Talk:Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory/Archive 1

Philosophical? More like theological

This has everything to do with theology, nothing to do with philosophy. Please either add some philosophical content from contemporary and 20th century scholars or re-name the article. It's very missleading.Jackmont January 26, 2008.

If philosophy is counter to theology, then I'm not sure it wouldn't relate to "religious interpretations". Perhaps making another article "Philosophical interpretations of the Big Bang theory" would be reasonable, no? Faro0485 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindu view

The first sentence in this sub-section should read (in my opinion) something like this:

Hindu view

Science writers Carl Sagan and Fritjof Capra have pointed out similarities between the latest scientific understanding of the age of the universe, and the Hindu concept of a "day and night of Brahma", which is much closer to the current known age of the universe than other creation myths (when taken literally).

This removes the word 'fallaciously' from the article, which changes the meaning of the entire section. It also puts citation needed tags on the word 'latest.' While Sagan and Capra have indeed held that the Hindu view best reflects the latest view, it is not as clear that the Hindu view actually DOES best reflect the latest view. This should, therefore, have a citation that indicates that it actually is the LATEST.

I am speaking mainly of how the Hindu view requires an infinite number of creation/death sequences to the universe, whereas, as far as I can tell, Big Bang Cosmology can only confirm one 'creation'-type event in the finite past. Other Cosmology models that espouse an infiniate past have been met with failure as more evidence becomes available.

So ... discuss! I think at the very least the POV notice should be moved to the heading so it doesn't breakup the continuity of the article.

I wouldn't call it the "latest" scientific understanding. Any science that attempts to explain before the big bang is speculative at the moment, and there are a few different ideas. Deamon138 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there supposed to be some Hindu views that refer to a single yet non-cylical reincarnation creation? Faro0485 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does 'Imaginary" mean in the opening sentence?

In the imagination of the general public and scholars, many religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory of physical cosmology have been offered.

This is a ridiculous statement. As written it implies that all the viewpoints discussed here have only exist in various people's imaginations. They don't, they have actually been suggested. If we mean they are speculative suggestions then yes. They are not imaginary though.

80.254.165.190 (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the article I have seen various other problems and I have cleaned up the article slightly. I have changed the above problem, I have corrected some of the English in the Hindu section from "Hindus are beliving" to Some Hindus believe. I have added some context to the Quran quote in the Muslim section to actually say what the presumed relevance of the quote is and I have changed the opening language of the Taoist section so it states that some people think there is a suggestion of the Big Bang so it is more NPOV.

80.254.165.190 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call, but you are going to have to back up your assertions ("Some muslims believe...", "some Hindus believe..." etc). Without cites these are actually weasel words, not NPOV. Also, why do you spell OM as OHM? PaddyLeahy (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I can't claim to know what the sources for these are or why there is that spelling of Om. I did not actually introduce the text for the hindu section, it was already there, and for the Muslim section I looked at the explanation that had been made in earlier forms of this article. I only changed the opening statements to go in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I will have a look to see if I can find any sources.

80.254.165.190 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Quran verses

Regarding the quran verses, shouldn't we link to a source that has more than 3 (USC.edu) translations? 21:20 Faro0485 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The translation of that verse in the Quran that is shown in the article is at best forced. It is often used by Islamic creationists like Harun Yahya to prove that the Quran contains special scientific knowledge. A more accurate translation would be "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are the ones who enrich it." This verse is a derivation of the Bible verse of Isaiah 42:5. You can find out more at http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CJ/CJ531.html. 159.115.176.190 (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

View of Islam

I may be wrong in saying this, but that section is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and seems vaguely biased. Since the topic is only about religious interpretations of the beginning of the universe, and since the Quran doesn't detail any specific creation story, telling how the universe was formed, I believe that both sections, or the first (View of Islam), at the very least, should be removed. Also, the grammar could be improved. In fact, now that I continue to read, I notice that pretty much everything past that section, up until the 'Taoist view' section, all read as being fairly biased (The Big Bang is not the Ultimate Truth but [sic] a big step towards it). Further, since no religious views have been concretely proven, and since almost all religious texts are subject to interpretation, the various claims that '...the Quran gives [sic] clear and well defined concept of the cosmos' and such like are unbased claims, as the Quran, and all other religious texts like it, are extremely open to different interpretations. I apologize if I sound vaguely offensive, but as an outsider, I don't see any clear or well defined concepts of the cosmos, or least of all, how they were created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.76.139 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I respect your point of view but in fact not all muslims know that the quran and some sermons included full details about creation and end of the universe. I can explain them all but without adding my sources as I have my own reasons to hide them. A thing I believe that the website policy may not accept. So I may remove what I added in few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universe56 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dissenting Views

The ways in which religions have interpretted their texts/traditions to coincide with the big bang are very important. But currently this page says almost nothing of religion's resistance to the theory. While not accepted by the scientific community, these views are a significant part of "religion interpretations of the Big Bang theory," and thus should be discussed here. Fyedernoggersnodden (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Replace "theory" (which it is not according to WP) with "hypothesis" (which it is)

The Big Bang is still a hypothesis (also a non scientific, since it vaiolates the principle of conservation of energy in couple of ways. E.g. by assuming that the Hubble redshift in stationary uinverse would be negligible while according to Newtonian math it would be equal 70km/s/Mpc for density of space 6×10^{-27}kg/m^3 (which means, just as it is observed in the universe). Too bad the cosmologists didn't calculate it before inventing the Big Bang hypothesis. It might have saved them Feynman's rant and might have make astronomers happy. Jim (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal

I've chopped some unsourced stuff and quotes from religious texts with no supporting references - 3rd party sources on interpretation needed. Also removed the long quote from the Barry Long book as undue weight of what appears to be a self-published book. Vsmith (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Islam Section

The islam section appears to be completely original research with no secondary sources used etc. Please provide secondary sources or the section should be removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OR

I've removed most of the badly sourced stuff and original research. is the clean up tag still necessary? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the clean up tag but this article, or at least its title, strikes me as problematic. The intro is pretty much unsourced (as are most of the stetements in the article) and gives undue weight to religious over scientific disagreements (as does nearly all the rest of the article) e.g it goes from "almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal universe" to "several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics" as if to imply that the objections were religious rather than physical (it's as if one were to suggest that Einstein rejected the cosmological constant on religious grounds). Another example: the article goes from stating that Lemaitre insisted the Big Bang theory had no religious implications to talking about its congruence with his religious beliefs, which appears to be a complete non sequitor. Another example: How can the writings of a 12th centuray Jewish philospopher (or the early Buddhists or Hindus) be interpretations of a theory proposed many cenuries later (unless he had precoginition)? The material might make perfect sense in an artilce on religious cosmologies. And as a side note, to my knowledge current theories do not suggest a cyclic universe.

Jkhwiki (talk)

The article was originally full of crap, be bold and make changes. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede doesn't actually address what the article is about, i.e Religious interpretations of the Big Bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindi section

The hindi section appears to be working the wrong way, it is where scientists note similarities with the Hindi religion but the article is about religious interpretations of the big bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

maybe this article should be renamed to "Religion and the Big Bang theory" or similar? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nahmanides

I've tagged the Nahmanides section as needing secondary sources. The claim that this is somehow related to this topic is essentially OR. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it per WP:V. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

But as a theory which addresses, or at least seems to address, creation itself

Incomplete sentence that lacks a page number. Tagged. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It neither makes sense nor can it be verified. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemaître

But as a theory which addresses, or at least seems to address, creation itself This perception was enhanced by the fact that the theory's inventor, Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest as well as a physicist and astronomer.

There is no reliable source that supports the claim that Lemaître supported a religious interpretation of the Big Bang theory, so I've removed it. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

This article is not substantially different from the section in Big Bang. I suggest we redirect this article to that section as it contains pretty much the same text. Any remaining text can just be moved over (though I don't think there is any). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be relatively bold and perform the redirect soon unless there is objections. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I object to the redirection of this article. Please wait until the RfC concludes before redirecting the article. Moreover, I informed the RfC that Viriditas (talk · contribs) blanked the contents of this article. The content should be improved rather than deleting it. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hacking the substance out of an article then nominating it for deletion is usually a bad practice. I don't have a particular interest in this article, but I object to the redirect, deletion, and the recent removals of cited material. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the quality of the sourcing of the article before any recent changes. It was full of complete original research and speculation based on primary sources. [1]. The article is not nominated for deletion. Viriditas did not blank the article, he just removed the poorly sourced crap from the article and left the good material behind. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted, many of the sources need improving, but are you saying that the following sources (which were removed) are bad?

• Capra, Fritjof (1991). Tao of Physics. Shambhala. ISBN 978-0877735946. p. 198
• Sagan, Carl (1985). Cosmos. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0345331359. p. 258.

Are you saying people like Carl Sagan, Fritjof Capra, and Gerald Schroeder, who have commented on similarities they've seen between the Big Bang theory and various religious beliefs, are not good enough sources for the article? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said they were bad sources, in fact I made a section outlining my issue with the source (which noone responded to). It's just that there points are irrelevant because there is no religious interpretation being made, All that they appear to be doing is to be noting how similar they are. Capra just mentions "modern cosmology" and Sagan only appears to mention the big bang in passing. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I didn't see that section. I followed Anupam's note at the RFC to here. I think that your idea for renaming the article is a good one. Religion and the Big Bang theory is more broad. On a more personal note, as a physicist with an interest in religion and philosophy I found Sagan and Capra's quotes quite interesting, and I hope they can be added back. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me why they should be added back? Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If the title was "Religion and Cosmology" then both would make more sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie's rationale for redirecting is invalid. WP:N dictates the standard for a standalone article. This article has 7 reliable sources and obviously passes WP:N. If you don't like the article, take it to AFD. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability doesn't "dictate" anything; sources do. The number of sources is irrelevant, and their reliability is questionable when they are misused to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how long you've been editing at Wikipedia, but any editor who has participated at AFD knows that inclusion of articles is governed by WP:N. WP:N states "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." And then "Multiple sources are generally expected." So the number of sources is an important criteria. Do you need a mentor? I am an official mentor and have helped 2 editors. Do you want me to see if I can fit you in? – Lionel ^(talk) 19:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, you were told exactly how long I've been editing at 01:47, 21 February 2012 on my user page, and you said on this page that you reviewed the 1RR userbox on my user page where it says how long I've been editing, so your claim that you don't know how long I've been editing is dishonest. You know how long I've been here because I told you on the 21st, and you've acknowledged looking at my user page where it says how long I've been here. Please get in the habit of following Wikipedia:Honesty and Wikipedia:Etiquette in the future. This will be your last warning on the subject. As for Wikipedia:Notability, that's a guideline, and guidelines don't "govern" anything on Wikipedia. Please reserve this talk page for discussion of the article only. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I've removed plagiarism from the article.[2] Please be mindful of this in the future. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality it carries theological implications regarding the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing").[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Normally, simple statements do not require seven references, so this is a red flag that something is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Content copied from Conservapedia

I have deleted the content that Anupam copied wholesale from Conservapedia[3] to Wikipedia[4]. Furthermore, the content was completely off-topic and had nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Anupam is free to use this discussion thread to defend the content. Anupam should take notice, however, that the subject matter comes from an article titled "Atheism and the suppression of science", not "religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory". Furthermore, it does not meet our most basic minimum requirements for inclusion. Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The content is actually from Wikipedia; see the section on the "Soviet Bloc" here. The Communism section which you removed was entirely sourced. If the section discusses materialism, state atheism, and the philosophy of ex nihilo, how is that not relevant here? Please revert your removal of content. Moreover, even if the content was copied from Conservapedia, as you allege, the license on Conservapedia states "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution." Thanks, Anupam^Talk 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, how could the content be from Wikipedia if the page histories show that you published it on Conservapedia first? Please answer that question directly. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If it really is my work (which is inconsequential), then wouldn't I be able to use my work anywhere? The Conservapedia liscense would allow for that. However, the material was not copied from there anyways, as I mentioned above. It was taken from Wikipedia, from the section on the "Soviet Bloc" here (I did add that information on Wikipedia). The content was relevant in this article and you removed it; that is the issue at hand. Please restore it or I will do so for you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Anupam, the diffs and page histories show that you copied the work from Conservapedia to Wikipedia, where it was eventually deleted by consensus; and an RfC and AfD decided to redirect the topic. So, not only are you copying biased content over to Wikipedia that doesn't meet our basic policies and guidelines for inclusion, you are also ignoring the consensus of the community by repeatedly restoring disputed content after the community has decided against it. Furthermore, this article is not about "militant atheism" so you are off topic. We don't do WP:COATRACKS on Wikipedia. Finally, we have a long list of similar complaints made about your editing on ANI. Do I need to file another one, or will you voluntarily choose to stop disrupting Wikipedia? It's your decision. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would personally prefer if you did not. However, that content was not in dispute. Per the RfC, the content was a candidate for being merged into other articles: "Well-referenced text from this article would be merged as needed into the other articles." Could you tell me what is wrong with the section I added? Every sentence was referenced by a reliable academic source. Since this article does discuss religious implications of the Big Bang, the section was appropriate. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop changing the heading. I have already mentioned what is wrong, and I would be happy to continue, but since you have the burden of proof as the editor adding content, it is you who needs to tell me why you are adding it. You originally wrote this in an article titled "Atheism and the suppression of science".[5] That article is a polemic against atheism and has nothing to do with a religious interpretation of the Big Bang. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The heading is misleading so I have corrected it, as the information placed was not from Conservapedia, but from another article on Wikipedia. Moreover, what does that offsite article have to do with Wikipedia? I added a section here complying with WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV discussing the view of the Big Bang under Communist states involving their philosophy of dialectical materialism and state atheism, which is relevant to this topic heading. If you still disagree, I will conduct an RfC later, probably after the one at the article on the Big Bang concludes, which I imagine will be in the near future. I soon plan to improve the sections on Islam, Hinduism, etc. in this article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The heading is 100% accurate and I've restored it. The material originated on Conservapedia and can still be found on Conservapedia. It did not come from Wikipedia as you continue to falsely claim. Also, I fail to see what a polemic against atheism has to do with this subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your additions contained a number of unreliable sources, including using wikipedia as a reference. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that Anupum's content isn't appropriate. Anupum is invited to read Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. He is also reminded that the community has brought these issues to his attention before, specifically on 27 September 2011 and 13 February 2012. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

September 27? That was five months ago! In wikitime that is a lifetime. And in any event while Anupam was issued a warning, for the most part he was exonerated of any serious misconduct by a consensus of the admins reviewing the case. And the report on Feb 13? That was a joke! Jweiss was just pissed he got blocked. Noone took it seriously: they knew it was retaliatory. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The reports were taken very seriously by a great many people, and it was recommended that if the behavior continues, an RfC/U should be initiated. Anupam has been reminded of this fact. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Off topic comments

Now that Anupam has established his rights to the material it is irrelevant whether it came from Conservapedia, Wikipedia or Wookiepedia. All that matters is relevance and sourcing. Continued harassment of Anupam regarding the origin of the content is a personal attack.

Viriditas, Anupam has asked you why you are making brand new appearances at articles where he is a regular? You have yet to explain. Are you aware that following an editor with whom you have an ongoing personal dispute and harassing them, e.g. making false claims of copyvio, or blindly deleting their additions, is WP: HOUNDING?

Viriditas: your user page proudly displays a "1RR" user box. However you are clearly edit warring over the title of this section. As a matter of honor, I think you should request a self-block. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take any concerns you might have to the appropriate noticeboard. This page is devoted to discussing how to improve this topic. I do not agree with anything you've said about me. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content removed

I've removed a series of strange edits that introduced short sections and unsourced content.[6] That's not how we edit Wikipedia. Please feel free to use this section to discuss these additions. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have no problem with the revert. I was just adding an explanation here of what I'd done, strange or not (someone somewhere had suggested I be bold...) but got an edit conflict with your message. My goal was to separate the current mish-mash which, short though it is, confuses discussion of all kinds of things "role of philosophy and theology in choosing cosmological theories", "contemporary religious interpretations of the big bang" and "interpretion of previous religious acounts of creation in terms of the big bang" in the hope that that organization might provide a basis for expansing the article in a reasonable way. (I had some more sources for what I put in.) Anyway, anyone is welcome to look at what I did and see if it's any help, or not as the case may be. Cheers. Jkhwiki (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced content may be removed by anyone. I am still not clear on your proposed additions, but I would be happy to go over them. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced content

There is no policy justifying deletion of content based on "religious and/or small time publications". A reliable source is... well, reliable, no matter how "small" it is. Perhaps you've heard this before: Wikipedia is not censored. The recent stubbing of the article is not going to work. Redirecting the article is not going to work. As more experienced editors, such as myself, make their way here from the Big Bang RFC the article will be restored. Sorry. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is almost unintelligible, so I recommend that you take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard and ask someone to help you formulate your concerns in a way that others can understand and respond to in a rational manner. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take the time to look at the previous article and especially at the completely dire sourcing before commenting further and then compare it to the current version. Whether the small time/religious publisher sources are reliable is yet to be determined. I think they are reliable for the views of certain religious sects that they belong to but not much beyond that. Of course the due weight assigned to them is a different story. We have no reason to use these sources when we have better sources for the same information. Main discussion of the sources Talk:Big_Bang#Religious_books_from_minor_publishers IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewite and restoral of article

I can't keep up with the pace of deleting and reverting going on at the article. Therefore I have created Talk:Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory/sandbox. This is a sandbox where Jkhwiki and Anupam and the rest of us can add all of the disputed content and tighten the sourcing. When the sourcing is solid we'll just copy it into the mainspace article. If any editors cause "problems" we'll move it to a user page. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you can't invest the time to read and respond to the discussion, then I'm afraid that ignoring the discussion and readding the content isn't an acceptable response. Feel free to use the appropriate noticeboard to express your concerns, but coming here to say IDIDNTHEARTHAT won't be allowed. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs expanding

I know that there are evangelicals who argue against Big Bang theory for instance. Just needs overall lots of expanding. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We already have appropriate articles for that kind of treatment. Articles like:

1. Christian apologetics
2. Criticism of Christianity
3. Relationship between religion and science
4. Science and the Bible
5. Theistic evolution

The question is, why do we need this article? Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Could be merged somewhere. However

• Christian apologetics
• Criticism of Christianity

• Science and the Bible

These deal just with Christianity whereas this article is much broader.

• Relationship between religion and science

This is a potential place to merge into.

• Theistic evolution

This is just with evolution, whereas this is big bang theory. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So I'm open to merging. But I can't find somewhere to merge first. Relationship between religion and science is mostly about the various theoretical positions instead of the specific acceptance of particular theories. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See Criticism_of_Christianity#Compatibility_with_science and Theistic evolution, two articles that already cover this subject. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The first article covers just Christianity, second covers the position of those who accept their religion and evolutionary biology. This one deals with various religious stances on Big Bang cosmology. So I can kinda see some overlap, but I'm still not sure where to merge this. So for the time being we will keep this and keep expanding it. If it is merged this new information can be merged along with it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, it is being expanded by cherry picking single sentences out of sources. There is no single, significant source on this subject, so Wikipedia editors are creating a source by mixing and matching disparate citations that have little to nothing to do with the subject. That's essentially original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source based on good secondary sources. So, this is really primary research, which isn't allowed. The best way to address this problem is to ask, what do primary, secondary, and tertiary sources say about this subject? When you can provide three good sources—one for each type—then you've got the basis for a solid article. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well let's do that then though I'm not certain on the details as to what you mean. I don't like editors using primary sources, but secondary sources are fine. Would this CBS news story count count as a secondary source? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but that brings us back to any number of the linked articles up above. For example, this is covered at Theistic_evolution#Roman_Catholic_Church. But, please continue your research, this might become fruitful. As for primary sources here, we would have the Pope's sermon. Since this is fairly new information, we wouldn't have a tertiary source explaining its significance, but two out of three is pretty good. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Harizotoh9, thanks for your comments! I added some sections on Islam and Hinduism today. I will try to add more as time allows. If you find more information and references, feel free to add them in the article. I found this video, which discusses many of the theological and philosophical implications of the Big Bang and there is much literature on the topics presented therein. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can think of two groups that should probably be added. Young Earth creationists reject BBT, and it would be interesting to include thoughts of atheists as well. I guess we could go with the most prominent atheists since there's no official leadership with them. Must go hunting for official sources now. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure that would be great. I added a section on state atheism but it was deleted. Perhaps you could take a look at my references there and develop a paragraph? With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That content is a polemic against atheism written for Conservapedia, a website which does not share the same polices and guidelines as Wikipedia. Further, that content was deleted by the community the last time you tried adding to militant atheism. You don't get to recycle content from topic to topic and from article to article when it's already been decided that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. This has been explained to you already. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Listen, my comment was not directed towards you. It was directed towards User:Hariztoh. Both User:Lionelt and I informed you that the content was a candidate for being merged, as concluded in the RfC; it was not from Conservapedia. I am awaiting User:Hariztoh's response and consideration, not yours because I have already read your opinion. The content is supported by reliable sources and is relevant to the article in here. I would encourage you to watch this video for background of the situation since you are unclear of the subject matter here. Please allow other editors to comment rather than responding to a message that was not intended for you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack articles aren't allowed. None of the sources you are using are about the Big Bang and religion. You are just composing a polemic against atheism and obscuring it in this topic. Wikipedia requires intellectual honesty. It isn't negotiable. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sticking content on atheism into the article is irrelevant to the topic. Your specific youtube link appears to be an unreliable source (creationist videos).IRWolfie- (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Further: The origins of different sections must be shown as it is required by the content license that the original author can be known. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links

Please do not remove relevant external links from the article. The first link you removed linked to a series titled "God and the Big Bang" featuring several scientists who spoke on the religious implications of the theory. The second link from the American Scientific Affiliation also discussed a religious interpretation of the Big Bang. If you continue to delete these links, I will start an RfC on whether to keep them or not. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The first link most certainly fails WP:ELPOV and as such I am removing it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the second link - it also appears to fail WP:ELPOV. Additionally I agree with Viriditas' original rational. The focus.org link takes scientist's quotes out of context and cherrypicks information in favour of its cause e.g. why choose to quote Hawking with "Clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the Universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it." instead of "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.". The reason is because the source is biased. For the second link The "American Scientific Affiliation" is a christian organisation - it is biased towards christian beliefs. The article contains many biased assumptions and statements in favour of the creation scenario. e.g. "The Big Bang theory was developed within a scientific community that for more than a century has eschewed biblical theism in favor of wholly material explanations for natural phenomena" from that article is hardly a neutral statement in the context in which it is used. Finally this does not require an RfC, instead get consensus on the talk page before adding links. Polyamorph (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This article IS about RELIGIOUS interpretations of the Big Bang. Are you saying we can't have articles that discuss the religious interpretations of the Big Bang here? That does not make sense. I am reverting your edits and if you remove them again, I will start an RfC. Also have you written any sections of this article? I have written almost all of it. Rather than edit warring with me, I suggest you try to constructively contribute to the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what the article is about - I am saying that the external links fail WP:ELPOV because they are biased. You may also like to take a look at WP:OWN and stop edit warring. Polyamorph (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to having several perspectives in the article. That is why there is a section on Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. If you can find any other links that come from different perspectives, we could definitely add them in. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything that isn't biased is fine. To be honest external links are not overly important but if you must include them at least make sure they aren't promotional material. The second link is borderline, I think it's still biased but does still give quite a good overall review. But the first link is unacceptable, since, as I commented above it cherrypicks information in favour of its cause which fails our core policy on WP:NPOV. Polyamorph (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to make a compromise, you can remove the link you do not want and leave the other one in. How does that sound? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

These links pass WP:ELPOV. It states: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." So... The links representing the majority should be listed first. Anupam's links should follow. If anyone has a problem with Anupam's links then add "comments informing the reader of their point of view" as per policy. I don't see what the issue is. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 on this. The first link is actually a very well done series which interviews world class scientists and simply asks them their views on the interplay between science and religion. It is not promoting any particular point of view. It merely explores the topic objectively. The second link is similar but I suppose the explicit reference to Genesis can be construed as being Judeo-Christian but even that is not promoting only a single religion or POV. I think that these both provide a valuable discussion of the topic for interested parties. --Freddie1973 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The focus.org website is clearly promoting a POV e.g. by quoting scientists out of context as I have already mentioned above. In the video the narrator makes comments such as the Higg's Boson being the "God particle" as if this has some kind of significance - in reality it does not have any significance - Peter Higg's himself is not happy with the association. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree though that the links could be included per WP:ELPOV if some further comments were added to state their bias - i.e. they are both sources provided by christian orgnaisations and as such, contain some bias towards christian ideas. Polyamorph (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I added some comments, if anyone feels they can improve what I have written feel free to make changes. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It does appear worrying that the front page of the website appears to be quoting scientists out of context. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed that is exactly my concern, it's cherry picking of information to suit their cause. Polyamorph (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about external links also highlights one major section the article is missing, that most phyicists do not have a religious interpretation of the big bang. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note

• Hi Polyamorph,you removed this,I have no problem that you removed the link but well question,first,are you authority to accept or not accept,and you issue the licence what should be added and what should not be?.Second,I don't see bias,nor Overweight in this external link,I don't know about your own "conceived" bias?.While external link's content was not added in the article,it was just for the expanding the article.We have to work to build a world wide movement to create and share free knowledge.If you cannot access and assess reality of something,please invite other editors for the opinion.No one Own here anything.In the end I hope you mind your language.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the above discussion? If you do not see the bias then seriously you are deluded. This project works by consensus and as much as I didn't like the previous links that were added I worked with the other editors and found a solution that satisfies WP:ELPOV. Your link however is so POV is completely unacceptable. Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You've added some text to the article which is badly sourced and badly written and appears to be written with a specific POV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for discussing,it is not badly sourced,the site has editors,what is then more reliable source,which you provide?,ok if you consider it is badly written please make it in beautiful style of writing,there will be no problem.But it is unacceptable the removal of whole text.Justice007 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not unacceptable when the sources you provide exhibit blatant POV. As for badly written, it is your responsibility to make sure the language and style is appropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• First do not teach me style of writings,and it does not mean to remove the text.Second you consider every source balant and bad.Justice007 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to say that the creator of the totality of existence whispered in someones ear about the big bang in wikipedia's tone, you are going to need some better sources than that. You've based the whole addition on a rather dubius source. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) http://www.islamreligion.com/ is not a reliable source. Moreover, given that it is extraordinarily biased towards Islam any reference to it should maintain neutrality, your edit was not neutral and accepts the source as fact. Here we need third party sources published in reliable sources presented in a neutral manner. Polyamorph (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed on this point,I try to search those reliable sources which could achieve your approval,but I am going to add it in external links,anyhow the site has editors,is it not third party?.Justice007 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are agreed on the point then why are you not reverting your edits and instead edit warring despite two editors opposing your edits? Also there is no consensus for adding the external link and as per the above discussion external links it should be made absolutely clear when external links contain POV. i.e. if you are going to add an external link you MUST explain its bias. At best its a second party source. see e.g. Third-party source Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now removed the content. It should not be restored until 1) reliable sources are provided and 2) the prose discusses the sources in a neutral manner.Polyamorph (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If we add the link and qualify that it provides an Islamic perspective of the Big Bang, I do not see what the problem is with adding the url as an external link. In my opinion this will improve the article as we are providing another religious perspective. How about that? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In the external links section, done in the same way as the christian references, then yes (unless there are objections), per the previous discussion above. As you say it provides another perspective. But this is not what was done and it's not acceptable as an inline citation, at least not in the manner that it was used, since it wasn't discussed neutrally - which is a pre-requisite for inclusion in wikipedia. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You or User:Justince007 can add the link in and qualify it as being from an Islamic perspective then! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. As ever feel free to make changes you deem suitable. Polyamorph (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks! The first letter in the word "Islamic" might be capitalised, however. I hope you have a nice day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Sorry there was edit conflict)- Thanks all of you,actually I understand wiki rules with its exact concept of meanings,I do not describe those to my own choice.Please you all look at this, is it not reliable source while the article has been picked by an editor,written by someone els,what is then meaning of third party?. Anyhow I have found other reliable sources,discussion will be continued.Now here is midnight,so good night.Justice007 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In general we should try and limit our use of references to third-party sources. The article is written and self published by islamreligion.com. A third party source would be one that discusses the article (or similar article) in proper context, and possibly less biased towards the objectives of the original author. Polyamorph (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)