Talk:Atlantis/Archive 8

Hello, I saw that I should bring up new topics on the Talk page. Excuse me if I have made any errors. I added the Richat Structure under 'other locations'. There is a film by George S. Alexander that explores the similarities of the Richat Structure in Mauritania and Atlantis. The similarities seem reasonable. ^[1] The Youtube channel, Bright Insight, references the theory and cites the film as his inspiration to address the topic. ^[2] Leif One (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

These are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The main issue is has this been discussed enough in sources that meet WP:RS to be considered significant - see WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 04:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that the website is at least 7 years old, so it's been there long enough to expect reliable sources if anyone has taken it seriously. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, here is a website from April 2012, Antoine Gigal, Apart from the geology of the site, many of Plato's descriptions ring true concerning the Richat Structure, aka, the Eye of the Sahara, or the Blue Eye of Africa. Even if the formation of this unique location is of geological origin, it is still possible that these geological features were taken advantage of for an island, city, or civilization. I would like to propose that the Richat Structure be included as an 'other' possible location. The age of its discovery was limited, in that it was only discovered by astronauts in orbit above the earth.

^[1]

Stewart Dunlop published an article about this in 2015 on DocumentaryTube.net ^[2]

Atlantipedia.ie has several articles related to the Eye of the Sahara as a possibility as well. ^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leif One (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources meet our official standards for reliable sources. A work needs to be either academic or at least semi-academic and must have gone through secondary publication by a respected publishing company in order for us to even consider it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai and Slatersteven: IPs trying to force this into Richat Structure. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, another Admin protected it. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was not myself trying to insert anything into Richat Structure. I think the 'Bright Insight'youtube video probably has something to do with it. The video was posted 1 day ago and has 23K likes and 384,274 views. ^[1] I would like a connection on the Atlantis page, to say "this is interesting, look at this". To that end, here is a reference that may meet the rigorous requirements of a Reliable Source for a mythical location, shrouded in history and conjecture.

In his book, 'Meet me in Atlantis' Mark Adams discusses how the geological features of the Richat structure match Plato's descriptions, including; concentric rings, black, red, and white rocks, as well as hot and cold springs.

^[2]

An article from the BBC news world edition 2002, highlights an exihibition that shows the oldest known map of the African continent dating back to 1389. The Chinese map, thought to be a copy of an older map sculpted into rock, depicts a massive lake, or inland sea with an island in the upper quadrant. ^[3] Leif One (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Do these say it might have been Atlantis?Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We have an article, Da Ming Hunyi Tu, about the Chinese map which may be as old as 1389, or may be a later map drawing on one created around 1389. - Donald Albury 20:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

in his book, Mark Adams has a discussion with Stavros Papamarinopoulos, where Papamarinopoulos talks about a geological structure, he calls a 'mud volcano' and that the concentric rings, different colored rocks, and hot and cold water springs could be a possible location of Atlantis. He uses the Richat structure as an example. Mark Adams states that anyone interested in Atlantis should look at the "jaw-dropping" image of the Richat structure in Mauritania. I do believe it is implied that the location might be Atlantis. Leif One (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to include the Richat structure as an example of geology that could be a possibility for Atlantis. Stavros Papamarinopoulos clearly states that in the book. Papamarinopoulos also appears to be a published expert in Geology and an authority concerning Atlantis. ^[1] Leif One (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The Richat Structure is definitely not a mud volcano as Papamarinopoulos claims. It is an eroded structural dome composed of Precambrian to Ordovician sedimentary strata that has been uplifted by an underlying alkaline igenous intrusion. A variety of volcanic rocks from the intrusion underlying this dome have cut through the uplifted strata as dikes and sills and in some cases erupted onto the surface. The Richat structure is not composed of mud. It consists an eclectic mixture of sedimentary, hydrothermal, and volcanic rocks.^[2] Paul H. (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Does Prof Papamarinopoulos say anything about Atlantis?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The idea dates from 2005 at least and should be attributed to Ulf Richter, it just seems to be getting some attention now due to youtube. I see nothing wrong with a brief mention on the Location hypotheses of Atlantis page. Note that Richter adduces the Richat structure, but he emphasizes that it cannot itself be Atlantis. He just proposes that Atlantis might have been built on an analogous geologic formation. This is, of course, much more sophisticated than condensing this down to "the Richat structure is Atlantis". Nevertheless, it was Richter who first discussed the Richat structure in the context of the location of Atlantis. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Below in "Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018", Steveafrica wrote, "Evidence supports that Atlantis may have been at the site called the Richat Structure a.k.a "Eye of Africa". See "Visiting Atlantis" documentary video or web site." Neither web page nor video are regarded as reliable sources and are self-published. As result of these two factors alone, they are unacceptabel as sources of information for Wikipedia article. If you want to include the (yours?) idea that Richat Structure might be Atlantis, you need to find someone, who has published in a reliable source what is recognized and discussed by a third party to be a coherent argument that is backed by documented, credible evidence for the idea that the Richat Structure might be Atlantis. Looking at the web page and video, they lack coherent arguments, credible evidence, and notability for such a claim. Basically, it is the same old Atlantis bandwagon that characterizes innumerable claims of having found Atlantis which argues that the large multi-ring, circular feature "du jour" must be Atlantis because it is a large multi-ring, circular feature. From that basic supposition, confirmation bias supplies as seen in "Visiting Atlantis," the supporting "evidence" for the claim. It is interesting that Ulf Richter rejected the idea that Richat Structure might be Atlantis. Paul H. (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paul H., Leif One, Slatersteven, and Dbachmann: it's now in Location hypotheses of Atlantis. I just looked at Mark Adams' book - it seems pretty poor and despite being published by Penguin I think it fails WP:RS (I found one clearly fringe book published by Simon and Schuster). Adams is simply a popular writer, see his page here. Speaking of Simon and Schuster, another book used at the Location page is Invader Moon listed at Simon and Schuster but the copy used is published by Permuted Press "An industry-leading independent publisher of sci-fi. Fantasy. Dystopian, prepper, post-apocalyptic, horror, military, and paranormal fiction and non-fiction." Doug Weller talk 11:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Montalban just added it and I've reverted. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Another concern is Adams, p. 203, proposes that the Richat Structure is possibly Atlantis based largely on "...a photograph in one of the Atlanti essay collections..." It reads like the Richat Structure is inferred to possibly be Atlantis solely because it is a large multi-ring, circular feature. In addition, he likely has not done even a literature review of what is known about the Richat Structure because he misidentifies it as a "...possible mud volcano..." This does not sound like the due diligence of a credible source. This discussion is also based on a personal coversation that he had with another researcher, Dr. Starvos Papamarinopoulo, who has published papers that argue that Atlantis lies on the eastern coast of the Black Sea. Paul H. (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not for us to analyze sources.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a reference to the Richat structure. I'm kinda baffled that Edgar Cayce seems to be a reliable source, but speculation about the physical characteristics of a location and how they relate to the original source material of Plato is readily dismissed, after all the article starts by describing it as a fictional island. Nonetheless, thank you for including the reference, I am sure there are many people that will find it interesting and they can decide for themselves. Perhaps one of them will publish a reliable source and add to the speculation of this mythical tale. Leif One (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following is a list of the ancient testimonies on Atlantis (I hope will be useful):

• Strabo, Geography II, 3, 6 and XIII, 1, 36
• Pliny, Natural History, II 90 and V (first part)
• Plutarch, Life of Solon, 31-32
• Proclus, Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, Volume 1, Book 1: "Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis"
• Numenius, (cited by Proclus, ibid., 77.6-14)
• Tertullian, Apologeticus, XL, 4
• Origen, (cited by Proclus, ibid., 77.1-6)
• Cassius Longinus (philosopher), (cited by Proclus, ibid., passim)
• Porphyry, (cited by Proclus, ibid., 77.7-24)
• Amelius, (cited by Proclus, ibid., 76.21-30)
• Iamblichus, On the mysteries, VII, 5 (258, 4-5, and 259, 9-11)
• Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography, XII, 2-3 e 8-9

Ontoraul (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ontoraul: I'm confused. The section heading says Atlantides. Why? Doug Weller talk 16:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Simply a typo (I am Italian...) Ontoraul (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to request that the sub section: Location hypothesis, should more closely match the Main article: Location hypotheses of Atlantis. I am suggesting a re-organization of the topics based on geography, history, zones, perceived credibility, continents, or age of hypothesis. Whatever the method, it should be consistent and logical across the Atlantis main page, and the Location hypotheses of Atlantis page. Leif One (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think we could lose the whole "Location hypotheses" section apart from the "Main article" link and the following introductory paragraph. I'm definitely opposed to any effort that would make the section longer or attribute "perceived credibility" to any of the locations. One of the reasons Location hypotheses of Atlantis was spun out from this article in the first place was to segregate the woo-woo speculation someplace apart from this article. Deor (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The manual of style suggests generally using shorter subtitles (Atlantis can be implied). —PaleoNeonate – 07:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Deor. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Deor that the whole "Location hypothese" section could be replaced with a link.Leif One (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally agree, it seems odd to have both this level of depth here and a separate article.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Deor, keep speculation about the location of Atlantis out of this article and in Location hypotheses of Atlantis. - Donald Albury 15:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't resist. Details - Donald Albury 15:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please, for the love of all that is holy, don't bait this situation more than it already is enflamed. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantis page should be separated into two pages. One should reflect the academic opinion that the island is fictional, and that it was merely a literary device used by Plato to tell a morality tale. Only material directly attributed to Plato's Dialogues should be included. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis#Plato's_dialogues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis#Timaeus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis#Critias

Everything on the current page after Timaeus and Critias should be on another page, starting with Interpretations. It really is puzzling to argue over what deserves to be included and what should be excluded. The information should be available to whomever wants to know about it. It is NOT up to wikipedia editors to decide what theories are valid enough for inclusion. Really anyone can have a theory or speculation about this mythical land. Why should Edgar Cayce be allowed a section concerning Atlantis, while other theories are excluded. Who decides? Shouldn't the better approach be to let theories and speculation exist on their own and let readers form their own opinions? Divide the page into Plato attributable content and then everything else. If you believe Atlantis was near Ireland, Spain, Antarctica or North America, it should be part of the Interpretation page of Atlantis, otherwise it is too messy to tease apart which wild theory is more or less valid than another wild theory. Leif One (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong Support I think we'll have to do this, or something like it, for many pages in the future. For instance, if Wikipedia had been created in 1901, instead of a century later, Einstein's theory of relativity may have been deemed pseudoscience or fringe theory for nearly thirty years. I took many years for the theory to become mainstream science, and Wikipedia users cannot be placed in a stranglehold every time segments of the internet think that scientific consensus and all credible sources should change overnight. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Of relevance may be WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK, WP:DETAIL and WP:SPLIT. —PaleoNeonate – 14:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the form of splitting advocated by the OP. As I said above, I think that most of the "Location hypotheses" section could profitably be jettisoned; however, much of the material in the "Interpretations" section seems germane to the topic, and the section is not, in my opinion, extensive enough to warrant a split. As for "Literary interpretations" and "Artistic representations", some of that stuff can go in Atlantis in popular culture, some can be repositioned elsewhere in the article, and some seems fairly tangential and can probably be removed. Deor (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Do you realize that you are proposing a split in your opposition? The only difference is that you are proposing some convoluted "chopping up" of information and scattering it throughout various pages. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm opposing the OP's suggestion "Everything on the current page after Timaeus and Critias should be on another page". That doesn't mean that I think there's no need to improve the article in other ways. Deor (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• This section is a discussion of a split. The "need to improve the article in other ways" was never in question. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't Location hypotheses of Atlantis already the suggested second article? --bender235 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Let us at least include a link to the Richat Structure in Mauritania as a possible location and link sources to Plato's writings on Atlantis 66.252.52.62 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We do link to Plato's writing, as to the Richat Structure, this is a fringe theory even within Atlantology. I am not sure that adding a link about it will tell us about Atlantis.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

If you think Richat Structure is a fringe theory then you should link it as a fringe theory. Don't just exclude it completely. The first picture on the page is a theory of it's location as well. Wikipedia should respect all theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.52.62 (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No we should not, we give coverage based upon wp:fringe and wp:npov. We do not put all views, we put all significant ones, and this is not significant, even within a fringe (it is a fringe of a fringe). As I said I fail to see what this adds to our understanding of the topic (which is not the location of Atlantis, but an overview of the myth).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Given the response here and the discussions I see further up the page, there is no such consensus at this time. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to help people learn and gather facts. Discrediting such a claim is unright to the readers of Wikipedia, as it witholds information that could potentially solve a mystery that has gone unsolved for millennia. Adding a theory that has more validity than wild claim that Atlantis was in the Atlantic should be allowed. This theory should be recognized as some ancient scholars such as Herodotus claimed Atlantis was in Western North Africa. Also, some believe there is a direct correlation between Atlas of Mauritania and Atlas of Atlantis. Dixie003 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I just though I would note that Herodotus does not say anything about Atlantis being "in Western North Africa" because Herodotus never mentions Atlantis at all. Plato is the first author to mention Atlantis and he lived over a generation after Herodotus. In any case, we cannot possible hope to mention all the crazy hypotheses out there about Atlantis and this is going to have to be one that we have to exclude. By the way, the idea that Atlantis was in the Atlantic is not at all a "wild claim"; Plato literally says that it was located in the Atlantic, "beyond the Pillars of Heracles." In any case, Atlantis is a fictional island and I do not see why everyone gets so worked up about it. No one takes any of Plato's other stories as literal history, so why do people do it with just this one? --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

We do mention the fact that some have speculated an African location. But this page is not(and so should not go into overly much detail) about the location of Atlantis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of "Herodotus" maps stating Atlantes (or similar) to be somewhere west or north or the river Nile. Would be great to find a reliable source. Herodotus map in Britannica --no-username andi 2A02:8084:6122:3A80:BDEC:3803:B7BE:C059 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Who drew that map? It looks to me like "Atlantes" is one of a series of oases in the Sahara. Where is there any indication that it equates to Plato's Atlantis? Aquila is the name of an oasis, while Garamantes is the name of an oasis based community. - Donald Albury 02:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[Edited - Donald Albury 03:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]

The map is definitely by Herodotus. In addition, "Atlantes" is definitely an oasis.

For example, on pages 133 and 134 of Macan (1895a), there are:

"It has even been suggested that the name Atlas (Atlantes, Atarantes) is a softened form of Adrdr, mountain, the chain of mountains still called by the Berbers Idraren, Adariren, in the plural. (Saint-Martin, p. 60.)"

"The Atlantes are vegetarians and never dream: cause and effect? That mountaineers should eat no flesh is obviously improbable."

and "The oasis (...Greek words omitted...) of the Atlantes carries us no farther than the eastern frontiers of modern Algeria..."

On page 275 of Macan (1895b) , there is:

"The first five names of these oases are given in order from Egypt, as the Ammonii, Augila, the Garamantes, the Atarantes, the Atlantes." and "The passage undoubtedly describes the African oases, and it is the earliest description of them which has come down to us."

On page 282, of Macan (1895b) , there is:

"The character of the passage on the oases (cc. 181-185), already sufficiently discussed, does not lend itself to lucid or consistent ethnography : the positions of the ' Ammonii,' of Augila, of the ' Garamantes,' even perhaps of the ' Atlantes,' may be regarded as fixed ; but, if this were all, the fixedness would rather hinder than help the completion of the map."

References;

Macan, R.W. ed., 1895a. Herodotus: the fourth, fifth, and sixth books (Vol. 1). Macmillan and Company. (can be found in Google books)

Macan, R.W. ed., 1895b. Herodotus: the fourth, fifth, and sixth books (Vol. 2). Macmillan and Company. (can be found in Google books) Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

And we mention Africa, does it refer to Atlantis any evidence it does? (rather then a mountain whose "peak so high that its top was never seen" is that it may have been in north Africa.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The translated text of Herodotus is The History of Herodotus by Herodotus, Written 440 B.C.E, Translated by George Rawlinson. I like Macan (1895a, 1895b), because they also have the corresponding Greek text of teh original and notes about the finer points of interpretation and translation. The closest specific mention of "Atlantis" in the translations is:

"The sea frequented by the Greeks, that beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which is called the Atlantic, and also the Erythraean, are all one and the same sea."

Between the oasis of Garamantians and the Atlas Mountains; it is said "At the distance of ten days' journey from the Garamantians there is again another salt-hill and spring of water; around which dwell a people, called the Atarantians,..." I do not see how a person can infer that they are associated with Atlantis without doing extensive original research and having a very vivid imagination. Paul H. (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This research of Ralbadisole.org might shed light on Atlantis as is possibly no longer a "fictional" location.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

TWO POSSIBLE SOURCES OF INSPIRATION TO ATLANTIS. One possible source of inspiration to Atlantis is what has been called "The first Utopia in western litterature": The island- realm of Phaecia or fajakia that Odysseus visits in the Odyssey. Conversely som Atlantis- believers put the name of Atlantis on Phaecia appaerently taking the Odyssey as history. The reason why Plato lets it be egyptian priests "revealing" Atlantis to visiting Solon may be that there are old egyptian legends about Egypt having been founded by "red-haired" strangers from west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Have any RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please ADD the Richat Structure in Mauritania to the list of "Other Locations" proposed for the island of Atlantis. EvaRovin (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read the "Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018" section above. - Donald Albury 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Atlantis (Ancient Greek: Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσος, "island of Atlas") is a mythical or legendary island mentioned within Azazel-Zel (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

and what is Azazel-Zel?Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 15:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Afro-Eurasia (orthographic projection).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is not cited. Who is it who gets to decide the hierarchy of importance with regards to Plato's works? Seems like an unnecessary opinion to me. The sentence doesn't really add much to the article, no information would be lost if it was removed. 203.51.35.151 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's see, Iain Stewart, writing for the BBC, says, "Plato's story comes to us in two short pieces, Tinnaeus and Critias ...", and, "While the bulk of Plato's account of Atlantis details its physical and political layout, its location and the nature of its destruction warrant only a few hundred words."^[1] That does seem to state that the story of Atlantis is a small part of Plato's work. - Donald Albury 13:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Atlantis is of "minor importance" because just like other Platonic myths it serves mostly as garnish to the philosophical argument. --bender235 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If other unvinvolved editors (i.e. not the OP) disagree with my closures of the discussion, then feel free to go ahead with it, but I do strongly believe there will be nothing productive gained from filling this page with debunking of pseudoscientific theories we can't even consider putting in owing to a complete lack of sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support your closure, and advise the OP that spurious reports at noticeboards may result in sanction. ——SN54129 13:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support User:Jasper Deng's closure and User:Serial Number 54129's comment. - Donald Albury 20:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support closure and advise disciplinary action against vicious, time-wasting editor. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article states that atlantis is fiction. This needs to be changed to state that no evidence has been found to confirm nor deny the existence of Atlantis. We do know by many archaeological findings that civilizations have been lost to the elements of the planet. One example was Pompeii. People denied heavily that it ever existed until it was dug up. Other findings have shown that whole cities or towns have been swallowed up by oceans and lakes. Atlantis can neither be confirmed nor denied as ever having existed and the article needs to state that. Godsfriend6 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Gotta love how this article confidently states that Atlantis "is a fictional island" when there's absolutely no proof that it didn't exist. No wonder people view this site as a cesspool of inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolgarbage (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also no proof the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, nor the Easter bunny. Yours is not a strong argument. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well apart form the geological no.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"states that Atlantis "is a fictional island" when there's absolutely no proof that it didn't exist" Prove its a non fictional island, prove it exists! Its a Logical fallacy that is not acceptable in court, science, general life. It is only resorted too when people have no justifiable claim!--HalloHelloHalloHello (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Are you saying is it or it is not fictional?Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Jason Colavito says that it "is proudly not an actual accredited academic institution. “We are not an (sic) traditional university & we don't pretend to be - we are a new type of university with a huge vision, determined leadership & a razor sharp team who dare to go where others won't,” Keystone’s unpunctuated run-on copy reads. Instead, like Trump University, its curriculum revolves around brief seminars. Keystone offers three seminars per year. One involves improving one’s mental faculties. Another is about business skills. The third is about ancient mysteries, including Atlantis and “human evolution,” which wouldn’t fit into the category unless the pseudo-school had something unusual to say about it. Keystone claims that their seminars compress “decades” of learning into “days" at a thousand Euros a pop.

Its website is here. If you go to their "learn more" page and click on Stargate Maths to find out what it is, you get the home page of their web designer. How professional is that? Oh look, they run the world's best mini-MBA. And Jason's wrong, they want 1,999 Euro for this one. They also are going to build "the world's best enterprise centre" "The Keystone centre will include a world-class convention centre, Europe's largest hotel & 70,000 square metres of prime office space all under one roof while the surrounding landbank will be developed into a global business park & residential district." Here's Woods' page. He also runs "Keystone Business School". Even better, Keystone Insurance. It all smells scam and we shouldn't touch it. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, Doug Weller! I'd been ploughing through the dubious sources given and had just discovered that O'Brien's Hyperborean thesis, The Round Towers of Ireland, was published in 1834 and offered "the mysteries of Freemasonry, of Sabaism and of Budhism (sic) FOR THE FIRST TIME UNVEILED". That had already struck me as a tad off-topic, but it seems a shame not to exhibit such a prize example of lunatic speculation as the kind of ingenious barrel-scraping that Atlanteans go in for! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is my very first edit/post to Wikipedia, so apologies in advance if I commit any faux paux. I noticed that the link in source 21 redirects to the Wikitech portal on Toolforge, rather than any relevant source. Considering it is the source of the first quote in the article discussing the introduction of Atlantis, I thought it prudent to bring up. -ConcernedTyrannosaur (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@ConcernedTyrannosaur: This is a problem with the citation template {{citeplato}} rather than anything specific to this article. I've brought the problem up both at the template's talk page and at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). It's to be hoped that someone will help out. Deor (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Atlantis has been found. https://www.atlantisfound.it/ I'm sorry, now you have to change all the text on this page... sorry best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.45.103 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

THis is not an RS, when RS say it we can.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The website is laughably dodgy. Not going to be added. --bender235 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In January 2021 Atlantis has been found by Dr. Luigi Usai, an indipendent researcher. You can find info, pictures, bathymetries on www.atlantisfound.it Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.227.178 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying the same thing twice makes no difference, its a dodgey source. And this fails wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

5.171.227.178 (talk), come back when Usai published his results in a peer-reviewed academic journal. A flimsy website won't suffice. --bender235 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't know that it was fictional. Plato said several times that the story was true. He said Atlantis was destroyed 11,600 years ago. This coincides with a rapid rise in sea levels called Meltwater Pulse 1B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.219.227 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And George Mcdonald Frasier said (many times, in multiple book) Flashman was real. As to the rest, if Plato is accurate it was not a flood (due to rising sea levels) it was a volcanic cataclysm. We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Plato didn't say anything. Plato's character Kritias—citing Solon who cites an Egyptian priest, who translates it off a stele—claims the story was true. It's a story within a story within a story... --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic of this section is clearly important and worth including, but its content is in need of revision and appears to be derived from a single, politically biased source. It states:

"Much speculation began as to the origins of the Maya, which led to a variety of narratives and publications that tried to rationalize the discoveries within the context of the Bible and that had undertones of racism in their connections between the Old and New World. The Europeans believed the indigenous people to be inferior and incapable of building that which was now in ruins and by sharing a common history, they insinuate that another race must have been responsible."

(Any such claim regarding what 'the Europeans' thought is of course a ridiculous generalization and this sentence ought to be rephrased.)

"In the middle and late nineteenth century, several renowned Mesoamerican scholars, starting with Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, and including Edward Herbert Thompson and Augustus Le Plongeon, formally proposed that Atlantis was somehow related to Mayan and Aztec culture.

The French scholar Brasseur de Bourbourg traveled extensively through Mesoamerica in the mid-1800s, and was renowned for his translations of Mayan texts, most notably the sacred book Popol Vuh, as well as a comprehensive history of the region. Soon after these publications, however, Brasseur de Bourbourg lost his academic credibility, due to his claim that the Maya peoples had descended from the Toltecs, people he believed were the surviving population of the racially superior civilization of Atlantis.[55] His work combined with the skillful, romantic illustrations of Jean Frederic Waldeck, which visually alluded to Egypt and other aspects of the Old World, created an authoritative fantasy that excited much interest in the connections between worlds."

This, if we are to credit the Wikipedia article on Brasseur de Bourbourg, is nonsense. There, it states:

"Brasseur began to write about Atlantis in his publication Grammaire de la langue quichée (1862), in which he expressed his belief that the lost land described by Plato had existed with an advanced degree of civilization before the beginning of civilizations in Europe and Asia. He suggested that the origins of European and Persian words could be traced to indigenous languages of the Americas and that the ancient cultures of the New and Old Worlds had been in constant communication with one another.

In 1866, Monuments anciens du Mexique (Palenque, et autres ruines de l'ancienne civilisation du Mexique) was published with a text by Brasseur de Bourbourg accompanied by lavish illustrations by Jean-Frédéric Waldeck. Although Waldeck's depictions of the ruins at Palenque were based on first-hand knowledge, his artistic reconstructions and embellishments implied a close relationship between Maya art and architecture and that of Classical antiquity Greece and Rome. This was subsequently demonstrated to be spurious, but not before Waldeck's artwork had inspired speculations about contact between New and Old World civilizations, specifically via the lost continent of Atlantis.

These speculations were reinforced by Brasseur de Bourboug's own references to Plato's descriptions of the culture and society of Atlantis, which Brasseur believed was continued by ancient Maya civilization, in his book Quatre Lettres sur le Méxique (1868). In this publication, Brasseur de Bourbourg made extensive parallels between Maya and Egyptian pantheons and cosmologies, implying that they all had a common source on the lost continent of Atlantis. He developed these ideas further in his publication Quatre lettres sur le Mexique (1868), which presents a history of Atlantis based on his interpretation of Maya myths. His writings inspired Augustus Le Plongeon and also Ignatius L. Donnelly, whose book Atlantis: The Antediluvian World contains numerous references to Brasseur de Bourbourg's scholarship. However, an academic wrote in 1875 that not a single contemporary scholar accepted Brasseur de Bourbourg's theories about Atlantis."

If this is true, then the claim that he believed that Mayan civilization must have been the product of a supposed Atlantean because he thought the Maya 'racially inferior' must be dismissed since he apparently believed that Atlantis was the source of all ancient civilizations, and had nothing at all to do with racialist theories. 2A01:CB04:326:AC00:2CB4:FB15:67D8:FA8B (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph the name of the book is timaeus et critias instead of and Anshmitt (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok Anshmitt (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: They are separate dialogues, not one book. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Since there are people who believe that Atlantis has actually existed, doesn't that make Atlantis legendary? —Kri (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed often on this talk page. The result of this RFC stands unless a new consensus is reached. Deor (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"The whole of this country has successively had the names of Aetheria,727 Atlantia, and last of all, Aethiopia, from Aethiops, the son of Vulcan." -- Pliny 6.35.30"

-- Highlights: Aethyria is Avaris; this location is known. This is a royal city with a port. The story claims to have come from the days of Amasis, or Ahmose II. It is a flashback to Ahmose I, which would be the most popular story in the days of Amasis. One of the Atlantian kings, Ampheres, appears in Manetho around this time as: "Mêphrês". The legend of Phaethon also appears within Plato's Atlantis; Phaethon, or the son of the sun, is King Tut; the entire Amarna family appears in the legend of Phaethon.

Moved new comment to bottom of page per WP:BOTTOMPOST. Do you have reliable sources to support this theory? Also, please read WP:Fringe theories. Even if reliable sources discuss the theory, the policy on WP:Neutral point of view requires that competing theories not be given undue weight. - Donald Albury 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What happens if someone really find the geographic location of Atlantis? You won't publish it?

Because you told that you only publish sure theories, until all the scientists agree, you will not publish anything? Atlantis has been found, it's capital it's the Sulcis Iglesiente in Sardinia. Under the water there still is the remainings of the sinked continent; and under Sardinia there is a tectonic subduction zone which is the same connected to join the Vesuvius Volcano, which caused the Pompei and Ercolano devastation. Did you check? It's all correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.128.0 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

We will if every expert says "Atlantis found". We wont if some bloke on the internet does. Now we may include notable theories (as in fact we do), but we cannot say they are facts.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Plato was not a historian, neither did he attempt to describe a historic place. Finding the "real" Atlantis is like finding the real Gotham City. --bender235 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Harder, as Gotham city is a real nickname for a real place.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was the Sardinian Corsican Atlantidean continental block, now under the water in the Mediterranean Sea, that was emerged land.

We still don’t know, but probably the only humans on earth were the SardoCorsoAtlantideans.

Then they learnt the navigation: the name of the inventor is now known as Poseidon. SardoCorsican called Poseidon a God, because of this amazing invention. The rest about Poseidon, you probably already know.

Then the SardoCorsoAtlantideans decided to explore the world. When they explored the world, they wanted to put a sign like “SardinianCorsicanAtlantideans have been here”. It is called the “Megalithic civilisation”. This is why all the megaliths follow the coasts. This is why the Megalithic technique it’s always the same. Because it’s always us SardinianCorsicanAtlantideans who built them: same technique, same origin, same reasons.

In nowaday Sardinia there were many kings with many different populations: the Ilienses founded the incredibly famous city of Ilio-Troy (Ilienses founded Ilio); the Sardinian Belares people founded and created the “Balearic Islands”; and in nowaday Sardinia we have a trinity of cities: Samassi, Uta and Sinnai; the SardoCorsoAtlantideans used navigation to go to Mesopotamia, where they started from scratch new civilisations, the Sumerians, the Accadians and so on; the Sumerians venerated the nowaday cities of Samassi, Uta and Sinnai and they DEIFYed them venerating these three cities as Šamaš, Utu and Sin (Sin-Nanna == Sinnai in Sardinia).

Scientist nowaday don’t understand: where did the Sumerians come from? Where did the Mesopotamic civilisations come from? From the SardinianCorsicanAtlantidean emerged continental block now underwater. Very simple. That is to say that Sumerian Language is Sardinian Language. Accadian Language is Sardinian language/dialect. The origin of the world language is in AtlantisCorsicanSardinia.

This is amazing. This finding really changes everything we know as Human Race.

I feel honored to be the first (maybe, I suppose) to tell you all this.

When I was a child, I studied the Sumerians at the elementary school. I was starting to learn to read. I read the word: “Sumeri”, which is italian word for Sumerians. But the italian word Sumeri it’s identical to the Sardinian Campidanese language words: “Su Meri”, which means “The Owner”, “The land owner”, “The Master”. It made me laugh. I thought it was a coincidence. But now I understand it was NOT a coincidence. I was a child, but I was one step to solving an amazing mistery of this planet. But then I stopped be curious. I just thought it was a coincidence.

In Monte d’Accoddi, Sassari, nowaday Sardinia, there is an ancient Ziqqurat. Someone claimed that the Sumerians came to Sardinia. It’s the exact opposite: the SardiniansCorsicanAtlantideans, when the Atlantis underwater block continent was emerged land, went to Mesopotamia and founded that civilisation.

The Gobekli Tepe temple too was founded by the Sardinian Corsican Atlantideans: here in Atlantis we venerated the bull, and you in fact can see bulls carved on the Gobekli Tepe walls everywhere; and during the traveling SardoCorsoAtlantideans also founded the Minoan and Micenean cultures. We in atlantis venerated the dolphins and the bulls, and in fact on the Minoan and Micenean walls you can admire bulls and dolphins everywhere. We still today in Sardinia have the “Boes e Merdules” (search for online videos about it) which wear the sacred bull masks and which do prehistoric rituals which today seems so crazy that is impossible to understand… We in Sardinia have a temple called Matzanni (in Sardinian language is Matzammini, animal guts), which is the temple were we made sacrifice to the bull god. Inside the Atlantis Capital, which is nowaday called Sulcis, there is an island called Bull Island. The event of the light of the apical holes of the Ruju di Torralba nuraghe; the bull head done by the light of the Nuraghe Santa Barbara. We have hundreds of this things but seems nobody understand what’s going on…

Agriculture, writings and texture were invented in SardinianCorsicanAtlantis, and even hydroengineering, which we exported directly in Mesopotamia.

Read WP:TALK to find out what Wikipedia Talk pages are for (talking about improving the article). Read WP:RS to find out how articles are improved (by citing reliable sources). Read WP:NOTHERE to find out who is not here to build an encyclopedia (you). --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

See Doug Weller talk 18:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To whom it may concern,

I would like you to edit a Wikipedia entry on a semi-protected page. The topic on Wikipedia is Atlantis. There is a recent entry in the location hypotheses section. It is direct reference to an original idea I developed in a book I first had published in 2016. There is no citation for my book and there is no original source other than my book. I would like this entry below changed to a more accurate description of my hypothesis and to have my original work cited.

Other locations A number of claims involve the Caribbean, either as an hypothetical emergent island formed by a combination of the Venezuela Basin, the Greater Antilles (namely Puerto Rico and Hispaniola) and the ridges of Beata and Aves or specific locations such as an alleged underwater formation off the Guanahacabibes peninsula in Cuba.[111][112]

Please make a change to:

A number of claims involve the Caribbean. One hypothetical location is an emergent island in the Eastern Caribbean formed by a combination of the now-submerged Venezuelan Basin and Beata and Aves Ridges, and the existing islands of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola in the Greater Antilles. Another specific location is an alleged underwater formation off the Guanahacabibes peninsula in Cuba.[111][112]

(please include citation as below)

Flambas, PP (2020). Plato's Caribbean Atlantis (2nd ed). Vivid Publishing. ISBN 978-1-922409-77-5

Kind regards,

Phil Flambas Photios00 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If your book was published in 2016, why is the publication date of the cite 2020? Also which claim are you claiming to have made first, as we have at least one cited from 2002.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The request looks like an attempt at self-promotion to me. Shouldn't it be deleted from the Talk page altogether? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsure, as they may be right. But we would need RS supporting their claim to have "discovered" this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

However this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08PL78LLD/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0 raises a number of concerns about this request.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that we have the author himself (who has had training in commerce, according to his Amazon biography) asking WP to bend its rules so as to give publicity to his book. Letting his request stand on the Talk page fulfils almost the same end, as he well knows, and that is why it should be deleted. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the book has only been self-published, and I don't find any indication on Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic that Flambas is a recognized expert in any field or has been cited by any other academics, so the book is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was the one that added that part, and first became aware of the hypothesis when an article by Brad Yoon -which actually predates the publishing of the ebook- found its way to my inbox. That alone challenges the OP’s assertion that he is the only source for that claim. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "fictional island" to "prehistoric human civilization". StarGatePodcast2021 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Atlantis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Max Oreh. (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to add scientific proof where Atlantis might be

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SpinningCeres 20:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add some more information about the Antlantis and fix a mistake I noticed that's why I am requesting and asking for your permission have a good day

Marinette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:3447:5800:F0ED:AAA0:1EC3:9D83 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Post what you want to add here, so we know what it is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to know why is this article protected while most of the others aren't? And why do we have to request to change a few mistakes we noticed? 2A02:587:3447:5800:F0ED:AAA0:1EC3:9D83 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is protected due to the large number of Drive-by wp:spa's that have come here to add their pet theory not supported by wp:rs but rather "Some bloke on the internets blog". Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your answers 2A02:587:3447:5800:F0ED:AAA0:1EC3:9D83 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The initial paragraph (and sentence for that matter) of the article immediately violates the NPOV policy and needs be corrected. Using John Hale to counter Plato is like trying to use George Washington to counter John Doukas' account of what happened at the Battle of Pelagonia. Plato's work is written in such a way that he felt and stated that Atlantis was historically real, academic scholars and classicists accept his work as a basis for facts of history on other subjects and this topic needs to be treated that way (with appropriate 'disclaimers') unless proven otherwise.

It does need to be noted that no other evidence has been given to prove that Atlantis did or did not exist with absolute certainty yet by using a section heading of Criticism, Opposition, or similar terminology instead of the scattering of labelling the whole thing as pseudoscience. Again from a NPOV because WE do not know yet if it is in fact real or fake science in any form (no matter how much any of us may or may not like that idea).

Having a separate section is the best way to properly express the lack of additional evidence to support/oppose Plato's story, beyond his own account. This section is where the unbiased perspectives of those of those who dissent against his claims should go until Atlantis is proven definitively true or false.

Instead of immediately attacking theories of Plato's story as pseudoscience (again, not a neutral point of view stance) it can be placed in its own subheading of the Criticism section where it can be stated that it is viewed by some (or many) in the academic, scientific, and other communities as pseudoscience (proper reference and citation to this will be needed other than an angry author or three - or even the article writer). Jotow (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jotow: Exactly what parts of the NPOV policy are violated here? Please be specific. There's no question that there has been a lot of pseudoscientific speculation about Atlantis. It's in the lead (not immediately as it's in the second paragraph) because the lead is a summary of the article. So it has to be in the WP:lead. You're new so it's easy to understand why you don't know how we build articles. I'm interested to know where "academic scholars and classicists accept his work as a basis for facts of history on other subjects". What subjects? In any case, we use reliably published sources for this article.

It isn't at all clear that Plato considered Atlantis to be historically real, and his student Aristotle didn't. So why are you so sure Plato did? Did you also read the articles discussing the two works of Plato that discuss Atlantis? Doug Weller talk 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

1. The very first sentence literally states "is a fictional island mentioned in an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works..." using the words fictional and allegory. Removing the word fictional removes the direct accusation that Plato is making it up. Then using a the word allegory implies directly also the he misled the whole time. The sentence itself is attributed to an author from the 20th century who wouldn't know fact or fiction on what Plato knew.
2. Not posted before != New. I have taken my time to get educated before rambling on like an idiot (I have seen some folks do that). Just like I did with my college degrees.
3. I have read Plato's Timaeus, and Critias as part of education and he does in fact state it is real (in those works). Aristotle is irrelevant, but can be considered a critic.
4. I appreciate when people do not like their world view challenged, and therefore challenge others accordingly. This is called criticism and should to be separated accordingly.

Jotow (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

also, we do not say it is pseudoscience in the first paragraph, we do not in fact say it anywhere in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's literally in the second sentence. Jotow (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

as well, and second paragraph, but that part is fine. My issue is the first sentence wording. Jotow (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This apears to be the second sentence "In the story, Athens repels the Atlantean attack unlike any other nation of the known world,[2] supposedly bearing witness to the superiority of Plato's concept of a state.", I do not see it there, there is "pseudo-historic" in the first sentence, but that is not "pseudoscience". Nor do either word appear in the second paragraph (at least I can't find it) so quote, please? Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It is consensus in science that Atlantis is fictional. Plato's style, pretending it is not, cannot override this, no matter whether you have read him or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Plato's Goddess, Ge, who teaches about the weapons, who lived 1000 years before Amasis was Ahhotep 2, who was buried with Greek Weapons. There could be no war, before this Goddess and the Weapons. The Hephaestus, or Ptah, that lives 8000 years before that... is consistent with Egyptian Theology, but a mistake; wrong Ptah. Should be Serapis, who is linked to Ptah, or Ahmose Sipair. Avaris is explicitly named Atlantis by Pliny the Elder; It has the same city dimensions as Atlantis according to Josephus(acres).

The biggest problem with the telling of the story is that after the Hyksos are kicked out of Avaris, the Greeks move in; there is a conflation with the Hyksos and the Greeks(ie Atlantians). One of the Atlantian Kings, Ampheres, is called Mephres by Manetho; He is Thutmose I, and Egyptian, or Egypto-Greek, descended from this Ahhotep 2.

The Myrina myth, or Maryannu, is a myth of the Mitanni(Amazon), and their peace treaty with Thutmose 4(Orus of Manetho). The Atlantians of this story are the Hyksos(Syrians), where Myrina takes credit for Thutmose 4's Syrian Campaign. This conflation by Diodorus in an unrelated Atlantian tale is confirmation that Egyptians were later, also conflating Atlantians with Hyksos, when they are 2 different groups.

The Phaethon of Plato's Myth is Tut, who was a son of the sun (Akhenaten).

https://www.academia.edu/76880053/Perfecting_Plato_A_colorful_commentary_on_the_Timaeus

https://www.academia.edu/77235625/Perfecting_Plato_A_colorful_commentary_on_the_Critias_Part_1

https://www.academia.edu/69049558/Dissecting_Diodorus_The_Legend_of_Myrina_and_Orus

https://www.academia.edu/76436465/Finding_a_God_Phaethon_King_Tut_and_the_Amarna_Period — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:E7F:8410:6845:132:6B34:4067 (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources appear to be reliable sources. They're docs uploaded by the same author who does not appear to have academic credentials to support expertise in this field. (At least one doc even cites Wikipedia...) I cannot see that these have been published in any reputable journal or been subject to peer review. Schazjmd (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Open your mind to real science. Signalman X (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Signalman X Architectural? What are you talking about? Doug Weller talk 13:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As with the above, what do you mean? What evidence are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. -2600:1005:B141:C706:CC8B:4DF8:EB3F:8945 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267981513_The_Importance_of_Herodotus%27_histories_for_the_Atlantis_problem

"Herodotus writes of an "Atlantean Sea", of a mountain called "Atlas", of a river called "Atlas" and of a people of "Atlanteans"(Before Plato). [He also mentions Pillars of Hercules.]" -- TC Franke

Diodorus Siculus, who is later than Plato, also tells an Atlantian story about Myrina and the Amazons, that appears to be unrelated to Plato's Timaeus and Critias.

Did you not see the sentences following what you quoted saying "Are there relations to Plato‘s Atlantis? A detailed analysis clearly shows: In contrary to popular belief there are no relations." 186.10.185.230 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)