Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Flat Earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleFlat 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
DateProcessResult
September 20, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 9, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Edit request: Add Mesopotamian multilevel cosmology under "Alternate or mixed theories" (in my own words, 100% no LLM)

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed:

Under the "Alternate or mixed theories" section, please add the following new subsection before "Greece: spherical Earth":

====Mesopotamia====

Although Mesopotamian cosmology is usually depicted as a flat disc of land floating in water, some texts describe a complex structure composed of vertical layers. For instance, KAR 307, a cuneiform text, depicts three layered earths. The "Upper Earth" is the land inhabited by mankind, the "Middle Earth" are subterranean Apsu waters ruled by Enki, and the "Lower Earth" is the underworld which has 600 Anunnaki.[1] While none of the ancient Mesopotamian models were spherical, Professor Wayne Horowitz documents "significant variety" in different Mesopotamian cosmological texts, noting "disagreement between texts from different periods, of different genres, and even among texts from the same period and genre."[1]

  • Why it should be changed:

This is similar to the established pattern in the "South Asia" subsection, which also documents cosmological variety as layered disks, but not as spheres. Horowitz's Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Eisenbrauns, 1998) is known as the standard academic reference in Assyriology. The addition also notes these models were not spherical, addressing previous editorial feedback on this talk page. Finally, chronological placement before Greece is appropriate, since Mesopotamian texts were created before Greek spherical Earth theories.

  • References supporting the possible change:
  1. Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Vol. 8. Eisenbrauns. pp. 16–19, xii–xiv. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7.

~2026-31657-8 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Edited. Carf EN (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Highly appreciated that we see alternate theories more frequently. Only issue is that you left an extra new line beneath the paragraph, so there is an oversized white space. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. 1 2 Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Vol. 8. Eisenbrauns. pp. 16–19, xii–xiv. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2026

[edit]

In the source code...

texts from different periods, of different genres, and even among texts from the same period and genre."<ref name="Horowitz1998"/>


====Greece: spherical Earth====

should become

texts from different periods, of different genres, and even among texts from the same period and genre."<ref name="Horowitz1998"/>

====Greece: spherical Earth====

Very simple formatting change, to remove extra whitespace. ~2026-31657-8 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Day Creature (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

"The Earth is Really Flat" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect The Earth is Really Flat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 23 § The Earth is Really Flat until a consensus is reached. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 18:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ancient China

[edit]

John S Major 1993 states that ancient Chinese in the first century theorized that the earth was shaped like a slightly bulged rain hat. While glossed as largely in line with flat earth, it's not exactly the same thing. It would moreover be worth noting that this theory prevailed largely because they were not very interested in the shape of the earth, being more interested in the shape of the cosmos, for which they had several theories.FourLights (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Lead paragraph sentence "The model has undergone..."

[edit]

@Strebe: About this sentence, which I edited and you reverted: The model has undergone a recent resurgence as a conspiracy theory in the 21st century. There are two problems with this sentence.

First, its citation is the Skeptoid podcast, which is a self-published source, making it likely unreliable according to WP:SPS.

Second, the description of the podcast episode itself states that modern flat Earth beliefs began in the 20th century, not the 21st. For example: So all of this brings us to the modern International Flat Earth Research Society, founded in 1956 by an English sign painter named Samuel Shenton, whose belief system was a curious combination of Biblical literalism and alternative science. The emergence of modern flat Earth beliefs in the 20th century, or even the 19th century, is also supported by other sources in this article: Flat Earth#Modern flat Earth beliefs. And the lead section of the modern flat Earth beliefs article states: Flat Earth groups of the modern era date from the middle of the 20th century. PBZE (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The reason for the sentence and its importance is the word resurgence. “Resurgence” does not imply something the general public has never heard of. Shenton’s “society” was tiny, and no widespread profession of belief in a flat earth was documented by any researcher. The extreme fringe nature of the belief holds for previous centuries as well; the belief did not fully die out ever, but its subscribers were few. That contrasts with the 21st century trend where researchers document a professed belief on the order of several percent, robustly held. I agree that a podcast is not a good source, but that doesn’t support your case any more than it supports the original wording. Strebe (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply