Talk:Planet/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Size comparisson

I've used pictures shown on wikipedia to adapt the size comparisson to include Ceres. I don't know how you people usually work here, but what do you think about it? Thanks. http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1719/5terestialplanetsdn6.png [Weirdoinventor] 11:43GMT, 12 October 2006

What about exoplanets?

I see on the IAU website that the resolution has been passed that says a planet should:

  1. be in orbit around the Sun
  2. have sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
  3. have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

I am a bit puzzled by the first condition: this would rule out all exoplanets (outside our solar system), since they do not orbit our Sun. Anyone who could clear this up? MHD 10:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU issued a (lousy) definition for exoplanets back in 2003. See definition of planet for more information. Serendipodous 10:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that definition in all the recent furore. I'm going to incorporate that resolution in with the new resolution to make a universal definition in the article introduction. The Enlightened 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't do that as the two definitions have different areas of applicability - the 2006 one applies to the Solar System only, and the 2003 position statement applies only outside the solar system. 'Merging' them would be like saying that the definition of theft in the US is A, the definition of theft in the UK is B, so the definition of theft is some amalgam of A and B! Your 'universal' definition is imprecise and inaccurate, in that it implies that there is a 'universal' IAU definition of planet when no such IAU universal definition exists. Setting the two out individually may be a bit more wordy, but it does have the virtue of being as accurate and precise (or as inaccurate or imprecise!) as the IAU itself is. We don't need to introduce more errors or imprecision in an attempt to use as few words as possible. Cuddlyopedia 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The exact preciseness of where things come from should be left to the definition bit. The intro should be a general introduction.192.17.229.43 00:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Comparing your theft example with this is like apples and oranges. For a start both of these definitions are from the same authority. Also, this defines an actual well-used noun, not a legal concept. Finlly, the extrasolar planet definition actually refers to the solar system definition, so they are clearly meant to be used together. Enlightened's definition should stay.70.225.183.120 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the two may be from the same authority, but one is a formal definition and the other is a working definition, a place-holder until a formal definition is arrived at. More importantly, the IAU specifically ruled out extending its definition of planet within the solar system to the rest of the universe, which is what Enlightened's definition purports to do. If we're going to refer to the IAU's position on the definition of 'planet', then we should give their position, not paraphrase it so that it says something the IAU specifically ruled out. Secondly, isn't 'theft' a well-known noun? It might come from a different field, but the point is that definitions that are expressed to apply to different circumstances cannot just be merged together. Thirdly, the extrasolar planet definition does not refer to the solar system definition (which is hardly surprising as it is three years older!), and far from them being clearly meant to be used together, the astronomers at the IAU Congress specifically restricted the 2006 definition to the solar system and a committee has been tasked with coming up with an extended definition for extrasolar planets. Enlightened's definition should go, or it should be made clear that it is not what the IAU has to say on the subject. Look, if you want a nice, snappy, short introduction, with the IAU stuff detailed later - fine. But don't purport to say this is what the IAU says when it is not. I'll keep editing out any misrepresentations of the position of the IAU. --Cuddlyopedia 16:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
A working definition is still a definition! When the IAU announces extrasolar planets they use that definition to see whether they qualify. And the new intro is a really bad one. I'm reverting it.192.17.229.43 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, check the wording of the original article. "The IAU defines...", not "the official definition is". The introduction said how the IAU was currently defining "planet", which is true, even with a working definition. Its the definition they are currently working with, even if it hasnt been adopted permanently. That doesn't mean its "invalid". Secondly, theft in a legal code means that X is theft and anything not X is not theft, meaning two definitions will be mutually exclusive. With the planetary definitions neither one excludes the other, if they were different things it would be another story. Thirdly, the extrasolar one does. It says the lower limit should be the same as in our solar system knowing that aan adoption would be made at the next conference. Also, there is nothing in that introductory definition that the IAU hasn't said, even if its worded differently. Finally, the dwarf planet is a different thing completely and only deserves a passing mention in the introduction, not a full blown definition.70.225.183.120 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Is a working definition still a definition in the same way that a dwarf planet is still a planet? Yes it is, in that a dwarf planet is not a planet, and a working definition is not a definition - in fact it is something you use in the absence of a definition. The IAU does not 'announce' extrasolar planets at all (they are simply published in scientific journals - whether the authors check their object against the 2003 working definition, is a matter of speculation). The 2003 working definition is not 'invalid', it's the way that it has been combined with the 2006 definition to produce a purported 'universal' IAU definition that is invalid. The 2003 working definition was not arrived at 'knowing' that a definition would be adopted at the next IAU Congress - at the time the IAU had a Working Group on planet definition that was unable to agree on a definition. The IAU later established the Planetary Definition Committee, which is what drafted the proposal that was put to the Congress. In the Q&A issued with the proposal is the following: "Is the new definition for 'planet' intended to apply also to objects discovered in orbit around other stars? Yes." However, we all know that the final resolution specifically limited the definition to the Solar System. This is because, as this ESA press release of 9 September 2006 (after the Congress) states: "...astronomers do not have a consensus in deciding which objects orbiting other stars are truly planets - even though they have recently provided the definition of 'planet' for objects inside our Solar System...some astronomers suggest that an extra-solar object's mass determines whether it is a planet...others advocate that an object is only a planet if it formed from the disk of gas and dust that commonly encircles a newborn star." I do accept that the dwarf planet definition can be simplified with a link to the main article. As for the rest, in an effort to settle this, I've emailed Mike Brown of Caltech (the discoverer of Eris) and asked him what he thinks of Enlightened's merged definition. --Cuddlyopedia 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Woah! What a fuss I've caused! I think we all need to discuss this a little more calmly. I thank you cuddlyopedia for your work on this, especially going to the trouble of e-mailing Mike Brown about my definition. I think we should all listen to what such an expert has to say, although also bear in mind that, whichever way he thinks it isn't gospel. My one issue with the way the page is currently is that the introduction leans to heavily towards our solar system when the weighting should make clear our system isn't unique in regards to having planets, and that planets in our solar sytem aren't inherently different to extrasolar ones. Perhaps if we could have some semblance of "my" definition with a qualifier saying "the IAU currently defines planet as" to show that parts of it arent permanent and then a brief sentence saying that points (i) and (iii) may still be changed? Like the guy above, I don't think I've said anything that isn't in one of the definitions. Points (ii) and (iv) regarding the lower limit apply to both, point (i) for the extrasolar defn covers "orbits the Sun" too and point (iii) simply is irrelevant to our solar system. The Enlightened 17:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I would agree with you that planets are not unique to our solar system or inherently different to extrasolar ones, this is not a universal view. Some people even think the word should be restricted to our solar system, with similar objects around other stars given different names. Also, while I too suspect that the 2006 IAU definition is not permanent, we're both guessing that that is the case. It might very well be permanant. And any definition can still be changed.
Regarding your combined definition: It says that planets all orbit stars. This is in dispute - some people think an interstellar planet is an oxymoron, but others don't. The extrasolar working definition only rules out free-floating objects in young star systems, not everywhere (precisely because of this dispute). Also, the gravitational hydrostatic equilibrium criteria is not the lower mass limit for a planet in the solar system. Ceres satisfied this criteria, but is not a planet. Where the mass limit is is unclear - it's either the mass of Mercury, or some smaller mass that could theoretically clear the neighbourhood of its orbit in the outer reaches of the solar system. --Cuddlyopedia 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
No (1) says planets must orbit stars or stellar remnants! That means "interstear planets" dont count! if some crazies think planet only means one in our system thats their problem - what enlighteneds definition said was "the IAU defines a planet as". Which is true, even if its a working definition and not a formal one. Right now the intro treats extrasolar planets as if they barely exist.70.225.183.120 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) simply says that certain objects that do orbit stars are planets, not that all planets orbit stars. If (1) meant the latter then (3) would be unneccesary as no free-floating object could be a planet. --Cuddlyopedia 10:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
So the actual underlying complaint is that you feel the IAU hasn't taken a position on free-floating planemos not in star clusters? That can be added. 192.17.229.43 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That and the self-gravity/hydrostatic equilibrium mass not being the same as the minimum mass to be a planet in our solar system. I've tried (twice!) to draft a combined definition that rectifies these concerns. With the few lines of notes underneath, I'm content if not entirely happy with it. But will it meet everyone else's approval? :) --Cuddlyopedia 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it's absurd to rule out exoplanets in the definition of a planet. As pointed out somewhere above in this discussion, sure, different solar systems may have slightly different definitions (that is, if any intelligent life capable of constructing such a definition lives there) of what a planet exactly is. But let's not over-analyze this, I think we can be fairly certain that one thing all planets will have in common, whether in this or in another solar system, is that they evolve around a star! Imagine someone asking do other stars in the galaxy have planets? No son, they aren't planets, they are exoplanets. Aarghh... that's so absurd it isn't even funny. In fact it's fairly simple. The definition of an exoplanet is "a planet outside our solar system". See the first 2 words of that definition? A planet! An exoplanet is a planet as much as a race car is a car. Greetings, RagingR2 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and something else: I quote the VERY FIRST line of the new definition of a planet:
The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way.
Read it carefully. Indeed. It says in our solar system. In other words, the IAU definition of what a planet is only applies to planets in our solar systems. So it says nothing about other planets, in fact, by saying "planets in our solar system", it is explicitly stated that there are other planets. In other words, a planet doesn't have to evolve around the sun to be called a planet, it only has to evolve around the sun to be called a planet in our solar system. If this doesn't solve things, I don't know what will. Put aside all your pointless discussion about original research, it's all explicitly in the definition! Greetings again, RagingR2 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Although the IAU agrees that there are planets outside the solar system, it hasn't got round to defining them as yet (other than the partial working definition of 2003). Your 'fairly certain' view that all planets evolve around a star is one of the areas of dispute within the astronomical community. --Cuddlyopedia 11:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. Although it is true that "planets" may be discovered in the future that evolve around other objects than stars, that doesn't change the fact that planets are already discovered outside our Solar system that *DO* evolve around a star. And even when the IAU is still not sure about whether they are gonna apply the same rules to those planets as to "our" planets, it doesn't change the fact that there are planets out there. Because the rules haven't been agreed on yet we may not be able (yet) to say exactly which ones are planets and which ones are dwarf planets. But that still doesn't change the fact that planets exist outside our solar system, and henceforth an object doesn't need to evolve around our Sun to be called a planet. So my point remains, it is incorrect to present the rules for planets in our Solar system as the general rules for defining a planet, and doing it in such a way that implies no object outside our Solar system can be called a planet. After all, as you also pointed out, the IAU agrees planets exist outside our Solar system too, so the article shouldn't imply otherwise. Maybe the article could just say something like this:
"Planets are known to exist outside our Solar system aswell, however it isn't certain yet whether they all evolve around a Star, or maybe also around other objects. Moreover, while the IAU has defined the rules for what objects in our Solar system are to be called planets and which objects are not, such a set of rules has not been made (yet) for objects outside our Solar system."
Tell me what you think. Greetings, RagingR2 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Something like that would seem sensible. How about the following for an opening?:
"Although most astronomers have long accepted that the celestial objects in our system known – the majority from antiquity - as planets have their analogues orbiting other stars, until 24 August 2006 there was no formal scientific definition of ‘planet’. On that date the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the official scientific body for astronomical nomenclature, defined planet for the purposes of our solar system only (for details see below). By that definition there are eight planets in our solar system – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
A committee of the IAU was tasked with extending the definition to extrasolar planets. Until they have done so, the position so far as the IAU is concerned is governed by a 2004 position statement that contained a partial working definition (for details see below). All the objects discovered and described as planets in the scientific literature meet this working definition.
The only common criteria between the two is that for an object that orbits a star to be a planet it must have at least sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, but have a true mass below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity)."
What do you think? --Cuddlyopedia 10:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The introduction should be a summary of what a planet is. Not a narrative. Exact details of resolutions, dates, event and the like should be further down the article.192.17.229.43 19:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Cuddlyopedia, although I think that's a reasonable piece of info you wrote there, I tend to agree with the anonymous person above here, I think the intro should be very short and very general. Besides, there's a nice little edit war going on at this very moment, so I'm gonna stay out of it for a bit untill that settles down. Seems like not everybody has the decency to join this discussion before making edits. (Sure, it's allowed to propose edits by making them first and letting people revert hem, but edit wars are pretty useless.) And another thing: why do so many people make anonymous edits? It's kinda irritating because those people are never "at home" when you want to talk with them about something. RagingR2 21:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK it seems that a combined definition is what most people want. I'm not happy with Enlightened's for two reasons mentioned above. I've tried (twice!) to draft a more accurate one, and we'll see how the second is accepted. --Cuddlyopedia 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POV planet definitions?

Since the IAU has apparently changed the definition of planet, I'm not sure why the entire article has to match. For example, why does the IAU get to choose? This seems heavily POV towards one organization. Surely not everyone in the world considers Pluto to not be a planet. In fact, if you took a poll of everynne in the world, chances are they'd consider Pluto to be a planet. It isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to decide who is right! For years people have been arguing about whether pluto is a planet. If anything, the article should state the "most popular" view and all the others, but not make a wording decision based on either. But right now, there ARE 8 planets, not "some people consider there to be 8 planets". I'd change this myself, but I think it would start an edit war, so I'll start a discussion first to see what happens. Granted, I may think that pluto should or should not be a planet, but this is about what I think, or what any other single person or organization thinks. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently the IAU consists of about 9,000 astronomers, many with Ph.Ds. So undoubtably they are very smart people, but I doubt that they speak for all astronomers, let alone all people. Have you asked all the schools what they will be teaching? — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV as the IAU is the official body for astronomy. Its an association of all the official associations from various countries and is accepted universally as the official authority on matters like this. That's why when a planet is named by the IAU that name is the proper name. If people arent aware of the official definitions thats because they arent up to date. Its like just because most people dont know what "irony" really means doesnt mean irony is something else. For the record I thought that dwarf planets should have been counted as planets, but its been officially decided that they're not. So that's that. The Enlightened 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I must diagree strongly on this. By very nature, something being "official" implies a sense of authority, which is necessarily POV. The fact of the matter is there are many different views of a planet. One is the traditional 9 planet view, another holds that it is 12 plants (which was voted down), and yet another that it is 8. Perhaps there are many more. The fact that multiple views exist proves sufficiently that choosing one is a POV in violation of NPOV. Additionally however, the very fact that there was a non-unanimous vote implies as well that there is a split opinion. Just because it is the majority opinion of small number of very qualified individuals, does not mean it isn't POV. If it was a matter of truth, there wouldn't have been a vote. The core of NPOV is that we do not take sides in an issue. That includes deciding whether a majority (> 50%) opinion is sufficient to declare a planet to be one of many possible definitions. It is perfectly acceptable to say that the "IAU considers a planet to be 8 planets and has such and such qualifications", but that is all that can be said. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to disregard your comment on "irony". Irony is nothing more than a definition. And if irony had multiple definitions or varying degrees, then the article on irony should contain such information, as well as saying who uses what meanings to what degree. But if the article declared one and only one meaning for irony or only one type of irony, then clearly we'd have the same problem that we have here with the planet definition. Take a look at the article and you'll indeed find multiple examples of different meanings of the types of irony. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to make a "final" point. The is a major difference between cultural and scientific meanings. The 2006 redefinition of planet has a quote pointing out the following: The analogy that I always like to use is the word "continent". You know, the word "continent" has no scientific definition ... they're just cultural definitions, and I think the geologists are wise to leave that one alone and not try to redefine things so that the word "continent" has a big, strict definition. This statement does not prove one way or another whether or not there should be 8 planets, but there are different points of view... scientific, cultural, and perhaps others. And those points of views have different reference points. They always will. This article must be changed. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The IAU is the final authority on astronomical matters. If the Supreme Court decides 5-4 that something is unconstitutional, we don't say that "some believe" it is unconstitutional. Don't take NPOV to mean that ignorant or perverse refusal to accept settled fact needs to be given equal weight. I am sure that nearly all of the astronomers who voted against the new definition accept it now that a vote has been recorded. Argyrios 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Your example is oversimplified. If the Supreme Court rules in such and such a way, then the facts are that the supreme court rules that way and that they believed it to be constitutional or not constitutional. In addition, there will be dissenting opinions. *All* the opinions of the justices would be included in an article on that particular case, although by rule of law, certain effects of the decision would happen in the legal system. And of course a later case could overturn a previous case. And naturally you'll have law experts who give their opinions on whether they agree or disagree with the decision, all included in the article on the court case. If you extend the analogy, you'd do the same thing with this article. List the current leading IAU view (which we are doing) as well as dissenting views (which we have recently added) with statements that the current view could change later (which we are doing). And of course we'd include some analysis for those people who agree or disagree with various definitions (by explaining the cultural significance of the word "planet", which we are starting to do). — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ram-Man: The IAU may be a body of officialdom, but the IAU isn't everyone. And I know from reading Internet materials that numerous people disagree with the IAU definition. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to remind everyone that the IAU did wait till only 424 were left out of 9000 to take their vote. Not everyone could had stayed. Some had to teach class the next day etc. So the Vote is of a devious nature. If anything, the IAU could had tabled the discussion till the next meeting and had the vote taken first thing when all 9000 could vote. [MagnumSerpentine] 9-11-06

Opinion: IAU, A respected organization???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm

The BBC says it all. I no longer respect an organization that waits till only 424 members were left to vote on the diffination of a Planet . Since the other members had left, they should had waited till the next meeting to call a vote then. I can understand their want to get this over with, but only voting with 4% of the membership, thats just wrong. Opinion by Magnum Serpentine user:MagnumSerpentine 8-26-06

just wanted to add this quote from the BBC article, I think it says it all: [quote]Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.[/quote] Magnum Serpentine8-28-06
This whole thing just disturbs me. I personally don't care what definition is used, but if this article is to be beleived, there is evidence that the voted on definition does not even meet proper scientific peer review! That to me is a serious charge against the IAU's definition being official at all, or even that the IAU is official. This could take some time to resolve, and in the meantime we have to deal with it here. I mean from my perspective, you could have taken any of the draft proposals and made this article reflect their content. The vote by the minority of members (18% of those attending the assembly, 4% of those in the IAU) is not sufficient for consensus. Granted I think the article in its current form is decent, but I still maintain that the definition is arbitrary and complicated by the fact that I believe there is still no settled scientific definition. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute people!

Jeez, this is a perfect example of one of the major problem with Wikipedia, people who can't wait before drastically changing an article to reflect one current event. Yes the IAU is a respected organization but it does not dictate public sentiment or even what is taught to students and pupils around the world. I don't understand why one after the announcement by the IAU the Wikipedia Planet article has already been changed to match exactly what the IAU has determined. Nobody here knows how this new definition will ultimately be accepted among the general public around the world, nobody knows that and nobody know if this new definition will stand the test of time, heck its not even a week old. In my opinion the article should list all of the traditional planets as planets of the solar system and deal with the very very new IAU definition in its own sub-section. The IAU is important but come on folks its not as if from one day to another the majority of people on this planet are going to stop thinking of Pluto as a planet, and yes general consensus does count as there will probably never be a 100% definitive scientific definition of what is a planet. Like I said Wikipedia's speed isn't always one of its positive aspects. --62.245.143.34 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See the reply that Enlightened gave above. The IAU *is* important as it is *the* authority on astronomical definitions. And in science general popular consensus doesn't change the official definition. I know there's a lot of people that want Pluto in there but the fact is it has now been classified as a dwarf planet. Just check every news websites reporting of the event. It doesn't say "The IAU thinks Pluto should be demoted", it says "Pluto HAS been demoted". 86.30.150.9 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, this is not a "spur of the moment" shift. Most people in Wikipedia involved with planetary articles have been awaiting the IAU's decision for over a year. Now that it has finally happened, the entire planetary section of Wikipedia has to be rewritten. Serendipodous 15:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the two people directly above me. This may seem unpopular, but if the authority on astronomical definitions says something, then Wikipedia has an obligation to post accurate information. Maybe in the Pluto article we can have a section about this debate, or how it used to be one of the 9 planets until it has been deemed a dwarf. I'm sorry you disagree with the IAU, but they needed to make a hard decision and it will now help further clarify issues such as 2003 UB313.--Farquaadhnchmn 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In order to keep things civil, I'd like to point out that this has nothing to do with my belief. I don't care if it is 8, 9, or 12 planets. My opinion is irrelevent. The point is that I don't like POV. I won't reiterate my long comment I posted above (please see it for reference), but it violates NPOV policy clearly:
  1. Bias - Clearly we are being biased towards a scientific over cultural definition, and as indicated by the statement above, many people are biased towards the scientific definition by those who "who have been awaiting the IAU's decision". (In this case "Class" bias: favoring scientists over others)
  2. Undue Weight - Weighting the IAU over EVERYONE else, even though not all members of the IAU agree with the decision, let alone "normal" people. If all members of the IAU, including all of those people that they represent (which is apparently every human) agreed, then you'd have a point. But this didn't even occur within the IAU, let alone everyone else.
  3. Let facts speak for themselves - This is what needs to happen. Each side needs to be stated. I don't think we should understate the importance of the IAU, but that is my opinion. All competing views must be shared.
I understand the frustration here. We should follow science, but not to the exclusion of other POV. The definition is arbitrary, merely a marker to some physical description. I must emphasize this. What we are arguing about is whether planet cannot possibly have a definition of that includes, say, pluto as a planet. But we already know that planet was once considered a planet, and as such we've already proven that it CAN be considered a planet under certain points of view. The definition of a planet IS a point of view. That's its whole point! — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
That's just silly; these are astronomical, scientific articles. Of course we're going to be biased toward scientific definitions. That's the whole point. If we were writing about planets as cultural items then yes your argument would have weight, but these are scientific articles and must reatain a purely scientfic viewpoint. Serendipodous 16:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh my word! Not at all. Wikipedia's CORE POLICY is NPOV. That means that it takes priority over everything else. You've just admitted to me that this is a specific viewpoint and that you'll take scientific opinion of a subset of the scientific community over NPOV policy. Case Closed? — Ram-Man (comment) (talk)
I've added a dissent section for those who wished the IAU to define planet differently but my argument remains the same. The IAU is way more than a dictionary definition as it is universally accepted as the *official* body to make these kind of definitions. Please find me a reference of an astronomer who does not accept the IAU as astronomy's ultimate authority and I'll think again. Whether we're talking scientific or cultural or whatever, this is an astronomy article and thus we should respect the authority on astronomy's offical definition. I mean plenty of private companies have sold star names to members of the public but it doesn't change those stars names as only the IAU has authority. Should we list certain stars as "private company X lists this star as being named "Jim's star"? The Enlightened 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT universally accepted. Yes, there are star registries. And yes, they name stars differently from the IAU. That alone proves that some people call stars by names other than the IAU's version. Furthermore, at least a few astrologers disagree with the official body of astronomers. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You've raised a few points that I'll have to discuss. First, private star names fail the notability criterion for Wikipedia (and perhaps even prohibitions on advertising), and as such can be excluded. That rule does not apply in this case. According to 2006 redefinition of planet NASA's Alen Stern disagrees with the current definition and does not believe the vote is valid. I obviously can't vouch for how much of him to trust, but you did ask for an example. There are obviously many more, otherwise there wouldn't have been a vote. BTW, the vote was taken by only 500 people, far less than the number of IAU members, even those that attended other parts of the assembly (2,411). Finally, perhaps there should be separate articles for each competing definition of planet and perhaps they should be included in this article. But this article already has a historical section for previously commonly used names. This is an astronomy article in the sense that it discusses celestial bodies and their definitions, but it isn't an astronomy article only isolated to one POV regarding those celestial bodies. Again, if you could prove that everyone in the IAU agreed unanimously, you might have a strong case, but even that is not even remotely the case. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between arguing against the IAU's current accepted definition, as Alan Stern has done, and disputing the IAU's authority. Stern, like all astronomers (well, I imagine there's probably a tiny minority of crackpots) accepts that the IAU's definition is the authorative one - that's why he's lobbying to get it changed. He disagrees with the definition, but doesn't dispute its validity. I've read hundreds of internet articles on this topic and while there are many who wish to see it changed, I haven't seen one astronomer claim its invalid. It's like many people may wish for Conservatives to be the British government, and lobby hard for this, but they don't accept them as this. It would be a different case if the IAU wasn't recognised universally (like say, the Somali government) but this isn't the case. The Enlightened 17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And to really assess how universally accepted the IAU's resolution is, how about comparing this with another website that attempts to maintain a NPOV: the BBC. Check out the first sentence in this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283250.stm The Enlightened 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And to assess how not universally accepted that definition is, look at the dissent that some people express, as noted by the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'd like to know what the "cultural definition" is, because, as far as I'm aware there isn't one. We had a vague one from a dictionary before the reformat of this article, but you can bet your bottom dollar from next year dictionaries are going to use the IAU definition (assuming another resolution isn't passed). If you wish you can add a section saying "some other people think planet SHOULD be defined as x, y and z" but you certainly can't say "some other people defined planet as x, y and z. I didn't realise people feel this strongly so I'm going to put the POV tag box back up. The Enlightened 16:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Not should, but is defined differently. See the reference below. I would expect dictionaries to add another possible definition, not replace like we did here with our article. It is very revealing that it could change again, perhaps soon, perhaps not. At minimum it proves debate. The 8 planet definition is the new scientific standard, but people will consider Pluto to be a planet because that's what they've always done. That's a cultural standard. It is neither right or wrong, but based on a different classification scheme. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for curiosity, I looked up the definition of planet and it is 9 or 7 celestial bodies. Now, it is a logical fallacy (See: genetic fallacy) to just the truth of something based on where it comes from, but that seems to be what we are doing in the case of the IAU. For argument let's say that I believe that the dictionary is the ultimate authority for definitions of words. In that case, we must change the article to say that a planet is either 7 or 9 celestial bodies because the foremost authority in definitions of words has said so. Of course this is rediculous... or is it? It's the same thing with the IAU. (BTW this can be considered a "dictionary definition") (Note: As an aside, I just wanted to state that I think the article is actually in pretty good shape. It generally says that the definition of a planet is still debated, but I believe more work is to be done to clean it up and perhaps remove the (slight?) bias to the IAU. Despite my tone, I don't consider this to be an emergency of any sort)— Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Since when is Dictionary.com an authority? In the English-speaking world, each country has its own national dictionary. America has Webster's, the UK has Oxford, Australia has its own, Canada has its own. None of these dictionaries agree with one another, to say nothing of the dictionaries in other languages. The IAU is an INTERNATIONAL body; its remit is global. Every nation, whatever its local definition of planet, must abide by its decision on matters of official nomenclature. Serendipodous 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Dictionary.com is an authority to those who rely on it as an authority. No nation, person, or group has to abide by the IAU definition, because the IAU is a THIRD PARTY, and speech and thought are free. In no country that I know of is the IAU a dictatorship of the masses. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps my intention was not coming through. Obviously my argument is weak, because the whole argument (on both sides) is based on the logical fallacy of the Appeal to authority and the genetic fallacy. It's hard to have a strong illogical argument. All I have to do is make the appeal that 600 students at a high school agree that pluto is a planet, and I have more people agreeing with that statement than I do the people who voted in the IAU! These illogical arguments CANNOT be used to determine what should be included in this article and whether to violate NPOV. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the Catholic church, which is the largest global authority on Jesus, says that Jesus is God or even that he was alive. There is fact and opinion involved, and in citing that example as previous Wikipedia precedent, we know that all sides must be stated, regardless of the authority making the claim. They may all be dumb people that believe (or disbelieve) the Catholic church. They may all be dumb people that believe (or disbelieve) the IAU's definition. Not relevant. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
But there's a clear difference between the IAU and the Catholic Church. The Catholic church isn't *universally accepted* as the authority on such matters due to the existence of the Orthodox church and various Protestant churches etc. The same goes for the planetary professional society mentioned below. However the IAU *is* accepted as THE authority on astronomy. All astronomers know and accept that what the IAU says goes. They might wish for something else to be the official definition and thus attempt to change what the IAU says but they know that until that happens a planet is officially something else. Should there be a significant breakaway group which no longer recognises the IAU as the supreme authority then it would be ripe to amend the article. But that hasn't happened. You need to look at every media website or newspaper that has reported this story. They don't say "a prominent organisation is now only recognising eight planets". They say "there are now only eight planets". Surely you can recognise this? The Enlightened 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The existance of dissenters proves that the IAU isn't universally accepted. Thus, your argument is moot. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You're not even addressing my argument now. Again, there are people who would rather another political party was in government, it doesn't mean they don't recognised the current party as being the one actually in government. How do you account for the wording of other media outlets with NPOV. Like the BBC.The Enlightened 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though not everyone accepts the IAU, the media loves a good story and swoons for it, even though it is often wrong. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We all knew this would bring the Pluto lovers out of the woodwork. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a pluto lover and I'm out of the woodwork (apparently). Personal comments like this need not and should not be included in talk pages discussing an article. Just the other day I was listening to the news and they told me that a planet was now probably 12, when I thought it was 9 or 8 or 7. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You do not understand Wikipedia's "core policy" very well. Show me a published article disputing the IAU's new definition and we can talk. Until then, the idea that their definition is wrong is not even a POV, just OR. Argyrios 17:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not a requirement that any article be published anywhere for there to be or not be POV. The two bear no direct relation. But let me ask you this question: Does everyone in the IAU agree with the new definition? Are you telling me that the definition used for decades is original research and that the definition used for a week is not? I find it interesting that the news report I was discussing was a report of the expected vote by the IAU on expanding the definition of planet. Instead, it was rejected and narrowed. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
See the following (from 2006 redefinition of planet):
  • On August 18 the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, the world's largest international professional society of planetary scientists, endorsed the draft proposal which supported 12 planets — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What definition? There was no definition of planet until yesterday. There hasn't been since we realised Earth was one and the Sun wasn't 450 years ago. There were nine objects in the solar system that we chose to call "planets," but there was no way of defining them other than "big things in the sky that we call planets." The whole point of working out the definition in the first place was not to demote or promote Pluto, but to find a scientifically rational definition. What I don't get is, what definition would you use? Whose definition would you cite? How many planets would you say are in the Solar system? If you say Pluto's a planet, then you'd have to say Ceres was, and Xena, and EL61 and Sedna and Veruna and Orcus and possibly even Vesta and Pallas. So what is it? Serendipodous 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course there was a definition. 9 planets. It might have been totally arbitrary, I will grant you that, but it really doesn't matter whether it was arbitrary or not. It was the definition for decades. I will say this again: It does not matter how many *I* think there should be, just as it does not matter how many someone else things there should be. I don't know which definition to use, that's why I bring the discussion up, but surely a planet has been defined in textbooks in every school and college for the last decades. You can't possibly believe it had no definition until this week. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
"Nine planets" is not a definition. It's not even a description. You're just saying that a planet is a planet. Even dictionaries tried harder than that, and most dictionary definitions were useless as they were. Serendipodous 17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong link: try this one — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Ah. So you want to cite the IAU's draft proposal. So the IAU is just a random group of kooks who don't represent the public when they offer up a definition you don't like, but when they offer up a definition you do like they're the only authority worth quoting? Serendipodous 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Haha, not at all. Just pointing out how there is disagreement. Others are taking the definition as a planet can ONLY be defined under any circumstances as what would include the 8 celestial bodies the IAU *now* calls a planet. The IAU in the past couple of weeks has gone full circle, with diagreements on all sides. If they had chosen 12 planets it still would have been a change of definition and my argument would be the same... even if they said it was 9, as wacky unscientific as that is. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the IAU had gone with that draft definition I guarantee there wouldn't have been 12 planets; by the end of the year there probably would have been about 40. By the end of the decade there would have been about 200. But that's beside the point. Neither definition offered up by the IAU was satisfactory and both were fairly arbitrary and confusing. Offering up "12 planets" when the definition quite clearly mandated several more at least was silly and random, and confused the hell out of astronomers, probably more than this definition is doing. And yes there is disagreement. And yes the terms will have to be ironed out. But the fact is that, ultimately, this will be the IAU's decision and, however the cards fall, the decision, when reached will be the one astronomers will abide by. Serendipodous 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, in terms of consistency, the new definition goes a long way to solving the problems with defining a planet. I agree they are far superior to old scientific "definitions". Since we've started this discussion, there have been a number of positive steps towards improving this article. It is already has much less POV than a few hours ago. Since this is a heavily scientific article, its important to discuss the science, for sure. But the article now states how there is cultural significance attached to naming things as planets. It isn't important for the article, but whether or not something is considered a planet may affect what is taught in schools. Students may learn more or less about "non-planets". Priorities will change. This may be good or bad. But it is important, and the article needs to discuss at least partially the ramifications of such a change, like it currently does. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an easy solution to all this. Merge the Planet and Dwarf Planet articles. Or put a Dwarf Planet section in this article, referring to the Main Article. Obviously, by definition, a dwarf planet is a planet, given that the first word is an adjective, and the second word is the noun! Had they called the category a "Dwarf-planet" rather than a "Dwarf Planet" it might be a different story! Nfitz 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, apparently, a "dwarf planet" isn't a "planet", even if logically and by the rules of English it is. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Which of course means that laypersons (i.e. non-astronomers) will continue to call them planets. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's a planet. If those who voted on this new defintion, had intended otherwise, they would have written it as dwarf-planet, not dwarf planet. These are intellligent people, I think we can assume that they knew what they were doing! Besides, it's not like we have a separate article for Dwarf Stars ... and I don't think anyone is running around saying dwarf stars are not stars! Nfitz 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
They specifically avoided the term "classical planet" for "planet", because that would be a subclass of "planet" (and would make "dwarf planet" also a subclass). If "dwarf planets" are simply a kind of planet, then what kind of planet are, well, planets? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And for the record "brown dwarfs" are obviously a dwarf of some sort, and theyre meant to be dwarf stars. That doesn't mean theyre categorised actually as stars though.
If they hadn't intended for people to view dwarf planets as a type of planet, then they would have at least hyphenated it. Or better yet, called it a dwarf-planetoid or something. So we officially now have 11 planets - though 3 are dwarves. Is everyone agreed on the merge then? Nfitz 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearly we aren't. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What about a subsection on Dwarf Planets in the Planet article that primarily links to the Dwarf Planet article. Nfitz 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should not be overly lengthy. It is enough to mention the difference between planets and dwarf planets and link to the other article. I understand your grievance as I would have preferred dwarfs to be classed as a type of planet but oh well.The Enlightened 20:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
IAU definitions ARE POV, because they are NOT universally accepted. Some astrological associations have decided not to abide by the IAU decision (if you don't believe me, read today's Wall Street Journal), as have various members of the general public. As far as the astronomers go, I doubt that EVERYONE in the astronomical community actually abides by the IAU definition. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I read in other newspapers today astrologers will still use pluto to plot charts etc but do not care about what the objects are labelled. If you wish to challenge this view please provide a concrete reference. I read dozens of astronomy articles a day and I have yet to find a reference from someone who disputes the IAU is the official authority on astronomical terminology.The Enlightened 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Astronomers are NOT the only ones who label things in the sky, Mr. Enlightened. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but they are the only ones that are regarded as official. Pluto has only been on the list for seventy years because it was accepted by the IAU. Had the IAU not have done that then Pluto would have been dropped from the list decades back. I will concede that astrologers are one group that will do their own thing, but this stress over the nine view is again POV. Many astronomers have been counting KBOs and large asteroids for years, and many still count the Sun and the Moon as planets.The Enlightened 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[1][2][3] Three examples of anti-iau sentiment — Rickyrab | Talk 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ricky, you should read the links you post. If you had, you'd know that the first link (the Bad Astronomy blog) actually prefers not calling Pluto a planet. From the blog: "This sits better with me, actually, than calling Pluto a planet, but a lot of people aren’t gonna like it." As an aside, I used to have lots of respect for the author of Bad Astronomy, but afte reading what he has to say, it's clear he doesn't understand the structure of the outer solar system. He says something like, "apparently, there are other objects in similar orbits." Clearly, he doesn't understand the fact that KBO's come in distinct families. He also fails to recognize that just because there is a culutral understanding of the term planet (but not a well-defined one) doesn't mean the scientific definition is unimportant to astronomers. Scientific words need scientific definitions or else science will not proceed without lots of confusion. Clear nomenclature is vital to the process of science. Okay, I'll end my rant. --Aelffin 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


From [4]:

So what if you you're a planetary scientist or an interested layman and you disagree with the new IAU definition - assuming that it passes in Prague?

"You can ignore it if you wish. We have no authoritative power," Williams said.

"But there is some cachet associated with the international body of astronomers," he said. "And it is our intention to really do things that are sensible - that avoid the giggle factor - and yet reflect the increased understanding we have of our solar system." There you have it: the IAU HAVE NO AUTHORATIVE POWER. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't have authoritative power. But they do have wide recognition. It works like this IAU>>>astronomers>>>textbook publishers>>>children. If most astronomers disagree, then perhaps the textbook publishers will not teach the children the new definition. However, since it was the astronomers who forced the IAU to change their original proposal, I find it unlikely that astronomers will force them to change it back. So, children will grow up learning the new definition of planet. Moreover, they'll grow up learning *why* it's a better definition. At any rate, it's a term that astronomers deal with a lot, so we should let astronomers define it. --Aelffin 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you then, explain why they waited till there were only 424 Astronomers left to take their vote? [Magnum Serpentine] 9-12-06
Again, there exists a difference between wanting the official definition to be different; and viewing the said definition as unofficial. The Enlightened 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Whining about the IAU new definition is ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Show me a published article where an actual astronomer argues against the new IAU definition and we have the basis for discussing multiple points of view. Until then, THERE IS NO BASIS. Period. Just because Joe Blogger says "Goddammit my elementary school teacher taught me there were NINE planets, and so there always shall be!" it does not mean that he has a point of view worth discussing. Publication is THE criterion for whether an idea is a point of view covered by WP:NPOV or if it is WP:OR. Here is the direct quote from WP:NPOV

All significant published points of view are presented

It's just that simple. Find the articles. If they don't exist, you have no case whatsoever. If you don't agree, then you don't understand neutral point of view and original research. Argyrios 20:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ASTRONOMERS DO NOT MONOPOLIZE THE SKY! — Rickyrab | Talk 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm unshouting, but the point is still relevent: astronomers != everybody. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ricky, this is not about monopolizing the sky. The world's astronomers *need* to define the term for their own work. If they don't have a definition that makes sense to them, then communication among astronomers will be difficult, and that would impede science. Nobody is telling you that *you* have to call it a dwarf planet, but on Wikipedia we must represent the scientific consensus if we want to be accurate. --Aelffin 23:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement in Wikipedia that an opinion be published, but it does need to be notable. In fact, the Wall Street Journal today has apparently published some proof that such multiple points of view exist, so again, the argument is moot. In fact, the only people argueing that the IAU is authoritative are the people on this page. Not even the IAU asserts that. But the whole argument as presented is flawed because scientists do not represent all that there is, which has been said many times already. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify my statement above. First, the WSJ as well as other links on this page has shown published articles that discuss opponents to the IAU. This has been shown many times today, and as such is sufficient evidence. But the fact that Pluto is considered a planet can be shown by any currently published text book that deals with the subject of the solar system. Such a fact is common knowledge and it is published everywhere, although because of this, it wouldn't really need to be published because it is common knowledge. But a quick google search leads all of these published sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and many many more from scientific sources to coloring books. In fact, unless you specifically search for the controversy, you may not even know that pluto isn't a planet. Let's end this discussion once for all that there is not enough published evidence that people consider pluto to be a planet. There is OVERWHELMING evidence. Does it have to be an astronomer? No, although there are those articles as well. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
None of those links argue against the NEW definition. They are outdated and do not pertain to this issue. And as for your argument that a point of view need not be published: That is simply wrong. I will quote again for your benefit.

All significant published points of view are presented

Happy?
Argyrios 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes yes, I understand that. I figured my clarification was enough to be clear that I didn't believe that *no* publication is necessary (but I also didn't want to edit my previous comment, for historical reasons). The purpose of publication is so that we have a reference. It's purpose is verification, not notability. It can prove notability, but it is not notability itself. The reason I made this distinction is because Pluto's previous definition as a planet is the status quo. It doesn't need publication for verification of notability and significance, just as I don't need to have a publication to show that people believe that 2 + 2 equals 4. It's common knowledge. However, with that said, it doesn't change the fact that there *is* plenty of available significant published point of view that pluto is a planet. Whether or not it is outdated is a matter of opinion, in fact it is YOUR opinion. The IAU does not even claim authority on this issue, so if you claim otherwise, you should cite your source. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the IAU does claim that authority. "The IAU also serves as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies and any surface features on them." [11] I'm an anarchist, I don't have a high opinion of authority, but in scientific subjects the wisest approach is to be consistent the way professionals use the term. Any other approach will contribute to confusion such as we're having right now. --Aelffin 13:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
By that rationale, no change would ever be possible on Wikipedia because outdated crap will always outnumber brand new things. The new definition is for the use of scientists, and they have a right to define their terms. You can feel free to call KBOs planets and you can feel free to call dolphins fish. But Wikipedia should present the astronomical definition of an astronomical word. The fact is, "planet" has been defined this way in science for quite a while. --Aelffin 23:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The article should (and currently does) contain the most up to date information. It should (and does) contain the term used by the IAU and some but not all scientists and other persons. However, you are wrong about what Wikipedia should do. Wikipedia shouldn't make any judgements about which point of view is appropriate, including choosing a particular scientific definition over another definition. We've already established that the point-of-view that pluto is a planet is well published and accepted, and NPOV requires us to include such views (which we are). — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then you need to update the article to represent the many many published opinions that say Prague is located in Czechoslovakia. --Aelffin 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
That's different: Pluto hasn't changed one iota because of an IAU decision. The division of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, on the other hand, has fundamentally divided Czechoslovakia in twain, and, as such, has changed the nature of the polity that Prague is in. It's fine to represent the POV that Prague is in Czechoslovakia, but it would also have to note that Czechoslovakia is now a set of two newly separated countries, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Well, whaddyaknow.
Cute. Incidentally, the phrasing you linked to is fine, but irrelevant. I have no problem with saying that Pluto is a dwarf planet, but was historically considered a planet. In fact, that's what the opening paragraph of the Pluto article said last time I checked. As far as whether there's a difference between an imaginary line in the Bohemian countryside and an imaginary line around nine objects in the sky, you'll have to explain the difference to me because I fail to see one. --Aelffin 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV requirements mean that a viewpoint has to be held by many many persons, and publication is used to verify this. Now I have stated above that it is published beyond doubt, so such discussion to the contrary is merely counterproductive. So before I get another post saying it is not an astronomer cited, I will note that NPOV policy does not in fact require there to be an astronomer for an opinion to be published or notable. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for page move/ creation of new page

Should we move this page to, or create a new page entitled, "Planet (IAU definition)", covering the IAU definition, and use this page or another page to discuss general and cultural definitions of planet? I think so.

For separation of IAU definitions and general definitions of planet onto separate articles

  1. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

2. For Separation of the so-called definition of a Planet from that of the IAU, would show that they are not all powerful Magnum Serpentine

Against such a separation

  1. — Mini-Geek 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Too much fuzz   Andreas   (T) 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. — seems overkill to me; we should be able to deal with it here Nfitz 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Clearly no. This article is in good shape and is improving. Heated discussions notwithstanding. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Against - Scientists define scientific terms, if you want a different article, call it Planet (out-of-date). --Aelffin 23:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. — Obviously (to me) not. The current page organization will do just fine once heads cool down enough to represent the facts of the matter dispassionately. - 66.30.205.65 16:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Comments

Rememere there is already an article Definition of planet   Andreas   (T) 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Solution!

People, the solution to all of this is simple: add every point of view to the article without stating any of them as dominant. It doesn't matter (and I use that phrase loosely) which opinion is dominant, which is generally accepted, who are the people who decide these things, weather this article is scientific or cultural, or any of that. Just add EVERYTHING to the article in the proper fashion, without making any POV dominant. - 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We will have to wait at least for another month to see what universities, school boards, dictionaries, encyclopedias, the press etc have to say. IAU's vote changed things dramatically, it is not possible for the moment to determine which POV is dominanat, which is notable etc.   Andreas   (T) 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the IAU did not change things much for planetary scientists. As usual, it's the public who's hasn't kept up to date. The "new" definition is just an official version of the basic definition planetary scientists have understood for a long time. --Aelffin 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Astrologers already consider the Sun and Moon planets

Since they never HAVE accepted any astronomical definition of planet, whatever they may or may not think of the Pluto definiton is irrelevant. Serendipodous 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated above All significant published points of view are presented. The classical definition of a planet is published over and over again. Just google search for "Pluto" and you'll how many hits call Pluto one of the 9 planets, or at minimum a planet. Because it is published, it must be presented. For some reason, no one will back down despite these published sources and the obvious fact that it is published in hundreds of textbooks. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since those sources are dated before the redefinition of a planet, they are useless. There is no current controversy if those same sources are now adopting the new definition, which they almost certainly are. I believe you are manufacturing a controversy where none exists. If there does exist a controversy, find an article reporting that controversy or an article where an astronomer argues that the redefinition is a mistake. There may well be such published material but until you show it, you have not proved your case. Argyrios 05:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hopefully the changes in the last few hour or so have added enough Pluto referenceS to satisfy that, without getting confusing! Nfitz 23:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah the changes look very good, but that doesn't mean the discussions should just stop! — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Double Planet Systems

I just want to take a quick break from our discussion to verify some article phrasing. The article current states the following:

The nature of such double planet systems has not yet been settled by the IAU.

Is this still true? I thought that the IAU decided it was a dwarf planet? — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought they had decided that Pluto was a dwarf planet, not Charon, or the rest of the system. If you have a reference, then change the article! Nfitz 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a reference, that's why I was asking. The article on double planet uses Pluto as an example, so if they decided on Pluto, maybe that applies to all double planets. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
They seem to have glossed over the Charon issue in the new resolution, and in the images released by the IAU Charon was not pictured. However, some websites, like the BBC have continued to list Charon in their images. I believe the general view at the convention was that this matter should be settled another time.

Definition of planet - missing definition

The 2006 definition only applies to bodies in the Solar System. But this article applies it as a general rule. We should reintegrate the 2003 definition of an extrasolar planet into the body of the article, and especially the introduction. As the 2006 definition defines minimums, and the 2003 definition defines maximums, and both exclude planets that aren't orbitting a star, that also handles the free floating planet bit. 132.205.45.148 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Surely, any "free floating planets" are orbiting the galactic core, and thus meet the definition of orbiting a star? Nfitz 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't recall where, but I believe the IAU specifically mentioned that this definition deals only with our own solar system. --Aelffin 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The IAU definition does apply only to our Solar System. The first criterion of the definition actually states "(a) is in orbit around the Sun" and not "(a) is in orbit around a star or stellar remnants;" as stated in the article (see http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html). As far as I know there is no current definition for extra-solar planets. I think that the introduction to this article should be broader so as to include other types of planet (since the definition of solar planets is clearly only a subset of what planets are) and that we should deal with the various definitions of planet in their own section. And we should get the definitions right. Thoughts? T.scrace 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In accordance with what I just said I have moved the IAU definition for Solar Planets to the section on Solar Planets (which is where it belongs I think)and reinstated the more general introduction to the article. I have also corrected the IAU definition's first criterion. T.scrace 12:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The IAU doesn't have a formal definition on extrasolar planets. The 2003 position statement gives a working definition (which has been merged into the summary definition at the beginning of the article). It doesn't exclude all free-floating objects as planets - only ones in young star nurseries. Free-floating objects in the Milky Way are orbiting the galaxy's centre of mass, not a particular object. --Cuddlyopedia 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There must be a better name for the "Historical planets and other candidates" Section

But if there is, it's not coming to me. Thoughts? Nfitz 04:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


IAU Diagram of the planets

This may be useful in our discussion of the planets page. This link is to a diagram of the planets on the IAU site:

[12]IAU Planet Diagram

As you notice there are two types of planets, "Planets" and "Dwarf Planets." If it can be used, the diagram should be placed on the Planet page.

Just trying to be of help,

Bryan27

Wow I love that picture! I never realised how tiny pluto was incompared to the other plantes! I just found this other picture [13], that seems to be the partner to the first image. The first image shows the relative sizes of the planets, but not relative distances, and this image shows relative distances of the planets. I think by showing this image, we would show the scale of the solar system. -220.237.166.69 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Enlightened's changes

The Enlightened (talk · contribs) has a couple times changed the introduction to remove the link to 2006 redefinition of planet and to add "official" to the description of the IAU definition. The first change I don't understand at all since creating a definition of "planet" (that also excludes Pluto) is undoubtedly some of the most significant planet related news in recent years, and people will undoubtedly be interested in learning about that well after it is no longer a "current event". Hence a prominent wikilink makes sense.

The second part, inserting "official", I understand but disagree with. I find the word to be weasely. It is an accepted scientific definition, likely to be the most common and most important definion, and sensibly what we focus on and lead off with; however, since the IAU has no specific power over broader human language, calling it "official" amounts to making a value judgment and suggesting that any other definition is wrong. For example, I would not be surprised to learn that the Astrological Association has their own "official" definition of the planets. Nor would I be surprised if most lay people are still enumerating exactly 9 planets. (As an aside, my dictionary already lists three different definitions of the word "planet".) While we could label it the "official definition of the IAU", that would be largely redundant. Better just the represent where the definition comes from and not try to insert judgment laden words like "official". Dragons flight 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Generally I agree with you; POV seems to be creeping in. Nfitz 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason I added that "official" term is that I think it is important that within the astronomical world the IAU is regarded as the official authority. It's like the official rules of football are those as employed by FIFA. That's not to say other people don't disagree with the rules, or wish them change, or play related games but I wouldn't think its a value statement to say the FIFA rules are the official ones. Additionally I have a general feeling that people often place far too much information in the introduction when the intro should be stripped down and everything else should come under the relevant sections. It probably is necessary to say that there are disputed points of view, but it seems to me people who wish to include Pluto and perhaps other dwarf planets as planets are using wikipedia to discredit the IAU now theyve got the definition they dislike. Just look at how EVERY other scientific journal, newspaper and media website has published the news. It's not "The IAU no longer recognise Pluto as a planet", its "Pluto is no longer a planet". And this isn't just sensationalist media outlets or attention grabbing headlines. Its the serious outlets in their FAQ articles that use this language. The IAU's view is official, and aside from a couple of bloggers and wikipedia editors, is universally accepted as such. The Enlightened 23:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
IAU rules, like FIFA rules, are only "official" for organizations that agree to follow them. Most astronomers, astronomical journals, and astronomy related organizations do follow them (and that is a good thing) but they are not intrinsically binding. Scientific journals and many news outlets adopt a scientific point of view. Wikipedia uses a neutral point of view. This means when significant views exist both inside and outside the scientific community, we do not automatically treat the scientific view as binding or correct. There is obviously an important scientific view on this matter which justifiably dominates this article, but saying merely that the definition is "official" extends its credibility beyond its sphere of influence. We might identify the IAU as the body charged with deciding naming disputes for the astronomical community (or something similar), but that starts to get a bit wordy for an introduction. I think it is better to state the IAU definition, identified as such, and leave it at that. Given that no competiting definition appears in the introduction it is already clear that this is the most important definition. Dragons flight 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What about listing it as the "official scientific definition" rather than "official definition". That would clear that it is the official one for scientific purposes. Or perhaps even "official astronomical definition"? I think it needs to be clear that its not just one resolution out of a potential many (think UN resolutions here!) that thinks this, it is now the official view of the internationally recognised official body for such matters.The Enlightened 01:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, check out this link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5283250.stm and see how the IAU is declared "official" by the BBC. Also, to address a point I didn't in the last entry, the 2006 redefinition of a planet link is already listed in the article in the definition section, and at the end very end of the article in see also sections. Why must it be in the introduction in addition?
If you are a reader looking up an article on planets, what are you most likely to be interested in learning about? And if we are going to be stating the new definition in the introduction it certainly makes sense to include a wikilink alongside that to the article that focuses on the new definition. Dragons flight 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I think there are lots of things about planets that people would like to learn about - names, formation, structure, atmosphere, interaction with other bodies, age, evolution over time. I have felt that this whole definition issue has dominated the page for far too long and should largely be dealt with in the definition of planet article. To be honest I think the 2006 redefinition page should be merged into that too. I accept your point though. We should keep that link in the intro. The Enlightened 01:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NOW we have a controversy

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=8707&cat=a

Never let it be said I didn't change my opinion in light of new information.

Argyrios 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, I can't seem to reach the page, so I don't know what it says! — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the enligtened an expert on astronomy or a historian?

I noticed that my edit was reverted, because The Enlightened's own original comments were "true". It seems pointless to re-revert but.... T.E said that pluto was originally thought to be bigger than earth and was "thus" included as a planet, as if it was then accepted that pluto was bigger than earth and that this was the reason for its inclusion. But where is the historical basis for this? How do we actually know that the true size was not at least contemplated, or even if it wasn't, that Pluto would not have been accepted had it's true size been known? It appears that historical revisionism is at play, just inventing a version of history to make a present political point. Of course this could be studied carefully as a serious historical question,if worth the effort, but I doubt that the enlightened ever did so. By the way I don't care if Pluto is planet or not, but let's be careful with the (historical)facts.

A fair point. I'm pretty certain that the believed size was the reason for its inclusion. But this is of course pretty tough to be referenced. I think the information should still be included about the belief about its size. How about using "it was accepted as a planet *after* it was originally believed to be larger than the Earth"? That should take the point of view out. I'll try to find a reference for the originally size thing. The Enlightened 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea if Pluto was thought of as bigger than Earth, but I know it was thought of as bigger than Mercury, as I remember seeing it listed as such in an old book or two. Now, it was estimated, or even "guessed" at that size, but it was listed as larger than Mercury. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "Dwarf" an adjective?

Hey wait a minute...if Pluto is a "Dwarf Planet" and the usual rules of grammar are to apply then it is also a "Planet"...so what is all the fuss about?

Yeah, you would think by the language issue that a dwarf planet was a type of planet but this is one of those instances where its not. It was made clear in the resolutions that dwarf planets are a "distinct" classification. The Enlightened 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Then once again, I ask - why wouldn't those issuing the press release have called it a dwarf-planet rather than a dwarf planet? Were they illiterate, or was it intended that a dwarf planet is a type of a planet; I'd assume any group that many academics knows the very basic rules of grammar! Nfitz 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason is the way they voted on the resolutions. If the second resolution was passed (which it wasn't) then they would have added the term "classical" before planet into the first, meaning there would have been "classical planets" and "dwarf planets" and that thus both would have implicitly been different types of planet. Because it wasn't adopted the big eight were just "planets" and the rest were a distinct class of dwarf planets. Its not completely unusual in the English language - Pennsylvanian Dutch is actually distinct from Dutch. There are better examples but none are springing to mind. The Enlightened 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The obvious example is minor planets, which are not planets either. 'Dwarf planet', as used in the IAU definition is a compound noun. --Cuddlyopedia 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Godess Earth

in Greek an Roman mythology, natural objects and phenomena have associated gods, often of the same name (see Animism). This means that the goddess Terra was named after the name of the Earth, terra, that also means soil or land. The Greek word γαῖα or γῆ has the same meaning; the form γαῖα is the older one used in Homeric Greek, whereas γῆ is the same in the Attic dialect (considered the dominant accent of Classical Greek). In Modern Greek it is spelled γή᾽᾽(only the accent has changed). Thus, the latin names sol, luna, terra are the names of the objects themselves, whereas Mercurius, Mars etc. are indeed Gods who gave their names to the objects.   Andreas   (T) 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

While it's still probably true, you're arguing for the Latin but using the Greek as the example. Isn't that fallacious? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my formulatin was not ideal. My arguments hold for both Latin and Greek. The goddess "Gaia" was named after the name of the Earth, gaia/ge, that also means soil or land. The Greek names helois, selene, ge are the names of the objects themselves, whereas Hermes, Ares etc. are indeed Gods who gave their names to the objects. I deleted the word "deity" from the sentence referring to Rome an now also deleted "goddess" from the sentence about Greece.   Andreas   (T) 14:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Needs tidying up. On a related topic, I do not recall that the Romans "took" the Greek gods for themselves and gave them new names (that seems rather improbable anyway). As I recall, the Romans and the Greeks, being Indo-Europeans, both worshipped the same Indo-European pantheon under different names, and the Romans appropriated the Greek myths, rather than the gods themselves. Serendipodous 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Official definition

One thing I do not understand about this kerfuffle about "NPOV" as regards a definition of planet. The IAU's definition is the officially agreed scientific definition. What other definitions do there need to be? Should we mention the astrologers' definition, which includes the Sun and the Moon and excludes the Earth? Should we mention that some tribes in isolated spots in the jungles of South America still define planets as flying gods? At what point does a POV become neutral? Serendipodous 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a separate page for Planet (Astronomy) and Planet (Astrology)? Despite astrology being absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned there are a lot of people interested in it and it deserves coverage. The Enlightened 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There already is a page for planets in astrology, which is one reason I'm confused about people wanting to air astrologers' opinions in this article. Serendipodous 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If it quite clear that the IAU's definition of planet is the offical definition, then it should be simple enough to simply state that there are 8 planets, without using the word "official" everywhere - it should appear in the article only once, at most. To do more so, implies there are dissenting opinions, that only leads to question that officialdom of the position (i.e. the lady doth protest too much defence). Nfitz 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem still remains, folks: the "official" definition is not everyone's definition, and the problem is not limited to astrologers. The general public and science fiction have ideas of what a "planet" is as well, and it does not necessarily coincide with what scientists consider a planet. Yes, there are dissenting opinions, and since astrologers also constitute bodies of people (albeit not genuine scientists, and those bodies adhere to opinions of their own, that makes those opinions official for those bodies. Ergo, it follows that there is more than one "official" definition out there if those astrologers have separate official definitions. 68.44.179.40 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There already is an article for planets in science fiction Serendipodous 09:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
But planets in science fiction that would not fit under the current definition would only be because they were written before the new definition was adopted. The general publics opinion I find to be somewhat invalid because I would suspect most of them only consider Pluto a planet because they have not heard the news. If you asked them "how many planets are there?" you might get a lot of "nine" answers, but if you showed them a news article about the IAU pronouncement I suspect most of them would say "eight". You wouldnt get too many going "well the IAU is just the IAU, i still recognise 9." I still think the best term to use would be "the official scientific definition" or "the official astronomical definition" as thats what most people will be looking to find and it should be made clear that, despite people wanting to get it change the official definition is well official. You can later mention that some think there are cultural issues and astrologers think differently, with a link to the astrology page.The Enlightened 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be great, if the "official" definition made any logical sense. I am starting think that Wikipedians have a better handle on the definition then the "experts" do. After all they are just Astronomers, not experts in categorization like we are. :) --Britcom 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The new definition is junk, and introduces contradictions

The IAU has made a grave blunder in their new definition, as it fails to account for planets discovered beyond the Solar System, or for you skeptics, the possibility thereof. This has brought this article, and numerous others across the encyclopedia, into a confused and contradictory state of affairs. What are we to call a body discovered light-years away, that matches the characteristics of our solar system's terrestrial or gas planets?

Regardless of what the IAU decrees, they did not coin the term and they did not foster its early development. Furthermore, the term is in such widespread usage in contradiction to their definition, that the majority is overwhelmingly against them in terms of definition. The change is arbitrary in nature, not scientific.

Wikipedia exists to document ideas as understood by all of humanity, and a small group of people should not constitute the "official" source for the meaning of a word that has been in use for thousands of years. Even if you do happen to believe they are right at face value, the article needs to reflect the fact that their definition is controversial, and not shared by the majority of educated people.

This has nothing to do with Pluto, and everything to do with extrasolar bodies. We need to form a consensus on what definition we will use, and I propose that an object's classification should not be determined by which star it just so happens to be orbiting, as this is both the traditionally accepted definition throughout history, and the one understood by the majority of educated individuals. WhoMe? 20:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The definition can easily be modified for extrasolar planets or whatnot, and will if and when it really needs to be. By the way, it seems pretty clear that for planets orbiting other stars the definition has no problems--the planets are simply "planets of star X"--planets outside of solar systems entirely is another matter, but not a serious obstacle to the use of the term for bodies around our neck of the woods. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Criterion (a) of the new IAU definition requires a planet to be in orbit around the Sun specifically, not any star. If a body is not orbiting the Sun, it cannot be a planet. Furthermore, even if the new IAU definition made provisions for objects orbiting stars other than the Sun, then we still have an issue - namely, the arbitrary re-definition of an already arbitrary term. Perhaps we should settle on introducing a planet as an object generally held to have certain characteristics, then explain later in the article about the conflict between the definition as it exists in general use, and the definition as it was crafted by one organization. WhoMe? 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAU specifically indicated that this definition applies only to our solar system...that doesn't mean that objects orbiting other stars are not planets, it just means that the term "planet" is left open to interpretation when applied to other solar systems. My guess is that as we learn more about other solar systems, we will either begin applying this definition to them as-is, or we will modify the definition so that it can be applied consistent with current usage. As far as "arbitrary" goes...well, it's not really arbitrary. It would be arbitrary to hand-pick certain objects to be planets based on public perception, but the definition matches the term to a specific type of orbital dynamics, and this is the way astronomers have used the term for a long time. --Aelffin 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAU has just made this new definition. It is barely a week old. They will eventually incorporate extrasolar planets into this definition, and all other definitions. There will probably be a definition for extrasolar planets, extrasolar dwarf planets, extrasolar trans-Neptunian objects, extrasolar Pluto prototypes, extrasolar cubewanos, etc. Just give the governing body time. The IAU is the official source for information relating to astronomy, and if they feel that there is a need to redefine what a planet is, then they can do so. It's not like NASA or the European Space Agency decided "Oh, let's call Pluto a dwarf planet, now." An international group of astronomers did. And, as I said in my first sentences, this definition is only three days old. They will more than likely convene, again, to decide on more expansion on this new definition. Ryūlóng 20:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
We are here to document things in an observant fashion. Regardless of their self-proclaimed status as official, the common usage of the word conflicts with their definition. The majority viewpoint is against their definition, sorry. WhoMe? 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the majority viewpoint is against their definition, WhoMe, but that doesn't matter: popular minority viewpoints should also be counted, and it's important to remember: a) general population != astronomers, b)astronomers != astrologers, and c)religionists may have even more viewpoints. Methinks "planet" is better off as a disambig page, with the pages branching off as follows: Planet (astronomy), Planet (asterology), Planet (category 3 here), etc. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here is a thought exercise: if you were to ask a large group of (scientists OR educated people OR people OR lunatics) whether the possibility exists that planets exist outside of this solar system, what would be the most common answer? WhoMe? 20:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"Yes". And I'll bet science fiction writers will have influenced that answer. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Or just 205 confirmed extrasolar planets ;) WhoMe? 21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I see, the definition can be disambiguated to state that the IAU has imposed the definition on planets within the solar system, for now, and may impose the definition on extrasolar planets in the future. Ryūlóng 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
According to their definition, "extrasolar planet" is an oxymoron. For the sake of clarity and uniformity, Wikipedia should stick to the definition of planet commonly understood among both scientists and the general public as a whole. If science as a whole begins to shift their usage of the word, then the Wikipedia community should consider a rewrite of its definition. Language and symbolism is based on a consensus of understanding, not bureucratic or hierarchical decree. WhoMe? 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Except the IAU has redefined what a planet is, and that is the whole reason this page is related to the current events. Ryūlóng 22:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the first line says the following:
“ The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:... ”
It in no way says that extrasolar planets are no longer planets. Just that planets within this solar system are to be redefined by the criteria they came up with. Ryūlóng 22:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAU can redefine a planet as any solid mass greater than 42cm in diameter, if they so please. They can redefine planet in a singular sense, and claim all planets other than Earth to be creations of Satan, if they so please. They can maintain a list of planets and roll dice to determine inclusion, if they so please. Regardless, their opinion on what should constitute a planet is not spoken on behalf of science, the academic community, or the common usage of the word. I do not believe that Wikipedia needs to be valuing the meaning of the term, as defined by a select few individuals through a process likely involving much groupthink, over the meaning used and understood by persons of all backgrounds all over the world. As a linguistic symbol, the meaning of the word "Planet", or any other word for that matter, is defined by its base of users. WhoMe? 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a rather misleading statement. Certainly it's true that the definitions of words are influences or determined by the common usage-- but only in their common sense. Planet is a word with multiple senses, as are many words in science, and it's very common and universally accepted for the technical sense of a word to be determined by an international committee. Take, for example, the names of SI units, the names of disorders as defined in the DSM-IV, or the particular defintions of words used in physics like force and power. Saying that we don't need "to be valuing the meaning of the term, as defined by a select few individuals... &c." is just foolish. Of course wikipedia should value the term as defined by the IAU... in addition to clarifying the common understanding of the definition. siafu 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAU can do whatever they damn well please; with regard to generic, non-technical terms, Wikipedia exists to document terms as they exist in human civilization as a whole. For specific, technical terms, Wikipedia exists to document them as they exist in their sphere of knowledge. The term "Planet" has been used for so long, by so many people, that the arbitrary re-defining of it by a committee stands in opposition to its meaning as a whole. WhoMe? 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose if you have a problem with the way in which it was redefined by the IAU you should take it up with them. First and foremost on wikipedia should be the technical definition of planet; this is an encyclopedia, not simply a dictionary. Other definitions, e.g. astrological, should be included as well, but if you're simply appealing to some popular definition of the term you'll have to do more than this general claim to avoid WP:NOR/WP:V, and it can certainly be included as a sentence or two in the intro as well. There is no definining of the word planet that has not been arbitrary to lesser or greater extents, so this is hardly a valid criticism of anything. siafu 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The IAU is more than just "self proclaimed" official. They are regarded universally in the astronomical and scientific community as such. See [[14]] Its interesting how many people suddenly slam the IAU for not being official after they didn't get the definition they agree with. And for the record, if you did a bit of research you would find the IAU has had a working definition for extrasolar planets for three years and two of the points in the introductory definition come from that.
This is not an issue of preference, nor is it about any desire to see the specific case Pluto classified one way or the other. Scientists have been using the term in the same way, for years and years, informally and in journal publications. The media and the general public have, likewise, remained constant in their usage of the term. Many scientists and journalists, in addition to non-technical persons, will continue using the term as it was defined as of a month ago, years and years from now. Everybody will understand what they mean, because everybody understands what a planet generally is, and has so for years. If you honestly believe that such usage would become "wrong" or "incorrect" overnight, simply because a committee said so, then you really ought to re-examine the nature of language and symbolism itself. Besides, taking that press release at face value is assuming that the Astronomical community is united in this change, which is just blatantly untrue. This is not an issue of enlightened astronomers clashing with the rest of us unenlightened fools; many of them actively and vocally oppose the change, in addition to the multitudes who will use "Planet" in the manner they always have, with the possible exception of Pluto. Astronomy is full of controversy. (Have you ever Read a journal? Ever subscribe to a journal? Ever get published? Nah, didn't think so.) As for this article, I could care less if you change it back. You have your consensus, do what you will, I'm done with Wikipedia. I have no desire to associate with a place where critical analysis of information is cast, while paraphrasing and mindless restatement is enshrined in flowery policies

no longer even addressing the very issues which birthed them. WhoMe? 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand scientists have been using the term for many years, as there is widespread agreement that those objects between the size of Mercury to Thirteen Jupiter masses are planets when they orbit a star. However, whilst this recent debate, culminating in last weeks proposal has been ongoing many have refrained from using the term planet in borderline cases, instead calling objects "planemos", "brown dwarfs", "sub brown dwarfs", "planetoids", "KBOs", "worlds" etc etc. The competing definitions aren't completely at odds with each other so "planet" can often be used. And for the record, it wasn't simply a committee that said so, it was a vote by the general assembly of the official body for astronomical nomenclature to adopt an official view of the union. It doesn't mean that other definitions are necessarily wrong, just that they are not the unofficial definition. Of course lots of people disagree, and this should be covered as such in the article. However that doesn't make the official definition any less official. You will note that those astronomers in the demote camp have been saying for years before this resolution "Pluto shouldn't be a planet", NOT "Pluto isn't a planet" - this was because the IAU officially accepted it as such. I decline to comment on your flowery rant, as this talk place should be about the article.The Enlightened 01:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reorganize

I moved the difinition section up to avoid repetition so that the definition controversy is removed from the lead section. I would also think that the etymology nd category sections should be moved higher up, and the formation section further down.   Andreas   (T) 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Popular unofficial definitions

Don't forget that scientists aren't even the only folks that affect textbooks, either. If people make enough noise, then activists >>>>textbook publishers>>>> children (remember the hoopla over intelligent design?), and children also learn the activists' definitions. If a popular unofficial classification of "planet" evolves, then textbook makers will also need to make decisions concerning unofficial classifications of "planet". — Rickyrab | Talk 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

ID is an unsound scientific theory. Apples and oranges. WhoMe? 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
ID is as sound as string theory currently is. ID and Macro Evolution are "theories", not laws. Genetics is well on the way to proving ID. The code loaded into DNA/RNA didn't write itself, it had an intelligent author/programmer.--Britcom 09:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The point Rickyrab was making is that it is not recognised as such by the mainstream scientific community, but lets not rehash that old debate here.The Enlightened 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Citing previous precedent is important, but I have no desire to debate the issue here. I intentionally stuck my head in the sand and avoided the entire debate over ID. I'd rather the articles be biased than get involved in that mess. As for the original point made above, a so-called unoffical defintion can be quite popular and have more influence than any so-called official designation. The discussion of ID is a distraction from this point. Unlike ID, in this case what is being discussed is not a theory, but the definition of a word. The meaning of words is inherently cultural and thus can continuously change in meaning depending on who is doing the talking and so forth. The IAU, or more closely a group of less than 500 persons, has effectively changed the definition of a word. That's a lot of power for such a small number of persons, no matter their qualifications. The fact that it is at least internationally recognized as important/official at least keeps this from being a very dangerous precedent. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WhoMe's new introduction

After the last few days many of us from both sides of the fence had worked out an informative introduction that was both clear and covered the main points. Most importantly it described the view of the official body for naming astronomical nomenclature and combined both their working definition for extrasolar planets and their more recent definition for out own solar system in a clear fashion to inform people in the opening paragraph. The new intro is junk. Please can we amend this without having an edit war. The Enlightened 23:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the lastest changes/reverts/whatever made by yourself, I find the recent changes to be much clearer than when I originally started discussing this controversy. Despite many objections on both sides, the article is much clearer. I'm assuming here that what is currently is what you want the article to look like. I certainly won't start an edit war over it! I've never participated in an edit war and I don't intend to start now. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would have preferred just listing "A planet is officially defined as..." but now it has been amended so:
a) there are links a the naming dispute both in the first sentence as well as the sandbox
b) it is not listed as the official definition, just as a definition by the IAU
c) it is noted that this is recent and also that there were alternate lists before this
d) there is link to the astrology article that defines planet differently
e) there is a quantifier to say it may not be universally accepted.
I think not to address the IAU definition in the introduction is more POV than including it, giving its significance. We have already given it far less credit than all reports in the mainstream and scientific media. The Enlightened 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well at least one entry (d) does not need to be there. I added it to the disambiguation page, so that should be sufficient. There is no need to list it on this page explicitly. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I felt that seeing that the astrology term described many of the same objects as the astronomy term there should be a direct link, especially given the dispute over Pluto, which, as you rightly pointed out, will still be counted by many astronomers. However, if you still feel it should be taken out I won't object. And for the record, despite the initial clash of heads I've enjoyed working with you on this and you have persuaded me to be a lot closer to your view. Thanks. The Enlightened 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not terribly concerned about the astrology link, one way or another. It isn't intrusive. As for this discussion, I really havn't even been editing the article or really following the changes as closely as others have been. This discussion is so time consuming! When I first ran accross the article I was deeply concerned with the slant, but there has been a lot of work. I still have issues with using the word "official", since only 424 persons out of 2,411 (approximately 18%) who attended the IAU assembly even voted on the issue and there are enough published articles showing the controversy that the vote has caused. With that said, the introductory paragraph does a good job at mentioning the lack of a historical scientific agreement for the definition of planet. This balance may be sufficient to show all sides on this debate. I might like it if it was the "official scientific body", because surely there are no other organizations that can make that claim and it still leaves room for "unofficial cultural definitions", such as those widely used by the general public. Ironically, I think the article may now focus a little too much attention on the naming controversy. I would put "Definition" and "Disagreement" under the main heading of "Etymology". I think it would flow better and put less emphasis on the controversy. Afterall, the definition of the word is what Etymology is all about, and the controversy occurred chronologically after the information currently under the heading of Etymology. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I deliberately changed the sentence so "official" decribed the IAU, not the definition or the vote as such. I'll add that scientific term in there and try to merge the definition and etymology sections.The Enlightened 12:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How's it looking now? The Enlightened 13:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at the recent changes, I think the article is much clearer with less emphasis on the naming disagreement. Perhaps I'll look over it more closely later, but it seems much better for now. I have no major complaints as of now. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, and in light of the above statement, I still think that the IAU's vote should not have so much weight that we remove Pluto from prominance in the entire article as it is now. I'd feel much better about this if the IAU's vote was more of a quorum or a consensus by most of its members and if there was a lack of controversy surrounding the decision. It would kill me if the next time they met they rolled back the change or even voted in something totally different. Then we'd have to change the article once again to something potentially different. So much for "official". At least, for better or worse, the commonly understood 9 planets are not going to change as the cultural norm for quite some time, which could add some stability to the article. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
For the record, although only a small minority of members voted on the issue, all those who wished to stay for the vote were allowed. It was just that many either studied other areas of astronomy, or simply were not overly concerned. The next meeting isn't until 2009 anyway even if there is a change (which I see as unlikely). Most people I've asked about this in the last few days actually see 10 and not 9 after all the media coverage of ub313, so the "cultural" definition is changing already. Those who have heard about the vote have told me eight also. And an alarming number of people can't name a figure. The Enlightened 13:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It is for many of the reasons that you state that I can't petition too strongly for any other issue. If the article stays in its current form, or similar to it, I can't complain too much. What else can happen? We have to say *something*, and it isn't clear what other definition, 9, 10 or some other number, would be superior anyway. My arguments were originally to make the article more NPOV, not force there to be a certain number of planets. In my view, this has been accomplished. I would say give this time and wait and see what happens. Perhaps a clearer cultural consensus will emerge (although that is perhaps unlikely) and maybe the scientific community will have more to say. Time will tell. I will say this, people may not know how many planets there are (it's hard enough to remember all the names), but if the question asked whether or not Pluto was a planet, I suspect most people would still say yes... at least those who have not heard about the vote! If this article accomplishes anything, it is the education of the masses on this very issue. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about Snow White?

I was researching (in a lazy way) the origin of the word dwarf, expecting to find that it refers to some sort of disorder, but this is not true.

It has a rich history and mythology all it's own, parallel to the sort used to name planets. So why not start naming the new dwarf planets accordingly?..There are only 7 well known dwarfs, but a large number of other less well known ones.I know about this 08:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Neptune crisis

According to the new definition of "planet" Neptune may no longer qualify as a planet since it has not cleared its orbit of Pluto. This would also cast doubt on Jupiter since Jupiter's orbit is full of asteroids. Now what? BTW, logically speaking anything called a "dwarf planet" is still a "planet". You have to call it something else if it is not a "planet". If it is a "planet", then you have to list it with the other "planets". --Britcom 08:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oou oou, I just had an idea! If it is smaller than a planet with an odd shape, lets call it a plantain!  :D --Britcom 10:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Neptune HAS cleared its orbit of Pluto, and the only reason Pluto is where it is, is because of orbital resonance with neptune, Pluto's orbit does not cross neptunes as such, but goes around and underneath it... Nbound 11:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, what about the trojans asteroids in the exact same orbit as Neptune? Bryan27 15:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh oh! You've caught those pesky astronomers up! You're right, Neptune must not be a planet, because it has trojan asteroids. Oh, look, so does Jupiter! And Mars! Ha ha! They're not planets either. Wow, what a shambles. Those astronomers are so much stupider than us Wikipedians. Seriously, though: technically, only Jupiter has "trojan" asteroids, although the term is loosely used for asteroids at the Langrangian points of other planets. More importantly, though, objects which are at Lagrangian points are completely controlled by the dominant body in a 1:1 orbital resonance. That is part of the very definition of "Clearing the neighbourhood", which I recommend you read.Derek Balsam 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was only asking a question. Thanks for answering it.Bryan27 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was being snarky. My snarkiness was due to the heading "Neptune crisis" and the comment about "casting doubt on Jupiter", rather than your question specifically, though. Sorry.Derek Balsam 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rock dwarf/Ice dwarf

While the IAU seems to have said that the dwarf planets will have some sort of distinction between those like Ceres and those like Pluto, with a new name chosen for Pluto-like objects, I don't think such a distinction has yet been made, so it should not be made in the article. The terms rock dwarf and ice dwarf (which had an article recently created despite not actually being an officially-used term) should not be used in this article (and ice dwarf should be redirected to Pluto prototype). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "ice dwarf" has been in use for many years while people were avoiding the planet/non-planet debate to class Pluto with its kin. Equally the term "gas giant" has not been made official but is widespread in academic literature. Ice dwarf is, admittedly, less prevalent because we haven't known a whole class existed for so long, but it is certainly widespread among Kuiper Belt terminology. Pluto has been classed on this page as an ice dwarf way before the recent IAU meeting demoted it.

Wouldn't Pluto's demotion dictate a name change? I understood that only planets can be named after gods according to the naming convention. If so, I nominate "Mickey" for the new name of Pluto. ~8:> --Britcom 19:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. It has become convention to name KBOs after deities or the underworld - Sedna, Quaoar etc. So as Pluto is one already no name change is needed.

"Luna"

Can I have a straw pole about using the term "luna" in certain instances. Although the official name for the Earth's Moon is indeed "the Moon", and should be referred to as such when talked about in isolation, it is customary to use the term "Luna" to distinguish it from "the moon" in a more generic sense. For example "Io is a large satellite of Jupiter. The moon was first discovered in..." etc. I know the capitalisation is a difference but this is the reason for the custom. Comments? The Enlightened 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose I like the term, but it really isn't used by people. It's also not necessary since ambiguity is really lacking with the options: The capital on "the Moon", the availabilty of the word "satellite", and the fact that you could always just change "the moon" to "it" or easily reword sentences. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons stated above. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose   Andreas   (T) 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Luna" is not a widespread term used for the Earth's Moon. At least not in the English language. The article for Luna doesn't even redirect to the Moon, it's merely a disambiguation page. --Húsönd 17:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not once in my life, have I ever heard anyone in the real world when speaking English, call the moon, "Luna". I think if you said Luna, most people would think "character in Harry Potter" Nfitz 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Though I suspect this is a topic for another page, I will comment here because this is a "can o' worms" issue just like the present Pluto issue. Indeed, IMHO the name of the Moon is "the Moon", however, any attributes associated with the Moon are universally called "Lunar". That would indicate that "the Moon" is the common name of the object and "Luna" is the exact name. The same is true of Earth where things belonging to Earth are "terrestrial", leading one to belive the exact name is "Terra". Were we to suddenly have a second moon, we would not call them "the Moon" and "the other Moon". We would call the old one Luna and the other something else like Vera.--Britcom 10:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • However, page naming, and the English language, is based on common usage, not on logic. We use sino- as a prefix for things Chinese. By the same logic we would have to rename the China page as Sina? Nfitz 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sino- is not really common usage though. "Chinese" serves the same purpose and is in common usage. The only common usage of an adjective associated with the Moon that I can think of is Lunar, though there are some nouns that are rather silly as in "moonshine". I think that "the Moon" is not really a name at all. I think that it is a non-specific reference to something that there is only one of so in common usage it needs no other specific name. As an example, I live in Florida, and we often take a drive down to the see "the Ocean". One need not specify that it is the Atlantic. Most everyone who lives here knows that. If we go in the other direction, we see "the Gulf". Again one need not specify that it is the "Gulf of Mexico". Therefore I believe that "the Moon" is used in the same way. No one would say that "the Gulf" is the correct name of the body of water west of the Florida peninsula. The real name is the "Gulf of Mexico". If I say "the Gulf" to someone from the UK they may assume the Persian Gulf is what I mean, then the exact name must come into play. The problem with "the Moon" is that everyone on the planet considers the Moon to be an object that is local to them and since they probably will never have a conversation with a Martian, feel no need to ever be more specific than just "the Moon". However in Astronomy, one takes a wider view when mapping the heavens. So if we were discussing space craft tragectories and the orbits of moons, how would you differentiate between Earth's moon and one of Mars' moons. Would you say Luna? Perhaps you would say "Earth's moon". Then perhaps the exact name should be "the Moon of Earth".--Britcom 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Your "Gulf of Mexico" analogy (pardon the pun) doesn't hold water. The Moon was the first moon known, all other moons were called moons after it. So it undoubtedly is "the Moon." I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of this kind of singular thing giving its name to other things with the same attributes in the English language, although I cannot think of any at the moment. The Moon is the Moon in English, plain and simple. As for the fact that adjectives and nouns don't match up, that also does not mean that "Luna" or "Terra" are the 'exact' names of those objects. That's just ignorance. Words come from different sources, they don't always form a nice little set. Yes, the sources for those words are Luna and Terra, (and Terra itself comes simply from terra, "earth"--note the lack of a capital), but that does not mean that those roots are any more "exact" than the nouns themselves. In fact, if anything, I'd think a noun trumps the root of an adjective when, uh, we're talking about nouns. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Remember we are talking about a proper noun here, not just a noun, and we are talking about the name for purposes of categorization. That means that it has to make sense with the existing categorization system we have been using and make it as universal as possible. "The Moon" doesn't seem to fit that classification. It is not specific enough. We need a proper noun or a compound proper noun. "Luna" fits, "the Moon of Earth" fits, even "Earth's Moon" or "the Terran Moon" fits. Ask yourself why the word “the” precedes the word Moon and you will get your answer. “The” identifies a count noun, not a proper noun. "Luna" is a proper noun and not a count noun. Count nouns are acceptable in English when there is only one of something ("The cow said 'Moo'."). However when a conversation includes several similar objects and we are referring to only one individual object, then it is time for a proper noun.("Bessie said 'Moo'.") By creating a page for this object, we have identified the need for a proper noun. Unfortunately, most “common” people are not aware of the proper noun that exists for "the Moon" and don’t use it out of ignorance, not of choice. An encyclopedia is supposed to inform the reader of these things so that they may use them when the need arises. To choose not to inform them out of tradition, reinforces their ignorance, and makes the article less accurate and less useful for educational purposes. --Britcom 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Oh, for heaven's sake. Unless you can find some reliable source that says that Luna and Terra are the "exact" names in English of the bodies in question (and then back that up by finding it in common use, because use is what defines language rules, not the other way around), then all this arguing is just verbal masturbation. Nobody calls the Moon "Luna" in English except for romantically. If you have an issue with the use of "the" and think it denotes a count noun, then by all means, call it "The Moon" (I doubt The Gambia indicates there's more than one Gambia), or, heck, call it "Moon" for all I care. The fact that the Moon has a capital makes it abundantly clear that "Moon" is a proper noun, not a description of an object that is properly called "Luna". Yes, there are more moons out there in the universe, and they are called that because we figured out that they had the same relationship to their planets as the Moon has to the Earth, so we called them moons. The Moon is the proper name for the satellite of Earth. Really. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC
            • Oh, wait, I meant "the Earth", indicating that there are other earths out there, that is, "earth" is of course, a synonym for "planet". What can I say, I'm a silly Terran, who also happens to live in the Universe (that is, our universe, because of course "the Universe" means there are more out there). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • BTW, in response to your assertion that the roots "terr" and "luna" used for the planets is proof of the "exact" terms, I counter that the roots "geo" (from Greek "Ge") and seleno (from Greek "Selene") are used far more often, (see geography, geology, and the zillions of "geo" terms, and selenography and selenology) and that the "exact" names of Earth and the Moon are "Ge" and "Selene". Also, Mars is actually "Ares", as its geography is called areography. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Or maybe (I know, too many replies), you only want to go by some sort of official body's use? How about, oh, I dunno, the IAU? From [15]:
Spelling of Names of Astronomical Objects
Questions have been asked about the proper English spelling of names of astronomical objects, especially as regards capitalization of such names.
The IAU formally recommends that the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter 8, page S30); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules.
└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL! I just love winding up lawyers. Well, let me say that I have always wondered why non-American (largely British and Commonwealth) English speakers plant the word "the" in front of "Gambia" and "Lebanon", and not in front of "hospital". I was also under the impression such folk consider "the Queen" to be the ultimate authority on what is or is not the "proper" use of "Her" English language, or perhaps alternatively the OED. At any rate, I think some of your points are well taken, however... (LOL)... I think that one cannot consider "the Moon" to be a proper noun just because the IAU (apparently) says it should be capitalized. The IAU is not a policy making body for the English language, and one cannot take a rule from English (i.e. proper nouns are always capitalized) and "bastardize" it with an IAU rule (i.e. "the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals") and then arrive at the conclusion that; well, since IAU says "the Moon" should be capitalized, and the rules of English state that proper nouns are always capitalized, therefore since "the Moon" is capitalized, then it MUST BE as proper noun and... wait for it... therefore, therefore, the real name of the object in question MUST ALSO BE... "the Moon". "Thank you, thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury... no, no, please... sit down." Yes, yes, I can see that your lawering skills are certainly well developed. It has been such a long time since I have had the pleasure of witnessing anyone build such a beautiful and professionally designed "castle in the air". Bravo! Anyway, if you read my first post in this thread (above) you will see that the only reason that I have written an opinion here is to demonstrate what you have (perhaps unwittingly) fallen prey to, is that the debate about whether or not Pluto is a planet or not is just as ridiculous as this debate about whether the name of "the Moon" is "Luna" or not. I thank you for your assistance in making this point and I apologize if any feathers where ruffled in the process, you have illustrated my point brilliantly. For those who need help catching up... my point was that, of course Pluto is a planet, because everyone (common usage) says it is a planet. "I thank the jury for their kind attention. I have nothing further your Honor." "Ahhhhm, ahm... do the Gentlemen from IAU have anything further to add?..." --Britcom 06:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
In response to the "castle in the air" comment, I'm afraid I don't follow--as far as I can tell I used the same arguments you did (or that I thought you would use in respect to the IAU usage) to prove exactly the opposite of what you claim. Your argument about "Lunar" and "terrestrial" falls short when "Seleno" and "Geo" are used even more often, your argument about the count noun falls short when you think about words like "The Gambia", "the Universe", (even "the Earth", if you've abandoned that claim), etc., and if you had argued from authority, then the quote from the IAU would have refuted that. In response to your rant about the IAU and its authority over English, actually, that example was simply to show that the Moon (as opposed to Luna) is what they consider the proper name for the Moon (I couldn't find a more direct statement, as I believe it's in a guide that isn't available online). As for your claim that Pluto is a planet because people think it is (and I don't know how it could have been your point from the start as you claim, since this discussion was always about the Moon--you might want to make your points a little more clear before arguing about them for a day and a half), well, aside from the fact that many people now do not consider it a planet (I, for one, do not), then I take it you agree that since people do not think Luna is the name of the Moon, and that they think that the Moon is the name of the Moon, then wholeheartedly, without reserve, "the Moon" is the only name for the Moon, and let's leave "Luna" to the Roman revivalists. Great, we're all settled, then. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 12:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me illuminate for you the points that I made, that you may have missed.
1. One of the very first things that I said above was: “Indeed, In My Humble Opinion the name of the Moon is "the Moon"…” I said this because I recognize that people will resist a change in the status quo without a compelling reason, even if it makes logical sense to make the change. That is my observation of human nature. It doesn’t make sense, but it is often true none-the-less. Correcting a flaw in logical reasoning is not a compelling enough reason for them to allow their apple cart to be upset.
2. This is the “planet” talk page. The Luna debate was never really about the Moon, it was a device to help us understand whether or not “official” groups like the IAU can make decisions on what to call things, or if “common usage” trumps their efforts to dictate what the rest of us call something. The root of that point is - is the IAU supposed to be handing down decrees of its imperial wisdom, or (as I believe) is it supposed to be working to ‘’discover’’ what the public (common usage) already says about the subject (warts and all) and make its rulings accordingly. In other words, is the IAU a dictatorial body, or a reflective body? I believe the latter is the only workable methodology that it can possibly operate under. Its attempts to operate as the former will only bring more wrath and chaos down upon it as the public bucks its rulings. In the end, the public will win out over any logical and well intentioned decision on the definition of “planet” or, as we have demonstrated here in this small debate, any attempt to rename “the Moon”. Common usage, as you have so eloquently shown, will win out every time. My position in this debate was as Devil’s advocate in hopes of spawning the very debate that you yourself have shown us is won, not by logic, but by brute force of public opinion. Were it only a matter of logic then my argument would have carried much greater weight, but it was not a fair fight. Everyone (common usage) was against me so I was forced to concede, just as the IAU should do on the definition of “planet” and for the same reasons that you argue make “the Moon” the real name of “the Moon”. My decision to concede was not because I changed my mind, but rather that I accepted that even though logic would dictate that “Luna” is the name, logic alone is not enough reason to change thousands of years of tradition and therefore “Luna” had no chance of prevailing against the “commonly accepted” name. I believe the same will be true for the IAU and Pluto. Pluto has attained “commonly accepted” status as a planet and that is near as good as if it were written in stone.
3. A “castle in the air” refers to a complicated and well formed logical argument that when one attempts to plumb the depths of its foundation, is found to be totally disconnected from any real foundation and relies, not on physics (or logic) for its seemingly great stature, but upon a trick of the mind, a complex knotwork of circular arguments that in any real world situation (other than a court of law ;) ) would collapse like a house of cards but which seems to have a stable structure when described in wholly theoretical terms. Why did I use the term? Because you were not trying to assail my argument with pure logic, you were invoking the dictations of authorities (which I may not accept as authorities) as a hammer to beat me over the head with. This is a typical legal maneuver to win an argument, but holds no weight in science where practical truths slap you in the face if you do not acknowledge them and hammers made of the dictations of authorities have a habit of disappearing into puffs of smoke in the face of purely scientific scrutiny. In other words, I am saying that the only “authority” that I accept is logic, but conceding that I am a minority in that assertion and that the majority, however illogical in its reasoning, can sweep me aside, and the same fate can befall the IAU and their quite logical assertion that Pluto is not a planet. You see I am not saying the IAU is wrong in their thinking, I am saying that I think that they can’t win their argument just like I couldn't. To quote Morpheus’s philosophy; “There is a difference between knowing the path... and walking the path.” (If you haven't seen the Matrix trilogy, I highly recommend it. To me it is the best philosophy epic ever made.) --Britcom 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of what building castles in the air means. I, however, do not think I did such a thing (I certainly cannot find any circular arguments or illusory principles or the like). It was only my last point that really argued from authority (in anticipation that you would do the same, not that I really cared that much for what the IAU thought). Before that I had used logic to knock down the idea that "Lunar" necessarily means the Moon is properly "Luna", and to show that "the Moon" does not necessarily denote a count noun. Not only is the Moon the name of the Moon in common usage, it is just as likely by the grammatical rules of English to be so (despite your "logical" protestations). You, however, decided to ignore that part of my argument. But, hey, whatever floats your boat (or castle). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the Matrix's philosophical explorations are pretty weak. There are better movies out there that explore similar themes and questions and do them greater justice. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You definitely come across as a "blue pill" sort of person. Quote: "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe... whatever you want to believe." I was not avoiding your argument, I was agreeing with it, just for different reasons than you. I didn’t want to belabor the details because they go off topic. But if you must know… if I were King, the name of the Moon page would be: The Moon (Luna). This is an acceptable compromise. As far as “Seleno”; I would not consider any form of that word as common usage. It seems to be used in limited areas with no wide appeal. Yes, that’s my opinion. Luna on the other hand is the root for many common words. It is also well known that many people form new words from Latin, Greek, or French, the ultimate choice of which language is used is often aesthetics, or personal preference. There are some quarters that tend to gravitate toward one language or the other, but mostly, again, out of tradition. Mainly, I think that Luna is a name and moon is a noun, if it wasn’t at some time in the past it surly is today with all of the moons out there. Actually, I think that the reason the name is not a proper noun is because for some strange reason old English speakers preferred not to give personal names to inanimate objects. Perhaps out of fear that people would deify then, or did so in the past and the language was cleansed of any type of personification. This having been done, you and I inherit the language in the 21st century that is flawed and unstandardized. In fact English is one of the most bastardized languages in the world. This is probably why it is so universal. It has evolved the most and the fastest and has become more adaptable in an age of rapid change. Also I think the word “the” is rooted in some sort of German usage that really has no modern value other than it “sounds good” to us when we hear it. So the further you go down this rabbit hole, the murkier it gets with no answers in sight as to why English is the way it is. It just is. The longer you use it, the more you catch on to its patterns and to some degree, my choice of Luna is as a result of a pattern that I sense in the current state of the evolution of the language that it seems to fit into. I am not the only one who seems to sense this, but there are others who prefer to hold onto the tradition and so we disagree. I suppose that you are more of a "2001" person , I however consider "1984" to be second behind the Matrix. --Britcom 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
AHA! The page on Pluto compairs the sizes of moons in an image and calls the Moon "Earth's Moon". "Pluto (bottom right) compared in size to the largest moons in the solar system: Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Earth's Moon, Europa, and Triton" --Britcom 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, well, the language on a Wikipedia article about Pluto is obviously incontrovertible proof that you're right. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Agree' Personally i'd give it a "real" name..like Luna, because that seems the most consistent thing to do, but then would sit back and watch everyone use "the Moon"...and win the occasional trivia question.I know about this 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's not how things are supposed to work here. Wikipedia is about using the common terms, not to trying make terms common. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia not a lingo dictionary hence everything is supposed to be backed by facts not folklore. If people use words frecuently or commonly it "don't"(<---) make it an encyclopedic fact. DrCito 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

strong oppose. Such a term would not only not reflect common usage but be misleading: "Luna" is already the name of the Moon in several Romance languages. And how is "the Moon" not a real name? Is "the United States of America" less of a proper noun because it has "the" in front of it? English has been calling the Moon the Moon since the days of Beowulf, and I see no reason to suddenly shift to Latin. Serendipodous 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. We must document things as they are, not as we wish they might be. That chunk of rock in the sky is overwhelmingly known as "the Moon" in the English speaking world. "Luna", "Selene", etc. are poetic or literary appellations, but they are not its name in English. All the arguments in support above are about how Luna "should" be the name, or how people wish or think it were its name. But it's not. It's the Moon. Derek Balsam 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<<As an example, I live in Florida, and we often take a drive down to the see "the Ocean". One need not specify that it is the Atlantic. Most everyone who lives here knows that. If we go in the other direction, we see "the Gulf". Again one need not specify that it is the "Gulf of Mexico". Therefore I believe that "the Moon" is used in the same way. No one would say that "the Gulf" is the correct name of the body of water west of the Florida peninsula. The real name is the "Gulf of Mexico". If I say "the Gulf" to someone from the UK they may assume the Persian Gulf is what I mean, then the exact name must come into play. The problem with "the Moon" is that everyone on the planet considers the Moon to be an object that is local to them and since they probably will never have a conversation with a Martian, feel no need to ever be more specific than just "the Moon".>>

I also live in Florida and if I were writing about "the ocean" (meaning the Atlantic Ocean from a Floridian's point of view) I wouldn't capitalize the "ocean" part. I wouldn't capitalize it as it's not a proper noun, unlike "the Moon". I wouldn't capitalize "the ocean" when being use from a Florida point of view, anymore than I would write "the House" when referring to where I live, or "the Trash" or refer to my vehicle as "the Car" rather than "the car", nor would I ever write that I was going to "the Store", "the Zoo" or "the Park". "The Moon" however, is the name of our moon just like "the Earth" is the name of our planet, unlike the uncapitalized "the ocean", "the house", "the car", "the store", "the zoo" and "the park". Voortle 02:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto Randomness

Yahoo news just ran the following story that mentioned the Pluto controversy in regards to truthiness. I thought it was interesting, perhaps ironic. Of course it really doesn't change our discussion, but it humored me anyway. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Clearing its orbit"

How do Trojan Asteroids orbiting at the Lagrange-4 and Lagrange-5 points of a planet's orbit around the sun square with the definition of a planet that says that the planet has cleared its orbit? Banaticus 05:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The small body is not in the planet's orbit. An orbit, in the pure sense is a simple 2 body ellipse, and this is what the planet must dominate and "clear". The small body at the lagrange L4 is not orbiting in that strict sense. Its path is different to the planet's, and there are two bodies acting on it. I know about this 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Ceres still an asteroid?

I wasn't aware that Ceres's promotion to dwarf planet status meant that it was no longer an asteroid. It's still a member of the asteroid belt, last I checked. Serendipodous 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe that, according to the IAU, the term "asteroid" is now defunct. Asteroids, KBOs, SDOs etc all come under the class "small bodies".
That makes no sense. Materially, asteroids and KBOs are completely different things. Yes, they can all be small bodies, but there would need to be some kind of subgrouping to diffrentiate them. Serendipodous 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pluto is now asteroid 134340 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_pluto_asteroidnumber.html yisraelasper

No, that just means it's a minor planet, not specifically an asteroidSerendipodous 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't "dwarf planet" supposed to be the replacement for "minor planet"? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly; "Minor planet" was split into two separate categories: "Dwarf planet" and "Small solar system body". Still seems to be following the same number system though. Serendipodous 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll have to wait and see whether dwarf planets have their number in their formal names.The Enlightened 23:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rocky versus Jovian planets and Star Metallicity?

I checked the link for reference (13) and it gave a summary of the article in Nature, although I did not directly read the source article in Nature itself. From what I could discern of it, it did not specifically preclude the formation of Jovian planets or Brown Dwarfs around metal-poor stars from the dynamics of the condensation of stellar nebulae, but it only noted that heavier terrestrial-like planets were precluded due to the simple lack of heavy elements in the initial nebula itself with metal-poor star formation. If Jovian planets and Brown Dwarfs are also clearly precluded from condensation dynamics, please give more references and change it back. - X (UTC)

Three-point versus four-point definition?

It seems to me that the Definition section could be cleaned up to clarify when it's referring to the four-point definition in the intro of the article, and when it's referring to the three-point definition in the Definition section. It tags the 'clearing the neighborhood' point as item (c), which it is in Definition though it's (d) in the intro. There seems to be a transition in this section at 'This resolution adds to a proposal...' where it's going to insert the fusion point, but it once again references 'clearing the neighborhood/orbit' as point (c), even though the intro inserts fusion at point (c). --Don Branson 12:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Guys, coming up with your own definition is original research

If you can find another officially sanctioned definition, then fine. But don't just invent one off the top of your head. You're unlikely to come up with a definition that deals with all ambiguities anyway. Serendipodous 12:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, coming up with your own definition on the basis of official and widely known unofficial definitions is NOT original research

It is secondhand research, which is encyclopedic. Controversies stemming from religions have been handled quite well, so why not controversies between scientists and the general public? — Rickyrab | Talk 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to give something as a second hand research it needs referencing. Besides, you're acting like the general public is in widespread opposition against the IAU, which is plainly not the case besides a few jokes by Stephen Colbert.192.17.229.43 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We still have to wait. Dictionaries are not going to change instantly at least without saying there is a controversy. The IAU has set something in motion. yisraelasper

Duplication

This article needs to be condensed. There is no need for the two IAU planet definitions to be quoted in full twice. It makes the article confusing. I will try another form, and see if it works. If it doesn't, just revert it. Serendipodous 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There. Done. Conveys exactly the same information but is 1kb shorter.

I think this article and "Definition of planet" are gradually becoming the same article

The overlap between them is growing by the day. It may be time to reconsider merging them. Serendipodous 17:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree I think that the planet article should be more about the nature/cultural impact of the planets rather than a terminology dispute. The basics should be covered here but another article is needed to cover the full controversy.70.225.161.247 04:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ice dwarf

This term does not mean what you think it means. Insofar as it is used at all, it refers to any of a number of icy bodies in trans-Neptunian space; it does not refer to a class of "dwarf planet". That is, it is a popular synonym for TNO. No term has yet been settled on for the class of "Pluto-like" object (in fact, none has been suggested since "Pluton" and "Plutonian object" were rejected).

Neither the term "ice dwarf" nor "Plutonian object" belong in this article. RandomCritic 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "TNO" is a locational term, whereas "ice dwarf" is a compositional one. It's like the difference between "terrestrial planets" and "inner planets" - although the list may be the same they are *not* synonyms. Besides, I believe there are various rocky bodies out beyond Neptune that would not qualify as ice dwarfs. You are correct that there are "ice dwarfs" that are not dwarf planets, and I will modify the page accordingly. However, the term belongs in this article as much as "gas giant" (which also is not defined by the IAU).The Enlightened 23:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection

I haven't followed closely enough this dispute over the "separate definitions" and "merged definition" to have much of an opinion about it, but I do object to mass reverts which delete contributions that other editors have made that have nothing to do with it. At the very least the reverter should have the courtesy to make sure that only the parts of the article he intends to revert are affected. RandomCritic 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry. I had intended to go back and change those bits but forgot. I apologise. 192.17.229.43 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Free-floating planemos

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they're not orbiting a star then they do not satisfy the first criterion. Or is this supposed to mean the planemos are orbiting star clusters (and therefore orbiting many stars)? If so, it's worded badly. Either way, it's far too technical for an introductory paragraph. I'm removing it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been a very badly worded addition. I'll try to add the same information under criterion 1.The Enlightened 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)