Talk:Far future

This is barely an article

You've basically taken other people's contributions, cobbled them together, and tacked on a paragraph's worth of your own work. How far is far? Are you using the timeline's definition? What are the dates used in the religious examples you cite? Where is the discussion of human understandings of far time? Serendi ^pod ous 07:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand fully the nature of your concerns. I gave proper attribution when I created this article, stating in the edit summary where the content was coming from and thereby giving credit to the other contributors. I don't own this article any more than anyone else does; all Wikipedia articles are ideally collaborations between many editors. With respect to the definition of "far", yes, I wrote with the timeline's definition in mind; Wikipedia articles should be consistent. I would be glad to see the other information that you request added to the article; please feel free to add discussions of human understandings of far time and (as you mention on my talk page) examples from other religions not yet included in the article. My purpose in creating the article was to create a parent article for Timeline of the far future and Far future in science fiction and popular culture, and to create a space for other contributions relating to the far future that don't belong on the timeline or the science fiction/popular culture articles. All articles are works in progress. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I've tagged the following line under Religous Views as being dubious: "Many Christian authors have welcomed the scientific theory of the heat death of the universe as the ultimate fate of the universe, while atheists and materialists have commonly opposed the theory in favour of the idea that the universe and life in it will exist eternally." The latter half of the line is simply factually incorrect. Perhaps it refers to historical information, in which case it should be stated more clearly. Someone with access to the source should verify what it actually says and whether it's reliable for this topic. --Euniana/Talk 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source. This line appears to be an accurate reflection of the source, although it is talking about historical information. A new sourced statement is probably necessary to indicate that the statement no longer accurately describes the status quo. --Euniana/Talk 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]