Talk:Terrence Howard

Patent "cited by Amazon, Microsoft, HP, Sony, Raytheon among 30 other major corporations"

When a patent application is cited by another patent application, it doesn't mean that it's been used as a basis or influence. It's a standard part of patent applications, showing that the applicant has searched for "prior art", i.e. other existing applications that are similar in their description or function (literally a matter of looking up keywords). Thus there is no need to mention it in the article. ... discospinster talk 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain in less patent-y terms: if you're an actor and you want to join the actor's union, you can't have the same name as an existing member. If you do, you might have to change your name. The other person finds out about it and now claims that they inspired you to be an actor. ... discospinster talk 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like the fact a patent written by an actor who has no real ties to the tech industry was cited by major tech corporations (even though citing another patent does not denote basis or influence) is significant, although I will not argue this point any further. Officialmbc (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A patent application can be written about anything by anyone and have no real hope of being approved, and end up cited by other patent applications because it shows up in a prior art search. It's really quite run of the mill. ... discospinster talk 23:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "patent" wasn't "cited". Polygnotus (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayal of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's opinion of Terryology

In the article, Tyson's opinion of Terryology is states as thus "Howard's statements and beliefs have been praised by Neil deGrasse Tyson, who posted a video to YouTube in June 2024 responding to Terryology." This neglects to mention the fact that Tyson only praised Howard's "restless, active mind" and his "ambitious work", and instead of praising his "statements and beliefs" he dismisses the work. Tyson explicitly states in his opening comments of Howard's work (which is featured in the video provided as a source) that there are "many assumptions and statements that are under-informed, misinformed or simply false, thereby compromising or nullifying many of the subsequent conclusions you have drawn." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4 [timestamp 4:21]).

Whilst not necessarily done out of malicious intent to conceal Tyson's comment, the statement on the current Wikipedia page does imply that Tyson agrees with the work of Howard which is exactly converse to the truth.

{also this is my first post or time editing an article so let me know if this is the wrong way to go about doing things} Yurilvr22 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yurilvr22 Good point, I noticed that too. I removed the misleading text. Let me know if I didn't get all of it. Tyson is very polite but also very clear that this is all bullshit.
Within these pages, however, there are many asssumptions and statements that are under-informed, misinformed or simply false, thereby compromising or nullifying many of the subsequent conclusions you have drawn. Polygnotus (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article text states that Tyson merely responded to Howard's theories. Is it worth clarifying that Tyson was highly critical of Howard's theories. I fear the neutral tone of the current text, while usually desirable, in this case could mislead the reader into believing Tyson condoned Terryology. Editor-at-large26712 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor-at-large26712 [1] By the way Gillysuitedbookworm (talk · contribs) is Politicalscaffolder (talk · contribs) and Funkykittycat (talk · contribs). Polygnotus (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, it all makes sense now haha. Did you cross-reference their IPs? Or just recognize the same brand of obnoxious reappearing? Editor-at-large26712 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only WP:CHECKUSERs can compare their IPs. Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need secondary sources for the patent nonsense (yes I am a genius thank you very much). Best I could find so far is the Snopes thing. Polygnotus (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: Terrence Howard

U were right. I have the half I've been looking for + JesterWisefool5150 (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.