Talk:Cosmos: A Personal Voyage

Opening Discussion

Added some text to distinguish Sagan's views on Hypatia with those of his views on astrology and evolution. The latter does reflect the consensus of persons in the field, while the former does not. -- User:Roadrunner

Please qualify this statement. What is the "consensus in the field", and according to whom? I have done some research and reworking on Hypatia of Alexandria, and Sagan's presentation is pretty much in line with the facts, even with recent interpretations. Where's your beef?

I also don't understand why you have added another Vangelis link, there is already one at the top. Our convention is to avoid duplicate links. Furthermore, the reference is inaccurate: Cosmos included a wide selection of music, not just Vangelis. I have to check which particular pieces created the copyright problems. --Eloquence

The consensus in the field is that we really aren't sure what happened and that Sagan's interpretation of events is one of several possible ones which are consistent with the known facts. This is a *very* different situation than Sagan's views toward astrology and evolution. -- User:Roadrunner

Sorry, but I'm getting the impression that this is your opinion. Can you actually point me to any published paper or article that discusses this alleged controversy? --Eloquence

What about the Wikipedia article on Hypatia which I believe you help to write in which there are about three or four different possible motivations for Hypatia's death. The problem here is that Sagan's description of Hypatia's takes one of them and runs with it. And yes I can find some published papers, but it will take be a while. We went through this once before when the Hypatia article was first written. -- Roadrunner:User:Roadrunner

I'm aware of the history of the Hypatia article. Even there, those were just claims, not backed up with any sources. It's quite possible that I will delete this section during future edits if there's no backup for this claim.

Yes, Sagan took one interpretation and ran with it, although the facts in the Hypatia matter are much less controversial than you think (we know that she was murdered by a Christian mob, that she was the daughter of the last head of the museum/library, that all pagan temples in Alexandria were destroyed during her lifetime etc. etc.). He did that during the entire series, which is called "A Personal Voyage". His views on possible life on Mars, the greenhouse effect, the Velikovsky hypothesis etc. were made clear throughout the series, they are all his, based on his evaluations of the facts. He never claimed to do an NPOV presentation.

So if it is just the opinion of some Wikipedians that he went overboard here, it has no place in the article. If, however, there was a serious controversy about Sagan's presentation of Hypatia/the LoA in particular, we need to mention it. So please try to dig up whatever you can find, but if you can't find anything, we'll leave that part out for the time being. --Eloquence

---

What about book by the Harvard Press "Hypatia of Alexandria" by Maria Dzielska translated by F. Lyra.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DZIHYP.html

She argues that Hypatia was killed in a political feud between Cyril and Orestes (who was also a Christian) in which Hypatia backed the wrong side. She also spends a lot of time punching holes in some of the myths that have developed around Hypatia.

As far as the NPOV nature of Cosmos. Many astronomers who I know have the problem with Cosmos (and Sagan in general) that since it was NPOV, there was no distinction made between Sagan's personal views and the scientific consensus on an issue.

I'm aware of Dzielska's book, I'll incorporate some more information from it into the Hypatia article, particularly about Hypatia's circle. Orestes was a Christian, but he also got along with pagans like Hypatia, and the more fundamentalist Cyril and his followers, just like his predecessor Theophilus, wanted to remove all "idolatry" from the city. Dzielska does not ignore these religious issues. It is no coincidence that one year after Hypatia's death, Orosius wrote in his aptly titled "History against the Pagans" that books were taken from pagan temples by the Christians (in some translations the books are destroyed, not in the official Catholic translation which still has the imprimatur from the office of censorship). With Hypatia dead, "the last remains of idolatry in the city" were removed, and Cyril became "the new Theophilus".

Sounds like you have an agenda. It's "no co-incidence"? You need to back that up. Nothing in the accounts we have of Hypatia's death mentions anything her learning being the issue, nor is there anything in them about books. So you're conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other, except in your head. Christians had come to accept "pagan" learning as a gift from God, which is why Hypatia had many Christian pupils. So this Gibbonian idea that they hated learning and wanted to "destroy books is nonsense. Yes, Orosius, writing at the other end of the world, mentions books being looted - that's because they were valuable and prized. Your claim that "in some translations the books are destroyed" needs substantiation, and the following nonsense about "the official Catholic translation" covering this up stinks of nonsense. The fact is that the story of Hypatia that Sagan tells is not substantiated by the sources and the coda about how "the Great Library" was destroyed after her death is pure fantasy. Laughable nonsense in fact. Yet every STEM nerd on the internet repeats it because Sagan put this little fable in his show. His pseudo historical warping actually should be mentioned in this article.TimONeill (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The reason many established scientists didn't like COSMOS is that it brought science to the unwashed masses. A common response was that complex issues like the Doppler effect or the Big Bang could not be understood without understanding the underlying physical laws and mathematical formulas (which is ass-backwards, because the brain can only work if it has strong emotional memories to connect new memories to -- Sagan's explanations were perfect building blocks, which is why he so successfully inspired many, many viewers to go into science). And they disliked him even more for using this opportunity to promote what he believed to be the best intepretations of the facts. But Sagan did usually (not always) mention when he was speculating. --Eloquence

I'll start deferring more to you on classical history, but you need to give me some slack as far as astronomy. Established scientists in general *liked* Cosmos because it brought science to the unwashed masses. The problem is that it brought tended to present Sagan's opinions as fact and failed to adequately distinguish when he was on solid ground and when he was speculating. This caused problems because when he was speculating (like on nuclear winter) the general public gave his opinions much more weight than other scientists who weren't as good at connecting with the public. Curiously it causes even more problems when he is on solid ground. Sagan's opinions on evolution and astrology are the mainstream scientific opinion, but by mixing mainstream opinion and his personal views, he actually weakens the mainstream opinion.

Some of this *is* professional jealousy, but some of it does have to do with the difficulties in explaining scientific concepts to the public.

For example, the big bang. It is possible to give an understandable cartoon version of the big bang, but if someone says that the big bang is non-sense, it is impossible to evaluate the strength of that claim without going into the nitty-gritty of the mathematics. The concern of a lot of scientists is that when faced with public policy questions that the public will tend to gravitate toward the people with the best and flashiest videos rather than to dig deep to figure out what is going on.-- User:Roadrunner

Have you actually watched Cosmos? As I already said, Sagan usually distinguished opinion from fact and used a lot of phrases like "We are quite sure that ..", "We still don't know if ..", "Can it be that ..". His nuclear winter hypothesis, which reasonable people can disagree with, was published after Cosmos. You are right: "if someone says that the big bang is non-sense, it is impossible to evaluate the strength of that claim without going into the nitty-gritty of the mathematics." But that was not the point of Cosmos -- the point of Cosmos was to give a good summary of the state of mainstream science of the time, with Sagan as a personal teacher. Cosmos is the "gateway drug" into science, if people got more interested, they could look into all the smaller and larger debates. If Sagan had actually done what some people wanted him to do, Cosmos would have been unwatchable.

"Sagan's opinions on evolution and astrology are the mainstream scientific opinion, but by mixing mainstream opinion and his personal views, he actually weakens the mainstream opinion" -- huh? What kind of logic is that? Sagan was a trusted authority to his viewers. What he said was taken seriously. He debunked creationism and astrology, which many people outside the scientific mainstream believe to be equally "valid views" without realizing the difference between science and pseudoscience. Sagan explained that difference. He did so in more detail in his book "Science as a Candle in the Dark".

"The concern of a lot of scientists is that when faced with public policy questions that the public will tend to gravitate toward the people with the best and flashiest videos rather than to dig deep to figure out what is going on." That concern is justified, because most people will gravitate to the people with the best and flashiest videos. So we better make sure that they're good videos, eh? The same scientists who complained about Cosmos have no complaints about astrology hotlines, televangelists, and other religious/pseudoscientific crap in mainstream TV. The argument that Cosmos was somehow inappropriate is riddled with giant black holes. --Eloquence

---

Pausing for a note of thanks...I'm grateful for the note about the Region 0 DVD release, which I've now bought. Lee M 04:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

added (half a billion) after the 500,000 number (1st paragraph), out of respect and honour for sagan's use of the word 'billion'. --Revsuicide 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What was it actually about?

I think the article is missing a little piece in the introduction explaining what the series was about. I haven't seen the series since it was first aired in the UK more than twenty years ago so my memory is a little hazy. I propose to add "The series covered a wide range of scientific subjects including the origin of life and a perspective of our place in the universe." at the end of the first paragraph --Etimbo | Talk 14:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's done. --Etimbo | Talk 12:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External link to list of music

I have moved the external link to the list of music used in the series to the See also section. This is because the site it links to does not assert that there were copyright problems with the music and so I believe the link does not belong in the main body of the article as a reference. I also removed the text about missing images: when I looked that the site in question an image was shown. --Etimbo | Talk 15:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New article for the book only

For the new generations who have never seen the show but who have picked up the book, which is in many public libraries. --snpoj

Article could be improved with Quotes

What do you think yes, no, ...

Theo Pardilla 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Modern equivalent

What's a really good documentary or documentary series that deals with astronomy that is more accurate to today's knowledge, or is Cosmos still worth viewing to a modern audience?--Sonjaaa 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

there are many space documentaries available on netflix today that will talk about similar topics, but Cosmos is definitely still worth watching as a modern audience. It's one of the only shows I've seen that is not only accessible to people who don't understand science very well, but also an incredibly emotional show that impacts people deeply to this day. Mfferrer (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC) Mfferrer (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Cosmos is not only still worth viewing nearly thirty years from its inception, but ought to be mandatory viewing for every high school in the nation. While certain specifics may be in need of up-dating, the brilliance of this series lies in the broad strokes - Sagan's delivery is powerful and moving, his words near poetry, and he illicits a timeless passion for science and reason. Watching it now, I find myself stunned by just how damned good this show is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

try PBS Nova: The Elegant Universe. Super-recommended if you liked Cosmos. And think up some more stuff -- perhaps we can make a "see also" section for the article. Te2rx 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen both Cosmos and The Elegant Universe. They discuss slightly different topics, with the latter including more about modern theoretical physics. I still prefer Cosmos between the two, since much of what Sagan discusses is (relatively) timeless. Being older doesn't necessarily make it dated.129.2.167.219 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Elegant Universe is a bit more flash-bang whizz-whizz than Cosmos, I find, even taking into account the advances in technology. It's probably aimed more at the shorter attention span of today's viewers and doesn't really have any of the extended sequences seen in Cosmos. That's not to say it's not worth mentioning, though it's certainly a very good show. I agree with the previous comment that the message of Cosmos is timeless, and so would have to list it as my personal all-time favourite documentary. Another great one I've seen was the BBC production The Planets (TV miniseries) which I recommended wholeheartedly. It deals mainly with the solar system and the space age though, and not with general science or scientific reasoning. --Alcareru (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The History Channel has their rather decent series "The Universe" which features a lot of computer graphics, interviews with scientists and already has 2 seasons and a ton of episodes on a very wide range from topics, from an episode on just the Moon to an episode on light-speech to another episode on human reproduction in outer space! --99.31.222.73 (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"The show was shot on multi-media"

The show might be comprised of multi-media. But it was either shot on video or film. And it was very very unlikely to have been shot on film. - Abscissa 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cosmos was photographed on both film and videotape. Location scenes were shot on 16mm film; studio scenes were on tape.

Title of 14th episode

Does anyone recall if the "14th episode" -- the Ted Turner-Carl Sagan interview that was included in the first VHS release of the series -- had a title? Also, I state in the article that it wasn't included on the DVD, based on what I've been able to find out about the set (which is apparently very rare); I'm happy to stand corrected if the interview is included after all. 23skidoo 04:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CosmosDVDC.jpg

Image:CosmosDVDC.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sagan VLA2.jpg

Image:Sagan VLA2.jpg 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) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

done! Necessary Evil (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sagan planetary orbits2.jpg

Image:Sagan planetary orbits2.jpg 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) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

done! Necessary Evil (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode names and spellings.

There is a difference in episode names and spellings for Episode 6, 8 and 12. I have the "7-disc Collector's Edition, digitally remastered from Cosmos studios, 2000".

Episode #	Opening sequence	DVD menu	printed on DVD	printed on box	Cosmos books
Ep. 6	Travellers' Tales	Travelers' Tales	Travellers' Tales	Travellers' Tales	Travelers' Tales
Ep. 8	Journeys in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time	Travels in Space and Time
Ep. 12	Encyclopaedia Galactica	Encyclopaedia Galactica	Encyclopedia Galactica	Encyclopedia Galactica	Encyclopaedia Galactica

It is obvious that the names and spellings in the Opening Sequence are the correct ones because that's what the viewers saw in 1980. The episode names in the book are correct for the Cosmos (book) article. How do we avoid that casual editors, who only look at the DVD cover, change the names? I've tried with a hidden message, but Theo Pardilla removed it with this strange explanation:"no<< content". The hidden messages could save us from a lot of reverting and maybe edit wars. What do you think? Necessary Evil (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The hidden message had as much clarity as my 'strange explanation'.

I have copied the table to the article but it needs to be stated in the article which titles version is being used. I prefer the opening sequence version as its nearest to the original media, particularly as this article is about the video not the book, with the actual video content being primary. Theo Pardilla 02:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

July 27th 2006 24.255.2.71 changed the correct Traveller's to the incorrect Traveler's [1]. When I discovered this article, I compared the titles with my Cosmos book and saw nothing wrong with them. January 14th 2008 24.150.50.196 was awaken and corrected Traveler's to Traveller's [2]. I double checked with my DVD and realised that others might believe the book title was the correct one - that's why I inserted the hidden <!--Travelers in the book--> message, so that other users would be deterred from changing the correct title to an incorrect one.

June 29th 2007 Quatermass changed the correct Journeys to the incorrect Travels [3] probably because it is the title in the book and DVD cover. Hidden messages can save us a lot of trouble. Necessary Evil (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. However hidden messages need to be more specific and detailed such as "Dont change this title as it varies across different media; and it has been decided to to use the titles from the (select media type eg opening sequence). See title box in article and discusssion page"

--Theo Pardilla 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The spelling variation may be because Malone & Kennard were British, having both worked on the BBC's The Ascent of Man previously.

Fair use rationale for Image:Cosmos a special edition3.jpg

Image:Cosmos a special edition3.jpg 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) 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

done! --Necessary Evil (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Science channel confusion

Is it true that the Science Channel is only airing 8 episodes out of the 13 originally in the series? Latitude0116 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking for quote

There's a quote I remember from watching the program when it fist aired: “The scientist’s job isn’t to find answers, but to find questions.” Can anyone verify this? Morganfitzp (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

Do we need so many and such long quotes? This isn't Wikiquote, and even if it was, these are surely excessive. It doesn't help that when some people see such a large quote list, they decide to expand it with their own personal favourites.--Drat (Talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the quote section per my concerns above.--Drat (Talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The quotes articulate the authors major thoughts in his own original words without reinterpretation or reductionist points and thus provide ease of access to these thoughts without sitting through 13 or more hours of video or reading the book. That Drats comment was unreplied to for a month tends to indicate that his inclination to remove quotes is not shared by others. I shall restore the quotes section.--Theo Pardilla (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Theo Pardilla though I tend to prefer shorter quotes because they are easier to remember. But I believe that a long quotes, if really meaningful, cannot be discarded just on the basis of its length. The problem is that it is difficult to find something Carl Sagan had said (in Cosmos or elsewhere) that qualifies as meaningless.--Doctor C (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not for lists of quotations (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information). If you want to list quotes, then go to Wikiquote. You can't simply list a gajillion quotes here - for one thing the number of quotes makes the article incredibly cumbersome, and there's no evidence to show that these quotes are notable (i.e. no reliable third-party sources are given which demonstrate the notability of them, and hence why they should be included in an encyclopedia article).

Regarding Theo Pardilla's point of providing "ease of access" to Carl Sagan's thoughts: if you want to provide a synopsis of the series, then write a synopsis rather than giving a personal selection of quotations. This article is about a TV series/book, not Carl Sagan himself or his thoughts (that's what the Carl Sagan article is for).

Assuming that nobody agrees because nobody has replied is wrong - it may have been that nobody had read what Drat wrote in the first place. By your logic we could assume that everyone agrees because nobody had posted comments disagreeing for a month. Una Laguna^Talk 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Drat had every right to remove the quotes. It was minimally WP:BOLD since they posted here and then waited a month...which is sufficient time to people watching the article. I like the quotes and will help move them to WikiQuote, but they really don't belong here. Some quotes from the show, maybe, but it is not standard per the WP:BIO project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishDragon (talk • contribs)

Links to Online Episodes

Hulu.com has added the original, unedited 13 episodes. I tried to add the link to External Links at the bottom of the article, but User:Fastily has reverted my addition, saying the link is inappropriate. Given that there is a paragraph relating the (former) difficulty in finding the unedited original episodes, I don't agree that adding a link to those episodes is inappropriate when the host site is free to the public.

I agree with having a link. This is not a link to a youtube or other copyright-breaching copy. This is basically the official licensed on-line version. Given the comments about difficulty finding them, this is an appropriate link to have. Quadparty (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems people continue to remove the links to the videos. Per the guidelines, these external links are appropriate to this article. Quoting the External Links guidelines: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." And this: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the 'Links normally to be avoided' criteria apply," which they don't. WholeNote68 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that links to episodes are useful, but please avoid making it a "link farm". It's not clear that all the links to videos are necessary (Hulu, GUBA, Google Video). If none contains content which is a subset of the other three, then it's perfectly fine. (See follow up response.) Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Now ALL links to the videos have been removed. Since the Hulu.com is officially licensed and of high quality, I'm adding that link yet again. WholeNote68 (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why the bot removed the hulu link. Plastikspork (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And that reason is? I have yet to see anyone quote a SPECIFIC guideline that suggests that link was inappropriate. Please do so. WholeNote68 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hulu is only available within the United States. See WP:ELNO item 7. There has been more lengthy discussion of this Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_Hulu_and_other_sites_only_accessible_in_specific_regions. As I said before, there is a reason why the linkbot removed it. Plastikspork (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Original UK Airdate / Time

I remember watching this as a 16 year old in 1980, and it was shown around 7:00pm or 8:00pm, which is evening prime time. I need someone to cite the time properly for me before I correct the bit that refers to late screening in the UK - I don't call 7 or 8 in the evening 'late' ! Unfortunately I can't find any references to the original UK airdates. Anyone? Blitterbug (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

@Blitterbug: late to answer but BBC Genome puts first episode on BBC1 London, 17 June 1981 22.15[4] and repeated BBC 2 6 September 1982 18.15 [5]. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Late to respond, but thanks! Blitterbug 04:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitterbug (talk • contribs)

Episode name spelling discrepancies > What for?

IMO this section is just a curiosity and doesn't have any important informative value about the series.

It was to avoid an edit war, since people were correcting the spelling to what they read in the book, on the DVD cover etc. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Version with introduction by Sagan's wife?

Can someone look into this? There are snippets on Youtube which have an introduction by Carl Sagan's wife who briefly discusses the changes in the series from the 1970s to the 1990s (or 2000s, I forget when it was aired). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.113.218 (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The DVD box from 2000, disc one, has the 'Ann Druyan Intro' on it. She talks about a tribute to Carl Sagan so he must have been dead (+1996) at the time it was filmed. IMHO it must be a "Cosmos Update 20 years later". --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Price of the sale to Turner

Does anyone know how much Turner paid for Cosmos? I am surprised to learn that it was even possible to sell this series as PBS is federally and publicly funded. I think many contributors assumed funded programs of this nature were part of the public trust. Jeff Carr (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum.  Xihr  06:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how your whining helps this article more than Jeff's question, which has potential to add content to the article. - 142.167.161.103 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright was assigned to TBS productions in 2000 by Carl Sagan Productions. The quitclaim and assignment agreement can be located at the United States Copyright Office website, search for document number V3454D681. Copyright information does not, however, indicate transaction amounts.

Not everything on PBS is publicly-funded or publicly-owned (in fact, PBS is chartered to receive at most only about 1/2 of its operating budget from the US Federal Government; the rest is from donations). PBS is a network and PBS stations are affiliates who need programming to fill their broadcast schedules. PBS routinely purchases limited rights to independent producers' products. When those rights lapse, the products' copyright owners are free then to distribute their programs to other venues or sell ownership outright. Programs which air on PBS get their funding from whichever investors or donors filmmakers can persuade to part with some cash. As I recall, for the original PBS run of Cosmos, every episode was preceded by an explicit statement to the effect that it had been underwritten by Arco Petroleum.

Plato

There is a section which describes Dr. Sagan and the fact that Plato was against publicizing astrophysics in using telescopes. Could one imagine the lines to see through telescopes back then? Hypothesis: Plato was concerned with communications between persons here on Earth. For, Carl </\>75.203.1.55 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That was certainly incorrect, and perhaps a hack or vandalism, whatever we call intentional misinformation in a Wikipedia article. Sagan did mention Plato, in his discussion about the emergence of the scientific method in the Greek cities of Ionia around 400 BC. He explains that Plato and his followers believed the world was made of up elements corresponding to four regular solids-the cube, the tetrahedron, the octahedron, and the icosahedron. The fifth regular solid, the dodecahedron, they associated with heaven, and they sought to suppress knowledge of this idea. They were mystics. So perhaps whoever added that section was thinking of that story. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A Personal Voyage??

When did the title change from "Cosmos" to "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage"?? Personal to whom?? That sounds like "creationist re-branding" as "personal to Carl Sagan". --Scasey1960 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This article was created as "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" in 2002 [6].I've examined my DVD box (7 NTSC disc, region zero, 2000), the DVD labels and the menu; and I've failed to see the suffix "A Personal Voyage" anywhere. Was it called "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" when it was aired? Else I suggest that the article is being renamed Cosmos (TV series). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In every episode, during the opening sequence, the word "Cosmos" is shown in blue letters on the screen, then is replaced by "A Personal Voyage" followed by the title of the episode. I believe it refers to persons in general. As in, "This isn't about dry numbers and impersonal facts; this is about people and our relationship to the universe" but I'm speculating. In any case, it really is the subtitle of the series. --Thoughtcriminall (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you read the booklet that comes with your boxed set, you will set the Ann Druyan herself called it "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage" more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That was added in the later publication of the series. When it originally aired, it was not subtitled "A Personal Voyage", it was simply, "Cosmos." Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Series remake

Fox announced a Cosmos remake/update thing created by (among others) Ann Druyan (Sagan's widow) and staring Neil Tyson. Should it have a mention on this page? --Thoughtcriminall (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The “successor” series, as Fox is terming it, now has its own section.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Aired", "Air Date", etc., are all unscientific and absurd

"Aired" and "Air Date" are unscientific because radio and TV broadcasts do not have anything to do with the air! Radio waves do not have anything to do with the air. The expression "On the Air" is an archaic one from the 1920s and 1930s, back when 99.9 percent of people did not understand the reality behind radio waves.
You ought to at least be scientific about a scientific TV series.
D.A.W. - bachelor of electrical engineering and M.S.E.E.
98.67.96.230 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming you are not a troll, your concerns are misplaced. You are better off contacting Webster's and the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary and putting in a formal request to change the English language. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube links

Per WP:ELNEVER,

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked....This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

I have removed all of the links to the episodes illegally hosted on YouTube.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Circa 1989 Turner version versus 1986 special edition

The updated version of the series that is stated in the “Overview” section to have been released in 1989 or shortly after sounds suspiciously like the 1986 special edition mentioned later. Both are said to include new content, and are associated with Ted Turner: the 1986 version is stated to have premiered on TBS, and the later version is said to have come about after “Turner Home Entertainment purchased Cosmos . . . in 1989.” A significant difference is that the 1989 version is implied to include all thirteen episodes (though abridged), plus a new fourteenth, while the 1986 version is specifically stated to be cut down to only six episodes. At the least, if these are actually distinct versions, the “Overview” section is incorrect when it states that the series was “making the move to commercial television” after the 1989 purchase, since the special edition would have aired on TBS three years earlier (I would infer that the ten minutes cut from each episode by the BBC may been removed for the purpose of inserting commercial breaks also).

Neither section of text cites any sources.

—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: the above comments; I don't know why the BBC cuts were made, but it certainly was not for commercial breaks. The BBC does not have any commercial breaks. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source on the release date of the 1986 special edition? Charlielovesyou (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110809131343/http://habitablezone.com/space/messages/496458.html to http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/496458.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140401155706/http://science.discovery.com/convergence/cosmos/cosmos.html to http://science.discovery.com/convergence/cosmos/cosmos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A 'Different' Seven Disc Collector's Edition

Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but I just borrowed the 'Seven Disc Collector's Edition' from the Library here in Brisbane, Australia, and it is different to any of the other descriptions I have seen. Released by Ovation and Cosmos Studios in 20?? (I can't read the small writing), it says Digitally remastered and restored, but that's it. It has the original full length 13 episodes, and the photo gallery. No interview with Ted Turner. There are NO special features at all, no Dolby 5.1 sound, no subtitles, and no choice of language at all. No menu at all in fact, except to choose one of two episodes. This is probably not noteworthy for the article, but I thought it was strange. Probably the 'cut down' Aussie version? David / blucat. 15/4/2016.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.105.232 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You must be blind. I have this same boxed set. It says right on the bottom, "(C) 2000 Cosmos Studios." On the back, it lists the special features and audio aspects you say it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.170.255 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Billions and billions"

We should probably include mention of the "billions and billions" expression which Sagan used so often in this series that it became a catchphrase (Google: "billions+and+billions"+"carl+sagan"+-wikipedia), and was lampooned by The Far Side and others, and became the title of Sagan's final book.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528213538/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/sagan_carl.html to http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/sagan_carl.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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)

The IRAS, all sky, spherical projection, infrared image - presented in the original Turner Network Update for Episode 10...

Greetings,

I do not recall the exact date (approx 1990 to 1994) that I saw the original Update to Episode 10 of Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. I had just come home from work and turned on my TV and heard the end title music for Cosmos. I was preparing to change the channel from which ever Turner Broadcasting Channel it was (because I had obviously missed the episode) and there was Dr. Sagan in a black turtle neck! What a surprise!

He looked a little older - there was some gray in his black hair - otherwise he looked the same as he had when I first saw the PBS version.

He started talking about the IRAS satellite and how before it ran out of fuel - they had decided to image the entire sky. And he said something to the effect: "...and we found something astonishing..." or "amazing"... His image was replaced with a circle of red dots on a black background. He then said that each red dot was a galaxy, quasar or ("...") cluster. And then I realized the circle was a sphere of red dots because it rotated approximately 90 degrees and there was a humanoid form (kind of like the Architectural bathroom door signs) in the middle of the dots! A shiver traveled up my spine! I had just read a description of the image in the Mundaka Upanishad (Part I, Chapter I) the day before! He may have said something about the "13 billion light-year cone" and "Cepheid variables".

Sadly I did not have a blank VHS tape or a camera handy.

I emailed the IRAS team and they all remember seeing the IRAS Infrared spherical projection image - however none of them knew where the image could be found. One person even told me there had a been a poster...

When Cosmos: A Personal Voyage was released on DVD - I was very disappointed. Dr. Sagan was wearing a sports coat and his hair was completely gray and he began talking about people seeing things in images that are not there. His image was replaced with a color version of Dr. Geller's "stick man" image - which I had already seen in her book some years before the Ted Turner version of the show.

Does anyone else recall seeing the original update to Episode 10 that the Turner Network broadcast?

Xray1zero (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Production dates, etc.

There isn't currently a place to put this in the main article, but should it ever be expanded to include more detail about its production, it's possible to date at least some of the New York City filming in Episode 2 to September 21, 1979, because Sagan is shown buying a stack of newspapers at a newsstand, one of which has the infamous "The Beatles are Back!" headline the New York Post ran on that date (as at the time it was rumoured they were reuniting for a charity concert; the concert happened, but the reunion didn't). The episode itself aired just over a year after, and only a couple months before John Lennon died. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Who is the current copyright owner of the Cosmos: a personal voyage TV series?

The answer would be helpful to anyone wanting to quote from the series for books or articles they are writing. 2600:8801:B011:300:B09F:3FEF:E7EB:2AC5 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC) James.