Talk:Empire of Atlantium

Archives: Talk:Atlantium/Delete, Template:VfD-Empire of Atlantium, /archive

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] (http://www.atlantium.org/biographies.html), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Empire_of_Atlantium&diff=6301990&oldid=6301962), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Samboy&oldid=5173901). 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