Talk:Atlantis/Archive 4

Plato's Invention Hypothesis

In the article under Recent times, Dr. Julia Annas may be right about Plato's imaginative leaps into myth, but the 'more plausible' and 'highly respected' conclusion that Plato wrote historical fiction is in in itself a presumption. This theory implies that the writing of history is fallible, which I wholly support, in light of the work of postmodern theorists in knowledge systems (Foucault, Derrida) and cultural studies (Said) (see Orientalism and Eurocentrism). These postmodern theories can be applied to the interpretation of Plato's work, or Aristotle, or Lao Tzu, or Herodotus, or any writer speaking about a place and time and a cultural way of life. Julia Annas's important idea that trying to verify Atlantis through the work of Plato is unhelpful for scholars and armchair traveller's, and her invention hypothesis has a very postmodern approach to historical research; very important when considering the verity of Plato's sources of knowledge.

However; Where in Plato's work does he state that he is speculating, or creating an imaginative place (Atlantis), using a well documented person (Solon)(is he well documented? does Luce think so?), to assist in a philosophical study of morality (Atlantis as a cautionary tale: power currupts)? Forgive me, I haven't read enough of Plato in the Benjamin Dowett editions to know about his use of historical fiction for his narratives. And what reason would Plato have to fabricate a place, when he could have easily cited "contemporary events (Helike, Sicily expedition, Graeco-Persian wars, ...)"; and overtly indicated that "(Sparta, Syrakus, Persia, Carthage, ...)" inspired him (more or less)? And why is Plato implied to be myopic by the scholar John V. Luce "who argues that Plato himself saw an Egyptian account of the Thera eruption and took it for Atlantis"? Like Thomas Kuhn has suggested; reading Aristotle's concepts in Physics is not 'bad Newton', just a different worldview. Similarly reading Plato's or Herodotus's accounts of life experience is not like reading high school grade philosophy. Believing Plato to be an inventor of history for the convenience of telling a good story, creates a distrust of Plato accounts. I suppose one answer would be to locate the Pillars of Hercules, take some diving equipment, and take a look around. Take photos. Look for archaeological and geographical evidence. Plenty of people have tried. Apparently the ocean currents in that location are strong and the water is perpetually murky, so Plato's claims about 'the Pillars' will remain a mystery for a while yet.

In general, current geographical and oceanographic explorations for lost civilisations worldwide, I believe, are important to note in this article about a location hypothesis. Dr. Greg Little is one investigator actively doing this kind of search in Bimini Road. Would be nice to find an 'archeological digging group' independent of A.R.E. (who some deem to be fruitcakes), to show how this interest in 'locating' may start with Atlantis or Lemuria, and begin to find lost worlds of meaning. Maybe the moniker 'lost civilisations' is more appropriate than 'lost Atlantis'. Drakonicon 06:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And what reason would Plato have to fabricate a place, when he could have easily cited "contemporary events (Helike, Sicily expedition, Graeco-Persian wars, ...)";

The answer is simple. Plato wanted to prove the supremacy of the his ideal state as detailed in Politeia. Since there has never been a state shaped like his perfect society, he had to create one (his ancient Athens). And for this "hero", he needed a "villain" as well (Atlantis). That's it. Athens beat Atlantis, which means: perfect society beats an overpowering opponent. Plato could have cited contemporary events like the Sicily invasion directly, but the Athens of his lifetime was the complete opposite of his perfect society and, further, didn't win the Peloponessian war, but lost it. --Bender235 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it really would be that easy ... :-) --Athenaios 21:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you trace Platos sources back to Solon, c 600 BC, this was when Neco I sent a fleet of Phoenicians to circumnavigate Libya. They left from the Red Sea following trade routes south to the land of Punt which had been known to the Egyptians since the stone age. (documented by the 12th Dynasty Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor and archeology from the Arabian Penninsula)This was an important trade route since they used Bitumen from the Dead Sea purchased at Elat at the head of the gulf of Araba, Frankincense from Punt and Myhr from Ethi Opheir in their mummification rituals. The Phoenicians returned from the Atlantic through the Pillars of Hecules as an ocean empire larger than Libya and Asia combined since they controlled the waters that surrounded them. Sea level 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi people. Since many of you have obviously never read Plato to any great extent, let me clue you in: he NEVER purports to be writing history. All the stories he tells are in the service of arguments he's making. Many of them are clearly invented. He often gives them phony "legendary" qualities. I never knew that the only textual source for Atlantis was Plato. That makes the whole thing seem pretty ridiculous, like people two thousand years from now trying to find a restaurant mentioned in a Jerry Seinfeld episode.66.162.20.126 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Plato isn't required reading in public schools, and most people don't bother studying the humanities, so, few have bothered reading The Republic, et al. While Aristotle was clearly correct about Plato inventing his Atlantis, this does not mean that Aristotle was stating Plato invented Atlantis itself, just his version of it. A more recent analogy was Moore's Utopia. Moore invented Utopia, an Amerindian empire; Moore did not invent the American Continent. Plato traced his information through Solon, to the Egyptians, and as Solon did study in Egypt, it is possible that he was being factual in that regard. While in Egypt, it is impossible that Solon would not have encountered the "Book of the Dead" (as we call it today), as this was as popular in Egypt then as the Koran is today. The Book of the Dead/Book of Coming Forth by Day had many versions, much like the Christian Bible, but was centered on the stories of Osiris and the other gods. A common, but not universal, story found in the Books was of the destruction of an ancient civilization west of the Libyan Desert, who's decedents migrated to the Nile, and founded the Egyptian Civilization. Plato may have been drawing on this story in referencing the Egyptians, and source material does still exist in this regards, so claiming that there is no Pre-Plato source for an Atlantis myth, is incorrect. As Plato calls it Atlantis, he is obviously placing it, not just past any Pillars of Herakles, but past the Atlas Mountains, where Atlas had tricked Herakles into holding up the sky, therefore, attempting to relocate Atlantis to Thera or Minoan Create, is clearly rewriting Plato, and not just reinterpreting. That Plato claims the island is sunk is a pointless literary mechanism (compare Moore's Utopia again), unless the Greeks knew it wasn't there (implying transatlantic Hellenic contact), or that he was referencing a story already known to his readers. Finally, Epipaleolithic ruins have been found underwater on both sides of the Atlantic. We know they're Epipaleolithic because they're below modern sea level, but above the Ice-Age sea level, so again, dismissing Atlantis as a lost civilization, just because Plato took literary license to it, seems inappropriate, even if it is generally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pages are not for discussion of the topic but for improving the article. If you have reliable sources that show this is a significant view, then either add them or bring them here for discussion. However, I will note that not only are you starting by assuming that Plato got the story from Solon, there are no Egyptian texts with a story of an ancient civilization west of the Libyan desrt which was destroyed and whose descendants migrated to the Nile. Doug Weller (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article is misleading and poorly written, where-else would one post a discussion on the subject in order to improve the article? Plato states the story came from Solon, who heard it in Egypt; this is not my assumption, it is Plato's statement (which based on the nature of this article is presumptively a lie). The Book of the Dead/Book of Coming Forth by Day is most certainly an Egyptian text (unless we're assuming Plato was a time traveling co-artist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's useless to try to discuss seriously with the typical editors of Wikipedia. Generally speaking, they are raw, stubborn materialists, created by the narrow-minded positivism from the 19th century. Anything that does not fit their ready-made dogmas and biases will always be labeled as "not-reliable", "unverifiable", "not-NPOV", "irrelevant" or "non-encyclopedic". KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.234.59.128 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Classics rating

The WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome rating is for the article's importance "within classical antiquity". I don't think Atlantis is very important in classical antiquity; its popularity starts in the modern era, especially after figures like Kirscher and Donelly get a hold of it. But I really can't agree that within classical antiquity it's as important as articles like the Parthenon, the Persian Wars, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) --Bender235 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

That's a somewhat strange kind of way to measure importance; we are rating the importance like we assume that the people of ancient Greece would have done it for topics of their time. Wouldn't that mean that we should rate topics like "Athenian democracy" as of "low importance", because democracy itself wasn't about to become an important topic until modern times? --Bender235 20:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Athenian democracy was pretty important in classical Athens, and plenty of Greek literature was linked directly to the democracy. The oratory of Demosthenes, Lysias, etc. is the most obvious example, but Athenian tragedy and comedy was shaped by the democracy, the political thought of Plato and Aristotle is deeply influenced by the democracy, etc. Roman-era writers like Cicero and Plutarch return again and again to 5th and 4th century Athens in writing about politics, philosophy, and history. If the Greeks or the Romans were giving ratings to Wikipedia articles, I'm pretty sure they would have put Athenian democracy up pretty high.

In contrast, Atlantis is not very important within Greek and Roman culture. Even within Plato's own philosophy, the myth of Atlantis is not as significant as the myth of the cave, or the myth of Er. As an example of an idealized society, Atlantis takes a distant third place to the cities of the Republic and the Laws. Even if we just consider the dialogues which mention Atlantis (Timaeus and Critias), the cosmology of the Timaeus had far more impact on subsequent philosophy than Atlantis--Cicero translated the Timaeus (but not the Critias) into Latin, and the cosmology of the Timaeus had a deep impact on neoplatonic and medieval philosophy. Obviously, our article here tells us that Plato's Atlantis inspired later writers, but the impact of Atlantis is not as profound as that of the Timaeus, of the Republic, of Athenian democracy, or any number of topics one would care to name in classical antiquity.

Within classics as an academic discipline, Atlantis is also not a very significant topic; while you can find some very good articles on the Atlantis myth (and many are cited in this article), it is not a very prominent topic of research. The Timaeus attracts more attention, not to mention Athenian democracy, the Parthenon, Homer, and so on. Atlantis of course draws a huge amount of popular interest, but the popular interest has almost nothing to do with Plato's account or classical antiquity; the "Atlantis" that people are interested in is almost entirely a modern creation, based on fiction, the "research" of esoteric figures like Cayce, and TV shows. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually not, since basically all utopias by Renaissance writers, from Morus and Campanella to Bacon and Butler, are based on or inspired by Plato's Atlantis. Atlantis is not only important because of Donnelly. It's way more. But you're right, it was not that important in classical antiquity, and if we judge on that - what I would not, but I am not the one to decide - it is of "mid importance". --Bender235 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How this article should look like

Since there is a huge risk of redundancy with the Atlantis topic, I would like to suggest the following plan of how it should be spread in several articles in Wikipedia.

The article "Atlantis"

• a summarization of Plato's description given in Timaeus and Critias. Main articles should be Timaeus (dialogue) and Critias (dialogue)
• a comprehensive comment on the reception of Atlantis from antiquity to modern times, including the philosophical interpretation of the Atlantis myth (which does not exist yet)
• a summarization of location hypothesis of Atlantis (as it is right now). Main article should be Location hypotheses of Atlantis
• a summarization of the Atlantis theme in fiction (which does not exist yet). Main article should be Atlantis in fiction

Agree/disagree? --Bender235 01:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but what is missing: Criticism of current mainstream opinion in science about Atlantis. --Athenaios 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The "location hypotheses" section

I just removed a bunch of text from the "location hypotheses" section that involved some dubious geology. I also added a bunch of "citation needed" tags. Some of the material I tagged gets fuller explanation in Location hypotheses of Atlantis, and so perhaps editors felt that it wasn't necessary to duplicate the citations. However, it seems pretty clear that we need citations for each hypothesis in both articles.

It might be good to weed out some of the hypotheses from this article, since we have a main article to list every single proposal for Atlantis' location. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Atlantis in music" section

I moved the material in this section to Atlantis in fiction, since that article is where appearances of Atlantis in literature, movies, tv, computer games, etc. are listed. I don't like the title "Atlantis in fiction" very much--"fiction" is a word with pretty broad meaning, but one of its basic senses is prose telling a made-up story, i.e., novels and short stories, but not poetry, movies, paintings, etc. I'd like to move Atlantis in fiction to something like Atlantis in art, literature and popular culture. Any thoughts? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good article, but...

It is itself at odds with other things on Wikipedia about Atlantis. The idea that Atlantis was in charge of the E. Medit and met with enemies outside (from the West) seems crucial and central (and I certainly agree with it - it's the entirely rational way to look at the material, although there are sources within Plato - in The Laws, I think - that aren't used, they are rarely used - but still are consistent witih this article).

It's the other article on the location of Atlantis (hypothetical locations) that fails to open with the data presented here.Kaimiikekamaila 22:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)kaimiikekamaila

I've completed my copyediting of...

...this. However, I copyedited a July edition on paper. I'll probably get around to uploading the edits themselves in the next few days. As it's a huge article, don't be surprised to see a template at the top of the article asking that you don't edit while I am to prevent edit conflicts. Thanks. Stuart says: Heweyeweyeweyeweyeweyewey... The Duke of Atlantis, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there some Discovery channel special about how someone found the physical remains of Atlantis?

I think you are refering to Discovery Channel Canada Raising Atlantis: an underwater Pompeii?. But that was broadcasted in 2002. There's also a discovery channel dvd titled Hunt for Atlantis - As Seen on the Discovery Channel [1]. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost Worlds: Atlantis aired on the History Channel and suggested that Santorini once was the home of an advanced civilization that fit Plato's description of Atlantis. The episode made a detailed argument supporting their arguement including a plausible explanation as how the Plato myth originating in Egypt. A full descripton of the episode can be found here: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Episodes&content_type_id=50192&display_order=3&mini_id=50189 In short, the destruction of Atlantis is attributed to a volcanic eruption. The inhabitants had unknowingly buildt their main capital eithin in the center a volcanic calderra (term?) or on land previously created as the result of an eruption. Furthermore, it is suggested that they had multiple cities around the Mediteranean(sp?) which were wiped out as the result of tsunami caused by the eruption - hence it fell in a single day and night. Holled 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the text "middle of the southern ", from the original text, which follows:

Fifty stadia inland from the middle of the southern coast was a "mountain not very high on any side."

In the Plato's account there is not such a reference.

Regards, Boris Spasov, bspasov@yahoo.com

cquotes

I think they should be removed. I don't think they're encyclopedic. That's my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.128.36.37 (talk • contribs).

I agree, I don't like this style of article. --Athenaios 12:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the cquotes based on this discussion; however, several of them were well-chosen and are worth integrating into the main text, where they haven't been already. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request for comment: Content deleted by Akhilleus

The user Akhilleus has deleted a large amount of informative content from the article (as well as some less-informative content), including but not limited to the content that was added by HalfOfElement29. Do you support or oppose those deletions?

The main disputed content; note also that Akhilleus has deleted content under false pretenses: [2] [3] [4] [5]

HalfOfElement29 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: HalfOfElement29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: HalfOfElement29 was blocked due to Akhilleus's actions in this conflict: User talk:Dbachmann#User:Akhilleus gutting the article Atlantis Rwqf 03:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, place note here:

RfCs are supposed to be neutrally phrased, and I don't think this quite qualifies. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can't tell, I am fully aware that RfCs are supposed to be neutrally phrased. I clearly have not called your deletions 'bad', 'unjust', 'POV/biased', etcetera. You might be referring to my criticism of your edit summaries, which might seem unnecessary initially. My criticism of your edit summaries applies to your edit summaries, not your edits. The criticism of your edit summaries is necessary so that people will not be fooled by them and ignore the actual content that I added. HalfOfElement29 04:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't see how any of those edit summaries were made under false pretenses. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify where you think I've gone wrong, which I've asked you to do several times. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

it is a great disservice to those doing research to not have content available for reading, regardless of whether the content is relevant, or at least of some value as a differing view of the total subject matter. removing, rather than pointing out the possibilities which may bring insight into the subject matter, content denies to other readers the different viewpoints and exacerbates the errors which may have been avoided had the removed content been available.-----snowpapa.

Note: the comment above was Snowpapa's first edit on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the differences posted above, i believe Akhilleus acted boldly according to wikipedia WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOT. We must understand that primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions such as the Time discrepancies section is not acceptable in Wikipedia. It can only be added if a notable researcher is the source. The section removed by Akhilleus was unsourced and considered as original research as a consequence. So no big deals here. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming here from the RfC - no previous involvement in the article. I'm afraid I have to agree with Szvest - these deletions were of unsourced material, with an invitation to discuss further on the talk page. I don't see the false pretenses. PubliusFL 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also coming here from the RfC, I have to agree with the above. The verifiability policy says Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Akhilleus was well within his grounds to remove the information and demand sourcing; the burden is on you to provide them. Trebor 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the text of Critias is not a reliable reference for what the text of Critias states (the burden is on users to prove that the text of Critias is the text of Critias), and that basic well-known facts that can be found in the wikipedia articles on their particular subjects and in common textbooks DO require redundant references, and therefore to delete information under the statement that it is unsourced is not a false pretense. Rwqf 03:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, place note here:

Although most of this has been said, it does bare repeating. Akhilleus is a well respected editor, especially among those working on articles concerning Classical Greece and Rome. Reviewing the content shows that it was neither informative, nor sourced, and he made a good move deleting it. I do not see the 'false pretense' that the plaintiff is talking about, and also, said editor's comments on Dbachmann's talk page call into question not only his motives, but his stability as an editor. He is a confirmed sockpuppet of a previous user who also suffered under similar sorts of paranoia. CaveatLector^Talk 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with the above comments. Unsourced edits have no place in the article. And the map has no encyclopedic value, or any value at all. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Akhilleus did the right thing; the time-discrepanies section was a vague reminisence of Galanopoulos' scale argument. Nevertheless, we should have a sentence on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Israel-Sinai?

What do you mean "the new theory of Israel-Sinai or Canaan as possible locations", where is the source of the "new theory"? Thanx. Jack 12:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Lunar Calendar?

Inside the last paragraph under "Plato's Account", the difference between the Greek and Egyptian calendars is mentioned starting with "On a side note," and ending on "Returning to the story," .. this is written more like a first-hand account rather than an encyclopedia entry. this information should probably be closer in the article to where Atlantis is mentioned at being from 9400BC, up at the top of the article, so it can be in-context. This hypothesis is also (apparently) uncredited/uncited. -Nago (Anon) 15:28, 23 Feb 2007

Regarding the reception section

This comment "Proclus, reports that Crantor traveled to Egypt and actually found columns with the history of Atlantis written in hieroglyphic characters.[4] However, Plato did not write that Solon saw the Atlantis story on a column but on a source that can be "taken to hand".[5] Proclus' proof appears implausible." I don't think that the comment "Proclus' proof appears implausible" should be in the article. Ancient Egyptians often carved histories into stone for durability, as seen in their temples and so on. The fact Plato's account details that there was a version of the history written on a scroll doesn't negate the account that a version existed on a column. The stone carving being done for durability purposes and the scroll version for portability purposes. Many Egyptian scrolls are also carved into stone in certain locations, so calling the proof implausible is not a very good deduction, and has no place except maybe on the talk pages, but not the main article. 76.19.67.186 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)eslives

As written, that does seem to be an original synthesis of the cited sources; but I don't think it would be that hard to find a secondary source that says Proclus' proof was silly, since very few classical scholars think that Plato actually relied on an Egyptian source. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack Swallows?

It says that Johnny Depp went there as captain Jack Swallows. Is this trolling or am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.88.213.176 (talk • contribs).

That was vandalism, and should be gone now. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Depp played Captain Jack Sparrow. Jack Swallows was the parody of the character featured in Epic Movie. Spartan198 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Changes needed?

I'd like to see this article go from the "good" category to "featured article" status, and I understand that such was done in the past...which means it was downgraded?

Perhaps one should think of this particular article as being divided in three: the Atlantis tale as told by Plato; the Atlantis stories as told by Donnelly and others since; and Atlantis as told by documented fact. So I propose the following layout change:

• A little more in-depth with Plato, to include quotes by him about Atlantis.
• The same thing should apply to Donnelly.
• The archaeological record as applied to both Plato's and Donnelly's versions.
• a brief history of searches for Atlantis, both serious and crank.

What say you? Carajou 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

FA is a great goal--the article has been a candidate twice, but has never been featured. I'm not sure the article needs more detail about Plato--I think the current size of the Plato section is about right, but it needs revision.

The article is missing detail on the medieval and early modern periods, which is pretty important--Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis, for example.

There is almost no professional archaeology that's relevant to this topic. Santorini is thought by a number of people to have inspired Plato in some fashion, but the material at the site has very little to do with what Plato says. Obviously many people have claimed that they're found Atlantis, but these claims never pan out. This article needs *less* on the modern "discoveries" of Atlantis, since we have Location hypotheses of Atlantis to handle them. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I do believe in the Santorini-is-Atlantis line, and that based on evidence which matches the Atlantis tale better than any other explanation, but that is the subject of a separate article. I agree that some revision is needed here to make it more polished. Carajou 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As per *Black Sea Deluge theory based on Plato's account of Atlantis flood. Eagle/Wind 2005, Santorini is the remains of Hellas kingdom, Sea of Marmara is the remains of Attica kingdom and Sea of Azov is the remains of Atlantis kingdom having its capital on Mount Mithridat, Kerch, Crimea, Ukraine. 192.8.220.10 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Annonymus192.8.220.10 07:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I did add the first few sentences about Atlantis from Plato's Timaeus. This was needed in a way, for if you look at the article page there's a redirect for Timaeus, insinuating it goes into detail about what this work of Plato said about it. However, there is nothing at all on Atlantis when one goes to that particular article. Carajou 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur?

With regard to the paragraph

Many ancient philosophers viewed Atlantis as fiction. The most popular might be Aristotle, who is allegedly quoted by Strabo with the above mentioned commentary on Atlantis.

I see no previous reference to Aristotle or an "above mentioned commentary" in the article. Has something been removed inadvertently? Deor 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The article used to have a bunch of cquotes, which I took out. If you look at this version you'll see the missing quote, from Strabo 2.3.6 (which is supposedly a quotation from Aristotle). --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of skeptics being wrong?

Why is there no mention of the skeptics being wrong about the existance of location described by the great greek writers? Julia Annas could have said the same thing about Troy and the line "Atlantis is generally seen as a myth created by Plato" is POV (be good to get a citation; but the counterpoint is needed ... say from "Destruction of Atlantis: Compelling Evidence"). This article as it stands now is like the part of Heinrich Schliemann bio mention of Troy ... ala., "the city's very existence was then in dispute". J. D. Redding 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 1 week

Due to the sudden increase in random source anon vandalism over the last few days, I am semi-protecting the page (anon and new users can't edit, see Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy) for one week.

If there are any significant objections, feel free to give me feedback here or on my talk page and I will reconsider, or you can talk to another admin to review it. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I

Atlantis was an unknown land than , by legend, someone vanished and is known to be some where under water or of the earths surface

This line was placed above the main introduction portion of the article which, in addition to the writer having poor grammer, contains info already stated further into the article. Not a major edit, but an edit nonetheless. Spartan198 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Inside the Mediterranean

[edit]: It would be useful to include mention of the timeline of Athen's existence in relation to the assertions of Plato. I have attempted to include a brief, parenthetical note to this effect, but apparently someone disagrees with me. It seems to have been deleted. Can someone else review this? I added to the following:

A. G. Galanopoulos argued that the time scale has been distorted by an error in translation, probably from Egyptian into Greek, which produced "thousands" instead of "hundreds"; this same error would rescale Plato's Kingdom of Atlantis to the size of Crete, while leaving the city the size of the crater on Thera. 900 years before Solon would be the 15th century BC. [16] -

"(logic supports this latter hypothesis, since Atlantis' existence would have to coincide with the existence of Athens, - according to Plato-Critias)"

Please consider carefully before deleting this: I considered carefully before editing. Or, is there something I missed? I don't think you're supposed to be goal tending, but rather using your intellect. I am hoping you will help me if I have incorrecly cited sources, since the source is clearly present within the article.Phil0leech 09:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article thoroughly you'd understand that every theory got some logic on its own. We are here to represent them all and we have no authority to say that one is more logical than the other. Note that the article is well referenced and if we exclusively mention that the Mediterranean theory is the most logical than so do the other ones which are well referenced as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, If you'd read my last edit before deleting it - thoroughly - you'd understand that it doesn't claim to be the "MOST logical", it only supports the hypothesis. We are neither here to suppress anyone's theories. Let's be fair, as that is truly what we're after here. The coincidence of Athens with Atlantis is not otherwise pointed out. If you don't like the way I worded it, then please re-word it yourself, but to omit it entirely is simply biased. That certainly doesn't belong here either. Phil0leech 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that saying one theory is more logical than another is original research. If you can cite a source saying that one theory is more logical than another, that's a different story--but the article cannot be based on our individual opinions and analysis, it has to be based on what published sources say. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that Plato's saying that Atlantis warred with Athens is irrelevant in this context. The section deals with the possibility that the Thera eruption may have indirectly inspired Plato's account of the destruction of Atlantis, which, if true, would mean that none of Plato's account (for instance, the placing of Atlantis outside the pillars of H.) is literally applicable to that event. Phil0leech's addition is a non sequitur. Deor 14:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my response to Akhilleus, the assertion that one theory was more logical was withdrawn. As for Plato's saying that Atlantis warred with Athens: it IS relavant because it helps relate the time of the eruption to the existance of Atlantis. The source is Plato, Critias. The edit (see most recent) was not intended to be new research, but simply to point that existing research out. The point of the article is that Plato's account may have timeline errors. This is supporting evidence: Therefore relevant. Again, please read my last attempted edit. It does NOT assert a MOST or MORE logical theory. That was an acknowledged error. I was attempting to correct it immediatley after posting it (sometimes its difficult to see these things in edit mode.) The last edit was to be: "(Atlantis' existence would have coincided with the existence of Athens, - according to Plato-Critias.)" This could be moved back to the second paragraph in the section. Phil0leech 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Plato got the date, the location, and everything else wrong except for the fact that Atlantis and Athens existed at the same time? And are you sure that Athens existed at the time of the Thera eruption? Deor 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Thera eruption was in about 1450 BC, and the history of Athens goes back to around 2000 BC, AFAIK. Spartan198 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

I am not making the assurtions about Plato, A. G. Galanopoulos is. Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens for the existence of Athens at the time of the eruption, and for that matter, reference Plato, Critias, contained within the References of the main article on Atlantis. I attempted to cite this reference in my edit already, but it would be redundant. Should I repeat the link? http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html or, *Plato, Critias, translated by Benjamin Jowett; alternative version with commentary.

Phil0leech 16:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Phil0leech, unless you can demonstrate that someone else has made the exact argument that you're making, the material you're trying to put in the article is a synthesis of previously published material; this is against WP's content policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

plato states clearly that atlantis was in the atlantic, not the med -

"This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean;"

This refers to the Phoenician fleet assembled by Neco I of Egypt c 600 BC to sail around Libya. Sailing South from the Erythrian Sea they returned after some years from the Atlantic through the Pillars of Hercules. The Ocean Empire that was thus created larger than Libya and Asia combined was the Phoenicians monopoly of the trade routes across the oceans which surrounded the land and thus were larger. Since Solon was in Egypt when the fleet returned he is rightly named as the source of the story of Atlantis. Sea level (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside the Mediterranean

The footnote for the possible Phillipines location references a pdf by one Brian Desborough who claims to have received information from five non physical beings. The paper is as you would expect. It does show that someone thinks the Phillipines (actually the paper says Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Phillipines ) is the location for Atlantis, but is this all that is required? I'm still feeling my way around here, sorry if this has an obvious answer. Dougweller 13:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I still believe the article should mention the massive earthquake that occurred near Istanbul, flooding the western plains of the Black Sea region (Scythian territory) circa 7700 BP. This is a geologic fact that is of a type that bears mentioning in an article like this one.--DrKamaila (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

plata tells us that

"A little while afterwards there were great earthquakes and floods, and your warrior race all sank into the earth; and the great island of Atlantis also disappeared in the sea. This is the explanation of the shallows which are found in that part of the Atlantic ocean.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.61.94 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news

Please look up Archaeologists are uncovering a huge prehistoric "lost country" hidden below the North Sea. If this won't point us in a relevant direction I don't know what will. I'm shure that no one in a right mind will disagree that I edit this into the article...--Antiphus 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since that article says nothing about Atlantis, I don't think it's terribly relevant. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe that this couldn't be about Atlantis? It doesn't mention Atlantis, but it could, not-knowingly, well be about Atlantis, --Antiphus 22:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention Atlantis, it's original research to say that it's about Atlantis. You're synthesizing the idea that Atlantis sank beneath the sea thousands of years ago and the mapping of a North Sea region that was covered up by rising seas thousands of years ago, to reach a conclusion that is not stated by the BBC story. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again i agree w/ Akhilleus. It can be any lost land or lost city. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You want relevancy? Here's a possible one: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=178264 The History show about it was aired today, January 3rd, 2008. Mdoc7 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis in the Bible

The story of Atlantis does not exist in Plato's dialogues only, but it exists in Bible and ancient Hindu texts as well. I have done extensive research on the topic of Atlantis and have have written a book on this topic as well.

Atlantis was founded by the line of Cain mentioned in Genesis. Cain is mentioned as 'Kuru' in Hindu mythology. Please look at Atlantis in Bible. Also the Sumerians used to mention Atlantis as 'Dilmun'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.29.194.91 (talk • contribs).

To make it into the article, this material would need to be published in a reliable source; then Wikipedia could cite that source. To do otherwise would be original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can have Atlantis without Athens. You can't just get rid of major parts of Plato's story, leaving only some sort of drowned area, and still say you have Atlantis. Dilmun is not Atlantis. It isn't even the Garden of Eden. :-) Kuru seems to have been a kingdom, I can only find mention of a mythological figure on Atlantis sites although Wikipedia used to have a page (perhaps removed because there was no such figure)? Dougweller 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, bud, Atlantis is not in the Bible. I'm a 16-year Bible student veteran. It isn't mentioned because there is no prophecy regarding it in the OT. Not even among the nations depicted in Nebuchadnezzer's dream in Daniel. Mdoc7 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A serious attempt at South of Seville (Coto de Doñana)

I haven't read here about the most modern hipotesis about its location at the "Coto de Doñana". There are marshes, that have suffered tsunamis, next to the strait of Gibraltar (The columns of Hercules). At the same time, a lost culture, Tartessos, whose capital city has never been found, is being looked for in that area. Forgive my english, please.

links:

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/huella/Tartessos/conduce/Donana/elpepucul/20070506elpepicul_1/Tes (spanish)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3766863.stm

References / Further reading

The article's section on sources included both cited references and further reading, which I now have split by putting most books in the "Further reading" section. Sources should go only into the "References" section if they are actually cited. This also means that some Footnote only citations need to be included there as well with their citation mode modified. Further suggestions and help are welcome. --Tikiwont 13:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

American Atlantis Research - Atlantis discovered?

American Atlantis Research: http://atlantis.onestop.net This quite interesting page have some revealing information showing that most likely Atlantis was located in the latin americas. There are several articles on the subject, as well as videos that can be watched directly. It seems they are also currently out doing field work for further research into these matters. Very informative and interesting, and I suggest it to be added in the External Links section of the Atlantis wikipedia page as its a quite good and informative resource site.

John Tomas (190.49.99.251 19:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Im new to this so not sure how to reply to messages so i made a new topic...

Anyway, I looked at the american atlantis research page and it seems indeed very interesting. Read throguh some of the articles, and looked quickly at a video. Very good stuff. I support adding this site in the external links section as this seems to be a well-researched site that will provide intersting material and discoveries in the future if they carry out their planned expeditions

Two thumbs up from me! -Willy Truss (19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.115.171.48 (talk • contribs).

That site has a bunch of ads and little content. What content it's got isn't scholarly. So I've removed it. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Isnt scholary? Atlantis is a myhological tale in the first place. And that site got plenty of good scholary research into the matter with many great theories and evidence that makes sense. I'd say let it stay so people can look into it and the material presented there and maybe it will get more research done on the matter. Alternate theories on Atlantis should be well accepted as well in the first place, considering its whole background which is pretty questionable on its own. When it all boils down, American Atlantis Research got some good and intersting stuff that I find highly interesting and will look more into myself as it makes lots of sense, specially the latin american theory stuff. Tecklord 01:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If "Atlantis is a my[t]hological tale in the first place", what exactly is the value of a link to folk who have a theory about its location in the real world? Deor 01:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More hits for their Google ads? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Atlantis link

Stagbag 09:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Hi I would like to add a link to a website on the myth of Atlantis. There's a great artist's impression of how Atlantis might have looked and a temple within the city. There's also a fictional account of life within the city. I feel that at least the pictures might capture people's imagination. The link is: http://www.cityvisions.co.uk/atlantis.php it would be great to have a link on the Atlantis page. Cheers. Stagbag 09:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that this site adds much value, but at least it doesn't seem like a ploy to sell ads. However, the site spells Atlantis incorrectly in a bunch of places. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In the detail, it may appear not to add much, but the broad idea of a great metropolis, surrounded by Plato's rings of concentric canals is clearly conveyed in an imaginative manner. The fact that it is (like the myth itself) a work of fantasy would explain the reasoning behind the use of the name "Altans", which is obviously the city's name in its own tongue. Cheers for looking. Stagbag 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Firecircle 11:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Hi, I would like to see a link to my website "Quest for Atlantis" on this page. It includes anthropological, linguistic, archeological and geological data taken from scientific sources. The link is http://www.atlantisquest.com and I believe it would provide valuable information for those interested in the subject. I sure would like a response. Thank you. Firecircle 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The link isn't suitable, in my opinion. Any site purporting to give the "Atlantean alphabet" isn't suitable. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Firecircle 6:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC) I hope you didn't form that opinion without looking at the material presented. I think I have presented evidence that the letters we use today may have originated there. I do not purport to reveal the Atlantean alphabet. (Did you look at any of the material presented, or just the index page?) I form a hypothesis, and follow it with evidence to support it. I did change the icon to better represent the content. Thank for your contribution to that improvement.Firecircle 6:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider your answer. I’m not some goggle-eyed yokel who “purports to know the Atlantean Alphabet” as you suggested. The section of my website dealing with the origin of the alphabet is based on several premises:

1. That “Phoenician characters” may have originated in the west rather than the east.

2. That they probably represent a syllabary rather than a true alphabet.

3. That they may be much older than previously thought.

4. That the Mas d’Azil and Glozel characters may represent early examples.

5. That more than half of these characters may have originated in Atlantis.

6. That these very characters evolved into the same basic characters we use today.

I support these premises by referencing data that are well-known to modern-day scholars, always using reliable sources throughout the entire presentation. A Harvard educational website (URL: h2obeta.law.harvard.edu/79888) has saw fit to provide a link to this very section of my website, which you find so objectionable. Also, at least two long quotes from this section of my website have formed a part of Wikibooks (en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Vuara/EVOLUTION_OF_WRITING and en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Vuara/ANCIENT_ALPHABETS_COMPARED) for at least four years (both were so out of date, I updated them). I could present more examples—evidently other people think more highly of my work than do you. At no time did I have any part in providing the links in any of these cases.

There may be some “original research” embedded in the presentation; but I’m not writing an article for Wikipedia, I’m only asking for a link. In refusing, you are depriving your readers of over 40 years of research into fields of anthropology, linguistics, geology and paleontology which may have a real bearing on the subject of Atlantis, but that’s your decision. If you choose not to alter your previous decision, I will consider the issue closed.Firecircle (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception

I disagree with the article referring to Plato as being the only "account" of Atlantis. Almost all Native American legends refer to the story of a flood and the migration of people from the East. The Iroquis, Sioux, Hopi...are just a few examples. And ofcourse they aren't going to actually use the word "Atlantis," because Atlantis is a greek name. Not only that, but many more societies from around the world (even India) have references to a flood legend. Ofcourse the most common flood-myth that everyone is familiar with is the story of the flood in the Bible. If scientists agree that there was an Ice Age, then doesn't that correlate exactly with Atlantis existing 12,000 years ago, and gradually sinking? I would think so.

People often use as History as "lessons learned" and don't have to resort to a fairy-tale society to look for examples of "what not to do," therefore Atlantis must of existed. The fact that Plato was a philosopher doesn't matter, just as it wouldn't matter if he were an astronomer, fisherman, or whatever....

It lies at the bottom of the Atlantic. You aren't going to find it if you don't look for it, but it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flapjack99 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't just lift Atlantis out of Plato's story and ignore Athens. If you do, you have something else, not Atlantis.Dougweller 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Meant to add that the bottom of the Atlantic has been mapped. It's not there. Dougweller 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Atlantic has been sounded (not mapped), and yes, Atlantis is there, exactly where it should be. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge forms a large shallow plateau in the region of the Azores. It also runs both north and south of the plateau as a chain of sea-mounts. The Plateau is approximately the size of Plato's Atlantis, and the chain of sea-mounts would correspond well with the chain of islands Plato mentioned. Furthermore the plateau is volcanic and has many well documented hot water springs, also correlating with Plato's Atlantis. Until this plateau is actually mapped with modern remote sensing technology, it will remain unclear as th whether people were living there during the Mesolithic age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Among other problems, no fossils in the Azores of anything less than I believe 7 million years old, no flora or fauna that didn't arrive by air or by sea. So, not part of a larger landmass. Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow: no Fossil older than 7 million years!? 10,000 BC is less that 7 million years ago, and humans have have the ability to move between continents via the ocean for at least 50, 000 years. Plato never claimed Atlantis was a continent; later theorists did. Plato stated it was a city on a large island, the size of Asia (Western Anatolia), and Libya (Cyrenia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Athens is not ignored by everybody. Check out the viewpoint given in the FAQ section of "Plato's account" at http://www.atlantisquest.com and see what you think. Firecircle 10:50 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't paste the link to your site all over the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. It won't happen again. I think your wikipedia is great! Firecircle 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands

To the joker impersonating my account in this article [6]: Of course it would be easy to expand on the initial, predominantly maritime and fluvial spread of the Bell Beaker culture. This pan-European culture seems to originate in the Netherlands and is proposed to link to Swifterbant culture, whose main archeological site has been found about six meter under the water surface. Of course it would be easy to link the Brittany counterpart of the Atlantis myth in the Legend of Ys to the Dutch goddess Nehalennia. It would even be easy to find a credible cognate of Atlantis in the Dutch language, for instance something like Wadland - land you can wade. Sure, it would be easy, but I won't. To locate Atlantis in the Netherlands is an insult to our victorious fight against the wet elements. How come those Egyptians didn't know? My conclusion: Atlantis is a fraud and invented by the worst enemies of the Netherlands. :) Rokus01 (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

let me get this right - this was a joke edit parodying your Netherlands mysticism, and you are saying you actually sort of endorse the parody? That's actually quite funny :p dab (𒁳) 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I say the story of Atlantis is a fraud? I think I've been clear enough. Ah, or did you mean that maybe I'm actually a crypto-Atlantic? Beware your evolving sense of humor is not going to cause convulsions that would have you locked up in a madhouse. Rokus01 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

my sense of humour is indeed evolving. Wikipedia taught me to stop worrying and laugh at the trolls :) dab (𒁳) 13:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I already know I should not take your sense of humor seriously. Rokus01 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to British Nationalists

I could not find a reference to BN in the National Geographic article cited, or doing an internet search on "British Nationalism", Atlantis. The article did refer to Ireland. [7]Geo8rge (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently an anonymouse (sic) user has decided to put the reference back without expaining where the National Georaphic article mentioned British Nationalists. I suggest other people, if they agree, delete it. Geo8rge (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Medieval response

The intro is certainly wrong where it says the Atlantis story was not widely known in the Middle Ages, only to be somehow "recovered" by Renaissance humanists. The Timaeus was one of the most widely copied and influential works of the Middle Ages, and was part of most schools' curricula. Certainly most educated men at least knew of the Atlantis legend, even if they did not make much of it. JoeFink (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rio Grande Rise

Possible location of Atlantis: Rio Grande Rise in Southern Atlantic Ocean - - This area has been unlooked, but is most possible as the continents arent now actually in the same places they were before the sinking of Atlantis. Either way. The Rio Grande Rise is as possible location as all possible locations.

The old picture of Atlantis in the Atlantis page is from Tolkien tales and it represent Africa on the east side and South-America on the west side. As the Amazon river used to be a huge lake / sea inside northern South-America.

I have been looking a lot of maps from different eras, from a lot of sources, and I've examined the sea bed of both North and South Atlantic. The Rio Grande Rise is among the highest possibilitys.

There was no trade from Europe to Atlantis. The connection between the two continents was South-America - Atlantis - Africa, not America - Atlantis -Europe. The Nubia and Egypt high cultures are among the ones who once met people from Atlantis, or even more, travelled the continents. Plato heard everything from the Egyptians.

But as I dont wanna go too speculative. I think this theory of Southern-Atlantic ocean as location should be investigated.

Rudric (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article Location hypotheses of Atlantis. I suggest that if you have any further information about it, you address your concerns to the discussion page of that article. Deor (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Measurements

I see that Plato's measurements (stades/stadia) are tranlsated into kilometres and miles, but by what criteria? Rodney Castleden's Atlantis destroyed gives different equivalents, ie 50 stades he says are 9 km, and 3000 stadia 350 km, which differs from the figures in this article. That at least is a reference, can anyone find anything more authoritative? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy discussion: It's either 8 stades to a "roman mile", or 1 stade = 185 meters. So a different methodology could cause a little error. Some rounding error is present as well. Additionally, it appears that wiki,another source has changed from 185 meters to 177.6 meters, so there is apparently some margin of error on the Attic Stadion, though 185 is the most common number.

Using the 185 meters method, 50 stades = 9.25 Kilometers, or 5.75 miles. 2000 stades=370 km or 229.91 miles. 3000 stades=555 km, or 344.86 miles. -- Rich 9/29/08

New Age?

I'm not at all sure we have enough information on the modern "New Age" stuff about Atlantis. It should be written in a way that makes it clear that it's lunatic fringe stuff, but it should get more coverage because it's pretty common (at least as common as chemtrails.) I'd write it myself, but I don't have enough info. Vultur (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg

hey guys, this image clearly represents a Minoan woman, it was shot at Akrotiri, why then is it linked to Phoenicia? need expert opinion if anyone can help. ;) Eli+ 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the people who researched and published the book "Phoenicians: Lebanon's Epic Heritage" disagree with your controversial opinion to the extend that they feature it on the front cover of their book.[8] That is why it is linked to Phoenicia. ;} - Gennarous (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this was brought to our attention. One review at amazon.com says "On the cover of this book is a detail from one of the frescoes found on the Greek, Aegean island of Thera (Santorini). This site was destroyed by a volcanic eruption in 1623 BC. It is not "Phoenician", or Lebanese!

On Thera, scenes/decorations depicted on wall frescoes are replicated on the daggers which have been found in the shaft graves of the Greek mainland city of Mycenae. Indeed, the same type of dagger has been found on Thera. Ships depicted on one of the frescoes on Thera are identical to ships depicted on signet rings, as per examples from graves on the Greek mainland site of Tyrins. Boar's tusk helmets depicted on another fresco at Thera are attested to on the entire Greek mainland as well as on Krete and are described in great detail as being worn by the Greeks besieging Troy in Homer's Iliad. A lady depicted on an adjacent fresco to the one pictured on the cover wears ear rings identical to those which are found in another of the shaft graves at Mycenae. The writing of Mycenaeans, known as "Linear B", was translated in 1954 by the Englishman Michael Ventris: it is Greek & dates to the 15th century BC. How do Mycenaean/Greek motifs come to be used as illustrating the world of Lebanese/Phoenicians? This book is propaganda. You don't have to go beyond the front cover to realise this.

So far as I can find, Sanford Holst is good at publicity but gets no mention in scholarly journals. Since his other books are about things such as 'miracle health tea' and 'A very special moment in your life', etc, I'm not surprised. Interesting that the only books published by the publisher of this book are -- by Sanford Holst. In other words, probably self published. --Doug Weller (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Location hypotheses of Atlantis

The reference to location hypotheses in the main article should reflect the classification of the more detailed article on location, namely...

1 In or near the Mediterranean Sea

2 In the Atlantic Ocean

3 Other locations

...and not Inside or Outside the Mediterranean as it currently does.

It would add balance to the article to mention explicitly the location hypotheses in the Atlantic Ocean. Odin 85th gen (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters very much as we already have an article all about location hypotheses, this is just a quick summary.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I´ve attempted to rearrange to better reflect the main strands of hypotheses. What do you think? Personally, I prefer this approach for improved balance and clarity of main ideas. Odin 85th gen (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dogger Bank

First, to say that anything is 'interesting' with no reference saying it is interesting is OR. Secondly, the reference doesn't claim Atlantis has been found, although the headline says 'Britain's Atlantis' (ie Britain's sunken land - note not 'Plato's Atlantis'. I know Vince Gaffney, he's taught me, and he would never claim to have found Atlantis anywhere. Erlingsson thinks that the memory of the Dogger Bank sinking is the source of the legend, and that is covered in Location hypotheses of Atlantis (which this article should only be covering as a very brief summary, not mentioning all the possible locations).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is an articifial distinction you raise between "popular" and "academic" theories about Atlantis in the media, as well as the distinction between Atlantis and Plato's Atlantis. Popular theories are legitimate for inclusion in Wikipedia articles as well. Granted, I agree the mention could be brief. I invite you to consider editing the mention for accuracy, but would hope you agree with its mention remaining in the main article. This information would be of considerable interest to the general readership inquiring about the subject. This is perhaps the most tangible evidence to date for the theory of Plato's Atlantis having been in the North Atlantic Ocean. If you are fixed in your opposition to the reference being there, we can seek a third oppinion. Odin 85th gen (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against popular theories, but where in that reference is Atlantis suggested? NOT the headline, never pay much attention to headlines, they are written by headline writers often with disregard to the content. I used to work for a newspaper, my brother owned one and now teaches journalism, this is something I know about.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am older than two winters myself and have seen a lot of headlines and think you are off on the wrong track. Stop for a moment and think this through. Why are they called headlines? It is because they encapsulate what the journalist wants to tell his readers. The journalist is stating the OBVIOUS popular theory that Dogger Bank is Atlantis with the headline. Having been around the block, I also know that the interview with the Professor is a side event. The journalist is only interested in getting body text for the story, to give the headline legitimacy. Even if the information given by the innocent professor goes far short of the popular theory, the headline nonetheless places the key emphasis on the popular theory. It is that simple. A reference to this popular theory belongs in this section of the main article.Odin 85th gen (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Journalists don't write headlines normally, which is why the article doesn't mention Atlantis. And the story comes first, then the headline, not the other way around as you seem to be suggesting. IF it is a popular theory you should hav no problems finding a reliable source for it. If there are no reliable sources, it can't be a popular theory. That is what seems obvious.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Popular here refers to something that is the opposite of academe - or less than highbrow. The reference to the idea has been given in a credible newspaper article. That is as straight forward and tangible a reference as Wikipedia requires. It is not helpful to engage in Solipsistic logic.Odin 85th gen (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Even the headline doesn't say Plato's Atlantis, it says Britain's Atlantis, ie Britain's sunken land. You need to read WP:RS and if you don't agree, take it up on their noticeboard, just go to WP:RSN and put your case.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Three things. First, Plato never discussed "Plato's Atlantis", he only wrote about Atlantis. The issue is therefore Atlantis, plain and simple. Second, Britain's Atlantis refers to a location hypothesis. It is not about Britain's thoughts or story of Atlantis, but the possiblity of the location of Atlantis being in Britains backyard. Third, the Times is a reliable source.Odin 85th gen (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

American Atlantis Research

Added *American Atlantis Research - The Latin American Theory to the external links section as this has been requested before and fixed error in link.

Kind of interesting theories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkbreed (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Plato's account and lacking citation and sources

Please note that Timaeus continues The Republic, and the actual trilogy is The Republic, Timaeus and Critias. If Benjamin Jowett believed Plato had planned another dialogue, it would have been fourth.

Apart from this, the entire article lacks citation where arguable points are raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypomixolydian (talk • contribs) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Republic has different participants than Timaeus and Critias and is thus unrelated entirely. If I were choosing a related myth, I'd choose Protagoras, which discusses the brother of Atlas, Prometheus, and has a common participant, Critias. -- Rich 9/29/08

Eh? As our article on the Timaeus says, The dialogue takes place the day after Socrates described his ideal state. In Plato's works such a discussion occurs in the Republic. Socrates feels that his description of the ideal state wasn't sufficient for the purposes of entertainment and that "I would be glad to hear some account of it engaging in transactions with other states" (19b). How is this 'unrelated entirely'? Who the participants were has nothing to do with this. Doug Weller (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"The dialogue takes place the day after..." This appears to be a controversial and false interpretation. This chronology seems to stem from the term Kephalaus in 19a, which also appears in the Republic. -- Rich 9/29/08

Source1: "The Timaeus (17b-19b) may refer to Republic as coming before it"

Source2: "The assumed chronological order of the pieces is Republic, Timaeus, Critias : i.e. the Conversation at the house of Cephalus is repeated next day by Socrates to Timaeus, Critias, Hermocrates, and another — this is the Republic; the day after that again, Socrates, Timaeus, Critias, and Hermocrates meet, and the Conversation and Discourse which constitute the Timaeus are held, followed by the Myth related by Critias in the unfinished piece which bears his name."

Plato's Timaeus says there was a feast of honor the previous day, and that all of these participants were together (Hence Socrates was not with the participants of the Republic. Timaeus: "[17b]...after the splendid hospitality we received from you yesterday"-- Rich 9/30/08

First mentioned

"Atlantis (in Greek, Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος, "island of Atlas") is the name of a legendary island, first mentioned in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias.[1]" ... "Other than Plato's Timaeus and Critias there is no primary ancient account of Atlantis, which means every other account on Atlantis relies on Plato in one way or another."

Hellanicus Atlantis story, which discusses the Pleiades and Hyades (daughters of Atlas), and mentions islands, "Islands of the Blessed", pre-dates Plato's account of Atlantis. Herodotus also used the term Atlantis before Plato. -- Rich 9/29/08

Herodotus uses the word 'Atlantis' to refer to the 'Sea beyond the Pillars', which he says is the same as the 'Sea which the Hellenes navigate' and the Erythraian Sea' (but distinct, he says, from the Caspian Sea'. Hellanicus was well known for his mythographical and genealogical work. Hellanicus of Lesbos wrote about the daughter of Atlas. What still exists (a few lines) includes the line Poseidon mated with Celaeno, and their son Lycus was settled by his father in the Isles of the Blest and made immortal. Plato says Poseidon mated with Cleito and had a son Atlas who became ruler of Atlantis. There's also bits about Atlas's daughters and their relationships with various gods.

A transcription and/or translation of Hellanicus Atlantis I fragment is in:

Robert L. Fowler, Early Greek Mythography Volume 1: Text and Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xlviii, 459. ISBN 0-19-814740-6.

The first mention of Atlantis is in Plato. The term was used in other ways by Herodotus and Hellanicus. Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Herodotus uses this term elsewhere, as well. Herodotus 4.184 "and near this salt is a mountain, which is called Atlas ; it is narrow and circular on all sides, and is said to be so lofty that its top can never be seen ; for it is never free from clouds, either in summer or winter. The inhabitants say that it is the Pillar of Heaven. From this mountain these men derive their appellation, for they are called Atlantes. "..."As far, then, as these Atlantes I am able to mention the names of the nations"..."This ridge, however, extends as far as the Pillars of Hercules, and even beyond them"..."Thus, then, as far as the lake Tritonis from Egypt" -- Rich 9/30/08

That would be the Atlas Mountains. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Herodotus says the people called Atlantes live on the Atas Mountains, somewhere between Egypt and Lake Tritonis. 66.151.47.194 (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Calendar conventions?

This isn't a complaint, just an observation. In the text on Plato's writings, year references are made as "B.C.", presumably for "Before Christ", however I've often seen on other Wikipedia articles "B.C.E." (Before Common Era) used instead. I understand that the two terms are chronologically interchangeable, but is there not a standard of writing for Wikipedia articles that dictates one or the other exclusively? I would presume if there were that B.C.E. would be preferred to avoid offending non-Christians, personally I don't care either way but just thought I'd bring it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.217.36 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERA is the relevant guideline. Either BC or BCE is acceptable; and unless there is a strong reason to change from one to the other, the usual practice is to stick with whatever the original author of the article used. Deor (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind also, "B.C.E." silly when used writing strictly with Christian history and "B.C." and "A.D." could be considered inappropriate when writing Jewish history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mid-atlantic ridge above water?

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) 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)