Talk:Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (book)

Question

Is there an article by Carl Sagan or a reference in this book making an analogy of modern man playing football to the warrior of the past? --71.184.40.59

Yes, Sagan makes that analogy in the book. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

File:SoFA.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SoFA.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Year of Publication

This book was first published in 1992, not 1993.

SOURCES: Google Books (see Copyright page), Amazon (see Product Details). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.0.18 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It turns out the book was copyrighted in 1992 and published in 1993. I've added a sentence to try to clarify that and make the distinction. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I had dug into this more and it appears it had been first published in 1992 with its own ISBN. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-394-53481-6 Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Unjustified revert

I made an uncontroversial edit noting that Carl Sagan was an astronomer and Ann Druyan a writer. This was reverted by another editor with the comment, "Unnecessary, the links to articles where this is stated amongst other cats". Although the edit summary is near incomprehensible, I assume that the editor was trying to say that it is unnecessary to note that Sagan was an astronomer because readers can go to the article Carl Sagan for that information. The editor is ignoring the fact that the article is supposed to stand by itself as an encyclopedic discussion of its topic. An article about a book should properly note the professional background of its author or authors. The fact that the information may exist somewhere else is not pertinent. No one should have to go to another article for basic information such as the professional background of the author of a book. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The "uncontroversial" add is your opinion alone. Carl Sagan was not only "an astronomer" and likewise Ann Druyan is not just "a writer" and that was the reason for the revert. You are incorrect just to cast them as such, nor was the edit summary "incomprehensible". As someone who had a long association with Carl, I'm pretty sure that he would have been happy with just an author name, but that is probably WP:OR on my part. I respectfully suggest that you should not be so concerned that such a small deletion has caused you so much angst. Case closed. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It simply false to state that it is only my "opinion" that Sagan was an astronomer. That he was an astronomer is a matter of objective fact, as anyone familiar with him should realize. If you are in any doubt about that point, try reading the article about him, which begins, "Carl Edward Sagan (/ˈseɪɡən/; November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996) was an American astronomer..." So yes, Sagan was primarily an astronomer, correctly identified in the article as such. If calling him an astronomer were inappropriate, and some other description were better, then you could have suggested something better, which you notably have not. Your position is devoid of merit. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, for future reference, an edit summary such as "Unnecessary, the links to articles where this is stated amongst other cats" is borderline incomprehensible. It is ungrammatical, among other things. If you did not succeed in conveying to me the actual reason for your revert, then that simply proves my point that you expressed yourself poorly. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to being 1) an astronomer, the first sentence of the Sagan article says he was a 2) cosmologist, 3) astrophysicist, 4) astrobiologist, 5) author, 6) science popularizer, and 7) science communicator. Using "astronomer" alone by itself has the effect of pigeon holing Sagan as one particular thing when he was so much more than that. For ten years now, this article has always just identified him as "Carl Sagan" in the same way that the lead of Pale Blue Dot, The Dragons of Eden, Comet, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, The Cold and the Dark, and The Cosmic Connection state that they are a "book by Carl Sagan." There are some Wikipedia articles where they include a descriptor, like the Cosmos book where he is referred to as an "astronomer and Pulitzer Prize-winning author", and The Demon-Haunted World where he is referred to as an astrophysicist, and the novel Contact uses "American scientist", but there is no uniformity and they are in the minority. For these reasons, I'd like to hear a more convincing rationale as to why one particular descriptor should be used instead of using "a book by Carl Sagan" as it has been for a long time. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It is simply and flatly untrue to claim that describing someone as an "astronomer" implies that he was not also other things than only an astronomer. I do not take the reason you gave for the revert seriously. It is irrational. Exactly no one is likely to read a description of Sagan as an astronomer and think, "Oh, the article states that Sagan was an astronomer. That means he cannot have been anything other than an astronomer." It is also entirely irrelevant how long the article has identified Sagan simply as "Carl Sagan" (the article has been a near-worthless stub for a long time; does that mean that it should therefore permanently remain one?). Of course, if you can suggest some other descriptor of this author that would be more appropriate than "astronomer", then by all means do so. That is something I could take seriously. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You really need to dial back the rhetoric. Your unjustified WP:PAs show a shocking lack of WP:AGF. Feel free to start a WP:RFC if you feel the need but stop attacking other editors just because they disagree with you. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What I said may have been rude, but it was also correct. No one is likely to read a description of Sagan as an astronomer and think, "Oh the article states that Sagan was an astronomer. That means he cannot have been anything other than an astronomer." AzureCitizen's concern was completely baseless. Why not address the point? The fact that an author may have been more than one thing does not oblige us to list everything he might have been. Again, if some descriptor other than "astronomer" would be helpful to readers, I am open to suggestions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No other descriptor is needed. That is the power of wikilinks - a reader can find out anything they might want to know by clicking on it. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason why an article about a book should not state its author's professional background. It is basic information that readers would rightly expect to find in an article of this type. The fact that the information may be available somewhere else is irrelevant. Readers should not have to go to another article for it - as I already noted, the article is meant to stand by itself as an encyclopedic discussion of its topic. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline reason why an article about a book has to state its author's professional background, and WP:LEAD is referring to the fact that the lead should be a concise overview of the article's body (which in this case is the solitary sentence that starts with "The authors give a summary account of the evolutionary history of life on Earth..."). When you write comments like "[your] concern was completely baseless", you do a disservice to yourself and others here on the project; with all sincerity, perhaps you should dial things back a bit in preview mode before hitting the publish button. Regarding the issue at hand, I have no objection to adding something more robust to the lead that doesn't pigeon hole the authors in the way the contested edit did. On my next edit, I'll add something more detailed using the first sentences from the leads of the Sagan and Druyan BLPs, and invite everyone to comment as to whether or not they think it's an improvement or a detractor. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously there isn't a specific policy or guideline stating that "an article about a book has to state its author's professional background". I never said there was. I simply noted that it was information of the kind that readers would rightly expect would be included. It is a misconception to think that there has to be a specific policy or guideline to cover any specific addition that someone might want to make. I'm aware of what WP:LEAD states. I don't need you to explain it to me. In this case, its significance is that the lead has to stand by itself as a discussion of the subject, contradicting MarnetteD's view that the article shouldn't mention Sagan's professional background because the information is available in other articles. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit implemented here. I also added a paragraph spacer for better readability. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your addition. WP:PROPORTION applies. The article is about a specific book. It is not a biographical article and we don't need the entire life stories of Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. A brief addition about Sagan and Druyan would have been fine. Yours ("Sagan was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, and author who was best known for his work as a science popularizer and communicator. Dryuan is an Emmy and Peabody Award-winning American writer, producer, and director who specialized in the communication of science") was obviously much too long, and if the point of it was your concern that the article not "pigeon hole the authors" it was misguided. The article should simply note the most relevant qualifications the authors had; it shouldn't try to cover all of Sagan's and Druyan's accomplishments. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)