Talk:Planet/Archive 2

message: Should we move this page to, or create a new page entitled, "Planet (IAU definition)", covering the IAU definition, and use this page or another page to discuss general and cultural definitions of planet? I think so.
For separation of IAU definitions and general definitions of planet onto separate articles
#  —  Rickyrab | Talk 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page move/ creation of new page 

message: Rememere there is already an article Definition of planet   Andreas   (T) 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: People, the solution to all of this is simple: add every point of view to the article without stating any of them as dominant. It doesn't matter (and I use that phrase loosely) which opinion is dominant, which is generally accepted, who are the people who decide these things, weather this article is scientific or cultural, or any of that. Just add EVERYTHING to the article in the proper fashion, without making any POV dominant. - 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will have to wait at least for another month to see what universities, school boards, dictionaries, encyclopedias, the press etc have to say. IAU's vote changed things dramatically, it is not possible for the moment to determine which POV is dominanat, which is notable etc.   Andreas   (T) 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the IAU did not change things much for planetary scientists. As usual, it's the public who's hasn't kept up to date. The "new" definition is just an official version of the basic definition planetary scientists have understood for a long time. --Aelffin 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Solution! 

message: Since they never HAVE accepted any astronomical definition of planet, whatever they may or may not think of the Pluto definiton is irrelevant. Serendipodous 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah the changes look very good, but that doesn't mean the discussions should just stop! — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Astrologers already consider the Sun and Moon planets

message: The 2006 definition only applies to bodies in the Solar System. But this article applies it as a general rule. We should reintegrate the 2003 definition of an extrasolar planet into the body of the article, and especially the introduction. As the 2006 definition defines minimums, and the 2003 definition defines maximums, and both exclude planets that aren't orbitting a star, that also handles the free floating planet bit. 132.205.45.148 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I can't recall where, but I believe the IAU specifically mentioned that this definition deals only with our own solar system. --Aelffin 07:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The IAU definition does apply only to our Solar System.  The first criterion of the definition actually states "(a) is in orbit around the Sun" and not "(a) is in orbit around a star or stellar remnants;" as stated in the article (see http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html).  As far as I know there is no current definition for extra-solar planets.  I think that the introduction to this article should be broader so as to include other types of planet (since the definition of solar planets is clearly only a subset of what planets are) and that we should deal with the various definitions of planet in their own section.    And we should get the definitions right.  Thoughts? T.scrace 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * In accordance with what I just said I have moved the IAU definition for Solar Planets to the section on Solar Planets (which is where it belongs I think)and reinstated the more general introduction to the article.  I have also corrected the IAU definition's first criterion. T.scrace 12:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of planet - missing definition 

message: But if there is, it's not coming to me.  Thoughts? Nfitz 04:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There must be a better name for the "Historical planets and other candidates" Section 

message: This may be useful in our discussion of the planets page. This link is to a diagram of the planets on the IAU site:
IAU Planet Diagram
As you notice there are two types of planets, "Planets" and "Dwarf Planets." If it can be used, the diagram should be placed on the Planet page.
Just trying to be of help,
Bryan27
Wow I love that picture! I never realised how tiny pluto was incompared to the other plantes!
I just found this other picture , that seems to be the partner to the first image. The first image shows the relative sizes of the planets, but not relative distances, and this image shows relative distances of the planets. I think by showing this image, we would show the scale of the solar system. -220.237.166.69 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IAU Diagram of the planets

message: http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=8707&cat=a
Never let it be said I didn't change my opinion in light of new information.
Argyrios 04:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly, I can't seem to reach the page, so I don't know what it says! — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOW we have a controversy 

message: I noticed that my edit was reverted, because The Enlightened's own original comments were "true". It seems pointless to re-revert but.... T.E said that pluto was originally thought to be bigger than earth and was "thus" included as a planet, as if it was then accepted that pluto was bigger than earth and that this was the reason for its inclusion. But where is the historical basis for this? How do we actually know that the true size was not at least contemplated, or even if it wasn't, that Pluto would not have been accepted  had it's true size been known? It appears that historical revisionism is at play, just inventing a version of history to make a present political point. Of course this could be studied carefully as a serious historical question,if worth the effort, but I doubt that the enlightened ever did so. By the way I don't care if Pluto is planet or not, but let's be careful with the (historical)facts.
:A fair point. I'm pretty certain that the believed size was the reason for its inclusion. But this is of course pretty tough to be referenced. I think the information should still be included about the belief about its size. How about using "it was accepted as a planet *after* it was originally believed to be larger than the Earth"? That should take the point of view out. I'll try to find a reference for the originally size thing. The Enlightened 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea if Pluto was thought of as bigger than Earth, but I know it was thought of as bigger than Mercury, as I remember seeing it listed as such in an old book or two.  Now, it was estimated, or even "guessed" at that size, but it was listed as larger than Mercury. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the enligtened an expert on astronomy or a historian? 

message: Hey wait a minute...if Pluto is a "Dwarf Planet" and the usual rules of grammar are to apply then it is also a "Planet"...so what is all the fuss about?
:Yeah, you would think by the language issue that a dwarf planet was a type of planet but this is one of those instances where its not. It was made clear in the resolutions that dwarf planets are a "distinct" classification. The Enlightened 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then once again, I ask - why wouldn't those issuing the press release have called it a dwarf-planet rather than a dwarf planet?  Were they illiterate, or was it intended that a dwarf planet is a type of a planet; I'd assume any group that many academics knows the very basic rules of grammar! Nfitz 19:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is the way they voted on the resolutions. If the second resolution was passed (which it wasn't) then they would have added the term "classical" before planet into the first, meaning there would have been "classical planets" and "dwarf planets" and that thus both would have implicitly been different types of planet. Because it wasn't adopted the big eight were just "planets" and the rest were a distinct class of dwarf planets. Its not completely unusual in the English language - Pennsylvanian Dutch is actually distinct from Dutch. There are better examples but none are springing to mind. The Enlightened 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious example is minor planets, which are not planets either. 'Dwarf planet', as used in the IAU definition is a compound noun. --Cuddlyopedia 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Dwarf" an adjective? 

message: in Greek an Roman mythology, natural objects and phenomena have associated gods, often of the same name (see Animism). This means that the goddess Terra was named after the name of the Earth, terra, that also means soil or land. The Greek word γαῖα or γῆ has the same meaning; the form γαῖα is the older one used in Homeric Greek, whereas γῆ is the same in the Attic dialect (considered the dominant accent of Classical Greek). In Modern Greek it is spelled γή᾽᾽(only the accent has changed). Thus, the latin names sol, luna, terra are the names of the objects themselves, whereas Mercurius, Mars etc. are indeed Gods who gave their names to the objects.   Andreas   (T) 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's still probably true, you're arguing for the Latin but using the Greek as the example.  Isn't that fallacious? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe my formulatin was not ideal. My arguments hold for both Latin and Greek. The goddess "Gaia" was named after the name of the Earth, gaia/ge, that also means soil or land. The Greek names helois, selene, ge are the names of the objects themselves, whereas Hermes, Ares etc. are indeed Gods who gave their names to the objects. I deleted the word "deity" from the sentence referring to Rome an now also deleted "goddess" from the sentence about Greece.   Andreas   (T) 14:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs tidying up. On a related topic, I do not recall that the Romans "took" the Greek gods for themselves and gave them new names (that seems rather improbable anyway). As I recall, the Romans and the Greeks, being Indo-Europeans, both worshipped the same Indo-European pantheon under different names, and the Romans appropriated the Greek myths, rather than the gods themselves. Serendipodous 15:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godess Earth 

message: One thing I do not understand about this kerfuffle about "NPOV" as regards a definition of planet. The IAU's definition is the officially agreed scientific definition. What other definitions do there need to be? Should we mention the astrologers' definition, which includes the Sun and the Moon and excludes the Earth? Should we mention that some tribes in isolated spots in the jungles of South America still define planets as flying gods? At what point does a POV become neutral? Serendipodous 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there should be a separate page for Planet (Astronomy) and Planet (Astrology)? Despite astrology being absolute nonsense as far as I'm concerned there are a lot of people interested in it and it deserves coverage. The Enlightened 17:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a page for planets in astrology, which is one reason I'm confused about people wanting to air astrologers' opinions in this article. Serendipodous 18:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it quite clear that the IAU's definition of planet is the offical definition, then it should be simple enough to simply state that there are 8 planets, without using the word "official" everywhere - it should appear in the article only once, at most.  To do more so, implies there are dissenting opinions, that only leads to question that officialdom of the position (i.e. the lady doth protest too much defence). Nfitz 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem still remains, folks: the "official" definition is not everyone's definition, and the problem is not limited to astrologers. The general public and science fiction have ideas of what a "planet" is as well, and it does not necessarily coincide with what scientists consider a planet. Yes, there are dissenting opinions, and since astrologers also constitute bodies of people (albeit not genuine scientists, and those bodies adhere to opinions of their own, that makes those opinions official for those bodies. Ergo, it follows that there is more than one "official" definition out there if those astrologers have separate official definitions. 68.44.179.40 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is an article for planets in science fiction Serendipodous 09:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But planets in science fiction that would not fit under the current definition would only be because they were written before the new definition was adopted. The general publics opinion I find to be somewhat invalid because I would suspect most of them only consider Pluto a planet because they have not heard the news. If you asked them "how many planets are there?" you might get a lot of "nine" answers, but if you showed them a news article about the IAU pronouncement I suspect most of them would say "eight". You wouldnt get too many going "well the IAU is just the IAU, i still recognise 9." I still think the best term to use would be "the official scientific definition" or "the official astronomical definition" as thats what most people will be looking to find and it should be made clear that, despite people wanting to get it change the official definition is well official. You can later mention that some think there are cultural issues and astrologers think differently, with a link to the astrology page.The Enlightened 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be great, if the "official" definition made any logical sense.  I am starting think that Wikipedians have a better handle on the definition then the "experts" do.  After all they are just Astronomers, not experts in categorization like we are. :) --Britcom 09:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official definition

message: I moved the difinition section up to avoid repetition so that the definition controversy is removed from the lead section. I would also think that the etymology nd category sections should be moved higher up, and the formation section further down.   Andreas   (T) 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize 

message: Don't forget that scientists aren't even the only folks that affect textbooks, either. If people make enough noise, then activists >>>>textbook publishers>>>> children (remember the hoopla over intelligent design?), and children also learn the activists' definitions. If a popular unofficial classification of "planet" evolves, then textbook makers will also need to make decisions concerning unofficial classifications of "planet". —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ID is an unsound scientific theory. Apples and oranges. WhoMe? 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ID is as sound as string theory currently is.  ID and Macro Evolution are "theories", not laws. Genetics is well on the way to proving ID. The code loaded into DNA/RNA didn't write itself, it had an intelligent author/programmer.--Britcom 09:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point Rickyrab was making is that it is not recognised as such by the mainstream scientific community, but lets not rehash that old debate here.The Enlightened 11:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing previous precedent is important, but I have no desire to debate the issue here.  I intentionally stuck my head in the sand and avoided the entire debate over ID.  I'd rather the articles be biased than get involved in that mess.  As for the original point made above, a so-called unoffical defintion can be quite popular and have more influence than any so-called official designation.  The discussion of ID is a distraction from this point.  Unlike ID, in this case what is being discussed is not a theory, but the definition of a word.  The meaning of words is inherently cultural and thus can continuously change in meaning depending on who is doing the talking and so forth. The IAU, or more closely a group of less than 500 persons, has effectively changed the definition of a word.  That's a lot of power for such a small number of persons, no matter their qualifications. The fact that it is at least internationally recognized as important/official at least keeps this from being a very dangerous precedent. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular unofficial definitions