Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 7

“Thinking” vs “Thought”
User:Deacon Vorbis prefers the text In early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thinking, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, over In early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, by reason of, “According to multiple dictionaries, yes, they're synonyms, and it's definitely less awkward with "thinking"”. This is wrong on both accounts. First, awkwardness is, apparently, in the mind of the reader, and in this reader’s mind, “thinking” is definitely more awkward. So let us discard that reason. The first reason, that “thinking” is synonymous with “thought”, is a fallacy. It is true that there are several definitions by which the two are synonymous. However, the specific definition in play here for “thought” has no parallel in thinking: “The formation of opinions, especially as a philosophy or system of ideas, or the opinions so formed: the traditions of Western thought”, (New Oxford American Dictionary, and any other dictionary that ever existed). The example provided in the dictionary is exactly the usage we have in the article. It means the deep, collective intellectual zeitgeist of a group, in a way that thinking does not, particularly. Apparently User:Deacon Vorbis is unaware of this usage. I have reverted the change. Strebe (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very clearly explained. I was thinking of posting here but whatever I said probably would not have been nearly as clear as yours! Doug Weller  talk 13:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "cosmology" would be a better word than either, as what we're really getting at is the specific schools of thought regarding the order of the universe/plant and astral bodies, not just thought in general. Cosmology is the term used in the parent article as well, correct?12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As if it needed to be said that the Earth isn't flat
Do the readers need to be told that the consensus of experts today is that the Earth is not flat? (Even the flat-Earthers must agree that the scientists call it pseudoscience.) But I will not complain about saying so. But is there any point of repeating that? It is in the lede. Is that not enough? But I will not make an edit war about the redundant statements about what is perhaps paradigmatic of the obvious in the first place. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The lead is just a summary, and it's customary to reiterate points in more detail later. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ideas are best understood in context. Explaining the nuance of competing theories, especially when they are desperately unbalanced (i.e. near universal understanding of Earth as NOT being flat), is important to give a comprehensive placement to the idea. It's no just the idea, it's the connection to historical and modern movements and the context they fall in that is important. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Flat earth big in the NBA
Shaquille O´Neal being a big proponent... http://www.newser.com/story/240022/shaquille-oneal-is-a-flat-earther.html Is that worthy of an update to the page. (I admit, I had to throw up)148.188.1.60 (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Matthias


 * You have to understand that many of these guys, notably Shaq, are doing it to get a rise out of people and not because they believe it. Satire is alive and well on Twitter simply to get more followers... Ckruschke (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I don't think the topic of modern flat earth belief is well served by updating this article for every celebrity who sparks a frivolous controversy by publicly espousing the belief. I'm not going to speculate on Shaq's motives in particular, but I certainly question the robustness of the belief. When faced with a life-or-death situation that dictated different actions depending on whether the earth is flat or spherical, would these modern flat-earthers really act on that belief? These public proclamations are a fad. They may or may not meet WP:NOTABLE criteria, but even if so, I think they're firmly marginal in that they don't contribute to understanding the topic. If something scholarly turns up concerning these modern public outbursts, I'd definitely support citing that. Strebe (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree; "they don't contribute to an understanding of the topic." The section is (or rather, was) simply a directory of notable people said to have claimed belief in a flat earth. That might be of interest in their articles, but it's what one might call "mere fact", offering no illumination of the belief itself. And I agree that a sound scholarly analysis or interpretation of the same trivia would be quite another matter, and well worth adding to the article. Haploidavey (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Indian texts
Why are you removing sources and sourced content? If you wish to reword a part, you may. But deleting WP:RS and content is inappropriate. Have you checked Pingree? The old version misrepresents what he states. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Title
Why is the article entitled Flat Earth, and not Flat Earth model, or something similar, as in the first sentence? The article isn't about an Earth that is actually flat, but rather the belief that it is flat. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Tunisian PhD thesis endorsing a flat earth
See. Dreadful that this has gotten as far as it did, and that it was approved by senior academics. However, it's now been rejected. Doug Weller  talk 11:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The following is interesting from the same source...
 * Quote:
 * "In this particular case, I believe this was due to an adherence to religious, scriptural literalism, in other words taking the meanings of religious texts literally and blindly, at the cost of rejecting all knowledge that appears to contradict it, no matter how much evidence supports it.
 * "Indeed, we find in the conclusions of the thesis clear indications of this stand and approach, expressions such as: “using physical and religious arguments”, “also proving the world scale of [Noah’s] flood”, “proposed a new kinematic approach that conforms to the verses of the Quran”, “the roles of the stars are: (1) to be ornaments of the sky; (2) to stone the devils; and (3) as signs to guide creatures in the darkness of earth”; and finally “the geo-centric model... accords with the verses of the Quran and the pronouncements of our Prophet.”
 * They should have considered awarding the Tunisian student a PhD in theology, not physics/astronomy! I wonder if a sentence or two in this article is worth a mention. May be not, per WP:FRINGE, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Modern flat-earth theories in the lede
Concerning this change, I don't strongly disagree with ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador 's most recent edit. I agree the current text (the later edit in the diff) is a little abrupt, but I don't think abruptness is relevant in the lede, where each paragraph is expected to encapsulate a different aspect of the subject. My concern with ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador 's edit is that it implies continuity in flat-earth belief into modern times. There is no such continuity. These modern flat-earthers are largely isolated individuals who start up a "movement", collect a few adherents if they are lucky, and then fade back into obscurity. Hence I prefer the text as reverted to by User:Deacon Vorbis. Strebe (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer the simple direct statement in the Deacon's reversion. I also believe that this article would be more informative saying something like "some are serious, some not" as seen in the lead sentence of Modern flat Earth societies. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Fringe
In my oppinion, this edit violates WP:Fringe. I won't revert it, as this would violate WP:3RR for me, therefor I put it up for discussion if this should stay. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Already taken care of. Assuming the IP editor is also Giphted, he's already passed 3RR, among other things.  I'm usually too lazy to report these things, though.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Evidence put forth by Flat Earth believers in support of Flat Earth
1 The horizon always appears completely flat 360 degrees to the observer, regardless of how high you go up. Any curvature you think you see is from curved airplane windows or Go Pro cameras and fisheye lenses (which NASA loves to use). The reality is that the horizon never curves because we are on an endless plane. On a globe with 25,000 miles in circumference you would see a noticeable disappearance of objects the further they are as they would be leaning away from you and dropping below the constantly curving horizon. Completely flat horizon from the stratosphere:

2 The horizon always rises to meet your eye level never no matter how high in altitude you go. Even at 20 miles up the horizon rises to meet the observer/camera. This is only physically possible if the earth is a huge "endless" flat plane. If Earth were a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer/camera would have to tilt downward, looking down further and further to see it

3 The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant spinning sphere tilting and hurling through space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. There would be a massive bulge of water in the oceans because of the curvature of the earth. If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different! But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. The water remains flat because the earth is flat!

4 If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

5 The sun is much closer than we have been told. It is, in fact, in our atmosphere. You can clearly see that it is not 93 million miles away. Many times you can see the sun's rays shooting out of a cloud forming a triangle. If you follow the rays to their source it will always lead to a place above the clouds. If the sun was truly millions of miles away, all the rays would come in at a straight angle. Also the sun can be seen directly above clouds in some balloon photos, creating a hot spot on the clouds below it and in other photos you can clearly see the clouds dispersing directly underneath the close small sun.

6 If we were living on a spinning globe airplane's would constantly have to dip their noses down every few minutes to compensate for the curvature of the earth (with a circumference of 25,000 miles the earth would be constantly curving at the speed of an airplane). In reality however, they never do this! They learn how to fly based on a level flat plane. Also if the earth was spinning the airplane's going west would get to their destination much faster since the earth is spinning in the opposite direction. If the atmosphere is spinning with the earth then airplane's flying west would have to fly faster than the earth's spin to reach its destination. In reality, the earth is flat and airplane's just fly level and reach their destination easily because the earth is not moving. Planes Could Not Land if Earth was Moving or Spinning

7 The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct

8 The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model

9 If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction. If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.

10 Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans. If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, more so the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.

I proposed that we include the ten "evidence" and their debunking into the article for Flat Earth. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Why would you hide this persons response and put it as "apologia"? This is censorship. This is an entry about the flat earth or round earth? If you want to censor it, then do so under the wikipedia entry "the earth is round". This page should be sourcing flat earth sources and books as there are many. Wikipedia isn't a place to push POV it is an unbiased place to source content.(talk) 09:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Partial facts in current lead (as of Friday the 13th)
"Indians believed earth is flat till Gupta period." Well, it was just a portion of the population. In that period most of the people believed earth is sphere. The lead should be updated reflecting that there was both the views present. — usernamekiran (talk)  20:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Who believed it was a sphere? Where is your source? Vedic astronomy was flat earth cosmology!! Did you live in India 1000 years ago? 20:25 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Middle East, websites
Wiqi55: Websites, blogs and personal translations are questionable sources and not acceptable. Instead of stating in edit comment "Ibn Hazm's statement is well known and can be supported with sources" but not providing those sources, please find and cite those "can be supported with sources" with page numbers. Please do not add websites/blogs back to this article. I would welcome the same content if it is supported by RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

“Ancient”
I think we need to do something about this term. It is strewn all over the section titles without regard to the periods under discussion.

Beyond just that, the discussions themselves freely mix vast spans of time. Presently in South India we have material from the Rigveda, the origins of which are truly ancient, juxtaposed with material from Aryabhata, from India’s Classical period, some from even later Indian Medieval, and everything in between. Cultural exchanges that were very unlikely in earlier periods were, conversely, highly likely in later periods; likewise indigenous developments. A reader would be mightily confused by this narrative.

I understand that the South Asia section, in particular, is under considerable flux (and usually is), but it is not the only mess. Temporal compression and mixing is rife. Cultures exist in parallel. Cultures exchange ideas. Coherently representing the modern understanding of what really happened is going to be hard in a single, linear text. Can we please brainstorm on solving this problem? I don't think that haphazardly pulling in references is working. A cohesive narrative is, itself, a scholarly matter. That suggests we resort to scholars who address the whole narrative, rather than just factoids. I don't know who those scholars are. I do think we should be looking harder. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much agree. In fact I think the structure of the article is quite inadequate. It shouldn't treat cosmographies by geographic or cultural areas, it should simply cover the "ancient" cosmographies, all of which assumed a flat earth, then the origins of the spherical earth theory, and then its slow acceptance around the world (and it was very slow, with flat earth lingering in China into the 18th century and in Southeast Asia even longer). PiCo (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "ancient" is indeed inappropriate in this article in some places. Do we need it in section titles? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. PiCo (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Avoiding edit war
It's best to avoid edit warring. Sarah, please explain here why you think your edit is better. PiCo (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Same applies to you. See above. There is no need to start multiple sections about the same topic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: It's not the same topic, Sarah, we're talking here about avoiding an edit war over a specific edit. I'm sorry I was pressed for time earlier and didn't set out the topic. This is what we're talking about: Sarah, on another matter, I think you need to consider whether you might be too emotionally involved with this article - you're showing a distinct "ownership" of it, which is not good. Take a step back and approach it as if you'd never seen it before. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I made an edit to the section on South Asia, replacing one unsourced sentence with a sourced one and deleting a sentence that was sourced but not unequivocally supported by those sources.
 * Sarah, you've put a new initial sentence there, but it's still inadequate. It says: "The Vedic texts depict the cosmos in many ways, including as a sphere." True, but only a partial truth - it privileges the spherical references over the non-spherical ones, and it fails to alert readers that the flat-earth view is older and the spherical view developed later under Greek influence.
 * So, this sentence needs to be replaced with the material from Plofker saying that the earliest texts depict a flat earth, and from Williams and Knudsen saying that the spherical earth idea in the later texts comes after contact with the Greeks.


 * PiCo: See above. Plofker was already summarized in the para that followed the quote, and there was no need to repeat it. You just deleted it.


 * The earliest full depiction of cosmological systems for calendric computations is the Puranas-genre of Indian texts. According to Kim Plofker, these present a nonspherical model for earth and these probably date from early 1st millennium.[72] According to Jonathan Edelmann, there are alternate models for earth's shape in the Puranas, including the gola (spherical).[73]


 * Strange. Should we embed quotes for [72] and [73] too? On rest, all I have done recently is to embed quotes/excerpts to make it easier to verify. Perhaps, it is you who is emotionally involved in this subject and is showing WP:OWN? It may be time for you to take a step back and reflect whether you have a preset view that is affecting how you read the sources and your eagerness to delete sources and embedded quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the deleted passage is needed. More to the point, the section is getting well off-topic - this is an article about "flat earth", not about Indian cosmology. PiCo (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, your most recent edits have made the section way too long and obscured the essential fact, which is that the earliest Indian cosmography was a flat earth. I'll fix it in later. PiCo (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PiCo: sorry, you are mistaken (see the various responses in the thread of our discussion above). A deletion of sources, embedded quotes, etc wouldn't be acceptable because that would neither reflect the sides described in the sources nor respect our NPOV guidelines. Please also see the rest of this article, their lengths and what they summarize. The article would be better if the South Asia, East Asia, Greece etc sections have the same scope, follow a consistent style. See my invitation for a compromise proposal suggested a while ago, in the section above. Let us continue our discussion there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

South Asia

 * I am surprised with your strange declaration that Herman Wayne Tull, David Pingree etc are unreliable scholars or what they wrote is non-RS. Please discuss your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * PiCo didn’t delete Pingree; you are mistaken there. I agree with PiCo that Richard L. Thompson is not a reliable source. His book is not peer-reviewed. I cannot find any research on this topic by Thompson that went through peer review, and some claims made in his work border on supernatural and motivated interpretations. Nor can I find any WP:RELIABLE scholar who has written a review of Thompson’s book. Herman Wayne Tull, on the other hand, has status as a scholar. His field is religion, though, not cosmology (unlike Pingree). It’s not clear if experts would take the excerpted statement seriously. A better source needs to be found, but one likely doesn’t exist, which is why this topic sees so much churn. Strebe (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strebe: There are three sources there. The ancient texts are Sanskrit texts, and their scholarly translations on the shape of earth is WP:RS. Pingree was not a cosmologist either, he is recognized as a Math History scholar! Pingree too is relevant here, because the shape of the earth went into their time-predicting math for Vedic rituals! It is in several texts, particularly their Aranyakas. The reliable sources here would be those scholars with peer reviewed publications relating to Sanskrit / Vedic literature. I will look into Richard Thompson, review that source. But there are more sources on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure why you’re still going on about Pingree. We all seem to agree that he’s reliable. As for Vedic literature, there is none in the strict sense. Vedic India has no texts and no indication of literacy; texts of ancient origin were transmitted by oral tradition and probably were not recorded until 600 years after contact with Alexander and the end of the Vedic period. Translations may be perfectly accurate but still represent later influences, making it very difficult to say anything certain about what was believed during Vedic and even much later times. The earliest extant renditions are from 2300 1300 years after the end of the Vedic period. One cannot simply take a translation in isolation and claim it means something definite about what the ancients believed. This is why scholars build careers on textual analysis. Strebe (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strebe: Allow me to ignore your personal opinions and forum-y discussion / lecture. You are mistaken in more ways than one, but I respect your right to believe in whatever you wish. I have taken out Thompson, even though I did find it cited and "suggested reading" in a peer reviewed book published by Columbia University Press, fwiw. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, thank you for removing Thompson, but your replacement Helaine Selin is also unreliable - "an American librarian, author and the editor of several bestselling books," it seems, not a Sanskritist. I doubt, however, that she's the source you mean to cite - the work you mention is an encyclopedia, and you need the name of the article author, not the book editor. The article is called "Astronomy in India", and is by a K.V. Sarma - I have doubts about his reliability. To be reliable a source (meaning an author) needs to be a Sanskritist, and needs to be cited by other specialists in the field. That's where Sarma fails.
 * The fact is that ancient Indians, like everyone else, thought the world was flat. To get that we use reliable sources like this one published by Routledge: "Medieval Science, Technology and Medicine."
 * There's also this source saying that the earliest Indian cosmology is non-spherical.
 * What Pingree is saying, incidentally, is that the Indians adopted the idea of a spherical earth from the Greeks. That's fine, but we need to be clear on this.PiCo (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

PiCo: Please avoid this strange "The fact is that ancient....", or "I have doubts....". It just comes across as your personal wisdom / prejudice / POV being pushed without sources. Let us stick with the sources, and strive for NPOV. You state Sanskritist+cited by others. But then go on and link Williams and Knudsen, plus doubt K.V. Sarma! Have you really checked their background? Reread Williams and Knudsen... fwiw, on page 465, they cite K.V. Sarma. So K.V. Sarma source is fine, according to a source you recommend. An encyclopedia is a tertiary RS, and one published by a reputable publisher is good enough for wikipedia purposes (far better than the unsourced, or personal translations, or the sources in other sections which I hope you or someone would also check). Kim Plofker is a fine source, thank you. I have a copy on my shelf. Again, please read that chapter around page 52, where she is discussing the calendar system in the context of the earliest Indian texts of the Purana genre. Now read the summary we have, it says the same thing in the early Purana's context. We shouldn't interpret what Plofker writes outside of the context of her discussion. Context matters. On Pingree, please see his context and the ideas that medieval Indians did adopt, in his view. Does he say, ancient Indian texts demonstrate that no one ever speculated on spherical earth there, in addition to other shapes? Which page numbers? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this discussion but let me raise two points.
 * You stated "There are three sources there. The ancient texts are Sanskrit texts, and their scholarly translations on the shape of earth is WP:RS." This is a ticklish problem but ancient texts are not reliable sources, because of Wikipedia policy on how primary sources can lead to Original Research: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation".
 * You then continued that "Pingree was not a cosmologist". Yes, he wasn't a student of modern cosmology, but he was a leading historian of ancient astronomy and mathematics, with an expertise in Sanscrit and a historical focus on the Indian subcontinent (Kim Plofker, whom you cite, was one of his students). Pingree's specialization is directly relevant to this discussion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SteveMcCluskey: None of those three sources are ancient texts WP:Primary! One is a book published by State University of New York Press. Another a journal published by Cambridge University Press. I have added two more, one published by Stanford University Press and another by Springer. There are more. The use of primary sources is a problem elsewhere in this article, not South Asia. We did not remove Pingree. Plofker has a condensed review of different scholarly views on pages 116-120 of her book, which deserves a summary in the medieval era related discussion of this article. I would welcome additional summary from Plofker and others by you or someone. What do you think of the sources in other sections? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The article needs to say that the earliest Indian sources have a flat-earth cosmology, and that some post-Greek sources seem to have picked up the idea of a spherical earth from the Greeks. That would be in keeping with our sources. PiCo (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No. That is not what the sources are stating. The RS are summarized appropriately and per NPOV guidelines... the earliest Indian sources mention multiple theories. I have already embedded quotes from multiple RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry Sarah but our sources say quite clearly that the earliest Indian cosmology had a flat earth. I propose we replace the existing section with the following (sources as given):
 * The earliest Indian cosmological texts (the Puranas) emerged no later than the early first millennium AD.(Plofker, Mathematics in India, p.52). These picture the cosmos as a stack of flat circular disks, with the earth-disk in the centre.[Same source]. At the centre of the earth in turn is a huge mountain, Mount Meru, pointed towards the Pole Star, with the stars and planets circling around its peak.(Williams and Knudsen, page 463.) By the 5th/6th centuries AD astronomers had begun to adopt the Greek idea of planets revolving around a central spherical earth, but for religious reasons, and also because of its popular acceptance, they attempted to synthesise this with the older picture.[Same source].
 * I don't think pages 116-120 of Plofker's book are much use to us - perhaps you can specify which parts you think are important?
 * I'd like to open this proposal for comments. PiCo (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

PiCo: That is tendentious misrepresentation of the sources and refusal to respect NPOV policy, given what is in Plofker and given the other cited and quoted scholarly sources published by reputable university presses! Please note that voting would not allow you to exempt this or any other wikipedia article from core content policies and guidelines. We can take this all the way to ARB, through the due dispute resolution boards etc process, if you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, you need to engage in the conversation, not walk away from it. The suggested edit does use Plofker, and follows him quite closely. What exactly do you object to? (Incidentally, it's not presses that are reliable sources, it's authors). PiCo (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * PiCo: Presses are important because of their author selection process, oversight and peer review process. Give me a day, I will add a brief summary from Kim Plofker and Yukio Ohashi on this. DRN etc process is not walking away from it!, that is committing to the long walk. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're not walking away from the chance for discussion :). Since you're online, could you very briefly tell me what you don't like about the passage from Plofker where he says (a) the Puranas are the earliest Indian cosmological texts; (b) they emerged no later than the early 1st millennium AD; and (c), they picture the cosmos as a stack of flat circular disks with the earth-disk in the centre? Here's link again. It seems quite clear to me, and I think it should be the lead in our section. PiCo (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Plofker is a she! One of things I don't like about your suggestion is that it violates our NPOV policy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, it's not enough to keep repeating that the use of Plofker "violates our NPOV policy," you need to explain. What's wrong with Plofker in your view?PiCo (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * PiCo: Please read WP:NPOV and then what I wrote above. It is your suggestion that violates NPOV policy. I never said, the "use of Plofker violates our NPOV policy". The article already cites Plofker! Please do not misquote me. I should neither need to repeat myself nor explain you wikipedia policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, I gather you think the passage from Plofker violates the NPOV policy, but you haven't said why. I'll repeat here for convenience that Plofker says the Puranas are the earliest Indian cosmological texts and they picture a flat earth as one of a stack of flat disks. I'll ask again: why do you think this violates the NPOV policy? PiCo (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * PiCo: What is it in the "(...) Indian sources mention multiple theories" or "don't take sides, explain sides without bias" you find confusing? For more specifics, please see the links and my answers above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, the Indian sources that mention multiple theories date from after contact with the Greeks. Williams and Knudsen make that clear. PiCo (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

PiCo: No. We already went over this source. See my comments above. The Glick et al edited book is on Routledge Revivals: Medieval Science..., in which Williams and Knudsen discuss theories in medieval South Asia. For the period earlier than what they cover, there are other sources. Williams and Knudsen cite KV Sarma on page 465. KV Sarma does summarize the multiple theories in pre-Greek era in South Asia. We already summarize KV Sarma side in this article and others, please see this section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ms Sarah Welch, let's take this step by step. The section on South Asia currently starts out with this: "In ancient India, some theories described the Earth as a disc. Others described it as spherical.[66][67]"
 * This doesn't reflect what the sources say. The first sentence needs to be from Plofker: "The earliest Indian cosmological texts picture the earth as one of a stack of flat disks."
 * The second sentence ("Others described it as spherical) has two sources but misuses them. The first source is Tull's "The Cosmos as Man", pp. 47-52. There Tull discusses the "cosmic man" concept in the Rgveda. He says that the Rgveda has tow conceptions of the cosmos, one of two parts, heavens and earth, and one of three, heavens, earth and atmosphere. At one point he calls these parts "spheres", but it's obvious he's using the word as a synonym for regions - a "tripartite cosmic image", a cosmos in three parts. On page 48 he talks about the way this three-part cosmos is supplanted by a five-part cosmos in the Satapatha Brahmana, created by adding two more regions between two of the three "spheres" of the older cosmos. In other words, these "spheres" are regions, just as they were in Babylonian and later Biblical cosmology.
 * The second source is a journal article from 1906 that I can't verify. I think, though, that it's talking about a passage in the Aitareya Brahmana, and our Wiki article makes clear that (quote), "the verse cannot be conclusively taken as an evidence of the author's recognition of the earth as a sphere."
 * So, that sentence needs to be deleted and replaced with this one (or something similar): "By the 5th/6th centuries AD astronomers had begun to adopt the Greek idea of planets revolving around a central spherical earth, but for religious reasons, and also because of its popular acceptance, they attempted to synthesise this with the older picture.[Williams and Knudsen, page 463.[[User:PiCo|PiCo]] (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * PiCo: Tull is discussing many things. You probably missed the part where he mentions the depiction of cosmos and the shape of earth in Vedic texts. I will embed a quote. Not just Tull states so, KV Sarma and other sources do too. So these sources and what they state stays. We can't accept your OR or interpretations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, I don't find your arguments convincing. I've replaced that unsourced first sentence with a sourced sentence, and deleted the second as inadequately sourced (meaning the cited sources don't support it). PiCo (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, I've reverted your edit because it replaced a few sentences which were better. Also, you're misreading Tull - he's using "spheres" as a synonym for regions or zones, not as geometric shapes. PiCo (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it is you who is misreading Tull, Plofker and other sources. You should not remove the embedded quotes and sources. I do not find your arguments convincing, and your attempts to mix medieval era Puranic theories as Vedic as WP:TE and disruptive. There is also no need to repeat Plofker. You are welcome to try DRN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The 1906 journal article, A remarkable Vedic Theory about Sunrise and Sunset, by J.S. Speyer is available from JSTOR. You can get free online access to it by setting up a JSTOR account—also free.
 * You're right that the article discusses a passage from the Aitareya Brahmana, for which it proposes an explanation. Nowhere in the article does Speyer say or imply that any ancient Indian theory held the Earth to be spherical. In fact, the explanation he proposes for the passage in question would not make much sense unless he thought that the author of the passage believed the Earth to be flat (although Speyer doesn't say this explicitly).
 * On the other hand, neither is Speyer's article suitable as support for the statement "… the earliest Indian cosmological texts picture the earth as one of a stack of flat disks" which its citation is currently attached to in this Wikipedia article.
 * The passage from the Aitareya Brahmana for which Speyer's article proposes an explanation is the following, which I quote from Martin Haug's 1863 translation, Vol.II, p.242:


 * "The sun does never set nor rise. When people think the sun is setting (it is not so). For after having arrived at the end of the day it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making night to what is below and day to what is on the other side.
 * When they believe it rises in the morning (this supposed rising is thus to be accounted for). Having reached the end of the night, it makes itself produce two opposite effects, making day to what is below and night to what is on the other side.24 In fact the sun never sets.
 * 24 This passage is of considerable interest, containing the denial of the existence of sunrise and sunset. The author ascribes a daily course to the sun, but supposes it to remain always in its high position in the sky, making sunrise and sunset by means of its own contrarieties."
 * 24 This passage is of considerable interest, containing the denial of the existence of sunrise and sunset. The author ascribes a daily course to the sun, but supposes it to remain always in its high position in the sky, making sunrise and sunset by means of its own contrarieties."
 * 24 This passage is of considerable interest, containing the denial of the existence of sunrise and sunset. The author ascribes a daily course to the sun, but supposes it to remain always in its high position in the sky, making sunrise and sunset by means of its own contrarieties."


 * Speyer's explanation is that the author of the text believed the Sun to have a bright side and a dark side. During the daytime  it supposedly moved from east to west across the sky with its bright side facing the Earth, and during the night time it moved from west to east across the sky with its dark side facing the Earth. Rather than setting at the end of the day, it merely turned over so that its dark side would face the Earth and its bright side would face the sky.  Similarly, rather than rising at the beginning of the day it again merely turned over so that its bright side was once more facing the Earth and its dark side was facing the sky.   If this proposed explanation is correct, it would rather tend to  suggest—as does Haug's footnote quoted above—that the author of this passage, at least, believed the Earth to be flat, without, of course, necessarily implying anything about what the rest of the Vedas might have to say on the matter.
 * Unbeknownst, apparently, to Speyer, Henry White Wallis had already given an essentially identical interpretation of this passage (which he seems to consider self-evident) in his essay, The Cosmology of the Rig Veda, (on p.117) published in 1887.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed! If you have time,, it would be great if you would revise the section. Please see the style and scope of other sections. I suggest that all the sections be consistent in their scope, coverage, and style assuming good quality RS are available to do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Compromise proposals
PiCo: I am open to suggestions that would summarize the multiple sources fairly, without bias and better. On Plofker, please note that page 52 starts a section titled, "Cosmology and time in the Puranas." That is what Plofker is discussing there, and it is inappropriate to interpret more than or less than what she is stating in that section. The subject of this article is Flat Earth, and just like Pythagoras' speculations about earth as sphere is relevant to this article, the Vedic speculations are too. Further, on page Plofker on page 120 states, "the divergence of the above two hypotheses about the foundations of siddhanta spherical astronomy, together with the vast number of details left unexplained by both of them, indicates how much work still needs to be done before the issue can be confidently resolved, if it ever can." I urge you to study Plofker for what "the two hypotheses" are that she is mentioning there. Further, I note for those not fluent with ancient and early medieval Indian texts, that Purana texts =/= Siddhanta texts. It would be a gross misrepresentation of multiple RS, including Plofker, to state or imply either [1] ancient South Asians did not speculate on earth's shape before the 5th century / Greek influence; or [2] ancient or early medieval South Asian texts only mention flat earth / flat disc. Whether you or I are persuaded or not by each other's arguments is not really relevant, what is relevant is that we cite, embed quotes given our content dispute and summarize the high quality sources to the best our abilities and per NPOV etc guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ms Sarah Welch, compromise is always desirable. I'm sorry but I only just noticed this post of yours because it's so high up. Could you transfer it to a new section and we can go on from there.PiCo (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let us keep the discussion here, because there is relevant discussion above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Spherical "universe"
I object to this inclusion: One finds in the Rigveda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from non-existence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self supporting universe [...]. That passage isn't about a spherical earth (let alone a flat earth). One gets the impression that the egg-shaped universe within which "the earth" as a disk or wheel is embedded frequently gets conflated with a spherical earth. What's really going on is this: "...There is a common theory that the world is shaped like an egg, the outermost shell of which is undifferentiated matter; within this is a layer of intelligence and within this egoicity; and within this again in due order are layers of ether, wind, fire, and water. Each layer is ten times as thick as the next one in. The outermost layer of undifferentiated matter is sometimes omitted, but to include it gives the satisfactory number of seven layers. These layers envelop the entire universe; the water thus merges in cosmographic tradition with the water which in Vedic times was believed to be above the heavens and below and around the earth.

The earth, the element which comes into being last, does not encircle the universe, but forms a mass in the centre. Its basic shape might be described as a huge flat disc, as it was in the Vedas, but this disc is now broken up into a system of concentric oceans and continents..."

From Blacker & Loewe, which gives a comprehensive description of the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist cosmologies of South Asia all the way up to the medieval period. Despite the myriad convolutions of these cosmologies, nowhere does a spherical earth show up except within the circles of astronomers starting around the 5th century AD from Greek influence. Strebe (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strebe: That Richard Gombrich source is RS indeed. Perhaps you missed the following, where he discusses what Rigveda states:
 * Quote: Dyaus and Prithivi are compared to the two wheels at the end of the axle, in which case the earth must be conceived as flat, but also to two bowls, and to two leather bags, in which case the earth is presumably concave. (pp. 112-113)
 * His discussion on other pages also mentions the various speculations in other Vedic layers of text, inconsistent but there they are. On p. 116, for example, he writes, "the cosmography of the Brahmanas is no more consistent than that of the Rigveda". And so on. It would be wrong to summarize Gombrich and other sources as saying pre-Purana texts (pre-early 1st millennium CE) only mention flat earth. FWIW, he mentions the Greek influence on p. 118 in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium CE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. I did not say only a flat earth is mentioned. I said nowhere does spherical earth show up except blah blah.
 * 2. No, I did not miss "the following"; I read the entire article. Concave, bowls, and leather bags are not conceptions of a spherical earth.
 * 3. A spherical "universe" is not a description of "the earth", and I maintain my objection to the WP:SYNTH interpretation that it is any such thing. Strebe (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. To develop a compromise version, how about we replace the quote you object to with the following quote from Gombrich?
 * Dyaus and Prithivi are compared [in Rigveda] to the two wheels at the end of the axle, in which case the earth must be conceived as flat, but also to two bowls, and to two leather bags, in which case the earth is presumably concave. (pp. 112-113)
 * Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course that would be fine, but it ignores the Vedic conception I quoted, which is yet different. I don’t care about the complete description; the article isn’t about Indian cosmology, but nowhere in my quoted section are there “two wheels”. Strebe (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

-- Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I went looking for sources and found the following two - sorry for not including diacritics. One of these is already discussed above; i believe the other is new:
 * (if you google "Ancient Indian Cosmologies" you can find ELNEVER copies of this chapter online)


 * Indeed. Thank you. On page 120, Gombrich begins his discussion of the Puranic cosmology.... leading us to the page 124-125 where he mentions the continuity of the disc theory in the Vedic and the Puranic version. As you note, page 112-113 does note that the earth and sky are also visualized as bowl, presumably concave shape. We should also mention the shape of the earth in their Siddhanta texts, another collection of literature that has survived. For the latter, Kim Plofker's book and her shorter chapter in Victor Katz edited book offer a good review. Please see notes on Plofker above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Disinformation, the EARTH IS FLAT and this can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. This article is not about Flat Earth, it promotes a round earth.
This article is full of lies and a lot of it is unsourced or has weak sources. The SCIENTIFIC BASIS for a Flat Earth is overwhelming. There is more scientific proof for electrostatics than gravity as the reason for why things fall for example, Sunsets and things going "over the horizon" are scientifically shown to happen due to the atmosphere magnifying the horizon (due to the amount of refraction and water and elements in it) and also refracting the water line up. This is show by timelapse from weather stations such as skunkbayweather for example. Things are visible for tremendous distances without any horizontal bow or curve based on calculations for the distance and height of the occurrence sometimes things are visible that should be a mile under the curve such as corsica, elba and other adjacent islands from across the sea. It doesn't mention the atmosphere and it's effects on light, it doesn't mention that people navigate using a compass and the flat earth model shows magnetic north as the center, it doesn't cover all of the research (a lot of it can be easily sourced to books including Rowbotham). The lack of parralax forces modern scientists to justify a ball model by saying we live in a flat galaxy and flat universe and flat solar system when it is painfully obvious the stars go around us.

Instead the sources are for round earth proponents and bias. Things like calling the theory itself disinformation, calling it fringe and other insults which violate Wikipedias terms of introducing personal opinion of the writer. And if this talk gets removed that is simply more proof that this article is censored.

Wikipedia is not about censorship and not about monopoly of ideas. It is about sourcing information for the topic at hand. This article only sources the counter-thesis, the ideas opposition. The people who have contributed to this are traitors to humanity and to science. Even if they don't realize it.

Scientific research is not about trusting authority or consensus. There is things you can source here that support the thesis of the entry. Proof that NASA makes composites and passes them off as full photos (Blue Marble for example) by their own admission. Lack of footage of the earth in the background while on the surface of the moon during the so-called "moon landing". Of course they had time to play "golf" on the moon and of course nobody died in an environment which in theory would have been more dangerous than jumping into a volcano.

There is volumes and volumes of research into the flat earth and this article is a total betrayal of those who poured blood sweat and tears into researching it. Also for 1000s of years the theory dominated all over the world. The exception was Europe, not the rule. Only when Greek and Spanish and British conquerors pushed the idea did it catch on in their regions. Yet they were a small minority of the world. Now within a few years, history changes and is written by the winners. Do the right thing and open this article up to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.110.183 (talk • contribs) 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

EXACTLY MY POINT! None of you have NPOV! All of you who edit this do so thinking the Flat Earth is a fringe theory. It is not and there are reliable sources. There are thousands of books on the subject and news articles. There is also things you can cite directly from NASAs site including their admission that they make composite images of earth. If this is a government conspiracy it would make sense for them to discredit scientists that don't adhere to the school taught propaganda. YOU should read WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.110.183 (talk • contribs)


 * NPOV isn't about editors but about articles. Wikipedia is a mainstream website. Our NPOV policy states "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." and WP:VERIFY says we should where possible use academic sources. We can't cite NASA unless they are writing about the flat/round earth, that would be original research. Oh damn, I see you're also pushign the no moon landing conspiracy theory. This discussion is pointless as you are asking us to ignore our basic policies, which you clearly haven't read. Doug Weller  talk 10:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The round earth theory is pseudoscience. You are taught you live in a flat solar system in a flat galaxy in a flat universe (look it up if you don't believe me). You are taught that gravity is not due to electrostatics but instead due to mass which has never been proven in a lab experiment on a micro-level. The moon landing is clearly fake. It's not even a conspiracy theory. The flat earth theory shows the moon as only being a light. It's an intelligent design system (not specifically biblical, all religions knew it) and the motive to destroy the theory was to destroy all religions and all notions that we were designed. To say NASA only uses composites is not "original research" it's a fact. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/ Read that link, it shows by their own admission it's a composite of multiple images. They fed us those for years and years before they decided to shill this further. If your wikipedia policy is against anything that is not "dogmatic" and "mainstream" then how is this (not) evidence of censorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.110.183 (talk • contribs)
 * “You are taught that gravity is not due to electrostatics but instead due to mass which has never been proven in a lab experiment on a micro-level.” The work of Loránd Eötvös shows otherwise. In addition, the Eötvös effect and the Coriolis force are consistent with a rotating round Earth. The direction of cyclonic air flow in the northern and southern hemispheres is convincing, and observable with instrumentation that was available in the age of sail. Bringing sociological arguments (“motive to destroy the theory“) to a scientfic discussion, as you have done, is ineffective, and a mistake. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio
Jytdog is rightly concerned about some copyvio, which seems to have entered in this article sometime last week. In this edit by you, the sentence "Dyaus (heaven) and Prithvi (earth) are compared to the two wheels at the end of the axle, in which case the earth must be conceived as flat, but also to two bowls, and to two leather bags, in which case the earth is presumably concave" from the Gombrich source was added (may be it was there long ago, I haven't checked). is right! that is not okay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Warren Carey's book
I have removed the citation to Samuel Warren Carey's book, Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences, from the article, along with the quotation allegedly taken from it, for two reasons: In relation to the first point, the citation gives p.17, Chapter 10, of Carey's book as the location where the quoted text supposedly appears. However, page 17 is in Chapter 2 of the book, not Chapter 10, Chapter 10 spans pages 120–33 ,and the text, as quoted, appears nowhere on any of those pages. The editor the citation clearly cannot have consulted the cited source itself—as both proper scholarly practice and Wikipedia guidelines dictate—and should have been alerted to the dubiousness of the citation by the fact that Chapters 1 to 9 of the work being cited are very likely to have occupied rather more than 17 pages—as, in fact, they do.
 * The quotation is not actually taken from the book; and
 * Both the book itself, and the source it cites, are worthless as support for the passage in the article for the support of which it was cited.

The text, as it was quoted in the article, reads:

As it happens, a passage very similar to this does appear on pages 16–17 of the cited work of Carey's:

The differences between these two passages, highlighted in red and green, are obviously far too great to have been the result of mere transcription errors. In fact, the quotation I have removed from the article is identical—except for its paragraphing and fonts—to a passage of text on this web page (note the chapter number, 10, appearing at the top of the page). The fact that the text quoted in the citation is identical, right down to the transcription and OCR errors—"Arunchalan" for "Arunachalan", "manrlala" for "mandala", and "prvliti" for "pritivi"—to that on the web page linked to above, shows unequivocally that either the latter was the ultimate source of the former—possibly via several intermediate copypastings—or that both have been derived from the same original source.

I initially thought that the text on the web page I have linked to above was just a blatant plagiarisation of Carey's book. However, on looking more carefully over the page, and other similar pages—which appear to be remnants of pages on a site originally hosted by Yahoo!'s now defunct geocities web hosting service—, I'm more inclined to think that it's part of another book—or perhaps the draft of another book—by Carey himself.See update below

Dealing fully with the second point will take more time than I have available to devote to it right now. For the time being, suffice it to say that both Carey himself and his own source, J. Arunachalam (this is the correct spelling of his name—the spelling "Arunachalan", which appears on p.16 of Carey's book, is a typo), were scientists who appear to have been dabbling outside their fields of expertise. Neither of them, as far as I have been able to determine, had any qualifications, expertise or standing as scholars in Sanskrit or any other field of Indic studies. Moreover, comparison of the interpretation Arunachalam gives for the transliterated Sanskrit passage "Sourya mandala madhyastham Sambam" with one given by another source seems to indicate that his is total hogwash. David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: The material on these web pages does indeed seem to be from another work by Carey. On the first of those three other pages, we find the following statement: “Evidence for Earth expansion has been presented in three symposia and my two books of 1976 and 1988.” The years 1976 and 1988 were the years of publication of Carey’s books The Expanding Earth and Theories of the Earth and Universe, respectively, in both of which he does indeed present arguments in favour of an expanding Earth.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Further update: The text on these web pages is in fact from Carey’s last book, Earth, Universe, Cosmos, published by the Geology Department of the University of Tasmania in 2000.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ps to updates) David Wilson: Thanks for these updates. Do you have a page number that would clarify: [1] Carey was referring to the Rudra Stotra website/ultimate source, or explicitly stated that this part comes from the homage composition Rudra Stotram?; or [2] his source for this phrase was not some other text with a context different than a stotra? You may want to look into Maurice Bloomfield translations of some ancient Sanskrit texts as well, because he interpreted something else as cosmogonic hymns (not what you are analyzing), and which is interesting re Carey's publications. I have a manuscript of Atharvaveda, but alas there are several versions of it out there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have replied to this question on your talk page.
 * Google books does not allow me to see any of the text in its copy of Bloomfield's English translation of the Arthava-Veda. All of it is however viewable in the Internet Archive's copy.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * David Wilson: Thanks, I am fine with your deletion. Which another source relating to Sourya mandala madhyastham Sambam are you referring to, in your last sentence? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This one.
 * Transliteration of the Sanskrit from this source:
 * sUryamaNDalamadhyasthaM sAMbaM saMsArabheShajam.h |
 * nIlagrIvaM virUpAxaM namAmi shivamavyayam.h ||
 * Translation given:
 * I bow to the three-eyed, blue-throated Shiva, who is situated in the center of the solar disc, who is accompanied by pArvatI, who is the medicine that heals the disease of saMsAra
 * A little bit of work with a Sanskrit dictionary should convince you that the words I've highlighted in green in the English translation are the ones corresponding to those I've highlighted in green in the transliterated Sanskrit.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:05, 19 October 2017
 * I have made one mistake in the connections I drew above between the transliterated Sanskrit and its purported English translation. The Sanskrit word transliterated as "sAMbaM" is not, as I had originally believed, an inflected form of the verb "sambhA", but a combination of the prepositional prefix "sa", meaning "together with", or something similar, and "ambAm", the accusative case of "ambA", meaning "mother", among other things, and one of the names of Shiva's wife. This explains the otherwise puzzling appearance of "pArvatI" in the translation taken from the website linked to above. "PArvatI" is just another name for the same goddess.
 * Since the issue of this Sanskrit translation only arose in connection with another issue that has now been resolved, I'm not going to clutter this talk page by discussing it further.  However, for those interested in checking the translation, I've posted a colour-coded pairing of the transliterated Sanskrit with an English translation, and links to the pages of the 1899 Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English dictionary containing the definitions of the Sanskrit words on my user page.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * David Wilson: Thanks again. I thought you were referring to an RS that translates and discusses a Vedic text. Please avoid relying on websites and your own personal translations based on cherrypicking one of the many meanings of a word. Context matters. For example, mandala (मण्डल), states Monier Williams, can mean "...a disk, anything round,... a circle, globe, ball, orb, circumference, ring, ball, wheel,... the path or orbit of a heavenly body, a great circle in astronomy, ...., a circular bandage, etc". You can get a variety of meanings and interpretations, depending on the context. It is a part of their tradition to use phrases or hymns from ancient texts into later compositions such as stotras, where they may take on new meanings. We must rely on scholars for contextual interpretations, summarize their publications to the best of our abilities, and not call their publications hogwash. All this does not matter here, because I agree with you that we need to keep the summary focused on the subject Flat Earth, not only in the South Asia section, but all other sections. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am linking the older edition of MMW for mandala meaning, since it is freely available. But you can check later editions here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedias Policy on WEIGHT Specifically mentions "no Flat Earth"... TWICE! I wonder why.
Due and undue weight[edit] Main page: WP:WEIGHT

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth).

AGAIN it is mentioned HERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight

It's the first thing discussed. This theory is a serious threat to governments who have enslaved us. True your job as a moderator is to follow rules. But your job as a human being is to follow your heart. Research flat earth. See why they try to hard to hide it.

By stating this they are deliberately creating policy that moderators must follow to enforce the conspiracy Thus a minority opinion EVEN IF CORRECT will not be even given fair representation even in the entry devoted to it! The scientific method is about skepticism and testing ideas. It is not about dogmatic consensus. The flat earth has re-surged on the internet because people have been questioning the current consensus. If we are correct, this means moderators are unwittingly enforcing a deliberate deception. The policy of wikipedia is not to cover contrarian points of view equally even if the article itself is about that specific viewpoint.

Thus you will find no information about Flat Earth under "Flat Earth"... censorship.


 * I can't tell if you're trolling or serious, but I'll add that most of us are ordinary users with no (or very limited) extra rights here. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IP blocked at AIV after I reported him. Doug Weller  talk 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia states "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." THEREFORE the person who posted this should not have been blocked. He is correct. Because this article is devoted to Flat Earth thus the belief should be represented by the article. But the belief is not represented this article only talks about round earth theory. That is wrong and it is censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.204.175.103 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Considering that both you and the IP who was blocked both locate to the same geographical area, it's likely that you're the same person. If this is the case, you should read Wikipedia's policy on sock puppetry.  Regardless, the block was for a whopping 31 hours for being disruptive; that's hardly excessive.  And you perhaps misunderstand the scope of the article.  It's mainly a survey of cultures throughout history that held the Earth to be flat (up through modern times even).  I don't know what else you expect here, but this an article devoted to those who believe the Earth is flat.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flat Earth. 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/20131202223438/http://coaca.ihns.ac.cn/documents/shuli/Space.pdf to http://coaca.ihns.ac.cn/documents/shuli/Space.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202223438/http://coaca.ihns.ac.cn/documents/shuli/Space.pdf to http://coaca.ihns.ac.cn/documents/shuli/Space.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128101904/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm to http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/fe-scidi.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Flat Earth is false, it is not disingenuous to say it is.
Every time the word "false" is added to the intro to the article, it is reverted. Are there actually editors that believe the Earth is flat? If so, I fear for the future of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.220.125 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed the part where someone called it "disingenuous."
 * What the intro does say can be summarized as:
 * The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape...
 * The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC)...
 * In the modern era, pseudoscientific flat Earth theories have been espoused...
 * The Simple English version of the article says about the same thing, which may be paraphrased as, "People used to believe the Earth was flat until the Classical Greeks found evidence for a round Earth, and calculated its size." It then literally says, "From then on, few educated people ever believed in its being flat."
 * In my opinion, this article shows the present state of things accurately, without the need for heavy-handed proclamations that "it is false." Just plain Bill (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. It isn't just that stating that the conception is false is "heavy-handed". It's that it provokes a pointless challenge to the belief's falsehood. Encyclopedias do not start out an article on the Classical elements by stating that the belief in Earth, Wind, Air, and Fire is "false", or Humorism by stating that the belief in the four humors is "false". The failure of those ideas is clear. The sad fact that faddish contrarianism shows up this decade in the form of people proclaiming the earth is flat should not change how an encyclopaedia approaches the topic. Strebe (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
In the Section Resurgence in the era of celebrity and social media it states...

"In the modern era, the availability of communications technology and social media like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have made it easy for individuals, famous and not, to spread disinformation and attract others to their erroneous ideas. One of the topics that has flourished in this environment is that of the Flat-Earth."

Although this subject, IMO, is very dumb. This statement is not a NPOV and should be reworded. DrkBlueXG (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO, “very dumb” is not NPOV. If you intend to be taken seriously, please note exactly what you think violates point-of-view neutrality and why, and propose a replacement. Strebe (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My opinion does not matter towards the contents of the article. If you read the paragraph I listed above, it clearly violates NPOV. Although I am not a supporter of this topic, I was only ensuring that the article stays within WP policy.


 * Proposed Revision: "In the modern era, the availability of communications technology and social media like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have made it easy for individuals, famous and not, to spread information and attract others to their ideas. One of the topics that has flourished in this environment is that of the Flat-Earth."


 * DrkBlueXG (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your proposed rewrite - I agree that it restores the NPOV of that section.
 * I fixed the indents in your insertion so that future readers could more easily discern who wrote what. As you no doubt know, people who come to Talk pages simply to say "this sucks" without a resolution to the offending section, are generally ignored. I appreciate that you came back with a resolution. Once others chime in on your suggested rewrite, we can make the change. Ckruschke (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I disagree. Changing “misinformation” to “information” violates the WP:NPOV stipulation that articles not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Flat-earth promotions are misinformation, not information. Strebe (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. In the spirit of WP:PSCI, “misinformation” is the appropriate word. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation is not the appropriate word, this is a very nasty abuse of WP:NPOV... just because you don't like the theory doesn't mean you should call it a lie. It could very well be the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.204.175.103 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I think the current version as I'm writing this is a very good way of phrasing it. I posted a comment in that section leading here for future editors. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Era's
Hello fellow Wikipedia users, You should be aware of the fact that most people find the politically correct expressions Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) highly offensive. You should instead use Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC). Other was of marking passing era's by other religions such as those used by Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and the Sikh faith are also acceptable. ScottieRoadPatriot (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This talk page about a fringe topic is a poor choice of venue for discussing such a matter of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers will reach a wider audience, one which has an interest in the way Wikipedia presents calendar years. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you see the irony in complaining that on the one hand, CE/BCE is supposedly the politically correct version, while on the other hand, we should change it because it's offensive. Either way, MOS:ERA says, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content."  Your gripe is fairly general and not related to the content here.  Personally, I think we should change (almost) all instances to CE/BCE, as this is the more neutral, encyclopedic version.  However, others disagree – enough that I have about no chance of getting the policy changed.  Likewise, those who prefer BC/AD probably have no real chance of changing the policy to favor that.  We live with the compromise.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with . I honestly cannot think of any more appropriate place for this conversation to be taking place than here on the Flat Earth talk page. Really. It's exquisite. EEng 03:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I find both AD and CE offensive! We should use the age of the Earth disc, which is ~8000 right now. =) byteflush Talk 03:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen! (intended purely for the idiom) The HE expression is clearly better! The Holocene calendar is the way to go. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

attacking a rumour makes it stronger
Should we have articles like this at all? Drawing attention to proof that the earth is round gives attention to the lies. However much attention this false theory receives, don't we have a moral responsibility not to expose readers to this idea in case they begin to believe it?

It doesn't really matter if all we do is dispute it and show evidence it's a false idea, because we're still giving it attention and spreading the lie in the course of dissecting it. what do you think about this? ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your intentions are noble, but not directed in the right place. Please read the discussion right above this, especially Strebe's contribution. The article is not about whether or not earth is flat, about proofs for a round earth or about the modern/meme belief in a flat earth. It's about the documented -and clearly indicated as fringe- idea, in the pre-scientific era, that earth was seen as flat. It's basically an old philosophical concept that overwhelmingly satifies the MoS's criteria. WP is an encyclopedia, and as such, must document all fields of knowledge and conform to the scientific concensus. It was never meant to 'prevent' an idea from 'spreading' by censoring all mentions of it. So here it is: we should keep this article, but keep an eye open for the inevitable hordes of vandals who see this as a platform for nonsense.


 * I think it's fine, in this article. Giving this much weight to the idea in regular Earth would be undue. I assume there's some point in pinging me here related to David Hogg, but I'm not quite seeing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with Double Plus Ungood. This article isn't about whether it is right or wrong. Its about the phenomena/movement/thought itself which is neither positive nor negative (even if it is foolish). Not talking about it simply because "rational people" don't agree with it would be the wrong answer. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke