Talk:Richat Structure/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ground photo

Require the ground photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.29.149 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 dic 2007

There were ground photos (for reference) here but user Mannheim_34 removed the link. In my opinion it was not a commercial page or spam (policy). If you agree, please restore it. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 12:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment

I don't think the Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment qualifies as a reliable source. The website http://www.chemenviron.net/ has "GOD IS..." in the upper-left corner, and its Instructions to Authors are worrying: "two experts" are required to give final approval, but there doesn't seem to be a full review process and it goes on to say, "The facts and views in the article will be of the authors and they will be totally responsible for authenticity, validity and originality etc." Melchoir (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

First, the abstract for Jesus et al. (2011) makes no mention of anything about this structure having been created by hypervelocity impact processes. It only mentions "volcanic, hydrothermal and arid environments" and "meteoric (low-temperature hydrothermal) origin for the source waters" in relation to the Richat Structure. In addition, the abstract also lacks any mention of the alleged alignment, which appears to be original research on the part of Mr. 83.44.199.232. Almost all of what Mr. 83.44.199.232 recently added to the Richat Structure article is unsupported by the abstract of Jesus et al. (2011).

Second, it should be noted that "meteoric" is also defined as "of, relating to, or derived from the earth's atmosphere, i.e. "meteoric water." Given the context of "(low-temperature hydrothermal)," it is clear that they are talking about ground or formation water unrelated to any sort of meteorite or asteroid impact.

Finally, whether this journal meets Wikipedia standards as a as a reliable source does need to be evaluated given what was noted above in the "instruction to Authors".Paul H. (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment

This journal is included in the Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) Web of Knowledge. Its impact factor is very low but you shouldn't discredit the journal as a whole. Nobody is arguing against the non-impactogenic hypothesis about Richat. Nobody is indicating that meteoric means "related to meteors". The article is a very specific and detailed geochemical and mineralogical study of the central megabreccias. The authors, in accordance with their results, suggest that further studies would be needed to shed light on the origin of Richat. Perhaps the origin of this structure is very clear for you, but other authors could disagree. This journal meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source (see http://www.connectjournals.com/subscription_info.php?bookmark=CJ-002887) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.65.152 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you one of the authors of the paper? Melchoir (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User 81.34.65.152 wrote; "Nobody is arguing against the non-impactogenic hypothesis about Richat. Nobody is indicating that meteoric means "related to meteors"." If you look at the changes made by User 83.44.199.232 at 18:44, 21 September 2011‎, you will find that he or she is definitely against a non-impactogenic origin for the Richat Structure. User 83.44.199.232 cites the Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment paper as if it somehow argues for it being a "crater-like structure" that could be associated with two well known impact craters. Yes, it is pure speculation on my part, but it just seems that the only way that anyone could argue that the Research Journal of Chemistry and Environment paper supports an impact origin for this structure in any manner is to confuse "meteoric" with being "related to meteors".Paul H. (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

User 81.34.65.152 also wrote, "but other authors could disagree." I am very interested in knowing specifically just who these "other authors could disagree" are and what they have published on the Richat Structure. As documented in published literature, extremely well-educated and experienced Earth scientists, including geologists with global reputations for their published research about extraterrestrial impact craters, have studied this structure in great detail and failed to find a single shred of petrographic or structural evidence for the Richat Dome being an impact structure and an overwhelming amount of evidence that it is associated with an carbonatite igneous intrusion. Given these findings, it would be very interesting to know exactly what evidence these (seemingly hypothetical) "other authors" have to argue that the Richat Structure is an impact structure. This evidence certainly includes neither the slightly elliptical shape of the Richat Dome nor the alleged alignment of it with two well documented impact structures that post-date the formation of the Richat Dome by 94 to 104 million years.Paul H. (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Discovery no longer mentioned?

Why no longer included is there mention of astronauts being 1st to notice this structure due to its size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.200.179 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim about astronauts being the 1st to discover the Richat Structure is no longer included because it is incorrect. The first published reports about the Richat Structure appear in 1948, 1952, and 1954 in French geological journals and publications. This structure was known by geologists years before Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth on April 12, 1961 and became the first person in space and Astronaut Alan Shepard became the second person in space on May 5, 1961. Thus, neither cosmonauts nor astronauts could have been the first to discover it as it had already been discovered by French geologists. Paul H. (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The earliest description of the Richat Structure that I have so far found is:

Richard-Molard, J., 1948, La boutonniere du Richat en Adrar mauritanien. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences. vol. 227, no. 2, pp. 142-143. Paul H. (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenoumer and Temimichat

The geomorphological linear correlation is real! Anyone can confirm it using google earth or a GPS simply linking the centre of the three structures: Tenoumer, Temimichat and Richat. In addition, the dating was not unequivocally demonstrated: it is just a congress contribution. The consensus appears to be an abligation in this case! The dome explanation is not enough to explain the features and processes of the Richat structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.248.1 (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the scientific consensus is that the Structure is not an impact crater, the claim that it is a crater related to Tenoumer and Temimichat requires specific attribution, not just a visual argument. Melchoir 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Even when the scientific consensus is that, is good to keep the reference to the other two craters, that are aligned with the Richat Structure. In this way it will keep alive hope for further "in situ" investigation, that could lead to new evidence.

The "consensus" is only apparent and extremely recent (after the article published in Geology). In addition, the argument is not only "visual ". The geomorphological linear correlation is real. It is a geographic and geologic fact! It would be necessary to explain the geological process which causes it to unequivocally rule out the existence of a genetic link of the three structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.95.2 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as "The geomorphological linear correlation is real," there are numerous problems, both in terms of Wikipedia policy and a technical nature. There is a complete absence of any sources that meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. The only sources that I have found simply base this correlation on nonscientific visual comparisons and lack any GIS, cartographic, or other scientific analysis of this assertion. As far as I have found, there is a complete lack of any reliable source according to Wikipedia standards that provides any scientific arguments and supporting evidence that the so-called "geomorphological linear correlation" is "real" or can be called a "fact" of any sort.

On the other hand, there are various peer-review papers, which repeatedly discredit the idea that there might be any relationship between the Richat Dome and either the Tenoumer crater and Temimichat impact craters. For example, Dietz et al. (1969) conducted a detail field examination of the Richat Dome and studied samples collected from it and failed to find any structural or petrographic evidence, including evidence of shock metamorphism, for it being an impact structure. As noted in Woolley (2001)'s summary and review of its geology, various previous studies have found exposed igneous dikes and carbonatite necks, which are incompatible with an impact origin but perfectly compatible with an underlying igneous intrusion having formed this structure, cutting across the strata of the Richat Dome. Woolley (2001) also documents that even in 2001, the general, even overwhelming, consensus among Earth scientists was the Richat Dome is clearly not an impact structure. In addition, the 99 million year old igneous rocks, which intrude the Richat Dome, show that it formed either at or before 99 million years ago (Matton 2008). This soundly refutes any ideas that its formation was in any way associated with the 21,400 ± 9,700 year-old Tenoumer crater and the Temimichat impact crater. The later crater, although undated, is certainly not 99 million years old based on regional geology and geomorphology.

References Cited:

Dietz, R. S., R. Fudali, and W. Cassidy, 1969, Richat and Semsiyat Domes (Mauritania): Not Astroblemes. Geological Society of America. vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 1367-1372.

Matton, G., 2008, The Cretaceous Richat Complex (Mauritania); a peri-Atlantic alkaline. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Universite du Quebec a Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Canada.

Woolley, A. R., 2001, Alkakline Rocks and Carbonities of the World, Part3: Africa. The Geological Society of London, London, United Kingdom.Paul H. (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I went to this web site: http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html. You can input the latitude and longitude of any two points, and it will give you the distance and bearing for the two points. So I put in the locations of Tenoumer, Temimichat and the Richat Structure, and they are several kilometers off-center. I don't know if you need or want the specific numbers, but it appears they are not in perfect alignment after all. ~NotWillRiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, I drew a line in Google Earth from the apparent center of the Richat Structure (21°07′28.85″ N 11°24′09.26″ W) to the apparent center of the Temimichat crater (24°14′54.12″ N 9°38′56.36″ W). The line does pass directly through the geometric center of the Tenoumer crater. However, it's worth noting that the Tenoumer crater appears (in Google Earth, at least - imagery date 2005-06-19) to have some sort of geological feature around 50m east of the geometric center that appears to be its geographic center - its ground zero, so to speak.Sandwich (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing Citation Format

Go see "Variation in citation methods" WP:CITEVAR, which states:

"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved." Paul H. (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Full blown conspiracists hitting this page

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/727910/Atlantis-found-Richat-Structure-Sahara-matches-Plato-claims-video

71.197.186.255 (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The idea of Atlantis itself is contentious.

One of the reasons there are not many sources for this is the fact the structure was not discovered until our own lifetime.

Montalban (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

A 2015 book "Meet Me in Atlantis: My Obsessive Quest to Find the Sunken City" by Mark Adams, p203 (Text Publishing; Melbourne) also raises this area in relation to Atlantis

I do not give the theory credence at all. I simply report what people say. This is the essence of Wikipedia - not to editorialise Montalban (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Montalban: what conspiracists? In any case, the main discussion is at Talk:Atlantis, please join there and tell us who the conspiracists are. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)]

The last few minutes, about 19:50, of the YouTube video, "The Lost City of Atlantis - Hidden in Plain Sight- Advanced Ancient Human Civilization", states that the lack of mention of Atlantis in the article about the Richat Structure and the lack of mention of the Richat structure in the Atlantis and Location of Atlantis articles is "disturbing." This video, which was recently posted to YouTube might be the source of the recent interest in Atlantis and the Richat Structure in Wikipedia. The basic "logic" of this video is that if a feature looks like "something," it qualifies as proof that that the feature is that specific "something." Using that "logic," it interprets linear sand dunes as proof of a tsunami that could have destroyed Atlantis and left the Richat Structure. This video basically rehashes and promotes Alexander's video, "Visiting Atlantis." Paul H. (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh god... That idiot described semi-protection as "only allowing certain unknown individuals the capability of editing the page".

If he'd just clicked on the lock icon, he could have seen what was going on. But then, that seems to be typical of this joker's methodology. "Take a quick look and then make a mighty leap to a conclusion that appeals to me!" Oh, here's a link to the video for anyone masochistic enough to want to watch it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Pants at work: It is editors like you who give Wikipedia such a bad reputation. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 15:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I keep hearing complaints on talk pages about how it has a bad reputation, yet still remains one of the most visited sites, is good enough to be used by search engines to supplement their search results, is becoming notable for its representation of fringe topics (with recent interest by Facebook and Youtube), etc... Of course, it comes at a price, including talk page debates... —PaleoNeonate – 19:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If I'm giving WP a bad reputation with the kinds of people who stop on by an article like this one to fail at copy and pasting and fail at behaving like a grown up, then I have to say that I'm pretty proud of that. It means I'm doing a good job keeping the woo out. So Thanks! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Geology vs. Technology

I just want to explain why this page will never mention anything about Atlantis or anything else that may have been placed on top of it by humans. The article here is about a geological structure. Anything that may or may not have existed on top of it (heavy speculation and all the grains of salt in the world), will never be mentioned in the article. This is an article about a naturally occurring geological structure. See here for an example of how, even with the most visible signs of civilization, there is a separate geological section with no mention of human technology. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Due weight

Two years ago, I posted a video to youtube. It was a tutorial video, showing how to use mods (and what mods to use) to build foxholes in Fallout 4. Before I made the video private (for reasons I won't go into), I got several thousand views, and was mentioned on multiple websites, including at least three RSes.

My. Video. Was. Never. Notable. Nor. WP:DUE. For. Inclusion. In. Any. Article. Not. Even. Fallout 4.

There is no question about it. It's not even worth a discussion. The recent edits to this article might warrant some explanation as to why this is undue, but make no mistake: It's still undue, just like my video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm the user attempting to add information onto the page about the fringe theory that has gained attention this month. I certainly respect editors' trying to keep Wikipedia within its policies and its aims. However, from the comments in the "undo" edits I am seeing, this is not being followed. First, I am talking about a theory which has been viewed by over two MILLION people, not a few thousand, and the high number of views are quoted in TWO high circulation news media, Sputnik and The Mirror, think of them what you may, the circulation is obviously high. Second, I showed that the theory was written about in five high circulation media.

It is irrelevant if you think that a thousand views or a million views are "not enough", frankly "it's not worth a discussion" is arrogant talk, please be neutral and show me in Wiki policy that this does not constitute notability. Checking the policy, it seems the secondary sources reporting the high views, counts towards notability.

It is also COMPLETELY irrelevant if you think the theory is nonsense, or you don't like fringe theories in general. More people are now talking about the Richat Structure than ever before in history, and that fact is VERY relevant to the article about the structure. In the same way that Donald Trump is not a Cheeto, but it is NOTABLE about Cheetos, that since his candidacy people are talking much more about Cheetos than in all history... Keizers (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, it never fails. I post a cogent, on-point analogy, clearly worded and explained using every day English and the person to whom it was directed just completely fails to get any part of it. Sometimes I wonder why I bother explaining anything; you folks just never listen. What you are trying to add is a fringe theory that isn't anywhere close enough to notable for its own article. Not only that, it's one of the stupidest fringe theories out there: we know for a fact that Atlantis is fiction. There's no debate. Those two facts need to be weighed against your secondary source mentions: and when you do that, those sources come up short. Like, seriously short.

So far, you dug up one utterly unreliable source (Sputnik), one selfpub bullshit source (the youtube channel), one passing mention in an RS (Business Insider) and three tabloids mentioning it in a "weird news" bit. That's hardly "significant coverage in independent reliable sources," let alone significant enough to get past our BS filters. Please read up on our policy governing fringe theories. We don't treat them the same way we treat unpopular political ideas or details in academia; they have a much higher hurdle to overcome before they merit mention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants that Sputnik is an utterly unreliable source. The passing mention in an RS (Business Insider) and three tabloids mentioning it in a "weird news" bit does not mean anything as news organizations often run stories on their “wow factor” and sensationalism despite their gross unreliability. Furthermore, the number of hits on youtube is meaningless because a cute cat can get that many hits. A person could argue the notability and need for an Wikipedia article on a cat video using that sort of logic. This has nothing to do with any editor's evaluation of this fringe idea. It is the lack of notability as indicated by the lack of any secondary reliable sources that seriously discusses the validity of this idea instead of mindlessly repeating what was said in a click bait youtube video. Paul H. (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A person could argue the notability and need for an Wikipedia article on a cat video using that sort of logic. Finally! Someone understood my analogy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Pants, this is not the place for your issues with people understanding your analogies (I did but didn’t find it proved that this section doesn’t adhere to a Wiki policy). Let’s also please avoid an insulting tone please and near ad-hominem attacks. Let’s stick to the policy. The policy for fringe theories covers theories that are both mentioned in atandalone articles, or as mentions in sections of the relevant main article. Regardless of your opinion on the content of the tabloids or Sputnik, the policy clearly states that these are relevant measure sof the impact of the fringe theory. Given your clear frustration with people who conclude otherwise than you do, so far, I suppose we’ll Have to put this to an Administrator to help us reach a consensus. Keizers (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I did but didn’t find it proved that this section doesn’t adhere to a Wiki policy If you did, you sure did a good job of completely ignoring the point of it. Hell, even after I spelled the point out more explicitly, you're bitching about tone rather than responding to it.

I suppose we’ll Have to put this to an Administrator to help us reach a consensus. That's not what admins are for. I know, I'm rather fond of working with quite a few of them (and less so of a smaller number of them). Please read WP:ADMIN for more on that. If, as I suspect, you've got no response to the points I raised, then this discussion is essentially over. Come back with better sourcing if and when you can, and we'll pick up whether this is due then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am going to start the discussion as to whether to add information about the fringe theory in a separate discussion on this Talk page. I feel like we have gone off on a tangent about your YouTube video, etc. and I think it's best to re-start based on WP:DUE and WP:NFRINGE., so please join me there. Also Roxy the dog.

I'm just pointing out that OP seems to care less about WP:DUE and more about telling everyone that they had a YouTube video that got "several thousand views" Stay classy, my friend. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

For all you know, I'm making the whole bit up. It wouldn't matter one bit to my point whether the analogy was a true anecdote or not. Just look at how it relates to this guy's attempt to push an unreliable source into this article to support a fringe theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am going to start the discussion as to whether to add information about the fringe theory in a separate discussion on this Talk page. I feel like we have gone off on a tangent about Mjolnirpant's YouTube video, analogy etc. and I think it's best to re-start based on WP:DUE and WP:NFRINGE., so please join me there shortly. Also Roxy the dog.

There's a separate section just below, already disagreeing with you. Also, remember to sign your comments. Also; you'll still need to address the problems I've pointed out. I'll repeat them if you don't understand. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Please link Richat Structure to Atlantis, as it has been proven definitively to be the same place. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - as explained above - this is a fringe theory, not a proven fact - Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Besides, everybody knows that the real historical site of Atlantis is Read's Island. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 12:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Shenanigans. It's in the Bahamas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we could find a blog or two that claims it's on Mars. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sad face. I thought Wikipedia was about telling the truth, not lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT, WP:POV, WP:VANDAL, WP:DE, WP:SEMI Here are some policies that might be of help to you. I hope you learn the policies of Wikipedia and become a great contributing user one day. I'm rooting for you, IP. I know it can be frustrating. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was about telling the truth, not lying. Good news, it is! If WP seems like it's "lying" to you, then maybe (and I know it's astronomically unlikely), just maaaaaaybe it might be just barely possibly that you're wrong about something. I know, sounds crazy, right? But still... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

If WP seems like it's "lying" to you, then maybe (and I know it's astronomically unlikely), just maaaaaaybe it might be just barely possibly that you're wrong about something. Yeah, because everyone’s most believable source on the internet is Wikipedia (It actually isn’t, though). Sorry to burst your bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsefan79 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I promise you (and would bet money, were it possible) that WP is correct about 90% of the things you're wrong about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to make you feel good. It exists to provide a digital Encyclopedia for the entire world to consume and edit. Your opinions are not reliable sources. This "I'm offended!" culture we're in does not obligate WP to change any page without reliable sources, and I promise you, any WP:POV edits will be reverted. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Eye of the Sahara"

This name was inserted in Wikipedia in May 2011. Almost all mentions of the name are journalistic, and are of later date. This is what journalists do, they look at Wikipedia, see "also known as Eye of the Sahara", and duly report "also known as Eye of the Sahara". There is actual published use of "Eye of Africa", in the doctoral thesis of 2008, but apparently not before. The author in his introduction states:

Mauritania hosts the Guelb er Richat, a fascinating circular structure also called the "eye of Africa".

without citing any source or previous usage of the name, but at least we can give 2008 as the publication date for the "eye of Africa" nickname, but "Eye of Africa" or "Earth's Bulls-Eye" may originate with NASA, as suggested by this April 2011 mention. I found no mention of the structure whatsoever prior to 1948. It was then known as la boutonnière du Richât. The same author called it la pseudo-boutonnière du Richât in 1952. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I found a 1937 reference now[1]. I believe they did the first aerial surveys in the 1930s and before this didn't really realize how circular it was. In 1952, Théodore Monod organised a scientific expedition to the Adrar which may have produced the first good maps. --dab (𒁳) 10:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Atlantis as per Plato, Solon, and Thoth of Emerald Tablets. Luonilote (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any writing by Solon on Atlantis. Ah, that's because we don't have any. Just Plato. The Emerald Tablet is 6yh-7j century CE. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that Thoth is an ancient Egyptian deity. So if we actually had any confirmed writings from Thoth, we'd have to reevaluate our place in the universe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Egyptian deities aside, in the internet age, at the dawn of quantum computing and quantum physics, we absolutely ARE reevaluating our place in the Universe. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Include Fringe hypothesis?

Hi, I have attempted to include referenced information about a fringe hypothesis (FH) that the Richat structure is the remains of the capital city of Atlantis. I would like folks to really re-read WP:NFRINGE which covers the guidelines for including fringe hypotheses both as separate articles and as sections within main articles. My proposal would be the latter, including a section within this main article due to the notability of the publicity that the FH has received.

In order to focus the discussion I would like to note the following:

• I apologize for edit warring as I reverted reverts (including unexplained ones) 3 times
• The point is not whether Atlantis or the FH are fiction, but the importance of the impact that the FH has had (2 million+ views and publicity in major tabloid publications, Business Insider and Sputnik)
• The point is not if tabloids republish "nonsense" or that Sputnik is Kremlin-sponsored lies, but again the reach of these publications as well as their reporting (as a fact, which we can verify is true) that the video reached half a million views in a few days - secondary reports of YouTube views ARE considered to count toward notability
• Could we avoid profanity

Thanks! Keizers (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you've attempted to respond to my points, I'll just add that WP:NOTABILITY says:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." (emphasis in original)

There isn't even the allegation above that this subjects has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Only that it's reached a number of people. To that, I'll respond that youtube view counts do not, in any way, indicate the number of people who have viewed a video, but rather the number of times it has been played for more than six seconds. So people who turned it off after 30 seconds get counted, as do people whose youtube instance autoplayed it while they were not paying attention, as well as people who watched it for the second or third time. Even if it had, in fact, reached 2 million people, that is less than 0.5% of the US population, let alone the entirety of the English speaking, internet connected world. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

MPants,

* I don't believe this merits a separate article, but the publicity merits a section in the main article, WP:NFRINGE covers both. So could we please consider whether the following two points show that the publicity around the FH is notable enough to include as a section.

* [This WikiProject page] concludes that the YouTube follower or view count if quoted by secondary sources, counts towards notability. I would argue that wide-reach tabloids publishing an easily verifiable and undisputable fact such as counts, does not detract from their source validity. Whether two million views is "important" is up for debate as you note. For an almost unknown geological feature that up to now, only a few thousand may have heard of, I would conclude two million views about it are very, very significant, strictly speaking about the fact that the Richart Structure has become "suddenly famous" to a degree that is relatively significant.

* As for independent reliable sources reporting that the fringe hypothesis itself is significant, the Business Insider reference backs that angle up. It is a reliable publication, and it reported about the hypothesis, certainly not that the hypothesis is fact. :: Thank you! Keizers (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Your argument about the view count has been addressed by two different editors already; there are a lot of youtube videos with tons of views which aren't notable. This one is no different.

I would argue that the tabloids are not RS for this use: the authors aren't experts and "weird news" stories aren't fact-checked or subject to correction. So you've got 1 RS giving this subject a passing mention at the end of the article; 1 step above a footnote. I've never seen that sort of coverage successfully used to justify inclusion before, and I don't think it warrants it now. The most this seems to justify is a single mention, sourced to the BI link, at the end of the "Interpretation" section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I would note that similar claims had previously (within the past month or two) been removed from this page by a number of editors who haven't yet commented here. There is currently a consensus against inclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There are innumerable circular or semicircular geological features, each which has been claimed to Atlantis, using the same illogic and with the same vauge and undocumented claims as done in the video in question. There is nothing about the video or alleged documentary that it is promoting that distinguishes it from innumerable other videos that have been made about innumerable other circular, semicircular, or pseudocircular feature that have been claimed to the site of Atlantis as being distinctive enough as being worth mentioning in Wikipedia. Notability needs to be shown by the serious, extended discussion by credible, reliable secondary sources. The Business Insider is certainly not a reliable source as far as archaeology and anthorpology are concerned and the article only briefly mentions that “some people” believe without any detailed discussion of the pros and cons that the Richat Structure might be Atlantis and links to a fringe, I have to again completely agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Paul H. (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

MPants,

I understand that this is simply a youtube channel, but the content of the video comes from a real documentary on that hypothesis that you can find here, which had a production and proper editing. https://www.amazon.com/Visiting-Atlantis-George-S-Alexander/dp/B07C4FMSWW

I'm not suggesting it's a credible theory necessarily, but I don't think it makes any harm in referencing to it, even within general and fringe wiki policies. For the video, I'd say that there are topics on wiki that would be known to far fewer than a couple million people, so I am not sure that really is the notability threshold, and the second video too is going pretty fast. Anyhow, the point is that the existence of a documentary I believe makes it at least worth including with a one-liner. We should encourage people to come and learn rules and contribute, without an excess of consensus against inclusions. After all this wasn't a malicious edit, it's just a fringe theory, and could be assessed as such easily. Here we're not listing a series of Atlantis theories, here we're talking about a structure and the fact that some pieces of art (a documentary and a couple of youtube videos) refer to as a possible Atlantis location. I believe is notable, if I ran across the structure, that someone thought it was Atlantis (So many links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Atlantis).

Look also at some news coverage this is receiving, which should at least allow a one-liner based on secondary sources. https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/09/researcher-says-the-mysterious-eye-of-the-sahara-could-be-the-ruins-of-atlantis/ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=richat+atlantis

Thanks, ~Ruggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.139 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That pseudodocumentary is not an RS; not even close. It's not notable on it's own, nor is the director. You claims that concepts known to fewer than a couple million are documented here, and to that I respond that we have different standards for different subjects, as I explained above. I'm wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are fewer than 2 million people who know what the Aharonov–Bohm effect or the Yukawa interaction are, but those are notable because they're demonstrable physical phenomenon studied by scientists, hence they have a lower bar for inclusion (also note that they meet WP:GNG whereas this theory doesn't). Fringe theories have a higher bar because of the risk of misinforming the reader when we cover them. So for us to document a fringe theory, we need RSes that not only document the theory, but which document the skeptical response to it. We don't have that here.

Finally, that "news" link is anything but. We need sources outside the walled garden of "Atlantis is real" fiction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

MPants, thanks for your answer!

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying, or maybe I explained myself poorly. I've actually contributed to quite a few particle physics pages and in some stints over the years I played your role there against fringe theories such as the E8 theory, so I'm well aware of what you mean.

Here I'm not saying this is a reliable anything. I'm saying that if two random people go to the Richat structure and shoot a documentary, and then they have a weird theory about Atlantis that gets re-shared by another person on Youtube who then has millions of views and a few fringe newspapers re-bouncing it, it maybe deserves to be included even if it were: "random dude says this is Atlantis based on a few similarities with Plato's text". I say this for a couple of reasons. First, because it's true and it's not original research, and second, because it wouldn't really misinform. We wouldn't be saying "this is Atlantis" or "there are strong reasons to believe this is Atlantis", we'd be saying 'the Richat structure got attention by a few people discussing it as a possibility for the mythical city of Atlantis because of some similarities with Plato's description'.

I do agree that it'd be good to have a skeptical source. But of a lot of fringe theory statements, what I was suggesting seems small and with little risk of misinforming. The reason why I mention those "pro-Atlantis" sources is to say that it's clearly become of some resonance in that world that mentioning it would be ok. Thanks for the help! ~Ruggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.139 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is all addressed by the policies already. The sourcing provided is insufficient. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree Due to WP:NOT it is not possible to source the theory enough to include it on this page. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, I didn't realize you guys had such personal involvement with this page. One of you called the youtuber 'idiot', obviously you're including original research here ;-) and the other stated that this page will never mention Atlantis, like if this would really happen if that place would actually be Atlantis (in which case it would certainly mention it even if it was split in several pages with one about geology). I'm totally fine with the page not including anything if there aren't any additional sources. But between name calling and blanket absolute statements I wonder if you guys are the best ones here at ensuring WP:NPOV on this page... you seem quite personally invested

Thanks again for your time! ~Ruggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.139 (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no personal stake in this. Anyone else? Yeah, I didn't think so. Also, calling that youtuber an idiot is 100% pure WP:SKYBLUE stuff. Have you watched the video? It's a riot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

IP editor "~Rugs", the statement "It has clearly become some resonance in the world" is a prime example of WP:NOT, and no, "mentioning it" would not "be ok". - Sleyece (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support adding it. I think it'd be silly not to. If we are to include places that obviously aren't Atlantis, we should include a place that 90% of people think is Atlantis. There's something seriously wrong with Wikipedia if it isn't at least mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I definitely see some personal commitment not to include any mention of fringe hypotheses whatsoever in this page, and the two original reverters both use profanity and have recently been called out for edit wars - not to mention condescending as if everyone else is a dense, misbehaving child and "so much impatience" they are the only smart ones who understand logic and their brilliant "analogies" (I mean, IT ALWAYS HAPPENS, THEY NEVER FAIL TO UNDERSTAND!). I mean, I get if someone personally hates these kinds of fringe theories (or religious dogma or whatever else in the world), but Wikipedia is not the place to "make sure" that they "don't get more publicity". I am pretty frustrated at the intensity of the folks on one side of this argument, clearly there are some folks here working out their egos (need to be superior and unique by proving they're the most clever) via "strict control" of a series of articles.Keizers (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Just observing, not hate. I highly recommend reading Eckhard Tolle’s “New Earth” and then observing what happened here. It might help you recognize the petty obsession with control - a manifestation of the ego - is something that you can better release. Keizers (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL Please, give me more worthless life advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am happy for the people devoted to make Wikipedia worse to be banned from Wikipedia. This pants person seems to be someone who shouldn't be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.159.63 (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Pants isn't limiting your freedoms. The user is informing you of policy. Your lack of understanding is why you are frustrated. "This pants person" isn't going anywhere from what I've observed here. Vandals on this page, however.... -- Sleyece (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

One item that needs to mentioned is that YouTube Bright Insight video is not an original source. This video simply rehashes the ideas of a pre-existing documentary and offers nothing in the way of original material. The original authors of this idea is George S. Alexander and Natalis Rosen, Visiting Atlantis. Furthermore, in 2016, this same claim was briefly mentioned without any real analysis in the book:

Mark Adams (26 April 2016). Meet Me in Atlantis: Across Three Continents in Search of the Legendary Sunken City. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 203. ISBN 978-1-101-98393-5.

Therefore, the idea that the Richat Structure is Atlantis not original to either George S. Alexander and the YouTube Bright Insight video. If we are discussing this fringe theory, it should be sourced using either Mark Adams or George S. Alexander and Natalis Rosen as the Bright Insight video adds absolutely nothing original to this concept. Paul H. (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's not going to be on the page, so it won't need to be sourced at all. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

There is strong and solid evidence that the Richat Structure is in fact the location of Atlantis. I support having the theory included in the article, including mentioning of Bright Inside and the books mentioned above about the subject.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT -- Sleyece (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is strong and solid evidence that the Richat Structure is in fact the location of Atlantis There is more evidence that Atlantis was a legend (this was even made clear by its creator). —PaleoNeonate – 18:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK -- Sleyece (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTRUMOR -- Sleyece (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

NOTBULLSHITE either. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is strong and solid evidence that the Richat Structure is in fact the location of Atlantis.^{[citation fucking needed]} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Imagine how many middle schoolers would cite the Richat Structure as the site of Atlantis if we allowed this fringe theory to be included lol. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure if the formatting on my comment is gonna work at all because I usually only lurk on WP (Hey, a website redesign with a more user-friendly interface and formatting system would be highly appreciated WP) but I wanted to thank Pants for keeping the conspirators at bay! Gimleey2 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If a person truly had "strong and solid evidence that the Richat Structure is in fact the location of Atlantis," they would certainly could easily prepare a paper for publication that could pass peer-review and published in a serious scientific, archaeological journal. Such a discovery, would certainly be vetted be discussed by other scientific papers, which, if accepted as valid, would provide the reliable sources needed for Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

What does Richat mean? 77.250.197.189 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the current explanation, "Eye of Africa" or "Eye of the Sahara", has nothing to do with the English name, but I have no sources to prove it. The Arabic word رِيشَات‎ (rīšāt), means "feather," and قَلْب (qalb) means "heart." This doesn't mean that the name of the structure comes from those words, though.

The name of the equivalent Arabic Wikipedia article is تكوين الريشات , takwin alrayshat, where takwin means "formation", but they list قلب الريشات Qalb ar-Rīšāt as an alternative name. They also list عين الصحراء eayan alsahra', Eye of the Desert, as an alternative name. --Mlewan (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC about mentioning Fringe Theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With 3.7 million people having viewed this fringe theory, that number having been reported in the Sun, Express, Mirror, Business Insider, Star, RT and Sputnik, and the existence of an entire article about fringe theories of the location of Atlantis, given not only massive coverage in non-"reliable sources" but some coverage in "reliable sources" of the fringe theory, can we not include "the fact that there is a prominent fringe theory" in this article? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC). Keizers (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We have been through numerous edits and reverts concerning *mentioning* the fringe theory about the Richat Structure, that it is the location of the lost city of Atlantis. It should be noted that this issue is not about *stating* that the Richat Structure is said location but rather stating that the fringe theory exists, and that this has been presented not only in a YouTube video with 3.7 million views, which itself was reported in some of the world's most popular tabloids, but reliable sources such as Der Spiegel and Vietnam's Tiền Phong (newspaper). There are editors who despite this being a very widely circulated fringe theory, are adamant (inclusive of much vulgar language such a "undue weight bullshit"), insulting and aggressive in their interactions with other editors in their reverts and in the previous Talk Page discussions (cf. WP:OWN). Again, this is about the mere MENTION that there is a notable fringe theory, not stating that an outlandish fringe theory is fact. My RfC is as follows: "with 3.7 million people having viewed this fringe theory, that number having been reported in the Sun, Express, Mirror, Business Insider, Star, RT and Sputnik, and the existence of an entire article about fringe theories of the location of Atlantis, given not only massive coverage in non-"reliable sources" but some coverage in "reliable sources" of the fringe theory, can we not include "the fact that there is a prominent fringe theory" in this article? Keizers (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think the Atlantis theory should be included without there being some actual evidence in its support, for example, archaeological artifacts that have been recovered. This is a scientific article. Speculation without factual support is baseless and would give the fringe theory undue emphasis. By the way, 3.7 million Youtube views has no standing on Wikipedia. Curiocurio (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I would accept a sentence or two simply stating that fringe theories about the Richat Structure being Atlantis exist and only a link to the section about fringe theories and the Richat Structure in the location of Atlantis article. there is no need for any additional links to specific sources. By the way, if people read the section on archaeology, they will find that the area of Richat structure has been search by archaeologists and they found nothing that can be related to Atlantis. Maybe another sentence can refer to this section. Paul H. (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, friends, perhaps I have a block in my brain, but my argument is not that "Richat is the site of Atlantis"; that would be absurd given the lack of evidence. The argument is that sources documenting how widespread the fringe theory is, including two reliable sources, warrant mention of the existence of the fringe theory in at least one sentence. This is in no way to imply that the fringe theory is *correct*. It is about the *notability of how widespread the fringe theory itself is* which is documented by reliable sources (in addition to being *very* widely documented by tabloids). I believe we are violating some fundamental principles of Wikipedia if we suppress information because the subject of the information is factually wrong. If that were so, there wouldn't be an article about "Mein Kampf"! Keizers (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Put your Atlantis crap in one of your atlantis articles. ‘’This’’ article is about the Richat structure. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, for someone who thinks he/she is so intelligent and regularly talks to other editors as if they are "stupid", you should avoid stooping to the level of personal attacks and insults. If you are truly so smart, then state your counter-argument to what I am pointing out here. But remember that your personal distaste for fringe theories is not a reason to actively prevent any mention of the widespread reach of any fringe theory or pseudoscience in particular. You do not own Wikipedia or any article in it (cf. WP:OWN, also please remember WP:NPA). Keizers (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why we cannot say something like "a fringe theory has claimed it is the site of Atlantis".Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This is RfC is in itself outlandish. Not a single user who comes to the page about Richat Structure because they are interested in the Richat Structure will be helped by a mention that absolute nonsense promoted as a curiosity by some of the worst tabloids in the world mention the structure. As mentioned above, the gibberish could go to the section about fringe theories and the Richat Structure or a page about the most absurd claims ever made. This RfC is a waste of everyone's time. Mlewan (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I suspect more people come here because of that " nonsense promoted as a curiosity by some of the worst tabloids in the world mention" then because of some well thought out piece in Nature. It is out duty to make sure they know this is silly season junk, rather then relying on the only sources that cover it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

So, do you do that by quickly calling out the widespread fringe theory and identifying it as nonsense (and linking to the page about the fringe theories), or by suppressing the very mention that a widespread fringe theory exists? In general on Wikipedia, you will find mentions of widespread fringe theories in the articles about the subjects of the fringe theories. Suppression of information about "unpleasant" or "offensive" things is a bad thing, cf. Wikipedia:Information suppression. Keizers (talk)

I would do it with a brief mention on any related page (as per my suggestion above), and a link to a main article debunking the silliness.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So far, we have the following "buckets" that the comments fall into:

• 3 people think we should have a very brief mention in the Richat Structure article mentioning that the fringe theory exists (with a bias toward calling it out as nonsense rather) with a link to the main Atlantis fringe theory page: Keizers, Paul H., Slatersteven
• 3 people think we we shouldn't mention the fringe theory at all: Curiocurio, Mlewan and th one and only Roxy, the dog.

Here's a proposal: How about I include, in the See also section, a link to Location hypotheses of Atlantis#Richat_Structure? That seems the way to avoid giving undue weight, while providing a link to an article that exists, and in which the Richat Structure is discussed extensively (within *that* context). Any objections to that? Keizers (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I haven't heard feedback I'll go ahead and do that. Keizers (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's okay. I have removed it, as you must have expected somebody to. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Restrained in the degree of superiority expressed today. mazel tov. I only "expected" revert the change, Roxy, because it's stated on your user page, that you "have a bias against" fringe theories and similar, which we have seen goes so far as to vehemently suppress information that such fringe theories even exist. It seems that you are not able to accept a proposed compromise based on the input here. Since this was, I suppose, I tie, let me see what tie-breaking techniques exist within this ecosystem. Keizers (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Mentions in other articles says:

  Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

  Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories.

  RfC relisted to allow for more discussion about using the Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Mentions in other articles guideline to determine whether or not this fringe theory should be mentioned.

  Cunard (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As long as it's not in an unnecessarily prominent place (the lead etc), I see no reason not to mention the fringe theory's existence and link to the appropriate page for those who want to know more on the subject. Plenty of articles have a sentence along the lines of "This place has been a popular subject of ghost stories and appears on lists of haunted place", so why wouldn't this article have a similar sentence? Especially since it already has its own section on the Location hypotheses of Atlantis page and the theory seems to be quite popular and proper sources mention its existence. I thought it's obvious that mentioning a fringe theory's existence doesn't make you a believer or proponent of it, but here we are. If all editors were as adamant in suppressing access to information regarding things they themselves don't believe as some in this thread, God only knows what would happen to all the religion pages. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'd oppose inclusion of fringe material. The Atlantis content is too thinly-sourced to merit a mention here. To the claim that fringe content is what the readers wants: discomfit them. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• I see no value in mentioning fringe theories in an encyclopaedic article — unless the article is about fringe theories, or the psychopathology of fringe theorists. Even a mention of a fringe theory gives it undue weight, and they already have more than enough publicity through other channels. Don't people come to an encyclopaedia to learn something from a reliable source? Let's try to be that source. yoyo (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • yoyo , yes Wikipedia is encyclopedic, but it is not limited to mentioning "legitimate facts". It also documents fringe theories and many other unpleasant things, because the existence of those theories is something to be studied, something that is documented, in itself; as long as reliable sources cover the existence of those theories, that is proof enough that the encyclopedia should include it. I am quite disturbed by the mindset that the encyclopedia is here to "edit" the existence of things, as that is a slippery slope. Do we remove information about white nationalism, because its philosophy is wrong? Of course not, we include it because reliable sources talk about it as a force, a movement, and in that context the encyclopedia of course mentions that its philosophy is wrong. Keizers (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From Richard to Richat?

The article doesn't describe where the name (etymology) came from. Was it from Richard-Molard? How did it change from Richard to Richat then? Bennylin (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe where the name came from because nobody has apparently found a reliable source that explains its etymology. I have not been able to obtain a copy of and read any of Richard-Molard's publications and, thus, do not know about his involvement, if any, with its naming. I will try again to get copies of Richard-Molard's publications and determine what he has to say about the Richat Dome. Paul H. (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The best that can find so far, "Richat" is not derived from Richard-Molard. Rather it is derived from Hassania, a local Arabic dialect spoken in Mauritania. As soon as I can find an reliable source with the help of interlibrary loan, I will revised the article with a detailed etymology. Also, I found out that it was 1916 that the first European recognized and mapped it. Again, I need a reliable source with the help of interlibrary loan and maybe a friend in France. Paul H. (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Paul H.: for your effort to satisfy a random stranger's curiosity. Best wishes from Indonesia. (btw, the reason I asked because I am managing an Indonesian Wikipedia social media, and posted this in the channel. It would be better if there's an explanation on the name). Bennylin (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome, Unfortunately, the only detailed explanation of its name is an Internet web page, Informations Generales, Mauritanie, of unknown reliability by a travel agency. It is not suitable for use in Wikipedia. What the web page states, for what it is worth, in French is “...comes from a word Hassania (Arabic dialect spoken in Mauritania) meaning “the feathers” and alluding to the way in which the circular cuestas seem to overlap, such as the elements. of a plumage.”

I have been unable to obtain copies of two references that should contain information about its name. They are:

Richard-Molard, J. 1952, La Pseudo - Boutonniere du Richat (Gouvernement General de l'Afrique Occidentale Francaise, Bulletin de la Direction des Mines, No. 15, Tome II, Appendice II, pp. 391-401

and Monod, T., 1952, Les accidents crateriformes ou circulaires: French West Africa Div. Mines Bull., 15, tome 1, p. 166-194. Paul H. (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Eye of the Sahara, again

Looks like the section above discussing the name "Eye of the Sahara" spiraled out of control and lost focus. The article, at minimum, should include the name in the lead. Several reliable sources also list the Richat Structure as the Eye of the Sahara. Not going to WP:CITEKILL, but... the name is used by NASA, Business Insider, Forbes, and United States Geological Survey. Even some research journals list the geological feature as the Eye of the Sahara. This name is also used in other languages; by the Société astronomique de France in French and by many similar reputable Spanish organizations. Not even going to mention the "Eye of Africa" name, which is also frequently used. This is name is not fringe or obscure, and is not used haphazardly or limited to colloquial speech. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Roxy the dog: --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting, something I have rarely seen. I find the discussion above here persuasive, hence my position. The reliable sources noted by yourself and above were all after the wikipedia statement, there are no sources to support the wikipedia mention, which was removed. It appears that 'we' are responsible, hence (correctly spelled) citogenesis. If we had refs that were clearly prior to our mistake, then yes, but we dont. I looked at the SAF ref, which doesn't call it the "Eye of the Sahara" btw. -Roxy the dog. wooF 18:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good point on the SAF ref (I've stricken that). Not sure how citogenesis is ultimately determined on WP, but in this case I don't think we are talking about something like the the Coati being nicknamed the Brazilian aardvark that is regurgitated in a few articles and an academic book. It's possible that the Richat has fallen victim of the same fate, or worse via the several academic entries, but I think this nickname deserves additional credence in this case. This isn't just some nickname parroted in a few journals, this spans well beyond that. Not that this is what drove me to this article in the first place, but in Civilization VI, the Eye of the Sahara is incorporated into the game as a natural wonder. I know for the list, there are sources to verify whether citogenesis actually occurred, but is it definitive that this also happened here? I understand the argument that there are no sources (or very few?) that existed before the name was added to the article, but I'm just not 100% sold on the idea that citogeneis legitimately occurred here. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I have search the Internet using Google Search, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Proquest, and so forth and found a lack of anything related to the Richat Dome that uses the "Eye of the Sahara" that predates its appearance in Wikipedia. So far, the only pre-Wikipedia use of this phrase that I have found is "Jorgensen poses for her first swimsuit photo session under the watchful eye of the Sahara Hotel, 4 November 1953..." in Serlin (1995:160) and the movie "Eyes of the Sahara." Neither of these are likely the source of the "Eye of the Sahara" name for the Richat Structure. However, I agree with you that case for citogensis is unproven and that a source for this name outside of Wikipedia might exist. It is still possible that its source is either not indexed where it can be found, has not been preserved, or buried among the thousands of times that “Eye of the Sahara” has subsequently been used in print and on the web.

References cited:

Serlin, D.H., 1995. Christine Jorgensen and the Cold War Closet. Radical History Review, 1995(62), pp.137-165. Paul H. (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the altitude of the Richat Structure?

I've seen sources that say anywhere from 400 ft to 1400 ft above sea level. What's the actual altitude? Aaronfranke (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I could not find any published topographic maps. As result, I had to engaged in original research by creating a topographic map from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM) using Global Mapper. The Richat Structure proper ranges from below 340 m to above 480 m above sea level. The rim of the Richat Dome ranges in elevation from over 500 to 600 m on the northwest to under 450 m above sea level on the southeast. Of course this is original research and not for use in the article. I could make a metric topographic and / or relief map for the article, if wanted Paul H. (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Richart structure's lowest point is approx. 355 m above sea level (a.s.l.), in the salt flats of the outer ring. The rim of the Richat structure is between 425 and 480 m a.s.l. towards the south and up to ca. 580 m a.s.l. in the north west sector. --Diamonddavej (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the more precise data, what is the source of the data? I apologize for not making my elevations more clear as in "...from (just) below 340 m (above sea level) to above 480 m above sea level." Paul H. (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, see. I did misunderstand you. Yes, it's from 30m resolution SRTM data I downloaded and examined in QGIS, here's a [| map I made] with key showing the altitude within the red circle is 349m to 614m above sea level. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Claims About Richat Structure being Atlantis

The claims are clearly made. Why is this not mentioned, but a claims by a cook and quack about "Bosnian pyramids" is given so much space. George S. Alxander has made such claims which can be proved by primary sources. His claims are no less credible than claims by a proven cook and quack about "Bosnian piramids". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.111.189 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

First, new comments should be posted at the bottom, not the top, of a section. Second, as is repeatedly stated below, self-published web sites, videos, and press releases are not considered reliable sources and as such are by themselves insufficient for use as sources in an Wikipedia article. George S. Alxander has yet (and needs to) to publish his ideas in an credible venue where they have been subject to some sort expert review. Finally, as Doug Weller below notes "...original website and the press release are years old now (2011 and 2012) if it's significant per WP:UNDUE there's been plenty of time for it to have been discussed in reliable sources..." The lack of such comments strongly suggests that the experts have not found these ideas even worth their time and effort to evaluate, except Youtube video makers looking for new clickbait. In contrast the validity of the Bosnian pseudopyramids have been commented on by professional archaeologists in peer-reviewed publicationss that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and makes it significant. (By the way, I looked at the video, and George S. Alxander's paleogeographic reconstructions of paleoshorelines of northwest Africa are readily and completely falsified by what Quaternary geologists have published in the peer-reviewed literature about the Quaternary geology of that region. However, mentioning that in the article is a violation of the No original research principle of Wikipedia.) Paul H. (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Eye of Sahara is clearly not Atlantis, let me explain why as they tell us exactly where to find Atlantis if we simply listen, keeping in mind oceans were ~100+m lower ~13000 years ago. -Criteria of Timaeus & Critias: "Beyond the Pillars", "In the Northern Portions & Along the Shore", "3000 Stadia(555km) x 2000 Stadia(370km)", "Mountain low on all sides, broke it off all round about(North East Corner of Rockall Plateau/Island)" You can match ALL 51 points of Atlantis here, including the Elephant(mammoth), Rhino(arctic) & Camel(arctic) being transported on a barge by Thoth who survived the Younger Dryas Multiple Impact Event ~13000 years ago landing in Canary Islands when they were still a Peninsula, just like Britain used to be.. You can physically measure the dimensions and there is a visual keystone... You can even see the city(23.5km across)... with the hand carved channel by Poseidon leading north to a small 0.9km Island likely housing the Calendar by Chronos dedicated to Atlas.. This is why Stone Henge was brought closer back to its place of origin as the Earth Calendar by our ancients.. While ALL other speculated locations have trouble matching even ONE piece of criteria, Rockall Plateau/Island matches ALL the criteria.. Even the round "energy" portal built by Chronos which was just a Calendar, just like we have today known as Stone Henge with a spiritual energy that still attracts millions of visitors every year celebrating solstices & equinox.. You can even see how advancement flows from the shores of the Atlantic.. From Wood & Stone Age to the Bronze & Iron Ages to even today with Radar & Computers, etc.. Imjustjamei (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) As I noted below, your are flogging a dead horse because you are discussing original research that lacks notability and vertifiable secondary sources. In addition, Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your own personal research. Paul H. (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Although it is only a single sentence, the claim that Richat Structure might be Atlantis is unsupported by any reliable source. In addition, since a press release on a web site that neither vets nor reviews the content of press releases is cited it also a self-published source. Therefore, it has been marked as such. This claim needs a source that is both reliable and published by a third party. If such a source cannot be found, this claim should be removed from the article. Paul H. (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC) I was asked about this and finding that the original website and the press release are years old now (2011 and 2012) if it's significant per WP:UNDUE there's been plenty of time for it to have been discussed in reliable sources. Which doesn't seem to have happened. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Also, it's not appropriate for material this significant to only be in the lead. Chris857 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC) I've removed the claim from the lede as it is unsupported by the body. I will remove any future addition of this claim to the body because it is unsupported by reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Not sure if this is out of order or bad etiquette, but I am just wondering a few things. So what were saying here is that a claim that the richat structure could possibly have once been the city of atlantis is absolutely ludicrous because....there is no prior source or material evidence to support this claim?...pardon me if it seems a bit obtuse to claim something is an improbability due to lack of prior discussion or source of evidence to support the claim. It does make the claim invalid as accepted fact, but it does not change the possibility, or lack thereof for that matter, of it being so. First question is, wasn't this structure only fairly recently found to exist by outside cultures? (late 50s early 60s)..ie cultures with the ability to support or debunk these claims by way of scientific method or even casually debate for giggles amongst experts? what little I have been able to digest of it, is that the best possible argument that could be made is that the hypothesis cannot be confirmed nor refuted, as all remotely credible accounts are thousands and thousands of years old, though descriptions and dimensions of both places and their surroundings, by ancient scholars quoting written history of their own are, incredibly in most instances, very close to exact.. but a little more on the fun side of things, wouldn't it be thrilling to investigate and possibly put to bed once and for all any claim that something once was atlantis?!..or is this too low brow?..of course I can and will admit that atlantis theories rank right up there with aliens and claims the cia killed kennedy..I guess im just saying why not chew on everything that we have about both places, that which has at least a chance of being "reality"..and see what all lines up..might just be interesting if nothing else :)..take care and be awesome to each other!Dansab73 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia is not for orignal research, articles must simply summarize reliable sources and reflect academia. We should also remember that Atlantis was a fictional island from a Plato allegory... This page is also not a forum so more specific suggestions to improve the article are welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC) It's only fictional, because you say so. But to the writings, it isn't spoken of as a story. It's spoken of as a History. Your use of the word is Neologism to the actual writings of Plato. A bit more humility, I think should apply, since 1. Nobody really knows. 2. It fits west Africa near Gibraltar (plato) 3. It clearly fits concentric rings (plato) 4. It clearly had ocean water access (plato) 5. It clearly has artifacts in layers (21st Century) 6. Those artifacts are found in Mud, which incidentally, was the reason that you could no longer sail get to Atlantis, the "sea" being filled with subsidence (the darn place sank like a wet-ground sand-castle in a bucket with earthquakes and tsunami). (Plato) Anyway, sorry to be so contentious. I hope that someday this aggravating word "Fiction" is dispelled, because there is no good reason to believe that Plato was telling a fable, that's Application of Invective to his honesty, imo. 98.102.246.42 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) As said above, "Wikipedia is not for orignal research, articles must simply summarize reliable sources and reflect academia." It doesn't matter what you believe. You have not presented any reliable sources that show that Atlantis is for real and that the Richat Dome is Atlantis. Lacking those sources, Atlantis does not belong in this article. Besides, there are plenty of reliable sources that show, the Richat Dome never had ocean access; lacks stratified archaeological and tusamni deposits; and lacks any artifacts of a lost civilization buried in mud. Many places have concretric structures lies near Gibraltar and, as result, those are meaningless criteria. This shows the need to use reliable sources instead of personal opinion and poorly researched, but slickly produced Internet videos and web pages. In addition, Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. It is not a place to argue about whether Atlantis is fiction or not but discuss how articles can be improved. Paul H. (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) pardon me if it seems a bit obtuse to claim something is an improbability due to lack of prior discussion or source of evidence to support the claim. It does make the claim invalid as accepted fact, but it does not change the possibility, or lack thereof for that matter, of it being so. It absolutely affects the "probability" that it is true because the probability that a claim is true exists only in the minds of the people discussing it. There is no "objective probability" that a claim is true. You must decide what that probability is to you, based entirely upon evidence (if you want to be rational), or possibly for other reasons such as wishful thinking or whichever belief makes you feel better about yourself (if you don't mind being irrational). The closest thing to an "objective" probability is the binary state that a claim is true or it isn't (partially true claims are untrue because they are not entirely true). Now, the thing many commenters like yourself don't seem to understand is that Atlantis is fictional. We know who first created it. We know why, and in what context. It was Plato, and he came up with the idea of Atlantis as a sort of thought experiment. There are no actual "legends" about the city of Atlantis. Therefore, the claim that a specific site on the planet is the "possible" location of an entirely fictitious construct is not just lacking evidence, there is significant evidence against it, in the form of all the evidence we have about the origins of Atlantis. So in conclusion, I'm afraid I have to tell you that it absolutely is obtuse to suggest that. Or more precisely: It is a very ignorant suggestion. This is not to say that you are generally ignorant, but on this subject, I'm afraid you are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC) In case anyone is still worried about precedent for the removal of the claim (which I support), I'll point out WP:ONEWAY. We have pages which discuss notable confabulations about where various people have believed Atlantis to be. With evidence that someone noticed it, I think inclusion on those pages with a link back here might be welcome. But discussion here is entirely misplaced. jps (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Just look at A Celestial Impact and Atlantis. A Great Disaster that Changed the World. A New Theory. by Jose D. C. Hernandez. It is full of errors, wishful thinking, and disregards any research that contradicts, even refutes, his ideas. First, one is that Jose D. C. Hernandez as part of his explanation that the Richat Structure is Atlantis, shows himself to be fundamentally illiterate in his understanding of Earth sciences. Basically, he proposed that at the end of the Pleistocene, a celestial impact created Australia; caused the Earth to tilt to its current 23 degrees; created "our Biblical deluge"; reshuffled and rearranged all of the continental land masses; cracked the ocean bottom between them and created the mid-oceanic ridges; and in the process moved the Richat Structure from the middle of the Atlantic Ocean into northwest Africa. What is currently known about Quaternary geology, plate tectonics, and the mechanics extraterrestrial impacts alone readily falsifies every one of the above ideas. Second, if he wants to be taken seriously, he first needs to learn even the basics of geology and show by publication that he understands what he is talking about and have his ideas vetted and reviewed in other publications by experts in the pertinent fields. Third, if a person would bother to read the papers cited in this article, they would find that the Richat Structure has already been studied in great enough detail to refute that it is the site of Atlantis. Geologists and other people have climbed all over the Richat Structure and not reported anything that might be man-made buildings or ruins. Whether Atlantis exists or not is immaterial to this discussion as this article is only concerned about the Richat Structure. If a person wants to state that the Richat Structure might be Atlantis, they need to find someone, who has published in a reliable source what is recognized by third parties to be a coherent argument that is backed by documented, credible evidence for such an idea. Hernandez's pseudoscientific geopoetic essay certainly is not it. Paul H. (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC) @Paul H., ජපස, PaleoNeonate, and MjolnirPants: I also don't think it belongs at any of our Atlantis articles at the moment. See the discussion at Talk:Atlantis. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I think it should as it is a possible location of where Atlantis was located. Danishjaveed (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC) I would like to point out that it is an interesting idea, however, if we want to link sources that try to cite Plato, we should mention that the citation in those sources is either bad or altered to fit the narrative. The source claims a surprising fit of the size of the area to the one cited in Plato's Critias, however, there is really no such thing as a surprising fit or even a rough fit, since the dimensions of the entire structure are far off of Plato's dimensions(the concentric zones of water and land are told to be two stadia or ~350-400m in width). What's more, Plato cites length of the circular ditch in the island being 10.000 stadia, or roughly 5.000km, which is not mentioned anywhere in the cited source, is utterly ridiculous, not surprisingly fitting. However, although Atlantis is fictional, there might be some inspiration for it and the idea of an ancient settlement in the area or a sea reaching into the site is interesting, although it is highly improbable that there would be a civilisation of comparable advancement to those of civilisations in the mediterranean and mesopotamia in the area in the middle to late bronze age or early antiquity(it is nearly impossible for the civilisation to exist in the cited age of around 9500 BC, but it would be possible for it to exist around ~3000-500 BC) even if it might be possible for Plato to reach records of a such civilisation in Alexandria even if Egyptians never actually formally visited(meaning had some state relations) the place, which is another improbability. But the biggest issue remains that the circular shape is nearly impossible to recognize from the ground. Europe is full of more interesting sites that would suit better for Plato as an inspiration and the area of the city with dimensions cited by the Plato fits better to basically any caldera of some european volcano(the circular ditch with central "hill" that is not too high from any direction); a quick view of Apenine peninsula on Google Maps can reveal many of those. However, it is sad that this wonderful site is so badly known and it is generally a positive thing that the "conspiracy theorists", which is in itself a pretty harsh and insulting name, because belief that Atlantis was a real place does not propose any conspiracy, nor does it qualifies you to be equated to the same people who believe in lizard people, alien invasions or abductions, government conspiracies, etc., etc., since the possibility of it being a real place is much higher than those listed conspiracies(many people who believe in Atlantis are misinformed with regards to its actual description by Plato and some other who are may not believe it being accurate) and since it is a rather popular story and belief supported by popular media, are spreading the knowledge of this interesting place throughout the general populace and just for that reason of popularity it should be mentioned. But it should also be mentioned what kind of errors or alterations into the story the popular media cited, either by malice, lack of education in the topic or just by despair for readers, have made.92.52.23.13 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC) 10,000 stadia would be closer to 1,800km?Halbared (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Yep 10,000 stadia is 1,800 km and that is the length of the irrigation ditch around the city... Something like 570 km in diameter of it was circular. Bright insight is saying both the city and Richat structure are about 27 km across. The circular distch would be thus (570 -27 /2)= about 270 km outside the outermost border of the city itself. Sounds like a project on the order of magnitude of say, the California aqueduct. Also the theory requires believing there was an advanced civilization (as advanced as ours or more) capable of that technology wiped out by the floods, sea level rise and "permanent winter" cause by the Younger Dryas comet impact 10,800 years ago. Keizers (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC) The Structure is a Geological formation, it is not Atlantis. If Atlantis ever sat on top of it, it was still not Atlantis, it was UNDER Atlantis. This article is about a geological formation. It is not about Atlantis. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC) The theory is that geological formation is the location of Atlantis. What you're implying is that Atlantis is the collection of structures and buildings on the location and not the actual location itself. Danishjaveed (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC) One problem is that the presence of a significant "collection of structures and buildings" has neither been documented nor reported by a reliable source as being found sited on the Richat Structure. As a result, the Richat Structure lacks any reported "collection of structures and buildings" that can be referred to as "Atlantis" as far as I have found in the literature. Paul H. (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning refuted atlantis rumors

@Roxy the dog, What’s wrong with this edit, “There have been refuted rumors over it being the origin site of Atlantis.”? How is this nonsense? “As I imagine many visitors to this page will visit due to that topic and I think it’s best to mention something” Justanotherguy54 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Atlantis is a fiction. We've been over this time and again. I shall revert to the status quo ante. - Roxy the dog 08:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Yes it’s a fiction, but it’s story generates significant public interest. This has been talked about, but there’s been no consensus, and the last time was years ago in 2019. I would argue that many of the visitors to this page are here at least partly because of the Atlantis story, would it not be best to mention that it’s false and link to a good source refuting it’s arguments? Is there a better one that refutes the Atlantis argument? Belief that this structure is Atlantis is mostly harmless but non-critical/conspiratorial thinking can lead to not good things down the line, is it not better to try to nip that in the bud? It’s a fake and potentially harmful story, but I see it as relevant to be included. You acknowledge that it’s fake, but because of it’s fakery you think it shouldn’t be included at all, rather than mentioned and refuted to any curious reader. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC) It rather seems to me that Justanotherguy (and having read the earlier 'discussion', other editors) have a good point here. Atlantis may well be a fiction (each of us seem to agree on that) but that is not a valid argument against inclusion of the above. Geopersona (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC) As Roxy the dog has not responded to this, and their reasons for removing bits mentioning the Atlantis rumors(mind you not bits that claim those rumors are real, just bits with the mere mention that those rumors exist and have been refuted) seem to come down to “Put your Atlantis crap in one of your atlantis articles. ‘This’ article is about the Richat structure.”(from 2019) and a few word answers such as “Please stop this nonsense”, should I add the latest reverted edit? They have not offered a good faith response in 2019 to Keizers, or here Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC) No, you wait till a consensus to include this nonsense emerges. I do not see that so far. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 07:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Roxy, you say “We've been over this time and again,” but the last time there was a discussion over this in 2019, the only responses you gave were “ Put your Atlantis crap in one of your atlantis articles. ‘’This’’ article is about the Richat structure. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)”, which does not seem like it addresses User:Keizers arguments, and here with similar responses. If you’ve given a good faith response somewhere, maybe in the edits, can you please post it here? Can you please try to address the points I bring up before starting another RfC discussion, which I unfortunately believe you will give similar responses in? Or address the points brought up in 2019 by Users:Keizers, which no one has given a response to, and for which you replied with short jabs? Some of the arguments of the editors arguing for inclusion which I see no problem with are *“I* would accept a sentence or two simply stating that fringe theories about the Richat Structure being Atlantis exist and only a link to the section about fringe theories and the Richat Structure in the location of Atlantis article. there is no need for any additional links to specific sources. By the way, if people read the section on archaeology, they will find that the area of Richat structure has been search by archaeologists and they found nothing that can be related to Atlantis. Maybe another sentence can refer to this section. Paul H. (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Again, friends, perhaps I have a block in my brain, but my argument is not that "Richat is the site of Atlantis"; that would be absurd given the lack of evidence. The argument is that sources documenting how widespread the fringe theory is, including two reliable sources, warrant mention of the existence of the fringe theory in at least one sentence. This is in no way to imply that the fringe theory is *correct*. It is about the *notability of how widespread the fringe theory itself is* which is documented by reliable sources (in addition to being *very* widely documented by tabloids). I believe we are violating some fundamental principles of Wikipedia if we suppress information because the subject of the information is factually wrong. If that were so, there wouldn't be an article about "Mein Kampf"! Keizers (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Put your Atlantis crap in one of your atlantis articles. ‘’This’’ article is about the Richat structure. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Hi Roxy, for someone who thinks he/she is so intelligent and regularly talks to other editors as if they are "stupid", you should avoid stooping to the level of personal attacks and insults. If you are truly so smart, then state your counter-argument to what I am pointing out here. But remember that your personal distaste for fringe theories is not a reason to actively prevent any mention of the widespread reach of any fringe theory or pseudoscience in particular. You do not own Wikipedia or any article in it (cf. WP:OWN, also please remember WP:NPA). Keizers (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)” and “This* is RfC is in itself outlandish. Not a single user who comes to the page about Richat Structure because they are interested in the Richat Structure will be helped by a mention that absolute nonsense promoted as a curiosity by some of the worst tabloids in the world mention the structure. As mentioned above, the gibberish could go to the section about fringe theories and the Richat Structure or a page about the most absurd claims ever made. This RfC is a waste of everyone's time. Mlewan (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I suspect more people come here because of that " nonsense promoted as a curiosity by some of the worst tabloids in the world mention" then because of some well thought out piece in Nature. It is out[our] duty to make sure they know this is silly season junk, rather then relying on the only sources that cover it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC) So, do you do that by quickly calling out the widespread fringe theory and identifying it as nonsense (and linking to the page about the fringe theories), or by suppressing the very mention that a widespread fringe theory exists? In general on Wikipedia, you will find mentions of widespread fringe theories in the articles about the subjects of the fringe theories. Suppression of information about "unpleasant" or "offensive" things is a bad thing, cf. Wikipedia:Information suppression. Keizers (talk) I would do it with a brief mention on any related page (as per my suggestion above), and a link to a main article debunking the silliness.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)” and “As* long as it's not in an unnecessarily prominent place (the lead etc), I see no reason not to mention the fringe theory's existence and link to the appropriate page for those who want to know more on the subject. Plenty of articles have a sentence along the lines of "This place has been a popular subject of ghost stories and appears on lists of haunted place", so why wouldn't this article have a similar sentence? Especially since it already has its own section on the Location hypotheses of Atlantis page and the theory seems to be quite popular and proper sources mention its existence. I thought it's obvious that mentioning a fringe theory's existence doesn't make you a believer or proponent of it, but here we are. If all editors were as adamant in suppressing access to information regarding things they themselves don't believe as some in this thread, God only knows what would happen to all the religion pages. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)” and “I* see no value in mentioning fringe theories in an encyclopaedic article — unless the article is about fringe theories, or the psychopathology of fringe theorists. Even a mention of a fringe theory gives it undue weight, and they already have more than enough publicity through other channels. Don't people come to an encyclopaedia to learn something from a reliable source? Let's try to be that source. yoyo (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC) yoyo , yes Wikipedia is encyclopedic, but it is not limited to mentioning "legitimate facts". It also documents fringe theories and many other unpleasant things, because the existence of those theories is something to be studied, something that is documented, in itself; as long as reliable sources cover the existence of those theories, that is proof enough that the encyclopedia should include it. I am quite disturbed by the mindset that the encyclopedia is here to "edit" the existence of things, as that is a slippery slope. Do we remove information about white nationalism, because its philosophy is wrong? Of course not, we include it because reliable sources talk about it as a force, a movement, and in that context the encyclopedia of course mentions that its philosophy is wrong. Keizers (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)” I feel like I have quoted the entire discussion. I have quoted this because I would like us to address those main points before having a not useful repeat discussion. To Curiocurio’s argument “I don't think the Atlantis theory should be included without there being some actual evidence in its support, for example, archaeological artifacts that have been recovered. This is a scientific article. Speculation without factual support is baseless and would give the fringe theory undue emphasis. By the way, 3.7 million Youtube views has no standing on Wikipedia. Curiocurio (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)” I would say that wikipedia is a very common site for learning and research. Those that hear the atlantis story have undoubtedly came to this page. It does not take away from the scientific content of an article to refute rumors that those visiting have likely heard. And I’d reiterate User:PraiseVivec’s good point about ghost stories. I’d also restate Keizers’ “I am quite disturbed by the mindset that the encyclopedia is here to "edit" the existence of things, as that is a slippery slope.” where it could be argued that when those that hear the atlantis story visit this page and see nothing, they leave still believing the atlantis connection, and search for more dubious sources that claim that connection exists. Where rather if this page had an inclusion, it could show those viewers some critical thinking and real evidence proves that connection probably isn’t there, meaning leaving out those atlantis rumors could be more harmful than including it(with the caveat that points out those rumors are false) There has been a spike in views for this page https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-12-09&end=2023-01-29&pages=Richat_Structure and a youtube search shows this recent video https://yewtu.be/watch?v=xo_fMcSLp7Q which seems to have generated interest. Do you think any visitor who visits this page due to stories like that will read this article as it is and be swayed either way? Or would a *minor* tidbit like my latest reverted edit linking to that article and linking to this page(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis) which states “From 1974 onward,[59] prehistoric artifacts of the area were mapped, finding an absence of prehistoric artifacts or Paleolithic or Neolithic stone tools from the structure's innermost depressions. Neither recognizable midden deposits nor manmade structures were found nor reported in the area, thus concluding that the area was used only for short-term hunting and stone tool manufacturing during prehistoric times.[60][61]” do better to show the lack of evidence for that theory? Any viewer(which I believe to be in the minority) visiting this page not due to those rumors will likely see mention of that as silly and interesting, and obviously false. It is no bother to anyone. Like has been said, plenty of wiki pages on places have a tidbit saying something about allegations of “hauntings” or paranormal activity on that place. Nuance is required, advocating for the truth requires addressing lies. I am absolutely fine with my reverted edit not being included in the lede, maybe elsewhere in the article. It seems like you do not understand that none of us actually want to put something in the article that says “The Richat structure is Atlantis” , rather just something akin to my removed edit, “A refuted fringe theory has claimed it is the site of Atlantis.” Sorry for any formatting, I’m on mobile. Thanks. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC) TLDR. I'm not persuaded. - Roxy the dog 12:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC) …. So no reason? None at all? Can you give a reason why you’ve had this attitude for years? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC) See here. -Roxy the dog 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Like Keizers reminded you 3 years ago, do you understand you don’t own this article? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content) I really don’t think I’m asking for all that much, reasons for no inclusion. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Hmmm. Let's see ... About 20% of your 100 or so edits have been made to this article and its talk page. about 0% of my 30,000 edits approx have been made to this article and its talk page. Me=0% You= 20%. Do you understand you don’t own this article? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content). -Roxy the dog 09:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, as I’ve made less edits, and I’ve come across this article about 5 days ago, whereas it seems you’ve gatekeeped this thing for years, without providing any reason. I don’t see your point here, that’s how math works but things have to be put in context. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Seriously man, did you even read that? I’ve asked you multiple times to provide reasons for no inclusion, and time and time again you’ve come up short. I do not see why that is so difficult. Genuinely perplexed. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Of course not. TLDR, as I said. -Roxy the dog 09:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) You can skip the quotes from the 2019 discussion if you’d like. I do not understand why you are being so petty about this. I think it’d be worth the 2 minutes to read my reasoning regarding parts of an article you seem to have cared much about for 4 years, maybe more. It is good to try to see things from another point of view. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC) I have found this article again, so maybe it is time to revisit this topic with a more levelheaded mind? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC) So, what do you want to discuss this time? - Roxy the dog 10:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Can you read my past points and try to address them? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Hello, did you read them? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) I’ve stumbled across this again after 3 months, so hopefully you’ve been able to read it? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Oh, it appears you’ve been banned for similar behavior displayed in this page. I really do hope you learn from that and heed what many editors have told you over and over, not just on the topic/area you were banned for, but on others such as this article, so you can appeal. It is unfortunate to learn that you appear to have not changed since Keizers spoke with you in 2019 about your behavior. Hostility and refusing to explain serves no-one, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Not to seem aggressive with these replies, but this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement is a good guide to discussion. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC) In 2019 this precise question was the subject of an RfC. The closer of that RfC found no consensus but left open the possibility of returning to the question in the future. It seems that we have again reached the point where the wider community should express its opinion. Mikenorton (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC) I agree, but I think roxy the dog will be dismissive and flippant again if another discussion is started. I’ve brought up topics from the 2019 discussion to them individually, but they seem unable to revisit that even 4 years later. I don’t believe “Atlantis is a fiction. We've been over this time and again. I shall revert to the status quo ante.” is a well developed argument, I’ve addressed that and essentially said yes Atlantis is a fiction but it’s story and alleged relation to this structure generates significant interest to this page, and it’s false relation should be shown. To this argument they have not responded. Would it not be better to resolve this individually first, as I don’t see any other editor being so involved with this and being unable to discuss calmly? I don’t want another RfC to start up, only to be deadlocked with flippant responses that don’t sufficiently address arguments. I am really not even asking for much, just something beyond “It’s fake” and swears. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC) (As this keeps coming up) I agree with Roxy: this doesn't deserve a mention. The default position should be 'don't mention overconfident nonsense' -- the substance of a claim, and informational value of including it, has to overcome that default. Among the problems with letting the camel of nonsense get its nose in the tent: Once you start, there's a lot of nonsense out there that tries to connect any mystery to every other mystery. You can't disprove something that's "not even wrong". Including a fantastical claim and stating it's false counterintuitively lends credence to it being true (if it were obviously false, it wouldn't even be mentioned, so there must be something to it!) Even a one-sentence mention provides a hatrack hook for edit wars about how to represent the truth of the claim. – SJ + 19:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC) References