Talk:Alan Stern

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

What's with the S. ? Isn't he also a Dr. ? --Sonjaaa 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a first initial. I don't know what it stands for. zowie 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is writing this bull about my contradicting myself? Read the Stern & Levison paper: We defined planets as objects orbiting a star that are large enough to be round owing to self gravity--hence in hydrostatic equilibium. We did not include orbital clearing as a criterion of planethood. The terms uberplant and unterplanets relate to *SUB*-categories of planets, **not** whether an object is counted as a planet or not. Further, our definition was not sloppy, as the IAU's is; for example the IAU refers to an object having "cleared it neighborhood" but never explains what this means-- leading to ambiguities like the Earth, Jupiter, Mars, and Neptune not being planets owing to the sloppy wording. I really resent this slanderous innuendo on Wikipedia. -Alan Stern

The only direct suggestion of contradiction I could see in the stuff you deleted was the word "however." I've rewritten the description of the 2002 paper to present more specifics and put it into its own paragraph, hopefully making the presentation more neutral and "just the facts." More detailed coverage of the general concepts and critiques relating to them can be found at 2006 redefinition of planet#Objections and clearing the neighborhood. Bryan 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "S" is for "Sol". Alan has joked that being named both "Sol" and "Stern," he was destined to be an astronomer.

When he war born? --134.147.117.19 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE MISSING JOHN MATHER ANGLE: It seems to me that the following facts related to Alan Stern – widely reported in the media - would also be of interest to the reader.

Soon after Stern became NASA Associate Administrator (in charge of the Science Mission Directorate), he appointed with great fanfare the freshly minted NASA Nobel Laureate John Mather Chief Scientist of SMD. Thus Mather reported to Stern and Stern reported to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. For a time, this was promoted by the media as a most hopeful situation for NASA's science future. There was every indication that this was a long-haul situation.

Most abruptly, about a year later – on the same day or on consecutive days – Stern and Mather both "resigned": Stern from NASA and Mather from his Chief Scientist position. Mather strenuously pointed out that the two resignations were unrelated.

Judging from the Wikipedia article I am commenting on, Stern's career has not recovered. Nor has Mather's career. He was sent back to his pre-Nobel job classification, and there he remains. The next NASA administrator did nothing by way of giving Mather a title commensurate with his Nobel Laureate status. As far as I know, neither Stern nor Mather issued any remarks about one another. Michael Griffin issued statements to the effect that Stern was not keeping him informed on important things, and that Mather was being ordered to work full-time on the James Webb Space Telescope.

Now some speculative remarks: <speculative remarks removed, see revision [1]> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.22.83 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but Wikipedia doesn't include speculation in its articles - least of all in a biography of a living person (I've even trimmed them out of this talk page just to be on the safe side). Go ahead and include the facts if they're pertinent, provided of course that you can include external references to back them up when you do so, but a Wikipedia article can't include any creative interpretations of them. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Cosmic Log piece by space journalist Alan Boyle contains a bit of info about Stern, current activities, and current views. Could be useful for improving the article. N2e (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link so here it is archived. Beorhtwulf (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being tagged for 12 years, the article still reads like a CV. It is mostly just a list of things he has done in a congratulatory style. It needs to be transformed into a standard biography written in an historical style. I am going to start by removing the unneeded adjective and minor details that are not encyclopediac. Ashmoo (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]