Talk:Flat Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Arbitration Committee has issued several principles which may be helpful to editors of this and other articles when dealing with subjects and categories related to "pseudoscience".

Principles

Four groups

Former good articleFlat Earth was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 9, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

lead rating: 10/10[edit]

I had read some heavy PR stories that completely represented a positive image of a certain subject without any neutrality whatsoever.

I thought that if I opened the Flat Earth wikipedia article I would get an equally "PR" view without any mention that it is rejected by modern science.

I decided to read the lead for how accurate it is as an introduction to the subject, then talk on this talk page about my judgment. I thought I would give it like 1/10 or 2/10, since I thought that due to heavy editing by argumentative proponents, it would not in any way be neutral.

Instead I found the introduction to be 10/10. Good job!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:3066:c0eb:df5f:869f (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2017‎

You say it's NPOV? How? This article DEFINES POV, the whole article should be rewritten. The introduction calls it "pseudoscience" and immediately starts talking about proponents of a round earth mostly European who comprised probably not even a percent of the world population. Almost nothing is said about the subject itself. There are no citations to the model, the sections don't discuss the model. Later the flat earth is called disinformation. Are editors afraid someone might actually cite scientific evidence that goes against the Dogma this article clearly pushes? Either intentional or unintentional. Please reconsider.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.110.183 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2017‎

Islam[edit]

− 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.[1][2][3]

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 • 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 • 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#Cosmology. A brief blurb summarizing the relevant points there along with the sources might be okay. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • 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 "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ghāzūlī, Muḥammad (2007-04). Christ, Muhammad and I. Chick Publications. ISBN 978-0-7589-0648-9. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Ibrahim, Youssef M. (1995-02-12). "Muslim Edicts Take on New Force". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-06-11.
  3. ^ "The Heavens and The Earth - Islamic World Map - Exploring the Early Americas | Exhibitions - Library of Congress". www.loc.gov. Retrieved 2020-06-11.


Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020[edit]

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)

 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020[edit]

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)

Not done 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 • videos) 23:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The first Line[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Twinkle:

From Wikipedia: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)

@Footlessmouse: 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)

@Strebe:, 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)

@Footlessmouse: 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)
@Strebe:. 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)

@Strebe:. 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)
@Roxy the dog: 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)
@Footlessmouse: 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)
@Strebe: 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[edit]

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 [1] 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flat_Earth&oldid=1002760368"