Ensiklopedia Dunia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 28 days

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.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 20, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 23, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 9, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

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

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Ancient Near East High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Hava Mendelle (February 17, 2024). "Wikipedia: how safe is crowdsourcing the truth?". Spectator Australia. Retrieved February 17, 2024. Take the following examples, an article on Flat Earth and an article on the Weaponisation of antisemitism. ... The former reads more neutral and factual where whereas the latter reads like an argumentative essay.

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]

Please provide evidence that the people Aquinas quotes proved the earth to be spherical. Round does not imply spherical. When I say the table is round it is clear that the table is not spherical. When Aquinas or people he quoted said it was round they could just have meant it to be a round disk. Before it has been proven that the meaning is spherical it should not be mentioned as such in the official page. Retonom (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing English language semantics. As Strebe explained, the writing was in Latin, where no such semantic ambiguity exists. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing English language semantics. "rotundus" in Latin can also mean circular so my argument is valid. You can find the proof here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rotundus#Latin :

1. round, circular

2. spherical, rotund Retonom (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By relying on Wiktionary translation (or any translation, really), you're back to applying English semantics. MrOllie (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. A translation is not English semantics. Semantics is about the meaning in a specific language. Translation is not semantics. In addition to that, Strebe said: "The original Latin in question, rotundam, does not mean circular." This is incorrect, as Wiktionary proves, it also means circular and don't tell me again, that to say what a word in another language means is semantics. Please let someone answer who understands the subject. Retonom (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you are attempting to build is plainly a semantic one, and, per WP:NOR, misplaced here. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've added a secondary source with directly supports the claim as well, which I trust settles the matter. MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, both the physicist and the astronomer prove the earth to be round does not make any sense if "round" means a circle as opposed to a square. How would astronomers or physicists prove such a stupid thing? It was clear from the beginning that this is a WP:CIR thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making an argument and you cannot refute it. Instead you cite vague "semantics" and you invoke the argumentum ab auctoritate logical fallacy. There's is really no point in arguing with someone who doesn't have a clue about proper arguments. Retonom (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is out-of-context bullshit of the type a chatbot would write. There was no "ab auctoritate" reasoning anywhere here. Even if it were, Wikipedia is built on reliable sources and not on your "arguments". Read WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of classical Latin, and romance languages in general, "rotundus,-um" can mean both round and spherical, but generally means a spherical shape when referring to the earth (or any tri-dimensional thing). To mean something is round and flat, "circularis,-is" is typically used. "Sphaericus,-i" (spherical) is a late latin word derived from Greek. But to be blunt, if it wasn't obvious, Thomas Aquinas points to an spherical earth by talking referring to hemispheres: "...sicut simul dum sol est in puncto orientis, illuminat nostrum hemisphaerium" (Summa Contra Gentiles 2;38-9). Hemisphere means "half a sphere". Canilla92 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proof for the curvature to be removed since it is wrong

OP indef blocked O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The box states that: "An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth" The towers in the foreground are only partly hidden, whereas those a bit further away are almost completely hidden. The towers in the front are not very far away from the towers in the background, this is evident from the size since they would have to be much smaller if they were much further away. This cannot be due to the curvature since the curvature could not make objects so close to each other disappear in such a way. If it was the curvature the effect would have to be much smaller. This is therefore no proof for the curvature. Either the picture is fake or it is some optical effect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) The further ones are several kilometers away from the nearer ones. At any rate, we cannot take action based on your personal analysis, see WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] The earth's curvature is much less than what is shown here. It can be calculated here: https://earthcurvature.com/ The towers are 157m high. Even if the towers would be 10km apart it would only account for a curvature drop of 7.85 meters. This makes it very clear, that the claim presented here is not proof for the earth's curvature. The towers cannot disappear like that due to earth's curvature. Quod erat demonstrandum. Retonom (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Anyone that uses the phrase "ball Earth" when they aren't joking can't really be taken seriously. There's a reason that site doesn't allow you to account for any other variables. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Well, refraction might be a noticeable factor for the whole distance of 50km from the observer. But we are talking about the distance between the towers. One tower is 1.5km apart from each other. Even if we take the distance from the nearest tower to the farthest tower we get only 9km. Over these 9km the curvature drop would be only 6.36 meters. The rotor diameter is 126 meters. On the picture half of the rotor of the tower on the left is almost completely hidden. This means that there should be a curvature drop of around 63 meters which is 10 times more than the curvature drop would be for the whole windfarm from front to back. Refraction only makes very slight difference on such a distance. You can calculate this here: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator On 9km this would be less than 1m. Retonom (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] I forgot to mention that you can see the complete rotor on the tower of about the same size on the right side. So the curvature drop from this tower to the tower on the left should be about 60m but in reality it can only be about 6m for the distance of the whole windfarm. Retonom (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] You forgot that the surface already started dropping in the first 50 km, so the drop is more than that. See Horizon#Objects above the horizon for the formulas and an explaining image. Sjö (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] No I didn't forget this. I'm only speaking about the difference between the towers and how much the curvature drop would have to be between the towers and this should match the image but it does not. Instead of around 6m for the distance of the whole windfarm the picture shows a difference of around 60m which cannot be accounted for with curvature. That is why this picture does not prove the earth's curvature. Why this exactly happens I cannot tell. Retonom (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] And to be able to say something about the whole distance to the farm we would need to know the observer height. Otherwise the curvature cannot be properly calculated with a calculator like this for example: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator The picture only gives the distance to the windfarm and is therefore is not suited to serve as proof for the curvature since it cannot be verified. Retonom (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the link. When I plug in an observer height of 40 m, an object height of 150 m and the distances 50,000 and 60,000 m I get a difference in hidden height of about 50 m, which fits pretty well with the image. Of course we don't know the exact distance or the observer height but I can find no reasonable combination of values that will give a difference of only 6 m. Again, thanks for the tool that proves you wrong. Sjö (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] The reason behind the different numbers is that you ask the question "how much does the curvature make the sea drop from 0 to 10 km" when you should be asking "how much does the curvature make the sea drop from 50 to 60 km". Sjö (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] See above. Your reasoning is irrelevant because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on what you think. You are in the wrong place; go to some forum or publish in a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's not what I think. I showed it to be true based on calculations. The image also does not say how much the observer height is. The curvature drop cannot even be reliably calculated for the 50km. Furthermore, where is the reliable source for the image and the claim? There is nothing. So it is like that: according to my demonstration the towers are a max of 9km away from each other. The curvature can only account for about 6m drop for 9km but we can see a 60m drop. So the image is probably fake. My evidence stands against an image with a claim with no evidence, no reliable sources, no reliable picture and you have the impudence to call my reasoning irrelevant. Because of people like you Wikipedia is based on unverified claims like this, the exact opposite of what you claim. And my valid objections you just brush off with "irrelevant reasoning". Retonom (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP indef blocked O3000, Ret. (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The box states that: "An image of Thorntonbank Wind Farm (near the Belgian coast) with the lower parts of the more distant towers increasingly hidden by the horizon, demonstrating the curvature of the Earth"

The towers in the foreground are only partly hidden, whereas those a bit further away are almost completely hidden. The towers in the front are not very far away from the towers in the background, this is evident from the size since they would have to be much smaller if they were much further away. This cannot be due to the curvature since the curvature could not make objects so close to each other disappear in such a way. If it was the curvature the effect would have to be much smaller. This is therefore no proof for the curvature. Either the picture is fake or it is some optical effect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs)

The further ones are several kilometers away from the nearer ones. At any rate, we cannot take action based on your personal analysis, see WP:NOR. - MrOllie (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earth's curvature is much less than what is shown here. It can be calculated here: https://earthcurvature.com/

The towers are 157m high. Even if the towers would be 10km apart it would only account for a curvature drop of 7.85 meters. This makes it very clear, that the claim presented here is not proof for the earth's curvature. The towers cannot disappear like that due to earth's curvature. Quod erat demonstrandum. Retonom (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that uses the phrase "ball Earth" when they aren't joking can't really be taken seriously. There's a reason that site doesn't allow you to account for any other variables. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, refraction might be a noticeable factor for the whole distance of 50km from the observer. But we are talking about the distance between the towers. One tower is 1.5km apart from each other. Even if we take the distance from the nearest tower to the farthest tower we get only 9km. Over these 9km the curvature drop would be only 6.36 meters. The rotor diameter is 126 meters. On the picture half of the rotor of the tower on the left is almost completely hidden. This means that there should be a curvature drop of around 63 meters which is 10 times more than the curvature drop would be for the whole windfarm from front to back. Refraction only makes very slight difference on such a distance. You can calculate this here: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

On 9km this would be less than 1m. Retonom (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that you can see the complete rotor on the tower of about the same size on the right side. So the curvature drop from this tower to the tower on the left should be about 60m but in reality it can only be about 6m for the distance of the whole windfarm. Retonom (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that the surface already started dropping in the first 50 km, so the drop is more than that. See Horizon#Objects above the horizon for the formulas and an explaining image. Sjö (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't forget this. I'm only speaking about the difference between the towers and how much the curvature drop would have to be between the towers and this should match the image but it does not. Instead of around 6m for the distance of the whole windfarm the picture shows a difference of around 60m which cannot be accounted for with curvature. That is why this picture does not prove the earth's curvature. Why this exactly happens I cannot tell. Retonom (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to be able to say something about the whole distance to the farm we would need to know the observer height. Otherwise the curvature cannot be properly calculated with a calculator like this for example: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

The picture only gives the distance to the windfarm and is therefore is not suited to serve as proof for the curvature since it cannot be verified. Retonom (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. When I plug in an observer height of 40 m, an object height of 150 m and the distances 50,000 and 60,000 m I get a difference in hidden height of about 50 m, which fits pretty well with the image. Of course we don't know the exact distance or the observer height but I can find no reasonable combination of values that will give a difference of only 6 m. Again, thanks for the tool that proves you wrong. Sjö (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind the different numbers is that you ask the question "how much does the curvature make the sea drop from 0 to 10 km" when you should be asking "how much does the curvature make the sea drop from 50 to 60 km". Sjö (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Your reasoning is irrelevant because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on what you think. You are in the wrong place; go to some forum or publish in a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I think. I showed it to be true based on calculations. The image also does not say how much the observer height is. The curvature drop cannot even be reliably calculated for the 50km. Furthermore, where is the reliable source for the image and the claim? There is nothing. So it is like that: according to my demonstration the towers are a max of 9km away from each other. The curvature can only account for about 6m drop for 9km but we can see a 60m drop. So the image is probably fake. My evidence stands against an image with a claim with no evidence, no reliable sources, no reliable picture and you have the impudence to call my reasoning irrelevant. Because of people like you Wikipedia is based on unverified claims like this, the exact opposite of what you claim. And my valid objections you just brush off with "irrelevant reasoning". Retonom (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system

Do those who subscribe to the Flat Earth theory believe that only the Earth is flat, or are some/all planets in our solar system also flat ? I think the article should clarify this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: Modern flat Earth beliefs O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a flat earther myself, but my friend is. He personally believes that every planet is flat. He won't listen to my reasonings, and I'm honestly unsure if he's being genuine or not, so take it with a grain of salt. Fastestbeanintheuniverse (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is archaic the right word for the lead

Is it really archaic as people knew earth was a sphere (not quite right as earth is really an oblate spheroid) for thousands of years so would just saying just it’s outdated be more accurate? Legendarycool (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does (some) people knowing for thousands of years that the earth is spherical have anything to do with whether or not a flat-earth model is “archaic”? Strebe (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People discovering that the earth is a sphere in the 5th century BCE would make the idea of a spherical earth also archaic (by most definitions of the word).

P.S I just feel the current lead is just to emotive rather than just stating the facts?

P.P.S I’m not a ‘flat earther’ (think that’s the right word) so I. Just trying to improve this page. Legendarycool (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think anything is considered archaic if it is also considered current. The normal connotation is that the thing or idea is old and obsolete, having been replaced by something more modern. I think it’s the perfect word for the use. Strebe (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think archaic is ok because "outdated" seems stronger and judgmental. Archaic, means old fashioned and is merely talking about something that used to be viewed as acceptable in the past. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that outdated would be more clear and logical word and that archaic in my opinion seems far more emotive and judgmental. Legendarycool (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but archaic seems more neutral. Something can old fashioned to us, but acceptable to people from the past. I think "outdated" would be an anachronism, no? Ramos1990 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what’s happening here is, I have a different perception of these words, you are correct from your experience with these words, but I’m correct from my perception of said words. I don’t really know what to do as we both are trying to communicate one message with separate words? Maybe have Archaic/outdated but thats clunky. Legendarycool (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does say "scientifically disproven" so I think your connotation of "outdated" is caught there, no? Archaic is used to designate past time periods like Archaic Period. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok archaic does work well enough. Legendarycool (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

hello, I suggest changing "More recently, flat earth theory has seen an increase in popularity" to "Since the 2010s, flat earth theory has seen an increase in popularity". it's a clarification that seems necessary to me for the article to be timeless. the two articles cited as sources for the resurgence of this theory date from the 2010s.

I would also like to propose the following change: change "only 82% of 18 to 24 year old respondents agreed with the statement "I have always believed the world is round"." to "only 82% of 18 to 24 year old American respondents agreed with the statement "I have always believed the world is round".". the study was carried out only on Americans: https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious

I would have liked to make these changes myself but my account is not auto-confirmed. GloBoy93 (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Strebe (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:

Hidden categories: