Talk:Myth of the flat Earth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changed Arab mile length

This article stated that the Arab Mile is 2177 meters, but the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_mile article says it is between 1800 and 2000 meters. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus article uses 1830m, so I substituted that.

With that edit, the article is now incoherent. 1,480 ÷ 1,830 = 81%, not 75%. Also, that edit likely conflicts with the source. Please revert or find some supportable way to fix it. I notice that the Christopher Columbus article also conflicts with itself, but its failures shouldn’t be repeated here. Strebe (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this article basically one big straw man?

My contention is that 1) the specific claim that Columbus the explorer somehow knew better than educated scholars that the earth was round has to at best be a marginal idea that was never really that popular (and thus not deserving of being the focus of an entire Wikipedia article.) 2) The counter-argument that Middle Ages Europeans just knew that earth was spherical is inaccurate, specifically because it is very unlikely to be strictly true.

Collapsing rant per Wikpedia is not a soapbox.

The Bible says that the world was water. And God divided the waters in freshwater and saltwater. And made ​​the heavens like a diving bell, with a flat earth disc as bottom. That's why God was so easily flood the earth with the Flood. Bible was the most common book in the Middle Ages and was God's word. You were not a Christian if you did not take Genesis quite literally. When it was so important to conquer Jerusalem, it was because people believed that this city was the center of Earth disk.85.218.186.212 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks." "All Scholars"? Really? How the hell are going to get a citation for that? Who the hell could possibly compile information to support such a disparate claim about all scholars? Did Abelard, Alcuin or Petrarch actually write about a spherical Earth? First of all, the Middle Ages covers a *very* long period of time. Roughly speaking, its from about 550 CE to the 1500s. Most Europeans from 550 to 1200 would have been extremely ignorant of just about anything outside of the Bible. 1) Even educated people had no idea what an equinox was -- the Julian calendar was only replaced by the Gregorian in 1580. 2) There were no globes or Armillary spheres in Europe until they are introduced in 999. 3) Mappa mundi in Europe showed uniformly flat depictions of the earth before the 1400s (only reconstructed Ptolemy maps from 1300 were at least projective, and Muslim made maps from the 1100s that made it into the hands of Europeans depicted spherical coordinates.) 4) Of course, after 1250 or so, many Europeans learned that the earth was spherical as a side-effect of recovering science (including Ptolemy's "Almagest" and "Geography") through contact with the Arabs.

"By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was dead." The statement practically betrays the whole problem. If this is the case, then what of the Europeans between 550 and 1250? The statement basically admits that there were people who thought the earth was flat during that time, but yet again, no citations.

The fact that the Earth was spherical was discovered by the Greeks (around the time of Pythagoras). There was intense debate and discussion of the issue right up until the time of Lucretius. In other words, the fact that the earth is spherical was always a very controversial subject that raised the ire of philosophers who did not quite have the technology to definitively prove it to everyone's satisfaction. Everyone agrees that the technology, philosophy and science of the Middle Ages Europeans was significantly weaker than the Hellenistic level they "hatched" from. What this means is that they would not be in any better position to acknowledge that the earth was spherical. If this was common knowledge, in the same way as the Greeks before them, there should have significant lively debate about the issue. What you actually find is no discussion of the topic at all. But you can go to any pre-scientific primitive society at all and ask them whether they thought the earth was flat or spherical and they would just stare at you, reacting to a question they had never heard before and only tell you it was flat in response to a question.

People who think the world was flat and live in a society that thinks the same thing, will never bring the subject up, and there is no controversy. People who have discovered that the world is spherical without any advanced technology that proves the point end up having very loud debates on the issue. People only "accept" the the world is spherical once it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In this case it was Magellan, not Columbus who proved it.

What I think the status of the middle ages people was that even the educated ones were largely ignorant of the spherical nature of the earth. Only specialists like Bede who read Pliny the Elder and the obscure chapters of Etymologies, actually knew that the earth was spherical. And even then, since there were no scientific communities, it was not discussed or disseminated, as we can see by the lack of debate. So either you believed it or you didn't, but you couldn't discuss it, because there was nobody to discuss it with. For example, I am somewhat familiar with the Banach-Tarski paradox. But I basically don't tell people about it, because barely anyone I know has the right educational background to even appreciate it enough to have a discussion about it. But the lack of discussion corresponded to general ignorance which corresponds to default beliefs about the shape of the earth (i.e., flat) that was essentially not discussed.

Now I understand that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. So the point is not to promulgate my alternative hypothesis. But Wikipedia ought not promulgate fallacious ideas except at a distance ("some people say that ..."). This article takes the point of view of endorsing the position that belief in a flat earth in the middle ages was a myth (thus failing NPOV), not being clear about the rather inadequate nature of its supporting evidence (making claims about "all people" back then, then listing one solitary guy), and essentially arguing against a straw man (how could anyone think that Columbus proved the earth was round when 1) he was not a scientist, but rather following external scientific advice which indicated that India should have been his end point and 2) he didn't prove any such thing; Magellan did).

Qed (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you suggest we move forward? I recently proposed merging the content of this page into an expanded historiography section of the flat earth article. That way we would have a unified presentation on views of the earth's topology, covering not only how views of the earth's topology have developed over a long span of history, but also covering how our historical understanding of that development has itself evolved over more recent years (such as the appearance, spread, then presumed-refutation of this narrative regarding Columbus). I still think this would be a good way to begin addressing the issues you raise (although with additional partially-overlapping articles like early world maps, spherical earth, firmament, celestial sphere and cosmology, I don't claim this would be the end of the restructuring that is warranted). Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all the title should be changed to reflect that this is a very short-lived myth that appeared in the 19th century. So just call it "19th century Myth of the Flat Earth" since this has nothing to do with earlier times when this myth was embraced. Either that or you have to explain why this title is somehow well known to be associated with the very short lived 19th century myth (just like the article of the 60s, usually also refers to the early 70s as well; but this is explicitly explained in the article). Secondly, we need to correct the utter fallacious reasoning used in the opening paragraphs: the myth is that the prevailing view in medieval times thought the earth was flat, versus the counter claim that all scholars or all educated people thought otherwise. The number of people educated or considered scholars during most of the early medieval period would have been vanishingly small. To proceed in this way, it should include something like, "the myth gives the impression that not even scholars knew otherwise", and then this needs to be well sourced. Quotes from the myth promulgating books and the exact nature of their claims are crucial. Quoting the debunks are almost useless -- like we need to clarify the argument as to why the world is not flat? Seriously? Thirdly, the middle ages includes a long period of time from 550 CE to 1500 CE. So citing counter examples from books published in the 13th century is useless for this claim; in the higher middle ages, obviously the intellectual culture had undergone a radical change. The quotes should come from Macrobius, Pliny the Elder, and Etymologies, to address the whole of "the middle ages". Because that's what they would have had access to, for the majority of the middle ages period. Fourthly, it has to at least be acknowledged that this is thought to be a 19th century myth, yet the "debunks" that seem to be cited are from the very late 20th century. In other words, the time period of the early 20th century is unaccounted for; was the myth prevalent then too? Citing examples of Walt Disney songs don't seem to be comparable to the Irving book. (Remember that Disney also did a movie about lemmings running over the edge of cliffs, which I don't think had much buy-in). Qed (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the adage "too long, didn't read it"? And perhaps I am just too tired after a long day, but you seem to be rambling. (Haven't we discussed this before?) At any rate, the argument in your last line is confused at the least, and does not excite me to read the rest of your essay. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Qed, there's no controversy (and WP:TLDR).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Qed, I think you're getting your timescales confused. This article is about a period in the 19th/20th century when it was commonly construed that the medievals believed in a flat earth and were surprised that Columbus didn't fall off the edge. This was a common position in schoolbooks and popular literature, and in the 19th century by a few otherwise respectable academics.

What most medieval people actually believed is, as you've pointed out, almost unknown. The subject was beyond the imagination of more than the very well educated and they, once Arab learning percolated into the West, generally accepted what is now the norm. There is some evidence that common people laughed at the idea but not a lot. This page is basically a Wiki attempt to keep the Flat Earth page more objective whilst representing an idea that does have some currency. Chris55 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is not "19th century myth of the Flat Earth" because certainly there were other periods of time, say in 7 century Greek history, when large numbers of people thought the earth was flat and explicitly said so. What you are saying is that this is a wikipedia article about a notion spread by a single book written in the 19th century; yet it doesn't say so. Also, if this was such a wide-spread 19th century idea, then it must have been debunked very *early* in the 20th century, or later on in the 19th century. Yes, the debunks cite Steven Jay Gould, or books from 1983. Then why isn't this a 19th and 20th century myth? Could it be that the myth died on its own because nobody continued to promulgate it? In which case, why make mention of this? Its like writing an article citing the increased belief in UFOs why the TV series "X files" was popular. Qed (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

" I think the status of the middle ages people was that even the educated ones were largely ignorant of the spherical nature of the earth." What you "think" isn't terribly relevant here, because your comments above show that your knowledge of medieval science and thought is virtually non-existent. You claim "since there was (sic) no scientific communities, it was not discussed or disseminated". This is garbage. Astronomy and cosmology were discussed and taught in detail in medieval universities, which were part of a network of learning across medieval Europe. The main text used in these classes was John Sacrobosco's De Sphaera Mundi - that means "the sphere of the world", which should give you a bit of a hint. And the sphericity of the earth was not "debated" because everyone accepted it. When Thomas Aquinas wanted to choose an example of an objective fact that was well known at the beginning of his Summa Theologica, he chose the fact that the earth was round. Getting the picture? Even peasants knew this - the symbol of a king's earthly power was the orb - a sphere representing the sphere of the earth. That symbolism would not make sense if it was not understood that the earth was round. A collection of German sermons for parish priests from the Thirteenth Century also mentions, in passing, that the earth was "round like a apple" with the expectation that the peasants hearing the sermon already understood what this meant. And the popular Fourteenth Century English book of travellers' tales, The Tales of Sir John Mandeville, tells of a man who travelled so far east that he returned to his homeland from the west, while not explaining to its audience how this works. The fact that the earth was round was common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimONeill (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Break

I found this article very useful. My son's teacher had pointed him to this "useful" site explaining that Magellan surprised the world when he proved that the earth was round: http://www.biography.com/people/ferdinand-magellan-9395202 96.231.219.26 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think all of us here are always pleased to hear it has been useful. Does your son's teacher think that the roundness of the earth needed proving? I thought we had gotten past that since I was in school. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Include classical beliefs that the Earth was flat?

Yep, at least Cosmas Indicopleustes should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.217.210 (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this article doesn't give the misleading impression that no credible source ever thought that the Earth was flat--at least, once it was discovered not to be? The Epicureans certainly thought that the Earth was flat, and gave novel arguments for that position which are described by the Roman poet Lucretius. I'll let someone else consider whether or not this observation is germane. It's possible that it is not, if the "myth" aspect of the article is narrowly construed to include only modern misconceptions about classical and medieval society. To me, it seems right to briefly state the truth: while it is certainly wrong that Columbus discovered that the Earth was round, there was significant debate in classical Europe, and a minority position was that the Earth was flat. By the time the Roman empire Christianized, that debate gradually subsided, and scholars moved on to the notorious antipodes controversy.74.176.55.212 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that this article is concerned with a modern myth, the myth that before modern times, it was generally believed that the Earth was flat. This modern myth is different from the ancient myth that the Earth is flat. The modern myth is not a myth about the shape of the Earth, but is, so to speak, a "meta-myth", a myth about (the acceptance of) a myth. The belief that the Earth is flat is treated in the article Flat earth. Should there be more indications in this article that there is that other article that discusses the fact that at one time it was generally believed that the Earth is flat? My opinion is that there is enough said to make that clear, but maybe not. TomS TDotO (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, this is about the modern myth. (And well stated; thank you.) To some extent it is even irrelevant what the medievals (scholars or populace) thought, the primary focus here is on what certain moderns have thought. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is about a modern misconception of earlier beliefs, it is misnamed. Flat Earth should be "Myth of the Flat Earth" because it describes myths and beliefs of the earth being flat. This article should be something like "Misconceptions of beliefs in a flat Earth" (or "Myth of the Myth of the Flat Earth") or something like that. Also, as per the anon above, I think there should be a brief discussion of the Classical/preclassical scholars who really did think the earth was flat, and (if known) how widespread the belief in a flat earth was among pre-modern non-scholars, to put things in context. Columbus not being laughed at for saying the world was round is a separate issue to uneducated people in the past thinking it was flat. Iapetus (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Misconceptions of beliefs in a flat Earth" is a more accurate title for this article, but I wouldn't describe the earlier belief as a myth, which is usually attached to stories or explanations whereas the flat earth is simply a naive observation (or maybe extrapolation). A small lake on a calm day would be accepted by most people as a definition of "flat" and it's pretty damn close. Perhaps not as close as the approximation of a Newtonian to an Einsteinian universe, but standards of measurement have improved over the centuries. Chris55 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Misconceptions of beliefs in a flat Earth" may be more accurate, but it's excessively wordy and downright clumsy as a title. Since the lead opens with the statement "The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception...", that makes it clear what the article is about. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This article is not about what the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Hindu, or Inca thought, it is about the modern myth that medieval Europeans were afraid of falling off a "flat" earth. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Myth?

I wonder whether myth is the proper word to describe this misconception. There are creation myths, or foundation myths, but a "myth of a flat earth"? What we are talking about here is the story that, for example, they laughed at Columbus until he proved to them that the Earth was round. Maybe "legend of the Flat Earth" or "tall tale of the Flat Earth"? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly you question this use of "myth" because you are accustomed to seeing in a slightly different usage, but I think this use is just fine. Even if not exactly fine, it is the term that has been used by other writers on this subject. Keep in mind that this isn't just some curious story that someone came up with. but the view that people did believe that the earth was flat. Such a belief would, of course, be false, but the myth is the view that people so believed, when it appears they did not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

To argue against my own point, perhaps I could note that this is a myth, not just a curious story, because it is part of a "world view" in which people in olden days are thought of as being ill-informed, ignorant, or even stupid? TomS TDotO (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You may actually have a point there, Tom! The trouble is that there is an enormous spectrum of views even in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 'flat-earthers' emerged before the people like Draper who accused the whole middle ages of being flat-earth. And which of these were the ignorant schoolbook writers who wrote about them laughing at Columbus or being afraid of falling off the edge getting their views from?

I would have said that it was Jeffrey Burton Russell who popularized the word "myth" in this respect, but actually the word doesn't appear in his book (afaics). His phrase there is "Flat error". It only occurs in the poster he did for the ASA meeting and he only uses it in the first sentence. I wonder if he now regrets it. For a historian it's a very questionable use of language. Chris55 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Yes. This modern view that "Columbus proved that the world is round", and the cognate view that until then the ignorant "them" thought it was flat, is the myth. In fact, "them" were better informed than Columbus. Essentially it is an attempt to revise history, for reasons touched on in the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact I found the use of the word myth on the last page of Russell's book: 'fallacies or "myths" of this nature take on a life of their own, creating a dialectic with each other and eventually making a "cycle of myths" reinforcing each other' (p76). It seems that is what we're engaged in. There is a significant sense in which Columbus (or rather Elcano) 'proved' the world is round: there was all sorts of nonsense that could be held, as demonstrated by the clerics who opposed Columbus. "They all repeated the Spanish saying that is commonly used of any doubtful statement, 'St Augustine doubts...' because in Chapter 9 of Book XX1 of The City of God the saint denies the existence of the Antipodes and holds it impossible to pass from one hemisphere to the other." (the words of Ferdinando Columbus, not Washington Irving. In the same account, others argued the ocean was infinite and yet others that it was impossible to sail back up into "this" hemisphere.) Nobody understood gravity in a modern sense and even Jules Verne in the 19th century got weightlessness wrong in his journey to the moon. Chris55 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Very preconceived opinion

Opinion in this article is very preconceived. The authors of article didn't show any normal prove that Flat Earth theory in Middle ages is just a myth. Really? Is that mean that all people in Middle ages knew about that Earth is a sphere? What else they knew that time?? Maybe about structure of the Atom? And who says that Jeffrey Burton Russell is a normal sourse about such a statements? He is a man, who writes on religious subjects and thus in this question he is very prejudicive. So there are a lot of mistakes in article, including it's name !! 46.70.37.16 (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, here I am providing my suggestion about the article: First, please show opinions of many historians, who state that during Middle ages Flat Earth theory was wildspread. There are a lot of such historians, why there is no at least one mention of that statements? Second, show any prove, that before Magellan's expedition of 1519–1522 everybody was thinking, that Earth is sphere (nobody was thinking that earth is flat). Third, explain please why many scientists (Giordano Bruno etc) were executed by Inquisition just because they stated that Earth is sphere (if that opinion was so accepted). That is my suggestions about article. Otherwise it is look very preconceived. Thanks in advance. 46.70.37.16 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"There are a lot of such historians"? Perhaps you could give us some examples? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, even in article it's mentioned that this theory (that people in Middle ages belived of earth's flat form) have many followers. And anyway , I will provide their names!

And besides, if it is not so hard for you, please answer also my above question number 2 (Second) and 3 (Third). Thansk in advance.46.70.37.16 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno was burned for insisting the stars are other suns with their own other worlds and peoples (and for otherwise not holding orthodox Christian views, but the shape of the earth had nothing to do with it). How are your examples of historians coming? Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples of historians? You mean I must provide name off all historians exept some creationists ?? You know better me, that this is just position of creationists (such as Jerry Bergman) or very religious researchists (such as Jeffrey Burton Russell) and here we see only the viewpoint of that people. How we can call this article normal, if we see here only one viewpoint??

Тhis viewpoint is not accepted by American Academy of Arts and Sciences, nor by any other national Academy. And don't pretend that you don't know that. All citation were taken from pseudosciences such as creationism. What a pity that in wikipedia we see very preconceived article. 46.71.48.148 (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone ask you for "name [sic] off [sic] all historians"? I asked for some examples, you have (so far) provided none. You say "there are a lot of mistakes in article, including it's name", but have not shown how the title is a mistake, nor any other instances. You say that "this" viewpoint is not accepted by the AAAS, but it is not clear what viewpoint you are talking about, nor have you provided any evidence for whatever your opinion is. You want "prove" (presumably you mean "proof") that everybody prior to Magellan "was thinking" the earth is spherical, which is absurd. Which all is to say: you are ranting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The article very clearly states that it is about educated opinion - what scholars thought. What the common people thought is very little known - what there is you can find in the Flat Earth article. In the middle ages it was almost entirely scholars who wrote things down that have been preserved, so we are lacking in any other evidence. It's possibly a fault that this article doesn't point that out explicitly. If you can find an accredited historian who has other evidence I certainly would be glad to see it. But Wikipedia attempts to exclude "common sense" viewpoints that cannot be supported by noteworthy sources. Chris55 (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The anon editor seems to have special problems with Jeffrey Burton Russell's credentials as a historian. There are two simple answers:

• First, Russell has written extensively on the history of the Middle Ages. Admittedly, his focus has been on the history of religious ideas but that doesn't make him an advocate of religion anymore than a military historian is necessarily a militarist. Russell is a professional historian and his writings can be used as such.
• Secondly, it is not just historians of religion like Russell who have discussed the widespread medieval belief in the spherical earth; historians of science have extensively documented the various expressions of this belief. See for example the writings on medieval cosmology by Pierre Duhem and Edward Grant, the writings on early medieval astronomy by Bruce Eastwood, the writings on early medieval computus by Wesley Stevens and Faith Wallis. I could go on but the list would get tiresomely long.

The bottom line is that Russell is a reliable historical source and his conclusions are shared by many other historians. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOVE to "Flat Earth myth"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The title is in contradiction to MOS, mainly due to the capital F. The E is good as it is. I'd suggest Flat Earth myth as new title - or even Flat Earth, to make it more WP:NPOV. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 09:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I support “Flat Earth myth”. Removing “myth” degrades the quality of information in the title significantly. Whether the “Flat Earth myth” is itself a myth is not a POV issue. That is, whether medieval Europeans did or did not believe the Earth is flat may still be debatable, but that does not mean the title “Flat Earth myth” takes a position on the matter. Strebe (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On second examination, I’m not happy with the proposal or the current title. The article fairly consistently refers to the topic as the “flat Earth error”. Meanwhile the semantics of the title are vague to just plain wrong. More precisely, the article is about the “Myth of the belief in a flat Earth”. Strebe (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The current title adequately reflects the intended focus of this article on the historical myth that medieval people believed in a Flat Earth, as that myth is presented in a range of relatively modern authors. The title was (as I recall) chosen to set this issue apart from other existing articles dealing with the Flat Earth and the Spherical Earth. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. To which I would add that the MOS is a general guideline, and does not require slavish adherence in every last instance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with SteveMcCluskey and agree with Strebe. The use of the word "myth" in this context panders to those for whom "myth" is simply a synonym of "error". When one deals with something like the Flood myth one is at pains to point out that myth means a story that explains some phenomenon and it doesn't rule out any historical basis (however limited) for the story. The Historical Association used the title "Common errors in history" (possibly it's significant that in the footnote at the beginning of this article that title doesn't appear). This error explains nothing, although people have tried to read volumes into it. Chris55 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I don't believe there is any notion here that '"myth" is simply a synonym of "error"', even though you seem to be using it that way. Your position on this proposal is unclear; perhaps you care to restate it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

JJohnson, there has been no suggestion as to what "myth" means. Russell in his book only uses the word "myth" once and in quotes as I record further up this page. It really took off after a talk he gave to the ASA. Everywhere else he uses the slightly odd phrase "flat error". The chapter in Garwood's book that deals with this is "The Columbus Blunder". The only one of four definitions of myth in the Collins ED that comes close is "a person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven" and I assume that is the meaning intended. However it has the disadvantages I suggested above because of the other 3 definitions.

So to make my position clearer to you, I propose that that the title is replaced by "The Flat Earth error". (I'm not fussy about capitalization.) Chris55 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Flat Earth error better reflects the usage within the article. It is still idiomatic (in the sense that you have to already know what it means in order to understand it), but a title like “Erroneous modern belief in a dominating medieval European belief in a flat earth” isn’t exactly gainly. Strebe (talk)

Thank you. It is now clearer (yea!) that we have some (oooh) confusion. Initially iOuch proposed "Flat Earth myth as new title - or even Flat Earth". Now you are proposing something different. To discuss whether the title should be changed we really need to have a definite alternative. At this point I propose that the discussion should be about possible alternatives if the article should be moved. First we work out the best alternative, then we can decide whether to move. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a definite alternative!!! Afaics the only reason for the use of the word myth is the title of the talk given by Jeffrey Burton Russell which is the name of this article. Ouch's suggestion evidently doesn't appreciate this. Since you "don't believe there is any notion here that '"myth" is simply a synonym of "error"'" can you please explain to me what you take the meaning of the word to be? Chris55 (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  What I mean is that a proposed move should be definite about the alternative, like which of the three that have been proposed.

  You said: “The use of the word "myth" in this context panders to those for whom "myth" is simply a synonym of "error".” I don't recall that being an issue here except as it seems that you take those terms to be synonymous. Is the use of "myth" therefore pandering to you?

  As to the difference: an error is simply a mistake, an incorrect result which is unintentional and undesired. Myth I take to be a story or idea generally involving beliefs, which may be taken as illustrating some truth even if not strictly true, and therefore not necessarily undesirable, nor even unintentional. E.g., if I punch in "2 + 2 =" on my calculator and get "3", that would be an error. On the other hand, if I am so hopelessly innumerate (and for all you know perhaps I am) that it is said "JJ does 2 + 2 and gets 3", that would be a myth. (Hey, doesn't happen all the time!)

  The application here is as said in the article: this "myth" is a fable, used by some parties to impugn others. It differs from mere error of history in that it was intentional. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that pseudo-quotation. It took a little time as I had to read the whole book to find whether there were any other uses of the word "fable" in it. (There aren't.) If you are depending on that it makes sense that "myth" is an appropriate word and it appears to be important to those who've constructed this page. One of the curious features of the book is Russell's apparent belief that "the controversy over evolution [has] faded" (a phrase repeated several times). I suspect that some anti-evolutionists choose the flat earth myth as an easier battle to fight. After all, the field of flat earth supporters has now definitely shrunk to conspiracy theorists. After Charles Johnson died in 2001, the group from which the main supporters of the flat earth derived, overwhelmingly biblical literalist Christians (as it had been since the 1840s), were released from the guilt by association and have tried to vilify scientists instead. Of course Russell had also to crucify someone who had strayed into his own field (Irving) but it's clear that Draper and White are his chief targets. I'm not sure why the article focuses on Letronne, Whewell and Flammarion - I suppose they are easier caricatures.

Incidentally, "Flat Earth myth" (and another variant) already points to this article. Chris55 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, two points. 1) As I don't have a copy of Russell's book at hand I can't assess your removal of "impugn" from the article. However, removing text that figures in a discussion looks really bad, as it smacks of an Orwellian "memory hole". (Not that it changes the sense of the article; I think the other sources support that interpretation.) 2) You're going off on a bit of a tangent here. You asked for an explanation of how these terms are not synonymous, which I have offered. Hopefully you are satisfied that the terms are not synonymous, and this clarifies how the assertion of a medieval belief in a flat-earth goes beyond mere error. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this discussion is going anywhere. Unless folks have more to say on this it appears there is no consensus to change (move) the article name. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. The best rephrasing I can come up with that is accurate of the first line of the History section is:

Jeffrey Russell says that the flat earth error as described in his book Inventing the Flat Earth is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization and creationism.

Does this satisfy you? (Incidentally, I was checking the Russell quote before you mentioned it.) However, I also find the quote from James Hannan mysterious: "The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching". He can't be referring to Copernicus's reference to Lactantius, which was in the sixteenth century. Cyrano de Bergerac was having fun with geocentrism not flat-earthism. It's possible he's referring to John Wilkins (hardly a campaign) although Russell puts him in the eighteenth. All of Russell's other examples date from the 19th and 20th centuries. Anyone got any ideas? Chris55 (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Not entirely. My understanding is that this view (of medieval belief in a flat earth) was not an "error" in the sense (as I explained above) of an incorrect reading of history, but was in fact a myth (i.e., an intentional fable). To describe this view as an error is thus incorrect.

  I would comment further on the connection with creationism, but we are getting off-topic here. This discussion is about moving the article, and, lacking any continuance, we should let it expire. Add a new section if you want to consider a revision of the text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Russell calls it an error throughout his book. The primary culprit was an overenthusiastic historian who certainly wasn't doing it intentionally.
2. It avers a tautology to write "says that the ... myth ... is a fable".
3. I'd be quite happy to return to the original "pre-modern civilization" or whatever. Chris55 (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What about the title "Flat Earth (historiography)"? Since the difference between this article and Flat Earth is that one deals with the history of the model (i.e., what people really thought and when), while this one deals with the historiography of it (i.e., what subsequent people claimed previous people had thought). Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a more neutral title. It seems that JJohnson has swallowed the line of some religious apologists that the instances of this error were deliberate falsifications. I see no evidence of this. Sloppy scholarship certainly. But when one looks at the many schoolbook howlers that are the supposed fruits of this conspiracy it's hard to imagine the authors being that subtle. And given that the first recorded instance of the epithet "flat-earther" is around 1925-34, it's hard not to conclude that it was the modern flat-earthers (Blount, Wardlaw Scott, Voliva etc) that prompted the coining of the term with no medieval references in mind. Chris55 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cfrog: I agree with your characterization of the differences, though I think historiography is not quite the right term here. That seems to be more about the methodology of history, not its abuses or errors.

Chris: this attribution of a belief in a flat-earth is not dependent on the coining or use of the term "flat-earther". Nor is the belief of any moderns in a flat-earth really relevant to what the medievals believed, or are supposed to have believed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If the article were about more than one specific narrative in the collection of flat earth narratives, then historiography might be reasonable. As it stands, it’s not.

For Letronne, Draper, and a few others, the story was a deliberately constructed myth. For Irving, who knows what the intent was beyond dramatic storytelling. For some people fascinated by history and with their own place in it, the story is a myth they mistakenly believe in, and this misbelief is perhaps most insidious amongst teachers. For the overwhelming number of people who subscribe to the story, it is little more than an error of similar gravity as any urban legend. (Maybe “legend” is even more clear than the other terms.) Our own preferences about “myth” vs “error” are irrelevant; either is correct. What’s relevant is how the literature describes the story. If we find no clear preference in the literature then we’ll have to revisit and come to some consensus. I suggest, though, that putting “Columbus” in the title would make it very clear that myth refers to the modern misconception rather than the archaic belief in a flat earth. The myth really is about the council at Salamanca, not the early medieval period, when some rather odd ideas were bandied about. Strebe (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but the comment about the early medieval period hit my hot button. Serious cosmological discussions in late antiquity and the early middle ages by authors like Macrobius, Bede, and (although some historians question this) Isidore of Seville were clear on the concept that the Earth was spherical. See the discussion at Spherical Earth. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I know; I agree; but I’m saying it doesn’t matter. The myth was created around Columbus and really is about Columbus in everyone’s mind; that’s what kids learn growing up. They’re not taught about the early medieval period. Those who point out Lactantius and a few other medieval weirdos really have no leg to stand on when it comes to the Salamanca council. The title of the article ought to reflect what the myth really is about. Strebe (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to construct the myth around Columbus it's hard to have Letronne and Draper as your culprits. Neither of them mentioned the Columbus voyage being challenged by flat-earth allegations. Chris55 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  If myth and error were truly synonymous then there would no need to replace one with the other. But they are not, and the difference (as I described above) is derived not from my personal preference but from the definitions and usage. A belief that the earth is flat might be simply an error, but this deliberately constructed notion that such was a prevailing belief goes beyond a merely incorrect result.

  It seems to me that this myth is not so much about Columbus as Columbus was used to illustrate a claimed conflict. For sure, without him most people would not have heard of this alleged belief. But the player is not the play, and the underlying theme is really the conflict thesis. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The medieval period is an essential part of any discussion of the Flat Earth Myth, which can be seen as part of the Conflict thesis which maintained that Medieval Christianity was fundamentally opposed to science. The conflict thesis was most notably espoused by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the classic texts, Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 vols. (1896). For Draper and White, Columbus's alleged difficulties with theologians in Spain were were merely the last episode in their story of medieval opposition to science. They also present earlier elements of this myth which clearly belong in this article. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have derailed a bit. I do agree with the move idea, but the proposals so far seem to have some flaws (probably why there's so much debate).

I've tried to come up with some alternatives, and I'd love comments as to what changes I should make to them.

• Flat Earth Belief myth. This does not represent the article as about the Flat Earth belief, as Flat Earth myth and Flat Earth error can be seen to. Less grammatically correct than the alternative Myth of the Flat Earth Belief.
• Flat Earth Prevalence myth. Prevalence may be an overly complex word for a title, but I couldn't find any synonyms.
• Flat Earth Acceptance myth. I'm really leaning towards this. Acceptance seems to indicate how widespread the myth considers the belief.

Any other suggestions, or comments on the above? The theoretical best option would be, of course, Myth of the pervasiveness of the Flat Earth belief, so whatever one summarizes that best is probably a good title. AVAAGAA↪ 19:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, error instead of myth would work for all of these. AVAAGAA↪ 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no need for change, the term Flat Earth Myth is a perfectly accurate short title that describes the historical myth that was created in the nineteenth century for various ideological reasons. The added terms "Belief", "Prevelance", or "Acceptance" strike me as clumsy, superfluous additions. Titles should be brief descriptions, we can leave further analysis to the lead section. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of my proposals are definitely clumsy, but the extra clarification was an attempt to differentiate the article's topic from the disproven Flat Earth belief. As myth refers to a either a cultural folk tale or a false belief, I'm pretty sure that Myth of the Flat Earth can be easily misread as representing the Flat Earth article's topic. The same goes for Flat Earth myth. Are you sure the title is unambiguous enough? AVAAGAA↪ 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I just replaced the {{for}} template with an {{about}} template to clarify what this article is about. Feel free to edit the content of the template if it needs improvement. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That helps a lot! I took a look at the wording and it seems better than what I could have written. It's definitely preferable over the awkward word additions to the title. AVAAGAA↪ 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that the title is “perfectly” accurate. The About template, desperately needed, may be enough now. But the fact is that neither a historian nor a layperson is going to come to this article and grasp from its title what the article is about. “Flat earth myth” is not sufficiently descriptive; it could mean what the article is about or it could just mean any belief in a flat earth or it could even mean something else. The phrase is not a recognized idiom, neither popularly nor amongst historians. Therefore using it as a title is an invention of the editors, which, really, isn’t allowed. It either needs to be standard nomenclature from the literature—of which “flat earth error” seems to be the only credible candidate—or else it needs to be descriptive enough for readers at least to understand what the article is not about. Even "flat earth invention" would be better than what we have. Strebe (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment that the term "flat earth myth" was original to this article led me to check a few sources. I find that both Garwood (2007) and Gould (2011 [1999]) use "flat-earth myth" in their discussions of the topic of this article. The Historian of Medieval Science, Edward Grant, also uses it in his God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001), alluding to Russell as the source for the idea. It seems the term "flat-earth myth" is fairly widely accepted in the historical literature and doesn't need any further justification. Grammatically, however, it probably needs a hyphen. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Between repeated use by several authors and the About box at the top of the page, the title probably suffices, then. Strebe (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we have some concurrence that the current title is not perfect, but suffices? And that none of the other alternatives suggested are clearly superior? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Description of Russell’s thesis

Like J. Johnson (JJ) above, I also object to Chris55’s edit. I do not believe the deleted description was intended as an excerpt from Russell’s book; it’s a summary of the book’s thesis. It’s not credible to come away with some other interpretation of the thesis. One might quibble with the wording, but to replace a summary of the thesis with some quote that merely reiterates this article’s topic just doesn’t serve any function. Strebe (talk)

It's been a long time since I read Russell and I don't have his book at hand but, like Strebe, I think the deleted passage was a reliable summary of Russell's thesis and should not have been deleted. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made an edit accordingly, and added as another source "A paper by Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Annual Meeting August 4, 1997 at Westmont College summarizing his book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (1997) pb." Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But Strebe, it isn't a summary of the book's thesis. In the book, Russell plays the academic game perfectly and sticks to proving a scholarly thesis, which, within its limits, he's done very well. It was only in his 1997 ASA presentation that he made any political points. I agree that the quote from the book is not very helpful. Maybe the following quotes from 1997 would be more suitable:

"A curious example of this mistreatment of the past for the purpose of slandering Christians is a widespread historical error...the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians"

and you may want to add his later allegation that "The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists." I don't know what he is basing this on as the paper has no references. I can't see any supporting references in the book unless one is talking about people like Draper. In fact he passes over any modern believers in the flat earth in silence and the 1860 confrontation is about the only mention of evolution. Chris55 (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris55: I did not espouse the creationism verbiage; I have no recollection of that from the book and that is not the verbiage you changed. You changed it away from “Jeffrey Russell describes the Flat Earth theory as a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe.” That concisely states the book’s thesis. We need to distinguish the reason Irving and Letronne had for promulgating the fable from how the fable was later manipulated. The reason they promulgated it was to contrast the Enlightenment against the medieval period. Once the notion spread, it was co-opted by Draper, White, and others as ammunition against creationists. Russell’s 1997 synopsis isn’t strictly a synopsis; he seems to have added more to the premise or at least emphasizes the anticreationism co-option a lot more. Strebe (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization" isn't too bad a description of his thesis, but saying he "describes the Flat Earth theory" as this implies that this is in the book, which it isn't. The whole is a POV statement about his aims in writing the book. Using his book as a citation is therefore incorrect, although using his 1997 talk is reasonable. In addition, "flat earth theory" has two very different meanings in this context. Chris55 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris55, yes you are right, as I already wrote above (see Very preconceived opinion) Russel is a typical creationist (even if he refuses to say that directly), he is not a broadly supported scientists. When I asked to authors, is this viewpoint has been supported by American Academy of Arts and Sciences, they avoided to answer me. Of course, Russel is just usual believer and creationist, such as Jerry Bergman, and whole this article was written based on works of mentioned pseudoscientists. 46.71.8.183 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As in the previous section you refer to, you made wild claims without supporting them. E.g., you previously claimed that "a lot of such historians" support your views, but you have yet to cite even one. You were ranting then, and it appears you still are. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

46.71.8.183, I don't think Russell is a 'typical creationist'. He is a reputable academic, though I wouldn't describe him as a scientist or extend his credentials to anything scientific. What his views are on creationism I don't know, but he clearly thinks he is defending some Christians. I think his aims are much deeper than those of creationists, though I don't share them. Chris55 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Historiography section would help

In looking over Grant's writings on the shape of the earth in the Middle Ages, I noticed that he presents an extended discussion of the flat-earth myth in the context of a chapter on the "Assault on the Middle Ages," which examines a wide range of historical and philosophical attacks on medieval thought (Grant, Edward (2001), "Assault on the Middle Ages", God and Reason in the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 338–345, ISBN 0-521-00337-7). This provides a broader perspective for the emergence of the flat-earth myth than Draper and White's critiques of religion.

It seems the article could be improved by drawing on a number of historiographical themes (science and religion, critiques of medieval thought immediately come to mind) to put the emergence of the flat-earth myth in these historiographical contexts.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is enough material for any historiography. I see that Grant follows Russell in asserting that "Since approximately 1870, flat earth theory has become very nearly a quintessential example of the backwardness of the middle ages", but he offers even less evidence than Russell for this. Russell uses an analysis of school books to support the 1870 figure - but of 14 books, the 5 which mention Columbus and a flat or round world date from 1798, 1850, 1860, 1872, 1898. Not a convincing case. I've recently been analyzing the treatment of Columbus in some 38 books in the internet archive and the issue comes up in Columbus biographies from 1783 and 1821 - though somewhat obliquely in their repetition of Ferdinand Columbus's (16th century) assertion that geographers brought up the objection that the oceans might be infinite in extent. Where it seems to have been consolidated were the rush of books in the 1890s around the quatercentenary celebrations. But this, we need to remember, was the time that modern flat-earthers were getting notorious in the US and it's just as likely that this was the cause. Most convincing is George Sarton's comment that "the question of sphericity in the Middle Ages did not lie between flat-earthers and round-earthers but between round-earthers and those who found the question uninteresting".

All of this is of course OR and so not relevant to the article. Maybe we just need to improve the article generally. Chris55 (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue I was raising was that Grant put the flat-earth myth in the broader historiographical tradition of denigrating the Middle Ages and particularly scholasticism, which he (and others) have traced back to Petrarch in the 14th century. Draper and White are clearly in that tradition and their motivation deserves to be put in context. Perhaps for this article that historiographical tradition doesn't need a whole section, but it certainly should not be ignored. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but remember that flat-earther is a modern epithet (OED 1934) and a modern argument. It seems to me that the middle ages have got dragged into an argument that is really not to do with them at all. Authors have used their own prejudices to paint a picture and we are reading it with 21stC eyes and interpreting it with a century of flat-earth prejudice to add into the mix.

Unfortunately Grant's book is not easily available: it's not in the Science Museum library which I normally use, let alone my local library and the incomplete Google version omits the citations. Chris55 (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I have a copy of Grant's God and Reason in the Middle Ages on my bookshelves, along with many of his other books on medieval science. If you have any questions, I can help. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Section on medieval church support for spherical earth

I've proposed at Talk:Flat_Earth#Heading_change? that some of the material in the Declining support for the flat earth section would be better on this page. To avoid repeating any discussion can people please comment there. Chris55 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The border between this article and the articles Flat Earth and Spherical Earth have always been somewhat unclear. My thought is that examples of medieval support for the spherical earth belong in Spherical Earth rather than here. From that point of view, this article should retain its focus on the historiography of the flat-earth myth rather than introduce examples of belief in the flat or spherical earth from particular historical settings. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, except that the topic here is not about belief in a flat-earth per se, but the imputation of such a belief. That the earth is not flat is uncontestably a fact and so need not be rehashed here (see WP:BLUE). That people to whom this belief was imputed did not so believe needs to be addressed here (the myth being so prevalent), but (as touched upon above) this topic does have a particular historical setting: Columbus. More particularly, there is the setting of the imputation: who was targeted? and by whom? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept Steve's comment: we certainly don't want this blossoming into yet another parallel treatment.

JJohnson, you still seem to be treating this as a big conspiracy theory. I don't believe it was, it was more a big historical cockup. In my i.a. analysis (above) I looked to see if there was any correlation between flat earth allegations and mention of religious opposition and I couldn't see any. Clearly Russell and the creationists who have promoted him have religious motives but there don't appear to be any among those popularizing the "myth". Chris55 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  "Conspiracy theory" rather pushes the nuances, no? The claim that this myth was not an "honest" error of historiography is not mine but Russell's (see his essay), who claims it was concocted "for the purpose of slandering Christians", and promoted to "defend Darwinism". (Washington Irving was defending "Darwinism" thirty years before Darwin published?!) Of course, perhaps Russell is concocting a myth (Christianity under attack!!!). Or was it (as I seem to recall reading somewhere) Protestants impugning Catholic Scholasticism? I don't know, but even if none of that is actually true the allegations of such seem notable enough they ought to be addressed.

  As to "those popularizing" the myth: I think you have to distinguish between those who start something, and those who simply repeat wide-spread misconceptions without any regard as to how or why those misconceptions have come about. I am not aware that anyone knows what Irving's "motives" were, nor (having not read his story) whether he deliberately or explicitly faulted Christians/creationists/Scholasticism. Possibly he was just loose and careless with his facts, and masses of people just blindly followed him. (It happens.) But this topic definitely ties in with the Conflict thesis. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You're getting there slowly. Maybe our IP friend who called Russell a creationist is right: I never said he wasn't, only that he wasn't a conventional one (he might believe in ID or theistic evolution). And popularisers are important. Without them, Russell wouldn't have had a case, as neither Letronne nor Draper mention Columbus and Whewell does only indirectly and they are all now only known to experts. Unfortunately there does not exist in the literature a sensible critique of Russell's thesis (afaik), so we can't include it in the article. But we don't have to give it a prominent position or be afraid to call an error by its name. Errors are rarely honest. But as far as I can see, there's very little connection between these scholars and the Flat Error (to use Russell's term). And if you haven't read any of the sources, I suggest you start now. They're all available on the web. Chris55 (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Irving's motives, but many historians ^;) have placed Draper and Wright in the intellectual turmoil of the nineteenth century, as new universities were struggling to establish their independence from the kind of clerical influence which had been the pattern for earlier foundations like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. This conflict led them to see an anti-scientific motivation in their religious contemporaries, a conflict which they saw further exemplified in 19th-century resistance to evolutionary theory, and which they sought to project back to the Middle Ages. Thus the flat-earth myth combined the conflict thesis with an additional strand of anti-medieval thought. The flat-earth myth was not a "conspiracy", but it did suit the agendas of some of the most significant people behind its creation. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The current treatment of Irving is so biased that it's unbelievable. I've found one quote that says his work wasn't surpassed until Morison's in the 1940s and will try and correct the entry eventually. Clearly he found better sources in Europe than other contemporary historians but it wasn't enough for 20th century standards. e.g. Columbus's date of birth was only established around 1900.

What puzzles me in the wiki treatment of the conflict thesis is the one-sided nature of the conflict that is portrayed. e.g. it totally ignores the continuing anti-scientific campaign of creationism (as well as the backlash that creates from scientists). But Russell seems to find the myth emphasis rewarding in his latest book! Mind you, his use of the word is even more puzzling if you look at the first section: it's a myth that Christianity is uncool and old-fashioned. He admits both as true and then says "does it matter?" Fair enough except for the effect on the myth word. One of the other myths is titled "there is no evidence for theistic evolution"; goodness knows what he makes of that. Chris55 (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

We are drifting off topic here, but the conflict thesis is a well-established issue in the history of science. The thesis maintains that there is a necessary fundamental conflict between science and religion. This thesis ignores the many productive interactions between religion and science, from antiquity to the present day. I can only say that taking fundamentalist theologians or fundamentalist scientists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) as sources for balanced historical presentations is going to lead you astray; they both have an interest in maintaining that the conflict is essential. This leads to tendentious histories of which Draper and White's are classic examples; professional historians of science (and historians of religion) take a more neutral view of the subject. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Chris: this gets back to an earliar discussion, but I have to disagree with your comment above that "Errors are rarely honest." Look at some standard defintions:

• "An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true. [Emphasis added.]

• "An act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation [or] an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy...."

Various other definitions follow along the same line, with no mention of deliberate intention or lack of honesty. Not that someone can't deliberately make an error, but that is not inherent in the term, and there is certainly no indication that "honest" errors are rare. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case I think the appropriate definition is from Collins, which nowhere mentions intention: 2. an incorrect belief or wrong judgment. It's not the job of dictionaries to rule on frequency of use but you can continue to believe what you want. Chris55 (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not rule on frequency of usage, they report on what the standard, prevailing usages are. And communication is impaired when we don't stick with standard, prevailing usages. (Or at least make explicit any variances or special usages.) As you say, some definitions (reported usages) of "error" say nothing about intention or dishonesty. I say this is because these are not intrinsic elements of "error". A view which other definitions make explicit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits with sfn

Eric: while your latest edits seem generally good, wholesale conversion to {{sfn}} templates is not necessarily an improvement to the references. In particular, several notes that had multiple cites are now split, which results in multiple links in the text (e.g.: ^[1][2][3]), which many of us find objectionable. Would you mind restoring those to the original format? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Treaty of Tordesillas and contradiction to this article

On 1494 the Treaty of Tordesillas was signed between Spain and Portugal. Even at that time people did NOT imagine the real geography of Earth, thats why Spain just gave Portugal entire Brazil (it was found out later). That funny mistake gave to Portugal almost 7 mln sq km land. Spanish king later was very sad when he understood what they had done. So, you still think that in Middle ages people knew that Earth is not flat?? What a nonsense. 46.70.190.130 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you illiterate? Or simply can't be bothered to read the article? It clearly states that this "myth" is the modern misconception that medievals thought the world is flat. The article demonstrates that this conception is false, and that people did know the Earth is not flat. Your claim of a contradiction is unfounded. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's you are illiterate, who belives in imaginary friends like god. And its very big mistake that people did know the Earth is not flat. NO they DID NOT. Its just view poit of Russel, thats it. They did not know it even when the Treaty of Tordesillas was signed. 46.70.190.130 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled what the Treaty of Tordesillas has to do with the question of whether the Earth was flat or spherical. A north-south line of demarcation can be drawn on a flat or a spherical earth. There is no doubt that educated people in the middle ages knew that the earth was spherical.

Many modern historians of medieval science, Edward Grant comes to mind, agree with Russell on how the myth was used to denigrate the intellectual achievements of the Middle Ages. Furthermore, there are many medieval texts that discuss the spherical nature of the Earth -- good examples would be Sacrobosco's De sphaera and the many commentaries on it. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The treaty, and the Papal Bull Inter caetera which preceded it, describe the N-S line as being through the poles, it is a meridian on a sphere. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Middle Ages beagen on 5th century. And you really belive that 16 centuries ago people knew about spherical Earth? Then why geographicall knowleges were so poor? And why Magellan made first circumnavigation of the Earth only on 16th century?? No one can explain this things. 46.70.190.130 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone that has gone to sea can see the curvature of the ocean, which implies curvature of all the earth. No ancient attempted the circumnavigation of the earth because they didn't have maps showing how to get around the continents, and they didn't have ships big enough. Note that the objections to Columbus' voyage was that (not knowing about the Americas) they expected to run out of food and water before reaching Cathay. Q.E.D., I have demonstrated "this things", therefore your assertion that no one can is false. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

46..., have a look at Eratosthenes#Measurement of the Earth's circumference. That was around 200 BC. You don't measure the circumference of flat surfaces. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy to see the consensus shaping up here... The middle ages held more knowledge than often assumed, including the knowledge the world was a sphere (at least in some educated classes). Arnoutf (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The notion that the middle ages were "dark" and uninformed has been pervasive. And suspect. One of the interesting points in Jean Gimpel's The Medieval Machine is tracing designs attributed to Leonardo da Vinci to the 9th or 10th century. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe too much to for the IP editor to grasp, but the Bible says in numerous places that the Earth is a sphere and (like HiLo48 says above) the Greeks knew it as well so someone needs to do a little research. Its also somewhat laughable the he thinks that the Portugese "pulled a fast one" on the Spanish by "getting Brazil" when it was the Portugese who got the shaft and ended up with about 10% of the wealth of Central/S. America. Clearly someone isn't thinking... Ckruschke (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Amazing how everyone's prejudices come out! It's certainly tempting to think that the Treaty of Tordesillas presumed a flat earth and it's even been said that the Portuguese got round it (:-() by approaching Brazil from the west. But clearly 46.70.190.130 hasn't read the wiki article carefully enough. It wasn't until 1518 that the Spanish tried to interpret the treaty as dividing the world into hemispheres to claim the Moluccas and long before that the Portuguese had landed on the east coast of Brazil which is to the east of the treaty line (the Portuguese already were given rights to lands south of the Canaries). It doesn't seem that the pope was trying to make any sort of global statement, but that says nothing about whether he believed the world to be round or not. It was Columbus and his friends who sought the treaty and he certainly believed it to be round. Chris55 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Is "Christian Answers" a reliable source of information for number [5]? I don't think it is. 82.47.159.6 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Note #5 being a naked url (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html) masquerading as a citation, lacking any indication of the actual author or other details. That in itself is a definite sign of dubious editing. Especially as the text being supported is a direct quote from the webpage, which is a summarization of an adaptation of Russell's 1991 book. Quite aside from whether Christian Answers Network is a reliable source on this point, such a roundabout way of quoting Russell is unacceptable. The statement itself might be true, but without proper citation it is not validly supported. On that basis alone this is a junk citation, and ought to be tagged. Though I don't know what tag would be appropriate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Since it's ultimately material from Russell being re-re-repeated without analysis by the intermediary sources, sounds like it needs {{tertiary source inline}}. Rather than tagging it, though, wouldn't it make more sense to just cite Russell 1991, and use his wording, instead of the questionable website's, or the film's?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems sensible. However, I have not seen Russell 1991, and cannot verify the material, so it would be inappropriate for me to make that cite. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that, while it remains at this less than ideal name, it is correct to decapitalise "flat". No prejudice against future renaming RMs, in fact they should be encouraged. Jenks24 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Myth of the Flat Earth → Myth of the flat Earth – The word "flat" should not be capitalized here, per MOS:CAPS: we do not capitalize the names of hypotheses, beliefs, propositions, etc. Capitalizing it this way is actually a serious WP:NPOV problem; we don't even do this with Newton's laws of motion. The article text needs to be corrected in this regard, after the move. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: "Earth" is retained with a capital "E", per MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect the capitalized "Flat" is a carryover from the use of title case in several sources (Bishop 2007; Gould 2011; Russell 1992, 1997). I don't know how that amounts to a "serious WP:NPOV problem", but no matter, I don't see any objection to renaming. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would have thought so, too, but see below. Some are making some kind of "proper name" argument.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title of this article is terrible with or without that one word capitalized. It ought to be completely retitled, not fixed. Having said that, it also needs to be clear from a glance at the title that this article isn't simply talking about level ground or some similar topic. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • On the first point, the desire to ultimately find a better name (see thread below, and previous debates) does not prevent us from fixing a MOS compliance issue. On the second point, see MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies; we capitalize the Earth in this context (as opposed to a reference to soil). All of MOS:CAPS indicates we don't capitalize random descriptive adjectives like "flat".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the proposed renaming, Earth retains it capital letter. Why? How long before we get a request to change it to "Myth of the flat earth"? Chris55 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • See MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies. I have to note that this "oppose" raises no actual objection to the idea that "flat" is improperly capitalized here, and instead appears to be an argument for Myth of the flat earth. So we should proceed in decapitalizing "flat" regardless.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Suggest Flat Earth myth as per Creation myth and Flood myth. The current title has questionable grammar and might be better written Myth of there being a flat Earth, Myth of a flat Earth or The myth of the flat Earth GregKaye 18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A narrow modification of the current title - specifically, decapitalizing "Flat" - is one thing, but revising the title re-opens a perennial issue. (See #WP:MOVE to "Flat Earth myth"? above, and also the archive.) I suggest that this discussion stick with the specific proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

J. Johnson despite many comments in favour of a title as Flat Earth myth you, as an involved editor, decided to close the discussion that you mention. I suggest that, in a discussion for the sake of determining the best title for the article, that editors can be free to discuss what they like.

Personally I do not think that there is certainty that either the current title or the proposed title works. In modern times we have a clear conception of the planet Earth or The Earth as a physical object with a specifically measurable mass of ~5.97219×1024 kg and a specifically measurable surface area of ~510072000 km2 and a seemingly clear ability of people to fly over the south pole. However if groups of believers question various bits of evidence I am unsure if we can still talk of "the flat Earth" as there are many variant conceptions of interpretations that can be taken.

An alternate title might be something along the lines of Modern flat Earth mythologies. GregKaye 04:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg, this article isn’t about modern beliefs in a flat earth. Strebe (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Strebe Thank you. However this raises a question as to why a title with such a high level of ambiguity has been has not been replaced with any title with anything that more clearly describes the subject. I would suggest Modern misconception of prevailing Middle Ages' belief in a flat Earth or Modern misconception of prevailing belief in a flat Earth in history. Many other title options would provide similar clarity and many, I think, would be facilitate an improvement. The current title fundamentally fails WP:AT : "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". I don't understand why we are tinkering with title lettering when, as far as I can see, the basic description fundamentally fails. GregKaye 09:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors of this page know the name is not ideal. See previous churn about this. As for why it’s called what it’s called, the literature refers to the topic by this name. As for your suggestions, (1) The Middle Ages are a time period, not people, so it has no beliefs, and trying to clarify that would add yet more words to an already 'unwieldy title; and (2) “in history” would be particularly misleading because belief in a flat earth (or some variant) was in fact prevalent outside of medieval Europe throughout history. To reiterate, these kinds of observations and suggestions have been kicked around a lot here. We’re still looking for the perfect combination and still not finding it. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See source cited in thread below; J. Johnson appears to be correct that capitalization as "Flat Earth" is just a mistake of taking a phrase from a title in title case and mistaking it for a proper name. Per MOS:CAPS we do not treat hypotheses/theories as proper names anyway, so "Flat Earth" by itself being the alleged name for a hypothesis about moderns beliefs about pre-modern beliefs, just doesn't matter. And that doesn't appear to be the primary topic of the phrase "flat earth" by itself (in any style), anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, I closed that 2013 discussion because 1) there was a shared sentiment that it wasn't going anywhere, and 2) there had been no comments for 12 days. There were no objections to the closing, and your imputation I may have acted imperfectly is both immaterial, and stale. Note that I have no objection generally to editors discussing what they like, but lest this becomes yet another tedious Wikipedia discussion that goes around and around and around without ever getting anywhere please give us the courtesy of staying on-topic. If you want to discuss the broader problems of the title feel free to start another discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. We could use a better title, but nothing anyone has proposed meets with broad acceptance. Meanwhile capitalizing “flat” doesn’t fit the guidelines. I also prefer decapitalizing “earth” if “the” comes before it. Style guides vary, but not many of them agree “the Earth” makes any sense, either historically or etymologically. Strebe (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support precisely per nom. Red Slash 22:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Clarification: I have no objection to lower-casing "earth", too, before "the". I was just under the impression it was conventionally capitalized when referred to as an astronomical body. Per MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies, we capitalize the Earth as a planet, even after "the". My concern is principally a WP:NPOV one, not a WP:MOS one. If we are not going to even capitalize the laws of motion (which many sources do capitalize), it's unacceptable to treat a fringe idea (that's been fringe for much longer than most people realize, as this entire article point out) with capitalization as a proper name. Oh, hell no. And it simply isn't accurate to say that reliable sources capitalize this. Some do, and others do not. As we've been over many, many times before at WP:RM: The WP:COMMONNAME policy (part of WP:AT) tells us what the most common name is (e.g. "flat earth" vs. "pancake earth"); once we know what it is, WP:MOS tells us how to style it (e.g. "flat earth" vs. "Flat Earth"). WP:AT, and its topical naming-convention guidelines, explicitly defer to MOS on style matters. I have to say that so often, I do it with a template now, {{ATandMOS}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I rather don't like this change – it seems to me like it should be "Flat Earth" as a proper name, and let's fix the Laws of Motion – but I have refrained from opposing this because (as I said earlier) I don't see any proper objection. How about we advertise this discussion on MOS for additional comments? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ) the article proper noun describes "a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft,...". Which unique entity is described by "Flat Earth"? What are its agreed parameters? GregKaye 18:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC):

I have two additional problems. (1) It is not the proper use of the word "myth". A myth is a sacred account for certain things, such as a cosmogony. It is not simply a false statement. (2) It is not clear that this article is not about the shape of Earth, but about the modern belief that it was only in the modern era that it was learned that Earth was a globe. I have, however, no better title for the article. TomS TDotO (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

[ec] The unique entity would be the specific myth of a "Flat Earth", that is, that the Earth is flat. More accurately for this topic would be the alleged myth of a general belief in a "Flat Earth" in the Medieval Period. As a sub-example, "Earth" is the specific planet we inhabit, while "earth" is more generically an electrical ground, or the stuff farmers furrow. Earthworms might debate whether they inhabit flat or furrowed earth, but that is clearly different from the Earth. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Folks, we’re really getting off track here. The move request is very specific: It concerns the capitalization of “flat”. Please move to the topic below if you want to discuss a major reworking of the title. SMcCandlish ☺, this article isn’t about a fringe belief. Strebe (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that mixing in "should this say 'myth'" concerns is off this RM's track. I disagree with you on the other point. The entire point of this article is that people have known that the idea that the earth is flat is total nonsense (i.e. fringe) for much longer than most modern people realize. The underlying idea, that the earth is flat, is still fringe no matter how abstract we get about who believes what about who believed what, when. There are (see next thread) two completely different meanings of [f|F]lat [e|E]arth at work here (and three meanings total, the third related closely to one of the others). There's Russell's personal usage, in which "Flat Earth" is his short-hand label for the modern belief that everyone before the modern era believed the earth was flat. Russell is a primary source for is own idiosyncratic use, and not evidenciary that this is dominant usage of the two words together. Meanwhile, in longer phrases like "myth of the flat Earth" (capitalized in any way or not), the "flat Earth" part clearly means the supposed (and sometimes actual) pre-modern belief, about which many modern people have a "myth" or misconception. (This is also clearly he dominant usage of the phrase, however it's styled, with a third being modern revival of the notion by nutters, which is so stupid it's beyond fringe and just bat-shit crazy.)

It doesn't matter for purposes of this RM; even if we went with Russell, and decided that, for WP purposes, "flat earth" as a phrase by itself means the hypothesis that there's a widespread modern error of supposition that most pre-modern people believed the earth was flat, we still wouldn't capitalize this, since we don't capitalize the names of hypotheses, or theories, or even laws of nature. So we wouldn't capitalize a pre-modern belief the earth was flat either, nor a modern kook notion that the earth is flat. This RM is not the place to try to revisit how we capitalize. It should be lower case on WP no matter what. If we want to revisit that (and I sympathize with that desire when it comes to theories and laws of nature that have proper names), try WT:MOS. But this article title should be consistent with MOS:CAPS in the interim. I proposed this move as a routine procedural matter (on both NPOV and MOS grounds), not because I personally believe that named hypotheses are categorically not proper names. MOS is a set of "rules" we agree on for consistency, for WP only; no one agrees with every single point in it for their own writing preferences, since it's a compromise between a thousand different style points that off-WP "authorities" usually cannot agree on. It's essentially impossible for any one individual to agree with every single rule in MOS, but that's no reason not to comply with it so we can get on with building content without bogging in a style argument.

PS: See source cited below where Russell himself doesn't capitalize any of this. Capitalization of this as some kind of Russellian term of art is patent original research directly contradicted by reliable sources. I think we're done here, as far as lower-casing the "F" goes. Good luck to all of us in finding the best actual article title. That might take all year. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, the capitalisation of "flat" is wrong, as neither the full current title, nor the "flat Earth" phrase, are composition titles. Yes, the current title has been used as a composition title, but this article is not about that work specifically.

To my reading (and very interesting reading it was), the title suffers from a missing leading definite article, due to the application of WP:THE. The missing leading "The" changes the meaning of the title. It is complicated, subtle, yes, speaking of the myth of a myth. It also suffers from a POV title. Agreed, the references also use this POV description, but still, POV titles should be avoided. Suggest renaming to Historiography of the flat-Earth myth. The section similarly titled actually encompasses the whole article, and this title does not assert the POV that the myth was a myth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.