Talk:Location hypotheses of Atlantis/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hübner

Just a note to say that we can't add corroborating material, that is WP:OR. I deleted the last sentence from his article as it doesn't seem to come from Hübner, and it appears that "The semitic g-d-r means enclosure, fortification and sheep fold" doesn't either, is that correct? Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is part of the [1] paper, section 2.2.1.11 RI11:

"The Tamazight word Gadir derives etymologically from the Semitic g-d-r, which means wall (Kossmann, TBP), fortification, enclosure (Vycichl, 1952) and sheep fold and, as a new hypothesis, also island in a figurative sense (see section 3.7 ). The meaning of enclosure, sheep fold corresponds to the Greek translation of the name Gadeiros (Crit. 114b) which is Eumelos = Rich in Sheep (Perseus Digital Library, 2008)." Truemate (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be clear that he is using this then, I think. Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, therefore I'll re-insert that sentence. Truemate (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Added a picture of the mentioned harbour remains Truemate (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Added a picture of the 'island of atlas' according to hübner's hypothesis Truemate (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernie Bamford West Madeira location

While browsing Google Earth, aeronautical engineer Bernie Bamford, found what he believed to be a huge man-made underwater site south-west from the Madeira Island. Archeologist of New York State University Dr. Charles Orser said: "The site is one of the most prominent places for the proposed location of Atlantis, as described by Plato. Even if it turns out to be geographical, this definitely deserves a closer look."

The source can be found here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2255989.ece#ixzz0w4hVsYNd

But the coordinates in Google Maps are here: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=31.770208,-23.988647&spn=3.376099,4.938354&t=h&z=8

Leandro Dias user:leandrodias —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

Wow. That is freaking amazing. That square is about 60-80 miles on a side. Interesting to see what will come of it. Besides the obvious (that it was taken by faulty equipment, human error, incomplete mapping, or a geological oddity), the only thing I can think of that would cause that is an artificial structure that was sunk (which I consider impossible), or that the western african plate is lower than it used to be (a near impossibility for our time frame). Although there's a remote chance that maybe there was an abscess below that part of the plate and it collapsed, but I would expect that to be displayed in at least sediment records around the ocean or something. And the ocean level would have dropped significantly, and the destruction caused by a tidal wave of that size would leave traces. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See [2] where it is shown to be an 'artifact' of the process of ocean-sounding. This isn't unusual. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This should rather be included in the FOAF tales, urban legend or hoax article than here. Truemate (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

References

I was specifically looking at Malta, but going over the references section, it seems there are a lot of small fan sites (nothing from major news or academic institutions) and a whole lot from offline sources. The offline sources are hard to verify, and easy to fake. Additionally, offline sources could be made by an author that is not entirely reputable.

I think that the article needs to be locked for editing (since there shouldn't be many new hypothesis on the subject, and vital information can be posted on the discussion page) and the entire article needs a source scrub. 98.127.168.159 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason we can protect the article, but the source issue is one that can be addressed. Would you like to be more specific? Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug!

Will you allow the Wikiversity Atlantis Location Hypothesis Location hypotheses of Atlantis (section) as follows? I didn't know where else to ask, as the site is fairly confusing. Or, maybe somebody else must submit it. Just let me know.

Atlantis in the Azores

Thanks!

RAYLEIGH22 (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Bolivia

Why are you removing information about the Bolivia/South America location? The page is about Atlantis Location Hypothesis, using “OR” and “promoting Jim Allen” is just an excuse for reducing the site which has the highest number of similarities to Plato’s description to a mere five lines, while allowing extended paragraphs to other sites which are equally “OR” or promoting the name of their proposer and have little correspondence to Plato’s text.

Wikipedia defines Original Research as “The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources".

The deleted entry included references to Wikipedia’s own entries as well as to original Spanish books identifying South America as Atlantis. So are you saying Wikipedia’s own pages are themselves “OR”? 94.196.228.254 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to Neutral Point of View?

In a page about Atlantis hypotheses, don’t you think it relevant to include that South America was first identified as Atlantis by Spanish historians shortly after the conquest and identified as such on maps by well established European mapmakers of the period as mentioned on the deleted article, or do you wish to deny the public this information as well?

Yes, I am saying that we cannot use Wikipedia articles as references. And you can't use this article to argue for a particular location, it's just a list of suggested location with a brief bit about the reasoning behind it. There may well be problems with other parts of the article, in fact I'm sure there are. And you need to read WP:SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Americas

I note there are different editions of both the Munster maps and the Sanson maps also with a variety of incorrect dates and attributions.

I checked the link inserted to the Sanson mapseller page, the comment “shows the Earth 200,000 years ago before its settlement by humans” seems to be the opinion of the mapseller. I see nothing on the actual map that states this, merely that it shows the “Atlantis Island” with reference to the Timaeus and Critias in the corners and the cartography is typical of the period in which it was made.

There is a better version of the map on the Portuguese version of the Wikipedia site http://pt.fantasia.wikia.com/wiki/Atl%C3%A2ntida

Zarate is slightly ambiguous stating that Atlantis included all of what is now call North and South America but also that people came to Peru from the island of Atlantis.

Gamboa is more specific describing a calculation of longitude to demonstrate that Atlantis began at the Straight of Gibraltar and extended to include all of South America including Peru with the sunken part being in the Atlantic Ocean… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.19.116 (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your personal commentary concerning the Sanson map, see WP:NOR. I'm concerned that you consider the John Carter Brown Library, possibly the most important library in the world for material linked to the discovery of the Americas, to be a bookseller. I've also asked you to verify that your citations say what you've added, would you please provide the relevant quotations. You may be right but the sources I found just said land bridge. If he's ambiguous, perhaps we should make that clear. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the previous link for the Sanson map went to the mapseller “Auction and Gallery, PAULUS SWAEN.COM” http://www.swaen.com/antique-map-of.php?id=2985 but I see you have now changed it to the John Carter Brown Library. All the same, I am curious to know where the figure of 200,000 years comes from, is it the opinion of whoever wrote the notes on the John Carter Brown page, or was it stated as such by the original mapmaker?

You may like to consider inserting an image of the map on the Hypotheses Location page and/or the main Atlantis page.

Here is part of the text of Zarate “The Discovery and History of Peru” ( trans by J.M. Cohen, Penguin Classics 1968) “no one will deny that the island of Atlantis began from the straits of Gibraltar or a little beyond Cadiz, and extended across that great expanse which from north to south and from east to west is larger than Africa and Asia combined. The islands mentioned by Plato as visited by traders are surely Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Jamaica and others in that region; and the mainland facing them is what we know today as the Tierra Firme and all its provinces, starting from the Magellan straits and running north to the land of Peru, the province of Popayan, Castilla de Oro, Veragua, Nicaragua, Guatemala, New Spain, the Seven Cities, Florida and the Cod islands, and running up from there to join Norway. Beyond all doubt, there is more land here than in all the populated earth known to us before its discovery. And it is not difficult to understand why it was not discovered before now by the Romans or other nations which at various times occupied Spain. For we must suppose that the seas remained so rough as to prevent navigation.” “I believe it was Plato's authority that led to the discovery of these lands, and that they can certainly be identified with the mainland of which he speaks. For they show all the signs that he attributes to his continent, particularly that of being close to the true sea, which is what we now properly call the Southern Sea” “I can see no difficulty in assuming that many peoples crossed by this route, both from the great island of Atlantis and from the other islands which were approached from it. They could have come to Peru either overland across the continent or, if this were too difficult, across the Southern Sea.”

Here is a part from Sarmiento de Gamboa’s “History of the Incas”, translated by Sir Clements Markham, The Hakluyt Society, Cambridge University Press, 1907 History of the Incas… III.DESCRIPTION OF THE ANCIENT ATLANTIC ISLAND. “The Atlantic Island began less than two leagues from the mouth of the strait… the Atlantic Island was larger than Asia and Africa. From this I deduce its size, which is incredible or at least immense. It would give the island 2300 leagues of longitude, that is from east to west. It would include and incorporate the Canary Islands which, according to this calculation, would be part of it, and from thence the land trended south-west. As regards the south, it would extend rather more to the south and south-south-west, finally following the route by which we go when we sail from Spain to the Indies, forming a continent or main land with these western Indies of Castille, joining on to them by the parts stretching south-west, and west-south-west, a little more or less from the Canaries. Thus there was sea on one side and on the other of this land, that is on the north and south, and the Indies united with it, and they were all one. The proof of this is that if the Atlantic Island had 2300 leagues of longitude, and the distance of Cadiz to the mouth of the river Marañon or Orellana and Trinidad, on the coast of Brazil, is, not more than 1000, 900, or 1100 leagues, being the part where this land joined to America, it clearly appears that, to complete the complement of 2300 leagues, we have to include in the computation all the rest of the land from the mouth of the Marañon and Brazil to the South Sea, which is what they now call America.” “From all this it may be inferred that the Indies of Castille formed a continent with the Atlantic Island, and consequently that the same Atlantic Island, which extended from Cadiz over the sea we traverse to the Indies, and which all cosmographers call the Atlantic Ocean because the Atlantic Island was in it, over which we now navigate, was land in ancient times.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.16.106 (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these. It would be interesting to know more about the 200,000 years before humans comment came from, but the source meets our criteria at WP:RS. I'll look at your post above more later on when I have time. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Some more from Samiento de Gamboa on “Atlanticas”… (On the division of the World into five parts by geographers)... The fifth part is or was called the Atlantic Island, as famous as extensive, and which exceeded all the others, each one by itself, and even some joined together. The inhabitants of it and their description will be treated of, because this is the land, or at least part of it, of these western Indies of Castille.

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE ANCIENT ATLANTIC ISLAND. “The cosmographers do not write of this ancient Atlantic Island because there was no memory, when they wrote, of its very rich commercial prosperity in the second, and perhaps in the first age. But from what the divine Plato tells us and from the vestiges we see which agree with what we read, we can not only say where it was and where parts of it were, as seen in our time, but we can describe it almost exactly, its grandeur and position.”

V. INHABITANTS OF THE ATLANTIC ISLAND. “I now proceed to our principal point, which is to establish the conclusion that as these people (of Atlantis) carried their banners and trophies into Europe and Africa which are not contiguous, they must have overrun the Indies of Castille and peopled them, being part of the same main land.”

VI. THE FABLE OF THE ORIGIN OF THESE BARBAROUS INDIANS OF PERU, ACCORDING TO THEIR BLIND OPINIONS. “One thing is believed among all the nations of these parts, (Peru) for they all speak generally and as well known of the general flood which they call _uñu pachacuti_. From this we may clearly understand that if, in these parts they have a tradition of the great flood, this great mass of the floating islands which they afterwards called the Atlanticas, and now the Indies of Castille or America must have begun to receive a population immediately after the flood,…” “This must have been done by divine Providence, through the first people coming over the land of the Atlantic Island, which was joined to this, as has been already said.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.54.14 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Middle eastern map

Hi. Should we include this map in the article? It places the Biblical placenames (Documentary hypothesis) of Caphtorim and the Philistines underwater in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Is it suitable for one of the current mentions of Atlantis? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Archaeological support for the Andalusian location

This news item provides some information on excavations of a buried city in one possible Atlantean location. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Tartessos?

Hi. Archaeologists have found relics near the Guadalquivir River mouth in Spain[4] and this information could be added to the "Southern Spain" hypothesis as well as the map. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

err, yes. That's what I said, yesterday. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Caveat emptor - let's be cautious about these new claims

Looks like they are getting a lot of publicity, but it's concerning that Freund suggests the Atlanteans may have founded civilization [5]. See also Eric Cline's review of a booklet of his [6]. Freund and his colleagues are advisors to Simcha Jacobovici [7]. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one to think this is the same site as Kühne's, see [8]. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, but the difference here, and the reason it has received actual, notable media coverage, is that it is based on real scientific surveys, and actual data and evidence, which were analyzed by professionals. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've replied elsewhere, it's not up to us to pronounce on 'real science'. Sarmast made similar claims, as have others, many of which have been debunked. It got media coverage because Atlantis always does, and National Geographic loves this stuff, it makes money for them. When geologists and archaeologists comment on this we can add that, meanwhile we should not add our personal commentary. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a buried city in an Atlantean candidate location. It's interesting as a result of that (and in its own right) but no one can say whether it is Atlantis or not in the absence of compelling evidence. And Wikipedia certainly shouldn't claim that this city is definitely Atlantis. However given the topic of this article, there is nothing wrong with stating that this particular location does contain a buried city. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I hear your point, but we are simply reflecting the widespread, notable media coverage which does depict this as a genuine hypothesis for Atlantis. there is much basis in Wikipedia procedures for us to use that as a valid basis. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Derek, would you also please see the discussion at Atlantis on whether we can effectively call this 'real science'. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Doug, it's difficult to call anything connected with Atlantis 'real science'. If that were Wikipedia's sole criteria for inclusion, we'd have to remove a lot of the current Atlantean articles. Notability is the criterion to use here. But I have no problem with your call to be cautious about these claims. It never does any harm to wait and see what arises. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It's the edit at Atlantis reverted here for discussion which said "A very small number of theories are based on scientific surveys and empirical data which was analyzed by experts with professional credentials" among other things that I was unhappy about. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC):

Dismissed by the Spanish researchers working on the site. [9] - looks like it's Freund's own film that National Geographic showed. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish team

Just removed this, but I think it can be replaced using [10] so that there is more context. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tartessos claims are included under Andalucia in the "Mediterranean" section. They are outside the Mediterranean - shouldn't that section be moved? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any comment I've now clarified this basic geographical point in the text. Tartessos is not "in" the Mediterranean, it is beyond it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Atlantipedia

Whoever the idiot is who keeps removing Atlantipedia, please stop it. It's a highly useful and legitimate site. Unlike ATlantis ARchives which is is out of date and used solely as a vehicle to promote Andy McDermott's novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.25.6.27 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to promote websites. The site has an Alexia rating of 12,472,127 and has links from 4 sits as I recall. It's also a personal website. It doesn't belong here - you are right about Atlantis archives, I've already removed several sites that are already linked, blogs, etc but missed that one. So I'll remove it as well as atlantipedia. You can appeal at WP:ELN if you think it meets our criteria and should be here. It's a bad idea to call editor's names, and my reasons were given in my edit summary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

^This is hidden from the page view for some reason, I don't know why, click edit to see what I mean. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 13:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That was the result of erroneous wikicode for hidden text. I've fixed it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mongolia?

Now I am pretty sure that one of the suggested locations in this incredibly lulzy topic was Mongolia, yet I see no info here on this page. Why? By the way, I just finished reading and closely examining Ulf Erlingsson's "book" Atlantis from a Gerographer's Perspective. I don't think I've ever read a more unscientific piece of garbage in my entire life. Anything else need to be added to his entry? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Atlantis Found?

It should be noted that a Times article (Newsweek?) mentions Archealologists using satilite imagery revealed a "three-ringed foundation" approximate to the location where Plato described. 108.38.126.227 (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean that silly story about Simcha Jacobavici (not an archaeologist) finding a sandbar in Spain? Isn't that covered already? Also, that location is wrong. Plato said in front of the Pillars of Heracles, he meant right in front of the Strait of Gibraltar (aka the Pillars of Heracles). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Did Plato tell you that? Quite an extraordinary claim to know what Plato meant when a couple of millennia worth of academics have failed to agree on what he meant. Insipid qualifiers like "silly" are also impolite and serve only to frighten away people who have as much right as you to be here. Shame on you. As I understand it, the findings of the team are still awaiting publication later this year so either confirmation or refutation can wait until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.184.143 (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

World Maps?

If any serious effort to locate Atlantis is really out there, one of the primary thinks that must be established is what either Solon or the Egyptians knew about the world. Some reference to the "ancient world maps" article seems prudent. To this I will add that Anaximander (the title holder for 2nd oldest known "world map" author) was contemporary to Solon. It is entirely possible that the "Pillars of Hercules" known to Solon differed from what Anaximander knew. (Or, since we only have reconstructed maps from posthumously translated texts, even Anaximander may not have known our Straits of Gibraltar as the "Pillars of Hercules") The Sardinia theory makes the most sense in the context of an alternate "Pillars of Hercules" location...

The two things to begin a hunt for the "real" Atlantis: The pillars of Sais Egypt and Anaximander's Map.

Timeline anchors?

Since chariots are referred to in the legend, theories before 2000 BC (where the origin of chariot culture began above the Black Sea) are invalidated unless chariots were added as a Hellenism by Plato (etc). (Removing chariot culture would also remove the iconic winged horses that accompanied the statue of Poseidon and therefore Atlantis would be short many of the attributes that make it distinct according to the account.)

North Africa addition

I am impressed by Ulrich Hofmann's analysis of the mythology of Lake Tritonis (which he locates in the Chott el Jerid of Algerian and Tunisia) and their relation to the Gulf of Gabes. We have yet to see such a rational explanation for the "impassible muddy ocean" that Plato describes as "still existing" at least as of the time of Solon. Added to the hierarchical constraint data from Michael Hubner this region is very compelling. http://www.atlantis-scout.de/HofmannU_2005_AtlantisBronzeAgeMetropolisNorthAfrica.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.182.2 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The following location:

http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=33.96187,9.80800&z=17&t=S&marker0=33.70000%2C8.43000%2CChott%20el%20Djerid&marker1=33.96187%2C9.80800%2C6.9%20km%20N%20of%20El%20Hamma

N 33.96187 E 9.80800

6.9 km N of El Hamma, 29.8 km WxNW of Gabès, 44.8 km SW of Skhira

has an annular land feature and apparently several man-made sites that look like the relics of old city sections.

This area is still designated as a part of a water feature in topographic maps.

It is in close proximity to Gafsa which used to be called Capsa (see) that was founded by the "Libyan Hercules" and lies between two mountains... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Would this related wiki article about Paul Borchardt who also proposed Tunisia as the location be notable enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Borchardt

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

About the Minoan theory

The following text in the theory of Thera is incorrect: "The ancient Greek for "between" and "larger" are easily confused in transcription and translation, so "larger than Europe and Libya," might have originally read "between Europe and Libya," which is how Classical Greeks would have described Thera and Crete."

Plato's description never says "Europe and Libya" (whatever is the previous adverb), but "Asia and Libya". I ignore if this is a mistake or a intended and biased invention, and so it must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.1.28 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I saw, this is already corrected. --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Plato's atlantida nesos as the Island of Meroe in North Sudan (ancient Land of Kush)

Please can you read my article (in three parts) on my web site : http://www.antiqua91.fr/atlantis_en.html and add my hypothesis among this long list of already proposed locations. I made this communication for the first time in Athens 2008 Second International Conference "Atlantis : Searching for a lost land." T.G.86.69.146.224 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Two articles or Two "Sections"

I think that this article aught to be broken into two main areas:

1) Ice Age Atlantis (literalism)
2) Bronze Age Atlantis (interpretive)

The latter being more inherently plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.244.10 (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of weblinks

I just was not allowed to add my weblink collection and saw, that even atlantipedia is not allowed, here, because of several reasons, see above. So I just made a review on all weblinks and removed all weblinks, which do not fit the pattern and arguments mentioned in the talks above. As far as I can see, only the conference weblinks can fulfill the criteria from above. Maybe, this will help re-thinking the principles for the weblinks on this page. If you want to re-add a link, give a reason. --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We talk of these weblinks:

Good but forbidden, because not good enough (according to above):

PS Added: Alexa pagerank (in millions) and further comments:

Atlantipedia _____3,7 relativly good although not in wikipedia; much better now than in April 2011 (see above)
Systematic Weblink Collection _____22,6 (reasons to add this page: See below)
International Conference Atlantis 2011 , Santorini/Greece _____2,8 relativly good although not in wikipedia

Not good enough (according to above), but were on the page

Atlantis article from about.com _____0,2 (skeptic - with eye-catching advertisments)
The Atlantis Archives _____15,8 low rank although in wikipedia / and: eye-catching advertisments!
Lost-civilizations.net _____0,8
Atlantis: No way, No how, No where — Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal _____0,004 (skeptic - with eye-catching advertisments)
Skeptics dictionary _____0,006 (skeptic - only Google advertisments, most factual, with further skeptic weblinks)

Antarctica was Atlantis _____0,7
Atlantis in the Atlantic based on writings of Helena Blavatsky _____0,7
Plato's Atlantis: an Iberian-Mauretanian Emporium. The Metropolis before of the mouth of Gibraltar _____24,5 (low rank although in wikipedia)
Indonesia/Sundaland was Atlantis - Prof. Arysio Nunes Santos' website _____1,1
Atlantis in Israel _____no data
Atlantis-Bakhu _____no data
Atlantis sank beneath the Sea of Azov _____8,6

ANSA News, "Archaeology: Search for Tartessos-Atlantis in southern Spain," July 17, 2007.
BBC News, "Tsunami clue to 'Atlantis' found," August 15, 2005.
BBC News, "Have scientists really found the lost city of Atlantis?," November 15, 2004.
BBC News, "Atlantis 'obviously near Gibraltar'," September 20, 2001.

Suggestion for criteria

Relevance: Does the page provide information, other pages do not provide?
Quality: Does the page provide information of a "higher level"?

NB: What is a "higher level" will always be in doubt.

To ask for scientific level provides no clue in correspondance to the topic of this article, simply because most scientists doubt Atlantis at all, whereas some scientists (real scientists!) suggested location hypotheses, which are clearly not true.

So it will always be a question of discussion, which weblink is "good".

Public attention: Often contrary to quality, but Wikipedia has to show the world, as it is, especially in this article.
Scientific attention: Rarely given in this context, but sometimes, it is. Cf. Google Scholar and others.
Helpfulness: Does it help the reader?

NB: If no reasonable and willing and quickly proceeding discussion starts here, soon, I will consider the changes to be accepted and add the weblinks resp. delete some weblinks.

Suggestions to add pages

General pages:

International Conference Atlantis 2011 , Santorini/Greece _____2,8 Mio. rank. No advertisments.

The conferences clearly have to be mentioned, be they considered "good" or "bad". They are the most striking fact on the search of Atlantis.

Atlantipedia.ie _____3,7 Mio. rank. No advertisments.

Atlantipedia is the best provider of information on ongoing Atlantis search. There is no better one.

Atlantipedia.com _____13,4 Mio. rank. Eye-catching advertisments.

Another Portal on Atlantis.

Systematic Weblink Collection _____22,6 Mio. rank. No advertisments.

This weblink collection

has by far the most weblinks on Atlantis
is maintained, and no double weblinks;
non-existence hypotheses are put first, mystic hypotheses last.
Its systematic approach in categories and description fields ensures a high level of information.
Additionally Wikipedia covers 90% of all existing pages by this single weblink. Thus, it will be easier for Wikipedia to reject further weblinks by the argument, that they are contained, here, already - respectively, that everybody is invited to suggest additions to this systematic weblink collection, instead of spamming Wikipedia.
There are no advertisments on this page, in contrary to most of the other weblinks already there.

Yes, it is my page, but there are good reasons to add it.

Then, it makes sense to add some example weblinks to example hypotheses, e.g. the following (not important which one, but only few):

Suggestion hidden text

The following hidden text exists already on the page:

There are hundreds of Atlantis websites

some of which advocate a particular view of

Atlantis. Before adding another link, please

consider whether the particular hypothesis

you support has been adequately covered.

I suggest to replace it by the following hidden text:

CAUTION: Before adding a new weblink consider the following:

(a) There are thousands of pages on certain Atlantis hypotheses.

Naturally Wikipedia canot display all of them, but only very very few!

(b) There are thousands of general pages on Atlantis.

But only few of them reach a high level of quality.

THEREFORE: Do not just add a weblink, but go to talk page first!

If the weblink is not accepted:

(a) You can try to add a weblink into one of the few pages linked by Wikipedia.

(b) You can try to mention the hypothesis within the article's text and add a footnote with the weblink.

Further comments

Headlines: Can be shortened, in order to clarify the meaning.

First pages with general information. No pages on single theories.
Then pages on certain theories.

--Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Review: Better division of chapters

After closing the weblink review we can start another useful review:

Problems:

(1) There are two big chapters full of subchapters, and some small chapters with partly only one subchapter.

(2) The division of chapters does not always group hypotheses together, which are related, and do not reflect the idea behind the hypotheses.

Suggested Solution:

Following new main chapters are suggested,

which bring together hypotheses based on similar ideas, and grouping them in a more equal distribution on several chapters:

(Final titles to be discussed.)

Near to Egypt: Greece & West of Greece (Thera, Helike, Cyprus, Malta, Sardinia etc.).
Near to Egypt: East of Egypt & Greece (Turkey, Black Sea, Middle East).
Near to Gibraltar (Spain, Morocco, Spartel, Madeira).
Atlantic Ocean: North (Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden).
Atlantic Ocean: West (Azores, Canaries, Donnelly).
The Americas.
Other.

Pease add your thoughts on this! --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sea of Azov

I removed this section as the sourcing was poor, consisting of one unreliable source and one primary source. Please see WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And the primary source is self-published. The editor repeatedly adding this is a WP:SPA and taking into consideration the amount of detail added it looks promotional. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is totally false! that there could be no confusion between "greater than" and "in the center or middle of"

This is totally false! Anyone with minimal knowledge of Greek palaeography, knowing full well that neither in Plato's time or the time of Solon, the Greek Z, word meizon, "greater than," was never equal to the Greek S, or sigma. Both letters were written always very different,at least different enough so that there is no possibility of confusing the word Meizwn with the other inn, "in the midst of, in the middle, in the center." It is also true that Crete was described as being located in "the middle of Libya and Asia." That is a tremendous blunder alsobecause Asia began at the border with Egypt, Libya, therefore, Crete could only have said that it was in the middle of Libya and Europe, but never was in the middle between Libya and Asia. That's why no one cites sources about it, because are not exist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.18.83 (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)