| Revision as of 00:04, 22 August 2021 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,048 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Flat Earth/Archive 8) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:54, 23 August 2021 edit undoEgon20 (talk | contribs)168 edits I think religious passages need to be includedNext edit → | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| == When to when? == | == When to when? == | ||
| ]’s grossly ]-violating aside, the lede has several problems in the area of the contested text. For one thing, “Near East” is never mentioned again, let alone how the date was arrived at. In the body where the (presumably mostly synonymous) West Asia is mentioned, no dates are given. In the (also presumably mostly synonymous) Middle East section, the text starts with the Islamic era. In the case of Greece, a firm belief in a spherical earth seems to have been established towards the end of the Classical period and definitely not the much earlier date ] gives in order to coincide with the usually recognized beginning of that era. Therefore that edit is wrong as an explanation relevant to the topic. More to the point, giving a single date isn’t educational: there was no light-bulb moment. We should figure out what really needs to be said here. ] (]) 07:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC) | ]’s grossly ]-violating aside, the lede has several problems in the area of the contested text. For one thing, “Near East” is never mentioned again, let alone how the date was arrived at. In the body where the (presumably mostly synonymous) West Asia is mentioned, no dates are given. In the (also presumably mostly synonymous) Middle East section, the text starts with the Islamic era. In the case of Greece, a firm belief in a spherical earth seems to have been established towards the end of the Classical period and definitely not the much earlier date ] gives in order to coincide with the usually recognized beginning of that era. Therefore that edit is wrong as an explanation relevant to the topic. More to the point, giving a single date isn’t educational: there was no light-bulb moment. We should figure out what really needs to be said here. ] (]) 07:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC) | ||
| == Religious texts references == | |||
| There are many texts I would like to add, so I'm going to add here some. | |||
| '''Biblical:''' | |||
| :'' After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.''<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207%3A1&version=NIV</ref> | |||
| This verse (Revelation 7:1) mentioned "the four corners of the earth" which can only mean that the Earth is a flat square. | |||
| '''Quranic:''' | |||
| :'' And the earth - We have spread it and cast therein firmly set mountains and caused to grow therein of every well-balanced thing.''<ref>https://quran.com/15/19</ref> | |||
| This verse (15:19) mentions "spread", possibly considering the earth as a carpet. | |||
| '''Vedic:''' | |||
| :In this hymn (Atharva Veda, Book 6, Hymn 8), the third verse clearly states that the Sun ecompasses the heaven and the earth: | |||
| 1 Like as the creeper throws, her arms on every side around the | |||
| tree, | |||
| So hold thou me in thine embrace that thou mayst be in love | |||
| with me, my darling, never to depart. | |||
| 2 As, when he mounts, the eagle strikes his pinions downward on | |||
| the earth, | |||
| So do I strike thy spirit down that thou mayst be in love with | |||
| me, my darling, never to depart. | |||
| 3 As in his rapid course the Sun encompasses the heaven and: | |||
| earth, | |||
| So do I compass round thy mind that thou mayst be in love with. | |||
| me, my darling, never to depart.<ref>https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av06008.htm</ref> | |||
Revision as of 09:54, 23 August 2021
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
lead rating: 10/10
I had read some heavy PR stories that completely represented a positive image of a certain subject without any neutrality whatsoever.
I thought that if I opened the Flat Earth[REDACTED] article I would get an equally "PR" view without any mention that it is rejected by modern science.
I decided to read the lead for how accurate it is as an introduction to the subject, then talk on this talk page about my judgment. I thought I would give it like 1/10 or 2/10, since I thought that due to heavy editing by argumentative proponents, it would not in any way be neutral.
Instead I found the introduction to be 10/10. Good job!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:ab88:2481:fc80:3066:c0eb:df5f:869f (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2017
- You say it's NPOV? How? This article DEFINES POV, the whole article should be rewritten. The introduction calls it "pseudoscience" and immediately starts talking about proponents of a round earth mostly European who comprised probably not even a percent of the world population. Almost nothing is said about the subject itself. There are no citations to the model, the sections don't discuss the model. Later the flat earth is called disinformation. Are editors afraid someone might actually cite scientific evidence that goes against the Dogma this article clearly pushes? Either intentional or unintentional. Please reconsider.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.110.183 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2017
Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The fact that you say the Flat Earth is an archaic model is a condescending term that dismisses the hundreds of hours worth of evidence to suggest otherwise. I am not claiming one model to be correct or incorrect, rather I believe it is unfair as an individual who believes in the scientific method to be so close minded. We are discovering new things everyday and we can never say if something is 100% true because it is all observation. Crizzy14 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change archaic conception to common misconception Xeynome (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done: It's certainly archaic, having been around for a very long time as part of various belief systems. But I don't think we can do as you ask, because we don't actually know how common (or uncommon) a misconception it is (or still is, or has become). In other words, we'd be guessing, and that's not allowed in articles. Haploidavey (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021 - removal of sources
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Requesting restoration of 1 of 2x sources removed by this edit on 22:03, 6 July 2021; with edit summary "the first source does not contain the english translation quoted. the second is an apologetic paper"
If the second ref is an apologia, does that alone justify removing it? And changing the article text accordingly?
Perhaps another editor can also consider the "first source", in addition, please. Although the removing editor states "does not contain the english translation quoted" maybe another user with access could check please? I just came across something similar said about another source removed by same editor, elsewhere. In that case, there seems to be an error in saying the matter was not in the source given as in fact the material did appear. Just worried it might have been missed accidentally in this one also.
Please just ignore and accept my apologies, if inappropriate to raise in this way. It might not meet criteria of "change X to Y". However, I am not brave enough to raise directly with the editor concerned, in the rather bruising WP hurly-burly. Thanks.
References
- Ash-Shareef, Abdurrahim Khairullah Omar (2014). "Aspects of Ancient Muslim Scholars' Induction Drawn from the Holy Qur'an in Proving Earth is Spherical". Zarqa University: 217.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - Al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din. "19/131". Al-Tafsir Al-Kabir. Misr al-Matba'ah al-Bahiyah al-Misriyah. Retrieved February 13, 2013.
49.177.30.125 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)- How would one do that? This is the talk page, so I guess anyone can comment? Or ... I'm a bit confused. You mean to say, a registered user can unilaterally remove sourced content, but I have to ask a different set of editors to agree with me and then, and only then, I can ask for the change? This was my attempt to gain consensus ....
- I do not know enough about the subject to be certain if I am right or wrong, I just thought it might be helpful to others point out something mildly odd in a recent edit - to those who know this area, or are interested in this article. Then they would look at it and make a decision. My only interest is not to have article quality decline. I thought editors of this page might discuss it amongst themselves, once I'd raised a possible problem.
- Please do not answer this comment, just set to "yes" again and leave it. I don't want to do anything with this, just thought others might. I placed this additional verbiage here, just for any interested party's information. Thank you for your time, sorry if I've have wasted it. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you read WP:CONACHIEVE it explains different ways to gather consensus. The easiest way would be to post new sections on the talk pages of the wikiprojects linked to this page, WikiProject History has examples of notifications & is linked to this page. In a week, come back and if there is a consensus in this seciton for the change. Reopen the request, if no one has responded in that time, reopen the request noting (and linking) that there has been WP:SILENCE and the request should be completed (If there are no other issues). Terasail 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Haddarr: courtesy ping about discussion of an edit you made. Terasail 17:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- yeah if a reliable english translation can be found that source can be restored, and yes i think being an apologia in a nonreputable publisher sits badly w WP:RS Haddarr (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Haddarr: courtesy ping about discussion of an edit you made. Terasail 17:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- If you read WP:CONACHIEVE it explains different ways to gather consensus. The easiest way would be to post new sections on the talk pages of the wikiprojects linked to this page, WikiProject History has examples of notifications & is linked to this page. In a week, come back and if there is a consensus in this seciton for the change. Reopen the request, if no one has responded in that time, reopen the request noting (and linking) that there has been WP:SILENCE and the request should be completed (If there are no other issues). Terasail 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
When to when?
User:ComradeKublai’s grossly WP:UNCIVIL-violating edit comment aside, the lede has several problems in the area of the contested text. For one thing, “Near East” is never mentioned again, let alone how the date was arrived at. In the body where the (presumably mostly synonymous) West Asia is mentioned, no dates are given. In the (also presumably mostly synonymous) Middle East section, the text starts with the Islamic era. In the case of Greece, a firm belief in a spherical earth seems to have been established towards the end of the Classical period and definitely not the much earlier date User:ComradeKublai gives in order to coincide with the usually recognized beginning of that era. Therefore that edit is wrong as an explanation relevant to the topic. More to the point, giving a single date isn’t educational: there was no light-bulb moment. We should figure out what really needs to be said here. Strebe (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Religious texts references
There are many texts I would like to add, so I'm going to add here some.
Biblical:
- After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
This verse (Revelation 7:1) mentioned "the four corners of the earth" which can only mean that the Earth is a flat square.
Quranic:
- And the earth - We have spread it and cast therein firmly set mountains and caused to grow therein of every well-balanced thing.
This verse (15:19) mentions "spread", possibly considering the earth as a carpet.
Vedic:
- In this hymn (Atharva Veda, Book 6, Hymn 8), the third verse clearly states that the Sun ecompasses the heaven and the earth:
1 Like as the creeper throws, her arms on every side around the tree, So hold thou me in thine embrace that thou mayst be in love with me, my darling, never to depart. 2 As, when he mounts, the eagle strikes his pinions downward on the earth, So do I strike thy spirit down that thou mayst be in love with me, my darling, never to depart. 3 As in his rapid course the Sun encompasses the heaven and: earth, So do I compass round thy mind that thou mayst be in love with. me, my darling, never to depart.
- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207%3A1&version=NIV
- https://quran.com/15/19
- https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av06008.htm
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
- Delisted good articles
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class history of science articles
- High-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- C-Class Bible articles
- High-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class geography articles
- Low-importance geography articles
- WikiProject Geography articles