Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis/Archive 2

Antarctica edits
Lovecraft wrote novels, and has no place in this article. Perhaps a page on Atlantis in fiction, or does that already exist?

Similarly, unless there's a citation, mention of the 60s and 70s popularity of Atlantis in Antarctica is directly contradicted by the article itself. Many books with this theory have come out in the 90s and 2000s.

TrooperDave

COI edit war
I'm tempted just to let them go to it, but I'm not sure it is good for Wikipedia to have two authors of Atlantis stuff continually changing each others edits. Doug Weller (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrections about the several errors
1- "...Plato's description of a palace where water was plentiful, collected from the surrounding hills and of a multilevel acropolis sitting on a great, flattened, terraced hilltop, is a good match with the digs at Knossus and Akrotiri..."

'''This is false! Plato never said that the Acropolis of Atlantis was multilevel nor on terraced hilltop!'''

2- Plato also never mentioned "volcanic eruption" in Atlantis history.

3- Plato never said also that "the external walls of the palace were said to shine like silver", this is a mere falsification of the Plato's texts!.

'4- Plato never said taht the "rocks white, black, and red were extracted from the hills and used to construct a great island city"'', this is false also! Plato only said that were used in the construction of the some edifices, but no precise more...'''

'''5- Also is false! that "unearthed frescos from the island have depicted Santorini with a configuration that can be interpreted in this way", ie, as a series of concentric circles of land surrounded by water, each connected to the sea by a deep canal, like metropolis of Atlantis.'''

'''6- Is false! also that "the Egyptians used the Kepchu (or Kftjw) name for to denominate to Atlantis".''' It is not possible to use a mere speculation as if it was a verified fact.

'''7- The Kftyw argument is very little demonstrative, no significate nothing. No exist relation with the narration of Atlantis nor with none of the Atlantean names.'''

Mr Dspark76 could be show the palaeographical evidences, ie, the Greek texts from Critias with these affirmations.

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Georgeos Diaz-Montexano,

Thank you for your efforts to improve the accuracy to the cited references for the Santorini section. I'd like to respond to some of your questions:

1) I am not the editor who orginally entered this text. So please do link any 'affirmations' to me.  However, I do believe that these affirmations were made by the reference cited.

2) I believe that the concentric circle fresco is shown here:

3) I don't see in the july 2 text (prior to your edits) that an assertion between plato and a volcano was made. The former second bullet did not mention Plato.  I think you may have misread this text.

4) I do not understand why, if you think so many of these statements are false that you have reverted to the June 24th longer list of bullets. On July 2, I restored the abridged list (about 5 bullets).  The abridged list resulted from some former discussion (see above: Crete and Santorini).  The problem with all the bullets from the older version was that it seemed to rely too heavily (and give too much weight) on one reference and did not take a wider view of the different sources working on this 'theory'.  From your above comments, you also seem to take issue with this source, yet you still restored the longer list.  Was this intentional?

5) Kepchu (or Kftjw): I agree that this should not be asserted as fact. I think the prior section was worded poorly. However, we need to remember that wikipedia is not the correct forum for attempting to prove or disprove a theory.  Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source (see FRINGE).  We should avoid statements that attempt to argue for or against a point, but simply state the two sides (with references).

6) I don't think the way this section is stated now achieves these goals. It could be interpreted that the recent reverts between the short list July 2 and March 2008 and the recent edits by me, yourself and 214.42.16.203 represent either 2 or 3 reverts.  I would like to work together to come to some sort of consensus before making any further edits so that we don't trip into 3_revert_rule.

I would very much appreciate your comments and further discussion toward this end.

Best regards, Dspark76 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You need a source for the concentric sources thing I think. Either of you ever read Atlantis Destroyed by Rodney Castleden? Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Dougweller,
 * how about this reference? I wish I could find the oringinal McCoy source...

http://www.decadevolcano.net/santorini/atlantis.htm "1. Plato tells about a circular island with concentric structures. Santorini today does have an impressive concentric geographic setting and had it also before the Minoan eruption. This has come out as a result of detailed geologic studies during the past 20 years, see the chapter of the reconstruction of the ring-shaped pre-Minoan island with a central shield. Furthermore Heiken and McCoy (1990) indicated that the famous picture in the West House from the Akrotiri excavations most likely represents a relatively naturalistic portrait of Thera. It shows an inhabited and flowering island landscape and the departing Therean fleet, and actually some concentric water-land ring structures are visible, too. " Dspark76 (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ... and, no I havent read Atlantis Destroyed (other than about 10 pages worth before google books preview cut me off). Do you have it?  It looks like it could be a useful reference...  Thanks, Dspark76 (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed it on Amazon US and UK, it is a brilliant book. Doug Weller (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See this from Castleden (who says Thera never had concentric circles). He thinks the bit about three concentric circles is a morph from fortifications at Syracuse. Doug Weller (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the link to the relevant Althantis Destroy section. I think page 150 is the relevent page.  My interpretation is that Althantis Destroyed was probably based on the 1984 McCoy construction of the pre-eruption shape of Santorini.  However, several 1988 - 2000 studies have concluded that there was actually a ring shape with island center.  See: [] for more details.  Dspark76 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, since its been about a week without further discussion, I'm going to restore to abridged list and attempt to include the suggested improvements above... Dspark76 (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still attempting to clean up the (mis)quoted plato terms. A good reference for Plato's text is here:  pages 89-99.  However, to avoid original research, I'm trying to tied plato's text to the various referenced sources.  This might take a bit of work and may require re-working some of the paragraphs.  I'll mark them with the  tags for now and fix them as I can. If anyone wants to chime in, please feel free... Thanks, Dspark76 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For consideration:

"Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her, and breaking the ground, inclosed the hill in which she dwelt all round, making alternate zones of sea and land larger and smaller, encircling one another; there were two of land and three of water, which he turned as with a lathe, each having its circumference equidistant every way from the centre, so that no man could get to the island, for ships and voyages were not as yet. He himself, being a god, found no difficulty in making special arrangements for the centre island, bringing up two springs of water from beneath the earth, one of warm water and the other of cold, and making every variety of food to spring up abundantly from the soil." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some of their buildings were simple, but in others they put together different stones, varying the colour to please the eye, and to be a natural source of delight. The entire circuit of the wall, which went round the outermost zone, they covered with a coating of brass, and the circuit of the next wall they coated with tin, and the third, which encompassed the citadel, flashed with the red light of orichalcum". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(Spoken by Critias) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt
This article is nothing but a list of random fringe theories. We're giving undue weight to unscientific speculation. Let's take the section Location hypotheses of Atlanti. Comet impact? When? Where? I might not know every comet impact, but one that would that much damage would be familiar to us. The draining of the glacial Lake Agassiz water levels worldwide by one meter, and that's the estimate of precisely one scientist. Moreover, it happened 13,000 years ago, long before civilization was extant in Europe. Much of the British Isles were under ice during the Devensian glaciation. And I'm looking just at one section. If the editors are going to create a hypothesis about Atlantis, how about giving weight to reasonable speculation, not unscientific woo. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to actually be a collection of nationalistic myth-location claims. I'm tempted to AfD the article or to boldly propose merging with some other article. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Any scientifically-based speculation on this subject is going to start from the majority opinion among classical scholars that Plato made up the Atlantis story. There are a handful of people who believe that Plato might have been drawing on oral traditions about prehistoric civilizations destroyed by natural catastophes (e.g., the eruption of Thera, but this is a minority position. Everyone who claims to have found the true location of Atlantis is fringe. I think there's some value in listing the notable attempts to find Atlantis, since it's such a huge subject in pop culture, but that necessarily means that almost all of this article will be devoted to fringe material. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is a compilation of fringe theories. However, the subject is most certainly notable and the massive amount of external references generated by people for hundreds of years meets the requirements of WP:FRINGE for inclusion in wikipedia. The article should be considered as a whole, not just as independent pieces. As to whether a given sub-section has enough references and notability could be open for debate.  I would propose that any subsection with at least 2 independent, credible citations could be included, so long as it is presented in the right tone.
 * Finally, don't get hung up on mistaking scientifically accurate with notable. A significant portion of 'human knowledge' involves the study and pursuit of fringe subsjects.  Even if the 'theory' is widely recognized as inaccurate, it may often still be interesting to many Wikipedia readers and deserves inclusion, thus the reason for the WP:FRINGE guidline. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to prove (or disprove for that matter) a fringe theory.   Therefore, I would not recommend spending effort here attacking individual theories.  Dspark76 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, just to set a base for comparison, I think this article is in much better condition than some similar articles such as Formal studies of Bigfoot or List_of_major_UFO_sightings.

I'm sorry, but still anybody responded my questions, and the erros and falsifications about Plato's words, still continued.
'''Corrections about the several errors: '''

1- "...Plato's description of a palace where water was plentiful, collected from the surrounding hills and of a multilevel acropolis sitting on a great, flattened, terraced hilltop, is a good match with the digs at Knossus and Akrotiri..."

'''This is false! Plato never said that the Acropolis of Atlantis was multilevel nor on terraced hilltop!'''

2- Plato also never mencioned "volcanic eruption" in Atlantis history.

3- Plato never said also that "the external walls of the palace were said to shine like silver", this is a mere falsification of the Plato's texts!.

4- Plato never said that the "rocks white, black, and red were extracted from the hills and used to construct a great island city", '''this is false also! Plato only said that were used in the construction of the some edifices, but no precise more...'''

'''5- Also is false! that "unearthed frescos from the island have depicted Santorini with a configuration that can be interpreted in this way", ie, as a series of concentric circles of land surrounded by water, each connected to the sea by a deep canal, like metropolis of Atlantis.'''

'''6- Is false! also that''' "the Egyptians used the Kepchu (or Kftjw) name for to denominate to Atlantis". It is not possible to use a mere speculation as if it was a verified fact.

'''7- The Kftyw argument is very little demonstrative, no significate nothing. No exist relation with the narration of Atlantis nor with none of the Atlantean names.'''

Mr Dspark76 could show here - for all - palaeographical evidence, ie the texts of Greek Critias and Timaeus with these statements?

Wikipedia can not promote the lies and falsification of historical sources. No matter what the prestige of an author of modern times, if his statements or conclusions are based on lies and forgery of ancient texts and the historical sources.

Wikipedia can not support these fakes and these fallacies. If you want these falsifications of Plato's words continue to exist in Wikipedia (because this theory is the most like you), at least you are obliged to explain - along with every one of these fakes - that these assertions and conclusions do not correspond to the real Plato's words we know in texts written in Greek and Latin, the Timaeus and Critias.

I appreciate the effort, but the reality is that you have not replied to each of my questions, and you still have not shown nor even a single evidence or proof that in Plato's dialogues (Timaeus and Critias) there are words or phrases, for hold (with real scientific rigor) these claims these authors which you insist on keeping us in this Wikipedia article.

Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

''Ok I reviewed Montexanos points about THERA and I concluded that he is right about it. There is no such a thing about (point 1) multilevel or anything like that. This is a speculation. Also if there was a volcano(point 2) Plato would have mentioned it. Maybe there was but its source must have been not within the island otherwise he would have mentioned it. He said in one night and day of misfortune the island disappeared into the depths of the Sea. So the island itself is submerged. This is the proof that Thera is not ATLANTIS. Furthermore, Plato knew Thera very well, as did the Egyptian priest, why would he go into all that trouble to describe the location when he would have said, ‘where Thera is’. So Montexano is right on these points; they’re all speculations. There is nothing in the writings of Plato that resembles Thera. As for the concentric point; most calderas are round concentric things. I have read Plato in English as well as Greek version and there is no mention of the KEFTIU and Atlantis relationship. So too conclude there are few major conflicts with this theory.

1)	Thera did not totally submerged

2)	Its people did not disappear, as they populated the later Greek areas.

3)	 Thera was well known by Plato as well as by the Egyptian priest.

4)	Is not near or has any relationship to/with Pillars of Hercules (any possible pillars).

5)	Atlanteans weren’t Greeks, while the Minoans are the predecessors of modern Greeks.

6)	Thera was destroyed around 1600 B.C While Atlantis existed at least 9,000 years prior to Solon.

'''I can go on for ever. Would be easier to point out that there is actually not serious evidence that shows that Atlantis was in Santorini'''. --Xellas (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)''

Coordinates
I tried to post Coordinates for Mount Sipylus and was edited into oblivion. While I don't necessarily believe that any of these locations is more likely than any other, it would be cool to have the all coordinates that correspond to the proposed locations for a little Google Earth amusement, Eh?
 * Try these co-ordinates: -  56° 6'14.74"N, 22°18'22.42"W --Dharma-815 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at that area in a Java based Sea Level tool. ( http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/ ) A rough estimate would indicate a need for the sea level to fall below 1400 meters. The lowest Sea level in Human time scales is said to be only 200 meters below the current. I will accept this as a possible area that has "Sunk" due to the geologic instability in that area but a conventional ice-age melt scenario is not likely... Nifty geometry in that area though, will have to take a better look in Virtual Ocean... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic Ridge Theory
I have copied this last section from the Discussion on the main Atlantis page, since I think it's more relevant here. I am the original author of the second paragraph below as well. I didn't know if it would be worth researching a bit more to add in as a possible location in the Atlantic Ocean. Behold

Quoted by an unknown author:

"did it conatined atlantis?

i know i theory wich asserts that the flood of noath had coverd the island wich was the mid-atlantic ridge above water.

http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/parks/pltec/noaaMidAtlanticRidgeL.jpg"


 * I'm going to assume this is a legitimate question, but I can't tell if the grammar is intentionally or unintentionally wrong. Graham Hancock's book from 2003-ish, called "Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization," goes into a lot of detail on the inundations after the most recent meltings of the ice age polar ice sheets (around 18,000 YA, 16,000 YA, and 11,000 YA), and at the time of those inundations, the Mid Atlantic Ridge was above water.  He further speculated, based on the shapes of the land that would have been above ground, that portions of the Ridge match Plato's description of Atlantis.  Furthermore, when the 11,000 YA inundations happened, though it would not have been "overnight," the sea waters would have risen anywhere from 60 to 100 meters (190 to 330 feet) in the course of a few years, and would have definitely given the "Atlanteans" a lot of concern over the future of their continent.  Hancock's theories are often posited as "pseudoscience" and "pseudoarchaeology," but there is a lot of research to say that those theories may have some merit after all.  All this to say, of course, that there's no way of knowing for sure right now, but recent science does seem to indicate that as of 11,000 YA, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was above water.  --Brandon (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It does? Malaise made claims about that quite some time ago, but who agrees with them now? Do you know how deep the mid-Atlantic ridge is? You'd need some good sources for this. dougweller (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean the entire ridge, obviously, but the tallest peaks are above water even today (Iceland, the Azores, Gough Island, others I can't remember). This would have more to do with just the tallest sections of the ridge than the entire ridge itself, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. Anyway, it's still just theory (as is all of this article), so I have no qualms one way or the other with whether or not it is included. --Brandon (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at which although Usenet and a bit old is interesting about the Azores. There's also the Atlantis Massif of course. Minor problems about lack of evidence for any ships that could have sailed there of course. I always think the fact that there was no city of Athens as that time is the real killer though -- but I digress and I criticise others for using this as a forum, so I'll shut up. dougweller (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shallow marine coastal deposits dating to the last interglacial, Eemian, have been found along the coast of Santa Maria Island (Azores). These deposits lie about 2 to 4 meters above current sea level. Thus, the sea level during the last interglacial was very close to modern and there has been a complete absence of any significant subsidence of this island during the last 114,000 - 130,000 years. If anything, there has been ongoing uplift of this island. For example, Santa Maria Island has extensive interglacial wave cut platforms at 5-10 meters, 15-40 meters, 50-70 meters, 80-120 meters and 140-160 meters above modern sea level. Thus, Santa Maria Island has actually risen relative to modern sea level by at least 160 m during the Pleistocene. Similar Pleistocene (interglacial) wave cut platforms has been described and dated for Flores Island. Some publications that discuss this are:


 * Avila, S. P., P. Madeira, N. Mendes, A. Rebelo, A. Medeiros, C. Gomes, F. Garcia-Talavera, C. M. da Silva, M. Cachao, C. Hillaire-Marcel, and A. M. de Frias Martins, 2008, Mass extinctions in the Azores during the last glaciation: fact or myth? Journal of Biogeography. v. 35, p. 1123–1129.


 * Serralheiro, A., and Madeira, J., 1999, Stratigraphy and geochronology of Santa Maria Island, Azores. in pp. 357-376, Livro de Homenagem ao Prof. Carlos Romariz, Departamento de Geologia da, Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisborn, Portugal.


 * Zbyszewski, G., and F. O. da V. Ferreira, 1962, Etude geologique de l'le de Santa Maria (Acores) Comunicacoes dos Servicos Geologicos de Portugal. v. 46, p. 209-245.


 * Notice that some of these papers date to 1999 and 1962, which means that proponents of the Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being Atlantis have been ignoring contradictory data and interpretations for decades. Malaise's ideas have been completely discredited by observations made and data collected since he published his ideas.Paul H. (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, sea levels have changed. The current sea level of the Atlantic ocean has existed for only 3000 years. https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/

Can you explain for me how the coast of Texas has changed position? http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/coast/prehistory/images/sea-level.html

If the shoreline of North America have changed, then how can the coastlines of Azores NOT changed?

Is it possible that North America has changed elevation?

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I will suggest that the Turkey entry include "Karagöl" (The black lake) as this is also posited as the location of Tantalus:

+38° 33' 28.00", +27° 13' 0.36"

Google Maps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic section
Hi, I miss South-Morocco within the Atlanic Ocean section of the article. I guess it is important for the completeness. e.g. the Souss-Massa hypothesis: http://www.asalas.org Truemate (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Bahama Bank and Cuba subsections to the Atlantic Ocean section--last I heard, they were both in the Atlantic. If you are sure they have drifted elsewhere while I wasn't looking, please provide citations ;-) Freederick (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

About Xellas Editings
I made some very important and constructive changes but someone (ClueBot) try to undo my work. Also I did delete most of Sarmast info as it was to detailed. His entire essay was taking so much space. It should not be more than a passage per theory. Everyone deserves his place on Wiki not just certain names. Also the introduction it was referring to Spain as Atlantis. It was misleading. Please explain why do you think that's a vandalism (to ClueBot).--Xellas (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I separated Malta From Sicily. They're two different theories. Although they're close to each other I do not see any connections between them.--Xellas (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the introduction and gave a detailed info on how the story got to us, through Solon, Dropides, Critas Plato....--Xellas (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cluebot is a 'bot', software that detects certain types of edits, in this case the deletion of a large amount of text. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I kind of suspected that. thanks D.--Xellas (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone with IP: 98.248.33.198 is playing around. can someone identify this person? --Xellas (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not playing around, it's restoring massive amounts of sourced material. My identity is irrelevant, and attempting to ID me is a violation of WP guidelines. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course is rrelevant. you don't just undo things? where did you see massive amounts? I have the right to edit anything that is in violation of WP. Why don't you use your ID? Also undoing things for no reasons is a violation of WP!!! So go through my changes and tell me if something is wrong with them, otherwise move on...--Xellas (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Xellas, there have been around 5 different users undoing your removal of sourced content. That means that there's no consensus for the removal of that content. When you don't have consensus, you need to stop edit warring. The other thing is that anonymous editors (IPs) are allowed (with the exception of sockpuppeting) to edit and don't have to reveal their identity.
 * You have both violated the three revert rule policy yesterday. Please, continue discussing your points instead of edit warring and asking editors to reveal their identity.
 * 98.248.33.198, you too... please abide by the 3RR policy. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's funny but none commented on it till they blocked me and that's not fair. This is supposed to be debatable before you disregard someone's contribution. There was not a single comment on it. Why was so hard for them to tell me the reasons. Just stating 3RR doesn't explain anything. That means that these so called moderators are not worth of their position. They insulted me in a way. I am open for debate. If I see that my info is not either referenced or correct I would be happy to obey the rules. Anyway I would like to contribute to the subject and I will start with small things. In case someone doesn't like the changes they can say so not just undo them without explanations. And also the person that was doing the UNDOING was blocked before me.. What does that tell you?

P.S. I still believe I didn't commit a 3RR, rather the moderators had a conflict of interest. They should be more open minded rather than just.... anyway --Xellas (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ABOUT Sarmast long paragraph.
I believe it should be brought down to a few sentences. It’s not fair to others. The passages are to long and to detailed, his entire work is in there. If someone needs to know more about him or his work a link should be provided. --Xellas (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that the passage about Sarmast's idea is too long. The problem is that more detail needs to be added to the descriptions and discussion of the other proposed locations of Atlantis. Your way of simplifying and shortening the discussion about Sarmast's ideas curiously has the effect of removing any criticism of his ideas. I have to wonder if that your actual intent in making these changes was remove (censor) any discussion and sources that either disputes, contradicts, or refutes Sarmast's claims using the excuse that the passages are "too long and too detailed" and, thus, not being "fair to others." Your manner of shortening the section about Sarmast's ideas is extremely biased against and unfair to, whether intended to or not, the presentation of any opposing points of view to those advocated by Robert Sarmast.Paul H. (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, paul, with all do respect...this is WIKIPEDIA, not his personal site. You have more than two pages (11x8 standart) of detaileds of his work. that's consider too long for WP. Imagine if we add as much as you added in there for eaqch of the 1,000 theories out there? Who's gona read all that "garbage"? So now tell me is it fair? And to be fair, it has nothing to do with Atlantis...?! --Xellas (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While this is kind of old, I agree with Xellas. This is an article that contains a summary of different theories. If one theory has a lot more information, and is well cited, then a summary should be on this page and the full text should be split off into its own article. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

About Malta Section
I noticed that Malta (Although I am not a big fan!) has been reduced to only a paragraph and the names of the Atlantologists been erased. I remember it used to be better. There are well known archeologists and serious researchers in Malta that are looking for Atlantis. I believe they deserve to be mentioned although they're referenced (?)

I found the old version and combined with the new version. I think it looks nice, although there is room for improvement. I also inserted an Image from one of those theories. As I mentioned I don’t agree with the hypothesis, nevertheless I believe it deserves to be shown. I will explain that the image is just a speculation by Malta theorists. --Xellas (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

North Sea hypotheses
The date given for Spanuth's publication is misleading; 2001 is three years after Spanuth's death, and the original was no posthumous publication. In fact, his book Das enträtselte Atlantis maintaining the already well-known Northern hypothesis was published as far back as 1953 and sparked great controversy in Germany at the time for advocating what was known as Nazi ideology.

The fact that Spanuth used to publish in far right publication houses also highlights the actual origins of the Northern hypothesis of Atlantis which identified "Atland" as the Norse mythological island of Thule situated in what is now the North Sea (whereas this Northern hypothesis of Atlantis makes it out as a continental landmass originally connecting modern-day Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, and Ireland). The German Wikipedia article on Atlantis and its location isn't quite clear on who first proposed it when, but it mentions specifically Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century as one major source, and muses upon an influence of James Churchward upon Rosenberg, whereas Churchward had written of "white, racially pure inhabitants of Mu".

From Michael Rißmann (2001), Hitlers Gott (Pendo Verlag, 312 pages, ISBN 3858424218), I know that via Ahnenerbe's Dutch lay historian Herman Wirth (who'd published on this Northern hypothesis during the 1920s), Heinrich Himmler was another determined advocate of the Northern hypothesis of Atland, which tied in with his belief in the Welteislehre adopted during the 1920s by German nationalists and neo-paganists within the völkisch movement. Basically, Himmler believed that one of earth's "earlier moons" had crashed on earth several millennia before Christ, thereby destroying the landmass of Atland as the Urheimat of Indo-European peoples (Indogermanen in German), causing the subsequent belligerent spread of Indo-Europeans across Europe and Asia, and giving rise to mythological legends such as Ragnarök, the Biblical Deluge, and, of course, the tale of Atlantis related by Plato. Himmler therefore saw especially Heligoland as a spritually significant place (even considering some esoteric "force field" upon the island affecting the assumptive "power" of neo-pagan rituals to be performed there) within his pseudo-Norse occultism due to being a remnant of sunken Atland.

Considering that the 1867 Oera Linda book is another significant source for the Northern hypothesis, its adoration by Himmler via Dutch-born Hermann Wirth, as well as the fact that its German article mentions its colloquial cognomen Himmlers Bibel ("Himmler's bible"), it might be a safe bet to assume that Oera Linda might be the original source locating Atlantis in the North Sea. --79.193.122.152 (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New location hypothesis: Pavlopetri, Greece
Submerged town of Pavlopetri between Neapolis and Elafonissos island, off of Laconia, Greece. "Lost Greek city that may have inspired Atlantis myth gives up secrets". Helena Smith, guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 October 2009 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/16/lost-greek-city-atlantis-myth - - 189.122.20.64 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis in Greenland
Deleted

Mario Dantas (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the bedrock and Quaternary geology of Greenland is extremely well documented in innumerable publications to the point that any hypothesis that Greenland once was Atlantis, as you propose, is ready refuted. To come up with a credible argument for Greenland being Atlantis, you will have show how the data and interpretations found in hundreds of published scientific papers concerning the geomorphology; Quaternary and bedrock geology; and paleoclimatology of Antarctica provide the least bit of support to your proposal. For starters, look at:


 * Fulton, R. J, 1989, Quaternary Geology of Canada and Greenland. Geological Survey of Canada, Geology of Canada Series; no. 1. Geological Society of America, Geology of North America Series; VOL. K-01. 838 pp. Paul H. (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Dantas (talk • contribs) 08:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not meant for discussion of where Atlantis might be, but of sources, layout, anything to do with the article. Blogs and personal websites won't qualify as sources, and if we are going to mention Greenland we would use a published author who's been mentioned enough elsewhere to make their idea significant. Others have suggested this in the past, eg James Bramwell, maybe we can use something about Greenland but I'm afraid not your blog or you. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

mounting madness
I do not recall that At the mountains of madness makes mention of Atlantis being in the Antartic. The only mention nof Atlantis I recall in that the ruins are older then Atlantis, tus implying that Lovecraft does not intend us to assume that the city of the old ones is Atlantis. Also its fiction so cannot be used to demonstate that human knowlegde of an ice free Antartica is based on old knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have deleted the bit about the Lovecraft story. Cardamon (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediterranean fact vs. conjecture
The "Near Cyprus" theory lists a number of current scientific assumptions as fact, and needs to be modified. What differentiates science from pseudo-science is physical evidences/facts/proofs. The sites which were cored, as listed on the article, do not include the Cyprus Arc itself, which is the proposed site of Atlantis. The Cyprus Arc is an elevated plateau at the northeastern tip of the Mediterranean Sea and has no relation whatever to the cored sites, which are dozens or hundreds of miles away. The citations provided list a number of core sample results from some sites which are below the depth of the Cyprus Arc, and others which are above the elevation of the Cyprus Arc. These results are then provided as the proof that the same results must apply to the Cyprus Arc. These conjectures are no more than educated guesses based on the faulty assumption that the Mediterranean basin has always been at the same level and has experienced no sinking or rising. It does not take into account other scientific papers which claim that the entire eastern Mediterranean sank, calling it a "sunken continent." The following quote is from Dr. Hall's Geological Framework of the Levant: The Levantine Basin and Israel:

''"The Levantine Basin is traditionally the deep basin at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Since its physiography was first described in the seminal work of Emery, Heezen and Allan (1966) based upon a reconnaissance cruise of the R/V Aragonese in the very early sixties, the Levantine Basin has piqued the interest of earth scientists. The region hosts the junction of three plates, whose interaction has produced complex structures. Because of its relative remoteness, and the uneasy relationships between the seven national entities along its littoral, the area was not easy to investigate. However, the probing since the 1970s has shown that the basin is filled with a great quantity of sediments (12 km or more), and that the nature of its underpinnings is not simple. Many investigators have studied the area. Some have returned again and again to this problematic place. Most propose models for its origin and history based on the findings of the particular tools employed, whether they be bathymetry, gravity, magnetics, seismic reflection, seismic refraction, teleseismic investigations, or submarine geology based on coring, drilling, and dredging. The region’s recent history also seems to beckon. From the pioneering study of our colleague Ya’akov Petrovitch Malovitskiy (1978) who proposed on the basis of seismic investigations that the Levantine Basin was a sunken continent." (Krasheninnikov, V. A., Hall, J. K., Hirsch, F., Benjamini, C. & Flexer, A. (Eds.) (2005) Geological framework of the Levant, Volume I: Cyprus and Syria. Historical Productions-Hall, Jerusalem, Israel)'

These assumptions therefore cannot be stated as scientific facts -- only physical evidence from the Cyprus Arc can bring the required verification. The article therefore should say that some or even most "scientists currently believe..." instead of speaking for the whole of the scientific community and claiming final authority. The use of any form of assumption whatsoever negates any proposition as scientific "fact."

For these reasons, the tone of final scientific authority in the article is in error and must be changed to conform to scientific standards and its reliance on requisites proofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profsherman (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first problem is that Profsherman fails to provide any reliable source that demonstrates that cores have not been taken from the Cyprus Arc. This claim seems to be based solely on his original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia, instead of any recently published source. Given the degree that the Eastern Mediterranean has been cored, I would suspect that if a person did a comprehensive review of the published literature about the Eastern Mediterranean, that he or she would find Profsherman claims about the lack of cores to be completely false.


 * Second, I have a copy of Hall (2005). Having read it, it is obvious that Profsherman has carefully selected and edited quotes (quote-mined) from this paper such that they only appear to support his position. In fact, this paper clearly disagrees with both his point of view and his arguments. Mr. Profsherman clearly needs to look through the book, Geological framework of the Levant, Volume II: the Levantine Basin and Israe. If he did, he would an overwhelming abundance of evidence, arguments, and interpretations made from them that completely contradict his arguments. The research found in this book clearly supports the interpretations made by Hübscher et al. (2009) and soundly refutes his claims about the Wikipedia text under discussion being pseudoscience.


 * Third, regardless of whether cores have been taken from the Cyprus Arc or not, there exists there exist more enough scientific data and evidence to scientifically argue that "Since its formation, the sea bottom feature identified by Sarmast as “Atlantis” has always been submerged beneath over a kilometer of water" as discussed in detail by Hübscher et al. (2009). Given what is known about the behavior of seawater under the influence of gravity the fact that cores at innumerable locations in the Eastern Mediterranean above depth of the Cyprus Arc up to a depth of about 110 meters have been continuously underwater for the past few millions years provides ample scientific evidence that location of Sarmast's "Atlantis" has been underwater for the past few million years. To argue otherwise, a person would have to explain how this location was exempt from both the law of gravity and the effects that gravity has on fluids such seawater. In addition, there is thousand of kilometers of published seismic data, i.e. seismic lines illustrated by Hübscher et al. (2009), cris-crossing all of the Eastern Mediterranean, including the Cyprus Arc. From this seismic data, it is now possibly with an extremely high degree of certainty to reconstruct the tectonic, sea-level, and sedimentation history of almost any location, specifically the well-studied underwater hill claimed by Robert Sarmast to be "Atlantis," in the Eastern Mediterranean. With this seismic data, it is also possible with an extremely high degree of certainty to correlate the sedimentary strata underlying a location for which seismic data is available to locations where the sediments have been cored and their age, lithology, and origin has been determined. Also, different depositional environments have distinct seismic signature. As a result, the depositional environment of a package of strata underlying a specific location can be inferred from how it appears in the seismic data. Thus, although Sarmast's "Atlantis" has not been cored, it is possible to infer the nature and origin of the sediments forming it and scientifically infer its depositional history over the last several millions of years. There is more than enough published research to demonstrate that the claims about the Cyprus Arc having "no relation whatever to the cored sites" and certain so-called "assumptions therefore cannot be stated as scientific facts" are nothing but wrong-headed and factually bankrupt pseudoscience as clearly demonstrated by the data, maps, information, and interpretations contained by the other papers in the book in which Hall (2005) appears, Hübscher et al. (2009), and in innumerable other published papers.


 * Fourth, I find it revealing that Profsherman is unable to provide a single shred of positive evidence that Sarmast's "Atlantis" was ever above water. All he seems to able to do is argue that literally thousands of marine geologists, oceanographers, exploration geologists, geophysicists, structural geologists, Quaternary geologists, paleoclimatologists, paleo-oceanographers, and many other Earth scientists have been for decades and are currently all actively engaged in pseudoscience because none of them would agree with his support of Sarmast's ideas about the location of Atlantis.


 * References Cited


 * Hall, J. K., 2005, Part III – The Levantine Basin Introduction. in Hall, J. K., Krasheninnikov, V. A., Hirsch, F., Benjamini, C. & Flexer, A., eds., pp. 1-20, Geological framework of the Levant, Volume II: the Levantine Basin and Israel. 107 MB PDF version. Historical Productions-Hall, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 826. (or download from links at CYBAES manuscript downloads


 * Hübscher, C., E. Tahchi, I. Klaucke, A. Maillard, and H. Sahling, 2009, Salt tectonics and mud volcanism in the Latakia and Cyprus Basins, eastern Mediterranean. Tectonophysics. v. 470, no. 1-2, pp. 173-182."Paul H. (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional note: Malovitsky et al. (1975), is a hopelessly antiquated, obsolete, paper based upon equally antiquated and obsolete geophysical data, which now would be considered hopelessly unreliable and insufficient for any sort of modern research. This paper was written before the introduction of plate tectonics and, as a result, uses long discredited notions about vertical tectonics to reconstruct the geologic history of the Mediterranean. It is the now completely discredited vertical tectonics that formed this basis for ideas of a sunken continents in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, this paper was before the Messinian salinity crisis was recognized, As a result, vertical tectonics and sunken continents were mistakenly used to explain the presence of the Messinian evaoporites on the bottom of the Mediterranean instead of the catastrophic drop in sea level that occurred during the Messinian salinity crisis. As a result, this paper is now useless as a reliable source for any discussion of modern knowledge of the geology of the Eastern Mediterranean and support for the claim that the "eastern Mediterranean was/is itself a "sunken continent" and that the use of "core samples". It is mentioned by Hall (2005) only for it historical value given the utterly out-of-date nature of the data, models, and interpretations presented by it.

References Cited:

Malovitsky, Y.P., E.M. Emelyanov, O.V. Kazakov, V.N. Moskalenki, G.V. Osipov, K.M. Shimkus, and I.S. Chumakov, I.S., 1975, Geological structure of the Mediterranean Sea floor (based on geological—Geophysical data). Marine Geology v. 18, no. 4, p. 231-261Paul H. (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bahamas
I am suprised that the Bahamas are not currently mentioned in the series of supposed atlantean locations. This hypothesis is especially popular among disciples of Edgar Cayce, who commonly cite his alleged prophecies as evidence for a site in the Bahamas. ADM (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement
I think it would be a good idea to include a comparative table with hypothesis citeria for each hypothesis shown here! This could help editors and readers to get a better idea of how serious a hypothesis is. These criteria should be at least the 24 criteria, derived directly from Plato’s account, which were established at the Atlantis 2005 Conference: http://milos.conferences.gr/index.php?id=4354&L=0 Probably this would stop edit wars or inserting very obscure hypotheses and deletion of more serious ones (by hypothesis competitors). These criteria could be used as a filter to verify if a hypothesis is serious or shady. Hypotheses, which only fulfills few criteria or are scientifical nonsense should not go here or they should be appended at the end of the table. BTW, I think the highhanded deletion of the South-Morocco hypothesis should be undone, because this hypothesis is very serious and fulfills most of the Atlantis 2005 Conference citeria. Of course, creating such a table is a lot of work and I only would start on it if there is some consensus to do so. Any objections? Truemate (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would probably be original research, see WP:OR. We have a policy, WP:NPOV, which should keep the obscure out - see in particular WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dougweller, do you want to protect week hypotheses with week arguments? It would not be original research because these 24 criteria are accepted by the scientific community. If a hypothesis satisfy a criteria or not will for sure be reviewed by many other editors. So no original research! It is work, but this work should be done. Actually, this article includes very obscure theories and I really wonder why you single-mindedly or highhandedly delete a hypothesis, which is pretty serious and is published in scientific publications like the Proceedings of the Atlantis Conference? On the other hand, why didn't you delete the really obscure theories in this article? Do you want to give shelter to one of these obscure theories by delteting serious theories, not deleting obscure theories and denying a proper method of evaluation of these theories? I think a scientific publication should also be a criteria for other hypotheses in this article! The policies also say, that new works, where actually no secondary literature is avaiable should be mentioned (like in other encyclopedia), even if it is only supported by minority! I say, we should either delete many other hypotheses (I think the whole article should be deleted, because they are all minority supported or original research, see Sea of Azov, Turkey, near Cyprus etc. etc.), or we have to filter all hypothese by the 24 Conference criteria! I'll undo the deletion of the South-Morocco hypothesis now. Truemate (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's start with 'accepted by the scientific community'. What reliable source says that? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I already posted a link to this information. These criteria are very elementary, e.g. "Atlantis was located on an island", etc. These criteria were derived by the scientific community by 'common sense' from Plato's account. As I know, till now there are no contradictions. Don't you agree with these common sense derivations compiled by the scientific community? Truemate (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The conference isn't the 'scientific community'. You need reliable sources claiming that the scientific community has developed these criteria, sources meeting our critiera at WP:RS. My opinion is irrelevant, it's the sources and their quality that count. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No Dougweller, your opinion is not irrelevant. First: you say this is not the scientific community, therfore you decide what the scientific community has to be. Do you have reliable source what is the scientific community concerning Atlantis issues? Dougweller, the scientific community which works seriously on Atlantis issues is pretty small. The Atlantis Conference is the only Conference with scientific background concerning Atlantis. Each scientist, who's work concerns Plato's Atlantis will go there and/or will read the proceedings. The criteria are part of the published proceedings. Second: your opinion is not irrelevant because these criteria are, as I said before, elementary and derived by common sense. We do not need reliable source for trivialities. Each editor needs to decide what is trivial and what probably is not. Otherwise we would also need reliable sources if we want to say 'The moon has a round shape'. If you have any doubt in e.g. the criteria "Atlantis was located on an island" which is trivial, please let me know. But I must say, in this case the discussion would start to get absurdly.


 * The WP:RS says: How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a general rule, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.
 * Since the scientific 'Atlantis' community is pretty small, we have to take --depends on the context-- into account.


 * The WP:RS also says: Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.


 * At this state the artice is not neutral and the NPOV is broken because very obscure theories are supported in this article and serious theories are deleted. Truemate (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * this might be of interest http://atlantis2008.conferences.gr/atlantis2008-topics.html. By they wat only they claim that this is a seriouos study, you need third party RS. Also have you looked at the list of participants?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should give academic publications more weight than self-published ones, even for this topic. These Atlantis Conferences are apparently sponsored by the EIE and as such clearly notable. We shouldn't apply these 24 criteria, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH, but we should definitely give proper weight to those hypotheses forwarded or discussed in the conference proceedings. --dab (𒁳) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But how do we do that? It looks as though anyone could participate and give a paper, there are a number of 'independents', a 'tour guide' a Greek-Australian confectioner, and even those who have a University named under their name aren't necessarily academics, let alone academics in a relevant field. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are exactly four posibilities:
 * 1: Delete the whole article (I think none of the hypotheses here have reliable sources if we follow Dougweller's definition, moreover, most of them do not have reliable source at all).
 * 2: Accept all (even the obscure) hypotheses.
 * 3: Accept only hypotheses, which were presented/published in notable conferences/notable media.
 * 4: Use the 24 criteria filter (whereby I do not agree that this would violate WP:SYNTH, because it is only an representation of the hypotheses and therefore the text, which an reader expects to read here. Of course, the reader could derive conclusions from such a table, but whatever, he could do this also by reading the text (assuming the same weight is given to each hypothesis text, which, I think, is very difficult, ergo 'a priori' not neutral). BTW, the 24 criteria were just compiled for this purpose, install a tool for neutral measurement and to filter the obscure out.
 * I think 1) and 2) are inacceptable. We have to find a way inbetween, ergo 3) and/or 4).


 * Dougweller, you don't have to be an academic to write scientific papers. Even Einstein was not an academic. For sure, this can't be a criteria!
 * So what? Any other ideas? Truemate (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Scientific consensus' can only come from the mainstream scientific community. That's what the phrase means. It's very clear, by the way, that the journal Antiquity is a reliable source, but that's the best one I think and not typical. The question is how significant are they? Where have they been discussed? If no one's ever discussed them, that's easy. Then if they have been discussed, where, how often, etc. Dougweller (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dougweller, 'hypothesis' and 'scientific consensus' is a contradiction in terms. If there is 'scientific consensus' it isn't a hypothesis anymore. But even Einstein has no 100% 'scientific consensus' on his realivity theorie. I think, you'll never find 100% consensus on scientific theories. Thats science and it is good this way, because its anti-dogmatic and scientists were enabled to discuss alternative theories. This article is about location hypotheses of Atlantis. If there would be 'scientific consense' on any Atlantis location theorie, this article would make no sense anymore. But we are far away from this point and probably will never reach it. Therefore the article should give an overview of existing hypotheses. I think we can't support obscure hypotheses and ignore more reliable ones. This his highly unfair and violate neutral point of view.
 * The impact factor of journals and published papers are not necessarily reliable (see criticism and manipulation). Moreover, the more you pay for publishing (more pictures, more text, first page position etc.) the greater will be the impact factor. This is a known fact, even in pure scientific journals. If you have money you can 'buy' attention. But you are right, 'Scientific consensus' can only come from the mainstream scientific community. But we need to say 'mainstream scientific community, which is Atlantis-related'.
 * Once again, in this state the article is highly unfair. Very obscure hypotheses were supported (e.g. Atlantis Motherland and serious hypotheses are ignored (e.g. South Morocco or Atlantipedia (ok not a third party RS)], which were presented to the scientific Atlantis community. Other hypotheses, which have the same status 'presented and published' are also still present (e.g. Wickboldt's theorie).
 * @Dougweller and all other: I would like to ask, should we include the South-Morocco hypothesis or should we delete all other hypotheses of same or less reliable status? We need to decide in one or the other way. The whole article is far away from WP:NPOV
 * @all: Should we include the comparative 24 criteria table? Truemate (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How are you definining 'reliable status'? You cite NPOV, how do you define 'significant'? And even within fringe subjects, there is notability. If something is widely discussed then it probably belongs here. If it's generally unmentioned, then it almost certainly doesn't belong here, whether or not it meets your 24 criteria. And I probably caused some confusion, I meant 'scientific community', not consensus, and by that I mean the community of historians, geologists and archaeologists. (And I don't see how a conference whose participants includes tour guides and confections is in any sense scientific.). Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said we have 4 choises. Delete all, allow all or something inbetween. The problem is how to define the rule for 'something in-between'. Can you provide a rule? My rule is simple: The hypothesis was presented in a scientific conference and/or published in a scientific journal. Thats how I would define 'reliable status' here. It is easy to implement. Anyway, you will hardly find secondary literature on any of these hypotheses yet. Wikipedia rules also say that editors have to take into account that the cycle of primary and secondary literature could take a while. Moreover, the 24 criteria could help filter obscure stuff (as the 4. choise). If something is widely discussed it does not mean it belongs here, think about "Erich von Däniken". Dougweller, how do you argue to keep Atlantis Motherland in the article? How do you argue to eliminate 'South Morocco' in the same step? What kind of fancy rule do you use here?


 * Once again:
 * @all: I would like to ask, should we include the South-Morocco hypothesis or should we delete all other hypotheses of same or less reliable status (means: presented in a scientific conference and/or published in a scientific journal)? We need to decide in one or the other way. The whole article is far away from WP:NPOV. And there is the need of a easy rule, also for future edits.
 * @all: Should we include the comparative 24 criteria table? This would be a more complex rule => work
 * Any other suggestions for a rule?

Truemate (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

look, the "scientific" (scholarly) consensus is that Atlantis is a fable made up by Plato (or Socrates). Any "location hypothesis" is already fringe scholarship. This is an article about notable fringe scholarship. Some publications have better pedigrees than others. It is ceratinly preferable to cite the proceedings of an actual conference than a bunch of leaflets photocopied by some wild-eyed crank. This is what you need to evaluate: is the publication self-published, or did it appear with a respectable publisher. Then apply WP:DUE. Never mind "fringe", because all of this is. Just look at the publisher. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have had a deeper look at the different hypotheses in the article. I think many of these hypotheses are 'not reliable sourced'. But maybe I'm wrong in one or the other case? Sometimes I didn't found anything, sometimes I immediately stopped my search if I found a reference to a journal with horoscopes and similar stuff. Many of them have a reference to "a" book, but thats all. Others I classified as 'reliable', because they are very popular (e.g. Malta, Santorini and Antarctica), but I'm really astonished because I haven't found reliable scientific sources for only one of these hypotheses. I think, some hypotheses are reliable because of historical reasons. I concentrated my results in the following table. At the end of the table I added a section 'Northwest Africa', which is missing in the article.


 * {| class="wikitable"

!	Autor !	pubishing year !	published in/at !	reliability/include/delete !	comment

!	Andalusia


 * José Pellicer de Ossau y Tovar
 * 1673
 * reliable source
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons
 * because of historical reasons


 * Georgeos Diaz-Montexano
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * no reliable source
 * not notable


 * Werner Wickboldt
 * 2005
 * Milos Atlantis Conference
 * notable
 * notable


 * Rainer W. Kühne
 * 2004
 * Antiquity
 * notable
 * notable



!	Sea of Azov


 * Eagle/Wind
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * no reliable source
 * not notable



!	Black Sea


 * Schoppe/Schoppe
 * 2005
 * Milos Atlantis Conference
 * notable
 * notable



!	Santorini


 * A very popular theorie. -> keep it as it is
 * A very popular theorie. -> keep it as it is


 * Arundell
 * 1885
 * Burns and Oates, Harvard
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons
 * because of historical reasons



!	Helike


 * Giovannini
 * 1995
 * Museum Helveticum
 * notable
 * notable


 * Katsonopoulou/Sote
 * notable?
 * notable?
 * notable?
 * notable?



!	Turkey


 * Peter James
 * reliable source
 * notable
 * reliable source
 * notable



!	Near Cyprus


 * Robert Sarmast
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * popular because of TV, but I couldn't find a scientific article about this Atlantis hyp. There are scienific articles about the natural geological origin of what S. ment to be artificial.
 * not notable
 * popular because of TV, but I couldn't find a scientific article about this Atlantis hyp. There are scienific articles about the natural geological origin of what S. ment to be artificial.



!	Middle East


 * Jaime Manuschevich
 * 2005
 * Milos Atlantis Conference
 * notable
 * notable



!	Malta


 * A very popular theorie, but:
 * A very popular theorie, but:


 * Mifsud/Sultana/Ventura
 * is this reliable source?
 * notable?
 * is this reliable source?
 * notable?


 * Francis Galea
 * is this reliable source?
 * notable?
 * is this reliable source?
 * notable?


 * Zeitlmair
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * no reliable source
 * not notable



!	Sicily


 * Franke
 * 2005
 * Milos Atlantis Conference
 * notable
 * notable



!	Sardinia


 * Sergio Frau
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * It is said that there was an exhibition/conference about Sardinia at the Unesco, but I didn't find a confimation that this exhibition/speek/conference was Atlantis related.
 * notable?
 * It is said that there was an exhibition/conference about Sardinia at the Unesco, but I didn't find a confimation that this exhibition/speek/conference was Atlantis related.



!	Spartel Bank


 * Collina-Girard
 * didn't find this "Science Academy" article
 * notable?
 * didn't find this "Science Academy" article
 * notable?


 * Georgeos Diaz-Montexano
 * I don't not know what to do here, seems a little bit dodgy to me, he claims that this is his theorie. I suggest to keep it as it is.
 * I don't not know what to do here, seems a little bit dodgy to me, he claims that this is his theorie. I suggest to keep it as it is.
 * I don't not know what to do here, seems a little bit dodgy to me, he claims that this is his theorie. I suggest to keep it as it is.



!	Troy


 * Zangger
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * reliable source?
 * notable?



!	Azores Islands


 * A popular theorie. -> keep it as it is
 * A popular theorie. -> keep it as it is


 * Donnelly
 * reliable source
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons



!	Canary Islands, Madeira and Cape Verde


 * A popular theorie. -> keep it as it is
 * A popular theorie. -> keep it as it is


 * Saint-Vincent
 * 1803
 * reliable source
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons
 * because of historical reasons



!	Cuba


 * Collins
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * not notable



!	Northern Spain


 * Ribero-Meneses
 * 2005
 * Trabajos de Geología
 * notable
 * notable



!	Irish Sea


 * Dunbavin
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * reliable source?
 * notable?



!	Great Britain


 * Russian team
 * 1997
 * BBC news
 * notable?
 * notable?



!	Ireland


 * Erlingsson
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * reliable source?
 * notable?


 * Spence
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * reliable source?
 * notable?



!	Denmark


 * Herm
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * reliable source?
 * notable?



!	Finland


 * Bock
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * no reliable source
 * not notable



!	Sweden


 * Rudbeck
 * 16xx
 * reliable source
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons
 * because of historical reasons



!	Antartica


 * Still a popular theorie (but geol. confuted). -> keep it as it is
 * Still a popular theorie (but geol. confuted). -> keep it as it is



!	Bolivia


 * Allen
 * 2008
 * Milos Atlantis Conference
 * notable
 * notable



!	Indonesia/Sundaland


 * Nunes dos Santos
 * reliable source?
 * notable?
 * reliable source?
 * notable?



!	Mexico


 * Matlock
 * no reliable source
 * not notable
 * no reliable source
 * not notable





!	NOT PRESENT IN THE ARTICLE



!	Northwest Africa section

!	Leo Frobenius
 * 1930
 * reliable source/Encyclopedia Britannica, 1960
 * notable
 * also because of historical reasons

!	Berlioux
 * 1883
 * reliable source, see article
 * notable
 * because of historical reasons

!	Michael Hübner
 * 2008
 * Milos Atlantis Conference/ Institutum Canarium IC-Nachrichten Oct/2009
 * notable

!	Probably also Dominik Joseph Wölfel?


 * }


 * Any objections to delete the hypotheses marked as not notable and include the missing notable hypotheses? What to do with the hypotheses marked as "notable?" ? Truemate (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no objections yet? So I deleted the Sea of Azov hypothesis. I'll also delete all other obscure hypotheses. I also inserted the Morocco hypothesis in a new section 'Maghreb'. Probably a better name for this section would be North-West Africa? I will also add the Frobenius and Berlioux hypotheses to this section soon. Truemate (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed that, as I can't see any evidence that Hübner's self-published book and pdf files have any particular significance in the field enough to meet the criteria of WP:NPOV, very few Google hits, only 13, one of those is ebay, another his site, the 3rd this article. So, not notable as we define notability. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your list shows an impressive amount of work, but I'm not sure what you mean by notable, you need to use the word the way Wikipedia uses it, see WP:NOTABLE. Sarmast and Peter James are notable. Just being at the Milos Conference doesn't make someone notable. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are references e.g. Instiutum Canarium, which is def. a scientific publication in a reliable source and additional in proceedings of the Atlantis conference (there are hypotheses with only this reference (or less) still present in the article). You did'nt argue, you just delete highhandedly one reliable hypothesis out of many, which are very obscure. Why? Which hypothesis do you want to protect? I'll find out. For sure, Google hits aren't a criteria. What fancy rule do you use for deleting? I undo your undo! Truemate (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, apologies. Institutum Canarium looks ok, and needs a wikilink. Please stop being so aggressive. I don't want to protect any of these, and I agree with your removal.
 * Dougweller, I don't want to create an outward impression that I'm aggressive. Its just because I know that place in Morocco and I know that this archaeological site is exposed to massive damage and destruction by quarry companies. Thats the reason why I get a bit to emotional. I appologize. Probably it would be a good idea to cite from the 'destruction section' of the documention paper. But I'm uncertain if it belongs here? Truemate (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. I don't think it belongs here but maybe the site should have its own article as an archaeological site (although I think any Atlantis suggestion should be minimal). Dougweller (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Peter James has reliable source. But I don't see this for Sarmast. The Sarmast article has many links to other scientific papers, and TV and other media fuss over this hypothesis, but there is definetly no scientific relaiable source for it (you'll only find links to his book). Btw Sarmast wrote on his own site "The second expedition on September of 2006 proved that the anomalies on and around the purported Acropolis Hill, situated in the middle of the rectangular "great plain" of Atlantis, are natural". Therefore he refuted his own hypothesis. I changed James' status to 'notable' and kept Sarmast's as is. I think Sarmast should be deleted from the article. Or is media fuss reliable? Probably it is a good idea to keep the table alive, to have a overview of frequently inserted 'not notable' hypotheses. Truemate (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to apologise. I should not be using the word notable, or rather notability doesn't determine content, only if we should have an article. My bad. The real issue is significance, see WP:NPOV, or rather how we interpret it. A media fuss usually makes something significant, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)