Talk:Big Bang/Archive 15

Problems with Harald88's edit
Here is the diff link:

Here are the problems:


 * 1) None of the problems outlined represents criticism, nor do the suggestions from the nonstandard crowd represent verifiable criticism. Claiming it as criticism is like claiming that creationists criticize evolution. In the sense of a stick-in-the-mud they perhaps criticize, but in the status of critique by a relevant critic, the proposals of nonstandard cosmology advocates fall flat (Otherwise there would be a controversy in the scientific community -- which the open letter freely admits there isn't!)
 * 2) Currently there are very few not some. The proportion is staggeringly small -- of the order described above. We need to let it be known that this is the scientific consensus. Very few is a reasonable comparison of a dozen researchers to thousands of researchers.
 * 3) Including contractions is a violation of WP:MoS. "Don't" do it.
 * 4) Citing the Open Letter is not germane to this section which is about peer-reviewed problems.
 * 5) "Astrophysicist" is never hyphenated. Astronomers and physicists works better as a description of the wide-range of acceptance the Big Bang has garnered.

Since my version is better on those accounts, I reverted. --ScienceApologist 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with edits by ScienceApologist
Here is the diff link:

Here are the problems:


 * 1) Criticism by scientist on the Big Bang theory is notable and in fact commonly known. Wiping it under the carpet is clearly POV-pushing by someone reinterprets information in a biased way and next projects that bias into print in Wikipedia - compare for example the remark above: "Otherwise there would be a controversy in the scientific community -- which the open letter freely admits there isn't!" with what the letter really states: "To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology."
 * 2) "Currently, there are very few researchers of non-standard cosmologies who doubt the Big Bang occurred" is obvious nonsense: it must be near to 100%. Probably it was meant to state what was in an earlier version, that "there currently are very few researchers who doubt the Big Bang occurred" - which is IMO acceptable if the vague term "researchers" is replaced by the more precise "astrophysicist".
 * 3) Contrary to his above claim, nothing of the Open Letter was cited, nor is the section claimed to be "about peer-reviewed problems". Apparently, SA wants to usurpate being the director and/or sole writer of this article. No such thing!
 * 4) "Astronomers and physicists" certainly works better to promote the unsupported claim of the wide range of acceptance the Big Bang - no such thing!
 * 5) Details about style are too insignificant to revert on a WP:NPOV issue - instead it's easy to improve the style.

Since my version is better on those accounts, I revert. -- Harald88 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The open letter also states: "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences." But the word "criticism" is nevertheless the one and only point where I agree with Harald. The dictionary definition of criticism doesn't depend on whether the target of criticism responds. Nor does it depend on whether the criticism is thoughtful enough. So I have no problem with labeling Harald and his ilk, or creationism either, as "criticism". The word "criticism" or some synonym would also make it harder for the eternal parade of alternate cosmology people, to say they can't find any criticism in the article.


 * 2. It must be near 100% of a dozen, since Harald didn't challenge ScienceApologist's count, and 100% of a dozen is a very few. The sentence can be misinterpreted as Harald did and might be rewritten, but misinterpretations aren't "obvious nonsense".


 * 3. The Open Letter was linked, therefore it was "cited". See the second definition of the word "cite". The section doesn't use the words "peer-reviewed problems" but it includes well-known issues such as dark matter, the subject of much peer-reviewed research. It's true that SA's name appears a lot throughout the page history, but we all know he has a lot of supporters to one extent or another.


 * 4. I don't understand how the wide range of acceptance of the Big Bang can be an unsupported claim, when even Harald refers to the Big Bang as a majority view.


 * 5. Does that mean I shouldn't have included easily corrected spelling among several reasons for reverting this? Art LaPella 22:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * - Art, FYI: I have no affiliation with either Big-Bangers nor with Anti-Big-Bangers, nor do I have a strong opinion about the pro and contra of the theory - as such I'm one of the few people here who may be considered neutral. Anyway, your point 1 is indeed exactly what the aim is: to find a reasonable comprimise between the extreme positions of the two groups that is at the same time most insightful for the reader (the customer first!).
 * - Apart of that, please don't confuse my observation that SA reverted from my sourced statement-of-fact to an unsourced (and in fact unsustainable) claim, with my observation that in the process he constructed a nonsensical sentence.
 * - We all agree that SA "and his ilk", as you put it, probably are in the far majority with their opinion; thus great care must be taken that they don't overrun minority opinions by sheer majority power.
 * - The unsupported claim was not about what the majority opinion is among astrophysicists; that is probably established beyond doubt by their publications.
 * - The unsupported statements-of-fact that SA keeps on publicing:
 * *"Currently, there are very few researchers of non-standard cosmologies who doubt the Big Bang occurred".
 * Allowing that it doesn't mean what it says, it probably intends to say that very few researchers doubt that the Big Bang occurred. But no reference is provided to back up that claim, and it's open for interpretation what "researchers" means - I already explained that here above.
 * * Similarly, "almost all astronomers and physicists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory"
 * is not supported by a verifiable fact; to the contrary, I know of no such opinion poll ever held. In contrast, I do know that many of my colleagues who are researchers and physicists doubt that the big bang occurred, judging from their negative remarks after a Big-bang enthousiast held a talk at our university. Thus I have every reason to insist on WP:V and WP:NPOV in this context.
 * - About your revert of a messy rewrite of most of the article: of course that would have been a hell of a job to correct. :-)))
 * Harald88 21:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that means it's OK to say Big-Bangers are "in the far majority" but not "almost all astronomers and physicists", or to say "very few" Anti-Big-Bangers. That distinction is too fine for me. "We all agree" to the first quote, "probably established beyond doubt", but the other two require references. "I know of no such opinion poll", but my Google Scholar comparison came up with 46 to 1, and ScienceApologist's count is in the neighborhood of 100 to 1. Do you have an estimate? If we can agree on statistics, then we might agree on words to describe it. Art LaPella 01:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because of the published criticisms (which are in line with criticism in articles on the peer review process in general), I see no other way to make a reliable estimation about the opinion of scientists in general than by means of an opinion poll. However, IMO Google Scholar may be used as a verification that by far most astrophysicists believe in the big Bang theory.
 * Harald88 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the difference. If "by far most astrophysicists believe in the Big Bang theory", then does that "make a reliable estimation about the opinion of scientists in general"? If so, then does that mean you simply want a reference explaining an estimate based on Google Scholar? If not, then exactly what is the difference? Wikipedia has many statements about what is wiedly believed, and few of them are supported by formal polls. Art LaPella 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of Art's comments and would like to have a dialogue about the one and only place Art agrees with Harald. --ScienceApologist 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What just happened here? Harald88, I'm not sure I understand how anyone can view the criticisms of the current Big Bang theory are somehow, in proportion to the scientists who accept it on the basis of fundamental physics, getting swept under the rug.  This small proportion is merely mentioned, but it does get a mention.  I remind us all - should we need such - the box at the top of the page:


 * {| class="messagebox standard-talk"


 * This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began. This page is for discussing the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See No original research and Talk page guidelines.
 * colspan="1" style="border-top:1px solid black;" |
 * }
 * colspan="1" style="border-top:1px solid black;" |
 * }


 * Thus, an "open letter" as such is not a peer-reviewed refutation of the Big Bang Theory, and in fact is quite confusing to the general Wiki reader when an "open letter" is elevated to the same status as peer-reviewed research in an encyclopedic article. I am familiar with this and other open letters by individuals opposed to the Big Bang.  The range of ideas serving as the impetus for such letters are more then adequately covered in the article on non-standard cosmologies (since the Big Bang is, by the majority of astrophysicists and experts in that field considered the standard) and so should not be repeated here.  It bears mentioning in the critics section as an aside but criticisms of the Big Bang should be supported by peer-reviewed citations.  And there is plenty of research publicly available in peer-reviewed journals that highlight problems with the Big Bang.  It is the policy of Wikipedia that we obtain such citations which are less likely to be disputed than sources such as open letters, original research, and the like, which are more likely to be disputed.  In this way we are not POV pushing but instead presenting an encyclopedic look at, as it states above, "what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature" about the Big Bang theory.  I think that would save us all a lot of grief, contribute to the quality of the article, and keep us from making attacks on individuals like ScienceApologist and others who are on Wiki every day trying with fairness to hold Wikipedia articles to the highest objective standards possible.  Cheers, Astrobayes 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Astrobayes, the swepping under the rug happens in a subtle way - technically mentioning it, but in such a way that some readers may even not notice it. It is now beyond doubt that this is done deliberately.
 * Criticism is indeed not a refutation - thus it was not represented as such and it's not clear why you suggest that it was presented as such.
 * As you state yourself, it's just an example of a wider phenomenon. Reliable sources and peer reviewed citations are not necessarily only found in specific journals, see WP:V. In this case, the reference is to a verifiable opinion in a science journal of a notable scientist in this field that is supported by peers, as documented.
 * OTOH, sweeping, exaggerated statements such as made in SA's edits of this article must be either correctly sourced or removed. That is absolutely necessary for reaching the aspired objective NPOV standard of Wikipedia.
 * PS I'm puzzled about your inclusion of the box about Talk pages - here we're discussing the presentation and NPOV of the article. Harald88 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the few people here who may be considered neutral. --> This kind of statement is very troublesome. People who believe that they are "neutral" simply because they aren't "affiliated" with "one side or another" are tacitly assuming a perspective that there are polar sides in a debate and that their distance from the perspectives gives them a toe-hold onto neutrality. This is actually a very dishonest position to take because it basically amounts to an argument from ignorance. The perspective that Harald advocates isn't any more neutral than any of the other editors here, and in fact WP:NPOV is very clear about this. If Harald really values neutrality at Wikipedia he has to first admit that he comes to the table with a perspective and a point-of-view. It's only after we admit our perspective that neturality can be approximated. --ScienceApologist 14:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken: I have no interests in the Big Bang theory or inversely; I really do have not a fixed opinion. On the contrary, those editors who do have a fixed opinion and claim to be experts (pro or contra) have their invested time and the value of their judgment at stake. Non-involvement is well established as a necessary NPOV requirement in the judicial system. Harald88 08:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no other way to make a reliable estimation about the opinion of scientists in general than by means of an opinion poll. -- This is not an editorial guideline and in fact isn't a reasonable suggestion. The way that scientific consensus is obtained is through publishing data and theories in scientific journals. Harald is making the claim that we cannot verify that most scientists who study cosmology accept the Big Bang. This is an elementary statement that is verified by a wide range of sources including, for example, NASA. It's not something discussed in peer review literature, nor will anyone ever commission an opinion poll on the matter because it is assumed to be common knowledge by most people in the field. --ScienceApologist 14:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry SA, but there is a difference between working with a scientific theory and believing in it. I am happy to see that you now try to find a source that makes the claims that you put in the article: sourcing is exactly what Wikipedia requires. However, in such cases - as you should know by now! - the counter opinons must be both present in the article and be sourced. Note that the reference that you cite here above still does not even come close to what you claim - and I would indeed have been surprised to see such a wild, unverifiable claim by NASA.
 * Now, since you accuse me of being dishonest, please explain:
 * How can you, after I explained several times that "researchers" as well as "almost all astronomers and physicists" - which together comes close to scientists in general - still not understand that they are not identical to "cosmologists" or "astrophysicists"? Harald88 08:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV indicates that "counter opinions" may not necessarily show up in great detail in an article where they are an extreme minority. They are an extereme minority in this case. If you want to change "astronomers and physicists" to "cosmologists", that's no big deal to me. Just don't change the word to "astro-physicists". --ScienceApologist 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
The question is, should the section on "Features, problems, and issues" be entitled "Features, problems, and criticism"? My feeling is that the section is mostly about issues since it is arguable as to whether this is truly criticism in the true sense of the term. These are "issues", but if they are "criticism", this indicates something a bit more formal about the dispute than can be verified. What do other editors think? --ScienceApologist 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't find that in the dictionary definition, and the critic article you redirect to says "critic" "can also be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism." But if you really think "criticism" indicates something more formal - or more bluntly, that "criticism" implies something more intelligent than what we get from the infidels - then do you think the word "objections" has the same overtones? If not, can we use that word? If so, is there another synonym that just means disagreement? Art LaPella 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the word "issues" because it is debatable as to whether "real" disagreement exists right now about the Big Bang. "Objections" makes it seem like these are outstanding, unresolved contradictions (which, as pointed out in the text, they are not). We need some word that doesn't give people the idea that there is anything like a mainstream controversy over the Big Bang while also pointing out that the goal of science is to poke holes and that it is in those places where holes are poked that true innovation is realized. That's why I support "issues". I will admit, though, "issues" does sound blasé.--ScienceApologist 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, you say "real" disagreement amounts to about a dozen (or was it 15?) out of a thousand or two, which is why the text briefly mentions it and extensively rebuts it. Since that's the only part of the article anybody wants to talk about, we might want to make it easier to find. Art LaPella 19:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Squeaky wheel gets the grease? I don't know that making the "disagreements" "easier to find" is the best thing for the article. It may make talkpage responses easier, but Wikipedia's mission isn't to make talkpages as easy to handle as possible. --ScienceApologist 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, but when so many people at least claim they can't find any disagreement, then other readers likely can't find it either, and Wikipedia's mission has failed to that extent. Anyway, most of the section is about "alleging that they are ad hoc addenda to the theory" and several rebuttals to that sentence, which can best be summarized as disagreement. Art LaPella 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should look at this from another perspective. Most of the editors who come here "looking for disagreement" have their mind made up as to how important said disagreement is to this particular theory. Unfortunately, there are verifiable resources out there which illustrate almost unequivocally that the disagreement takes the form of a discussion that is vanishingly small compared to the reasearch going on in the rest of the Big Bang. It may actually be a credit to the article that people who come to this article hoping to find the disagreement easily don't find it easily because it isn't easily found in the verifiable sources as well. --ScienceApologist 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't. Here's a quote from something I wrote against creationism about 1990, that I wouldn't write now: "I can't think of any experimental evidence to prove that distance alone can't make light tired enough to account for the redshifts of distant galaxies. I'm not an astronomer, but as far as I know, it's among the unknowns." Science's confidence level in the Big Bang is a beginner's question. The Friedmann-Lemaître model isn't. Art LaPella 17:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say in the last paragraph. --ScienceApologist 14:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't have my "mind made up as to how important said disagreement is". Thus I would no longer write about tired light in the same way I did then. I don't trust the academic pecking order in general as far as you seem to, although they're pretty good at keeping basic facts straight, but I've been generally more satisfied with your explanations than with the other guys. Perhaps my experience is atypical, but I would think we could be more up front about why scientists generally support the Big Bang, without exaggerating the opposition. As it is, I think some people genuinely wonder why opposition seems to be ignored. As for Friedmann-Lemaitre, my point was that a statement like "the vast majority of scientists accept that there was some kind of Big Bang" has more business in the first paragraph than Friedmann-Lemaitre, which should be explained down in the details somewhere. Art LaPella 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that the current reworking of the article at non-standard cosmologies and here will put into perspective what the "opposition" really is. Cutting edge science moves ahead faster than the general public can keep up. While many people come to this page expecting to see "competing theories" or "opposition to the theory" what they fail to realize is that this is due to their historical education regarding the theories. It is true that even in 1990s there was considerable more controversy over the Big Bang than there is today in the scientific community. There is no reason we cannot illustrate this on the nonstandard cosmology page and on this page. I have rewritten some of the prose here to conform to this and soon we'll have a much better non-standard cosmology article to help people explore this historical development. Does that address your concerns? --ScienceApologist 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As of today it's much better, IMO. When I have time I'll think of some small improvements of phrasing (such a repalcement for "researchers") and place one or two markers where statements-of-fact lack sources (or add sources again myself). Harald88 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like that better. The non-standard people won't like being described as history, but I haven't heard anything from them to persuade me otherwise. At least the article has more of an answer we can point to.


 * Due to Wikipedia I'm more aware of cutting edge cosmology than I was in 1990. That essay was an unusual synergy of simple science, simple Bible study and patient quality control. Art LaPella 03:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter
Thank you for removing the inline ref to the open letter. I had debated about removing it since it seemed more of an op-ed than a verifiable source, but not having been part of the discussion I didn't want to get into an edit war. I'm still getting my "sea legs" on WP. Astrobayes 01:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed and explained above that the content is verifiably linked to a reliable source. Harald88 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Open Letter isn't normally considered a reliable source in these matters. --ScienceApologist 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Who claims that the officially published opinion of a significant group of scientists, some of them notable, is not a reliable source when discussing matters of opinion? Harald88 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. The only reason I deleted it is because we used to reference it in this article and then established that it should be eliminated. The discussion a while back hasn't been revisited yet, but I'm sure it will come up again. --ScienceApologist 13:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Who claims that the officially published opinion of a significant group of scientists, some of them notable, is not a reliable source when discussing matters of opinion?" The problem here is that this is an encyclopedic article, not a mere matter of opinion.  Nor is this a classroom.  The article is presented, as are its criticisms, according to the best sources obtainable to support the statements made.  Debate the big bang theory somewhere else.  As I've stated elsewhere in this talk page, all of the information contained in the open letter is already covered in the bb criticisms currently in the article.  I'm a bit confused as to why we should repeat all of that information all over again.  Astrobayes 12:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:V is essential. That's all. Harald88 11:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
In order for the dispute tag to remain, we need to have a discussion about what exactly about the article is not neutral. This should occur here. Please, Harald, summarize your objections in this section. --ScienceApologist 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion has already been taking place under the above headers, starting with: POV, article is one sided.
 * As the discussion wasn't solved within a reasonable period of time, I added the NPOV tag.
 * We may consider to move the tag down to cover only the one section on criticism - JDoolin, do you agree?
 * On second thoughts, I would myself now disagree: I had overlooked the intro which suggestively claims that "expanding of space" is "observed". Thus the problem is not limited to that one section alone. Harald88 10:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to delete the link to the Open Letter, each one of the objections listed should be brought into the article at an appropriate time.


 * I understand that you cannot personally answer the objections of the open letter, and you want to push these criticisms under the rug because they are valid objections. Whether they are voiced by one, fifteen, or a million, it really doesn't matter.  They still belong in the article, in one form or another.  They are known, historical, unanswered criticisms about this Big Bang model.


 * This is a theory that has been destroyed by a thousand arguments, yet it still stands because all of those arguments are deleted. You say that no significant people have arguments against the standard cosmological model, but it is only your judgment of who is significant.


 * It should also be noted that most physicists don't go into cosmology because it appears to be very difficult, and even more useless, since it never makes any usable predictions nor has any applications. If you want to express the majority opinion, this should probably be mentioned.


 * Finally, you have something called "The Big Bang" and say no one criticizes it. Then the first thing you say is that it isn't really a "Big Bang," but stretching space.  This idea has been criticised everywhere and by everyone. JDoolin 04:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "one, fifteen, or a million, it really doesn't matter." See WP:NPOV.


 * "it is only your judgment of who is significant." I have often repeated estimates based on counting scientists or their papers. It's true we haven't counted people who comment on blogs - that proportion is indeed a lot higher.


 * "it isn't really a 'Big Bang", but stretching space." Isn't it about 50 years too late to rename it "Inflation"? Wouldn't that be like trying to rename "sunset" as "Earth-turn"?


 * "This idea has been criticised everywhere and by everyone." Everyone? Nope. Everyone who knows what the Big Bang is? Nope. Everyone including ScienceApologist? Nope. What everyone? Art LaPella 06:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The talk pages are not to debate the substance of the article. Debate about its neutrality is understandable, if some encyclopedic information about the subject is being omitted, exaggerated, etc.  However, and this is very important to note, that open letter raises criticisms which are covered in the article already, along with appropriate sources.  It would be a misuse of time and effort to write a completely new section to address them again.  There is already an article on non-standard cosmology that you can view if you want more information about alternatives to the big-bang.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.  Please let's keep discussion here limited to what exactly about the article, rather than the substance of its subject, is at fault.  We'll save space, time, and energy we could spend improving the article.  Cheers, Astrobayes 12:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put!
 * Cheers, Harald88 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * When there is mainstream scientific dissent from something other than an extreme minority then we will cover that in detail. Till then, WP:NPOV#Undue_Weight tells us it should recieve detail proportional to it's support, which appears limited to the signitories of this letter. Jefffire 12:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph now says, "In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle."


 * I'm not sure if this has been edited since I last viewed it, but the introductory paragraph does seem at least to get across the gist of what's going on here. The assumptions of the "Cosmological Principle" including both "homogeneity" and "isotropy" along with Hubble's Law does indeed lead to the "Big Bang" model you've presented.


 * My main complaint about that is that you don't present any justification for the assumption of homogeneity. Unfortunately, it does appear to be an extreme minority viewpoint that you should remove the "homogeneity" assumption, even among people who DO have alternative theories.  And yes, I exaggerated when I said that the "big bang" model is criticized by everyone.


 * There are, however, frequent questions, such as "if the universe is expanding, wouldn't we notice that we were shrinking?" and other simple questions of analysis regarding the physical results of the assumptions of expanding space.  These don't necessarily amount to criticism in the view of those who ask the questions, but they are mostly told "don't think of it that way" or told to go read a book on tensor analysis.


 * However, no answers are presented in these books. Only more a priori assumptions about reality, followed by mathematical models to explain how these assumptions can be made self-consistent, followed further by analysis of data which perform modeling within the mathematics which have already made such assumptions.


 * Readers of these books assume that somewhere buried inside them is an explanation for whatever questions they might have, but it is not worth their time to pursue it. JDoolin 18:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The assumption of homogeneity is discussed in the Big Bang section. This is not the place to have your questions about the Big Bang answered, it is the place to discuss making a good Big Bang article. It is clear you haven't read the entire article, so I encourage you to do so and do more research before spouting like this. --ScienceApologist 19:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's better now than it was; there are still a few details left, but I see no big NPOV issue anymore. Harald88 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence for the Big Bang. Wikipedia reports mainstream opinions; it doesn't decide which one is right. I see no evidence for the Big Bang. Wikipedia reports mainstream opinions; it doesn't decide which one is right. I see no evidence for the Big Bang. Wikipedia reports mainstream opinions; it doesn't decide which one is right. This is a failure to communicate. Art LaPella 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To me that appears as a failure on both sides to be sufficiently precise for a useful discussion to take place - Art, is that what you meant? Harald88 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to put words in Art's mouth, but it looks to me to be a satire of you ignoring Wikipedia's policies on the matter. Jefffire 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Satire or just a summary. Communications failure can be solved with a greater effort by either the communicator or the listener. So I chose not to emphasize who is to blame, although I don't think it was me. But if anyone thinks I wasn't precise enough, I'll reexplain again - a tactic that seems to work well on Wikipedia whether reexplanation is really needed or not. I would like JDoolin to be more like Harald - that is, he can argue for edits less favorable to the Big Bang without arguing that the Big Bang is actually wrong. If JDoolin wants to continue to argue that the Big Bang is wrong, then it would be better communication if he would at least address the question of how that behavior conforms to Wikipedia policy. Art LaPella 18:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)