IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began, or to discuss whether or not the Big Bang model is correct. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. The article is about the Big Bang model, with content based on information presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it or other appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang please do so at BAUT forum or talk.origins.

	Big Bang is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 31, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 23, 2005 Today's featured article Main Page August 22, 2005 Featured article review Kept May 31, 2007 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Belgium FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Science & education FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. United States FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Spoken Wikipedia In Progress

Hi there. I have been working on a project in collaboration with two astrophysicists on the history of the Universe. The aim of the project was to create an educational resource that could bring the full story of the beginning of the universe to people without using that misplaced old metaphor, 'big bang'.

Please click here for the site. What do you think about includign it as an external link for this page?

Thankyou, Amphibio (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted after adding that link to Timeline of the Big Bang, Universe, Creation myth, and List of creation myths, so it's pretty clear the answer is "no". This sort of thing is considered spamming, per the WP:LINKSPAM policy. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that my activities have been interpreted as spamming, although the site exists solely for educational purposes (namely, a clear, accesible explanation of the science of the big bang). The site is relevant to all the topics. I do admit I was being greedy by posting it accross four different articles, and am sorry about that. However, I would like to make the case that it would be a beneficial external link on two pages; either 'big bang' or 'timeline of the big bang', and on the page 'list of creation stories'. Please have a look at the content of the site, and then let me know if it will be reconsidered Amphibio (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a case for your site being suitable to link from cosmology articles, then what you should do is go to WT:AST (the talk page for WikiProject Astronomy), start a new thread at the _bottom_ of the talk page, and make your case. Sign your post with "~~~~". Others will then respond. That said, I expect the response of other editors to be similar to mine (though it's possible I'm mistaken). They'll at least respect the fact that you were polite enough to ask. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that. It has to be said I am new to wikipedia, and did not understand the protocol. Amphibio (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY: "CONSENSUS" Being Considered - 17 Editors *FAVOR* and 19 *OPPOSE* (and 03 *Not Known*) Deleting The Religious-related Section From The Main "Big Bang" Science Article (a/o 08 March 2012,10:00amET/usa).

• FAVOR Deletion: (N=17) -> 203.122.211.169 + 69.86.225.27 + Cadiomals + Hudn12 + Viriditas + Drbogdan + History2007 + John Carter + Christopher Thomas + Polyamorph + Waleswatcher + Kaini + IVAN3MAN + Tivanir2 + Dr Marcus Hill + Gkell1 + ArtifexMayhem
  
• OPPOSE Deletion: (N=19) -> Anupam + Noformation + Geremia + TR + Dilaton + Steve + Gandalf61 + Headbomb + RJH + 70.24.251.71 + James McBride + Adjwilley + Gsonnenf + Lionel + Dilaton + Trystan + TopGun + Diego + Miniapolis
  
• Not Known: (N=03) -> aprock + IRWolfie- + JonRichfield
  

In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be useful to distinguish philosophical interpretations from religious interpretations? Disturbingly, there is no real discrimination made between the two, and I think the reader might imply that the two are indistinguishable. Alternatively, maybe the section as it stands is unnecessary. After all, it deals only with Christian - mostly Catholic - views anyway, and as such does not cover the topic the subheading refers to. Perhaps it could be placed somehow in the 'categories' umbrella? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.211.169 (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with the latter part of this suggestion. The religious interpretations of the Big Bang section is not very comprehensive and more-or-less out-of-date. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be helpful to just remove the section altogether. It doesn't provide a lot of information, and really isn't very useful. Cadiomals (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be helpful to remove the section. There may be a way to link it elsewhere in the article, but it seems really out-of-place and of considerably lower quality than the rest of this very good article. Hudn12 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it would be helpful to remove the section, especially since the Big Bang does have implications of the origins of the universe, as does religion. The section already links to the main article, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, which contains more information. I disagree with the assertion that the section is "considerably lower quality than the rest of this very good article," especially since the section is buttressed with a variety of scholarly sources. However, I am open to suggestions on improving the section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the daughter article: "Lemaître himself always insisted that, as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications". I agree with Hudn12 and Cadiomals. This section serves no purpose. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas, could you please provide a reference for that claim? Also stating that the section serves no purpose without giving a reason is not helpful. If you look at other articles such as evolution, a section on "Social and Cultural Responses" is given. Having a similar section in this article is indeed helpful. By the way, was this article on your watchlist? You haven't ever edited this article before. I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. You have yet to respond to any of the points made in this discussion. Let me summarize them for you to help you focus: 1) religious interpretations is Christian-centric and does not distinguish between philosophy and religion 2) it is neither comprehensive nor current 3) no useful information is given 4) Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. The Big Bang, dealing with the origins of the universe does have philosophical and religious implications, which are discussed in depth here. You cannot simply state that "other stuff exists," while ignoring this fact. I agree that it would be helpful to add a brief summary of other philosophical and religious interpretations, including those of Hinduism, Islam, etc. to the section of the article. Perhaps you could find the sources and add the information? Also, you stated that "Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications." Where is a reliable source for the assertion that you make? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" refers to the weakness of your argument. You do not appear to have addressed any of the points made by other editors. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure what you are talking about. The sentence in the section, which states: "But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological and philosophical implications, most notably, the concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing")" has a total of FIVE references supporting it. I've asked you to provide a reference for your assertion that "Lemaître himself said that as a physical theory, the Big Bang has no religious implications" and you have provided NONE. If you wish to make progress in this discussion, please engage in a friendly dialogue with me rather than dismissing me outright, as I have tried to do with you. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is from the daughter article you are attempting to summarize, as you were previously informed. You seem to be making this about editors rather than the points made by editors. Do you think every religious concept should have a science section? Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Viriditas, you stated "Do you think every religious concept should have a science section?" No, I do not. I also do not think that articles on every science concept should have a section on religion and philosophy. Articles on ulcerative colitis, gravity, etc. should not have such a section. However, the Big Bang, as demonstrated by the five sources in the section, does relate to religion and philosophy, as does the article on evolution (although for different reasons). I know that you stated that your assertion is lifted from the daughter article. However the daughter article does not have a citation for that claim. Since you wish to remove the section (rather than ameliorate it) on that basis, I am asking you to provide a reliable citation that assertion. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured article. We should no be linking to or summarizing an unsourced daughter article. I'm afraid it is you has the burden of proof, not me. I'm prepared to remove the entire section per consensus. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden of proof lies on you since you can't provide a single reference for your assertion on which you wish to remove the section. I've provided five sources and if you remove the section, you will be reverted since consensus has not been reached. This discussion has only been opened for one day. Please allow other users to comment. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus for inclusion, and you have not addressed any of the problems. Feel free to improve the main article and address the concerns raised in this discussion, but stop asking others to do your homework. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. I've provided five sources that discuss the relationship of the Big Bang to religion and philosophy and they are currently contained within the article. You are asserting a claim that you can't even provide a reference for it! As such, you're trying to remove a sourced section from the article because you don't like it. Doing so is repugnant and contrary to how this encyclopaedia operates. Moreover, I have worked on this article, unlike yourself, who followed me here simply to oppose me. This kind of disruptive behaviour is not warranted. Once again, allow others to comment. I may start an RfC next week if others have not commented. In the mean time, do not remove a longstanding section from the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is how Wikipedia works, and you've added content back into this article that is narrow, out of date, and is linked to an unsourced article. Five editors support the removal and only one (you) support keeping it. You've been told that the material has problems and needs to be fixed but you refuse to do the work. So, it appears you are ignoring consensus, ignoring the comments of others, and edit warring to push a POV. Yes, that is not how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being that religion is a product of mankind attempting to explain the universe, and that the big bang is the actual explanation of the beginning of the universe, I think that these particular topics are interwoven and would be surprised to not see a religious interpretations section. It shouldn't, of course, be phrased in such a way that it gives any sort of credence to the religious view, but the views - if published in notable reliable sources - should be included. I can see how it would be problematic for an FA to use a daughter article, and I can also see the lower quality of writing in this section vs. the others. So I would recommend keeping a section on the topic but making it better (and this can mean removing the section and rewriting it). Expanding it to include other religious interpretations would also be good. I do have to stress though that the sources must be academic, and if there are academic sources on the matter then it means that someone with a PHD who is more qualified than us has seen fit to write about it, and so it would be audacious for us to ignore it. N^oformation ^Talk 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Noformation, thanks for your comment. I agree that the section is indeed relevant but should be expanded to include other viewpoints, as I indicated above. Would you like to make the additions? If not, I have some free time next weekend in which I can improve the section with other philosophical and religious opinion. My academic qualifications would allow me to do so. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk

Please stop asking other editors to take over your burden of proof. You are welcome to use your user space to work on a version of the section and unsourced daughter article as your free time permits, but a mainspace featured article is not a sandbox. I also have serious concerns about the content and the sources already in use. Per the consensus of five editors, the material should stay removed until it is ready for mainspace. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not my field of expertise so I will leave it to you and others to make the necessary changes. N^oformation ^Talk 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Noformation, thanks for your comment! I will give more time for others here to comment and next weekend, I will add more views to the section. Perhaps you could take a look at it then and offer any advice you have for improvements. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (and at the moment) -> I Agree with the Editors who think the "Big Bang" Article should be about the Scientific aspects of the "Big Bang" only - after all, the "Big Bang" began (and continues) as a Scientific notion (and Scientific fact - at least insofar as our current Scientific evidences can determine) - OTOH, the "Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory" Article should be about the Religious (including philosophical and non-scientific) aspects only - Links between the two Articles could be added to the relevant "See Also" Sections - this may all make the overall discussion of the "Big Bang" notion clearer and more understandable - and (imo) more encyclopedic - at least to the usual Wikipedia reader - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If scholarly sources talk about religious interpretations of the big bang then we have to represent that in this article in some fashion per WP:NPOV, even if it's just a parhraph with a link to the daughter article. The main big bang should include mention of any substantial subarticle as it is technically the parent article. N^oformation ^Talk 01:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are probably already aware, the mere existence of sources does not imply inclusion. We do not "have" to represent any view per NPOV. We have to represent established and minority views in proportion to their coverage on the topic. Anupam seems to be cherry picking sources to argue that the Big Bang is bringing people closer to God. However, that is an undue representation. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but if academics are writing on a particular topic it's a good indicator it's relevant for an encyclopedia. I'm not talking popular sources here, I'm talking experts in the relevant fields. Regarding Anupam's sources in specific I have nothing to say since I haven't gotten deep into this. Nothing I've written should indicate that I support Anupam's sources in specific, nor any particular text for the section. My only point is that if there are scholarly sources on the subject then we should talk about it in some capacity. N^oformation ^Talk 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should probably start looking at them. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Anupam but I think the religious implications are way, way out. They make both physics and religion look bad - and make Wikipedia look way out too. Most of the credible encyclopedias would have passed on this. I think the most that can be done is a See also at the end - even if that. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it might be worth, I tend to agree with History2007 here. I myself tend to think that maybe, while the subject itself seems to be to notable and worthy of inclusion somewhere, it might be better placed in an article dealing more broadly with scientific views of creation and the religious interpretation of them. I think the more recent multiple-universe theory also has been said to have some specific religious implications, and I suppose the steady-state theory might as well, and it might be best to place all such material in one article, with, maybe, a short statement in the other relevant articles and a link to it. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the First Cause (God) is mentioned, that does not mean we are not dealing strictly with natural theology, a branch of philosophy. Some interpret the moment the bang occurred ~14 billion years ago with the single act of creation of the universe by its First Cause. This is Deism, which holds that the First Cause only provides the initial conditions of the universe and that the universe can then exist on its own without the First Cause causing, moving, or changing it anymore. Theism holds that there is just as much creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing") now as at the moment of the "Big Bang" because the First Cause is necessary to sustain beings in existence at every moment of their existence. Also, the question "Can the First Cause create out of nothing eternal matter, or does the First Cause have to create matter within time?" is a philosophical one that, e.g., Thomas Aquinas discusses in his short work De Æternitate Mundi (On the Eternity of the World), in which he concludes that it must be held on faith whether or not matter is eternal. In short, I suggest renaming the section "Philosophical and religious interpretations." —Geremia (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to clarify that theism and deism can be argued both from a religious perspective and from a philosophical perspective. This is why this section should be renamed "Philosophical and religious interpretations."—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the thread at WT:PHYS, I am offering my comments. I think this section should be removed, as it contributes nothing at all to the description of the Big Bang. Instead, it represents religions trying awkwardly to shoehorn religious texts into a form that doesn't outright contradict the model. Any content of this type should instead be folded into their respective religion articles, not here. If there was a single article about religious views about the creation of the world (the equivalent of the creation myth article, but for active religions; counterpart to the eschatology article), then it might be noteworthy enough for a link in the "see also" section, but that's it. Having the section in the Big Bang article does not contribute - at all - to understanding of the Big Bang model, which is what this article is supposed to be about. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. From the very beginning, the reception of the theory has been affected by its possible religious implications. (Early resistance to the theory from the scientific community was partly because it was perceived as religiously motivated, a sentiment not helped by the fact the theory was embraced by the vatican early on.) Having this section contributes to the understanding of the social reception of the theory, which is relevant to cover.TR 08:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is certainly true. One reason the Steady State Model, which the Big Bang theory then superseded, was so popular is that considering matter eternal appears to rule out the need for searching for a First Cause.—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Christopher Thomas that this adds nothing for a reader interested in physics, but I would go further. It presence makes Wikipedia look silly. I think you can add a sentence in the history section or the notes that that Lemaître was a priest, and in the early days people said it was a religious theory and leave it at that, then a See also link. And the whole page on Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory is a mess itself. So no point in promoting a link to a junk-text page. And the subsection (although title-painted as philosophy) is not written s such, and does not mention Hindu, Islam etc. And Aquinas had probably never heard of the Big Bang, and that seems like a real stretch. This is really another one of those "surrogate debates about God" that in the end go nowhere. Most theologians do not understand the physics, and most physicists do not agree with the theology of this. A See also is all that it deserves. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the current text could be moved to the article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory as it seems better sourced than most of what is in that article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied the other article up a bit and removed the most glaring OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. This text is better suited there, and that other page needs serious clean up. I think 1% (or less) of those who click on Bigbang are looking for half-baked theology anyway, so might as well ship it there with a See also item, for those who want it. History2007 (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the article to be comprehensive I think some small mention should be made in the Motivation and development section (possibly with it being renamed. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory page is irrelevant to whether this article should link to it. The reception of a theory by society is relevant to the page on the theory. There is nothing silly about mentioning it on Wikipedia, especially since it is discussed in plenty of sources. (In fact, if the article did not cover it, it would blatantly fail the FA criteria, since it is not comprehensive!) Of course, since this article is long and covers a lot of ground, this is not the place to go into depth. The normal course of action in such situations is to have a short section of one or two paragraphs and a {{main}} article link to an article that goes more into depth. (see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) This is would the article currently does, and that is perfectly fine.TR 12:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Christopher Thomas (and came here from the post at WT:PHYS). Since religions have no basis in science or reason it doesn't belong here. I support moving the content to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Polyamorph (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, "theism and deism can be argued both from a religious perspective and from a philosophical perspective [the latter a branch of philosophy called natural theology]. This is why this section should be renamed "Philosophical and religious interpretations."—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no philosophy related content in that section so a renaming seems pointless.IRWolfie- (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creatio ex nihilo is mentioned, and this can be argued with a strictly logical approach that is not based upon divine revelation.—Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Christopher Thomas and support deleting the section (or merging it with the main article on religion): As it stands, that section is the only part of this article that is not about science, which is what makes it stick out like a sore thumb so badly. If we're going to include a section on religious interpretations, why not a section on philosophical interpretations, or on the big bang in popular culture, or on the TV show? I don't think including all those things is a good idea - it would clutter up the article. On that basis I think we should make this article strictly about the scientific theory. The religious article could be linked to in a "See Also" section at the bottom, if desired. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it should discuss at least the philosophical issues Big Bang theory brings up. Philosophy is no less scientific than modern science.—Geremia (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Philosophy is not scientific at all, it is a completely different discipline. Philosophy does not follow the scientific method. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "philosophy" is a much-abused word, I agree. The way I am using it here is more akin to the traditional definition of scientia as "certain knowledge through causes" or "certain, evident knowledge obtained by reasoning only from indisputable principles."—Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition of "an experiment" in philosophy is drinking a cup of coffee and scratching one's beard... somewhat different from high energy physics - also see falsifiability for a discussion of that. History2007 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"An experiment" in the modern scientific sense is a subset of experience, the former not being possible without the latter. —Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a suggestion to those who argue for inclusion: Don't fight the tape. It is going in the See also, with a small mention as IRW said. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, going back to the OP's comment that "there is no real discrimination made between" the "religious interpretations" and the "philosophical interpretations," does this mean we should not include at least the "philosophical interpretations"? That's like saying: "Religious people believe God creates the universe; but scientists study the universe; therefore, we cannot mention science because it studies something related to God." Also, the philosophical issues may have played a role for some in choosing to adopt the Big Bang theory over the Steady State Model, so it pertains to this article. —Geremia (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geremia, that is true, as the Big Bang was banned under the Communism of the USSR (reference), and also under the Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedong (reference). Would you be willing to add some more information to the section regarding philosophy? I think one thing everyone here would agree on is that the section should include more viewpoints rather than just Christianity alone. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drbogdan, thanks for your comments. I noticed you removed the longstanding section but then were reverted by another user. I would let this discussion run a few days before removing the section in order to get more feedback. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam Thank you for your comment - it's *very much* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for your contributions! With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Polyamorph and others: split the information off into the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article. Kaini (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really sure exactly what is being debated here, but the religious do make a fuss about the Big Bang, and it's no small fuss they are making about it. As such, I'm against removing the section, because as an overview article on the big bang, it should summarize all or nearly all encyclopedic aspects of the Big Bang, and that includes the religious and philosophical reactions (renaming the section to 'Religious and philosophical reactions/responses' would be much better than 'theological implications', IMO) similar to how it's done on Evolution (which IMO is spot on how such a section should be dealt with). Maybe the section could be re-written or expanded, but removing it entirely does a disservice to the reader. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no mention of philosophical reactions so I don't see why it would be renamed to that. The question for me is whether a whole section is due in the article to the topic. The first paragraph appears to be almost purely historical about the initial controversy of steady state vs big bang, this could go into the initial section of the article. The remaining paragraph doesn't really say much (some accept it, some don't). The poor summing up is also probably due to the dire state of the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the religious implications section should be kept, and is acceptable in its current state. Even though this seems out of place for a scientific theory, the information is relavent to its history and development.-Dilaton (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's relevant - but the question is how much space should be devoted to it. The possibilities range from none, to a "see also" link at the end, to a sentence or two in the text as proposed above, to an entire section. For the reasons I already articulated, I think an entire section is unbalanced and too much. I would support something along the lines of History2007's proposal: "I think you can add a sentence in the history section or the notes that that Lemaître was a priest, and in the early days people said it was a religious theory and leave it at that, then a See also link." Waleswatcher (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping the section at its current length (couple paragraphs).

It was argued that this article should be only about "scientific aspects of the Big Bang", but I see no reason for this. The article title is "Big Bang", and readers will (and should) expect that all important aspects of the Big Bang should be discussed or mentioned. The historical development of Big Bang Theory, for example, is not a "scientific aspect of the Big Bang", but is nevertheless discussed in this article, and no one has proposed to delete it.

The question of whether or not the Big Bang contradicts the beliefs of major religious is quite important to many readers, and is also important according to the criterion of whether reliable sources bring it up. Therefore it warrants more than a "See also" link. The current two-paragraph section seems about right. I like the section as is, but certainly wouldn't mind a more worldwide perspective, and/or a broadening of scope to "Theological and philosophical". (Might warrant a third paragraph.)

Whether or not theology in general, and theology related to the Big Bang in particular, is a load of baloney is quite irrelevant. I don't believe in astrology, but think it's reasonable that the article on the star Rigel mentions that it is in the constellation Orion. I don't believe that the Ganges river has sacred mystic powers but I am happy for the article on the Ganges to discuss the fact that it is sacred in Hinduism. For better or worse, religion is an important thing in the world and should not be arbitrarily declared outside the scope of articles like this. --Steve (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang is not a topic of religious discourse, nor is it discussed in their holy books or in their meeting places. The historical development of the theory is quite relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Whether there is a contradiction between the Big Bang and religious theories of creation is by all accounts a fringe topic. Most religious bodies recognize no such contradiction. The problem is not that religion is unimportant, the problem is that religion has nothing important to say on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, the Big Bang is a topic of religious discourse, discussed at their meeting places. For example, "Pope Pius XII declared, at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation". Right? Are you denying even that? Or do you mean to say, "The Big Bang is not a major topic of religious discourse"? This is a very good source...there is plenty discussion of this issue which is not fringe ramblings. --Steve (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of literalism is not helpful. Which churches discuss the topic of the Big Bang on Sunday? None. This is not a topic of religious discourse. That religious authorities have an opinion on everything under the Sun is to be expected. But you don't find Buddists and Jews discussing it during meditation and prayer, nor do you find Muslims conversing about it in their mosques. That the Pope made a statement of a few words in 1951 does not merit inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a little time over the last day trying to find some decent sources that discuss this topic but I haven't found anything I would feel comfortable with including. Most of what I found was published in books that I don't think would muster past WP:FRINGE because they are essentially attempting to reconcile the science of the big bang with views like a 6000 year old creation. Perhaps it's my search terms, coupled with my lack of familiarity into this narrow subject of religion, but I'm at a loss.

However, I don't think the section as it stands now is as problematic as it's made to seem, nor do I think that religious interpretations of the big bang is a fringe topic per se. All scientific theories have philosophical consequences in some sense or another. That we don't exist in a geocentric universe, for instance, completely alters the path of our philosophical discourse; evolution, too, necessarily changes the way we must look at the world. So I'm still of the opinion that a section discussing the philosophical implications of the big bang (with religion being considered a narrow subset of philosophy, albeit not taken seriously by philosophers outside of theology). With this in mind, I'm going to attempt to find some sources that discuss it from a philosophical point of view when I'm on campus next week.

The argument that this is a science article and therefore there should be nothing but science is not in line with WP practices. Per NPOV we publish all significant viewpoints that are represented by reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. Of course we would not use non-scientific sourcing to contradict or even any science, but explaining the philosophical interpretations is the job of philosophers, not of scientists (full disclosure: I'm working on a double major in biochemistry and philosophy with a focus on epistemology :)), and if academic philosophers have seen fit to write about the subject then it's our job to include those views - such is the very essence of NPOV.

Lastly, because this is obviously a point of contention, I suggest calling an RFC on the subject to get some wider community input. As it stands, there is a majority on one side, but we are not a WP:DEMOCRACY and there are points on both sides that may need further consideration from fresh eyes. N^oformation ^Talk 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think an RfC is a very good idea; i've said in the past that i think that they're underused, and this seems to me to be an almost textbook application of what they're actually intended for. Kaini (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of deleting this section on the grounds that it really isn't all that useful in this scientific article especially the way it currently is. It may be long standing but that doesn't mean its right to be here. Cadiomals (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC text proposal

I plan on calling an RFC on the matter and would like to get input on how best to phrase the question. This is my preliminary thought:

"A number of editors have proposed that a long standing section of the article dealing with religious interpretations be removed on the basis that non-scientific aspects of the big bang are irrelevant to the main article. Other editors believe that the article cannot strictly be scientific in nature if significant reliable sourcing exists on the subject of philosophical and religious interpretations.

The question posed in this RFC is: Does the fact that the big bang is a major scientific theory indicate that our article on the big bang can only be about the scientific aspect of it, in contrast to social, religious, philosophial, et al, interpretations and reactions?"

This is what I've come up with so far. Is it acceptable or would anyone like to make suggestions? N^oformation ^Talk 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as-written that would generate far more heat than light. I've found that questions work best if they're simple and if it's clear how their answers should be reflected in the article. My own suggestion would be something along the lines of the following:

• (v1) "Should the Big Bang article contain a section about religious interpretations of the Big Bang?" (the main point of contention)
• (v2) "How much space in the Big Bang article should be devoted to religious interpretations of the Big Bang?" (allows responses other than yes/no, but the downside is that you'll get a large number of different proposals)

"Philosphical interpretations" in this context is a red herring. That information hasn't been contested, or really even _present_, in the section in question over most of its tenure. The conflict is over the religious content, so make the RFC about it, so that it can finally be settled. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Noformation's suggestion. And also, we should include "philosophical interpretations" since the discussion above mentioned the inclusion of other philosophical views in that section. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I'm completely ok with your proposed wording. The only thing I'm interested in is whether the point gets across and though I think my wording does, yours does just as well. You're not proposing to disclude my introduction to the issue though, are you? I ask because I think the questions in isolation are hard to understand in context. I have no problem with a rewrite of my intro either, just want to make sure that you don't want to exclude it completely. N^oformation ^Talk 10:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Noformation - it is important to have an intro to give a context for the questions. And, specifically, the intro should mention the status quo, which is that the main article contains a short section on religious interpretations, with a link to a second article with more detailed information. Cards on the table - I am in favour of keeping the short religious interpretations section in the main article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the context of the brief introductory statement should also state the facts: the sources in the proposed summary style section have not been vetted for authority, relevance, or accuracy, and the main article in question is presently tagged for maintenance, including cleanup, lack of sources, and original research. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is relevant. The questions as posed by Chris are more hypothetical in nature and don't refer specifically to the section now. The point of the RFC is essentially to get feedback as to whether such a section should exist if sources are available, it doesn't have to be the sources or section we have now. It's a good idea to establish this early on, as there's no sense in spending time writing the section if it can't be included anyway. N^oformation ^Talk 23:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's don't deal in hypothetical what ifs; they deal with the current state of the article. In this case, we have a featured article using a summary style section whose sources haven't been properly vetted and whose parent article has three major maintenance tags, two of which are a year old. An RFC that asks "what if" is useless and is a breach of process. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are comments in the previous section essentially saying that because this is a science article it can only have science in it and that's just not in line with current practices. If we get the "if" question out of the way we can deal with the "what." Still, I would recommend that Anupam or some other interested party get some decent sources to start working with. N^oformation ^Talk 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, would you mind point out to me where in WP policy it states that RFCs cannot be hypothetical? I looked through WP:RFC and see nothing on the subject there. Thanks. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question you meant to ask is, "point out to me where in WP policy it states that RFCs can be hypothetical?" Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no it was not. We are not limited as editors to not do something until it is expressly allowed. If you're going to make the assertion that I can't call an RFC because it's hypothetical in nature you need to have a policy that backs that up. N^oformation ^Talk 08:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed wording from Christopher Thomas is nice and succint - but perhaps including the intro to give it some context would be sensible. As for philosophical interpretations, I agree with CT, there is no content on philosophical interpretations in the article and until there is there is not really anything to discuss, unless you want to propose the creation of new material - which isn't really the purpose of an RFC. Polyamorph (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Christopher Thomas re a proposed RFC - esp "v1" -> "Should the Big Bang article contain a section about religious interpretations of the Big Bang?" - the main issue in discussion - a brief intro (as noted by Gandalf61, Viriditas and Polyamorph) may also be in order - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have said, the v1 wording in particular would be most suitable in my opinion. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Christopher Thomas' short version. I don't think the long version accurately summarizes the issue. I don't agree that religion is irrelevant to an article on the big bang, but I think devoting an entire section on it gives it undue weight, especially when it focuses on Catholicism and in the absence of other connections to non-scientific topics. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you won't object to the addition of a religion section to many-worlds interpretation and the formation and evolution of the Solar System. Perhaps we should mandate religion sections for every scientific theory. After all, everyone knows that the church is only used for discussing scientific theories. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would object to adding such sections on the same grounds I object to this one. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources discuss religious interpretations of the many-words interpretation then why wouldn't we include it? I don't think such sources exist, but again, if academics are writing about something then it's simply our job to report it, not to second guess the experts. N^oformation ^Talk 23:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you are repeating the whole "it's our job to unquestioningly report" myth as it has been repeatedly debunked time and time again. I can't blame you, as many people continue to misunderstand what "verifiability, not truth" means. No, it is not our job to simply report what sources say. Our job is to evaluate the sources for authority, relevancy, currency, and accuracy, and to make an informed decision as to whether to report what the sources say or not. We're not robots. And just because an academic writes about something, doesn't mean we automatically include it. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas, being a theory that discusses the origins of the universe, many sources do discuss the Big Bang in relation to religion and philosophy. This distinguishes this theory, in particular, from other scientific theories. Another scientific concept, evolution does have a section on "Social and Cultural Responses." Why aren't you advocating its removal? I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Please name the author and title of the best source you have on the subject of the Big Bang that discusses and highlights the importance of religion and philosophy. Just one please. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more than 80000 books discussing the subject. Have fun.TR 16:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a Google search return answer the question I have asked? I'll ask it again: please name the author and title of the best source you have on the subject of the Big Bang that discusses and highlights the importance of religion and philosophy. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a legitimate reply because you're holding a double standard. There are SEVERAL sources which discuss the Big Bang and include its philosophical implications: see the current section in the article. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it entirely backwards. Your response is not a legitimate argument. Other stuff exists. We're discussing this article. Which definitive source on this subject should I review? Please provide the author and title. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that verifiability is the threshold and is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Yes it is our job to make sure that sources that go in have been properly vetted via the guidelines at WP:RS, and I don't disagree that we need to make sure our sources are relevant authorities. I'm not saying that anyone can publish anything and that we have to report it, this is a definite newbie mistake. What I'm saying is that if high quality, academic sources published in academic presses exist on the subject and have made an impact in their relative field, then it's our job to report it. My apologies for not being more specific, I sometimes assume that the regulars will kind of read into what I'm saying wrt policy but I can understand that from your perspective this myth is widely propagated and comes up even among regular editors. So yeah, if the Harvard theology department is publishing literature regarding theological interpretations of the big bang (and I'm definitely not talking books here because I found some pretty ridiculous stuff in the popular press published by otherwise reputable professors) then I would think that it surpasses our threshold for inclusion by quite a bit. For another example, let's say the Pope wrote a statement saying that the catholic church has no problems with the big bang, and then offered their interpretation, I would say that should be included too. Not because the pope is an authority on science, but because the statement would have a large impact on millions of people throughout the world and the Pope is an authority on catholicism (and surely this would be published in many, many sources). I would never advocate that any source be used if it tried to paint the science as incorrect and then offered their own "science" in rebuttal - that is patently different.

Sorry for the somewhat long post, btw. Noformation Talk 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK at the moment - religious authorities (greatly influential or not) have no scientific standing whatsoever in a scientific discussion - religion and science basically are much too far apart - as Stephen Hawking well noted, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, (and) science, which is based on observation and reason..." - accordingly (and imo), there is no room scientifically in the "Big Bang" article for "religious (or related) interpretations" - esp by religious authorities - preserving such a non-scientific section seems less than worthy - for an otherwise worthy encyclopedic effort of a worthy scientific subject - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a lot of this discussion should be happening in the RFC, not in the discussion of the phrasing of the question to ask. That's the purpose of an RFC: to solicit comments from the community, hopefully including well-thought-out arguments based on Wikipedia policy (and for content, on available sources).

That's also why I'm reluctant to put anything along the lines of "because of policy X, Y, and Z" in the question itself: that would steer conversation, putting a spin on the issue that should be argued on a per-responder basis rather than built in to the question itself.

Here's my v3 proposal; it's a little longer, but it attempts to give at least a little context with minimal bias:

• (v3) There is a section in the Big Bang article discussing religious views of the Big Bang model. The presence and content of this section have been the subject of frequent debate ([1][2][3][4]). To clarify consensus regarding content of the Big Bang article, the editors of that article ask the community to comment on the following question: Should the Big Bang article discuss religious interpretations of the Big Bang, and if so, how much space is appropriate to devote to that topic?

It's not perfect, but neither were my previous suggestions. It's the job of the editors commenting to provide opinions backed up by policy, not the people phrasing the question. This isn't a vote per se; instead, the editor closing the RFC gives opinions weight by the degree to which they're supported by policy-based arguments. For a topic this contentious about an article this high-profile, it might be worth asking for a triple-admin close (three uninvolved administrators familiar with policy perform the close, so that policy is properly taken into account and there are fewer allegations of bias or improper closure). This is unusual, but it does happen (usually for RFCs with a lot more drama than this one, but I'm playing it safe). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The long and short of this is that after all the Rfc etc. there will be a See also reference with a very small mention somewhere. The religious angle is so far out fringe that the community at large will see through that. So do provide that option somehow to minimize the time wasted during the Rfc. I do wish people would avoid the Rfc, just use a See also, and go and improve the physics articles instead. This is an example of how technical content suffers in Wikipedia as a result of time channeled to dealing with fringe, semi-scientific views. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this continues to be vigorously debated, says to me that that is not certain to be the outcome. The whole point of an RFC is to find _out_ what the community, and wikipedia policies, say should be done about this content issue. At this point, that seems like about the only thing that will resolve the argument (to most peoples' dissatisfaction, no matter which direction it goes, but at least it can then stop being debated quite so often).

The option of having a "see also" and nothing else is already covered in the RFC question I proposed (v3). Answers to the question might range anywhere from "no, it should not be discussed at all", to "mentioned only in the form of a see also link", to "mentioned as a sentence somewhere", to "mentioned as a paragraph in a larger section about society's reactions/views", to "given its own full section". I certainly know which option _I'd_ prefer, but everyone here seems to have their own view on the matter. I expect we'll get quite a wide variety of responses in the RFC, too. That's why I chose my phrasing to not exclude any of these options. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you guys roll the Rfc dice and spend time on this. I will not watch this any more. In 30 days I will take a look. And I bet you 5 to 1 that there will be no large religious text here in 45 days, for users at large will rightly see it as "far out fringe" in the end. Fringe usually gets defended, it does not usually survive. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v3 looks fine to me, except that I would replace "discussing"/"discuss" with "mentioning"/"mention". The religious interpretations section does not discuss religious interpretations at length (nor should it) - it just mentions some of the most notable ones. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and since there seems to be enough broad support, I've gone ahead and created the RFC. I _think_ I got the listing template right, but I'll check the relevant bot-maintained lists just to be sure. Assuming everything's working, I'll post a link to the RFC at WT:PHYS and WT:AST tonight. I've cross-categorized it as both a "science" and "religion" RFC, to avoid accusations of biasing the response pool. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in the Big Bang article discussing religious views of the Big Bang model. The presence and content of this section have been the subject of frequent debate ([5][6][7][8]). To clarify consensus regarding content of the Big Bang article, the editors of that article ask the community to comment on the following question: Should the Big Bang article mention religious interpretations of the Big Bang, and if so, how much space is appropriate to devote to that topic?

--Christopher Thomas (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, this RfC could be phrased: "Should this article continue to retain a section discussion religious and philosophical implications of the Big Bang?" "Should the current section be expanded to include other religious and philosophical implications?" Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

• Mention in "see also" only. The purpose of the article is to describe the Big Bang model to readers. This section does not contribute towards that goal. At best, its function is along the lines of an "in popular culture" section; those sections tend to be discouraged. While broader cultural comment on a topic can sometimes be noteworthy, in this case devoting an entire section to religious interpretation appears to give the subject undue weight. Open any high school science textbook, and you'll see mention of the Big Bang. Open any bible (or other holy book), and you won't. Religious commentary on the Big Bang (as a specific topic of commentary) is a specialized topic with relatively little impact in society as a whole. A one-line entry in the "see also" section should be sufficient to reflect this. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand Section Being a scientific concept that pertains to the origins of the universe, the Big Bang is related to philosophy and religion. Numerous academic sources, when discussing the Big Bang, also take the time to discuss these implications and the effect they have had on history. As a result, Wikipedia should take the time to do so as well. The current section in the article, however, should be expanded to include other philosophical and religious interpretations mentioned in the main article of discussion of this subject, located here. In addition, articles on scientific concepts such as evolution, also take the time to discuss similar implications (e.g. example), setting a precedent for the case here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rework/Expand Section. Encyclopedias should be comprehensive and give due weight to everything related to the scope of the article. Any article that fails to mention and discuss the significant impact the Big Bang theory made in various theological circles or religion in general would be incomplete and undeserving of the Feature Article status. The gold standard for this stuff is Evolution#Social and cultural responses dealing with the exact same situation, but in Biology. We should aim to achieve that level of coverage (entire books [e.g. http://books.google.ca/books?id=N3mHJlxA3PcC] have been written about the topic) not hide it out of some kind of misplaced sense that acknowledging that this had an impact on the religious world is recognized those religion viewpoints as valid. And for the record, I'm about as hard an atheist as it gets.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Some level of coverage of this topic seems appropriate per WP:DUE. By way of comparison, the mainly science-oriented Earth article has a section presenting the cultural viewpoint, which includes some mention of non-scientific creation mythologies. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Make it brief, keep it a subarticle since it's a scientific theory, and there are many religious interpretations and criticisms of it, a separate article on that is better than having a large section here. Since we have a subarticle for it, there's no reason to have a big section here. It is a bad idea to duplicate Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory here. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles on scientific theories should not just describe the scientific content of a theory, but also discuss the historical and social context and impact of the theory. In the case of the big bang theory, this means discussing the impact that the theory has had on theological discussion. About 8% with the books indexed by google books that mention the "Big bang" also discuss religion. So it seem WP:DUE to have a discussion on the subject in the article. The best option IMHO is a short (one or two paragraph) WP:SUMMARY style section with a main article link to Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. The current section may need some remodelling to make it more balanced, towards other religions. (Although in English literature it seems, the implications for christian religions is most discussed.)TR 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the section as a summary section, with detail in the linked sub-article. It is a notable significant and well-documented aspect of the topic, so it should be mentioned in line with WP:DUE. A Wikipedia article on a scientific theory should include significant views on that theory from other cultural and social domains.Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all mention of religious interpretations in this article, since religions have no basis in science or reason it doesn't belong here - a scientific article on the nature of the Big Bang theory. I support moving the content to the pre-existing Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory where it belongs and linking to the article in the See Also section. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename it "Philosophical & religious interpretations". See my comments above and my three scientific articles cited below. —Geremia (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the spin off article can not justify it's own existence and should be merged into the section (effectively just a redirect a this stage). 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mention in See Also only That section sticks out like a sore thumb, and that's because it violates WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW. If the article isn't just about science, why should it mention Catholicism and the pope but not Buddism, Hinduism, etc? Why mention religion but not the TV show The Big Bang Theory, or science fiction, or the movie The Tree of Life, or the implications for academic philosophy, or other popular culture connections? If we add all of that with due weight given to religion/Catholicism, the article will be diluted, too long, and significantly worse than it is now. Let this article be about the science, with See Also links to articles on the big bang in religion etc. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention in "See Also" only - per my earlier comments above -> science articles, including the main Big Bang article, should be "science only" - links to related non-scientific articles may be in a "See Also" section - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the bloody section for the reason I have stated here – religious interpretations of the Big Bang are just a load of old bollocks! Signed – IVAN3MAN (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That they are load of bollocks is beside the point and not a reason for suppressing the section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Brief mention, split the majority off into the 'religious interpretations of...' article - and perhaps add a hatnote as well? It would shorten this (already quite long) article - improving readability - and also improve the 'religious interpretations' article which is rather lacking at present. Kaini (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rework/expand, per the reasons listed by Headbomb. As pointed out, there is significant coverage of this Big Bang sub-topic. I think a link to the religious interpretations article, and a couple of solid paragraphs summarizing religious interpretations, is appropriate. James McBride (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think a couple of paragraphs are certainly permitted by WP:NPOV, which states that we should represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. I think it has been demonstrated that there are many published reliable sources discussing the theological impact of the Big Bang theory. Also, in response to a comment above, I think trying to limit the many sources talking about the big bang to purely scientific sources (like school science textbooks) goes against WP policy. (If you turn the argument around, it's against WP policy to have a religious-themed article without some scientific discussion of the topic, if there exists a significant amount of scientific literature on the topic.) Also, I would reject calling the section WP:FRINGE, since it's not a competing theory, but a short discussion of the impact the big bang theory has had on religion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, religious interpretations The interpretation of the big bang by religions with billions of members is of immense interest and encyclopedic knowledge. Put it under the religious interpretations heading, as it should not be mixed with scientific inquiry.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. We have an article on religious cosmology and editors are welcome to use it. Judging by the lack of reliable sources and preponderance of original research, there is no such thing as a "religious interpretation of the Big Bang", only religious Wikipedia editors trying to force religion into science. Religious people do not discuss the Big Bang in religious terms in their places of worship nor in their holy books. The Big Bang is a scientific model, not a religious belief, and this is treated by the Encyclopædia Britannica without any discussion of religion. The topic of theology and science should be covered by good sources. It should not be forced into scientific articles without good reason. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand: Based on reliable sources it is apparent that including the section passes WP:DUE. Having the section here is in alignment with WP:SUMMARY since the article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory exists. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With "implications" but not "interpretations." Also, no specific religion need be emphasized. The current middle paragraph on what the Pope proclaimed... should be deleted.-Dilaton (talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to point out that Religious Theories on the Big Bang could very well be its own article if people really want to learn about such, this article in my mind should deal more with the cosmic implications of the big bang. Any religion attempting to incorporate into the article how it plays into their faith is going to need a lot of room and potentially derail the focus on the big bang itself. Would individuals be happier with starting a new article on how different religions interprete the big bang separate from this one? Tivanir2 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory already exists and I among others think that's where it belongs, not in a scientific article on the theory of the Big Bang. Polyamorph (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While articles on scientific topics should have a dominant scientific focus, I don't think brief, summary-style sections on the social impacts or mythologizing of the subject are unwarranted (cf. Sun#Early understanding). I wouldn't particularly object to sections about how the Big Bang is addressed philosophically or portrayed in fiction either. Though such sections should be kept brief, and if overall length becomes a problem, they should be among the first candidates to be relegated to the See Also list. Here, I think the middle paragraph in particular should go. We can't provide an overview of all major world religion's many views on the subject, and shouldn't just pick two at random.--Trystan (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Adjwilley and my comments in the discussion leading up to this RFC. N^oformation ^Talk 03:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mention in "see also" only. There are any number of ways to be wrong, I don't see the reason to privilege the wrongness that happens to be the result of religion by giving it space in an article on a scientific topic. Keep it in Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and expand with respect to all major religions that have views on this. This is per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Adding just scientific content will not cover all points of view. As Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory already exists as a child article as well, this definitely makes it a part of this article per WP:MOS and WP:SUMMARY as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:UNDUE. This article covers a topic in science and should not be disrupted by the distractions of "religious interpretations" that have no bearing on the theory being described. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a one- or two-paragraph section, on account of TR's "8% of google books" figure. I think Polyamorph's suggestion and the ensuing discussion are on the right track. --Steve (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand per Headbomb and rename to Social and cultural responses, just like in the Evolution article. People saying this should be only a scientific article are wrong, this entry-point article should be about all possible ways to focus on the topic (cultural, historical, technical, phylosophical). If the article gets too long, the juicy bits (Observational evidence, design of experiments... and yes, religious interpretations) could be forked to their own articles and briefly summarized in this overview. Diego (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from religion what are the other (referenced) social and cultural responses? Polyamorph (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything from Cosmological_constant#History seems relevant, for a start. (We should continue this conversation below). Diego (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK but surely that's relevant to the pre-existing History and development section. Also the section you linked to is uncited (there is one reference but it is a deadlink). OK speak to you below! :)Polyamorph (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep present version, with its link to the detailed article. Miniapolis (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I also believe the information about the religious views should remain in the article, at least in its current form (although it could also be expanded a bit). The theory is dealing with the beginning of the unvierse, which is an important topic for many religions, and as the following book (published by the Cambridge University Press) also shows, initial resistance against the theory was also because of the religious implications the "beginning of the universe" had. The same book also states that the "Big Bang" theory generated "one of the liveliest areas of contemporary science–religion interchange".Cody7777777 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

• Anupam is quick to link to a Google search return listing "numerous academic sources" for this topic, but is unable to point to a single source that best represents this subject. So, I will ask him once again: if you had to choose one single source that best represents the intersection between the Big Bang and religion, which source would it be? Please list the name of the author and the title of the work. This is a very simple request. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas, would you like me to format those numerous academic sources in MLA for you? I, along with other editors, have pointed you to the same link numerous times but you refuse to acknowledge the references (see WP:IDONTHEARTHAT). However, I will format one reference for you. You can look through the link to see the others. One example of a reference, User:Viriditas, is the following: Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God by Willem B. Drees. Published by Open Court Publishing Company (April 1, 1990). In addition, other sources are found in the current section of the article. There are also several popular references designed by scientists discussing the topic, such as this one. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment out of your busy day of proselytizing on Wikipedia and familiarize yourself with WP:V, where source requests and verification are part of policy. In the future, when you are asked for the name of an author and title, please provide it. The publisher of the source you have provided states that its mission is "for the purpose of establishing ethics and religion upon a scientific basis...a reformation of religious life on the basis of science."[9] To that end, the source by the author you mention, Willem B. Drees, is his doctoral dissertation on how to preserve theology in the face of modern science. Drees argues that theology

need not be discarded as a pre-scientific attempt at explanation which has lost out to science, nor does theology need to retreat completely to an existential realm apparently beyond the reach of science. Rather, theology can take up the language of science to express and develop the meaning of theological concepts...If ideas about God can be successfullly embedded in a network of concepts, the ideas about God receive some credibility from the overall credibility of the network.[10]

However, this purposeful injection of religion into science goes against what Georges Lemaître intended. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2009):

Both atheists and apologists have attempted to read a theological significance into the big bang theory, either as a substitute for or a confirmation of the biblical story of creation. Lemaître himself opposed both points of view. He is said to have expressed concern that some might see such a confirmation when Pope PIUS XII noted in 1951, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, that with the big bang theory, "it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the primordial Fiat lux..." (Un’ora di serena E, 44). However, in the same address the Pope makes it clear that "the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time" and that such proofs are "of themselves...outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences" (Un’ora di serena E, 45) As a scientific theory, the big bang will always be open to further development, and at some future date it may be replaced by a different theory that better fits the data. (86)

So it would seem that your source, Willem B. Drees, is pushing a POV. The question at hand is whether his POV is notable for inclusion when we have Lemaître himself opposing it. Such claims are no different than Rick Santorum finding Satan in those who criticize the United States. Should we add a section about Satan's evil workings to the article on Anti-Americanism or any criticism of the United States subarticles? Religious people have also made similar claims about Hurricane Katrina and the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami. Christian commentators like Pat Robertson, Charles Colson, and Hal Lindsey all say God was punishing the United States for its sins. Should we add that religious interpretation to a new section on the North Atlantic tropical cyclone article? There's quite a bit of content we can add. At what point does this stop? How many science topics must have this kind of religious interpretation added to them? Does it stop with physics and tropical cyclones? Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Lemaitre took a specific position on whether the Big Bang had religious significance, indicates that the issue is notable. To answer your last question, a section on religious interpretation of a theory/scientific topic is warranted if there is significant discussion of those religious interpretations in reliable sources. In the case of the big bang, about 8% of the books that discuss the big bang mention the issue of its religious implications. A discussion of this issue is therefore warranted.TR 09:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the "issue" as you call it is notable or whether this or that source discusses it has no bearing on whether a subsection is needed. As we already know, the current subsection is supposed to be a summary style paragraph of a largely unsourced, OR-ridden article, and does not even attempt to represent the topic accurately, either in breadth or in focus. Nobody has put forward any argument for keeping a separate subsection based on an unsourced, OR-infused parent article. We make decisions based on the state of current articles, not on what we would like to see or what we envision might happen in the future. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the current RFC, is about whether a section should exist, not whether the current section should be kept. You have yet to respond to the fact that a significant number of sources discuss the impact of the big bang theory on religious debate. Wiki policy is clear: if a significant number of sources discuss something we should report it.TR 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a summary style section based on a parent article that has been reduced to a stub because it was either unsourced, poorly sourced, composed of original research, or an off-topic polemic abut atheism in Russia. I have yet to see a "significant number of sources" that discuss any impact of the Big Bang model on religion, probably because they don't exist. All I've seen so far is cherry picking and POV pushing. You know, there are quite a number of highly visible popular science books on the subject of the Big Bang, all of which say nothing at all about the "impact" of the Big Bang on religion. That should tell you everything you need to know, but facts are funny things. If it is so significant as you say, then what do books like The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (1997) and Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos: The Story of the Scientific Quest for the Secret of the Universe (1999) say about it? Nothing at all? Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the requirement for the existence of articles not for the nature of article content itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although, notability is not a requirement of article content, it most certainly indicative that content should be included.TR 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, due weight is indicative of whether it should be included. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good article on the philosophical issues in cosmology, which also relate to the religious interpretations, is:

• George F R Ellis (2007-08-08). "Issues in the philosophy of cosmology". Philosophy of Physics: 1183–1285. doi:10.1016/B978-044451560-5/50014-2.

It discusses the issue of creation ex nihilo ("out of nothing") and cites these two related modern scientific papers:

• G. Lemaître (1931-05-09). "The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory". Nature. doi:10.1038/127706b0. Retrieved 2012-02-28.
• Alexander, Vilenkin (1982-11-04). "Creation of universes from nothing". Physics Letters B. 117 (1–2): 25–28. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90866-8. ISSN 0370-2693. Retrieved 2012-02-28.

—Geremia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should we be duplicating an existing article, Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory, in this one? It already has its own article, and you can place a great deal more religious implications there than here, since this is an article about the theory itself, and should be weighted towards that. If we expanded to have such a great many impacts on the hundreds of world religions from this theory, then we'd have to split the article anyways, and we have a subarticle to which such a split would go to already. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • It would not be a duplication of the article, it would be a summary of it (or rather, a summary of what it should be, as that article is in very poor state right now). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the Encyclopædia Britannica online edition say about the Big Bang and religion? Nothing. Instead, anything having to do with those two topics appears in the correct child articles, such as Ian Barbour ("...Barbour examined...the impact of the theory of evolution and the big-bang model of cosmology on religious thought"), and Christianity ("There were also attempts to show that the evolution of the universe, from the "big bang" of 13.8 billion years ago to the present state that includes conscious life, required the conjunction of so many individually improbable factors as to be inexplicable except as the result of a deliberate coordinating control...The idea of the total dependence of the universe upon God does not preclude the development of the universe in its present phase from the "big bang" onward, including the evolution of the forms of life on Earth.") There's nothing about religion in their main article on the big-bang model. Perhaps this co-mingling of religion and science is a uniquely American phenomenon attributable to a minority POV. If so, it is undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas - Thank you for taking the time and noting the way the Encycopedia Brittannica (EB) handled this matter - the EB (and other related HQ sources) seems a worthy consideration imo - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that the EB online article is a whooping 4 paragraphs long. As such I does not cover many topics covered in this article such as the FLRW metric, the flatness problem, dark matter or energy. I dont think any of you is arguing that mention of these topics should be removed from this article? Note that by comparison our lede (which is about the length of the EB article) also does not cover the religious implications.TR 07:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no religious implications. That's why all the leading, mainstream religious leaders say it is compatible with their religious beliefs. Which means, we are in the realm of religious cosmology, and this is why every source on the parent topic is about religious cosmology. Anyone is free to edit that article (and its child articles Biblical cosmology, creationism, etc.) and add the simple statement "religious leaders believe that the theory of X is compatible with religion Y", but there is really nothing to add to this article. I've asked for good sources, and in return, all I get is something on the order of "theology can take up the language of science to express and develop the meaning of theological concepts". That's wonderful, but it has nothing to do with this article. What we are dealing with here is a classic example of WP:ONEWAY. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the presented question. You argue that because EB does not discuss the religious implications of the big bang theory neither should Wikipedia. The EB online also does not discuss the FLRW metric, the flatness problem, or dark energy in their article on the big bang theory. Is it than also your position that the Wikipedia article on the big bang theory should not discuss these topics?TR 14:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence. Science is not equivalent to religion. EB doesn't discuss religion and the Big Bang because, as with most reliable tertiary and secondary sources, religion has nothing to say. Georges Lemaître himself said there was no conflict, and if there is no conflict, there is no implication, and if there is no implication there is no interpretation, and if there is no interpretation, there is nothing to say. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue for me is what constitutes due weight WP:RSUW and a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. The big bang has implications for everyone's world view, not just Catholics and not just religious people. It has connections to many aspects of human culture, including TV, science fiction, academic philosophy, etc. I think it violates due weight to have a section discussing Catholicism or religion but not all the rest of that - but I don't think we want sections for each of those, as it would make the article too long and harder to read. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Although it affects everybody's world view, the impact on christian theology appears to be the most widely discussed in the (english) literature. Due weight requires that the amount of weight we give something is proportional to the weight given in the sources. (Of course, as I mentioned before this may be impart due to a systematic bias of only having access to English sources, while discussion on the impact on Islam for example would primarily appear in Arabic.) That being said the section as currently is may be a bit too detailed on the impact on the catholic world view, while not paying any attention to the impact on other religions. Some refactoring may be in order (while keeping the section short).TR 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're counting sources in English, I'm willing to bet there's vastly more material on the TV show The Big Bang Theory than there is on the big bang's relation to Catholic theology. So why don't we have a much larger section discussing the impact of the scientific theory on popular culture than we do discussing its impact on religion? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at scholarly sources (as indexed by google scholar) then there are about 200,000 hits for "big bang", there are about 24,000 hits for "big bang"+religion and there are 40 hits for "big bang"+"sheldon cooper". (There are only 22,000 hits for the much wider search "big bang"+television, many of which have to do with television documentaries on the big bang theory.) A similar (but less pronounced) picture emerges for similar searches on google books. So, I think you may be wrong on that bet.TR 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "big bang"+sitcom turns up 774, however. i have no horse in this particular sub-debate, i'm just pointing out that using 'sheldon cooper' as a search term is a little bit narrow. Kaini (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "big bang"+(television|movies) turns up 18,800 google scholar hits. Not that that is indicative of anything at all. aprock (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "So, I think you may be wrong on that bet." I don't think I am, see above. And I'm not sure why you'd search google scholar to gauge the impact on popular culture, or why you'd compare "sheldon cooper" as a search term to "religion". On google, '"big bang" religion' loses to '"big bang" tv'. '"big bang" pope' loses to '"big bang" cooper'. etc. So do those that support keeping this section also support adding one on TV sitcoms? If not, why not? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I choose to search on scholar because that gives the best likelihood of articles that actually discuss the impact of the big bang theory on religion/popular culture. As you are free to check the hits you get for "big bang"+religion almost exclusively discuss the impact of the big bang theory on religion. In comparison, the widest possible search for articles that would discuss the sitcom, "big bang"+television produces less hits, almost none of which talk about the television show. (Somewhat ironically, on of the first hits is about a television show about the impact of the big bang theory on religion.) The "big bang" + sitcom, does a better job at producing hits that actually discuss the sitcom, however the total number of hits is about a factor 30 less than the hits for "big bang"+religion.

  The problem with using the normal google search for such a comparison, is that the vast majority of the hits do not even come close to passing the bar for a WP:RS. As such the number of hits is in no way representative of the number of reliable sources that discuss the topic. By searching google books or google scholar you are getting a much better picture of the ratio of the subjects in scholarly literature (which is what we need for reliable sources). TR 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly not all the hits on a general google search are reliable sources, but neither are those on scholar. Indeed, it's quite possible that many of the hits you found for "big bang" religion say that they big bang is not relevant for religion. Regardless, it's obvious that the big bang has a notable and significant impact on popular culture in all sorts of different ways. Not only that, if you look at page views, The Big Bang Theory (the TV show) averages about 50,000 page views/day (and is the 57th most popular article on wikipedia!), while Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory averages less than 100. So I see no justification in your arguments for including a section on religion or theology while excluding a section on that TV show. Instead, I think neither should be included other than as a "See Also". Waleswatcher (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide some reliable sources that discuss the impact of the big bang theory on popular culture. You find one or two, while just a simple search on scholar of books for big bang and religion immediately produce dozens of high quality sources discussing the implications of the big bang theory for religion. See for a tiny sample my post below.TR 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Every source in The Big Bang Theory article (of which at a glance there are 90) is a start. But of course that's just one example of dozens or hundreds of pop culture connections. Here's the third on that list: "Two nerdy physicists share an apartmen...Like the universe after the big bang, the show's popularity expanded, thanks to..." Waleswatcher (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those sources actually discuss the impact of the big bang theory on popular culture (which what we would need). They just talk about a sitcom called "the big bang theory". So, if thats all you got, then basically the point you have been repeating over and over again is completely moot.TR 11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I know it's difficult following this big conversation, but this has been already answered below. Diego (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, it's very hard to have a coherent exchange in this format. In response to TR, you seem to be focused on something very narrow - scholarly articles that discuss the impact of the big bang on popular culture. If this article discussed that precise topic, we'd need such sources. But to instead discuss a specific TV show, all that is required is one or more sources that reliably indicate that the show relates to the main topic of the article. Even the need for that is dubious, since it's patently obvious that it's true and the show itself is a source (its name, its characters, the themes of the episodes, etc.). Once that is established (and that's trivial to do), any reliable source on the show - of which there are thousands - is a valid source for that section of the article. And this is precisely the problem. Many, many aspects of popular culture, art, movies, etc. are influenced by the theory, and the argument for the inclusion of religion is no stronger than the argument for their inclusion. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we typically do not normally include trivia. If something is included in the article, then we need sources that explicitly discuss how that something relates to the main subject of the article. Without that there is nothing sensible to say about it in this article. Take the sitcom for example, there is no relation to the big bang theory other than the name of the show. In fact, the big bang theory doesn't even get mentioned in the series. So, please stop being dense and pretending that is the same level of coverage, as we have for the impliction of the big bang, where we have entire chapters of books devoted to exactly that subject.TR 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense - the vast majority of wikipedia's articles are about "trivia". The show is obviously notable by wiki's standards, and it's obviously connected to the theory. So far, you've offered not a single argument against its inclusion. As for "stop being dense", that's insulting. Please try to assume good faith. Also, let me again emphasize that I am NOT advocating adding a section on the TV show. I think that would degrade the article, just as having a section on religions implications degrades the article, which should be about the science and link to this other topics as "see also"s. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A much heard argument for not discussing the religious implications of the big bang theory is that an article about a scientific topic should only discuss the scientific aspects of the subject. Would any of the proponents of the removal of the material care to explain how this statement follows from Wikipedia policy?TR 14:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas has already highlighted that it's a classic case of WP:ONEWAY. Polyamorph (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is only possibly relevant if you are saying that all religions - including mainstream religions - are fringe theories. Is that seriously your position ?? Because that seems to contradict WP:FRINGE. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No religion has any basis in fact, so yes. Polyamorph (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so just to be clear, you are in fact basing your arguments here on your own philosophical POV rather than on Wikipedia's policies. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be rather confused about wikipedia content policy. You are basically arguing that we should ignore what is treated and discussed in reliable sources, and just report on the WP:TRUTH.TR 15:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in terms of the scientific theory of the Big Bang, religion is effectively a fringe belief. Not even that since as far as I know none of the religions creation theories are based on this scientific theory. Polyamorph (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to operate under the idea that this is a scientific article about a scientific theory, whereas it is actually an encyclopedic article about a scientific theory. The first discuss only what is relevant to science, the other what is relevant to the topic. This is why intelligent design and creationism are discussed in the Evolution article. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, we should summarize the religious impact the Big Bang had, regardless of the validity (or lack thereof) of religions. The TV show thing mentioned by Waleswatcher is a red herring, as it's completely unrelated to the topic of the Big Bang. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show quite obviously is not "completely unrelated". It is a show about a physicist, it sometimes discusses the scientific theory, it is so-named precisely because of its connection to the theory. You don't do your side any service by making such patently false statements. Instead, I think your position is that religion is sufficiently important and relevant to the topic that it should have its own section (rather than just a "see also" link). To make such an argument you have to face the fact that there are plenty of other non-scientific topics with the same characteristics, so at best your argument is where to draw the line in a grey area - or, you are arguing that the article should include sections on all such topics. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any wiki policy that requires that this section be removed, although I maintain that every justification so far offered for its inclusion applies equally or even more strongly to including a section on the TV show The Big Bang Theory, or on the impact of the big bang on science fiction, etc. As such, the lack of a policy that requires the section be removed is not an argument for its inclusion. Wikipedia ultimately is about writing good articles that teach people effectively, and that's the true standard one should apply. Do we really want to clutter this article with al sorts of peripheral, non-scientific topics, when we can simply point to articles on them with a hatnote or "See Also" link? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, we want that "clutter", because this article shouldn't be just about the scientific concerns but the cultural ones as well. The detailed scientific description should have its own separate article, keeping this one with a summary style. Diego (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More explicitly, WP:ONEWAY says,

Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way.

Here are a couple of completely independent WP:RS's that discuss the implications of the big bang theory for religion in a very prominent way

• Paul Davies. God and the New Physics. ISBN 0-14-022550-1.
• James Franklin Harris (2002). Analytic philosophy of religion. Springer. page 127 and further. ISBN 9781402005305. The significant theological implications of the big bang arise from the period immediately "prior to" and immediately "following" the big bang itself
• Tom Frame (2009). Losing my religion. UNSW Press. page 137 and onward. ISBN 9781921410192. The implications of Big Bang cosmology for religious belief were immediately apparent

That is a physicist, a philosopher and a bishop, in completely unrelated, well acclaimed sources discussing the implications of the big bang theory for religion. That puts any objection based on WP:ONEWAY out the window.TR 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why we have and I support the inclusion of such material in the existing article Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. However, for the theory of the Big Bang the idea that religion plays any part is fringe theory and WP:ONEWAY is valid argument. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that WP:ONEWAY is a valid arguement. Care to elaborate what part of the WP:ONEWAY guideline is applicable here. The Paul Davies reference I gave, is about the clearest counter example one could have for WP:ONEWAY. We have a noted cosmologist that quite explicitly discuss the implications of the big bang theory on religion. So unless you are somehow arguing that Paul Davies is somehow fringe, I really don't see the basis of your argument here.TR 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show me that the majority of sources that discuss the Big Bang as a scientfic theory allude to the fact that it somehow supports the world's religous philosophies then I will agree with you. Since that is not possible it is fringe. Polyamorph (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The validity (or lack thereof) of those viewpoints is completely irrelevant to whether or not they should be included in the article. All it matters is that those viewpoints are both significant and widespread. You won't find any biologist thinking Creationism or Intelligent Design have any kind of validity, and yet those are discussed in our Evolution article because those viewpoints, despite being completely senseless, are nonetheless widespread and significant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said show me that the majority of sources on the Big Bang theory discuss the implications on religion then I will agree. Until then it is fringe. I do agree that there are some notable sources that do discuss the religious implications and it is for that reason that I support the expansion of the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory article. However it is not appropriate to include in the Big Bang article for the reasons already stated. I'm also not really interested if "other stuff exists", it doesn't change my opinion on this particular issue.Polyamorph (talk) 17:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculous criteria. This does not require a majority of sources (the majority of sources on Evolution do not discuss creationism/ID either), the only thing required is that a significant ammount of sources do so, and that's already been shown many times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not rediculous criteria, it's just a way I was trying to demonstrate that it is fringe, i.e. most sources do not discuss it, the fraction of those that do are small compared to the fraction that don't. The fact that reliable sources can be found that do deal with the religious implications demonstrates a need for the Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory but not a section in this article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree - the disputed section is "FRINGE" Material - notions in religious mythology are not facts - but "Fringe" notions instead - after all, mythological notions are not testable ones - not notions one could verify - notions in religious mythology seem more along the lines of "fairy tales," as suggested recently by Hawking - but not scientific (testable and verifiable) notions - not factual knowledge - and, as such, have no scientific standing in a Science Article, such as the "Big Bang" Science Article - AFAIK - other Wikipedia Science Articles, besides a *very* few, have no non-science "interpretation" or "implication" or "acceptance" section(s) whatsoever - why should the Science Articles on the Big Bang - or Evolution for that matter - be any different? - as before, Science Articles should be "Science Only" - non-science sections (or related) have no place in a quality Science Article imo - this seems to be the Encyclopedia Britannica policy as well - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, amongst other reason, the subject of the origins of mankind and the origins of the universe are of much greater theological concern and a major theme in nearly all religions (and all mainstream ones), than say, the topic of Josephson junctions or the Krebs cycle. This is why countless discussion on Big Bang and Religion, or Evolution and Religion exist. And that's why these topics (religion and ____) should have a general summary in their main article (Big Bang, Evolution), and it does a disservice to the reader to pretend that either the Big Bang or Evolution had next-to-no impact in philosophy or religion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally concur with Headbomb here. No reason this can't be handled reasonably with proper application of WP:DUE. aprock (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I Agree that there is a non-science importance to these non-science subjects - but in a non-science article, rather than a Science Article, instead - as before, a simple link to the relevant non-science article in the "See Also" section of a Science Article should be more than sufficient for this imo - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective, but it's not one supported by policy. Sections like Pythagorean theorem#Pop references to the Pythagorean theorem which stretch the topic somewhat out of the "pure" rigorous treatment are commonplace and acceptable. aprock (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that there are such instances (like your example -> a Section on "Pop references to the Pythagorean Theorem" in the main Pythagorean Theorem Article) in some Wikipedia Science Articles - however, I would generally prefer such non-science sections to be elsewhere - for instance, in some separate non-science article (with a link in the "See Also" section of the main Science Article) - rather than in the main Science Article itself - such non-science sections in a Science Article diminishes, rather than enhances, the scientific (and encyclopedic?) Quality of the Science Article imo - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this strange notion that Wikipedia has "science articles" and "non-science articles" come from ? I can't find that anywhere in policies or guidelines. Of course we have articles on scientific topics, but they are not in any sense a different type of article from the rest of the encyclopedia.Gandalf61 (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally a scientific article should of course focus on the science, not on some unfounded interpretation of it. Verifiability not truth is a term I see misquoted a lot, it doesn't mean that we should report everything that is verifiable. Rather we use editorial judgement on what is suitable for the specific article, if something is verifiable yet complete nonsense we aren't obliged to include it. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies do not care one jot what you or I or anyone consider to be absolute truth or complete nonsense. The benchmark for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability. It sound as if you are trying to define special standards for articles on scientific topics. This idea has been discussed in the past (see Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles) but failed to achieve consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something is patently false yet verifiable then we don't have to include it, no one is forcing us to include knowingly false information. Rather the policy is there to prevent material that is not verifiable from appearing in wikipedia. Something can be true yet unverifiable, in which case we can't include it. It doesn't mean something that is false yet verifiable has to be included. As for notability, that is reason to have it's own article, the notability guidelines deal with articles not content within an article per the first line of WP:Notability "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." Polyamorph (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe that you have a hotline to The Truth and that all religions and religious or spiritual views are "patenttly false" and "complete nonsense", but that is your POV - it is tiger thinking. Please stop trying to pretend it has any connection with Wikipedia policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what I believe. Although it is of course fact that no religion or spiritual views have any basis in science or reason. Feel free to provide references that prove otherwise! Science will always stand up (or gratiously fail) to rigourous strutiny. Religion will always fail scrutiny yet stubburnly refuse to concede defeat. But that's beside the point, since I've replied adequately to your comments on what policy dictates we can include without using POV. There is no policy as far as I can see that excludes such content. But conversely there is no policy that dictates it must be included simply because it's verifiable. You point about notability applies to articles as a whole, not sections within an article. You may or may not be aware that I accept that we should have an article on the religious interpretations of the Big Bang. But I don't agree that a section in the article on the scientific theory requires one by any wikipedia policy. Finally please don't quote essays, they are not policy or guidlines and quite frankly irrelevant - my POV has nothing to do with it.Polyamorph (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is of course fact that no religion or spiritual views have any basis in science or reason". Really ?? There are many notable and respected sources that argue otherwise. In Christianity, for example, there is a long tradition of Christian apologetics, in which writers from Thomas Aquinas to C. S. Lewis present a rational basis for Christain beliefs. The fact that you dismiss all these authors out of hand because you disagree wth their conclusions is as ignorant as it is arrogant. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that the comment was small - since you attacked me I declared my POV. However it has no bearing on the discussion. Neither does your attack that my views are arrogant. Since you no longer want to discuss the policy (no doubt because you are wrong) and instead resort to personal attacks I have no more comments to make. Polyamorph (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE User:Viriditas, who favours the deletion of the section, recently nominated the main article for deletion and now just blanked the contents of the main article, supplanting it with the section here (which is contrary to the consensus present at this point). This issue needs to be investigated further. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the proper venue. Take any concerns you have to WP:ANI. aprock (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no apparent concerns, it was a legimate prod which was then removed also in a legimate move, I don't see why it has any bearing here. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Talk:Religious_interpretations_of_the_Big_Bang_theory#Content_copied_from_Conservapedia Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we making a storm in a teacup?

reviewing the extensive (and kinda fascinating) discussion here since the RfC was opened, it seems that we're all in agreement to a degree; does religious interpretation of the big bang theory deserve a mention in the article? - the majority of us seem to agree that it does, but the extent of the mention seems to be the bone of contention here. so i suggest we concentrate on how brief and get away from quoting policies and going in circles. does it deserve a hatnote? a sentence? a paragraph? at the moment Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory is a kinda shitty article. let's just agree on how much of a mention it deserves here, and then we can get on with the more important job of improving that article and helping to make an excellent online encyclopaedia for the world. my 2c. Kaini (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention of the disputed section as a link in the "See Only" section only- as noted in my earlier posts - hope that helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Make it brief, keep it a subarticle -- as noted above from my previous inidcation, so that would be a paragraph or two, with a {{main}} in its section, as more or less, it is now (except less Christianity focused, and more generalized). 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is why the phrase "...and if so, how much space is appropriate to devote to that topic" is in the RFC question. To avoid making closing this any harder than it's already going to be, I respectfully suggest adding opinions about that to the "brief statements" section, rather than starting an entirely new section. Indeed, I'm wondering why people wouldn't already have stated them there (it's half of the RFC question, folks). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree that it's needed and would prefer just a link in the see also section. However, consensus seems to require a brief mention. So I suggest keep the current title "Theological acceptance" and remove the middle section re: the Pope. i.e. the text (as copied from the current section) should be:

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, and as such is dependent on its agreement with observations. But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological implications, most notably, those based upon the philosophical[87][88] concept of creation ex nihilo (a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing").[89][90][91][92][93] Since the acceptance of the Big Bang as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups as to its implications for their respective religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, while others seek to reconcile the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and others completely reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.[97]

Don't mention any specific religions in the section, that can be dealt with in the Religious interpretations article. I absolutely oppose the use of a hatnote. This is a scientific theory, the religious implications are only an afterthought. Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more or less acceptable to me. I am not particular a fan of the title "Theological acceptance". I have two issues:

1) The term theology (although it can be used for the study of religion in general) carries a strong connotation to the Christian theology. As such, it suggests that it is only about Christian acceptance of the theory.

2) The suggested text also mentions that some religious groups reject the theory. As such "acceptance" may be a slight misnomer for the section.

I would suggest "Religious implications"as the title for the section. This also opens the door for adding a sentence to represent the view of some scientists (e.g. Paul Davies and Carl Sagan), that the Big Bang theory, makes the idea of a creator superfluous and obsolete. (Also as mentioned, below the references used for the section could use a critical review, as the proposed one paragraph section is overreferenced.)TR 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Religious implications works well for me and your point about adding the view of scientists is a good one.Polyamorph (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a significant improvement over the current wording, and "Religious implications" is a fine title. I'd prefer to remove the section entirely, but this may be the best compromise. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think one or two sentences for each of the major religions on the religious acceptance would be good for the second paragraph. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although, that is fine in theory, it might prove troublesome in practice. Some potential issues,

1. What religions are you going to include? That list might grow quite long, especially if you are going to distinguish major denominations as well. (This might prove especially troublesome in the long run, as editors passing by try to add the stance of their favorite religion.
2. In centralistic religions such as the Catholic church, it is relatively easy to assign one official position. This might prove more difficult with religions with no central authority, as the actual stance might vary among the various dogmatic scholars of the denomination.

In the light of these issues, I think it maybe wise to just close the section with the remark, that various religious groups have welcomed the Big Bang theory with open arms, while others utterly reject it. (Of course supported by references that back this up.) And leave the further details on the stance of various religions to the main article. If we want, we could add one explicit example to flesh out this remark. If we do, we should state clearly that this is an example. If we do, the example of the early acceptance of the theory by the pope may be the most notable. (Precisely, because it came so early.) However, I don't think this is completely necessary. (Although, I also wouldn't have any objections).TR 12:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose mention of specific religions, simply because if you include one you should include them all. It is much better to simply state that the implications on religious viewpioints and let the main article deal with the specifics. Polyamorph (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nonsense. We don't have to "include them all". A section on religious implications that did not mention specific religions would be so vague and general as to be meaningless. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objections were raised above to including specific religions, respond to the points in the objection. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not nonsense. It's clearly non NPOV if we include only catholic and protestant faith's, in which case we need to include Islamic and hindu views etc. I am opposed to inclusion of the section whatsoever. However, if consensus decides it should be included then I oppose the inclusion of specific for the reason's stated above, summarised by TR. I'd appreciate it if you didn't call other users opinions on the matter as "nonsense". Polyamorph (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its in violation of WP:NPOV to use a specific religion as an explicit example. Especially, if we are explicit about it being an example, and that there are other religious groups with views that may or may not differ on the subject. (The main article should cover all views, as far as they are covered in the literature.) The impact of the big bang on Catholic theology, appears to be the most prominently discussed in the literature (although there are some obvious caveats with respect to sources on Muslim, Hindu or Boedhist theology not necessarily being available in English), as such using just that as an example would also fall within the normal bounds of due weight. Nonetheless, I also stress again, that I don't think mentioning specific religions is absolutely necessary. (Although, it may be beneficial to the exposition.TR 11:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your case for having one specific example, clearly defined as an example. However, I am nevertheless against inclusion of any mention of a specific religious group. By mentioning a specific group give undue weight towards a specific religious ideology. It's fine to discuss in the main interpretations article but simply not necessary here. Besides there is no consensus in the current RfC for expansion of the section to include this specific information, in fact several editors who support inclusion of the section support a brief section only with no mention of specific religions.Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the words "For example ..." in the text that you have deleted clearly identified it as an example. And your notion that WP:NPOV says "if you include one you should include them all" is still obvious nonsense. Many religions may not have any published stance on the Big Bang at all, yet to say "Religion X has no opinion about the Big Bang. Religion Y has no opinion about the Big Bang...." would be absurd. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you didn't read my comment: "I can see your case for having one specific example...However, I am nevertheless against inclusion of any mention of a specific religious group..." is what I said. I will not support the inclusion of information on any specific religious group as it gives them undue weight. Polyamorph (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Christian reference to the acceptance/rejection of the 'big bang' ideology should be removed in its entirety and this is speaking as a Christian.It is not a question as to whether 'big bang' as an ideology is right or wrong but of logical consistency.Conclusions based on the assertion that the oldest galaxies are those observed to be furthest away in a smaller Universe lead to a logically consistent conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an larger Universe,again,this is not an attempt to disprove 'big bang' but point out where logical consistency leads to an absurdity.Gkell1 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you have any policy based reasons? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question (and pardon if it has already been answered) but are these sections considered due weight in this article? It doesn't discuss the subject but how the subject pertains to other things, which in my view would be like saying how gravity affects a rubber ball. Yes gravity does work on a rubber ball but you would be departing from meaningful work on the gravity article. Likewise in this section the religious views aren't helping to define the article but are instead trying to show how it works on the religious side of the house. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogy. A better one would be discussing the ethical implications of human cloning in the human cloning article.TR 13:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the best analogy, but Tivanir2 has a good point. If this article discusses religion, why doesn't it discuss all the other aspect of human culture the big bang theory affects? As I've argued above in other comments there are many such topics, and there can be no argument against their inclusion if this section is kept. On the contrary, due weight would seem to require their inclusion. At that point, the article would be significantly degraded from its current state. The solution is simple - make this article about the scientific theory only. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give one example of an other aspect of human culture that is significantly affected by the Big Bang theory, and which is discussed significantly in scholarly literature.TR 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant that it be "discussed significantly in scholarly literature"? That's not wikipedia's standard for anything. Waleswatcher (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is basically what WP:UNDUE requires, since all other points covered in the article have significant coverage in scholarly sources. But all the same I challenge you to provide any WP:RS that explicitly discusses the impact of the Big Bang theory an other aspect of human culture. You have been asserting that if we include the impact of the big bang theory on religion we should include the impact on other aspects of human culture. The crux here is, that while the impact of the big bang theory on religion is discussed in thousands of reliable sources, the impact of the big bang theory on other aspects of human culture is discussed in a handful of sources at most.TR 10:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked me that question, and it was already answered. You've been provided with hundreds of reliable sources. For example, every source for the The Big Bang Theory article, plus thousands of google scholar sources (see Diego Moya's comment below, or the comments above from the last time you asked this). Waleswatcher (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Scholar search for "Big bang"+education returns 38.600 results (more than "big bang"+religion), and that's for education alone; hardly "a handful of sources". Every science divulgation book or TV show is a source for how the theory is presented to the public. Every textbook covering the Big Bang has impact on culture, so every official curricula design is a source for the impact of the theory on culture. The Big Bang is one of the most well-known scientific results in cosmology, much well understood than quantum or string theories or even relativity. Surely that public understanding has come from some reliable sources? How can you say that impact on human culture is unsourced or undue weight? Diego (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (P.S. "big bang" metaphor -god -religion returns a well-directed query covering the idea of a Big Bang as a sudden start of a process in many different contexts). Diego (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are proposing is the a classical case of WP:SYNTH. In order to write about this subject in this article, Wikipedia requires a source to presents the conclusions (in this case what kind of impact the big bang theory has made on popular culture) that actually draws that conclusion. Any attempt to infer a conclusion from multiple source is against Wikipedia policy. So, I'll repeat my request: "Please produce a source that explicitly discusses how the Big Bang theory has impacted popular culture". If not, it is not a suitable topic to write about on Wikipedia.TR 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting that we create a section for "the Big Bang on education" using Big Bang and education reliable sources; that we create a section for the "Big Bang as a metaphor" using the existing reliable sources on this second topic; etc. This is in no way different than creating a "Big Bang and religion" section from the Big Bang+Religion sources. Diego (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for each of those give me one good source on which you could actually base a section.TR 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work through the sources I provided above, to expand the article in those directions. Everybody is invited to join. Diego (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for the 'Talk' section dictate that the validity or invalidity of 'big bang' is outside discussion however the issue is its internal logical consistency hence there is no violation of the guidelines.No Christian organization could knowingly support something which is totally devoid of spacial awareness as 'big bang' hence withdrawing the religious implications section is tantamount to religious disassociation with 'big bang' and rightfully so.I agree with Waleswatcher that the section should be removed but the reasons he gives I disagree with as the extended conclusion based on oldest galaxies/smaller Universe via logical consistency generates a completely illogical picture which no religious person could associate with.A mysterious Universe is one thing,an impossible Universe is something completely different.Gkell1 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change whole article focus

The religion issue is a red herring and mudding the debate. The main article about the Big Bang should not be devoted uniquely to the scientific description (the particular details should be in a sub-article) but about how the theory has influenced the world at large; Big Bang theory should be the article with the scientific payload, not a redirect to this one. It should include how Einstein was worried about the cosmological constant and the possibility of a non-static universe, how the greeks anticipated the concept with the notion of a cyclic cosmology, explaining its relations with other competing models, showing how the Big Bang is portrayed in popular culture (beyond the sitcom), etc. If we include all these topics, the religious interpretations are but one more topic to cover with proper due weight. Diego (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of what you mention is relevant to the pre-existing History and development section? Also I'm not sure how much the Big Bang has influenced popular culture, at least in terms of cite-able literature? Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has already cited the sitcom ;-) Note that I'm not talking only about popular culture; it could other directions of expansion that are only covered briefly or not at all, such as the relation with other ancient and modern models or the popular depiction as "points on a balloon" can be further elaborated; the COBE, Hubble and WMAP could get much more than one sentence for all three. Yes, some of them could be included in the current History or Speculative physics sections; I'm also proposing to expand those. I'm sure any book of history of science like Asimov's or Hawkins' and all university-level physics texbooks can be used as references. Diego (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to my comment above:)—Geremia (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like that suggestion. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from the sources seem to only mention theological implications. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did add some philosophy to that section (called then "Theological implications"), but User:IRWolfie- moved it to the History and development section.—Geremia (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the red herring remark and also with the storm-in-teacup idea. I do not think that the current paragraph in the article is either obtrusive or misleading. It certainly is inadequate to cover the subject, but any reasonable coverage would dominate and distort the article unacceptably. Best include a list of Wikilinks without comment to as many articles as interested parties request, and leave it at that. Since you definitely cannot please everyone, do the least to get everyone's backs up. If they want to say more on the subject, let them link to where they say it -- elsewhere. The most important thing is to keep the science in, as accessibly as possible, with as little distraction and distortion as may be. As for the restructuring of the whole article -- maybe, maybe not. Splitting the subject into internally sound, coherently linked articles is often the best way of going about such things, but not absolutely essential. That is a matter to be settled in the usual good-faith manner. JonRichfield (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems religious books from minor religious publishers were inserted verify the statement "But as a theory which addresses the origins of reality, it has always carried theological implications,...". Are these suitable sources for the statement? and the slightly related; do we need these references considering better references verify the statement? diff: [11] IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is clearly over referenced. Given the availability of some very high profile sources which can be used to support this claim, I suggest to pick one (or at most two) to support this statement. The others can be moved to the religious interpretations of the big bang article, to support more detailed statements about various viewpoints. In particular, I would suggest the Tom Frame reference given above.TR 11:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These were the objections raised by User:Gandalf61 who reverted my edits: [12]. InterVarsity Press and Rowman_&_Littlefield do appear small time less than a handful of notable books. There is no reason to rely on these less reliable sources when we have mainstream sources available in use. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, use the mainstream sources. Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no further objections were raised I've removed the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]