Talk:Atlantis of the Sands

What four cities?

The section "Legendary lost cities of the Arabian peninsula" is an ill-conceived mess. The editors responsible are suffering from the same confusion that reduced the article Iram of the Pillars to gibberish. The section title suggests these are separate entities, and the weak section intro calls them "four contenders" for being the true "Atlantis of the Sands", yet the descriptions of each indicate that they are all the same city: "Wabar" is just another name for Ubar, Irem is really Ubar, "Omanum Emporium" is a cartographers' name for Ubar. This is ridiculous. Can someone with sense straighten this out? Or should the section be liquidated, and any non-redundant info merged with other sections? 67.162.236.230 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've probably inadvertently contributed to this by not straightening it out when I edited it. I'll see what I can do although why don't you have a go? Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The section simply reproduces differing views about the nature and location of the so-called lost city. It doesn't say that Iram was Ubar, only that it was "claimed" to be Ubar, and simply points out that Fiennes "speculated" that Omanum Emporium was Ubar. All of this is supported by verfiable sources. I suggest that the words "four contenders for the title of" are replaced by "many theories about". This will then encompass Freya Stark who refers to various locations, of which User talk:67.162.236.230 makes no mention. Rama226 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, what matters is that it appears that the "lost city of the sands" is not several cities but one with various names. If you can find a mention of Ubar by serious scholars that doesn't associate it with this legend, and that gives an earlier date than the Qu'aran, please do. Even something prior to Thomas's 1932 work would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can find something in 1931 that mentions Thomas, so you'll have to go back before that - I certainly can't find anything in Google Books. TE Lawrence doesn't discuss Ubar, Iram, an Atlantis in the desert, whatever in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, perhaps he does in his Letters, which I don't have. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, found Ubar in much older mentions. See my post at Talk:Iram of the Pillars. I think we need to rename this to something like "Lost city of the sands", with a brief mention of Iram (Note Edgell says "However, the Qiu°än does not state that Iram was a city, and "lofty pillars" is simply one interpretation among many of the phrase dãti °l-cimãd" so that seems to be a bit of a red herring but deserves a section here. Iram of the Pillars can be a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

as you were writing this, I was changing the section. I removed reference to Iram. I feel strongly that the title of this article should not be changed since that is how it is known in modern times: Atlantis of the Sands, as the name suggests, is a myth that fired the imaginations of Westerner travellers to find a lost city in the sands. Rama226 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to show evidence that this is the major way it's known in modern times outside of perhaps the media. To call the article that skews the whole thing to make it focus on the last 3 decades (but ignoring contemporary literature such as Edgell, who doesn't call it this at all. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found this a useful discussion since it has made me think about where the focus of the article lies. The title of the article signifies the modern search for a lost city in the sands, and the legend of Ubar was simply one trigger for that search. Sources outside the modern media? In this case, few will have travelled to Arabia and listened to bedouin gossip. There’s Bertram Thomas and Philby of course, both of whom were reported through the “media” of the 1930s. I agree that Lawrence’s reference needs to be verified – I looked in Clapp’s book and he references Lawrence’s quote to Raymond O’Shea whose writing on Arabia can hardly be described as reliable. I will try and track down Lawrence’s “Letters”. But the whole point is that media coverage was an integral part of the search. The names Ubar, Wabar, Omanum Emporium, all these were part of that search. This article doesn’t ignore Edgell at all, he is mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of the “Critical reception” section. The article is balanced, making it quite clear that there is a wide degree of variance between the conflicting views. It complies with Wikipedia:titles because it is recognisable, searches well, is precise, concise and consistent. "Lost city in the sands" is hardly any of those things.Rama226 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I must ask, are you also editing logged out? Because if you are, it's confusing. The 2006 (deleted by AfD) article was about a book. This article started as an obvious essay about the work that led to the book. If you want this article to be about the book, that might fly, but I still think that the article should be about the legends and search for a lost city in the Arabian desert. It's need redirects for all the major names (including I think Iram as we don't need an article for Iram if this one is about the legendary lost city). And it needs to be chronological. At the moment it starts with the 'Atlantis' stuff and I think this is confusing. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why the 2006 article was deleted, so perhaps you could let me know. The problem in renaming the article to "Lost cities etc" has already been covered, but otherwise what are you going to call it? Ubar - hang on, isn't that Iram? - and so on. The problem with this subject is that it attracts its fair share of confusion, witness the Iram debacle, and editors are obviously alert to it. But in this case, I don't think the article is confusing, particularly since your earlier points have been addressed. It reads well, makes sense, is factual and verifiable, and is about the legends and search. The only thing I could find about chronology was in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists which doesn't apply here. Rama226 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wendall Philips

The article mentions a 1953 expedition by "Wendall Phillips" who died in the late 1800s. I believe they mean Waite Phillips but am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.120.209 (talk) 07:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

no, it's definitely Wendell Phillips, see The Road to Ubar by Nicholas Clapp [[1]]Rama226 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantis of the Sands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120801192056/http://andyinoman.com/tag/bedouin-legend/ to http://andyinoman.com/tag/bedouin-legend/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

al-Shisr is not Ubar/Wabbar

Regarding the Atlantis in the Sands, Michael MacDonald is right that it can hardly be considered a "discovery". Instead it is a scandal for the reasons he and others stated. I spoke out against this "discovery" which was just a scheme to make money: See P. Yule, The Archaeology of the Sultanate of Oman, in G. Popp (ed.), Oman, Jewel of the Arabian Gulf, Bremen, 2010, 349. The archaeological site al-Shisr is in any case an important settlement site during the local Iron Age and afterward: Yule, Die Gräberfelder in Samad al Shān (Sultanat Oman) Materialien zu einer Kulturgeschichte, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung, Orient-Archäologie vol. 4, Rahden 2001, 205. Azd0815 29.12.2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azd0815 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

this article is not linked to other version in Wiki in other languages.Azd0815 (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Change the Title of This Article!

Is it possible to change the title of this article? The current title, "Atlantis of the Sands," is extremely misleading. Why refer to this place by its Western nickname rather than by its actual name? The title of this article should be changed to "Ubar", which is a far better name for this place, perhaps with "Atlantis of the Sands" as an alternative title that points to the main one. It is time to stop perpetuating spurious references to Atlantis, which has nothing to do with Ubar. Hoopes (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

At best, an article titled Atlantis of the Sands should refer to Ranulf Fiennes' 1992 book, not all information about Ubar. Hoopes (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I've got to figure out how we deal with the existing disambiguation page Ubar, I can't just overwrite it. It's something I haven't done before. Maybe we could have Ubar (lost city) as the title of this article? And why do we have an "Introduction" section? The lead serves that purpose, and in any case that section is terrible. Start with a rewrite of that? And does "the site of Ubar, or Iram of the Pillars," mean they are the same or what? Almost all of the page, including that, was written by one person in 2011. It probably needs a major rewrite. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hoopes: forgot to ping you. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

My problem with Ubar (lost city) as a title is that it sets a problematic precedent: the implication that other lost city locations should be similarly labeled. What do you do when a "lost city" is no longer lost, and who gets to decide that--and on what basis? I don't think is a good way to go. I think a better solution would be to simply use "Ubar" (to be cited on the disambiguation page). The disambiguation page already points to the Iram of the Pillars article, so that doesn't need to change. The disambiguation page for Ubar should mention both Ubar and Iram of the Pillars. My main objection is that a colonial nickname--"Atlantis of the Sands"--is being used rather than a historic, indigenous name. There is not an article titled simply "Ubar" and this seems to be the best candidate. Hoopes (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

As for Ubar, Iram of the Pillars, and other names, one of my students has created a draft page for Shisr, a town and archaeological site in Oman that has been suggested as the possible location of Ubar. I think a good practice would be to reserve the foci of the individual articles for the specific, alternative legends that are associated with an unknown place. Of course, the issue is also relevant for La Ciudad Blanca in Honduras, for which multiple possible identifications have been made--none of which are yet persuasive, in my own humble opinion. Hoopes (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ll look into the technicalities. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)