Talk:Polydeuces (moon)

message: Only source I've seen reporting Polydeuces' diameter being 13 km is Cassini's homepage . Most pages have the value 3.5 km. The Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet  gives it a radius of ~4 km (or a diameter of ~8 km). Question is, which of these is the correct value? --Jyril 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper announcing the discovery of Polydeuces, Porco et al. 2005, gave a diameter of 3.5 km.  Imaging from earlier this week that resolves the disk of Polydeuces, supports this size. Volcanopele 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter of Polydeuces 

message: The article says it is synchronous. Is this known? Is there a reference? Sounds likely, but you never know. It was thought Mercury was synchronous for a long time. Deuar 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation 

message: Hello. You keep changing the attribution of the discovery of Pallene, Methone and Polydeuces to Carolyn Porco. This is wrong, those satellites have been discovered by Sébastien Charnoz and Carl Murray. You claim to be representing Carolyn Porco. I think it is a lie as Ms Porco perfectly knows she has not discovered those satellites and i cannot believe she would try to abuse the scientific community. In the future if you change once again the attribution of the discovery i will ask you to provide a certified message from Sébastien Charnoz and Carl Murray stating they have not discoevered those satellites. Thank you very much. Regards. Med 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturn satellites 

message: Here is Carolyn Porco's response to your comments, emailed to me: 'The official attribution for sightings of new moons or rings or features on the moons made by the Cassini imaging team members in Cassini images goes to the Cassini Imaging Team.    This is standard practice in the astronomical community and is sanctioned by the International Astronomical Union.  It would be entirely unfair and inappropriate to credit the 'discovery' to any one individual on a team of many scientists where many people contributed to the discovery. After all,  no one attributes the discovery of America to the guy in the crow's nest of Christopher Columbus' ship.  Furthermore, the first reports of these sightings were published in the IAU Circulars which are accurately referenced in the Wiki entries, and those reports constitute the offical announcement of the sightings along with the authorship `C.C.Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team'. This is not an abuse of any kind; it is standard practice, and it is the *correct* attribution for these discoveries'.
I suggest that you email Carolyn at cpcomments@ciclops.org if you wish to discuss this matter further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.32.254 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to your comments from Carolyn Porco 

message: The IAU gives the official credit for the discovery of Polydeuces to 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' . As it does for Methone, Pallene  and Daphnis. Note that no individuals are named. Hence the official IAU attribution for the discovery of these saturnian satellites is 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' and that no individuals are named.
Now the next issue is the correct reference for the announcement of the discovery of these satellites. In the case of Polydeuces it is IAUC 8432: Satellites and Rings of Saturn with authourship 'C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team'. So why is it 'C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team' and not just 'The Cassini Imaging Science Team'? In the instructions on how to submit an item for publication in an IAUC 
1. 'please use standard IAUC procedures for listing authors (first and middle initials, last full name; maximum of three authors, if possible*) '
2. 'the "author(s)" whose name(s) appear(s) at the beginning of the published item should be only the person communicating the item to the CBAT (and that is almost always only one person) and/or the person(s) who actually wrote the text to be published'
3. 'Other people who made observations, reduced data, or contributed in an important way to discussions involving the published item can be mentioned by name in the text where appropriate (without affiliations).'
4.'Please note that we generally *require* that the person contributing the item for publication be listed either as the first name for the item or as one of the co-authors.'
From this its clear that ideally no more than three authours should be listed and that the person who SUBMITS the text for publication MUST be either the first name listed or one of the co-authors. Since the Cassini Imaging Science Team consists of upwards of 20 people its clearly impractical to list all of them individually but the person sending in the text MUST be individually named. So clearly Dr Porco (in her capacity as Team Leader?) submitted the text and is therefore individually named as required for publication and the other team members aren't named and simply covered by the 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' beacuse there are too many of them to name individually.
From this I think its quite plain that just because someone is first authour in an IAUC it doesn't mean that they played any part in the associated discovery, they might simply be the person who wrote the text and submitted it for publication.
To summarise 
1. the IAU lists the discoverer of Polydeuces as just 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' and no individuals are mentioned. Hence if we are going to follow the IAU's lead then Wikipedia should do the same
2. The reference for the discovery announcement is C.C. Porco et al. (2005) which DOES NOT mean that the discoveror of Polydeuces is 'C.C.Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team'.
If we are going to start naming people in relation to the discovery then Carl Murray should be named if Carolyn Porco is. We should either follow one proceedure or the other. Its just 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' or 'Carl Murray and the Cassini Imaging Science Team lead by Carolyn Porco'.
The current practice of one editor who claims to represent Dr Porco (I have no reason to doubt that he doesn't) of removing anyone else's name and inisiting that the discoveror is 'Carolyn Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team' is both inaccurate/misleading and quite frankly worrying.--Syntaxis
:I share the opinion of Syntaxis here. I add that this editor also removes the discoverer's name from Pallene and Methone, both satellites of Saturn too. Med 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current formulation seems to follows the IAU guidelines in both letter and spirit. But does the detailed explanation (and especially the complaints about earlier, inaccurate versions of the attribution) really belong in the main article itself, even in a footnote? I would suggest to simply use the correct attributions for discovery and announcement without explicit justification, but to include an html comment alerting potential editors about the full discussion and consensus on the Talk page. Hqb 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like Hqb's suggestion about replacing the footnote about discovery attribution with an html comment pointing future editors to the full discussion -- whatever we finally reach a concensus on. The disagreement and discussion are real and might be of future interest. I'd also suggest that we stop this regular reversion to previous versions. Its clear that there are four ways we could go (in no particular order) 1. 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' - 2. 'Carolyn Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team'- 3. 'Carl Murray and the Cassini Imaging Team lead by Carolyn Porco' - 4. 'Carl Murray and the Cassini Imaging Team' . Everyone so far seems to have agreed that the Cassini Imaging team was involved. Personally I think that 'Carl Murray and the Cassini Imaging Team lead by Carolyn Porco" as first used by Med is a compromise I can live with, failing that I'd want simply "the Cassini Imaging Team". Once we (hopefully) have reached a concensus after some discussion then make the (final?) change. Also as Med has pointed out we have a similar problem with Methone and Pallene. I'd suggest putting notes in their discussion/talk pages pointing intersted parties here since the Polydeuces discussion seems to be the most developed.Syntaxis 17:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery Attribution 

message: Rebjon21 has made a Request for Arbitration regarding the Wikipedia entries for Methone, Pallene and Polydeuces. Specifically regarding their discoveries and who gets named as discoveror. This request has been denied as being "premature" with a request to "follow all the steps in dispute resolution". Having refreshed my memory  it looks like the initial advice "Avoidance" isn't going to fly. Personally I think that we are still at "First step: Talk to the other parties involved" with a dash of "Discuss with third parties". I thank Rebjon21 for refraining from making further edits to the discoveror info and I will also do likewise until we reach some sort of resolution but I will add a note that there is a dispute and link to this Talk page. Dicuya has made a contribution  stating that Polydeuces was discovered "by the Cassini Imaging Team lead by Carolyn Porco ". Now its correct that the Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco. The problem I have with using this exact phrase in this particular context is that an individual has been specifically named in relation to (or at the very least in the same sentence as) the discovery of the satellite. In my opinion this is certainly against the spirit of the IAU discovery convention and I believe it is also contrary to the letter of that convention. After all the IAU names the discover as "Cassini Imaging Science Team" not "Cassini Imaging Team led Carolyn Porco". A user of Wikipedia could develop the impression that Dr Porco was the main contributor to the discovery if she was the only person individually named. 
O.K. I'd now like to talk about the press release regarding the discovery of Methone and Pallene . This press release was issued by NASA/JPL. A contact at Dr Porco's group (Cassini Imaging Central Laboratory for Operations) is named. Now interestingly there is a press release on Dr Porco's CICLOPS website regarding the discovery of Methone and Pallene  with the attribution being "MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE, SPACE SCIENCE INSTITUTE, BOULDER, COLO. 80301". As far as I can tell the text is exactly the same as the NASA/JPL release. Dr Porco is at the Space Science Institute. This press release from SSI states that "The moons were first seen by Dr. Sebastien Charnoz". My understanding of the way these press releases happen is that a Cassini Scientist/their home institution decides they want to issue one and then contacts the JPL press office to coordinate. If NASA/JPL wants to be involved then the press release has to go through various tedious stages of an approval process and then gets released by NASA/JPL. If they don't want to be involved then the scientists home institution issues the press release. The point I'm trying to make is that the press release naming Dr Charnoz as the person to "first see" the moons was either written by or at least approved by Dr Porco herself.
Its been argued that only the "official" IAU document, IAU8389 announcing the discovery and the the IAU official name website  should be used as sources of information regarding the discovery of these saturnian satellites. The NASA/JPL press release , the corresponding SSI press release [ and the BBC online article  according to some editors MUST NOT be used as sources of information. I think that an arguement can be made either way. However I believe that all reliable sources of information should be used rather than just "official" sources. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the International Astronomical Union is anything but a non-partisan, ethical, unbiased international body of scientific professionals but there are quite clearly some "offical" sources e.g. governments, religeous movements, companies etc whose information is quite clearly unreliable and other reliable "unofficial" sources have to also be used. As far as I'm concerned a NASA press release and a BBC new article are from sources that have some integrity and do check their sources. If accurate information is out there then it should be included in Wikipedia articles and we shouldn't just limit ourselves to "official" sources. And another thing why should be we bound by what the IAU decides anyway? Even some professional astronomers refuse to toe the IAU line in some cases e.g. 
Just to restate my position I believe we either follow both the letter and spirit of the IAU and the discoveror simply be the "Cassini Imaging Team" with no individuals named or we name names and Murray and Charnoz be mentioned along with the Cassini Imaging Team and Porco can be mentioned as Imaging Team Leader if desired. I don't believe its either fair or in the spirit of the IAU naming convention to mention Dr Porco but not Drs Charnoz and Murray.
As a parting thought Rebjon21 states that "..The BBC article has been incorrectly written and they have been notified of their mistake.." . I've just checked the BBC article that names Murray & Charnoz as the first people to see Polydeuces - Methone & Pallene  and to my surprise the article has been changed to remove reference to Murray & Charnoz. The Google cached original version of the article where Charnoz and Murray are named can be obtained by following this link 
(this cached version is from 14 June 2007 so it might be overwritten with the edited version by the time you follow the link). So the BBC appear to have changed a 2 year old web article following a complaint of inaccuracy when Charnoz is named in relation to Methone & Pallene in a NASA/JPL press release. Have the BBC been caving in to pressure from someone? And worse have they caved in without actually checking the facts? Syntaxis  16:35 UTC 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with what you said. About the BBC. If they have changed the attribution due to some external pressure, it is clearly not acceptable. I am considering the idea of contacting the competent authorities. If it appears it is not a mistake, some people will have to take their responsabilities. Is there a Science ethics committee in the USA? Med 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution 

message: I have been made aware of the dispute over the issue of credit for the discovery of moons made with the Cassini cameras, and have decided to respond myself.  There are some terrible misunderstandings within the postings on these pages, which need to be rectified.  
Let me first give a sense of what a spacecraft team's work is like.
First, there is an enormous amount of work that goes into building a camera system like that on the Cassini spacecraft, and in ensuring that it is a scientifically useful instrument for studying the Saturn system.  Once the cameras are built, there is of course the work of planning the sequences of images that it acquires, as well as building software, databases, processes, training staff personnel, etc, etc. etc.    In the case of Cassini, there were 14 years of such work between the time the mission was started in 1990 and arrival at Saturn orbit in 2004.  Many of those years were without a break:  solid 10 and 12 hour days, week after week, month after month, with no vacations or holidays, just to be prepared for Saturn orbit insertion.  And this is the case in general for all spacecraft missions nowadays:  To be in a responsible position on such a mission is to have  an extremely demanding, all-consuming profession.  
During the latter part of those 14 years, the science team members were engaged in the planning of the science investigations. The Cassini imaging experiment alone involved many, many different types of scientific objectives that have guided the construction of the imaging sequences.  Each objective has its own special design, involving image layout and timing, exposure times and filter selections, etc.  Then there is all the negotiating work to be done in convincing other Cassini investigators of the necessity for the images being designed.  Observing time is a precious commodity on a complex mission like Cassini.  Negotiating with the other scientists, both on the imaging team and on the other science teams, took many hours of teleconference calls, every week for years on end.    
All of this one might say is the `decisive' part of any successful observation: If the camera is not built properly, and if the image strategy and design are not done correctly and if one is not successful convincing others of the necessity for the observations, the objective can be entirely lost.   
So, on a mission like Cassini, and indeed on most spaceflight missions, the analysis of the images is actually the least of the work entailed in making any discovery.  
This is not to discredit those individuals working on our team who are poring over our images, trying to extract important scientific information from them.  But to say that looking at images, and writing software to analyze them is the most `decisive' part of a discovery is patently not true.  The decisive work was done over the previous decade and a half and generally involved many different people.
Thus, on an experiment as complicated as the Cassini Imaging Science experiment, no one person can be listed as the `discoverer' of new objects like rings and moons.    The International Astronomical Union recognizing this particular aspect of spaceflight missions has established conventions that support this.  The official credit *must* be the full team.  If my name appears, it is not because I am the `discoverer' above other team members, but because I am the leader of the team.   The usual practice, when a team is too large to mention every member, is to list the team leader followed by `et al.', or by `the Such-and-Such Team'.  Stating `the Such-and-Such Team, led by So-and-So' is equivalent.    
Secondly, it is of course our job to produce scientific results and to write scientific publications.  But, to generate public interest in our work, it is also our job to release our results to the public in a readily-understandable way.  Press releases are written to tell an appealing story in a way that engages the non-scientific public.  Often, we bring out the human-element for this very purpose.   But press releases are not meant to be the definitive word on the discovery and they are certainly in no way comprehensive sources of information.  Often, what is written in them ends up being shown to be wrong, or at least eventually superceded by more thorough analyses and more accurate conclusions.  And news stories based on them are therefore equally wrong or incomplete.
Hence, in the presence of other information, when there is no need to establish the timing of a discovery (because it can be established by other means, and in this case, the IAU Circulars establish the timing), referneces to press releases should be avoided.
I hope this clarifies the issue and puts it finally to rest.
:Thanks for your input, unfortunately it is largely fallacious. When scientists discover something with hubble (for instance, could be fuse, galex, spitzer, whatever), the credits go to the scientists not to the team of the instrument. If you want a proof, just read astroph. They are cited and acknowledged of course but certainly not primarily creditted. If you want to be cited, Murray/Charnoz/whoever should be cited too.
:You request that the whole team is creditted for the discovery. I agree on this particular point, and more than this, the team is already creditted so i do not see the problem. Murray/Charnoz are cited too as having been the first to see those satellites (and i think you can't deny this), and you are cited as the team leader.
:Oh and if by chance you know the person having put pressure on the BBC to change their 2 years old article you should tell him/her to tell the BBC to revert back to the original version.
:Regards, Med 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., Carolyn Porco's contribution basically attempts to explain why the IAU attributes the discovery to the 'Cassini Imaging Science Team'. I have no problem with this. I might differ about the amount of work involved in actually finding candidate objects which might be previously unknown satellites and then all the follow up work necessary to confirm this, but I won't go into that now. But what I have to keep comming back to is that the official IAU attribution is 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' not 'Cassini Imaging Science team led by Carolyn Porco' or some other variation of this which includes Dr Porco's name. "The usual practice, when a team is too large to mention every member, is to list the team leader followed by `et al.', or by `the Such-and-Such Team'.  Stating `the Such-and-Such Team, led by So-and-So' is equivalent". Yes, when referencing publications in peer reviewed journals it is common practice to use the name of the first author and "et al." to cover all the others. For example the Cassini Imaging Team publications where the entire Team are co-authors  are correctly referenced as Porco, C.C. et al.followed by the appropriate year of publication. The IAUC circulars announcing the discovery of Methone, Pallene and Polydeuces can also be correctly referenced as C.C. Porco et al. (2005) - I've explanied why the discovery IAUCs are "C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team" not just the "Cassini Imaging Science Team". However it is NOT common practice to attribute discovery to the "Cassini Imaging Science Team led by Carolyn Porco" -- can I demonstrate this? Yes. The IAU itself --the "official" body in this case-- does not do this, they attribute the discovery to just the "Cassini Imaging Science Team" and Dr Porco's name is not mentioned in any way shape or form as Team Leader or otherwise. Next onto Press releases. Dr Porco states that "press releases are not meant to be the definitive word on the discovery and they are certainly in no way comprehensive sources of information. Often, what is written in them ends up being shown to be wrong, or at least eventually superceded by more thorough analyses and more accurate conclusions". Well yes, but that is also equally true of scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. Although in such papers it is usually the data analysis and/or conclusions that are sometimes shown to be in error or at least other authors later publish differing interpretations. If a press release says that a particular named person was the first to 'see' a new moon then this is either true or it isn't. I think it safe to presume that these press releases are at the very least vetted and approved by Dr Porco and she would have quickly corrected anything she believed to be incorrect. So it follows that at the time she believed a person named was indeed the first person to 'see' a new moon -- its difficult to see how such a basic piece of information could later turn out to in inaccurate. Now incidently in the 3 papers published to date in peer reviewed journals giving Polydeuces information only one goes into any detail about how the discovery was actually made and describes the discovery circumstances, gives the images and locations in those images etc - that one being Murray, C. D.; et al. (2005). "S/2004 S 5: A new co-orbital companion for Dione". Icarus 179: 222. This paper is devoted solely to Polydeuces, in the other two Polydeuces forms only a small part of the paper's content.I draw no conclusions from this although you might. Now I understand that the complete story behind a discovery might not be strictly relevant scientifically, a simple "discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team on..." being sufficient. But, and its a big but, the full backstory complete with human interest, politics, personality clashes, triumphs and failures etc is exactly what scientific historians want to know and what many members of the general public find fascinating. I again raise the point that we here at Wikipedia don't have to be bound by whatever "The Establishment" (in this case the IAU and the professional astronomical community) may have decided is the way they want information to be presented. As long as information is accurate we should feel free to include it. Just to restate by personal position -- I think that the discoverer should follow both the letter and spirit of the IAU position and be simply the "Cassini Imaging Science Team" with no individual (in any capacity, Team Leader or other) being named. If any one individual is named is any way in relation to these discoveries that ALL the relevant individuals should be named (certainly Charnoz, possibly Murray (no solid reference as yet) and Porco as Team leader if necessary) --after all this is Wikipedia and we don't necessarily have to toe the line of some "official" body or whatever is "common practice" among a small professional community as long as we're providing accurate information.  Syntaxis 13:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification from Carolyn Porco 

message: First, I would like to say that I agree with what Volcanopele has written about Med's reprehensible threats and attacks. Surely we all want to sort this dispute out as amicably as possible, but resorting to attacks that are ugly will not achieve this. Let's focus on the matter in hand and not become personal, as this is not only unprofessional it is not helpful.
Second, for reasons Carolyn explained, press releases are not reliable sources of information. If we all care about accurate information, then that means we care about *complete* information.  And mentioning Charnoz and Murray would be to mention only a small part of a very involved story, and therefore would be misleading and inaccurate.
But I have a suggested solution to this dispute.
Why don't we separate the discovery from the information about the team leader as this actually and symbolically disassociates the two? Porco's name would therefore be added as additional descriptive information about the Imaging Team, and nothing more. So the separation between the mention of the discovery and the fact that she leads the team should suffice.  We can do this as follows?
METHONE
It was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team [3][4] and given the temporary designation S/2004 S 1. Methone is also named Saturn XXXII. The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco.
PALLENE
It was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team [3][4] in 2004 and given the temporary designation S/2004 S 2. The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco.
POLYDEUCES
Polydeuces was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team and given the temporary designation S/2004 S 5. The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco.
:I agree to add Porco if you agree to add Murray/Charnoz stating they are the first to have seen Polydeuces/Pallene/Methone which is perfectly true and factual. Clear and simple. What you propose currently is just your own version unfortunately very misleading and inaccurate. If you cite Porco i want Murray/Charnoz to be cited, this is not negociable. However we can negociate as much as you want about the phrasing. I think my precedent try was very balanced stating the satellites were first seen by Murray/Charnoz (you can't deny this), and creditting the "Cassini imaging team led by carolyn porco". This would be: "Polydeuces was first seen by Carl Murray on 24 October 2004,[4],[3] and discovered in images taken on 21 October 2004 by the Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco" for the Polydeuces articles. Something along this line for Methone and Pallene.
:About attacks you make me laugh. May i remind you that someone pressured the BBC to erase the names of the discoverers. It is utterly unethical. I have not erased anyone name and i have not failed to credit anyone. Med 22:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you won't agree to Rebjon21's solution, then "Cassini Imaging Team" would have to be the attribution.  It would not be fair to cite Murray and Charnoz as the discoverers.  As far as attacks go, your continued insistence that someone "pressured" the BBC does not track and is not supported by evidence.  Insead, you insist that someone have "unfortunately consequences" for apparently "pressuring" the BBC.  I'm sorry, that is an attack.  As far as I can see, they were just correcting the article.  Finally, Carolyn Porco isn't being cited, not in the same way you want Murray and Charnoz to be cited.  It is simply stating that she is the leader of the group that discovered these satellites.  --Volcanopele 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing the leader of the group is of little to no interest in this article. In any case less interesting than the name of the person having seen it for the first time. I would encourage you to write a Cassini imaging team article where she would creditted though. About the BBC article, please don't take me for a fool. Syntaxis has already brought evidence that the BBC article has been modified. This is certainly not by accident that exactly the points that weakened your position got stripped. And i am not as sure as you that small arrangements with the reality are of no consequence. Med 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just compare the BBC correcting the attribution for the discovery of these satellites to the start of the Iraq War?  I'm sorry "The Cassini Imaging Team" is less interesting, but it is more correct.  --Volcanopele 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I compare them both as the reality got modified in both cases. The first ones having seen those satellites are Murray and Charnoz, period. I do not understand why you are so passionate about this point whereas the Cassini imaging team is properly creditted as you request. Med 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you agree to "The Cassini Imaging Team" and just the "The Cassini Imaging Team" --Volcanopele 23:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would of course prefer my proposed version citing the people who have seen those satellites the first while crediting the "Cassini imaging team led by carolyn porco", but i am fine with this if porco is not mentionned as the team leader as it would be unbalanced and inapproriate to cite only her. Now i am not the only one here. Syntaxis and hqb should give their approval too or propose something else before we can move on. Med 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be citing her (it would be inappropriate to mention Murray or Charnoz as the discoverers), but okay, whatever... --Volcanopele 23:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested solution to the dispute by Rebjon21 

message: The pages Pallene (moon), Methone (moon) and Polydeuces (moon) have been protected because of persistant edit warring and reverts.
I encourage involved users to edit the talk page, resolve their differences, and craft a common version which suits everybody. You are all grown scientists, you are intelligent enough to do this. Rama 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I am suggesting that we credit the discoveries of the moons to the Cassini Imaging Team. Period. In addition, and in a separate sentence that is totally unrelated to the discoveries, I suggest we add Carolyn's name as the leader of the Team as this is factually accurate and in no way distracts from or interferes with the preceding sentence relating to the discoveries of the moons. As for Med's vociferous response, I agree with Volcanopele that Med is being abusive. Volcanopele and I have calmly suggested that we try to resolve this dispute amicably, but clearly Med does not agree with us. Med is being totally unreasonable -- who is s/he to say 'this is not negotiable'?! Furthermore, the BBC wouldn't change something they knew was correct. Does Med take them for fools!??? Rama, can you please note that Med is behaving uncooperatively and erratically and that he or she is not helping us to resolve this dispute and in fact is escalating it by his or her attacks, which undermine not only the issue under discussion but the reputation of Wikipedia --Rebjon21 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be joking, right? I have tried to rephrase my proposition quite a few times trying to find a consensus. You (Rebjon21, not talking about volcanopele who has evolved) have not changed your position, wanting to keep the cassini imaging team (which is fine) and porco (which is not fine). If you prefer Porco in a separate sentence, i can certainly live with Murray/Charnoz in separate sentences too. What about "Polydeuces has been discovered by the Cassini imaging team. As part of this team led by Carolyn Porco, Carl Murray is the first to have seen this satellite". The team is clearly creditted. Porco is cited as the team leader and Murray is mentionned to have seen it the first (note that i do not use the word "discover"). I notice that for now i have agreed for way more changes than you. You are clearly less cooperative than i am. Med 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree. Simply changing an old article to conform with the correct convention is hardly unethical. Declaring that there will be consequences for those who asked for said corrections is, unfortunately. Fhqwhgads17 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What convention? Is there a convention stating that the people have first seen a satellite should never be mentionned (i do not say creditted)? But if there is no problem about this i don't see why anyone would bother that the competent authorities are told about those actions. Med 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Rebjon21, that's a great solution, in my view.  Common practice in popular media references for Cassini is to mention who leads a given instrument under discussion, but this fact is not always mentioned upon for reference to the instrument.  It seems reasonable to move the mention away from the discovery discussion to avoid confusion. CheshireCatCO 00:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And of course articles in the popular media are never used to promote something? I'm not critising here, science is generally publically funded and scientists need to get research grants to carry on their work. One way this is done is to attempt get 'name checks' whenever the media reports on a project/space mission/result etc. Its good for a team leader's public profile to always be named whenever "their" instrument is. However, while a practice might be common and understandable in the popular media it does not mean that it should be followed/permitted in a more exacting environment like peer reviewed scientific journals or unbiased web-based entities like Wikipedia. Syntaxis 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from Rebjon21 

message: By the way, i find weird that some people create new accounts just to defend Carolyn Porco's point. See Special:Contributions/CheshireCatCO, Special:Contributions/Fhqwhgads17 for instance. The first one having an IP from the University of Colorado… Med 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However as i have already told before, you are all welcome to add interesting informations and images related to Cassini. :) Med 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion has convinced me to get an account in order to join in.  So what?  I'm not Carolyn Porco, if that's what you're trying to suggest, nor am I Fhqwhgads17.  And that fact that these are coming of CU-Boulder is moot, is it not? CheshireCatCO 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of interest, how did you (Med) determine the IP address of a user account on Wikipedia? I wasn't aware that this information was readily accessible to ordinary Wikipedia users once a user had created a user account which hid a person's IP address in posts. So this seems to imply that you are in fact involved with Wikipedia, in which case you should be disqualified from this argument. In addition I wish to add that there is no good reason to add Charnoz and Murray, as they deserve no special distinction in the discovery of these moons above the other hardworking people on the imaging team.--Rebjon21 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New accounts 

message: I heard about this interesting story some time ago. Basically the main issues seem to be : what are the well-established facts, and who does deserve some or most of the credit; and, as a corollary, how Wikipedia should handle this issue. This is a sociologically interesting question, and I can certainly testify of it, having witnessed several hot discussions in some moderate/big scientific collaborations on some related issues (who will sign the discovery paper ? How will the author list be sorted ? and so on). In my own field, it is widely known that several CMB and Big Bang related issues are quite scarsely credited to the proper persons (for example almost everyone in the US forget, or at least used to forget citing Lemaître as one of the founders of the so-called Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric — see the WP entry for some very basic introduction to this issue). So regarding these moons, I have some factual questions
* Does anyone agree with the sentence "CM was the first to see Polydeuces (then named S/2004 S 5)" ? (same applies for the other moons, of course, possibly with a different author)
* Would the sentence "CM was the first to identify Polydeuces a as moon" be more accurate ?
* How crucial was CM in performing this step ? I mean : did he use some public software to discover the moon, or some software of his own, or anything else ?
* Would someone else (e.g., SC or CP) have made this final step equally easily ?
* Did some other person of the Cassini imagin team (or anyone else) process the same data before CM ?
* When CM suspected/knew Polydeuces to be a moon, did he confront his results with some other people of the Cassini imaging team (or other people) ? 
* Did these people agree with CM's conclusion, did they consider more investigations were necessary ?
* If so, who did investigate ?
* Once there was an agreement within the Cassini imaging team about the reality of the discovery (I presume there was), what happened ? Who did what ?
* Was any procedure regarding this situation already existing ?
* Was it followed ?
* Btw, who proposed the official moon name ?
Now, I have some more personal questions to Mrs Porco, if she happens to read this (and apologizing if this was already discussed somewhere) : what is your preferred option : citing the team only, you only, CM only, CM and the team, CM and you, you and the team, or both three ? In any case, how credit should be given ? Do you know CM's opinion on that matter ?
Alain r 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few unanswered questions 

message: In this case only the "Cassini Imaging Team" or "Cassini Imaging Science Team" will be referred to as the discoverer of Polydeuces, Pallene, Methone, and Daphnis.
====Votes====
#  --Volcanopele 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribute only the team

message: #  --Volcanopele 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: In this case the "Cassini Imaging Team" or "Cassini Imaging Science Team" will be referred to as the discoverer of Polydeuces, Pallene, Methone, and Daphnis, and either Carl Murray, Carolyn Porco, or Sébastien Charnoz will be described as having seen these moons first.
====Votes====
#Patteroast 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribute the team as well as either Carl Murray, Carolyn Porco, or Sébastien Charnoz

message: #Patteroast 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: See Talk:Pallene_(moon)#Proactivity. Urhixidur 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proactivity 

message: I've just uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything. :-) --Mangst (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia recording 

message: : ... Polydeuces' orbital radius also varies by about ± 7660 km with respect to Dione's.
Does this last phrase mean that the difference between P's and D's distances from Saturn varies by that much, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  orbit variation