Talk:Flat Earth

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 28 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Flat Earth was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 20, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 23, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 9, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Hava Mendelle (February 17, 2024). "Wikipedia: how safe is crowdsourcing the truth?". Spectator Australia. Retrieved February 17, 2024. Take the following examples, an article on Flat Earth and an article on the Weaponisation of antisemitism. ... The former reads more neutral and factual where whereas the latter reads like an argumentative essay.

Clarity of assertion[edit]

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

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

Thomas Aquinas does not mention a spherical earth[edit]

The article says:

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, believed in a spherical Earth and took for granted that his readers also knew the Earth is round.

But the source which is given does not mention a spherical earth. Aquinas says that both the physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round, which is not necessarily spherical. Why does the text then say Aquinas believed in a spherical earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original Latin in question, rotundam, does not mean circular. It is the accusative feminine singular of rotundus, which means round, spherical, globular, just as round does in English. It’s clear that it means spherical in this context because the physicists and astronomers he refers to had demonstrated the earth to be spherical, not merely disk-like, as per the references St. Thomas himself gives. There is no scholarly controversy over the meaning of this sentence. Strebe (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that the people Aquinas quotes proved the earth to be spherical. Round does not imply spherical. When I say the table is round it is clear that the table is not spherical. When Aquinas or people he quoted said it was round they could just have meant it to be a round disk. Before it has been proven that the meaning is spherical it should not be mentioned as such in the official page. Retonom (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing English language semantics. As Strebe explained, the writing was in Latin, where no such semantic ambiguity exists. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing English language semantics. "rotundus" in Latin can also mean circular so my argument is valid. You can find the proof here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rotundus#Latin :

1. round, circular

2. spherical, rotund Retonom (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By relying on Wiktionary translation (or any translation, really), you're back to applying English semantics. MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. A translation is not English semantics. Semantics is about the meaning in a specific language. Translation is not semantics. In addition to that, Strebe said: "The original Latin in question, rotundam, does not mean circular." This is incorrect, as Wiktionary proves, it also means circular and don't tell me again, that to say what a word in another language means is semantics. Please let someone answer who understands the subject. Retonom (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you are attempting to build is plainly a semantic one, and, per WP:NOR, misplaced here. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've added a secondary source with directly supports the claim as well, which I trust settles the matter. MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article full of globe bias[edit]

Yeah.. That's plenty of that. DNFTT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article should be about the flat earth but in fact is serves more to make assertions that the flat earth theory is pseudoscience, silly, unscientific or whatever is brought up to discredit the flat earth. This is not how it should work. The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. From what I perceive the people that are in charge here do not want an objective view of the flat earth to be available to the general public, since they delete even comments on this talk page that point out flaws in the article. Let's see if this comment is deleted again, which would prove my point... Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to "both sides" of an argument, like it seems to me that you propose. Pseudoscientific opinions should not be shown as valid statements of fact. Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for more on this topic. Sjö (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. Except, it doesn’t do this. The lead paragraph is be heavy with such statements, but asserting that the entire article is that way discredits your premise for me. The lead paragraph ended up that way because a lot of other editors were concerned that the older text might give someone the impression that belief in a flat earth could be scientific. Strebe (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “scientific” arguments against flat earth use non-scientific propaganda language, which undermines the credibility of scientific claims. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Suggest inclusion of actual scientific evidence for rejecting flat earth. Perhaps a method for measuring the size of the globe from the ground using observations of shadows cast from identical rods at various locations at an agreed upon time, sextant, etc. 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:69A9:7:436:85ED (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth article does that, and is linked to. That’s where it belongs; duplicating it isn’t good editorial policy. Strebe (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the value of the logically fallacious propaganda language? 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:C505:3F7A:6DE3:752F (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t fallacious, so I can’t answer your question. Strebe (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

Why does this article take a stance?[edit]

The sky is blue

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The flat earth belief may, or may not, have credence. In either case, is it necessary for the article to reveal the stance of the author? Would a neutral presentation of facts not better let the reader reach the correct conclusion?

Throughout history, there have been many, many scenarios in which the "consensus" was wrong and the minority was correct. While I personally do not believe that is the case with flat earth, what is the benefit of wikipedia taking a stance? Reading this article, I do not care what the authors of the article think (yet I am battered by their beliefs). 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say and they do not support flat earth theories. Check out Encyclopedia Britannica - they say the same stuff [1]. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why not state what the reliable sources say (with links) and then state what the flat earthers say.

Reading this article, I wanted to understand what flat earthers actually believe in, and why. I could not do that when the article, from the onset, says they are wrong and unequivocally dumps on them. It means I need to go to some other site to learn the context / history here. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, it is obligatory for Wikipedia to describe utter nonsense as nonsense, and not to pretend that it has any credibility or basis in fact. Acroterion (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because fringe beliefs are not given equal time for the obvious reason that people should not be led to suppose that a false belief could be right. The shape of the earth is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact as much as anything else is. We don’t give “neutral” presentation to alternative beliefs about the temperature and pressure at which water boils, or any of millions of other facts. What we do is report that some people believe false things. When we say “fact”, we do not mean an assertion that could not change regardless of how reality is constructed. It is true that the earth might not be spherical if existence is only a dream or if we are some kind of highly controlled simulation. It not true that the earth is flat if the normal assumptions about existence are true: There is no rigorous experiment that could demonstrate such a thing, and limitless experiments that demonstrate otherwise. Strebe (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one actually does dispute the temperature at which water boils. If some large group of people did, i would expect (want) wikipedia to present their views without stating, from the onset, and in wikipedias voice, whether wikipedia thinks they are right or wrong.

That does not mean both sides are given "equal weight". If one side has the overwhelming support of science and consensus, the sources will show that and the reader can naturally reach that conclusion himself.

You said wikipedia has an obligation to describe nonsense as nonsense. But why? Can the reader not make that conclusion himself? 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much nonsense out there, if Wikipedia operated in the way you suggest it would be choked with irrelevances. The article on the Moon will not seriously entertain the idea that it is made out of cheese, because Wikipedia's core mission is to summarize the best available sources, not the best available sources and then also all the cranks who happen to disagree. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not an article about the earth; it is specifically about flat earth belief.

Similarly, i agree moon article should not mention cheese theories; but an article about cheese theories would... 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proof for the curvature to be removed since it is wrong[edit]

The box states that: "An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth"

The towers in the foreground are only partly hidden, whereas those a bit further away are almost completely hidden. The towers in the front are not very far away from the towers in the background, this is evident from the size since they would have to be much smaller if they were much further away. This cannot be due to the curvature since the curvature could not make objects so close to each other disappear in such a way. If it was the curvature the effect would have to be much smaller. This is therefore no proof for the curvature. Either the picture is fake or it is some optical effect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs)

The further ones are several kilometers away from the nearer ones. At any rate, we cannot take action based on your personal analysis, see WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]