Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What about the history of the rest of the world?

Why is it mainly the European history of opinion and none of Africa? The European dominates and a little of China. What about India? How has is come to pass that the Greeks history becomes some kind of unspoken law of how the world is? 2A02:C7D:F00B:5600:D0CA:C2C7:B662:78D9 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources about what people thought in other countries, please add that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. If there are reliable sources mentioning that, they can be added easily.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Religious texts references

There are many texts I would like to add, so I'm going to add here some.

Biblical:

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

This verse (Revelation 7:1) mentioned "the four corners of the earth" which can only mean that the Earth is a flat square.

Quranic:

And the earth - We have spread it and cast therein firmly set mountains and caused to grow therein [something] of every well-balanced thing.

This verse (15:19) mentions "spread", possibly considering the earth as a carpet.

Vedic:

In this hymn (Atharva Veda, Book 6, Hymn 8), the third verse clearly states that the Sun ecompasses the heaven and the earth:

1 Like as the creeper throws, her arms on every side around the
  tree,
 So hold thou me in thine embrace that thou mayst be in love
  with me, my darling, never to depart.
2 As, when he mounts, the eagle strikes his pinions downward on
  the earth,
 So do I strike thy spirit down that thou mayst be in love with
  me, my darling, never to depart.
3 As in his rapid course the Sun encompasses the heaven and:
  earth,
 So do I compass round thy mind that thou mayst be in love with.
  me, my darling, never to depart.

These are not reliable sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are they not? Are those texts not many enough or is it something else? Egon20 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't notice anything wrong with these verses, the interpretation is left to the believer. Egon20 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:QUESTIONABLE. Whilst it is true that sources which we may categorize as "religious literature" might be accepted by some in turn as fact or fable based upon their interpretation of them, their use as reliable sources of some kind of empirical facts is questionable. They should not be relied upon as intrinsically factual sources, only as proofs that some might interpret them as facts based upon their religious beliefs.

My idea is including those texts but considering them proofs only for certain believers, for example who reads the bible in a literal way and then comes to read Revelation 7:1. I know many consider the four corners as an idiom but I think it's more correct to keep it neutral and only saying that some people interpret those texts to support flat earth theory. Egon20 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including the belief in Flat Earth expressed in major texts of major religions, putting them in their proper contexts in the History section, for example. The article already says that the Quran says the earth was "spread". So, the second one is already covered. I didn't know what there is about Vedas and Bible; I didn't read the whole article. But giving passages would be too much. You can say X:Y of this text supports the idea of the flat earth, provided there is a scholarly source interpreting said verse that way. I think, given how poetic/cryptic/nonsensical religious texts can be, we can't do WP:OR on what they mean. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of this Muslim website? Egon20 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable, like us. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This NY Times article? I'm struggling to find a scholar because I don't know who the people I know about follow. Egon20 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Quora? Someone there also cited this source. Egon20 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a mention about Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin-Baz? Egon20 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

What are you aiming at? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Egon20: kindly stop cherry-picking. While some Hindu texts say earth is flat, most of them says it's spherical/oval shaped. ref. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I particularly like 18:47 of the Quran and wish to include it. 87.18.114.73 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Revelation 7:1 has been used by Christian flat earthers so I think it deserves to be quoted in the main page. Daniel 4:10-11 and Matthew 4:8 can also be mentioned. Temp0000002 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

section referring to chinese astronomers calculation of height of sun above earth- conversion error

According to the Wikipedia article on the classical chinese measurement unit li, the conversion rate used in the section (1 li = 2 km) is off and should be instead 1 li = .5 km). Should probably be fixed, no? 80.71.142.176 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point. However, we don’t know if the reference is incorrect, or if it is quoted incorrectly. If it’s quoted incorrectly, we don’t know if it’s the number of li that is wrong or if the km conversion is wrong. Someone with access to the book needs to look this up, or an alternative source needs to be found. Strebe (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

Pls can I edit I relly want to Yas? Editorthegod123 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bold text

diff
An editor is persistently bolding text not connected to the article title, after having MOS:NOBOLD pointed out. I am at three reverts today, so here we are on the talk page. Your input, please... Just plain Bill (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:NOBOLD is clear that this boldness is not necessary or useful. If we follow this editors line of thought everything will be bolded The editor is close to being disruptive in my view and needs to be careful. Maungapohatu (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's good to have standard bolded words in an article on just important things to notice. Gun Nut perk (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gun Nut perk: If you think changes ought to be made to Wikipedia's Manual Of Style, then go to the relevant Talk pages, set out your arguments there, and see if you can get community consensus for a change. Until you get that change made, the use of bold in this article (or any other style in any other Wikipedia article) has to conform to the Manual Of Style. It's just like if you were writing for a newspaper or a traditional encyclopaedia; there would be a style guide that you would have to follow. What seems appropriate to you as an individual editor doesn't override that community consensus. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Wbm1058: In this edit, you cite WP:HATNOTE Rule #2 as justification for removing content from the hatnote. That rule reads, Keep explanations to a minimum; explain vital information only, letting the lead section and body of the article to clarify things for the reader. We seem to have very different interpretations of this rule. The hatnote as it was before you changed it did indeed leave explanations to the article body; all that it did was direct readers to the proper article in case they were interested in the myth of the flat earth, rather than in the flat earth cosmology. That is, in my reading, exactly what hatnotes are for. The body of the article has a short explanation of the myth topic, but directs the reader to the expanded article for more information. In my view, the way the article was structured maximized utility and efficiency for the reader: If they knew what they were looking for but not what to call it, then the hatnote took them there. If they stumbled onto the topic of the myth of the flat earth as they browed this article, and became interested, then the short section describes the topic and directs them to the main article. This was all functioning just as I interpret the guidelines. Strebe (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

An article that's simply titled "Flat Earth" without additional qualifiers is or should be a WP:broad-concept article that comprehensively documents all flat Earth theories and beliefs, historical and current. Readers are at the proper top-level article, whether they are "looking for" cosmology or myth. The only readers that really should need to be sent away by a hatnote before they read the broad-concept overview are those looking for things like bands, albums or football clubs – and I note that the topics on the disambiguation are mostly if not all partial-title matches. The two articles about modern myths and beliefs are WP:summary style subtopics and care should be taken to make sure they don't become WP:content forks. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for ancient societies

I believe that most ancient cultures knew that the earth is round to some extent, because when a ship sails or a caravan travels into the distance, the bottom of the ship/caravan can't be seen in the distance, but the top is still visible. I might add more later.

The changes:

The lede sentence "Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography." should be changed to "Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography, though this has been disputed by some scholars."

Theologian Vern Poythress stated that ancient Israelites may have not necessarily believed that the Earth is a flat disc, as this claim is based on very limited evidence. He says that the language describing the shape of the earth should be interpreted figuratively.

Geographer Albert Herrmann claimed that "The Babylonian astronomers did not regard the earth as a flat disk but, instead, as shaped like an overturned boat."

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

For Vern Poythress:

For Albert Herrmann:

by User:Yleventa2

217.180.219.178 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

My immediate response is no, we wont make that change, as it would imply that "not " Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat-Earth cosmography.", and that isn't waht the sources say Roxy the dog 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy . Strebe (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

the earth is round so stop being stupid because the earth is round not flat. 2601:196:8602:8F00:B832:82AE:E3D6:A7CF (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the article does not claim that the earth is flat. small jars tc 23:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Image

The main image depicts a convex/concave Earth model not a flat one. Эйхер (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, because no flat earth models actually works in reality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Drawings don't have to. I'll try to find something better. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There. Will that do? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No. That image could represent anything; I certainly wouldn't recognise it as a map. I have put the original one back. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. But admittedly, that is not exactly flat. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Error

Greece: spherical Earth Pythagoras in the 6th century BC and Parmenides in the 5th century stated that the Earth is spherical, and this view spread rapidly in the Greek world.

This, as worded, implies that Parmenides lived 1100 years after Pythagoras rather than 100 years. 151.210.110.38 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Image shown is not a true conception of what a Flat Earth would look like.

You are using an improper image and portraying an improper visualization of what flat Earthers believe. you are misrepresenting them with this. 209.27.48.242 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Which one? There's a bunch of them. Miner Editor (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Biased article

A little issue that has irritated me with this article: Of course flat Earth is scientifically disproven. This does not mean that it should be stated in the first sentence. Flat Earth being a hoax is a given by all means, so it should instead only be noted in a further sentence such as: "Despite the overwhelming evidence against flat Earth..." --Apmh 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing utter nonsense as nonsense is the opposite of bias. This encylopedia is not in the business of lending tiny bits of credibility to hooey with the implication of "on the other hand." Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

but its right. if its been proven false, its not bias to say that its false. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

failed verification of lead statement

for the record, i am *not* defending flat earth

"Strangely, the youngest generation, raised with the internet, is the most skeptical of a spherical earth, with only 82% firmly believing the Earth is round."

1. The question asked in the study where the 82% number came from is“I have always believed the world is round.", but its reported here as a present tense belief. This is also, to be fair, and we're allowed to say this, one of those questions engineered to get a "surprising" result by playing with some wording in a report, which is exactly what they did.
2. The source says that only 2% of people across all age groups firmly believe the earth is flat. Though this is followed up on immediately, it casts doubt on whether or not the prior sentence should be there in the first place.
4. The source says the responses could be "ironic"
5. Taken directly from the article, verbatum,

But further survey research will be necessary to winnow the possible explanations. There is a critical lesson to be learned here: the results of a single public opinion survey are by no means authoritative. Differences in the phrasing of questions, variance in the methods of polling, randomness and error and (rarely but sadly) misconduct: all of these guarantee that a single survey should never be taken as the last word.

The statement as written does not reflect what the source says, I'm going to remove it and link this diff. Feel free to discuss it with me if you disagree, or think it should be changed. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Decided not to remove it and to instead reword it DarmaniLink (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Clarity of assertion

There is a sentence which, for me, is confusing - "For young children who have not yet received information from their social environment, their own perception of their surroundings often leads to a false concept about the shape of the underground on the horizon" I feel like it could be edited for clarity. Perhaps it is more concise to say the shape of the planet beyond the horizon" or even "the shape of the ground as it appears at the horizon"? Chardok (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I made copy edits. Do they address your concern? Strebe (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024

Please remove the "St." in front of "Thomas Aquinas", per MOS:HON/MOS:SAINT. His status of sainthood in the eyes of the catholic church is wholly irrelevant here. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article take a stance?

The sky is blue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The flat earth belief may, or may not, have credence. In either case, is it necessary for the article to reveal the stance of the author? Would a neutral presentation of facts not better let the reader reach the correct conclusion? Throughout history, there have been many, many scenarios in which the "consensus" was wrong and the minority was correct. While I personally do not believe that is the case with flat earth, what is the benefit of wikipedia taking a stance? Reading this article, I do not care what the authors of the article think (yet I am battered by their beliefs). 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Hi. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say and they do not support flat earth theories. Check out Encyclopedia Britannica - they say the same stuff [1]. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) But why not state what the reliable sources say (with links) and then state what the flat earthers say. Reading this article, I wanted to understand what flat earthers actually believe in, and why. I could not do that when the article, from the onset, says they are wrong and unequivocally dumps on them. It means I need to go to some other site to learn the context / history here. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) As an encyclopedia, it is obligatory for Wikipedia to describe utter nonsense as nonsense, and not to pretend that it has any credibility or basis in fact. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Because fringe beliefs are not given equal time for the obvious reason that people should not be led to suppose that a false belief could be right. The shape of the earth is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact as much as anything else is. We don’t give “neutral” presentation to alternative beliefs about the temperature and pressure at which water boils, or any of millions of other facts. What we do is report that some people believe false things. When we say “fact”, we do not mean an assertion that could not change regardless of how reality is constructed. It is true that the earth might not be spherical if existence is only a dream or if we are some kind of highly controlled simulation. It not true that the earth is flat if the normal assumptions about existence are true: There is no rigorous experiment that could demonstrate such a thing, and limitless experiments that demonstrate otherwise. Strebe (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Well, no one actually does dispute the temperature at which water boils. If some large group of people did, i would expect (want) wikipedia to present their views without stating, from the onset, and in wikipedias voice, whether wikipedia thinks they are right or wrong. That does not mean both sides are given "equal weight". If one side has the overwhelming support of science and consensus, the sources will show that and the reader can naturally reach that conclusion himself. You said wikipedia has an obligation to describe nonsense as nonsense. But why? Can the reader not make that conclusion himself? 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) There is so much nonsense out there, if Wikipedia operated in the way you suggest it would be choked with irrelevances. The article on the Moon will not seriously entertain the idea that it is made out of cheese, because Wikipedia's core mission is to summarize the best available sources, not the best available sources and then also all the cranks who happen to disagree. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC) But this is not an article about the earth; it is specifically about flat earth belief. Similarly, i agree moon article should not mention cheese theories; but an article about cheese theories would... 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Article full of globe bias

Yeah.. That's plenty of that. DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should be about the flat earth but in fact is serves more to make assertions that the flat earth theory is pseudoscience, silly, unscientific or whatever is brought up to discredit the flat earth. This is not how it should work. The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. From what I perceive the people that are in charge here do not want an objective view of the flat earth to be available to the general public, since they delete even comments on this talk page that point out flaws in the article. Let's see if this comment is deleted again, which would prove my point... Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to "both sides" of an argument, like it seems to me that you propose. Pseudoscientific opinions should not be shown as valid statements of fact. Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for more on this topic. Sjö (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. Except, it doesn’t do this. The lead paragraph is be heavy with such statements, but asserting that the entire article is that way discredits your premise for me. The lead paragraph ended up that way because a lot of other editors were concerned that the older text might give someone the impression that belief in a flat earth could be scientific. Strebe (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) The “scientific” arguments against flat earth use non-scientific propaganda language, which undermines the credibility of scientific claims. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Suggest inclusion of actual scientific evidence for rejecting flat earth. Perhaps a method for measuring the size of the globe from the ground using observations of shadows cast from identical rods at various locations at an agreed upon time, sextant, etc. 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:69A9:7:436:85ED (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) The Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth article does that, and is linked to. That’s where it belongs; duplicating it isn’t good editorial policy. Strebe (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Then what is the value of the logically fallacious propaganda language? 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:C505:3F7A:6DE3:752F (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Isn’t fallacious, so I can’t answer your question. Strebe (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)