It is requested that a photograph of ground photo be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Mauritania may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Africa: Mauritania B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Mauritania (assessed as Mid-importance).

Geology B‑class Low‑importance

Talk:Richat Structure is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, it's not appropriate for material this significant to only be in the lead. Chris857 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I think it should as it is a possible location of where Atlantis was located. Danishjaveed (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

10,000 stadia would be closer to 1,800km?Halbared (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]