Talk:Phantom island

	This Conspiracy theories related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes Needs more than a single WP as a ref, otherwise Bronze

Delete. Seems more like masturbation than refutation. Article is about something that doesn't exist, without pointing to anyone who claims it/they do/does exist. ħuman 05:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RW has an article about God, which doesn't exist either. And actually this article does name people who believe in the existence of phantom islands (or rather identification of phantom islands with really existing islands). M the T 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"A phantom island is an island that was or is believed to exist but does not actually exist." The article itself claims its subject doesn't exist! I say, nice try, but article fail, mostly because it is not interesting. Give me two reasons to not delete it tonight. ħuman 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course the article states that its subject does not exist, but that doesn't mean phantom islands as a phenomenon is not relevant. Phantom islands did (and still do) appear on maps that really exist, and therefore have had influence on real world events. It is a subject that has spawned numerous crank ideas, which makes it perfectly relevant for this site. Compare it to Atlantis if you like: it probably didn't exist either, but there are still people writing bullshit about it. M the T 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It links to no other articles here. No other articles link to it. It's "unique category (pseudohistory)" is dull. Also, most importantly, the article does not link to anyone who believes in this stupid theory/idea/claim. Counting down 24 hours til deletion. ħuman 04:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? It looks like you're mixing two things up here: the definition of 'phantom island' and people who believe silly things about phantom islands. The defiition of phantom island is not a 'theory', 'idea' or 'claim'. 'Phantom island' is a perfectly accepted word for an island that appears on a map or otherwise is considered to exist but that does not actually exist in reality. This has nothing to do with 'believing', it's what it is called, just like an object you can sit on is called 'chair'. You can do a Google search if you want (almost 3 million hits), check Wikipedia, or grab a dictionary.

Now, as for people who actually believe phantom islands do exist, correspond to really existing islands or otherwise hold nonsensical beliefs relating to phantom islands, those people are mentioned (National Geographic, Menzies, Von Daniken).

If you think pseudohistory is dull that's your opinion, there are people (including me) who disagree, so that's no reason to delete it either. Finally, this article does link to other articles (Atlantis, Conspiracy theory, Erich von Daniken), and there is an article that links to this one (Pseudohistory). But even more important: why does it matter if it is dull or does not have any links, that's not forbidden, is it? Or is it make up a rule day today? M the T 05:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read it at least six times by now. One article links here? pseudohistory. Brilliant. "people who believe silly things about phantom islands." - who??? Who are we refuting or debunking? I'm leaving it up to you to add links to your article that make this point. Otherwise, hell, WP pretty much has it covered. Just make it better - and get rid of those twenty red links if you can - and it might survive. ħuman 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Human on this one... The article isn't really mission for us, not to mention you've created a bunch of red links that have no place on our wiki (Jules Verne, Puerto Rico, Falkland Islands). There is no such thing as Pseudohistory. Something is either history or it isn't (and by definition, it is). Throw in that there are some serious language issues ("Sometimes islands that existed in the past have been disappeared by volcanic eruptions (like that Greek island that was blown to pieces by an eruption), tectonic activity, sea level rise, or erosion. Some islands are just made up, for fraudulent or political reasons."). I vote that we sink this island to the bottom of the sea and call it a day. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight first: are you disputing the legitimacy of any article on phantom islands (as Human seems to suggest), no matter how well written it is, how few red links it contains and how much it debunks, or is an article on this subject not necessarily wrong but it's just that the article as it is now is not good enough? Oh, and there is such a thing as pseudohistory. Sure, something is either history or it isn't, but it's just like any other science: pseudohistory is something that pretends to be history while in reality it isn't just like pseudoscience is something that pretends to be science while in reality it isn't. (Please note that with 'history' I mean the academic discipline, not the things that happened in the past. Perhaps pseudohistoriography would have been a better name but it's just not called that way). M the T 06:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As it stands right now, this article is not worth keeping. The topic itself might have some validity if you can find people, somewhat notable people who say "this island is on the map in 1955, and not in 1956. This is proof that the government is covering it up because that's where they brought JFK and Malcom X when they were "Assassinated." Other than that, it really has no purpose here on RationalWiki. Now onto your other points, I still don't see how that effects anything... Psuedoscience is using a seemingly scientific method on something non scientific. How can you have Psuedohistory? SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 06:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well there is that guy who thinks about 1500 years has been added to the calendar. He goes on about there being no documented evidence or the evidence that does exist is faked or manipulated. I thought we had several pseudohistory articles. - π 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Old Testament pseudohistory? I quite like the article but would like to see it integrated more into mission. There's probably a lot in there with conspiracy theories and woo science. Woo history?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The article's OK. It isn't right on mission, but close enough. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mustelidoid. "Needs to be improved" is not really a good reason for deletion. It's pretty near to the mission, needs a few links and more focus toward the believers of weird stuff, but that's about it. --Kels 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest keeping it because something similar appear on the argument about the existence of God (at least on wp). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

phantom island

very interesting article! please, don't delete it! nino pepanashvili from tbilisi, georgia.

Shouting is not the preferred method of preventing deletion. --  Nx/talk  18:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Intermittent islands

What about those islands which exist but are only above water occasionally - 'one or more' are the subject of international dispute, and there is the one sandbank that cricket is played on occasionally.86.191.127.112 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And what about San Serif? 109.153.116.185 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What about it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A genuinely fake island - and cricket is played on Bramble Bank. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright and phantom islands

Many maps have 'deliberate quirks' for copyright purposes (eg an obscure road shown as going in a slightly different direction to reality). Have phantom islands been so used.

And at this time of year in the northern hemisphere the ghosts are going on holidays to the phantom islands. Anna Livia (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Fata Morgana

Should there be some mention here (with, perhaps, a link to the article at the other place/or [1]. (The FM does not appear to be of sufficient interest to RW to justify an article of its own). Anna Livia (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)