Talk:Peter James

Atlantis book

I wouldn't say his Atlantis book is pseudo-history, even though he argues for an unorthodox/fringe view Atlantis was a real historical place. The difference between Peter James and pseudo-historians like Tony O'Connell who argue Atlantis was real is James argues there is only a kernel or small grain of historical truth in the Atlantis story recorded by Plato (since he considers it an oral tradition that was distorted as it was retold.) In contrast Connell treats most or nearly all of Plato's descriptions as literal history. For Connell there must have been even elephants on Atlantis because Plato mentions them. Connell like Ignatius Donnelly thinks there are Egyptian documents that mention Atlantis. James rejects this completely. His book is reasonable, but of course he lacks any archaeological evidence to support his theory. Arcticos (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't state that James' Atlantis book is pseudohistory and the phrasing is meant to indicate (I know as I wrote it) that this is not yet another piece of Atlantis crankery, but an attempt at identifying the possible (minimalist) historical roots of what has been embellished into the fantastic Atlantis myth of today. Anyway, I'm in doubt as to whether this article should be scrapped altogether. As it stands, it doesn't really convey any clear missionality. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)