Talk:Geophysical definition of planet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Exoplanets

I put in an edit saying that "both definitions require a planet to be "round" (in or close to hydrostatic equilibrium.) As of 2019, available measurements do not provide this information about exoplanets." Someone tacked a "citation needed" on it. Is that about the definitions, if "round" means hydrostatic equilibrium or about the limits of our current exoplanet data? I can dig up a citation, but I'm not sure what it should cover. Fcrary (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If you edit the article you will see that the citation needed tag is around the text "As of 2019, available measurements do not provide this information about exoplanets". Fdfexoex (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So how can I cite that? Transits and Doppler shifts provide zero data on the shape of an object. But I doubt anyone's actually bothered to state the obvious in print.

In addition, I'm rephrasing "though there is every confidence they are round" added by Nasaman58. That's phrased as an opinion. He doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions. Fcrary (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Or at least "rounded" as in the case of Haumea. It's rather potato-like, as are it's moons. Cripe, you're making me hungry now..... Sowff (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reporting Science vs. Mischaracterizing as Advocacy

@Physdragon: @Physdragon: This is Sanddune777 but I am traveling and cannot log in due to network or cookie problems.

Sorry for the very long reply, but this should answer all the problems that have been happening in this article. Please read carefully. I spent a lot of time thinking about this.

Respectfully, I want to point out that you are using the word "advocacy", and I think you mean it in a way that is different than normal scientific arguing for a theory; more like political advocacy for something controversial that cannot be addressed by the scientific method and experiments/data. Like arguing against the IAU definition and trying to replace it. But if you read the papers that are cited here, and if you listen to what User:Nasaman58 said in the interviews, and if you look carefully at the edits I had put into the article, and if you think about what I will say below, I think you'll see that it isn't about advocacy at all.

As a result of this disconnect on what the article actually is, we are having an asymmetric discussion where we miss each other’s points and argue past each other. I am also beginning to understand that readers of this article will have the same misunderstanding, so we need to be clear to explain that this is not an alternative to the IAU definition and it isn't fighting against it in any way. Please read on…

I think one of the sources with Runyan is titled "a home-grown definition" or something like that, meaning it is organic in the community evolving within scientific practice. And I think he always says that scientists can use the IAU definition if they find it useful in their science -- he said he isn't trying to change that. The article I cited (Metzger et al) argued that taxonomy is part of planetary science and it follows the rules of the scientific process, and that paper documents how "planet" evolved specifically and measurably in response to evolving theories and data; thus it was taxonomical in usage (not cultural or arbitrary), and the taxonomical judgement was geophysical (not dynamical or something else). Yes, this differs than the IAU definition, but so what? The IAU definition had a different set of criteria.

The IAU was basing their voted definition on cultural considerations (like, will the public accept it? Can it be taught? Will it communicate to students?), and making sure both dynamical and geophysical communities were represented in the definition so that neither was left out. This was stated in the debate and in publications like the General Assembly Newspaper. Also, the IAU used voting to decide the definition rather than decades or even centuries of publishing and arguing. In these ways, the IAU definition was not doing taxonomy. This doesn't mean the IAU definition is bad or should be replaced for the purposes for which it was defined. It just means it had different purposes than utilitarian taxonomy. That's fine.

So as far as I know there is no advocacy here because the two definitions are dealing with two completely different topics. One is an organization’s definition that exists within its purposes and needs. The other is the evolution of taxonomical usage within science for its purposes and needs. Neither one cancels out the other. In fact, I think IAU representatives have said this, too. I think Ron Ekers said that scientists are free to use a different definition if it is useful in their science.

So my edit was trying to state the single most important aspect of this article, and it needs to go into the first paragraph because it is the most basic, most essential, most defining thing: that the GPD is an attempted formulization (a model) of the documented taxonomical practice of the community. It has nothing to do with "advocacy", other than the normal advocacy that constitutes all of science, where we do research and publish to try to convince people we have made progress in order to advance the field. That kind of advocacy is good. We call it “science communication.” There is nothing in this Wikipedia article about the other kind of advocacy, trying to overthrow the IAU definition or set this up as an alternative that the IAU should adopt. Respectfully, I think that some people came into editing this article thinking that it was written as advocacy to overthrow the IAU definition. Thus, there has been (1) repeated deleting of perfectly good material that has no objective bias, and (2) repeatedly trying to emphasize the (completely incorrect) belief that the literature do not support an essentially geophysical taxonomical usage by the community and therefore everything must be minimized and made to sound fringe.

Another reason I think this has been an asymmetric discussion is because -- as far as I know -- there are no other papers in the field of planetary taxonomy taking any other view than this one. Therefore, I don’t know why NPOV keeps coming up. What other POV is there? I don't know of any papers arguing for any of the following claims:

• Planetary scientists' usage has not actually been taxonomical (scientifically utilitarian following taxonomical norms from other branches of science like biology); instead, planetary scientists have used the word "planet" only arbitrarily and/or culturally. Thus, the papers by Runyon, Sykes, Metzger, etc., are verifiably incorrect, and here is the evidence.

OR

• The literature shows the usage is taxonomical, but the taxonomical process has not selected geophysics for the defining character of the taxon. Instead taxonomy has selected dynamics, or something else. Thus, the papers by Runyon, Sykes, and Metzger, et al., are verifiably incorrect, and here is the evidence.

OR

• The literature shows is taxonomical, and the taxonomical judgement is essentially geophysical since the Copernican Revolution, but the formal definition that Runyon created and called "the GPD” as a model or as an attempted formalization of taxonomical usage is incorrect (a poor model), either because roundness isn't the right lower size limit, or fusion in brown dwarfs or whatever isn't the right upper size limit; etc. Thus, the papers by Runyon etc. are measurably correct about the primary data set but failed to create an accurate model to represent that data set, and here is the evidence.

OR

• It is wrong for Runyon et al. to even discuss taxonomy in planetary science; it has little benefit in our branch of science, and instead our community needs to ensure consist, unchanging terminology by all agreeing to use only the IAU definition. It is best if scientists and the public do not know that taxonomy exists in other branches of science and that it has in fact existed in this branch, too, because that will confuse them. (Ridiculous, but I’m trying to be exhaustive of possible arguments.)

I can't think of any other possible position to argue. My point is there are no papers in the literature at all on any of these points, so therefore there is zero controversy about the GPD as presented in the sources by Runyon, etc. Yes, there is controversy and vitriol about the IAU definition, but that is a different topic than this article. Runyon and other sources say the GPD is not proposed to be voted on by the IAU or any other body. It is purely a scientific model.

So what I am saying is that I see this Wikipedia article being misconstrued as advocacy for “Pluto, the American Planet,” and “Undermine the IAU”, etc. Maybe people have done things to give this appearance, but this Wikipedia article should not contribute to confusing it. The primary sources are not confusing it because they are clear what the GPD is and is not. We need to stick with what the sources are saying. They say it is a scientific taxonomical matter and that the data show the usage has been geophysical, and that the Runyon model of that usage is such-and-such. I think this covers it. (Even if there is some advocacy that we can see in sources, then that advocacy could be criticized in the article as taking away from the science.)

What needs to go in the first paragraph is a clear description of what the GPD fundamentally is, according to the sources. They say that it is:

• an attempted model to formulate the historic usage of the term "planet", in order to enhance taxonomical practice in this branch of science by making the community more aware that taxonomical pressures & taxonomical evolution both exist at present and have been operating for centuries in this branch of science;

• to summarize the literature in what it says about the evolution of this taxonomy; that the community has historically used a geophysical-based taxonomy according to the analysis in the only available primary sources (we can reference that some scientists disagree if we can find those quotes, but they need to disagree with the empirically verifiable taxonomical science, not the IAU issues); and

• to provide a specific model (the GPD) that formulates the geophysically-based taxonomical concept as-found in the literature, so that going forward we can begin revising that model to make it better reflect past usage and present selection pressures, so taxonomical practice becomes more efficient in this branch of science.

This needs to go into the first paragraph because it is the entire point according to the primary sources.

By the way, I think this should not be all folded into the existing planet article because (1) it will become lost in there; (2) the IAU definition has separate purposes from, and a unique history different than, the broader cultural and historic definition, so it merited a separate article; in the same way, the GPD has separate purposes from, and a unique history different than, the broader cultural and historic AND IAU definitions; (3) the article isn’t mainly about a definition, but about a taxonomical model, and this brings in the context of how taxonomy operates; and (4) more content needs to be added to the article to explain what I said above, so it will (a) be a better article, and (b) so readers will understand how this is not competing with the IAU definition because it is not answering the same questions as the IAU definition; and when we add that extra material then it would bloat the planet article.57.190.1.9 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we have a subtle difference over what "advocacy" means, and why a point of view on a scientific concept can be non-neutral. I agree that this article should be about the geophysical definition and not the IAU one. But there is disagreement over which one people should use, or which is most reasonable or appropriate. That means people saying that this definition is the most appropriate or useful one are advocating the use of this definition. People saying there are real problems with it, for whatever reason, are also advocating a position. For the article to have a neutral point of view, we can't say "So-and-so thinks this is the best definition because of X" without also saying "Another scientist thinks the definition is flawed because of Y." Nor can we say the reasons for or against are limited to scientific taxonomy. That would be us making a judgement. If someone dislikes the definition for cultural or esthetic reasons, we should say that and let the readers decide whether or not that's a sensible objection. I've also got some comments on this idea that the geophysical definition is consistent with past usage, but I'll put that in a separate section. Fcrary (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

57,

I agree. Very good points. And if it ever is proposed to replace the Prague Plop, so be it. Stern is on record as saying he isn't interested in going back to the IAU, since they "botched" things in Prague. He said in his debate with Ekers. Sowff (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Fcrary. It's fine to say Stern likes it. Mikey doesn't like it. Sowff (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sanddune,

I think it'd be a big mistake to fold this. Give it the same respect as the Prague plop. Sowff (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sanddune777: You said we need to be clear to explain that this is not an alternative to the IAU definition and it isn't fighting against it in any way.... However, as far as I can see all of the people who crafted this proposed definition and advocate for it do consider it to be an alternative to the IAU definition and believe that people should use this definition rather than the IAU definition and so it is very much fighting against the IAU definition. It is specifically stated in the first reference where they introduce the definition We propose the following geophysical definition of a planet for use by educators, scientists, students, and the public. That explicitly says that they believe it should be widely adopted. The authors may well not have any interest in going back to the IAU but they clearly want this definition to supplant the IAU one in everyday usage

To advocate is to argue in favour of something, there is nothing inherently political in the word so I'm afraid I don't see why you see the word as problematic. It is very clear in the references that Stern, Sykes, et al. are arguing in favour of the definition described in this article. Scientists can argue in favour of something they favour just as much as a politician or any lay member of the public.

There was no formal definition of what a planet was prior to the IAU definition, so I am not really sure how this can claim to model taxonomy. It is proposing an alternative definition, which they claim is more inline with historical usage. However, I will note that as Fcrary stated in the section Better sources for saying GPD matches past usage? I have never heard anyone call any moon a planet, and even according to their own work any references to asteroids being referred to as planets are over 60 years old. The language we use to describe things is inherently cultural. People decide what things should be called. Arguments can be put forth as to why something would be better called something else, but at the end of the day it is a human decision, there is no theory that can say 'the best thing to call this is X'. Physdragon (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a minor point, but when we're talking about semantics, minor points are probably worth mentioning. Their work didn't show any references to asteroids as unqualified "planets" in the last 60 year (1951, if I'm reading the paper correctly.) But the qualified term, "minor planet" is in common usage for asteroids. Fcrary (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is worth noting. "Minor planet" is indeed in common usage for asteroids and other small bodies, for example in the name of the Minor Planet Center, however it is also worth pointing out that minor planets in this sense are considered a distinct category from planets, rather than a sub-category, much as is the situation with the dwarf planet category. Physdragon (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've heard Stern use the term "moon planet." I like it, too. Nothing wrong with that at all. It should be a valid subcategory of planets, along with dwarf planets, gas giants, terrestrial planets, and rogue planets; of course, you have to be open to dwarf rogues, too, et cetera..... Sowff (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We say what is best all the time....Best Picture of 2019, Joker won the 2019 Golden Bear Award in Venice....It's okay that even planet definition get preferential treatment if they gain wider acceptance in the scientific community. I don't think that should be of concern for online dictionaries, though. Sowff (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Or encyclopedias, as it were. Sowff (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'd love to see some sage and intrepid planetary scientist propose a better planetary definition at a future IAU General Assembly. As I've said, as a substitute teacher, K thru 12, kids and teachers are very confused about what Pluto is. It isn't fair to our posterity to leave this issue hanging. We all need to be honest about this. The status quo isn't an option. Sowff (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

And the sooner the better! Busan is in 2021. Cape Town in 2024, by the way. Not that I'm meticulously keeping track or something.... Sowff (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Stern may very well have used the term "moon planet." But there are thousands of professionally active, planetary scientists today. Claiming common usage as a point in favor of this definition means showing that the term is in common usage. Not that one or two or ten people out of thousands have used it. And I'm pretty sure I've also heard Stern use the bare term, "moon" as well. I can't remember hearing him use the unqualified "moon" for any of these bodies. Fcrary (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, Fcrary. I think it was used in that paper by Runyon a few years back, too. This Mikey likes it. Pretty sure Stern has said Charon, too, is both moon and dwarf planet. Due to the position of their barycenter; I think Charon isn't a moon at all, when all is said and done. It's a binary planetary system. Sowff (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Ganymede....Charon has that on you, but you have a lot of cool properties....and, hey, you're not in danger of cracking in half like a chicken egg at Denny's.... Sowff (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, Reference 1, that is. Pretty sure "moon planet" term contained within. Sowff (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sowff: I appreciate that you are editing on a phone, but could you try and post responses as a single block rather than many short comments spaced a few minutes apart? It makes things a bit messy and difficult to read. Physdragon (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

When possible sure. But I tend to think follow-up thoughts only after posting. Maybe it's a Gemini thing. Sowff (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't always post via cell; but more so, admittedly, than from my PC. Sowff (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing false information about exoplanets

I have removed false information about the exoplanet catalogs. It was not well sourced statement it was a false statement. It was only true about one of the catalogs and was false about the others so I removed it. It was wrong to suggest that those were the reasons why the catalogs have large mass exoplanets. Please do not re-add false info. Fdfexoex (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fdfexoex:

1. You are engaging in edit warring. After my revert of your deletion, you are supposed to come here and discuss the issue with me, not revert my revert.
2. You have left three links orphaned, again (scroll to the bottom to see them). Do you even read what other people write to you?
3. irrelevant, false info are not a sufficient explanation for removing information with three sources. The information you disagree with has been added in this edit by Physdragon, who is a professional astronomer and planetary scientist. A polite way to express your disagreement is to start a new thread and {{ping|Physdragon}}, so he/she has a chance to debate the issue with you.

— UnladenSwallow (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to leave false info in the article just because you say it is sourced, when the fact is the sources don't back up that info because that statement that I removed is about only one of the catalogs.Fdfexoex (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. If a >13 jovian mass exoplanet is listed in only one of the three catalogues mentioned, fine. Add the words "some" or "at leas one" catalogue, and delete the references to the others. If the problems is the bit about interior structure and how big something has to be for fusion, I understand that. It sounds right but off topic, and should be deleted for that reason. Or we could just abbreviate the whole paragraph and say existing data don't tell us much of anything about past fusion, roundness or, for that matter, clearing orbital space. Fcrary (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

All the catalogs include >13 Jupiter mass planets but the reasons given which I deleted only applied to one of the catalogs and it was wrong for the article to suggest that that reason applied to all the catalogs which it doesn't. Fdfexoex (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fdfexoex: I have reverted your edit again, and tweaked the description to add whether deuterium burning or formation mechanism is the most appropriate upper limit and leave open the possibility of other reasons. If you read further up and look at the history this information was added because it was requested. Physdragon (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fdfexoex: If you had posted this explanation in the edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted your deletion. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to leave false info in the article just because you say it is sourced. I never demanded that you do or don't do something "just because I say" this or that. I've explained to you my reasons for reverting your deletion and invited you to this talk page to discuss what the text should say. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

US, that's very hospitable of you. Zeus would be proud of you. Sowff (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Restored NPOV notice

Typically, more than two days is allowed for discussion. I believe at least a week is traditional.

There are three reasons to question the neutrality of this article.

As originally written the article presented the justifications and arguments for this definition with no or very minimal coverage of the opposing view. Since this is a debated topic, that is not a balanced and neutral presentation. (Note that there have been many, frequent edits, so things might be different at the moment you happen to be reading the article.)

Second, one of the primary editors is Nasaman58. It has been reported on the NASA Watch blog that this is the Twitter account name of Kirby Runyon. Since Runyon is the author of this definition of a planet, we have the potential for a serious, undisclosed conflict of interest.

Finally, there has been minimal discussion on the talk page. It looks like only one person has said the article is neutral, and the reasons why it may not be haven't been very clearly stated. We need time for more discussion. Fcrary (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would that be a conflict of interest. Assuming Runyon posted the definition, he'd be one of the most qualified people on this planet to present the definition accurately. Not every scientist takes advantage of their position. Some do, unfortunately, and mask their lack of neutrality with misleading diameters of dwarf planets -- not naming names.....not here, anyway.... Sowff (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite. When people are writing about themselves and their own work, they are prone to being more positive. They emphasize the good points and gloss over the problems. Even with the best intentions, that tendency can color the wording and phrasing. And, in the spirit of having one rule, that's why people are discouraged from writing about themselves on Wikipedia. The last thing I'd want is constant arguments over who can be trusted and who can't. Fcrary (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It reads very well. Nothing like a biased piece of tripe. How long must this trial last? The IAU definition is not some sort of holy document. One of its proponents says he killed Pluto, and irrationally won't accept data from New Horizons, yet this definition is on trial? Let the debate continue in the open. Don't let one side squealch the other. Let the truth be the judge. Sowff (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This may be why we disagree. Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a forum for debates. That's a core principle (see Five pillars) not one of those countless policies or guidelines. If people want to debate this, fine. Just not here. Take a look at the article on the IAU definition. It says what it is, why some people thought it was a good idea and why some people think it's a bad idea. That's how I think this article should read. Fcrary (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

To Fcrary, if there are specific points that need to be corrected then let's make those changes. By all means we all want it to be a well-rounded article. There is nothing wrong with User:Nasaman58 writing the piece. We can be suspicious of course, but if there aren't specific problems in the article then there is no problem. As far as the opposing perspective that you say is missing, what opposition are you talking about? This isn't an article about the IAU's vote in 2006 or whether the IAU's definition should have been voted upon or was good or anything else. Any discussion of that topic should go into that article, not here. A reference to that article could be added here, if you think it makes sense. This article is simply explaining, in an encyclopedic way, that this definition exists so that people who want to read about it can do so. If there is an opposing side that says the definition hasn't been described properly in this article, or if there is an opposing side that disputes the history over how this definition evolved, then please add that information with references. As far as I can tell there is still no clear statement of what the NPOV problem is, in this article. Please be specific.Sanddune777 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sanddune777, actually, as it stands, I'm reasonably happy. But there have been lots of changes. Originally, it only mentioned Stern and his support for the definition. A added a sentence with very parallel phrasing, about why mentioning Brown and his objections. Nasaman58 promptly deleted that. I changed the first couple of sentences to make it immediately clear that there was more than one definition of a planet and that the subject is debated. Previously, that wasn't mentioned until later. That change was reverted. I think that was also by Nasaman58. I put that back and restored the NPOV concern at about the same time. I'd just like this to stay balanced without going back and forth. Fcrary (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

To Fcrary. A thought just occurred to me...are you of the opinion that scientists are not allowed to hold to definitions that disagree with the central scientific body, in this case the IAU? Are you of the opinion that the existence of this definition is a bad thing, and therefore the definition needs to be criticized as being bad, here in this article? I'm still struggling to understand why you think this has an NPOV problem, so I'm wondering if this is the cause of it.Sanddune777 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Good points, Sanddune. I think the first edition of this page was purportedly not neutral. It's since been spruced up by the quite capable Fcrary, and a host of others, including the sort of sketchy Sowff, oh, that's me.... Sowff (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

While there is definitely a lot of bad blood between Mike Brown and Alan Stern it must be born in mind that the definition adopted by the IAU was debated at length at the General Assembly in 2006 and voted on by members of the IAU. In contrast this article is about a proposed definition that is explicitly a response to critiques of the one adopted by the IAU. Setting aside the issue of NPOV I think the content of this article would be better addressed within the IAU definition article as a critique of that definition. The article doesn't read as having a massive NPOV issue to me, but as noted nasaman58 is the twitter handle of Kirby Runyon and the article draws rather heavily on his writing. Scientist or not, Wikipedia is not really the place to push your own hypothese, so WP:SOAP might be relevant. For the record I will note that I am an astronomer/planetary scientist and that I generally favour the IAU definition, but do recognise that it isn't perfect. Physdragon (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I need to find time to add content to this article, and I think when I do it will help resolve these issues. I don't see this topic as a mainly a response to the IAU definition, or at least it need not be. It might be in the minds of some, but in my understanding of the planetary science literature both recent and historical, the geophysical planet definition is the historic definition that has existed since Galileo and is still used my many planetary scientists recently both before and after the IAU vote. That is an objective topic worthy of an encyclopedic article, especially since it has been in the news recently. The strong connection to this historic definition makes it more interesting, in my opinion. I don't think the IAU's vote on a definition defines the range of knowledge on how scientists use words. The IAU website says that it isn't binding. Ron Ekers has stated that other planetary scientists are certainly free to use other definitions. If we were not able, as scientists, to operate with scientific freedom in the definition of terms then progress would be impossible. So the IAU definition is historically important for various purposes and it is used in the IAU to determine which committee discusses these objects and names them, but it isn't binding on scientific usage nor the fulfillment of all knowledge. Also, the IAU has not voted on a definition for exoplanets, so even within the IAU the definition of planets in the broader sense is not a settled issue. The IAU definition was only for this one solar system, so in that sense it is not even a proper taxonomical category; it only defines how they will organizationally handle planets in this solar system. 194.154.209.68 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What about the Prague definition do you like so much? It seems to reek to me as a layman. For example, Earth doesn't clear it's orbit. Saturn is in resonance with Jupiter. Is it just a power fetish thing? Sowff (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the bad blood you allude to, but it might have something to with his public beheading of a Pluto doll, his refusal to use New Horizons's diameter for Pluto in order to wrongly list Eris as one kilometre greater in diameter when it's actually more than 19 miles less in diameter, his rarely, if ever, correcting book reviews of his pathologically narcissistic titled How I Killed Pluto And Why It Had It Coming, and perhaps other things/behaviors along those lines. Then again, maybe not. Sowff (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to say rarely, if ever, correcting book reviewers of his book that say he discovered Eris. He co-discovered Eris. I would be curious as to how fellow co-discoverers Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz think about Brown nowadays. Sowff (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Rabinowitz signed that protest petition after the Prague vote. Sowff (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I like it as such, I just think it is the least-worst option. Adopting a definition that relies only on properties of the body (large enough to become spherical under hydrostatic equilibrium) would lead to many more planets being added. We would go from at 8 to at least 13 planets, probably 16 and maybe many more in the long run. It isn't about power, it's about neatness. Scientists are notorious for loving neatness/elegance. Although obviously the 'demotion' of Pluto is what we think about in this discussion because it happened in our lifetime it is worth noting that Ceres was originally considered a planet when it was first discovered in the 19th century (hence why it was assigned an astronomical symbol). As more and more other bodies were discovered in the same region it was realised that Ceres was just the largest member of a large population and it ceased to be referred to as a planet. There is some discussion of this on the Ceres page. On the other points, Earth does clear/dominate its orbit, Near Earth Asteroids have rather short lifetimes (compared with the age of the Solar system) before they are scattered elsewhere/collide with something. Saturn and Jupiter are not in resonance with one another. There are certainly some things that will need careful thought though when we consider applying such a definition to exoplanetary systems, particularly resonant planet chains like that in the Kepler-11 system.

I'm certainly not defending Mike Brown's behaviour, but I will point out that there is a lot of vitriol thrown from the Alan Stern camp too. Both camps have lowered the level of debate. Physdragon (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Earth and Venus are in a 13:8 resonance. Jupiter and Saturn are also in resonance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance Sowff (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

8:13, rather. The chart on that link list a resonance for Earth and Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, etc. Stern mentioned the Saturn/Jupiter resonance in his debate with Ekers. The entire debate is available in the one reference from the host of the debate. Sowff (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference 6, that is. Sowff (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to keep the level nice and high. I am my own camp. As an attorney I appreciate refraining from vitriol. Debate can get heated at times, but it's a point of pride for me to keep a cooler head than opposing counsel. As an artist, I can appreciate elegance. But as Stern has said, there's no scientific reason to keep the number of planets low. He used the analogy of rivers. The Congo River is the ninth-longest river on Earth. Should we call it a rivulet? I have cautioned the Stern camp, as someone somewhat admittedly more less aligned with it, that it might be best to only count IAU-confirmed dwarf planets. So my count of planets, excluding moon planets like Titan, which, I think do deserve a subcategory, just as dwarf planets do, is the 13 number you mentioned. As for Ceres, it wholly deserves its present status as a dwarf planet. Nothing else in the Asteroid Belt does. Sowff (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically to your neatness point, I think it's not very scientific. But, it's good for a shot of cognac. Sowff (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Earth and Venus are not actually in an 8:13 resonance, likewise nor are Saturn and Jupiter in a resonance. As you'll see in the orbital resonance article both of those pairs are listed under 'coincidental near resonances'. The formal mathematical definition of a mean motion resonance is not actually commensurability (integer relations) between the orbital periods, but that there is a set of orbital angles that librates about a fixed value rather the circulates through all possible values. This is true for the Galilean moons (and also Pluto with Neptune), but not for Earth and Venus or Jupiter and Saturn. It might seem like another semantic point, but resonances are a very specific phenomenon and there are real physical differences depending on whether something really is in a resonance or not.

I do appreciate the point that there isn't a special reason to limit the number of planets to a small number, but on the point of rivers I'm not sure if there is a criterion you could use other than an arbitrary length/flow rate cut off to create a division between rivers like the Congo and ones that are smaller. On the other hand with planets I feel that the orbit clearing criterion is useful as an extra factor to aid classification and that the division between 'planets' and 'dwarf planets' helps scientific discussion. Now whether you want to view 'planets' and 'dwarf planets' as a subset of some larger grouping, that I think is more of a semantic point and to me I think the name 'dwarf planet' already does that, since dwarf planets satisfy two out of the three 'planet' criteria. I do certainly take the point about large moons like Titan and, for my own usage, tend to use the term 'world' to refer to the greater set of planets, dwarf planets and moons that are large enough for their gravity to cause them to assume a hydrostatic equilibrium shape, and I could definitely see the value in a term that explicitly identifies those moons that meet the self-gravity criterion.

No definition is going to be perfect and there will always be edge cases where it is fuzzy. The boundary between stars and brown dwarfs is fuzzy and so is the boundary between brown dwarfs and planets, because it is not easy to tell from the outside what type of nuclear fusion reactions, if any, are occuring at the centre and the theoretical predictions of the masses at which the boundaries occur are somewhat dependent on composition, nevermind that any estimate of mass comes with error bars. With the case of Pluto there is also of course the point that people have been used to calling it a planet for over 70 years, but the way I like to look at it is, if we forget about Pluto having been called a planet previously, does the definition make sense, and I think it does.

In any case, on the issue at hand from the viewpoint of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the article constitutes a WP:NPOV violation. I do feel that it is pushing against WP:SOAP, and I suppose to that extent is also pushing at WP:NPOV (since I'm not sure one can be neutral while on the soapbox). Nonetheless I'm probably too close to the topic to be judge of either.

Assuming that the article is found to pass WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, I would suggest that the information would be better placed in the definition of planet article since it is quite a short amount of text and is better placed in context with other discussion of defining the term 'planet'. It is also, and there is some irony in me suggesting this, likely to get viewed more if it were placed there rather than in its own very short article.Physdragon (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I will add a significant quantity of information to this article, which in my opinion should be here since it is about how the geophysical definition that has been in the news lately was based on Galileo's definition. Also, there needs to be material discussion how large moons are planets according to this definition, and how that was the case since Galileo, and how that usage evolved compared to how planetary scientists discuss moons today (some calling them planets; some avoiding that).194.154.209.68 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

…I could definitely see the value in a term that explicitly identifies those moons that meet the self-gravity criterion. Moons vs. dwarf moons, perhaps? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sanddune777, no, I think scientists can use any definition they like. The IAU is normally accepted as the source of a consensus decisions, and that avoids confusion. But that's non-binding, and the only reason they can serve in that roll is because the scientific community trust them not to do too many stupid things. In this case, the 2006 vote can be criticized (only about 450 people were present to vote, out of about 9000 members, since it was late on the last day) The definition itself can be criticized. But the geophysical definition isn't perfect either, and people have criticized it. I just think the advantages and disadvantages should be stated.

And, more to the point, we should be reporting not debating. Even on the talk page. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about arguing with each other about which side of an issue is correct. We just report what people like Runyon, Stern and Brown have said about the subject. Fcrary (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Physdragon,

Nice points. I think a compromise might work with it in both articles. Since this theory is notable in its own right, and it being a natural by-product of its "camp" as it were -- and naturally, the GPD camp might be disheartened, dejected, and other negative emotions that needn't be delineated. I am not a scientist, but I've read all of Dostoyevsky's novels. I took Psychology. The IAU definition is well-known. As a sometimes substitute teacher, I've taught high school kids that thought the Moon is the closest planet to the Sun in 2017. The IAU definition was specifically tailored to demote Pluto, in large part due to the ultimately wrongful unsubstantiated, unchallenged boast of hot air that Eris was larger than Pluto. Balance must be restored. Deleting this article should not be an option. Sowff (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Kids interest in the planets may be waning due to the confusion caused by wrongly demoting Pluto. Dwarf planets need to be a subcategory of planet. Riddle me this: why are dwarf stars still stars; why are dwarf galaxies still galaxies. Obviously, the IAU is not exactly neutral. The demotion of Pluto was political in nature. One man admitted to being pressured to fly to Prague and vote for the demotion to keep his academic career on track. It's time to accept that the Prague Definition is not a sacred cow. Let the parties post their definitions without further unnecessary grief after every edit. It's a bit much. I thought lawyers were sharks.....geeze..... Sowff (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary,

Fair enough, but it's okay for talk to be talk. Sometimes, talking things out, as it were, airing things out, also as it were, can lead in finding out where the camps agree, and better understand where they don't. Monitoring talk is a slippery slope. We all have to exercise restraint and treat each other respectfully, but any deeper prohibitions would be counterproductive as Hades. Sowff (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Physdragon,

Perhaps resonance isn't the right word, but Venus and Earth have something going on. Should they be demoted from the same planetary status as Jupiter? Sowff (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I absolutely agree. It should read as you say, Fcrary, and I appreciate your work to that goal. The advance of a better definition of planet by humans is bound to be somewhat akin to the making of sausage, some might say unfortunately; but it is what it is. Wikipedia seems to be good at policing its content. I think the process is working. There's no need to delete this article because now and then it might smell like a bratwurst. I'm sure other articles have experienced growing pains as well. Sowff (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I really haven't seen much, if any, lack of neutrality. I've seen a good faith effort to continually improve this article by all the editors. I'm probably the most culpable of everyone. But I'm not a scientist. I'm just a fan of space exploration. I am not in any camp. Yeah, I favor the GPD, but I'm just watching the scientists and astronomers do their thing from my front porch in suburbia. Sowff (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Reporting facts, numbers, data, et cetera is what scientists should always be doing, and their camps, and rogue camps. Agreed, Fcrary. I'd even allow the stray thought. Sowff (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, I completely agree we should be just reporting and not debating (and not on the Talk page), and the reporting should cover all sides of the issue with NPOV. Nothing else serves truth. I intend to work on the article but have been too busy lately; will try to get to it soon. I hope some added content will help address these concerns. If what I add is not balanced then I encourage editing to add to the opposing views, which I will try to incorporate in the new material. One last point: you mentioned that the IAU is normally accepted as a source of consensus decisions, but that is what brought about the anger after 2006; it clearly did not follow the IAU bylaws that were designed to ensure consensus -- such as requiring 4 month review before being brought to a vote at the GA (this rule was set aside by Ron Ekers, making the committee secret precisely because there was no consensus and they were unable to get to a decision by following the process), and then the issue should have been tabled until the next GA with again a 4 month minimum review. The heavy-handed forced vote, when most people were not there and had no chance to hear the proposal and get there to vote, was clearly not a consensus-building or consensus-ensuring process. I don't know how to quantify how many planetary scientists currently don't like (and do like) the IAU definition. I have never found a reliable source on that, so I don't think we can claim for or against any position. I have my personal experience speaking with colleagues, but it is not a reliable source. We do know there have been some prominant planetary scientists saying they won't use the IAU definition, such as Chris McKay of NASA, and their publishing record shows that they are indeed using the definition that (is now being) called the geophysical planet definition. So I think that is important to report, even if it is not quantifiable, but it has to be fair and not make any exaggerated claims. I don't think we should minimize this, either, because there is no source to show that it is a tiny or unimportant fraction of the community, either. Maybe we could quote one person saying it is a small group and another person saying it is a large group...?194.154.209.68 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we have all agreed that wikipedia should not be engaging in debates, merely reporting on them, even the talk pages aren't really the place to be discussing the relative merits and demerits of different definitions. In that vein I will myself not engage in any further such discussion. The definition proposed here clearly does exist as a proposal supported by some planetary scientists and so should not be expunged from wikipedia, however I do think that the appropriate place for it is within the larger definition of planet article. While that article is a bit bloated at 80kB currently, this article is presently under 5kB and a fair amount of the information in it is already present at definition of planet so it would not add substantially to that bloat. That article also contains the IAU definition and so there everything would be side by side. The only reason the IAU definition has its own article is to allow for reporting of the development and adoption of the definition. Since the definition in this article has not been through the process of being formally adopted by an organisation there isn't that kind of information. It's also worth noting that the definition here is I believe identical to that of planemo. Any discussion of historical definitions of the word planet definitely belong in the definition of planet article, which already does contain some discussion of the history. If you want to expand on that history 194.154.209.68, and perhaps even split it off into a separate 'history of the definition of planet' article to reduce the bloat at definition of planet that's great and I'd encourage you to do so, but that is where I think it should go. Discussion of criticism of the voting procedures that produced the IAU definition should definitely be in the IAU definition article. If there is a consensus for keeping this article separate that's fine, but it should be edited to strongly link back to the main definition of planet article, just as the IAU definition article does. Physdragon (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Keep both definition articles, and the plane more article, link all to definition of a planet, to boot. Whatever reasons there might be for one to be kept might not be identical to the reasons to keep the other. It'd be rather odd if they were. Happy editing, Physdragon!!! Sowff (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Planemo. Sowff (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Like the O. E. D. is ever-expanding, Wikipedia needs to be open to the needs of the scientific community. Obviously, members ofor said community felt this page was important or they wouldn't have creates it. Likewise so with the IAU definition page. And the placemo page, whatever the Hades that is. I'll check it out soon. Great things sometimes come from humble roots. Moses was found in a picnic basket. Let the scientific community have the tools it feels it needs to reach consensus. As an educator, I can tell you the future of scientific advancement is suffering. Unless you are okay with high school kids thinkin the Moon is the closest planet to the Sun. Adults needs to be adults and let the scientists use the tools they feel they need. Sowff (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a no-brainer that this definition be given the same right to stand alone as the IAU and Planemo definitions. When will this trial-by-fire end? Is it interminable? As I said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, in my case, the Michigander -- unless your stuffing them silly to make foie gras.... Sowff (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

you're Sowff (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's impossible to ascertain how many prominent planetary scientists use either definition without a census of sorts, and, in terms of whether to report the definitions the way each camp is now reported/listed, viz., separately and in the said incorporated article of which y'all speak, it really shouldn't matter all too much. The Prague Definition was passed by majority vote of all present members, without regard to who was a planetary scientist, let alone a prominent planetary scientist. Creating new hurdles for the GPD at this late juncture rather reeks maybe not of bratwurst or foie gras, but maybe Erisean Eggs Benedict. Sowff (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Then again, an Erisean lumpfish might be the likely culprit....as astronomers and planerary sciences (assuming a single one was still in Prague) were lumped together to vote on the rancid, ill-conceived, virtually secret resolution.... Sowff (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, is "Talk" a term of art on Wikipedia. Neither of you cited any rule about what constitutes acceptable talk, i. e., mere reporting. Thus, I am surmising that talk means talk. Sowff (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

First . on last post = ? Sowff (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for the general public, not for the scientific community. To the extent that members of the scientific community are also members of the general public Wikipedia also serves them, but the first priority is to the general public. As you can find at WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, Wikipedia is not the place to engage in debates, advocate for specific viewpoints or publish your own research. The general guidelines for Talk pages can be found at WP:TALK and as noted there Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Moreover since personal opinions are irrelevant to the content of Wikipedia articles expressing personal opinions about the subject of the article on the Talk page, even if only guidelined against rather than contravening a hard rule, is pointless. Physdragon (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I hate to think free speech is pointless. I try to be germane and all; but this guideline-fetish is also pointless. Talk is talk. Change the tab to Report if you truly want to suppress talk. The GPD is not research per se. It's a definition. The definition of anything arguably contains research. A rose is a researched rose. Sowff (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think pointless is a rather strong term. I don't think talk that doesn't satisfy the guideline censors is necessarily pointless. What is the purpose of Wikipedia, anyway? The Talk section is not pointless, nor should anyone who wishes to contribute in a sincere, positive way toward improving entries experience the chilling effect of a team of censors, ready to pounce on any post they deem pointless, unworthy, etc. Sowff (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I move to declare this page neutral. It's been on the hot seat long enough. It's been spruced up ad nauseum. If not now, when? Sowff (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Fcaray and Physdragon,

I don't mean to bust your balls; but I know what talk is. I've also a knowledge of constitutional law, and a modicum of common sense. You're both scientists by trade. So, I don't really understand why you're wielding Wikipedia rules like they're samurai swords; but I'm not going to stop talking. I'm not planning on moderating my freedoms to the narrowly-tailed boilerplate of any Internet entity -- however gallant they might think they are. I am my own science. If anyone doesn't think my personal freedom is of any worth, they're free to show me a better way -- however mistaken it turns out they probably are. Sowff (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sowff:

1. This page is not a forum. If you want to have a chat, go to an astronomy forum, for example, http://www.astronomyforum.net.
2. This page is not meant for discussions about the purpose of Wikipedia, the rules of Wikipedia, etc. If you want to ask questions or make comments about the rules of Wikipedia, you can find the appropriate pages to do so at Wikipedia:Questions.
3. This page is meant for collaboration on the "Geophysical planet definition" article. If you have a specific proposal or question related to the article, post it here, but keep to the point—respect other editors' time. If you don't have a specific proposal or question related to the article, refrain from posting. If you have already posted your proposal or question, don't post it again.

— UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I will only talk about stuff germane to GPD. Thanks for your words, US. I understand. Sowff (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

So, what is going on on the issues surrounding this entry? Is there a timeline in the process? Is it allowed to ask about the process? Sowff (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits that I think clarify the page and make it more neutral as well as fixing the citation-needed sentence. If these edits are accepted and there is consensus to remove the NPOV tag I will then propose a merge with definition of planet. Physdragon (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@107.77.232.175: Since this page has been having problems, please visit the Talk page to discuss your additions. I have made some changes to them to group claims in recent papers with other advocacy work. Physdragon (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Physdragon: {{u}}, {{re}} and their aliases don't send notifications to IP users. The only way to send a notification to an IP user is to leave a message on his/her talk page. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow: Thanks for letting me know. If the issue arises again I'll leave a message on their talk page instead. Physdragon (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

US, I'm not here to merely chat. I am here to help produce a viable solution to this situation. I've followed this matter and feel I can continue to make positive contributions. Sowff (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Structure and potential merge

There are three Wikipedia articles on the definition of a planet. (Well, I really hope it's only three.) I think a consensus on what they should cover would really help.

For the articles on IAU and geophysical definition, I think the most important things to cover are fact that they are definitions of what a planet is (that should be obvious from the title, but we should probably say it anyway), that it is not the only definition, what the definition is, and that which definition is better or more useful is debated. Probably the arguments for and against the definition belong in that definition's article.

I don't think a back-to-back comparison or any discussion of the this-versus-that debate would make sense in one definition's article. That would better fit in the more general "definition of planet" article.

But that organization of the articles has some problems. Mentioning the differences between the geophysical and IAU definitions makes sense. For it to make sense to someone unfamiliar with the subject, we'd need the IAU definition in the geophysical definition's article, and vice versa. I'm not sure that makes sense. Finally, all the information in the geophysical and IAU definition articles is redundant with information in the "definition of planet" article. That's not good, because they need to be consistent, and people will edit one without editing the other. So maybe merging all three makes the most sense. What do other people think about this? Fcrary (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Arguably there are 4 articles if you also include planet, though that has a different primary focus.

All of the actual substance what the IAU definition is, as well as extensive discussion of objections to it, are contained in the definition of planet article. As far as I can see the extra information contained in the dedicated IAU definition is all about the process through which it was drafted and adopted by the IAU. That kind of information does not exist for this proposed definition so I'm not clear what else this article will contain for the forseeable future other than the details of the proposed definition and information about those advocating for it, which for the IAU definition is all contained in the definition of planet article. That's why I am suggesting that this article be merged into definition of planet. In the absence of that extra information on process in the IAU article I would propose merging the IAU definition article into the main definition of planet one too. Physdragon (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Fcrary. Please wait a few days before making a decision. I am getting close to being ready to add edits to the article. I don't want to add them piecemeal because the other editors will delete and move stuff before seeing the overall picture that this material provides. This is Sanddune777 still traveling and unable to log in. 64.25.27.224 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Physdragon. There is a large quantity of "procedural" information in the background of this GPD. The IAU procedural info was about voting and proposals. The equivalent information here is about the practice of taxonomy shaping usage of the term in published papers. Arguably this could go into the "definition of a planet" article, but that is concerned with many other issues. How about waiting to see the new information. I will suggest adding some of it into the "definition of a planet" article with a link to the "main article" here. This is Sanddune777 still traveling and unable to log in. 64.25.27.224 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sanddune777: Don't worry, at the moment this is just a suggestion, not even a proper proposal to merge. I think it would be better to make sure the content of this article has stabilised before we do a proper merger proposal, and even then, you'd have at least a week to comment. If you have reliable sources for background procedural information then by all means include it, but bear in mind the point I made above about reporting on arguments rather than making them. Physdragon (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Marlowe once wrote, "Comparisons are odious." The GPD is what it is. It doesn't exist in order be compared with the Prague Plop, a definition that is clearly inferior for a plethora of reasons. I think a merger that eliminates both stand-alone definition pages is a big mistake. Given the dynamics of the entire process, it'd be like trying to put a lid on a hydrogen bomb. Sowff (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The fleshing out process for this page is a showing of the strength of Wikipedia. It'd be a shame to shut it down. There's no good reason to do so, either. Let the Prague Plop have its page, too. A quick synopsis of both can be included elsewhere, along with a link to both definition pages. Sowff (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Better sources for saying GPD matches past usage?

The article currently says, "this definition has been used implicitly by planetary scientists for decades, including after the IAU definition was established, and that asteroids were routinely regarded as planets until the 1950s." I don't see strong support for that in the two references. That may not be a problem, since the full text says it's what proponents of the geophysical planet definition claim they have shown.

In terms of asteroids, the Metzger et al. paper makes a case that asteroids have been called "planets" in the past, but to me it makes a better case for a lack of routine or traditional usage. The terminology has evolved from the unqualified "planet" to "minor planet" to "asteroid", usually with several being used at the same time. That might be said to make them all "planets", in the sense that they are "minor planets" (as, according to some, the IAU definition should have allowed "dwarf planets" to be planets.), but that's not quite what the text in the current article implies.

Also, the above idea that minor planets are planets would apply to all asteroids. The geophysical planet definition would only include round ones. Is someone demoting the non-round asteroids and stripping them of their "minor planet" status? Or does the geophysical planet definition not match common usage in some respects?

For objects orbiting other planets, I've spent my career studying the Jupiter and Saturn systems. I can't think of a single time I've ever heard one of Jupiter or Saturn's moons called a "planet". The Runyon et al. reference says, "We have found examples applying to Pluto, Titan, Europa, Earth’s Moon, Ganymede, Ceres, Triton, Io, and other dwarf and satellite planets dating from both before and after the IAU’s 2006 planet definition vote." (Note that Runyon doesn't give references for this statement, and we're talking about a brief conference abstract.) The statement may be true, but the implication, both in his abstract and the text of the Wikipedia article is that this is a common usage. One or two examples out of a large number doesn't support that.

Overall, I think we need better sources or rephrased text on the subject. Fcrary (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Strong text was inserted asserting the quoted statement as fact. I moved it and added claim since that seemed appropriate to the content of the two references as they do seem to be claiming that this is the case. There are certainly other interpretations, which is why claim seemed like the best word. I'm perfectly open to de-emphasising it further. Physdragon (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more about expanding the text. I think Metzger et al. makes an interesting point. (And a stronger one about the IAU definition and common usage and clearing orbits.) Even without official or specific definitions, scientists do tend to use words which distinguish like and unlike things. Widely used and accepted terminology is noteworthy. But the references aren't clear if the usage was by a few people or a large fraction of the community. I don't know of any better references, and I don't want to editorialize. I will be at a workshop with Kirby Runyon next week; maybe he could suggest some references. At the very least, he could tell me which papers he found which call "Europa" a "planet." Fcrary (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

By all means, please do consider expanding on and improving it if you can. I was just triaging a somewhat polemic sentence that had been inserted. Physdragon (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Physdragon: You make excellent points. The problem I see is that the past literature does support these claims about moons being called planets since Galileo (lessening in the present, but still common enough to find examples easily), but there has been no recent paper reviewing that question, so maybe the Wikipedia article is premature. But what to do for now? The Metzger et al. paper did a review for asteroids becoming non-planets, but there is no equivalent source I am aware of that reviews this question for large satellites. I saw Runyon's poster at LPSC and it did give a dozen or so recent references of that usage. I know Chris McKay of NASA Ames and Carl Sagan have each used this terminology, respectively calling Titan and Triton "planet". (Use Google Scholar to search Titan Planet then scan the search blurbs to find examples.) Add on top of this the lexicon of planetary science, which was developed in the past when it was explicitly stated that large moons are planets. (They were often called "secondary planets" since Kepler, a term that slowly faded away but is still rarely used. The literature made it clear they are a type of planet.) As a result, our lexicon only makes sense when we know this. Why does Titan have a "planetary boundary layer" if it is not a planet? Why not a satellitic boundary layer? Because its dynamical status is only relevant as a secondary factor to much of the geophysics, which is why it was taxonomically considered a planet. Why does it have a "planetary core", "planetary mantle", "planet-scale waves", etc.? The past literature makes it clear these bodies were considered planets. I think we somehow forgot this in recent years, because it wasn't that far back in the past that textbooks called them planets. I can provide references if you are interested.

So here is my question: do I list references from the past scientific literature showing this has been common usage to call large moons "planet", or not? I can write and submit a paper to a journal and get it through peer review and then it could be cited, but for now this does not exist; we only have Kirby's poster, which as far as I know is not available to view online.

I have been working on some edits to add here to cites the past papers, trying to make it appropriate so it won't cross into Original Research. I propose to add this material to the article, and then if it is deemed original research it can be deleted in favor of something simpler until peer reviewed publications appear. Does this sound OK? This is User:Sandman777 still traveling and not logged in. 64.25.27.224 (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sanddune777: Historical development and usage of the term planet belongs in the definition of planet article. There is already a fair amount of discussion of the development of the term planet there, including references to Galileo, but if you believe that you can add to and expand on that with additional reliable sources then I'm sure that would be welcome. This article however is about the definition proposed by Runyon, Stern and collaborators, not about the historical development and usage of the term planet. We can report on instances where the proponents of this definition have argued that historical usage supports their definition, but should not be making the arguments here ourselves.

As to the other terms you mention that contain the word 'planet', 'planetary core' and 'planetary mantle' are not in common usage, the common usage is the plain terms 'mantle' and 'core'. 'Planetary boundary layer' is a carry over term from usage in describing Earth, the same is true of the word 'geology', which we apply to bodies that clearly have nothing to do with Earth. Even the terms 'geostationary' and 'geosynchronous' have been carried over. The correct terms for Mars are areostationary and areosynchronous, but they are rarely used. Language can be funny like that.

In any case, as I said, this is not the place to be making arguments that historical usage supports using this definition, we can only report that those arguments have been made by supporters of the definition. The different is subtle, but important. If Runyon's poster was at LPSC there is almost certainly a two-page LPSC abstract associated with it that is available online, which you are welcome to add as a reference alongside the current ones from Runyon and Metzger illustrating the arguments based in historical usage that have been put forward in favour of this definition by its proponents. Physdragon (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess it's worth explaining what I think the Metzger et al. paper did and did not show. I found the point about the IAU definition and clearing orbits convincing because it did not depend on statistics. They only found one pre-2006 paper which used this to distinguish planets from other solar system bodies. That implies this has not been a criteria in the past. That's a result that isn't strongly sensitive to the number of papers they considered (one out of hundreds versus one out of thousand would have the same implication) and it isn't strongly sensitive to the methodology (e.g. which or how many journals or conference proceedings they looked through, something the paper was silent about.) So I'd call that a robust result. In contrast, I don't think their results on asteroids and whether or not they have been called "planets" is a point in favor of the geophysical planet definition. They showed that the usage has varied considerably over time, based on new data and what seems like a sensible way to group solar system objects at any given time. To me, that's a convincing case that there's nothing wrong with a classification scheme that calls asteroids "planets." In other words, this shoots down an argument against the geophysical planet definition (i.e. that it can't be right because asteroids aren't planets.) But the paper does show that calling asteroids "planets" has been a consistent, common usage. That's what it would take to make this an argument in favor of the definition. The usage hasn't been consistent. The paper does not show that it was common usage. It gave selected examples showing the word "planet" was used. To me, "common" usage means a majority or at least a large minority of people in the field use that terminology. To be convinced of that, I'd need all sorts of statistics and details about the methodology.

So that's more or less what I'd expect from a similar case for moons being called planets. Showing a significant number of people have called moons "planets" would show that doing so isn't a flaw in the geophysical definition. But it would take much more extensive statistics to show this is a "common" usage and one that is both current and consistent. I don't think that's going to happen, since I know it isn't. Citing Galileo isn't convincing, since he also called those satellites of Jupiter "stars" (well, "sidera", since he was writing in latin) and he wrote at a time when a "planet" was something bright in the sky which moved relative to background stars. Some of his contemporaries included the Sun in that list. Chris McKay isn't much better. I know that he sometimes uses unconventional terminology to make a point or to get the audience's attention. And I'm afraid Sagan had a habit of branding. On more than one occasion, he inventing his own terminology and tried to get the community to accept it. That's why I think it takes statistics and good methodology to show "common" use; selected examples aren't enough.

But all that's what I'd expect an advocate of the geophysical planet definition to do. I'd also expect an advocate to recuse himself from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject. Or at least formally declare a conflict of interest (so other editors can be especially careful about maintaining a neutral point of view.) This gets back to why I raised those WP:NPOV and WP:COIN issues. Fcrary (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fcrary: It is worth perhaps expanding on a point that you have kind of hit on, which is that there is an important difference between prior usage of the word 'planet' being different to the IAU definition and to it being the same as the proposed geophysical definition. As you noted Galileo and others in that era were almost certainly using the term in its classical meaning of wanderer, as in wandering star, by contrast with the fixed stars (if nothing else the concept of hydrostatic equilibrium hadn't even been formulated in Galileo's time). I rather suspect that use of the term 'planet' to describe asteroids was also following that usage, or at least it would certainly be consistent with that usage and actually would not be consistent with the geophysical planet definition since the geophysical planet definition would also define asteroids (with the exception of Ceres) not to be planets. Far from the assertion of Metzger et al. that the removal [of asteroids] from the taxon effectively restored the meaning of planet to what it was before their discovery this would have been a new definition of the word 'planet' since there had previously been no geophysical implications in the word. While the orbit clearing criterion might not have been explicitly cited in many papers prior to the adoption of the IAU definition it is also worth considering that the general usage was to call Ceres an asteroid, despite there having been those, as Metzger et al. found, that have suggested Ceres be considered a planet on geophysical grounds. Physdragon (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Historical usage is fine and dandy; but the GPD is a superior definition on its face. It shouldn't stand or fall on anything else but its intrinsic merits. They're sufficient, anyway. The definition is a well-thought out one by competent practitioners in planetary science. Additionally, it seems to be open to evolving itself based on new science. Sowff (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove non-neutral point of view warning

There has been a request to remove the non-neutral point of view warning by Nasaman58 (presumed to be Kirby Runyon based on the identically-named Twitter account.) He wrote:

I would like to delete the "neutrality" warning as I think it is an un-biased presentation of what the GPD is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasaman58 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Since, for the sake of readability, new comments on a talk page belong at the bottom, I've moved this and created a new section. My own comments will shortly appear below. Fcrary (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

At this instant in time, I'd say I'd agree the article is written in a neutral voice. Bu that's after I amended changes Nasaman58 made in the last day. No, the planetary science community has not consistently and commonly called asteroids and moons "planets." There have been occasional or long-past uses of that sort. And, yes, all asteroids are "minor planets". But the edits by Nasaman58 made it seem as if this were a common, traditional usage. It isn't and the reference doesn't claim that it is. That's why I'm concerned with a non-neutral point of view. The page is being actively edited by the authors and proponents of the geophysical definition. That means their opinions on the subject will, consciously or unconsciously, inevitable color their edits and phrase things in a way which biases the article to match their views. As long as the article is in flux, I'm not comfortable removing the NPOV warning. Fcrary (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

By all means, Fcrary, let's all be comfortable first. Too bad we all can't have Thanksgiving together and get comfortable. I do think, though, that we've made progress; it might seem a bit intangible sometimes; but, I can feel it in my bones. As long as we continue to act in good faith, I think we've got this. We're getting close. Sowff (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree that the page needs to settle first, and Nasaman58's edits (who I assume is Kirby Runyon, especially given the comment by sanddune777 about 'interviews by nasaman58) do not help as they shifted it back in a POV pushing direction. Physdragon (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Broken link?

The link https://pswscience.org/meeting/is-pluto-a-planet/ referenced in the article doesn't open on my computer. Are others having the same problem? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@UnladenSwallow: It works for me in both Firefox and Chrome (on Windows). Physdragon (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Must be some problem with my computer. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct numbers

I must say Dr. Brown's diameter numbers for Eris and Pluto are not correct. Pluto is greater in diameter by over 19 miles. I used numbers supplied to me by Mr. Daniel Bamburger, a scientist. Since we got to this mess in part to the hype about Eris erroneously being thought to be larger than Pluto upon its discovery, you'd think by now, Dr. Brown would have corrected his numbers in the course of being a professional scientist. To continue to promulgate the incorrect numbers just to make Eris larger in size is not professional at all. His host university and perhaps even this entity should not allow themselves to be an accessory to the promulgation of such numbers, as they get in the way of an honest debate on planetary scientific matters. Sowff (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

One's lack of neutrality can be masked by giving out false numbers. Such links don't belong on Wikipedia. Sowff (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes based on "I used numbers supplied to me by Mr. Daniel Bamburger, a scientist" are either original research or unreferenced. Either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Fcrary (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The diameter of Pluto was first accurately measured by the New Horizons spacecraft. Stellar occulrations have shown Eris to be smaller than Pluto by at least 19 miles. The diameters on Mike Brown's reference link are not correct. He wrongly puts Eris over Pluto in size. Sowff (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Bamberger, an astronomer, my bad. But the numbers are public knowledge at this point. New Horizon's and stellar occultations. Don't mock me. Sowff (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Asking for a reference is not mocking you. It's a requirement to preserve accuracy in Wikipedia articles. Fcrary (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Brown's false numbers also don't belong on Wikipedia, yet they are. See Reference 4. Sowff (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Then change them. With a reference. That's how Wikipedia works. Fcrary (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone really think Eris is larger than Pluto? Then why does Reference 4 say it does? Let's stop playing the Emperor has no clothes. There is no reason to treat Brown's false numbers with kid gloves. Please do something about this sham. Sowff (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To have an honest debate on the best planet definition, we have to start with the correct diameters of Pluto and Eris. Any reference with intentionally misleading diameters is a hindrance to such. Sowff (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Good points. I will see what I can do. Sowff (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, miraculously, I am on a PC right now and just found a reference that lists Pluto's diameter as at least 2,366 km, making it at least, using Brown's own number for Eris's diameter as 36 kilometers greater in diameter. Not sure where Brown got his number for Pluto's diameter, but it is entirely inaccurate and self-serving, as obviously as the self-proclaimed killer of Pluto he would like Eris to be larger than Pluto. Fat chance, lol....yes, more mass, but he wants to his cake and to eat it, too. I will try to add the link. But not sure I will be able to. I am not that good with coding. So here it is. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6258/aad1815?fbclid=IwAR2PcDB4smjmfrqCPXrioG9uvGsd2GZoeqBeN6eMSgSefpIo1FIrN4k9bEk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me for botching up references. I'm not proficient at Wikicoding. But it's not right for Brown's inaccurate chart to go unchallenged. The reference I provided contains the correct radius for Pluto, post flyby. Sowff (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pluto has a diameter of at least 2,366 kilometers, per New Horizons. 37 more kilometers than the Mike Brown reference, making Pluto the largest known dwarf planet in our Solar System. Fcrary, you mentioned perhaps seeing Runyon soon, I believe. If you run into Brown, perhaps you can ask him to correct his chart if he wants his reference to remain on Wikipedia. Sowff (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I probably won't be seeing Mike Brown any time soon, but I definitely would not bug him about that web page. The web is full of obsolete and poorly maintained pages. I have no idea when he last modified that page, or, for that matter, when the last time he even thought about it was. Badgering him about it would just make him think I was nuts. Fcrary (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd guess he thinks about it more than a badger thinks about pecans. I should really do some research (or if anyone else would like to as I'm pretty swamped) figure out the most logical way Dr. Brown got the 2330 and 2329 numbers. That'd probably speak volumes as to intent and whatnot. Not asking anyone in particular to do it; I'll do a bit of digging. Seems like there might be some randomness or illogic in the 2329 number -- but need to research for any basis. I must admit I'm curious. Sowff (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference to Mike Brown's list of dwarf planets

Since I think discussion of it got lost in the mass of other comments I have separated this out here. I have removed the reference to Mike Brown's list because, as discussed elsewhere on this talk page, the diameters listed for Pluto and Eris do not seem to be accurate, raising queries about the accuracy of the rest of the list, and in addition referring to a list maintained on a personal webpage (and thus which has not been subject to any sort of peer review) is inadvisable. I reworded the last sentence of the first paragraph (where the reference to Mike Brown's list formerly appeared) so that it is fully supported by the Tancredi et al. reference with the same basic intent. Physdragon (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Bravo!

In order to keep the parentheses regarding Pluto's greater radius, and Eris's greater mass -- information I strongly believe needs to remain in order to correct the historical record -- without needing any personal website references, I think this webpage from NASA might be helpful.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/eris/in-depth/

Obviously, if one that is still up in the Reference section mentions Eris's lesser diameter, or lesser radius, it won't be necessary Sowff (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the current references for the radius of Pluto and mass of Eris are adequate. Physdragon (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Very cool. By the way, I've put in a few hours in the past two days added indents and editing my comments to make them more readable. In the heat of the moment, and, largely from my cellphone, I really made a messy sensation. Sorry. There's more to do indentation-wise; but I'm pretty burnt out right now, indentation-code-wise. I think you'll notice my efforts, though.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued efforts to tidy your comments. Physdragon (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome.

By the way, on my recent trip to Chicago, I encountered a magnificent Congo River Puffer from the 9th-longest river in the world. Alan Stern has used the river analogy more than once; and he's quite right. If we cut Earth's rivers off at eight, making rivulets or dwarf rivers, as it were, out of the remainder like we do the planets' de facto numerical limit at eight, people would see how ridiculous it is. But, of course, the common folk, nor, conveniently, most everyone else who might give an educated hoot, weren't in Prague on St. Bartholomew's Massacre Day 2006 to watch the sausage being made. I've some blood of the Huguenot running through my river-like veins, and even my rivulet-like veins....and arteries....

The feeling I get when I think of that rancid session (whose entire duration I've viewed on video), gives me a bad feeling, too. I refuse to compare them -- not going down that rabbit hole....

If you watch it, though, you'll see why "rancid" is the operative word, believe me.

At any rate, here's a very short video of the Congo River Puffer, seems like a great river fish to me....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94vnQSw4ES4

Sowff (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to obviously violate NPOV. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's a scientific theory. Sheesh. Sowff (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks very neutral now. I think rogue planets are also covered. Sowff (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to me. Undue weight, adjectives promoting Dr. Stern, presenting one side of the debate with limited mention of other views. I'm going to put in some changes. Fcrary (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks good now, Fcrary. Nice job. Sowff (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of promotion and undue weight, Brown bills himself as the killer of Pluto. Sowff (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. Brown definitely has opinions on the subject. But pointing out one scientist (Stern), his opinions on the subject, and calling him "notable" isn't balanced reporting. To make it balanced, we should also point to another scientist who has a different opinion, and not editorialize on notability. Fcrary (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Brown wrongly lists Eris as larger than Pluto. In all likelihood, he knows this is wrong. He also must know he didn't kill Pluto. Sowff (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Pluto is at least 19 miles greater in diameter than Eris. I did the math from the numbers provided by New Horizons and Eris's stellar occultations. Sowff (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't have one rule for everyone, and another rule for Mike Brown, or can you? Sowff (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty neutral to me. Not sure why this is still an issue. A theory is being flushed out. One could argue that flushing out a theory is by nature not neutral, I guess; but, since the opposing theory is mentioned in sufficient detail, this objection seems to be rather "snowflakish." Sowff (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And since Brown is publishing falsely that Eris is one kilometer greater in diameter than Pluto, one can easily make a stronger case that the other theory's proponents have their own issues with neutrality. Sowff (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The article, as it was originally written, virtually ignored the fact that many people disagree with the theory. That's inherently biased. I don't care who's right or wrong, or if the radius of Pluto is greater than that of Eris (which, within measurement uncertainty, I don't believe we know.) The problem is only presenting one side of the debate. That's not a neutral point of view. Fcrary (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

We do, Fcrary. That's why I'm careful to say Pluto is at least 19 miles greater in diameter than Eris. I see your point about presenting both sides, and mentioning opposition. I thinks it's valid to mention that Brown is wrongly showing Eris to be larger than Pluto. The diameters, accounting for margins of error, show Pluto to be indisputably larger by at least 19 miles. That's relevant given that Brown's hype about Eris being larger led to the impetus to rush through the 2006 definition in Prague. Brown's continued lack of neutrality is poisoning this entire debate. Scientists need to respect the measurements made by New Horizons and by the stellar occultations of Eris. Brown seems unable to do that. Why is he getting a free pass? Sowff (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I converted kilometers to miles, myself, by the way, since I'm an American and all. Sowff (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I used the numbers of Pluto's smallest diameter within the margin of error and Eris's largest diameter, within the margin of error. I used the best numbers available. Sowff (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm one of the very cynical scientists who knows error bars are frequently underreported. And hardly anyone mentions systematic errors in their papers. In the case of Eris, I don't believe the results of an occultation can be that accurate. Equatorial and polar radii differ for almost every body in the solar system. The radius from an occultation is some random cord combined with someone's guess about how diametric the cord was and which radius it corresponded to. I'll accept that to ten percent, but not to one percent.

In terms of what Mike Brown has and has not said, I'd have to look up the history. Has he actually said anything about Pluto being smaller than Eris since the New Horizons encounter? Or are you looking at something he said before the new measurements? If he said Eris was larger in 2010, that would probably have been true to the best of his knowledge. Fcrary (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In the Brown reference here, he has a chart listing Eris as one kilometer greater in diameter. He is Plutokiller on Twitter, and has a book whose title boasts of killing Pluto. The margin of error for Eris's stellar occultations has a much larger margin of error than the margin of error for Pluto's diameter that was first accurately measured by New Horizons at or near closest approach back on Bastille Day 2015. Happy researching!! Sowff (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The chart he provides on Reference 3 could easily be updated. I think the numbers used are much more recent than 2010. I don't follow him very closely. I have not read his book about killing Pluto. I prefer fiction by Faulkner. Sowff (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brown's obvious disappointment when New Horizons showed Pluto to be larger than Eris, and subsequent stellar occultations further confirming such has led him to compromise his scientific integrity. One might shrug it off; but with the best planet definition debate hinging on accuracy and honest analysis, I don't think "cutting him some slack" should be an option. If Reference 3 is to remain on Wikipedia, he should be asked to revise that chart with state-of-the-science diameters of the two largest known dwarf planets in our solar system. That doesn't seem too much to ask. Sowff (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• No reason has been stated for the NPOV concern and two days have passed. The discussion about a particular scientist measuring diameters isn't relevant to the NPOV of the article. Therefore, in accordance with with "When to Remove" in Template:NPOV the tag will be removed now. In the future, please state precisely what the NPOV concern is so that it can be addressed. 57.190.1.9 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Dec. 31: 2019: I'm removing the neutrality tag. I don't see how this article is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasaman58 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

'Proposed' in lead

@Nasaman58: Removing the word 'proposed' from the lead is not a clarification, it changes the meaning. If you wish you wish to argue for the removal of that word please do so here, but to me it seems that unless reliable sources can be provided demonstrating that it is in reasonably wide use it should remain, especially since the Runyon et al. paper that proposed this definition (and did itself explicitly use the word 'propose') is only 2 years old. Physdragon (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nasaman58: This is second time I have had to ask you not to remove the word 'proposed' from the first sentence without consultation. If you do it again I will have to report you under WP:3RR. If you want to discuss it then please do so here. Physdragon (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nasaman58: I have, once again, returned the word 'proposed' to the lead. The Geophysical Planet Definition is a proposal. Though it has a number of high profile advocates it has not come into widespread use yet that I am aware of. Wikipedia is not the place to push new ideas, it simply reports on usage and ideas should be placed in their proper context to avoid confusion. If you believe that the Geophysical Planet Definition has achieved sufficiently widespread use to justify not referring to it as a proposal then please provide evidence to support this rather than just unilaterally making changes. Physdragon (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

" @Physdragon: I am a professional planetary geologist and can speak from expertise that professionals in my own field use the geophysical planet definition when referring to planets. This peer-reviewed paper from the prestigious journal Icarus, among many other publications, is one such example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103518303063?casa_token=N6v829MGmksAAAAA:aYSLb1F-VO5gGjy3QZlzCH8tuOtSaV-eOSMgH-xUK04jRMRgWVX4IQ-GSpwIv5IR6CRY0lye As such, I am not using Wikipedia to pedal new ideas but rather to capture what is happening in the field of planetary science. Also, the references I cite, especially https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/plutosystem2019/pdf/7016.pdf, show that the geophysical planet definition has been used for decades.

Largest

Well, what word do you prefer? Pluto is at least 2,366 kilometers/kilometres in diameter. Mike Brown lists Eris as 2330 kilometers/kilometres. Sowff (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

How about clarity? That sounds like a good word to me. The fact that "large" and "largest" are vague terms. Planetary scientists are pretty sloppy about using it to refer to either radius or mass. And, in general, "largest" can mean almost anything. Which billionaire makes the largest charitable contributions? I'd rather avoid "large" entirely and put things like "greatest radius" and "greatest mass" in the article. But, in terms of noteworthy statistics, I'd put Pluto's greater radius (by about 2%) below Eris' greater mass (by 27%), especially since the mass is less uncertain than the radius. Fcrary (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Size is noteworthy. That's true for all the planets. Why must mass be more noteworthy in the case of Pluto and Eris. Seems like a double standard. Clearly size matters to Mike Brown, or he wouldn't make a laughingstock out of himself by continuing to proclaim without any substance that his babygirl Xena is greater in diameter/diametre than Pluto. I think your wording is fine. Greater in diameter/diametre. As far as your word clarity, it's not synonymous with larger or greater. It's okay if you want to be catty with me, but let's be real. This whole thing started with Brown's boast that Xena was bigger than Pluto. Feel free to use whatever words you like to correct the historical record. But to let his boast stand as a reference here or elsewhere on Wikipedia unchallenged by the reference I just provided would not be scientific or clear, either. It'd cast doubt on the integrity of Wikipedia itself, in fact. I hope we can agree on that. Sowff (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a fine edit, Fcrary. I prefer diameter/diametre. But it's nice that radius has the same spelling on both sides of The Pond, to be sure. We can agree to disagree on whether size or mass is more noteworthy. Sowff (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pluto's radius is very certain. How certain are the masses of the aforementioned duo, I'll leave to the squad of planetary scientists who've worked on New Horizons and the Erisean stellar occultations. Lastly, not be beat a dead horse, but Mike Brown's aforementioned chart lists dwarf planets and possible dwarf planets by diameter, not mass. Moreover, I'm guessing historically size is more often highlighted more so than mass in the history ofor planetary science. Sowff (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lists them in order of size, that is. Not true order, mind you. Masses are a mere column on his chart. Sowff (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Pluto is about 2/3rd the size of the Moon. Not quite. However, it's mass in around 1/5th. Because Pluto has quite a lot of ice, and ice, whether water, nitrogen, or methane, weighs significantly less than rock. Sowff (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please congratulate me for the last sentence in that last entry being flawless. No, that's really not necessary....Sorry, just woke up and on my cell....had a crazy dream, too....good crazy.... Sowff (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This could be resolved by removing the note that there may be over 100 additional dwarf planets and the accompanying reference to Brown's list entirely (along with the largest diameter/largest mass notes next to Pluto and Eris). 5+4=9, so even without that note the final clause that under this proposed definition dwarf planets would be the largest category of planets is still valid. Diameter is much easier to measure than mass, you can calculate diameter directly from the brightness if you know (or can estimate) the albedo, but you can only calculate mass if the body has a moon, as such most of the objects in Brown's list don't have mass measurements. 'Diameter' is also spelt that way in both British and American English, it passed into English long before the unit of measurement. Physdragon (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not a resolution. It's a hack job. People deserve to know the IAU and Brown have been saying Eris is greater in diameter, radius, size, whatever word you prefer since 2005, even after New Horizons definitively proved that unsubstantiated assertion incorrect, and subsequent Erisean stellar occultations further confirmed such. Brown's unchallenged, unsubstantiated assertion is what many people still believe. His website still has Pluto at 2,329. That's a disservice to science. It's also a part of the history that led to the Prague Plop. Wikipedia shouldn't duck and run. Fcrary's edits are good, showing Pluto's greater size, and Eris's greater mass. They should remain. I see NASA gutlessly runs from which is larger. Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit. It would be an intentional act of cowardice. People deserve the entire truth, not the partial truth about the history of this controversy. Sowff (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Measuring the diameter of Pluto was far from easy. New Horizons was only able to measure it at or near closest approach due to Pluto's atmospheric glare from Earth. I know about needing a moon or five to measure mass, too. Sowff (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

What about it is a hack job? You pointed out, correctly, that there is reason to be concerned about the accuracy of Mike Brown's list. Since reliability of sources is everything on Wikipedia the best way to deal with that is to remove the offending source. Whether Pluto or Eris is greater in diameter or mass is also irrelevant to this article and the parenthetical statements to add them are rather ugly. What matters is that both bodies are currently classified as dwarf planets. The appropriate place to discuss which body is the most massive or has the largest diameter is on the pages for Pluto and Eris, which do indeed point out that Eris is more massive and that Pluto has a larger diameter. You will also find that the correct masses and radii are used at dwarf planet. If you can find reliable sources indicating that Mike Brown is intentionally mistating the diameter of Pluto then the appropriate place to discuss that would be on the wikipedia page about him. Physdragon (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate to leave the parenthesis in place. Given that the IAU and Brown continue to say Eris isn't only more massive than Pluto, but also larger, and given that the NASA reference refuses to say Pluto is larger as well, Wikipedia has a profound responsibility to tell the truth about which is bigger. I think that extends to the GPD page. I'm not sure why you wish to omit such information on this page. But your reasons do not persuade me.

Here's a current IAU page that says Eris is not only more massive, but also larger. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/ Sowff (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

So, I suppose we could also remove any mention and links to the IAU website to correct the problem? You see now why we need to take the bull by the horns? Sowff(talk) 15:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Section of page titled "The changing landscape of our Solar System," third paragraph near the end. Sowff (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be a pest, Physdragon. I appreciate your involvement. Sowff (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph you indicated on that webpage says Subsequent observations showed that the new object, initially named 2003 UB313 according to the International Astronomical Union's protocol on the initial designation of such objects, was more massive than Pluto and that it too had a satellite. Eris (2003 UB313) is indeed more massive than Pluto, so that is correct, in addition to which that paragraph is talking about the initial discovery, not the latest observations, and further down under the heading 'The latest observations' you will find, On 14 July 2015, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft flew past Pluto, providing numerous imaging, spectroscopy, and in situ datasets that have dramatically altered our knowledge about Pluto and its system of five moons. The images established that Pluto is larger than Eris and is the largest body in the Kuiper Belt, so I fail to see any issue. NASA does seem to have slightly outdated numbers but there is no link from this article to the NASA numbers, so again, I fail to see a problem. Physdragon (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the sentence from the aforementioned paragraph on the IAU page of which I spoke. I am pretty sure there are more references on their site that say Eris is larger in size. I think one was from page made to plug a presentation slotted for the Vienna GA. I will look for it. So, we have the IAU apparently sending mixed messages. I am pretty sure Ekers said Eris was larger in his debate with Stern, too. I will check up on that. Anyway, here is the quote, "With an object larger and more massive than Pluto now beyond Neptune and ever more of these Trans-Neptunian Objects being discovered, astronomers were beginning to ask: "Just what constitutes a planet?"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here is the NASA page that is too timid to say outright that Pluto is larger than Eris. It was once a reference on this page, but is no longer here. I hadn't noticed its absence. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/eris/in-depth/ And here is the quote of which I speak. "Eris is one of the largest known dwarf planets in our solar system. It's about the same size as Pluto, but is three times farther from the Sun.

Eris first appeared to be larger than Pluto...."

NASA appears petrified to say Pluto is larger than Eris, walking around that fact throughout the text on this page. I find this timid. Perhaps they know Mike Brown would throw a hissy fit? What about the feelings of Team New Horizons? This is the same Mike Brown would proudly boasts of having killed Pluto, but we are all supposed to walk on eggshells around him, apparently. Sowff (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff

I see the NASA page lists Eris as 2326 km, 4 km less than Brown. With Pluto's smallest diameter at 2366, that'd make Pluto 24.85 miles greater in diameter. That's getting close to marathon territory. Sowff (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, that's the exact distance of the marathon in the first modern Olympics in 1896. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon Sowff (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sowff: Please do not use wiki-citations on the Talk page, it means that the link gets stuck permanently at the bottom of the page. Just include the link directly in your comment instead.

The sentence that you quoted from that IAU webpage immediately follows the one that I quoted and, as I said previously, is clearly referring to the situation leading up to the adoption of the current IAU definition, at which time it did indeed appear that Eris was larger than Pluto in both mass and diameter. The most recent data is explicitly discussed on the same page so, again, I see no problem. Moreover this webpage is not referenced anywhere in this article so whether or not it is correct is not relevant.

Any page advertising something for the 2006 General Assembly in Vienna is going to be at least 13 years old so of course any information in it is not going to be up to date and you should not expect it to be. And again, it is not referenced in this article so it is not relevant.

There is nothing inaccurate about saying that Eris is about the same size as Pluto, by the current numbers the difference in diameter is around 2%, that is a small difference. In any case the NASA pages/numbers for Pluto and Eris are not referenced anywhere in this article so whether or not they are correct is not relevant.

The only thing about Mike Brown that is relevant to this page is the accuracy of the list of potential dwarf planets on his website. We have identified that the diameter for Pluto listed is not correct and in any case I was not completely comfortable including a reference that is a page on someone's personal website, which is why I think that in light of there also being a specific concern about inaccuracy that reference should be removed. Physdragon (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I said mass could be measured more accurately, not that it was easier to do. This whole thing about the radii or Pluto and Eris is about a 2% difference. Photometry from Earth and an assumed albedo will never get you to better than tens of percent uncertainty. If (and it's not such a big if for KBOs) the object has a moon, you can get to better than 1% in mass very easily. For reference, I think mass is more useful because radius can change (note faulting and ridges on icy satellites, often attributed to contraction as they cooled over a few billion years.) Also, when it comes to orbital dynamics and effects of one body on another, mass is by far the more important factor. But I agree it's a matter of opinion. Fcrary (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference, it isn't correct that, "This whole thing started with Brown's boast that Xena was bigger than Pluto." It may not have gotten as much attention before Eris (Xena) was discovered, but this "is Pluto a planet" thing had been building up for years, ever since people started discovering Kuiper Belt Objects (KBO). Once it was clear that Pluto was basically the first-discovered and most famous member of a whole, large class of objects, people started talking about whether Pluto as "really" a planet. And it also became clear that, sooner or later, someone would discover another KBO of a size similar to Pluto. Brown just got to lead the team who made that discovery, and turned a simmering debate into a boiling one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Fcrary, I stand corrected, and yes, the discovery of Eris certainly threw gasoline/petrol on the Pluto issue. The "botched" 2006 definition added a lot, too. It was Stern who called it "botched." It is on tape if you watch the debate in D. C. It is available on the debate link. Number 11. You may be correct that mass is more useful, Fcrary. But why does Brown's list start with diameter? Obviously, size matters deeply to him, too. I'm not saying mass does not matter. I'm saying, though, people deserve to know Pluto is greater in size. The IAU and Brown both are still saying Eris is larger. Okay, the IAU is also saying Eris is larger. I accept that they are conflicted. At any rate, as a substitute teacher, I can assure you many kids and teachers think Pluto is smaller than Eris. We have the IAU to thank for that, and Brown. It's important that Wikipedia not enable them to perpetuate this falsehood. Maybe, just maybe, if Wikipedia shows some backbone on this fact, both entities will be shamed into correcting their respective websites. And, it's important in and of itself that Wikipedia not be afraid to state the true numbers. Sowff (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff

It is emphatically not the job of Wikipedia to be shaming anyone into doing anything. Moreover, as I stated earlier, the most up-to-date numbers regarding the diameters of Pluto and Eris are in use on the pages for Pluto and Eris, which is the appropriate place for them and where anyone looking for them would go. It is also noted, on both pages, that Pluto is larger in diameter while Eris is more massive. Physdragon (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully realize that, of course, Physdragon; but when you go around plugging falsehoods, and a reliable source shows the world what you're doing, a bit of shame might be in your day. I'm only asking that the parentheses stand. It's highly appropriate to keep the names of the IAU-recognized dwarf planets on the GPD page, along with mention of possible other dwarf planets. You're reasons for deleting mention of them is unconvincing. Sowff (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Since 2005, 14 years, misinformation has been promulgated by Brown and the IAU about our Solar System, misinformation they still promulgate online. And you want the parentheses not to stand on the GPD page? No. People need to know the truth about our Solar System. And it's completely, absolutely germane to this page. Sowff (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the list of recognized dwarf planets be removed (indeed I put it there in the first place). My primary concern is the reference to Mike Brown's list, which discussion here has shown to be inaccurate, and is in any case hosted on a personal website (and thus not peer reviewed). As such I want to remove that reference (currently number 8) and replace the text that says and there may be over 100 with and more may yet be discovered or confirmed, which I think is fine without a reference. If someone can find an alternative to Mike Brown's list that is either peer-reviewed or published by an organization rather than an individual then that would also be fine. The corner stone of Wikipedia is reliable sources. I find the parenthetical notes that Pluto has the largest radius and Eris has the largest mass unnecessary both as tangential to the subject of the article and cluttering the paragraph and so would prefer to remove them, but my objection to them is much less strong and partly personal preference.

Your latter point is irrelevant to this discussion, but a) I have seen zero evidence that the IAU is engaged in any sort of 'misinformation', and b) the updated radius of Pluto from New Horizons was published in 2017, only 2 years ago (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Icar..287...12N/abstract) Physdragon (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Physdragon, good points. I only disagree with your clutter point. This clutter is actually the origin of this conflagration. It removes misinformation from the minds of probably billions, but at least millions of Earthlings, and, as such, is noteworthy information that is, in my opinion, whilst respecting yours, quite germane. Sowff (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I will get you that IAU page. It's pretty wily. Sowff (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think all IAU-confirmed dwarf planets deserve mention, along with the two cluttery captions, if you will; clutter is actually a bit pejorative. I think parentheses is a better term. Less emotional clutter, you might say. But you bring up some important points. Sowff (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I must say I absolutely agree with you about the purely speculative "over 100."

We only know if an object has hydrostatic equilibrium if we know it has hydrostatic equilibrium. If we don't, it can't be quantified. Mankind might only ever find 87 dwarf planets past Eris's and Makemake's orbits.Sowff (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Scroll to bottom of the subpage link below to this section, and you'll find this question. Please note the answer...it was supplied by Mike Brown, and it's still on the IAU website. "Planets, Dwarf Planets and Small Solar System Bodies Questions and Answers."

https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/

Q: Why is Eris a dwarf planet? A: Hubble Space Telescope images have resolved the size of Eris showing it to be as large as, or larger than Pluto, Brown (2006). More important, Eris was found to have a satellite, which was later named Dysnomia, after the Greek demon of lawlessness who was Eris' daughter. In 2007, the mass of Eris was determined to be (1.66 ± 0.02)×1022 kg, 27% greater than Pluto, based on observations of the orbit of Dysnomia. Eris also orbits within the transneptunian region - a region that has not been cleared out. Therefore Eris is a dwarf planet.

My first link said it was larger flat out. Unfortunately, I don't think I saved it. So, please can it be reposted, or at least private messaged to me? They have so much content on that site. It is hard to navigate to find something you saw a few days ago. I know I was a bit unleashed on that particular post; but the link to that IAU subpage has been requested. I will repost it without any tantrum. 21:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs)

One last thing. On that IAU subpage, Brown says that mass is more important than size. Is that the IAU position? My position is that the greater size of Pluto is at least equal in importance to the greater mass of Eris. I think people need to know both when the facts about Eris and Pluto are told.

And, while the % the mass that Eris's mass is greater than Pluto's mass is greater than the % the radius of Pluto is greater than Eris's, it's still pretty cool, and, I'd argue a tad noteworthy, that when using NASA's Erisean value for its diameter subtracted from New Horizons's Plutonian radius value x 2, you get exactly 40 kilometers -- the exact distance of the marathons of both the 1896 (Athens) and 1904 (St. Louis) Summer Olympics. Sowff (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The smallest possible radius of Pluto, mind you. Sowff (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Practically all, if not all maps of the Solar System stress size over mass. Telescopes also favor size over mass, one could say. It's preposterous to favor mass over size in any graphic way. Mass should let size drive if it wants to drive. Sowff (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

One last point, Earth has a lot of water. If it was all frozen, our size would increase a tad, maybe a lot. At any rate, a similar sized spheroid with less a percentage of ice, be it composed of water, nitrogen, methane, or a combination thereof, or of other compounds and elements, would, in all likelihood be more massive. In that case, do we begin to draw negative comparisons between Earth and the other planet? Sowff (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, this is not about my edit. That's a bit of bad and annoying rhetoric. Someone, with an obsession about telling the world that Pluto is 2% bigger than Eris, insists on having that parenthetical statement. In the name of balance, I felt that we should also specify that this is a larger radius and that Eris has the larger mass. I personally think it would be cleaner and better simply to name those dwarf planets without the parenthetical comments. But if we have one, I think we need both and both unambiguously written. Fcrary (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for the seemingly rhetorical phrasing. My bad. I agree if one stays, both must stay. I'm capable of being fair-minded. For my two cents, I think both deserve to stay. Mind you, the IAU subpage does say flat out that Eris is larger than Pluto. I will look for more, too. The one subpage I found wasn't very hard to find. I just discovered that I was looking at just one subpage. It contains misinformation in two separate areas. If you like clarity as much as I think you do, then please keep both the parenthesis up. Sowff (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you please define what you mean by "current subpages"? Do you mean they are still online? That could mean they were written years ago and left alone. The internet is full of obsolete clutter like that. To me, "current" web pages mean they have been recently edited. In that case, I'd expect the recent edits to reflect new information. But if the page hasn't been edited in ages, I wouldn't consider it active or current. Fcrary (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure obsessed isn't a bit rhetorical itself as I've never been on your couch to be psychoanalyzed; but, yes, the length of an Olympic marathon, or somewhat pejoratively 2%, is worthy of mention, especially given the virtual misinformation campaigns by the IAU and Mike Brown they have gone on for 14 years and counting. Brown's assertion that the Hubble Space Telescope proved Eris to be larger was purely speculative and without any actual numbers. Yet, the IAU accepted it, hook, line, and sinker -- without peer review. In fact, David Rabinowitz, a fellow co-discovererer of Eris, is a proponent of the GPD definition. I wonder if he thought the HST conclusively proved the Eris was larger. I hope not. To me, it seems like a leap of faith, more than a scientific fact. And, I turned out to be correct. I will check; but I'm pretty sure there were many others who were doubtful of that particular numberless assertion in the planetary science community. Sowff (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say 37 comments on this talk page in 21 hours (most of the most recent 50) counts as obsessive. It, combined with the poor formatting by failing to indent replies, makes the whole discussion very difficult to follow. If it isn't obsessive, it's almost as if you're some troll or deliberately trying to jam communications. And, yes, when it comes to astronomical measurements, a 2% difference in radius is trivial. In some cases, a factor of ten is considered a precise measurement. Fcrary (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I found one current IAU subpage, i. e., still online saying Eris is larger or might larger in two different sections of the page. I will look for more very soon. The IAU needs to be held accountable for its content. After Team New Horizons published it's first post-Pluto flyby paper with the first accurate radius measurement of Pluto, the IAU had a duty to update its website, I would argue. I hope that is rational enough for you. Sowff (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. I am not sure how to find out if they were recently edited, but I will try to find that out. Sowff (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In all fairness, one looked like it wasn't recently edited; but one did. I will try to find it again. Sowff (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Found it.

https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/

Last sentence in section entitled.....The changing landscape of the Solar System. Eris is said to be both larger and more massive. That's two subpages. I'll look for more. Feel free to try to find the last time this one was edited. Maybe in the source code? Sowff (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, simply because someone said something a decade ago and a web page mentioning it is "still online" does not mean the people involved are conducting a "misinformation campaigns by the IAU and Mike Brown they have gone on for 14 years and counting." Implying this without proof is obsessive and irrational. Insisting on this detail, despite the fact that the difference is a trivial 2% also seems obsessive. And, not offense, but comments which are more-or-less randomly ordered, stream of consciousness statements don't really make a person look sane. I don't mean to be rube, but you're comments are about as far from a rational, logical discussion as anything I've seen on Wikipedia (trolls excepted.) Fcrary (Fcrary) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've found subpages on the IAU website that say Eris is or may be larger. That's significant. Brown's personal page also has Eris as larger. That's also significant. I admit misinformation campaign is strongly worded, but 14 years is a long time to keep incorrect data on one's website. Apparently, the IAU gave Brown carte blanche to say whatever he liked on the size issue without challenging on the one link I provided. My comments might not be orderly; but they are rational. When I think of a good point, I make it. Not everyone thinks in an overtly logical way all the time; but I try to put a good effort into my comments to be substantive and persuasive without appealing to rhetoric or pejoratives. Sowff (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Again 40 kilometers being trivia is debatable. Have you ever run a marathon? It's not exactly a cakewalk. Sowff (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and be rude. I can take it as long as you acknowledge when I make a valid point. Sowff (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sowff: The only IAU page that you have cited, over and over again, is that Pluto page. There is no other link you found that had been deleted. I moved some of your comments to under a comment of mine that they were actually in reply to but did not change the content and just went back and checked the change logs just to make sure.

It is physically impossible for there to be some '14 year conspiracy' on the part of the IAU to hide the true size of Pluto since the most recent measurements of Pluto from New Horizons data that you are so determined must be trumpeted from the hilltops were published in 2017. Furthermore, as I have said previously that bit you are grasping at from the Changing landscape of the Solar system section is very clearly referring to the situation when Eris was discovered at which time it was believed to be both more massive and have a larger diameter. The fact that Pluto is now known to have a slightly larger diameter is very clearly referenced further down the same page. Quite frankly I don't know what more you expect of them. As far as I can see the only evidence you are using to base your accusations that the IAU have 'given Mike Brown carte blanche to say whatever he likes' is that they cited his papers, but if you are working on Kuiper belt objects, and especially Eris, citing Mike Brown is basically unavoidable.

40 kilometres being trivial relative to the diameters of Pluto or Eris is not debatable and stating that it is a 2% difference is not even slightly pejorative, it is accurate. A centimetre is a huge distance for a flea, but if you are comparing the height of two humans it is pretty trivial. Relative differences are what matter in basically any field of science. Comparisons of the difference between the diameters to the length of a marathon is utterly irrelevant.

If you make a valid point I'll acknowledge it, but from now on I'm ignoring everything else you write. Physdragon (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You know what, I'll add a stream of consciousness follow-up myself this time. I get fed up of having to constantly fix the formatting of your comments so that this page isn't a total mess. Please put a number of colons (:) infront of your messages that is equal to one more than the number in front of the message you are replying to. Physdragon (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Physdragon, I am a bit confused as to the colon formula you'd like me to follow. Thank you for your efforts to clean up this page. I just did some cleaning up, too. I can do so when I am on my PC. Please forgive me for sometimes posting via my cell; but my thoughts sometimes occur when I am away from home, and, if I feel they are important enough to be sent forthwith, I don't hesitate. He who hesitates is lost, some sage person once said. Also, I don't categorize my comments as stream-of- consciousness; but I can see how someone might like to bandy that word about regarding my comments. As a fan of James Joyce, I sort of take it as a compliment, actually. I try not to be thin-skinned. My dad was a Detroit cop who was sometimes verbally abusive to me and my family, so I am more thick-skinned than most people, I like to think. At any rate, a marathon is not a trivial distance, even comparing Pluto and Eris, I would argue. Even if the 1896 and 1904 Olympic marathons were the two shortest marathons in Olympic history. 40 kilometers of extra diameter is especially not trivial given that the IAU and Brown still maintain that Eris is larger than Pluto on their websites, no matter when they last edited them. And, as far as the 2017 paper you cite, the 2015 paper (currently Reference 4) Stern, Bagenal, et alii published also cited the new radius measurement of Pluto, then establishing Pluto as bigger than Eris. Both the IAU and Brown ignored the 2015 data, too. That may not be intentional; but it's certainly negligent. I consider that a valid point; but you are certainly free to dismiss it as insignificant. I'll look for more inaccurate pages on the IAU site. I'm sorry I thought I had seen two recently. I was wrong; but I think I saw another one a while back. I think it had to do with the Vienna GA. At any rate, I'll look for more, and report back if I find one or more forthwith. I'd argue even one inaccurate sentence on the IAU website -- and here we have two on that one subpage is one too many; and, they should't be excused so glibly as a matter of course. After all, that's their bread and butter as it were. If we can't trust the IAU on their Q & A Section on Pluto and Eris, why should we trust them on any planetary matters? As far as your point the IAU subpage has their facts right once, I don't think that negates that they've their facts wrong twice on that page. This isn't tennis. We should not be cutting them slack.Sowff (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff

Physdragon......I certainly hope you have a problem with this sentence from that aforementioned subpage of the IAU's website.....With an object larger and more massive than Pluto now beyond Neptune and ever more of these Trans-Neptunian Objects being discovered, astronomers were beginning to ask: "Just what constitutes a planet?" (my emphasis)

If you want to tell me I'm crazy, go ahead, though. Have at it. But it looks pretty unambiguous to me that "larger" is referring to Eris's size, not mass. If you two aren't going to cut me any slack, please don't cut the IAU or Brown any, either. They can come on here and defend their complete negligence if they'd like. I'm not stopping them; and, I take it you aren't, either. Sowff (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff

I have a question. If anyone knows, how could this be true....."Hubble Space Telescope images have resolved the size of Eris showing it to be as large as, or larger than Pluto...." (my emphasis)

We now know it's not true, of course. I guess the HST isn't all it's cracked up to be? I guess this may've been in good faith; but I'm not sure how a rational person could come to this conclusion, to use an en vogue term. Just in case anyone knows here. I can ask in other circles, as well. At least the IAU didn't say Eris killed Pluto.... Sowff (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff

I understand the colon comment you made now. I can only do that when I'm on my PC. I'll clean up my cell comments when I'm on my PC. I also appreciate readability. Sowff (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree my "misinformation campaign" terminology is a tad strong for the IAU. But, complete negligence is fair. For Brown, though, it's highly suspect he knows his numbers are incorrect on his chart. But we can say it's merely negligence to be nice. Fine. I find it very interesting, almost ironic, a tad noteworthy, and definitely even a good dose of redemptive poetic justice that rather than Eris being larger, Pluto has it beat by an actual Olympic marathon in diameter. Call it irrelevant if you like, but it has a sort of redeeming flourish to it that cannot be denied in my estimation. As such, not to mention it, for me, also seems highly negligent. I'm not saying it needs to be mentioned on the main page of the GPD page, mind you; but it is definitely worth mentioning here by me. Sowff (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for tidying up some of your comments and trying to use colon indentation. The way colon indentation is supposed to work is that you use one more colon than the last message above from a different person that you are replying to. My comment prior to this one had seven colons, so I adjusted your above comments to all be at 8 colons (there is no need to progressively indent your own additional comments). This comment of mine has 9 colons, so if you reply to this comment it should have 10 colons. Whatever you want to call it adding half a dozen comments each separated by a few minutes is somewhat irritating not just because it is more likely to mess up the formatting, but also because someone might start responding to one of your first comments not realising that you haven't yet finished.

I stand corrected that the first New Horizons measurements of the diameter were published in 2015, the 2017 was just a refinement. Nonetheless, that is still only 4 years ago, not 14.

Physdragon......I certainly hope you have a problem with this sentence from that aforementioned subpage of the IAU's website.....With an object larger and more massive than Pluto now beyond Neptune and ever more of these Trans-Neptunian Objects being discovered, astronomers were beginning to ask: "Just what constitutes a planet?" (my emphasis) No, I have no problem whatsoever with that sentence since, as I have said previously when you brought up the same sentence, it is clearly referring to the state of affairs immediately after the discovery of Eris at which time it did appear to be both more massive and have a larger diameter than Pluto. I will also take this opportunity to clarify something: when I say that I do not see any problem with what the IAU have written that is not a request for you to go and try to dig up evidence that there is something wrong with it. The only thing that any IAU page is being cited for in this article is for the list of recognised dwarf planets and I am pretty sure that even you ought to be able to agree that the IAU is capable of correctly listing the bodies they themselves consider to be dwarf planets. Any other problems that may or may not exist on any IAU webpage do not matter because they are not being used as references by this article. You can say whatever you like about the IAU but unless it is related to the list of recognised dwarf planets it is not relevant and I will ignore it. Physdragon (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Irritating though it may be, such is the human mind. It operates even after someone has made a comment or six. Surely, you can't expect me to cater to your every request. No offense. I'll format this the next time I'm on my PC. I agree with the bulk of your comments. My problem with that sentence is that it contains outdated data; the IAU should be more proactive with its pages that negatively affect Pluto, seeing as how the New Horizons mission is not exactly an obscure mission. But, sure, we can agree to say that four years is not enough time for them to update their website for the sake of slack. At some point, though, I'd argue they have an affirmative duty to update data regarding Pluto and Eris. Apparently, someone needs to bring it to their attention. Sowff (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should send the IAU some serious money. Or start a GoFundMe thing. The web is full of obsolete, dated pages and articles. No one has the time, effort or funding to go through and correct, update or remove them. That isn't negligence, it's the nature of the medium. If fact, some web sites actively archive everything, so even if the author wanted to delete an obsolete web page, he couldn't. If you really dig, you could probably find some very libertarian political opinions I posted in the 1990s. I'm not so sure about them anymore, but they are probably still floating around somewhere on the web. I don't consider myself accountable for that, and I won't hold the IAU accountable for obsolete information on a web page they may not even remember creating. Fcrary (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I've seen recent IAU subpages and graphic art showing Eris to be larger. This isn't just about outdated subpages. As far as obsession goes, maybe that's what it took to make the contributions I've made here. I am who I am. I accept myself with all my faults. I'm trying to clean up my comments with the colon code and everything. I'm sorry if I'm annoying sometimes. The IAU needs to do its job. I need the little money I have to make it as an artist, take care of the woman I love and myself, et cetera. If you ever watch the video of the IAU session in which Pluto was demoted, you'll further realize why I could never send them a penny. It was pretty ugly. To excuse the IAU for its outdated pages, I think I'd need to see more of an effort on their part to acknowledge the new information on Pluto from New Horizons. The silence is deafening. Physdragon did find one reference on that subpage that Pluto was larger. Other than that, the IAU seems to be in Camp Brown. At any rate, I am acting in good faith. I hope it shows. I can tell you are, too; and I appreciate your efforts. I am not perfect. I could tell you a funny story about a libertarian I encountered once; but I'll refrain unless you'd like to hear it. It's loaded with irony. I'm not sure how I'd label myself. I've friends from all over the political spectrum. It's all good. No one thinks alike. Sowff (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Sowff

Found a good quote by Walter Lippmann. "Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

So I take it this entry now passes muster? Good. Glad Pluto's greater radius is mentioned, and, as you know, I have no qualms with Eris's greater masses also acknowledged.

Now, then, let me share quickly my libertarian anecdote. So, I was running for State Rep in Oregon and had purchased from both counties in my district the voter rolls which included, among other things, their addresses, names, and party affiliation, when, lo and behold, while working as a care worker for some developmentally disabled adults, I took them, along with another care worker, to a scenic vista on Mt. Scott, affording a wonderful view of Portland and its environs. As we walked from the van to a vacant lot on Mt. Scott, a neighbor on an adjoining property told us to leave immediately or he'd call the police. I pleaded with him to let us take a quick view without him making that call, but he refused my empathetic request. Later that day, I looked his party affiliation up and, lo and behold, he was a libertarian. Given their stance on private property, I found him something of a hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowff (talk • contribs) 04:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Moon; how is it a planet??

The planets are the satellites of the sun. The moon is the satellite of the Earth. Georgia guy (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Historically since Galileo, moons have always been planets. See my answer in the above section. "Satellite" has always been a dynamical relationship between two bodies of the same type, so a star orbiting a star is a satellite; a galaxy orbiting a galaxy is a satellite; and a planet orbiting a planet is a satellite. It comes from the French satelle meaning a servant, which is a human serving a human, plus "-ite" since it is a geological entity. Other terms that have been used to represent the dynamically subordinate status of satellite planets have included "secondary planet" (same in latin and Spanish as in English), "subaltern planet", "next planet" (literal translation of the historic German term), and "moon", which Galileo proposed because THE Moon is a planet orbiting a planet. Galileo repeatedly called the Earth's Moon a planet and his entire argument that planets are geological bodies was a logical induction from his observations of the Moon having mountains. The argument went as such: "If the Moon, being a planet, has mountains, then the Moon and all the other planets are geological bodies like Earth. Therefore, if the planets are bodies like Earth, then the Earth is likewise a planet and it moves in space like they do." This was the crux of his argument that was persuasive in shifting the tide of the Copernican debate. The whole thing was an induction based on the Moon being a planet. Then he named the moons of Jupiter "planets", and he proposed calling them "moons" as a specific class of planet: a planet that orbits another planet. Huygens and Cassini discovered moons of Saturn and called them "planets". Hershel discovered moons of Uranus in 1783 and called them "planets". Moons have been planets for all of history since the Copernican Revolution. Planetary scientists still call them planets to this day.Sanddune777 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

But also, there are some cases in the literature where bodies of different types are called satellites. Planets actually have been called satellites of the Sun, as you point out. Also, two other historic synonyms for "satellite" have been "attendant" and "companion", and planets have been called "attendants" and/or "companions" of the Sun, so your point is taken.Sanddune777 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)