|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.|
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
|The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.|
Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.
|Flat Earth was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Current status: Delisted good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
lead rating: 10/10
I had read some heavy PR stories that completely represented a positive image of a certain subject without any neutrality whatsoever.
I thought that if I opened the Flat Earth wikipedia article I would get an equally "PR" view without any mention that it is rejected by modern science.
I decided to read the lead for how accurate it is as an introduction to the subject, then talk on this talk page about my judgment. I thought I would give it like 1/10 or 2/10, since I thought that due to heavy editing by argumentative proponents, it would not in any way be neutral.
Instead I found the introduction to be 10/10. Good job!
- You say it's NPOV? How? This article DEFINES POV, the whole article should be rewritten. The introduction calls it "pseudoscience" and immediately starts talking about proponents of a round earth mostly European who comprised probably not even a percent of the world population. Almost nothing is said about the subject itself. There are no citations to the model, the sections don't discuss the model. Later the flat earth is called disinformation. Are editors afraid someone might actually cite scientific evidence that goes against the Dogma this article clearly pushes? Either intentional or unintentional. Please reconsider.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2017
Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
Change "That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas" to "Many indigenous peoples of the Americas also historically held that paradigm," or, if the statement is specific to North America, change to "Many Native American and First Nation peoples also historically held that paradigm."
Rational 1: The original wording comes off as old-fashioned, in the same way that we no longer talk about "colored people." The phrase "aboriginal cultures" should be changed to "indigenous peoples" or "Native American and First Nation peoples." Part of the rational for this is that "cultures" don't hold paradigms (i.e., a culture is not an agentive subject), but people do. Exceptions to this language are the contexts of Australia and parts of Canada, where many indigenous peoples do identify as Aboriginal (capitalized, in the same sense as "Native American" or "African American").
Rational 2: Native American peoples still exist today, although this is presumably a historical statement. As is the case globally, some contemporary Native American peoples may still hold that the world is flat while most others do not. The language "typically" followed by the past tense "held" implies an ahistorical Native American cultural "type," and that this type exists in the past. A better approach is to foreground the historical nature of the statement. Leroix89 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Scientific proof showing the earth is flat
Why is there not much reference to the Bedford Level experiment which scientifically proves the earth is flat :) It seems to be censored from this article, and used as 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:43B:AEDA:137A:DB0D (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Because this article is about mostly ancient beliefs where the Earth was (incorrectly) viewed as flat. But there's even a section on more modern views as well, along with links to Rowbotham, Wallace, and the experiment itself. What more could we ask for? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
Most Christians believe in the flat Earth theory because in the Bible it says - Isaiah 11:12 "He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth." The flat Earth looks like a flat plane or dinner plate with a Huge dome covering the Earth. With the heavens above. Also when you look at the earth in a clear sight the world will look flat but its the same even if you look out of plane. Even when people take helium balloons to the lower Atmosphere (at this point you Should be able to see the curvature) But the Earth is still clearly flat. When people say "oh why can't we see Paris from the UK if the Earth is flat?" This is because Earth has soooo much muck & dirt & particles & clouds in our Atmosphere that we can't see through it all XSayaanx (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not done. Please cite a reliable source, and be more explicit about what exactly you want to add/change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flat earth myth section is disingenuous. Galileo was being "persecuted" for his unbiblical beliefs during the middle ages. Add that to the section. Did you forget that hegelian dialectic story between the roman catholic church and Galileo, who by the way, wasn't burned at the stake like other so called heretics? Do you not understand that the copernican model and no newtonian gravity were barely being introduced and that people didn't just readily accept those new teachings. People weren't believing that they could magically stick upside down to a ball earth in the middle ages and they didn't even have any concept of gravity prior to Newton. The vast majority of people didn't believe in a spinning ball earth during the middle ages, they believed Ptolemy's geocentric model and they believed that we lived on a stationary plane. Also, Pseudoscience is believing that a pressurized system can exist next to a vacuum with 1×10-6 to <3×10-17 Torr without a physical barrier. Replicate that pseudoscience. This article looks like it is written by George Orwell's ministry of truth department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Galileo was not a “middle ages” figure, and his censure by the Church was unrelated to flat earth concerns. Similarly for the rest of your screed. This page is for discussions about improving the article, not for prohibited WP:SOAPBOXing. Strebe (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
My attempt at making the article easier to read by shifting the levels up one notch was reverted with the reasoning "Normal sections are at level 2". I am well aware of that, and that is the problem here. That was what I was trying to correct, to actually make the article easier to read. I find no reason to do what is "normal" if in this case it makes the article harder to read. It is about what works, not what is "normal". There is an entire, nice, unused level 1; why not use it when in this case it actually makes the article better? I don't find doing what's normal just for normality's sake very rational. --Jhertel (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- It’s not that mysterious: Level one is the article title. Strebe (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'll also note that this is an extremely well-entrenched practice with wide ramifications that can't really be hashed out on a random article's talk page. You have a reasonable point to make about the display, but any hope of changing it is likely to happen by changing the way that the current heading levels are displayed, not by changing the heading levels on potentially millions of articles. I'd be surprised if no one has brought this up before. You could always try asking an an appropriate WP:MOS talk page, or possibly somewhere at WP:VP, to see if there's been some previous discussion or gain some other insight. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)