Talk:Empire of Atlantium/Archive 2

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)

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)

---

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)