Jump to content

Talk:Cosmos (Sagan book)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCosmos (Sagan book) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 11, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Carl Sagan's book Cosmos, which accompanied the Cosmos television series, became the best-selling science book in 1980?

Why the big critique of Sagan's attitude to atom bombs?

[edit]

Why is this page, which I thought would be about the book, mostly a long critique of Sagan's attitude to atom bombs (which I don't know enough about to comment on). This seems to drastically unbalance the page. 62.31.128.13

This page was only created a day ago. I thought that analysis would make an interesting addition to the "Cosmos" page but there was no page on the book yet so I created one and posted what I had. I'm actually working on a summary of the rest of the book right now because you're right, it is very unbalanced. -snpoj

A comment: both favorable and critical discussions of the book can be summarized in several sentences. This is an encyclopaedic article about the book and should mention its biases one way or another but I don't think they need this much detail. It could warrant a separate article though (e.g. "Bias in Sagan's Cosmos") Miranche 09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any criticism can be summed up in a couple of sentences but if I'm going to make a statement like that I like to have proof. For one thing it's important for whoever reads the statement to be able to go through the observations and interpretations to see why that statement was made. That's one reason I think it should be left in the article.

The second reason is that bifurcation of articles is seen by Wikipedia strategists as a trend to be avoided in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons

"As Wikipedia grows more comprehensive, efforts are expected to move more towards increasing the quality, scope, classification and interlinkage of existing articles, rather than the creation of new articles - though see Wikipedia:Words per article for further discussion."

By adding a detailed, referenced criticism I think I have increased the scope, depth and quality of the article. Now, if it ever became common for people to come to this article to post their criticisms of Cosmos to the point of burgeoning the article significantly I think it would warrant its own page. --snpoj

I vote against sections "Criticism of Scientific Hubris" and "Criticism and Analysis of 'Cosmos' in relation to Nuclear Weapons and War"

[edit]

They should be removed from this article, and I even consider that such kind of texts don't belong to Wikipedia at all. snpoj should write them somewhere else, outside of Wikipedia. Reason: they are fully unscientific. Specifically:

"Criticism of Scientific Hubris" -- the writer of the section wants to tell two things "we should even doubt that evolution existed" ('Creationism' anyone?) and "science is bad because everything is a theory and can't be proved 100%" -- here he tries to use the logic of 'Zeno's paradox' to discredit the scientific method. Makes you wonder why we need encyclopeadias then at all.

"Criticism and Analysis of 'Cosmos' in relation to Nuclear Weapons and War" is even sillier: here the writer tell us only "Sagan writes that nuclear weapons are bad, and that the society can destroy himself, but he is wrong since we haven't destroyed ourselves until now, QED". So let's remove both parts. - 80.109.93.28 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with some of 80.109.93.28's statements, but have no time to argue

[edit]

Remove all you want. The entire article qualifies as original research (OR), which is prohibited. Notice how there are no citations for statements that aren't mere summary of the work. That is original research and it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.

Whether the analysis is correct or not is not your judgement. All you can judge is whether or not it is OR.

-snpoj 13 Feb 2006

Article now marked with {{noncompliant}}

[edit]

The reasons are more or less listed in the above discussion. I'll add just one more thing: it makes no sense to berate Sagan for his dislike - even fear or hatred, if you will - of atomic weapons from a 2006 perspective, without taking into account that his book was written in 1980, at the height of Cold War.

The section is seriously problematic and should not survive without a drastic rewrite. GregorB 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So are you saying that Sagan's "scientific" approach to analysing nuclear war is just the product of the times he lived in? -snpoj

To avoid further confusion, let's clarify. Nuclear war is subject to scientific analysis only to a degree. (Herman Kahn springs to mind.) One can analyze pretty much everything about it except the most important thing: is it going to happen? That's not a scientific question.
Sagan's line of reasoning was: 1) nuclear weapons are hugely destructive (both long- and short-term), 2) the probability of their use is significant, 3) ergo, we should be really worried. IIRC he estimated the probability of survival of the human race in the next 100 years at 40%. Noone said this was science because it isn't and can't be. Was Sagan wrong? It makes no sense to pose such a question, since his claim(s) cannot be falsified. Was his estimate unrealistic? In 2006 - possibly. But in 1980 - I'm not so sure... GregorB 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the other two articles. Added the noncompliant tag there too. -snpoj

Fair use rationale for Image:Cosmos book.gif

[edit]

Image:Cosmos book.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

:  done! --Necessary Evil (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cosmos (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hadger 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and found a few errors. Here they are:

  • In the first sentence of the "Summary" section, "Cosmos" should be in italics since it's the name of a TV show.
  • The last sentence of the summary section should be put in the Critical reception section or the Legacy section, because it doesn't really have anything to do with the summary.
  • The summary section could also be expanded with some more information on the book. You can put information such as what the book teaches the reader. 1 or 2 more paragraphs will be okay.
  • In the legacy section the part in the first sentence that says "...(and probably of several subsequent years)..." should be removed, because it is an opinion about when the book was the most popular book.
  • In the third sentence of the legacy section, the phrase "in its own right" should be changed something that people that don't speak English very well would be able to understand (or the phrase can be removed in all).

That's about all of the errors that I could find. If you need help fixing them, you can let me know and I'll help. --Hadger 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion

[edit]

As the nominator appears to have lost interest - their last edit was over a month ago. I suggest that this is failed now. As you point out, the Summary section is far too short for a subject such as this rather important book. That fails this on criterion 3: Broad in its coverage. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

Since the reviewer seems to have lost interest in the article and won't really edit it, this article has failed. --Hadger 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

Hello all - Recently I removed the "See also" section of this article, which had two links - Carl Sagan and Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. That edit was then reverted with the comment "Revert POV edit, take to Talk page."

The reason I cut that section was based on this guideline - "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

Both of the links I cut appear in the first two sentences of the article: "Cosmos (1980) is a popular science book by astronomer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Carl Sagan. Its 13 illustrated chapters, corresponding to the 13 episodes of the Cosmos TV series on which the book was based, explore the mutual development of science and civilization."

If there is a strong feeling for keeping the See also section as is, then that's fine. But, that was my rationale for deleting it. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmos (Carl Sagan book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmos (Carl Sagan book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy or similar section could be welcome

[edit]

I see Neil deGrasse Tyson with a team had created Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, which I think needs being mentioned here. Perhaps that is not this book's only legacy, and if so, a section for that should be created with this link in a suitable sentence as initial content, and more to be added when found. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cosmos_(Sagan_book)&oldid=1216742415"