Talk:TED (conference)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

What about The-EG?

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)

Speaker references

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)

Two months, no one disagreed, so this change has been made. Greg Salter (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

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)

Changed to Bill Gates. Greg Salter (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

TED wiki

Check out TEDwiki for the unofficial TED wiki

Jschissel (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Goodall isn't a Nobel laureate

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)

First comments

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)

DONE. Antaya (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

TED Prize

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)

There's barely a paragraph on the TED Prize as is. Maybe if someone suddenly wants to contribute large amounts of well sourced, third party info.... Spanglej (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of fellows

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 agree. I think they should be cut. To split to a separate article seems pointless. WP is trying to get away from long gratuitous lists. Spanglej (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. David Chouinard (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. Did you cut or move the info somewhere? Best wishes Span (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Pictures?

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)

There ya go. Greg Salter (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Are the pictures on their website and screenshots I can take CCNA?--Optimus8892 (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Korean TED

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

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)

Wikipedia requires that reliable sources are added to edits. Just adding your opinion is not ok. That is why your edits were reverted many times. Please read the basics. Thanks Span (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

List of TED Talks

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)

There is a similar spreadsheet with 200+ listed by engagement or popularity across social media. Very helpful when trying to pick one to watch.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0AgsdFQlATsyYdFdyaTdUM2Y0RXg2LXVWVThpOS1GRlE&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=2&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=250
Aubrey (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick Hanauer

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)

It's not a controversial or odd move on Chris's part as TED can post whatever talks they like or choose on their website. He makes these decisions every day as part of the curatorship. TED only ever post a portion of the talks recorded; that's how it works. They they are a private organisation and under no obligation to speakers. This piece comes across as a speaker who is disgruntled not to have his talked linked. Span (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is all over the blogosphere and on many news website. Wikipedia is not the place for moralizing, only discussing what has happened. Ahahaha373 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Spanglej, TED is funded by 40 different corporate sponsors, is it not? Sounds like Anderson's decision had much more to do with bowing to the sponsors than with promoting free inquiry and ideas. And, that's precisely the reason why American media outlets aren't taken seriously; they refuse to report or investigate any story that compromises the goals of their sponsors. TED is apparently no different. Hanaur says "taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich". How the hell is this statement, which is broadly supported across the board by solid evidence, more political than other controversial statements in TED talks, such as talks by Alain de Botton, Richard Dawkins, or the incredibly controversial talk by Sam Harris? It isn't controversial, and Anderson's explanation is transparently bogus. TED's corporate sponsors are in control of ideas that they think are worth spreading. Evidently, this isn't one of them. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
"Sounds like Anderson's decision had much more to do with bowing to the sponsors ..." I have no interest in imagining TED's motivations. They are an independent, private body. They can chose to do what they like and broadcast which talks they think will fit their bill. The decision is not controversial, in my book, because TED is not beholden to any speaker to upload their talk on the TED website. The speakers know this is the deal. It's only mentioned in this WP article because one speaker got upset that his talk wasn't chosen and splashed a private email, from the curator, around the press. As it stands, there was some syndication of the National Journal piece and so the altercation is mentioned in the WP article. The talk page isn't a forum to discuss the rights and wrongs of TED policy but what goes into the WP article. Span (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong. It is and was a huge controversy, and your claim that the decision was not controversial isn't supported by the sources. It isn't mentioned because one speaker got upset, and the National Journal wasn't the only source that covered it as the news indexes clearly show. It doesn't matter that they are an independent, private body and that they can choose what to show or not show—their judgment in this incident was heavily criticized and the excuse that was given wasn't accepted given their history of uploading controversial, partisan talks in the past. The fact of the matter is, Hanaur's thesis wasn't controversial at all, but his proposal for changing the world was...for Chris Anderson. Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I hear you are upset with TED. As you will see, I said it's not controversial in my book. The incident is covered in the article, with sources. Span (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm upset with the ridiculous excuses given to censor this talk, not one of which is supported by evidence. The talk was deliberately censored for political reasons on the part of TED. For them to blame Hanauer for this, is, outrageous, IMO. More on topic and on point, the current text does not summarize the dispute. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm also saddened to report that the video has a detectable edit at 4:14, indicating that the person who uploaded the video removed the gales of audience laughter when Hanauer compared those who called themselves "job creators" at the center of the economic universe to the outdated metaphor of the geocentric model of the universe with Earth at the center; "It's a small jump from "job creator" to "The Creator"." Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

TEDx / TEDxEventName redirect

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)

Because there isn't a TEDx page and this is the closest relation. Span (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
TEDx is notable on its own terms. Probably not worth any separate articles about the various franchise locations, but the fact that there are these mini-TEDs all over the world and how they are organized and relate to their parent organization is all a distinct subject, notable on its own terms. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

TEDx Price

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)

Criticized or accused?

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)

Sure. Span (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You need to look up the definitions of both words. You have it backwards. "Criticism" means you are showing disapproval of something. "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes"
"Accused", as a noun means you are being charged with wrong doing; "a person or group of people who are charged with or on trial for a crime" Or as a verb; "charge (someone) with an offense or crime: he was accused of murdering his wife's lover." An accusation needs to have proof. A criticism is an option. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent 'controversy'

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)

Deleting forum style post about evil atheists, etc, leaving other comments as below. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not a space for rants or personal campaigns. We aim for a neutral point of view, which you clearly have no interest in presenting. We also require reliable sourcing which do not include Facebook, blogs, personal websites or non-neutral/campaigning websites. Span (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not part of the main course of the encyclopedia itself. I shouldnt have to remind you. IF anyone wants to give a perspective or "rant" (as you put it) on the talk page, youre just gonna have to eat it, because it's not being done on the encyclopedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.156.147 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. Wikipedia article talk pages are there for the exclusive purpose of discussing improvements to the article. They are not there for sharing personal opinions anymore than the articles themselves. Please familiarize yourself with our Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --89.0.236.43 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
And WP:NOTFORUM which is the policy backing the guidelines. I've deleted the long post complaining about TED and atheists. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 20 April 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)

Undue coverage of controversies?

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)

Hanauer vs TED again

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)

It seems a lot simpler than anything mentioned. Chris Anderson and his wife have businesses that operate entirely on the principle of convincing wealthy people to donate privately to charity. Nick Hanauer proposes bypasses that with higher taxes. The underlying difference is who chooses which charitable efforts to support - the wealthy, or a democratic process. If your social group is the wealthy, you believe that they are more qualified to determine that. However, anyone who absorbed TED talks like Laurie Santos' on evolutionary psychology, would understand that people do not make choices rationally. Chris Anderson's decision is, of course, like everyone else's, done by instinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.221.166 (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There is more detail on the Hanauer article, which is appropriate. TED decided not to post his talk, viewing as not good enough. Hanauer didn't like the decision. But TED is a private organisation that can chose to do what it likes. It posts very few of the many thousands of talks that are given. It barely deserves a mention at all in my book ("speaker feels snubbed") but other editors (above) think that 'toys out of pram' moments should be featured. Span (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed the word 'dumb' but kept the word 'shoddy'. The edit was reverted with the edit summary "it's a direct quote". I'm not disputing the fact 'shoddy and dumb' is a direct quote. But that fact alone is not a sufficient (nor a necessary) condition for inclusion. We very often don't include direct quotes - we paraphrase them. In my view, including both 'shoddy' and 'dumb' steers the tone away from neutrality, especially since the article does not provide Nick Hanauer's response to these two powerful accusations. Specifically, the inclusion of the direct quote appears to violate NPOV policy on impartial tone. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not POV to print critics' assessments. POV is editorialising. Span (talk)
It's not POV to write that a critic characterized the work as 'shoddy' (which is a very strong criticism, in my view). The addition of 'dumb' seems to be a case where the critic may appear to pile insult on top of injury. The inclusion of 'dumb' appears to not be entirely NPOV, and furthermore it is not necessary for the purposes of citing valid criticism of Hanauer's work. 'Dumb' does not appear to serve a useful purpose here and appears to violate both WP policies on NPOV (especially this subsection) and concision. Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

TEDx and pseudoscience

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)

It was in for a while but the sources chosen were not strong enough and it turned into a mud slinging match. The Slate source would stand. Anna (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
When at all possible it should be incorporated into the article rather that a controversies section per WP:CRIT Jadeslair (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"unreliable sources" tags removed

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)

Wikipedians in Residence

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)

criticism

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)

External links modified

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}}).

☒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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Notability?

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)

Supposedly

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)

There being no response, in over two months, I've now removed the word. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing TED?

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.

  • Editor tones down negative/ opposing views, starting with changing "controversies and criticism" to "criticism, claiming that "controversies" was an overstatement, here in July 2013.
  • In October the same editor starts a topic on the talk page "Undue coverage of controversies?"
  • This either received no responses or the responses have been removed, something which I have seen has happened on a number of occasions on this specific talk page (I personally find it odd that there were no responses, when the rest of the page contains a number of posts related to that issue.)
  • Based on this ("No objections on talk, so making first pass at making this briefer"), the same editor then further toned down the wording, changing "Criticism" to "Conflicts".
  • Then over a number of consecutive edits, he removed most of it.
  • The term "criticism" was reistated two days later
  • In July 2015 it was changed to "reception" citing WP:CRIT, only to be returned to "Criticism" a week later
  • In October 2016, back to "reception" in here, by the same editor who earlier tagged it as "unbalanced" citing POV forking.
  • The erstwhile controversies — or what remains — are listed as "TED Talk content".

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed back the name to "Criticism". I would suspect that there is some misunderstanding about what this section is for. For instance one user cited bias as a reason for the change, although they only changed the name, so the content was still focused on the criticism. I also don't think it's really a controversial decision to include criticism for organization as there are a host of article pages that have such sections. --Deathawk (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed Balance Template

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)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

TED Talks

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

TED Talks has been linked to the article since 2007. Unfortunately the article does not give a hint what "TED Talk" is, it could be a name for the annual main conference or a type of TED event or just a speech on any event. No definition. JSoos (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

List of TED conferences

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)

Criticism

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)

TED Interview vs. TED Connects

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.

  • [7] Esther Choo: How health workers are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic
  • [8] Marko Russiver: A global hackathon to take on the coronavirus pandemic
  • [9] Gaya Vasudevan: How the coronavirus is impacting India — and what needs to happen next

--Baekemm (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

antonio pitts

 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)

Mudhavi Sunder

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)

So true, Tom Smyth is the only speaker who took massive action 131.111.5.172 (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TED_(conference)/Archive_1&oldid=1222199991"