"

WhoMe's new introduction

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

Having looked at the lastest changes/reverts/whatever made by yourself, I find the recent changes to be much clearer than when I originally started discussing this controversy.  Despite many objections on both sides, the article is much clearer.  I'm assuming here that what is currently is what you want the article to look like.  I certainly won't start an edit war over it! I've never participated in an edit war and I don't intend to start now. —  (comment)  

Actually, I would have preferred just listing ""A planet is officially defined as..."" but now it has been amended so:
a) there are links a the naming dispute both in the first sentence as well as the sandbox
b) it is not listed as the official definition, just as a definition by the IAU
c) it is noted that this is recent and also that there were alternate lists before this
d) there is link to the astrology article that defines planet differently
e) there is a quantifier to say it may not be universally accepted.
I think not to address the IAU definition in the introduction is more POV than including it, giving its significance. We have already given it far less credit than all reports in the mainstream and scientific media.  

Well at least one entry (d) does not need to be there.  I added it to the disambiguation page, so that should be sufficient.  There is no need to list it on this page explicitly. —  (comment)  

I felt that seeing that the astrology term described many of the same objects as the astronomy term there should be a direct link, especially given the dispute over Pluto, which, as you rightly pointed out, will still be counted by many astronomers. However, if you still feel it should be taken out I won't object. And for the record, despite the initial clash of heads I've enjoyed working with you on this and you have persuaded me to be a lot closer to your view. Thanks.  

I'm not terribly concerned about the astrology link, one way or another.  It isn't intrusive.  As for this discussion, I really havn't even been editing the article or really following the changes as closely as others have been.  This discussion is so time consuming!  When I first ran accross the article I was deeply concerned with the slant, but there has been a lot of work.  I still have issues with using the word ""official"", since only 424 persons out of 2,411 (approximately 18%) who attended the IAU assembly even voted on the issue and there are enough published articles showing the controversy that the vote has caused.  With that said, the introductory paragraph does a good job at mentioning the lack of a historical scientific agreement for the definition of planet.  This balance may be sufficient to show all sides on this debate.  I might like it if it was the ""official scientific body"", because surely there are no other organizations that can make that claim and it still leaves room for ""unofficial cultural definitions"", such as those widely used by the general public. Ironically, I think the article may now focus a little too much attention on the naming controversy.  I would put ""Definition"" and ""Disagreement"" under the main heading of ""Etymology"".  I think it would flow better and put less emphasis on the controversy.  Afterall, the definition of the word is what Etymology is all about, and the controversy occurred chronologically after the information currently under the heading of Etymology. —  (comment)  

I deliberately changed the se