Talk:Atlantis: The Antediluvian World

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

untitled

I was wondering if it were possible that a criticisms section might be compiled and written about this article since it seems unlikely that a book like this could make the claims it does without drawing some sort of academic scrutiny worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry. Also I'd like a second opinion on this statement made in the article:

"His book is divided into five parts: The History of Atlantis, The Deluge, The Civilization of the Old World and the New Compared, The Mythologies of the Old World A Recollection of Atlantis, and The Colonies of Atlantis. In his well organized book, he adequately links Atlantis to many societies including the Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Chinese, Ancient South American Indians, and Ancient Celts."

Adequate by whose standards? And I know that while his book may be well organized his links are indeed questioned in their adequacy by historians. Thats about all I have to say on this article for now. HuronKing -- 6:17, 1 August 2006 69.224.38.124

I'll have to agree, the article seems to be written in the style of a review, rather than an objective offering of information. --J4m3sb0nd (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science discusses Donnelly. Suffice it to say, that scientists never took it seriously, and that the rise of plate tectonics theory in the mid-20th century has shown that it has even more problems... AnonMoos (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

untitled

Who owns the rights to this book now - is it copyright-free? when it is sold on amazon for example where does the money go to? whom gets royalties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.171.64 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in public domain. When you buy a physical book then the money goes to whoever owned or produced the book. In the future please direct these kinds of questions to the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Article talk pages are only meant for discussing how to improve the article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050801095757/http://www.mayadiscovery.com/ing/history/default.htm to http://www.mayadiscovery.com/ing/history/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoarchaeology

The book should absolutely be classified as pseudoarchaeology regardless of whether it would have been understood as such at the time. Arguing otherwise would be like arguing to remove skeptical viewpoints in articles on dowsing or bloodletting.