Talk:Flat Earth

message: There is a sentence which, for me, is confusing - "For young children who have not yet received information from their social environment, their own perception of their surroundings often leads to a false concept about the shape of the underground on the horizon" I feel like it could be edited for clarity. Perhaps it is more concise to say the shape of the planet beyond the horizon" or even "the shape of the ground as it appears at the horizon"? Chardok (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. I made copy edits. Do they address your concern? Strebe (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity of assertion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thomas Aquinas does not mention a spherical earth 

message: This article should be about the flat earth but in fact is serves more to make assertions that the flat earth theory is pseudoscience, silly, unscientific or whatever is brought up to discredit the flat earth. This is not how it should work. The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. From what I perceive the people that are in charge here do not want an objective view of the flat earth to be available to the general public, since they delete even comments on this talk page that point out flaws in the article. Let's see if this comment is deleted again, which would prove my point... Have a nice day  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 06:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to "both sides" of an argument, like it seems to me that you propose. Pseudoscientific opinions should not be shown as valid statements of fact. Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for more on this topic. Sjö (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The article should give an objective account of the flat earth theory and history and not state in every second paragraph that the heliocentric model or the spinning ball are the only true valid models etc. Except, it doesn’t do this. The lead paragraph is be heavy with such statements, but asserting that the entire article is that way discredits your premise for me. The lead paragraph ended up that way because a lot of other editors were concerned that the older text might give someone the impression that belief in a flat earth could be scientific.  Strebe (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The “scientific” arguments against flat earth use non-scientific propaganda language, which undermines the credibility of scientific claims. Consensus is not part of the scientific method. Suggest inclusion of actual scientific evidence for rejecting flat earth. Perhaps a method for measuring the size of the globe from the ground using observations of shadows cast from identical rods at various locations at an agreed upon time, sextant, etc. 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:69A9:7:436:85ED (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth article does that, and is linked to. That’s where it belongs; duplicating it isn’t good editorial policy. Strebe (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is the value of the logically fallacious propaganda language? 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:C505:3F7A:6DE3:752F (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn’t fallacious, so I can’t answer your question. Strebe (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article full of globe bias 

message: Please remove the "St." in front of "Thomas Aquinas", per MOS:HON/MOS:SAINT.  His status of sainthood in the eyes of the catholic church is wholly irrelevant here. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: RudolfRed (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024