Talk:Big Bang/Archive 15

message: Here is the diff link: 
Here are the problems:
#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!)
#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.
#Including contractions is a violation of WP:MoS. "Don't" do it.
#Citing the Open Letter is not germane to this section which is about peer-reviewed problems.
#"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)
thread_title:  Problems with Harald88's edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: It has been discussed and explained above that the content is verifiably linked to a reliable source. Harald88 13:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Open Letter isn't normally considered a reliable source in these matters. --ScienceApologist 14:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text:  WP:V is essential. That's all. Harald88 11:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Letter