Talk:Spartel

Comment
Dear Sir

It should be kind of you to ad the following reference concerning Cape Spartel hypothesis :

COLLINA-GIRARD, J (2001).-L'Atlantide devant le Detroit de Gibraltar ? mythe et géologie. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des Planètes. 333 (2001) 233-240

(the paper from Gutsher is only a development of this paper : available on Sciencedirect.com). In the text he cited this paper …

I can send you a paper : spartel bank hypothesis but only in attached file by e-mail …

Thank you Jacques Collina-Girard

spartel bibliography
Dear Sir

It should be kind of you to ad the following reference concerning Cape Spartel hypothesis :

COLLINA-GIRARD, J (2001).-L'Atlantide devant le Detroit de Gibraltar ? mythe et géologie. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des Planètes. 333 (2001) 233-240

(the paper from Gutsher is only a development of this paper : available on Sciencedirect.com). In the text he cited this paper …

Thank you Jacques Collina-Girard

Origin of hypothesis: NPOV edits
I have reverted edits like this one because they do not conform to Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. The original wording was constructed to be as neutral as possible: "The origins of this hypothesis are disputed. It may have been proposed in 2001 by French geologist Jacques Collina-Girard, but a similar hypothesis was first published by the Spanish-Cuban investigator Georgeos Díaz-Montexano in an April 2000 issue of Spanish magazine Más Allá de la Ciencia (Beyond Science), and later in August 2001 issues of Spanish magazines El Museo (The Museum) and Año Cero (Year Zero). Collina-Girard first published his hypothesis in a September 2001 issue of Science Academy." This wording doesn't claim that Collina-Girard plagiarized Díaz-Montexano's hypothesis (as Díaz-Montexano claims), nor that Díaz-Montexano's hypothesis is totally different and psuedo-scientific fantasy (as Collina-Girard claims). Wikipedia can not take sides in any argument, only present both sides of the argument as completely and accurately as possible. If there are still any problems with the original wording, let's discuss them here on the talk page instead of engaging in endless reversion. -kotra (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading the original passage again, I can see how it might be interpreted as slightly biased in Diaz-Montexano's favor. I've reworded it to a more neutral and encyclopedic tone, which I hope everyone can be comfortable with. -kotra (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal
Dear Sir, I am absolutely opposed to classify my hypothesis in "paranormal" category … I speak only about geology and prehistory, and I published my hypothesis in scientifics publications ! I don't believe to paranormal or others pseudosciences ! … which are published in esoterics publication. For my part, I don't believe to the reality of the "city of Atlantis" or others fantasies of "lost cities" … I evoqued only the possibility that Plato myth could be, (perhaps ?), related to an island which disapeared off Gibraltar strait at the end of prehistoric times as the geology prooved … and transmitted by the way of oral transmission to the aegyptians and transmitted to Plato who used it to make and "historical novel".

I am astonished that a serious enclyclopedia as you want to be, developped hypothesis related to pseudo sciences and fantastic archaeology : perhaps you can, more honnestly,  published these hypothesis in science fiction and fantasy literature or in sociology, psychology, or psychiatry ! Jacques Collina-Girard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.36.142.38 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing up your concerns. The purpose of the WikiProject Paranormal banner was to make it easier for editors interested in improving Paranormal-related articles to find those articles that need help. It's not exactly a classification of the topic of the article as "paranormal", but I can see how that impression could be made. I think an editor added the WikiProject Paranormal banner to this page because he felt that Atlantis theories are fringe science (outside of the mainstream). However, I agree with you that this particular article is not really related to the paranormal except in a very tangential way, so I have removed the WikiProject Paranormal banner. Thanks again for bringing it up! -kotra (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)