This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Now there are, apparently, three (see http://the-eg.com/), but there doesn't seem to be any information about this one on Wikipedia yet? Natebailey ( talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to remove all the external references (to the TED site) for the TED speakers listed in the first paragraph, as it makes the paragraph clunky, and all are available anyway from the very first reference link. Anyone think the article is worse for this? Greg Salter ( talk) 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Does he really deserve to be mentioned among country leaders, nobel laureates and, well, the founders of Google? I don't think so. If you're going to do that keep the full list of speakers in the article, most of them are notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.240.67 ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out TEDwiki for the unofficial TED wiki
Jschissel ( talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction of this article it lists, among other speakers, "Nobel laureates James D. Watson, Jane Goodall, and Al Gore". Jane Goodall doesn't have a Nobel prize. Someone fix this, please? I don't know if I should remove her altogether from the list or use another qualifier for her... this is what I mean: here's the list:
...such people as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Nobel laureates James D. Watson, Jane Goodall, and Al Gore, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and Billy Graham.
As you can see, everyone has a qualifier (in bold) -- well, except for Billy Graham. I don't feel inspired to do this myself, so if anyone is willing... -- PoisonedQuill ( talk) 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This article, is this about this; http://www.ted.com/ TED-Global? If so, it's location is in Oxford and Jimbo will be there for the 2005 edition. -- Walter 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Why were all the speaker lists deleted? I understand they are time sensitive, but they should have just been moved to a page indicating speaker lists for the specific conferences. jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandx ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 April 2007
First line about TED talks: "not subject to a time limit." . I thought they were all time limited at 6/10/18 minutes. I didn't want to change it without confirming it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.211.130 ( talk) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the logo be updaeted? The D doesn't look right compared to the current one on the website: http://www.ted.com/images/ted_logo.gif 208.126.5.124 ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The Ted Prize is growing in significance, I was thinking that it might be a good idea to initiate a page just on the Ted Prize. Any thoughts? This page could go into each winner's individual wishes and their effects, etc. -- Canned Soul ( talk) 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems a bit excessive, especially given that these are only for one year in TED's history. Richard001 ( talk) 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there was kind of a lack of pictures here... Do you think we could add some possibly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpalloni ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I heard that there's a Korean version of TED from a news. Any idea what it is called? Komitsuki ( talk) 11:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Puppy Dog(?) keeps deleting this addition to the article: "TED has a pro-Arab-Islam-Palestinian bias Chris Anderson having grown up in Pakistan and Afghanistan has his moderators delete views on TED's website that are not pro Arab-Islam-Palestinian. A message suggesting the creation of a new religion based on Empathy and Loving Kindness (with no God, no prayer, no dogma, and no charismatic leader) was deleted by his moderators because it was considered hateful to Islam, even though the idea did not mention Islam or any other religion." This is a well-known, well-documented criticism of TED. It is a neutral observation. 98.254.210.8 ( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a current spreadsheet (as of this comment) with all 500 talks listed. That information should be included or linked to in this article http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?hl=en&key=0AsKzpC8gYBmTcGpHbFlILThBSzhmZkRhNm8yYllsWGc
Jschissel ( talk) 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Nick Hanaur Criticism is now notable as it is in a lot of news sites. Please stop removing this part Ahahaha373 ( talk) 16:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Why TEDx is redirected to TED Page? TED is international conference. and TEDx(s) are local conferences..and not organized by TED People. AbhiSuryawanshi ( talk) 09:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions "$100max." yet the ticket for TEDx Brussels 2013 http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2012/register.php is currently sold at $160 (125e). Checking on General Rules for TEDx http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/493#general-rules mention no such limit, only " In order to charge an admission fee, you must first submit your proposed ticket price for approval from TED.)".
Utopiah ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the heading "Controversies and Criticism: Nassim Taleb", it states "Nassim Taleb criticized TED for intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance..." The use of "criticized" violates WP:NPOV since it presumes that his criticisms were legitimate. I think this should be changed to the more neutral "Nassim Taleb accused TED of intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance..." Thoughts? Bricology ( talk) 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
We have again a situation where certain people accuse TED of 'censorship' where in fact TED is a private organisation under no obligation whatever to post talks from TED or TEDx. There is a tight selection process. They have the perfect right to withdraw whatever them deem fit; they are not a public body or governmental organisation. TEDxs are run according to contracts agreed with TED. I understand that certain people get upset if their talk is not posted on the main TED site, but a great many are not. TED has been running for nearly 20 years, and that's how it works. Again we see a situation where the generous hosting of certain talks for free is mistaken for an obligation and any arbitration is taken for conspiracy. Are we to have a section every time a TED speaker gets the hump? Span ( talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here are responses from RS that can be used in the article:
TED definitely believes pseudoscience exists, and they won't promote it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Although completeness is a good thing, the issues listed appear mostly to be minor conflicts primarily of tabloid-style interest rather than encyclopedic coverage. They certainly merit inclusion, but currently seem disproportionate on the page. Thoughts? — James Cantor ( talk) 17:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The reasons included by Wikipedia supposedly given by Chris Anderson for not uploading the talk are different here on this article and on the Nick Hanauer page. Could someone who has been involved with this in either of the articles look into this? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Though it's not mentioned in the article, a number of TEDx talks have come under heavy fire for spreading pseudoscience and misinformation (See [1] [2] [3] [4] for examples). These talks are not organized by TED, nor are the speakers vetted by TED in any way-- TEDx just grants these conference organizers the imprimatur of legitimacy for a fee. As it is, I'm not sure if mention of this should go in the TEDx section, or in the general controversies section, but there should be some mention of this problem in the article, especially TED itself has acknowledged the issue [5]. siafu ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed 10 "unreliable sources" tags dated July 2015. Apparently these were placed because they linked to a TED site. The edit summary said something about "COI source". I believe that the tagger misreads our policy on WP:RS and the guideline on WP:COI. Sometimes, the subject's website is a very reliable source, e.g. if the claim is that there are over yyy videos listed and available for download on the site and you check the link and there are over yyy video listed, then I'd have to say that is a very reliable source. Perhaps the article links too much to TED sites, but there are plenty of non TED sources as well. If I've misread our rules, or misunderstood the reason for the tagging, please let me know. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As of February 2016, Jane Darnell ( User:Jane023) and I have been appointed appointed Wikipedians in Residence at TED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
can you add eddie huang's opinion to criticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JhwQ17mLjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywhatever ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a statement in the 'Criticism' section about the TED scientific board being anonymous "in stark contrast with the scholarly peer review practices of academic journals, where the editor and reviewers are necessarily identified for verification purposes". This implies all academic peer review is open, when much of it is in fact anonymous, it varies based on Journal policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.244.42 ( talk) 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on TED (conference). 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is being named a TED Fellow adequate to confer notability per GNG? If not, what else would be useful? See, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Shaikh. Montanabw (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Either the phrase including the words "supposedly a non-profit organization" should be in quote marks, or the word "supposedly" should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there a number of editors generally trying to whitewash TED? Any number of articles has a section on "controversies" or "criticism", etc, and we have sufficient guidance in the MOS on how to use the difference degrees of negative views. The lower rung of these leves is "reception". However, a book or a movie dealing with very controversion topics can have a section on "reception" to deal with all sorts of opinions on it. An entity such as TED has to include a serious analysis of the various claims, allegations, accusations against it, not diluted as "pricing", "content" etc. Some of the toning down was done alledging that the section was "unbalanced". Well, does the rest of the entire article pro-TED not balance out? The TED article has been going through a process of sanitisation going back to 2013.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Today I removed the balance template under Criticisms. I went and looked at why it was added in the first place and the rationale can be found, here. To me, this seems like a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The chief concerned raised is that we don't have a section dedicated to positive reception, which would be difficult to find. It is not necessary to counter every criticism section with a positive one. if you look at the pages for CNN and Kickstarter, for instance they both have Criticisms without a general reception section. I feel it would be an undue burden for Wikipedia to be forced to insert positive reception and would create it's own group of NPOV problems. Now if we were deleting or blatantly ignoring such information, that would be it's own problem. however I do not feel that that's what's going on. -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on TED (conference). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone should make a redirect from that page to this one. Thats what I know this as and it doesn't link here or even show up in the search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.80.134 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2008
Though it is mentioned in the article where annual conferences were held at the beginning, I wonder why there is no list of exact time and place of them, neither the number of presenters. It could be combined with the winners and the speakers. JSoos ( talk) 19:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why no one has mentioned this TEDx talk yet: TEDx Pedophilia Is A Natural Sexual Orientation??? 91.114.251.169 ( talk) 18:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Several conversations which were part of the series TED Connects<ref> [6] but not listed as part of the 4th season (2020) of TED Interview series have been removed from the Interview listing. There seems to be some overlap in the two series. For future reference and re-routing they have been removed from the Interview listing.
-- Baekemm ( talk) 20:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the lecture had a less understanding impact for me on how i thought of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A941:7000:6162:1F3D:C117:BB0E ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Would Mudhavi Sunder’s TED talk about Kimba be added as a recent criticism? (It’s uploaded onto Youtube if you want to check.)
In her talk, she discusses for a moment about “The Lion King” and “Kimba the White Lion”. She compares shots from Kimba media to shots from “The Lion King”. After it was first published, there wasn’t much criticism—at least based on the captured shot before something I’ll soon mention happened in a different video at the timestamp 1:10:52 (focus on the like-dislike ratio in the shot). It’s a video released by Adam Johnston who runs a Youtube channel about movie critiques called “YourMovieSucks.org”. In this particular video, he dives into all the available contemporary Kimba media as of 2020 and breaks out everything about it regarding the controversy. His video had been talked about for how well-researched it is, and how he goes about the Kimba controversy is very informing.
However, after the YMS video was released, I went back and saw that her TED talk not only truly was misinformed about Kimba, it also now has more dislikes than likes to this day.
So yeah, the TED talk she gave itself is not good. She called that Zazu is a parrot, said that Mufasa appearing in the moon, and on top of all that, she even used an illegitimate source—which was also proven in the YMS video.
Point is, is this worth being in the criticism section? (BlueBlurHog) 31 Aug 2021 21:49 (UTC)
The 76th citation leads to a pay-only NY post, for a Free Enciclopedia that should be avoided. Anyone should be able to find information through citation without having to be forced to pay to a NY article 201.146.100.26 ( talk) 13:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Now there are, apparently, three (see http://the-eg.com/), but there doesn't seem to be any information about this one on Wikipedia yet? Natebailey ( talk) 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to remove all the external references (to the TED site) for the TED speakers listed in the first paragraph, as it makes the paragraph clunky, and all are available anyway from the very first reference link. Anyone think the article is worse for this? Greg Salter ( talk) 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Does he really deserve to be mentioned among country leaders, nobel laureates and, well, the founders of Google? I don't think so. If you're going to do that keep the full list of speakers in the article, most of them are notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.240.67 ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out TEDwiki for the unofficial TED wiki
Jschissel ( talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction of this article it lists, among other speakers, "Nobel laureates James D. Watson, Jane Goodall, and Al Gore". Jane Goodall doesn't have a Nobel prize. Someone fix this, please? I don't know if I should remove her altogether from the list or use another qualifier for her... this is what I mean: here's the list:
...such people as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Nobel laureates James D. Watson, Jane Goodall, and Al Gore, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and Billy Graham.
As you can see, everyone has a qualifier (in bold) -- well, except for Billy Graham. I don't feel inspired to do this myself, so if anyone is willing... -- PoisonedQuill ( talk) 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This article, is this about this; http://www.ted.com/ TED-Global? If so, it's location is in Oxford and Jimbo will be there for the 2005 edition. -- Walter 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Why were all the speaker lists deleted? I understand they are time sensitive, but they should have just been moved to a page indicating speaker lists for the specific conferences. jeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandx ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 April 2007
First line about TED talks: "not subject to a time limit." . I thought they were all time limited at 6/10/18 minutes. I didn't want to change it without confirming it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.211.130 ( talk) 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Should the logo be updaeted? The D doesn't look right compared to the current one on the website: http://www.ted.com/images/ted_logo.gif 208.126.5.124 ( talk) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The Ted Prize is growing in significance, I was thinking that it might be a good idea to initiate a page just on the Ted Prize. Any thoughts? This page could go into each winner's individual wishes and their effects, etc. -- Canned Soul ( talk) 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems a bit excessive, especially given that these are only for one year in TED's history. Richard001 ( talk) 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed there was kind of a lack of pictures here... Do you think we could add some possibly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpalloni ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I heard that there's a Korean version of TED from a news. Any idea what it is called? Komitsuki ( talk) 11:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Puppy Dog(?) keeps deleting this addition to the article: "TED has a pro-Arab-Islam-Palestinian bias Chris Anderson having grown up in Pakistan and Afghanistan has his moderators delete views on TED's website that are not pro Arab-Islam-Palestinian. A message suggesting the creation of a new religion based on Empathy and Loving Kindness (with no God, no prayer, no dogma, and no charismatic leader) was deleted by his moderators because it was considered hateful to Islam, even though the idea did not mention Islam or any other religion." This is a well-known, well-documented criticism of TED. It is a neutral observation. 98.254.210.8 ( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a current spreadsheet (as of this comment) with all 500 talks listed. That information should be included or linked to in this article http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?hl=en&key=0AsKzpC8gYBmTcGpHbFlILThBSzhmZkRhNm8yYllsWGc
Jschissel ( talk) 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The Nick Hanaur Criticism is now notable as it is in a lot of news sites. Please stop removing this part Ahahaha373 ( talk) 16:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Why TEDx is redirected to TED Page? TED is international conference. and TEDx(s) are local conferences..and not organized by TED People. AbhiSuryawanshi ( talk) 09:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions "$100max." yet the ticket for TEDx Brussels 2013 http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2012/register.php is currently sold at $160 (125e). Checking on General Rules for TEDx http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/493#general-rules mention no such limit, only " In order to charge an admission fee, you must first submit your proposed ticket price for approval from TED.)".
Utopiah ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Under the heading "Controversies and Criticism: Nassim Taleb", it states "Nassim Taleb criticized TED for intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance..." The use of "criticized" violates WP:NPOV since it presumes that his criticisms were legitimate. I think this should be changed to the more neutral "Nassim Taleb accused TED of intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance..." Thoughts? Bricology ( talk) 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
We have again a situation where certain people accuse TED of 'censorship' where in fact TED is a private organisation under no obligation whatever to post talks from TED or TEDx. There is a tight selection process. They have the perfect right to withdraw whatever them deem fit; they are not a public body or governmental organisation. TEDxs are run according to contracts agreed with TED. I understand that certain people get upset if their talk is not posted on the main TED site, but a great many are not. TED has been running for nearly 20 years, and that's how it works. Again we see a situation where the generous hosting of certain talks for free is mistaken for an obligation and any arbitration is taken for conspiracy. Are we to have a section every time a TED speaker gets the hump? Span ( talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here are responses from RS that can be used in the article:
TED definitely believes pseudoscience exists, and they won't promote it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Although completeness is a good thing, the issues listed appear mostly to be minor conflicts primarily of tabloid-style interest rather than encyclopedic coverage. They certainly merit inclusion, but currently seem disproportionate on the page. Thoughts? — James Cantor ( talk) 17:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The reasons included by Wikipedia supposedly given by Chris Anderson for not uploading the talk are different here on this article and on the Nick Hanauer page. Could someone who has been involved with this in either of the articles look into this? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Though it's not mentioned in the article, a number of TEDx talks have come under heavy fire for spreading pseudoscience and misinformation (See [1] [2] [3] [4] for examples). These talks are not organized by TED, nor are the speakers vetted by TED in any way-- TEDx just grants these conference organizers the imprimatur of legitimacy for a fee. As it is, I'm not sure if mention of this should go in the TEDx section, or in the general controversies section, but there should be some mention of this problem in the article, especially TED itself has acknowledged the issue [5]. siafu ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed 10 "unreliable sources" tags dated July 2015. Apparently these were placed because they linked to a TED site. The edit summary said something about "COI source". I believe that the tagger misreads our policy on WP:RS and the guideline on WP:COI. Sometimes, the subject's website is a very reliable source, e.g. if the claim is that there are over yyy videos listed and available for download on the site and you check the link and there are over yyy video listed, then I'd have to say that is a very reliable source. Perhaps the article links too much to TED sites, but there are plenty of non TED sources as well. If I've misread our rules, or misunderstood the reason for the tagging, please let me know. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As of February 2016, Jane Darnell ( User:Jane023) and I have been appointed appointed Wikipedians in Residence at TED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
can you add eddie huang's opinion to criticism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JhwQ17mLjo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andywhatever ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a statement in the 'Criticism' section about the TED scientific board being anonymous "in stark contrast with the scholarly peer review practices of academic journals, where the editor and reviewers are necessarily identified for verification purposes". This implies all academic peer review is open, when much of it is in fact anonymous, it varies based on Journal policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.244.42 ( talk) 13:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on TED (conference). 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}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is being named a TED Fellow adequate to confer notability per GNG? If not, what else would be useful? See, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanna Shaikh. Montanabw (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Either the phrase including the words "supposedly a non-profit organization" should be in quote marks, or the word "supposedly" should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Are there a number of editors generally trying to whitewash TED? Any number of articles has a section on "controversies" or "criticism", etc, and we have sufficient guidance in the MOS on how to use the difference degrees of negative views. The lower rung of these leves is "reception". However, a book or a movie dealing with very controversion topics can have a section on "reception" to deal with all sorts of opinions on it. An entity such as TED has to include a serious analysis of the various claims, allegations, accusations against it, not diluted as "pricing", "content" etc. Some of the toning down was done alledging that the section was "unbalanced". Well, does the rest of the entire article pro-TED not balance out? The TED article has been going through a process of sanitisation going back to 2013.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Today I removed the balance template under Criticisms. I went and looked at why it was added in the first place and the rationale can be found, here. To me, this seems like a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The chief concerned raised is that we don't have a section dedicated to positive reception, which would be difficult to find. It is not necessary to counter every criticism section with a positive one. if you look at the pages for CNN and Kickstarter, for instance they both have Criticisms without a general reception section. I feel it would be an undue burden for Wikipedia to be forced to insert positive reception and would create it's own group of NPOV problems. Now if we were deleting or blatantly ignoring such information, that would be it's own problem. however I do not feel that that's what's going on. -- Deathawk ( talk) 04:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on TED (conference). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Someone should make a redirect from that page to this one. Thats what I know this as and it doesn't link here or even show up in the search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.80.134 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 29 October 2008
Though it is mentioned in the article where annual conferences were held at the beginning, I wonder why there is no list of exact time and place of them, neither the number of presenters. It could be combined with the winners and the speakers. JSoos ( talk) 19:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I wonder why no one has mentioned this TEDx talk yet: TEDx Pedophilia Is A Natural Sexual Orientation??? 91.114.251.169 ( talk) 18:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Several conversations which were part of the series TED Connects<ref> [6] but not listed as part of the 4th season (2020) of TED Interview series have been removed from the Interview listing. There seems to be some overlap in the two series. For future reference and re-routing they have been removed from the Interview listing.
-- Baekemm ( talk) 20:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the lecture had a less understanding impact for me on how i thought of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:A941:7000:6162:1F3D:C117:BB0E ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Would Mudhavi Sunder’s TED talk about Kimba be added as a recent criticism? (It’s uploaded onto Youtube if you want to check.)
In her talk, she discusses for a moment about “The Lion King” and “Kimba the White Lion”. She compares shots from Kimba media to shots from “The Lion King”. After it was first published, there wasn’t much criticism—at least based on the captured shot before something I’ll soon mention happened in a different video at the timestamp 1:10:52 (focus on the like-dislike ratio in the shot). It’s a video released by Adam Johnston who runs a Youtube channel about movie critiques called “YourMovieSucks.org”. In this particular video, he dives into all the available contemporary Kimba media as of 2020 and breaks out everything about it regarding the controversy. His video had been talked about for how well-researched it is, and how he goes about the Kimba controversy is very informing.
However, after the YMS video was released, I went back and saw that her TED talk not only truly was misinformed about Kimba, it also now has more dislikes than likes to this day.
So yeah, the TED talk she gave itself is not good. She called that Zazu is a parrot, said that Mufasa appearing in the moon, and on top of all that, she even used an illegitimate source—which was also proven in the YMS video.
Point is, is this worth being in the criticism section? (BlueBlurHog) 31 Aug 2021 21:49 (UTC)
The 76th citation leads to a pay-only NY post, for a Free Enciclopedia that should be avoided. Anyone should be able to find information through citation without having to be forced to pay to a NY article 201.146.100.26 ( talk) 13:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)