From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon astronomy.svg

This Astronomy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Blue sky thinking?[edit]

How should [1] be classified? Anna Livia (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wishful thinking? (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
We've an article: 'Oumuamua --Annanoon (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
In case a more general reference is appropriate. We are all entitled to 'our particular mad/offbeat/off the wall ideas' (and sometimes the thought experiment can be productive).
The fiction trope of 'mad scientist' rarely includes astronomers. Anna Livia (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Black neutron star[edit]

As this is in the news - [2] and many other reputable sources will add to the 'ahead of the astronomy woo' list. Anna Livia (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


This article should not have bronze. It is largely unsourced, and of the 3 sources: one is to a generic page that doesn't directly back up anything, and another is to the CNN blog of a political scientist. I would say that this qualifies it for at least one template regarding a need for references, which would disqualify it from bronze status. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The bronze should go. GeeJayK (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I am tempted to take it one step farther - add a {{Needs sources}} tag, making it significantly problematic. But I'll refrain for now. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Proof against 'astronomical conspiracy theories'[edit]

This occurred before the new space telescope fully unfurled (given that Jupiter and the comet 'a starter for 9' for the Hubble Telescope). Anna Livia (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a pseudoscience.[edit]