Talk:Modern flat Earth beliefs/Archive 1

section of the truth

i think we should put in a section that states the the earth has been proven to be round. the article states it as if it were a theory. i think its a proven fact by now.

I agree, but Wikipedia should be totally objective. It is never appropriate to call someone else's beliefs "completely untrue." People believe a lot of things that have been proven incorrect. (Fossils are often said to have proven creationism false.) Besides, in science, everything is a theory until it becomes a law. Laws have several requirements, but one of them is that they must be simple, and can usually be expressed by a single formula. The earth's shape cannot be expressed in this manner.

Ah, no, there is no requirement for such a thing. I suggest you look up the scientific defintions of theory and fact. Jachra (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

actually, there is a law for this. the thing that makes a planet round is the fact that the gravity is greater than the inherent strength of the material it is made of. we can assume that the earth has gravity 1 (the unit of gravity measurement is 1 earth gravity) and that the earth is made of varous rocks. we know the amount of rocks due to the mass required to generate 1G of gravity. therefore the size of a cylindrical disk shaped earth. any rock cannot hold a disk like structure under 1 g of gravity pulling it towards the center, so the earth collapses into a sphere.

It is ok to say that a FACT is untrue. A BELIEF cannot be untrue. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to say something like "Although the facts regarding a flat vs. round Earth have unquestionably proven that the Earth is spherical, the belief that the Earth is flat still persists with some groups such as this one." Just a suggestion. (Petruchi41 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

No, laws are not super-theories. Laws are things, often formulas, that simply describe behavior. Take one of Newton's laws, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force". This describes the behavior of objects in non-extreme environments. It gives no reason to be true, but so far appears to be true. The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives a reason for it to be true, rather than simply explaining how things behave. Natural selection explains how one cell managed to turn into a human, not just that it does. Theories try to explain 'why' something happens, while a law simply uses inductive reasoning to predict what will happen. 68.228.80.106 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When will people understand that "theory" doesn't mean something is unproven. It means, precisely, that something has been proven. A "theory" is not a "hypothesis". I thought after all the nonsense about the "Theory of Evolution is just a theory" debate everyone should be clear by now that "Theory" doesn't mean something has yet to be proven but that there is enough evidence to assume it's the truth. --194.202.236.116 11:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually in science nothing can be proven. It's all based on empirical evidence, and once there's enough it is accepted as truth, but scientists are welcome to disprove it. In fact if someone were to disprove a commonly accepted theory they would win a Nobel Prize. I believe you are confusing scientific "theories" with mathematical "theorems", which, in the scope of a certain collection of axioms, is absolutely true, proven so, and can only be disproved in the collapse of space-time (i.e. never).68.228.80.106 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A more precise defintion was offered by Steven Jay Gould: "In Science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" So pretty much, yeah. Jachra (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

relativism gone wrong

The concept that wikipedia's objectiveness should preclude calling something false just because someone believes it to be true is quite absurd. According to you we should say that some people deny the holocaust and not say that the deniers are liars. We should not claim that HIV causes aids because some people believe it doesn't. By the way, on that point, as a direct propagation of that false belief, hundreds of thousands of people have died in Africa. Some people believe that babies come from stalks who deliver them to the mother, not from the bonding of an egg and a sperm and the eventual development of a fetus giving rise to the exiting of the baby through the Vagina. So should we validate the stalk theory. Some people believe that the moon is made of cheese. So should we give credence to this belief and say some people say it is made out of rock and some out of cheese. I could literally give hundreds of examples.

The point of an encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge. To know something implies that it is possible to figure out whether something is true or false. (If not then human knowledge is meaningless.) Now I am not arguing that there are sometimes gray areas. Of course there are. There are various economic theories that explain the great depression. There is a lot of debate as to whether driving while talking on a cellphone is any more dangerous than talking to a passenger. There are some things that are not gray areas. We know how rainbows form and we also know that there is not a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. Indeed there is very little that every person amougnst 6.5 billion people actually agree on. So if we waited for 100% agreement we would know virtually nothing.

I make one other point. The person above states:

It is never appropriate to call someone else's beliefs "completely untrue."

Why not? What if their beliefs are completely untrue? Should we deny reality? And what does being objective have to do with it. Please do not conflate objectivity with being able to decide that some things simply false. The concept that we have to respect someone else's beliefs is itself something of a dogma without logical explanation. Indeed the most logical starting point is to say that one should examine what others say and if they are proven wrong, one should say so. Thus it is entirely appropriate to say that the belief that the world is flat is quite simply false. Custodiet ipsos custodes 15:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Religion is one thing, as there is no way to disprove something supernatural, but to argue about something as concrete as the shape of the earth is just absurd. 68.228.80.106 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this posting. There are far too many relativists trying to foist unproven assumptions on WP articles due to precisely this relativistic view of the world, in which opinion and fact are indivisible. What they would like us to forget is one very simple, basic statement:

When two statements mutually exclude each other, it is impossible that both are true.

--77.56.237.232 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Im with you, This Flat Earth has alredy been solve centuries ago so this topic is just a bucn of lies by some people that are just seeking attention.

--24.138.232.27 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

proof that earth is round

the proof that earth is roud is that whe can travel for years and "fall off" the earth.

Huh? Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? You're not making sense. Midtempo-abg (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean the proof that the Earth is round is that you can travel and NOT fall off?207.58.207.138 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one were to travel in a line tangential to the Earth, one would fall from it regardless of the shape. Dash275 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Calgary (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you perpetually hung a left or a right, to the right extent, you'd never fall off. The only way to prove, first hand, that the Earth is round, is to fly into space. *Which could technically be simulated these days* OH GOD NOTHING IS REAL!!! I'M TRIPPING OUT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.116.195 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

TheFlatEarthSociety.org is Satirical

The description of the FE website should note that it's potentially satirical. The FAQ says that "some people actually believe this", but the vast majority of forum posts (even excluding the spam and flames) are just people poking fun at dogmatic belief, as shown by this poll I'm hard-pressed to find even one forum post not-parodying the FE theory. Ceran 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I have proof right here, was going to ask one of the members about something and he replied this:

[06/01/2007-10:29:55] qwert11691: Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? I won't be hostile or threatening, I just want views from both sides of the flat-earth discussion.

[06/01/2007-10:30:02] [ommitted]: ok good

[06/01/2007-10:30:09] [ommitted]: and, for the record

[06/01/2007-10:30:30] [ommitted]: i, along with the majority of the users who argue for a flat earth

[06/01/2007-10:30:39] [ommitted]: do not actually believe the earth is flat

Peace. 85.166.160.209 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Many do not, but I know for a fact that some do believe in a flat earth. Some are there for argueing. Others believe in a flat earth. --WakingJohn 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

       -DISPUTES-

Flat Earth Society has been commonly criticised for the lack of proof and mostly answer by "read the FAQ" and "its a conspiracy" Obviously these people are complete idiots and waste their time thinking the world is in the middle of the universe. --anonymous xx:xx, X X XXXX (UTC)

I agree with you, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.80, in here theres enough proof this site is satirical and therefore this wikipedia entry should be deleted. 136.145.175.46 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentalists

Eloquence - do you mean literally what you say in your edit comment, that you "I would not be surprised" if there must be some flat earther fundies around? If "Most other fundamentalists" is in fact better than "Other fundamentalists", prejudice should not decide this. Mkmcconn 22:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Both are statements of fact. The question is, which is the more accurate one? The FES widely circulated membership claims of 3,000 and more, and Johnson often mentioned inquiries from Muslim countries. Given the unlikelihood that a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or Iran would contact a small American Christian fundamentalist group, it seems quite likely that Flat Earthers can still be found in, say, rural Iran, who have never heard of the Society. I have no real data, but this is my conclusion from Johnsons' own claims, and seems more supportable to me than to simply imply that nobody who believes this is left. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to compromise on the word "most", but I think some qualifier should be used.—Eloquence 22:32, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

How about "No other fundamentalists have published support for this belief"? This seems to leave maximal room for both, the prejudiced imagination, and those who are looking for a count of other flat earthers. Mkmcconn 22:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true, but if you're confident that it is, it seems like a good compromise. Just don't complain to me when someone else proves it wrong. ;-)—Eloquence

It's a deal. Mkmcconn

---

Membership inquiries came from many religious countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and India.

I object to this. Are these countries any more religious than the United States, say? If I added the U.S. to the list, it would look like an attack... Evercat 04:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the term "religious". Current phrasing is:

Membership inquiries came from many countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and India.

I kept the bulk of the sentence, as it is interesting that a predominantly English-speaking society of a dubious nature attracts international attention. -Itai 10:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flat Earth belief is not quite the same as Flat Earth society,more like primitive conceptions of, geography which hopefully eliminates such nonsense from modern world.I'd still assume alot of peasants and uneducated workers have such beliefs.its appeal to common sense,since all they see is flat earth around them.

Flat-earth.org

Yo - the flat-earth.org website, which claims to be that of the Flat Earth Society, is an amazing piece of satire, and obviously not the site of the serious organisation that actually advocated the flat-earth theory. What does this mean? I'm not sure.

My evidence, from the Flat Earth F.A.Q.:

13. What about gravity?

Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia.

There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism.

Graft 21:31, Dec 15, 2004 (unsigned)

Isn't that from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels? - Vague | Rant 03:04, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Actually Pratchett himself probably got it from Hindu mythology. The four elephants/giant turtle bit is described in several epics (e.g. the Bhagavata Purana). Graft 18:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another parady website on the flat-earth belief is [1].

Yeah, I don't really understand why the article describes the site as genuine as it's obviously satirical.

That FAQ is wrong, unless the "giant elevator" is under constant acceleration (eg, not constant speed). Inertia alone would actually let you fly forever higher and higher with a simple jump on a constant velocity "elevator" :) That, and an "elevator" wouldn't elevate anything if there wasn't gravity. A wrong FAQ (even in their version of the earth's shape) could mean their web site (currently) is just satirical. We can't (and shouldn't) decide whether their beliefs are true or not and just judging if the website is satirical or not seems difficult (just look at this discussion page :). I'm with the ones who say to write an article about the society and their beliefs but clearly marking them as such, to be sure nobody thinks the article speaks about any factual, scientific evidence (about a round o flat earth, it doesn't matter). Luca Lesinigo (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling. . .

Hmm, if the earth is a disc (at least they don't claim it's square), then what's on the other side? How thick is it, and what does it look like when you get to the edge? At a minimum, the disc would have to be about 70,000 feet thick (the total distance between the top of Mt. Everest (ca. 30,000 feet) and the bottom of the Mariana Trench (ca. 36,000 feet). Therefore the sides of the disc would be somewhere around 14 miles across, and in perpetual darkness--no, wait a minute: if the earth is flat, why is half of it dark at any given time? Perhaps the Western Hemisphere is on one side, and the disc flips back and forth every 24 hours. But if that's the case, why do some latitudes have wider oscillations in the length of the days (e.g., in Germany it stays light out until nearly 10 p.m. in the summertime, whereas in the tropics the days are pretty much 12 hours long year-round)? Oh, wait, the flat-earthers say that the whole world, all 7 continents, are on the same side of the disc. So how do we have night and day? Maybe the disc tilts along the "equator," but if that were so, the nights in the tropics would be very short year-round, and the latitudes further north and south would be in near-perpetual darkness year-round. And again, what's on the other side??? --Bamjd3d

The explanation they give is that the Sun orbits above the equator, slightly north during the July months and south during the December months, explaining the days and seasons reasonably well.

And what about international flights? I've flown from Vancouver to Manila -- I know it can be done, heh heh! Do flat-earthers claim that every commercial pilot in the world is part of the conspiracy? As in, they tell everyone they're crossing the Pacific, but in reality they're just going, say, north?

Not true. All flights which do not go over the south pole are not a problem for this brilliant theory. So, flying from Vancouver to Manila is just as easy to explain by this magnificient, ingenious and essentially coherent theory as is drawing a straight line on UN map - the most evident proof of the coherence of the flat earth POV, which should have an equal say in this NPOV-pedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.132.197 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

However, The conspiracy would have to include every pilot, navigator, sailor, scheduling manager (you couldn't hide the fact that it would take multiple times the time to ship something from Australia to South Africa as from China to England), businessman, geographer, cartographer, and geologist on the planet. Any mutli-dimensional or space warping theory that attempts to explain this discrepancy away will come to the same conclusion, that the Earth has the geometry of a globe.

Amazing section. Pity it doesn't exist in the main article (as it would detract from the topic). Piepants 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

Come on..........

People from long ago belived the earth is flat.........so what let them belive what they want to belive,I mean sure you all think their retarded but we all know that the earth is round or so they say we'd fall off.

actually, most people realized the Earth was round for a long time. The whole business about Columbus proving the Earth was round to the Europeans was a load of bull. Educated Europeans knew that for a long time (and educated non-European societies probably knew it longer) and yet we think Columbus somehow proved something. Oh, and did you know that Columbus grossly underestimated the circumfrence of the earth, so if the Americas hadn't been in the way he would have died at sea.

You'll note the OP didn't mention Columbus or any specific time period, but rather "long ago", which is almost certainly true as long as you track backwards far enough.

Oh, Columbus always finds a way to enter these discusssions, even when he isn't mentioned in the first post… which I essentially agree with, by the way. It's amazing how people will use every chance to feel superior no matter how (seemingly?) weak the opponent. I mean, if they honestly think this is so, well, what harm does it cause? Give them their peace. And yes, the original, "default" human belief was in the Earth's overall flatness. Look out your window and you will see why this belief occurs. — Lenoxus 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, looks quite bumpy from out of my window. --129.234.4.76 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

People should question what they are told apparently with authority

I was under the impression that there was a society called "The Flat Earth Society" whose members did not literally believe that the earth was flat, but that we should always question what we are told and never accept what we are told just because "experts" say it is true. I can, however, find no reference to this on my brief search of Google and this article. However, I think it is a very healthy attitude to take. Examples today include climate change: we are repeatedly told that the polar ice caps are melting, but how many people have seen it with their own eyes. I'm not saying I personally don't believe in the truth of global warming: I do; but I have no evidence other than what I have been told. I thought this was the point of this society. Has anyone else heard of the Flat Earth Society in these terms?

While yes, questioning authority is good sometimes, the flat earth society actually does believe that the Earth is flat. For some reason, even though they have no evidence, they stick to their beliefs. However, on the other topic you talked about, there is evedence of global warming - on Mars and Earth.

--Firehawk1717 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Questioning authority is one of the best things you can do. Frankly, though, you need to take serious leaps of faith to see conspiracies of the scale you're imagining. Jachra (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In both the cases of flat -earth and no-global-warming, there is a bit of "commonsensical" evidence. Look out your window for the former — the Earth damn well looks flat, doesn't it? And as for global warming… why it's cold in [insert cold place here], right? So how could things be getting "warmer" if cold still exists in some places? Obviously, neither model goes into quite as much depth as the science. — Lenoxus 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Zetetic Perspective

There is a great site that can be used as a resource for developing this page (or spawning another page)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm#contents

Who is up to writing it? not I, said 130.243.74.84 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed on Shenton

The article says that Shenton is "a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society". Newsweek, vol 73, Jan 13, 1969, page 8 says that he is a "retired sign painter". Sign painters aren't normally made fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society - is there a reference for that? Bubba73 (talk), 23:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it would be good to have a citation, the claim is not as implausible as it might seem. According to the Royal Astronomical Society's web site, all members of the Society are known as Fellows. Also according to the web site, only about half of the members are professional astronomers and about a quarter are undergraduate students, amateur astronomers and the like. One way to become a member is to be nominated by an existing member. The Royal Geographic Society has similar criteria. 68.252.39.38 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying the Earth is not actually flat is not heavy-handed editorializing

(From The Department of Not Believing I Actually Even Have To Say This): I've been accused of heavy-handed editorializing for adding that the belief that the Earth is flat is... "in contradiction with the universal consensus among scientists that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid." This is only the most appropriate way of stating the facts with as neutral a point of view as possible, rather than suggesting relative validity of the idea that the Earth is flat. Could there possibly be a stronger case for letting the scientific fringe hijack reality than to be overly deferential to the idea that the Earth is flat?! - Reaverdrop 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article says, in the first para 'scientists universally reject it.' Your heavy handed statement is unecessary and ugly. No validity is given to it. For great justice. 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The issues are laid out then: is it or is it not valid, consistently with a NPOV policy that includes not suggesting equal validity for pseudoscience, [2] to say that the idea of a flat Earth is in contradiction with the universal consensus among scientists that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid. - Reaverdrop 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is against policy to say it, of course it's not, the issue is that it is unnecessary, ugly, and, well, ugly. We say that everyone except 3 nuts don't believe it, there's no need to have a 'don't try this at home kids' warning on the front! For great justice. 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Although actually, now you point it out, it does say "Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such;" - so yes, we should just say that most people don't believe it. We should not say that it is false - let people come to their own conclusions. For great justice. 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say "this is false"; it says this is against "the universal consensus among scientists" - which is an objective fact. Even if whether it is an objective fact had any evidence to dispute in practice, it would be an objective fact by the definition of "scientist". As the policy passage indicates, it is always possible to go too far in one direction or the other in NPOV. Avoiding the assertion that the belief that the Earth is flat is in contradiction with the universal consensus among scientists would be to go too far in accommodating and providing relative validity to flat-Earthers, the well-deserved paragons - as a matter of purely objective fact - of contradicting the universal consensus of scientists. - Reaverdrop 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with "the universal consensus among scientists". As long as WP is not making a statement about the veracity, merely pointing out what scientists beleive. For great justice. 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Reaverdrop 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see any reason with just stating it flat out. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. If there were (for example) a group of people who believed that π = 3, we wouldn't say "most mathematicians believe such-and-so", we'd just say they were wrong, end of story. The fact that the Earth is spheroidal is as well-established a fact as that π = 3.14159...

Damn. I was going to add a parodiacal section to the talk page like this, bitching that the viewpoints of the Flat-Earthers were not neutrally represented in this article, when I see that somebody's gone and done it for real. God, I love Wikipedia. Toptomcat 03:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian Catholic Apostolic Church

There is more listed in this article about the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church than in its actual article (and most of it appears to be POV poetic license). Whatever you consider it, this is not an article about that church, and just because they followed the Flat Earth doctrine does not mean they should get their own paragraph. --67.172.10.82 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning behind their beliefs

Somebody needs to add the parts about why the believe what they do rather than just criticizing its authenticity, I mean I don't believe it, but its stupid to and unbiased to explain that its "stupid" without giving an example of what is "stupid" about it.

I don't think so. I visited what I am pretty sure is the real site and read a Flat-Earth newsletter. There are posts explaining or attempting to explain the Flat-Earth Theory, but I can't even tell if they are legit, or if the society is now a joke. People give metaphors about the Earth based on water balloons. They believe that anyone who argues with them is an unintelligible moron who can't spell. And they constantly bicker about whether so and so is really a round-Earther. None gives a coherent argument on anything. If there is even one flat-earther who truely believes in the theory, let him or her come here and contribute. I will not do their work for them. I'm too afraid I would get it wrong. Oh and by the way, they think we have a non-neutral POV. THat they all agree on.68.239.141.91 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you are afraid would get it wrong because every Flat-earther believes something different.

Role Players

Aren't a good amount of people who believe this stuff just role playing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.245.168 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, personally I roleplay the views of the FES within Urban Dead. I believe that some guys roleplay it in real life, but few do believe that the Earth actually is flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.86.102 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

Flat Earth Society has been commonly criticised for the lack of proof and mostly answer by "read the FAQ" and "its a conspiracy" Obviously these people are complete idiots and waste their time thinking the world is in the middle of the universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.234.181 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

And now for our educational moment: Satire (lat. medley, dish of colourful fruits) is a technique used in drama, fiction, journalism, and occasionally in poetry, the graphic arts, the performing arts and other media. Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner. Satire usually has a very definite target which may be a person or group of people, an idea or attitude, an institution or a social practice. In any case the target is held up to a ridicule that is often quite merciless, and sometimes very angry; ideally in the hope of shaming it into reform. A very common, almost defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm, in fact satirical writing or drama very often professes to approve values that are the diametric opposite of what the writer actually wishes to promote. Parody, burlesque, exaggeration and double entendre are all devices frequently used in satirical speech and writing – but it is strictly a misuse of the word to describe as "satire" works without an ironic (or sarcastic) undercurrent of mock-approval, and an element at least of anger. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanations

The article should explain how flat earthers theorize:

• how weather and the seasons work
• why no one has seen this great "ice wall" that they claim exists
• why photos from space aren't accurate
• how/why scientific calculations are wrong (flight paths, orbit trajectories, etc.)

I'd love to hear what they have to say. /Timneu22 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

They DON"T have an explaination for those things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.154.12 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, they do for a lot of so called "flaws". Although some do then base things on more unsupported claims (conspiracy, photoshop, mysterious particles that refract the light from sun disc). They should, however, be mentioned (as long as they are sourced...). --RabidZombie 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, whole page needs to be rewritten

Right now, it shifts around the history of flat Earth-based notions in general to several apparently different societies, without making any solid, referenced claims or explanations about which groups are truly identical, and where one turned into another. — Lenoxus 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. Some parts could be salvaged, as long as they are sourced, but a lot of it is a mess. I'm, however, not up for the job. --RabidZombie 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, that's why I put up the tag (just now; I hadn't thought of it before). Hopefully someone will come along with the power... maybe I should add an expert input template as well, just for the heck of it? -- Lenoxus 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me it should be about the flat earth movement, rather than the flat earth society itself. Or perhaps a second article. --WakingJohn (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there much of a movement beyond the society itself? The Flat Earth article already gives the full historical perspective. --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Page needs complete rewrite.

I agree that the whole page needs virtually a complete re-write. Whoever wrote this seems not to quite understand what the modern movement is about.

I think to best sum up the movement, the page needs to delve into the perspective that flat-earth society members don't believe in global warming, because Al Gore says so, nor do we believe in evolution because Charles Darwin says so.

The entire point of flat earth is that I can perform scientific experiments designed to prove conclusively to you that the earth is flat. You (colloquially speaking of course) cannot conclusively prove to me (or anyone) that the earth is indeed round, without taking the word of someone who claims to have circumnavigated the globe or viewed the earth from space. The numbers of people who have done this is few. And yet, you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who does not totally accept the idea of a round earth whole cloth. The point is not whether or not the earth is flat. The point is how you know it is/is not.

Similarly, you (again speaking colloquially) cannot prove the correctness of evolution, a theory which you(*) propound so adamantly that you insist upon it being taught in school to every child and embrace as scientific fact in all dimensions. The same holds true for global warming. Outside of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, scarcely a legitimate scientist references global warming without prefacing their comments with something akin to, "assuming the theory holds true . . ." or "the evidence tends to suggest . . ." And yet, politicians and the ignorant masses have embraced it as the most important body of science of the modern era. Suffice it to say that those who do, are rarely actual scientists nor do any of them understanding what the scientific method is.

I think you will find that flat earth subscribers love it when politicians and talk show hosts lambaste the movement. It is evidence of their own lack of understanding and proof of the mindlessness of so many of the self appointed leaders of society. In most cases, you will find that the faithful to the society are vastly more intelligent than average, except for the occasional kook who just likes the idea of a flat earth without really understanding why it is indeed flat. (Oh yes, the earth is indeed flat!)

Herein lies the nature of the flat-earth movement. It is in all material regards, an anti-lemming association. The fact that so many fail to realize or understand this is evidence of its importance.

Some of the historical material in this article might be good. I don’t profess to be an authority on the origins and history. But this article totally fails to comprehend the relevance of the current movement.

Grafals 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)grafals

This is asinine. Anyone can demonstrate to their satisfaction that the earth is round. Simple experiments to do so were outlined over two thousand years ago by Eratosthenes. Any idiot can perform them. Similarly, any idiot can be taught to do simple BLAST searches and construct phylogenetic trees of life. It's not difficult. People can learn the relevant mathematical details in a few days. These things are not some sort of esoteric knowledge that only an unobtainable few possess. They're written down in textbooks, papers, and yes, the articles in Wikipedia. That's how science works. Graft 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And, let me add that in this age of jet travel, the number of people who have themselves circumnavigated the globe is not small. Graft 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My wife is not an idiot, and she could not perform the experiments to which you refer. Perhaps you have overstated the case for the easy non-specialist proof of roundness. Things are different in other fields -- biology, for example. Any idiot knows that stomach ulcers are caused by acid. And countless peer-reviewed articles attest to the soundness of contemporary biology. All we have to do is read them. Lemming science, indeed. If it's published, it's true. Lou Sander 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointing to outliers as representative is just a bit of a logical fallacy, eh? And let's point out that Dr. Hwang was discovered thanks to his peers, discredited, and his work recanted. Anyway. I fail to see how your wife couldn't perform Eratosthenes' calculation - it involves looking in a hole in the ground and doing some trigonometry. I am certain that, if your wife is not an idiot, she can be taught the relevant math in an afternoon. For more abstruse theories of science, you're correct, but the contention that all everyday observances are matters of faith is simply false. The Flat Earth claim is obviously the absurdist extension, but I don't think science is as inaccessible as you or others are making it out to be. Graft 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss.. I always thought that the Flat Earth Society was completely tongue in cheek but there really are people out there who aren't role playing (or they're doing a terrific job of it). The only way I can think of that would prove to them that they're wrong would be to put each one of them on a rocket (because apparently nobody's word is good enough to convince them otherwise) shoot them into orbit and tell them to turn around and look out the window at the pretty blue marble called Earth. Pretty cost prohibitive I must admit. But, wouldn't all they would have to do to prove ALL of us wrong is tell us how to get to the edge of this supposed disk and look over and see Atlas' arm muscles bulging from the strain of holding us all aloft? It is to laugh.. CanadianMist 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The people above who are writing in support of a flat earth, or disputing evolution or global warming are clear evidence of people who do not know anything. I challenge anyone to give me evidence that the earth is flat, or that evolution is false, or that the earth is not warmer than it was 100 years ago, on average. There are a huge number of kooks that run around squawking like chickens with their heads cut off, but that does not mean they have half a clue. It is not a matter of finding evidence that the earth is round (or actually roughly an oblate spheroid), but in cataloguing as many methods for demonstrating this as possible. For example: 1. Shadow of the earth on the moon is round during a lunar eclipse (due to Aristotle, but might have been known before) 2. Masts of ships coming over the horizon are revealed from the uppermost tip downward, which would be expected on a roughly spherical earth. 3. Flying high in an airplane you can percieve the curvature 4. Spacecraft and satellites orbit the roughly spherical earth 5. circumnavigation 6. photographs of the earth from space show a roughly spherical orb 7. Length of shadows at noon during the summer solistice at different locations are consistent with the earth being a sphere; Erastothene's computation of the earth's circumference can be made using this fact. 8. Radio wave propagation observations are consistent with being on a spherical earth. 9. The fictitious coriolis and centrifugal forces are consistent with being on a rotating roughly spherical earth. For example, Focault pendulum observations are consistent with being on a rotating spherical earth. These are used to forecast hurricanes and to aim missiles and other projectiles successfully. 10. The figure of the earth is consistent with a rotating fluid mass at minimum energy, which is exactly what is expected. 11. Sonar propagation observations are consistent with a roughly spherical earth. 12. If the earth were flat, it would be the only such planet in the solar system to exhibit this peculiar shape. 13. Observations of seismic wave propagation are consistent with a roughly spherical earth. 14. The free oscillations of the earth are those of a roughly spherical body, with the modes split by rotation. Clearly, I could go on and on. I challenge you to come up with as many of your own reasons why the earth is round as you can.

The shape of the earth is so well understood and is so deeply incorporated into so many sciences and technologies that to discard it would constitute a revolution of incredible proportions. The same is true of evolution and of global warming. Anyone who claims the evidence for these is weak is either deluded, or stupid, or naive, or playing some sort of ignorant joke.--Filll 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Some believe the earth is flat. There are local movements in many cities around the (forgive me) globe. One must remember, that modern flat earth science is relatively young. We don't have the political, monetary, or man-hour backing that round earth science does. We are still "catching up" so to speak. Many of the phenomenon talked about above already have flat earth explanations. Many of the experiments cited earlier (all of the famous ones) have similar explanations. One of the real shames is the ignorance of many of the posters here. Eratosthenes' experiment does nothing to prove the earth is round. It assumes the earth is round. Without this assumption it falls apart. Similar effects could come up with different orientations of the earth, the heavens, and the sun. Most of the talk above simply shows that very few here actually know anything about the flat earth society or their beliefs and are talking out of ignorance.--WakingJohn (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The "flat earth defender" says: The point is not whether or not the earth is flat. The point is how you know it is/is not. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Others say that evolution and global warming are "so deeply incorporated into so many sciences and technologies that to discard [them] would constitute a revolution of incredible proportions," directly comparing those theories with the pretty-easily-proven-even-to-nonspecialists "earth is round" theory. Sounds pretty incredible to me.

Where do I find the examples that prove man's descent as surely as the examples that prove the earth's roundness? Where do I find the numerous technologies that support the global warming advocates as well as the sextant, chronometer and GPS support the round earth people?

To quote the "flat earth defender," the point is not whether man descended from apes/fish/rutabagas, but how we know he did.

To paraphrase the "round earth guy," two and two are indisputably four, so pi is indisputably three. Lou Sander 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement demonstrates how little you know. Nothing more. Learn something before you make such outrageous statements.--Filll 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep your heads on

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

It is if one holds that the truthfulness of the belief effects how one writes about it.Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the earth is flat, but if someone does, their beliefs should be respected. Its actually easier to convince someone that the Earth is flat than that God exists. But that's beside the point. sigh.. 210.213.229.180 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly should their beliefs be respected? I respect the right to their belief, but I certainly do not respect the belief itself. Besides, for this article to mature, it would be good to have some of the most basic questions answered - like why I can see the curvature of the earth at 40,000 feet.--207.81.147.69 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the person above. I am not sure what it means to respect their beliefs. I deeply respect the First Amendment and respect their right to propagate their belief. I also respect their freedom of thought. However I do not respect the actual belief itself. It is completely mad and silly. Indeed if respecting people's beliefs means not saying saying they are false, that itself contradicts freedom of expression. One other point. What if the belief really is wrong. Why is it not appropriate to point it out?Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this is facetious, but I'd respect it about as much as I'd respect someone telling me purple dinosaurs would come eat us all. Luna Lovegood, I've found a friend for you! Jachra (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is about the flat earth society and our beliefs. I suggest we, as seems to be the standard among pages that are controversial, present our beliefs and in a later section why they are controversial. --WakingJohn (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Does anybody seriously believe that the Earth is flat? I just don't see how it could happen in today's age of reason. I'm still getting over my first instinct that some vandal made this page as a joke. Is everyone absolutely positive that this society exists? Supernerd 10 23:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Google it.--THobern 15:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a joke. The information on this page conforms to the research I performed many years ago on the subject matter. I even became a paying member and received their newsletter as well as correspondence from the President of the Society. They are somewhat hostile to questions and feel beseiged [isn't that a surprise?]. I've lost contact with them over the years. Schadewald would be an excellent editor for this article. Someone, please grab him. He beat me to the punch with his 1980 article and was actively persuing a book deal with this subject matter.

Some people believe in religion too - which is just as absurd as the notion of a flat earth. Actually, most people believe in a deity of some sort - so why not in a flat earth. Once you start thinking about either idea it seems to be totally out of the question that either one is a valid theory, but nevertheless people continue to believe in (a) God. Actually, a flat earth makes as much sense as the idea that there is a god.--Soylentyellow 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

90+ percent of well-educated, non-crazy individuals will tell you that they firmly believe the Earth is not flat. With the existence of a deity (or more than one), there is no such near-consensus; a large proportion of that same group is religious in some way. I must admit to being offended by your suggestion that all religion is irrational and obviously fictitious. Besides, you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but you can prove that the Earth is spheroid, so there really is no comparison between the two issues. --71.39.6.137 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Making the claim that the Earth is flat, the more scientific of the two claims.--THobern 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any truly solid evidence that either proves or disproves the theory of a God, however, there is solid, observational and experimental evidence that the earth is, indeed a geoid. (Also, where do these people think the South Pole is?) Alx xlA

Denialism

Yes, I think associating the Flat Earth Society with "denialism" is potentially libelous and must be sourced. Denialism evokes the criminals and racists of Holocaust denial. And even if that connotation doesn't bother you, then most of the time denialism denotes an intentional effort to subvert truth (e.g. Big Tobacco covering up the truth about cigarette smoking). I do not believe Flat Earth believers should be considered denialist, and to suggest they are without an offer of support is potentially libelous. Dragons flight 00:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the most common usage of the word "denialism", the AIDS denialists? That is used in newspapers and magazines constantly. I know you are not a lawyer and so have no clue what constitutes defamation, especially under international law, on the internet. There is an immense literature about the earth being roughly an oblate spheroid (modulo lateral heterogeneities). And was even at the time of the founding of this Society, since at least the time of Aristotle and probably before as well, the non-flatness of the earth was well known and there was copious evidence against this hypothesis. "Without an offer of support"? What the heck does that mean? --Filll 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

E.g. a source saying they are denialist. Crackpots yes, denialist no, that's my opinion. Being denialist is about more than simply beleiving things most people believe are wrong. Dragons flight 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, it's about clinging to a preconceived notion, despite its being falsified by a mass of good evidence... just like flat earthers, creationists, HIV deniers, 9/11 truthers, and holocaust deniers. 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciusOrnis (talk • contribs)

Our own article on denialism (which I'm not impressed by) says denialism requires the people "...seek to influence policy processes [based on their views]..." and that "denialism is a form of propaganda". That fits big tobacco and AIDS denialism, but I don't believe it fits the majority of crackpottery, including this here. Dragons flight 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "denialist" is a recent word, as you well know. There might not be a source that uses that term to discuss an organization that has been defunct, essentially, for decades.

However, here is a definition of denialist with two prominent newspapers using it:[3] There is even a French translation! I am absolutely positive that very soon mainline dictionaries and even other encyclopediae will include this term.

I think that crackpot is not a very encyclopedic term. What a denialist is, is someone who just discards the evidence or explains away the evidence or ignores the evidence that is overwhelmingly accepted by experts in a field. That is my understanding of the term.--Filll 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Even that (admittedly different) definition in your link doesn't fit since it refers to a "controversial political debate". Flat Earth seems neither controversial (in the sense that there was a meaningful dispute) nor political. This is the fundemental problem with this category. It means different things depending on who you ask and we don't agree on when it applies. Dragons flight 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that it is definitive, but a google search of "denialism" yields almost 500,000 hits, while a google search of "denialist" yields over 100,000 hits. So someone out there is using the term, arent they?--Filll 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it is being used, but I do dispute that there is clear agreement on what it means or which cases it should apply to. Dragons flight 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is much different than the older word "denier" which is in lots of dictionaries. Do you dispute this?--Filll 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. I consider "denialism" to be a strong perjorative for the act of arguing on behalf of beliefs they know to be untrue for the sake of personal gain. Dragons flight 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly living in a fantasy world. What personal gain do AIDS denialists get or seek? (at least most of them). What about Holocaust denialists/deniers? You do not think Holocaust denier is pejorative but Holocaust denialist is? Sure try to make the case. I do not think you will get very far. And no, the AIDS denialists and Holocaust denialists do not know it is untrue. Wow you have a completely distorted view of reality. But thanks for enlightening me. Now I know how much credence to put in ANY of your opinions or edits. Thank you.--Filll 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a distinction between a denier and a denialist. I don't think all Holocaust deniers or AIDS deniers are denialist, which I consider to be a stronger statement. Though some undoubtedly do benefit personally in terms of personal attention or advancing their ideology (e.g. racism). In those cases most benefit is not financial (unlike for example Big Tobacco's denialism).

Also, last warning, no personal attacks. Dragons flight 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? what personal attack? Look if I offended you, I am sorry. Your claims seem to be completely irrational and I cannot believe you are seriously making them, frankly.--Filll 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"completely distorted view of reality", "how much credence to put in ANY of your opinions or edits". Comment on contributions, not contributors, etc. Dragons flight 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh grow a backbone. Your arguments have descended to the level of "breathtaking inanity" ( to borrow a turn of phrase from judge Jones ). On the one hand you complain that denialism is so poorly defined as to be worthless, then you turn around and ( based on absolutely nothing at all ) decide that denier and denialist are somehow clearly different terms? I'm with filll, your opinions look like they weigh about as much as a small handful of sub-atomic particles at this point. ornis (t) 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, Rick Stoff, "'Denialism' and muddying the waters" St. Louis Journalism Review emphasized "denialism" as creating a knowingly false perception for political gain. That's the reference at the top of denialism currently, where completely independent editors have emphasized denialism as being directed at influencing public policy. I percieve a difference between denying something and denialism, is it so hard to believe that different terms ought to have somewhat different meanings? As had been said previously, we have no dictionary definition of the term, so we are down to perceptions of how it is used. I'll freely admit that different people use the term differently, but my conclusion about the dominant meaning and yours may be different.

Which brings me back to the key (and in many senses only important) point, what reference do you have associating denialism to the Flat Earth Society? Dragons flight 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently. First denialism was only about those who had something personal to gain. Now it is only about people trying to engage in political lobbying. Wow...very effective argument...NOT. And the evidence from assorted publications is at odds with your interpretations. Any gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously refuted by the laws of logic. And I do so. With extreme prejudice. Since I have some evidence on my side (see below). The flat earth society does not deny facts, in your opinion? Or does not explain them away in a contrived and nonparsimonious fashion? The way that Holocaust deniers and AIDS denialists do? Wow that is some statement for someone who supposedly has your background. And NO that is not a personal attack. But that is quite a position to take. Let's go to a debate with our positions. Or into depositions. And see how it goes. --Filll 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with the definition used in denialism, but that's just one example that there are a variety of different, mutually inconsistent definitions in play. If you want to say FES is denialist, then provide evidence of some source that agrees. Outside that I think we are going to agree that trying to apply our own definitions will get us no where. But no, I don't agree that just because they deny facts that they are denialist. Dragons flight 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you maintain a whole lot of stuff:

• denialists and deniers are totally different things
• that Big Tobacco Denialism is a well known thing when it doesnt get a single google hit
• that denialists are always in it for personal gain
• that denialists always know they are lying
• that denialists are always in it to influence politicians.

Well, try to convince some others of your position. I doubt you will, but go ahead and try. I stand by what I said earlier. Friendly advice: consider another profession.--Filll 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A rough google tally:

• AIDS denialist 13,100 hits
• Big Tobacco denialist/ Big Tobacco denialism 0 hits
• Holocaust denialist 486 hits
• Holocaust denier 306,000 hits

So there are 486 hits on Holocaust denialists who are getting some personal gain from their denialism, but 306,000 google hits on Holocaust deniers who are not getting personal gain from their denying? Is that what you maintain? And "Big Tobacco denialism" actually gets 0 google hits because it is so well known those denialists are doing it for personal gain? And so on and so forth. This is ludicrous. Give it up. --Filll 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this in denial? As with any category which can be taken amiss, surely it's appropriate to have a citation in the article from a reliable source using that term to describe the subject? Opinions of editors about whether a subject fits a definition do not constitute verifiable sources. .. dave souza, talk 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. If the word "denialist" is new (which it is), you are unlikely to find a source calling an organization 100 or 150 years ago "denialist". You might find all the characteristics of what denialism is of course.

It depends on how you define denialism. If we define it very narrowly, we will only end up with 1 or 2 topics in the category of denialism, which clearly is wrong given the similarities of human behavior in those one or two areas with those in other subjects.

I believe we should do what dictionaries do when they define a word: we look at prominent sources like the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, the London Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Academic journals, scholarly writing, popular novels, etc to see how the word is used. For a new word, this determines its meaning, until a family of dictionary editors codifies this set of meanings as a family of different definitions that are published in dictionaries. Since we are not yet at the dictionary publication stage, but at the earlier pre- dictionary publication stage, we have to do more of the hard work ourselves. That is all.

It is clearly a common word, in common usage, at least in some subject areas. One rarely hears the word "AIDS denier" although that is essentially what an "AIDS denialist" is (parenthetically noting that in fact an AIDS denialist is really an "HIV denialist", properly speaking). And I suspect the phrase "Holocaust denier" will fade from usage now that the new word "denialist" seems to be gaining popularity.

If one maintains that there are two separate groups, denialists and deniers, then why are there no AIDS deniers? Why no HIV deniers? Only denialists? Seems a bit strange, given that human behavior is not much different in all these cases; only the topic changes. The denying stays the same.

If putting someone in a denialism category constitutes libel, then a very large number of publications worldwide have put themselves in legal jeopardy by publishing articles on AIDS denialists and other kinds of denialists. Given that these publications have full time legal staff and large legal budgets, and the people making these claims on Wikipedia are not lawyers or legal experts, this claim seems dubious at best.

If we accept the gratuitous personal assertions of some that denialism is really a political movement that involves personal gain, then creationists, creation scientists and intelligent design promoters fall in this category. If "denialism" is more like denial of the evidence, then this is less obviously true, since there is a dispute about the evidence in these cases.

If we define "denialism" as some here claim, to only mean those that know they are lying about the truth, then where does that leave the most common usage of the word in the phrase "AIDS denialism" ? It obviously cannot mean "lying knowingly" in this case, or probably in all cases.

I suggest that if one requires a publication to directly make the claim that "X is a Y", to put some article in a category, then we would depopulate most of the categories on Wikipedia. If Y has characteristics {Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4...Yn} from dictionary definitions or from common usage, and this common usage is well-understood and evident from publication in WP:V and WP:RS sources as defined above, and if X has most if not all of the characteristics {Y1, Y2, Y3...Yn}, then surely X can be put in the category Y.

For example, suppose we define a new type of urban area called a "Townlet", being an area with a common administration within a radius of 5 kilometers and a permanent human population of 5000-10000 people. Then one surely does not need a publication to state that "Filllsberg is a Townlet" to put Filllsberg, meeting all the necessary criteria, in the category "Townlet".

I also vehemently deny the assertion that "denialist" is a singularly negative category and so should not be used. If so, we would get rid of a large number of categories, such as "pseudoscience".

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, "transhumanists" or "secular humanists" or "aetheists" might be viewed as denialists by some. And might feel perfectly proud to proclaim themselves as denialists of some overwhelming belief or putative evidence.

For these reasons, I think there is nothing wrong with having a category called "denialist", or "denialism". The membership of this category might be controversial, depending on what we take as the definition of the word. Any particular subject might or might not be put in that category, given community consensus on the word's definition, and on the individual case by case analysis of any particular topic, subject or article. --Filll 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Round Earth Proof.

The Flat Earth's point is that, from the ground, you cannot prove the Earth to be round (See Russell's Teapot). Everything possible on a round earth is also possible on a flat earth. See Earth Society Forums for more information.

Trekky0623 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is true if you deny a bit of evidence, or try to stand on your head to explain it away:

• the earth's shadow on the moon
• Erastothenes' measurements
• Observations of sailboats as they come over the horizon
• curvature of the earth seen from mountain tops
• evident roughly spherical shape of other planetary bodies and sun
• equilibrium shape of fluid under self-gravitation
• tidal behavior
• western boundary currents
• focault's pendulum
• terrestrial free oscillations

and so on and so forth.

The thing is, if I introduce increasingly intricate explanations, I can explain EVERYTHING in science while maintaining some preconceived notion, like the earth is the center of the universe. It is just that the explanations get stranger and more detailed. as increasingly complicated orrerys did. That is where Occam's Razor comes in. And why parsimony is part of the scientific method. If I allow magic or the supernatural, then I completely destroy the scientific method. Gone. Just like Incoherence of the Philosophers did to Muslim Science in the 11th century.--Filll 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Caused by a "Shadow Object", or reflections of the Earth by the sun.

2) A conspiracy spread by the government.

3) Caused by waves (see Flat Earth Physics in article).

4) Have you seen this curvature? Most FEers result this as an optical allusion. About half of the people, when asked about the horizon, say they see a curvature.

5) The Earth is not one of those planetary bodies.

6) The Flat Earth does not have gravity.

7) Caused by Earth's slight tilt.

8) What about currents? They're possible.

9) The Flat Earth has a slight spin.

10) Where is the proof of these oscillations?

DISCLAIMER: I am not an FEer, just simply implying that you can't prove something like this without being countered by the opposite side. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekky0623 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2007

Of course, absolutely true, as I said above. I could also construct a family of reasons for each of these. More and more elaborate explanations, increasingly detailed and complicated and byzantine. Rube Goldbergian mechanisms. However, science has other requirements as well, such as:

• Parsimony
• predictive success

And of course, most of those alternative explanations will fail those and other requirements.

It certainly can be amusing to try to construct alternative theories to explain this evidence. And amusing to try to come up with more evidence. It is all good mental exercise I would commend to anyone. How many scientific facts/observations/pieces of evidence can one come up with to "prove" the earth is round ? (I use prove loosely here, since there is no proof in science only in mathematics and logic).

One caution I have, is that some of these explanations are clever. Some are just silly, like saying the earth is not warmer now than it was 100 years ago. However, the measurements are the measurements. And even when all kinds of corrections are taken acount of, the temperatures now are warmer than they were 100 years ago. Done using thousands of instruments of different types in different locations by different people who got consistent results. Incorrect theories are bad enough, but bad data is fatal.

As to your other questions, it is easy to measure the earth's free oscillations with a weight on a spring. It is done all the time and has been done for decades. And they have very characteristic temporal and spatial frequencies corresponding to oscillations of a rotating sphere. A bit hard to wave your hands to make those observations go away. You might be able to do it if you were really an excellent applied mathematician and willing to spend a few months in crazy speculative inverse theory computations. Currents of course are possible, but these are very special kinds of currents that have special kinds of characteristics that match what one would expect from a fluid on a rotating spherical earth. I have personally seen the curve of the earth when standing on a very high point. Now of course it could be an optical illusion, but it is a very compelling one if it is. However you can put it down to refraction or some other optical effect. In fact, you could even put photographs of the earth from space down to those. As I said above (and you nicely demonstrated my point), you can explain almost ANYTHING away and maintain some pre-conceived notion if you are willing to throw away parsimony and the demands of prediction, etc.--Filll 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Physics of a Flat Earth

Where did this section come from? If this is official Flat Earth Society material, it should be sourced. (If it's not, it shouldn't be here.) --McGeddon 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the FAQ on their website. How would I source this? Trekky0623 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnotes should tell you all you need to know. You should also edit the section to explain the context of the information; it's not immediately obvious that it's the FES-approved model of the world. --McGeddon 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One has to remember that there is a historical Flat Earth Society, and then its modern version which is more tongue in cheek, more skeptical, less serious than its namesake and forebearer. You are including material from the website which probably means the modern version. Anyway, I would be careful about distinctions.--Filll 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. --Trekky0623 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ice Wall

Why is there no mention/explanation of the 'Ice Wall'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.239.83 (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Charles K. Johnson mentions the ice wall. I don't see the need to make it anymore prominent than it is now. Dash275 (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring my Ice Wall section

A lot of the original information has been removed. I have restored some of the points which I think are important. I have done this because I was a member of the flat earth society's forum for two years and was able to ask many questions about the 'Ice Wall'. I can confirm that many of the theories do include the illuminati and specifically a race of reptilian humanoids. I don't personally believe in the flat earth theory but I think it’s wrong to criticise their ideas even if they are a bit outlandish. I feel sorry for the flat earth society because their forum is just a magnet for trolls, people with no respect were making fun of their diagrams and pictures of the ice wall. Many of the people who promote the flat earth theory claim that there are soldiers who guard the ice wall, and that leading political figures are all part of the conspiracy to maintain the ice wall secret. I don’t want to see wikipedia become another place of ridicule for the flat earthers. --Fatcud —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever consider that there's a reason for the ridicule? Timneu22 14:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, when are you going to help rebuild my Ice Wall section that you destroyed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

YOu cannot add content to wikipedia without providinng references to reliable sources for verification, please see WP:CITE, WP:RS policies. 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is your evidence non believing wiki wankers = http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum// and http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17682.0

Now who looks stupid? I guess you guys do, for not looking on the Flat Earth Society forum like I told you. I can’t believe Mikkalai keeps deleting my posts purely out of spite. At least now everyone can see that I am right, and always have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not accepted as reliable sources, for the obvious reason that anybody can write anything in them. If these forum conversations are about a widely-known part of the Flat Earth Society canon, it should be easy enough to find FES literature that mentions it (or published, sceptical responses to it) instead. --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF - You deleted the section AGAIN? Look, I can't find FES "literature" because there are no libraries or book shops near where I live. As most of you know I am disabled so finding information is a very tiring activity for me. Also I am unable to find sources conforming to your fastidious specifications because I am unable to look at a computer screen for long periods (doing so results in a pain in the back of my head). McGeddon - why don't you find some information on the Ice Wall? I would really appreciate it. Thx Bai xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stupid

This article just proves the electric banana, I wonder how many people die falling off of the earth a year then? User:JoWal(81.77.195.238 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Once you spend time on their forums, you will find it very difficult to find a genuine hole in their theory. I've been on the forums for a year and I've only found two holes.

Yeah right. Where's the ice wall? Explain eclipses, weather patterns, aeronautical navigation... they are FULL of holes. I've asked to see answers to these issues on this article, but they don't have any. Timneu22 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ice Wall is Antarctica, eclipses are caused by the shadow object, weather patterns (such as the Coriolis effect) are caused by "gears" created by the sun's heat, and compasses do work on the Flat Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.127.65 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in 10 years or so when space travel is affordable, they'll look pretty foolish... What are the two holes?--Xiaphias (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Category: Types of Scientific Fallacy?

Why is the Flat Earth Society given status as an entire type of "Scientific Fallacy"? There's nothing to distinguish the society from many other societies. It should be removed entirely from this category. If necessary it should be placed under the subcategory of "Pseudoscepticism" but it's surely just an example of scientific fallacy, not a type. 69.158.150.215 (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Awful article.

1. Notability. I'd stake a bet there are less than a thousand people in western civilisation who ACTUALLY 100% believe the Earth is flat. 2. BIAS. This article reads as if there is no doubt the Earth is flat, just like 99% of conspiracy articles on wikipedia read as if the conspiracy is true. 3. Physics. Meaningless pointless and redundant section, all disproved.

For the sake of human sanity, can this article be changed?

86.148.203.98 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is about a specific society of people, who are notable enough for an encyclopaedia article, even if they're wrong. If there are any specific instances of bias, please correct them, but it looks to me that all scientific claims are sufficiently prefixed with "the Flat Earth Society believes that..." --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

please delete

I seriously think this page should be deleted, it's wasting space on crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's an article on a theory. 63.227.19.237 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The website of this organization is clearly a joke. I think this counts as something made up in school one day and can thus be deleted. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, retain. Whatever the status of the organization today (and the current "joke" status rightly identified by Arctic Gnome could perhaps be brought out more) it has a solid and documented history and should remain. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The poster of today's proposed deletion tag, now removed, offers as his/her reason "I agree with you, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.80, in here theres enough proof this site is satirical and therefore this wikipedia entry should be deleted." 136.145.175.46 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It was posted at "TheFlatEarthSociety.org is Satirical" above and copied here for ease of reference.

This rather short explanation seems something of a "fly by" edit, when a serious discussion would be required for a deletion. The external reference leads to a blog post. Again, the call for deletion ignores the solid history of the movement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 1st poster, this theory can barely called a theory... it's ridiculous, it has already been proven that the Earth is round... it is undeniable, even the ancients knew it was round. To say the Earth is flat is pure idiocy. Occam's Razor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.42.152 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I know the FES forums can't be used as a source, but I happen to know about 4 people there who actually believe in FES. They worte an FAQ, can that be used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.19.237 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're widely regarded as experts in the field, then no, this would not meet the requirements for a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't make sense...

No, I'm not talking about all the factual evidence that revokes their theory. They say that the Idea that the earth is round is a giant conspiracy, but what I don't get is, why? I can't think of any good reason to lie about the shape of the earth. Do they think that an airline started the "conspiracy"? It just doesn't make sense to me, its like finding a new planet in our solar system and telling everybody its green when its red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.135.127 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Impressive

I'm infinitely impressed this is portrayed in an unbiased way. I find it astounding that there isn't a single jab at the theory's improbability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.125.12 (talk)

Well of course, WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy after all. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is theflatearthsociety.org actually an official site?

Is there anything that actually connects this site to Charles K. Johnson's society, or is it just an unofficial discussion forum that happens to use the society as its domain name? --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No criticism?

Come on, every theory has something critical about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.226.5 (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke

I've talked to Flat Earth Society members, while there probably are a couple people who actually believe it most members join as a joke. Most of the theories they've made up and nearly everything they say is not meant to be taken seriously. They get a kick when people argue against them, so they act like they actually believe it and then keep saying more and more ridiculous things. The modern Society has a lot of connections with Discordianism and Church of the Subgenius. --Calibas (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC) -- Could someone who knows anything about this organisation add that is is partly a spoof? It might have started off serious, but it seems now that most of the members are not real loonies who believe all this crap, but enjoy discussions and are just poking fun at people exceptence of things do they do not really understand. But the fact that it is not 100% serious (only part of the members believe this) should definetely be added.213.214.57.217 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Hicham Vanborm

Has it been destroyed?

Just wondering what the status of theflatearthsociety.org is. I can't seem to access it. And a simple google yields no results... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.88.16 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Religious viewpoint on a Flat Earth.

This BBC H2G2 official underguide Entry give some details on why the Earth may have once been flat and is actually now round. Grand Design Interview - Why is the Earth Round? (UG) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A26275269 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.188.200.51 (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I Think They're Laughing At Everyone Else

As several others have suggested, I think this whole thing is nothing but a big joke. Someone is reading this (huge) page of comments and laughing themselves silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulcandra (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Society's Purpose or Aim

Certainly the Flat Earth Society is remarkable in that its members doggedly stick to claims that fly in the face of accepted scientific theory. Would it be possible to create a section discussing exactly why they do this?

Of course, there may be some who, for religious reasons, feel bound by faith to believe that the earth is flat. However, I get the feeling that these could be in the minority. There are lots of interesting theories regarding the society's value and purpose: Some say it is an elaborate joke; others claim it to be a sophisticated way of pointing out the folly of blind belief. Still others feel the flat-earth theory to be a metaphor for any established, widely accepted "truth" that cannot be verified objectively by an average, reasonable person.

The Flat Earth Society is often held up as a group which advocates skepticism--something like a progenitor to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the society's members never admit to any kind of dissimulation or irony.

It seems that the First Law among the society's membership is always to profess a firm conviction in the flat-earth theory, even when it becomes necessary to formulate wild and preposterous (and better if imaginative) supporting hypotheses. Frankly, this all seems wonderful and mysterious to me, and I'm curious about what would be the best way to approaching such a section in the article. Rangergordon (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Certainly the Flat Earth Society is remarkable in that its members doggedly stick to claims that fly in the face of accepted scientific theory." Most religious people also firmly believe in prepoterous stuff, such as a virgin birth (no offense intended)--Soylentyellow (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the point right there. I went to their site. It's clear that they know that they are full of s***. Look at their screen names for gods sake, do they look like names serious people would choose? Part of the irony is that they never admit to any kind of dissimulation or irony. There are highly intelligent people out there who insist that they believe in creationism. You know these people are compartmentalizing. What is so funny about the flat-earthers is that they are intentionally compartmentalizing. Pretending that they will go to extremes to reconcile their "beliefs" with observable reality. Admitting prevarication would ruin the joke.

That said, the article needs a total rewrite. For one thing, there is already a page called "flat earth," which explains the real belief from ancient times. This article should concentrate on two things. First, the genuine detractors who existed until about 100 years ago. And second, the modern phenomenon, which should be more like the page on the Church of The Sub Genius.Police Cat (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree, although some of that information should be kept here so the article has some information for the sake of context. As an aside, the part about this group that amuses me the most is how they invented "Dark Energy" and try and use it to explain away the numerous problem with their theory. Also I think it is worth noting that some of the people on that forum simply are arguing for a Flat Earth as devil advocates, not all of them actually believe it. --Pstanton (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

This article is tagged as disputed for some reason. I can't see any controvery here so I am removing the tags.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

theflatearthsociety.net / theflatearthsociety.org

I'm somewhat inexperienced with the editorial side of Wikipedia, but I'd like to draw attention to the following.

Two legitimate Flat Earth websites currently exist - theflatearthsociety.net, operated by John Davis (of BBC news article fame); and theflatearthsociety.org, operated by a user named "Daniel". Neither has any direct link to Charles K Johnson's Society, but it is extremely likely that both harbour small enclaves of genuine Zeteticists, and it is also the case that both loose organizations are in the process of establishing international efforts toward restoration of the FE movement - the former, an international collaboration of real-world local FES groups; and the latter, a predominatly online, centralized FES group.

I have no idea what the procedure for Wikipedia entries of this nature is, or how any of the claims I've made above can be verified or falsified, but I think it's pretty likely that some kind of tangible result will be seen which can be reported on before the start of 2009. Hope this is of some help.

- 20th August 2008

In what way is that forum legitimate or "official", as we call it? As far as I can tell that forum has one "believer" and just happens to have registered the domain. Best I can tell there is no legitimate successor to the Flat Earth Society, so we should link to any page claiming to be official, which is why I'm going to remove it. I'll also remove
    * Flat Earth Society Inc. ''[http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Flat Earth Society Home Page]''
from the references section. That's a satirical website and, while moderately funny, has no place in an encyclopaedic article about the Flat Earth Society. --Amalthea^Talk 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Most of us are not going to go look; if you want us to ignore that source, tell us how the site you want kept out is objectively more satirical than the others and the defunct FES.
  --Jerzy•t 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  

Satire/parody

There should be mention in the introduction that this is a work of satire or parody. Really, this article in its current form is at a terribly low standard, almost seems to be participating in the Flat Earth Society's satire. Leoniceno (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this whole society a parody itself? Just to prove how there will always be people who can believe anything? --131.188.3.21 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the organization is satirical "street" theater, but that is probably impossible to verify. "This" presumably does not mean this talk page, but -- with characteristic WP-talk-page sloppiness -- it is likely to be understood to mean "the article page accompanying this talk page". WP satirical writing legitimately occurs, labeled as such, in the Wikipedia or "project" namespace, and (labeled or not) on some User/User-talk pages, but parody and satire in the main ("article" namespace) is either a misunderstanding by the author or vandalism. The article is a serious account of the probably satirical org'n. The only question is how to characterize the widespread impression of the org'n as being ignorant, insane, or tongue-in-cheek; the available RSs will dictate that.
  --Jerzy•t 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  

Again... Really is this a joke?

I know Americans enjoy way too much their april's fools and such, but how much time will last this "article". Come on, how can you SERIOUSLY propose that Planet Earth is flat? O_o (don't answer, I'0m being retoric... I mean ITS OBVIOUS planet Earth is spherical...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.13.84 (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't seriously proposing anything, it's just describing an organisation that exists, however misguidedly. --McGeddon 11:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know some of them are serious. wnmnkh (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently read an interview with a member of the Flat Earth Society who said he wanted to create a "global network of flat-earthers" I really expected it to turn out to be a joke.(86.137.84.45 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

The interesting irony, here, being that said "global network" would be supported largely by telecommunications satellites that orbit the earth... 206.194.127.112 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, these people are INSANE. I've seen some pretty crazy beliefs on Wikipedia, but this takes the cake! Pstanton 08:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Actually, I think the real irony is that the word "globe" comes from latin "globus" which means "ball, round solid, or sphere" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.56.112 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As crazy as it may seem at first, flat earth proponents are very serious about their beliefs. May I suggest doing some more research, and you will see their theory is, at the very least, somewhat plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.9.162 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Did someone investigate if they just want to be famous? In the news, be on TV, that stuff? In my country we see a lot of people saying such things but it's too obvious they just want to be on TV. RoRo (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Yes, in our eyes it is a joke and quite possibly the greatest epic fail in history. it's people like these who make me feel disgusted to be the same species as them. I got banned for trolling their forum. Yes, stating facts that prove the earth is round is trolling to them >_> 68.9.247.42 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Distances

I've fact-tagged the first sent, and removed the rest, of that 'graph. The following (edited by my in the direction of coherence) reeks of WP:OR, especially in describing measurements, made on flat "round earth" maps, amounting to about 90 degrees out of the earth's circumference!

The published map of the flat Earth severely distorts the distances and shpaes of land masses in both hemispheres. In the southern hemisphere (outer band) the distances on the flat earth appear extended while the opposite is true for the northern hemisphere (inner disc). For example, the exact distance between Auckland, New Zealand and Santiago, Chile implied by a round Earth map is 6011 miles. That same distance using the flat earth map appears to be between 20,000& and 30,000 miles. No distances are given by the Flat Earth Society.

I believe the difficulty alleged is substantial, but the matter is far more complex, starting with the fact that no one has stretched 6k miles of surveyor' chain between the two cities! An arguably legitimate goal of the parody is alerting people to how theory dependent their hidden assumptions are. This 'graph helps make their point.
--Jerzy•t 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Was VS. Is

Shouldn't the tense of this article, when referencing the Society itself, be changed from Past to Present? The article says the FES "seemed" to disband in 2001, but clearly there are still people who are keeping this organization alive. Seems erroneous to say "The The Flat Earth Society WAS an organization..." rather than "The The Flat Earth Society IS an organization..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMFG Its Vico (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

.org and .net merger?

Can we get some kind of source for "a recent agreement between the .org and .net websites has resulted in a merge under the banner of the '.org' site"? The .net forum doesn't appear to actually mention this anywhere, and still seems active. --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

... No? --McGeddon (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Um, how come there isn't a section on Criticism of the Flat Earth Society. I mean, we all know these guys are kooks, right? No real scientists accept their theories. So there must be criticism of the idea of a flat earth out there. NotWillFerrell (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is much too long

Given the fact that overwhelming evidence exists for a spherical earth, those who currently promote the Flat Earth Society are almost certainly playing out the joke and seeking attention. This article only furthers that end. A much shorter article that focuses primarily on the period when it was a serious movement would be more appropriate.Landroo (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we don't want to give people the wrong idea. Those flat-earthers...they make us ashamed of being humans. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. That some people are still flat-Earthers is extremely notable (and hilarious) and should be reported here.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

England/California

Did the flat Earth Society move from England to California when the leadershiop changed? --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Accidental page blanking

sry guys deleted the page somehow ?

help please ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.230.148 (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

"The Flat Earth Society also maintains that the Earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s², thereby simulating gravity,[22] under the influence of a form of dark energy[28] (This is inconsistent with Special relativity, as the earth would eventually exceed the speed of light)"

The comment in the parenthesis is wrong, from the point of view of an inertial observer, the flat earth will never reach C because of the relativity of simultaneity, even when for an observer in flat earth the acceleration remains the same. According to differential calculus, it will only reach C after t = infinite, which is an indetermination and hence, not physically impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.205.248.178 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pratchett: whom or what does he really parody?

Before someone feels like making an edit war out of it: Pratchett writes books using a very popular idea, namely that the earth is (more or less) flat. He then uses the very popular controversy about the shape of the earth. Now he puts the criticism into the mouth of a religion, again a very well-known (although probably misconceived) topic. So far we all agree, yes? Now someone seem Wikipedian interpreted this joke as particularly targetting the Flat Earth Society although--to my knowledge--Pratchett never mentions them, let alone mentions them in this context. Bottom line: There has so far been no evidence that Pratchett parodies them at all. So it requires either a source, or it should be deleted from this article. Hence I put the respective template into the article. If you disagree, please feel free to explain to me what I misunderstand. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that there's no evidence that the Omnians are a reference to the Flat Earth Society, so I've gone ahead and deleted that paragraph. By the same token, comparing the Helicon Globalists in Asimov's Forward the Foundation to the Society seemed like an original thesis. As that paragraph also cited no sources, I removed it as well. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First sorry, then a suggestion

Hello.

Sorry if I caused unwanted trouble with the "Creationism2" template. My purpose was to remove the box from the Flat Earth article -- not to delete the template itself. Sorry if the latter happened.

Now, because it seems I don't have the computer skills myself, I strongly suggest someone to remove the box if I didn't succeed in the proper way.

The reason for this is quite clear. Although Flat Earthers mostly are creationists, the opposite is not the case. As mentioned in the article itself, the view flat Earth is somewhat a ridicule. I'm not willing to speculate why the box had been placed on such a notable and important place, but nevertheless it gives the impression that creationism and even intelligent design are among jokes comparable to flat Earth.

I'm well aware that many naturalists and evolutionists personally think that way, but on my opinion no neutral supports this. Firstly, the number of supporters of creationism anf flat Earth differ with a factor of four powers of ten, or so. Secondly, and more importantly, the supposed flat Earth is something that is contrary to everyday observations that almost anyone can make.

For prehistoric events, most often there are more or less some indirect clues, often to different directions, but the direct observation is beyond human perspective. Although some models combine better with the indirect evidence, no-one has to play fool and think contrary of what is seen today.

The above was unsigned, maybe it is very old. I have to say that although it is questionable whether a neutral reliable source can be found that would say all creationism is as bad as the flat earth, you would probably find many that compared the two and may even find some that equates the more extreme forms to flat Earthers. That said, I think the more important point to be made is that actually you are wrong when you say that creationism does not require people to deny "everyday observations that almost anyone can make" or "play fool and think contrary of what is seen today." As a matter of fact, in the case of the most extreme forms, "young earth creationism" and the denial of evolution, you very much do. For instance, without evolution flu shots would be unnecessary, dogs would not exist, and in a young earth the grand canyon is very difficult to explain without complete magic. And of course they do use magic. Just like flat Earthers use to explain away the phenomena that would show most people the earth is a sphere. I do like that the flat Earthers have the world as a round surface; that helps with some of them. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this

I'm a high altitude pilot. I also find it absolutely hilarious that people believe the earth can be flat. These are moronic ideas likely formed and survived in the minds of highly insane people. Why aren't they locked up for being mental? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.138.91 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The same reason you're not locked up for encouraging institutionalized totalitarianism toward people with differing opinions. Whether they truly believe in a flat Earth or not, they are allowed to do so, and to suggest otherwise is much more disturbing and insane than personal cosmological convictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.184.93 (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Most people have some form of denial going on. These ones are just extra good at it. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"The Flat Earth Society also maintains that the Earth is accelerating upward at a rate of 9.8 m/s², thereby simulating gravity,[22] under the influence of a form of dark energy[28] (This is inconsistent with Special relativity, as the earth would eventually exceed the speed of light)"

The comment in the parenthesis is wrong, from the point of view of an inertial observer, the flat earth will never reach C because of the relativity of simultaneity, even when for an observer in flat earth the acceleration remains the same. According to differential calculus, it will only reach C after t = infinite, which is an indetermination and hence, not physically impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.205.248.178 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Analyzing a flat earth theory in terms of Special Relativity is quite odd. It's probably best to strike the whole bit as original reasearch. Jonathunder (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Flat Earth as a motive of parody science

There was a section called "Flat Earth as a motive of parody science", but it dealt solely with the idea of a flat earth, rather than any particular proponents of that idea. I've moved it to the Flat Earth article under a new headline. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Victorian Flat Earth Society archive

"In 1971, Shenton died and Charles K. Johnson, inheriting Shenton's library from Shenton's wife, became the new president of the Flat Earth Society which moved to California".

Now this is very curious. The University of Liverpool holds 31 boxes of Flat Earth Society archives 1858 - 1992, see http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/06101601.html which were rescued by my friend Ellis Hillman from Samuel Shenton's widow after he died in 1971, just before she cast them into a bonfire. I heard this from him first hand. Ellis had been created President of the Flat Earth Society by Shenton without his knowledge or permission. After studying the archive he came to the conclusion that the Universal Zetetic Society didn't actually believe the earth was flat, they were using it to challenge scientific orthodoxy in the same way as Charles Fort - it was actually a phenomenonalist joke to make points about the scientific method.

109.144.216.194 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Both observations are correct. Christine Garwood gives a full account in her fascinating book Flat Earth (2007). On p320 she says that Lillian Shenton didn't quite trust Hillman and shipped part of the collection to San Francisco so that Johnston could carry on the society's work. She doesn't accept the bonfire story. Chris55 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that I heard it from him first hand - Ellis was a bit of a bluffer and raconteur, but I don't think he made things up. He was quite proud of having rescued the archive, and deposited it in the East London Polytechnic Library. The way he told it Shenton's widow did not share her husband's enthusiasm for the Flat Earth (to put it mildly), and Ellis found her gleefully throwing all his posessions onto a bonfire in the back garden of their bungalow, with the archive piled up ready to be cast into the flames, if not already started. She quite willingly allowed him to take it away; she was glad to be rid of it. Maybe we have to distinguish the archive from the books. 88.109.11.241 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - the sequence in Garwood's story doesn't make sense. Shenton and Hillman clearly had very different motives. Hillman considered it as great sci fi and in the development of ideas but to Shenton, and to some extent his widow, it was a religious issue. What they considered valuable in the collection could have been very different. The division of material must have taken place before Hillman arrived with his van and maybe she had already sent some off to Johnston and didn't put any value on the rest. Your point about Shenton using the flat earth to challenge scientific orthodoxy is right but for entirely different reasons. It seems quite a meeting of modern and almost medieval views. Garwood has a lovely story (taken from the archives) about Hillman taking on the role of president of the society:

"Initially Hillman, who was frank about never having believed the earth to be flat, was reluctant to accept Shenton's offer and recalled contacting Patrick Moore to ask his advice. According to Hillman, Moore was encouraging: 'For God's sake, keep it going' he allegedly exclaimed, 'we must have heretical people in the world of astronomy'" (p274-5) Chris55 (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

geoid

... belief that the Earth is flat rather than the scientifically accepted view that it is a sphere or a geoid.

I'm going to remove the word "geoid", because the geoid is not defined by its shape; if the world were a disc or a giant banana it would still have a geoid, i.e. an equipotential surface. —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Physics

I've been reading the FAQs and some of the discussions on the Flat Earth Society forum, and it's clear to me that their idea of physics is vague, self contradictory and that different members have different ideas. I therefore think that the whole section on Flat Earth Physics should be removed, as they don't have a consistent theory. It being completely unreferenced doesn't help. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I actually believe very few members of the Flat Earth Society really believe this crap. I suspect they just like being provocative. Regardless, the organization does (or did) exist so it is more than appropriate to have an article on the organization.

  I can’t help but note that their logic is non-falsifiable. The logical shortcoming is that any flat earth must necessarily have an edge off of which one could fall. I went to their Web site and saw that they explain away this inconvenient truth by alleging that the edge is a mountainous and icy region that is hostile and dangerous and no one who got close enough to photograph it has survived to tell about it. Of course, if that were the case, then how could the Flat Earth People know about its existence? That is just sooooo mightily convenient, isn’t it?: there’s an edge, and *they* know about it, but no one can ever reach it and survive to tell about it. Yeaaaaaah… So I think most of the supposed *members* just like being members of something salacious; the intellectual (if you can call it that) version of riding around on choppers with an iron cross on their leather jackets, being bad-asses.

  More interesting is how utterly easy it is to demonstrate how the earth isn’t flat. All one has to do is drive to the middle of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway on a super-clear day; you can’t see land either ahead or behind you unless you go upwards. That’s pretty much a Well, Duh! thing; sailors before the time of ancient Greece had that part figured out.

  But the real proof is by looking at the Moon. The photograph we see on our own Moon article shows the Moon as seen from the northern hemisphere. If one goes to Australia and looks at the moon, it is “upside-down.”

  Yet another way the moon can help an individual irrefutably see that the Earth is spherical (without relying on organizations like NASA, which is “in” on “The Big Conspiracy”) is to watch partial lunar eclipses where the bottom of the Earth’s shadow is projected onto it, like this image. When the Moon is overhead, the curved bottom edge can be thought of as the “Australian edge of the disk”. But if the Moon is rising on the horizon when there is a partial lunar eclipse like this, then one is looking at what is under the viewer. There is only one possible explanation that fits all observations: an object that casts circular shadows from all angles is (hold on… I’m flipping furiously through my geometry book)… a sphere.

  The only way to dismiss straightforward observations of the natural world like lunar eclipses is to invoke supernatural explanations. For instance, the shadow we see sweeping across the Moon could really be that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; its shape is rather spherical too. And there’s no proving The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist; it’s just that no one who has encountered it has survived to tell about it. ;-) Greg L (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe most actual members do believe it. I also think it usually has an actual number of members that can be counted on one hand. The reason the flat-earth society disappears and the reappears somewhere else is because it typically has only one active member. The 2-3000 members mentioned are probably the amount of people that has been suckered into writing their name and address on some piece of paper somewhere. They probably didn't even know what they joined. :)

Your attempt to use logic in this case are doomed to fail. The people who actually believe this are not prone to logic. It's just the extreme end of the same denialism that is in effect behind modern day communists, conspiracy-theorists, creationists, etc. Logic has nothing to do with it. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right on all counts. It would be great if a reliable secondary source wrote that the organization has an actual membership of four bone‑cones and a fake membership list. I’d sprain my ankle dashing down the stairs to get that added to this article. I would add though, that the number of people who would join (if given the opportunity) and would believe this stuff, would run into the many thousands, I think. I don’t know where you live, but supermarket checkout stands in the U.S. featured the Weekly World News for decades. I’m sure a significant fraction of those who bought those things (“Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby,” “Bat Boy Leads Cops On 3 State Chase,” and “Dick Cheney Is A Robot,” really believed that stuff.

I theorize that one aspect that makes conspiracies (big business and politics and mobsters and NASA and everything are all tied together to get onto the same sheet of music and pull strings in concert) appealing, is that when someone who aspires to greater things in life but finds them self marginalized in a dead-end job with a mean boss, and they look around and wonder “Why do I suck?”, it is attractive to imagine there is some smoke-filled room with a big poker table where the fate of the minions are determined: “Two pair – jacks high!?! I’ve got a full house!” (Reaches across and pulls over a big pile of gambling chips) “Now you gotta make the lives of 20,000 peons in your territory suck!” (*Sound of a door slam*) “Hey, it’s NASA! Have a seat. What space hoax are we gonna do this year so we can take the minions’ taxes and not deliver anything?” Greg L (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Greg L (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they fly around the earth several times in an airplane? It should show them. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Shenton's Flat earth Society is an internet parody hoax

The modern day Flat Earth Society is an internet parody hoax group owned by Daniel Shenton who has admitted he set the group up for a joke. If you visit their forum they have no actual members who actually believe the earth is flat, they have about 100 forum posters and all these forum posters have admitted they are doing it for a joke look at their posts or their comedian forum avatars they are simply mocking the flat earth they do not take it seriously, also notice most of their members are round earth believers. The earth is round, nobody believes it is flat anymore. The flat earth society is a parody group set up for some laughs, i can't believe some people think these guys are serious you omly need to spend a minute on their forum to see they are mocking the flat earth. The whole thing is a hoax set up for some laughs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.107.124 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You find what you expect to find, I guess, to some extent. What I saw at the Flat Earth Society forum is an earnest group of flat-Earthers, with some visitors who are there to laugh at the absurdity of the idea, some newbies who are trying to figure out what to believe, and some members who are serious about their flat-Earth convictions. The FAQ is dead serious. And when Daniel Shenton was interviewed by The Guardian earlier this year, they half-expected to find he was joking or that "Shenton is playing games, that the reborn society is a clever metaphor or marketing tool for another cause – but he insists he is serious." The article presents him as an earnest believer. Check it out: [4] AtticusX (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are stupidly naive if you think it is a group of "earnest flat-Earthers". Gullibility like yours is the entire point of the society. He is masterfully playing people and your kind is falling for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.61.208 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not it is a hoax. The fact of the matter is, people are crazy. Just like there are people who really really do believe that our planet is run by shapeshifting anthropomorphic lizard aliens, there are those who believe that our world is flat. As such, we should not simply pass this off as a joke in its totality. A secondary Hoax/Parody article would be a far more appropriate place to cite that, not within the native article. Pages on other conspiracy theories do not contain references to parody within their main body, no matter how clearly the parody is. As such, we should continue responding to this article for the sake of refinement of idea, since this idea DOES exist in the real world. Pointing out the parody groups does not contribute to the discussion at hand. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Joke

Is the joke of the organisation behind this the reason why they chose to set up a web-page? Wouldn't it be right to describe them as a parody from the beginning, if that is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Felonius (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Even if its the case, all it would mean is we have to remove it from the article. The fact is, Flat Earth DOES exist as a real idea in the world. While this one group may well be a parody, the flat earth movement itself is, sadly, a facet of antiscientific understanding along the lines of chemtrails, lizard people, and vaccine conspiracies. However, I concede readily that it is likely a very, very small community. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes Flat Earth is a theory and it still is held by a few people in the world there is another article for this just type in flat earth on wikipedia, while it's quite clear the earth is round you have to respect other peoples beliefs and i have no problem if someone genuinely wants to believe the earth is flat, the problem is with the modern day flat earth society becuase the whole thing is a parody set up for some laughs, as mentioned already the modern day flat earth society is a parody group it is not to be taken seriously, by taking it seriously you are just falling into the societys hands that is exactly what they want, to laugh at flat earthers, none of them believe it themselves. I looked at there forum and even members admitted it including admins there. Not one person who posts on the flat earth societys forum is a flat earther. The group is mock group similar to parody religions such as the flying spaghetti monster if you go to the flat earth societys page all that is there is t shirts for sale it's all about making money, even the t shirts are designed in parody. The old Flat Earth Society which was active from 1956 by Samuel Shenton was a serious group. Samuel Shenton and his followers were Christians and they actually believed the earth was flat they actually published books on it and researched it. Sad indeed if Samuel Shenton was alive today he would probably kill himself if he saw what a joke the group has now turned into, he would be disgusted, embarressed and shocked!!, Daniel Shenton who revived the group is an fundamentalist atheist, it's been stated by many members that he only revived the flat earth society to mock it becuase the original flat earth society were christian. The whole thing is a joke. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The modern day flat earth society is not genuine it's been set up as a troll group for some laughs. 212.219.116.229 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The modern day Flat Earth Society is a genuine effort, even though we do get a large troll traffic (which we successively eliminate). Apples grow on pines (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Antarctica Justificaiton?

This to me seems the oddest part, and maybe something we should include. As we have maps of antarctica, we know fully well that its not in the shape it claimed to be. This is especially jarring because the continents in their correct shape are present. According to this, we should be able to travel east or west and reach antarticta, but that is simply not the case. It would require some strange, unmeasureable effect to stop people from reaching these east and west "ice ring" sections. As we are all aware, this force does not exist. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Industrialised Societies

Should we include on this the isolated groups of humans who lack the scientific ability to see that the world is round? Or would that be better in a whole seperate category? 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to say that the world is round, when all the evidence points to it being flat? Don't flat out insult beliefs because you don't share them. Tiroth (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sincerety of the society's members is being assumed here.

This article takes the position that "members believe" when the only actual fact we know for sure is that "members say they believe." It's debatable whether the flat earth society is really prooting a seriously held bona fide position or is merely playacting and grubbing for attention. --134.193.112.62 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to speculate in what the members believe at all. It's what they and the society say that is relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Leo Ferrari et al certainly didn't believe the earth was flat, though I think they were sincere in claims that people were too ready to believe in technology. But OpenFuture is right - there's no need to posit motives. Remember there have been at least 3 such societies. Chris55 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Designation Change

I propose that the reference to Flat Earth Theory (FET) should be changed to Flat Earth Hypothesis (FEH). There has been insufficient evidence supplied that would elevate it from a hypothesis to a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Apples grow on pines (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Complete non-sense. How, I wonder, are people able to regurgitate such crap out of their seemingly well-learned grey-matters. It's definitely occupying worthless space on the internet. The monetary rough monetary conversion of the e-ink used up in this article and its discussions could well have supported at least one stomach in some poor land devoid of food and cleansing of Wikipedia could supply the people with proper healthcare facilities. Aks23121990 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theory-and-a-hypothesis.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.42.2 (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If the earth WAS flat (like a plane) then when a large object goes out to sea, it would NOT fade away as if it were traveling along a curved surface. It would shrink while the entire object remained visible. In real life, when ships go out to sea, the bottom of the ship becomes invisible from bottom to top (relative to someone still on land) since the ship is not traveling in a "straight line along a plane" but is following a "curved path of the earth." This observation alone should be enough to not call this a hypothesis and/or theory since empirical evidence gathered by human eyes alone can easily debunk this so called theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.190.226 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Image

Good evening everbody. I think I should remove the image in the incipit and sostituite it with the new version: . Also in it.wiki is used the new version. Thanks and bye.--DB, ^{"the Killer"} Al vostro servizio 17:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Focus on religious motivations?

At first reading, this article seems to imply that the main motivations of FE-ers are based in literalistic religious views. But it is my understanding that the modern incarnation is more of rejection of conformity. Basically, the idea is that there are many things we accept as fact, despite not having actually proven it to ourselves. Of course, it may be true that I'm living in some sort of Truman Show scenario...but until stage lights start falling from the sky, I'm going to assume things seem as they appear, and that the Earth is round. Anyway, I guess that's all just a long way of saying that most FE-ers don't actually believe the Earth is flat...they are just making a point (silly though it may be). Anyway, I've got a few skeptical analysis books that talk about this, so I might see about adding some things. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My first thought was something to this affect. Also to note, from their wiki: "In fact, the majority of Flat Earthers are nontheists (atheist, agnostic, deist)" 75.92.227.144 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC).

Suggested split of Canadian Branch

The Flat Earth Society of Canada (FESC) had no affiliation with Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson and was not a branch of this Flat Earth Society (FES). Donald E. Simanek specifically describes the FESC as "a rival theory" noting "Johnson was infuriated at any mention of the Canadian, Leo Ferrari," and further notes the levity of the society but stops short of calling it outright parody. This is further supported by comments in the modern Flat Earth Society Forum where users repeatedly note that the FESC supported a different model than the FES.

• "In contrast to Charles Johnson's zetetic system, these Canadians followed the ancient Christian flat Earth model"
• "[Ferrari] has a model which we disagree with"

In the Leo C. Ferrari fonds at the UNB Archives it is clearly stated that the aim of FESC was not the advancement of a Flat Earth model but rather the advancement of critical thinking in relation to science.

To promote critical thinking, the society chose to dispute one thing that "scientific Western civilization" considers indisputable -- namely, that the earth is round. [...] Planoterrestrialists waged an intellectual, often humorous "battle" against the "globularist heresy"

Wrenoud (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

disagree The Ferrari group didn't have a very long life and I don't think it's notable enough to have a separate article. This article is already a composite: the societies of Rowbotham, Blount, Shenton and Johnson all had very different characters, as does its modern inheritor. Though Ferrari's aim was critical, it's hard to know what the current society members actually believe. Chris55 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm still new to editing. Would it be appropriate to add some details of the dispute? Specifically in regards to Simanek's writings? Wrenoud (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You're as free to change the page as anyone! I'm not sure what dispute you're talking about but I'm sorry you've deleted the information that Ferrari was a philosophy professor at St Thomas, as it (partly!) explains at least his motivations. (A Socratic method?) Another possibility is to create an article about him. Chris55 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on an article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leo_Ferrari Wrenoud (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Split into religious group

An IP removed some content regarding the (what they regard) erroneous split of the group into a religious group. They didn't post anything here, they posted stuff on their own talk page, so I'm just posting this here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.157.234.91 --BurritoBazooka (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

duly noted, and visited the more credible homepage cited in External links section. I will refrain from re-adding the content in question, and look for a consensus to develop...Boogerpatrol (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

weird wording on the abstract

the third sentence kinda reads like it's Johnson who was resurrected. --178.38.85.85 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Illustration is Great!!!

I see from the illustration that there are no time zones necessary or possible on a flat Earth, not to mention seasons. This is actually a better idea than a round Earth. If only one could flatten it, a lot of problems would be solved, and we would not need to think as hard about the consequences of it actually being the shape it seems to be. Sounds like win-win to me. Danshawen (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)danshawen

Holographic Principle

It has recently in the past ten years or so been suggested by quantum physicists such as Leonard Susskind that the earth, and the whole universe is indeed flat, according to the holographic principle.--122.251.216.91 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Holographic Principle doesn't imply that Earth is flat in the way that Flat Earthers think of it as being flat.

No evidence for that claim, at all. As the man is a highly respected, real scientist, calling your claim 'dubious' is being generous, to say the least. 69.91.64.202 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The claim isn't dubious, dear. The holographic principle of the string theory suggests that everything in the universe in 2 dimensional and higher dimensions are just an illusion. This was, indeed, suggested by Leonard Susskind. I'm going to soon mention in one of my Quora answers. Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C08D:7ED4:4C45:6649:4D3F:730 (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above. The Holographic Principle doesn't mean that we, living inside the Hologram, will find Earth to be flat by our own reckoning.

I have finally mentioned this on my Quora answer: https://www.quora.com/Is-Earth-flat-or-spherical-1/answer/Anupam-Kumar-346 Thanks to the guy who suggested this implication of the holographic principle :)

Cheers, Anupam Kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C08D:7ED4:4C45:6649:4D3F:730 (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture

HiLo48, I don't want to get into edit war, but you need to remember that the Flat Earth Society is "a group that has become a living metaphor for backward thinking and a refusal to face scientific facts." (David Adam, Guardian) You say in your comment that it is a high profile mention of the society. It's nothing of the sort. It's just the use of a metaphor. As it happens, I think Obama is quite right to refer to climate change deniers as flat earthers and to argue that we can't delete it for political reasons is absurd. WP:IPC has plenty of warnings about these sections getting out of control and if we documented every notable figure who used the phrase, then it would. It might be worth saving if it was used as an example of a metaphor, possibly using the quotation above, as the point hasn't been made in the article. (How Daniel Shenton can use a GPS and still carry on with his flat earth opinions beats me.) Chris55 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why so many people spelling organization wrong... Lbpfan950 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

They aren't, organisation is the way it's spelt in British English, organization is only used in American English. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think what you meant to say is that there is British English, and then there is Real English. ;) 75.173.244.100 (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure who uses Real English. We refer to British English as that spoken and written by such luminaries as, of course, the people who reside in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, as well as a few others. :) sugarfish (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

People are not really this stupid right? There can not be civilized people that truly believe the Earth is flat right? I was certain society was not that dumb. Please save my faith in humanity and tell me it is not true or I may just cry for the future of man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.244.242 (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite true... IF the Earth's "as flat as a pancake", then what's on the other/flip side? Oh, maybe the griddle that's causing global warming? ye gads!! 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:9127:31ED:1830:76D5 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edits directing visitors to an alternative site

Full disclosure: I am President of the Flat Earth Society, which has been functioning at theflatearthsociety.org for ten years.

I was unaware until recently that the Wikipedia entry for the Flat Earth Society had been changed at some point and now refers to theflatearthsociety.org as "The 2004 Flat Earth Society" and a more recent, largely duplicated site (tfes.org) as "The Modern Flat Earth Society". Any links referring to "The Flat Earth Society" in the entry are now pointing to that newer site, which I feel is misleading or inaccurate. I made edits to the entry today which I felt were neutral and factually accurate but they were rolled back on the grounds of a conflict of interest or lack of neutrality. I apologise for making the changes directly rather than discussing them in the Talk page but I did so in good faith. I'd now like to make my case here for re-instituting the changes I made so that a consensus can be formed.

I believe that in this entry "The Flat Earth Society" should refer to the organisation based at theflatearthsociety.org and that it should be considered the "official" Flat Earth Society for the following reasons:

1. theflatearthsociety.org predates tfes.org by 9 years.
2. Content on tfes.org is almost entirely copied/duplicated from theflatearthsociety.org, including documents written by and credited to me as President of the Flat Earth Society.
3. The Flat Earth Society at theflatearthsociety.org has been functioning as the defacto official organisation in the following ways:
   1. It maintains an active membership register containing 500+ members
   2. I have been cited as the President of the Flat Earth Society in a number of publications including The Guardian, El Pais, Salon.com, Business Insider and other media sources.
   3. It maintains an active Facebook page with over 1000 members which links to theflatearthsociety.org as well as an active Twitter account with over 1400 followers which also links to theflatearthsociety.org
   4. Michael N. Wilmore, the Vice President of the Flat Earth Society at theflatearthsociety.org, was invited to speak and delivered a presentation at a public event as a representative of The Flat Earth Society.
   5. The Flat Earth Society book/document collection originally owned by previous Flat Earth Society President Samuel Shenton was passed on to the University of Liverpool library upon his death. The University of Liverpool has since passed this collection to me and it has been made available on our site since.

I see no problem with the tfes.org site being mentioned in the entry as an alternative organisation or offshoot organisation but I feel that listing it as the primary organisation is extremely misleading/inaccurate and should be changed to improve the entry's accuracy.

Danielshenton (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton

Thanks Daniel for addressing this issue in an up-front way after Dougweller pointed out to you the problems of conflict of interest on Wikipedia. We can assume informally that you are the Daniel Shenton associated with the FES but the way that WP is run we can't know it. (You could be someone else with an agenda.) That's a fact of life that we have to live with.

Personally I don't think that the word "official" should be used at all when talking about the FES. You happen to share a surname with the founder of the most widely known "Flat Earth Society" but were not appointed by him nor was there any link through Charles K. Johnson, who only partially "inherited the mantle". There are a number of other organizations mentioned in the article (and the Flat Earth article) with more or less similar names. Nor does the University of Liverpool's action settle the matter.

If you look at the page history you will see there has been quite a tussle over these websites though it hasn't reached the talk page. I'm glad that you have confirmed that tfes.org is indeed a splinter group but I don't see how we can do more than maintain links to two groups. (I've made a slight change.) I am not sure what is the real point of either group as I suspect that there are very few "true believers" in the sense of those mentioned above. But "Flat Earth" is certainly a well-known and presumably marketable brand. Chris55 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I appreciate you taking the time to respond but I must disagree on a number of issues.

Firstly, can you clarify the relevance of my identity with respect to the edits I made? The original assumption was that there was a conflict of interest because I am Daniel Shenton, a person involved with one of the Flat Earth Society operating from theflatearthsociety.org. After disclosing that I am that person and addressing the issue of a perceived conflict of interest, now there is doubt that I am the aforementioned Daniel Shenton, and that my edits were the result of "someone else with an agenda". This puts me in what seems to be an unwinnable position. Because I created an account which identifies me as Daniel Shenton, I'm either Daniel Shenton with a conflict of interest or an impostor with an agenda. Because I was up-front and honest about my identity, it seems that you are holding my edits to an unfair standard. This seems unreasonable to me, particularly as my argument above is a series of what I believe are objective, evidenced facts. Whether or not I'm actually the Daniel Shenton in question (I am) is irrelevant to any of the arguments I made. If it makes my points any more palatable, I'll go change "I" to "Daniel Shenton". Beyond that, there's nothing I can do to make them more objective-sounding.

Based on the evidence I presented above, the Flat Earth Society operating from theflatearthsociety.org was established nearly a decade prior to the splinter tfes.org site. It maintains an active membership register of hundreds of members (tfes.org has none). Its library contains significant contributions (a few gathered, mostly unique and rare) of literature on the subject. Its President (Daniel Shenton) has been repeatedly referenced as such in cited mainstream media sources and interviews. Its Vice President has been invited to public speaking engagements in the capacity of Vice President of the Flat Earth Society. A major university has seen it fit to bestow on me a large collection of rare books and documents originally owned by former President Samuel Shenton. It is a substantially different organisation in age, purpose, content, public perception and lineage.

As I said, I don't have an issue with the splinter site being referenced as a footnote.. but as the article stands, that splinter site is clearly being presented as the official (or "primary" if you don't think "official" is possible for this Society) organisation. The splinter site's logo is displayed prominently and theflatearthsociety.org's is nowhere on the page. All links/references going to a "Flat Earth Society" page are directed to the splinter site. Anyone viewing this article would be led to believe that a 1 year-old splinter site (that copied nearly all of its content from theflatearthsociety.org) is the official/primary organisation. You suggested that "all we can do is maintain links to multiple groups". Would that apply if another site opened up calling itself The Flat Earth Society and copied content from the original site? What about a fourth? Surely Wikipedia has an expectation of relevance for the organisations it includes. Simply registering a domain and copy/pasting content should not meet that burden of relevance. And that's essentially what tfes.org did. It registered a domain, copied content and then effectively hijacked the Wikipedia article.

Further regarding the "official" status: the Wikipedia article itself makes reference to "Daniel Shenton resurrect[ing] the Flat Earth Society" and its "official relaunch".

Also, I don't see how your personal feelings about "the real point of either group" or "suspecting" there are few true believers are relevant to this discussion or to the Flat Earth Society's Wikipedia entry in general. I'd appreciate it that was left out of this discussion.

Danielshenton (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton

Daniel, your identity is important not only because of potential conflict of interest but because of another WP policy: Wikipedia is normally based on secondary sources, ie reliable sources at one remove from the horse's mouth. This doesn't mean that primary sources can't be used, but the preference is to find a more neutral account of any particular thing. Normally this is a published account. The problem in this case is that you have a vested interest in asserting that tfes.org is a less significant splinter group of theflatearthsociety.org. As it happens, I've always believed this, but I need a reliable source to make the assertion. Your authority doesn't count in this situation for all these reasons. If you can point me to a third party source which talks about the split, I'll use it to improve the article.

It has not been helped by the fact that theflatearthsociety.org has been offline for significant periods recently. I've assumed you'd get the site sorted eventually and it certainly seems better. But it's understandable that some editors (who may or may not have vested interests of their own) thought that the new site was the most important.

Self published sources are generally regarded as unreliable and this applies to much that appears on the web. This works in your favour if the tfes.org's credentials cannot be backed up. But we need a little time to establish this. Chris55 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I do not see why theflatearthsociety.org should be viewed as "more official" than tfes.org. They both appear to be about as legitimate or illegitimate. To counter some of Danielshenton's points:

1. The age of each website is a very minor factor. It can act as supporting evidence, but not much more than that.
2. If a library of a Flat Earth Society has references to other Flat Earth Societies, then it seems to be doing a pretty good job. It also has documents credited to Charles K. Johnson's historical FES (crediting him as President). This is obviously to be expected.
3. tfes.org's Facebook group is over twice as large as the one you provided.

The way I see it, both societies should be included. Calling linking to one to be "misleading" is misleading in and of itself. 2.96.77.123 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Having looked a bit more into what has been going on (but not responding to the ip above), I'd make these comments:

1. The "new logo", currently in the article, was proposed by members of the tfes.org site on 1 Dec 2013 and established on 4 Dec 2013. These posts acknowledge that the old logo is that produced by Daniel Shenton.
2. The first announcement of a new society appears to be on 9 Dec 2013 by Steven McDonald (Parsifal). There's nothing earlier on the Internet Archive.
3. The first use of a link to tfes.org in the article was on 4 Dec 2013 by an IP edit claiming to fix a broken link. Most of the changes were done by Apples grow on pines on 24 Dec 2013 who also posted the new logo on 18 June 2014. Whether there is a conflict of interest here is not clear.
4. The question about what I will call the 2013 FES is notability. Does putting up a website qualify under WP rules? For the 2009 FES I would think the answer is yes, but I don't think the 2013 FES yet merits more than a link at the bottom of the article.

I therefore suggest that the main logo be reverted to that of theflatearthsociety.org as well most of the incidental links in the article and the two societies be referred to by their dates. You might argue for using 2004, when it appeared on the web, rather than 2009 for the Daniel Shenton organisation.

Comments? Chris55 (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Correction: I see that Apples grow on pines put the logo of the 2009 FES on the page on 30 May and it was deleted from Commons on 26 June because it was an unfree image. Before this, on 18 June, he substituted the logo of the 2013 FES. If there are copyright problems we obviously can't use it, so it is probably best to reinstate the File:Flat earth.png that was there for the previous year or more. If Danielshenton wishes to contribute a free version of their logo, that would be different. Chris55 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to contribute the logo under the Creative Commons license. I'll prepare the logo image and upload it to Wikimedia Commons tomorrow. I'll mention it in here when it's available.

Danielshenton (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton

Hi. It's probably a good idea for me to explain the thoughts behind my edits. Starting with the 24 Dec 2013 edit, the PDF links were replaced simply because the old ones were broken at the time. It was my understanding at the time that the Flat Earth Society has moved to a new site. tfes.org does currently appear to have all the regulars that used to frequent theflatearthsociety.org, and those regulars no longer frequent theflatearthsociety.org (which, around the time of my initial edits, appeared to be completely deserted).

Some further investigation shows that tfes.org is, indeed, a separate society of its own (albeit consisting of many old members of theflatearthsociety.org), and not the same entity as theflatearthsociety.org. A new logo was then announced there (at which point I updated it here on WP) and released under a free licence (at which point I uploaded it to Commons). I apologise for introducing confusion between the two to the article - my intention was only to keep things up to date.

Looking some more into the history of tfes.org, it is a splinter group of theflatearthsociety.org, consisting of members who left the old administration due to a number of technical and administrative disputes.

As for the notability argument - the 2009 society (theflatearthsociety.org), in its "official" form, has now existed for approximately 5 years. The split happened about 7 months ago, and it is part of the history of the society. Since the two are strongly related, I would argue that mentioning tfes.org is necessary simply because it's now become a significant part of Daniel Shenton's society's history, and that society has already been deemed notable enough.

With all that in mind, I think it makes most sense to have a brief mention of both societies. I imagine that, as per WP:DUE (EDIT: I now realise that WP:DUE isn't strictly relevant, but I feel it outlines the right general idea nonetheless), we should give theflatearthsociety.org more credit than tfes.org, but it wouldn't be fair to exclude one or the other. Unless there are major objections, I'll try to write a short section about the split soon. It would probably make the most sense to put the Flat Earth map back at the top of the article and have the logos of each organisation in their respective subsections. Looking forward to any comments on this. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems pretty sensible to me. There are similar north-pole-centric maps available from 19/20thC FE sources but generally rather poor b&w images, so I think the recent one is better. I always think round-the-world sailors must be very flattered by the distance they are credited with sailing. Chris55 (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded a good quality PNG of the FES (theflatearthsociety.org) logo which can be used on the Flat Earth Society WP article. While I appreciate the fact that some members of the theflatearthsociety.org forums did move to tfes.org at some point, Apples grow on pines's statement that the theflatearthsociety.org's forums were "completely deserted" is simply not true and gives the appearance of a conflict of interest or bias in his contributions to the article. Despite the migration of some forums users, the forums have remained continuously active. The lowest number of new posts in a single calendar month in the past 12 months was December 2013 with 3648 new posts -- hardly "deserted". Other months in that 12 month period range anywhere from 5510 new posts to 15292 new posts. Again, I believe that tfes.org can reasonably be linked in the "External Links" section of the WP article, but to prominently feature its logo or include a separate section describing a split could give an unrealistic view of the notability of the tfes.org forums. Danielshenton (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton

While it's true that the old forum still have many visitors, very few of them are Flat Earthers. Being the site that Google shows first does not make you the 'real' flat earth society. You have to accept that a very real schism has occurred. That schism is notable in that at least half of the members of the society were a part of it. Unless you want to claim that the average angry noob is a member of your society who believes in flat Earth theory, you must agree that the old forum was largely abandoned. You have a handful of flat earthers and a lot of angry globularists. The new society has a great deal of flat earthers and a handful of globularists. I'd call them pretty equal in all the ways that matter. Maybe we have fewer posts in our number game, but I fail to see how that's relevant to whether or not we should be included in the article. Unisgned statement added by 68.39.29.183 (talk)‎ 22:50, 19 July 2014‎.

Chris55, can you clarify where we stand with this? You seemed to agree that the 2004/2009 organisation was the primary organisation based on notability, etc. Unfortunately, the logo of the tfes.org site is still displayed while the theflatearthsociety.org logo (uploaded and mentioned in my previous post in here) is absent. Also, all of the links in "Notes and References" are pointing to the tfes.org site. I'm happy to make the necessary edits to change this but I fear that my edits will again be reverted on the grounds of perceived bias or lack of neutrality because of my identity. I'd like to have this issue resolved as soon as possible so that the article more accurately reflects the status of the Flat Earth Society. Danielshenton (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Danielshenton

Ok, I was hoping Apples grow on pines might take the lead, but I've done the best I can. The press release from 2009 appears only to be on the tfes site so I've left that, but otherwise I've restored earlier links. Chris55 (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of involvement thus far. I'll try building it up a bit soon, promise! Apples grow on pines (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here from another article possibly vandalized by the site of the 2013 Society. There seems to be no case against the point above that the 2004/2009 Society is the more notable. I am not particularly suprised to find this here. I'm having a hard time finding any notability for the 2013 group. I'm a bit suspicious here that this has been a case of self promotion in the first place by the 2013 Society in mention. I'm going to try to find the change that changed this logo back again and revert it. WakingJohn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the 2013 Logo. I reverted the change once already, as seems to be the consensus here. Instead of an editing war, I'd like to bring in a third eye to review / edit this. It seems from the discussion above that the other organization is the more notable and their logo should be used or none since its clear there's some self promotion going on here (and elsewhere on the page.) WakingJohn (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Reading more this also seems to be the case for the links changed. WakingJohn (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking into this with more detail, User:Apples grow on pines appears to be a member of the 2013 group. Ben Franklin, who serves as president to the University_of_Southampton_Students'_Union which he has also edited, is also a longtime member of http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=profile;u=5205 . I'd like to request edit for edits that mention of the 2013 be removed due to self promotion as was agreed upon in earlier talks including discussion with Chris55. Earlier I looked into this and found that theflatearthsociety.org is noted in several academic articles, news articles, books and radio shows. I find no mention of the 2013 society anywhere. Perhaps somebody else might be able to find one? I'm having a hard time finding them notable as they have not drawn any interest or attention aside from their mention here. WakingJohn (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

WakingJohn, referring back to the discussion above which resolved this issue, it was agreed that the logos of both organisations should be presented equally. Going through the edit log, it looks like the 2009 society's logo was removed from the page after it got deleted from Commons due to a lack clarity regarding copyright in October 2014. It seems that the best path forward would be to contact Danielshenton and request that he uploads his logo in a matter that complies with Wikipedia's policies. Removing images which support the body of the text is not a good solution at all.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously claim to avoid edit warring while edit warring yourself - you even tagged your comment asking that someone else makes the edit... but then you went ahead and edited the article yourself again. Please refer to WP:DR if you do not feel that the agreement reached previously with Danielshenton is suitable.

As for mentions of the 2013 society, a cursory Google search produces a reasonable reference: [5] Apples grow on pines (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The agreement with Danielshenton was to put theflatearthsociety.org logo in place and revert the links and only the link at the base of the page would remain. The links are still not reverted and the logo is not in place. I will attempt to contact theflatearthsociety.org to get the logo replaced and will search for the edit that reverted the links to again revert it. I used the wrong tag and was attempting to get a third party to view this discussion as it seems extremely suspect to me especially as you appear to be a member of the 2013 society; I have since removed it but once I have accomplished these two tasks will put in place a third party opinion. WakingJohn (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I have secured the correct image and verified it is under CC Share alike (to the right / immediately following this sentence).

The Logo of The Flat Earth Society

Can this now be re-added in chronological order and verified?

WakingJohn (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Please note: For clarity, any new edit request should be placed at the bottom of the talk page under its own heading (level 2). Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename article to Modern Flat Earth societies

I propose the article be renamed to more accurately reflect the contents ... as it discusses 3 or 4 quite distinct entities: Rowbotham's; Samuel Shenton and Johnson's; Daniel Shenton's; and the Canadian society. Drpixie (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me. We don't need multiple articles, and what is THE flat earth society has become controversial recently. Chris55 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it, your title refers more accurately to the societies founded since 2000. So I've renamed the sections with this in mind. The Canadian society was not a parody - it wasn't poking fun at the idea. It was more like a Socratic attempt to get people to think, whatever opinion one has of the founders, and thus more in the spirit of the Zetetic societies. Chris55 (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what this article was previously named, but the current name including "societies" seems wrong. After spending quite some time over the past few days watching YouTube videos made by flat Earthers (time I will never get back), including new vids saying that the upcoming (Aug 21, 2017) total eclipse PROVES their case,[6] and then Googling the subject generally,[7][8] I went to read the Flat Earth article. Looking further, I found this article which covers it. Trouble is I did not click the link at first for this article as it specifically said "societies", and what I had come across had nothing to do with societies. Note that the lead-in to the Modern Flat-Earthers section of the Flat Earth article puts it this way: "In the modern era, belief in a flat Earth has been expressed by isolated individuals and groups..." Isolated individuals and groups are NOT "societies". Also, I must say that the coverage of the modern phenomenon (as indicted by the links I gave above), is inadequately covered. I have just made an attempt at rectifying this in both articles.RobP (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me as well. This page should list flat earth groups or organizations, not 'societies'. WakingJohn (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible self-publicity infiltrating this article

Whilst this article does need to deal with various flat Earth societies and groups, I think there has been some infiltration of the article by an individual in an attempt to advertise their presence and promote themselves and their agenda. I refer to the following added section:

"In 2015, an independent Flat Earther Eric Dubay started an online debate forum named after the first modern Flat Earth Society, The International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS).[37] Eric did this out of his belief that all other Flat Earth societies are "controlled opposition". [38] Eric Dubay has published videos on YouTube claiming to prove the earth is flat."

The wording of this section doesn't sound at all objective or "matter of fact", but definitely feels like someone attempting to push their own material through wikipedia, in order to bolster their online presence.

Whilst I think that the board in question (IFERS) deserves a mention here, and the person who founded the board deserves a nominal mention, the rest of the section sounds too much like an advert for the person involved.

Though it raises the important point with these groups, that they have grown to develop their own apostates and fringe groups who have begun to denounce each other - something that I think deserves a mention in this article - the above section seems too much like it is written by someone appealing to those who like to believe in "conspiracies within conspiracies". I don't think it's of much concern to the article why Eric set up his board, except in a separate section that deals with how splinter groups and separate groups have formed over time and how they relate to each other/what the think of each other. For instance, there is nothing in the article about the flat Earth society in the UK viewing Eric as an apostate or anything else. Whilst this is a point of interest, it wouldn't be suitable in the section on the flat Earth society. There should be a separate section in the article that deals with this phenomenon.

The final sentence seems very superfluous as well, and sounds too much like somebody is trying to advertise their own Youtube content, or the content of one of their friends. Eric Dubay is a well known self-publicist and has an appetite for attention, and it would not surprise me if this was added by himself. Are we going to list ALL the different flat Earth proponents who have Youtube channels onto which they upload their videos? There are MANY of them, and I don't think doing a Vlog roll is what this article is really interested in, nor what it should be about.

For disclosure purposes, I spend a lot of time dealing with flat Earthers and addressing their claims. I believe this article should be an objective account of the history and development of modern flat Earth societies/movements, and I'm in no way proposing that we turn this page into a critique of the flat Earth idea, in the same way that I would suggest we don't make it into an endorsement of it, or of any individual or group who hold this idea - and I think what we find in the above text is exactly that, someone trying to use this page to advertise and endorse their own group and online content.

I'm not suggesting removing Eric or IFERS from being mentioned - on the contrary, I believe they should be mentioned in this article. I'm just highlighting a concern about how the article has been used in this instance, and suggesting that we can mention people without appearing to endorse them or show favour. It is my belief (for whatever it may be worth) that this should be a page dealing solely with the history and development of flat Earth groups, and that this can be done without showing undue favour or in any way endorsing any of the groups, since wikipedia should try to be as impartial as possible in such matters.Vyr Cossont (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I used to think earth was flat when I was a little kid. But I think the fact that we can use our own eyes to see the horizon kind of proves it like the sky is blue. How can we ignore that and not critique the theory on it's wiki page? It's a fringe theory and while a fringe theory deserves a wiki page for sure if it's notable enough which this is, like the moon landing being a hoax. You mention Eric Dubay who has a youtube page, why is he notable? I googled it and see him mentioned but not in anything that is considered a reliable source. Popish Plot (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think you have me mistake - my fault, I must not have been clear. I am very interested in modern flat Earth societies and their claims on both a sociological and a mathematical/scientific level, and totally agree that we should have a page dedicated to it. I'm not claiming Eric Dubay to be particularly notable - quite the contrary. I can see the import possibly of mentioning him, but my concern arises that somebody may be trying to publicize him be adding extraneous information, and is using the page to produce a mini-profile for him. That's all. I think we can and should mention IFERS and Dubay, but without the sentences "Eric did this out of his belief that all other Flat Earth societies are "controlled opposition"", and "Eric Dubay has published videos on YouTube claiming to prove the earth is flat", which appear to be more of an advert rather than necessary information. After all, we've already mentioned that there are schisms within the societies, so I think the first sentence is superfluous and the second sentence just invites a vlogroll. As it is, it seems to try to advertise him as being a reliable source, rather than mentioning him, as it should, just as another denomination of the flat Earth community. However, given that there is a lot of information on Daniel Shenton at the beginning of the section, perhaps I am incorrect in my summation, and not supplying this information would give undue attention to one particular society over others. I defer to the better judgement of others in this area. I think there is a case for rewording it, but understand if others disagree. Vyr Cossont (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This makes it seem like it's not just him having a youtube channel: "In 2015, an independent Flat Earther Eric Dubay started an online debate forum named after the first modern Flat Earth Society, The International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS).[37] Eric did this out of his belief that all other Flat Earth societies are "controlled opposition". [38] Eric Dubay has published videos on YouTube claiming to prove the earth is flat." However just having an online forum is not enough to be notable either. How about this source, is it reliable: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html I think not, I see that is a site owned by Eric Dubay as well. A primary source then. I think you may be right sir, this is not a notable thing for being in this Wikipedia article. You should be bold and take that out. If me and you are wrong, someone should show us why. Even if Eric Dubay edited it himself, if he had reliable sources then I'd have to change my mind. Popish Plot (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Eric Dubay is being puffed up by this article. It wasn't his video that converts me into a flat earther either; his video however help clarified some of the misleading information posted by others. I think it is fair to mention why he is a independent flat earther and how his views differs from the other flat earthers since the article is aim towards the history of the flat earth movement. For instance; it would be fair to state why different denominations exist within christian even though they serve the same God. I would love to hear more about difference so i can gain proper judgment in sourcing more information on the subject. Kimerrio (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern flat Earth societies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Archived sources checked, and verified to be working as expected. Chenzw  Talk  17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

discredited language

Without starting a war, there should be language at the top of this article to the effect of "widely discredited idea..." or "scientifically disproved idea"... perhaps not so inflammatory, but this is a lunatic fringe (and usually conspiracy) theory that was debunked thousands of years ago. - superβεεcat  23:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Added "archaic" per the main flat earth article - superβεεcat  23:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. While striving for neutrality; fringe and due weight on the meta level (not just internal to an article) should be considered. I fully support putting this article in the context of its opposition to vast bodies of science, reason, and rational skepticism. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I took out archaic before I saw this- because it is POV. However, I added a picture of the world as a globe so maybe that will do the same work. Otherwise, we can talk about a neutral way to say it is not supported by science, or any other source. Also added that even the Bible doesn't state that the earth is flat. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This whole article is fraught with dissenting language. Clearly written by a round earther. One cannot even edit this page because Wikipedia has banned it in the interest of so called "vandalism." This page is supposed to be about the Flat Earth Society and what they believe. What it ends up as (as the first sentence says) the "misconception" that the Earth is flat is just one example. Another example is the contradictory image showing a earth spherical spinning around. One only has to go to the Wikipedia topic "Spherical Earth" to see no such depiction of a flat Earth that would contradict it. The whole modern Flat Earth Society article is written to clearly try to debunk the information from the society. Clearly one of the worst cases of sabotage that I have ever encountered. Read the modern Flat Earth Society page and then go to the spherical Earth page to see the difference. The spherical Earth page is nothing but opinions and brainwashing into making the reader believe that spherical Earth is the only possible solution. I've donated to the Wikipedia page for some years now. Not anymore. This is not article about modern Flat Earth Society this is a bigoted, narrow-minded attempt at subjugating Williamlee111 (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Tunisian PhD student

May I suggest that we look into removing the sentence about the Tunisian PhD student involved in the scandal regarding the publication of a thesis in which she allegedly claimed that the earth was flat - the sole source for the claim is an article in Gulf News about the subject and it does not appear to have been independently reported by another news organisation. Furthermore I have not been able to find the thesis itself. Apologies if this is not how things are done, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Samthecoy (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Modern flat Earth societies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605065015/http://www.kean.edu/~bregal/docs/Scott.history%20of%20creat.pdf to http://www.kean.edu/~bregal/docs/Scott.history%20of%20creat.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External Links Format

Hello!

I am concerned the current format of the external links is both confusing and not uniform. I am suggesting that they be changed in order and notation as follows:

• The Flat Earth Society of 2004
• The Flat Earth Society of 2013
• The International Flat Earth Research Society

This clearly shows the chronology as well as removes unnecessary and confusing differences between the groups linked as previously was present:

• The International Flat Earth Research Society
• Website of the 2004/9 Flat Earth Society
• Website of the 2013 Flat Earth Society

The format of these links are all different, even though they reference similar entities. Further, the notation 2004/9 is one I have never seen anywhere and is needlessly confusing.

Around all this, there is a Conflict of Interest or an apparent one which can be read about above in the section 'Misleading edits directing visitors to an alternative site'. Since I am associated with one of the groups linked here and so is Apples grow on pines, I am requesting an edit. Further, we need to look into the events above concerning the change of logo, links, etc by Apples grow on pines as it seems clear now that these changes are both in Conflict of Interest as well as are Self Promotion.

WakingJohn (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Partially implemented I don't want to give titles to the websites that they don't necessarily have, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. As a compromise I have retitled the EL's by their URL's. If there was a discussion somewhere which decided on those previous names and that I'm not aware of, my edit may be reverted.

 Needs discussion I've reverted my edit to the external links. The issue requires further discussion before any changes should be made. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

? I noticed the different Societies were labled by year. I'm guessing this is due to their respective dates of organization. Does anyone know for sure? I think if I understand the conventions around the choice of nomenclature I can more easily make the change. For instance, were the names that are used now, 2004/9 Flat Earth Society and 2013 Flat Earth Society, are those names that were arrived at by the groups themselves? Or are they simply delineated by year? If it's a case of simple delineation, then I would be in favor of the changes proposed, making them more easily sorted as The Flat Earth Society of 2004 and The Flat Earth Society of 2013. There is nothing more intimate than an organization's name and I can see how arbitrarily changing it in an external list carries the possibility of making a lot of people upset. So for now, I'm uncomfortable making that change without knowing for sure. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 07:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Declined After doing more research into the matter, I now understand the nomenclature of the two societies. The 2004/9 Flat Earth Society is a hyphenated date referring to two different years when the group is argued to have become active, 2004 and 2009, as explained by Chris55 in an earlier posting here (" You might argue for using 2004, when it appeared on the web, rather than 2009 for the Daniel Shenton organisation."). The hyphenated 2004/9 implying the duality of the date is correct, in that the purpose of the backslash "/" specifies either 2004 or 2009 (2004/2009 would imply the same thing). The alternative, 2004-2009 would imply a duration, while naming it just 2004 might lessen the contributions of the Shenton organization. Thus, the labels as they now stand are the best options, and I see no reason to change them without a clear consensus. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 09:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo , would the appropriate format not then be 2007/2009, as the Shenton organization did not exist in CE 9? Alternately, 2004 seems fine. There is no difference for when it appeared on the web and when it was an organisation. Plain links also make sense. Likewise, our name is The Flat Earth Society, not the Flat Earth Society. The new format would make this clear. As mentioned above, representing the name of the organization accurately is important. WakingJohn (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:WakingJohn. I'm glad that you've admitted your COI, and I hope that your IP edits (User talk:99.127.197.134, User talk:96.38.71.254) will now stop. I'm afraid that your accusations of my connections with one of the groups are entirely misplaced. I can understand the frustration of having your edits reverted, but edit warring and throwing empty accusations around does not help matters. You have, of course, already found the talk page thread where the link format was agreed. I've merely reverted your multiple attempts at circumventing the consensus that we've previously reached. Apples grow on pines (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Apples grow on pines. As I mentioned, I'm happy to request edits or use the connected contributor template, as it will only serve to help the impartiality of this article. Likewise, I'm afraid the consensus earlier did not mention /9 but instead 2004 and 2009 - and I'm not frustrated at all by edits and reversions - they are what make wikipedia great and accurate. I am doing my best here to contribute to that. I'm afraid that you still appear to be an apparent conflict of interest. As explained earlier, User:Apples grow on pines appears to be a member of the 2013 group. Ben (whose name I won't state in full here due to the harassment policy), who serves (served?) as president to the University_of_Southampton_Students'_Union which User:Apples grow on pines has also edited, and is also a longtime member of http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=profile;u=5205 ; This history, coupled with the history above to me shows an apparent or at least a possible conflict of interest. I would appreciate it if you would also request edits. That said, what do you think about changing the date format to 2004 or 2004/2009 as suggested above? Plain links also make sense as were originally suggested by Spintendo . Our name is The Flat Earth Society, not the Flat Earth Society. The new format would make this clear. As mentioned above, representing the name of the organization accurately is important. WakingJohn (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, this format seems to match the previous agreement as well as implements the new changes that are clearly more readable, accurate, and chronological.:

* The Flat Earth Society of 2004/2009

* The Flat Earth Society of 2013

* The International Flat Earth Research Society

To recap, it accurately names each organization, instead of the current inaccurate naming of "The Flat Earth Society" as "Flat Earth Society". It also shows them in a more readable format that clearly notes the agreed upon format, lists them chronologically, and increases readability.

WakingJohn (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

External links

• The Flat Earth Society (2004/2009)
• The Flat Earth Society (2013)
• The International Flat Earth Research Society
• ModernDayFlatEarth.com
• References to The Flat Earth Society by the Library of Congress
• Article on Daniel Shenton

Please advise if this is acceptable. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo  - Seems accurate and readable to me! Thanks for taking a second look at this! WakingJohn (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented as proposed above. If there is consensus as to removing the words Website of..... at the beginning with the dates in parentheses at the end, in favor of using the words ....of 2004/2009 and ....of 2013 at the end without parentheses, please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I've implemented the latter of the two options above, as the other entries did not use that prefix Website of', and ultimately it seems redundant in the EL section. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to add the logo of the 2004/2009 'The Flat Earth Society' to the section 'Relaunch', as the section references both the 2004 and the 2013 'The Flat Earth Society' group. See section above as well for additional information; and the section 'Misleading edits directing visitors to an alternative site'.

The Logo of The Flat Earth Society

WakingJohn (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

* The logo's provenance is required. Neither the photo, nor its caption, delineate with any specificity which of the Societies Flat Earth this logo belongs to: the younger (2013), the elder (2004/2009), or both. Kindly elaborate upon the logo's provenance, including which parties now make claim to its representation, in order to proceed. Also, how and why does it differ from this logo which is now used? Please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Declined I have educated myself again on the status of the logo. What I have learned: The logo that you are proposing to add to the article is the "older" of the two logos. The one displayed now is the "newer" logo. Your proposal to have one replace the other is declined. If your proposal was to have both appended to the article, I will entertain placing it there alongside the other logo if consensus agrees to it. The precedent here is that since both Societies are displayed in the EL section as well as both being mentioned in the article, that it would not be too great of a disruption to have both logos shown. Though at this point I believe an even better solution may be warranted. Just as children who grow up together sleeping in the same room when they are very young, are, by the time they get older — in great need of their own rooms in a family's house — so too, are these Societies needs, to have their own rooms. They have in all liklihood outgrown each other, and the only amicable response may be to afford them their own separate articles. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 01:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo ᔦᔭ, I agree - and this article is already tagged for Authority control. This seems like a separate issue, but I agree its a central and important issue. This may be beyond my reach.

My proposal is to have them side by side, or alternately in each their own subsection. The consensus above appears to agree with this proposal.

As far as the provenance of this logo, it is the logo that, like The Flat Earth Society name, represents the 2004 society. It is on our t-shirts, our website, our print material, our social media, the many interviews we've taken, our membership materials, and more. It identifies us as surely as our name. It differs from the other logo, in that it represents our Society and not theirs. Theirs was, as it appears, based on ours for some reason. So you bring up a good point. The main difference between them are the stars placed on the 2004 logo which have meaning as do, presumably, the different stars on the 2013 logo. Both are trademarks both working in the same market. I am required to say that I can't speak to the validity of the latter trademark though, for as you point out it is hardly different from our logo and their name comes directly from ours and they were aware of this at the time.

Please understand, I'm trying to clean up a mess caused by a second group emerging from our own, and being recognized incorrectly as us migrating to a new domain as evidenced in The Flat Earth Society section of User:Chris55 talk page. I am not trying to get them removed, as while we have our history, they are their own distinct group their own differing beliefs, practices, and so on. My aim is not to remove them from wikipedia no more so than I would try to remove the section on the Canadian Society and Iris Taylor.WakingJohn (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick additional note; I can't help but feel the action to move the page to the new name Modern flat Earth groups was ill founded. A new page should have been made, as the original The Flat Earth Society page referred to Samuel Shenton's group, and we have now lost that as its own unique page. While the 2004 group is entrusted with the Samuel Shenton records for The Flat Earth Society (and we have made many of these available online), it is reasonable enough given the gap in time after Johnson's death (1996-2004) to consider us a separate group (though internally, we still consider ourselves part of the 1956 group. and have used its materials and presence, for example its certificate design in membership up until BoB's induction to the 2004 society.) It seems that any authority control action should take this into consideration. WakingJohn (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No one thinks the Earth is flat, they merely claim to for whatever reason, mostly attention-seeking I'd guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.104.72 (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Resurgence in the era of celebrity and social media" extremely biased.

While reading this section I noticed very biased wording ("...to spread disinformation and attract others to their erroneous ideas..."). I don't think that this is how it should be in an encyclopedia. --MatthewS. (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@MatthewS.:, I've removed the pov tag as you are not being specific enough. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I was very specific actually. I mentioned the specific phrase that I saw to be biased, and because there was no consensus yet on this you shouldn't really have removed the POV tag just yet. I will put it back for now. Please leave it there until we reach an agreement. Thanks. --MatthewS. (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually disagreeing with the statement that social media make it easier for people to "to spread disinformation and attract others to their erroneous ideas." Because I don't see how that is biased, it's just a fact. 19:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

@Doug Weller: Crazy as it may seem that some people still believe in the idea of a flat earth in this day and age, it is still a point of view or belief by some people and assuming that for them to try to spread what they sincerely hold to be true is the same as "spreading disinformation and ... erroneos ideas" sounds very biased in fact. And to be honest with you, I am noticing this trend all over the article and not just this one section. --MatthewS. (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"spreading disinformation and ... erroneos ideas" is not biased, it's based on facts. NPOV doesn't mean we must take every crazy idea like it has some merit; it doesn't matter what some people believe, it's an erroneous idea, it's disinformation, it's pseudoscience, it's not true, our sources agree on this. I see no other way for that to be written, if our goal is being encyclopedic. byteflush _Talk 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Byteflush: It is very biased if you give your own opinion about something, and that is not encyclopedic at all. If the article is discussing flat-earthers, then it should discuss them ****neutrally***. Defining them one way or the other is an opinion, and is absolutely not encyclopedic. It doesn't matter if they're crazy, weird, or whatever you think of them. You could avoid starting a whole article about them in this case. But given the fact that someone on here created a page whose main subject is flat-earthers, then in this case it needs to be very unbiased and neutral, giving both sides of the argument if you need to. But describing your subject with biased descriptions all over the page is not typical of encyclopedias. That's my problem. --MatthewS. (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

We base our content on what reliable sources say. ALL reliable sources say that the idea of a flat earth is nonsense. That gives us the right to say that too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Is someone actually arguing here that Wikipedia needs to take a NPOV wrt flat Earth. OMG. Stop the spinning Frisbee. I need to get off. Seriously, please note, from the “Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Decisions on Pseudoscience” proclamation:

• The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors… when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience":
• Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.
• 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.

See: Template:ArbCom Pseudoscience and also Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans

In other words, in case the meaning is not perfectly clear, MatthewS, pseudoscience does not deserve a neutral POV on Wikipedia. You are simply wrong in your belief that "in this case it needs to be very unbiased and neutral, giving both sides of the argument if you need to." I am deleting the POV banner now. RobP (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Best arguments flat-earthers have?

The article is not very informative, because it does not explain what the best or main arguments for the earth being flat are. A list of the most popular arguments would be needed, together with their NASA-approved ;-) refutations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.97.85 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018

Research '200 Proofs the Earth is Not a Spinning Ball' 2001:8003:1107:A000:811B:48C5:C857:88E8 (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Remove or correct the word 'hypothesis' as this suggests that this could actually be a thing - it cannot, and should be kept where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlleyKat111 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The article now says "Modern flat Earth hypotheses originated with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham..." which seems acceptable. The hypothesis was testable, and was falsified by refinements to the interpretation of the Bedford Level experiment. Seems like a perfectly apt word in this context, without any need for change. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

136.143.213.176 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

the idea being expressed is not a misconception that the flat earthers think the earth is flat. it is an opinion of Wikipedia that it is a misconception and therefore should be changed to indicate that point. like Wikipedia believes that flat earth is a misconception etc.

 Not done: science and facts DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

The modern flat earth societies are intellectual beings. That think and know the truth. Listen to them 71.86.130.106 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No reliable third party source, no detailed proposal for article improvement, no action possible or needed. . dave souza, talk 18:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wired link

please change ((Wired)) to ((Wired (magazine)|Wired)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:e1f2:9be0:eed2:19b3 (talk)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ars Technica examples and update

Falk, Dan (22 March 2019). "Earth is (always has been) round, so why have the flat-out wrong become so lively?". Ars Technica. Retrieved 22 March 2019. may be useful for the Wallace affair, and more recent conspiracy theories. . . dave souza, talk 18:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Prominent members

@Broccoli and Coffee: are there sources that single out these people as indeed prominent members of the community? I'm not very familiar with Flat earthers and haven't heard of these two people, but as far as I've gathered "the community" consists mostly of a bunch of YouTube channels and one-man-show websites which spend much of their time arguing with each other over what the Earth "really" looks like. While these people are obviously more active than those just following them on social media I'm not sure they can be called "prominent". Daß Wölf 20:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: That's definitely a fair question, and I mildly cringe calling them that as well. I watched Behind the Curve last night, and part of the focus is the ego-boost Sargent in particular has as a result of his revered status in the community. He's the main subject in the documentary, in part because of his notoriety within this group (i.e., he was the keynote speaker at their convention; he's one of the most followed YouTube creators in the genre). So, my use of the word prominent here was meant to distinguish Sargent, who is treated like a celebrity in the community, from run-of-the-mill followers. Hopefully that makes sense? Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, fame is especially fleeting in fringe communities, as a person's status usually depends on their current marketability. Sargent does seem to be behind at least some part of the popularity of the Flat Earth fad (e.g. [9]) but I think a descriptive term like "YouTube personality" does just as well without lending a sense of legitimacy and permanence. He may entrench himself as Flat Earth's Däniken, or he might just as easily end up eventually being known mostly as that guy who appeared on that Flat Earth documentary. Daß Wölf 23:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Islamic world

ِA great deal and perhaps the majority of present-day support for Flat Earth theories comes from the Islamic world, where for various reasons people tend to be very receptive to all kinds of conspiracy theories. A lot of Wahhabi scholars have always defended Flat Earth, for example the former Saudi grand mufti Ibn Baz, who didn't absolutely embrace the idea but voiced some inclination to it. In recent years, however, probably pushed in part by the American Flat Earth movements, this idea has spread more and more among the more general public. Amin Sabry is a young Islamic youtuber with over 300,000 followers, who wrote the book "Al-arḍ al-musaṭṭaḥa wal-‘uqūl al-mukawwara" (Flat Earth and spherical minds). In 2017, a PhD thesis was submitted in Tunisia claiming the earth to be flat, which caused huge scandal. This and this are the only good English articles I could find about the discussion. This and this are two Arabic ones. I wish some more information about this could be added to the article to make it less Anglocentric. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.96.64.18 (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

These sources, from a quick glance, are about the PhD thesis itself. What we'd need to discuss the wider movement in the Islamic world would be sources discussing that more broadly. I'd be happy to contribute to writing some content if good sources could be found. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Modern flat Earth societies, not about theories. If you have sources about such a society in the Islamic world, please use them to expand the article. Jonathunder (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

... a worldwide view...

Is there anyone else who thinks the banner above the article is some sort of joke, undeliberately, or catch 22 of sorts? It says "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." So it says on top of many other topics too, but I find this one is particularly hilariously amusing. Flat Earth? Not a worldwide view? awrh.. awrh.. awrh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.219.248.3 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it appears to be a (mildly amusing) prank. Removing it. Jonathunder (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

And I restored the tag. It was added because of the section Islamic world above, and I think that no-one can deny that the article is focused on Britain, the US and Canada. Sjö (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

How does a tag help the article? It certainly doesn't help our readers if they see it as a joke. If you have more to add to the article, do it. Jonathunder (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sjö: @Jonathunder: I added it because it only mentions western societies from a select few countries, such as Canada and America. It was not intended as a joke (although I do admit that the juxtaposition was in hindsight humorous), but rather a serious note that the article does not seem to present a worldwide view of the subject. Perhaps there are only flat Earth societies in a few western countries, but it seemed improbable to me. I'd imagine that there are groups from other countries, although I could be wrong. I added it originally after reading the talk page section on the Islamic world, which got me thinking about why the article only covered one society from the west. I admittedly find the subject somewhat distasteful (I can't believe that people could believe the Earth flat in this day and age) and did not want to research it further, but added the tag in the hopes that someone who knew more than I could add some info. I would motion for the tag to be re-added, but if its just going to be seen as a joke and not a serious banner, perhaps it should stay off. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Hey, everybody, I have just flagged this article for the lack of a neutral POV. This article includes some pretty derogatory language. I don't think it's a Wikipedia editor's business to include his/her opinion in an article. Perhaps the better way would be to quote somebody under a separate "Criticism" section or something like that. Or maybe it shouldn't even go that far. Maybe it should just be a "See Also" section that points to other articles about the opposing view. Note well that I do not agree with Flat Earthers. But reference articles should be neutral, with no derogatory language such as is found here. "Delusion", for example, is a value judgement, not a fact.

PaulSank (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaulSank: new threads belong at the bottom. I agree, delusion was not a good word as Novella used the word belief, and I've changed that. Unless you have other specific issues the tag should be removed. Note that we try to integrate criticism within the article and not in a separate section. Our articles are not meant to be "neutral" in the sense I think you mean, but to follow our WP:NPOV policy. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Doug Weller talk 07:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sounds good to me. I'll remove the tag. PaulSank (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect an old debate, but that tag needs to go back in because the article just isn't neutral enough to meet what could be regarded as acceptable. While it's easy to dismiss this theory as nonsense, I don't think that we should be the ones to force that view on the reader. Instead we should be presenting the evidence in a neutral way and allowing the reader to form their own conclusions. My jaw literally dropped open when I saw an article in what is supposed to be a "scholarly encyclopedia" starting off with describing a "theory" as a "misconception". It's not our place to say it's a misconception. There's enough proof that it's a misconception that merely presenting that proof should be enough to allow a reasonable mind to form the correct conclusion without the need for us to describe it in a derogatory way. That is non-neutral, elitist, and disrespectful to somebody else's pseudo-religious beliefs. Should an encyclopedia tell people what to believe, or should it present facts? I believe the latter is correct (but that's just a theory!). หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@หมีขั้วโลก:I agree, this encyclopedia should present facts, and it certainly does. The fact is that the Earth is spherical, and every single reliable source in existence documents that fact. Per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE we do not print pseudoscience. This debate has been had endless times on Wikipedia, and will not be rehashed. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is not that there is anything factually incorrect, but that the wording used to present the facts is not a neutral POV. It's intended to influence the reader towards one side of the issue. The word "misconception" used in the context that it is used is both unscientific and loaded with bias. I believe the word "theory" would be more appropriate because it is unbiased. There is plenty of room to provide the evidence that the theory is wrong, but to start off the article with words that are intended to influence my opinion before the evidence is presented does not seem the right way to do this stuff. Flat Earth theory is clearly ridiculous, but that should be obvious from the evidence. There's no need for the writers to take a haughty position on the matter with the language they use. It may be that my command of English language is insufficient and therefore this objection is made in error, but for me the tone seems haughty and not scholarly. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Did you even read WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE? Do you even know what the word theory actually means in a scientific context? A theory provides reliable and rigorous knowledge backed up by comprehensive study and experiment; it isn't synonymous with "conjecture" or "hypothesis" and doesn't deliberately blind itself to overwhelming evidence! Call flat-earthism a theory? Absolutely not. It is a misconception, bordering on religious belief. I have no problem changing the word "misconception" to "belief" but it is emphatically not neutral to call it a "theory"; doing so elevates the fringe view to equality with actual science. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Flat Earth Society (disambiguation) Page

 Resolved This talk issue has been resolved and an alternate solution was implemented

I changed the redirect at the top of the page from Flat Earth Society (disambiguation) to Flat Earth (disambiguation). The reason for this is that the larger and more inclusive Flat Earth (disambiguation) page gives the user better options for finding other articles related to flat earth. If this change is accepted, I propose deleting Flat Earth Society (disambiguation). Please discuss if this change and proposal are problematic. Jared.h.wood (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jared.h.wood: The point of {{redirect}} is so that if someone searched "Flat Earth Society" looking for, say, the band and they end up at "Modern flat Earth societies", they can find their intended target at Flat Earth Society (disambiguation). It should not be changed to something more general. However I have changed the {{about}} template to link to Flat Earth (disambiguation), and added its previous target to that disambiguation page. Sound okay to you? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Looks good to me. With the change you made, I question the need for the redirect tag at all. If someone is looking for the band, they will find it on the Flat Earth (disambiguation) page because it is listed there under the Music section. I believe the Flat Earth Society (disambiguation) page is redundant and unnecessary. Jared.h.wood (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to remove it and just leave the {{about}} tag, that's fine with me too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Article name

Can we re-examine the article’s name? The “society” part is now extremely outdated. RobP (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

How so? What would we rename it to? Perhaps the content needs to be re-aligned, and not the title. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 03:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think both. Perhaps rename to “Modern flat-Earth beliefs” and the info on the (historic but no longer extant) “societies” be just one section. RobP (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I support this. Rename the article either "Modern flat Earth belief" or "Modern flat Earth beliefs". 100.1.15.114 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As there have been no negative comments on this suggestion in close to two years, I am going to initiate a page move. RobP (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Flat Earth Searches, Redirects & Disambiguation

​I made some edits to flat earth related pages to help organize user searches for this topic and lead them to the correct flat earth pages but those edits were reverted in good faith. This is an attempt to explain my thinking and gain consensus on how the community would like to organized these pages. These pages exist today:

• Flat Earth - Article about ancient cultures who believed the Earth was flat
• Modern flat Earth beliefs - Article about modern flat Earth believes and societies. To my knowledge, this is the main destination for users looking for information about The Flat Earth Society and unaffiliated flat Earth believers.
• Myth of the flat Earth - Article about the modern misconception that scholars in the middle ages believed the earth was flat.
• Flat Earth (disambiguation) - Main disambiguation page with 17 flat Earth topic link options
• Flat Earth Society (disambiguation) - Used to Redirect to Flat Earth Society. I redirected to Flat Earth (disambiguation). Has not been now reverted.
• Flat Earth Society - Disambiguation page with 2 flat Earth Society topic link options
• Modern flat Earth societies - Redirect to Modern flat Earth beliefs

These are the pages that I know about. If there are others feel free to edit the {{tq2}} above and add them for the benefit of this discussion.

My proposal is as follows:

1. There should be only one disambiguation page, Flat Earth (disambiguation). All other flat Earth titles with (disambiguation) in them should redirect to the main disambiguation page. This way users get the largest about of options on the first try for any flat earth disambiguation search.
2. The Flat Earth Society page should not be a disambiguation page. It does not have (disambiguation) in the title and there is in fact a duplicate of that title that does.
3. The Flat Earth Society page should be a redirect to Modern flat Earth beliefs. I believe it is likely that this is what the user was intending when they chose Flat Earth Society from the search menu. We should take them there in one click instead of two.

My edits and suggestions were and are a good faith attempt to make navigating the Flat Earth topic easier for visiting users. What are your thoughts? JaredHWood💬 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Disambiguation pages should avoid WP:Partial title matches. The 3 entries at disambiguation page Flat Earth Society cannot therefore be included as legitimate entries at Flat Earth (disambiguation). There is a requirement for a disambiguation page for "Flat Earth Society". However, I can see an argument for the term "Flat Earth Society" to redirect to Modern flat Earth beliefs as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and I would therefore support swapping Flat Earth Society with Flat Earth Society (disambiguation) and redirecting the base name as I suggest. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessarily aggressive sentence?

"that promote the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is flat while denying the Earth's sphericity, contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus."

Why does this line seem so aggressive? Should we change it to be a neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.87.247 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not "aggressive". This is a perfect reflection of what all the reliable sources say so it's WP:DUE weight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately reference [3] says nothing about two millennia of consensus, or even two centuries. If your claimed reliable sources exist you need to use them.

The first physical representation of Earth as a globe was constructed in 1492 by a German geographer, in the same year that Columbus attempted a Western route to India as an alternative to the customary Eastern route. The circumnavigations of the globe by Magellan and Drake came later. Prior to the 15th century the scientific consensus was in agreement with the notion in Isaiah 11:12 of "the four corners of the Earth", which today we take merely as a figure of speech.

(More shocking is the fact that scientific consensus as to the discrete nature of matter did not exist until the beginning of the 20th century. During the 19th century belief in atoms was confined to a few like Maxwell, Boltzmann, Reynolds, etc.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence is WP:POV and WP:SYNTH. I am removing the negative editorial views declared in WP:WIKIVOICE. While it is true that flat earth beliefs are erroneous and are pseudoscience, we cannot state that unless a WP:RS specifically makes such a statement. Please discuss here and provide such a source before reverting my edit. JaredHWood💬 17:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

After carefully reviewing WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE I wanted to find a way to clearly state that Flat Earth beliefs are pseudoscience because of this guideline: The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. So I went searching for a couple of sources and added a clear pseudoscience statement into the second sentence of the lead. I did my best to balance WP:NPOV WP:DUE and WP:PSCI. Please improve if you can. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 05:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

Change "contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus." to "contrary to fact." The first suggests that it is somehow a debatable topic that the earth is round, which is wrong. 50.30.176.22 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request Regarding Mike Hughes Section

This article states: "Mike Hughes, a daredevil and flat-Earth conspiracy theorist" and "The amateur rocketeer was not seriously injured and remained firm in his flat Earth beliefs."

Firstly, in this second quote 'flat Earth' should have a hyphen (like this: "The amateur rocketeer was not seriously injured and remained firm in his flat-Earth beliefs.").

Secondly, another sentence should be added to clarify that his beliefs may not have been genuine, as, after his death, Mike Hughes' publicist stated that Hughes' beliefs were falsified as a PR stunt. See "A Daredevil Flat-Earther Died After Attempting To Launch Himself 5,000 Feet With A Homemade Rocket" from Buzzfeed News, "Death of rocket man ‘Mad Mike’ Hughes ends years of close calls" from Los Angeles Times, and "Mike Hughes, 64, D.I.Y. Daredevil, Is Killed in Rocket Crash" from The New York Times.

Suggested Wording for Edit With Citations:

After Hughes' death, his belief in a flat-Earth was brought into question, as, Darren Shuster, his public relations representative, stated that the "flat Earth thing … was a PR stunt we dreamed up". "Flat Earth allowed us to get so much publicity that we kept going! I know he didn’t believe in flat Earth and it was a schtick."

References

(I've never done this before but I don't think consensus is needed because this is an addition? I spotted this error and just wanted to help out, I hope it's enough.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.53.242 (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Good suggestion. I added a similar passage to what you suggested. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No statistics

I found this and there are other sources on statistics regarding this topic. Why isn’t it mentioned in the article?CycoMa1 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request - Forbes Article sourced in introduction

The final sentence of the intro to this article states: "According to Forbes in 2018, two-thirds of millennials in America believe the earth is flat.[10]" This is inaccurate- the Forbes article actually states that 66% of millennials agree with the statement "I have always believed that the earth is round." I propose the following rewrite: "According to a YouGov survey reported by Forbes in 2018, only two-thirds of adults aged 18-24 in America have "always believed that the Earth is round.[10]" SunsetShotguns (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've removed this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TooLegend, Monsterlaser.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Eric Dubay

Curious why not a single mention of Eric Dubay, the #1 guy behind Flat Earth today? Rosengarten Zu Worms (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not neutral point of view.

I believe that the earth is round, yes, but people do believe that it is flat. I don't think this is neutral because it denies that the earth is flat and says flat earth is pseudoscience, which many people would disagree with. So that's not neutral. Krystal Kalb (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any articles from peer reviewed publications that suggest there is physical evidence to promote doubt on the earths sphericity? Saying “many people” is not close to being good enough. Also, you seem to misunderstand the neutrality guideline in relation to Wikipedia, I suggest you read up on this. Sadke4 (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

One issue with the article is the extensive section on Effects of and empirical evidence for spherical shape, currently almost half the article. I find many of these persuasive cases for a round Earth, but for them to be contained in an article titled "Modern flat Earth beliefs" they either need to contain what flat-Earthers say in response to these points or be in a different article.14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:12D:C831:9DD1:28A0 (talk)

Bonjour. Please check out the set of the empirical proofs: some of them come from ancient Greece and thus, have been peer-reviewed by historians. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Flat Earth Bias

As a respectable Hollow Earth Scientist I find this article a bit two-dimensional and with a heavy pro-flatearth bias. I know that there is another article about Hollow Earth but could I still edit it and fill this article with some real science to confront this flat earth nonsense from a solid, hollow earth positions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.248.38 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour. A set of empiric evidence for Earth's sphere-likeness has been added (or, tbh, moved). 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

One more empiric evidence

Trivia: There are big forest parks in Moscow with 16+story hi-rises near them.

What happens: an inhabitant of a room with south-east view on floor 12 or higher can experience sunlight spots every morning minutes before seeing even tiniest slice of the Sun. The effect is most prominent in the winter.

How it looks: it is possible to see a sunlit ceiling near east or south-east windows on higher floors in a hi-rise near a large forest park in the city of Moscow. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

One tiny fly in the ointment

Inasmuch as this article is cross-referenced by an article on 'Denialism', it is problematic.

Because, unfortunately, in every-day experience, and for very nearly all practical purposes ... the world is indeed 'flat'. Uh-oh.

Do architects pre-occupy themselves with the reality that the rectangular footprint of the building they design will not, in fact, sit on a perfectly 'flat' area of the Earth (ignoring site levelling, for argument's sake)? I think not. For all practical purposes they can, and do, allow themselves the convenience that follows from treating the area of Earth of interest as essentially flat. Similarly airlines can operate as though the world is flat.

Perhaps a distinction is needed between 'flat' and 'round'. The imprecision of the English language being the only real problem. The Earth is at once both flat, and round. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. Only very particular interpretations of the two words are.

122.151.210.84 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

You haven't backed up any of your statements with evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Cite credible sources. Also please read WP:FORUM. Sadke4 (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessary. Special Contributor is engaging in sophistry, viz, arguing from concept 1 (random plot of land) to concept 2 (Planet Tellus) both covered by the term "earth", i.e. ambiguity. Furthermore it is argued that any random plot of land is flat, which would create great dismay among rock climbers and slalom skiers, having their hobbies based on delusions of heightness; i.e. a falsehood, or untrue premiss. T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

yes architects take the curve of the Earth into account when building bridges. Go measure a large bridge and you will be able to find the tips of the towers are farther apart than the base because of the distortion inherent to a globe. It's not need for regular buildings with small footprints though cause the difference is too small and is often just adjusted for in construction methods. IRMacGuyver (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

In these five bits:

idea that the earth was flat and immovable
ridiculous claims about flat earth and therefore discredit the flat earth movement
Flat earth believers in the documentary
the flat earth conspiracy argues that a shadowy
group and promotes flat earth ideologies

Please change "earth" to "Earth". There are 280 appearances of this word before the references, and except for a few spots where another author is quoted, all of the other 274 use "Earth". 175.39.61.121 (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)