Talk:Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy

Detached

"it has recently gone into orbit about our galaxy having somehow become detached."

What is the meaning of this clause that appears in the article as of today? I cannot interpret it. Detached from our galaxy? Surely not! Can someone elucidate this? Thanks. Zaslav 02:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

May 30th "discovery"

I deleted the segment concerning the "discovery" that our solar system is from SagDEG, as it's external link [1] is, to be blunt, full of crap. The site makes grandiose claims, but none of their references substantiate these claims in any way. It's entirely unprofessional and, until it's actually verified by a respectable source, it should remain out of the article.--NME 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this segment as well, primarily because of the breathless POV ("breakthrough", "astounding", "pivotal"), not to mention gibberish (what in the world does "substantiate the May 30th SagDeg theorem into discovery mode" mean?). However, I've now looked at the external link, and it clearly doesn't meet the standards of WP:VERIFY (it's a webpage written by the same "independent researcher" responsible for these so-called "breakthrough surprise discoveries"). And considering that the same page claims that this is the true cause of global warming, I'd say that not only does it fail WP:VERIFY, but it is also truly not a reliable source.

Oh, and Mr. 3LevelChess: surely the correct action to take regarding a profanity (if it indeed qualifies as such; it's an awfully mild word, by modern standards of profanity) is simply to remove the single offending word, not the entire comment? 12.107.75.130 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We are in a bit of a pickle in that those deleting and/ or amending the page are either apparently lacking the I.Q. to allow comprehension of the discoveries involved ( or ) are not attempting to -- based out of sheer ignorance-- I cannot pretend to know which. It simply is not possible to link to a better verification than the ABC News Release Link that lays to waste all previous related science as inacurate that normally would have been the substantiation point as proofs to the new data in question:

• http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=1207&i=2
• http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1942665.htm

Please make an effort to understand this point. The above science release makes clear that all related foundations are built upon these directional inacuracies and therefore cannot be used in the verificatiion processing of contrary theories and discoveries without a correction to the very roots-- involving the daunting task of the rewriting of all relevant science possibly all the way back to Copernicus, for that is how long we have been incorrect in our thinking. Do you know of the man who discovered why all the women were dying in childbirth? He discovered germs. All would either not hear of it and/or thought of how they could be actually guilty of causing a string of deaths themselves as medical practitioners. Medical practitioners would not wash their hands going between ill and diseased patients and those child birthing. The result? the knowledge was suppressed and thousands upon thousands more women died simply because these particular individuals all decided to quash the data -- those entrusted with overall academic authority who would not allow the new data to be published.

The discoverer? He died penniless, and watched thousands more women die out of deliberate ignorance.

The actual true cause of Global Warming was (attempted)to be presented which could possibly change the course of history (or not)-- because of choices made here by those who decide the fate of new theorem and discoveries.

You have a responsibility to the truth and the future. Choose wisely.

I have chosen to update my thoughts posted here earlier to reflect what is most accurate in my thinking. Please do not edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3LevelChess (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In blatant violation of the three-revert rule, I note. And with a bonus insult disparaging fellow editors' intelligence. Your link [2] makes no reference whatsoever to the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, so is not remotely relevant to this article. I have reluctantly left your version standing, lest I myself violate WP:3RR; hopefully one of the many other editors who reverted your edits before I came along will notice your changes shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.75.130 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that 3LevelChess asks that we "please do not edit," yet at the same time found it necessary to delete my original talk segment... But in any case, the link about the Sol system being part of the SagDEG is literally rubbish. As I've already said in my original response, none of the references back up any of their claims. Additionally, available evidence contradicts the claims made that we're from a different galaxy. We know that the SagDEG is at an almost-90 degree angle to the Milky Way. Which means that all stars just entering into the Milky Way would be in an almost-90 degree angle orbit around the galactic core. If Sol was from SagDEG, then it, too would be at a similar orbital angle. While it's true that the system's plane is at odds with the Milky Way itself, our orbit is consistent with a solar system that has, at the very least, been a part of the Milky Way for (at least) millions of years. (Here's a hint... gravity never forces celestial bodies to make 90 degree turns.) Now, if you want to insult my intelligence again, that's fine, but when you do so, at least try to back your nonsense up with some actual facts, rather than ill-conceived hypotheses. --NME 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for some of the comments in my last response. I was in a really nasty mood, and ended up venting here. -- NME 10:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

I'm just curious why this object is referred to as Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical. Nowhere in the literature is this designation used, not even in the original discovery paper. It's always referred to as the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal (dSph). It's listing in SIMBAD and other references is as a dwarf spheroidal. And the listing as SgrDEG is especially confusing as there is a galaxy titled SgrDIG.

Moreover, dwarf eliptical is usually reserved quite specifically for objects that are nucleated, which Sgr is not, and much brighter than Sgr (wikipedia's entries on dwarf elliptical and dwarf spheroidal galaxies are incorrect on this point).

Does anyone object to changing this object to Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy?

Hal 10000.0 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite correct to say that the identifier "Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical"/"SagDEG" is not used in the literature. A search of ADS turns up a few, here are a couple of them: Bernabei et al., Myers et al.; also so-called in the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Paul Murden (ed.) 2000. In SIMBAD "Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical"/"SagDEG" are two of nine listed identifiers for this object.

True enough, the original discovery paper didn't call it that (only Sagittarius Dwarf), and the spheroidal/dSph identifiers do seem to appear more frequently in papers. I don't know whether that's down to any actual difference in interpretation of the structure.

I think the article could be moved to Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, but the alternative identifiers such as SagDEG etc should be mentioned, and retained as redirects.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been 7 years since this suggestion was made, in the mean while, there are 185 publications on NASA ADS with Sagittarius dSph and at most 3 there with SAGDEG. It's clear that the scientific community does not use this name, it's time we stop confusing others by using the wrong name on Wikipedia. Can someone with a username move the article and make a redirect for SAGDEG? 129.125.6.1 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: move to Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy. I leave the creation of the redirects to someone other. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy → Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy – This galaxy is generally referred to as the Sagittarius dSph in the scientific community (check NASA ADS/talk page). SAGDEG is only used elsewhere and causes confusion. Requesting a move with a redirect for SAGDEG to the new name. Up for discussion whether it should be Sagittarius dSph as page or Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy... 129.125.6.1 (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed' if moved it would be Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, just as this isn't Sagittarius dwarf elliptical galaxy, because it is a specific galaxy, so should be capitalized. It is not about generic d[E/Sph]G in Sgr, it is about a specific one. Sag dSph/Sgr dSph/Sagittarius dSph/Sagittarius DEG/Sag DEG/Sgr DEG/SagDEG/SgrDEG/SAGDEG/SGRDEG/SAGDSPH/SGRDSPH/Sgr dE/Sag dE/Sagittarius dE, etc would be redirects because they are opaque to the readership, being abbreviations. As well as Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical/Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal ; -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support a move to a capitalized version; if the move is to a lowercase version, I oppose it for the reasons given by 70.xx.xxx.xxx. The redirects should definitely be created too. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I totally agree, how to proceed to a capitalized version? Can I just edit the move request to a capitalized version? 129.125.6.1 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Size and Mass

The statement that Sgr dSph is thought to contain as many stars as CMa Dwarf has to be reconciled with the assertion it is calculated at ten thousandth the size of the Milky Way and possibly up to a fiftieth of its mass. But the mass of Sgr dSph estimated here makes it 3 times that of the LMC thus credo to the assertion it contains a fair amount of dark matter. --Lmstearn (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Supermassive Black Hole at the center of Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy?

Is there a SBH in the center of the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy? 2601:580:101:7C0C:449B:9F52:7D8A:7DA (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No. If there were a SBH, it would be in the nucleus, which is believed to be the globular cluster M54. There is no evidence of a SBH in that cluster; and quite a bit of evidence that there is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:e422:3c01:8d99:693d:6417:6c48 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Numbers dont add up.

Figures here state SagDEG at 70,000 LY from Earth, with a diameter of 10,000 LY, with "M54 apparently at its core". Yet the article on M54 gives a distance on 87,000 LY, which would put it well beyond the core.

This comment also made on th M54 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:E8BE:3E5F:C4C2:ACB9 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, it seems a little difficult to believe that Palomar 12 is "associated" with this galaxy, given that its apparent angular distance is like more than 10 times the major axis of SagDEG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:E8BE:3E5F:C4C2:ACB9 (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed content

@Ruslik0: I noticed that you keep removing an edit related to the formation of star systems in the Milky Way such as the Solar System, based on the research paper and these sources, [3] and [4]. And you even accused the user of "lying" about the sources, what kind of an admin are you?! Have you checked the sources yourself? Or are those sources not reliable to you?! 220.88.115.228 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In the nature article that you trying to cite Solar System is not mentioned at all. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)