Talk:Eskimo Nebula

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avabill24, KelseaQuiggle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Political correctness

Isn't "Eskimo" not PC these days, like "squaw?" Is this the official name of this nebula? Speciate 06:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Eskimo is not a pejorative term. "Eskimo Nebula" is a widely used nickname, not an official name. Unlike asteroids, comets, and moons there are no official names for celestial objects. Finally, except for a few cases catalog numbers of deep sky objects are used instead of names in scientific papers.--JyriL ^talk 12:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Correctness: Revisited

Given the weighted nature of the term "Eskimo", shifting opinions among Alaska Natives away from use of the term, and a broad sociopolitical appetite to leave the term in the past within the United States and Canada,, perhaps it's best to migrate the article from the current title "Eskimo Nebula" to simply "NGC 2392" and supplant the use of the term "Eskimo" with the nebula's other colloquial name: the "Clown Nebula" or "Clown Face Nebula". Ponderosapine210 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. NASA just announced that they would be referring to the nebula as NGC 2392. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Article has now been renamed. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Woke Nasa has an objection, but the rest of the world probably has no issue with this. Eskimo nebula remains the wp:common name. We should not pander to the virtue signalling pc warriors at Nasa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.181 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Censorship and US-bias

This article is recently suffering from censorship ("formerly named" or completely deleting "Eskimo Nebula" from the article) due to a decision by a U.S. government body. This seems to indicate that NASA is the governing body for the entire world, when it isn't. The "formerly named as" would need to be documented to have fallen out of use, which clearly it isn't, as it was just deprecated by NASA this month (fallen out of use would take quite some time (years) to occur). A simple Google search will document many uses of the term from this past decade, independent of the recent media frenzy over the NASA announcement. NASA isn't the only authoritative astronomy organization in the U.S. either, so its decision is only binding on NASA. As Wikipedia isn't the NASA Wikipedia, we need not and should not doggedly follow the strictures of NASA.

Instead this should be addressed as a section on "Naming controversy", instead of censoring, or misleading people into thinking NASA controls the world. We should also cover what other authoritative bodies in astronomy think of the issue, not just saying that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all-things.

Just because some terms are offensive does not mean that they are not covered in Wikipedia, nor that they are not currently used in the world at large, even if central authorities wish it to be true. If wishes were horses...

-- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Created a "Naming controversy" section to help with this issue. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Still, this is against wp:common name. In the main astronomy culture, Eskimo Nebula will be called Eskimo Nebula for decades ahead of now, books will be written using Eskimo Nebula, and divulgative astronomers will still refer to this name during their public party. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response. This new title is running against WP:Common name. @Ponderosapine210: without a response, I think the best way is asking the community, if this can be one of the exceptions or if the name should follow the general rule used worldwide in all Wikipedia editions. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't get a notification until just now. With regards to the issue of this article's title, I wholeheartedly believe the use of its NGC designation is not only the best compropise, but it's common practice. Reviewing WP:Common name, the use of its NGC designation as the article title fulfils all 5 guidelines and should be the name used all other Wikipedia editions, especially Wikidata. When it comes to deep sky objects, you can't get any more universal and unambiguous than an NGC designation. For those who wish to search for the nebula by its old nicknames, there is already an established redirect to this article (this should be done in all other Wikipedia versions where the nebula's old nicknames are used as the article title) and the naming controversy issue is already clearly explained in the article. I also agree there needs to be more community engagement with this issue. Cheers. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If the comment by Roberto Mura is a proposal to rename the article from NGC 2392 to Eskimo Nebula, I would oppose. Names like the Eskimo Nebula and the Clown-faced Nebula are informal, whereas NGC 2392 is a precise designation in a well-known catalogue.

Thanks for the reply. I honestly will follow any decision will be taken by the community. But I can't help but note that if the NGC (or any catalogue designation) is formal and/or unambiguous, then at this point we should rename Orion Nebula to Messier 42, Lagoon Nebula to Messier 8, Helix Nebula to NGC 7293, and Carina Nebula (which has also the name Eta Carinae Nebula) to NGC 3372, or even worse, Alpha Persei Cluster to Melotte 20 and Rosette Nebula as NGC 2237/38/39/46 or also Sharpless 275. On the other hand, following your idea, "Lagoon" or "Rosette" or "Helix" are informal, while Messier 8 fulfills all 5 guidelines and it should be used everywhere. That's why I won't accept any distinction between cases like Orion or Helix Nebula, and cases like Eskimo Nebula (all them, or none of them).

Also, we should note that this specific page (Eskimo Nebula) was not renamed for the specific willing to follow the 5 rules, but only after the NASA statement following the media frenzy about BLM: honestly this is deprecable as explained above by other peoples here (WP:Neutrality, WP:Common name, and especially Wikipedia:Recentism in some way, given the wave of frenzy). Thinking that Eskimo is an old nickname is also a nonsense: it's widely used and still will be for long time, and most probably it will also survive the current days, given the wide amount of literature (scientific but also divulgative) already made. Not to mention that the NASA is not the lone authority in astronomy, as well as the US are not the only english language country, and english culture is not the only culture of the world. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 14:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The popular name should be restored, and the resulting controversy mentioned. Praemonitus (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a subject-specific naming policy. It is rather more in favour of common names than I'd have expected, but still the essential policy is that the name to use is the one that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognise". There's more in there that you can probably argue about. 151.228.16.33 (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- NGC 2392 is adequate and precise. There's no reason we couldn't mention its other colloquial names in the lede, and as a redirect. That should be sufficient. Reyk _YO! 08:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk: please justify how you can match this position with the policies mentioned above, and also why we should keep this page named NGC 2392 and not move, for example, Carina Nebula to NGC 3372, Orion Nebula to Messier 42, and Helix Nebula to NGC 7293. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I am hardly a fanboy for "common" names for astronomical objects, but in this case Eskimo Nebula is by far the most common name you'll see used for this nebula, and in use for a hundred years or more. Looking through Google books, Eskimo Nebula appears to have become the primary name around 1970. Prior to that the NGC number was generally given first. If and when it becomes sufficiently purged from usage, then and only then should WP change the name or even drop it completely from the article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. The opposers' rationale is not very strong in comparison to article titles policy. When evaluating common name, all reliable sources are considered not just scientific literature. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

NGC 2392 → Eskimo Nebula – This page was renamed without any clear consensus after the NASA statement following the media frenzy about BLM: honestly this is deprecable for WP:Neutrality, WP:Common name (and WP:Astro naming conventions), and especially Wikipedia:Recentism in some way. Thinking that Eskimo is an old nickname is also a nonsense: it's widely used and still will be for long time, and most probably it will also survive the current days, given the wide amount of literature (scientific but also divulgative) already made: looking through Google books, Eskimo Nebula appears to have become the primary name around 1970. Google search for "Eskimo Nebula" has 266,000 results, while "NGC 2392" has 155,000 results, and this is absolutely notable given that "Eskimo Nebula" includes only english results, while "NGC 2392" includes results in all existing languages. Not to mention that the NASA is not the lone authority in astronomy, as well as the US are not the only english language country, and english culture is not the only culture of the world. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment your argument seems to be that we shouldn't rename it because of WP:bias. blindlynx (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Without wishing to put words into anyone's mouths, I think the argument is that it was originally named Eskimo Nebula in WP and shouldn't have been renamed. This is a proposal to move it back to the longstanding title. Lithopsian (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This proposal is to rename back to its original title, Eskimo Nebula. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 06:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah i see. I agree it should not have been moved without discussion, so a snow or a no consensus should move it back. That said i think that the wiki bias you bring up is a good reason for it to stay at the current name as "NGC 2392" is more widespread a name. blindlynx (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Blindlynx: it's less widespread (266,000 Eskimo vs 155,000 NGC 2392). Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support obvious WP:COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 16:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. `Eskimo Nebula' is an informal name, whereas `NGC 2392' is a well-defined, unambiguous catalogue designation. NGC 2392 appears to be the designation that has been used most commonly in the astronomical literature: a full-text search in the NASA Astrophysics Data System finds 879 matches to `NGC 2392', and only 155 to `Eskimo Nebula'. The SIMBAD database lists the object as NGC 2392 only ( https://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=NGC+2392 ). Indeed the SIMBAD entry states "This famous Planetary Nebula got 3 nick names in some papers, that can be perceived as offending. The IAU Working Group on designations (commission B2) as well the CDS and NED data centers highly recommend to use the historical name : NGC 2392." TowardsTheLight (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But SIMBAD is only for scientific references. Here in Wikipedia we use scientific+common, as stated in our guidelines. We must use the name that is more easily recognisable by english-speaker communities, and this makes Eskimo Nebula much more known than NGC 2392. Google doesn't lie, and this makes no doubt that Eskimo Nebula is the best known name for it. Also, as said, the NASA is not the only astronomy authority in the world. Wikipedia is not made to influence the culture by creating or pushing new trends, but only to make a portrait of the culture and the knowledges (Neutrality). Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 06:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I share the same reasoning as TowardsTheLight. Ponderosapine210 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, in the general public sense. Catalogue designations don't automatically take precedence: see Andromeda Galaxy versus NGC 224. Praemonitus (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.