Talk:List of lost lands

Still needs cleanup

Now, I sorted the various lost lands mentioned here in differend categories and described each category briefly. However, one or two remarks are rather un-encyclopaedic, since I was too tired to put them in a neutral form. Most of the previous parts would better fit in the other articles, Blavatsky, Churchward etc. belong either to the lost continents subsection or directly to Lemuria, Mu, etc. The philosophical influences only seem to aply to Atlantis and should be dealt with there. Concerning Hollow Erath I would leave it to Mrwuggs, since I don't know anything about it. --Zara1709 15:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Lost Continents

Rather than cleaning this up slightly I would suggest to merge it with the Lost Continents, since the best-known lost lands: Atlantis, Mu and Lemuria are the topic of that book anyway. There needs to be an article that gives an overview about the various Lost Continents, even only in form of a list. However, one could not say much more in that article, since almost every other stuff would better belong in the other different articles. For the lost planets one could make a seperate article, also for hollow earth. I would guess, there are books on these topics too. ;) If you agree, Mrwuggs, I could probably do it tomorrow.

Zara1709 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea. There are far more "lost lands" than there are "lost continents", and conceptually the ideas are not identical.--Gene_poole 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now really, there are already articels on phantom islands, on hypothetical planets(that needs cleanup too) and on Hollow Earth. I can see that the concepts are different, but since there is a good summarising study on Lost Continents I would rather link Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria, etc. there. --Zara1709 07:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning. What have phantom islands or hollow earth etc got to do with this? If you can see the concepts are different why are we even discussing a merge? Keeping the articles separate is no big deal. --Gene_poole 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the book Lost Continents seems to be an excellent source of information (which I would definatly like to see incorperated into the article to keep it from becoming a list)on the most talked about lost lands, I think the heart of the lost lands article is that it is a broad overview of a large body of semi-mythic places which have captured the imaginations of writers. In cleaning up this article, I suggest:

• We make a handful of sections giving a broad overview of the differnt ideas about lost lands, namely
  • Cities
  • Islands
  • Continents
  • Planets
  • Hollow Earth

then we offer links to the main articles.

• We incorperate information from DeCamp's book into the continents section, with a link to the book's article
• We make an authors section, with an overview of each authors contributions to the modern mythology of lost lands.
• We create a new page, List of books featuring lost lands, or something like that.
• We possibly use the hollow earth stuff here, which is essentially a rough timeline of how the myth grew from book to book, and make it into some kind of timeline section for the hollow earth page.

Thanks for taking an interest everyone. I'm sure we can make this article so much more informative if we work together. Mrwuggs 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. I just thought that there doesn't need to be an article on everything. --Zara1709 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is in danger of becoming a list

We need to either make it not a series of lists or seperate the list from the non-list content without destroying the article. Mrwuggs 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Airyana Vaejo and Skherya

Airyana Vaejo and Skherya have previously been added without any info. If you know anything about these, please contribute. Nurg 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Mythological places

There simply shouldn't be two articles on the same topic; we only need to agree on the correct title. I've could get an article by a religious scientists on "Lost Worlds" and use that as a reference, so if there are no other objects I am going to merge the two articles and move it to "Lost Worlds" then, as soon as I find the time. Zara1709 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lost lands and lost islands do exist. In the present article there is no clear distinction between fictional, mythical, prehistorical and historical lost lands. I agree that all the info on fictional and mythical lost land can be transferred to mythological places. But what remains deserves an article on its own. Especially historically registered lost lands (like Strand in Germany, or the not yet mentioned Verdronken Land van Reimerswaal in Holland) are worth mentioning. Rising sea levels during the last thousands of years made many inhabited place dissappear... Prehistoric lands and islands are a bit more difficult to seperate from the mythical ones, but it's doable. Pepijnk (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A lost land is a land (real or mythological) which has been lost, a mythological place is a land that is purely mythological and may or may not be lost (according to the myth). There is no reason to merge to separate topics. sheridan (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a good enough destinction to keep as a seperate article. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing merge template as it is over a year old and no censensus. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed wording

This is from the section, Phantom Islands:

...most phantom islands are the result of nautical errors.

"Nautical errors"? What does that mean? Did the editor perhaps mean navigational errors or cartographical errors? "Nautical errors" suggests that the sea itself made some kind of mistake. [EDIT] I see that the spin-off article, Phantom Islands, has a very similar sentence in the intro, but the precise wording is "navigational errors". Changing it here to match. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

I removed a lot of personal, uncited opinion which was also blessed with a very patronising tone. I only got as far as the mythological lands, from whence I removed a tautology: if its mythological, of course scientists dont believe it existed or else we'd call it historical. A grindstone is far superior to wikipedia for sharpening an axe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.36.170 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be a land lost in historic times be called?

Such as when Krakatoa exploded? Is there a term or is the lost land term to be used to describe the destroyed island?Wzrd1 (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Thule

• Lost lands figured prominently in the philosophy of the Nazi Thule society in regards to researchers of the occult and Nazi mysticism such as Karl Maria Wiligut, Heinrich Himmler and Otto Rahn.

I'm wondering what "in regards to" means here. Researchers are not usually a subject matter of philosophy, nor is it obvious how lost lands help account for them. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple problems - January 2018.

This article has a wide variety of problems with it.

1) It doesn't cite any sources in and sections beyond the article's introduction section, where it cites 2 sources.

2) Much-much worse, the latter sections have significant problems with factual accuracy. For example section Submerged lands gives the impression that Lemuria, Dvaraka and other mythical continents are real and did exist throughout some parts of history.

3) The aforementioned section also lists (all in one list!) minor uninhabbited Bagladeshi island submerged in 2010, a megacontinent submerged 20 mil years ago and actual Doggerbank that did indeed submerge in the historic era.

This all produces some inevitable clusterf*ck and should be cleaned up urgently, with proper care taken of pseudoscientific concepts (such as Lemuria). They certainly don't belong in a sections that starts with "Although the existence of lost continents in the above sense is mythical, there were many places on earth that were once dry land but submerged after the ice age around 10,000 BCE due to rising sea levels, and possibly were the basis for neolithic and bronze age flood myths."

4) And ofcourse this page also features Lost planets and Hollow Earth regions which don't really belong to this article either.

Karl.i.biased (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just replaced Lemuria with Kumari Kandam (which I think is what was being described anyways). Also removed Numenor from the list WTF. Do people not understand the difference between fiction and mythology anymore? 209.136.39.130 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. I'm sure you're right about Lemuria being mistake for Kumari Kandam. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Article scope

A recent edit restored a previous version of the lead which treats lost lands as an entirely mythological concept. Although this version uses language such as "believed by some to have existed" and "ruled impossible by current theories of geology", the list still includes real, scientifically-accepted places such as Doggerland and Ravenser Odd.

Additionally, Seven Cities of Gold was restored with a summary of "This is something significant that many people believed in." Whether or not people believed in its existence is beside the point; the entry was not supported by any source and there is no indication that anyone believed that it submerged or disappeared.

This article is in dire need of a sourced explanation of what a "lost land" actually is. Are we talking real places, fictional places, cartographic errors or all of the above? Which reliable sources tell us what to include or exclude from the list? –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)