Talk:Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

Regional Presumptions

Although this is a US TV program, Wikipedia is an international resource, and US TV is also sold internationally. If the program will be available in March to May 2014, this should be stated directly, rather than "spring 2014".

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbfarquhar (talk • contribs)

You're absolutely corrected (this is standard practice to avoid those terms). Changed to Q2'14. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Running Time

The actual running time is not 60 minutes but - according to the first episode - something around 45 minutes (1st episode lasted less than 44 minutes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.23.22 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The show also premiered in Israel on March 16 on the National Geographic channel.

Please add it to the list. Thanks. http://natgeotv.com/il/listings/weekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitbk (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added it some seconds ago. Thanks for the suggestion. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DVD Release, unaired episode info

National Geographic has pre-order info for the DVD, coming out 6/29/14. It will be 4 discs, 572 minutes, and containing these bonus features: "Library of Congress Dedication," "Cosmos at Comic-Con," "Cosmos: A Vision Reborn," and "Interactive Cosmic Calendar." Under "Title List" is included a description of each episode, including those that have not yet aired. ( http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/productDetail.jsp?productId=2002796&code=NGDAM00001 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.101.149 (talk • contribs)

References

While the DVD release and features are fine, we cannot include the full word-for-word of future episode synopsis as that is a copyright violation. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Split section

I think that the list of episodes should be split from this and moved to its own article. It is notable, and it is quite large. Phill24th (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

We're nowhere at any size limit yet, and if anything, the first thing to trim is the list of international broadcast list, which is frowned on by the TV Wikiproject. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

MASEM - agree with both your points. 1st we aren't near the point where the episodes NEED to be split off. 2nd the International Broadcast List is the number 1 "white page" filler that could be trimmed from dozens of pages. IMO it is pointless trivia... Ckruschke (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Show Synopsis and Image Descriptions

Is there are reason why there is a quite substantial image description that refers to what was discussed on the show when we already have a multi-paragraph show discussion - especailly when it is a near dupe of the text that's already there? There is alot of white space being created here.

My suggestion is to cut down the image description to the Wikipedia-typical 5-10 word description to explain just what the image is and move the rest of the text into the show description as necessary. I think the readers are smart enough to make the connection. Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

After adding the most recent episode, I've tried to cut down the descriptions. I will note on my system there's no white of significance, but the point is well taken. (Also, depending if the individual episodes remain notable, I would move much of these to the individual episodes and summarize the episode descriptions to 1-2 sentences each.) --MASEM (t) 05:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds good! Ckruschke (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I change the part of the synopsis of episode 1 from "all of mankind's recorded history would be compressed in the last second of the last minute on December 31" to "all of mankind's recorded history would be compressed into the last few seconds of the last minute on December 31." The episode correctly states that in the cosmic calendar man's history has been around for at least 10 "seconds". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Calendar. I don't know anything about the wiki formatting so if I edited it wrong please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.43.58 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Final episode [S01E13] ran on June 2 - a week earlier than scheduled

I'm in Montreal and watching S01E13 on NatGeo HD right now. Starts with a library thing... Now there's a dude in an air balloon (around 10 minutes in)... Fritz Zwicky... dark energy... prediction of supernovas... universe expanding forever... Voyager Golden Record... episode ends with Sagan's famous Pale Blue Dot speech and then DeGrasse Tyson talking some more... The end. Last words: "...in the cosmos".

Is it a mistake they are running the final episode E13 today - a week earlier than scheduled?--24.203.108.54 (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

They are probably wrong and airing the wrong one (I dunno if NatGeo abided the missed week on FOX due to nascar or not). --MASEM (t) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Anti-Russian bias

I love how a show called COSMOS features great scientists, discoverers, thinkers from all over the world - Ancient Chinese, Egyptian, Native American, Arab, Persian, European, whatever, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE RUSSIAN OR SOVIET SCIENTIST NAME OR ACHIEVEMENT MENTIONED in the entire series until a brief mention of Soviet Venera space craft all the way in episode 12 and then again nothing on Russian/Soviet achievements in the final episode 13 either - so just 1 Russian/Soviet mention in the entire show called COSMOS! This when Russian and Soviet scientists made countless significant cosmos-related achievements and discoveries!

It reminds me of this http://i.imgur.com/WWLP9cS.jpg --24.203.108.54 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW they mentioned the USSR probes that landed on Venus last night. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's what i said above, the Soviet Venera landed on Venus in 1982 - the only one (fleeting at that) mention of Russian/Soviet achievement in the entire series called COSMOS--24.203.108.54 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not out fault the show decided to focus more on the Western world's approach. But that's an idea to watch for in the critical reception, if they note the lack of Russian contributions. (Arguably, however, the sections on space travel didn't have much about the space race aspects, more about getting to mars, venus, and deep space, as opposed to satellites and orbital travel). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask, why does this matter? Follow the achievements where they come from, not where you would like them to be. Zero Serenity (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the infographic at this address: http://i.imgur.com/WWLP9cS.jpg

The USSR did a number of space firsts in the late '50s and early '60s. It's not relevant today exactly who lofted the first satellite. Consider that, in reply to Sputnik, the US put up Explorer 1 just a few months afterward. A few months isn't even remotely enough time to put together a launch vehicle from scratch. The rocket which lofted Explorer was taken out of storage for the event. The US was entirely capable of putting up a satellite a year or more before Sputnik went up. Sputnik also wasn't as much of a surprise as popular legend makes it out to be. The USSR announced publicly that they intended to put up a satellite for the International Geophysical Year. Satellites had been in the works in both the US and USSR for several years prior to 1957.

The USSR put up the first live animal. It was also the first country to lose an animal in space. The dog Laika went up aboard Sputnik 2 and suffered miserably in the process. Laika died while on orbit. The USSR put up the first human passenger. I'm sure that the flight was a great adventure for Gagarin; but, putting up a man for exactly one revolution wasn't as big an accomplishment as history paints it. His spacecraft only had to keep him alive for perhaps a couple of hours (which would include some time waiting on the launch pad). The real accomplishment came later, when a cosmonaut stayed up long enough to matter. Gagarin only got to scratch the surface. Putting up the first woman is wholly unimportant as a feat of space travel. There's no important difference between keeping a man or a woman alive and comfortable aboard a spacecraft. If you can put up one, you can put up the other.

In hindsight, putting up the first crew to do an EVA was a questionable event. What I mean by this is that the particular event, when Leonov went outside his spacecraft, was done as a stunt, just as several of the USSR's early space firsts were stunts. Leonov was in some real danger of not being able to get back into his craft. His suit didn't have enough joint flexibility under its operational internal air pressure. He only managed to get back in by bleeding down the suit pressure to a rather dangerously low level. He was at risk of suffering an embolism. In fact, stunts-in-space were a severe drain on real practical Soviet progress in space during the early years. This includes things like putting up two spacecraft on two separate orbits which passed withing a few kilometers of one another and hailing it as the first orbital rendezvous. A real rendezvous involves the two orbits meeting tangentially, with the two spacecraft's velocities being adjusted toward equality as they meet. It's an important navigational skill necessary if one wants to meet up with a space station, or go to the Moon. The USSR did of course learn how to execute rendezvous; but the United States did it first. Putting up the first woman was a stunt for the reason I mentioned above: orbiting a woman is approximately equal to orbiting a man. Putting three cosmonauts into a craft only large enough to safely carry two was a stunt (Voskhod 1). Putting in a third crew meant going up without pressure suits. If there'd been a breach, they all would've died. One reason why the US was behind the USSR on firsts early-on is because the US wasn't doing stunts. It was doing only real engineering flights, learning how to work in space, getting down to the business of travel to the Moon.

Putting up the first space station is similar to what I've said about putting up the first satellite. The US had been doing design studies for space stations for years before the first Salyut; Skylab went up just two-years after Salyut 1. It had been in the works for years before put up. Putting up the first station says nothing important about a lack of capability in the US.

Putting the first robot on the Moon was an accomplishment by the USSR. The USSR also returned lunar samples by robot, which the US hasn't done. However, this touches on the derisive image at lower-left of the overweight, flag-waving American who rests on his nation's historical laurels as the only country to have put astronauts on the Moon. The author of the infographic wants to insinuate that landing men on the Moon is irrelevant to the Present Day. This isn't true, because the US returned a stockpile of several hundred kilograms of lunar samples from varied locales. This inventory far outweighs the amount returned by the USSR and continues to be an indispensible resource for scientists worldwide. Furthermore, when it came to the two countries' big boosters, the Saturn rocket was superior. There were some superior design innovations in Soviet rocket motors, to the extent that certain ones are bought by at least one American manufacturer today. But, the Soviets relied at that time too much upon clustering very large arrays of small motors to generate large total thrust. Their technology at the time wasn't up to the task of reliably coordinating all those thrust chamber behaviors effectively. It caused their Moon booster to fail catastrophically on every test. The US had the large F-1 motor, allowing large thrust to be generated with only a handful of them. Development of the F-1 dates back to before Sputnik.

Lastly, Russian Soyuz are currently the sole ride to the ISS for Americans mainly because circumstances make that arrangement optimal. The US buys rides from Russia today; but keep in mind that domestic replacements for the Space Shuttle are actively in development. The SpaceX Dragon spacecraft has entered active service as a cargo ferry; the passenger-carrying variant is well on its way. Other private contractors are also developing their own spacecraft. In short, the US buys Soyuz seats because it's available now and is affordable. If, hypothetically, the US and Russia had kept a hostile relationship during the last couple of decades and weren't partners in space, the US Federal Government would never have allowed access to its space station to lapse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the very eloquent, if unneeded, post. But you completely ignored the main grievance - ANTI-RUSSIAN BIAS of this show, which deliberately ignores Russian and Soviet people's achievements in science and seemingly purposefully does not mention a single Russian name in the entire show.--24.203.108.54 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the article's talk page is to discuss improvements or changes to the article. If you want to criticize the show, there are numerous other boards for that.MisterCSharp (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment immediately above yours doesn't criticize the Show. It is a critique of another critique. You ought to be reprimanding this section's first post, not its last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The first post and the one he responded to are from the same person, or at least both from the same IP address. The post he responded to was definitely a continuation of the original rant.

Errors section (deleted)

I added a section (below the episode list) headed Errors earlier today. The entire section was later deleted outright by User:Drovethrughosts with no explanation whatsoever, either on this talk page or his user talkpage. Hint, Alex: if you don't like something someone else has added, state your reasons here and seek a concensus before deleting it. Here is the content of the section, which I have added back.

1) In February 2014 Neil deGrasse Tyson was in Australia promoting the upcoming release of Cosmos. During that visit, several short scenes (locale establishment shots) featuring famous Australian landmarks were filmed. Those scenes were included in episode 8 of series 1. One of them was an early evening night-sky scene overlooking Sydney Harbour, with its famous Bridge and Opera House. That scene was later doctored by the Cosmos production team, who grafted a forged image of the Moon onto the sky scene. This conclusion is inevitable since the Moon not only appears in a sky position that (for the southern hemisphere) it is impossible for it to be in, but, additionally, was in the orientation of a northern-hemisphere Waxing Crescent Moon, as explained in greater detail (together with a screen shot) on the astronomy webpage where this error was first exposed. The person who edited the scene clearly did not realize that he was inserting the Moon upside-down from the way it appears in the southern hemisphere.

References

The error is not the doctoring of the sky scene per se, since that was a deliberate act rather than an error and it could arguably be justified as an exercise of artistic license. Rather, the error consists in what the above-cited webpage calls the hamfisted way in which it was done, creating a scene that was astronomically impossible — a conclusion supported by the Sydney Observatory, which hosted an evening with Neil deGrasse Tyson while he was in Sydney, during which visit that scene was shot.

Please state what you would like changed, giving reasons, Alex. Moongazer29.53 (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources discussing this, deeming it notable enough to include? To me, it seems you just copied and pasted content (from what I can tell) from your own personal website and put it on here, which is what Wikipedia is not. It's written in a very opinionated tone (see: "The error is not the doctoring of the sky scene per se, since that was a deliberate act rather than an error and it could arguably be justified as an exercise of artistic license. Rather, the error consists in what the above-cited webpage calls the hamfisted way in which it was done"), which again, is what Wikipedia is not—your own blog. It also comes off as original research. Come back with reliable third-party sources specifically writing about this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Sydney observatory is a sufficiently reliable source as to astronomical accuracy of the scene. I have personally checked with them. Their spokesperson checked with their astronomers and confirmed. (You are welcome to contact them and seek confirmation if you dispute this or the facts stated.) This is not original research, the facts speak for themselves, which you can confirm by asking anyone with even a basic knowledge of positional astronomy. I suggest again you seek consensus for your extreme habit of just deleting the section with no valid reason. Please observe normal Wikipedia etiquette and leave the section there pending further comments on this dispute. You are not the final authority on what "Wikipeida [is or] is not." Moongazer29.53 (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Normal Wikipedia etiquette" in this case is the BRD cycle: you made a bold edit, Drovethrughosts reverted it, and now discussion is ongoing. Remember that material in Wikipedia must be verifiable to published reliable sources; personal contact with an observatory is not acceptable. Further, a personal blog is not a reliable source. Thus, the burden of proof is clearly on the editor attempting to add the material to show that it meets the guidelines and to make sure consensus exists for adding it before it gets added, now that it's been contested. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a personal blog. I do however have numerous astronomy textbooks, all of which are absolutely clear on the fact that the Moon cannot appear in the southern part of the sky in the southern hemisphere. Please state, for the record, which facts you are disputing (e.g. is it your contention that the Moon can be seen in the southern part of the sky, or do you dispute the geography or compass directions of the scene stated in the source?) The arguments stated there are clear enough. If you dispute anything stated there, please offer some rebuttal evidence. Moongazer29.53 (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For starters, moongazer.x10.mx doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Also, you need to establish WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Season 2 Rumors

There have been rumors of a season 2 hosted by Bill Nye or Michio Kaku, this may be of some interest to readers. I no longer edit Wikipedia articles directly because I disagree with the politics of Wikipedia, so here is one link to get another editor started if they would like to add it. http://www.youthhealthmag.com/articles/2640/20141120/cosmos-season-2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.162.241 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of speculative grasping at straws in that. So the host says if there were to be a second season, he wouldn't be part of it. From that, they assume there will be another season and go to forum postings at IMDb for who fans would want and an out-of-context quote from Michio Kaku. Nothing to add here. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I saw those pass by on Twitter, and they're nowhere close to being reliable to include. I can see them doing it, but let's wait for someone directly involved with the show to make that statement. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here is someone directly involved with the show making a statement that a season 2 is possible. From Seth MacFarlane's official twitter, and also this article. I will point out, however, that it appears Neil may remain as those host, if it happens. War wizard90 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I went ahead and added the info. about the season 2 rumors, I would assume that if both Seth and Neil are tweeting teases, that it is more than likely that it will happen, and as more information comes in we will be able to add to the section. War wizard90 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that. The only potentially reliable bit is MacFarlene's tweet, but that's an SPS and not usable. The rest is original research. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page, there are tweets from both McFarlane and Tyson, as well as two news sites reporting (that I cited, I'm sure more could be found). I believe these go beyond unsubstantiated rumors to, something most likely to happen, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered tweeting about it. War wizard90 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The only tweet that would be useful is MacFarlene's and that does not confirm a S2 is in production (Which is our typical defining line). Everything else is just rumors and some original research to try to connect the dots, which we can't use at all. --MASEM (t) 04:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it out for now, until there is something more substantial, but I still think it would be useful information that people reading this article would want to know about. War wizard90 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Wording

The word "mankind" has not been used once in this series which I have thoroughly seen and can be seen by any of you as well. Hence, the word mankind certainly not to be used here. The word humankind is what Neil deGrasse Tyson asserts in this series as well as in his speeches. This is reason enough. Also, referring to good dictionaries like Oxford pocket dctionary which I am currently holding. - it is clearly written- use of mankind is considered orthodox by many. Hence, there is a great more deal to use the word humankind as used in the series than using the word mankind. It is a useless assertion to try to retain the word which is also not used in its episodes to describe those same episodes. What do we infer? Mousanonyy (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Completely fair edit, thank you. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am glad Masem, thank you so much. Mousanonyy (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Episode numbering

The numbering of episodes in this list is different from the numbering in the DVD set. 4 and 5 are switched, and 9 and 10 are switched. The production code numbering is in the right order. How should the numbering here be done? In the numbers given, or in the order shown? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

I have now removed the entire Criticism section from the article (). I think that none of the cited sources (blogs, and personal websites such as ) qualify as reliable for wikipedia. See wp:RS. - DVdm (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a source from The Guardian: reliable or not?

There is no doubt that the tv series Cosmos, un-intentionally I assume, promoted some historical myths: such that nobody questioned Aristoteles’s physics before Galileo’s time, or that Bruno was killed because of science.

Two obvious historical myths, and both are debunked by the historians. Finding academic sources is easy. But finding academic sources that specific link the myth(s) with the series is more complicated.

However, I provided a link from The Guardian. That link was removed by an editor because it was “a Guardian article that almost entirely relied on the aforementioned editorial for its facts”

I have now re-read the entire Guardian-text again, and also reading the wikipedia’s criteria for a reliable source, and it is my understanding that the article from The Guardian is “reliable” enough.

The author, Rebekah Haggitt, is a historian of science. And the publisher is an English newspaper.

Here it is: https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2014/mar/14/cosmos-history-science-giordano-bruno-danger-heroes

I want the opinion of other experienced Wikipedia-editors and also of DVdm: Is that Guardian-article reliable or not?

En historiker (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian is routinely considered a reliable source. But also keep in mind that criticism is subjective opinion; sources don't need to be reliable to use someone's opinion, but we do need sources that would representing appropriate experts for the field to provide opinion. If Stephen Hawking wrote a criticism of Cosmos, in a personal blog, we'd be able to use it. The Guardian is known to cover science topics, so they are reasonable to use. But a random blogger with no measure of note would not be in this case. --Masem (t) 16:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting how you ignored the core of his argument. - 91.10.16.139 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Kevin Reilly

Kevin Reilly is called "CEO" and "head of Fox programming". This appears to be a contradiction. If he was indeed both, it should be clarified. - 91.10.16.139 (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sagan Viking.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)