Talk:Modern flat Earth beliefs

Neutral POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article name

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

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

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

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

Islamic world

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

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

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

Ars Technica examples and update

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

... a worldwide view...

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

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

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

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

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

Prominent members

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

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

Well, fame is especially fleeting in fringe communities, as a person's status usually depends on their current marketability. Sargent does seem to be behind at least some part of the popularity of the Flat Earth fad (e.g. [1]) but I think a descriptive term like "YouTube personality" does just as well without lending a sense of legitimacy and permanence. He may entrench himself as Flat Earth's Däniken, or he might just as easily end up eventually being known mostly as that guy who appeared on that Flat Earth documentary. Daß Wölf 23:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)