Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018
Delete ", and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl was common in pre-scientific societies." I.e., change "That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and the notion of a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl was common in pre-scientific societies." to "That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas."

Delete footnote 1, which states: ""Their cosmography as far as we know anything about it was practically of one type up til the time of the white man's arrival upon the scene. That of the Borneo Dayaks may furnish us with some idea of it. 'They consider the Earth to be a flat surface, whilst the heavens are a dome, a kind of glass shade which covers the Earth and comes in contact with it at the horizon.'" Lucien Levy-Bruhl, Primitive Mentality (repr. Boston: Beacon, 1966) 353; "The usual primitive conception of the world's form ... [is] flat and round below and surmounted above by a solid firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl." H. B. Alexander, The Mythology of All Races 10: North American (repr. New York: Cooper Square, 1964) 249."

Rational 1: Lucien Levi-Bruhl and H. B. Alexander belong to a discredited and pseudoscientific paradigm called "social evolutionism." Primitive Mentality was first published in 1922, The Mythology of All Races, vol. X was first published in 1916. These are not serious anthropological sources when used in this fashion (i.e., as authoritative scholarship as opposed to historical sources on late 19th/early 20th century ideologies of race and human difference).

Although one could draw on specific descriptions within these works as illustrative of particular peoples in particular historical moments while "reading against" the implicit ideologies embedded within the text, one cannot take the generalizations made within these works at face value. For example, not the phrase, "Their cosmography as far as we know anything about it was practically of one type up til the time of the white man's arrival upon the scene." This is patently false, because on a methodological level, Bruhl and scholars like him gathered information about global peoples and cultures through the writings of European explorers, government agents, and the like. The only way Levy-Bruhl could feasibly have access to any knowledge about Dayak cosmology is if Europeans visited and wrote these cosmologies down. In other words, his knowledge is limited to post-contact settings. His statement is an ideological (and not factual) one that demonstrates particular assumptions about dark skinned (non-white) peoples: e.g., that they are culturally monolithic and ahistorical. In short, these statement tells us about early 20th century European ideas about race and culture, and not about Dayak cosmologies.

The following statement in the quote may potentially be factual ("They consider the Earth to be a flat surface, whilst the heavens are a dome, a kind of glass shade which covers the Earth and comes in contact with it at the horizon"). However, this would provide a basis only for claims about Dayak cosmologies at the historical moment when the source material was created, and *not* generalizations about all non-Western peoples. Even with the added quote from Alexander, the logical flaw remains a basic issue within the overarching paradigm (social evolutionism). One cannot make claims about all non-Western peoples based on what are necessarily very small and limited sets of descriptions of particular peoples within a historical moment specifically defined by European expansionism and colonialism.

For more on the history of social evolutionism in anthropology, see: Baker, Lee D. From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race 1896-1954. Berkeley, CA: University of Berkeley Press, 1998; Baker, Lee D. Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010; Stocking, George. Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays int he History of Anthropology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Rational 2: The concept of "pre-scientific societies" is a central tenant of the logical structure of this claim, but is itself incoherent. This is because the concept of "pre-scientific societies" a) is an overgeneralization that groups together countless societies whose only commonality is opposition to an undefined category of "science;" b) fails to account for the social history of science as a practice that emerges within moments of increasing global movement and connectivity (i.e., how scientific practice itself emerges in the context of global interactions between so-called "scientific" and "pre-scientific" peoples), and c) fails to account for feminist and postcolonial philosophies of science, which argue that strong or objective knowledge must account for the power relations of its own production as well as indigenous knowledge formations historically marginalized in academic settings (e.g., "Native science" as a project within the natural sciences). Leroix89 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I'm construing this as a challenge to the reliable source status of the given source and have removed the text and the source until such time as a better (at least, more recent) source can be found. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018
Change "That paradigm was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas" to "Many indigenous peoples of the Americas also historically held that paradigm," or, if the statement is specific to North America, change to "Many Native American and First Nation peoples also historically held that paradigm."

Rational 1: The original wording comes off as old-fashioned, in the same way that we no longer talk about "colored people." The phrase "aboriginal cultures" should be changed to "indigenous peoples" or "Native American and First Nation peoples." Part of the rational for this is that "cultures" don't hold paradigms (i.e., a culture is not an agentive subject), but people do. Exceptions to this language are the contexts of Australia and parts of Canada, where many indigenous peoples do identify as Aboriginal (capitalized, in the same sense as "Native American" or "African American").

Rational 2: Native American peoples still exist today, although this is presumably a historical statement. As is the case globally, some contemporary Native American peoples may still hold that the world is flat while most others do not. The language "typically" followed by the past tense "held" implies an ahistorical Native American cultural "type," and that this type exists in the past. A better approach is to foreground the historical nature of the statement. Leroix89 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Request is moot, see above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Scientific proof showing the earth is flat
Why is there not much reference to the Bedford Level experiment which scientifically proves the earth is flat :) It seems to be censored from this article, and used as 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:43B:AEDA:137A:DB0D (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Because this article is about mostly ancient beliefs where the Earth was (incorrectly) viewed as flat. But there's even a section on more modern views as well, along with links to Rowbotham, Wallace, and the experiment itself.  What more could we ask for?  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018
Most Christians believe in the flat Earth theory because in the Bible it says - Isaiah 11:12 "He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth." The flat Earth looks like a flat plane or dinner plate with a Huge dome covering the Earth. With the heavens above. Also when you look at the earth in a clear sight the world will look flat but its the same even if you look out of plane. Even when people take helium balloons to the lower Atmosphere (at this point you Should be able to see the curvature) But the Earth is still clearly flat. When people say "oh why can't we see Paris from the UK if the Earth is flat?" This is because Earth has soooo much muck & dirt & particles & clouds in our Atmosphere that we can't see through it all XSayaanx (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please cite a reliable source, and be more explicit about what exactly you want to add/change.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Persecuted
The Flat earth myth section is disingenuous. Galileo was being "persecuted" for his unbiblical beliefs during the middle ages. Add that to the section. Did you forget that hegelian dialectic story between the roman catholic church and Galileo, who by the way, wasn't burned at the stake like other so called heretics? Do you not understand that the copernican model and no newtonian gravity were barely being introduced and that people didn't just readily accept those new teachings. People weren't believing that they could magically stick upside down to a ball earth in the middle ages and they didn't even have any concept of gravity prior to Newton. The vast majority of people didn't believe in a spinning ball earth during the middle ages, they believed Ptolemy's geocentric model and they believed that we lived on a stationary plane. Also, Pseudoscience is believing that a pressurized system can exist next to a vacuum with 1×10-6 to <3×10-17 Torr without a physical barrier. Replicate that pseudoscience. This article looks like it is written by George Orwell's ministry of truth department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.36.9 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Galileo was not a “middle ages” figure, and his censure by the Church was unrelated to flat earth concerns. Similarly for the rest of your screed. This page is for discussions about improving the article, not for prohibited WP:SOAPBOXing. Strebe (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Heading levels
My attempt at making the article easier to read by shifting the levels up one notch was reverted with the reasoning "Normal sections are at level 2". I am well aware of that, and that is the problem here. That was what I was trying to correct, to actually make the article easier to read. I find no reason to do what is "normal" if in this case it makes the article harder to read. It is about what works, not what is "normal". There is an entire, nice, unused level 1; why not use it when in this case it actually makes the article better? I don't find doing what's normal just for normality's sake very rational. --Jhertel (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s not that mysterious: Level one is the article title. Strebe (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that this is an extremely well-entrenched practice with wide ramifications that can't really be hashed out on a random article's talk page. You have a reasonable point to make about the display, but any hope of changing it is likely to happen by changing the way that the current heading levels are displayed, not by changing the heading levels on potentially millions of articles.  I'd be surprised if no one has brought this up before.  You could always try asking an an appropriate WP:MOS talk page, or possibly somewhere at WP:VP, to see if there's been some previous discussion or gain some other insight.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that this is an extremely well-entrenched practice with wide ramifications that can't really be hashed out on a random article's talk page. You have a reasonable point to make about the display, but any hope of changing it is likely to happen by changing the way that the current heading levels are displayed, not by changing the heading levels on potentially millions of articles.  I'd be surprised if no one has brought this up before.  You could always try asking an an appropriate WP:MOS talk page, or possibly somewhere at WP:VP, to see if there's been some previous discussion or gain some other insight.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018
Cultural references The term flat-Earther is often used in a derogatory sense to mean anyone who holds ridiculously antiquated views. The first use of the term flat-Earther recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is in 1934 in Punch: "Without being a bigoted flat-earther, [Mercator] perceived the nuisance ... of fiddling about with globes ... in order to discover the South Seas."[165] The term flat-earth-man was recorded in 1908: "Fewer votes than one would have thought possible for any human candidate, were he even a flat-earth-man."[166]

Flat Earth is also the name of a Finnish metal/rock band based in Helsinki. (ref: https://flatearth.band/)

Suuretikett (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ because it's not clear what you want changed. If you want to add something, you need to say precisely how/where.  If you want to add a blurb about the above band, I'd still say no, because it's not especially noteworthy.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Internet meme
Is there a bit about the flat earth meme in the article? If not, should we add it? --Canti60 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What is "the flat earth meme"? Strebe (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Salton sea test
The skeptical group responsible for the Salton sea test—namely the Independent Investigations Group—was not trying to refute the sphericity of the Earth, but to perform a test which they fully expected to confirm it. See this video, for instance. David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I could not tell which side Drobertpowell was calling skeptical because I could not tell which idea "he" intended as the referent of "refute". Feel free to reverse the sense. Strebe (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why would the article call mainstreamers "skeptics"? The skeptics are the flat-earthers, and I thought that the Salton Sea test was instigated by them, even if conducted by the Independent Investigations Group. Why did the flat-earthers even bother to attend if they did not instigate it? Strebe (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The key to the meaning of "skeptics", as chosen by Drobertpowell, is the link to the Wikipedia article Skeptical movement. I take it to be referring to members or supporters of associations belonging to this movement of organised scepticism, such as those in this list. I haven't read the cited article in the Skeptical Enquirer, so I don't know what role, if any, flat-earthers might have played in instigating the Salton sea test (beyond, of course, acting as a spur to the debunkers by their mere existence).  In the video at the link I provided, James Underdown, founder of the Independent Investigations Group says "We decided to, sort of, address this [i.e. flat-earth beliefs] in person", indicating to me that it was his organisation which conducted the tests.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I really think the article needs to make it clear what the “skeptics” are skeptical of. One might infer this from the linked article, but: (1) The reader shouldn’t have to leave the page and then draw inferences; (2) The usage co-opts the generic term “skeptic” to mean a particular philosophical school of skepticism; (3) Flat-earthers are likely to view their own beliefs as matching the definition of “skeptic” in that article; and (4) as I noted above, it seems really odd to call adherents to the dominant belief system “skeptics”. I will make this change. Strebe (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion and for the clarifying edit. That is exactly what I intended. Drobertpowell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

John Jasper quotation
Do we really need the Jim Crow eye dialect for John Jasper's words? I appreciate they're reported that way in the source, but this sort of language is offensive (and has been for fifty years), and, although Jasper may deserve critisism for his views, his race shouldn't be an issue. I would suggest that we use conventional spelling, while keeping the words - "'low me to ask - if the earth is round, where do it keep its corners? A flat, square thing has corners, but tell me where is the corner of an apple, or a marble, or a cannon ball, or a silver dollar?" Tevildo (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would want a sourced "translation" if we were to give one, not something an editor constructed. Strebe (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this page? It still has the odd "de", but it's much more reasonable than the text we have at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a (probably unauthorized) reposting. It needs to be attributed correctly: From My People: 400 Years of African American Folklore, p. 274,

edited by Daryl Cumber Dance, W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. The eye-dialect has been softened by the editor from the original as recorded by William E. Hatcher. But yes, that looks fine to me. We should include the preceding sentences as well, however; otherwise the reasoning is non sequitur. So, starting with ''I invite you to hear de first verse in de seventh chapter of de Book of Revelations. What do John under de power of de Spirit say? He says he saw four angels standin on de four corners of de earth, holdin de four winds of de earth and so forth.'' Strebe (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To put this together into a concrete proposal:


 * 1) We change the text of the quotation to read: "I invite you to hear de first verse in de seventh chapter of de Book of Revelations. What do John under de power of de Spirit say?  He says he saw four angels standin on de four corners of de earth, holdin de four winds of de earth and so forth.  Low me to ask if de earth is round where do it keep its corners?  A flat square thing has corners, but tell me where is de corner of an apple or a marble or a cannon ball or a silver dollar?"
 * 2) We add a reference to Dance's book. Do we add the URL to the "Value of Sparrows" blog for the actual text?
 * 3) We keep the reference to Hatcher, and remove the existing reference to "Garwood p165". We don't seem to have anything that identifies who Garwood is, or what the title and publisher of their book are. Tevildo (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Garwood, p.165" refers to Christine Garwood's book, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea, listed in the Further Reading section of the article. While it's a perfectly good reference, it's nevertheless not a secondary but a tertiary source for Jasper's views on the shape of the Earth, so the secondary source Garwood cites—namely The Life of Rev. John Jasper by Edwin Archer Randolph—would be a better citation.  Pages 47–53 of that work contain the text of an article, Sermon on the Sun, written by Jasper himself, published in the Richmond Whig of March 19, 1878, and opening with the sentence:
 * "Having so often been asked to write my sermon in full, I now take pleasure in doing so."
 * On pp.50–51 we find the following text:
 * 'Mr. Jasper, in the historical review of the Children of Israel, shows that he had given the subject no little attention and study. During the course of this sermon he repeatedly refers to the following verse: "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth."
 * 'He says, "So we are living on a four-cornered earth; then, my friends, will you tell me how in the name of God can an earth with four corners be round!"
 * 'He claims that his theory, supported by the Bible, is true; and if the earth is like others say, who hold a different theory, peopled on the other side, those people would be obliged to walk on the ground with their feet upward like flies on the ceiling of a room."'
 * Apart from Jasper's referring to himself in the third person (which he apparently also did in his actual sermons), this seems to me to be in perfectly standard English. So quoting from this source rather than from Dance, would completely avoid having any condescending transcription of Jasper's purported pronunciation in the article.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well done. Strebe (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Image
I'm not sure what they're called, but the white lines demonstrating the curvature of the earth needs to be removed from this flat earth map used in the article. Flat earthers don't believe the Earth has curvature. Koopinator (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As the caption says, that's not an actual Flat Earthers' map of Earth by, it's an azimuthal equidistant projection map of the real, spherical Earth that happens to look "flat" enough that it's been co-opted. The curved lines are circles of latitude, which would presumably be of interest to people living on a circle-shaped planet as well.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  12:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Redundant material issue
The section which I just worked a bit on, Modern Flat-Earthers, is problematic. It has a large overlap with the linked full article on the topic, Modern flat Earth societies, yet in some cases has more content here than in the "main" article. In other cases the other article has more/better content. In this case I copied material recently added here to that other article to improve the balance.See here. Not sure what to do about this. Maybe greatly reduce the content of what is in this section here so it is a summary of the other article as opposed to being an attempted clone? RobP (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is astronaut William Anders quoted as a modern day flat-earther?
This is the quote attributed to him:

"If you can imagine yourself in a darkened room with only one clearly visible object, a small blue-green sphere about the size of a Christmas-tree ornament, then you can begin to grasp what the Earth looks like from space. I think that all of us subconsciously think that the Earth is flat or at least almost infinite. Let me assure you that, rather than a massive giant, it should be thought of as the fragile Christmas-tree ball which we should handle with considerable care."

Which I read to make him an accepter of the spherical Earth, not a Flat-Earther. Let's remove him from the list. Stuart mcmillen (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for new image
The image showing a ship partly beyond the horizon is quite old and somewhat blurred. Can I suggest it be replaced with this gif, showing two ships being zoomed in on:

https://media.giphy.com/media/8BkMcciimrecPmrdiu/giphy.gif

Details for the observation are here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHXuJQ3_8J4

Rubsley (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Short answer, probably not. See WP:COMPLIC.  But that image is worse anyway, so I'm not sure why you'd want to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 11:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Rubsley that the current image is somewhat blurry (due to atmosphere and digital zoom, it seems), I think it is superior to the gif in terms of showing the subject. The gif does not particularly demonstrate what we are discussing, IMO. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking through Commons, I did find this one, which is quite a bit sharper, but it's a bunch of wind turbines rather than a ship. I'm not sure if that would be an adequate substitute or not, but there it is.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 12:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why anyone else hasn't done this yet (the existing image is poor), so I've done it. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Much better, with just a tweak to the caption. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

10 ways you can tell for yourself!
I've again reverted the addition by for the reasons stated in my edit summary. Mainly this is pretty well outside the scope of the article. If you want to expand that, it would be a good idea to obtain consensus here, since there's obviously an objection to it. I would say that specific lines of evidence be kept, if they can be placed in historical context elsewhere in the article – what culture(s) used it and when. But there's no good reason to keep a lame standalone list just to make sure to let people know that we don't really think the Earth is flat. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it's completely inside the scope of the article. The scope of the article is Flat Earth, and the evidence that we do not live on a flat earth is 100% within that scope.


 * In fact, the only person that wouldn't want scientific evidence disproving flat earth in an article about flat earth, would pretty much have to be a flat earther. Would you want to admit to something Deacon Vorbis? That would save us some time. Not even joking. GliderMaven (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The true lame thing here is you revert warring content out of the article. GliderMaven (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * When you're ready to address my concerns and discuss the dispute like an adult, I'll be ready to continue. Until then, I suspect you know what you can do with your thinly veiled accusations.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, unless you can come up with a valid reason why physical evidence about why the flat earth model is flawed shouldn't be in the article, then I will be reinserting it.


 * There's several reasons why it is obvious that we don't live on a flat Earth, and this article needs to summarise them. It's really, really bad that we don't do that. GliderMaven (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia articles are supposed to cover a topic fully, not just contain randomly chosen subaspects of it like you seem to be pushing for; and I can only question your motives for not wanting that. You've tried to explain this, and in my opinion your reason doesn't stack up-I don't believe you. GliderMaven (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "When you're ready to address my concerns and discuss the dispute like an adult, I'll be ready to continue." Please discuss this like an adult and obtain a consensus for your proposed change first.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Reasons why it's obvious are listed at Spherical_Earth, which I've linked in the last paragraph of the lead. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems like a fairly reasonable way to do it. Back to the original dispute, I was certainly being a bit stubborn earlier, but I've had issues with getting flustered lately, and if the other party is going to take some cheap shots, I may very well find myself doing the same, and I'd rather avoid that.  I had also complained about the quality of the reference.  In more detail, it's simply a repost of a blog, definitely not WP:RS material.  Linking to a much more wonderfully compiled list with better sourcing and explanatory detail seems to get the point across without trying to reinvent the wheel.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reinventing the wheel was my main motivation. I also do not think it makes sense to replicate that list in this article; it would be too much ink devoted to something outside the scope, which looks a lot like historical cosmologies. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not the scope of the article, the scope of the article is the idea of flat earth; it's a fundamentally bad idea to arbitrarily disqualify anything from that scope. GliderMaven (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Evidences for a flat earth would belong in this article. Evidences that led cultures to abandon the flat earth model make sense in this article, but, as it turns out, Eratosthenes’s determination of the earth’s circumference is what convinced the Greek intelligentsia and thence the rest of the world. So, I agree with the others that a long list of evidenced for a spherical earth is not relevant in this article. Strebe (talk)

To Consider, when stating Archaic View from the Bronze Age.
In the UK Early 1900's it was still Illegal to teach the Heliocentric Globe Sun Worshipping Model. http://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/lccn/sn90060625/1900-04-21/ed-1/seq-1 That's not the Bronze Age, but we are still in the Iron Age of Roman occupation.

The preceding period is known as the Copper Age and is characterised by the production of flat axes, daggers, halberds and awls in copper. The period is divided into three phases: Early Bronze Age (2000–1500 BC), Middle Bronze Age (1500–1200 BC), and Late Bronze Age (1200–c. 500 BC). Bronze Age - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bronze_Age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.63.224 (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the given citation has nothing to do with the Bronze age as it is about Early 20th century flat earthers, but even as it stands it is incorrect. The Observatory had a short piece clarifying the claim of Mr. Breach that it was illegal to teach that the Earth is round:
 * The following paragraph has been sent me by a correspondent. It is a cutting from some newspaper, but has no name or date attached:—
 * THE FLAT-EARTH MAN.
 * Transvaal Folk recognize his Merit.
 * The patience and long-suffering of Mr. Ebenezer Breach, the philosopher who maintains that the Earth is flat, have at length had their reward. He has received a letter from Johannesburg announcing that he has been elected “Grand Master of the Ancient Order of Unshaven Boers.”…
 * It may be remembered that some time ago Mr. Breach wrote to Sir John Gorst threatening to put in force against him an old statute which is said to have made it illegal to teach in schools that the Earth is round. To this letter he has not had a reply.
 * It is clear from the Observatory piece that Breach's claim in defense of the Flat Earth had no effect. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Too Many Opinions
Unlock or delete the article. It is outright lying about religions without even posting citations, rather it has reader editorials. Rather ironic considering the reason someone would lock the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.221.16 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a notable topic, so there is no chance the article will be deleted.
 * There's been too much vandalism for editing to be unlocked for anonymous editors.
 * Basically, you're left with explaining what specifically is wrong, pointing to reliable sources, etc. on the talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism section
There are tonnes of content on the scientific domain notable criticism of this theory and yet our article lacks this section. There is content here on CNN that I think should be added. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This source is more an overview of the spread of the idea, along with some profiles of individuals. But it doesn't document any sort of scientific criticism.  Not only that, but it also includes the dubious claim that, "On a clear day, the curvature of the earth can be seen from an airplane window."  What kind of criticism are you even thinking about here?  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deacon Vorbis, To be specific, I was hoping to add the comment by " Daniel Jolley, a senior lecturer in the psychology of conspiracy theories at the UK's Northumbria University" from the article, to the criticism section. but to my surprise the section itself is missing here. Is it not merited ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno how useful it would be to get into the psychology of conspiracy theories though. It's a fairly general statement that doesn't really pertain to this situation any more than it would to, say, JFK assassination conspiracy theories.  And it wouldn't make much sense to go into that aspect separately at  single article about a conspiracy theory. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, are you claiming that curvature of the horizon cannot be seen from aircraft or spacecraft? GliderMaven (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse you indeed. Where do you see anything about spacecraft?  In any case, yes, the claim about aircraft is dubious.  It can be seen from something like the pilot's seat of a U-2, but not out the normal tiny side windows of a passenger airplane. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So you admit it can be seen from an aircraft window, and yet, this is not in the article. How odd. GliderMaven (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that "you can see the curvature from an airliner" thing needs to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I previously added a section like that, which I was hoping could be expanded. It was rapidly deleted. The arguments for deleting it made little sense to me. It could be reasonable to suspect that people editing this article could be closet flat earthers, or if they're not, they're certainly not interesting in including material to debunk it-which makes less sense if they're not flat earthers. The article currently almost exclusively simply documents flat earther views, which is 'odd'. GliderMaven (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * GliderMaven, yes it is odd indeed. Can you please post that content here on talk page or point me to the version of the article where you had added it. We should discuss it and add it to the article, as this section will be necessary for maintaining a balance. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It hasn't even been archived yet; see above "10 ways you can tell for yourself!". (Edit: here's a link to the diff where it was originally added).  The short version is that it was a bad, poorly-sourced, Buzzfeed-style list that was kind of off-topic for the article.  Rather than clutter up this article, a pointer to the better one was provided. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oddly, not as bad as simply listing the flat earth beliefs much as if they were valid though, as is currently being done. GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to "criticise" flat earth theories? That would imply engaging with them, using the tools of scientific analysis and critique. FE though is so far from such that the techniques would simply be irrelevant. You might as well add a "Criticisms" section to Mormonism. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is possible to refute flat earth theories? Yes, yes it is. According to you lot that's off-topic here. I completely and utterly disagree, and can only speculate as to your true motives and comment on your incredibly bad judgement and your bizarre claims. GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Material that refutes flat earth is 100% on topic here. GliderMaven (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy, listed above states: "Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus." GliderMaven (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's supposed to primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus meanwhile it primarily reflects pure woo. GliderMaven (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Refutation isn't the same thing as criticism, as would be needed for a coherent "Criticism" section here.
 * FE theories are protean. There is no single theory for it. Refute one aspect and an FE adherent will simply shift, invisibly, to a different model where that aspect happens to match reality. It's not a problem for them that the two theories are themselves in conflict. A theory is generally refuted by using it to make a prediction, then making observations which conflict with that prediction. But that doesn't work for FE: FE advocates don't make predictions, they simply say "It's flat". They have no interest in trying to develop a complete, coherent model of how it works, such that it would make testable predictions. Those who might want such predictions don't care about it anyway.
 * We could have a good article for Proofs of a globe Earth. We could have an article or section of refutations of a particular model. But we can't criticise FE theories overall by any such strategy. You might as well try to disprove a belief in fairies. If all they have to underly them is a politicised a priori belief, because one is desperate to disagree with anything that smacks of convention, then criticising its supposed structure is just irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Fact Changes
I would like to mention that in the conspiracy section, Nasa isn't the one guarding of the antartida, but instead is every government that is in the antartic treaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by D2Owiki (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If you've got a source for that, then fine. Although does it really matter all that much at this point? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Norse one is wrong
The editor added it says flat earth, but the quote says 'most men' (not all) would find the sea hard to cross. Erik the Red crossed it and has two sagas associated with him. They called it Vinland (and other names like Markland and Helluland in some places). It was Greenland and Canada that they found. Please remove opinion pieces and stick to citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.214.70 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Umm, but there is a citation for that. If you have one that disagrees or if you think the source is being misrepresented, then please feel free to explain why, but what's there is well-sourced. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding content addition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "FLAT EARTH". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Feynstein (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)


 * I am not sure how to mark this as closed. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This case is closed at the DRN, not enough editors involved, discussion can resume here. Feynstein (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The "Myth of flat-Earth prevalence" (XIX century) could use possible explaination why Columbus was ready to sail.
I think we could use some math on the claim

Subsequent studies of medieval science have shown that most scholars in the Middle Ages, including those read by Christopher Columbus, maintained that the Earth was spherical.

Thing is, the article on Columbus says his idea had something to do with Toscanelli's map. We probably could explain there was "wrong size" issue.
 * Myth of the flat Earth has a lengthy section discussing Columbus’s reasoning, including his error in estimating the earth’s size. It does not mention Toscanelli’s map. It probably should. If you can find a reliable reference, I encourage you to add a mention of it to that other article. Doing that in this article would be too much detail for the topic. Strebe (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
Change the first mention if the word "conception" to "misconception." 2601:280:C480:E7B0:B5EF:8902:865F:1DB9 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't think this change will reflect WP:NPOV, not to mention how it does say "archaic conception". Ed6767  talk!  11:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Islam
−	There are a number of verses in Quran about the sky and earth like Al-Ghashiyah, there is a well-known religious edict, or fatwa that is the earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.


 * We do not make this kind of claim in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:NPOV for further information on Wikipedia's core policy of maintaining a neutral point-of-view.  We already have some brief discussion about medieval Islamic views in the article.  Your first source cites something from Chick Publications. This is automatically not reliable for this article.  The LoC source doesn't seem  to say anything of substance either.  The NYT article seems to be the main basis for this.  Is it worth including something about this?  Maybe, if worded more appropriately under the "Modern flat earthers" section (possibly even while removing that lame PhD entry that has stuck around).  Unfortunately, I don't have full access to the source so can't evaluate it more fully right now.  Maybe someone else can weigh in.  Since it was over 25 years ago, it would be better to also include something later that put this in a little more context.  E.g., did this happen and everyone just ignore it, or what? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * i don't know how you can call this POV biased there is literaly nothing i addedBaratiiman (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's POV because if added, it sounds like Wikipedia is claiming that anyone who claims the earth is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. "Well-known" is also not kosher; it might have been at the time the article was written, but that can fade quickly over time. In any case, I was able to read the NYT article.  And my ultimate reaction is "meh".  There's a mere sentence or two about it, while the rest of the article is more about fatwas in general.  I wouldn't be totally opposed to adding something about this if done neutrally (again, in the "Modern flat earthers" section), but it would still be preferable if any more long-lasting impact of this could be documented. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Indeed, there's actually quite a bit more (well-sourced) detail at Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz. A brief blurb summarizing the relevant points there along with the sources might be okay. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

tbh i don't care anymoreBaratiiman (talk)
 * Interesting, I did not even know this was a thing or issue in muslim religion. Considering there are so many Islamic scholars in various scientific fields such as Al Biruni who accurately measured the circumference of Earth, and many Islamic astronomers working on spherical principles, etc. But this does make me wonder, since per Qiblah one must point to Ka'aba found in Makka for the 5 daily prayers. And since accurate survey work was done using geodesy specifically to ensure that Mosques pointed to Makka as much as theoretically possible. Does this mean that every muslim when they pray and allegedly facing the wrong direction are in fact atheists and should be punished? Also makes me wonder if this is why you no longer might care. Are you facing in a different direction as per bearings using a flat earth map, opposed to all other muslims? Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Nice claim, but I see zero verses in your post. Uchyotka (talk)
 * OK, I think i have some link where such a claim is opposed: Sabreen Syeed on such a claim, from 3:37.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020
Add to the explanatory introduction: "Some cultures, such as Buddhist cultures, subscribe to the Ten-Directional World theory, which has an alternative explanation for this phenomenon. The ten directions of N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW, Inner (towards the microcosm), and Outer (towards the macrocosm) are said to be the different directions matter can travel in, with the last two through shrinking and expanding.  This is said to be true for all matter save this realm of ours, which is a reason many ancient theories call our world "illusory."  A world where all things are fixed in size, like ours, when viewed from other realms where traveling towards the microcosm or macrocosm supposedly occurs, would give the impression that this world of ours is more akin to a flat plane.  Looking to the limits of one's vision towards the micro and macro may give the impression that Earth is located precisely in the middle.  Using this alternate perspective, past cultures referenced in this article may have used this reasoning to say the Earth is flat and also located in the center of the universe, and it is a misunderstanding of modern people that they thought the Earth was not a sphere, as the Flat Earth Society of today believes. As many of these ancient cultures were able to chart time cycles of the universe quite accurately, such as the Mayans with their cyclical calendar, subscribers to this version of Flat Earth argue that it is a contradiction in logic to assume they simultaneously thought it was not a sphere. The cosmological maps from historical societies that resemble the shape of a wedge with a layered cosmos or Earth may have been drawn that way simply for convenience, as it is much more difficult to draw stacking spheres where each is inside the one before. Of course, this view is not yet provable, but it is a viewpoint that does help to understand the unknown mindset that intelligent societies of the past may have had during our studies of the remnants they left behind." Thecodercody (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ for several reasons. First and foremost, you need to provide reliable sources that support any claims you want to make.  If by "explanatory introduction", you mean the article lead, then compare the length of this with what's already there; it should merely summarize the main points of the article.  It's also completely incomprehensible: "this phenomenon"...what phenomenon? Etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The first Line
Hi all, I made the edit earlier changing the phrase "archaic conception" to "archaic model" as it generally sounds better. "archaic conception" is not the right phrase to use here. The sentence also begins with "the flat earth model" so then saying it's an archaic flows better.

I wouldn't mind either way, as this article is not of great relevance to me or my work, but I am fairly offended by the manner and summary given for the reversal by Roxy the dog. My edit was made in good-faith and served to make the article slightly more readable. It was reversed by Roxy the dog's twinkle failing to comply with Twinkle:
 * From Twinkle: "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

Telling editors that "Not broken, please do not fix this again." defies basically every Wikipedia policy and is not an appropriate summary for overturning a good-faith positive edit of the article.

I therefore object to the edit reversal and request it be reversed back or a discussion on the merits of the phrase "archaic conception" take place. Footlessmouse (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works, I'm afraid - please read WP:BRD. Basically, if you make a bold edit, and it is reverted, then you discuss it.  You don't make it again until there is consensus to do so. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that changes anything. Using Twinkle to revert the edit in that manner was, as I see it, a violation of Wikipedia policy. I do not care enough to keep talking about it, though. From henceforth, let this be the discussion for what use in lieu of "archaic conception" in the lead - which is a marginally coherent phrase and should be replaced. Footlessmouse (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that "The flat Earth model is an archaic model of Earth's shape..." is better writing than the existing "The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape..." as it repeats the word "model" after only three intervening words. That is a style point taught in elementary school.
 * More meaningfully, in today's language, "model" connotes a hypothesis, a coherent collection of notions useful for making predictions about how something works. To me, it makes more sense to cast it in terms of a concept held by ancient "natural philosophers" who had not yet been exposed to Popper's falsifiability criterion. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Ancient concept" would work for me, though I think it fully qualifies as a model (a model in physics is anything used to describe the world. If it does a bad job at this, it's a bad model. Flat earth is a bad model). I wanted to use "ancient misconception" at first, but that is not totally fair to the ancient philosophers. I just think there is a better phrase than ancient conception. I honestly don't care and will probably unfollow this page. I created this because I am very upset that my edit was reverted and the explanation was "Not broken, please don't fix again". The explanation could have been anything half-way meaningful, like "please discuss first" and it would have been okay. Footlessmouse (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with footless mouse, and have removed my name from the thread title, for appearance sake. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What does Twinkle have to do with anything here? Why does the mechanics of reversion matter? A revert message was given.

Isn’t calling conception “marginally coherent” false or hyperbole? New American Oxford Dictionary: "conception (n): 2.b. the way in which something is perceived or regarded. "our conception of how language relates to reality""

This usage is exactly analogous to the article‘s usage in “flat Earth is an archaic conception”. Strebe (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

, it clearly states above why I believe Roxy the dog was in violation of Wikipedia policy, I'm not sure why you're asking that question. I said "archaic conception" is marginally coherent, that's not even kind of the same thing as calling conception marginally coherent. Please read before criticizing. No one else wants to change it and I don't care. My concerns were stated. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I read. I failed to understand. I think a lot of that failure has to do with your marginally coherent way of expressing your concerns. You have given no reason why “archaic conception” is “marginally coherent” beyond what amounts to your not liking it. I presumed that you did not object to “archaic” because you changed the article text to “archaic model”. You also proposed “ancient concept” in this discussion, rather than “ancient conception”. This implies that your primary objection is about the word “conception”. Hence my response. It’s not necessarily that “no one else wants to change”; I am open to making improvements if you have a cogent point, but that isn’t possible given your evasiveness about what the problem with the current text is and your focus on grievances instead of that. Strebe (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . Please leave me alone. Others can make the objection if they want. As I stated, I don't really care very much. Thanks for letting me know I can only express myself in a marginally coherent manner, you learn something new about yourself every day. I give up. I think I give up on editing Wikipedia altogether, it is simply not worth it. I enjoyed getting to rewrite parts of physics pages to help make them understandable, but this is all too much. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

. In order to actually be helpful, I will state what I believe (as a non-expert in English syntax), is the problem with the first sentence as coherently as I can. It just doesn't sound right. If it said it "was an archaic conception", I would also be okay with that, but for some reason, I don't think it sounds right to say it "is an archaic conception". I don't know why I don't like the way it sounds, I just don't. Totally my taste. There are tons of alternatives: conjecture, hypothesis, theory, model, notion, belief, and assumption just to name a few. I believe a mix and match of any two of them would sound better, though many would require rewriting the whole sentence. Specifically, though, I think "The flat earth model is an archaic notion of..." is a near-perfect replacement for the current terminology. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to change the lead. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. My bad. I should not have written the last post, I just wanted to try (poorly) to redeem myself after being told my whole argument was incoherent. Anyways, I am grateful for this experience as I now know that I should avoid psudoscience articles and the controversy that comes with them. Please, just close this discussion. Footlessmouse (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I think we editors should help each other even when we disagree; it is always unfortunate when productive editors leave because they feel hectored. I’ve had plenty such experiences of my own. Hopefully you can understand that I think “archaic conception” sounds better, and is more accurate, than the proposed alternatives. I suppose, from others’ reactions, that they feel the same. Can we call the matter settled? Strebe (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, I believe the issue is resolved. Yes, that's totally fine - you can't know what others think until you ask. I suspected more people would agree with me, but was wrong and that is fine. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Modern flat-Earthers/William Carpenter
The sentence "William Carpenter, a printer originally from Greenwich, England (home of the Royal Observatory and central to the study of astronomy), was a supporter of Rowbotham" feels misdirected. If William Carpenter was a printer "originally" from Greenwich, then, without additional evidence, that's all they were. Pointing out astronomy suddenly lends implicit validity for no reason. I would say cite reference for the claims, but the only citation referenced is primary (as in his own work) to begin with. Suggestion that this bullet point/paragraph be stripped down to its core and a new more appropriate secondary source citation be given. 2601:204:C001:27E0:0:0:0:8B0F (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed the Greenwich stuff. Thank you!
 * Regarding the source: yes, a secondary source would be much better. What we have now is some Wikipedian picking two extremely stupid pieces of reasoning from a primary source. That is WP:OR, the selection of the quotes should be done by a secondary source. What's more, William Carpenter (flat-Earth theorist) has the same two quotes, with "citation needed". And the same thing, selection of quotes from primary sources, happens in the Joshua Slocum part. The John Jasper section has it right. Maybe this article needs an overhaul in general. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Slocum is a secondary source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "One Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe" is written by Carpenter himself which is the citation given. 2601:204:C001:27E0:0:0:0:8B0F (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. That was my point. We should not cherry-pick quotes from primary sources such as this one. See WP:PRIMARY:
 * "[..] primary sources [..] may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a misuse. By transitive property they have implicitly become an authority in astronomy. That's literally cherry-picking (ironic for a figurative term). I'm not sure how that's not clear. 2601:204:C001:27E0:0:0:0:8B0F (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we have been on the same page from the beginning, but you sound as if you are contradicting me. So, the case is clear, but your last contribution is not. By transitive property they have implicitly become an authority in astronomy - who are "they", and what transitive property is this? Some context would be helpful. Are you still talking about the Greenwich thing? I removed that last week. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * William Carpenter is the who. By transitive property is because it's indicated that Greenwich Village is a home of astronomy, and they, who was raised in that location, wrote a book on flat-Earth ideas (in support of), the way it's presented implies to the reader that they-themselves are a trained expert in an astronomy, which is very much false. Even if the citation could be considered valid as a primary source (by re-phrasing everything to relate to simply what the facts are: A man wrote a book. The citation for this information given is his own book which is an insane exclamation-point riddled mess of misinformation and not backed/reviewed pre-publish by any contemporary peers. It's enough to simply point out that he wrote a book that was pro-flat Earth in a historical context and leave it at that. I'll be frank that I was not expecting such a long back and forth over such a small snippet that is so blatantly antithetical to developing an Encyclopedia of factual information and am reminded as to why I stopped trying to help wikipedia to begin with. This is my last attempt at helping. Have a nice day 76.125.59.193 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 76.125.59.193, everyone here but you seems to understand that Hob Gadling agrees with everything you have said. If you can’t even understand when someone agrees with you, then I’m sure it gets very frustrating for you—and honestly, for everyone else reading along. Nobody can do anything about that but you yourself, though. Strebe (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So if everyone agrees, why did it take so much back and forth to get what is agreed upon to be an extremely simple edit made? You say that I'm the outside of that sphere? You have seen talk page yes? I don't think; wait... sorry... let me rephrase.... I actually know I'm not alone in that frustration. It's actually backed by consensus. I have no idea why I came back again. I mean. Wikipedia. After decades it still always devolves for some reason into ego strokes instead of people simply trying to build a solid informational archive built around academically sound restrictions. I really don't know why I came back to this page, or even responded for that matter. Sorry, have a nice day 76.125.59.193 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am assuming here that both IPs are the same person. (Because of incongruence between the first IP's first and second contribution, I first thought they were different.)
 * You had two requests. One of them, the Greenwich one, I had hoped to resolve by my removal of the unnecessary Greenwich detail but you still harped on about it after that. I have no idea if you still have a Greenwich problem, since you are not saying.
 * The second one, about primary sources, is at the moment still in the stage where I ask "What do others think?" - which has not been answered yet.
 * After that, you started to talk about this and that, and you seem to have some further problem. I think nobody knows what that problem is and what my Talk page has to do with it. What you call "back and forth" is other people, especially me, unsuccessully trying to find out what your third problem is, or even if it exists. Your last contribution does not help. Maybe you should try to learn to communicate more clearly? So, do you have a third problem with the article? Is the first one resolved or not? ("Yes" and "No" are good words.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Epicureans
Epicurus and his school did not believe other Greeks that the Earth was a sphere, since, being extreme empiricists, they objected to "dialectic" used to establish this fact while clearly not seeing any roundness. This view conforms to their physics where the natural movement of atoms is from up to down and the whole universe is a random assemblage of atoms caused by their "swerve." So, Epicureans were the only clearly identifiable group of educated Europeans who did not agree that the Earth was a sphere after this fact was discovered. Hopefully, someone can add a section on Epicureans to the main text with proper references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernambuco1 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that it should be pointed out that the model is wrong right in the first sentence
I suggest that the first sentence should be "The flat Earth model is an erroneous archaic conception". In my opinion, archaic might not be interpreted as "wrong" but just as something that then evolved in the today's crazy conspiracy models. The Earth is not flat, it is proven and sure and all, so I think that from the start it should say it is a wrong model. I say so because the first lines are the ones visible on Google, and now also on Youtube, to give context, so it should say it right at the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaoloCorrige (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that "archaic" does has enough clarity. There are a number of potential synonyms and phrases that can improve the first sentence. I don't have a clear winner in mind. "Outdated" is more plainspoken. "Obsolete geographic model" with a link to Superseded theories in science (where it it listed first alphabetically) might be more in line and is only linked through . By contrast, Conspiracy theory appears to be overlinked. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I think the lede is very clear and is a concise explanation of the history of the idea and that it has been resurrected by pseudo-scientific conspiracy wonks in recent times. Archaic means "something from an older period of time that is also not found or used currently" which is exactly the correct term in this case. I think we should just try giving people the benefit of the doubt to look up the word and the difference in thought rather than assume they are unintelligent. Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I looked up archaic in WP as well as in Wiktionary, and in both places it has multiple meanings. One of the synonyms for the adjective form is antiquated, which has only one meaning - and it is perfect for this use. I would vote to use that word here. RobP (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Archaic is precisely what is meant, in all of its meanings. The fact of earth's sphericity is also stated in the lede. Strebe (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also point out that someone who thinks the earth is flat would be unconvinced by a bald statement in the first sentence of this article. Children are educated from the start about earth's sphericity; to believe the earth is flat is willful. Throwing in erroneous carries no didactic purpose. Strebe (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, "Flat Earth" nowadays (as an Internet meme) is a sophism, a "find the mistake" trick Uchyot (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which was exactly my point. Adding to lede to foot stomp the already obvious point is unneeded. Ckruschke (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I don't agree. Antiquated/archaic means something more like 'unfashionable'. Just because it's archaic doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means it's very old and not in common usage. I mean a stone tipped spear is archaic, but they still work. I don't think we should use archaic, the sense is slightly wrong. GliderMaven (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again I think you are making the same assumption as the original poster - that people are stupid. The statement "The flat Earth model is an erroneous archaic conception" says two things: 1) that it is a mindset/theory held by some dating back to antiquity and 2) that its wrong. No footstomping is needed. Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Conversely, I think you're wrongly assuming that people AREN'T stupid, which recent events proves overwhelmingly false, and further that precision isn't required. Neither are good assumptions. GliderMaven (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok - when you decide to get personal with your reply and edit comments, I think polite discourse and the validity of this Talk thread are officially at an end. Ckruschke (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021
Greece never believed in a flat earth, they were the ones that proved the earth is round 2603:7000:8242:9F00:F4C6:C6D5:499E:127 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021
change the word "archaic" to primitive and/or stupid. 61.68.102.235 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:Neutral point of view. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021 - removal of sources
Requesting restoration of 1 of 2x sources removed by this edit on 22:03, 6 July 2021; with edit summary "the first source does not contain the english translation quoted. the second is an apologetic paper"

If the second ref is an apologia, does that alone justify removing it? And changing the article text accordingly?

Perhaps another editor can also consider the "first source", in addition, please. Although the removing editor states "does not contain the english translation quoted" maybe another user with access could check please? I just came across something similar said about another source removed by same editor, elsewhere. In that case, there seems to be an error in saying the matter was not in the source given as in fact the material did appear. Just worried it might have been missed accidentally in this one also.

Please just ignore and accept my apologies, if inappropriate to raise in this way. It might not meet criteria of "change X to Y". However, I am not brave enough to raise directly with the editor concerned, in the rather bruising WP hurly-burly. Thanks. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How would one do that? This is the talk page, so I guess anyone can comment? Or ... I'm a bit confused. You mean to say, a registered user can unilaterally remove sourced content, but I have to ask a different set of editors to agree with me and then, and only then, I can ask for the change? This was my attempt to gain consensus ....
 * I do not know enough about the subject to be certain if I am right or wrong, I just thought it might be helpful to others point out something mildly odd in a recent edit - to those who know this area, or are interested in this article. Then they would look at it and make a decision. My only interest is not to have article quality decline. I thought editors of this page might discuss it amongst themselves, once I'd raised a possible problem.
 * Please do not answer this comment, just set to "yes" again and leave it. I don't want to do anything with this, just thought others might. I placed this additional verbiage here, just for any interested party's information. Thank you for your time, sorry if I've have wasted it. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:CONACHIEVE it explains different ways to gather consensus. The easiest way would be to post new sections on the talk pages of the wikiprojects linked to this page, WikiProject History has examples of notifications & is linked to this page. In a week, come back and if there is a consensus in this seciton for the change. Reopen the request, if no one has responded in that time, reopen the request noting (and linking) that there has been WP:SILENCE and the request should be completed (If there are no other issues). Terasail [✉️] 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping about discussion of an edit you made. Terasail [✉️] 17:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah if a reliable english translation can be found that source can be restored, and yes i think being an apologia in a nonreputable publisher sits badly w WP:RS Haddarr (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

When to when?
User:ComradeKublai’s grossly WP:UNCIVIL-violating edit comment aside, the lede has several problems in the area of the contested text. For one thing, “Near East” is never mentioned again, let alone how the date was arrived at. In the body where the (presumably mostly synonymous) West Asia is mentioned, no dates are given. In the (also presumably mostly synonymous) Middle East section, the text starts with the Islamic era. In the case of Greece, a firm belief in a spherical earth seems to have been established towards the end of the Classical period and definitely not the much earlier date User:ComradeKublai gives in order to coincide with the usually recognized beginning of that era. Therefore that edit is wrong as an explanation relevant to the topic. More to the point, giving a single date isn’t educational: there was no light-bulb moment. We should figure out what really needs to be said here. Strebe (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
The fact that you say the Flat Earth is an archaic model is a condescending term that dismisses the hundreds of hours worth of evidence to suggest otherwise. I am not claiming one model to be correct or incorrect, rather I believe it is unfair as an individual who believes in the scientific method to be so close minded. We are discovering new things everyday and we can never say if something is 100% true because it is all observation. Crizzy14 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * change archaic with old because it is offensive to consider people backwards. Egon20 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021
change archaic conception to common misconception Xeynome (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's certainly archaic, having been around for a very long time as part of various belief systems. But I don't think we can do as you ask, because we don't actually know how common (or uncommon) a misconception it is (or still is, or has become). In other words, we'd be guessing, and that's not allowed in articles. Haploidavey (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Change it into old, using archaic will only discredit the flat earthers and thus Wikipedia will infringe its impartiality Egon20 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing of the sort. Wikiipedia "impartiality" does not mean giving equal weight to scientific fact and demonstrably false belief. Haploidavey (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC) PS Just a small revision here - I'm sure some people sincerely believe in a flat earth, but that doesn't make their belief scientifically credible. Haploidavey (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Saying demonstrably false beliefs means that you are favoring one side and unjustly mistreating the other. For the purpose of “truth” you can say that science considers this belief as false but it is not right to use offensive words like archaic, nor other words like backwards because this is not a civilized manner where people should learn. Egon20 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Demonstrably false beliefs" means those beliefs can be shown to be false. It has nothing to do with favor or mistreatment. "Archaic" means old and no longer in general use, without necessarily implying offense. I do not see "backward(s)" anywhere in the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying archaic means that the concept of flat earth stuck into the past and never continued into the future . Moreover, this infringes the "neutral point of view" because this should not be a place for dictictions over what is scientific fact and what is "demonstrably FALSE belief" since you are enforcing your point of view by considering it FALSE. I propose to change archaic into old, and if you really want to say that it's not scientific then say that but make clear that it's not an arrogant way to oppose flat earthers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egon20 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Before you talk about WP:NPOV, you should actually read it. It does not say what you think it says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it, in the explanation it says Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, and this is against these comments because the comments intend that the people are forced to believe that it is false, just like Haploidavey at 12:38 (UTC) stated Wikiipedia "impartiality" does not mean giving equal weight to scientific fact and demonstrably false belief. Anyway, I'm done talking because I don't want to be banned for hateful speech. Egon20 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You obviously did not read all of it, especially not the WP:GEVAL section, which explicitly mentions this very case: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021
It seems reasonable to change "archaic" to "ancient". Archaic is biased and judgmental language. 71.85.136.130 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not necessarily ancient since flat earthers exist, but certainly archaic as scientific consensus agrees against it. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, archaic means that it's part of the past, yet you said that flat earthers today exist so it's not stuck into the past, it should be changed into old. Egon20 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording "thou art" instead of "you are" is archaic, but people still use it when they want to sound archaic. Today's flat earthers are the same - their way of thinking is archaic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ”Archaic” means no such thing as “it’s [only] part of the past”. Please consult dictionaries. In particular, see definition 4 here: : “ : surviving from an earlier period”. Strebe (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Flat Earth is not a remnant since it was revived in 19th century. In the Middle Ages nobody considered the Earth Flat, it's a disproved myth. Anyway the same dictionary says that it can also mean antiquated, which also happens to be used as an insult but certainly the best word. Old cannot offend anyone, which is a better reason to change a word rather than justifying the presence of archaic. Egon20 (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021
The terminology used in the opening remarks of this theory should be revised and changed. 47.26.133.191 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021
It was never scientifically disproven this is misinformation!! JSGN1001 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The current heading is not neutral in speech and is completely one sided. It makes a claim that the flat earth has been scientifically disproven and then at no point in the article whatsoever does this article address any science proving or disproving the flat earth. In this, the heading does not describe the content of the article and should thereby be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finkleschene (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Spherical Earth contains lots of evidence. But indeed, this article should also have some of it. At the moment, for some reason, it is only in a few pictures ("Semi-circular shadow" and "lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon" as well as in a mention of Rowbotham's excuses for "ships disappearing below the horizon".
 * But we will definitely not give WP:FALSEBALANCE to the flat-earth loons here. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. The solution is not to remove the fact of the obvious falsehood of the idea from the lede, but to add it to the rest of the article so that the sentence in the lede is a summary of it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We shouldn’t repeat snippets of Spherical Earth article here. We just need better directions to that article for the science. Strebe (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say "repeat snippets". This article is about the Flat Earth concept, and it is not complete without saying how ans why it met its demise.
 * The point is: We have two free-floating pictures showing proof of non-flatness, not connected in any way to the text of the article, and the lede saying something that is not in the article. The centerpiece connecting them is missing.
 * One sentence would be enough, saying that it was known in classic antiquity that the flat earth failed to fit the evidence, with a list of examples. Eratosthenes' pretty accurate measurement of Earth's diameter, the different views of the stars in different latitudes, the always circular Earth shadow on the moon (picture) and ships disappearing under the horizon (picture) are good candidates for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022
I request the statement "scientifically disproven" in regards to the flat earth cosmology to be changed. Otherwise such science itself that disproves such cosmology to be shown with links and citations that provide the scientific experiment or experiments able to be independently verified that were used to do so. Otherwise stop posting such misinformation on YouTube channels if claims of science is all there truly is to back it up. Or maybe providing information about what science actually is when posting such things on other people's channels. So the viewers can see that the ones posting it are obviously very aware and understanding in regards to such things they make claims about. Rather than just assert them on my channel 1.144.107.116 (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright content?

 * Could you explain this reversion? The Wikipedia article text did not appear to copy or close to verbatim. It only restates. Strebe (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found. That's too much overlap to be acceptable.— Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Strebe, Diannaa not only reverted it, but falsely accused me of copyright infringement and entered that on my userpage. It is a denunciation. Look here: User talk:Sciencia58. Sciencia58 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * She made the second revert in such a way that my better text version, once again reformulated by myself, is no longer visible. Why should the review by other colleagues immediately be made impossible? Fortunately, I wrote and proposed the second text version on my user page as a draft. However, she did not react to this, but waited until I had written it in the article to then denounce me again. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I was not watching your talk page, so I did not see that you had proposed a new version until you added it to the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)