Talk:Atlantropa

message: Gispen, Kees 1943- "Das Atlantropa-Projekt--Die Geschichte einer gescheiterten Vision: Hermann Sorgel und die Absenkung des Mittelmeers (review)" Technology and Culture - Volume 42, Number 3, July 2001, pp. 596-598 
Title: The Atlantropa project - History of a failed vision: Hermann Sorgel and the draining of the Mediterranean
Author(s): Murphy DT Source: ISIS 91 (3): 626-627 SEP 2000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: Is it worth mentioning in the article that Gibraltar was effectively "dammed" by the lowering of sea level during the Ice Ages? —Tamfang (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient precedent 

message: Why is the article even pretending that this might have been seriously considered at any point? Absolutely no-one in any position of actual influence would do something as dumb as something that would close off the Suez and force shipping to go all the way around Africa again. Especially not the Mediterranean countries themselves who would suddenly find themselves landlocked, with the exception of one big lake that only they would have access to. To say nothing of the risks for anyone who would choose to live in the reclaimed lands if the dam ever broke. There are so many fundamental, unsolvable flaws with this sort of thing that it would never have been taken seriously by anyone. YF-23 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reputable sources which state the above, you can add these assessments to the article under a section entitled Criticism. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 12:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I don't have sources for it, but I'm not entirely sure what you want me to source. Surely there's no source needed to discern that the Suez canal would have to close if the Mediterranean was going to lose 200 meters of water height, or to discern that shipping would receive a tremendous blow if ships had to sail around Africa again. To clarify, my issue is that the article's written in such a way as to imply that the Atlantropa project was taken at some points seriously, for instance this paragraph seems to suggest (though doesn't outright state) that the Allies might have considered it: "After the Second World War, interest was piqued again as the Western Allies sought to create closer bonds with Africa and combat communism, but the invention of nuclear power, the cost of rebuilding, and the end of colonialism left Atlantropa technologically unnecessary and politically unfeasible, although the Atlantropa Institute remained in existence until 1960.[11]" In addition to my criticism on how the article is written, the reference provided in that section does not cover the claim that "after the Second World War, interest was piqued again as the Western Allies sought to create closer bonds with Africa and combat communism". YF-23 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a statement is controversial and not sourced, remove it. The same principle applies to any statements added by you. Remember, Wikipedia is not about what you know to be true, but about what you can show to be verifiable via reliable sources. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering it was a german project I would assume there was at least one foolhardy leader to do as you ask. Since this would imply the gain of world dominance and a complete redistribution of all wealth a.s.o. towards that certain country it rather seems very unlikely to fullfill any Atlantropa-project, reshaping the mediterranean. The whole plan fits perfectly into its time and the same level of dilusion gave other great projects a go - we know that now...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.107.62 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: IMnHO - "This is stupid" 

message: * 
:, edit request filer has been indefinitely blocked. Altamel (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 7 December 2016 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of this idea's ecological impact? I would imagine that blocking the Staight of Gibralter would have serious effects on Mediteranean sea and coastal life... 2603:8080:5702:7883:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing impact 

message: So I'm sure that a Philip K Dick novel and Amazon series is notable enough to be included, and I've attempted to edit the contribution which added the reference to it to be more neutral and professionally worded, as well as at least somewhat cited. But is an unofficial mod for a video game, without even any indication of how popular the mod is, how many people play it, or any citation to any articles about the mod, really notable enough to be included? It seems more like advertising. Rckelly12 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this mod 'TNO' is/was popular among circles of people who played the video game Hearts of Iron 4, and other alternative history online communities. This caused a lot of disruptive behaviour by fans of the mod, particularly here on Wikipedia, by people editing articles about things or people in the mod to include 'it was in the mod TNO' or just straight-up vandalism. The creators of the mod have addressed their community multiple times to attempt to put a stop this behaviour but it still happens regardless. I wouldn't say it is explicitly advertising, more annoying fan culture but is nonetheless non-constructive. Tamptonato (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should also add that the reason why this article has had a lot of disruptive editing is because the Atlantropa project is a major plot point in the alternate history setting of the mod. Tamptonato (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture 

message: "On the Congo River below its Kasai River tributary to refill the Chad basin around Lake Chad to provide fresh water to irrigate the Sahara and create a shipping lane to the interior of Africa." 
Dam on Kongo river would affect Kongo basin, not Lake Chad. To help lake Chad it needs to be Niger river. 94.254.174.3 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niger or Kongo