Talk:Spherical Earth/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Popular Myth in the First Paragraph and Other Places

I'm a bit tired of this popular myth which happens to be echoed in the following sentence: "The final, practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan / Juan Sebastian Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519−1521)." If people would take a step back and do a little critical thinking when they are told this and other similar assertions, this myth wouldn't be popularly asserted as truth. Unfortunately, most people are children when they are told that a circumnavigation of the Earth of this variety says something about the shape of the Earth. If you still don't understand, then please see a theoretical model of a flat Earth (Available here as PURE example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flag_of_the_United_Nations.svg). It is clearly possible to circumnavigate the Earth on a theoretical model of a flat Earth. It is a logical conclusion that circumnavigating the Earth east to west or west to east says nothing about the shape of the Earth. Please, resist the urge to put the sentence back in the article when it is clearly false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.56.51 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Upon further reading of the article, I see the replication of this myth multiple times. There is much deletion I intend to do. Excuse me if this bothers anyone. Remember that a revert is possible at any time. 71.8.56.51 (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make any such edits; I will revert them. The claim is not that circumnavigation in isolation “proves” a spherical earth. Circumnavigation was simply “the final demonstration”, which, when combined with all the evidence accumulated up to that point, left no more room for debate. You seem to imagine the article states that circumnavigation is the sole requisite demonstration. That is not a reasonable interpretation of the article’s text.

The UN flag is not a useful demonstration. Even leaving aside all the earlier demonstrations and evidence, an earth of that shape defies the evidence gained just on the expedition in isolation. For example, the sun’s position could not have been what it was throughout the expedition and yet still satisfied the geometry of a flat earth. Likewise you could come up with other shapes the earth could be, but if you depart too grossly from spherical, things no longer add up. Strebe (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make any such edits; I will revert them. You don't own Wikipedia or this page. This page deserves to have that which is logically invalid removed. I do not imply, and I do not state anywhere that the article states that circumnavigation is the sole requisite demonstration. The fact that somebody can circumnavigate the Earth simply doesn't say anything about the Earth's shape. It does not demonstrate anything about the Earth's shape. I am challenging your statement: "Circumnavigation was simply “the final demonstration”, which, when combined with all the evidence accumulated up to that point, left no more room for debate." You offer nothing in support of this assertion. Circumnavigation did not add a single ounce of weight in favor of the idea that the Earth is round. The sun's position is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth. I am interpreting the following statement reasonably: "The final, practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan / Juan Sebastian Elcano's expedition's circumnavigation (1519−1521)." It says that this particular kind of circumnavigation demonstrates something about the shape of the Earth, which is absolutely untrue. 71.8.56.51 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear anon, wholesale cutting of the article won't get you far. For most people in the world, circumnavigation was a significant step, but I guess you won't be convinced before someone takes you into space so you can see the world from there. Elsewhere circumnavigation is described as a "first direct demonstration" which might be preferable, but you evidently don't like that either. Chris55 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Circumnavigation of the Earth was significant, but taking me into space will not convince anyone rational that circumnavigation east to west or west to east says anything about the shape of the Earth. Anything that states, suggests, or implies that circumnavigation east to west or west to east provides _any_ evidence of the Earth being one shape or another is absolutely irrational and unacceptable. 71.8.56.51 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Magellan's circumnavigation did indeed demonstrate a round earth, especially since when he arrived in Asia he found that he was missing a day. His missing day attracted a lot of attention in the very highest places and is impossible to explain with a disc shaped earth. It is, however, easily explained when pondering the need for an International Date Line on a globe. Rwflammang (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The following statement is incorrect: "Magellan's circumnavigation did indeed demonstrate a round earth," Magellan or anyone else circumnavigating the Earth in this manner is not proof of the Earth being spherical for the same reason me walking around on top of a giant dinner plate is not proof of the dinner plate being spherical. Am I not demonstrating clearly with this statement and my example of the U.N. flag? Your supporting statement is also fallacious: "especially since when he arrived in Asia he found that he was missing a day. His missing day attracted a lot of attention in the very highest places and is impossible to explain with a disc shaped earth." Separate timezones do not say anything about the shape of the Earth. Separate timezones only show that the Sun illuminates one portion of the Earth at a time. If you are going to tell people that the Earth is spherical, do not give them entirely irrational reasons. 71.8.56.51 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In the end, you must cite your sources for your edits to survive, IP=71.8.56.51. The sources for circumnavigation being a demonstration are cited. Your thesis is not. Wikipedia is not a venue for personal feats of logic— even correct ones, of which yours would not be an example. Strebe (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing rational about this idea that circumnavigation of the Earth east to west or west to east says anything about its shape. It's entirely a jump in logic. Absolutely nothing about separate timezones says something about the shape of the Earth either. I challenge you to think for a minute about what I have said about the U.N. flag and a giant dinner plate. I challenge you to find sources that contradict this popular myth about circumnavigation, since you are so convinced that popular error must reside in the article because it has sources cited! The only thing proven by circumnavigation east to west or west to east is that you can travel around the point, North Magnetic Pole. Only Wikipedia, The Bastion of Falsehoods (tm), needs sources cited to remove that which is clearly logically false. Here's another challenge. I challenge you to find a single solitary source that _explains_ how exactly this type of circumnavigation proves something about the shape of the Earth. You won't find it. Surely if this kind of circumnavigation says something about the shape of the Earth, somebody can explain how. All you will find are more jumps in logic and the same tired old myth being asserted rather than supported. I can find no other source than The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/) which would clearly state the fallacious manner of this myth, and if they meet Wikipedia's standards, I would be glad to cite them. Alternatively, I could potentially cite a book titled Zetetic Astronomy, which may have an appropriate statement for citation if that would be allowed. The fact that this idea about circumnavigation is popular, and that most were told at young, naive ages by authority figures (teachers) does not make it rational in the least. 71.8.56.51 (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers these mistaken ideas in the Flat Earth Society and Flat Earth articles. Chris55 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which, apparently, is a good enough reason to post POV-based biased information in other encyclopedic articles. Whether or not it's widely considered evidence is irrelevant. Religions are widely considered to be perfectly valid in some places, yet we do not cross out the Big Bang in favour of creationism. Doesn't make us sound good, does it? Apples grow on pines (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The book of Job

I'm no Christian apologetic, but this article seems to suggest that the Book of Job may've suggested that the Earth was spherical. Even if this is a metter of debate, should this not be mentioned? IDX (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument is not compelling enough to mention. It is not research. The author of that article works off the premise that "circle" refers to "sphere". It does not, and the fact that the author does not even discuss the assumption proves "his" argument is either deliberate propaganda or simple ignorance. The notion of the earth as a "disc" is found in many mythologies across the earth. It is not related to the notion of a spherical earth in any useful way. Strebe (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. IDX (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

______________________________

I will have to agree with the poster. The truth is found in Isaiah 40:22 with the premise "circle" as mentioned above. As we all know, this part of the bible was written in Hebrew. Incidentally, the word used here for "circle" is "jugh" which translates to circle, but can also mean "sphere."

The book of Isaiah was completed in 732 B.C. This is close to 200 years before Pithagoras began to PONDER it. Isaiah is not proposing it as an idea, rather it is a statement in reverence to gods might. This also helps to prove the true source of the bible... Jehovah God. This information should definetely not be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.132.111 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Strebe. It might be that it was supposed to mean sphere but the constitution might also have been supposed to give me the rights to own bear arms. It's most likely that he meant a circle and that's why we've understood it as that until now and should continue to do so. Nothing good can come from rewriting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.221.209 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient India

The sources don't seem to support the claim. The Aitareya Brahmana quote often used to support a spherical earth is here [1] but that is just one possible interpretation, it does not say the earth is spherical and we can't add our interpretation to make it do so. I can't find anything from the Shatapatha Brahmana either that says spherical earth. So, I'm deleting that text, if anyone can find anything from either work that specifically mentions a spherical earth feel free to replace it but with quotes please. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I doubted those citations. People seem to conflate "round" or "disc-shaped" with spherical, and if we do that, then everybody had a spherical earth. I left the article alone because I do not have access to Shatapatha Brahmana, but it occurs to me, in the absence of chapter/verse quotes, such insertions should not be tolerated. Strebe (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Heliocentrism - my recent edits and also comments on the talk page -- people are assuming that 'sphere' means spherical object rather than 'realm', etc, and the actual word being translated, 'lokas', does not mean what they are claiming it means. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the part about the Brahmana literature, but using a different source which explains what the Aitareya Brahmana actually stated about the Earth's shape. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said when I reverted your edits, Blavatsky is not a reliable source. And at that time "a cosmological view prevailed in India that held the Earth to consist of four continents grouped around the central mountain Meru like the petals of a flower; surrounding these continents was the outer ocean. This view was elaborated in traditional Buddhist cosmology, which depicts the world as a vast, flat oceanic disk" which is not spherical, right? I think Blavatsky is stretching a mythological metaphor here. Doug Weller (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct thing to do here is to cite what the literature has to say about it. If Blavatsky is the only literature, then we are obliged to cite it neutrally. If, however, the scholarly consensus in the literature does not support Blavatsky, then there would be no point in citing h(im/er) except possibly as a one-liner noting something like "Blavatsky interprets the Aitareya Brahmana to state blah blah blah, but this interpretation has been heavily criticized," either citing many works that interpret it differently, or citing a single work that researches the spread of interpretations in the literature. Strebe (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We are only obliged to cite significant views from reliable sources. If Blavatsky is the only source, it isn't significant. If it is significant, then there should be reliable sources and Blavatsky is definitely not a reliable source. If we want a section on Theosophical ideas about the spherical earth, then she could be there. But why would we want that? Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Are all of the 'sources' provided in support of Greek claims reliable for there is virtually just one? It is the height of ignorance, bias, stupidity and in a way racism to think that novel ideas could occur only to the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans and others who are considered the fountainhead of Western Culture. Carl Sagan no less had spoken very highly of 'Hindu'/Indian Cosmology and we know that the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans and their ilk were simply INCAPABLE of thinking beyond 6000 years wrt the age of the Universe etc. Lately Richard L Thomson, am American with a Phd in Mathematics from Cornell has found the allusion to the Earth being spherical in the Bhagavata Purana, the Brahmanas, etc. I shall put up citations for them though I know there will be 'noble' people here who will try to challenge that. Also 'Hindu' texts do speak of things like 'Time-dilation' etc which were eons beyond the wildest imagination of the Greeks or the Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.69.242 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to understand what reliable means on Wikipedia -- read WP:RS. Richard L Thompson doesn't qualify. This business of 'Greeks did it' or 'Hindus were way beyond' is all nonsense so far as I'm concerned. Don't forget to use edit summaries explaining what you are doing.

I haven't done anything yet - but I shall be soon - around this weekend. Rest assured, I shall also provide adequate links for the same, when I modify the article. If you or anybody really feels that 'Richard L Thompson doesn't qualify' then I might also feel the gr8 D.R. Dicks does not qualify. He is the ONLY reference provided for that Pythagorus MAY have said something to the effect that the earth was spherical. And virtually nobody has heard of this man any more than Thomson. Btw, there are no citations provided for that Plato also knew so, and 'taught' his students the same. Of course anything that non-Egyptians, non-Greeks and non-Westerners could fathom which the Egyptians, Greeks or Westerners could not is all 'nonsense'. Carl Sagan, Robert J Oppenheimer, Albert Einstein also don't 'qualify', like Thomson.

No one has heard of Dicks? That's just not true. Google scholar gives about 165 hits, Google Books 620 - of course, some may be his book showing up in the hits, but his book is very well known and his work on the Greek texts considered good, see for instance [2]. There's a huge difference between Dicks' reputation and Thompson's. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me that GOOGLE search would decide as to which of these men is worth his salt? In that case, Subhash Kak carries more weightage than Dicks, as the Books and Scholar Searches give more results for him than for Dicks. But the truth about Kak is that he is no better than the likes of Graham Hancock, Michael Cremo, David Frawley, Stephen Knapp etc, and not very different from some 'Egyptologists' who despite carbon-dating results showing an age of less than 5000 years for the pyramids argue otherwise. Being a Computer Science Professor in Louisiana, Kak has been writing books in almost every subject other than his own. They often mimic what other people have already deduced and have only brought disrepute to whatever little concerted research is being into India's surviving scriptures and texts. Thompson is very much unlike them. If you search for amazon+"Richard L Thomson" you can read the reviews that his books have received. And I still cannot see the citation for the claim for Plato in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.69.242 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We never use Amazon that way, reviews get packed by fans. Um, Cremo? As in Michael Cremo and Richard L Thompson? I rest my case. Why haven't you found the citation for Plato yet? Have you searched for it? Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize if I tagged a sourced statement. I visited Phaedo's article and never saw anything regarding the statement. Also the latter two tagged statements have no citation at all even if the first two - regarding Pythagorus and Plato might. As far as the Kerala Kingdom article is concerned, all I was making clear is that the Indian version was different from the official/modern version and I don't want to go into that now. As an Indian, I do feel that many times we have been diminished and our own versions of our 'history' have been overlooked. Unlike most other countries, academic scholarship into our past was commenced when were were a colony. I fail to understand how the 'Aryan' traditions of India (LIKE the traditions of the other 'dominant race', the 'Dravidians') point to the DEEP SOUTH of the subcontinent as their place of origin, when they should try to look down upon those places and the people there (assuming that the 'Aryans' and 'Dravidians' were bitter enemies). At least I am gratified to find Mesopotamian cultures being given some respect - Eurocentrism embraces Egypt, though a non-White race, at its Eastern extremity - as a result of which Mesopotamians, Elamites and Indians are rarely given their due.76.99.69.242 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.69.242 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable reply. Any sort of 'centrism' is, at least I believe it is, to be deplored. It's important to avoid adopting one 'centrism' in rejecting another. The Phaedo quote is from Plato's Phaedo, 110b. There was no reason for it to be in the article. We must never forget that there may have been people without writing who had the concept of a spherical earth also. I'll continue to maintain that Thompson is an unreliable source, even when not writing in partnership with Cremo (and I gather you agree Cremo is unreliable). Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If Blavatsky is the only source, it isn't significant. That's usually, but not necessarily, true. There are reputable scholars who pursue obscure lines of research, though of course it is much harder to draw conclusions about reliability in such cases. I'm not able to follow the logic of, If it is significant, then there should be reliable sources and Blavatsky is definitely not a reliable source; it sounds suspiciously circular. But no matter. I looked into Blavatsky. That's obviously not research and need not be cited. Strebe (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Blavatsky isn't the only scholar to support the view that the Aitareya Brahmana refers to a spherical Earth, but several other scholars have also interpreted verses of the Aitareya Brahmana in such a way. I think it deserves to be mentioned in the article, as long as the article describes the differing interpretations of the verses. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV re: Jewish tradition?

A statement from Jewish literature was recently deleted because ...?

http://bible.cc/isaiah/40-22.htm

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 40:22)

http://biblecommenter.com/isaiah/40-22.htm

Scofield Reference Notes

A remarkable reference to the sphericity of the earth. See, also, Isa 42:5 44:24 51:13 Job 9:8 Ps 104:2 Jer 10:12.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Check out how large the Islamic portion of the Early development section is.

The 'Ancient India' portion quotes this:

"The [sun] never really sets or rises. In that they think of him “He is setting,” having reached the end of the day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again in that they think of him “He is rising in the morning,” having reached the end of the night he inverts himself; thus he makes day below, night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets."

Above and below what? Couldn't this happen with a flat Earth? Indeed, doesn't "below" suggest a flat Earth?

Quoting vague ancient Indian text by chapter and verse is okay, but quoting ancient Jewish text is not?

Do we have an NPOV problem here? - Ac44ck (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mostly what we have is an article out of control. The Islamic section is way out of control. By the time of the founding of Islam the notion of a spherical earth was not novel and not contested. The Islamic scholars accepted the Greek learning and built upon it. The bulk of the section should be deleted, leaving the Islamic contributions to mensuration.

The Indian section cites the scholarly controversy over the citation. That's reasonable. The Indian claim is important because it could antedate the Greek conception. Note that the history of edits over the Indian section is long and contentious.

This is a red herring: "Quoting vague ancient Indian text by chapter and verse is okay, but quoting ancient Jewish text is not?" The edit wasn't deleted because it quoted ancient Jewish text; it was deleted because didn't come with any scholarly citation and doesn't stand on its own merit, since "circle" doesn't mean "sphere", and since original research isn't permitted. Here in your Talk entry you supply a quote from Scofield that was not in the original edit. If you want to restore the original edit and add the citation to Scofield, then it won't get deleted summarily. However in point of fact there is no scholarly support for that interpretation, so the edit will get buried eventually anyway. Ancient Hebrew cosmology taught that the earth is the base of a dome, and the Hebrew word used in Isaiah clearly means "circle", not "sphere", regardless of Scofield's annotation. The rest of the literature is plain on this.

Strebe (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The book of Isaiah is moreover, not a scientific treatise of any kind, but a religious text. The presence of a dubious Indian section is not a justification for the inclusion of equally dubious material. The way I see it, the Indian section is problematic as well. It is only sourced to Subhash Kak, a computer scientists who is a well-known Hindu nationalist constantly pushing the Indians-thought-of-everything-first meme. It is again only based on religious texts, which say nothing about the sphericity of the Earth. So all we have to go on is Kak's very very narrow and POV-ish interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, both need to go. --Athenean (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So did Yajnavalkya say in the Shatapatha Brahmana that the Earth is spherical, or didn't he? MathEconMajor (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That name doesn't appear in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajnavalkya

The article about him doesn't contain the words "sphere" or "spherical". - Ac44ck (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The passage should be removed then. --Athenean (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking into it a little deeper, the section on Arybhata is also problematic. Claims such as the Earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas, which in modern units is 39,968 km, which is only 62 km less than the current value of 40,030 km and calculating the length of the sidereal day to be 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, which is also surprisingly accurate are quite extraordinary. As we all know, extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. However, the only sources in the section are this [3] and this [4]. These sources are just websites and hardly "extraordinary" in any way, while the second source says nothing about estimates of the Earth's size. The claims about the length of the year are entirely unsourced. --Athenean (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the progression you cite is meaningful in a global context. "Middle Ages", "medieval", and "late antiquity" apply to Europe. The Arab scholars weren't part of the "Middle Ages" or "medieval" period except in their impacts on Europe during those times. Still, as I remark above, the massive section on the Arab scholars needs to get pruned down to their contributions to spherical trigonometry. The bulk of it droning on about various scholars affirming earth's sphericity is irrelevant. Strebe (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that "Medieval" only really applies applies to Europe, "late antiquity" usually also covers the Middle East and Mediterranean basin, although not India. I am not sure which scheme is best, but I am leaning more towards the original classification scheme. I also agree with Strebe that the section on Islamic scholars should be pruned down to the essentials. --Athenean (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rigveda

We should perhaps attribute the source of the statement about a speculation about a spherical earth, as the way it is worded it appears as fact. CPS Menon points out that the earth is described in various ways, eg four-corned, a wheel, etc. "rig+veda"+spherical++earth&as_brr=3&ei=NF6BS8axF6a8M7n98ekP&cd=9#v=onepage&q=%22rig%20veda%22%20spherical%20%20earth&f=false Also bowl-shaped "rig+veda"+spherical++earth&as_brr=3&ei=NF6BS8axF6a8M7n98ekP&cd=9#v=onepage&q=spherical%20%20earth&f=false Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the source, but I do not see "sphere" anywhere. I see 4-cornered, as well as 5,6, and 7-cornered and a wheel, but in all instances it is flat. The only source cited for sphericity is this one [5], which is not viewable online and was removed in the past [6]. I would also dispute the extent to which we can call the Rigveda "philosophy". Athenean (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Indian claims are an easy one. India was by large scholarly consensus illiterate until the 4th century BC, that is they did not know how to write. And even then, writing was for a while confined to the north-western territories under Persian rule and Indian writing and the literary genres took some time to take off. Apart fom that, ancient Indian literature had a strong overtone of life philosophy and religious thinking, not the sober rational style of the Greeks or Chinese. And lastly, there is very few left of Indian writing, since the main medium were palm-leaves which rot easily. Therefore, one has always to be careful with ancient Indian claims, much of it is simply guesswork of modern author, trying to balance out up these inherent inadequacies by simple boldness in interpretation. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Who asked for this whole nonsense? You don't even know what you are talking about, we all know that Rigveda is first one, who cites the fact that earth is spherical. Capitals00 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Notation

The original mix of notations must be kept, out of good WP practice, for the sake of peace, and whatever your personal view may be. This is the one area where an otherwise completely justified concern for tidyness will backfire. For detailed arguments, please see: User talk:Strebe#Dating convention. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If a source says "5th century BC" or 17th century AD by all means let's quote him that way. (I refer to Parmenides and the Chinese, respectively, giving up Flat Earth for the spherical earth.

But I hope we won't need to fight over mass changes from BC to BCE (or AD to CE) and back. It's distracting me from correcting (or describing) the Myth of the Flat Earth.

The real story here, from the perspective of the history of science, is when and where people adopted the modern view of the shape of the earth. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma writes, "..Out of good WP practice, for the sake of peace, and whatever your personal view may be." That is User:Gun Powder Ma's personal view. Meanwhile Wikipedia's view is, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article." User:Gun Powder Ma claimed on my talk page that I have quoted the Manual of Style out of context. I invite anyone to investigate that claim.

This is a list of every Featured Article dealing with history that could be expected to included BC/AD/BCE/CE dates. Of these, #4 and #5 have mixed conventions, but not in the body text; only in collateral material. #14 is just plain mixed. Many of these articles are substantial and contain many dates. The editors put effort into consistency and did not defer to personal dogma. This contradicts User:Gun Powder Ma's claim of "good WP practice". Good articles follow good editorial practices.

Hence, for the record:

Wikipedia's Manual of Style contradicts User:Gun Powder Ma's personal view.
Standard editorial practices contradict User:Gun Powder Ma's personal view.
Prevailing practice on the best articles of Wikipedia contradicts User:Gun Powder Ma's personal view.
Mixed usage distracts informed readers and confuses casual readers, many of whom do not even know about BCE/CE, let alone that it means the same thing BC/AD.
User:Gun Powder Ma is enforcing his personal view on this article.
User:Gun Powder Ma has no evidence "original contributors" even care whether their own usage was preserved. They may simply have resorted to habit without any dogmatic investment. The dispute here is not between those who care about BC/AD versus BCE/CE. It is between someone who cares about consistency and readability and resorting to neutral authority to resolve conflicts, versus someone who formulates and enforces an invented policy with "him"self as the arbiter.
Even if individual contributors do care, Wikipedia does not exist to coddle dogmatic investments. We all understand everything we write here is subject to ruthless editing.
User:Gun Powder Ma's personal policy of "original contributor's usage" is incoherent in the face of heavy editing. Even if no surrounding text survives, should the dating convention on the surviving year remain? What if the date itself gets lost in an edit but later added back in with different text? How many more absurdities arise out of this invented policy?

I made the dating convention consistent the first time using BCE/CE because that appeared to dominate the article. I chose poorly; that is not a standard that follows from Wikipedia policy. Doing some archæology, I found that the original article had been written in BC/AD convention, which was followed for at least the first four years of the article. Those who edited after that ought to have followed the original scheme to avoid the mess the article became. Following the original scheme is implicit in the Wikipedia guideline noted above.

I am reverting User:Gun Powder Ma's recent change and will request a dispute resolution if "he" persists in enforcing his personal policy on this article. I would very much like to get back to the important content as User:Ed Poor appeals. It would be nice to be able to read it without jarring editorial incoherence. Strebe (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then please request a dispute solution because all I can see is your personal view. To blow up the subjectis a waste of time, but you seem to be prepared to waste your time. Certainly I am, because I don't have the feeling that you will stop going around trying to adjust the notation to your personal interpretation of MoS, and that has definitely to be stopped here and now. What you do is interpreting something into MoS which is not there or can you show us the guideline? The good WP practice is to follow the choice of the author who made the individual contribution, not the one who established the article months or years ago which would be kind of absurd. I am sparing us a listing of examples, the whole WP is proof for it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting User:Gun Powder Ma's reversion of User:Strebe. The prevalance of mistakes in other articles is not a reason to repeat those mistakes here. User:Gun Powder Ma's version uses two different conventions in the lead sentence. What MOS endorses that?-Ac44ck (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever one's view, it's not a "mistake", so what is your argument? Cf. here Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation: The upshot is that there is no consensus as yet as to the choice of notation, therefore the adopted key word is user preference. Since every editor is a user, the individual preference of every editor has to be accepted which means that the original mix of notations has to be kept since that and only that reflects the individual user preference. This also means by implication that any attempt at trying to unify the notation to one system at the exclusion of the other disregards user preferences and is thus null and void. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we be clear about what Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation is about? It was a proposal to let readers view articles in whichever notation they wanted. It was a programming project to handle the viewing of articles according to user preference. That project fell by the wayside. It had nothing to do with editing articles, mixing dating notations in editing, or this discussion. Strebe (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Consider spelling preferences. Suppose the following sentences were written in the same paragraph by two editors with different spelling preferences:

The work week for some is Monday through Friday. Others work Monday thru Saturday.

Wiktionary recognizes "thru" as an "Informal spelling of through." Should a mixture of through/thru be retained in an article for the sake of deference to the writer of one sentence? I think not. -Ac44ck (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Spherical Earth/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The Arbitration Committee has looked at this and made it quite clear, in my opinion, here and here and here that the guidelines set out in MoS should be followed until they are changed by consensus. The guidelines adopted at MoS are, first, that a single style should be used in an article and, second, that if there is a dispute over which style to use, then the style used by the first major contributor to the article — not each individual contributor — should be used. ArbCom also very plainly stated:

Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

Based on those considerations, only a single style should be used in this article and, since the first major contributor to the article used "BC" (in the edit which created the article), the BC/AD style should be used throughout.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, I am not sure how you come to that interpretation as it is obvious that the quoted guideline flat out supports my view:

editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style means that Strebe should not change the notation either way

nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style means that Strebe should not devote an edit to change the existing notation to his liking

or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike means again that Strebe should not change existing notations

The bottom line is crystal-clear: editors have no mandate to change existing notations, particularly not for reaching "consistency" on which the quoted part is totally silent. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A "style" is AC/BC versus BCE/CE, or British Oxford spelling versus The Times spelling versus American spelling. "A style" is not "consistent styles" versus "mixed styles", since that makes "style" self-referential. The usage of style is also evident from the context, which is an arbitration page about an editor who went on a rampage converting Wikipedia pages to his preferred style (BC/AD). User:Gun Powder Ma does not acknowledge the links kindly supplied by the third opinion editor, most specifically, Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. It just does not get any more plain than that.

User:Gun Powder Ma does not address the bulk of the third opinion editor's posting, which guts his position. Throughout this debate User talk:Gun Powder Ma has not supplied a single reference to Wikipedia guideline or policy in support of "his" position. User talk:Gun Powder Ma's only argument is his claim that mixed notation through individual contributions is "WP best practices". This claim remains unsupported by any evidence.

The two examples User talk:Gun Powder Ma's has supplied do not support his position. One is irrelevant (Wikipedia:User preferences for BCE/CE notation). It is a defunct page describing a project for allowing readers to view pages in whichever notation they want. Despite the evident usage of "user preference" on that site to mean "reader preference", he chose to interpret "user preference" to mean "editor preference" and ignored the entire purpose of the page, which in no way supports his position. Rather, the project was an attempt to obviate this whole problem. The other (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Roman_relations&action=historysubmit&diff=349738926&oldid=349599296) refutes his position. It is an example of unifying the dating notation according to the original practice of the article, which is exactly what I have done.

I am disheartened that this matter could not be resolved by discussion and now could not be resolved by early stages of dispute resolution. I do not understand the point of promulgating one's personal policies until forced by authority to cease. It is a colossal waste of User talk:Gun Powder Ma's time, my time, and now User:TransporterMan's time. It will become a colossal waste of time for all involved as this gets escalated into mediation or arbitration, which could not possibly result in an affirmation of a policy formulated ad hoc by an editor, not supported by any recorded Wikipedia policy, and contradicting Wikipedia guidelines and past dispute resolutions. Strebe (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am rather astonished by the way you consistently overinterpret the MoS, all while downplaying my arguments as irrelevant. If your view would be the general view in Wikipedia, we would have long consistent notation throughout all articles. The reality, however, is a clear prevalence of the mixed notation, so how come? Are you alone in understanding MoS correctly?

Look, we have very clear guidelines on when and how to use km and miles. But we have no guideline on how to use the BC/AD and BCE/CE notation or do we? Doesn't this ring a bell? The reason obviously is that these dates are much more ideologically charged than simple "style" and that is exactly the reason why that page is "defunct", because there has as yet no general consensus developed on which notation to prefer (and in the foreseeable future likely won't arise any). So, as long as you cannot point to an explicit Wikipedia guideline which specifies the use of the date convention, in the same clear and unambiguous manner as the use of most other units is specified, you have no grounds to change the notation to either style just by selectively quoting from MoS (most of which actually contradict your position as shown above). If you want to make the changes, you need the specific guideline first. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will not waste any more time debating this. The matter will go to arbitration, and the article will get cleaned up according to Wikipedia guidelines. Strebe (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration seems to be some steps beyond where we are now.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

Since the point of contention is over interpretation of policy, this seems like the next step:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

2.5 Ask about a policy

As to whether this is a waste of time. Is it a waste of time to train a room full of 5-year-olds how to function in the world? It is a waste of time only on the individual who is untrainable. Whether that is the case here remains to be seen.

There was no notice posted here that a third opinion was being sought. That seems like bad form to me.

User:Strebe said:

I am reverting User:Gun Powder Ma's recent change and will request a dispute resolution if "he" persists in enforcing his personal policy on this article.

Is this in the works? -Ac44ck (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The notice for request of third party opinion was posted by template beneath the section heading. See the change history. The third opinion editor removed it when "he" rendered his opinion. That is customary.

We have discussed the matter thoroughly. That failed. I made a request for third opinion. It was kindly met by User:TransporterMan. User:Gun Powder Ma rejected that opinion. I do not intend to "ask about policy" since "policy" does not cover matters of style and convention. Those are covered by "guidelines". User:Gun Powder Ma has already stated that he does not accept the Manual of Style, which the Guidelines page states is the most important style guideline, and the "parent" of all the other style guidelines, as an authority for resolving this dispute.

What is next is mediation. That requires both parties to agree to enter into mediation. "The matter will go to arbitration" was my prediction based on what has happened thus far, not a statement of what is next. Arbitration is a mechanism for resolving editor conduct, not content.

I have reverted the article to be consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. I invite interested parties to study the Manual of Style again, particularly in its instructions for applicability. To wit, from General principles,

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles. It presents Wikipedia's house style, and is intended to help editors produce articles whose language, layout, and formatting are consistent, clear, and precise.
An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article... Being consistent within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article.
Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

If User:Gun Powder Ma continues to reject the Manual of Style as holding more weight than his opinion, then I will invite him to enter into informal mediation. Strebe (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is governed by WP:ERA which doesn't seem to have been mentioned here. It says:

Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

Strebe, please don't mark anything as minor unless it's just copy-editing, etc. That applies to talk pages as well as articles. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for overlooking the "minor edit" checkbox. The quote you cite is cited by my first posting in this section. It is also cited on my talk page where this was originally debated, as noted at the top of this section. It is also referenced by the third opinion editor in "his" comments above. Strebe (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This was a good edit:

Revision as of 20:00, 22 April 2010 (edit) (undo)

Strebe (talk | contribs)

m (Unified dating convention. Fixed up ranges according to MoS.)

It changed all dates to BCE/CE format.

This was not a good edit:

Revision as of 18:39, 23 April 2010 (edit) (undo)

Gun Powder Ma (talk | contribs)

(dating terms are by good WP practice choice of author and never subject of standardization)

It changed the article to make it less readable.

This was better than the first edit listed above

Revision as of 07:28, 24 April 2010 (edit) (undo)

Strebe (talk | contribs)

m (Unified dating conventions to BC/AD, since that's what it was for the first 4 years of the article.)

It used a single convention and respected the BC/AD convention used by earlier editors.

GPM's charge that Strebe changed notations to promote a personal preference appears to be specious. The edits by Strebe used both conventions. Consistency and respect, not POV nor anarchy, seemed to be the intent.

GPM seems to want to make much of:

editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style

To me, it means: if an editor prefers American rather than British spellings, they shouldn't change an article which already uses "colour" throughout to use the word "color" instead.

What Strebe did is found an article using mixed conventions and change it to have a uniform presentation. His later edit not only reverted the mishmash promoted by GPM, but also restored the convention used when the article was created.

All actions by Strebe have been according to the manual of style. I don't see that GPM's actions have been.

Nor do I see any support for GPM's actions. The consensus seems to in favor or Strebe's actions. Further reversion of date formats by GPM may be viewed as contrary to consensus and tendentious. - Ac44ck (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree up to the point that if we were to have a discussion as to which style we should use, I'd opt for BCE/CE. But without a discussion and consensus on that based on the input of several editors, it should be left as BC/AD. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the BC/AD convention. A quick Google search came up with this link, which I think contains some excellent points:

http://www. helium. com/items/425866-teaching-history-why-use-bce-and-ce-instead-of-bc-and-ad

I have used the BC/AD convention for <mumble> years and people want to give me grief for not "upgrading" to Convention 2.0. I see enough "change for the sake of change" in software. For example, the "new" ribbons in Windows 7 — a cluttered, hieroglyphic throwback to the menus used by the DOS version of Lotus 1-2-3. Remember when pull-down menus were hailed as an improvement? What happened to that perspective?

If we change to BCE/CE this year, is someone else going to press for Convention 3.0 next year? Perhaps xyz/yz, to be even more politically correct?

I think the notation which has served well for centuries isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. - Ac44ck (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer BC/AD, too, which I use throughout my edits, so that argument above about tendentiousness is pretty much null and void.

Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

We know this by now. But this guidelines adresses single authors, that is each author should use a consistent style, and that is exactly what has happened in Spherical earth until Strebe came: Some have consistently used BC/AD, other in their edits just as consistently BCE/CE, so that the article has, as hundreds of thousands others, a mixed notation. As long as proponents of a uniformization cannot show that WP guidelines explicitly advocate a uniform notation, there won't be no progress here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM which is the relevant guidelines does say "This part of the Manual of Style aims to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of dates and numbers in Wikipedia articles. Consistent standards make articles easier to read, write, and edit. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise." That's not asking individual editors to be consistent within their edits, but asking for consistency "within an article". The relevant section at WP:ERA is also aimed at the article, not the editor. Surely that's explicit enough? Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not nearly enough for my taste. But I am willing to follow the mediation process proposed by Strebe in order to clarify the meaning of the guideline in the process (and, hopefully, make its wording more explicitly). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation

User:Gun Powder Ma has reverted the article to mixed style again. (See discussion above.) Having exhausted negotiation, third opinion, and consensus, I have now entered a request for mediation onto his talk page. Strebe (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any consensus worth the name, but I agree to a mediation. I would even go one step beyond and propose that, whatever the outcome, we should make the relevant a bit more explicit so that all users can benefit from our dispute. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have requested mediation because I saw no other way to make progress on the matter of mixed notation in this article. I do not intend to impose on more people's time by trying to make changes to guidelines. The Manual of Style is abundantly clear. Indeed, it is difficult for me to imagine how to make the verbiage more clear. That will have to be your project. Strebe (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a computer programmer. I can easily create a template that will make each year reference use BC/AD on odd days and BCE/CE on even days. Why is this such a big deal? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a big deal. It's depressing it has become a big deal. But things don't improve by acquiescing to poor practices. Strebe (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

On which of the dispute resolution boards has the mediation been requested?

I don't find it here:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

or here:

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#Cases

or here:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All

or here:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Pending

The mediation committee seems to be backed up. This case was accepted in January and appears to remain unresolved:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Monty_Hall_problem

It took a while for this case to get assigned:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic

It appears that GPM may persist for quite some time in holding this page hostage with no independent support for GPM's position and against the advice of at least three editors. The taunt in GPM's last revert sounds to me like digging in for an edit war, a stance which would seem to have problems of its own.- Ac44ck (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't filed for mediation yet. My "request" was to User:Gun Powder Ma on his talk page, since the parties involved must agree to mediation. He has indicated he is willing, so the only thing keeping me from filing is other duties. Unlike third opinion, mediation is a group process, so feel free to initiate it.

I agree User:Gun Powder Ma's stance is problematic. Until the matter is resolved, "he" has no more claim to having the page his way than everyone else has to having it the other way. He has effectively averred that his position is preeminent, on his authority, until he decides otherwise. Edit warring, unlike page content, is a behavior matter and is a subject of enforceable policy. Threats of edit-warring seem... problematic. Strebe (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved calculations of radii to Earth radius

Duplicate information from this Spherical Earth article to the Earth radius article, per the discussion here: Talk:Earth_radius#Meridional_mean_radius -Ac44ck (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Isidor confused?

The article states (without a reference) that "most scholars" consider Isidor to have been confused on the issue of the the earth's sphericity. It cites his Etymologiae III.47 as an example of his belief that the earth was flat.

While I cannot prove that "most" scholars do not consider him confused, I can dispense with using III.47 as an example of belief in a flat earth. III.47 is discussing the size of the Sun, namely that it is much larger than the earth and very far away, and explaining that this is why its size appears equal in the east and the west, despite the fact that an observer's distance to is changing throughout the day. The whole quote is

De magnitudine solis. Magnitudo solis fortior terrae est, unde et eodem momento, quum oritur, et orienti simul et occidenti aequaliter apparet. Quod vero tamquam cubitalis nobis videtur, considerare oportet quantum sol distat a terris, quae longitudo facit ut parvus videatur a nobis.

which means

On the size of the sun. The size of the sun is greater than the earth's, which is why [the size] appears equal to both the east and the west when it rises. Although it truly appears to be a matter of cubits to us, we need to consider how far the sun is from the earth, which distance makes it seem small to us.

Nothing about a flat disc here. Rwflammang (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't respond to the piece about "at the same moment", which you've omitted from your translation of Etymologies III. 47, because the two thoughts are mixed up. (Stephen Barney's translation is "The size of the sun is greater than that of the earth so that at the very moment it rises, it appears equally at the same moment to a person in the east and to a person in the west.").

But I've been reading Isidore's De Natura Rerum, which covers the same ground, and the two thoughts are separated out rather more clearly. In Fontaine's translation it is:

Le rayonnement du soleil se trouve exactement at la meme distance pour tous les hommes. De meme, le globe lunaire est aussi grand pour tout le monde. Le soleil est semblable pour les Indiens et les Bretons ; les uns et les autres le voient au meme moment lorsqu’il se leve. Sa grandeur apparente n’est pas plus petite pour les Orientaux lorsqu’il decline au couchant; et les Occidentaux, lorsqu’il se leve, ne le trouvent pas plus petit que les Orientaux..

Unfortunately there's no English translation (I'll give you mine if you want). The punctuation is a little different in the latin but remember that it's not original anyway. But Brehaut's footnote to the original passage is "This passage indicates Isidore’s belief in a flat earth"

As for citations about Isidore being confused, Brehaut has several: e.g. "It is clear that Isidore has fallen into the same confusion here as in the passage quoted on p. 51; he uses the terminology of the spherical earth, while having no conception of anything but the flat earth." Similarly, Woodward says "Isidore sometimes seems confused about the shape of the earth". But most commentators apart from Brehaut give him the benefit of the doubt. Chris55 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Brehaut's opinion is interesting and may be worthy of note, although I still object to the phrase "most scholars". Even though my opinion is not worthy of note, I'll give it anyway. Translating eodem momento as "at the same time" seems a stretch to me. The word momentum can of course mean movement, point in time, or distance in space, so we must rely on context to determine which of these meanings to use. I can point to examples in astronomical writings where it means movement, and to astronomical writings where it means distance, but (apart, perhaps, from here) I know of no astronomical writing that uses it to mean point in time. But that perhaps means only that I have not read enough. The immediate context of the phrase eodem momento is that it follows unde et, which I translated here as "that is why". The size of the sun is much larger than the size of the earth, that is why, eodem momento, etc. We are talking here about size, not moments in time. Even if it were to mean "at the same moment in time", it seems a stretch to translate it as meaning that it rises at the same moment in time. In fact, since the mention of rising is in a subordinate phrase (quum oritur) this seems most unlikely.

On the size of the sun. The sun's size is larger than the earth's, whence so eodem momento[at the same moment] it appears aequaliter [the same size] at once to both the east and to the west quum oritur [when it rises].

Here, I have translated eodem momento as meaning the same thing as the word simul, "at once", referring to simultaneous measurements and not to simultaneous sunrises. There is nothing here that implies rising at the same time. At best, at a stretch, it can be taken to mean "when it rises at the same time", which is not the same thing as "it does rise at the same time". But even this long shot does not make any sense. What would a hypothetical simultaneous sunrise have to do with apparent magnitude? This interpretive problem disappears when you consider that the puzzle is why is the apparent magnitude the same for east and west, when east and west are at differing distances from the sun. (The solution, of course, is that compared to the distance to the sun, east and west are actually quite close, as Isidore quite rightly points out.) Clearly we are talking here about simultaneous equal apparent sizes, and not simultaneous sunrises. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would ever assume anything else, given that the title of the chapter is De Magnitudine Solis.

Thanks for the quote from Fontaine; Isidore seems to be using the exact same argument there. Rwflammang (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-evident or reluctant?

I've now been reverted twice for suggesting that Augustine was sceptical about the sphericity of the earth. My reference for that was the clause from City of God "although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form". Clearly it was not "self-evident" to him, as the text previously stated, but why did he include the "supposed" if he accepted that it had been scientifically demonstrated?

But there is a further important issue that people seem to deny. If a belief A leads reasonably to a belief B that is held to be unacceptable (and in this case heretical) then it inevitably of itself casts a doubt on A. As we now know, Augustine's fears were justified as there really were humans who had no contact with the semitic tribes in biblical times. And Augustine's doubt was used regularly to question not only the existence of the people but even the possibility of Columbus's voyage, as even Fernández-Armesto, one of the most solid modern historians, admits.

Augustine himself seems to be eminently reasonable in not, for instance, insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis. But he sits on the fence on the question of sphericity and we don't actually have any evidence that he accepted it - it probably wasn't important to him. All that can really be said is that he didn't oppose it, as did others. Chris55 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question only used him as an example, but your change made it say that 'church fathers' generally were skeptical. But the main issue is that you had no source for this. You can say 'so and so says he was skeptical' with a cite to a reliable source, but you do need a source. Have you read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY? --Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a completely modern idiom I suppose so that suggests reluctant acceptance, but no other connotation of suppose carries reluctance. No scholar would interpret the use of suppose there as reluctance because such reluctance is discordant with the immediately following scientifically demonstrated; because serious writing does not use suppose with the skeptical connotation; and because if we wanted to know what Augustinus really thought we would be obliged to resort to the original passage in Latin, not some English translation. All that is immaterial, though; as User:Dougweller notes, it is not our right to make such interpretations and particularly not to treat one example as if it says anything about others. Strebe (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well actually the Latin word is "credatur", which could be translated "believed". "Ratione monstretur", or rational demonstration, was far worse.

But I notice that neither of you have addressed the well-attested fact that "St. Augustine doubts" became a byword of medieval discourse. To suggest that this concerned only the narrow issue of people in the antipodes is as unrealistic as saying that everyone before Columbus believed in a flat earth.

I recognize that "and others" covers a multitude of difference, but in this context the early Christian church had no unanimity. Inasfar as there was a general opinion it was that the musings of the Greek philosophers were detrimental to the faith and were to be distrusted (admiration for Aristotle came later). I'd be happy to take this out. But WP:NOR does not ban quoting original sources. Chris55 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The “St. Augusting Doubts” raised in the airing of Columbus’s expedition explicitly invoked the sphericity of the earth as an impediment to Columbus’s expedition, both because of the supposedly appalling climate toward the Antipodes and because the ships would have to return “uphill”. Strebe (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact the issues you raise show how convoluted medieval thought had become in order to accomodate Augustine's scepticism. The weather issue is irrelevant: it was the Portuguese who were crossing the tropics - Columbus was planning to stay in the northern hemisphere and not visit the antipodes. The "uphill" argument, if it makes any sense at all, derived from an attempt to allow for the "firmament" and also had nothing to do with Augustine. The "Augustine doubts" was a fallback after those ideas had been shown to be rubbish. Chris55 (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the issues I raise show that the medieval scholars understood St. Augustine’s acceptance of earth’s sphericity and his skepticism of the habitability of the Antipodes. Augustinus wrote thus; the medievals interpreted him thus; and the scholarly literature interprets the matter thus as well. It does not matter if the weather issue is actually irrelevant or if the uphill problem makes sense to you, what matters is that the scholars advising the Spanish Crown actually invoked the Antipodes problems, including climate and traveling uphill. I’m really quite done with this. If you need to convince people that Augustinus was skeptical of a spherical earth then I suggest you cite credible literature or get your research published. Thanks. Strebe (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The issues you mention are nothing to do with Augustine. He had never heard of any of those other arguments. In fact the Flat Earth article contains several scholarly references doubting Augustine's commitment to a spherical earth and I've only just looked at some of them. Ferrari is a recognized scholar though I am a little wary of quoting him given his more polemic sallies in this field. But when Augustine says "the earth is the lowest part of the world" he is certainly not thinking in spherical terms. And when he says "Thus we see that two, Europe and Africa, contain one half of the world, and Asia alone the other half" he is not allowing for other parts of the world (orbis not mundus). Chris55 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiousity I looked up the reference, City of God XVI.9:

Nec adtendunt, etiamsi figura conglobata et rutunda mundus esse credatur siue aliqua ratione monstretur, non tamen esse consequens, ut etiam ex illa parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra; deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse esse, ut homines habeat.

"Nor have they proven, although the universe is believed to be an entirely spherical or round shape, or rather that is shown [to be such] by some calculation, that is does not follow that even apart from that fraction from the gathering of the waters that the earth be bare; and thus even if it be bare, it is not necessary that it have men."

I see no evidence of a reluctance to believe in the sphericity of the earth in this quote. Rwflammang (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Its use in a conditional phrase does not imply acceptance. Since apparently this is the only time in his writings he refers to the idea it's a pretty slim basis to assert that he believed it. In fact he didn't accept a consequence of the idea which as has been shown on the Flat earth discussion had been spelled out by Lactantius some 80 years earlier (a work he quotes from elsewhere). That is my main reason for suggesting a reluctance. Chris55 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider etiamsi+subjunctive to be a conditional, but rather a concessive. Augustine is conceding the premise, even while disputing the conclusion. Further more he qualifies and strengthens credatur with monstretur; i.e., the world has been shown to be entirely globular, and is not just "believed" to be so. Rwflammang (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My Latin dates from many years back, but I thought that being hypothetical was what the subjunctive was largely about, rather than the indicative "has". Certainly I had read it as a concession but I'm not so sure. He wouldn't ridicule the idea in the way that Lactantius did but he hasn't shown acceptance positively. I won't push it further, but the text still reads "Accepted by many early Christian authorities like" - and Augustine is the only one known - before Boethius in the early 7th century - who can be said to accept it. Chris55 (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Eratosthenes

One of our sources, Measuring the universe: cosmic dimensions from Aristarchus to Halley By Albert Van Helden, says: "Although Eratosthenes' procedure was a geometrical demonstration using only very approximate "measurements," his figure for the Earth's circumference gained great authority. Since we do not know the precise length of the stade he used, it is fruitless to speculate on the "accuracy" of his result. Suffice it to say that beginning with Eratosthenes the size of the Earth was known to the right order of magnitude." The article says: "Eratosthenes (276–194 BC) estimated Earth's circumference around 240 BC. He had heard that in Syene the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice whereas in Alexandria it still cast a shadow. Using the differing angles the shadows made as the basis of his trigonometric calculations he estimated a circumference of around 250,000 stades. The length of a 'stade' is not precisely known, but Eratosthenes' figure only has an error of around five to fifteen (this was just changed from ten) percent.[17][18][19] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual meridional circumference, 40,008 kilometres (24,860 mi). Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel."

That's two sets of figures and a reference that tells us we shouldn't speculate. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

People love to be exact, even with error estimates! Can we stop people doing it? A book by J.R.Smith I have to hand quotes values of the stade from 179.4 to 185.3m (whereas for Ptolemy it was 210m). His estimate of 5,000 stade to Syene was probably far less exact. Chris55 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

to be considered

http://www.ancientindianastrology.com/cmsa/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=86&view=viewdownload&catid=88&cid=1199 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.0.228 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

May be link spam. - Ac44ck (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No references to the work anywhere else. At best, WP:OR. Strebe (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese

Works as early as Yi Xing (7-8th century) in Tang dynasty has showed his knowledge in a spherical Earth, as reflected in his celestial globe made with help from Liang Lingzan. Many of his work is based on previous engineering and astronomical works as well, such as Zhang Heng (AD 78-139) who created a armillary sphere. These examples are much earlier than Ming Dynasty as described here. Joshtam (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Celestial globes and armillaries are irrelevant. They display a model of the sky, not the earth. Strebe (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary of evidence for a spherical earth

This sentence may need revision:

The sun is lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator, but stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky. Other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky.

Don't the latter statements assume one is traveling north from the Tropic of Cancer? Does the Sun necessarily get lower in the sky when traveling away from the equator toward the Tropic of Cancer? - Ac44ck (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my edit rendered the paragraph as a whole incoherent, since the paragraph refers to specific stars. On the other hand, it is incomplete and misleading to limit the statement to “north from the equator” since, yes, the sun gets lower in the sky moving south from the equator as well. (Strictly speaking that is not quite true, either; during summer in the tropics, the reverse is true.) Thanks for noticing the rest of the paragraph. I will fix it. Strebe (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice fix. The restricted POV in original version may have been offensive to those living in the southern hemisphere.

At first, I misread "as you travel away from the tropics", thinking it allowed movement away from a tropical circle toward the equator. But it says "away from the tropics" which excludes travel within tropics toward the equator.

It was a well crafted, subtle fix that is much more inclusive and also prevents application of the blanket statement about moving north from the equator when in the tropics. Your use of words with such economy while preserving the original examples is impressive. - Ac44ck (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ac44ck. Odd how long it took me to write so little… Strebe (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe it:

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/42788/

"If I had more time I would write a shorter letter." - Blaise Pascal

- Ac44ck (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As a p.s., the introduction to this section notes that the evidences are given in an approximate historical order. The Greeks were in the northern hemisphere and Egypt was about as far south as they went. It's fine to make it more general. Chris55 (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

______________________________________________

The lower parts of a ship that are hidden by the curvature of the earth is illustrated by a picture of Rena. But this vessel was greatly tilted to the right (starboard?) so that the ocean was up to the main deck level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NZ_Defence_Force_assistance_to_OP_Rena.jpg

Helpallways (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. This image should not be used. Strebe (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The significance of the regal orb

I'd think this article should mention the orb (orbis terrarum and globus cruciger) used as a symbol of authority over the world. I'll look for some reliable sources that connect the orb with the sphericity of the world. --Macrakis (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Leading and Indian related infos

I just checked full history of this page. The page included the book by Helaine Selin as source,[7] as well as other sources. Although the source of Selin became unavailable, it couldn't be verified, thus it was removed from the page, but these sources are accessible now. So what I would like to suggest is, that if we look at this version[8] or [9].

I think the similar version regarding "India" as well as lead paragraph should be written back. Because "Early Astronomy and Cosmology" doesn't seem to be available, nor there's any 2nd source other than this wikipedia page which would confirm the same information(wheel shape, bowl) regarding rigveda, neither the source seems to be popular"Early+Astronomy+and+Cosmology"+page+68&rlz=1C1GGGE_enIN421&es_sm=93&ei=wPFSUqf7KsqUrAflnID4Aw&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=679&dpr=1. Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the verifiability policy. Just because something is not viewable on the Web does not make it "unverifiable": "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." Assuming the Selin text was correctly cited and relevant, the reference should not have been removed from the page just because it was not viewable in Google Books. --Macrakis (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Macrakis, but this line "or a wheel, bowl, or four-cornered plane alluded to in the Rigveda" is seriously not supported by any other source, and i can't verify if the given link says so, that's why i added this. Justicejayant (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Subhash Kak is a Hindu nationalist and definitely not a reliable source. Athenean (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

He is not, in fact he's a computer scientist, so this point of yours is refuted. Justicejayant (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Most nationalists have a profession, User:Justicejayant. You have refuted nothing. It’s obvious Kak is not a reliable source outside his profession in the narrowest sense. Goofy pronouncements like, “…The material world is not causally closed, and consciousness influences its evolution”, wherein he presents a personal belief unsupported by science as proof that machines will never be intelligent, demonstrate just how little credence his views should be given. Not surprisingly scholars don’t cite his populist writings. Strebe (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So leave that one. We can use someone else for reference. Justicejayant (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how the quotation from Aitareya Brahmana says anything about the shape of the earth. There were many theories about what the sun did during the night which were not dependent on sphericity. The quotation by Sarma in the Selin Encyclopedia is too vague: "intelligent speculations" could be anything. If you cannot confirm the other quotation from Selin it's difficult for you to add anything. Chris55 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, "intelligent speculations" as in, for the time, it doesn't actually push the POV though. And this link [10] confirms the theories that have been presented, citing Aitareya Brahmana as a source. Justicejayant (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That book has no credibility. Sorry. It’s blatant junk science. Strebe (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not getting what you are talking about here, is that about Selin's source or the blavatsky? I can't deny the Selin's source though, it's by academic. Justicejayant (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Blavatsky is junk science. Strebe (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Except K.V Sarma, we can include any of these sources as 2nd source. "Cosmic Perspectives" by S. K. Biswas, D. C. V. Mallik, C. V. Vishveshwara [11], "In the Beginning Was the Apeiron: Infinity in Greek Philosophy",[12](page 42).

Samuel Warren Carey's book "Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences"[13](16-17) can be helpful too. And others like "A Critical Study of Rigveda, I.137-163", [14](page 8), "Eng Concept of Truth in Arts" [15](last lines of the page), "Geography"[16] by Surender Singh. Justicejayant (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Added now.. And removed the part "With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered ..." As it remains disputed, for example Samuel Warren Carey instead writes that it's indian astronomy that may have influenced Greeks. Justicejayant (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

[17] and [18], [19] says that Indian astronomy influenced greek astronomy instead, but i am not saying that we can't add the line "with the rise of greek culture....." We can, but it will need better wording, and not "supplanted the belief" line anyway. And probably much better if it can be adjusted that some thinks that indian astronomy had influenced greek instead. Justicejayant (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first source is junk science (and way too old), your second source does not back your claim, your third source actually backs the opposite of what you are claiming. Please stop this. Athenean (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Athenean, Since the edit remained here until 2009, and you are fighting over this since 2010... It's accurately citing that Rigveda supports the spherical earth.. How it's "Junk science"? Which "second source" you are talking about? Can't you read? Then the sources regarding the satapatha brahmana are 100% accurate too.. Then you are telling me that "they don't support your claim they are just opposite" then "please stop it", it seems that you assume no good faith. Justicejayant (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can read very well, thank you. This source [20], which you claim says Indian astronomy influenced Greek astronomy, in fact says "During the Seleucid period, Greek astronomical ideas, with Babylonian features, also entered Indian astronomy". And Ebenezer Burgess is indeed junk science. If you don't have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand these things, please do not edit. Athenean (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well Athenean, it also reads in 2nd paragraph that "blended with babylonian procedures and indian influences, also came in from the east"... But what these sources have to do with the rigvedic related sources? That you just removed as well. They must be inserted back, and you can insert this "greek influence" thing too, but different wording. Justicejayant (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Carey, as unspecified he is, is also way off on the Chinese chronology which he mentions in connection with the Indians (p. 15). Quite the contrary, the Chinese were about the last to adopt the concept of a spherical earth, only after the arrival of Jesuits around 1600. I suspect he relies on Joseph Needham in his unreferenced claim, but Cullen, cited in this article, makes it clear he misinterpreted a Han dynasty egg analogy. In sum, the two-liner Carey provides is useless. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he is, anyways, let's recognize the greek influence. While keeping the leading text same as the last version that i had edited, we can edit the India part this way?...:-

---India---

The Rigveda is the oldest surviving Indian philosophical text, dating back back to 15th century BCE. According to K. V. Sarma: "One finds in the Rgveda intelligent speculations about the genesis of the universe from nonexistence, the configuration of the universe, the spherical self-supporting earth, and the year of 360 days divided into 12 equal parts of 30 days each with a periodical intercalary month."^[1]
Shatapatha Brahmana

C. V. Vishveshwara,^[2] Kireet Joshi,^[3] and others have suggested that the concept of a spherical Earth was implicit in the Shatapatha Brahmana, an ancient Indian philosophical, dated between 8th to 6th centuries BCE.

Medieval India

With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to ancient India where its profound influence became apparent in the early centuries AD.^[4] The Greek concept of a spherical earth surrounded by the spheres of planets, was supported by astronomers like Varahamihira and Brahmagupta^[4]^[5]

The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476-550 AD), deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus, the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time") and the Gola ("sphere"), state that the Earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas. In modern units this is 39,968 km (24,835 mi), close to the current equatorial value of 40,075 km (24,901 mi).^[6]^[7] Justicejayant (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the other sources, but the claim that "C. V. Vishveshwara,^[8]... suggested that the concept of a spherical Earth was implicit in the Shatapatha Brahmana, an ancient Indian philosophical, dated between 8th to 6th centuries BCE." is wrong.

The chapter being referenced is written by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, not C. V. Vishveshwara.
More importantly: in the cited pages Chattopadhyaya is arguing that the Eta Tauri's position mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana (dated to 10-7c BCE) can be calculated using modern methods and knowledge to actually be its position in ~2334BCE. He uses this to conclude that the writers of SB were simply using information about the star position handed down from long ago without bothering to check where those star were located at the time they composed the texts. In fact he is pretty dismissive of the interest that the authors of SB had in practical astronomy ("It is indeed difficult to imagine that the authors of these texts had any genuine interest in astronomy which they used for shear mystery-mongering.") and makes no claims they they or their antecedents had any knowledge of spherical earth.

Given Chattopadhyaya's opinion on the subject I'd really like to see the exact quotes and context of the Kireet Joshi reference being cited. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Sarma, K. V. (2008) in "Acyuta Pisarati", Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (2nd edition) edited by Helaine Selin. Springer. 19. ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.
^ Cosmic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 1989. p. 44. ISBN 9780521343541.
^ Indian Perspectives on the Physical World, Volume 4. University of Michigan. 2004. p. 345. ISBN 9788187586173.
^ ^a ^b D. Pingree: "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India", Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 533−633 (533, 554f.)
^ Glick, Thomas F., Livesey, Steven John, Wallis, Faith (eds.): "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, New York 2005, ISBN 0-415-96930-1, p. 463
^ "Aryabhata I biography". History.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk. November 2000. Retrieved 2008-11-16.
^ Gongol, William J. (December 14, 2003). "The Aryabhatiya: Foundations of Indian Mathematics". GONGOL.com. Retrieved 2008-11-16.
^ Cosmic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 1989. p. 44. ISBN 9780521343541.

Justicejayant, could you give the page number for Sarma 2008. Is it in the 1st or 2nd volume?< Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it. But merely mentioning off-hand a "spherical self-supporting earth" is all Sarma ever says. He does not expound his view and does not take up the subject in the rest of the article. In fact, he does not even provide any time frame, so your preceding dating of 1500 BC is certainly too close to WP:Synthesis. As it, writing was only introduced one thousand years (= 40 generations) later in India (Richard Salomon: On the Origin of the Early Indian Scripts, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1995), pp. 271-279 (271)) and going by the WP article, the Rigveda in the form which has come down to us is from ca. 1000 AD and later, that is long after contact with Greek (and even Arab/Persian) astronomy and Aryabhata. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Of the sources presented in the template above, the only one that both passes WP:RS and backs the claim being made is Sarma, however, I agree with Gun Powder Ma above. Athenean (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The book is cited around 1700 BC - 1100 BC commonly. It's not about when it was distributed around the world, but when it was composed. Also K.V. Sarma's source is enough for prescribing to the point that spherical earth was prevalent in Ancient India. Some more sources should be looked upon, few i mentioned before, such as [21](page 42), [22], [23] might help in this regard. Abecedare, we can recognize some more sources such as [24], "Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences"[25](16-17) as he's after all submitting that the concept was common in India.. Justicejayant (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments:

Justicejayant is right that the important date with regards to Rigveda is the date it was composed (2nd mill. BCE) and not the date it was "written down", since perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Rigveda is how well it was preserved through an oral tradition of vedic chanting. There are ample high quality citations to back this up if needed.
KV Sarma does suggest that Rigveda contains mention of spherical Earth, but the reference is too brief to use by itself for such a fundamental claim. If that claim is indeed widely held, we should be able to find scholarly analysis devoted to it. I have (briefly) searched through JSTOR and looked up some standard authors on the subject (Yukio Ohashi; Michio Yano; and David Pingree) but didn't find any backing of spherical-Earth-in-Rigveda claim yet. That of course does not prove that such a citation does not exist, but someone will need to find it.
Looking at the latest crop of citations: as far as I can tell, Carey here is talking of a Sun-centric universe/solar-system, and not of a spherical Earth. Even if we accept Cary as an acceptable citation on the subject, is it even relevant to this article?
Justicejayant: it would perhaps help if you could create a sub-page in your userspace with (1) a list the citations you wish to include along with (2) the claim they support, and (3) the relevant quote and context. I have entered this discussion only recently, but I am having a hard time keeping pace with all the works being cited and debunked. :)

Abecedare (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Another source review: This chapter in a book on sustainable development is authored by Ruedi Hogger who is "an independent consultant in the field of international cooperation". How is that an acceptable source on the history of science or analysis of Vedic era texts? Abecedare (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sarma is certainly not sufficient to claim that the notion of a "spherical earth" was "prevalent" in Vedic India. He doesn't make that claim in fact. Hogger won't do, he's not a scholar on the history of science. For a claim such as this, only a scholarly source on the history of astronomy will do. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

K V Sarma might be used, as there are multiple books, that quotes his references. Such as David H. Kelley, in his book "Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy" is citing same book(of Sarma) as Helaine Selin did.

Hajime Nakamura will work? Read this especially last para. I wonder if it can be used as source, but you can have a look here, quotes about the indian astronomy originally by the Dick Teresi. This one, i had actually read first time at flat earth page. Also are few more sources, explanatory to the point.[26]. Let me know. Justicejayant (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We are rapidly entering the stage where it becomes obvious that Wikipedia should be more than construeing together random keyword searches in Google Books. If the notion of a spherical earth in ancient Hindu texts has gained any substantial ground in scholarship, it should not be hard to find two, three up-to-date papers or chapters written up by specials devoted to the subject (that would also be where the problem of dating texts and later interpolations is conventionally addressed). What we need are reliable scientists who make a consistent case. All the fundamental assertions about the historical trajectory of the idea of the sphericity of the earth in the WP article can claim at least a similarly strong backing in literature. Why be happy with less? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This one will help, [27], "The history of geophysics and meteorology", by Stephen G. Brush, Helmut Landsberg, Martin Collins. Other than these books, some others I had found,[28], there are obviously many. Pretty much, I have detailed that it's widespread information, that Rigveda/Vedas and Shatapatha Brahmana writes about earth being spherical.. When we have something added here like "or a wheel, bowl, or four-cornered plane alluded to in the Rigveda", containing no 2nd source, and the given source is unpopular, we can added the information which is actually widespread, confirmed by multiple sources. Justicejayant (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

[Sarma-Ast-Ind-1] Sarma, K. V. (2008) in "Acyuta Pisarati", Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (2nd edition) edited by Helaine Selin. Springer. 19. ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.

[2] Cosmic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 1989. p. 44. ISBN 9780521343541.

[3] Indian Perspectives on the Physical World, Volume 4. University of Michigan. 2004. p. 345. ISBN 9788187586173.

[Pingree_(1978),_533,_554f.-4] D. Pingree: "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India", Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 15 (1978), pp. 533−633 (533, 554f.)

[5] Glick, Thomas F., Livesey, Steven John, Wallis, Faith (eds.): "Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, New York 2005, ISBN 0-415-96930-1, p. 463

[6] "Aryabhata I biography". History.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk. November 2000. Retrieved 2008-11-16.

[7] Gongol, William J. (December 14, 2003). "The Aryabhatiya: Foundations of Indian Mathematics". GONGOL.com. Retrieved 2008-11-16.

[8] Cosmic Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 1989. p. 44. ISBN 9780521343541.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Popular Myth in the First Paragraph and Other Places

The book of Job

Ancient India

NPOV re: Jewish tradition?

ToC

Rigveda

Notation

Request for mediation

Moved calculations of radii to Earth radius

Isidor confused?

Self-evident or reluctant?

Eratosthenes

to be considered

Chinese

Summary of evidence for a spherical earth

The significance of the regal orb

Leading and Indian related infos