Talk:Empire of Atlantium

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)

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 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)

Gene poole's correct, WP:WAF has nothing to do with this subject, because there is definitely no fiction involved here. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Atlantium cannot be visited. It is not a place. You are free to try and prove me wrong, but I will take some convincing since I drew a blank on searches of whitepages.com.au, yellowpages.com.au and http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/ Darcyj (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Citizens and tourists are often granted permission to visit the Imperium Proper. An appointment is required."

"Atlantium is located about 1km south of central Sydney."

"Atlantium is on Victoria Street."

"Victoria Court Hotel... Try this quaint boutique hotel, directly adjacent to the Imperium Proper."

All quotes from the Lonely Planet guide.

Maybe you could do us the courtesy of familiarising yourself with the actual topic at hand by reading some of the many reference sources provided, prior to posting further commentary. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] - Definitely can be visited. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Then I'll go ahead and do it if there aren't any objections. —Viriditas | Talk 10:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

This article just happens to gloss over the the fact that no other country recognizes Atlantium as a sovereign nation. Thus, the view that this is an independent micro-nation is a minority view and should be treated as such. Many of the things in this article border on micronation cruft instead of dealing with the actual importance of this organization as it is. Instead, too much space is devoted to stock templates and forms which are all well and good in mainstream micro-nations, but only serve to confuse the issue here. I respect Gene Poole as an editor, but he has a clear conflict of interest here, so much so that it would be best if he refrained from editing (except as relates to completely uncontroversial content) and instead participated in talk page discussion only. Savidan 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have confused micronation with microstate. Two completely different things. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, whatever are you talking about? Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody said "cruft". This whole page is cruft. It is absolute excrement. There is NO recognition of this "micronation" anywhere other than in the author's minds. There is no physical location. There is no active participant population governed. There is no active government. The treatment of "Atlantium" as a valid micronation is utter nonsense and foolishness. The entry in Wikipedia should be encyclopedic, and this is not. Wikepedia has deleted far more valid entries than this. A case COULD be made that this "micronation" could be mentioned as a creation of the men mentioned in the article as such, but must be restricted to that level of recognition. To do otherwise demeans the validity of Wikipedia as a valid source. Mbuell72 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gene Poole

User:Gene Poole, an editor of this article, claims to be "co-founder and chief executive of Atlantium " on his user page. Why isn't he mentioned in the article? The article mentions 3 teenagers who first created it, then says one of them revived it. Of course, there is a bit of COI here. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole is George Cruickshank, he is mentioned in the article. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. The COI problem doesn't exist at the moment as Poole is blocked for a month. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This much is obvious from the gallery of Atlantian currency. Can you unblock him early if he agrees to release his monies under the GFDL, Doug? — CharlotteWebb 20:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I should have looked at the pretty pictures. Hm, the money, tempting... Doug Weller (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

This article has a huge number of non-free images, far more than is needed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_of_commemorative_postage_stamps. In the current climate, all of the non-free images are likely to end up being deleted. I would support one use of a stamp or banknote in the article as fair use, but others might disagree. There is too much copyrighted material in the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"In world" Language

Surely stuff like "Emperor George II" should be substituted for "George Cruickshank"? Talk of provinces and capitals should probably be replaced to more neutral and accurate words like "apartment" and "hobby farm". --60.241.155.191 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You mean the "in-universe" policy for fiction? That would not apply here since Atlantium is not fiction as an entity -- the entity of Atlantium exists in the real world, and I don't see how that could be contested. What is not usually accepted is that this entity forms a country or a state. But that does not mean the entity does not exist, and these components of the entity are named with those terms, thus they can be used. mike4ty4 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)