Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Please correct

The following line in the first paragraph is incorrect. "The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post biblical times." Read the Bible Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, and Psalm 19:6. It should be clear that not all Jews believed this especially those who are Jewish by faith and not just by culture. The Biblical Comsology reference link reports incorrect information and poor Biblical interpretation as well. Thank you. We should remove assumptions or bias from these pages if we truly wich to present truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.228.16 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This topic crops up episodically. We don’t interpret scriptures here. You need reliable citations. Strebe (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Two questions to improve the article

As long as a lot of historians disagree with many facts in this article and there are very controversial states in it I suggest to the article's authors (to improve the article and prove the facts shown in it) to clarify or to find resources to explain the following two questions: First, if the people knew that Earth is sphere in early Middle ages, why first circumnavigation happened only in 1519–1522 (Ferdinand Magellan's expedition) and why before the 14th century even Europeans didn't have any normal idea about world's map??

And second, is this viewpoint (the people knew that Earth is sphere in early Middle ages) acceptable by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and if yes, show the appropriate sources.

Otherwise this article will continue to be very controversial. Thanks in advance. 46.71.61.24 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Similar questions were recently raised at Talk:Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth#Very_preconceived_opinion. You can look there for further discussion of these issues.

• As to Magellan's first circumnavigation, the delay was at least as much a question of the limits of earlier maritime technology as it was a question of the ignorance of the spherical earth. For more details and evidence for early awareness of the shape of the earth see Spherical earth.
• There is no reason to expect the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to have a formal opinion on every scholarly question. The article as it stands cites many scholarly sources to support its content. If you know of any sources that support your views, feel free to edit the article using those sources.

Finally, may I recommend that you register as a Wikipedia editor in order to maintain continuity of your edits. IP addresses are seldom permanent and it is hard to be sure the same editor is talking. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Text in footnotes

We should not be bolding text to emphasise it. A lot of the text is direct quotation but it's unclear how much. Also, should some of this be in the article rather than just in the references? The same problem and material is at Geocentric model. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Heading change?

The section marked "Decline of the Flat Earth Model" has had a "strays from the topic" tag on it for a long time. Looking through that section there is a lot of duplication of parallel items in the Spherical Earth article sometimes with identical wording. Would a heading change to, e.g. "Declining support for the flat earth" clarify things? If there is no evidence for continuing support in a particular area we don't even need a subsection for it. Chris55 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Given there were no objections, I've changed the heading and removed much of the material that doesn't belong here, moving some to the spherical earth article. But there remains a significant amount of material that is not concerned with those arguing for a flat earth, but mainly about medieval Christians who believed in a spherical earth. These are redundant in the spherical earth article as they didn't contribute anything particular, but are also out of place here as they didn't believe in a flat earth. The obvious solution would be to move these to the Flat-earth myth article, although that article doesn't currently have any of this type of material. Since there appear to be editors who want to put this material wherever they can, is this a stable long-term approach? Can we keep this article about those who believe in flat earth, not those who don't? Chris55 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In a real encyclopædia, the flat earth model and the spherical earth model would not be addressed separately. They would be a single article that addresses the many models, how they arose, how they competed, who thought what, and so forth. But given that we have these disparate articles, how the flat earth model declined is very much a part of the topic, just as how it thrived was. I agree the article shouldn’t spend a lot of effort demonstrating that medieval Europeans believed the earth to be spherical; that’s nearly irrelevant. The matter was settled long before then, though the few oddballs who held other beliefs ought to be noted. I’m fine with the changes. I wouldn’t be fine with deleting the section. There is going to be overlap when articles are separate like this. Strebe (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO, we should merge to create a single history-of-science article on "Topology of the Earth", and also a "Science vs Religion (historiography)" article with a section on the post-Darwin spread of the myth that pre-Columbian authorities doubted the world was round. Cesiumfrog (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That merge might be fine. As an aside, I agree that Darwinian/atheistic sources spreading the false rumor that the pre-Columbian Christian world thought the Earth was flat (in the non-ending-since-then saw being a Christian means you are anti-science) despite "science" mostly progressing in the Church for centuries is an important point. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Use of historical sources

I'm copying this discussion from User talk:Chris55 to invite further comment. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I'm becoming increasingly troubled by your claim to find "hints" in the sources that Columbus's opponents argued that the Earth was flat when the two texts you cite (Robertson and Ferdinand Columbus) both explicitly recount arguments that are based on the sphericity of the earth. Such a tendentious reading of the sources really challenges the fundamental assumption of good faith.

If you want to state, contrary to modern historical research, that early sources demonstrate that Columbus's opponents were arguing on the basis of the flat earth, you should cite specific reliable sources in support of your position. Allusion to undefined hints doesn't qualify as citing reliable sources. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The texts from which you are apparently drawing this inference of a flat earth are as follows

"Others, who incln'd more to cosmographical reason, said that the world was so prodigous great, that it was incredible three years sail would bring him to the end of the east, whither he design'd his voyage, and to corroborate their opinion, they brought the authority of Seneca, who in one of his works, by way of argument, said, that many wise men among them disagreed about this question, whether the earth were infinite, and doubted whether it could be sail'd, and tho' it were navigable, whether habitable lands would be found on the other side, and whether they could be gone to. They added, that of this lower globe of earth and water...." (Ferdinand Columbus, p. 520).

"Others concluded, that either he would find the ocean to be of infinite extent, according to the opinion of some ancient philosophers; of, if he should persist in steering towards the west beyond a certain point, that the convex vigure of the globe would prevent his return, and that he must inevitably perish,in the vain attempt to open a communication between the two opposite hemispheres,..." (Robertson, The History of America, p. 88).

Although both of these texts introduce the argument that some philosophers (F. Columbus specifically names Seneca) considered the possibility that the earth was infinite:

• They are considering an infinite earth one of several possibilities.
• Infinity does not necessarily imply flatness, philosophers discussed infinite spheres.
• The discussions of infinity are directly coupled with discussions of the sphericity of the earth.

To infer from these texts that they were arguments for a flat earth smacks of original research, especially without testimony from modern historians who have examined these texts and find them to support a flat earth cosmology. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If the infinite earth is one of several possibilities, why did you delete it? An infinite sphere is infinitely flat. I didn't exclude the discussion of sphericity - clearly there were several views expressed. Chris55 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Any reasonable review of these sources makes it quite clear that at the Spanish court no one explicitly said that the world was flat while they repeatedly referred to it as being spherical. There was one opinion that the earth was "prodigous large", perhaps even, as Seneca had said, infinite. To cherry pick this one ambiguous passage as evidence that there may have been a belief in the flat earth falls upon Wikipedia's policy on fringe opinions. When dealing with primary sources, like Ferdinand Columbus, we are to rely on the interpretations of scholarly professionals, not to make up our own interpretation.

It's quite clear that a one-on-one discussion on a User talk page is going nowhere. I'm copying this discussion to Talk:Flat Earth in order to bring in further comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know why this is even being seriously discussed. "No reputable scholar" believes this. That Columbus was "the only one" who thought the Earth was round is an urban myth that was invented years ago. Its time to let it die.

I also find it somewhat "interesting" that we are having almost the exact same discussion from the same editor (Chris55) on two similar pages (Myth of the Flat Earth). Ckruschke (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I do wish that people making gut-level comments would read the discussions first before making wild allegations. The point at issue here is not whether Columbus was the only one who thought the earth was round but whether everyone at the time understood that the world was round and all its implications, and that no church people objected, which is the myth that is being spread on the page you mention. Nobody else who monitors this page seems interested.

Steve, I don't think my insertion that "there are only hints that any argued that the Earth was flat, in the argument that the ocean might be infinite in extent" is OR or using primary sources (Ferdinand was not at the Salamanca consultation). My complaint was that in changing my contribution you deleted the reference to the infinite ocean which was the main point of it. On the other page is the assertion "One of his more fanciful embellishments was a highly unlikely tale that the more ignorant and bigoted members on the commission had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical". This 16th century account shows that they raised stupid objections, though they were more interested in the classic philosophers than the scriptures (which were more valued in the 19th century). Modern historians argue about his account, but Irving was not unjustified in using it, together with similar accounts from Remesal. If you want to remove the flat word from the sentence I wouldn't object. Chris55 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible confusion Spherical and firmament

There is a difference between Early Middle Ages and Middle Ages. Ramos1990 citation is inaccurate. "During the early Church period, with few exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few. [67]"

These guys being cited are also cited as being proponents of the "firmament", which is not spherical. This view was held as late as Thomas Aquinas, who existed in the Early Middle ages. So from the beginning to the Early middle ages, the Christians believed in this "firmament", not a spherical world.

Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament.[17] "We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid." he wrote.[17] Saint Basil argued for a fluid firmament.[17] According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the firmament had a "solid nature" and stood above a "region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed."[18]

Perhaps user Ramos1990 is confused about the difference between the firmament and spherical, or perhaps we need to look at sourcing. Also, if this were not the case, then why would the "myth" that medieval people thought the earth was flat only go back to the middle ages? If what Ramos1990 is citing is true, then the "myth" that people thought the earth was flat would go all the way back to the "early" christian period. The implication of the "myth" being that we thought people in the middle ages thought the earth was flat and that has been proven a myth, because in the middle ages, they knew it was not flat, but before the middle ages, what? We still thought they knew it wasn't flat, but there was ANOTHER myth that they thought it that they thought it was flat? That doesn't make sense. The implication is that before the middle ages, we thought that they didn't know the earth was flat, and we were right, they didn't know the earth was flat (the christians, anyway). The Greeks had already proven that what, like 300B.C.?Greengrounds (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Source says, "If we examine the work of even early medieval writers, we find that with few exceptions they held a spherical earth theory. Among the early church fathers, Augustine (354-430), Jerome (d.420), and Ambrose (d.420) all agreed that the earth was a sphere." The source says exactly that. When citing a source you have stick to what the source says and no go beyond. Otherwise it becomes WP:SYN or WP:OR. Our job is not to synthesize things or read beyond what the source says. The Middle ages and Medieval period are the same time periods. The terms are often used interchangeably. Hope this clarifies. --Ramos1990 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And why doesn't the Myth of the flat earth theory cover early to early medieval and only covers medieval? Something doesn't make sense there. Secondly, I don't know if Leslie Cormack is qualified to make such broad sweeping statements on the early church. She doesn't hold much weight here AFIKGreengrounds (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

?? The source covers the invention of the myth narrative in the 19th century. This myth narrative did not exist before this time. It was made up in the 19th century. This was mainly due to White's book and others of like mindedness. The myth assumes that pretty much the whole medieval period had rejected a spherical earth and that Columbus settles the matter in he end. The source challenges and reviews the views of people from the whole medieval period (early to late - ergo the whole medieval period up to Columbus). The vast majority of scholars on the topic, from the beginning and the end of the medieval period, believed the earth was a sphere. Its pretty simple. For more coverage on this you can check out "Russell, Jefrey Burton (1991). Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians." who does an excellent primary source analysis and also an analysis of the invention of the myth narrative in the 19th century. Hope this helps. --Ramos1990 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite Burton as a reference for the early christian knowledge that the earth was spherical, particular the philosophers mentioned? Because the sentece is really in contrast to the tone of the rest of the paragraph, which presents some of the philosophers as being very skeptical of a spherical earth.

Also, this paragraph A very recent essay by Leone Montagnini, discussing the question of the shape of the Earth from the origins to the late Antiquity, has shown that the Fathers of the Church shared different approaches that paralleled their overall philosophical and theological visions. Those of them who were more close to Platonic visions, like Origen, shared peacefully the geosphericism. A second tradition, including Basil, Ambrose and Augustine, but also Philoponus, accepted the idea of the round Earth and the radial gravity, but in a critical way. In particular they pointed out a number of doubts about the physical reasons of the radial gravity, and hesitated in accepting the physical reasons proposed by Aristotle or Stoicism. However, a "flattist" approach was more or less shared by all the Fathers coming from the Syriac area, who were more inclined to follow the letter of the Old Testament. Diodorus, Severian, and Cosmas Indicopleustes, but also Chrysostom, belonged just to this latter tradition.[78]

Seems to go against what you are saying, and furthermore if you go to the original sources, you can see that these men from the early christian times thought there was an earth with a "firmament", which is not the same as a spherical earth.

Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament.[17] "We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid." he wrote.[17] Saint Basil argued for a fluid firmament.[17] According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the firmament had a "solid nature" and stood above a "region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed."[18]

So, the sentence you have presented needs to be better sourced, or another sentence needs to be chosen that doesn't make such broad, sweeping statement, particularly about the Early christians 0-1300. And back to the myth theory, I don't think you understand. If it was "myth" that they thought the earth was flat at the middle ages, then the implication is that they thought it was flat before the middle ages, do you see how the logic works there?Greengrounds (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am simply reiterating a quote from the source - on the early medieval period (up to 5th century as that is what the quote mentions here). Almost verbatim. It is NOT a section summarizing claim and it does say "with few exceptions" and "most" so it does not say "everyone". There is no issue here. The other reference by Montagnini is what it is also. There is not issue there either. Both are following wikipedia protocol. The only general requirements for citing references here is that they be relevant to the article and that they come from reliable sources. One thing that must be properly understood about wikipedia is that it is a collection of perspectives, and it not about what anyone thinks is true. If that were the case, then it would cease to be an encyclopedia. Please read WP:BUTITSTRUE for more on this point. So one source can say one thing and another can say something else or elaborate. The main things needed to cite a source in wikipedia, is the source is reliable and that it is relevant. Its a collection of perspectives, not a collection explicitly pushing any one particular perspective. In terms of "firmamment", you cannot interpret the source beyond what it says. In other words you cannot say source says "firmaments" therefore he is talking about a flat earth. This would be original research or synthesis, which is prohibited in wikipedia WP:OR and WP:SYN. Please read these for more info. If you find a source that says something like "Augustine argued that there was a firmament and that this implies he saw the earth as flat." then that would be ok to cite. You cannot go beyond what a source says. All editors are limited by this. But there is nothing you can do about that. There is no issue here. Does this clarify a bit for you?--Ramos1990 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read WP:BUTITSTRUE, and what I've concluded is that you should re-read it. It says you should not keep stuff on Wikipedia "because it's true. I'm saying your source is not accurate, not relevant and is given undue weight. It is a section summarizing claim, and it goes against the summary of the section. I'll spell it out again: During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few. -Leslie Cormack (who?) She is not qualified to make such a statement, and it goes against other statements in the paragraph, like this one: "second tradition, including Basil, Ambrose and Augustine, but also Philoponus, accepted the idea of the round Earth and the radial gravity, but in a critical way. In particular they pointed out a number of doubts about the physical reasons of the radial gravity, and hesitated in accepting the physical reasons proposed by Aristotle or Stoicism.", Which clearly states that Ambrose and Augustine accepted the idea of a "round" earth but in a "critical way". It goes on to say However, a "flattist" approach was more or less shared by all the Fathers coming from the Syriac area, who were more inclined to follow the letter of the Old Testament. Diodorus, Severian, and Cosmas Indicopleustes, but also Chrysostom, belonged just to this latter tradition.[78]. So Yes, lots of christian scholars were "skeptical" at best, and the Syriacs were flattists. Your source ignores all of this in an attempt to paint early christians as being far ahead of where they really were scientifically. Greengrounds (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me reexplain. The source is NOT summarizing anything except what it says. It is NOT summarizing the section. It just happens that she reviews the early church fathers in one part of her piece and notes that most, not all believed in a spherical earth. It makes a relevant claim to the section topic and the source is reliable - just like all other sources there. Not sure why you keep on assuming that its supposed to account for all the details of this section (which is written by Wikipedians). If you found a source that said all church fathers believed the earth was flat, it would be ok to add if it is reliable, since if the source says it, that is it. Some editors may not believe it, but that is not our job as wikipedians to determine if the source did their job well or not. We only seek reliability of the source and relevance to topic. You can look up Cormack to see her qualifications, but the book was reviewed by Harvard press and she has no claims of academic fraud on her so it means the requirement reliable source requirement is met. We are not here to investigate if the source looked at all the stuff you think they should have looked at. We are not here to police what the sources say, only that 1) the source is relevant, and 2) that it is reliable. If its true or false is a separate thing that does not concern wikipedia. This is why i recommended the "but its true page".

I think you want to get to the truth of matter, which is commendable, but wikipedia is not a place for deciding if something is true or not. "Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research or original thought. Rather, its purpose is to collect and provide an overview of knowledge that has been published in other reliable sources." In the source Cormack does mention, Lactantius and Cosmos as examples of exceptions by the way, but in her assessment of medieval sources she specifies that most, not all, early church fathers did have a spherical view. If you find a reliable source saying the opposite specifically on the early church fathers, then please feel free to add right next to it. You just have to make sure they specify the early church fathers. --Ramos1990 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:ArbComPseudoscience and Flat Earth

This is about the template at the top of this talk page: {{ArbComPseudoscience}}. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain on the Flat Earth Talk page what this template has to do with the article? None of the criteria stated in the template explanation bear any relevance to the article. Strebe (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. (I have copied your question from my talk page and will answer here, as requested.) I didn't place the template here because I singled out this article, but because, as my edit summary stated "This [template] belongs on the main articles of pseudoscience sub- and head categories." This article happens to be the main article in Category:Flat Earth theory, which is a subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience. That's why. As long as this is the case, there should be no problem with letting the template appear here since it refers to advice and guidance which the community has accepted and uses.

If you have any problems with this article being in the main or subcategory, I suggest you start a discussion about that. If a consensus decides to remove it from the category, then maybe we can consider also removing the template above. That would be logical.

Before starting such a discussion, you may wish to practice due diligence and research the history behind this. (1) Check the history for this talk page for any discussions of the matter, and also (2) who added the article to the category. You may even wish to check with them and get their reasoning for why they did it.

(3) Also check the matter of categorization "structure". The hierarchical structure of categories can be confusing, and it's not always perfect. Discussions about what is proper can occur at WP:Categorization/Noticeboard, and the editing guideline for categories is located at WP:Categorization. Please let me know what you learn. This may not be a problem of POV, but rather of proper categorization. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this article I see two different aspects related to pseudoscience:

• The first aspect concerns discussions of ancient flat-earth cosmologies. Most historians would agree that while they do not reflect modern views of the world, at the time and in the cultures in which they were developed, they represented legitimate expressions of natural knowledge about the universe. They were not pseudoscience then and it is anachronistic to consider them pseudoscience now.
• The second aspect concerns discussions of modern flat-earth cosmologies. These modern cosmologies are examples of modern pseudo-science, but this article does not present them in a sense of advocacy as if they were true, but provides historical discussions of those people and groups that advocated such beliefs.

That kind of historical discussion of pseudoscientific beliefs has a long tradition of being accepted in Wikipedia. A 2003 statement from Jimmy Wales still appears in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article" (my emphasis).

This is such an ancillary article. I am a bit puzzled as to why it has been labeled as being under discretionary sanctions. This is especially the case when discretionary sanctions are to be exercised under limited circumstances. In particular, the ArbCom Procedures for discretionary sanctions specify that:

4. Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;

5. Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process;

I have no problem with the categorization of this article as dealing with pseudoscience, but it does not deal with pseudoscience in a manner that justifies the imposition of discretionary sanctions or the kind of warning associated with the Pseudoscience template. Given the nature of this article, the template is inappropriate and serves no useful purpose here. Could you please either specify the misconduct editors have performed on this page or remove the discretionary sanctions warning and (probably) the associated Pseudoscience template. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Steve, I see you have commented here. Good. The issue of sanctions only comes into play if an editor starts pushing fringe POV or is disruptive in such attempts. Otherwise there is nothing to fear. I have many times seen otherwise peaceful articles suddenly become hotbeds of disruption because of fringe POV pushers who seek to include pseudoscientific ideas or shift the focus of an otherwise neutral presentation, like this one, so it favors a PSI POV. That's when ANY admin points to the sanctions (and editors who see the template above have been forewarned...) and gives a clear warning. If that warning is ignored, the hammer has fallen many times. The sanctions are applied extremely BROADLY, even on subjects not directly related to PSI, but related to medical and scientific fringe ideas. Even though I have been here longer than many admins and have far more edits, I am not an admin and I do not make those decisions, but I have seen it happen. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey writes: I have no problem with the categorization of this article as dealing with pseudoscience.

I have a problem with the categorization. This article no more fits into pseudoscience than Geocentrism or Phlogiston does. The article is a history, not a treatment of flat earth as a scientific theory. Someone simply did not understand what the article is about, as far as I can tell. Strebe (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Strebe, you may or may not have a point. Feel free to pursue the matter, as I have expressed above. I wish you luck and want to know the outcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Strebe. This article is about the history of the idea, not really an active movement or organization which espouses an idea. Its not different than Aether (classical element) or Steady State theory. --Ramos1990 (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

banner more likely to do harm than good on for this article

I've removed the banner. Like SteveMcCluskey, I don't see a need to pre-emptively add a very large and intimidating banner to this (historical, largely uncontentious) article that doesn't have a history of pseudoscience advocacy. It's more likely to chase off potential good faith contributors than prevent problems. (BullRangifer, if you feel that it's important that every pseudoscience-related article have a talk page indication of the general pseudoscience editing rules, perhaps you could design a very simple, unobtrusive alternative banner for topics such as this that don't actually have a history of related problems.)--ragesoss (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with removing the template, but what article should we use instead as the main article for this subcategory of Category:Pseudoscience? Would Flat Earth Society be better, or can we just leave it without a main article? As far as designing a more condensed template, that might be nice, but I don't have much spare time right now. This content has been in use for a number of years. A few slight wording changes have been suggested by some ArbCom members in the last few days, but otherwise it's what we've been using, but now it's a template, rather than just a box. Any help would be appreciated. Please go to the template's talk page and we can work on something there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think those flat earth articles belong in the pseudoscience hierarchy. If any does, then it would be Flat Earth Society, though even then, there is no advocacy for a flat earth model on Wikipedia and no controversy. As a belief, it is effectively dead. Strebe (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done That makes sense. I have removed them and referred to this discussion. If anyone wishes to dispute it, they can do so. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A banner or hatrack is an indicator that there is something wrong with an article, something that needs fixing. A category is an implicit and structural (syntactic) indicator of a specific relationship with other articles, forming a logical network of ideas. They are for different purposes. David Spector (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Common Errors in History by the Historical Association

I wonder why Common Errors in History was put in Flat Earth, Myth of the Flat Earth and A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (The sentences are almost the same in all these articles).

It's almost zero cited http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22common+errors+in+history%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and its authors are untraceable http://www.amazon.co.uk/Common-Errors-In-History-Several/dp/B0010SR8BA http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Historical-Association-Publications-General/dp/B0018ERS3Y.

24 pages were obviously far from enough to be able to provide solid proof for all the points in the small hamlet. Historical Association (http://www.history.org.uk/) is not even a famous academic organisation compare other well-known ones in UK and US.

After search, I find that all of these were added by a deleted user Patflynnjr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Patflynnjr.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenzhuxi (talk • contribs) 09:51, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

It’s not cited (nor anything like it) because the myth of the flat earth is not a scholarly matter. It’s just a popular myth. No scholarly works over the centuries have assumed people in Columbus’s time believed the earth was flat. Therefore they have no need to cite works that debunk the popular myth. I don’t find your objections compelling, nor your assessment of the Historical Association. There is nothing wrong with the citation. Strebe (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There are several errors and misconceptions in Shenzhuxi's comments.

First, it was I, not Patflynnjr, who added the citation to the Historical Association's pamphlet Common Errors in History to the articles Myth of the Flat Earth (with this edit) and Flat Earth (with these edits). My reasons for doing so are explained (at least in part) here.

Second, the assertion that the pamphlet's authors are "untraceable" is nonsense. They are listed in its introduction, and even if you're unwilling to fork out a couple of dollars plus postage to get a used copy of the pamphlet from Amazon, it's readily available in many university or other institutional or large libraries. According to WorldCat there are 55 such libraries in the US, 21 in the UK, 12 in Canada, 4 in Australia and 3 in New Zealand. If you live in any of these countries, but nowhere near a library which holds a copy, you should still be able to get access to one via inter-library loan. For the record, the editor of (and one of the contributors of material to) the pamphlet was James Alexander Williamson, and the other contributors were Fred W. Brooks, H. E. M. Icely, William Norton Medlicott, George W. Southgate, and David Williams. Of these, Williamson, Medlicott and Williams, at least, were all very eminent British historians.

Third, the Historical Association is a perfectly respectable and well-respected organisation. Its presidents and chairs of publications have almost invariably been drawn from the top tier of British professional historians, and its house journal, History, is a very well respected, peer reviewed, academic research journal. The level of recognition the Association enjoys (or doesn't) amongst the general public—i.e.its "fame"—is almost totally irrelevant to a proper evaluation of its publications' quality.

Common Errors in History is a tertiary source which contains just a brief (one page) statement of pertinent facts about the Flat Earth Misconception, without describing any of the evidence (i.e. primary source material or arguments based thereon) through which those facts have been established. It is therefore not the kind of source which a Wikipedia article should rely upon exclusively. Nevertheless, it certainly qualifies easily as a reliable source by Wikipedia's criteria, and I agree with Strebe that it is perfectly adequate as a source for the facts that were cited to it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Everyone still thinks the Earth is flat

Instinctively people think the world is flat, then and now, as shown in the research I cite below. The idea that the Earth is round is like learning that matter is not solid, but made of mostly empty space. Our minds' cannot accept it. The round Earth is in an intellectual construct only, and so it is highly likely that the general populace thought the Earth was flat, and some clergy are known to have stated so. Surely the whole point of Bertrand Russell's survey was that some clergy in the 12th-15th century still maintained that the Earth is flat. That's the whole point. Just as today there are people who think the world is 6,000 years old or that the tides prove the existence of god. The flat earth theory existed more prevalently in the 12th-15th centuries than it did in the 18th-19th centuries, when people made a point of scoffing at the former flat earth beliefs the middle ages, because they knew many people had once believed that the Earth was flat, and had stated so. Those scoffers knew that many scholars of the late middle ages knew that the Earth was round, but were obviously making a point about those clergy who though it was flat, a view likely held by most layman who bothered to listen to them or think about it. The natural instinct, as shown in the following, is that the Earth is flat, so a scholar would have to go out of their way teach all the layman that the world was round. The lay people had other things to think about.

Even you think the Earth is flat:

1. http://www.livescience.com/6554-earth-flat-peoples-minds.html

2. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-in-two-dimensions

3. http://www.amazon.com/Brigham-Young-University-Alumni-Students-ebook/dp/B00Y1I9F76/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1432381028&sr=1-2 (Brand new book shedding light on Flat Earth)

.

Two dimensional is not equivalent to flat. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You response is absurd. Every animal and human knows the land is not flat. Himalayas for example. You are wasting space on here with such a poorly thought out response that is pretty laughable in this context. Try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The links given by 24.63.50.134 say nothing relevant about medieval cosmology. Making such a connection is WP:SYNTHESIS. This page is not for debating theories, and the gross violations of WP:CIVILITY aren’t persuasive either. Strebe (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Mr/Ms 24.63.50.134's apparent conflation of the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell with the philosopher Bertrand Russell doesn't inspire much confidence in the thoroughness of his or her scholarship. I'm reasonably sure that neither of those gentlemen ever conducted any "survey" whose "whole point ... was that some clergy in the 12th-15th century still maintained that the Earth is flat."

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

More irrelevant egoism. The plain fact is that Russell's survey showed some clergy in the 12th-15th century still maintained that the Earth is flat. That's the whole point. Just as today there are people who think the world is 6,000 years old or that the tides prove the existence of god. The flat earth theory existed more prevalently in the 12th-15th centuries than it did in the 18th-19th centuries, when people made a point of scoffing at the former flat earth beliefs the middle ages, because they knew many people had once believed that the Earth was flat, and had stated so. Those scoffers knew that many scholars of the late middle ages knew that the Earth was round, but were obviously making a point about those clergy who had thought it was flat, a view likely held by most layman who bothered to listen to them or think about it. To claim that everyone thought the Earth was round in the middle ages is outmoded parochial blinkered vision.

I will delete any further conversation around this as WP:SOAPBOX violation. This thread cannot lead to improvements in the article without seriously reworking the premise and sources. Strebe (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How's this possible? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trail#/media/File:International_Space_Station_star_trails_-_JSC2012E052684.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Belief vs paradigm

"Belief" is a sub-standard word choice to describe the way many ancients viewed the earth. The word "model", used already in the lead, is much more to the point, and "paradigm" is similarly a better description. The flat earth was that ancient way of viewing things and making sense and order from what information and perspectives they had: a paradigm. The fact that they were pre-scientific does not mean that ancient peoples did not observe and reason pragmatically. It means that they did not yet have the tools that science developed in order to make observation and reasoning more focused. Ancient cultures did in fact have the capability of formulating reasonable models, reasonable on the basis of what they could see. Any culture that forms a model, scientific or not, "believes" in the model, up to a point. But a part of science is a willingness to discard a model that does not explain all that is known. That principle was available to pre-scientific ancients as well, who would change models and paradigms as needed when new things were discovered, although they had just as much difficulty sometimes in discarding an old view as we have today. ("Science" as practiced today can find it just as hard as anyone has, when a long-standing well-supported view comes into question.)

This being the case, the "belief" of some people is not the same as the belief of others, at any time, because some people are always more willing to consider a new idea, while others are skeptical until the old has clearly become shaky. Science uses both perspectives, as did the ancients, and debates are to be expected. The key to this article, though, is that a "belief" in the flat earth was not (for the ancients) a belief in one thing as opposed to another known belief. It was the single existing paradigm. There were not multiple views, equally tenable or even challenging ones, among which people "believed" in one or the other, as is the case today. The article in any case ought to beg all question of "belief", and express "flat earth" as a model or paradigm, a more neutral and more precise term of description. I will be editing the lead immediately to reflect this change. Evensteven (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ancient adjustment to cosmography

@Strebe:, I note that you removed a sentence I had added, admittedly without source, as I don't have one at the moment. Also, you wrote "flat earth cosmography". So, are you implying that when the ancient Greeks and Egyptians realized that the Earth is round, an entire paradigm shift occurred? For the firmament "bowl" just doesn't work conceptually once the earth is round. I can't say I've ever been struck by any contentious or difficult reconstruction of cosmography that occurred at that time, similar to the overturning of the geocentric model. But the cosmography that the Roman-era ancients and middle ages had was not really "flat earth". It was geocentric, but "round earth". A shift did happen, and the firmament was replaced. The later model included progressive layers "above" the earth, separating "air" from "aether", earth from the heavens, and delineating spheres (normally written as circles) defined by the orbits of celestial bodies around the earth at varying distances. I was trying to express something of this ancient adjustment to cosmography in terms that are short of calling it a paradigm shift, since it doesn't appear to be anything like the magnitude of the Renaissance-and-later paradigm shift.

Were you dubious about what I was getting at? Or do you now recognize where there might be a source that says something like what I have described? Evensteven (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Evensteven. I removed mention of the concentric spheres for several reasons. It’s a parenthetical aside; the aside interrupts the narrative; the paragraph read awkwardly with an unclear antecedent for “with that alteration”; and the assertion is unattributed and not readily verified.

The “paradigm shift” (such as it was) toward a spherical earth did occur but wasn’t complete in the Hellenic sphere of influence until Eratosthenes. I don’t think use of “cosmography” need imply a lot there; the word does not necessarily include the heavens. But the cited source uses the term, and it is apt.

Also, I would like to stick with “conception”; I think its meanings better fit what’s useful there, and so does its usage as followed by “…of…as…”.

conception |kənˈsepSHən| noun

the way in which something is perceived or regarded: our conception of how language relates to reality. <<< strongly apt

• a general notion; an abstract idea: the conception of a balance of power. <<< weakly apt

• a plan or intention: reconstructing Bach's original conceptions. <<< inapt

• understanding; ability to imagine: he had no conception of politics. <<< apt

vs

'concept |ˈkänˌsept| noun

an abstract idea; a general notion: structuralism is a difficult concept | the concept of justice. <<< weakly apt

• a plan or intention; a conception: the center has kept firmly to its original concept. <<< inapt

• an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity: a new concept in corporate hospitality. <<< inapt

• Philosophy an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects. <<< inapt

• [ as modifier ] (of a car or other vehicle) produced as an experimental model to test the viability of new design features. <<< inapt

Thanks, Strebe. I think you've got a strong rationale for the wording, so lets go with "conception". Also, the ancient "paradigm shift" was definitely more an adjustment than a full-scale correction (like heliocentrism was), and perhaps the slower pace of developments in the ancient world also made it less controversial. It just takes time for people to assimilate a fundamentally different idea, or even a significantly different one. But finally, it is only partially a parenthetical aside in this article, for it is the essential change that ended the flat earth concept as a widely-held view, among the educated at least. I agree that getting a clear attribution may not be easy, certainly not for me (and we really should have one for the article), but with one, I don't think mention then would be out of place at all (in the right place). Evensteven (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

India's texts much older than Gupta period refer to the fact that earth is round in shape. Hence, the Wikipedia article need to be rectified.

The main Wikipedia Article on "Flat Earth" says: "Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD).."

The statement regarding India is incorrect.

Many ancient Indian texts much, much older than Gupta period refer to the fact that the earth is round in shape.

I give below one example. This is from the epic Ramayana, which is dated around 5100 B.C., if not much earlier. Ramayana includeds a section called Yoga Vasishta. In Yoga Vasishta, please refer to Utpatti Prakarana (Evolution of the World) section - Chapter 30 (Description of the mundane egg) - Verse 12: It says: "So, when there is a number of ants on an earthen ball, all its sides are reckoned below which are under their feet, and those as above which are over their backs" This is continued by verse 13 that says "Such is the ball of earth..." [Before this, verse 7 says: "Here there are no ups and downs and no upside or below, nor any going forward or backward.. " which basically is the true position, when we look at things from the vast space above]

This clearly means that the knowledge that earth is round in shape was available before 5100 B.C. in India.

Another place where this is mentioned in the same Yoga Vasistha is: Nirvana Prakarana -Chapter 131 (Bhasa's account of the worlds and his journeys throughout) -Verse 6 says "This great world (earth) is situated as an orb in the air, like a child's imaginary tree growing in the sky, or as a toy ball of fanciful Brahma (Hindu God), rolling about in empty air". Verse 7 says "As creeping insects move about a sugar ball, without falling off from it, so do all living bodies move about their support of this earth, which is sustained in the empty air". Verse 8 says"Those that are situated on the lower surface of this globe, are moving there about as ERECTLY, as those that are on its upper side..."

These references make it very clear that ancient Indians had the knowledge that earth is round in shape from before 5100 B.C.

Hence, the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" needs to be corrected on this count.

I request Indian scholars to quote from texts which are even older than 5100 B.C. and also give more references to the point I have made above.

Balasundaramv (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References

This topic comes up frequently. Please see past discussions. In short, there are no Indian texts having the antiquity claimed. The first written texts appeared around the first century AD but even up until about 1000 AD the mode of transmission was typically oral. Textual analysis suggests extensive evolution throughout the earlier periods. Strebe (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Strebe It just took me 30 seconds to find out that "The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are Brahmanical texts of the Rigveda, from the mid-to-late second millennium BCE." (see WP article). Comment? zzz (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The above seems to confirm my suspicion that the article is fundamentally wrong on this. The article requires attention from an expert. zzz (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Strebe's comment referred specifically to written texts, and the statement you have quoted from the Wikipedia article Sanskrit is a somewhat misleading rendition of what the source it is cited to actually says (on pp.20–21). Although that source does date the origins of the Rig Veda to "the middle of the 13th cenury BC", it also says that this dating "concerns only the language, and not the documents, since written transmission of Vedic texts began only two thousand years later", thus agreeing perfectly well with what Strebe wrote above. The source also states that the original language of the Rig Veda was "the Indian language of the Punjab region" and not Sanskrit, which it explicitly states "appeared only after Middle Indian in the second half of the first millenium BC".

None of this is really relevant to the point at issue anyway, since the text cited by Balasundaramv above is not the Rig Veda, but the Yoga Vasistha, whose composition is dated by reliable sources to the "sixth or seventh century A.D." at the earliest, and not the 5,100 BC claimed by Balasundaramv.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Tag removed. zzz (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Our world is indeed flat

Please actually look at the scientific evidence that proves the Earth is flat and stop believing the lies of those Satanic shills NASA! https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FlatEarth&src=typd Not a single piece of evidence supports the ball model, we only dismiss our flat earth reality due to brainwashing.

• Evidence 1: You should see a completely different set of stars during the summer/winter solstices, but you don't.

https://twitter.com/TrutherbotGmesh/media

• Evidence 2: Everything NASA has been putting out can be easily seen to be fake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msY3xc8pVLE&feature=youtu.be

• Evidence 3+: Literally every clue we can obtain from our senses supports the flat Earth model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-YdgU-CF4&list=PLltxIX4B8_URNUzDE2sXctnUAEXgEDDGn

Please actually review the empirical evidence with an open mind. We live on a Flat Earth!108.0.55.218 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction

(Section: Early Christian Church)

During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few.

A few lines down, on the other hand:

many of Augustine's passing references to the physical universe imply a belief in an essentially flat Earth "at the bottom of the universe."

Cheers zzz (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No contradiction. The paragraph that contains the flat earth reference presents it as a recent idea from someone who challenges the spherical view held my most scholars. It's nothing more than a new alternate theory, and not a contradiction. Evensteven (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• No - it's a contradiction, because the one statement contradicts the other.
• 1996 is not "recent". zzz (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, it's not a contradiction in the article to inform readers of two opposing points of view, which is what the paragraph does. Evensteven (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic

Two more reverts of my edit without response. Does anyone else besides Signedzzz think this is a dispute? I call it WP:SOAPBOX, and irrational, and disruption. Evensteven (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC) I've offered two alternatives to the present unacceptable wording, rejected by Gaarmyvet, Strebe and Evensteven on the grounds that "the cited reference includes Augustine; we don't get to pick and choose", "the source says what it says and mentions all three [names]" - ie, we have to blindly regurgitate sources, regardless of flatly contradicting ourselves - and "Facts are what experts say, not how things are" (?) Meanwhile, the tag stays, and I get random insults hurled at me, here and in WP:ES. It's abundantly clear who is on a WP:SOAPBOX. Anyhow, I'll accept either my own or any of the myriad of other possible rewordings that corrects the problem. And then of course someone who the vigilant owners of this article deem worthy will have to deal with the objection raised in the section above this one - a month ago. (Good luck with that.) zzz (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Yes, it's "abundantly clear who is on a soapbox". You. As far as WP is concerned, "facts are what experts say", per WP:RS. "How things are" is how they are, not just how you or any one editor thinks they are. But however they are, surely if anyone in the world knows how they are, there are likely to be reliable sources who know also, and we can use those. They are for WP:VERIFIABILITY, so no one editor can get on a soapbox. There is no problem that needs correction so much as your edits. As for random insults, I have made none. If you take my bluntness as insult, that wasn't my intent, but the bluntness is a tool designed to leave no room for doubt as to what my point is, and you clearly have a big problem with understanding the point. It was you who called me a vandal. Look up WP:VANDALISM, especially what it is not. I stand firm in my position, not proudly in defiance of you, but confidently in understanding, and am willing to let any editor take a look and decide what is and is not vandalism, even you. But no one editor decides anything, not vandalism either, all by him/herself. Let the community judge what weight to give your accusation. I've been around long enough, and the only time anyone has leveled that accusation against me in the first place is when they have been engaging in unconstructive editing themselves. So you may have WP:NPA and WP:ES right back at you. It's a pity that an editor who has accumulated as many edits and constructive contributions as you have in more than a year of editing should resort to these tactics. It truly makes me wonder what has really happened to set you off. But there is clearly an unstated issue at hand when someone acts this irrationally, and if you won't reveal what it is, your extremely poor arguments still will not have any weight with me. Evensteven (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Btw, zzz, to which "section above" do you refer? Your name is on none of them. Or are you in fact user:Balasundaramv? Our disagreement here has nothing to do with any reference to India, an area where I make no pretensions to great knowledge. Evensteven (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Evensteven, you misunderstand. The information about the two points of view isn't the problem. The problem is: the first point of view is stated as fact (in "Wikipedia's voice"). So when the opposing point of view is stated, the article contradicts itself. zzz (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

One way to fix this would be to remove one or all the named examples from the first statement (at the top of this section), leaving no contradiction. The list of three names selected as examples in one particular source is unnecessary at best. However, I tried both versions of this, and was reverted. If the list of names including Augustine is retained, which I think is a sub-optimal approach, then a more extensive edit is required, to present the two opposing points of view as points of view rather than facts. This would also solve the contradiction issue. zzz (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is at least closer to rational. It would do better for you to spend more time earlier on at the talk page, and less at the article.

I still say there is no contradiction. First, it is fine for the first sentence of the section to speak in Wikipedia's voice. It is supported by a source, which described the "traditional", still generally-held view, and applies to multiple ancients. Augustine is certainly a prominent figure and is fittingly included. But it doesn't take any great genius to see that the presentation in the section is developmental, introducing next some of the differing ancient views and how they relate, certainly the best next step. By the time we get down to paragraph 5, where the other element of your objection is found, the section is able to move on to the recent (yes, 1996 is recent) alternate theory regarding Augustine, and there we find the "traditional" and "challenge" views described in the proper manner according to NPOV. The net effect is that if you read one or a few sentences into the section, you get the primary and general view of Augustine (and others), and only that, which is suitable weight. If you get through paragraph 5, you find the single alternate view, and have now acquired knowledge of a further detail, but one that ought to take something of a back seat, which again is suitable weight. To say that the presentation therefore contradicts itself is simply misreading, and cherry-picking the article text itself, not reading for understanding. And we are writing so that readers can understand. What's there is understandable, readily so, and developmental, unfolding the presented knowledge in layers. I have spent considerable time rewriting article materials that try to tell all in the first sentence and fail miserably as a result. The presentation here in this section is clear, balanced, and laid out much as it ought to be, and it does not contradict itself, but reveals the details in sequence, as is only reasonable. I do not accept that the edits you have wished to make are an improvement, and think they throw the presentation out of balance.

But at least this has been by far the best reason you have given for your edits, here on talk, or in edit summaries, and thanks for trying again. Evensteven (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well. Since you're a self-professed authority on all that is rational, whereas I am afflicted with helpless irrationality, it seems pointless for me to attempt to wade through 1000's of words of such elevated prose. Perhaps a more concise reply, specific to the point of self-contradiction, would be more suited to my feeble mind. Better still, someone else's POV would be welcome - especially if it addressed the subject at hand. zzz (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Strebe attempted to partially resolve the problem with this edit. I improved the section by rearranging it with this edit, making it clearer and more concise while not removing any information, so the contradiction issue is now resolved. zzz (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I just did a further edit, to restore the discussion of Augustine's endorsement of science in his De Genesi ad litteram, which had been deleted by the previous edit and replaced a link to the primary text with a citation to a scholarly discussion of this passage.

I'll have to look at the texts of Ferrari's discussions of Augustine's cosmology, since Ferrari himself has maintained in other publications that Augustine was familiar with contemporary astronomy, which was based on the assumption of a spherical earth at the center of the universe. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey, I agree with your edit. I removed the contradiction tag. I left the factual dispute tag, which is regarding the section above this one about India. zzz (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So, is it reasonable to tag the entire article when the factual dispute is limited to a matter about India? And is it reasonable for an "authority on all that is rational" to ask questions of you? Does this prose meet your specifications? If so, fine, but it doesn't suit me, and let's have an end to it. Evensteven (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As promised above, I looked at the Ferrari sources. His article in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia and the abstract to his article on "Augustine's Cosmography" in Augustinian Studies (I couldn't get to the full article) make it clear Ferrari held Augustine to believe in a flat earth. However, they don't spell out the reasoning or evidence for this belief and It seems inconsistent with Augustine's knowledge of astronomy, especially his well-documented concern with accurate prediction of eclipses. Ferrari does summarize his point of view in "Rethinking Augustine's Confessions, Thirty Years of Discoveries", Religious Studies and Theology (2000):56-78.

"he was familiar with the Greek theory of a spherical earth, nevertheless, (following in the footsteps of his fellow North African, Lactantius), he was firmly convinced that the earth was flat, was one of the two biggest bodies in existence and that it lay at the bottom of the universe. Apparently Augustine saw this picture as more useful for scriptural exegesis than the global earth at the centre of an immense universe."

I imagine Ferrari provides his reasoning and evidence for this conclusion and defines his "more useful" for exegesis theme in the Augustinian Studies article, but since it's inaccessible to me, I'll quit here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It makes one wonder just how scholarly Ferrari can manage to be when he says "than the global earth at the centre of an immense universe". Just how immense was this universe that any of the ancients were supposed to have known of? What they knew was Earth's roundness, not that aspect of cosmology. It wasn't until the 1920s that humans conceived of a universe larger than the Milky Way, and it took until modern times to get any idea of stellar distances. Evensteven (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ferrari is a well-published expert on Augustine. I do have some problems with Ferrari's (apparent) argument, but his comment on "an immense universe" seems on target. The accepted astronomical view from Ptolemy to Copernicus was that the stars were about 20,000 Earth radii away; cube that and you get a volume of the universe of 8×10¹² Earth volumes. In my opinion, that counts as immense.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly, it may have been immense to the ancients, but it's tiny (relatively) to us. 20,000 Earth radii are roughly 76,000,000 miles, which encompasses Mercury, Venus, and Mars, but doesn't even reach the asteroid belt much less the giants, nor the sun itself (although even Aristarchus would have thought that it did). Compared to even our own galaxy alone, it's miniscule. So I guess Ferrari's context would count for much, because my comment really is all about perspective. Evensteven (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flat Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808160624/http://www.engl.virginia.edu:80/OE/aelfric/detemp.html to http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/aelfric/detemp.html#ch06

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)