Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Restoration of "sic" template in quotation

A recent edit removed the {{sic}} from the following quotation:

"with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat"

with an edit summary "That grammar can be correct ... ".

I disagree that the grammar of the quotation can be considered correct. The sentence was clearly intended to mean that the exceptions were extraordinarily few, not that they were extraordinary. That is, the word "extraordinary" was intended to qualify the adjective "few" and not the noun "exceptions". Being an adjective, "few" requires an adverb to qualify it, and "extraordinary" cannot serve as an adverb. The "sic" is therefore proper and serves the useful purpose of notifying the reader that the error is not a misprint in the Wikipedia article itself, but occurs in the original quotation. I have therefore restored the "sic".
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My reinsertion of the {{sic}} template has now been reverted. I stand by my assertion that the grammar of the quotation is incorrect, for the reasons I have given above. Nevertheless, I do not wish to engage in an edit war over the matter. Please discuss it here.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "sic" should be there. (If the adjective were intended, wouldn't the wording be "with a few extraordinary exceptions"?) Unless there is some indication (within a reasonable time) of lack of support, I think that it should be restored. It is a minor thing, but it is irritating, isn't it? TomS TDotO (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rules for adjective order say that adjectives of number or quantity should precede all other adjectives, so if the writer had wanted "extraordinary" to qualify "exceptions" the expression "extraordinary few exceptions" would be at least unidiomatic, if not ungrammatical, and it seems a very unlikely mistake for a well-educated native english speaker to make. That's why I presume the writer intended to say "extraordinarily few exceptions". The "extraordinary" which actually appears could simply be a typo that was not picked up in proof reading. Either way, I don't see how the sentence can be considered grammatically correct as it stands.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I didn't think English had any hard and fast rules about adjective order, or at least that such rules were important enough to require us to play grammar police and put in a sic template. In an encyclopedia, sic ought to be used to inform the reader that a grammar error originates with the quotee and not with the quoter, not just to point out or make light of a minor grammar mistake. I don't think this instance is major enough to require the tag - we certainly wouldn't use it for a split infinitive. If it is decided that this is important enough an error to require the tag, then the quote must be removed from the introduction or edited to so that the error is removed. Otherwise we undermine our own credibility by quoting from error-tainted sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A simple compromise is to correct the error and shift the openining quotation marks to a point beyond the correction so that we're not misquoting the source. I have now done this. An alternative would be to try and find the quotation, or a similar one, in Russell's book, and cite that, instead of his web site.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the quote to a paraphrase, of both Russell and the other sources given. As this is the intro, I think summarizing the consensus probably serves the article better than a quote to a website reproducing one paper.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience".

Hi.

I saw this:

"The hypothesis of a Flat Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence as well as by the modern understanding of planet formation and physics, and the scientific community now dismisses the notion as pseudoscience."

Does this mean that every disproven theory is now "pseudoscience", then? mike4ty4 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of pseudoscience is "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." Not all disproved theories continue to have a backing like the Flat Earth Foundation that try to say there is evidence (like the Earth would have been slowed down by ether so it can't be flying through space LOL) for that theory. Althepal (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Krüger's list of globularists

A recent edit removed some of the names from Reinhard Krüger's list of people from late antiquity to the age of Columbus who have allegedly argued for the sphericity of the Earth. I have checked the source given and verified that it does in fact include all those names. I have therefore restored them.

The edit which removed the names cited two web sites, here and here, as justification for the removal. The first of these sites, an Italian Wikipedia article on Fazio degli Uberti, which in no way contradicts Krüger's claim that Uberti knew the Earth to be spherical. The only inconsistency between the two sources seems to be that Krüger lists Uberti among his theologians and natural philosophers, while the Italian Wikipedia article classifies him as a poet.

The second of the two cited web sites is in German of which I understand very little. It appears to contain a brief biography of Juan Gil de Zámora and a bibliography of his works. I can't see anything that seems likely to contradict Krüger's classification of him as a theologian or natural philosopher who knew the earth to be spherical. There appears to be nothing at all to justify the removal of any of the other names.

In any case, even if there are reliable sources which contradict some of the information given by Krüger, Wikipedia editors cannot take it upon themselves to adjudicate which sources are correct and which are not. If sufficiently authoritative sources can be found to contradict some of Krüger's information, the appropriate procedure is not to merely delete the information which is contradicted. Presuming, as is most likely, that the amount of disputed information were relatively small, the appropriate procedure would be to add a short note saying which of the names are disputed and supplying a reliable source which disputes them.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there much point in having the list at all? The article text has made it abundantly clear that this belief was widespread. Illustrating the point further with a big list of names doesn't really seem to add much over simply citing "many individuals who believed this have been explicitly identified", and substantially breaks up the flow of the text. Shimgray | talk | 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who wants to find out who is on Krüger's list can easily find out by consulting one of the two cited web-sites. In my opinion, it would be preferable to delete the list itself. However, I also think it's worth at least informing readers of its existence and pointing them to locations where copies of it can be found. This could be done by simply keeping the paragraph that currently precedes the list, together with the accompanying citations to the two web-sites.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, with a bit of tidying. Shimgray | talk | 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslims' reasons for believing the earth to be round

A couple of recent edits have added the following text to the article:

"Most Muslims believed in a spherical Earth, because the Qu'ran states that Earth is round."

This needs a citation to a reliable source. At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammed—starting from 610 AD—the Arabs of his community had been trading with the Byzantines in Syria for some time. Since the Earth was certainly widely known to be spherical by the Byzantines at that time, it's quite possible that this was also known to Muhammed and his fellow Arabs well before the revelation of the Qur'an. So even if it's true that the Qur'an does state that the Earth is round, the assertion that even the early Muslims believed it because of that could well be just as big a load of codswallop as the rest of the flat Earth myth.

In any case, however, the single Surah (79:30) which seems to be the only one ever quoted as saying that the Earth is round (actually "egg-shaped", according to the translations quoted) appears to have been interpreted in that way by only a very small minority of translators. Of the 34 translations of the Qur'an into English, French and Italian (the languages that I read) given at the Online Qur'an project site, only 3 have translated that Surah as saying that the Earth is egg-shaped. The rest merely say that the Earth was "extended", "spread out", "expanded", or similar such expressions.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

well i am a muslim, and the verse you mentioned is "[79:30] He -Allah- made the earth egg-shaped."

The Arabic word ``dahhaahaa is derived from ``Dahhyah which means ``egg.

it is not what the translators said to judge the meaning of the verse, it is the original arabic meaning of the word which we should consider.

ther is another Ayah in quran which support the fact that the earth is round: [15:19] in which the word "madadnaha" extended means that the lands are endless, which never happends unless the earth is round.

BTW muslims received a lot of informations from their neighbor nations ( indian, persian, byzanty...) but these enormous amounts of informations and sciences were processed and reformed to exclude the wrong ones and improve the right, thats what Averroes, Avicenna, Alhazen ...etc did to bring the humanity the most accurate sciences and the most scientific ways to process the informations. Dr B2 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

this is silly. Muslims do not believe the earth is round "because" the Quran says so. The fact of the matter is simply that at the time of the compilation of the Quran (7th century), it was already universally known that the earth is round. The Quran isn't claiming anything here, it is simply referring to common knowledge. --dab (𒁳) 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Aristarchus: Sun light is parallel

The aricle mentions, that Eratosthenes had to assume the sun light to come in in parallel rays. It then mentions a Chinese source for this fact from the 1st century B.C., i.e. after Eratosthenes. I would like to point out, that Aristarchus proved during the early 3rd century B.C. by a simple, geometric argument, that the sun must be suffiently distant for its rays to be parallel. He looked at the moon at half-moon an measured the angle moon-earth-sun to be almost 90 degrees! C.f. Aristarchus On the Sizes and Distances Rgds from Germany --Boobarkee (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Three different modern circumference estimates

In various parts of the article, the modern estimate of the circumference of the globe is given as 40,008 km (The Classical world - Greece and Rome), 40,030 km (Ancient India), and 40,068 km (Islamic World). These should probably be made consistent, or the inconsistency explained. For instance, 40,008 km appears to be the actual meridional circumference of the globe; that could be clarified to explain why it's different from the other two estimates. But the other two estimates are not close to any of the three values for the circumference given in Earth (40,075.02 km (equatorial), 40,007.86 km (meridional), and 40,041.47 km (mean)). Chris (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Where it says 40,030, the only one of the two cited sources that gives a number ([1]) gives 24 902 miles (40 075.8843 kilometers), which is the equatorial circumference - I'll change it to that.

Where it says 40,008, there's no sources - I'll qualify it by stating it's the meridional circumference.

No idea about the 40,068, the source is not available online.

LjL (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Isaiah and "circle of the earth"

An editor has proposed saying that the reference in Isaiah to "the circle of the earth" is an indication of a belief in the 8th century BC in a spherical earth. I suggest that, first of all, this belongs under the heading "Ancient Near East", and only if there is some substantiation for (1) "circle" in this context means "sphere", (2) the expression "circle of the earth" is an appositive genitive, that is, that it means "the earth is a circle" (rather than, for example, "there is a circle belonging to the earth"); and (3) that this particular text dates from the 8th century BC, rather than Deutero-Isaiah, of the 6th century BC. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's from Deutero-Isaiah, as it is 40:22, and even the dating of that is questionable. So, we have a questionable interpretation of a text whose date is unknown for sure but is certainly not 8th century. Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here, unless there's some decent secondary source talking about it and interpreting it this way. --LjL (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We've just had another editor bringing up the same text. It has been appropriately handled with a simple revert. But I wonder whether there is some way to reduce the number of recurrences. Or is it just something that will have to be reverted every so often? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How about explaining all the above points in the article?--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

McCready, William D. (1996-03). "Isidore, the Antipodeans, and the Shape of the Earth". Isis. 87 (1): 108–127. ISSN 0021-1753. Retrieved 2009-08-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), p. 114 states that it is possible that Jerome understood this passage (Isaiah 40:22) as describing spherical earth, though his remarks and attitude towards sphericity are vague. → Aethralis 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may so bold as to suggest these couple of references which may be helpful to someone who wants to take up the question of the meaning of Isaiah 40:22 -

The word thus means "circle, as drawn with compasses."

The often suggested translation "vault (of the heavens)" is therefore probably incorrect, as is the less frequent suggestion "disk (of the earth)."

K. Seybold, entry on chugh, volume 4, pages 244-247 (quotation from pages 245-246), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1980

In ancient thought this refers to the farthest horizon, where the world ends, or to the vault of heaven around the earth, Job 22:14, perhaps to the circle in which the earth itself encloses the water under its surface in its foundations (the mountains on the horizon?), Prov. 8:27.

vol. 1, page 108, Jan L. Koole, Isaiah: Part 3 Volume 1: Isaiah 40-48. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, Kok Pharos, 1997

TomS TDotO (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I note once again that someone has tried to edit the article by inserting a version of this claim. Seriously, is there any way to avoid this annoying activity? OK, I will grant that it's been a bit more than two months since the last instance. Do we just resign ourselves to reverting something like this every now and then? TomS TDotO (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion won't stop it. Explaining it in the article rather than here might. It's obviously a notable idea (I recall a Jeho' doorstepping me about it.)--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. But is there a good reference for someone claiming that Isaiah 40:22 says, some time before Pythagoras, that the earth is spherical? I don't want to be accused of setting up a "straw man". The brief comment by Jerome (pointed to by Aethralis, above) is too vague, isn't it? TomS TDotO (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean, is there a reference for the claim that "circle" in Isaiah does not imply "sphere"?--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I read TomS TDotO's suggestion. As I understand it, he is looking for a citation to some sort of authority figure (such as Jerome) who really has claimed that Isaiah 40:22 is referring to a sphere, so that the article can verifiably say that such people do or did exist. I'm not sure if this will satisfy his requirement, but it's fairly easy to find such people amongst the creationists (John Morris, for instance).

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If St Jerome had said it, it would be notable. Perhaps we can say something along the lines of "no one in antiquity cited Isaiah as implying etc etc" but in "recent times blah blah"--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I was so obscure in my writing. Yes, I was looking for an "authority" saying that Isaiah 40:22 described a spherical earth. That was so that I wouldn't be perceived as attacking a "straw man" position. I just took a quick search with Google, and I turned up the information that the Douay-Rheims Bible translation (the traditional Catholic English version) translates this verse with "globe". As far as Jerome, to my taste, what he said is just too vague for me to use it. I'll follow David's suggestion and try to find a modern authority. Give me a little time for I'm going to be otherwise occupied for a few days (and should I remark that I won't be offended if someone scoops me?).

TomS TDotO (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the date of the Douay-Rheims Bible translation? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Early 17th century for the Old Testament, apparently. I'm not sure that the use of the term "globe" in the translation means all that much. The expression used in the Vulgate (5th century), from which the Douay-Rheims was translated, is "gyrus terrae". While a literal word-for-word translation of "gyrus terrae" would be "circle of the earth", I believe it was also used (like the similar expessions, "orbis terrarum" and "orbis terrae") to refer to the world as whole, and the Latins, after all, did know that the Earth was spherical, right from classical times. So the Douay-Rheims translators might simply have been adopting a perfectly normal interpretation of the Vulgate's Latin.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society removed from intro

I removed the following from the introduction:

"The Flat Earth Society accept or promote the Flat Earth hypothesis , despite the hypothesis having been long contradicted by overwhelming evidence as well as by the modern understanding of planet formation and physics, and the scientific community now dismisses the notion as fantasy."

It violated NPOV, including weasel wording. It is well-represented in its own section. It also did not "fit" with the intro. I'd be fine with a different mention of the society in the intro, perhaps one or two sentences, while of course not violating Wikipedia's standards. - Cyborg Ninja 01:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no violation of NPOV here, just straight factual reporting.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violations and weasel words include "overwhelming," "modern understanding," "scientific community" and "fantasy." I suggest you read WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL before continuing. - Cyborg Ninja 01:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Those words are an accurate reporting. Flat Earth beliefs are not mainstream to put it mildly, and have no scientific support. Please stop making assumptions about what I may or may not have read. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree that the disputed passage violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, I tend to agree with Cyborg Ninja that it's poorly worded, and certainly that it's not suitable for the lead. In my opinion, the text is much too preachy and condescending to Wikipedia's readers. Do the vast majority of them really need to be disabused of any lurking suspicions that the Earth might be flat? And if they belong to the small minority of cranks who do believe that it is, are they likely to be swayed by anything Wikipedia might have to say about it? If the two of you are unable to negotiate a sensible compromise here, I suggest one of you open a request for comment on the matter.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're jumping in a bit early with a RFC, for heaven's sake.

Your argument is basically everybody knows X therefore we don't need to state X in the lead. I don't think that is how Wikipedia works. What is the most notable fact about the Flat Earth? It is that it isn't true, but that a very very small number of people profess to believe that it is. (Unlike, say the triangular Earth, which absolutely no one believes in.) Therefore this information should appear in the lead.

I'm glad you agree that it doesn't violate WP:NPOV. It also doesn't violate WP:WEASEL since it can be sourced (even flat Earthers have to concede this, I think). By all means let's improve the wording, but deletion is not the answer. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"I think you're jumping in a bit early with a RFC, for heaven's sake."

I was suggesting an article RFC, not an RFC on user behaviour—a completely different kettle of fish. All that the former does is invite uninvolved editors to contribute to the discussion. It seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do as soon as a discussion shows any signs of degenerating into slanging match. But in any case, I only suggested it as a possible recourse in the case that the two of you were unable to negotiate a sensible compromise.

"Your argument is basically everybody knows X therefore we don't need to state X in the lead. .... "

No, that wasn't my argument. But I don't really care enough about the issue to bother with any further elaboration.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said nor thought you were refering to a user RFC. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, David Wilson. I read some of the policy on fringe theories and it seems like the Flat Earth Society shouldn't garner a section, if even a mention. Personally, I think a sentence or two is fine, depending on how well-known the society is and if it garners publicity, per policy. I definitely find it too preachy and it doesn't flow with the intro. Weasel words are definitely in that intro. It doesn't matter what our personal view on the matter is. What does matter is that we follow Wikipedia standards and remain fair... and to write well. I clearly delineated what constituted weasel wording. Perhaps you should be clear as to why you disregard that, Michael Price. You also note that there are many references, but you did not include any for that part of the intro, not to mention the format errors. I may consider an RFC, but I'd like more commentary on it here and at the village pump. - Cyborg Ninja 17:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there were any Weasel words here (as I read WP:WEASEL, a statement of a general consensus does not count as weasel words). I do agree with the concerns expressed here that the Flat Earth Society doesn't belong in the intro. Nonetheless, the intro should include some allusion to modern believers in the flat earth, which form a major part of the article. How about:

Although the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been contradicted by overwhelming evidence and the scientific community dismisses the notion, there are still occasional modern advocates of the hypothesis.

Comments please. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Cyborg Ninja's comments about fringe theories; see the example they cite about the face on Mars. Clearly there is nothing about the Flat Earth society that bars it from being likewise documented here. As for weasel wording, that applies to mislesding material as a consequence of being poorly sourced; it we supply the sources there should be no problem since no one has suggested the material is misleadimg, in itself. I have no problem with SteveMcCluskey's proposed wording. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have of course read and alluded to fringe theories that are well-known, Michael. I mentioned that in my last post. Since then I've seen the Flat Earth Society has its own article, so I imagine it is well-known. WP:WEASEL, SteveMcCluskey, specifically states that the use of "scientific community" and "modern understanding" and "overwhelming evidence" as weasel words. Perhaps if there were inline citations for them, it might not be so. "Scientific community" is regularly tagged on Wikipedia with the "who" tag. Again, this is solely about Wikipedia guidelines and nothing else. - Cyborg Ninja 21:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All we seem to be debating is the level of in-line citations required. Tag the stuff and I'm sure the the citations will appear. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally support Steve's suggestion.

Incidentally, this is something somehow related to this issue I mentioned in an answer almost 2 years ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've toned down my suggested replacement and put it in the article.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your amendment, as implemented, has struck exactly the right note for the lead. And Michael Price's wikilinking of "occasional modern advocates ... " to the article on the Flat Earth Society was also a very nice idea. Well done, both of you.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for my gumpiness earlier. I'm glad we're ending in a positive spirit. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Perhaps citations will be added later. - Cyborg Ninja 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Flat Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 9, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. Lead section is extremely weak.
2. Large amounts of statements are missing sources.

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Aqeel Walker translation

A recent edit changed the word "FLAT" to "ROUND" in one of the article's footnotes, which purports to be a translation from Arabic to English by one Aqeel Walker. If Mr Walker's translation has the word "FLAT", then that's the word which Wikipedia should be using. If there is a genuine controversy about the correct translation—and this can be verified by citing a reliable source—then the appropriate procedure would be to add a footnote to that effect, not to put words which our source did not use into his mouth.

Unfortuately, no source has been cited for Mr Walker's translation, and I have so far been unable to find out where it originated from. However, every citation I have been able to find on the web has the word "FLAT" (e.g. [2], [3]). I realise this doesn't mean all that much, since vast numbers of these citations have probably just been lifted from this article, anyway, without aknowledgement, or have been propagated from some other unknown source. Nevertheless, since I could find no evidence whatever that the original translation had the word "ROUND" rather than "FLAT", I have restored the latter as the more likely original, and tagged the entire passage with a {{citation needed}} template. Unless a decent source for the translation can be found, I believe the entire passage should be deleted.

In fact it seems to me that the amount of space which the article devotes to the Ibn Baz issue is way out of proportion to its importance, so I would be inclined to delete the passage anyway, on the grounds of undue weight, even if a reliable source can be found for the translation.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

On proceeding to delete this translation as unsourced, I noticed that a copy of it is contained on the web-site cited in footnote 82 (as currently numbered). But since we have cited and linked to that web-site anyway, and including an entire verbatim copy of the translation in the article might fall foul of copyright restrictions, I have removed it anyway, along with other material which has remained unsourced for several months.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Making reference to the Hebrew Bible in the Ancient Near East section

Whatever the controversy regarding particular passages and their interpretation (I've browsed the archive pages), still there should be some mention made about the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament carrying the ancient Near Eastern cosmology (flat earth, the firmament & waters above & below, etc), since this is not under dispute by any except the Bible School fundamentalist apologists. I'm taking the perhaps misguided liberty of filling this in myself, and will include the appropriate citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.253.218 (talk • contribs)

it is completely undisputed that the Pentateuch assumes a flat Earth. Generalizing this to "Hebrew Bible" may not be a good idea, as the late books of the Hebrew Bible (such as Daniel) date to well within the Hellenistic period and need to be reviewed individually. The oldest known suggestion of a spherical Earth would be Pythagoras, who is roughly contemporary to the redaction of the Pentateuch. Any claims of a notion of a spherical Earth coeval with or earlier than Pythagoras raises huge WP:REDFLAGs and will need excellent references. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Egyptians considered the earth flat?

Ancient Egyptian writings may suggest that they thought the earth is flat, but their buildings do not. The builders of the Great Pyramid aligned it exactly to true North. The concept of true North, and the methods of determining it, require an accurate understanding of cosmology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.32.254 (talk • contribs)

I am afraid this isn't true. the definition of "true north" is simply "direction of the point around which the daily rotation of the stars revolves". In order to figure out the direction of "true north" you do not need to understand anything, you just need to watch the stars for a few hours. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Elephants/Whales/Turtle stuff

Who created the "three elephants/whales and turtle" myth? I looked over hindu and buddhist beliefs, and it doesn't seem to be theirs. Is it, presumably, a modern european retro-legend? Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not modern (Terry Pratchett notwithstanding). See Turtles all the way down. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an amalgamation of unrelated myths in popular culture. The "Great Turtle" appears in the mythology of the Northeastern Woodlands tribes. These do not involve any elephants for obvious reasons. --dab (𒁳) 11:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

there is a lot of urban legend and internet-hearsay surrounding the "turtles all the way down" meme. I have been wanting to sort this out for some time, and I have now sat down to it. The result so far is in World Turtle, World-Tortoise (Hindu) and world-elephant. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

"Due to the large sizes of landmasses and the fact that most humans have never viewed the earth from above a few kilometres (from mountains) until the 20th century, people have historically been unable to judge the earth's sphericity and curvature. This is despite the large distances people have travelled."

• How do the large sizes of landmasses, particularly, make it more difficult to judge the Earth's sphericity?
• "most humans have never ... until the 20th century" doesn't make sense. Something has gone wrong with the temporal logic.
• "people have historically been unable to judge..." is dubious given that the ancient Greeks had a pretty good estimate of the Earth's circumference more than two thousand years ago.

I'm tempted to just delete this paragraph, but maybe someone would prefer to salvage it. 86.134.9.101 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Delete! --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That paragraph doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose, and I think the article would be improved by removing it.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this?

The shape of the earth could not be directly observed until the "space age", which means that early knowledge of the shape of the earth was a matter of inference from its effects. This did not stop early peoples from making the correct inference. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some change is certainly called for; the current text is especially bad in the lede. WikiBlame shows that it's a recent addition and in my view adds nothing to the article. I agree that it should be removed; there's no need for a replacement. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Krüger's list again

A recent edit has reinserted a primitive version of a list of people which had earlier been removed after discussion above. The editor reinserting the list suggested it be made collapsible. This seems to me to be a good compromise, so I have impemented it.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Flat Earth - Straight from the Bible

The entire article about Flat Earth assumes because some intelligent and educated people already knew the world was round, that misinformed religious people shared that knowledge. This assumption is probably false.

Even today most Christians are in denial about several facts of science. In fields like biology (evolution - incompatible with the Christian creation story), cosmology (the Big Bang - also incompatible with the Christian creation story), neuroscience (incompatible with the existance of souls) and many more.. Would you say that because science is taught in high school, that Christians know these things are true? A lot of them (hopefully) do, although many Christians still deny these facts because of what the Bible teaches them. So the point is: Just because some educated intelligent openminded people know something is true, uneducated irrational religious people often don't know those facts (and they usually simply refuse to believe such facts when they are confronted with them). And long before intelligent people invented scientific reasoning (to be taught honestly and objectively at non-religious high schools to the masses), uneducated misinformed Christians were already being indoctrinated with the divine scriptures from the Bible.

The Bible mentions the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1 and Job 38:13) and the ends of the earth (Jeremiah 16:19 and Daniel 4:11). The Holy Bible teaches that God placed the earth on its foundations so that it can never be moved (Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Job 9:6 and Job 38:4). The Bible also mentions how it is possible to fall of the edges of the earth (Job 38:13, Job 37:3 and Job 28:24). The Bible also speaks about a tree so high that it was visible from any place on the earth (Daniel 4:20). To say that early Christians did not believe in a flat earth, is the same as claiming that early Christians did not believe in the Bible. Most Christians will tell you that the Bible is the main piece of evidence for the existance of God. Even to this day, some people still trust the Bible as the infalliable Word of God.

Although the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been generally dismissed by most modern Christians, there are still occasional modern advocates of the hypothesis. 94.214.195.191 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor 94.214.195.191 wrote:

"The entire article about Flat Earth assumes because some intelligent and educated people already knew the world was round, that misinformed religious people shared that knowledge."

If you can identify the text in the article from which you gained that impression, and give convincing reasons why it could be taken to imply that such an assumption has been made, then that text will need to be reworded or removed. However, on a somewhat perfunctory re-reading of the article I have been unable to find any text which seems to me to carry any such implication. You will therefore have to be more specific if you want the article to be modified to meet your concerns.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the argument by User talk:94.214.195.191 is "Original Research" WP:OR. There are several assertions which can be questioned. No matter how inevitable the logic which leads from A to B, unless authorities actually made that inference, it is OR. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But since everything beyond the bolded first paragraph of the IP's comments seems to me to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia is not a forum anyway, I see no point in encouraging further discussion by responding to it. The first paragraph, however, does make a specific criticism of the article which, if correct, would certainly require it to be amended. Personally, I can find no evidence in the article itself that the criticism is correct, but if the IP can point to any specific passage in the article that could conceivably be read as justifying it, then I would have no problem with rewording that passage to eliminate such a possibility.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The biblical passages cited may have been interpreted in favor of the hypothesis of a Flat Earth. But to demonstrate the alleged beliefs of early Christians in a flat earth, you have to cite reliable sources that demonstrate that specific early Christians interpreted those specific texts as meaning the Earth is flat. I don't think you'll find them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's always Cosmas, Lactantius, and the handful of others already identified in the article as early Christian flat-earthers by reliable sources, even though we aren't aware (as far as I know—with the exception of Cosmas) specifically how any of them interpreted the scriptural passages cited by the IP. But of course, the existence of a handful of early Christian flat-earthers doesn't at all justify the assertion that early Christians, in general, believed the Earth to be flat, or that this belief was a ever part of Christian doctrine—and I agree that no reliable source for those assertions is ever likely to turn up.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Who said it?

Should we mention Daniel Boorstin's ideas about belief in a flat earth? Apparently he blamed "the leaders of Orthodox Christendom" for over a millennium of the suppression of knowledge of the earth's sphericity. [4]

If we do mention him and his idea, shall we also mention other writers and historians who disagree with him? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Off hand, Boorstin's discussion would be more appropriate in the article Myth of the Flat Earth. (At least to the extent that splitting off that article was ever a good idea).

Boorstin's serious critics would also deserve mention there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a follow-up and found that some big guns took aim at Boorstin's view of the flat earth. It was criticized by Russell in his Inventing the Flat Earth, and in the favorable reviews of Russell by Owen Gingerich in Speculum, 68,(1993): 885, by J. B. Harley in The William and Mary Quarterly, 49 (1992): 381-382, by Joel Cleland in The History Teacher, 26 (1993): 396-398 and by Steven Sargent in Isis, 84 (1993): 353. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Boorstin is outdated, and if he were alive and knew of the most currentn research he would surely revise his work being the sound historian he was. --Ishmaelblues (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, then here is my bold change to the article. Please let me know if it's too sudden a departure from consensus and needs more discussion first. Or help me by finding and inserting the necessary references. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A nice, but overstated edit; phrases like "completely rejected" and "never to surface" invite people to present isolated counterexamples. I'll tone it down a bit. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for toning down my overstated edit. I prefer your phrasing to mine, very much! --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over page number of citation

From an initial edit ([5]) and a subsequent sequence of successive reversions ([6] [7] [8]), there would appear to be some dispute over what is the correct page number for a particular citation made in the article, one editor claiming it's on p.114 and the other claiming it's on p.317. In the edition of the cited reference available from Google books the appropriate page number is certainly p.114. However, this is the first edition of 1997, ISBN 0-7923-4066-3 (HB), whereas the edition cited in the article is the second edition of 2008, ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2, of which an online copy doesn't seem to be available.

Obviously, at least one of the participants in this dispute must be mistaken, and can't have rechecked his version of the source carefully enough before making his second revert. A local university library holds a copy of the cited edition of the reference, which I will try to find the time to check some time over the weekend. Unless the mistaken party discovers and acknowledges his error in the meantime, I should be able to resolve the issue definitively by Monday.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I had only used the Google Books version. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the acknowledgement. While that might be the problem, I will still try to carry out the check, just to make sure.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a verbatim quote from ISBN: 978-1-4020-4559-2,the version cited in the article, p. 317:

One finds in the Rgveda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from nonexistence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self-supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month.

As you can see, the whole reference to a spherical earth is anyway of utmost brevity and could be removed altogether if you ask me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now checked the cited reference and can confirm that the quoted text appears on p.317.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

Jagged, I looked up your sources and in my view they don't support what you make of them. Wikipedia:VERIFY states that When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. So please quote your references verbatim and give a brief rationale for why you intrepret them in the way you do. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that. Athenean (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder, what you wrote clearly contradicts what the cited source states. Let's compare my version and your version and see which one is closer to the original source. In the China section, your version claims:

The isolated occurrence of a spherical terrestrial globe introduced by the Persian astronomer Jamal ad-Din in 1267 to Beijing "would have more to do with the depiction of the relationship between earth and heaven rather than the representation of the earth's sphericity itself",<ref>{{citation|title=The Image of the Spherical Earth|author=David Woodward|journal=[[Perspecta (journal)|Perspecta]]|volume=25|year=1989|pages=3-15 [9]|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567135|accessedate=22/02/2010}}</ref> and the idea of the spherical earth did not take root in Chinese astronomy until the arrival of Western science.

While my version said:

The earliest known reference to a spherical terrestrial globe of the Earth in China dates to 1267, when the Persian astronomer Jamal ad-Din introduced it to Beijing.<ref>{{citation|title=The Image of the Spherical Earth|author=David Woodward|journal=[[Perspecta (journal)|Perspecta]]|volume=25|year=1989|pages=3-15 [9]|publisher=[[MIT Press]]|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1567135|accessedate=22/02/2010}}</ref>

Now let's see what the original source actually states:

China is usually described as the cradle of many technological achievements associated with cartography - such as the invention of the magnetic compass, the invention of paper and printing, and the advanced state of land surveying. But allusions to the making of a terrestrial globe before the one by Jamal al-Din, brought from Persia to Beijing in 1276, are completely lacking. The closest reference to a terrestrial globe, a small representation of the earth in the middle of an armillary sphere of the heavens, is ambiguous because its shape is not described. In any case, the importance of such representations would have more to do with the depiction of the relationship between earth and heaven rather than the representation of the earth's sphericity itself.

In other words, Woodward was clearly referring to a different earlier Chinese armillary sphere, not the Persian terrestial globe that Jamal al-Din presented. Nice try at quoting (or rather, twisting) his words out of context. So what is your rationale for completely misinterpreting the original source like that?

Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad you finally made it once to the talk page. First, you quoted above selectively from your version which in fact fully runs:

The earliest known references to a spherical Earth in China come from the "Western Regions", namely ancient Indian astronomy and medieval Islamic astronomy. The work of Indian astronomer Aryabhata, whose model included a spherical Earth rotating on its axis, was known in China during the Tang Dynasty (618–907).[70][71] The earliest known reference to a spherical terrestrial globe of the Earth in China dates to 1267, when the Persian astronomer Jamal ad-Din introduced it to Beijing.[72] Several Chinese astronomers are also known to have worked at the Maragheh observatory in Persia where various spherical models of the Earth were produced from the 13th century.

There is much synthesis in this, but let's concentrate on the sentence on the terrestial globe you singled out. The key statement is clearly that "In any case, the importance of such representations would have more to do with the depiction of the relationship between earth and heaven rather than the representation of the earth's sphericity itself." This means that your whole entry lacks notability in that Woodwards believes the existence of these few globes does not provide real proof that the Chinese adopted a round earth view or were even aware of it. The specification "the importance of such representations" makes it clear that Woodward's conclusion is not only true of the "small representation of the earth in the middle of an armillary sphere of the heavens" but also of Jamal al-Din's globe which is mentioned just before.

So, in sum, you are clearly misinterpreting Woodward who, in fact, advocates the view that the contact with Muslim astronomy did nothing to alter the Chinese conception of a flat earth. To address your concerns, however, I would propose the following amendation:

The isolated occurrences of spherical terrestrial globes such as the one introduced by the Persian astronomer Jamal ad-Din in 1267 to Beijing "would have more to do with the depiction of the relationship between earth and heaven rather than the representation of the earth's sphericity itself.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems you are having a hard time comprehending what Woodward said, I'll quote again and highlight the key words:

But allusions to the making of a terrestrial globe before the one by Jamal al-Din, brought from Persia to Beijing in 1276, are completely lacking. The closest reference to a terrestrial globe, a small representation of the earth in the middle of an armillary sphere of the heavens, is ambiguous because its shape is not described. In any case, the importance of such representations would have more to do with the depiction of the relationship between earth and heaven rather than the representation of the earth's sphericity itself.

Note that he only used the word "representation" to refer to the earlier Chinese armillary sphere, not the globe by Jamal al-Din. What is so hard to understand about this? It's just English grammar, not rocket science. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I thought "representations" to refer to both the armillary sphere and the globe. Let's see what Athenean thinks. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Jagged insofar as the interpretation of this passage. It's pretty clear that the the "small representation in the chinese armillary sphere is ambiguous, and the first terrestrial globe brought to China is Jamal al Din's. What is less clear to me is why this belongs in the article. It is quite clear from the passage that follows that Jamal al Din's globe failed to persuade the Chinese of the Earth's sphericity. Athenean (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I see much in this article that has nothing to do with a flat earth, and is mostly redundant with the contents of Spherical Earth. Athenean (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that Woodward almost certainly did not intend the words "such representations" to have included Jamal al-Din's terrestrial globe. However, I believe that the way the information about this globe is currently presented in the article is far from ideal. It could easily be misread as implying that its introduction to Beijing had some influence on Chinese views on the shape of the Earth. But there is nothing in Woodward's account to indicate that this was the case. Moreover, on p.138 of Heavenly clockwork: the great astronomical clocks of medieval China Needham et al say explicitly that

" ... there is no record of its [i.e. Jamal-al-Din's globe] having been adopted by the Chinese astronomers."

I do think it's worth mentioning these facts in the article—but at best only as a qualifying footnote to the current second paragraph of the relevant subsection—with something along the following lines:

" While the Persian astronomer Jamal-al-Din did bring a terrestrial globe to Beijing in 1267 there is no evidence that it was adopted by Chinese astronomers of the period."

with a citation to Heavenly clockwork, as given above.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

David, exactly my sentiments, the event is beyond the threshold of notability for the continuous text, but I am afraid that to evoke the impression that Islamic astronomy had something to do with changing Chinese perceptions was exactly part of the whole enterprise of including this line... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved the event to the footnotes. Since Woodward (footnote 22) relies in his report of the Persian globe on Needham, Heavenly clockwork, anway, I replaced him with the later, ultimate, source. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Greece

I've been looking up what the ancient Greek philosophers taught about the shape of the earth during the period 700 B.C. to 300 B.C.

It seems there is a mix of flat earth believers and spherical earth believers. We may need to reorganize this information, because this article is supposed to be about belief in a flat earth. However, it seems that anywhere a civilization starts taking a careful look at the idea, they promptly abandon it.

I'm really thinking of making a Shape of the earth article and putting all the history there. Until then, how shall we organize Thales and Parmenides and all the others? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes By Ed Poor

Ed, I applaud your research, but I think your latest set of changes is not an improvement. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a straightforward tabulation of opinions. If you want to enlarge on the earlier text to clarify that, while a spherical world view did begin to take root at a time, many other philosopher retained a flat earth view, that's fine. But a flat list by itself is poor style, though it can certainly be helpful in addition to expository text. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest, then? I've already started an article on the Shape of the earth, with the intent of listing all historical views in chronological order. I'd like the reader to be able to see how people's view of the earth's shape has changed throughout history. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly something like:

"By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical began to take hold in Ancient Greece. While philosphers such as (...insert here...) propounded views of a flat earth, Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, (...continue here...)" Fell Gleaming^(talk) 18:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

References to Christian support for the concept

• St John Chrysostom thought the heavens were a box rather than a sphere, but he never says the earth is not a sphere in the centre of the box. [9]

Is the above quote from a notable enough author? I'm thinking of Kim's OR tag. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The OR tag is based on much of the text surrounding using primary sources. Not only that, but the sources are written in a cryptical way, so that the text has to be interpreted. Interpretation == OR. I'm not certain that Shannam is an RS - but it is certainly better than the OR we have now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been going around the wiki for the last several days, point out that the "myth" that medieval society (particularly its Christian leaders) believed in a Flat Earth. Stop me if I'm overstating the case, i.e., relying on a POV.

My brand of NPOV balance is to point out neglected or misunderstood ideas - not to argue that any particular idea is true. I just want to let people know that A said B abut C. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(afterthought) I'm also wondering where is the best place to write about the Flat Earth idea and the "conflict thesis". For example, here's a nice quote (perhaps a little hostile):

• The conviction that medieval people believed in a flat earth supports an ideology of scietific progress necessarily achieved at the expense of wrongheaded religion. [10]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 14:34, April 22, 2010

I am somewhat puzzled by the assertion that the article's representation of Chrysostom's and Athanasius's views constitutes original research. What the article says is:

"In his Homilies Concerning the Statutes St.John Chrysostom (344–408) explicitly espoused the idea, based on his reading of Scripture, that the Earth floated on the waters gathered below the firmament, and St. Athanasius (c.293–373) expressed similar views in Against the Heathen."

This seems to me to be no more than an accurate description of what is clearly and unequivocally stated in the (admittedly primary) sources cited. The English translations of some of Chrysostom's own words are:

"When therefore thou beholdest... the whole earth borne upon the waters, and not submerged, ..."

"And whence does this appear, that the earth is borne upon the waters?"

"The water ... bears up the earth, great as it is ... "

"... the earth hath remained ... lying upon the waters, without being either submerged, or dissolved, or destroyed."

and explicitly cites Scripture as justification for this view. The English translation of some of Athanasius's words are:

"the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters"

"... the earth, heaviest of all things by nature, fixed upon the waters, and remaining unmoved upon what is by nature mobile"

"And again, earth is very heavy, while water on the other hand is relatively light; and yet the heavier is supported upon the lighter, and the earth does not sink, but remains immoveable."

One might possibly harbour some scruples about the use of the words "floated on", rather than "borne upon" or "supported upon", which Chrysostom's and Athanasius's translators actually used, or about the expression "waters gathered below the firmament", rather than "realm of the waters", as rendered by Athanasius's translator, but if those expressions are thought to smack too much of an editor's intruding his own interpretation into the texts, they could simply be replaced by those which Chrysostom's and Athanasius's translators actually used. It's true that nowhere in the cited sources do Chrysostom or Athanasius explicitly deny that the Earth is spherical, but then the text currently in the article doesn't say or imply that they have done so either.

Nevertheless, I do still think that this text is problematic:

• Given its context, anyone reading it could very easily and understandably construe it as insinuating that Chrysostom and Athanasius were flat earthers;
• The text omits other statements of Chrysostom's and Anastasius's which could provide further clues to their views on the shape of the Earth. Some such omissions are unavoidable, since anything more than a sentence or two about their views would be assigning them too much weight. But, this will inevitably result in readers' who do not actually consult the sources themselves obtaining an incomplete, and possibly distorted, idea of those views.

In my opinion, these problems with the article's text are sufficiently serious to justify removing it. If the article is going to say anything about Chrysostom's or Athanasius's views, it should be supported with a citation to a good secondary source. In that case, I do believe it would be worth citing the primary sources as well, so readers can check them for themselves if they so wish, but I don't believe this should be accompanied by any editor comment or summary.

On the issue of James Hannam's reliability as a source, it seems to me that his book, God's Philosophers, would pass Wikipedia's criteria with flying colours. I would be somewhat less sanguine about the web-site, since it's not clear that the material in the articles included on it have actually been published in either his book or a peer-reviewed journal. All he says about the articles is that they are "based on my research".

The statement that Chrysostom "never says the earth is not a sphere in the centre of the box" seems rather dubious to me. The 13 volumes of Chrysostom's collected works comprise 18 volumes (vols 47-64) of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. I somehow doubt that Hannam has read the lot of them. What he probably means is that in the text where Chrysostom implies that the heavens are a box he does not deny that the Earth is a sphere. The text usually cited for Chrysostom's views on the shape of the heavens is in his Homily 8 on the Epistle to the Hebrews. It's quite true that nowhere in that homily does Chrysostom say anything to suggest that he thought that the Earth was not spherical. The problem with Hannam's statement is that we don't know if he was referring only to that text, or whether he also knew about, and intended to include, the text currently cited in the article (for instance).

The article currently cites an apparently reliable source (in the journal Studi sull'Oriente Cristiano) which includes Chrysostom amongst a group of Syriac Fathers who supposedly shared a '"flattist approach' to discussions of the shape of the Earth. If this reference stands up to scrutiny, and only one or two other reliable source can be found to contradict it, then Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view would require that either both opinions or neither of them must be included in the article.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Irving

A good deal has been made of the 1828 edition of Irving's biography, but the citations appear to use (inaccurately) the 1861 edition. The chapter on the Salamanca meeting is on p.117 of the 1828 edition Google edition but on pages 86-92 of volume 2 of the 1861 version U Michigan. I'll change them.

I find this debate confusing as both sides are exaggerating. e.g. Russell, quoted in various places in the article, says of the inquisitors "all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate" whereas Irving actually says "Others more versed in science admitted the globular form of the earth" (p124). There seems unnecessary polarization. It seems likely that the ignorant masses of all ages have believed in a flat earth (probably many still do). Certainly the idea of antipodes does require some education to understand and I can well believe narrow-minded inquisitors scoffing at it or presenting Augustine's more subtle arguments against it. Chris55 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We have delegated this discussion to Myth of the Flat Earth years ago, because it does not concern any historical flat earth model, just mistaken belief in a flat earth model that did not in fact exist. I don't know why this has grown back into a full-length coverage on this page. --dab (𒁳) 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Continual removal of fact tag

Twice I have added a fact tag to the sentence "However it is the common concept of everyday experience and any alternative needs to be taught." and twice it has been summarily removed. Not a good idea. It needs sourcing, and the editor who added it should either source it or remove it himself. At the bottom of this edit window is the sentence "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources". That's all I am asking for. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Second that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just strike it. The Earth isn't an object of "everyday experience" in any case, because it is too large. What is the object of every day experience is "the ground". not "the Earth". --dab (𒁳) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bible

The Bible passages do not claim there is a flat earth this article is too long and sheds no light on the subject I suggest shortening it dramatically and removing retarded Bible passages which do not constitute any legitimate theory if you can find evidence that ancient people believed the earth was flat or that the Bible passages reflect that then put it forward otherwise get rid of the Christian bashing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomgazer (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The article should reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, if you see that as bashing anyone I'm sorry, but that's the way we work. If you think (wrongly I believe) that it 'sheds no light on the subject' (what does that mean?), I don't see how shortening it will help. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

alright, but I must wonder what the sentence

"Among the Biblical passages often quoted by those who believe the Bible is literally true"

is doing in the section on the Ancient Near East. --dab (𒁳) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

in fact, the article has derailed completely since I last looked at it. The toc is a mess, and most of it actually discusses the discovery of the Spherical Earth model. The article spends a significant percentage of its size piling up references to medieval authors who were aware of the spherical earth. This is not what I would expect in an article with the title "Flat Earth". --dab (𒁳) 21:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

err, the Bible was written in the "Ancient near east". The passages quoted recur throughout medieval discussions and later. Why not lay 'em out? They have been quoted again and again against anything other than a flat model. Most people don't know them these days.

I agree with your comment about the development of the spherical earth model as DBachman has now christened it. Chris55 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What significant reference states those quotes are prevalent you idiot. I demanded you list your reasons and you counter that you have none. Remove them or put them into context. Tomgazer (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try and stay civil, Tomgazer. I put in a reference to the use of those passages but it was removed by Dbachmann's edits. Look back at the edition of 26th July around 19:20 Chris55 (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quotes need to be put into context the quotes as they stand do count as a legitimate theory. If there is evidence otherwise bring it forth but they need to be removed if there is none. Tomgazer (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the Biblical account follows the general cosmology of the middle east in that period. Demanding references for references is not part of the Wiki requirement. Chris55 (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are under dispute and they need a third party opinion if you cannot find one they need to be removed. There is nothing in those quotes about cosmology. That's like saying that early Christians also believed humans were grasshoppers and the earth was covered by canvas. If you cannot find one direct reference listing early Christian philosophy the quotes need to be removed. Tomgazer (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want, a reference saying Lactantius thought the earth was flat? We've got references for the Hebrew Bible, eg [11]. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Chris55: The Hebrew Bible was not "written in the 'Ancient near east'". It was written in the Persian Empire period, which is not usually included in the period known as the Ancient Near East. But this is beside the point. I agree that discussion of the Hebrew Bible belongs in the "Ancient Near East" paragraph, because it is in the same tradition. The question is what a discussion modern biblical literalism is doing in a discussion of the Ancient Near East. Whatever is or is not found in the Hebrew Bible is hardly affected by what position certain sects choose to give these texts today.

As I have said before, it is perfectly unremarkable that the texts of the Hebrew Bible assume a flat earth. Being compiled in the 6th century BC, they date to a period where everyone, outside perhaps a small circle of Pythagoreans, assumed the earth was flat as a matter of course. In fact, if the Psalms contained references to a spherical earth, this would raise significant doubts as to their authenticity or antiquity.

It is irrelevant that these passages have later been made part of the Jewish and the Christian bibles, we cite them as references illustrating the worldview in the Iron Age before the beginning of the Hellenistic period.

Tomgazer, nobody says that "Christians", or even Hellenistic Jews, believed in a flat earth. These religions just inherited texts from an earlier period, such as the Psalms, which contain passages that happen to illustrate the common pre-Hellenistic worldview. This has nothing to do with religion, just with history, and with the fact that ancient texts were preserved because they happened to be relevant to certain religions.

As Doug said, there were a few eccentric Christian authors who ended up concluding from these texts that the earth must be flat. These authors were a minority, and must have seemed eccentric even to their fellow Christians at the time. This is the sort of childish literal-mindedness that gives you God with a beard sitting on a cloud. Even if some modern fundamentalist Christians have devloved to this stage, this says nothing about the Church Fathers of antiquity, who were serious men of learning, not religious loonies. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Lactantius did not write those passages. There is no evidence found in those passages to suggest the idea that early Christians believed the earth was flat. Find an outside opinion or remove them. Very simple if you cannot find evidence that those passages denote a belief in a flat earth than remove them. Tomgazer (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

dab - you say "@Chris55: The Hebrew Bible was not "written in the 'Ancient near east'". It was written in the Persian Empire period, which is not usually included in the period known as the Ancient Near East." In fact that article says the period ends in around 6th-4th century BC by which time all of the Hebrew scriptures accepted by Christians were written. I didn't revert your deletion of the Christian literalist use of those references since it is obviously a bit out of sequence, but why not focus on bits that are repeatedly quoted in these discussions throughout the medieval period and up to the present day? Chris55 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to focus on scriptural passages that are "repeatedly quoted" in discussions of the flat earth "throughout the medieval period" you will need to cite sources showing that those passages were, in fact, cited in the Middle Ages to support belief in the flat earth. Medieval writers were very sophisticated in their biblical interpretations and I know of no examples where they cite biblical passages in the way you suggest. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

See Ancient Near East. The period is usually taken to have ended around 550 BC. As you say, th text of the Hebrew Bible was redacted in the period of about 550 BC to 350 BC. It is, if you like, a "coda to the Ancient Near East".

Tomgazer, what do you mean "Lactantius did not write those passages"? Lactantius, Cosmas Indicopleustes and others believed the earth was flat. However, they were not medieval authors but lived before AD 600. There may be some authors of the 7th century, such as Isidore, who also believed the earth was flat. But we certainly aren't claiming that "the Christians" believed this, or indeed that anyone after AD 1000 believed it. It really isn't clear what you are objecting to. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Late Antiquity cutoff date

Although there's obviously no specific date which should be taken as the precise start of the middle ages, my understanding is that dates suggested as typically belonging roughly to the middle of the transition period are 476 AD, the year in which the last recognised western Roman emperor was deposed, and 500 AD. This agrees with what Wikipedia's aricles on the Middle ages and Early middle ages and the article on the Middle ages in my ancient Collier's Encyclopedia have to say on the matter. On this understanding, Cosmas (but not Lactantius, of course) could reasonably be described as an early medieval author.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

yes. There may have been a few writers right at the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages which retained the theological flat earthism of Lactantius. Structurally, that makes them late ancient, not medieval writers. If you take as the cut-off date the closure of the Platonic Academy in 529, Cosmas may actually have written less than 20 years into the medieval period. Of course it is completely artificial to draw such a line. Procopius (d. 565) is often held to be the last of the scholars of the ancient world, which would mean that Cosmas actually wrote 20 years before the end of antiquity. It would not be wrong to state that during the Early Middle Ages, some authors continued to argue for a flat earth, but these authors were still members of an eccentric minority just as Lactantius was. --dab (𒁳) 17:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BC vs BCE?

BC is the commonly accepted term, whereas BCE is simply a seldom used politically correct term designed to expunge all notion of God and Christ. Please do not claim that using BCE will avoid offending anyone; the majority of English speakers here on Wikipedia are Christian, and are thus fine with and even prefer the terminology of BC. In fact, I am personally offended by the use of BCE. Thank you. ~Rev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.57.237 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but Wikipedia does not take sides on this issue (and I am quite sure that the majority of English speakers who read and edit the English Wikipedia are not Christian, you underestimate the number of people all over the world who read and write English). Wikipedia is not censored and there are many articles on here which might offend some people. And although you clearly do not realise it, there are people who are offended by the use of BC/AD. I could quote any number of Christian writers who use BCE/CE, but that isn't necessary. Read WP:ERA and please do not try to make such changes again. As it says, "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So where was the substantial reason for this change then? BC/AD had been used in this article almost from the beginning, going back to 2002. Then a mere six weeks ago User:C6541 decided to change it without any discussion whatsoever. I would suggest he had neither a substantial reason (other than his own politically motivated POV) nor consensus for the change. Doug - I invite you to restore the original and long used notation of BC. LevenBoy (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Doug has not responded so on the basis of the above remarks I wil revert the changes to th article that replaced BC/AD with BCE/CE. LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Doug hadn't noticed, I have no problem with that. It could have been a religious motivation, by the way, like the first editor above. Dougweller (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I do not mind which one is used, for I have grown used to both of them. Being non-religious, I do not mind. I do not think the majority of the people viewing this are Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.40.108 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

how do people in japan, china or india indicate the year in compliance with the european calendar? i would be surprised to learn they use "before christ" and "anno domini", which are church phraseology. they claim both that a specific person was christ (savior) and that subsequent to him we live under the administration of a montheistic deity (dominus). BCE and CE are historically literal, change no facts, and merely remove church terminology from public record documents. i suggest you move beyond religious nomenclature. Macevoy (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Common Era#Usage (at end) China uses characters meaning Common Era, Japan uses characters meaning Western Calendar, while Korea uses characters meaning Western Era. Indian writers habitually use AD/BC because India was a possession of Great Britain for over a century and most traditional Hindu texts were translated into English by Christian missionaries. None of this has any bearing on Wikipedia whose editors have been unable to reach any consensus for AD/BC vs CE/BCE. This has been debated on Wikipedia ad nauseam, see for example Wikipedia talk:Eras. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with the use of BC/AD. I personally use them all the time and find zero offense to either method. This has nothing to do with offensiveness - in fact it is only offensive to some, whether it is BC or BCE ect... a group of people will always dislike it. However Wikipedia is not censored. But more importantly, it should be set to a more "global standard" so to speak. Many religions and groups of people may have different uses, dates, names, and so on. Each group of people no doubt finds their own way superior, and none of these methods are compatible. So, most importantly, Wikipedia readers are not all christian, not even mostly christian. There is an extremely large number of different Religions, Races, Backgrounds, Nationalities ect... So in this case, as in all similar cases (whenever possible) a standard that can fit them all should be use.

BCE/CE are in no way "Godless", they are two abbreviations - they do not carry any other meaning aside from what they stand for, BCE = Before the Common Era and CE = Common Era. There is no Godlessness or attempt to Expunge Religion in those words. Try to remember that although YOU may believe in something, not everyone does. For example, there is no page on Wikipedia called "True Prohphet" that names Jesus or Muhammad or whoever as the One TRUE Prophet. Why? Because people believe different things. In that case however, there is no "middle ground"

But here there is. BCE/CE can be applied to everyone. And only people who invent their own meanings will take offence (and thus those people will find offense for themselves elsewhere, even if they are appeased on this matter). BCE/CE does not change the dates, it doesn't shift the entire system around. It is just a name used to fit with everyone. We should not use BC for example, which stands for Before Christ because 1) not everyone even believes Christ was a person, 2) Those who do may have their own names for the split 3) Some may have a different calandar system altogether. Just like there is no page claiming a True Prophet, the BC/AD system shouldn't be used because it does not apply to everyone.

But no matter who you are, what religion you are, The Era since the supposed time of Christ can easily be thought of as the recent, or Common Era. The era before that? Before the Common Era. NO ONE who truly understands that this is a nuetral postion should be upset by these abbr. (unless, like I said, they are looking to be offended or find an opportunity to preach their convictions and beliefs while bashing others).

In fact, Religious Nuetrality was the EXACT reason for this method. It has NOTHING to do with Atheism or Godlessness or whatever you want to call it. It is meant for ALL RELIGIONS. If there were a Non-Religious system then the date would have no split, and would start either from the beginning of the Universe or the Beginning of the Earth. (and besides, if it REALLY bothers you as a christian, just read it as BCE - Before Christ Existed and CE - Christ Exists)

But in all seriousness - anything but a nuetral position is in violation of the No Bias policy. If you think I am biased, then bring in a bunch of people who are neither Christian nor Non-Religious - since they have no bias, they are the best candidates to discuss a Nuetral System or the BC/AD system. Alex DeLarge 12:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.DeLarge23 (talk • contribs)

I believe BCE should be used... it can be precieved as either Before Christ Everlasting, or Before Current Era my 2 cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.62.112 (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

i think it's pretty ridiculous to make a whole fuss over not wanting to use anything 'christian' and then continuing to use the exact same calendar only under a different name. *any* calender that revolves around the birth of christ is bound to offend the easily offendible. you want complete neutrality? then put 'year zero' at the start of the un or the founding of wikipedia or whatever point in time would offend less people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.218.241 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Russell and Ferdinand Columbus

The article currently says:

"Russell asserts that the common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.^[87]

"However the incidents he cites of opposition by theologians at the 1486 Salamanca meeting were mostly recorded far before this."

^87. Washington, Irving (1828). The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. pp. 117–130.

But the claim that the "incidents of opposition by theologians" cited by Irving were "mostly recorded far before this" is not supported by the (primary) sources cited—namely, the biographies of Columbus by Irving and by Columbus's son Ferdinand.

The only opposition mentioned by Ferdinand which could remotely be called "theological" is the single one cited in the article—i.e. that Augustine had denied that there could be inhabitants of the Antipodes, and held that it would be impossible "to pass from one hemisphere to another". Ferdinand says nothing whatever about anyone opposing Columbus on the grounds that the Earth was flat.

It's true that Irving does cite Ferdinand's biography, and lists all the objections which the latter claimed to have been raised against his father's proposal, but it's also true that Irving's account includes several other alleged objections, particularly ones based on arguments from scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers—and especially the ones (on p.124 of the 1828 edition of his biography) that the Earth must be flat—of which there is nothing at all in Ferdinand's account. These include:

• Columbus being "assailed" by quotations, not merely from Augustine, but from Psalms, the Prophets, the epistles, the gospels, Saints Chrysostom, Jerome, Gregory, Basil and Ambrose, and, of course, Lactantius (p.121);
• Doctrinal points allegedly being "mixed up with philosophical discussions", and a mathematical demonstration being "allowed no truth if it appeared to clash with a text of scripture, or a commentary of one of the fathers" (p.121, cited above, & 122);
• Figurative texts of scripture from the Psalms and Paul's epistle to the Hebrews being used to conclude that the Earth must be flat (p.124, cited above).

In my opinion, therefore, the above-quoted text from the article is misleading and needs at least to be amended. But in any case I don't see what relevance the citation to Ferdinand's biography has to the issue in question—namely, whether the belief that people before Columbus regarded the Earth as being flat is a relatively modern misconception for which Irving and Letronne are largely responsible. The citation seems to have been inserted to cast doubt on Russell's assertion that this was the case, but as far as I can see it does nothing of the sort. The fact is that Irving does say unequivocally that some of Columbus's more bigoted opponents did raise the objection, supposedly based on scripture, that the Earth was flat—even if he did somewhat half-heartedly later admit that such objections "were probably advanced by but a few". However, there's nothing at all in Ferdinand's account to justify that allegation, or to support a claim that it had been made by anyone else before Irving.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of quoting Ferdinand Columbus is that Russell makes out that there was no record of anyone challenging Columbus on these grounds before Irving's biography described it. Elsewhere on Wikipedia Irving's account was described as a "fantasy" whereas in fact it won awards in Spain, England and the US from learned societies. It was possibly the first American account and that is its main relevance. Pretty obviously it has nothing to do with fears of falling off the edge of the world and the popularity of flat earth accounts didn't appear for nearly 50 years after its publication. Irving did his research in Spain and there's no indication that any of the modern authors such as Russell have done anything like as thorough a job. It is noteworthy that modern biographers regarded as reliable such as Felipe Fernandez-Armesto repeat the Augustine story. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on Irving's other examples, such as the "hide" covering the earth. He probably had sources for them even where more modern historians would discount them: for example, Bartolomé de las Casas, an account still not widely available in its full version.

I'm sorry, but the Augustine quote does challenge the idea that the earth was round. He is quoted as saying it's impossible to sail round and for purely theological reasons. There are many other confused ideas recorded in Fernando Columbus's account of the commission - such as "many learned men were in disagreement on whether the ocean was infinite" (a clear reference to the Homeric legend) and tales of sailing downhill and therefore not being able to return uphill. These are all the signs that people had heard stories that the earth was round and didn't quite understand or believe or accept it.

It seems that people today are so used to seeing pictures from satellites and the moon that they can't really imagine the difficulty that people had of conceptualising a round earth, particularly before anyone had actually sailed round it. The tenacity with which many, in the United States in particular, clung on to a flat earth theory between 1870 and 1970 is just an indication of how appealing the idea is. All of those people had also heard of the idea of a spherical globe and rejected it.

Most of us who received our education before the space age got used to the idea by looking at globes. But no-one in Christian Europe ever made a globe before 1492 although they got used to the idea of the spherical heavens by using astrolabes. That in itself is a strong indication that the idea of the earth as a sphere was far from being fully accepted. The fact that the globus cruciger became known as an orb (the word means circle not sphere) underlines the fact that since the word for sphere was never used in the bible for the earth it was therefore a risky idea for people scared of clerical authority. Chris55 (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The orb as an item of regalia is a sphere (surmounted by a cross). It isn't a disk. One could argue that it is not a reference to the earth as a sphere, but to the surrounding spherical heavens. "Got used to the idea of a spherical heavens" - are you suggesting that it took some "getting used to" to accept the spherical heavens? I have no idea at all about the origins of the "flat earth theory between 1870 and 1970", and I would find it interesting to hear anything about those origins. (Is it a modern phenomenon like Biblical "literalism"?) I tend to doubt that there were "many" people who believed in a flat earth - I have on occasion trolled people by pretending to argue for a flat earth and I don't recall ever meeting someone who "agreed" with me - I certainly got some people angry with me. Not that my personal experience is worth much. TomS TDotO (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a disk. All I said was that the word (orbis) does not mean "sphere". It is the Latin translation of the biblical word used in Isaiah 40:22 and other places to describe "the circle of the earth". Your idea that the orb may have signified the universe or cosmos certainly has roots in the ancient Roman usage and may possibly be why the symbol survived.

Having said that, have a look at this picture from that article. It certainly seems that at least one medieval iconist thought that a disk was a more appropriate representation! As for flat earth theories between 1870 and 1970 have a look at the section Modern flat-earthers. It has a rather fuller list. Chris55 (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that you've done on the modern flat-earthers, but I'm still wondering why it appeared when it did. Anyway, of course I agree with you that "orbis" does not specify (although it is consistent with) a sphere. But the Latin Vulgate does not use the word "orbis" at Isaiah 40:22, it says "gyrum", a transliteration of the Septuagint "gyron", an unusual word. And, to continue in a pedantic mode, "circle of the earth" need not be an appositive genitive (in Hebrew as well as Latin or English), all we have is something "round" in some relation to (maybe, and maybe not, the relation of identity) the earth. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies - I'm not really familiar with either Septuagint or Vulgate. But Lewis & Short gives "a circle, circular course, round, ring" for gyrus. That may perhaps explain why Isidore in his etymologies compares orbis to orbiculus which means a small wheel. As to why flat-earthism reappeared when it did, I don't think there is any agreed reason, but I think the common assumption is that it had to do with the advance of science in the 19th century affecting common people for the first time and particularly with the dispute over origins and creation. People were digging their heels in over all sorts of issues and the shape of the earth was a good rallying point for some that anyone could understand. Garwood's book is the first to give any extended coverage to the idea - and if you're in UK you can get it via Amazon very cheaply at the moment. (Not so good in the U.S.) Chris55 (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have access to a library which has Garwood's book, so I'll take a look at it. "Gyros" in Modern Greek has a meaning which has been borrowed by English. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The quotation from Ferdinand Columbus includes the passage that Augustine "denies the existence of the Antipodes." At the risk of repeating a point made previously on this page, when Ferdinand wrote the term antipodes did not mean the opposite side of the Earth, but people living on the opposite side of the Earth. Ferdinand is saying nothing about a denial of the sphericity of the Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the argument about people was at the heart of Augustine's argument, but Columbus also says "and holds it impossible to pass from one hemisphere to another". Quite what was the cosmology behind that statement I haven't a clue, but the basic fact is that Augustine got it wrong. His theological argument led him to deny a physical possibility. In fact there were people "at the Antipodes" and they'd certainly never had the gospel preached to them by that stage. Indeed if you believed Ptolemy's geography, the Antipodes were somewhere around Burma and Marco Polo had got further than that by 1490, at least in longitude. Our friend Charles K. Johnson believed there was a presumably infinitely high ice wall where we think the south pole is. Is he by your definition not a flat earther because of that? Chris55 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The source of the idea that it was impossible to pass from one hemisphere to the other was to do with the idea that the terrestial sphere was divided into four parts: the oikumene encompassing Europe Asia, and North Africa, where the sunoikoi, lived, and the other three regions where the perioikoi, the antioikoi, and the antipodes lived. The antipodes and the antioikoi both lived in the southern hemisphere and were separated from the northern climes by the torrid equatorial region, which Macrobius had held to be impassible. There are nice discussions by Allison Peden in History Today and by Wesley Stevens in Isis. It seems that that concept underlies Ferdinand Columbus's discussion.

As to Charles Johnson, I don't pretend to understand unorthodox modern cosmologies — precisely because they're less rational than ancient and medieval cosmologies. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. It raises the obvious question of what is the scope of the article. My feeling is that it should include all views which differ significantly from the commonly accepted view of the earth as a spheroid. For instance, I've been reading some of the very interesting modern psychological literature on children's views of the earth. It's clear that children take a long time to get a clear mental modal of the earth as a sphere; the paper by Vosniadou and Brewer (1992) (see) suggests that only 15% of first graders and 60% of 5th graders can consistently produce answers that reflect the common view (and at 5th grade the 2nd most popular notion, 30%, is the "hollow earth"). In the 15th century the knowledge of life was very different. Irving makes the point that some of those at the council had very little understanding of geography and their "mental models" would have been very different to ours in the space age. If we want to understand rather than make blanket statements we need to allow that many older views persisted long after other scholars had accepted slightly better views. Macrobius' view (there were other theories) would have been an obvious way to allow for the authority of Augustine, but how widespread was it? Clearly there was a fear that the "torrid zones" were impassible, but Bartolomeu Dias had already demolished that one, so why did Columbus report that they thought it impossible to pass from one zone to the other? There was real confusion in their minds and I think that to tie Irving to the whipping post for all our ignorance is unjustified. Chris55 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris55:

"The relevance of quoting Ferdinand Columbus is that Russell makes out that there was no record of anyone challenging Columbus on these grounds before Irving's biography described it."

What "grounds" are you talking about? On p.9 of Inventing the Flat Earth Russell lists (somewhat uncritically, in my opinion) the reasons which he thinks the Talavera commission gave for rejecting Columbus's proposal. They are precisely the five reasons—or at least summaries of them—which Ferdinand had given in his biography—including Augustine's argument against the existence of antipodeans. So it is simply not true that Russell "makes out that there was no record of anyone challenging Columbus" on those grounds. Russell's beef with Irving's account was not with those claims but with his other unsourced and highly dubious claims of the sort I have already given instances of above, and most especially the third of those—namely, that some of Columbus's opponents argued that the Earth is flat. I can see nothing in Ferdinand's account (or Las Casas's for that matter) which justifies those claims, and I'm not aware of anyone having cited any source written before Irving's biography which does justify them.

It is true, in my opionion, that Russell's criticism of Irving leaves much to be desired. I have already given some of my reasons (and those are not all of them) here. But this is not an appropriate place to canvass the sheer awfulness of Russell's book. The facts are that:

• on the issue of whether there's any evidence for any of Columbus's opponents ever arguing that the Earth was flat, he would appear to be correct; and
• the more extreme of Irving's claims (of which there are many) would appear to have been blatant inventions.

Chris55:

"I'm sorry, but the Augustine quote does challenge the idea that the earth was round. ..."

"Challenge" it? The furthest he goes in the notorious passage from City of God, currently quoted in the article, is to express some degree of doubt about the notion that the Earth is spherical. But I can see nothing in that passage—or any of his other writings that I have seen—to suggest that he had ever argued on any grounds, let alone theological ones, that the Earth was flat.

In any case, Augustine's doubt about the sphericity of the Earth is not the reason that either Irving or Ferdinand gives for his being cited in opposition to Columbus's proposal. Irving cites him only as being used to support the impossibility of anyone's living at the antipodes, and Ferdinand cites him as being used for both that reason and for his (supposed) assertion that it was "impossible to pass from one hemisphere to the other" (which is, in fact, not quite what Augustine said).

Chris55:

"He is quoted as saying it's impossible to sail round ... "

But an assertion that it's impossible to sail to the antipodes by no means implies a belief that the Earth isn't spherical. And, in fact, by the time Augustine had got round to making that assertion, he had already made the supposition, for the sake of argument, that the Earth was spherical.

Chris55:

" ... and for purely theological reasons."

No. In fact, he gives no reason, except personal incredulity, for that assertion. Although his incredulity did eventually turn out to be unjustified, I really can't see that—given the circumstances in which he lived and wrote—it was any more unreasonable than, say, the incredulity of an educated 19th-century European of the possibility of travelling to the moon.

The only theological part of Augustine's argument was the premise, based on Scripture, that all people were descended from Adam. Having supposed, for the sake of argument, that the Earth might be spherical, and that there might be dry land on the opposite side of it—in spite of the fact, which he points out, that there was no good reason to regard that as certain—, he relies on the following premises for the rest of his argument:

• Premise 1: All people are descended from Adam (justified by appeal to Scripture);
• Premise 2: "It is too absurd to say, that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this side of the world to the other, ... " (justified by personal incredulity. The quote is from the article)

Chris55:

" ... but the basic fact is that Augustine got it wrong. ... "

Well, although his argument's fallacious, the fact is that the point of the Earth antipodal to Hippo Regius, where Augustine lived, is in fact covered by water (it's about 470 nautical miles north-west 550 nautical miles north-east of Chatham Island), and none of the nearby lands—including New Zealand—were inhabited at the time he wrote. So a pedant could reasonably argue that his conclusion (i.e. that there were no inhabitants in the antipodes) was not quite so wrong as all that.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote:

"Chris55:

"He is quoted as saying it's impossible to sail round ... "

... In fact, he gives no reason, except personal incredulity, for that assertion."

On second thoughts, I will modify that assertion slightly. Augustine does implicitly give a reason for believing it impossible to travel to the antipodes—namely that the expanse of ocean between the oikumene and the antipodes is too large for it to be sailed across. It's this latter assertion for which he provides no reason other than personal incredulity.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, fascinating. Arguing that Augustine wasn't wrong because there happened to be sea opposite where he was at the time! It might be more relevant to accept that there was land opposite Spain (New Zealand) and that it was inhabited when all these arguments took place! I don't think I want to dispute such nitpicking.

You can't have it both ways: there are those who say the argument about the Antipodes was purely about people and not about the real world and now you're arguing this isn't theological. Anyway the argument that there were people not descended from 'Adam' shows that Augustine was wrong, unless you're willing to accept the Eve hypothesis or equivalent and that takes us out of the realm of literalism altogether.

I've been reading the sources more carefully and the current content of the Irving section in the Myth article is so inaccurate it probably should be removed altogether. (1) There is only a single mention of the flatness of the earth in Irving's whole account ["that St Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, compares the heavens to a tabernacle, or tent, extended over the earth, which they thence inferred must be flat"] and that was quickly overruled by others. (2) The whole discussion of "In reality, the issue in the 1490s" in this article (and which continues for 3 paras in the other) is irrelevant since none of the accounts suggest that Columbus's distance estimates were challenged by other contemporaries. (3) Irving's account does not explain in any way the inaccuracies in subsequent "histories" of Columbus (peaking at the 400th anniversary) which were were not the "leap forward in Columbus scholarship" that current historians rate Irving. Chris55 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris55

"Well, fascinating. Arguing that Augustine wasn't wrong because there happened to be sea opposite where he was at the time!"

Since that's not at all what I argued this sarcastic reply is unwarranted. However, neither the degree to which Augustine's conclusion was erroneous, nor the degree to which his argument relied on theological premises is relevent to any current proposal to modify the article, so I shall not pursue the issue further, and I apologise for wandering off on that tangent in the first place.

To return to the point at issue—namely, the accuracy of the above-quoted passage from the article—here are fuller details of the objections Irving alleges were raised against Columbus's proposal:

• "Thus, at the very threshold of the discussion, instead of geographical objections, Columbus was assailed with citations from the Bible and the Testament, the book of Genesis, the psalms of David, the prophets, the epistles and the gospels." (p.121)

Nowhere in the accounts of Ferdinand Columbus's or Bartolomé de Las Casas's is any such thing even hinted at, let alone stated explicitly. Nor, as far as I am aware, has anyone managed to find any source before Irving which has stated or hinted any such thing either.

• "To these were added the expositions of various saints and reverend commentators, St Chrysostome [sic] and St Augustine, St Jerome and St Gregory, St Basil and St Ambrose and Lactantius Firmianus, a redoubtable champion of the faith." (p.121)

With the exception of Augustine's argument against the possibility of travel to the antipodes, none of this is hinted at in Ferdinand Columbus's or Bartolomé de Las Casas's accounts either. Nor, again, as far as I am aware, has anyone found any source before Irving which has done so.

• "Doctrinal points were mixed up with philosophical discussions, and a mathematical demonstration was allowed no truth, if it appeared to clash with a text of scripture, or a commentary of one of the fathers." (p.121-122)

The closest that either Columbus or Las Casas come to saying or hinting anything at all like this is the former's statement that his father's opponents were "not so well informed as the business required" and his insinuation that they were "poorly trained in mathematics" and, having reached an advanced age, "no longer capable of apprehending the truth because of the erroneous notions previously imprinted" on their minds. Neither of them say anything about "doctrinal points" being "mixed up with philosophical discussions" or any mathematical demonstrations' being dismissed because they clashed with scriptures or patristic commentaries.

• "The passage cited from Lactantius to confute Columbus is in a strain of gross ridicule unworthy of so grave a theologian; «Is there anyone so foolish,» he asks, «as to believe that there are antipodes with their feet opposite to ours; people who walked with their heels upward and their heads hanging down? that there is a part of the world in which all things are topsy-turvy; where the trees grow with their branches downward, and where it rains, hails, and snows upward? The idea of the roundness of the earth,» he adds, «was the cause of inventing this fable of the antipodes with their heels in the air: for these philosophers, having once erred, go on with their absurdities, defending one with another.»" (p.122-123)

Again, neither Ferdinand Columbus nor Las Casas, nor any other source that I am aware of before Irving say anything about any of Columbus's opponents citing Lactantius.

• "To his simplest proposition, the spherical form of the earth, were opposed figurative texts of scripture. They observed, that in Psalms, the heavens are said to be extended like a hide;¹ that is, according to commentators, the curtain, or covering of a tent, which, among the ancient pastoral nations, was formed of the hide of animals; and that St Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, compares the heavens, to a tabernacle, or tent, extended over the earth, which they thence inferred must be flat." (p.124)

Again, there is no hint in either Ferdinand's, Las Casas's, or any other account before Irving's that I am aware of, that any such argument was ever made by any of Columbus senior's opponents.

• "Columbus, ... , found that he was in danger of being convicted, not merely of error, but of heterodoxy." (p.124)

There's nothing in Ferdinand Columbus's, Las Casas's, or any other account before Irving's that I am aware of, to suggest that Columbus ever found any such thing.

• "He was told, on the authority of Epicurus,¹ that, admitting the earth to be spherical, it was only inhabitable in the northern hemisphere, and in that section only was canopied by the heavens; that the opposite half was a chaos, a gulph, a mere waste of water." (p.125)

This also is not mentioned anywhere in Ferdinand Columbus's or Las Casas's accounts, or any other account before Irving's that I am aware of. In alleged support of this statement Irving cites Chapter 1 of Book 1 of José de Acosta's Natural and Moral History of the Indies. But all that Acosta does in the source cited is canvass the opinions of the ancients on geography and cosmogaphy. Nowhere does he say or imply that any of those opinions, including that of Epicurus's, were even held by any of Columbus's contemporaries, let alone cited by any of his opponents as an argument against his proposals.

Irving did cite (with some modifications) some of the arguments which Columbus's opponents were alleged by his son and Las Casas to have made against his proposals. These were:

• It was presumptuous of Columbus to suppose that he would be able to make a vast discovery which had remained unkown to the legions of sailors and scholars who had been exploring and studying the Earth since its creation. (p.120)
• On the authority of St Augustine, the antipodes would have to be uninhabited, and it would be impossible to pass from one hemisphere to the other.(p.123)
• On the authority of the ancients, the torrid zone was uninhabitable and it would be impossible to pass through it. (p.124)
• The circumference of the Earth was so large that Columbus's proposed voyage would take more than three years.(p.124-125)
• The return voyage would have to be sailed uphill against the curvature of the Earth and would therefore be impossible to achieve. (p.125)

These more or less accurate accounts of previously reported arguments against Columbus's proposals certainly give the lie to Jeffrey Burton Russell's insinuation that Irving's account was entirely fictional (or "pure moonshine", to cite his misquotation of Samuel Eliot Morison), but they are hardly sufficient to justify an assertion that the details of his account were "mostly recorded" before he wrote it. There are simply too many completely unsourced and scarcely believable claims in his account to make such an assertion at all credible.

More to the point of what should be said in the article is that not only Russell, but just about every reputable modern historian who has written anything at all on the subject, says that the more fanciful of Irving's claims are fantasy, and that none of Columbus's opponents ever argued that the earth was flat. Examples are Samuel Eliot Morison in Admiral of the Open Sea (p.89), Christine Garwood in Flat Earth (pp.7–8), Ronald Love in Maritime Explorarion in the Age of Discovery (p.41), Kirkpatrick Sale in Christopher Columbus and the Conquest of Paradise (p.344) and Miles Davidson in Columbus Then and Now: a Life Reexamined (p.148-p.149).

Chris55:

"The whole discussion of "In reality, the issue in the 1490s" in this article (and which continues for 3 paras in the other) is irrelevant since none of the accounts suggest that Columbus's distance estimates were challenged by other contemporaries."

No, it's certainly not irrelevant, but a reliable source needs to be cited to support it (Morison's biography would do for this), and even then it probably wouldn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (see below). Also, both Ferdinand Columbus and Las Casas (though the latter was probably relying the manuscript of the former—to which he was given access) state that Columbus's opponents on the Talavera commission argued that the circumference of the Earth was so large that Columbus's proposed journey would take more than three years to complete, so it simply isn't accurate to say that "none of the accounts suggest that Columbus's distance estimates were challenged by other contemporaries".

Nevertheless, in the last of the sources cited above, Miles Davidson queries the evidentiary basis for Morison's assertion that "The issue was the width of the ocean." So even if the statement is supported with a good citation (to Morison, for instance), the neutral-point-of-view policy would appear to me to require that Davidson's dissent should also be noted.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent edit: David: Congratulations on the excellent citation of sources (with links) to earlier criticism of Washington Irving's writing. It's reassuring to see that it goes back beyond Jeffrey Russell (who some tend to dismiss as an opinionated Church historian). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see there's much point in piling up extra quotes for something not in dispute. One problem is there is as much inaccuracy in many of the criticisms as there is supposed to be in the original. e.g. Morison introduces the error that the Salamanca Council was convened by the University (and this is repeated by Sale) which Irving nowhere says. It is the one error that Fernandez-Armesto bothers to refute.

But the main problem is that this is in the wrong place. It should be in the "Myth" page not here. I've put the full text of the "Common Errors" quote on that page as it's also been misquoted in several places. It talks specifically about "educated men at the time of Columbus". Chris55 (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)