Jump to content

Talk:Flat Earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.71.142.176 (talk) at 12:47, 18 July 2022 (→section referring to chinese astronomers calculation of height of sun above earth- conversion error: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Vital article

lead rating: 10/10

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

Religious texts references

There are many texts I would like to add, so I'm going to add here some.

Biblical:

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.[1]

This verse (Revelation 7:1) mentioned "the four corners of the earth" which can only mean that the Earth is a flat square.

Quranic:

And the earth - We have spread it and cast therein firmly set mountains and caused to grow therein [something] of every well-balanced thing.[2]

This verse (15:19) mentions "spread", possibly considering the earth as a carpet.

Vedic:

In this hymn (Atharva Veda, Book 6, Hymn 8), the third verse clearly states that the Sun ecompasses the heaven and the earth:
1 Like as the creeper throws, her arms on every side around the
  tree,
 So hold thou me in thine embrace that thou mayst be in love
  with me, my darling, never to depart.
2 As, when he mounts, the eagle strikes his pinions downward on
  the earth,
 So do I strike thy spirit down that thou mayst be in love with
  me, my darling, never to depart.
3 As in his rapid course the Sun encompasses the heaven and:
  earth,
 So do I compass round thy mind that thou mayst be in love with.
  me, my darling, never to depart.[3]
These are not reliable sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they not? Are those texts not many enough or is it something else? Egon20 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't notice anything wrong with these verses, the interpretation is left to the believer. Egon20 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QUESTIONABLE. Whilst it is true that sources which we may categorize as "religious literature" might be accepted by some in turn as fact or fable based upon their interpretation of them, their use as reliable sources of some kind of empirical facts is questionable. They should not be relied upon as intrinsically factual sources, only as proofs that some might interpret them as facts based upon their religious beliefs.
My idea is including those texts but considering them proofs only for certain believers, for example who reads the bible in a literal way and then comes to read Revelation 7:1. I know many consider the four corners as an idiom but I think it's more correct to keep it neutral and only saying that some people interpret those texts to support flat earth theory. Egon20 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with including the belief in Flat Earth expressed in major texts of major religions, putting them in their proper contexts in the History section, for example. The article already says that the Quran says the earth was "spread". So, the second one is already covered. I didn't know what there is about Vedas and Bible; I didn't read the whole article. But giving passages would be too much. You can say X:Y of this text supports the idea of the flat earth, provided there is a scholarly source interpreting said verse that way. I think, given how poetic/cryptic/nonsensical religious texts can be, we can't do WP:OR on what they mean. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this Muslim website?[4] Egon20 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable, like us. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This NY Times article?[5] I'm struggling to find a scholar because I don't know who the people I know about follow. Egon20 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quora?[6] Someone there also cited this source[7]. Egon20 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a mention about Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin-Baz?[8] Egon20 (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you aiming at? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Egon20: kindly stop cherry-picking. While some Hindu texts say earth is flat, most of them says it's spherical/oval shaped. ref. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like 18:47 of the Quran and wish to include it.[9] 87.18.114.73 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation 7:1 has been used by Christian flat earthers so I think it deserves to be quoted in the main page. Daniel 4:10-11 and Matthew 4:8 can also be mentioned.[10] Temp0000002 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207%3A1&version=NIV
  2. ^ https://quran.com/15/19
  3. ^ https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av06008.htm
  4. ^ https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Views_on_the_Shape_of_the_Earth
  5. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/12/world/muslim-edicts-take-on-new-force.html
  6. ^ https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Qur-an-state-that-the-Earth-is-flat
  7. ^ https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=79&tAyahNo=30&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
  8. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/flat-earth-and-that-s-flat-1446539.html
  9. ^ https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Views_on_the_Shape_of_the_Earth#Qur.27an_79:30_-_daha_.28.22spread_out.22.2C_said_to_mean_.22ostrich_egg.22.29
  10. ^ https://signsofthetimes.org.au/2021/05/flat-earth-theory-and-the-bible/

@Diannaa:: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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#May 2022. Sciencia58 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

What about the history of the rest of the world?

Why is it mainly the European history of opinion and none of Africa? The European dominates and a little of China. What about India? How has is come to pass that the Greeks history becomes some kind of unspoken law of how the world is? 2A02:C7D:F00B:5600:D0CA:C2C7:B662:78D9 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources about what people thought in other countries, please add that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there are reliable sources mentioning that, they can be added easily.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

section referring to chinese astronomers calculation of height of sun above earth- conversion error

According to the Wikipedia article on the classical chinese measurement unit li, the conversion rate used in the section (1 li = 2 km) is off and should be instead 1 li = .5 km). Should probably be fixed, no? 80.71.142.176 (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flat_Earth&oldid=1098989391"