Talk:Pale Blue Dot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

A quick search in Google reveals several sites (which may just be replicas) who purport the photos by Carl to have been taken, after much encouragement, https://www.planetary.org/bluedot_poster.html on 14th Febrruary, 1990, at a distance of 6.4 billion kilometers. If there are no objections, and preferably encouragement, I would like to modify this page so it is is consistent with scientific units of measurement, and also give the date of the turn around.

Does anyone know how to convert the text of the admirably credited excerpt into the standard font of wikipedia, while maintaining acknowledgement?

Contents

[edit] Details and references

I've been adding some details, citations, and references to this article, but I'm being called away in the middle of some fact-checking. At the moment, I've left two unresolved discrepancies:

  • Several references date the photograph as 1990-06-06, but one (fairly authoritative) source claims it's 1990-02-14.
  • Sagan's book apparently states Voyager's distance as "3.7 billion miles", but other sources say it's "4 billion" or "more than 4 billion".

More research and improved sources are needed. If I don't get back to this quickly, perhaps some others may want to pick it up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Potentially useful: NASA's page on the subject. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00452

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Marudubshinki. I don't remember the exact text of the original Planetary Society page, and it no longer appears available either cached by Google or indexed by the Wayback Machine. I found what I believe to be a suitable replacement page from TPS — one that includes the February 14 date that earned the original's citation — and have updated the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate wording?

In the article it say something along the lines of "Sagan, an athiest, ...." This should be clarified as Sagan was not an atheist, merely an agnostic. Yes, I suppose this is debatable, but I don't think Carl ever said straight out that he was an atheist. Regardless, whether or not he was an atheist has nothing to do with the entire sentence, which states Sagan's views on human pride, etc. 151.205.171.172 02:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have this:
“ "Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God." - (Broca’s Brain, p. 311) ”
Emphasis added. I'll remove the adjective. mdf 13:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

Why is half of this article not appearing when edited? Latitude0116 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsification

I'm not sure if the quote is accurate, it contains a few lines that I have not seen in other versions of the speech, maybe it has been falsely tampered with? "The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand." I think someone made this up. Mind if I change it? The Judaic Jedi 01:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there are the original words from Carl Sagan. Taken out of the book "Pale Blue Dot". Netcop1000 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If those are words from the book, why is the quote cited as being from "a commencement address delivered May 11, 1996"...? -- Jeffschuler (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Ref

13. # ^ "http://www.bigskyastroclub.org/pale_blue_dot.htm".

Reference number 13 is a broken link.

71.215.221.115 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy of text

The text of Sagan's quote has had a few (admittedly minor) alterations from the quote on the referenced page (http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html) - is there a definite source for this quote? David 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Text is taken unmodified out of Carl Sagans Book "Pale Blue Dot"! Netcop1000 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove the artificial blue circle

I pledge to remove that circle. It is prevents the full appreciation of the image. Editing the picture's underwriting to "Seen from 6 billion kilometres away, Earth is (but) a dot obscured in the uppermost beam of scattered sunlight" should say all that's necessary. -- User:91.11.200.28 20:33, 19 Sep 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The picture is better without the circle. The circle is not even in the original picture. Fabben (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The photograph is distinct from the book

The photograph is distinct from the book, and these should not be covered in the same article just because they share a name. I suggest that the article be split in two; perhaps the information on the photograph should be merged into the Family Portrait (Voyager) article, which is pretty short and has little other scope for expansion.--Pharos 04:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, it probably makes more sense to just merge Family Portrait (Voyager) here, because although that's technically the larger topic, the Pale Blue Dot aspect is -much- better known. Then, we can just spin off Sagan's book to Pale Blue Dot (book).--Pharos 06:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)