Wikipedia:Featured article review/Big Bang/archive1

Big Bang

 * This article is still a featured article

The article is not NPOV, not historically or factually accurate, and attempts to portray a theory as uncontested scientific fact. Edit wars have been going on for years and will no doubt continue. The article fails 1, 2, and 3 of the featured article criteria. Those who know better have been unable to change the article to a more NPOV position due to constant reverts by Big Bang proponents. The unknowing public could come across this page and be completely misinformed and mislead about the ongoing controversy surrounding the topic. Getting the article Featured in the first place was no doubt a ploy from an article proponent to further remove attempts to contest the factual accuracy of the article. Failure to remove the featured status of this article will only result in continued decline of the quality and accuracy of the article. [posted by Ionized at 19:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)]


 * Comment Scientific Creationism/Intelligent Design has an agenda and is therefore inherently POV. Pilatus 19:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is factual and reads well. I am also troubled when anonymous users nominate an article for FA removal.--Alabamaboy 21:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an excellent candidate for featured status. --Madchester 21:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already says "in physical cosmology". Does not need to point out every single contesting religious "theory". N (t/c) 21:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Do we accept anonymous nominations? This Thanks for adding an attribution to the nomination. If this was an anon, I would have said (did say) that the nomination smacks of trolling. Keep, of course.-- ALoan (Talk) 21:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am not an anon user.  For over 2 years the article has been in edit wars.  To consider it factual is to look at it solely through the eyes of its paradigm.  It is a horrible candidate for Featured status because of the reasons already stated above.    New contributors to the article are obviously not reading the past archived talk pages, for the article is back in a state that was previously fought about heavily.  I expect to see nothing but 'keep' votes however, because dissenters are simply BANNED from this website!  It is sickening, and the Featured status of the article is only going to be used to further restrict any changes that can be done to it. --Ionized
 * Keep. It seemse very well thought out and presented, and NPOV as far as I can see.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Joke137 05:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I feel the need to point out that this is not a vote for deletion of the article, rather simply a vote to remove its 'Featured' status.  My points are entirely valid, longstanding, and backed up by the history of the page.  I simply want it removed from being 'Featured', this would appease me and you can all go about your merry editing of false information without my further interruption. --Ionized


 * Keep. Big Bang might not be an uncontested fact, but it definetly is and uncontested scientific fact. --R.Koot 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The above vote comment is blatantly false. It has been contested by professionals in peer-reviewed scientific journals for years.  A simple perusal of the talk pages will verify this fact as the references are within.  If it was not contested I would have no right to make the claim. --Ionized


 * This doesn't mean it can't be an FA. It has mention of alternative theories. N (t/c) 21:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What is a scientific fact? --R.Koot 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing the mention of alternatives, although even in their mentioning they are disclaimed. The article attempts to outline the history of the theory but does so inaccurately.  That alone breaks rule number 2 of the requirements for a FA.  Previous attempts to enlighten with more factual historical basis always resulted in edit wars, after which the article was simply reverted back to the innacurate version, and users that attempted to fix the article correctly where either banned or threatened.  The history of Gamow's predictions and Hubble's law are just two examples.  R. Koot, your inanity is not helping this issue.  Sidenote, just figured out my old login so here is the official stamp so that the community doesnt accuse me of impersonating --Ionized 23:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Gentgeen 20:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anville 04:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-10 15:29


 * Comment: The only thing 'obvious' is this communities lack of commitment to a quality and accurate portrayal of encyclopedic information.  It is to your own discredit that the article will remain 'Featured', for if this 'Exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work, representing what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.', then it helps to set a laughable standard of quality and accuracy for Wikipedia.  Its interesting that a simple democratic vote can overrule absolutely valid points, are you people getting paid to adhere to the dogma? Rather than simply removing its featured status like you should, by voting to keep you will simply force me to "be bold" in editing the article.  I planned on not touching the article had you simply removed its featured status, but if it is to remain featured than it needs a large overhaul so that it more truly represents historical fact. (edit:  I guess thats not true, I didnt plan on editing the article and even if it is kept as Featured I wont touch it, cause I know from experience that edits result only in reverts and edit wars) --Ionized 17:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please would you take this to the article's talk page: it would be interesting to see a list of the points of change that you think are necessary to make this article historically accurate. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed such a list would be interesting to see, however it is already imbedded in the page history and the archived talk pages, hence I hesitate to spend time doing as you request because I know from previous experience that the recommendations are ignored and/or censored. What you are asking of me has already been done in the past.  Since this is the case, the burden does not lay on my shoulders to re-iterate it all.  It wasnt even my intent, the intent was simply to remove the FA status of the article, knowing with certainty that any proper revision to the article is impossible.  However, I can state that the history behind Hubble's Law and Gamow's predictions, even starting with the 2nd sentence in the preamble, are being portrayed in a manner that is inconsistent with historical fact solely because the current wording lends false credibility to the BB theory.  It is not entirely the BB proponents fault, most of them truly believe that history happened as it is written on the page, contrary even to the cited sources which state otherwise (again, see the archived talk pages.)  To make the article historically accurate would require a complete re-writing, which is not what I was requesting, as it would no doubt only begin a new era of edit wars on the page, which is not my intent.  The fact is, if the information in the article would be written correctly, any one reading it objectively would realize that the BB foundations are not rock solid.  Since this would cause utter distress to the BB community, the article is simply not allowed to be written accurately.  Again, all that I requested was that the article is no longer Featured, that would be good enough for me.  It is more than obvious that this request will not happen, hence any further action by me on the matter would be entirely fruitless.  I DO NOT intend to 'be bold' and re-write the article. --Ionized 21:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks fine to me. What exactly is a "Big Bang proponent"? Are those the people who convinced God to create the universe? Well I hope they've learned their lesson. Kaldari 06:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not qualify as a featured article in its current version, and this regardless of if the Big bang happened or not. The article is an OK Wikipedia article, but not an OK featured article. I don't see how it is really NPOV, to present in the lead section, the position without its critics, I don't see how it is NPOV, to present the position, and even use terms as if the subject is a mathematical notion and an absolute truth, and in the "Features, issues and problems," every problems are answered, without indicating that there are also debates and answers to those answers themselves. NPOV also requires to present the best arguments of each sides and their critics. While the arguments are presented in one side, their critics are dumped in a section to then being criticized in their own turns. The article for this reason sound more as a theses, and while is a good article, does not have this plus thing that would make of it, featured. I really don't see how anyone would claim that words such as this: "This apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory" are not POV. Fadix 18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete? This is not VFD. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=
 * Keep There is no scientific debate over the merits of the Big Bang theory. It is true that there are those who object to the Big Bang. There are also those who object to any scientific claim you care to make. We mention the critics in the article and give them appropriate amount of space with respect to how notable their claims are -- they certainly don't belong in the lead section any more than creationists belong in the lead section of the evolution article. Joshuaschroeder 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. For those of you looking for a wiki safe from the scourge of science, I would suggest CreationWiki. They have a wonderful article on the Big Bang, BTW, which I'm sure could use dedicated editors. Interestingly, their intro paragraph doesn't mention criticisms either. Kaldari 19:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is a good article, but I'm not sure it would make featured if it was put up today. It's not friendly enough to non-technical readers (even the intro doesn't exactly ease people in), and on the other hand lacks detail in some areas. Presumably this is why, oddly, the History comes before the Overview - because the History is relatively nontechnical. But what's called for is a better structure, leading from simple fairly non-technical overview (of theory, history, issues, debate) to more detailed theory overview to theory detail. Rd232 21:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)