Talk:Atlantis

My point being; sometimes it takes wild theories to point thinkers in a new direction. Unless of course, some of the Atlantis location and cultural theories should be merged with the List of pseudoscientific theories article? Is there a need to differentiate between Atlantis (the location), and Atlantean (culture)? Because the Ancient Astronaut theory, I imagine, would come under Atlantean culture, as vague as that might sound.

I notice that Akhilleus has removed non-sourced material from the "Other Ancient Accounts' section, (as indicated in the talk section above). This is good, but I would suggest once the sources are located, that they be put back into the article. Modern accounts of Atlantis... definitely need sourcing too if they are to be considered at all. Drakonicon 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to adding a "pseudoscientifc theories" section, simply because it would attract many wacky, unsourced contributions and touch off annoying disputes about verifiability and reliability of sources.

It's not really WP's job to "point thinkers in a new direction"; its mission is to record what reliable sources say about the topic.

If any "ancient astronauts" theory is to be in this article (something which I would oppose), it certainly wouldn't belong in the "ancient accounts of Atlantis" section, which is where User:Tjchase put it. The placement of an esoteric theory at the top of a page, especially without sourcing, smells of advocacy, not encyclopedism. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Drakonicon 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)