Talk:Atlantis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Scepticism

In the section about more recent opinions, I have added a quote by Dr Julia Annas, a leading Plato scholar, which I feel goes some way to restoring the balance of the article by explicating more clearly the context of the account of Atlantis in Plato and his thought. Seeing as Annas is not on Wikipedia, I added a link to her profile at the University of Arizona to confrim her credibility.

Anyone questioning her point about using historicity to flag up fiction need only read some Michael Crichton to see how the technique can be employed and misunderstood. --Ajcee7 13:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Greek accounts

Ok, I'm going to try to clean the "Other Greek accounts" section up a bit. It would be very helpful if anyone who's added material to this section could supply more precise references. For example, it's not enough to say that Plutarch said something; we need to know which specific passage the quoted or cited material comes from.

Most of the material in this section seems to be included on the principle that any report of an island in the Atlantic Ocean is relevant to Atlantis. This is a pretty questionable idea. Most of the authors quoted, as far as I can tell, say nothing to us about Atlantis at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

All right. I've taken an initial stab at re-writing. I tried to put the sources in chronological order, and tried also to supply some context for each writer. This is definitely a work in progress, and is by no means finished! Here's some of the stuff I removed, and why:

• Aristotle Meteorology 354a22 and Ps.-Aristotle On Marvelous Things Heard (no passage cited). Neither of these have to do with Atlantis.
• anything about Ogygia or Scheria. These aren't Atlantis.
• Plutarch on "islands of Cronus" (no passage cited). Not Atlantis.

Stuff that needs better sourcing (some marked with a {{fact}} tag):

• Proclus' report that Crantor had seen the Egyptian columns recording the Atlantis story--where does Proclus say this?
  • FGrHist 665, F 31 --Bender235 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Theophrastus, Pliny the Elder, and Scylax. Where did they talk about Atlantis?
• "The historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century AD, recorded that the Atlanteans did not know the fruits of Ceres." Where did Diodorus say this?
• "Marcellinus further records that the intelligentsia of Alexandria considered the destruction of Atlantis a historical fact..." Where did Marcellinus say this?
• Cosmas Indicopleustes--what passage(s) is this material from?

I would also note that whoever added the big quote from Proclus got the quote from Nesselrath's article, and even preserved some hyphenation from Nesselrath that's unnecessary here. Seems a bit sloppy—it's generally a good idea to go back to the original source, if you're going to be quoting a passage. Of course, I haven't had a chance to do that yet—I don't keep a copy of Proclus on my shelf. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nesselrath? - Vidal-Naquet! Zangger!

The article now is hijacked by someone who is in favour of Nesselrath's invention hypothesis. But where is the hypothesis of Vidal-Naquet, who is much more known than Nesselrath? And where is the hypothesis of Zangger e.g.? --Athenaios 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add Vidal-Naquet and Zangger, but could you please provide full citations? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, here's a quote from Vidal-Naquet: "With a perversity that was to ensure him great success, Plato had laid the foundations for the historical novel, that is to say, the novel set in a particular place and a particular time." (Critical Inquiry 18 [1992] p. 302) Sounds like an invention hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Material with "citation needed" tags

There are several {{fact}} tags in the article that have been present for some weeks. No one's stepped up to provide citations. If no one does so within the next few days, I propose to remove the tagged material. Any objections? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of completely deleting the tagged material, comment it out with HTML comment symbols, <!-- like this -->. Because, probably most of that information is informative and completely true, and another editor may come along with references. Or copy the removed material to the talk page here. Or both, even. -kotra 06:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kotra, I've done some research in this area and I highly doubt the information is correct. There are plenty of Atlantis enthusiasts out there who will seize on anything that talks about islands in the west and claim that it's about Atlantis. However, I do agree that the information should be saved, and when I remove it, I will put it on the talk page so that someone else can provide proper references, if they in fact exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I only read some of the tagged material, so there might be things I missed that I'd agree are totally wrong. And I understand that there are tons of Atlantis enthusiasts, with dozens if not hundreds of baseless theories about Atlantis. One can't help noticing that after watching this article for a few months. Regardless, I still think some of the tagged material probably happens to be correct, though I wouldn't know which material specifically. Anyways, I'm glad you'll be putting the removed material on the talk page. We seem to agree on that, which is all that really matters anyways. -kotra 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed material from "other ancient accounts" section

As promised, here is material removed from the "other ancient accounts" section, either because it is badly sourced, not about Atlantis, or both.

1. Claudius Aelianus cites Theopompus, knowing of the existence of the huge island out in the Atlantic as a continuing tradition among the Phoenicians or Carthaginians of Cádiz.
2. A fragmentary work of Theophrastus of Lesbos, from the 4th century BC, speaks of the colonies of Atlantis in the sea.
3. Pliny the Elder recorded that this land was 12,000 km distant (by modern measurement) from Cádiz, and Uba, a Numidian talks of an enormous island outside the Pillars of Hercules. He describes it as having a climate that is very mild; fruits and vegetables grow ripe throughout the year. There are huge mountains covered with large forests, and wide, irrigable plains with navigable rivers. The Periplus of Scylax of Caryanda, from the 4th century BC, gives a similar account.
4. The historian Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st century AD, recorded that the Atlanteans did not know the fruits of Ceres.
5. (after the Ammianus Marcellinus paragraph currently in the article) Marcellinus further records that the intelligentsia of Alexandria considered the destruction of Atlantis a historical fact and described a class of earthquakes that suddenly, by a violent motion, opened up huge mouths and so swallowed up portions of the earth, as once in the Atlantic Ocean a large island was swallowed up.
6. Perhaps the Byzantine friar Cosmas Indicopleustes understood Plato better than the ancient and modern "Aristotelians," says Merezhkovsky. In his Topographia Christiana Cosmas included a chart of the (flat) world: it showed an inner continent, a compact mainland surrounded by sea, and this was surrounded by an outer ring-shaped continent, with the inscription, "The earth beyond the Ocean, where men lived before the Flood."

For ancient prose authors, citations will usually take the form (book.paragraph), so for instance the citation Herodotus 8.171 will direct us to Book 8, paragraph 171 of the Histories. Some of the authors named here (Theophrastus, Scylax) are fragmentary, so citation will be more complex, but we need some specific indication of where to find the information cited--otherwise it is impossible to verify what the article is saying. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tinkering with 'Modern Interest' Section

I would like to propose a slight clarification of a line in this section. I understand that brevity makes for easier reading. And due to the apparently sparse and fragmented accounts of 'Atlantis' i would like to bolster this article with the reasonable sources I have found. I suppose the sources could be currently subsumed under Atlantean 'Folklore' or 'Legend'; but there are academics who are genuinely interested in exploring 'Lost Civilisations' (Graham Hancock, Schwaller de Lubicz, John Anthony West).

As it stands, the line reads: "Famed psychic Edgar Cayce gave its geographical location as the Caribbean, and proposed that Atlantis was an ancient, now-submerged, highly-evolved civilization which had ships and aircraft powered by a mysterious form of energy crystal."... All i would like to do is explain what Cayce actually said this 'mysterious form of energy crystal' was. The change would read thus: "... evolved civilization whcih had ships and aircraft powered by a mysterious form of crystal energy. One insight into Cayce's claims refers to the creation of the Tuaoi stone, a crystal 'power station' that was 'technologically... used to generate electricity, heat, and power transmitted to motor vehicles in the manner of remote control.(pg 191, Dan Campbell, Edgar Cayce On the Power of Colours, Stones, and Crystals). Furthermore, Cayce's readings sugggest "...errant manipulation of [the Tuaoi stone's energies]... turned and rent the earth, producing volcanic upheavals that tore the land apart and separated it into five islands." This issue of Cayce and Atlantis is complex and derserves further attention, if only listed under a subheading entitled 'Cayce and Atlantis'. Maybe there could be a another subheading labelled 'The Fanatacism of the ARE'. Of which I am not a member.

I suppose providing two references in such a short space from the same source does not show broad reading and scholarship about the nature of Cayce's readings on Atlantis. Numerous Cayce writers have noted Cayce's talk about the break-up of Atlantis theory. Give me time, i will come up with the references. It all hinges on belief in the Cayce's healing powers and spiritual insight. The references to places that ARE are investigating, like Bimini(in the Caribbean), and the Sphinx on Giza Plateau. It just seems to there is a wealth of information that could be referenced at least in the Atlantis article. It need not be sparse. And in the spirit of wiki balanced article entries, I hope this will stir some discussion.

Initially will add some book references and such as links and notes. Tentative entries. I'm sure there is a whole realm of 'New Age' links and discussions that could be linked or explored. It just takes time to find what is useful as historical interest, alternative historical interest, popular cultural interest, and so on...

Also, William James Sidis wrote a book on Atlantis (now lost). Some people are trying to piece together his manuscripts. What i hope is that wikipedia interest may stimulate a recovery of that text in particular. Who knows? And so I fan the fire.Drakonicon 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Also curious as to why the line about Aleister Crowley is dropped in at the end of the 'National And Socialist Activities' subheading? Maybe that line could be moved down to 'Recent Times'; because it appears, in one sense, that Crowley was associated with the Nazi interests?? What do you think?Drakonicon 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section could use expansion, but I'm not sure that we need to give a detailed explanation of Cayce's theories, especially about these mythical energy crystals. After all, Bacon and Donelly get only a few sentences, and they are probably more important than Cayce for this article. At any rate, I would hardly describe Graham Hancock, R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, and John Anthony West as "academics". In a generous mood, I might call them "independent scholars"; but I would usually be less kind. Although I do appreciate that West claims to be "a writer, scholar and Pythagorean"; I hope he doesn't eat beans! --Akhilleus (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou so much, Akhilleus! for considering what i proposed above with great discernment. I can appreciate that Hancock, and Schwaller de Lubicz are independent scholars ( I wouldn't call them pseudoscientists: In my mind, good science depends on method, and reasonable explanation of supporting evidence to the scientific claim). Colin Wilson cites (pp4-5, From Atlantis to the Sphinx) a newspaper article from the Los Angeles Times of 26th October 1991 entitled Egypt Serves Up New Twist To Mystery of the Sphinx. The article indicates that geologists John Anthony West and Robert Schoch presented their geological results at the Geological Society of America Society, indicating that the Sphinx had suffered severe water erosion (not simply sand and wind) and was much older (by a millenia) than previously thought (about 5000-7000 years old). Anyway the point is, West (at least), is an example of a scholar (he presented an important geological paper at a conference for peer review) whose work indicates that the archaeological record regarding the Sphinx maybe be inaccurate, further thus indicating that advanced sculpting adn achetectural technologies were developed much earlier on the Giza Plateau than previously thought.

In which case I dont believe that information presented on Bacon, or Donnelly is more or less important than information obtained from the Edgar Cayce readings. The difference is simply that Bacon and Donnelly were investigative scholars, while Cayce "...practised medical diagnosis by clairvoyance for forty-three years. He left stenographic reports of 30 000 of these diagnoses to the Association for Research and Enlightenment, Inc., along with hundreds of complete case reports containing affidavits by the patients and reports by physicians. There are hundreds of people throughout the United States who will testify [as of 1945], at the drop of a hat, to the accuracy of his diagnoses and the efficacy of his suggestions for treatment."(pg 5 There Is A River, (1945), by Thomas Sugrue).

I believe that the sticking point about using the Cayce readings as a valuable source of knowledge regarding Atlantis, is whether one can accept that Cayce's suggested medical diagnoses were so thoroughly successful for so many people; and, by virtue of his diagnostic successes, that the physical, spiritual, and psychological dimensions of treatment that Cayce offered individual patients in what have come to be called his 'Life' readings, contains valuable insight into the culture, technologies, historical time-frames, and location of Atlantis. What intrigues me about this whole article on Atlantis is that it starts with Plato's famously brief references to Atlantis, that Plato is actually passing on a legend about a place that does not exist in his time. In this sense, I feel that that the Cayce reading contain that could be considered as folklorist as anything Plato has passed on from antiquity.

I hope this helps clarify my belief that the Cayce readings are a vaulable source of knowledge regarding Atlantis. Maybe a subheading 'Speculation about Atlantis' might include some brief highlights about the culture, technologies, and 'religious beleifs' outlined by Cayce scholars? I know there are a lot of contentious ideas here. That's why I'm discussing them here instead of simply editing the Article with my one-sided content. Please advise. Drakonicon 15:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cayce's medical career is a textbook example of pseudoscience. Detailed coverage of his Atlantis theories doesn't belong here, although it may at Edgar Cayce. Bacon and Donelly are more notable than Cayce, Wilson, et al. because Bacon was one of the first to write about Atlantis in the modern era, and Donelly had a lot to do with making the subject popular. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly do not agree that Cayce is a textbook example of pseudoscience, I agree that detailed coverage of his Atlantis theories dont belong here. Good point about Bacon and Donnelly. I suppose the continuing popular interest in Cayce's many and varied documented readings serve to stimulate modern interest about Atlantis in whole new ways; including the continuing archaeological explorations in Bimini. Cayce's abilities have been given many names. 'Famed psychic' is one of them; yet I feel it poorly represents his work. I suppose some kind of handle needs to ben given to indicate how and why he came about the Atlantis information he is famous for. How about 'Medical Clairvoyant' as Gina Cerminara has referred to him? or Because it was within this context that he drew on information about Atlantis. Just trying to clarify the pseudoscience and new age references in this article.

I have performed a small tidying edit, in order to be more succinct with the timeline surrounding Donnelly and the rise of New Age writers. However, the second paragraph in this section about Mesoamerican scholars might also be subsumed under the info on New Age writers? The second paragraph's intro does now conflict with the fourth paragraph's intro. Maybe just put back "Around this time..." for the New Age writers section?

Also performed a another edit showing that the Cayce readings initially mentioned Atlantis in 1923, and had more specific content that he 'read' at a later date (geographical locations). Thirdly, I added the words "...and is still being explored today.... I think the article represents at least one modern interest in the Bimini Road that is ongoing. Info on Dr. Greg Little, Bimini, etc.. is here["http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/75.html Find him here] Should the outro to this paragraph stay?

Thanks for your insights Akhilleus, its helping me hone my detective work and presentation skills. I'll get off the Cayce bandwagon for awhile and look for Pliny's reference to Atlantis in his Natural History. In a copy of the book if I can get my hands on one. Hopefully he actually uses the word Atlantis. If not, I understand that vague refences to big islands in ancient times outside the Pillars of Hercules, dont really belong hereDrakonicon 19:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed material from "Modern interest" section

I removed this sentence, because it makes no sense:

However, several of the researchers later repudiated those claims even there has been an absence of intercalation of solar calendar to lunar calendar or vise versa. Since the Mayan used a lunar calender, the date can possiblly be adjusted to the same time, the Greco-Roman era.

If someone else understands what's going on here, please rewrite and put it back in. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Found some good sources that you people could look at regarding Atlantis

Sacred Texts.com - Atlantis might offer some neutral point of view insight into this article. You people now even have a complete (at least fragmented copy of Plato's writings on Atlantis - congratulations people! Keep up the good work, and I'll do the finding for you people, since I am into this esoteric, mysterious, enigmatic stuff called mythology. --Lord X 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Ooooh, and look Paranormals: Atlantis also have some good information - pick and choose ladies and gentlemen, more respectively - WIKIPEDIANS! --Lord X 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Good find, Xinyu! The sacred texts has some good fiction works that could be referenced.Drakonicon 06:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Lord X 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

Look, if you Wikipedians want any sources for this article, or anything else that I may be able to help you with, just message me or something. Thanks. --Lord X 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

divers

"divers" is an older spelling of "diverse". Since it occurs in a direct quote, the older spelling should be retained. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the old spelling might befar more applicable; anyway, i just wanted to know more about the use of the word 'divers'. I have seen it used to describe obscure 'medicinal' arts in c.1600 and c.1700 texts, and appeared to refer to an heretical philosophy of some ancient sort. I understand it meaning 'diverse', but does that word mean 'multiplicitoous', or 'diverting from the mains'? Help! :) Drakonicon 20:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote is: "were the inhabitants and rulers of divers islands in the open sea." In this context, "divers" simply means "many" or "various". There are plenty of online dictionaries, if you need more detail. If you find the quote confusing, there are also many online translations of Plato, and there should be at least one that uses more modern diction. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting miracle engineering items from ancient atlantis are being ruined by istanbul minucipalities ignorant metro construction under bosphorus between asia and europe continent. If you change name of istanbul to istantal that means atlantis. This city was completely covered by the blacksea in history and marmara sea aroused over atlantis. Please Delete these lines afer reading because this is not its place. [(alpha)]::

Recent times section

Considering that the 'continental drift' argument states that 'most "Lost Continent" theories of Atlantis were shown to be impossible...'... and Wikipedia seems to indicates that the Continental Drift Theory has been superceded by Plate tectonics (see especially the argument in the History and impact section of the Plate tectonics article)... I believe the information presentation, in this short section on Atlantis, should be reviewed.

Jesus!

Jesus Christ, this article is a mess! Your one true god is David P. A. Hunter, esq. III ^{Talk to me!} 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts theory; and other non-sourced material

I read the entry that had no citation or reference, and while it looks like another wild Atlantis cultural philosophy, I would be interested to know the source. Removing it without asking the editor in question for a citation or justification, seems a little rash to me, regardless of how inappropriate the material may be. It may be pseudoscience, and maybe we should add a short pseudoscientific theories section into the articel to accomodate some of these suggestions. If there is a source referenced, at least other editors can check it out to see what kind of information is being presented.

The whole nature of this article appears to be speculative. Of course Plato and other ancient writers and thinkers mention 'Atlantis', but you know; the City of Troy was only in Homer's imagination until someone actually found numerous verifiable relics from the ancient site of 'Troy'. The Heinrich Schliemann article seems to indicate he was a shyster, so who can tell?

My point being; sometimes it takes wild theories to point thinkers in a new direction. Unless of course, some of the Atlantis location and cultural theories should be merged with the List of pseudoscientific theories article? Is there a need to differentiate between Atlantis (the location), and Atlantean (culture)? Because the Ancient Astronaut theory, I imagine, would come under Atlantean culture, as vague as that might sound.

I notice that Akhilleus has removed non-sourced material from the "Other Ancient Accounts' section, (as indicated in the talk section above). This is good, but I would suggest once the sources are located, that they be put back into the article. Modern accounts of Atlantis... definitely need sourcing too if they are to be considered at all. Drakonicon 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to adding a "pseudoscientifc theories" section, simply because it would attract many wacky, unsourced contributions and touch off annoying disputes about verifiability and reliability of sources.

It's not really WP's job to "point thinkers in a new direction"; its mission is to record what reliable sources say about the topic.

If any "ancient astronauts" theory is to be in this article (something which I would oppose), it certainly wouldn't belong in the "ancient accounts of Atlantis" section, which is where User:Tjchase put it. The placement of an esoteric theory at the top of a page, especially without sourcing, smells of advocacy, not encyclopedism. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Drakonicon 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Serious?

I have altered the following text... "Some are more or less serious attempts at legitimate scholarly or archaeological works; others have been made by psychic or other pseudoscientific means."

I'm sure the individuals that used psychic or pseudoscientific means were just as serious about their attempts to locate Atlantis as the scholarly or archaelogical efforts. Kiwichipster 03:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That has been my suggestion; but as Akhilleus has pointed out, there have been numerous channelled, psychic, intuitive, and other sorts of information presented for this article as legitimate research into the 'myth' of Atlantis; theories that are often pretty wild. I still think Cayce's medical clairvoyance, and talk of Atlantis has as much to offer as Francis Bacon's novelisation of Atlantis. Bacon presents an ideology - so do scholars of Cayce's work. Proving the value of Cayce's contribution to the Atlantis legend requires couching his knowledge systems in terms of scientific legitimacy. I believe that 30 000 Cayce 'medical' case studies, which often include affadavits and statutory declarations made by doctors and patients, indicates that he was an excellent diagnotician, with a keen eye for the psychological ramifications his recommendations would have on his 'clients'. The modern Atlantis legend is much broader than archeological island location hypotheses. I advocate for a brief list of other possible sources of Atlantean information, just to give an indication as to how much psychological impact 'Atlantis' has had worldwide. I dont pretend that this is an easy job.Drakonicon 09:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it immensely interesting that American President Woodrow Wilson consulted Cayce (Harmon Hartzell Bro, A Seer Out Of Season, p (?? ), while in office. Star quality? or something more? Drakonicon 09:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

content from German article

I'd like to translate most of content of the German article on Atlantis and add it to this article right here. I started today, and it probably takes a couple of days until I completed it. I started today with a translation of the German introduction of the article, and will continue (most likely) tomorrow with the description Plato gave on Atlantis in Critias and Timaeus. Does anyone disagree with that? --Bender235 23:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So far it's a definite improvement, although there are a few typos/punctuation problems. However, at least in the "Other ancient accounts" section (which I just restored after an act of vandalism), I hope you will merge rather than simply replace, as that section is fairly well sourced; also, for the sections dealing with Atlantis in modern culture, we need to be sure to focus on writers in English, so hopefully the German article isn't too Germanocentric. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The translation is an improvement in many fields, but I have to emphasize, that not only the parts supporting the invention hypothesis (the favorite of Bender235) are expected to be translated. I added now some smaller infos breaking up the strict support of the invention hypothesis. Most, but not all scholars are in favour of the invention hypothesis. We discussed this in years on the German page. --Athenaios 15:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with what Athenaios is saying, no matter if it was discussed on the German Wikipedia. Perahaps we should sort out exactly what's meant by the "invention hypothesis" and which scholars aren't in favor of it. As far as I know, there are no classical scholars who think that Plato was reporting actual history, and few who think that he was reporting a story that he heard from somewhere else. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, and I agree. But Athenaios doesn't, and that's why we argued on this topic for years. Indeed, basically all scholars are supporting the "invention hypothesis" - which means Plato totally created Atlantis on his own, using contemporary events (Helike, Sicily expedition, Graeco-Persian wars, ...) and states (Sparta, Syrakus, Persia, Carthage, ...) as inspiration (more or less). But indeed, there are some scholars who disagree. Eberhard Zangger, for example, who argues that Atlantis and the war between it and Athens are based on an Egyptian Trojan war tradition, brought to Athens by Solon. Or John V. Luce, who argues that Platon himself saw an Egyptian account of the Thera eruption and took it for Atlantis. These opinions are the very minority among classical scholars, but Athenaios want them to appear in this article (like he wanted them to appear in the German article). --Bender235 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In the German article we have a three-folded part of criticism against the ruling invention hypothesis:

• Philologic criticism: Doubts deriving from the text, but this criticism does not state alternative hypthoteses (Zangger, Luce, Brandenstein e.g.).
• Derivation criticism: Maybe the story came from Egypt, but is anyway not true.
• Existance hypotheses: Atlantis is real history (again: Zangger, Luce, Brandenstein).

Maybe this would be the best approach to present the criticism. The improvement is, that the ideas of Zangger etc. are not dismissed only by dismissing their location hypothesis. Zangger's and others' criticism is not fully invalidated by invalidating their location hypotheses.

--Athenaios 13:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Zangger is a geoarchaeologist, not a classical scholar. His work on the historical geology of Greece is often cited, but few (if any) scholars writing about Atlantis in English cite Zangger. In my opinion, he isn't notable. I can't find anything about Brandenstein in English. I had forgotten about Luce, but I think that he is worth mentioning in this article. However, the "existence hypothesis" is a position held by only a small number of classical scholars, and should not be given undue weight. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What sources should be given the most weight? Classical scholarship is one part of the solution. Archeologists are certainly doing the practical work of exploring the earth and waters for evidence. I wonder why "few (if any) scholars writing about Atlantis in English cite Zangger." Having not read Zangger, but finding a blurb for his book Flood from Heaven..., it seems that he 'solves' the Atlantean location hypothesis. At least the advertisement for his book suggests this: "A geoarchaeologist solves the mystery of Atlantis. The author has discovered the true nature of Plato's story by drawing on modern science, legends and ancient poetry. The story of Atlantis is in actuality an ancient Egyptian account of the Trojan War." from [[1]] Another Final Solution.

As editors, we are implicitly judging classical scholarship, and every article in Wikipedia, from inception, is formulated with original research. Our act of gathering evidence from the right scholars is contributing to an original whole. In being 'encyclopedic' with our research, doesn't every valueable source of information need to be referred to? We implicitly place value on what is good and bad, by our own standards and life experiences. Geoarchaeology, historical geology, and oceanography are important points of reference in this article. I'm just not sure of Zangger's Atlantean 'solution'. Yes, he is not a classical scholar, but I'm sure he has read Plato to compare classical written knowledge systems with his practical geological investigations. Zangger, in this case necessarily, uses a multidisciplinary approach to establish his solution, much like Donnelly used comparative religion and modern science (as of 1882) to draw conclusions. How is he qualified to compare 'modern science' with 'ancient poetry'? How is any scholar qualifed to perform cross-disciplinary research? Locating Atlantis in place and legend is quite an art, it appears, from attempts by researchers I have encountered thus far.Drakonicon

I agree with presenting another view of the invention hypothesis (the "three-folded part of criticism against the ruling invention hypothesis" cited by Athenaios above. Some of the reasoning for this is presented below in the 'Plato's Invention Hypothesis' section.Drakonicon 06:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so concerned about the article being Germanocentric... I more concerned about it being Eurocentric. Yes, this is an English language article, but Plato was Greek, so we are relying on translations by classical philologists for our information here anyway. A bit of a tall order fantasy for me, but it would be nice if we could glean relevant findings from Japanese, and Icelandic cultures, and the map collectors who contributed their finds to the Finland National Library (to name a few). Simply put: lets explore the other Wiki-articles on Atlantis (location) written in other languages. Can anyone here read Spanish? or Italian? or Mandarin? The German translation work has already been quite fruitful, I find.Drakonicon 06:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The role of classical scholarship in this article is straightforward. For each topic, Wikipedia should be based on the opinion of experts; when looking at Plato and other Greek literature, the opinions of classical scholars and philosophers should have most weight, because this is the area of their expertise. Since Zangger is a geoarchaeologist, his opinion should be given less weight; his expertise lies in geological formations, not literature, philosophy, or even architecture and ancient city planning. If Zangger had been cited with approval by classical scholars, then he'd be deserving of inclusion here; but as far as I can see Zangger's work has had little impact on the scholarly community. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think my point is, that relying solely on interpretations of classical histories, written in Greek and Latin literatures for 2500 years is one way of looking at what Atlantis is. Considering this article seems to be a general overview of the term 'Atlantis', would it make sense to refer briefly to people like Zangger, as an example of an expert investigating the geographical-historical location of Atlantis? Maybe Zangger should be simply relocated to that particular Wikipedia article - Atlantis (location theories)? The invention hypothesis does indicate that Atlantis is a product of Plato's imagination; but it is simply a hypothesis about what Plato thinks.Drakonicon 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree with the three-folded structure of criticism or not? Single names are not of importance. Brandenstein was an Austrian scholar for ancient languages. --Athenaios 15:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Individual names are of importance; if a theory is widely held, we should be able to name prominent adherents (thus says the NPOV policy). There aren't prominent adherents of the so-called derivation and existence hypotheses, with the possible exception of Luce; and few classicists I've seen agree with his theory. So I am not pleased with the three-folded structure Athenaios sets out, because it appears to give undue weight to the views of a tiny minority.--Akhilleus (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well cant Athenaios's 'three-folded structure' be mentioned in the article, in passing, as an example of a minority classicist view?Drakonicon 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section on Plato should set out a short summary of what the Timaeus and Critias say about Atlantis, then have another section that explains that most scholars believe Atlantis is Plato's invention, with some detail on the arguments of individual scholars (perhaps Vidal-Naquet, Gill, and Morgan). Then mention Luce's theory, in brief. Of course, it should be mentioned that while the majority of scholars believe that Atlantis never existed, the general public tends not to listen to them, but rather eagerly devours the news of each discovery of Atlantis... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, there is implicit bias in the use of the ideas that 'most scholars believe' (so if you are not a 'scholar of classical literature', you will not understand how to think about Atlantis), and the general public eagerly devouring the news each discovery of Atlantis (implying that the general public having uninformed 'herd-instincts' about truth and reality). I suppose basically, what we are exploring here is: some scholars believe Atlantis exists, other scholars believe it never existed. And both sides should be presented. But I agree with the 'major scholarship/ minor incredulity' structure of the article suggested above by Akhilleus. Drakonicon 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This kind of reminds me of the "debate" between Darwinists and those who favor ID. The latter want the debate to be mentioned, to make the people believe there's an ongoing dispute and biologists do not know whether Darwin's theory or ID is true. Of course that is nonsense, and even American courts ruled the ID to be religious, not scientific.

Athenaios is one of those who want to make us believe that there is an ongoing debate among classicists whether Atlantis is true or fictional. But this is nonsense, too. --Bender235 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes! The Darwinism vs ID "debate" is certainly one way to explain my ideas here. Religion vs. Science in a court of law. An 'argument battle' (as Edward De Bono might indicate in How To Have A Beautiful Mind.). There is an ongoing dispute, and I believe there is controversy concerning how scientific evidence to support Darwin's claims have been found, reported, and argued under peer review. Michael Cremo's book Forbidden Archaeology suppossedly cites a number of instances where scientific evidence that might dramatically change the archeological record of human ancestors, has been deliberately lost, misplaced or completely overlooked or maligned by scientists whose reputations, careers, and personal theories may be threatened as a result of these new paleontological evidences found by genuine research. Cremo's book, in my mind, is an example of what Thomas Kuhn was referring to about scientific paradigm creations and maintenance, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Yes Cremo's book is 'one' book of ideas. And Darwinism as been proving and arguing with religionists for over 100 years.Drakonicon 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not so much that biologists do not know whether Darwinian evolution or ID is true; I am fairly sure biologists follow the tenets of Darwin's evolution to explore ideas about the world. Is might be clearer to say that biologists hold a different worldview compared to religionists about the origins of man, the origins of consciousness, the mind being an emergent property of the structure and function of biological processes operating in the world. For example, The Pope and Charles Darwin might hold different views about the way the world operates, and how to think, feel, and live; it does not mean that either of them are right or wrong , or holder a 'truer' version of reality. One prefers to think scientifically, the other prefers to think metaphysically. Both have a right to hold these views.Drakonicon 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is not an ongoing debate among classicists whether Atlantis is truth, based on truth, or fiction. The central classical conclusion I am seeing in this talk page focusses on what Plato said, and how Plato thinks... which again... is guesswork. We can report what Plato said, and what other thinkers have said about their cultural and historical ideas, and about what they think Plato said. Basically we cannot know whether Plato was reporting truth, or creating fiction to tell a moralistic and imaginative story. I suppose to locate truth, maybe we need to get to the modern science of geo-archaeology, oceanography, or something similar. Because the invention hypothesis about Plato is good, but so are the reports that Plato was writing about a lost civilisation, not simply fantasising about his ideal city-state.Drakonicon

I read the entire Atlantis article again last night and I believe it reveals excellent scholarship at the moment. Lots of wonderful and inciteful links to classical thinkers that lead me on journey into thought, history, and biography. And that is what I like most about Wikipedia - the wide a varied presentations of belief, truth, possibilities, and probabilities cited. Great work guys! Keep it up.Drakonicon 09:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)