The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as
Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as
astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as
psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Flat 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.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the
history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
There is a sentence which, for me, is confusing - "For young children who have not yet received information from their social environment, their own perception of their surroundings often leads to a false concept about the shape of the underground on the horizon" I feel like it could be edited for clarity. Perhaps it is more concise to say the shape of the planet beyond the horizon" or even "the shape of the ground as it appears at the horizon"?
Chardok (
talk) 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for pointing that out. I made copy edits. Do they address your concern?
Strebe (
talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thomas Aquinas does not mention a spherical earth
The article says:
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the most widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, believed in a spherical Earth and took for granted that his readers also knew the Earth is round.
But the source which is given does not mention a spherical earth. Aquinas says that both the physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round, which is not necessarily spherical. Why does the text then say Aquinas believed in a spherical earth? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Retonom (
talk •
contribs) 15:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The original Latin in question, rotundam, does not mean circular. It is the accusative feminine singular of rotundus, which means round, spherical, globular, just as round does in English. It’s clear that it means spherical in this context because the physicists and astronomers he refers to had demonstrated the earth to be spherical, not merely disk-like, as per the references St. Thomas himself gives. There is no scholarly controversy over the meaning of this sentence.
Strebe (
talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article full of globe bias
This article should be about the flat earth but in fact is serves more to make assertions that the flat earth theory is pseudoscience, silly, unscientific or whatever is brought up to discredit the flat earth. This is not how it should work. The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. From what I perceive the people that are in charge here do not want an objective view of the flat earth to be available to the general public, since they delete even comments on this talk page that point out flaws in the article. Let's see if this comment is deleted again, which would prove my point... Have a nice day — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Retonom (
talk •
contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to "both sides" of an argument, like it seems to me that you propose. Pseudoscientific opinions should not be shown as valid statements of fact. Please see
WP:UNDUE and
WP:FRINGE for more on this topic.
Sjö (
talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. Except, it doesn’t do this. The lead paragraph is be heavy with such statements, but asserting that the entire article is that way discredits your premise for me. The lead paragraph ended up that way because a lot of other editors were concerned that the older text might give someone the impression that belief in a flat earth could be scientific.
Strebe (
talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove the "St." in front of "Thomas Aquinas", per
MOS:HON/
MOS:SAINT. His status of sainthood in the eyes of the catholic church is wholly irrelevant here. Thanks,
35.139.154.158 (
talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The flat earth belief may, or may not, have credence. In either case, is it necessary for the article to reveal the stance of the author? Would a neutral presentation of facts not better let the reader reach the correct conclusion?
Throughout history, there have been many, many scenarios in which the "consensus" was wrong and the minority was correct. While I personally do not believe that is the case with flat earth, what is the benefit of wikipedia taking a stance? Reading this article, I do not care what the authors of the article think (yet I am battered by their beliefs).
71.247.12.176 (
talk) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say and they do not support flat earth theories. Check out Encyclopedia Britannica - they say the same stuff
[1].
Ramos1990 (
talk) 20:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But why not state what the reliable sources say (with links) and then state what the flat earthers say.
Reading this article, I wanted to understand what flat earthers actually believe in, and why. I could not do that when the article, from the onset, says they are wrong and unequivocally dumps on them. It means I need to go to some other site to learn the context / history here.
71.247.12.176 (
talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
As an encyclopedia, it is obligatory for Wikipedia to describe utter nonsense as nonsense, and not to pretend that it has any credibility or basis in fact. Acroterion(talk) 20:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Because
fringe beliefs are
not given equal time for the obvious reason that people should not be led to suppose that a false belief could be right. The shape of the earth is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact as much as anything else is. We don’t give “neutral” presentation to alternative beliefs about the temperature and pressure at which water boils, or any of millions of other facts. What we do is report that some people believe false things. When we say “fact”, we do not mean an assertion that could not change regardless of how reality is constructed. It is true that the earth might not be spherical if existence is only a dream or if we are some kind of highly controlled simulation. It not true that the earth is flat if the normal assumptions about existence are true: There is no rigorous experiment that could demonstrate such a thing, and limitless experiments that demonstrate otherwise.
Strebe (
talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, no one actually does dispute the temperature at which water boils. If some large group of people did, i would expect (want) wikipedia to present their views without stating, from the onset, and in wikipedias voice, whether wikipedia thinks they are right or wrong.
That does not mean both sides are given "equal weight". If one side has the overwhelming support of science and consensus, the sources will show that and the reader can naturally reach that conclusion himself.
You said wikipedia has an obligation to describe nonsense as nonsense. But why? Can the reader not make that conclusion himself?
71.247.12.176 (
talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There is so much nonsense out there, if Wikipedia operated in the way you suggest it would be choked with irrelevances. The article on the
Moon will not seriously entertain the idea that it is made out of cheese, because Wikipedia's core mission is to summarize the best available sources, not the best available sources and then also all the cranks who happen to disagree.
MrOllie (
talk) 21:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But this is not an article about the earth; it is specifically about flat earth belief.
Similarly, i agree moon article should not mention cheese theories; but an article about cheese theories would...
71.247.12.176 (
talk) 21:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply