjects and fact checked their sources. That's really all that matters. If you believe the LP Guide to be unreliable you should produce evidence to support that contention. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- "For entertainment only" means do not use this for real research. It means do not use it as a source; it means do not use it to build an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that the book is a work of fiction. I read your first interview and listened to the other interview and it's very clear that they meant for this to be a book people would find interesting, but if it was expected to be used as a source, then they wouldn't have said the exact opposite at the front. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that would be a very bad idea. The Lonely Planet book is the most authoritative publication on the subject of micronations to appear in several decades. While it is written in a light-hearted tone, there is no question that the entities that it documents (both micronational and commercial) exist as described (even if only in the imagination of some of their creators), and that the authors' commentaries about them constitute valid, eminently quotable opinions based on fact-checked research. The authors themselves have made that clear in a number of third party interviews on the subject (eg here and here). There would be a problem if the book were a work of fiction - but that is very clearly not the case. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gene Poole that the authors would have researched all of the micronations - and it is definitely not fiction. As I said before - this does not affect this article, the information in the book about Atlantium (and most likely any other micronation) is definitely correct. Any information in the book that isn't correct (such as the statement on Vikeslandic sovereignty) was not likely to be intentional. However, if both the website and the book state the same information, there is nothing stopping any editor from using both sources... Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Query: What credence would Wikipedia give to a hypothetical Lonely Planet Guide to Star Trek Worlds? Undoubtedly it would be regarded as in-universe information/sourcing and would be subject to WP:WAF. I suggest that (in keeping with its own front cover disclaimer) the LPGtM is to be read in the same way as Gulliver's Travels; accurate and carefully researched information about places that are not part of the real world. Darcyj (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion about a non-existent hypothetical source describing Gene Rodenbery's fictional universe; it is a discussion about an actual reliable published source that describes physical places that can be visited in the real world - a fact upon which the authors expostulate at length in their numerous published interviews on the subject, as well as in the introduction to the guidebook itself. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lonely Planet RFC
[edit] Bibliography
I've reverted the unexplained blanking of most of the bibliography content. The sources in question should be cited within the article, not deleted. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- What information are those sources supporting? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. If the sources in question discuss Empire of Atlantium or related topics, but are not used in the article, I would like to suggest moving them to a "further reading" section and merging external links into this new section. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. Quite a number of them probably should eventually be cited in the article - but until they are, parking them in a further reading section would be appropriate. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. If the sources in question discuss Empire of Atlantium or related topics, but are not used in the article, I would like to suggest moving them to a "further reading" section and merging external links into this new section. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
