Talk:Atlantis/Archive 7

Original research
The source for the recent Ortellius quote is not in English, so it appears the quote is that editor's translation. A published and more complete translation can be found here. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect sources added to intro
"While present-day philologists and historians unanimously accept the story's fictional character,[7] there is still debate on what served as its inspiration. The fact that Plato borrowed some of his allegories and metaphors—most notably the story of Gyges[8]—from older traditions has caused a number of scholars to investigate possible inspiration of Atlantis from Egyptian records of the Thera eruption, the Sea Peoples invasion, or the Trojan War.[9][10][11][12] Others have rejected this chain of tradition as implausible and insist that Plato designed the story from scratch,[13][14][15] drawing loose inspiration from contemporary events like the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC or the destruction of Helike in 373 BC."

Let's look at [9] and [12].


 * 1. [9] is Luce (1978). John V. Luce did not "accept the story's fictional character", he argued Atlantis was Crete. Secondly, he did not argue Plato was just "inspired" by traditions of Minoan Crete, but that Atlantis was actually Crete.


 * 2. [12] is Zangger (1993). Same as above, but substitute Troy for Crete. Zangger thinks Troy was Atlantis, not that Plato was merely "inspired" by the Trojans. SolontheAthenian (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Both is wrong. Plato did not intend to describe Crete or Troy. Even if some distorted Egyptian record of the Battle of Troy or the Minoans reached Plato somehow, he did not intend to report it as factual history. Plato used some actual place (possibly Troy, as Zangger argues, or Crete, as Luce claims, or Helike, as Giovannini argues) as inspiration for his "Platonic myth." Nobody, I repeat: nobody, in academia claims Atlantis existed according to Plato's description. --bender235 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Luce thought Minoan Crete was Atlantis, not that Plato was simply 'inspired' by that location. It is tiresome having read this whole page and archive you have repeated this error over and over. Zangger also argued Atlantis was Troy. Of course Plato's descriptions of Atlantis don't all match either Crete or Troy, in fact few do. However Zangger/Luce argue(d) the descriptions that don't match are errors. They argue(d) Plato did not invent Atlantis but that it was a story (oral tradition) passed down to him - most the mismatch or erroneous descriptions are explained as having been added as the story was transmitted, like Chinese whispers. SolontheAthenian (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could direct us to some passages of Luce or Zangger that illustrate your point? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(ZANGGER, 1992). Perhaps Plato did indeed write the story of Atlantis using only Solon’s notes. On so important a journey as that to Egypt Solon probably kept a travel journal. This would certainly have been kept in his family after his death and perhaps one day entrusted to Plato, his famous descendant and director of the Academy. At any rate, that is how Plato describes it. He must have been convinced that Solon had given an authentic historical account. Solon had, however, adapted the text, and Plato knew this too. In keeping with the practice of his day, Solon “Greekified” the names – that is, in place of the foreign names he inserted a Greek equivalent, or what he thought was an equivalent." - A Lost Civilisation in Western Asia Minor, Eberhard Zangger, Zurich"

Zangger regards Atlantis to be historical, not fiction. He explains the erroneous descriptions or details in Plato that don't match Troy as translation errors by Solon. If you take those away you're left with Troy in his view. SolontheAthenian (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You fail to understand the central argument: even if Plato some Minoan or Trojan myth that passed onto him, it does not make any of his works a description of factual history. For comparison, Shakespeare used Roman history in his works, but still Julius Caesar is not a historiographic work that tells us anything about Ancient Rome. It remains a work of fiction, even if it had real-life inspiration. --bender235 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

So what you are posting is false. It is amazing this has been posted so many times here by different posters but you completely ignore it. Luce and Zangger's position is that there is a factual historical core behind Atlantis - an oral tradition of a place that was passed down to Plato. This makes that place real. For Luce this place was Crete, for Zangger, Troy. SolontheAthenian (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC) :::::: Wait a second, did you just said Shakespeare invented Julius Caesar from scratch, without inspiration from oral and/or written traditions? --bender235 (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What is relevant is who wrote/originated the text, or at least parts of it. Plato could not have invented Atlantis (as fiction) if he copied what was passed to him. No one though passed down Julius Caesar to Shakespeare, he wrote it all himself, regardless if he was inspired by Roman history and tradition, or influenced by other books and plays. Read Zangger above. People can read these sources and see you are wrong. SolontheAthenian (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to not understand. Shakespeare used Roman history that has been passed onto him as a source for a work of fiction. Plato used some story/history that has been passed onto him or occurred during his day for a work of fiction. Period. Regardless of what inspired Atlantis, whether it was Helike, Persia, Troy or Crete: none of these places is Atlantis. Just like Gotham City is not New York City, even though the latter clearly inspired it. --bender235 (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no text he copied. All the text traces back to him regardless what influenced his play. In contrast Zangger and Luce argue Plato did not author all of Timaeus-Critias but that he copied, or recorded what was passed to him orally, or from "Solon's travel log". This rules out the idea Plato himself invented the story as fiction. Do you not yet see this? Quote above from Zangger: "Computer-supported investigations of the style in the Kritias suggest that the text is not by Plato". Are you then saying Julius Caesar was not written by Shakespeare? otherwise stop using this false comparison.SolontheAthenian (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see where you're fundamentally wrong. Plato might use real-life persons in his dialogues, but everything they "say" is purely fictional. Despite Plato's (!) Kritias claims so, there was no "Solon's travel log." In general, Plato's dialogues are not protocols of actual discussions between real people. They are a literary device to allow presentation of arguments in a back-and-forth manner. Galileo did something similar in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. --bender235 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, based on the quote SolontheAthenian gave us above, I'm convinced that Zangger does believe that Troy was Atlantis. However, it's also clear that Zangger is not writing as a critical scholar on this matter, but belongs to the realm of popular writing--or less kindly, crackpottery. The idea that Plato was a descendant of Solon, and that he was in possession of a "travel journal" written by Solon and passed down through his family--this is full of howlers.

Luce, on the other hand, is not a crackpot, and bender235's description of his views is more accurate than Solontheathenian's. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Luce (1969) is identical to Zangger (1992) in regards to Solon having passed down the story to Plato through his family:

""Solon's account, and possibly also a Solonian manuscript, then descended to Plato by the route he indicates within his own family. This would explain why it was a genuine historical tradition, and yet not a part of current Greek mythology." Luce, The End of Atlantis, 1969 p. 140"

There is no distinction between Zangger and Luce here. Bender is wrong about both, not just Zangger. The "skeptics" that dominate the Atlantis entry are complete amateurs and are apparently not familiar with much Atlantis literature. Some clown has just re-added both source (Luce & Zangger) when they don't match up to what is said. SolontheAthenian (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop wasting time with this. The scientific consensus is that Atlantis is fictional, read this piece by a skeptic               . There is not a shred of evidence Atlantis, MU, or Lemuria exist. It is in the same boat as Von Daniken or Blavatsky's nonsense. Built on wishful thinking. Regards. Quack Hunter (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think this is a waste of time, because this discussion has shown me that the article should not treat Zangger the same way it treats Nesselrath, Vidal-Naquet, Luce, and other classicists. Zannger is clearly an Atlantis enthusiast, is no doubt considered an expert in some circles, but is out of his depth in dealing with classical sources, still less when dealing with Bronze Age texts and archaeology. I would have zero problems taking him out of the lead, which is in any case overloaded with footnotes.


 * Luce is a different story--based on the quote Solontheathenian gave us, I can see that he is excessively credulous, but he's still a bona fide classicist. And if one reads the book Solontheathenian quoted from (I actually own it, but hadn't read any of it before now), it's clear that Luce identifies Minoan Crete with Atlantis, but this is far from saying that Plato gave us a historically accurate account. It would be accurate to say that in Luce's view Plato's account of Atlantis was inspired by Minoan Crete. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Remember that the article cites, not Luce (1969) as SolontheAthenian above. In this chapter, Luce argues that Greek myths like Talos, a giant who protects Crete by throwing rocks at attacking ships, reflects on the Thera eruption, and thus may have inspired Plato. Obviously this is not only far-fetched, but also clearly not a claim that "Crete is Atlantis". --bender235 (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

what a surprise, more bias and complaints for the intro. Someone has clearly run wild editing the article abusing neutral point of view with no moderation. JesusWater (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This exchange is now somewhat old, but the above argument seems to conflate two issues: 1. Did Plato know that Atlantis didn't exist, and talk about it anyway? 2. Did such an island actually exist, whether Plato thought that it did or not? On the first possibility, Atlantis is clearly a fiction.  On the second, it would be strange to regard it as a fiction, since that term involves intentionality of creation.  While it's probably that Plato made it up, his tendency to use actual persons and to draw on existing stories makes it conceivable that Plato did believe in the existence of such a place, even if the particular accounts about it are then fictionalized.  I don't have a stake in this, but the above discussion seems to conflate these two ways of meaning "not true" at points.    2601:1C0:C001:9D43:E0C6:8647:D4B1:8293 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or: whether or not Plato believed in it, was he referring to an existing legend?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

what scholars actually say
"While the Atlantis myth has been recognized, with good reason, by the majority of modern Platonists as a parable, no consensus has been reached on the parable's character and precise purpose. - Dušanić Slobodan. (1982). "Plato's Atlantis". L'antiquité classique, 51. pp. 25-52 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesusWater (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The political allegory is only one reading, and is not the consensus!!! Yet it is inserted in the intro and throughout the article as if it is. This is disgusting bias. It is also why this website is laughed at by academics. No teacher tells their students to use Wikipedia for this reason. This place is about as trustworthy as something like Conservapedia which maintains the earth is 6000 years old. You must be so proud of yourselves. JesusWater (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * JesusWater, it would be vastly more helpful if you suggested some changes you'd like to see to this article, based on the sources you're citing. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Quack Hunter (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly clear what JesusWater is complaining about. This issue has been going on for years.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

31°18'04.1"N 24°28'30.0"W What are all the structure on the sea bottom.. Look where Plato said. Atlantis !

Google Maps Earth View. 31°18'04.1"N 24°28'30.0"W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.248.149.32 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe they should stop laughing and simply make the changes they'd like to see here. Why don't you go ahead and change the article's text so that it's clear that this is only one theory / aspect? --Fixuture (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The history of this article has shown that any changes like that will be reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The history of this article has shown that any changes like that will be reverted.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rfc: Atlantis as Fiction, Allegory
Should the introduction describe Atlantis as "fictional" and an "allegory" (rather than a legend, myth, etc)?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As you know—since you've participated in the discussions—this (along with related questions) has been discussed several times already. I think "fictional" is probably the best we're going to get. "Legendary" tends to imply that a legend about Atlantis existed in Plato's day, on which he drew for his account (something for which there is no evidence); and "mythical" has a similar problem, along with the probable unfamiliarity to many readers of myth used in the special sense of "Platonic myth". Deor (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply: This argument has been going on for years, and that's why I wanted to see if we could get some outside input. If Plato invented the story of Atlantis, then, yes, it would be fair to call it "fictional". However, that is only one scholarly theory. The introduction says: "present-day philologists and historians accept the story's fictional character" and then cites only one source! And this is after years of debate on that one issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One could describe it as an "imagined" island, which is ambigous between meanings. It could mean that it's purely intended as fiction all the way down, or that Plato is fictionalizing a story that he took to have some plausible basis.  But this might confuse readers further, too.  Anyway, just throwing this in the ring, since I see now that my comment above has renewed a much larger and longer discussion than I realized.2601:1C0:C001:9D43:9115:40AA:DBE4:D985 (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The one source that confirms modern classists view on Atlantis is a conference proceedings, in other words something an entire conference of philologists and historians agreed upon. Case closed. --bender235 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear about what conference proceedings are: they're actually not the consensus of a conference, but some of the papers that the organizers found worthy of publication. Conference proceedings can often include things that other participants disagree with vehemently.
 * On the other hand, there does seem to be a firmer scholarly consensus than I'd previously recognized that Plato intended this as fiction in the literal sense, rather than a fictionalized version of an older story that he was playing with. So looking over that literature persuades me, at least, that "fiction" is the right term.
 * To be clear, I don't think there ever was a society of "Atlantis", but the possibility that Plato was drawing on some older story would not make that story itself real. The logical range of options is not just "Plato invented this" or "Plato talked about this because it's true".  It also includes "Plato was drawing on an older story of some kind, which was itself untrue."    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C001:9D43:81B1:FAAC:8B68:AF7C (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think presenting any one interpretation of the Atlantis story as the truth violates NPOV. Merely listing the various theories with sources to specific writers should be enough. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Legobot brought me to this article. Atlantis *is* fictional and an allegory. People who say otherwise are cranks. An encyclopedia should be smart, not FRINGEy. We can discuss other theories, but they are not the mainstream understanding by far. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * plenty of people call Atlantis a "myth" or "legend". Are they cranks?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The origin of Atlantis? Cranks or ignorant (or both). Wikipedia does not encourage them. DreamGuy (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on how they define it. If they mean "myth" as in Platonic myth, they are correct. Unfortunately, 99% of Wikipedia readers (unlike 100% of scholarly classicists) won't know the difference between Platonic myths and actual Greek mythology. --bender235 (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the portrayal of anyone in the present conversation as a crank (up a bit) helps matters. There's a hard issue being debated here: how to define the term "fiction" and how best to communicate the status of this Platonic myth to those who haven't spent time poking around Plato's use of storytelling.  I don't think "fiction" has exactly the right connotations, but I don't think another word would fare better.  "Fictionalized" takes a side, in presuming that some sort of real event lurks behind this.  Whatever the historical inspiration, it seems right to say that "Atlantis" was fictional, since we have no reason to believe that anything with that specific name existed, and since Plato is clearly spinning up features that could not have existed.  (So, even if there was a place called "Atlantis" in oral history, it wouldn't have had the characteristics Plato attributes to the place.  Sort of like New York in reality and, say "New York" in a Hollywood superhero movie.)  "Fictional" is probably the best term to stick with, in the absence of a better choice.  2601:1C0:C001:9D43:AD9F:3133:9A42:D95A (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is basically what I mean. And I actually used that same comparison quite a lot. Like New York City being the inspiration for Gotham City, but Gotham still being purely fictional. The same goes for Atlantis. Plato sure took inspiration from here and there, but Atlantis still is fictional. And none of the places that served as its inspiration is Atlantis. --bender235 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That assumes that *any* served as inspiration. Cranks say otherwise. We cannot agree with them. Does anyone read WP:FRINGE? DreamGuy (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this, DreamGuy. We can agree with lots of claims that cranks also agree with.  What we can't do is agree with the specific claims that make them cranks.  The article itself notes that many scholars think Plato may have been drawing on particular historical events (e.g. the eruption of Thera) for rhetorical resonance, so there's nothing fringe about the notion that he may have been taking inspiration from *something*.  If the premise that "we must disbelieve everything that a fringe person believes", well, we're going to logically over-reach on all kinds of things (e.g., both sides agree that Plato wrote the relevant dialogue).  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C001:9D43:D1D5:F5E3:E6B5:98A8 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently, the article is hanging a lot on one paper by Diskin Clay. I don't see any justification for saying that any other theory is fringe.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We could easily a add a dozen scholarly articles in as much languages to support the Clay article, but why? --bender235 (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That sums up Bender's attitude, which is why I wanted some outside input.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bender on this, after looking at the literature a bit. I'm obviously not an expert on this part of Plato - my area of history is different - but I think if the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Atlantis as a fiction Platonic myth, then I think we should defer: "There are in Plato identifiable traditional myths, such as the story of Gyges (Republic 359d–360b), the myth of Phaethon (Timaeus 22c7) or that of the Amazons (Laws 804e4). Sometimes he modifies them, to a greater or lesser extent, while other times he combines them—this is the case, for instance, of the Noble Lie (Republic 414b–415d), which is a combination of the Cadmeian myth of autochthony and the Hesiodic myth of ages. There are also in Plato myths that are his own, such as the myth of Er (Republic 621b8) or the myth of Atlantis (Timaeus 26e4)."  The myth of Er clearly falls into the category of Platonic fiction, and this categorization suggests that Atlantis is regarded the same way. (I can say out of professional knowledge, by the way, that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is regarded as a reputable source - this isn't a random electronic page, but a heavily peer-reviewed source.) 2601:1C0:C001:9D43:8D74:B7AE:74C9:8703 (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good source for calling Atlantis a "myth", which is a good neutral word. Then we could say that many or most scholars believe Plato invented it - and then give a few sources, not just Clay. I don't understand why a single citation is acceptable for such a sweeping claim. But I don't think that encyclopedia is a particularly good source for calling Atlantis a fiction invented by Plato. It could be merely saying there is no "identifiable traditional myth" prior to Plato's reference. By the way, the WP article on the Myth of Er describes it as a "legend" and a "myth", so I don't see the problem here.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Myth is a poor choice for wording as it implies that there were stories of Atlantis that predate Plato. To a lesser extent, it also implies that there could be something true that Plato's account was based on. There is no evidence for Plato's Atlantis being based on anything that predates his writing. Edward321 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one view. Scholars such as Dorothy B Vitaliano, John V Luce, and Eberhard Zangger have advanced different views. I don't believe they are saying that Plato's "fiction" was "inspired" by previous events. That makes no sense. They are saying that the story represents a collective memory of Crete, Troy, or whatever. In any case, even if it was established that Plato had invented it - which it hasn't been - a "fictional island" doesn't represent what Atlantis has become. The article is not devoted to discussing the fiction. It spends a lot of time discussing the views of people who believed Atlantis was real. When people search for Atlantis, they are searching for a legendary island, not a fictional island. There is no contradiction in saying that a myth, legend, purported supernatural phenomenon, or even religion is based on a piece of fiction: this is the case with Vril, the Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship, etc. Every myth or legend has to start somewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It could say "Atlantis is a mythical island that originates within an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's Timaeus..." or something of the sort. That would indicate that it's *become* a myth after Plato wrote about it.  Would that come closer to what you have in mind? 2601:1C0:C001:9D43:D55:DC6A:F43A:32F3 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the current version, with "mentioned" rather than "originates", is better. A lot of debate went into that. By the way, I've just discovered that it's contestable whether Plato is the earliest known source: see . In A History of Greek Philosophy Vol 5 (p 248), W K C Guthrie points out that Plutarch, in his life of Solon, disagrees with Plato's account, and notes, "This might suggest a second source, but in context sounds more like a personal surmise on the part of Plutarch's own authority".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, the first source you linked to seems to assert that there was trade between the Egyptians and South America. That doesn't say good things about the rest of the author's argument...
 * Guthrie is pointing out that Plutarch doesn't give us reason to think the story of Atlantis predates Plato. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "[...] even if it was established that Plato had invented it - which it hasn't been [...]"
 * Who established that Gotham City was invented by Bob Kane? Please cite a dozen scholarly articles in support. I claim it was part of South Chinese mythology for 10,000 years. Prove me wrong! --bender235 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think that legend is the best description. It clearly has the status in modern times of a legend.  It is considered to be fiction by mainstream scholars, but not by the fringe who treat it as a true story.  I recommend against the use of the word myth because that word has multiple meanings, and the story is a myth in several senses, but it is not part of classical Greek mythology and could be thought to be.  I recommend against the use of the word allegory because not all of the interpretations of the legend are allegorical.  Legend is the best description.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. "Legendary island" is my preferred description. Papamarinopolous is apparently Professor of Applied Geophysics at the University of Patras, but he does seem an extremely "fringe theorist". W K C Guthrie, on the other hand, is an expert, and he concedes that Plutarch's text "might suggest a second source". He isn't dogmatic, and neither should we be. And since it matters so much to, I think it was Washington Irving that first called New York Gotham City. Or was it Irving Washington? --Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland, you're misunderstanding Guthrie's footnote. He says "Plutarch's text might suggest a second source, but in context sounds more like a personal surmise on the part of Plutarch's own authority." Guthrie allows that Plutarch's Life of Solon could be interpreted to mean that there was a second source for the Atlantis story (which you see as a pre-Platonic one, Guthrie doesn't actually say that), but Guthrie does not think that's the case. He thinks that the source Plutarch was drawing upon surmised that. You're using Guthrie to support the possibility that Guthrie himself thinks less likely. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland is not only misunderstanding the footnote, he's ignoring the text the footnote links to, which says "It must be remembered that Plato is our only authority for the story...." (Note that the emphasis is in the original.) Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You're misunderstanding my point.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are misunderstanding Guthrie and the ancient texts he's writing about. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The subject "Atlantis" was and remains fictional. The fact that it became legend-like folklore over the past 2,000+ years is already described in the lead. But the key point is that it was not a legend when Plato wrote it down. Plato invented the story from scratch. --bender235 (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bender235 on this point. Plato invented the story of Atlantis. Perhaps he was inspired by other stories, but that's the case with every fictional story, right? There's nothing wrong with the article saying that Atlantis became a legend as later writers elaborated upon Plato, or made up entirely new stuff about Atlantis, but it starts as fiction. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, so it's OK to start with: "Atlantis is a legendary island..." The article is not just about Plato's story.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree with starting "Atlantis is a legendary island" at all. The article begins with Plato's story, because he invented it. Putting "legendary" in the opening sentence will mislead readers about the origin of Atlantis. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dictionary.com defines legend as "a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical." Atlantis is not popularly accepted as historical. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And it probably doesn't apply to Atlantis because only recent fringe scholars scholars call it real. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Zangger claims Troy is Atlantis, not that Plato invented Atlantis and had based some details on it. The page is a shambles confusing this and others. I believe other people here have also pointed out Luce thought Crete was Atlantis, not Plato was the inventor and was inspired by tales of the Minoans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakesterK (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "This argument has been going on for years, and that's why I wanted to see if we could get some outside input. If Plato invented the story of Atlantis, then, yes, it would be fair to call it "fictional". However, that is only one scholarly theory." -- For clarification, Naddaf (1994) who is cited on this page points out that: "The vast majority of classical scholars take the story to be what Plato explicitly denies it to be: invented myth. The serious exceptions to this rule are writers who adhere to the Thera-Cretan hypothesis". He then references Luce and Galanopoulos as examples of those scholars arguing Atlantis was not invented by Plato, but an Egyptian tradition of Minoan Crete that was passed to Solon, eventually to Plato. It would help if people stopped confusing this for the idea Plato invented the story but was 'inspired' by the Minoans.JakesterK (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC) From this site: http://www.atlantis-scout.de/ "Are there academicians who consider Atlantis to be real? Yes, there always have been academicians who considered the possibility that Atlantis was a real place, and such academicians still exist today. Among them names such as Alexander von Humboldt, August Boeckh, Wilhelm Christ, Theodor Gomperz, Wilhelm Brandenstein, Massimo Pallottino, Spyridon Marinatos, John V. Luce, Eberhard Zangger, Herwig Görgemanns."JakesterK (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A personal German website calling itself "Academic approaches towards Plato's Atlantis as a real place" is bound to say it's real. Find a real source. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those on that list have argued it was real. Are you denying there are classicists and archaeologists who think Atlantis was a real place? They're in the minority, but they still exist. By slandering these people as cranks, you come across as a loon yourself.JakesterK (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ctrl + f (find) and type "crank". DreamGuy has been using this word over and over, it actually makes him look like the buffoon - his only method of argument is ad hominem. JakesterK (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are these people cranks or 'fringe scholars'??? John V. Luce, classicist, former professor and emeritus Fellow of Classics at Trinity College, Dublin; Spyridon Marinatos, archaeologist, excavator of Akrotiri, Thera. Others can be noted here. I think it's ridiculous these scholars are being slandered as cranks, or 'fringe'. JakesterK (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would say that Luce's and Marinatos' ideas about Atlantis are now regarded as fanciful and cranky by many classicists. Here's J. Rufus Fears, writing in 2002: 'Less benign is the pseudo-historical/archaeological approach to Atlantis. The preeminent example remains John Luce's 1969 book Lost Atlantis: New Light on an Old Legend. This is the work of a distinguished academic, determined to show that Minoan Crete was the historical kernel of Plato's Atlantis. Luce's book is a double exercise in mythopoeism: Plato's fantasy of Atlantis set astride Sir Arthur Evans's fantasy of a Minoan thalassocracy. The travesty of Atlantis as Minoan Crete was debunked at length in the reviewer's essay "Atlantis and the Minoan Thalassocracy." There (p. 131), I called it "a tissuework of fabrications."'
 * Any theory that depends on the idea that the Thera eruption caused the downfall of Minoan society will not win wide acceptance among scholars familiar with Bronze Age Greece because it's become increasingly clear over the last few decades that the Thera eruption predated the Minoan collapse by a century and a half or more. Marinatos died in 1974, and Luce made his fullest case for Crete as the historical kernel of the Atlantis story in a book published in 1969. What seemed like a plausible theory then simply doesn't now. The lede should be based upon the current academic consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

— JakesterK (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Edward321 (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Another genius? My account is only a day old.JakesterK (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: Herwig Görgemanns not even remotely "considered the possibility that Atlantis was a real place." Görgemanns argues that (4th-century BC) Egyptian diplomats invited the story of a Greek-Egyptian alliance against the Sea peoples ("threat from the West") to encourage Athens and especially Chabrias for an alliance against the Persians ("threat from the East")—[the scholarly article is cited in the lead]. Görgemanns argues that if such a story existed (for which there is no evidence), it might have been picked up by Plato and re-used in his Atlantis myth. Görgemanns' hypothesis is far-fedged as it is, but not even remotely does he claim that "Atlantis was a real place." This, of course, calls into question the remaining names on JakesterK's list above. --bender235 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * JakesterK - please tone down the abuse. It's not helpful to the discussion at hand.  Trolling is not helpful here.  In terms of the question of "real": the article considers the possibility that Plato was drawing on an older story.  At the same time, it seems unambiguous that Plato is describing "Atlantis" with a degree of precision and detail that is very unlikely to have been included in any earlier oral stories, should any have existed.  So describing "Atlantis" as fictional in Plato's account still holds, even if it drew on pre-existing accounts.  The article addresses arguments that Plato drew on pre-existing sources in particular ways.  If you want to protest against its current content, please suggest an alternative wording to the article that accepts that the burden of existing scholarship goes against a pre-existing source for the story.2601:1C0:C001:9D43:745D:394C:5800:4CF3 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Görgemanns (2000), the Atlantis story was *not* invented by Plato (only he embellished it), but was Egyptian in origin: "der kern der geschichte ist dann eben nicht ine fiktion platons" ("the core of the story is not exactly the fiction of Plato"). Instead of Solon bringing back the Atlantis story from Egypt to Athens (Timaeus states this), he has Egyptians themselves take it there in the early 4th century BC, and Plato heard (or read) about it. Plato was not then the author of the story according to Görgemanns. Oddly this source is cited as evidence the Atlantis story is Plato's own fictional story on the main page, which is not true. Whether the story is fiction at all in Görgemanns view is a different question, but he doesn't think it is Plato's story. Either Görgemann is saying the Egyptians made up the story being inspired by the Sea-Peoples, or that the tale actually preserved a historical memory of the Sea-Peoples, as a traditional Egyptian myth. If the latter, that makes the Atlanteans (=Sea Peoples), and Atlantis real, but if the former, fiction. Its not clear in his work, what he is arguing for. Can you blame http://www.atlantis-scout.de/ for this? Hardly. The strangest thing is the sources on the main page that supposedly say Plato invented the story: say no such thing. Görgemanns, Luce and Zangger all have an Egyptian origin for Atlantis, not Plato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakesterK (talk • contribs) 01:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC) i'm going to email the author of that site to come here and he can better explain and he can continue where I left it. apparently he was here a few years back but described it as "hell".http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis-wikipedia.htm JakesterK (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is sad that I have to repeat this over and over again, but a fiction based on a real event/place/person this remains fiction. All places and most characters in The Man in the High Castle are real, but the book is still a piece of fiction. Similarly, even if there had been an Egyptian tradition of the Sea Peoples invasion circulated to Ancient Greece, Plato's Kritias—and everything in it—still is a piece of fiction. Period. --bender235 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Stick with fiction. It's widely accepted that fiction as we define that word in English dates to at least the Ancient Greeks, so there is no problem at all referring to fiction from that time period as fiction; The Iliad and The Odyssey are widely regarded as the earliest surviving novels, even. The fact that some kids think "fiction" means "whatever fun stuff was published in living memory" is not our concern, other than we'll school 'em otherwise.  If scholars turn up an actual Atlantis  as folklorists and mythographers would define that term, then we can rename and rescope the article. There is no actual Greek or other Classical  about Atlantis, so it's wrong to call it a "myth", even if that word has some other, less precise, uses.  WP needs to  avoid using the word that way ("urban myth", "the myth of Elvis still being alive", etc.; even we use it in the fandom sense we should qualify it with a link or adjective the way we do with the fandom sense of "canon").  It's grossly misleading, both about what is being wrongly labeled as a "myth" or "mythological", and about what such a word implies when it's being used correctly.  This really matters a lot when it comes to some topics, e.g. the Arthurian cycle – there are distinct and unrelated threads of history, legend, folklore, fiction, mythology (i.e. pagan religious narrative), and Christian religion all woven together, and these terms clearly distinguish between them. It's just plain ignorant and anti-educational to conflate them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SMcC - I agree with much of the sentiment here, but - by the principles you mention on your own page - beware of claims about "just plain ignorance" and "anti-educational" in this case. Some of us may be ignorant of some of the more fine-tuned uses of the terminology here (e.g. me), but this isn't something that everyone should know anyway, and it's certainly not anti-educational.  Please, as your own page notes, stay on the top side of the pyramid.
 * There are complexities here: Plato scholars often describe Atlantis as a Platonic "myth", which is intended as a term of art by them. Moreover, it's possible for a myth of Atlantis to have developed post-hoc from Plato's discussion, as when others (e.g. Bacon) took up the "place" for their own purposes.  "Myth" is a general category, and doesn't have to apply only to Greek myths.  And of course, words do change their meaning over time.  While it's important to recognize the conceptual shifts these changes entail, it doesn't seem helpful to deny that they can occur, particularly for an encyclopedia intended to communicate with non-specialist audiences.
 * The question at issue here is not whether the term "fiction" can reasonably be used about works from earlier time periods. It's about whether Plato's account of Atlantis should fit into this category *if* it is in some way based on an earlier account about Thera, etc.  This depends on sticky questions about what our categories mean.
 * My own view is that "Atlantis" is a fiction, given the details that Plato describes for it, even if there were earlier accounts of something like this sunken island circulating in his era. (Which, for the record, I think is unlikely.)  My sense would be that Plato's account is fictional *even* if these earlier accounts turned out to center on an island with the same name and same basic features.  But I can see why others would deny it the name of "fiction" in that instance.  (Perhaps we'd say that Plato sought to present a fictionalized Atlantis in that case, rather than fully creating a fiction.) 2601:1C0:C001:9D43:556C:A563:9DF8:B6A5 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Timaeus (dialogue) and Critias (dialogue) are not described as works of fiction by Wikipedia, nor should they be. Plato is not a novelist; he is a philosopher. He is not interested in making up stories, but making points. If Plato did invent the Atlantis story (including the framing story about Solon going to Egypt), there is no parallel to that in Plato's works. As I said before, the article provides one source to say that "present-day philologists and historians accept the story's fictional character". I would like to see more evidence of that. As I said above, experts like W K C Guthrie are not dogmatic. The idea that Plato invented it remains a theory. Guthrie might think it is likely. So may you. So may I. I have been thinking it is less likely as I have seen this debate go on. But this article should not present one point of view. In any case, this article is not just about Plato's account. The opening phrase sums up the whole article. Atlantis has become a legend. It has been the subject of much fiction and non-fiction. We don't have to love the fiction or believe in the non-fiction.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to "there is no parallel to that in Plato's works", see Myth of Er for an example of a Platonic invention with a frame. Deor (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia says, "The Myth of Er is a legend", and doesn't say that Plato invented it. The difference, though, is that we know the Myth of Er is supernatural. With Atlantis, Plato makes an effort to establish that Atlantis has a geographical and historical basis. If the Atlantis story is fiction, there is no parallel to that in Plato's works.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Atlantis, the myth of Er, and the ring of Gyges are all broadly discussed as examples of Platonic fiction. Many scholars have focused on how Plato's use of fiction fits into his philosophical aims. Here's one example: https://www.academia.edu/2520555/Ringing_the_Changes_on_Gyges_Philosophy_an_the_Formation_of_Fiction_in_Platos_Republic. Here's an example of a present-day philologist (well, actually, Pierre VIdal-Naquet died in 2006) writing about the fictional character of Plato's Atlantis: "With a perversity that was to ensure him great success, Plato had laid the foundations for the historical novel, that is to say, the novel set in a particular place and a particular time. We are now quite accustomed to historical novels, and we also know that in every detective story there comes a moment when the detective declares that real life is not much like what happens in detective stories; it is far more complicated. But that was not the case in the fourth century B.C. Plato's words were taken seriously, not by everyone, but by many, down through the centuries." (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343786?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents) Or Christopher Gill, writing in 1979: "There is a sense in which Plato's Atlantis story is the earliest example of narrative fiction in Greek literature..." (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v003/3.1.gill.pdf). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also J. Rufus Fears, writing in 2002: "Must it be said again? The story of Atlantis is an invention of Plato himself. There is no historical kernel to it." (http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/631825.pdf?acceptTC=true) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We have overwhelming consensus from editors that it should read fiction. More importantly, the reliable sources say it too. I hope the people who want other wording will acknowledge it and move on. DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fictional. "Legend" implies something that could be true but there isn't any proof.  "Myth" implies that it is simply not true.  Scientifically speaking, the chance that Atlantis actually existed is virtually zero.  I'm my opinion, "fictional" is the appropriate word to use. Richard27182 (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fiction as first mention, and legend/myth explained in current popular culture: From an anthropological point of view, Atlantis functions as a myth in modern society. Of course it is a fiction, but it has entered the realm of popular myth in present day Western society. Very few people know that Plato authored it, but they do know the image of the city/kingdom and it functions as a trope of the horizon in modern society's collective imagination. Therefore, we should first introduce it as a fictional island authored by Plato, and then explain that it has entered the modern consciousness not via Plato by through popular culture references. The article seems to be tending there, but could use some work. It could also use some copyediting on Plato's account. SageRad (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1937, F. M. Cornford mentioned the academic consensus in a footnote of his Plato's Cosmology - "Serious scholars now agree that Atlantis probably owed its existence entirely to Plato’s imagination". An exception was Rhys Carpenter who argued "I am now prepared to maintain that in Solon's day there was preserved in Egyptian temple chronicles the mention of an island that had sunk beneath the sea during a tremendous natural upheaval, and that this island - for which Plato invented the name Atlantis - was no other than Santorin". (Discontinuity in Greek Civilization, 1966, p. 31). According to Carpenter, Atlantis is history, not fiction. He thought the island of Atlantis was Thera (Santorini) as preserved in Egyptian hieroglyphic records, and that priests at Sais had shown these to Solon, and this information reached Plato. This was a very similar argument used by John V. Luce (The End of Atlantis, 1969), and a few other classicists. I don't know any alive today who still argue for this, and this view seems to have died out by the late 1970s since it was debunked (Fears who is cited above had a paper published in 1978 dismissing Luce, 1969). What people have not mentioned having read some of the chat above is that Luce revised his views in the 1970s (the proceedings are the same as Fears, 1978), to claim Solon never was told about Atlantis etc. He shifted his position from seeing Atlantis as history, to fiction.Lemurian66 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I think most of the scholars mentioned here are dead: Diskin Clay, Rufus Fears, Vidal-Naquet, etc. I think this just indicates there isn't much scholarly attention to Atlantis. Secondly, Cornford says "probably". Like Guthrie, discussed above, he is not dogmatic. However, in Wikipedia this becomes: ATLANTIS IS A FICTION INVENTED BY PLATO AND EVERY SCHOLAR AGREES. Thirdly, I don't agree that "legendary" means it could be true. The Holy Grail and the Philosopher's Stone are both called legendary in Wikipedia. By the way, the Legend article lists "Atlantis" under "Lists of famous legends".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, its scholarly wording: "probably", "convincingly" etc. We cannot be sure of anything 100% (e.g. Julius Caesar might not have existed). Wikipedia just cites the consensus and goes along with it, does it not? This is like the theory of evolution. The problem with not going along with the consensus - is every article will then have in the opening that people disagree with it, even when they are 0.01% of academics. Aside from Carpenter and Luce, do you know of any other classical scholars arguing for a historical Atlantis in the last century? Very few classicists have ever argued for this position.Lemurian66 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Eberhard Zangger is a "geo-archaeologist" (which is basically the geomorphology of human sites), he doesn't have good knowledge of classical texts, or Plato. His book was dismissed when it was published (see Renfrew, 1992: "Mere Platonic Invention?). The problem with the "list of academics" cited above who allegedly maintain Atlantis is historical, is that few people on it are/were classical scholars.[[User:Lemurian66|Lemurian66] (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do they need to be classical scholars?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because those are the people who are experts on ancient Greek literature and philosophy. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2015


 * Fictional and allegory should i.m.o. be the first mention, because that's the way the story originated. The story is not in it's nature a legend. Legends don't get born like that. It's also not a legend in the context of the way it is mentioned in the lead Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Atlantis abuse, this page stinks
The page is patrolled and abused by several admin who push their own views on Atlantis, bizarrely admin Doug Weller gives fringe books on Atlantis 5*, but also misrepresents their views showing he has never read them. http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0415165393/ref=acr_search_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0 It is apparent Doug never read this book because he writes: "What he is not arguing is that either Minoan Crete or Cyladic Thera was Atlantis. He is suggesting that instead Plato drew his story of Atlantis from proto-historical elements about both civilizations." This is completely false, Castleden actually makes the Cretan-Atlantis equation throughout his book and argues Atlantis is a traditional story, not a story Plato himself invented (inspired by Crete, or "drew his story" from Cretan elements), rather Castledon like John V. Luce (1969) thinks Atlantis was Minoan Crete.

its also known https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bender235 is a sockpuppet of Edward http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bender235/Archive

Cronyism on this site though won't take action because "bender has 200k edits". So if you sit on this site all day making thousands of edits you are free to create a whole sockpuppet army.Cadfaelite (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC) :still the intro misrepresent zangger and luce. lol. What loons run this place...
 * hohoho learn something for a change:
 * Luce (1969) is identical to Zangger (1992) in regards to Solon having passed down the story to Plato through his family:


 * "Solon's account, and possibly also a Solonian manuscript, then descended to Plato by the route he indicates within his own family. This would explain why it was a genuine historical tradition, and yet not a part of current Greek mythology." Luce, The End of Atlantis, 1969 p. 140


 * There is no distinction between Zangger and Luce here. Bender is wrong about both, not just Zangger. The "skeptics" that dominate the Atlantis entry are complete amateurs and are apparently not familiar with much Atlantis literature. Some clown has just re-added both source (Luce & Zangger) when they don't match up to what is said. SolontheAthenian (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * CritiasAtlantis (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Castleden p. 7 "The thesis of this book is that this story is not one piece of identifiable proto-history but several, and that Plato drew them together because he wanted to weave them into a parable that commented on the state of the world in his own times." p. 181 "The hypothesis revived repeatedly in the twentieth century - that Minoan Crete was Atlantis - has proved inadequate to the case and has been rightly been rejected." If as I suspect these two editors are socks we can delete this section including this post of mine. Hardly worth refuting someone who claims Castleden claims Atlantis was Minoan Crete. Doug Weller  talk 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if they are not sockpuppets, it is ridiculous to ignore the fact that we have just had an RfC. I wouldn't have bothered initiating that RfC if I had realised that so much of the debate over the years has been fabricated.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * They're all blocked. I've got no doubt they are socks, almost certainly from the same stable as JesusWaters and SolontheAthenian above. The Castleden stuff is copied from another website where I've been attacked. Doug Weller  talk 19:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to react to this nonsense. Probably it's best not to react at all. Don't feed the trolls. --bender235 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are there academicians who consider Atlantis to be real?
Are there academicians who consider Atlantis to be real? Yes, there always have been academicians who considered the possibility that Atlantis was a real place, and such academicians still exist today. Among them names such as Alexander von Humboldt, August Boeckh, Wilhelm Christ, Theodor Gomperz, Wilhelm Brandenstein, Massimo Pallottino, Spyridon Marinatos, John V. Luce, Eberhard Zangger, Herwig Görgemanns. http://www.atlantis-scout.de/atlantis-introduction-1.htmJon Donnis Rome Viharo with an ectoplasm on top (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The page you cited also says "There are principally three types of Atlantis hypotheses", with the first being "Atlantis is an invention by Plato, a so-called 'Platonic Myth'. This is at the moment the opinion of the vast majority of academicians." Since this is "the opinion of the vast majority of academicians", it is the view that the Wikipedia article should reflect. See WP:FRINGE. Deor (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just looked at Luce's chapter in Ramage's book - I don't see where he considers it to have been real. And he calls it legend. Doug Weller  talk 21:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether or not there is an academician, somewhere, who considers Atlantis to be real is not especially important. There is somebody, somewhere, who believes almost anything. We need to focus on mainstream understanding as documented in reliable sources. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This does not seem to be an accurate assessment of the views of Luce or Görgemanns. Zangger is not an academic, and when he writes about Atlantis he is to be considered a crank. I don't think we need to keep this section going, except perhaps to ask why this user has come up with a new, strangely-named account to post a link to a site that has been mentioned many times in the archives... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jon Donnis Rome Viharo with an ectoplasm is a sock of CritiasAtlantis (among others) and has been blocked. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually sock of AngloPyramidologist/GoblinFace, a number of been blocked this month. Doug Weller  talk 17:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, have the other SPAs who commented on this page been checked, like those who participated in the RfC above? It's not a big deal, but I'm wondering just how much of this talk page consists of sockpuppet posts. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Quack Hunter was thought to be a puppetmaster but found to be another AP sock. So OldTacitus, SolontheAthenian, JesusWater and AncientScribal are also AP socks. But VandVictory is an OccultZone sock. Must strike their edits when I have time. Are there any I might have missed? Doug Weller  talk 21:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * JakesterK and Lemurian66 might be socks. I can't comment on whether they've been checked of course, and they haven't edited since editing here. But they aren't stale so I might check when I have time - although I don't know how easy that might be. Doug Weller  talk 21:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016
Bk4687 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)I Atlantis exists i know it exists and i can prove it i believe in Atlantis and whoever does not shall be sorry because they will not recieve any moeney i get from finding Atlantis the lost city.ψΩΏΏΨΨΨΨΨΨΨῺῼΏ
 * ❌. There's no edit request here, just a rant. Deor (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016
Please change

"But at a later time there occurred portentous earthquakes and floods, and one grievous day and night befell them, when the whole body of your warriors was swallowed up by the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner was swallowed up by the sea and vanished; wherefore also the ocean at that spot has now become impassable and unsearchable, being blocked up by the shoal mud which the island created as it settled down."

to

"But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."

Source is MIT's digital archive, which contains a translated Timaeus - translated by Benjamin Jowett - and is available for reference online at

HatterJack (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is it just me, or does it seem like the quote, regardless of the translation, is very oddly placed within the article?Topher385 (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. The quote desperately needed a reference citation, so thank you very much, HatterJack!  Rules of enpagement  Paine   22:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016
In the "Literary Interpretations" sections, there is an image of a postage stamp with the caption: "A Faroe Islands postage stamp celebreating Janus Djurhuus' ..."

In that caption, "celebreating" should be spelled "celebrating", or perhaps changed to "honoring".

128.104.92.7 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

✅ Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible to add category?
Atlantis is not listed on this list, and i think it should. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mythological_islands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.238.139 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

new evidence from antarctica, a lost civilization under 2 miles of ice
read more here This is the culmination of several sources. should this be incorporated into the article?-- Namaste@ ? 17:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's pretty crazy. And no, the source is a personal website run by someone who isn't an expert on Plato or Atlantis. Doug Weller  talk 17:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Lost Atlantis
I decided to share this to you about the 'Lost Atlantis' since I think I found the real location of the Area... What I have here is from Google Earth that I have highlighted and really outlined of what Plato's description of the Lost Atlantis. With it is the Horoscope's Sign of Cancer, Gemini or Capricorn... the influence of the inner core of the second Moon that merged with Earth's.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207990447267268&set=a.10202211321832744.1073741857.1480634919&type=3&size=816%2C699

... but what really is astounding in my findings are compacted with on what I made into a EZVideo in regards to the beginning of Earth... in which on how Atlantis was made... and on how Earth was settled... and how the mark of the Beast leaves its trailed destructions...

So, since I could not find any ways to post it here, I'll just post them here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stz_X04I79c

This video is not just about the Lost Atlantis but about Aliens too that settled here in the Planet after the Atlanteans was established... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entertene (talk • contribs) 13:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Spam, please removeSlatersteven (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidence from Google Earth? Almost as convincing as the Face on Mars. --bender235 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017
"arc chived" = archived Srednaus Lenoroc (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

minor correction
The part about Plato's fourth century contemporaries should be changed to fourth century BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.0.75 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sardinia = Atlantis(?)
It has been argued that "Pillars of Hercules"= Gibraltar stems from roman times i.e. long after Plato. In his days "Pillars of Heracles" meant the borders of the greek cultural area i.e. a much smaller area in the northern and eastern mediterranean region.Around 1200 BC this area was rocked by heavy earthquakes and floddings. It has been claimed that the larger part of todays Sardinia where there seems to have existed a fairly advanced and specific culture sank in the sea at this. This may have inspired to the Atlantis - myth. The pharaoh that Moses did confront is usually identified with Ramses II who lived at this time. The plagues over Egypt and the drowning of pharaohs army might be reminicenses of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.216.242 (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have an RS that says this I think we could include it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Size of Atlantis
Just wondering if anybody (ancient or more recent) ever commented on the apparently contradictory size estimates given by Plato?

What I mean is that "Asia" (Anatolia) alone would be much bigger than "3000 by 2000 stadia" and presumably Plato would have known that. In my opinion such a discrepancy in basic, verifiable facts (i.e. with being "larger than Ancient Libya and Asia Minor combined") would be a pretty strong indicator of the fictitious character of the story.106.71.180.22 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Plato's account
Just a thought, but to remain consistent with the lead's presentation, this section ought to be retitled, as the word 'account', as used here, typically refers to historical rather than fictional works. I'd suggest "Plato's narrative" instead, as equally descriptive but less misleading. Other possiblities would be "Plato's text", "Atlantis as described by Plato", etc. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed already. --bender235 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Shima Submergence: A special issue on Atlantis and related mythologies
Some papers/aricles published by in the journal Shima last year that might want to be referenced on the main article:

Submergence: A special issue on Atlantis and related mythologies http://shimajournal.org/issues/v10n2/c.-Dawson-Hayward-Introduction-Shima-v10n2.pdf

The Atlantis Story: An authentic oral tradition? http://shimajournal.org/issues/v10n2/d.-Smith-Shima-v10n2.pdfIn an archive (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks good. Doug Weller  talk 12:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707180542/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/finding-atlantis-4982/Overview to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/finding-atlantis-4982/Overview
 * Added tag to http://gte526.geoma.net/uploads/122469523654Ruiz%20et%20al%202008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Live Science article Lost' City of Atlantis: Fact & Fable
here, Doug Weller  talk 21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018
Hello. Someone has taken a secondary source and written this under the heading of "Madame Blavatsky...":

"She maintained that the Atlanteans were cultural heroes (contrary to Plato, who describes them mainly as a military threat)."

The source seems to be number 54? Anyway, this is highly incorrect for what she actually states is the opposite. And I think you should change it to this: "She maintained that most of the Atlanteans became black magicians in consequence of their undisciplined natural abilities. Meanwhile, there existed hierophants who initiated the genuine adepts who learned to discern between good and evil. The portraying of the Atlanteans as oppressors against the other races is therefore in agreement with Plato."

This is the verbatim quote ([Isis Unveiled, Vol. 1, p. 592-594]) and there is more in her Secret Doctrine (I can look it up if needed) : ''"To continue the tradition, we have to add that the class of hierophants was divided into two distinct categories: those who were instructed by the “Sons of God,” of the island, and who were initiated in the divine doctrine of pure revelation, and others who inhabited the lost Atlantis — if such must be its name — and who, being of another race, were born with a sight which embraced all hidden things, and was independent of both distance and material obstacle.  In short, they were the fourth race of men mentioned in the Popol-Vuh, whose sight was unlimited and who knew all things at once.  They were, perhaps, what we would now term “natural-born mediums,” who neither struggled nor suffered to obtain their knowledge, nor did they acquire it at the price of any sacrifice. Therefore, while the former walked in the path of their divine instructors, and acquiring their knowledge by degrees, learned at the same time to discern the evil from the good, the born adepts of the Atlantis blindly followed the insinuations of the great and invisible “Dragon,” the King Thevetat (the Serpent of Genesis?). Thevetat had neither learned nor acquired knowledge, but, to borrow an expression of Dr. Wilder in relation to the tempting Serpent, he was “a sort of Socrates who knew without being initiated.” Thus, under the evil insinuations of their demon, Thevetat, the Atlantis-race became a nation of wicked magicians."''

(Read More by Katinka Hesselink: http://www.allconsidering.com/2009/blavatsky-on-atlantis/) TruthConquersfalsehood (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you would need a (reliable) third-party source for that (preferably, a scholarly source), since her words in Isis Unveiled could be interpreted differently, depending on the source. allconsidering.com does not appear to be a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 00:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to quote from this first-hand source: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/isis/iu1-15.htm. Go to p. 592-594 and you will see that the quote is exact. Anyway, how do you mean "her words could be interpreted differently"? It is perfectly clear what she is saying, now if we are to have a headline for her viewpoints on Atlantis, we should quote her books not some other "scholar"? Isn't that the most logical and scientific approach?... Please explain your illogical statement? Also, here is some corroborating evidence of her statement: ''"This last tradition corroborates the one given from the “Records of the Secret Doctrine.” The war mentioned between the yellow and the black men, relates to a struggle between the “sons of God” and the “sons of giants,” or the inhabitants and magicians of Atlantis." (The Secret Doctrine Vol.2 p. 223. http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-12.htm) What is there to argue? She clearly portrays the inhabitants of Atlantis as the "evil black magicians". '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthConquersfalsehood (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but as far I can see this does not say "they were a nation of imperialist warriors" but a race of evil magicians (which Plato says nothing about). Certainly we need an RS for the claim she said they were cultural heroes as well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Truth is discredited by a singular influential individual calling it fiction
Why is it stated as "a fictional" island? Anonlithium (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Attract and Repel  ‖ 07:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Because this is consensus, see Archive 7. --bender235 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a better answer. WE have discussed this long and hard and this is the consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the adjective "fictional" should be removed in accordance with POV and WP:NPOV, as there is no proof that it is or is not fictional, and stating it is, is nothing more than the opinions of a few editors. Adding this particular word adds no value to the article other than to make the opinions of a few editor's known to all. We have no proof that the Garden of Eden was or wasn't a real place, and yet there are no opinionated viewpoints in the main article, or Ancient Rome, or other such similar historical places based solely on allegories and texts. WP:CON does not apply in this particular case as it does not provide any additional value nor solves any outstanding issues. 64.229.247.106 (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think "legendary" is better than "fictional. Paul August &#9742; 19:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Is "fictional" another word for "fake" or "not real"? Because if Wikipedians believe so, then it should say that. Otherwise remove it and replace it with something like "legendary" or "mythical" instead. 1bcdbackup (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you people read the discussion about this in Archive 7, as suggested above? Do you have any reasons trumping the reasoning given there?
 * Hint: They should be much, much better reasons than "I think" and "it should". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia page for God does not start out as god is a fictional being. Despite the fact that most rational academics has considered it an invention of man. This could well do with an immediate in the opening that the status ot any existence is disputed. If it is wished to keep the, albeit majority, POV, that Atlantis is “fictional” then the same rationale MUST be attributed to the page on god. Opening this article should immediately note that the plurality is not complete, nor indisputable. Lostinlodos (talk)|


 * I would be happy with God being described as fictional. There is obviously no concrete evidence for such an entity's existence. Sadly, Wikipedia policies are ignored for that topic, in favour of the opinions of a lot of editors. I blame the US domination of this encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Whataboutism. Atlantis does not become less fictional by you talking about God. If you want to change the God article, go there and try. But please read WP:SNOW before that, for reasons given by HiLo48. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * actually my point was there is an easier way to NPOV the opening with, say, ‘a majority of academics have determined...” as opposed to flatly declaring it fiction where the discussion is still very much academically debated. Such an amendment would, or should, appease both sides of the discussion; balancing the neutrality and factuality together by pointing out that fact or fiction is yet to be declaratively determined.Lostinlodos (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute among scholars that Atlantis is fiction; the continent clearly cannot have ever really existed, a fact which is supported by the complete lack of archaeological or geological evidence for its existence and the geological impossibility of it. Furthermore, everything about Plato's account of it indicates that he is just making it up to prove a philosophical point (in this case, one about the hubris of nations), much like the Ring of Gyges, the Myth of Er, or the Allegory of the Cave. Plato tells stories like these all the time and, though he sometimes employs literary framing devices to give the stories an appearance of verisimilitude, it seems likely that these stories were never intended to be taken as historical truth. There is question over whether Plato based his story of Atlantis on earlier myths or if he really did hear some version of the story from Critias, his putative source for the legend, but there is certainly no doubt about the fact that Atlantis as Plato describes it cannot have really existed. If you ask any classicist whether Atlantis was real, I guarantee the only answer you will receive is a groan or a scoff.
 * Your comparison between Atlantis and God is unfounded for a number of reasons. For one thing, unlike Atlantis, there are many highly educated people who believe in God and there are numerous logical arguments in favor of the existence of God. (Whether those arguments are right or wrong is not our current topic of discussion, but my point is that they exist and there are plenty of theologians and philosophers who support them.) Another problem is that, even if God did not exist, that would not make him "fiction," because the word "fiction" refers to an intentionally made-up story with a known author that was never intended to be believed. God, regardless of whether He exists, was not intentionally made up by a known author, and it is abundantly clear that those who first spoke of Him genuinely thought He was real. Atlantis, on the other hand, was intentionally made up (as best we can tell) by a known author (i.e. Plato) and, by the opinions of most scholars, was probably never intended to be believed as literal, historical fact. Therefore, it is appropriate to call Atlantis "fiction," since it fits the definition of the word and that is what the scholarly sources call it. I hope this answer clears up any lingering questions. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning "there are numerous logical arguments in favor of the existence of God" is not valid since there are also numerous logical arguments in favor of the existence of Atlantis. Analogous to what I said above, Atlantis also does not become more fictional by you talking about gods. Gods are simply not relevant here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am quite utterly baffled by your actions here. My comment above was an explanation written in response to explaining why his argument relating the existence of Atlantis to the existence of God is not relevant here. I thought you and I agreed that it was irrelevant, so I am very confused why you are bringing the subject back up and arguing against my argument that the topic is completely irrelevant. This discussion was over until you started it back up again. As far as I am currently aware, there are no logical arguments for the existence of Atlantis and there are certainly none supported by respected academics; whereas, in the case of the existence of God, there are plenty of respected theologians who teach at major universities and support arguments for the existence of God. That makes the two issues inherently different, and is sufficient grounds for concluding that the existence of God is not relevant to the existence of Atlantis. I do not understand why you are trying to argue otherwise, seeing as we both seem to agree that it is not relevant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The discussion was over but you used bad reasoning why it was over: actually proofs of Atlantis and proofs of God are both based on invalid thinking.
 * Atlantis and God are not inherently different just because the proponents of one of those had a lot of power when universities were invented, and thus are part of academia for historical reasons. If they were not part of it today, they would not get in. They are relics of the Middle Ages, and what they think about "proofs of God" is not relevant.
 * So stop abusing this page for proselytizing. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what I am saying. I am not trying to make any claims here about whether or not God actually exists. I was just saying that there are some academics who support the existence of God; whereas there are none (that I know of) who support the existence of Atlantis. Since an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect academic views, that means we have to treat the subjects differently. It does not matter whether you personally think the arguments used by particular academics are flawed. If you present any academic sources arguing that Atlantis really exists, then we can continue this discussion, hopefully leaving all this irrelevant confusion about the existence of God behind us, but, for now, I consider this discussion over. Frankly, I am tired of trying to explain to you what I was really trying to say, since you keep assuming that I am arguing something that I am not actually trying to argue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018
Put "(arguably)" before the word "fictional" near beginning of article. Because: No one has disproved the existence of Atlantis. Just like Troy was supposedly fictional it was eventually found. Furthermore: Plato, a very well respected writer, has never been accused of lying or writing to mislead other than his writing related to Atlantis.

Then add somewhere:

Evidence supports that Atlantis may have been at the site called the Richat Structure a.k.a "Eye of Africa". See "Visiting Atlantis" documentary video or web site. Steveafrica (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * [], as to the Richat Structure, we are discussing that already.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . Anyone who has ever actually read Plato know that he uses myths and fictional stories to make philosophical points literally all the time. In the Republic alone, he tells the story of the Ring of Gyges, the Allegory of the Cave, the Myth of Er, and so on. In his Symposium, he has Aristophanes tell this hilarious fable about how humans were originally hermaphrodites with two heads, four arms, and four legs, but then they tried to rebel against the gods, so Zeus split them in half. Romantic love, Aristophanes concludes in the dialogue, is the result of people trying to find their other half. It is honestly baffling why people take the story of Atlantis seriously but not any of those other stories, because they all have exactly the same level of literal credibility. Why is no one looking for fossils of people with two heads and four limbs? How about for a magic ring that turns the wearer invisible? And where is that cave where all those people were chained up?
 * Plato told all of these stories to convey philosophical meanings; he never intended any of them to be taken as literal, historic fact. He tells the story of Atlantis to prove a argument about how even seemingly the mightiest of all civilizations can be destroyed and to convey a warning about the perils of hubris. The only difference between Atlantis and the Allegory of the Cave, for instance, is that Plato's account of Atlantis happens to be unusually specific. That does not prove that Atlantis really existed, though. It could easily just mean that Plato thought it was a great story and decided to embellish it. This is the same man who supposedly originally wanted to become a playwright before he met Socrates; he had the soul of a poet. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)