Content deleted Content added
Reverted 1 edit by 8.46.162.66 (talk): WP:NOTAFORUM |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Big Bang/Archive 25) (bot |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 3:
| image = [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|80px]]
| style = width: 80%;
| text = '''IMPORTANT''': This is '''[[WP:NOT|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 [[WP:RS|appropriate sources]]. See [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. For religious aspects, see [[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]].
}}
{{Talk header|}}
{{Article history
|action1=PR
Line 66:
|archive = Talk:Big Bang/Archive %(counter)d
}}
== Needs more sources ==
Line 120 ⟶ 114:
One way to picture the problem is to call it a language issue. We could talk of the big bang theory as describing the beginning of the "known" universe. Meaning by this the eras of the universes that we can start to describe with reliable models. But the wording "beginning of the known universe" is misleading as we don't know the first era described by the models to be the very first era of the universe altogether. We could name it the first era but only as "the first era in the timeline that we can predict and describe". Naming that first era "beginning" is questionable.
: Scientifically, we can't definitively speak to the "Universe" (upper case), meaning the entirety of existence. Saying "known universe" (lower case) is redundant wording, as that is implicit. I don't see a need to hem and haw about speculative possibilities we don't know. If that still bothers you, we could always add a footnote. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
==Article presently lacks words Jewish, Torah, Bible, Biblical==
Since the article first sentence refers to [[Georges Lemaitre]], a priest, surely the word Biblical is a major lack. Since this scientist/physicist is not known to have denied the existence if a Cre-ator, somehow there is room for additional wikitext.
A 2014 article with the title "New Big Bang evidence supports Biblical creation, says Orthodox physicist" and I'll try to shoehorn it in, but first it's to be recognized that the article's LEDE's "Physics lacks" wording appears to be misplaced. Shoehorn second. [[User:Nuts240|Nuts240]] ([[User talk:Nuts240|talk]]) 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:Huh? Writing doesn't generally benefit from a robust checklist of Words That Must Appear—especially ones that aren't jargon particular to the topic.
:Perhaps you should pause and try to concretely state what your editorial concerns actually are, given you yourself are describing the potential remedies as "shoehorning". [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
: You may be looking for the "[[Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory]]" article. The article on Georges Lemaître doesn't mention the Bible. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 03:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||