Talk:IAU definition of planet

See /Archive 1

Binary planet

Here's a good link, which others might think worthy of inclusion: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060816_planet_qanda.html

According to that site, "dwarf planet" is not an IAU definition. This article erroneously leaves the impression that it is.

UTC, apparently Charon and Pluto rotate around each other. Put another way, the center of Charon's orbit is not within the body of Pluto. By contrast, the center of Earth's Moon's orbit is within the Earth, the center of Ganymede's orbit is within Jupiter, etc. --Turtle Falcon 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Charon

I'm no astronomer, but is or is not Charon a satellite of Pluto?

By this proposal, Charon and Pluto are a double planet, that is, two planets orbitting each other Nik42 20:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that Charon does not rotate arround Pluto, the center of rotation is equidistant between both planets.Dr. Guillermo A. Sanz-Berney 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The centre of rotation is not equidistant between both planets, although it is in the space between both planets. --thirty-seven 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right they would have to have the same mass to explain an equidistant barycenter Dr. Guillermo A. Sanz-Berney 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though Charon may be classified as a "new" planet, what about the system's recently discovered two small moons, because I would find it extremely outragious for a double planet system both orbiting in the same orbit and having two moons. Alastor Moody _(talk) 22:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why outrageous? If Nix and Hydra orbit the common barycenter of both Pluto and Charon, and since both Nix and Hydra cannot be spheriodal due to their mass, they are, according to the definiton, moons of both Pluto and Charon. Tachyon01 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that what they need to do is figure out exaclty where the center of rotation is between the two planets. If it is closer to Pluto than Charon, which it probably is becuase pluto is the bigger planet, then, I personally would say what Pluto is a planet and Charon is it's moon. But, of course I am no IAU, and okay I'll let my bias out... I like the idea of UB313 becoming a planet, and I don't mind if Ceres joins either, but I don't like the idea of Charon becoming a planet... I just don't. If this happends then the other 41 found so far have to join too and we've just got ourselves a big mess, in my opinoin. Not to mention re-adding Vesta, Pallas and that fourth one, I can't remember the name. I know they haven't voted yet, but I'm just respoding to with initial reactions. and I also love odd numbers, nine or eleven planets sounds good. (but that's completely subjective for me).Omnibusprogression 11:23, 16 August 2006 (PST)

Ceres is substantially larger than Pallas and Vesta. It is not obvious that they meet the criterion of sufficient self-rounding. Dragons flight 07:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's possible for planets in a Binary system to have their own moons. Once the centre of rotation is below the surface of the planet, it's a moon of that Planet. So, if the moons' centre of rotation are beneath Pluto's surface(which I believe it is), then they will be moons of Pluto.Eccentricned 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional questions, Why aren't Nix and Hydra considered planets? (sure they might not have the Hydrostatic equilibrium, but indulge me for a moment) I guess they could each be considered moons of Pluto and Charon, because the barycenter of the Pluto-Charon double planet and nix is within the bounds of the pluto-charon orbits, but similar things happen in star systems too ternary star, and they don't cease calling binary stars binary just because they orbit like a planet would? McKay 03:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The lack of evidence, mainly. If we can find that Nix and Hydra maintain hydrostatic equilibrium AND that the barycenter of the moon falls outside both the surface of Pluto and Charon, then we are forced to concede that it's a polyplanetary system. This doesn't sound bad, this sounds really awesome. Pluto's always been the weird one, and we found a reason to make it weirder. Echternacht 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nix and Hydra will never be considered planets. They are ridiculously small, and are nowhere near the definition of a "planet." Hydrostatic equilibrium is NOT merely a spherical shape, but is specifically a spherical shape maintained by a mass large enough to overcome rigid-body forces by means of its own gravity. This means that a small object that just randomly happens to be spheroidal is not a "planet." Only objects approximately 500-800 km or lager (depending on their chemical composition and temperature), can qualify as planets. As for the other question, what body do they rotate, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to state whether they should probably orbit the Pluto-Charon barycenter or a different barycenter beneath Pluto's surface, but in either case, they are not a "multi-planetary system," because that would imply they are all planets. If their barycenters are all in space, hypothetically speaking, then the whole thing could be described as a multi-body planetary system, consisting of a binary planetary system and additional non-planetary bodies or KBOs. However, it seems apparent to me from the information being published that the barycenters of Nix and Hydra are probably inside of Pluto, making this question moot--Supersexyspacemonkey 06:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite get this, but thanks for the clarification. Like I said before, "If..." I see no overwhelming evidence to make Nix and Hydra planets, but we won't know until we get more information. Echternacht 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Better name

This article probably needs a better name, feel free to come up with one ... Cyde Weys 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply merging it with Definition of planet Nik42 20:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a current IAU definition? I thought that's what this is about - that there isn't one. If I'm on the right track, maybe IAU definition of planet? --Elliskev 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, there is no current definition of what a 'planet' actually is. I agree with Nik42 in that this article be better suited as part of the larger definition of planet article. Tachyon01 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think that the split was a good idea in theory, but in practice a section in definition of planet will eventually be reduced and the rest of the article will be rewritten to encompass anything that could be here. Sorry, Cyde Weys, but I think it might be time for a poll. --Elliskev 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a previous IAU definition, though it was issued in 2001 (and modified in 2003) with a caution that it was only a "working definition applicable to the cases where there already are claimed detections..." http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html

Also, I believe it best to keep this article separate for now. If the draft definition is voted down, this separate article will be quite justified. Bustter 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article should remain separate regardless of the decision of the IAU. This is not an article about the definition of a planet, but rather an article about an event. For now, the article is about a current event. And if the draft definition is voted for, then this article will be about a historic event, and an important one too. Harperska 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Moon

I read on the Bad Astronomy Blog that, given the Moon's rate of drift away from the Earth, in 40 million years it will classify as a planet under these new guidelines because the center of mass of the combined system will no longer be within the Earth's interior. This might go into the article at some point (if it's true!). --Cyde Weys 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The EM barycentre will "erupt" from the Earth when the EM distance is about 520000km. Current distance is 384000km. At the rate of 4.4cm/year, this is something like 3.5 billion years. Probably a bit longer, since the rate will decrease. In any event, even if it did occur in 40 million years, it would only highlight the arbitrariness of the definition. A better "double planet" definition should reflect dynamics: tidal lock comes to mind. Someone notify IAU! mdf 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They could just redefine it in 3.5 billion years...if they and we are still around ;) Mucus 02:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• While it is true that the Moon's orbit is growing by 4 cm a year, the Earth-Moon center of mass is moving at only 1/81 of that (the center of mass is 81 times closer to Earth than the Moon). The center of mass will on average be outside Earth’s surface only when the Moon reaches average distance of 81 Earth radii, which may not occur for several billion years. Tachyon01 22:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Under other Double planet definitions the Earth-Moon System already qualifies as a double planet as the moon does not double back on its orbit. I like the offered definition and it makes sense... if the barycentre does rise above the earth's surface then it should no longer be a moon... as it is technically not orbiting the earth... but rather an empty position is space.

Indeed, far from "highlighting the arbitrariness of the definition," any indignation towards the possibility of the moon becoming a planet in several million years time highlights the arbitrariness of those opposed to the new definition. The solar system evolves, and things change, especially over millions of years. If the moon no longer orbits a point within the earth, then it no longer orbits the earth, and it is a planet, like it or not, and insisting that it should remain our "moon" forever and ever until the end of time is just sticking one's head in the sand, and is an irrational sentiment, comparable to arguing that the sun will never become a red giant and consume the inner planets. Let facts be facts, even if our paradigms of reality are forced to change in order to assimilate those facts.--Supersexyspacemonkey 06:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "double back on its orbit"? Huh? --Cyde Weys 06:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As in when its orbit is traced from above... it doesnt move backwards at any point... say if our moon had alot faster orbit... it would double back on its orbit as the Earth-Moon System was moving slower than the orbital speed... Interestingly Pluto-Charon does double back on its orbit... if a draft was made with this as the guideline, we would become the double planet :P

Future event

Would everyone please keep in mind that this is merely a proposed definition being put to wider IAU vote, and not yet an accepted definition. Dragons flight 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A new subsection for "Definition of planet"

Will someone please rewrite the end of Definition of Planet to accommodate the fact that it no longer has its subsection? Serendipodous 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for botching up the transfer and not copying the pictures too. Thanks for fixing that. jaco♫plane 20:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I feel like this section has been hijacked. There's no point in Definition of planet linking to the 2006 redefinition of planet if it doesn't actually mention the 2006 redefinition anymore. And if it isn't going to discuss the IAU debate, than what, pray, is it for?

You know what? I'm putting it back. I don't care about duplication. Right now, DoP NEEDS this section. I did not write that section to be its own article; I wrote it to follow on from what I had already written in the DoP article. If another article uses the subsection, that's fine, but I'm not simply getting rid of it. Not yet. When the definition is voted on and finalised, DoP will, of necessity, be completely redrafted from beginning to end, and when that happens, the subsection will probably go. But not until then. Serendipodous 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That basically brings up the entire problem with wanting to choose what information goes in which article and how many articles we need: Whichever way the IAU ends up voting, both articles will probably have to be thoroughly revised and then we can decide what is repetitive. Right now we've got an article for the definition (which, if the IAU votes against, will probably have to be deleted), and another for the debate which will stay if the draft is voted down and probably be merged if the draft is accepted. We still need to see what the official decision is. Tonberry King 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition question

Can someone write in an explination of "has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces". My guess in my own feeble mind is that it has to contain enough mass for its gravity to force itself to become spherical. Is this the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.168.113 (talk • contribs)

That's an excellent suggestion. I was thinking that the article may lean to the too-technical side language-wise. --Elliskev 22:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, your suggestion is correct - the slightly awkward part is (AFAIK) it depends on the material the object is made from - some objects require less mass to overcome the rigid body forces to become round than others simply because they are not so rigid, so some "planets" would be smaller than other non-planets simply because they are more pliable. So if an explanation is given, should it include this (if that is correct?) Neilljones 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My guess in my own feeble mind is that it has to contain enough mass for its gravity to force itself to become spherical. That's more-or-less correct. There's a slight caviat, in that the planet's rotation causes the equilibrium shape to be slightly non-spherical, but the difference is (usually) minor. Bluap 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to Planet

Am I just missing it? There are links to double planets and dwarf planets but not to plain planets. --hydnjo talk 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed that problem quite nicely. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should try to be a teensy bit more understandable to your average lay-idiot, such as myself. 68.49.18.12 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The article should probably link to all the planets listed in the images too, which are 2003 UB₃₁₃, "Xena", Charon, Ceres, 2003 EL₆₁, 2005 FY₉, Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, 2002 TX₃₀₀, 2002 AW₁₉₇, Varuna, Ixion, Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea. Janizary 00:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Redefinition"?

Is this really a "redefinition"? There is no formal scientific definition to speak of. SYSS Mouse 01:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is an atempted definition in the Wikipedia article that was established in 2005. That definition went by "is it round", but with that definition one could argue that there are 53 planets. User:mustang6172

• But there is no current IAU definition of the term "planet" it has always been vague (Latin or Greek for wonderer I believe). This is a proposal to formally define the term "Planet" for the IAU. myork 12:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say, I agree that this is a redefinition of the word Planet. The previous definition was: ...heavenly bodies that orbit a star... So if this definition has changed at all it should be known as a redefinition.

Also, the suggestion made to merge this article with definition of planet is a very good idea. Though, since at the current time it is news, I suggest the article remain a seperate article till the definition is accepted around the globe, when it is no longer news.

456 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you repeat your last sentences at the appropriate place? Thanks. Nick Mks 16:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we just keep calling it a redefinition because, as far as I know, that's what the IAU and the press in general are calling it. That's what people know it as, whether or not the name is 100% accurate. Tonberry King 20:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jupiter

Couldn't one aruge that Jupiter (or any Gas Giant) isn't a planet because with out its atmosphere, it's nothing more than a few asteroids and comets? user:mustang6172

• • I'm assuiming Jupiter has a core and the enormous amount of gravity that it has that this core is rounded nicely. :p --Firebird 05:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just wow ... I don't know why you seem to think that Jupiter is just asteroids and comets with an atmosphere, but that's totally not true. Please see Jupiter for more information. Also our Sun is nothing more than an "atmosphere" by your words anyway ... so if you just take that away there's nothing left, right? The usage of the word atmosphere is very misleading when the gas we're talking about is actually the majority of the object's mass. It's not insignificant like the Earth's atmosphere and you can't just discard it; it's intrinsic to the nature of the object. --Cyde Weys 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One couldn't really argue that Jupiter, or any Gas giant rather. They satisfy both requirements of planets, and as well do not have sufficient mass to undergo hydrogen fusion. As to it being nothing but atmosphere, the proposed definition does not distinguish the composition of the planet. It can be made of silly putty and it'll be a planet. Echternacht 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read over the article on Jupiter, and it confirmed what I already knew: Jupiter has a small, rocky core. That's the "asteroids and comets" I was refering to. Though I was suprised to learn it has a large magnetosphere (that being indicitive of a liquid iron core). The reason I started to question the planetyary status of the gas giants is that I heard an astronomer say that Pluto shouldn't be a planet because most of its mass and volume is frozen methane. User:mustang6172

That astronomer is wrong. Mass is mass, it doesn't matter what it's made from. Frozen Methane wouldn't be atmosphere anyway, it's solid.Eccentricned 03:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Metallic hydrogen drives Jupiter's field, not iron. Dragons flight 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The large magnetosphere of Jupiter is not just caused by an internal property, read. Echternacht 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Jupiter has a rocky core... due to the atmospheric pressure at lower depths the gas becomes compressed into a liquid and finally a solid, descending trhough the atmosphere it would seem a seamless transition hard to define where the "liquid" and "solid" areas begin.

No. The cores are MUCH bigger than asteroids or comets. Even supposing, for the sake of argument, that atmosphere shouldn't count, the statement "small rocky core" is erroneous (or at least it's misleading). It is believed that Jupiter's rocky core is several times larger than the earth, and would be a massive terrestrial planet even if it had no atmosphere. The same is true of the rocky and icy cores of the other gas giants. So no, you could not argue that! ;^) --Supersexyspacemonkey 06:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you'd be paring away the layers of an onion. The liquid and solid inner layers are there because of the weight of the gas above them. As soon as you strip off everything above a certain layer, that layer would no longer be under as much pressure and would volatilize, driving the new boundary layer inward and eliminating some more mass from the core. Eventually, you'd strip all of the "atmosphere" away, and there'd be nothing left. Or so my intuition tells me.... :) -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 08:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could it be argued that seeing the Jupiter-Sun barycentre is above the surface of the sun... following the same principle as the double-planet one... Our Solar System is a Binary System with the Sun and a sub-stellar binary (Jupiter), even so, with this definition, Jupiters Moon's would still be moons and not planets as they do not orbit a fusor. This isnt an attack on teh IAU proposal (Im for it)... but its an interesting point!

Stripping Jupiter

Jupiter would be a planet no matter what you did to its atmosphere. Its iron-silicate core is about 15 Earth masses; this can be calculated from the planet's oblateness and rotation rate (1). This core is surrounded by liquid metallic hydrogen, then liquid molecular hydrogen, which reaches up to the base of the gaseous hydrogen-helium atmosphere (about 20,000 km below the cloudtops) (1), (2). I had heard speculation that Jupiter may contain large amounts of compressed carbon in the form of diamond, but I started looking into it and the reality is even more interesting: Jupiter may contain "liquid diamond". According to a paper simply called "Phase diagram of carbon at high pressures and temperatures" by Matthew P. Grumbach and Ricard M. Martin, 8 Nov 1996. (journal not known), carbon in Jupiter remains liquid because though the pressures are plenty high for the solid diamond-phase to exist, the temperatures are far *too* high. The carbon melt would be a mixture of two-, three-, and four-fold coordinated atoms depending on the local pressure & temperature (3)pdf. So, if you started vaporizing the outer layers of atmosphere, assuming the internal temperature stayed the same, I suppose you'd get a bunch of amorphous glassy carbon or, if you did it slowly enough for a lattice to form, you'd get graphite. Of course, this would be a tiny amount compared with all the hydrogen and helium, but it'd still be enough to wreak havoc on the pencil industry and you'd have plenty of other wierd phase changes going on in the ammonia and methane component of the atmosphere. If you kept stripping the atmosphere then eventually, the surface pressures would decrease until the various liquid hydrogen phases become gaseous and, finally, the rocky surface would be exposed with further stripping. According to (1), Jupiter radiates lots of excess of heat thought to be leftover from its formation, which suggests to me that the planet we're left with would be highly tectonic. This would be further aggrevated by the release of its atomspheric overburden, probably causing rapid liquification of previously solid silicates in the outer crust, so the end result would be a giant ball of rock with lots of volcanoes. Without knowing the radius of this "core" we can't calculate the surface gravity, but at 15 M_e, it would certainly be extreme. Okay, that's the end of my semi-off-topic speculation. --Aelffin 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not 12 Planets?

This sentence in the article "Despite what has been claimed in the media, this proposal does not automatically leave our solar system with 12 planets." seems to be completely wrong, if the new definition is passed there will immediately be 12 planets! Can someone explain why this sentence is in the article? If no-one can think on a logical reason to keep it, I'll remove it. --Hibernian 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the intended meaning was: "Despite what has been claimed in the media, this proposal does not automatically limit our solar system to 12 planets." --Vibragiel 14:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Which makes no sense at all, no definition would ever impose such limit. It's like making a law that says PI is exactly 3.14. Wouter Lievens 12:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the point. When I wrote that section, I was responding to the media, not to the IAU's definition. Radio, television and internet news sources were reporting that the definition meant our solar system had 12 planets, and leaving it at that. This misinformation needs to be clarified. Serendipodous 12:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Related, on the sentence "Another criticism is that the proposal will lead to too many new planets: while only twelve are currently known to match the new definition, this number is almost certain to increase, and may reach 54 or even more", could this concern not be immediately addresses by adding to the definition an orbit with a limited eccentricity, specifically that it does not come closer to the sun than an inferior (closer) planet. (Yes, I know this would demote Pluto officially, but I'd rather lose one Pluto than gain 43 others!) 72.83.112.110 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for them to discover a KBO that is the size of Mars, and to then hear the anti-new-planets people still arguing that size is irrelevant and it should be classed as a "trans-neptunian object" and a "minor body" simply because of its orbital characteristics. Come on! We need a standard, universal definition of a planet (like the one proposed), which is based on a body's physical charactersitics and not where it is located, and then, no matter how many of said objects we find, we must call them all planets, because that is the nature of science and discovery: finding more stuff in the universe. Limiting planets to orbital inclination and eccentricity is like saying that feathered animal species from North America are called "birds," but those in Asia are "minor birds" or "trans-North-American feathered animals" because there are too many species of bird in North America and we don't want to recognize there being any more of them! If it looks like a planet, then it is a planet, screw the number! And increasing that number to 50 or a hundred or to 200 won't makes planets any less "special," when compared to tens if not hundreds of THOUSANDS of minor bodies--Supersexyspacemonkey 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to see a KBO the size of Mars not qualifying as a planet under the orbital definition. It would certainly be "by far the largest body in its local population", which would give it planet status. Still, "by far the largest" is beyond vague. I prefer Mike Brown's definition; that a planet should be larger than the combined mass of all bodies in a similar orbit. By that definition, a Mars-sized KBO would NOT be called a planet, but you know what? That doesn't bother me. It would be the ruler of a grand family of worlds within its orbit, and that would be honour enough. Hell, if Titan can't be called a planet because of its orbit, I don't really see what the issue is here. Serendipodous 07:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, and by that last definition, the terrestrial planets themselves, Mars, Earth, Venus, and Mercury would not be planets either. This just gets more and more absurd. The "problem" here is refusing to grant "planet" status to anything else but a completely arbitrary number of previously-discovered bodies and not recognizing the discovery of new large celestial objects as being in the same class. You have no qualm against calling such bodies "worlds," yet "planets" is so offensive. Makes no sense to me. But you are entitled to your opinion. --Supersexyspacemonkey 07:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the terrestrials woudn't be planets under that defintion. They are larger than any other objects in a simiar orbit. If you're going to call the terrestrial planets' orbits "similar" you may as well say Saturn's orbit is similar to Jupiter's, or that Pluto is close to the Sun. Heck, all of those statements are true from far enough away. The problem here is that the term "planet" is not scientific. It was invented by seers, sorcerers and priests, not scientists. Astronomy's problems have emerged trying to co-opt it into a workable scientific definition. Any term that intends to include Mercury, Earth, Pluto and Jupiter is already arbitrary enough to be completely meaningless.

Then I also don't see why the hypothetical Mars-sized object "wouldn't" be a planet just because it lies in the Kuiper belt. Or perhaps I misunderstood.

I agree. Whenever you use a definition based on location, you introduce a certain amount of ambiguity. Therefore a "similar orbit" would have to be defined as a certain fraction of the object's semi-major axis. I'd say 20 percent, taking the asteroid belt as precedent. Serendipodous 09:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100% that the definition of "planet" is historically non-scientific, it is arbitrary, but it is not meaningless, it is basically "Any object that orbits the sun, and is not a moon, and is far too big for us humans to psychologically feel comfortable equating it to just another one of thousands of space rocks, is a planet." The classical definition is a lot simpler: anything that moves in the sky. But the bald fact is that no matter how "arbitrary" the human notion of "significant size" or "significant importance," or just plain "significance" may be, it's still there, and we have to deal with it. Personally, I wouldn't mind putting an arbitrary diameter cap, a nice round number, on the definition of "planet," since, in reality, we have always held such a distinction but failed to put a number on it. The fact that we don't feel comfortable calling thousands of space rocks "planets," even if they lie in the same general region or have similar orbital properties, proves that size is everything and has long been the real issue, supplanting the simpler classical definition of "wanderer." The fact you object to the idea of "I could throw a beach ball into space and call it a planet" proves that you, like everyone, fundamentally perceive it in the same subjective manner of "significant celestial object" vs. "insignificant/common" celestial object.

What gets me is, I agree with you 100% that the inclusion of gas giants and terrestrial planets is already pretty arbitrary, so arbitrary that the only logical thing remaining to connect these objects to one-another is the fact that they are subjectively considered more "important" than asteroid 1244543. But, your argument takes me to the opposite conclusion. I am uncomfortable pretending like Jupiter and Earth have more in common than Earth and pluto. I would argue, abandone the whole "planet" nomenclature altogether, and leave it to astrologers, or just fess up to what "planet" really means and give it a fixed arbitrary definition. It's not like we don't have plenty of subjective, human-paradigm-defined definitions in science. Many aspects of physics, weather, geology, etc., depend on arbitrary definitions of what is "big" and what is "small," what is "weak" and what is "strong." So what? I would argue that placing 4 so-called "terrestrials" and 4 so-called "gas giants" into a group, wich excludes all other large objects residing in different orbits, makes less sense and is far more arbitrary than inventing a set definition based on physical characteristics and allows the induction of new members. You see, in the end, it might be true that the ancients invented the term planet, but we have been using it in a semi-intuitive way for a long time now, and the commonly understood sense of "big enough to be considered important as opposed to the rest of the rubble" should be respected, because most people think of planets that way.

An interesting idea, but getting rid of "planet" would be next to impossible. It's just too entrenched. Better to come up with a definition and be done with it. Most astronomers don't care about it, and quite frankly, most non-astronomers don't care about it either. The only people who care about this issue are raging pre-teen space nerds trying to protect Pluto. As to your comment on "bigness", my main problem with it is that it would make an already arbitrary term even more arbitrary. Tens of thousands of objects in the asteroid belt won't be planets, but one will, whereas potentially hundreds of objects in the Kuiper belt will be. It just makes more sense to me, aesthetically speaking if for no other reason, to recognise the structure of our solar system as eight solitary objects bisected by two belts. Serendipodous 09:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that the opposition is being hyperbolic in the extreme. Saying that 50+ planets (or however many they "estimate"), out of how many THOUSANDS of solar system bodies, is "too much," is like saying they should have ended the Period Table with the first 10 elements, and denied "element" status to all the rest, calling them "trans-elemental matter" or "minor chemical elements." Come on, let's not be silly about it. Are we lovers of science or are we ditsy air-heads afraid of "big" lists??? What about extra-solar planets? People psychologically and culturally accept the premise that there are hundreds and thousands of planets in the galaxy, waiting to be discovered. Heck, science fiction deals with this issue regularly. And they are in fact being discovered rapidly. But yet there is some psycho-moral-spiritual-existential issue with discovering more planets in our own solar system? That is cause for some people to go crazy and their heads to explode because of all the little "beachballs" being classified as planets?

Nonsense.

Something is only "special," in the exclusive sense, if it really is exclusive in character, and not if there are others like it and we are only pretending they as if there are not. By calling 8 bodies "planets," and only 8, we are naively pretending as if they are the only celestial bodies large enough to merit the badge of "I'm more than just a rock," when it is untrue. I'll take a hundred "beachball" planets, based on a rational definition that acknowledges new discoveries and is not afraid of our expanding knowledge of the universe, any day, over "We found these 8 first and we're tired of counting so let's stop." Besides, taking issue with the idea of giving a historically arbitrary concept a new and updated, rational, well-defined scientific definition is self-contradictory, because in that case it should not really matter at all, whether there are 8, 9, 53, 0r 200 "plantes," if the fall-back argument is "it's a meaningless term." I cannot think of a more logical definition, based on nature, than mass-created spheroids are planets and everything else is not. I conforms to the popular cultural paradigm of what a "planet" looks like, and nature puts its own cap on the population, ensuring that non-spheroids are far more abundant and less "special" than the beachballs.

Conversely, you could argue that your sphericity definition gives too much distinction to, say, Quaoar over the other KBOs, with which it shares most of its composition, formation, geochemistry etc, simply because it happens to be just large enough to be round, whereas its next door neighbor, which may be almost as big, isn't. Serendipodous 09:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with your "planet is arbitrarily defined" argument, but I see that as cause to change the definition, to include all existing planets, plus others. If you meant it sincerely, then there would be no issue against accepting Pluto's 70 year historical status as a planet. But, since there is an emotional "good riddance" attitude towards demoting Pluto, and towards excluding any of those distant "iceballs" no matter how big they are, this proves that the opposition is also trying to impose its own standard definition based on defined properties, only they are biased towards orbital region while people like me are biased towards size. It's all a question of perceived degrees of comfort and what "seems good." Some people can't wrap their heads around 50 planets, while others welcome it and are excited by it, and in the end, majority wins, but one thing is for sure, arguments that the definition is "arbitrary" are extremely hypocritical.

I have no special desire for Pluto to be a planet, I simply want a definition based some rational criterion that's more than just "I'm emotionally attached to these dirt and gas balls but I don't want any damn snowballs to join the club." Despite your previous observation, it make far more sense to include dirtballs, gasballs, and snowballs all into the same club if they have at least some major attribute in common (like size/mass/roundness), than to put the utterly dissimilar dirtballs and gasballs in one club, and then segregate all of the snowballs into their own club no matter what. That's just insane--Supersexyspacemonkey 09:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[Edit: I apologize for the length of this reply, and this is the wrong section for me to be pursuing this debate. I will add no more and respect your position]

What really gets me about the definition isn't the definition itself, it's the fact that they're trying to fudge it. They don't want a solar system suddenly swarming with tiny planets, so they make up this excuse about having to actually SEE the object before they can call it a planet. Why? If you know what an object is made of, and you have a degree in geophysics, you can work out the chemical strength of its structure vs. the force of gravity and determine how massive an object must be to be spherical. Anything beyond that mass limit is a sphere. It can't not be. So this saying that there are "12 planets now; maybe 12 planets later" is, not to put too fine a point on it, bollocks. We know exactly how many planets there are now; at least thirty, probably more. So why not say it?

EDITED: I like being glib, but I'd rather be accurate.Serendipodous 07:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the notion that we can already accurately assess the mass of said objects accurately enough to determine whether or not they surpass said limit to be highly disputable. We can barely give rough estimates based on gestimations of albedo, and chemical composition, and you claim we "know" they "must" be spheres and they "can't not be?" That, my friend, is the bullocks, I think. If anything, I would argue that the watch-list is TOO inclusive, and there are many obje cts there whose candidacy is laughable, such as Vesta, and we know a LOT more about Vesta's composition, mass, and geometry, than we know about most of those large KBO's. You can certainly argue that they are fudging on the biggest ones, like Sedna and basically half of the dozen watch-list objects, which they would almost certainly promote to planet status after a short while. You are 100% correct in that. But, to say that we could actually, immediately, fit 50+ objects into the definition is preposterous. We barely know how big they are + or - hundreds of kms. --Supersexyspacemonkey 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mike Brown appears to think he can. I'm not him, nor am I even an astronomer, but if anyone could claim to be an authority on the subject it would be him. Vesta is technically a spheroid, apparently. I don't think we will ever settle the debate about what constitutes "round enough," which for me is just another reason not to use that definition. Serendipodous 09:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Image removal rationale

File:Newplanets.jpg

How the solar system could look if all the potential planets currently under observation were given full planet status

I removed this image because it is inaccurate. Not only is it jpeg, and therfore pixilated, artifacted and limited in resolution; but it states an unusual number of planets - only 1 asteroid and fourty three kuiper belt objects, rather than 4 asteroids and 11 kuiper belt objects (as the article discusses). Also, it groups the first four planets as a confusing ring, and ceres seems to occupy a similar ring. Conclusion; a bad image - Jack (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The image is not the "current" system of 12 planets (which, whatever the outcome of the IAU congress, isn't likely to survive August 25), nor the dozen "candidate planets," but the total number of possible planets that currently exist within our solar system IF the "roundness" definition is adhered to. The solar system is very big; this necessitates a certain amount of compression when trying to describe all of it. Ceres is part of a ring because it is part of a ring; the asteroid belt. The image is of the solar system from the asteroid belt outwards; since no new planets exist between the Sun and the asteroid belt, the terrestrials don't need to be in the image. Serendipodous 17:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate? The linked source explains all. I concur with Serendipodous: the image is informative. Please put it back, but use an accurate tagline. mdf 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with the statement "current nine planets", this is accurate, but the way they are depicted is not up to standard. As for the compression issue, a large SVG image would solve that. I feel as a newbie may be checking out this page (as is to be assumed), the other nine planets should be shown accurately as people have come to understand them, if only to provide a simple source of reference. But thats not the main issue - what's up with the numbers?! - Jack (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read the direct reference that the image sources. mdf 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This image bothers me too. Mike Brown (the image's author) obviously has strong feelings on the issue and is trying to make a point based on his interpretation of how the definition will be applied. Right now the IAU is considering a 12 planet system with an additional 12 candidate planets. Based on those facts, using Mike Brown's interpretation of the new solar system as the one we show to users is rather POV and crystal ball-ish. I support telling people what Mike Brown thinks might happen, but I think showing this image as the only image of a new planetary configuration gives undue weight to his views. Dragons flight 19:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I second the removal of the image. Nick Mks 19:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the IAU is considering the definition of a planet, not a "12 planet system with an additional 12 candidate planets". The current proposal is written in what appears to be plain, simple, English lacking little (if any) wiggle room re: "interpretation". Brown has taken this proposal, combined estimates based on best knowledge and reasonable inferences, and published his results. And far from being what he thinks is the "new planetary configuration", Brown notes that this is merely a reasonable consequence ... and is just the beginning. And heck, he isn't the only one saying this either. I'm not sure what the NPOV has to do with this either, since we aren't talking about whether corn tastes better than peas, but trivial deductions from a clearly written definition. Even if his estimates are off wildly, there are likely tens of thousands of other objects awaiting discovery, and if even .5% of them qualify, we still obtain Brown's conclusions. Can you cite a refutation of his analysis? Honestly, are there other "interpretations" at all? mdf 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The IAU press release says 12 now and 12 current candidates: [1]. Dragons flight 20:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We get that. But is the purpose of objectivity the slavish adherence to one interpretation because it happens to be the official one? Have they explained or justified their decision in keeping the solar system down to a maximum of 24 planets, when quite obviously dozens more would fit the definition they gave? Serendipodous 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

It is not obvious what fits the definition since they don't say what is "round enough" (and propose creating a committee to decide). For all we know, round enough will end up excluding most of the candidate planets. I don't mind mentioning his views, but his view shouldn't be the only image about what a new planetary system looks like. Better no image than a single image representing only one point of view. Dragons flight 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I third the removal of the image. Including the image would mean that the article would lose its neutral point of view. It does not show any possible outcome of the ongoing events, and so adds nothing to the article other than bias. Readro 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think one of the problems with this image has to do with Brown's estimation of how many planets there might be if this resolution is adopted. On his webpage, he uses a figure of 400km as the lower limit for hydrostatic equilibrium, but the IAU definition roughly places the lower limit at 800km, thereby inflating the number of potential planets and rendering this image invalid. Tachyon01 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On his website, he points out that 800 km is the approximate diameter for rocky bodies like Ceres to attain hydrostatic equilibrium, but that icy bodies attain this point far more easily than rocky bodies do, and thus they are likely to be round at 400 km. Serendipodous 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you guys are all forgetting the most important point, which is that NO candidates will be promoted until their discs and masses have been observed and measured with sufficient resolution and in sufficient detal to determine, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium. And that means that MANY of the candidates, even if they are planets, will not be so recognized for several years to come. Thus, the only immediate effect of the proposed definition is a 12-planet solar system, with a small handful of candidates (less than half a dozen) that might be promoted in the near future, and a dozen that will remain on the watch list over a long term period, or indefinitely, or might eventually be removed if they fail to meet criteria.--Supersexyspacemonkey 06:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

full draft resolution

Is there a reason why this article does not quote the full text of the IAU's proposed resolution? If this is because of a copyright issue, shouldn't there at least be a prominent link to the entire resolution? --Nebular110 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're an encyclopedia, not a republisher of original source documents. If the IAU's work is released under a compatible free license, which I doubt, it might be suitable for inclusion on Wikisource. --Cyde Weys 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper Archive

Cyde threw material he didn't like here into an archive1 which has entries dated later than the earliest entries on this page. Now we're getting our archiving messed up by these people who are going militant over "relevance" in Talk space... Wish I had the time and energy to really fight this trend (I'm very ill). Anyone out there up for it? It would involve identifying editors and admins (like Cyde) who go wayyyy overboard with their notion of what is proper for a Talk page and who have taken to wholesale blowing away of comments that don't match these notions. They need to be stopped administratively. Maybe informal mediation would do it, but you should be prepared for RFC. Anyone? JDG 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there's no point in having the archive really since it's all irrelevant discussion that should have simply been deleted. Deleting the archive would solve the problem. In any case, I doubt you'll get much support from the admins for using this page as a discussion forum. It was twice as long when it included the irrelevant banter.  -- Run!  07:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you are now using this talk page as a discussion forum. And looking over most of the other entries here, I can probably remove about half of them on "irrelevant" grounds by appeal to the standard you are setting up. Will you support me in this action? Rhetorical question of course, since I actually agree with JDG -- but not to the point of taking on an administrator (which, at this point in Wikipedia's development, is as useful as taking legal action against a police officer, even if you have an egregious, undeniable case) -- in that the so-called "irrelevant" discussions can indeed help focus participants. Take, as an example, the current blather over the Mike Brown image of the solar system to be. Arguably, it would make sense, to help other editors understand Brown's point, to dissect the current proposal, explain why it is over-broad and likely to lead to as much use as the 55mph speed limit was on the interstates. Part of this discussion would indeed involve raising and commenting on counter-proposals, why they would be better or worse, and general guidelines about how such proposals can be structured in the first place. Without question, none of this discussion could enter the article directly, but can obviously serve as "mental triggers" for readers to find material which can be included. mdf 12:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article discussion pages are about the article. It gets archived in a manner that editors can easily view and understand past discussions. If discussion edges into personal exchange, then that sort of discussion can easily go to one user's User page, or to another's. This keeps the article discussion page appropriate to the article, reduces clutter, etc. Terryeo 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the discussion removed was personal, trollish, inflammatory, or generally detrimental to the community or even Wikipedia as a whole. I have personally removed material from other talk pages that satisfy these conditions. And I mean "removed", not just left little notes about "please don't reply to the following" and other sanctimonious wimp-outs. There is no doubt a high pile of policy and guideline about talk pages. However, the general intent of said wikilaw is to improve the article. If "irrelevant" discussion can do this, then it is, ipso facto, not irrelevant for this purpose. mdf 12:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the redefinition

Two of the source cited here are blogs. Strict, literal, obeyance of Official Wikipedia Holy Script says we can take the people who added these sources outside and whack their peepee's with a lead pipe ;-). Arguably, even Brown's reference is in the same situation as it appears to be self-published. I recommend nothing actually be done (since the arguments offered at all sources are sound), but if better sources are known they should be used instead, lest some under-employed admin stomp in, gun drawn. mdf 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I'm aware of that. But I felt it was best to "Ignore all Rules" on this since there isn't anything official yet as this is still at an early stage. The blogs aren't being used to describe anything other than the writers opinions, so turning a blind eye to this violation until better sources arise is my view. Jefffire 13:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Few would contend Brown's authority in this matter. Just like if Hawking writes something new two of the sources are Hawking's texts, it gets recorded. According to the above mentioned WP:RS, Self-published sources: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." Brown is totally in the clear. McKay 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Advantages

It would be cool if 195.137.85.173, or someone else, could document this section's provenance. mdf 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

News from Space.com

Don't want to put this in yet, because it's pretty small on specifics, but I thought it should be mentioned anyway:

Pluto may get demoted after all Serendipodous 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of this "alternate" proposal? Daveharr 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's true, good riddance! Scientists are so scared of "Public outcries". Come on people. Don't be slaves to old thinking. Just necause PLuto's been a planet for about 75 years doesn't mean it can't be demoted. IF they really are so worried about public perception, call it a "minor planet", "planetoid", "dwarf planet", "microplanet", whatever! --Planetary 22:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen from any other sources anything about this 'proposal,' not even a press release from the IAU. This new 'proposal' may not even get before the full IAU assembly for a vote. Tachyon01 00:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sky and Telescope mentioned it in their article at http://skytonight.com/news/home/3601616.html. The proposed definition is: a planet "is a celestial body that (a) is by far the largest object in its local population, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid-body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) does not produce energy by any nuclear-fusion mechanism." According to the article, a straw poll indicated greater support for this than the official proposal. It looks like the draft proposal may be revised.

About the criterion c: does this cover the object's whole lifespan (i.e. if it fuses at some phase of its lifespan) or current situation? In the case of former, most massive planets would be around 13 M_Jupiter (no deuterium fusion). In the case of latter, situation becomes laughable; most massive brown dwarfs are about 80 times as massive as Jupiter. Not to mention compact objects (white dwarfs and neutron stars; black holes can't be said to be round in the sense of the definition).--JyriL ^talk 13:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is its local population? That could conceivably include the entire solar system. What is Venus's "local population"? It has no satellite.Serendipodous 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It also mentioned on New Scientist: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9797&feedId=online-news_rss20 The physics behind the alternate definition takes into account basic planet formation. Planets are formed by mass "clumping" together in a debris disc about a star. The Kuiper Belt is made up of outlying masses that were too far out to be clumped together(in effect these belts are failed planets), hence it's a bunch of similiar objects in a relativiely crowded space over a large area. Same for the asteroid field(althouh it may have been formed differently, for example by a planet being impacted by a large object early in formation). Local area could not include the entire solar system, it is purposely refering systems like the asteroid belt and the Kuiper Belt. Each planet has it's own orbit and angular velocity, but the majority of objects in "local feilds" would have similiar angular velocities(like ring systems of the Gas Giants, each ring has an angualr velocity which is shared by all the particles within the ring). The entire Solar System could not be considered a local field by any stretch of the imagination, it's not crowded enough, the make up of the planets are extremely varied and their angular velocities are different. There would be no confusion over Venus either, it is the largest mass in it's area(since it's the only one) and thus doesn't share an orbit or angualr velocity with a myriad of similiar sized objects. Eccentricned 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So, is this worthy of inclusion yet? Serendipodous 18:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should definately be included, as Space.com has published an improved version of the proposal that includes definitions of things such as "local population", etc. I'm assuming from the way the article is written that this proposal will be an option in the August 24 vote. Here's my idea for a section that could be added (Alternate Proposal, below). --69.161.146.61 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll just paste it in, source it and see what happens. Serendipodous 20:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing. Earth has produced energy by a nuclear-fusion mechanism. With luck, we will begin doing so continuously at some point. And Earth's categorization as a planet is significantly older and more important to people than Pluto's. DanielCristofani 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibble but, "Prague in the Czech Republic"?

As opposed to the Prague 27 miles southwest of Walla Walla, Washington? Really I think we can rely on our readers to have at least a vague notion of geography. Serendipodous 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? Often, when I mention Prague, the reaction I get is "Oh, you've been to Czechoslovakia?" And that's the smart ones. Aelffin 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Oh you've from the Soviet Republic of Yugoslavia?" is what I usually get (the smart ones are interested in my proficiency in the Czechoslovakian language), so I say keep the republic in. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers to that. Or should I say.... Nádraží! :P --Aelffin 17:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PSR B1257+12D

You know, with the proposed redefinition of planet, PSR B1257+12 D is bigger than Ceres, so would be a planet, so this proposal is already having an impact on extrasolar planets. 132.205.45.148 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought id just put the direct link to the D object here (to save future "its a star" trouble): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12#PSR_B1257.2B12_D

The mass value for PSR B1257+12 "D" is an upper limit based on the non-detection of gravitational effects... it could easily be much smaller. I'd hold off on claiming planethood. If the object exists, it has been detected via cometary activity (the object's coma affects the transmission of the pulsar's emissions). Chaos syndrome 10:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"...is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet." It would not qualify because it's a star.

See here: stars can't be planets! Neither can satellites of planets...unless the center of mass of the larger body is above the surface of said body. In which case the satellite would be a planet. But only for a little while, until its orbit changes. Could a star have a brown dwarf orbiting, causing the center of mass to be above the star's surface? Well, yes it could, in which case they'd be two planets in orbit about each other. Or two stars. Ok, damn you all.

And damn the IAU especially for introducing this idiotic definition. Marskell 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You do know that PSR 1257+12 D is not a star, right? PSR 1257+12 is a star though. D is an object in orbit around the pulsar, so it is not a planetary satellite. 132.205.93.88 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The pulsar couldn't be a planet, but the object orbitting that's smaller than Pluto might be with the new definition. --Patteroast 02:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how Wolzscan feels about it... 132.205.93.88 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just being glib and didn't look closelay :). Sorry. Marskell 05:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's Wolszczan, for your information. :P

Looking through the history of this page, I noticed that Cyde deleted this section once, claiming that PSR B1257+12D is a pulsar, when clearly it is not. Cyde should be more careful in reading the what he's deleting. 70.51.10.212 13:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Merge

I disagree the idea that this article should be merged with Definition of a planet. Think to the situation in 5 years time. The article "Definition of a planet" is where people would look to find the current agreed definition. The article might mention, in a brief section, the fact that back in 2006 it was changed and formalised and the debate that this created but would not go into much detail. The section woudl then refer people to this article, which would haev all the details of the historical debate, effect of the change and so on. Hence wikipedia should still have two articles.

Does that make sense? AndrewRT - Talk 14:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the debate (maybe it could be renamed "2006 planet definition debate"), and the definition page is about the final decision. --Age234 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the merge as well for concuring reasons. Definition of a planet should be an article about what it is then and has been. This article is (and should be) more like a news article on a slow moving story. Jon 18:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative proposal - 50-50 split - not 18-50 split

First para of article says: 18 for the draft proposal, 50 against, then referring to reference 16, "Pluto May Get Demoted After All." Space.com. 18 August, 2006.. But that article says the votes where c:a 50-50, not 18-50!

/spake, Tomas S. Kindahl (tomas.kindahl@comhem.se) 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)...

I didn't see any actual stat of 50-50 in the article, I think that's just a header to give an idea of what was going on. The 18-50 refers to the actual poll: Today, a subgroup of the IAU met to discuss the proposal. A straw vote was held in which only about 18 astronomers favored the proposal, according to Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Another 20 or so said it should be reworked. And about 50 favored an alternate proposal put forth by Julio Angel Fernandez, an astronomer from Uruguay. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060818_planet_newprop.html --Age234 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There's some blatant POV emerging in this article. The draft proposal has both "advantages" and "criticism" subsections, both well sourced. The alternative proposal only has a "criticism" section, completely unsourced, and written in a purely hypothetical manner. It's merely stating someone's anonymous opinions. Where's the "Dr. Mervern Collar from Wales University says X", or "Dr. Milly Vasily from Moscow University says Y"? Serendipodous 19:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is definately a problem. I took the liberty of adding the "Unreferenced" tag to it. --Age234 03:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Nice try, but you are confusing different issues and obfuscating others. The only reason there is no "advantages" section is because nobody has bothered to write it yet. If you have a problem, then go ahead and write one yourself, and quit being so melodramatic.

2. That is the lousiest definition of "POV" I have ever heard. A statement need not be referenced in order to NOT be POV, that is absurd. A criticism can be a logical and hypothetical one, so long as most readers agree that it makes logical sense and makes a valid point (even if they don't agree with it per se). Practically any article you find in Wikipedia contains unreferened criticisms, on both sides of an argument, because they don't require citations to be valid unless they make FACTUAL claims. The ones in the present section do NOT make factual claims, but merely take issue with certain logical consequences of the definition in question.

3. Do not lump all of the statements into one category for your personal convenience. Some are irrefutable a priori statements that stem directly from the facts of the proposed definition, while others are opinions.

4. The section as written was already a blatant advocation of the proposal, and already contained blatant POV, thus necessitating a "criticisms" retort for the sake of achieving overall balance. References alone are insufficient to claim neutrality, if the references are all one-sided, and if opposition obviously exists over a controversial issue. Really, how convenient: if it goes with definition you like, it's ok, but if it criticises it, then it's "POV." As I said before, citation does not eliminate POV, and, conversely, lack of citation alone does not create the same.

5. It is hypocritical to level accusations of "POV" when you are showing such open hostility to the presence of opposing argument within the article. An environment of intellectual honesty tolerates criticism for the sake of clarity and completeness. This whole deal about not providing references is a cheap and vacuous attempt to promote a lop-sided article. Anyone who is more interested in the overall quality of the article than in promoting one argument over the other would welcome opposing views rather play these infantile games.

I also have noted that in discussion you make facetious comments regarding how people take the issue too seriously, yet you yourself express your point of view rather vehemently, at times condescendingly (egg in face), and carry it to the extreme of opposing dissent within the article itself, like now. It would be nice if in the article we could leave such attitudes behind and be more inclusive of both the pros and cons of any contentious definition, be it the preferred one or not, and rather than leveling indignant accusations, we could simply request/conduct research to fill in the citations as needed and as available, as they do in most other well-written articles.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel there's something of the pot calling the kettle black here regarding fecetious comments. I think the two of us have had a constructive debate on the issue so far, and I don't see the need to stoop to personal attacks. The "egg on face" comment referred to me, because I was attempting to move up a paragraph that I felt belonged in a higher section, and ended up accidentally moving it to a lower section. You can call my writing style melodramatic if you want, but that's how I write. If you notice, however I may have disagreed with the fact that the alternate draft had a criticism section but no advantage section, and that the criticism section was unsourced, I didn't remove it or change it, because, however POV I felt it was, I thought it was right. I just wanted sources so that it wouldn't be original research. It actually made me rethink a paragraph I put on the Definition of Planet article months ago that might by original research, even though technically it may be correct. All I was asking for was sources. I wasn't criticising the section. Serendipodous 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

5. I am removing the present tag and restoring the more appropriate "unreferenced" tage, because the fact of the matter is that nowhere is any factual claim made that requires verification. The present tag is too harsh and implies some sort of deception, while the original tag politely requests references, which is appropriate.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are two "Criticism" sections...

Criticism can be both positive and negative. -- Jordi·✆ 07:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the point. The point is that a) the section is neither attributed nor sourced and b) it introduces a POV into the article against the alternate draft by not listing its advantages. Serendipodous 08:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you were referring to the second criticism section. Overlooked it. The first criticism section is referenced. -- Jordi·✆ 08:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)