Talk:IAU definition of planet

message: The first paragraph of section Criticism subsection Substance doesn't end well:
:...(snip Stern's criticism)... His own earlier work on neighbourhood clearing, however, supported the distinction between the largest eight planets and the rest of the solar system. There is a substantial difference in the extent to which the neighbourhood has been cleared between Pluto and the eight planets. Also, Pluto's position is due to the gravitational effects of Neptune as they are in orbital resonance.
The citation num  cites Stern's own work, but not any conclusion that his own work supports the "clearing the neighborhood" notion. An external citation/conclusion that his own work supports the idea of "clearing the neighborhood" is to be preferred, otherwise Wikipedia has an independent opinion, which is disallowed. The rebuttals are OK, but the text is written like WP have an opinion, so the text needs to be formulated: "Dr. Smith of University of Disponsin says to this that" ... Said: Rursus (☻) 08:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree. I will probably change this in the next several days. Ruslik (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one has, yet.96.225.212.89 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And ... not yet (09:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I (consciously) added a weasel wording in order to clarify that the sentences in question is an uncited rebuttal. Otherwise the occurrence of the two last sentences in the para occurs inexplicably, unexpectedly and illogically to confuse. The solution is bad but provisional in order to find a direct rebuttal to Stern's arguments. If we cannot find citations, the two last sentences are WP:original research and therefore Evil, detestable and generally inferior. On timeout, say 1 month (?), they should be removed. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, take a zanax. I swapped over some sourced info from Definition of planet, OK? Seriously. People are taking this whole thing way too personally. Serendipodous 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or ideologically. Now I'm trying to apply the WP ideology, make a defence for the Pro-IAU position (not mine actually!) by finding some reasonable source for the rebuttal against Sterns (and so mine) position. My real stand-point is for increasing the quality of Wikipedia, so in this I have temporarily changed my position. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Hupp! You removed it? But I found this source that possibly can constitute a rebuttal. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter, Browns rebuttal might suffice. Everything's fine and well! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A slight criticism of "Criticism"

message: While keeping an article that updates as the IAU revises the definition is sound in principle, many articles will link to the 2006 revision. A section that discusses the 2006 revision and which will not change names seems like a good idea. Numerous articles link to 2006 definition of a planet. While some articles are discussing the definition, many are discussing the revision.  It might be good to have a more specific target for the redirect.  As Wikipedians, we can recognized the value of revision histories. It might be good to keep a History of the definitions section and subsections for each formal revision.  At the worst, it is a curiosity – a record of the process of a scientific body. Novangelis (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The article reads like a history of the debate.  The section on the current definitions could easily stand on its own as a much shorter, much clearer article.  Papercrab (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision history as sections 

message: The statement "Before the discoveries of the early 21st century, astronomers had no real need for a formal definition for planets" is not quite true. As noted in Definition of planet, Ceres and others were originally called planets before being reclassified as asteroids as suggested by Herschel. Some rewording needed here? JQ (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we just say "Before the discoveries of the early 21st century, astronomers did not have a formal definition for the term planet" instead? --Ckatzchatspy 07:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herschel and asteroids 

message: The IAU specifying in 2006 that a spacial body must declutter its orbit to be classed as a planet raises issues in my opinion about whether or not Earth, which is surrounded by artificial space junk, can be called a planet when it is surrounded by manmade debris.  Hommedeterre1 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are not places to express opinions about issues raised by articles, only issues with the articles themselves. Serendipodous 18:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand the 'clearing the neighborhood' criterion. It doesn't require that a planet have nothing else anywhere near it, it requires that a large majority of the mass near it is dominated by the planet's gravity. Examples of an object being dominated by a planet's gravity include being trapped in orbit around the planet, or being forced into a resonant orbit like many Kuiper belt objects with Neptune, or being confined to small stable areas like the Trojan asteroids at Jupiter's Lagrangian points. After you set aside all cases such as those, then you consider all the uncontrolled objects crossing through a planet's orbital space and add up their mass. All the near-Earth asteroids added up are much less massive than the Earth itself. --Patteroast (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth not a planet? 

message: Is there a comparable definition of what a "moon" is? Given the large and growing population of "moons" in the Solar System, I think it might be useful. I was thinking of something like in the following table:
                              	orbits star directly         	orbits something else
Stern-Levison parameter > 1   	Planet                       	Moon (quasiplanet)
Stern-Levison parameter < 1   	Dwarf planet                 	Moon
Too small to be in equilibrium	Smaller (Solar) System Object	Satellite
The Stern-Levison parameter for a moon would be calculated assuming the moon orbited the star in the orbit of its primary. The definition of "quasiplanet" might be useful for exoplanets, since a habitable object could be a planet orbiting the star or a quasiplanet orbiting a gas giant orbiting the star.
Any idea whether anybody in the astronomical community proposed something like this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of ''moon''? 

message: I found the IAU question and answers form very confusing. Seen here: http://www.iau.org/public_press/news/release/iau0601/q_answers/ 
There is a questions: Is Pluto a planet? They answer clearly 'Yes'. They then said they are merely sub classifying pluto, as in this instance a 'dwarf planet'. With this in mind, nothing has really changed.
So when you talk about the planets in the solar system. Pluto is a planet and if you're an enthusiast you might say it's not a classical planet. [The last sentences of this discussion are wrong: there was a specific vote at the 2006 IAU General Assembly whether to define "classical planet" so as to have terms in parallel with "dwarf planet" but the proposal was voted down.  So "dwarf planets" are not planets, according to the IAU.  Exoplanets haven't been dealt with yet; they are also not technically "planets" by the IAU definition of "planet."] Clever wording by the IAU, but cultural definitions, history and context should have more impact on what people perceive and call things. A great example is how everyone calls Big Ben, in London, 'Big Ben'. Yet if you're an enthusiastic historian or local enthusiast you would inform others that it's the bell that's called Big Ben, not the Elizabeth Tower. However, if an International Clocktower Union of 8000 members announced from this day hence forth it will now be known as Elizabeth Tower on all postcards, well you get the drift, it wouldn't happen. 
I think it's another typical case of wikipedia allowing the enthusiasts dictatorial rights over the content that has cultural significance. You can't change history, Pluto is a planet and the IAU agree, where is the debate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.94.12 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The IAU did say that people did not have to adhere to their view on a Planet.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The Q&A that you link to is _not_ associated with the IAU resolution that created the "Dwarf Planets".  Instead, it is associated with an earlier draft proposal, in which Pluto, Charon and Eris were all classified as Planets.  (See the section "Draft proposal" in this wikipedia article.)  Bluap (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto is a planet, says the IAU 

message: :
How could they know that?  Perhaps knew should be thought it likely?
:
This seems to say that New Horizons found that Eris was living under a pseudonym. What did it really intend to say? —Tamfang (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the first; seems the second had already been fixed. Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  a couple of questions of wording 

message: Per wikipedia article IAU Definition of a Planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euler_diagram_of_solar_system_bodies.svg
According to the IAU Euler Diagram, the Trans-Neptunian Objects category does NOT overlap the Planets category.   Therefore, if Planet Nine is indeed Earth-sized or much larger,  there would be a true Planet in the Trans-Neptunian objects category, requiring the Euler diagram to change, expanding Trans-Neptunian objects category to overlap into Planets.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/ (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But not a problem as long as Planet Nine is not known to exist. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAU Euler Diagram 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on IAU definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916161707/http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html to http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IAU definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125225956/http://www.plutopetition.com/unplanet.php to http://www.plutopetition.com/unplanet.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103145836/http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html to http://www.iau.org/iau0603.414.0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on IAU definition of planet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908092735/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/wherein_i_argue.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/wherein_i_argue.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830102430/http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Aug/hour2_081806.html to http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Aug/hour2_081806.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517055803/http://www.playfuls.com/news_001938_Geologists_Force_Astronomers_To_Rethink_Pluto_Plan.html to http://www.playfuls.com/news_001938_Geologists_Force_Astronomers_To_Rethink_Pluto_Plan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094000/http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_4210195 to http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_4210195
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830191831/http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1193282.php/Astronomers_divided_over_planet_definition to http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1193282.php/Astronomers_divided_over_planet_definition
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208140503/http://www.astronomy2006.com/media-stream-archive.php to http://www.astronomy2006.com/media-stream-archive.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What the heck is with this, by User:Kwamikagami on August 18, 2021‎ ? Such horrible language to casually make! WHO KNOWS THIS?! I don't know this. I've never heard that argued once. WHERE in Mercury_(planet) does it say anything about this "now known" thing?! 
: However, it is now known that Mercury does not meet criterion #2, but is nonetheless universally considered to be a planet.Sean Solomon, Larry Nittler & Brian Anderson, eds. (2018) Mercury: The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge Planetary Science series no. 21, Cambridge University Press, pp. 72–73.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs) 08:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (the OP): You might like to take a look at the discussion at Talk:List of possible dwarf planets#Mercury. The relevant quote from the source is given there. Double sharp (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text: It looks to me to be "original research". Unless an expert publicly connects this research to the IAU definition, describing if or how the definition would need adjusting to be consistent with these details, it just adds unnecessary confusion to this article. It should be REMOVED from this article, unless as a note and crosslinked to a statement in the Mercury article. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you, after thinking about it for a few weeks. Even a note kind of has trouble, though, because I have (still) not found any source explaining this difference between HE in the IAU definition (which actual astronomers voted for) and HE in the really strict sense that excludes Iapetus for having the wrong spin (despite being obviously round). So I don't see how to write such a note without OR. Double sharp (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is now known that Mercury does not meet criterion 2???