Talk:Flat Earth

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 28 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to pseudoscience and fringe science, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Arbitration ruling on the treatment of pseudoscience In December 2006, the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision included the following: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

	Flat Earth was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 20, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 9, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible High‑importance Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geography Low‑importance Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Ancient Near East High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Hava Mendelle (February 17, 2024). "Wikipedia: how safe is crowdsourcing the truth?". Spectator Australia. Retrieved February 17, 2024. Take the following examples, an article on Flat Earth and an article on the Weaponisation of antisemitism. ... The former reads more neutral and factual where whereas the latter reads like an argumentative essay.

Edit request: Add subsection on scholarly interpretation of ancient cosmographies

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. What I think should be changed: After the "Belief in flat Earth" section (before "Alternate or mixed theories"), add the following new subsection: Scholarly interpretation Scholars have noted several interpretive challenges when characterizing ancient cosmographies as "flat Earth" beliefs. Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell observes that many ancient and medieval maps, such as the T and O maps, "were intended to represent only a portion of the sphere—the known world—just as a modern flat map of Europe or Africa is intended to represent only part of the planet."[1] The Greek concept of oikoumene (the "inhabited world"), which influenced many ancient cosmographies, referred specifically to known lands rather than the entire Earth.[2] Additionally, Wayne Horowitz's study of Mesopotamian texts found "significant variety" in cosmological views across different genres and time periods, cautioning against treating ancient cosmographies as monolithic.[3] Some scholars also distinguish between cosmographies understood as literal descriptions versus "phenomenological" accounts based on everyday observation, similar to modern expressions like "sunrise" that do not reflect actual astronomical beliefs.[4] Historian James Hannam notes that debates in ancient China focused primarily on whether the earth was square or circular rather than on flatness in the modern sense.[5] These interpretive nuances do not negate that ancient cultures held cosmographies differing substantially from the modern scientific understanding of a spherical Earth, but they complicate direct comparisons with modern flat Earth beliefs. Why it should be changed: Per WP:NPOV, representing legitimate scholarly debates improves article neutrality. The article currently presents ancient cosmographies without acknowledging the interpretive nuances discussed in academic literature. This subsection does not alter or contradict any existing content—it provides additional scholarly context from peer-reviewed sources. Russell's Inventing the Flat Earth is already a key source for this article; Horowitz is a standard academic reference in Assyriology; Hannam's book was reviewed in the British Journal for the History of Science (2024); and Greenwood is published by an academic press. The final sentence explicitly acknowledges that ancient cosmographies still differed from modern science, preventing misuse by modern flat-Earth proponents. What this does NOT claim: It does NOT claim ancient peoples knew the Earth was spherical It does NOT claim ancient flat-Earth beliefs must be a "myth" It does NOT remove or minimize any existing content References supporting the possible change: Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1991). Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0-275-93956-4. Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7. Greenwood, Kyle (2015). Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science. IVP Academic. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-8308-2561-5. Hannam, James (2023). The Globe: How the Earth Became Round. Reaktion Books. pp. 178–193. ISBN 978-1-78914-758-2. Herodotus, Histories, 4.8, 4.36. ~2026-13532-4 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] References Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1991). Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0-275-93956-4. Herodotus, Histories, 4.8, 4.36. Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Vol. 8. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7. Greenwood, Kyle (2015). Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science. IVP Academic. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-8308-2561-5. Hannam, James (2023). The Globe: How the Earth Became Round. Reaktion Books. pp. 178–193. ISBN 978-1-78914-758-2.  Not done: AI-generated edit request. Day Creature (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Add subsection on scholarly interpretation of ancient cosmographies (in my own words as opposed to LLMs)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed:

After "Belief in flat Earth", and before "Alternate or mixed theories" section, please add the following new section:

Scholarly interpretation

Scholars have noted substantial challenges when characterizing ancient cosmography as belief in a "flat Earth". For instance, Jeffrey Burton Russell observed that many ancient and medieval maps, such as the T and O maps, "were intended to represent only a portion of the sphere."^[1] The Greek concept of oikoumene, which influenced many ancient cosmographies, referred to known lands rather than all of Earth.^[2]

Additionally, Wayne Horowitz's study of Mesopotamian texts found "significant variety" in cosmological views across different time periods, concluding that ancient cosmographies are not monolithic.^[3] Other scholars distinguish between cosmographies that are literal versus everyday observation "phenomenological" accounts, such as the word "sunrise" which is not strictly scientific.^[4] Additionally, Historian James Hannam notes that debates in ancient China focused primarily on whether the earth was square or circular, as opposed to flatness.^[5]

Although ancient cultures may have held cosmographies which differ substantially from the modern spherical Earth model, they do challenge direct comparisons with modern flat Earth beliefs.

• Why it should be changed:

Per WP:NPOV, legitimate scholarly debates improve overall article neutrality. The article presents ancient cosmographies without acknowledging different interpretations discussed in academic literature. This subsection provides additional scholarly context from peer-reviewed sources. Russell's Inventing the Flat Earth is already a key source for this article; Horowitz is a standard academic reference in Assyriology; Hannam's book was reviewed in the British Journal for the History of Science (2024); and Greenwood is published by an academic press.

What this does not claim:

1. It does not claim ancient peoples knew the Earth was spherical

2. It does not claim ancient flat-Earth beliefs must be a "myth"

3. It does not remove or minimize any existing content

• References supporting the possible change:

1. Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1991). Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0-275-93956-4.
2. Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7.
3. Greenwood, Kyle (2015). Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science. IVP Academic. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-8308-2561-5.
4. Hannam, James (2023). The Globe: How the Earth Became Round. Reaktion Books. pp. 178–193. ISBN 978-1-78914-758-2.
5. Herodotus, Histories, 4.8, 4.36.

~2026-13532-4 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Russell, Jeffrey Burton (1991). Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Praeger. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-0-275-93956-4.
2. Herodotus, Histories, 4.8, 4.36.
3. Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Vol. 8. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7.
4. Greenwood, Kyle (2015). Scripture and Cosmology: Reading the Bible Between the Ancient World and Modern Science. IVP Academic. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-8308-2561-5.
5. Hannam, James (2023). The Globe: How the Earth Became Round. Reaktion Books. pp. 178–193. ISBN 978-1-78914-758-2.

"In my own words"? Wikipedia is not a blog. Maybe start one instead? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it in a way that I did not use LLMs when writing this verison. Fixed the title to specify this. ~2026-13532-4 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the relevance of much of the edit request. T-O maps are not presented in the article as evidence of belief in a flat earth and have no bearing on the matter. Oikoumene is not presented in the article as evidence of belief in a flat earth and has no bearing on the matter. Chinese debates about square versus circular are not about flat versus spherical, they are about what shape of flat. It would be fine to mention that Mesopotamian models were not exclusively flat, as long as it is clear that none of them were spherical.

If the intent is to help the reader understand that ancient models were not uniformly flat, that is fine, but we can’t establish that as editors through accreting various sources that discuss various things. We need a reliable source that clearly says so as a consequence of a scholarly survey of civilizations worldwide. Yes, I know there were many ancient models. No, I cannot just say that. If your intent for the scholarly interpretation section is to build up such an understanding in the reader without directly saying so, I’m not opposed, but as noted, the only relevant example was Mesopotamia. And there is also the problem that this article is about flat earth beliefs, not cosmological models that are neither flat nor spherical. Strebe (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Add Mesopotamian multilevel cosmology under "Alternate or mixed theories"

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. What I think should be changed: Under the "Alternate or mixed theories" section, please add the following new subsection before "Greece: spherical Earth": ====Mesopotamia==== While Mesopotamian cosmology is often characterized as depicting a flat disc floating in water, some texts describe a more complex vertically layered structure. The cuneiform text KAR 307 presents three superimposed earths: an "Upper Earth" (the surface inhabited by mankind), a "Middle Earth" (the subterranean Apsu waters assigned to Ea), and a "Lower Earth" (the underworld containing 600 Anunnaki).[1] While none of these models were spherical, Horowitz documents "significant variety" in Mesopotamian cosmological texts across different periods and genres, 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 follows the established pattern in the "South Asia" subsection, which similarly documents cosmological variety as layered disks without claiming spherical knowledge. Horowitz's Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Eisenbrauns, 1998) is the standard academic reference in Assyriology. The addition explicitly notes these models were not spherical, addressing previous editorial feedback on this talk page. Chronological placement before Greece is appropriate since these Mesopotamian texts predate Greek spherical Earth theories. References supporting the possible change: 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) 16:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Newbzy (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] References Horowitz, Wayne (1998). Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Vol. 8. Eisenbrauns. pp. 16–19, xii–xiv. ISBN 978-0-931464-99-7.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• 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. 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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]