Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis/Archive 1

An answer to D. Weller editing about Nikas work

That’s not true! The theory it was also published by Mysteries Magazine, a USA magazine issue 14 or 15 I am not sure which one, but sure one of those two. [1] Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, is a sloppy and uneducated person who is trying to steal others theory that Spain was once Atlantis. Others preceded him in that mater. We all know Dr Ash since 1973 (copyrighted) and many others followed. I haven’t found any well written and well documented research by him. Nevertheless, this is what I found about Montexano; [2] You posted his opinion about Mr Nika on his passage about his theory, which I believe violates the Wikipedia rules (double standards…) without checking it out. Mr Nika never claimed, as far as I know, that Atlas can confuse a Greek into thinking it was Malta. He claimed that Atlas translated into Etruscan language amounts to Malta. Etruscan language is read from right to left, it’s a known fact. Ahaha--- you’re funny, you know nothing about Timaeus and Critias, which tells me that you never really read it. It was started as two separated dialogs, nevertheless, now in modern times is sold and classified as one dialog that follow the other one and sold as one BOOK named Timaeus and Critias. That’s how Greeks in Greece are selling it today. [3] Here I am sending you the cover of the book that is located in the National Library of Athens. I bet you’ve never seen the book either in English or any other language. You have just read it from the internet. You stated that the essay written by Nikas is dreadful, that’s your opinion and I respect that. Nevertheless, saying it doesn’t make it a dreadful, you do have to provide evidence (I like that you want to be an archeologist!). How do you do that? By thoroughly reading it. Something that you haven’t done it. Why I am making this claim? For the following reasons; You claimed that he has invented reverse linguistics. As far as I know reverse linguistics has been there for quite sometimes. I have to check with Mr. Nikas if he has made that claim which I don’t believe so. Or even better if you have a reference about your claim would show that you are a reliable source? Till you do I will believe that you make false accusations.

Anyway, reverse linguistics is not reading something backwards 'what were u thinking', is similar to reverse engineering. You do have to discover all the steps performed on a particular algorithm in order to find its source. I believe the same principles are applied to Reverse Linguistics. You don’t read backwards you just go backwards in steps (I think)….till you get to the first step. From a modern word, per saying, you get linked to an ancient word.

Mr Dough Weller, you think big of yourself; nevertheless, you do have to get rid of couple of bad habits. One of them, the most important is egocentrism. Not to think that the world revolves around you and what you say is the ultimatum answer. There is always someone better than you. Cruel world isn’t it?!?! I have debated with mister Nikas for quite sometime at Atlantis Rising and lately he has proven to have a point. I am a fan of his work. I believe he has the right to be at Wikipedia, as long as others are there. What does Montexano has that Mr Nikas doesn’t? Is he published somewhere? Is he recognized somewhere? Most of these theories are self proclaimed. That’s what they are-theories…opinions not proven. As long as Atlantis is not found nobody is right and nobody is wrong. And also, you cannot disregard someone’s theory.

About Plato’s work I believe there are 46 of his written works. I am not sure, maby mr nika has a typo on his work. [4] You said you happy to discuss it. I am not sure what you meant by that but I am happy to discuss anything regarding his work and others on the theory of Malta. I am a fan of Atlantis being in Malta and believe that Mr Nikas is right on his claim. I may be wrong?!? Yes, perhaps but there is only one way to find out through dialog. Ironic isn’t it?

I don’t expect from you to post back the passage about Malta in Atlantis, I rather expect you to go through is work and make a descent decision. Between you and me I will be the one to stop this nonsense posting and undoing the Between Malta and Sicily. It’s seems childish. Think well before you reply to me back. Have a nice day. Italianboy101 (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Italianboy, this is useful. I read a lot of Plato at University, including those two dialogues. I agree you can buy them together but they are still considered two separate dialogues. I looked at the Mysteries Magazine site and am mystified. :-) You can search the site and I put in the name Nikas and got nothing. It is also a bit naughty of him to say he has published in Wikipedia. It is perfectly ok to add a published criticism to something, look at the comments on Sarmast. Sorry, maybe he didn't claim to invent reverse linguistics. But as a web search on it turned nothing up, I assumed it was his own idea. It doesn't sound like something that would work however. There are lots of people better than I am, that's indeed life. Georgeos Díaz-Montexano has had a lot more publicity than Nikas. You might like this website, by the way (you might know it) http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/atlantis.htm And he got to the Milos conference. I heard of him before he got his entry here (not that I think he is right). Loads of people have ideas about Atlantis (the word in English technically is hypothesis, not theory, by the way, in science theory is something that is close to proven as you can get, for instance the theory of gravity). I don't want to discuss anyone's work really, it is just a matter of what makes something notable enough to be on Wikipedia -- not just anything can be put here, it's not a platform for new ideas. And a web page and an Albanian newspaper aren't enough. But what I will do, because I want to be fair, is post something on the Fringe Theories Notice Board - WP:FTN asking about it. If people agree I will put back a sentence or two. What you can't do is make your own comments on it, for instance saying it is well-studied, etc. Or load up the pdf as you did. That's been deleted by the way - not by me, there was a discussion about it which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Image:ATLANTIS.pdf It looks as though Nikas himself tried to publish his stuff on Wikipedia under the username SuperAtlantis, which would explain why his new webpage says he is published on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of that the time but it annoyed people.

I'm not singling out Nikas, at all. I've edited other bits, added some references, etc. I see you've done something on the Crete-Santorini thing. The problem is, that without references, you are injecting yourself there - Original Research. The first bit has no references either and I know some good ones. So I will be rewriting that whole section at some point if no one beats me to it -- with references for everything I say I hope! Thanks for your reply and for correcting the spelling error. Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

cleanup?

Reflex Reaction, why did you retag this page for cleanup? I just think there should be a clear reason here, because the article doesn't seem messy to me. And your edit comment didn't mean anything. Snargle 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Snargle, my apologies for being unclear. I originally created this article so that the source article Atlantis would be better simply for it's removal. There is A GREAT DEAL wrong with this article and I'm surprised that you would not think so. First there is a mix of Atlantis theories (Santorini, Sardinia, Ireland, Israel, etc) and areas which share some element of Atlantis but are completely unrelated (Kumari Kandam, Japan - Yonaguni, Ponza). Additionally it reads a poorly organized set of hypotheses, jumping from area to area to area. Most importantly many of the locations were written by advocates of the proposed location. These often include original research and POV arguments that surely this must be Atlantis because of X and Y reason. Because most of the contributors don't know wiki-code, formattting is inconsistent between entries. I have thought about cleaning up this article, but frankly I haven't had the time to clean out the dumping ground of Atlantis theories. If you feel otherwise please let me know. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Reflex Reaction, thanks for the explanation. If I'm not mistaken, this article is just intended to be a list of hypotheses, instead of a normal article. Considering that, its "flow" isn't an issue, the grammar is fine, and the formatting doesn't seem terrible enough by itself to warrent the cleanup tag. As for the other issues, I suggest replacing {{cleanup}} with {{verify}} and {{npov}}. The only reason I care is that I've been working on the cleanup backlog, and I feel that this article should be fixed by the atlantis people. -- Snargle 07:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Snargle, I applaud your efforts to do cleanup. You guys are my heroes, cleanup is a difficult and sometime dirty job. Best luck to you. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific minority opinions

Hello, what about scientists who do not think that Plato invented Atlantis? Are they only mentioned here in Location hypotheses? Would be a shame, I think. --84.176.189.83 20:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned either on the main Atlantis page and referred to from this Location hypothesis page, or here. Here is a draft:

"Some earth scientists suspect that the tale is partly reality-based. They argue that the tale mentions facts that were not known in Plato's time, which makes it far-fetched to regard it as pure fiction. For example, Atlantis is a deluge myth involving the sinking of an island. At the peak of the last ice age some 25,000 years ago the world sea level was about 125 m below the present. The most rapid transgression was at the end of the ice age, when large areas of coastal lowlands got flooded including many islands. This global transgression may have inspired many flood myths, including Atlantis."

The appropriate reference to this is the proceedings from the Atlantis conference on Milos in July 2005, but unfortunately the proceedings from the event is still not available. In any case, that link is necessary at this page. --Lindorm 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to charter and conference

Please first see WP:NOT. We do not needs lots of links to every event related to Atlantis. As far as the links themselves I'm not sure what the links to the charter and conference provide to the discussion. They are as far as I can tell only discussions of agreements between a few interested researchers, which I think is bordering on WP:NOR. While a few researchers were able to present that they did not think that Atlantis existed, conferences like these can suffer from confirmation bias and may not be "neutral" as was the reported findings. Additionally academic conferences are generally not linked in articles because again they can cover specialized info. If you have any other thoughts please let me know. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the pages and agree with the rules defined on them.

But:

The conference: Pros and Contras have been there, the whole spectrum. Known and unknown researchers. It has been a singular event. There is no comparable other event. The conference will be held again 3 years later. It is an institution of Atlantis Research. It is really important for all interested in location and other hypotheses. It is not specialized on few problems about location hypotheses. It is THE link on this page. And it is no "new" research, it is from 2005. Time goes by. And: You list links to pages of single researchers who took part in the conference, but not to the conference, which gives a really nice overview over the whole spectrum. If I would come to Wikipedia to be informed about location hypotheses, I really would be excited about this link.

The charter: Maybe we have to define the scope of this article first. Is it wanted to list only one hypothesis after the other - or to provide a more general background, too? For example, we can identify groups of authors of location hypothesis, dividing them into rational and less rational, in ideologists (National Socialism e.g.) and esoterics, in hypotheses whose authors tried hard to comply to scientific methods and others etc. etc. etc.

I think, the article should not only simply list the hypotheses, but tell the reader something about them more in general. And here the charter represents an interesting group of authors.

Furthermore it is strange: You list links to the pages of authors of the charter, but not to the charter itself. This I will never understand, really :-)))

Furthermore it is strange, that now there is a category of links called "General information". Well, that is not so far away from what the two links are intended to be.

I am ready for further discussion, of course. My first thought is always: What would a reader expect, if he wants to be informed on location hypotheses? Would he like the links? I would say: Yes, very.

--Athenaios 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You make a convincing argument...and consider me convinced, I'm sorry to have taken so much of your time discussing this but this topic seems to draw lots of "speculation" that sometimes needs to be vetted. Thanks for contributing and login in, though you are already probably a member of the German wikipedia. BTW (By the way), thanks for spotting that image violation I wasn't sure when I posted it and said so in the comments. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you for reading my contribution to the discussion. I am member of both - english and german - Wikipedia now. --Athenaios 17:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you about changing the tone of the page. Two other lists that I have worked with Films_considered_the_worst_ever and Films that have been considered the greatest ever have moved from a strict alphabetical listing to a logical grouping. I unfortunately don't have the amount of wiki-time that I would like but I could help were possible. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Same problem with me, unfortunately, but we are now two who agree, maybe there will be others joining us. --Athenaios 22:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, the article needs logical grouping, and a coherent overview evaluation of the status of the hypotheses (which have academic credibility, which are just batshit crazy). The grouping "in and out of the Mediterranean" is a good start, since non-Mediterranean hypotheses further than just outside Gibraltar or the Bosporus are hardly candidates for serious proposals. dab (ᛏ) 07:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does not allow to the theory of the Spanish Diaz-Montexano? discrimination, racism?

Reason logical does not exist ningun to eliminate my version. The contributed data are recognized international level, in more than 25000 paginas of Internet. if it is allowed to mention Jaime Manuschevich, and his theory of Israel, why does not allow to the theory of the Spanish Diaz-Montexano? discrimination, racism?

Greeting, --RobertMc 01:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your English is terrible. Not acceptable. This simply is enough to delete it.

Diaz-Montexano is allowed, but only within the flow of others who thought, that Atlantis is in Spain. These are many. If you think, that Diaz-Montexano was the first, then add the year of his publication.

--Athenaios 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith RobertMC, why not write it in Spanish and I'll help you translate it . I know enough Spanish. I am always interested in things about Atlantis.--Jondel 09:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that this article should mention a Central American hypothesis - which is one of three plausible hypotheses. I claim that all three hypotheses could have been "correct" to Plato - who would have conflated him, just as is done today in the article already in question. Kaimiikekamaila 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)kaimiikekamaila

Draft for classification and cleanup

I have tried to classify the hypotheses according to a rather simple to check criteria, i.e. if a scholar is behind it or not. Of course it does not mean that all of those are good (obviously all except possibly one is wrong!), nor that all the others are bad, but it's a little indication. I am also suggesting some changes for the sake of clarity.

Locational hypotheses advanced or supported by a scholar (i.e., having a doctor degree in any subject): Andalucia, Santorini, Spartel, Malta, Troy, England (though first, reference is lacking, and second, Land's End is Cornwall, not England, if I'm not mistaken--should be merged with British Isles to "Britain", IMO), Ireland, North Sea, Sweden (this was advanced by a Swedish scholar in the 17th century, Olof Rudbeck, in his book Atland, but nobody takes it seriously. Still, if the list is to be complete, it must be mentioned. Also, note that he used the name Atland before the Oera Linda book was "discovered", which may be of importance in judging if it is a hoax).

Other hypotheses: Cyprus, Israel, Sardinia, Antarctica, Bahamas and the Caribbean, Bolivia, British Isles (this overlaps England and Ireland but the explanation is different, see comment), Indonesia/Sundaland, Cuba, Finland, Sea of Azov.

Not yet categorized: Azores (lacking references), Mid-Atlantic Ridge (this should be merged with Azores IMO), Tantali (Peter James is a research student according to wikipedia, need to check if he is Dr. yet), Black Sea (it says S and C Schoppe are researchers, but I seem to recall they are not Drs), Canary Islands (no references), Estremadura, Portugal (lacking references).

Not Atlantis but a similar story (should be removed?): Ponza (lacking references), India and Sri Lanka.

Comment: This classification into locations is a bit artificial. Two persons can present two different hypothesis arguing that the same place was Atlantis (or overlapped), but for two different reasons, and during two different periods in time, and in two different contexts. One should really classify according to time also.

Perhaps more enlightening would be a classification in those that try to fit it into what is known (i.e., the hypothesis tries to explain it by fitting it into known geology and archaeology), and those hypotheses that claim that there is some geology or archaeology that we are unaware of (except for the Atlantis tale).

Yet another classification could be abandoned and active hypothesis. The Rudbeck theory was once taken seriously but is now abandoned. There may be more examples in this list. --Lindorm 01:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica?

I believe it should be noted that a particular adventurer, one Marco Polo, once claimed to have found Atlantis and mapped its coast line. Recently, a coastline map of Antarctica was made, using ultrasonic mapping to find the actual shape of the land without ice. It has been noted that the map made by Polo and the map of iceless Antarctica are nearly identical. This is merely a speculative observation, but one that could be useful in the main article.

You're talking about some wild speculations on the Piri Reis map. That coast that some are so sure is that of Anctartica is actually Argentina but badly drawed. The map is a compilation of European charts stolen/captured by the Turks.

Anyhow it has little to do with Atlantis. --Sugaar 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup is definitely needed!

There seems to be no knowledge of the general principles of folkloric studies or archaeology in this article. While it is obvious that Plato is the first known historical author to mention Atlantis, there are etymological studies of the word Atlantis (as Plato used it and as it has been translated) in abundance - unmentioned, but should be in the top introduction. There is only vague mention of Plato's own "scholarship," which can be disregarded as fiction if one wishes - but why, then, the concern over the place in the first place? Many people - including ourselves today - use words improperly or as telescoped references to things we know only a little about. Plato mentions Atlantis more times than is reflected in this article - more than in C and T, in fact, and devotes rather a long section in some work to Atlantis, with an entirely different approach to the topic - I was just reading it about three days ago and could find it again (it's in Peter Bailey's book), but I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned here. Plato knows that there was some "advanced older civilization" connected somehow with "the west," and he also knows of at least one natural disaster effecting this "ancient advanced civilization." He has no maps, of course. He is using Solon's material, if he is to be believed at all. Solon was laughed at by the Egyptian priests (whose exact location is unknown, but apparently somewhere in between Cairo and Athens!) for the lack of Greek knowledge about "history." There are several different floods that could all have been conflated by Plato - and more than one "distant" civilization to which he could be referring. I think he is doing several different things at once: referring to an ancient advanced civilization that many people around him have also heard of, and refer to as Atlantis; referring to an actual geographical locale (or more than one) at some distance from Greece, from which innovations have come (is likely conflating several), referring to drowned civilizations in general. Hence, there is not just one Atlantis, but several - all collapsed (as is typical in human language) into one taxon - just as Wikipedia does every single day. Things can't be parsed indefinitely, and Plato's interest in the past, while not exactly limited, was certainly bounded by his own time constraints and what he had heard. It is obvious to me that the broad plain on the West side of the Black Sea is the ultimate location (if just one must be chosen) of a drowned Atlantis that had a higher culture than the surrounding region. Today, it's known that a massive seismic event created the Black Sea at around 7,700 BC (9,700BP) - some say 7,300BC, but these are dates that need to be obtained from competent archaeogeologists and climatologists. Underwater archaeology is expensive - but it is being arranged at the Black Sea, to determine what happened. Basically, the sea tilted (two varying theories: very fast - as in over 2 days or less - or slower - as in over a couple of years). It is thought that run off from the last ice age accumulated on continental bedrock in the drainage basin we know today as the Black Sea - it was freshwater at the time. A large and fertile plain, hosting one of the "Old European" civilizations (precisely in between the oldest continuously inhabited parts of Europe: nw Anatolia, e. Bulgaria/Transylvani, s. Russia) was once there. There is no way to have continuously inhabited cave/open air settlements in contemporary s. Russia, the Crimea, Czechoslavakia, Transylvania, etc. without the vast dry plain (replete with herd animals) that linked them being accounted for. From 45-50,000BP until 9.700BP, that plain was free of water, and at the edge of a freshwater lake. Many times earlier, hominids coming out of Africa had availed themselves of the use of this lake (Homo habilis/homo georgensis, homo erectus, etc.) It is silly to suppose that early Europeans could have somehow flown over it or avoided using it - and of course, given its geographical characteristics (when it wasn't under water) the habitable sections of the Black Sea area would have been much larger, delightful to live in, and well-connected (in fact the only route nicely connecting Europe with Kartvellia or points east). They would have had boats, if anyone did, at an early point - I think basket housing/boats had to have been in the region by 8000 BC. Allegedly, farming comes into Europe at around 6,500-7000B.C., rather abruptly and in an area immediately adjacent to (part of) the Black Sea ledge now underwater (you can see this ledge on Google Earth really nicely - the former Atlantis, including its Crimean harbors are shown - if any of the Atlantises existed, this one would have had good harbors).

In other words, there's no point in looking for just one Atlantis. That would be like looking for just one "early American president" (American presidents existed before George Washington, as any scholar knows - but who else knows that? - everyone conflates a bunch of "Founding Fathers" into a person or group that never existed, and George Washington knew, himself, that he was not the first American president). There are more than one. But one of them - and the one most important to Greek life - was the one on the edge of the Black Sea. Russia knows this, there are vast numbers of studies in the Crimea on it, on the underwater archaeology of the region, etc. There are lots of publications in Russia and in other languages - not well-reflected here on Wikipedia, at all.

Atlantis also "stands for" the vast continent of America, to the west. By Plato's time, the Black Sea Atlantis had been under water for 7000 years (not 9000 as he states - but wow, is he ever close, considering how far off many historical dates actually are when reviewed with physical/radioisotypic analysis). It's possible that the people of the Black Sea controlled a large trade network, although it is more likely that they stockpiled stuff brought up from the Aegean and the Levant. They were also on the vast trade network linking Eurasia with the Americas - from both east and west. Around 9000BC, the two trade networks were linked precisely in the Black Sea region, with artifacts from Japan flowing to the Americas in one direction, and artifacts from Canada/the Great Lakes reaching Eurasia from the West. Copper was mined in the Americas - and moved to Eurasia, in some manner - by the earliest phase of the Chalcolithic - somewhat later than Plato's Atlantis, but still - all of this needs to be laid out as potential hypothesis near the beginning of the article. Without hypotheses that can be physically tested (such as where the copper in the Black Sea region came from) there's no way to assess any of these various claims. As more and more archaeology is down at the Black Sea (which, as I stated, is in the works), there will be more to date - and way more "unusual" challenges to "regular history." Prehistorians have seen this coming since at least 1890, with strong data presented throughout the 20th century, apparently to deaf ears in the field of academic history. Instead, prehistorians of metals, metallurgy, trade objects, mobiliary art, pictographs, petroglyphs, ancient navigation, paleoastronomy - etc., are doing this work (and being ignored). When so many lines of evidence converge, I suppose someone needs to write a book or a new synthesis - which has already been done (and was done repeatedly in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's), at which time the generally scornful attitude of then-historians made it a very tired dissertation/book topic. As a prehistorian, myself, I've been reluctant to touch the question with a 10 foot pole - it's a career killer, in anthropology, linguistics, archaeology - in America and Great Britain, anyway.

But Romanian, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian and other historians, linguists, archaeologists, geologists, climatologists, navigators, art historians, etc., etc. continue to write on these topics - and there's no reason to ignore the fact that these folks know way more about prehistory than Plato did - although the ways in which they support his views are quite remarkable. There was a drowned ancient civilization in the Black Sea region, it may have occurred suddenly, it was one of several flooding/dislocations in the general region (the Sindh River Valley, also relatively advanced, was inundated - but much closer in time to Plato, and that would have made him way off in dates). How about trusting Plato for a little? Since he can be backed up by modern science, in part, why not start with validating him as a potentially smarter-than-many-modern-historians type of guy? Solon was obviously correct, Plato was speaking to an audience about what they "knew" at the time (Solon being correct, of course, from the point of view of "what was known or knowable to Greeks" at the time). The mere fact that Greek literature leaps into existence along a very sharp profile of nascent literary clines is problematic and speaks to a place apart from Greece where such literary attempts had to have been made earlier (and not by the Phoenicians, who appear a mere 1800 BC out of nowhere, already possessed of a similar alphabet - the so-called Iberian script).

Anyhow, I can go edit this page a bit, but I have no magic wand. If there's going to be a discussion of Atlantis, I think it should start with scientific archaeology, etc., and with places where there are higher probabilities of Atlantis actually existing. _{The preceding comment was made by User:Kaimiikekamaila}

• Didn't read any of that, but I'm putting it up for an FA! lol. Too damn long. Oh, and THOU SHALT SIGN THINE WORK! Stuart says: Heweyeweyeweyeweyeweyewey... The Duke of Location hypotheses of Atlantis, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam and Dwaraka

Removed section on India. "Similarity to Atlantis" does not qualify as a location hypothesis for atlantis. No sources were provided. Also, please remove india as a possible location from the map, unless sources are provided. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC on the article Atlantis

There is currently an RfC at Talk:Atlantis (which I initiated), which regards information that Akhilleus deleted. I thought you'd want to know. HalfOfElement29 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war about Nikas

Someone added a paragraph on Nikas today from an IP address, their first appearance on Wikipedia. I edited the paragraph on Nikas (who seems to exist but there is very little about him on the web) to simply state his thesis (with no additional original research). That was undone. I then found a reference. the only reference I could find, which was to Georgeos Diaz-Montexano's criticism and rewrote it again adding the reference. The same user has come back and started a whole new section with no reference again and adding words like 'well studied', and more original research. This may be Nikas himself for all I can tell. I suspect he is going to be persistent and I want to avoid the 3R problem -- any suggetions? Thanks, Doug --Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, he/she is undoing everything I've done it seems, removing references, etc. I don't think they understand how Wikipedia is meant to work. :-) --Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And now, in one instance, adding 'references given by DougWeller'.--Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was me who did that! You went and deleted my paragraphs. I am not mr Nika but someone familiar with his work. You don’t have the right to play with somebody's work. If you don’t agree with it it’s your problem. There are forums for debates not in here. Who do you think you’re putting whatever you think is appropriate?

Where is your reference for your statment? What you stated has nothing to do with his work. What you wrote is the opinion of someone, that’s all it doesn’t reflect his work. If you want references I will send them to you.

You have been reported to the Wikipedia moderators and your action will not be tolerated!!! Italianboy101 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And you tried to logon with a feeble imitation of my username, which was banned. As I have every right to edit this page so long as I maintain Wikipedia standards, I'm not worried. You addition appears to be original research and as such has no place here. Additionally your wording is clearly not NPOV and you deleted the reference I added, which is by someone who is at least known for his work on Atlantis. I can't find Nikas via Google (in any of the spellings of his first name -- why don't you use the first name that is on the pdf?) except for the mention that I referenced. I suggest you calm down and learn a bit more about Wikipedia. There are three basic content policies. The first, Wikipedia:No original research, means that simply a pdf reference uploaded by an unheard of author is not enough (as I understand it). The other two are are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read them and perhaps you will understand why I've deleted your section. Satisfy them and it can go back, it's as simple as that. Mention my name in an article as you did or try to pretend you are me will just get you into trouble. And learn to sign your name.--Dougweller (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at that pdf. The author (you perhaps) writes "for his enlightenment of truth through his dialogs, was the inspiration of many works of Plato. From all 36 dialogs that he wrote, Socrates is the main “Star”. Nevertheless, we don’t care about 35 of them but one; Timaeus and Critias," That's a terrible start. I don't know where he gets the number 36 from, but Timaeus and Critias are two separate dialogues, not one dialogue called Timaeus and Critias. As for reverse linguistics... --Dougweller (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is best that we not address each other directly in these comments. We can stick to the search for a good Source for whatever we add to or edit it Wikipedia. I deleted the section based upon the fact that the footnote went to Wikipedia itself, which is not a good Source. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

I see that Italianboy101 has found a website for Nikas and that he has published his ideas in Albania's main newspaper (it is the main newspaper, I have no idea what its prestige is). His revision clearly needs cleaning up and cut down to a couple of sentences, but my question is -- Nikas is an unknown computer scientist with a web site who hasn't been able to get it published anywhere but Albania. He did attract the attention of a rival, Georgeos Diaz-Montexano, and is criticised on his website, but is all this enough for an entry here? Do these even qualify as reliable sources to merit the inclusion of Nikas here?--Doug Weller (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through WP:FRINGE today, this doesn't seem to meet its notability requirements -- I don't think even its mention by Georgeos Diaz-Montexano gets it through that. It still meets the classification of Original Research, a website and mention in an Albanian newspaper doesn't count, and that is one of Wikipedia's 3 content policies. So, I've deleted it. There must be hundreds of these. Nikas's essay is dreadful, by the way. He thinks Timeaus and Critias is one Dialogue, he has invented something called 'Reverse Linguistics' in which you have to read backwards to know what they really are, he claims no one has ever translated Plato correctly (but he, a City University of New York graduate in computer science, has!). As it stands, he's not likely to meet the notability requirement. But I'm happy to discuss it.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he claims that his translation is the most correct. To be honest I don’t speak ancient Greek, so at this point I can't defend him, but here is his translation of Timaeus, the paragraph where Critias is describing the Egyptian priest as saying:

At that time… [[5]]

Italianboy101 (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems re WP:FRINGE

Quite a few of the theories and hypotheses mentioned in this article have problems meeting the basic requirements laid out in WP:FRINGE...

• In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject — such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself — should be given far less weight when deciding on notability.

The existance of Atlatis on its own is a Fringe theory... and the majority of these theories are Fringe even within the the Atlantis community. They are on the Fringe of the Fringe. Many if not most of these theories and hypotheses are referenced only to the person who came up with the theory, and make no mention of being discussed by a major publication or a notable group or individual that is independant of the theory. Thus, the majority of these hypotheses need to either have their notability established per WP:FRINGE, or be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Gerald Herm section I added is one which I can't personally verify was discussed extensively, although the book containing was, and was one included in the History Book Club new member solicitation package for at least a year or so. Also, at least linguistically, I can say that "Atlantis" or its rough equivalent is very close to a combination of what is now though to have been the proto-Indo-European "at" (not) and "landt" (land), with the Greek "s" added at the end, but that more or less qualifies as OR. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching on his name turns up almost nothing, so I'd say that reference is not one to use. However, Jurgen Spanuth would probably be an acceptable substitute.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's Gerhard Herm, with several links, although I can't tell how good they are, here. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's easier with that spelling. :-) I even found a pdf of his book, and he says he bases his ideas on Jurgen Spanuth. Not that it matters for inclusion, but we now have different dates for Thera and not many scholars believe in the Exodus. so some of his ideas collapse, but it's worthy of inclusion -- along with Spanuth I think.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Crete and Santorini

I see this has been removed. It wasn't very good but a section on this is vital -- and there are some very good references for it, eg The End of Atlantis - New light on an Old Legend J. V. Luce -- if no one else will, I'll try to replace this within the week.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank Dspark75, for restoring this, and it's a great start, but I have a few problems with it.

1. It's too detailed and almost argumentative.

2. It leaves out at least one key reference, John V. Luce. You really can't mention Santorini as a possible location without citing his book The End of Atlantis - New Light on an Old Legend. Rodney Castleden's Atlantis Destroyed also discusses Thera in some detail.

3. The Minoan civilization didn't end suddenly then, although Thera was the beginning of the end.

4. We don't know for sure when the Thera eruption took place, although late 17th century is the front runner right now: The Eruption of Thera: Date and Implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of your statements. Firstly, I agree that this section is vital and deserves to be included. So, I started by transcribing (most) of this text from the Santorini article. I tried condensing it some, but it turned out to be pretty difficult. I also added a few additional reliable references (BBC, USA Today) at the top. The original text (again not written originally by me) is based heavily on the History Channel episode. There is a link included to a clip of this episode found on the web, however, the full 1 hour episode is much more detailed on these theories. Anyway, please feel free to make improvements. I just wanted to get the ball rolling again. Also, while I think it is OK to debate the merits of different theories on the talk page, the article itself should just describe current theories while maintaining a NPOV. I think the text that I copied tried to do this, at least in spirit. Cheers Dspark76 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit further, but it could still use some work... Dspark76 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

This is in reference to Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis#External_links

I have no expertise in this field, and to me it seems perfectly rational to remove links that are not justified, but some editor or editors did after all take the time to make them, and so perhaps a wholesale removal, as was done on 7 March 2008, is moving a bit too fast. I myself have been bold on many occasions, so I sympathize with anyone who wants to act boldly, but could we talk about it a while? I put the links back (boldly, I might add), and maybe they can stay for the time being, with anyone wanting to remove them first justifying their removal on this Discussion page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was writing this as you were writing the above!

As I read policy, even external links have to meet some standards as reliable sources. Most of those don't, and some may have been put on by the website owners.

Atlantis Channel isn't in English.

Lost Civilizations is just another fringe site with nothing in particular to warrant its inclusion and certainly not reliable.

Atlantis Myth or Memory has nothing special either, not reliable.

And why include the 'research charter'?

The 'Support for a Specific Location' links should surely be footnoted references?

I'm not sure what 'real expedition' is as it is in German and I wasn't sure it should be here because of that, so didn't try to translate it.

The others as I said could be used as references to individual claims, but as general links they are unreliable sources...

As for the 'News' -- most seems to centre on Andalusia, it's not up to date, it is selective and promotional, etc. And I'm not sure 'News' is appropriate in Wiki links, but as you may have guessed, I'm still learning.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All good points, I suppose (again, I have no expertise). Why don't we sleep on it? In the meantime, we can all read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we can learn from this. We can read WP:EL including the talk page. It's pretty clear abouat non-English content, but look on both pages about reliability. I really don't like the news section as it can (has I'd say) lead to abuse, can't be kept up, will always be selective, etc. And it shouldn't be necessary. Thinking about it, it is almost argumentative, POV.

I'm glad you're interested in this. --Doug Weller (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And we need to think about Blueboar's comments above. I've done some editing based on that. Some of these locations look like OR/speculation by an editor. Ponza for instance, nothing at all there giving a clue as to who thought that up. And Wiki articles get copied all over the web, so it becomes almost self-referencing. I've looked in my books for Ponza, can't find a mention of it, and if I don't find one soon I'll delete it.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were going to discuss this? I can see no room at all for Press releases in a Wikipedia article. And I have a problem with a New section. As for the ones supporting a specific location, I don't understand the rationale for the section and some individual linkes I think don't belng no matter what. Foreign language links/references are discouraged unless there is a good reason for them.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RobertMc was the one who added the press releases, which I think are harmless. He would probably not agree with any deletion. You could ask him. As for all the links in this general area, they seem to point to stories bearing upon the topics discussed in this page. Sometimes we just have to ignore all rules. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Press releases are a form of advertising, see What Wikipedia is not. And either they end up with newspaper stories, in which case you don't need the press release, or they don't, in which case they aren't notable. They certainly aren't reliable sources. If we allow these, where do we stop?

I'll go through the other external links one by one, they still have to meet Wiki standards and be relevant. So blogs, personal web pages, etc. aren't suitable.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Press releases can be just junk, but they can also make genuine announcement of new products, activities, biographies, and anything else within the realm of human endeavor. With the tight space of most news outlets these days, the full content of press releases is often not redistributed. But I agree if any particular press release doesn't fulfill its promise, then it could be deleted. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweden

Obviously I could not check the source, but I removed the statement anyway because it flies in the face of the main article on Rudbeck, who wrote his thesis in four lengthy volumes, hardly the definition of "not serious" ('Some think that his suggestion was not entirely serious.refGunnar Eriksson, article in Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon hft 150, p.651 /ref'). Anyway, if anybody has any further knowledge of this work in Swedish (perhaps the reference should be put back?), please do what has to be done. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ponza

This section contradicts itself. It says " It is said that Ponza was the lost island of Tyrrhenia,", which eliminates it as a possible site for Atlantis. Plato wrote "Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, as well as over parts of the continent, and, besides these, they subjected the parts of Libya within the Pillars of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia." So Tyrrhenia was the furtheset European extent of the Atlantean empire, but a long way from Plato's Island of Atlantis. This explains why I can't find anyone mentioning it as a possible site for Atlantis. Any reason to keep it? It reads like OR anyway (even before George & I edited it).--Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Eliminate it and wait for somebody else to put it back, with sources. But also eliminate any Atlantis references in Ponza and any Ponza references in Atlantis. I checked the Italian Wikipedia, and there is no reference to Atlantide under Ponza and no reference to Ponza under Atlantide. I think the Italians would know more about this island than we Anglophones do. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll check them. But as I said, Plato mentions Tyrrhenia specifically as distant part of the empire, and 'the location of Atlantis' refers to the 'island' of Atlantis, so I doubt anyone is going to find a good reference for it.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cradle of Atlantis website

The problem still remains is that this is a personal website by someone more or less unknown, so shouldn't be an external link. I know, I was stopped from putting up what I thought was a very reputable personal website as an external link once!--Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't around then. Was that removal discussed on the talk page? If so, can you link to it? Or maybe just post the Web site link here? As for Daniel Fleck, he at least has one favorable mention (in Portuguese) at http://www.suaturma.com/metalbrasil/entrevistas/atrocity.htm, so he is not entirely unknown. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

linguist Alexander Kondratov

First, and least importantly, a linguist isn't a reliable source for a geological claim. And secondly, it isn't true. Geological claims should be backed by geological references.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to seeing a refutation of Mr. Kondratov's thesis posted in this article, with a source credited. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please first show how it is a reliable source, seriously, shouldn't that come first? I don't think it is appropriate in the article at all. I have no problem with references.Doug Weller (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding Sicilian hypotheses

Dougweller asked in his deletion edit comments:

"Frau published a book, but who are these guys? Can we have some WP:RS please?"

"who is Franke and why does he merit such a long entry?"

Well, I guess you have no deeper insight in Atlantis research. These are well-known researchers contributing e.g. to the International Atlantis Conference in Athens cf. http://atlantis2008.conferences.gr/ 2005 and 2008. Did they write books? Yes. But not always in English. Franke initiated the Atlantis Research Charter which has a weblink on this page for a long time now and much support among the more serious Atlantis researchers. Furthermore this page is full of names and hypotheses much less known. And Frau ... well, did you know, that Rosario Vieni was the first to claim his idea? Frau only had the better marketing strategy, I guess. Franke's hypothesis is the most interesting from a scientific point of view, since he bases his hypothesis on the knowledge of Ancient Greek and Egyptian language. Only few researchers mentioned on this page are able to do this. Furthermore: If you know someone else than Franke to put under the headline "Sicily", then please do it! I do not know another researcher except the Greater Sicily hypotheses.

There is really a need to add the Sicilian hypotheses, I wonder why they are missing!

--Scepsis (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I added some more references now.

--Scepsis (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked about Franke. I know about the charter. But Franke himself? Where has he published in a 'reliable source'? I know he is self-published [6] but I can't even find anyone discussing him anywhere that would pass WP:RS. (what is it about computer students that makes them want to write about Atlantis?).--Doug Weller (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked about more than only Franke. I recognize, that you reduced your asking. Thx for that, but you could admit your reduction, this would be polite. Furthermore I wonder why you still ask for Franke, although he is better known than the others.

@Franke: As you can see I tried to reduce the entry. Feel free to reduce it more. The problem is: He is the only one with a hypothesis about Sicily itself. So he is the only one under the headline "Sicily". Where do you make the difference about the charter and "Franke himself" as you call it? That's weird. He is one of the authors!

Furthermore I have the strong feeling, that you have problems with the intentions of this location hypothesis article. Do you think you can apply WP:RS rigorously to this article? You know that almost none of these hypotheses is "recommended in scholarly bibliographies" as WP:RS expects. It cannot be, because all hypotheses which reach this level would be mentioned in the Atlantis-article, and not here. What is a "reliable source" then according to your opinion, in the sense of this location hypotheses article? The Diaz-Montexano stuff on this page e.g.? And what is "self-published"? How many researchers mentioned on this page are not "self-published"? Are e.g. Sergio Frau or Zangger not "self-published"? Of course they are ..., their books are theirs, and no university and no research project published for them. Do you find discussions and citations of all the others researchers mentioned on this page passing WP:RS? And where are they cited? Do certain researchers cite each other? This would be not enough for WP:RS, you know. Where is Diaz-Montexano cited? Franke is cited in a German philologist journal, but I understand, that you haven't read that. It's not a famous mentioning at all. What about negative citations? Many Atlantis researchers are mentioned in scientific journals, but in a negative way, of course. Zangger e.g. never got a positive statement, as I know. At least not in German journals. What about the "journalist" Sergio Frau? Is a journalist better than a "computer student"? (By the way, who is this "computer student", Axel Hausmann?) And so on and so on and so on ...

... conclusion:

a) You cannot put scientific measures on an article about hypotheses, usually rejected by science. This makes no sense because the article would be empty, then.

b) With pure formalism you will not be able to create a good article, some knowledge about the authors, their hypotheses and their seriousness will be necessary, too.

c) I have the feeling, that you put other measures to Franke than to others, hm? Do you know him? Don't you like him?

--Scepsis (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I found that Olaus Rudbeck is mentioned with one line of text in this article. Considering his importance for the history of Atlantis research, this is somewhat ridiculuous ... - I have the feeling, that this article is a copy-paste product made by all the currently living Atlantis researchers on this world, but not made by somebody who has an idea and an overview over the subject. Sicilean region hypotheses are necessary, believe me. --Scepsis (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is important and interesting, but there have to be some criteria. I don't know Franke at all. It isn't a copy and paste product although there certainly have been attempts to make it some, one person even tried to store a pdf file on Wikipedia to use as a reference! Anything with a negative (or postive) comment in a scientific journal would certainly qualify to be here. That certainly isn't a problem. Some of the ones here are at best borderline. You mention Frau, his Atlantis stuff seems to be mentioned in a couple of book reviews.[7]--Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Frau managed to stir up a lot of movement, there even has been a kind of congress about his hypothesis, but only to dismiss it in order to prevent the worst. Frau e.g. states, that upto the time of Eratosthenes (250 BC) the Pillars of Hercules had been located near Sicily - how could he invent such rubbish? And - pop - there are a lot of follow-up hypotheses imitating him. Cruel game. But it is ok, we have to mention him here, although it would be better to be silent. --Scepsis (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)