Talk:Polydeuces (moon)

Polydeuces (moon) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 3, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polydeuces (moon) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

pronunciation

Morford & Lenardon (Classical Mythology), Tripp (Meridian Handbook of Classical Mythology), Gayley (Classic Myths in English Literature and in Art), and Rbt Fagles (glossary of The Odyssey) are unanimous in giving the pronunciation of Polydeuces as pol'-i-dew'-seez. --kwami

From Liddell & Scott, it would seem the adjectival form is Polydeucean. kwami 2005 June 30 02:07 (UTC)

Norwegian info

Until we can get IAUC access... This web site seems to say S 5 and S 6 orbit between Tethys and Dione. Anyone speak norwegian?

« De nye oppdagelsene er månen S/2004 S 5 som går i bane i samme område som månene Tethys og Dione, omtrent 200 - 250 000 km fra planeten. Månen ble sett på bilder tatt over en periode på tre timer 21. oktober og igjen 2. november. Det er for få observasjoner til at det er mulig å beregne banen nøyaktig. Dersom S/2004 S 5 går i en nesten sirkulær bane over Saturns ekvator, kan den dele bane med Dione. S/2004 S 5 er omtrent 5 kilometer i diameter. »

Which translates into

The new discoveries are the moon S/2004 S 5 which has an orbit in the same area/region as the moons Tethys and Dione, about 200 - 250 000 km from the planet. The moon was seen on images taken over a period of three hours 21. october and again 2. november. There are too few observations for it to be possible to calculate/compute the orbit accurately. If S/2004 S 5 has an almost circular orbit over Saturn's equator, it can/may/might share orbit with Dione. S/2004 S 5 is about 5 kilometres in diameter.

which is a rather "direct" translation of the Norwegian text. You might need to trim the language to make it better English. Some words don't translate directly so I have given alternatives which are all possible translations. I don't know why the first period uses plural ("The new discoveries are…") when the paragraph is only talking about one moon, but plural is used in the Norwegian text. –Peter J. Acklam 23:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And this Czech web site seems to say S 5 was spotted on 21 October. Anyone speak Czech?

« 2004-10-21 Na snímcích byl zjištěn další pravděpodobný měsíc Saturnu o rozměru asi 5 km, zřejmě obíhacích na stejné dráze jako měsíc Dione (Saturn IV). Dostal předběžné označení S/2004 S 5. »

2004-10-21 on these images was discovered probably next Saturn's moon; the diameter is about 5 km. It runs on same orbit as moon Dione (Saturn IV).

Sorry for my English

Urhixidur 00:06, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I don't speak either, but a rough online translation of the page in Norwegian seems to say that the first images of Polydueces were taken October 21, with more images on November 2. It also says it's about 5 km in diameter, and on the orbital distance.. well, it's a bit hard to decipher 'as goes in bane in additions ambit as moon Tethys and Dione , approximately 200-250,000 km at the planet.' Tethys is 295,000 km, and Dione is 377,000. Your guess is as good as mine.

The paragraph talking about 3 and 6 seemed more easy to interpret. It seems that S/2004 S6 is very near the F Ring, and may be a clump, just like S/2004 S3 and 4. As for a date, it only mentions October 21.

Hope that helps, at least until someone who actually speaks one of those languages can translate better for us. :) --Patteroast 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I'll add is that the Norwegian page seems to be giving the orbital radii as altitudes above Saturn's cloud tops, so the 200-250 Mm range translates to about 260-310 Mm (which indeed lies roughly between Tethys and Dione).

Urhixidur 04:46, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Translation: Another object is discovered on pictures and it is probably Saturn's moon with diameter 5km. Object has obviously the same orbit as moon Dione (Saturn IV). It got preliminary name S/2004 S 5. --195.70.159.228 22:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph that I got the information about S/2004 S6 from, on the same page in Norwegian as you cited above:

« I området der Saturns F-ring befinner seg er objektet kalt S/2004 S 6 oppdaget. Det sneier innerkanten av det tynne støvbåndet som omgir F-ringen. Funnet ble gjort på bilder tatt 28. oktober. Baneperioden og avstanden fra Saturn ser ut til å være veldig nær den samme som for S/2004 S 3. Måten S/2004 S 6 ble observert på kan imidlertid tyde på at det bare er en klump med støv og ikke en ordentlig måne. Det er til og med mulig, men ikke sannsynlig, at S/2004 S 6 og S/2004 S 4. Mengdene av observasjoner kan til tider virke forvirrende, men planlagte observasjoner vil avklare mange av usikkerhetene. Det ventes også at flere minimåner vil bli oppdaget i det samme området. »

--Patteroast 20:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying Polydeuces is a Dione co-orbital? I'll await confirmation before I change the articles again.

Urhixidur 22:40, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Diameter of Polydeuces

Only source I've seen reporting Polydeuces' diameter being 13 km is Cassini's homepage [1]. Most pages have the value 3.5 km. The Saturnian Satellite Fact Sheet [2] gives it a radius of ~4 km (or a diameter of ~8 km). Question is, which of these is the correct value? --Jyril 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paper announcing the discovery of Polydeuces, Porco et al. 2005, gave a diameter of 3.5 km. Imaging from earlier this week that resolves the disk of Polydeuces, supports this size. Volcanopele 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation

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

Saturn satellites

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

Response to your comments from Carolyn Porco

Here is Carolyn Porco's response to your comments, emailed to me: 'The official attribution for sightings of new moons or rings or features on the moons made by the Cassini imaging team members in Cassini images goes to the Cassini Imaging Team. This is standard practice in the astronomical community and is sanctioned by the International Astronomical Union. It would be entirely unfair and inappropriate to credit the 'discovery' to any one individual on a team of many scientists where many people contributed to the discovery. After all, no one attributes the discovery of America to the guy in the crow's nest of Christopher Columbus' ship. Furthermore, the first reports of these sightings were published in the IAU Circulars which are accurately referenced in the Wiki entries, and those reports constitute the offical announcement of the sightings along with the authorship `C.C.Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team'. This is not an abuse of any kind; it is standard practice, and it is the *correct* attribution for these discoveries'.

I suggest that you email Carolyn at cpcomments@ciclops.org if you wish to discuss this matter further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.32.254 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Discovery Attribution

The IAU gives the official credit for the discovery of Polydeuces to 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' [3]. As it does for Methone, Pallene and Daphnis. Note that no individuals are named. Hence the official IAU attribution for the discovery of these saturnian satellites is 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' and that no individuals are named.

Now the next issue is the correct reference for the announcement of the discovery of these satellites. In the case of Polydeuces it is IAUC 8432: Satellites and Rings of Saturn with authourship 'C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team'. So why is it 'C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team' and not just 'The Cassini Imaging Science Team'? In the instructions on how to submit an item for publication in an IAUC [4]

1. 'please use standard IAUC procedures for listing authors (first and middle initials, last full name; maximum of three authors, if possible*) ' 2. 'the "author(s)" whose name(s) appear(s) at the beginning of the published item should be only the person communicating the item to the CBAT (and that is almost always only one person) and/or the person(s) who actually wrote the text to be published' 3. 'Other people who made observations, reduced data, or contributed in an important way to discussions involving the published item can be mentioned by name in the text where appropriate (without affiliations).' 4.'Please note that we generally *require* that the person contributing the item for publication be listed either as the first name for the item or as one of the co-authors.'

From this its clear that ideally no more than three authours should be listed and that the person who SUBMITS the text for publication MUST be either the first name listed or one of the co-authors. Since the Cassini Imaging Science Team consists of upwards of 20 people its clearly impractical to list all of them individually but the person sending in the text MUST be individually named. So clearly Dr Porco (in her capacity as Team Leader?) submitted the text and is therefore individually named as required for publication and the other team members aren't named and simply covered by the 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' beacuse there are too many of them to name individually.

From this I think its quite plain that just because someone is first authour in an IAUC it doesn't mean that they played any part in the associated discovery, they might simply be the person who wrote the text and submitted it for publication.

To summarise

1. the IAU lists the discoverer of Polydeuces as just 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' and no individuals are mentioned. Hence if we are going to follow the IAU's lead then Wikipedia should do the same

2. The reference for the discovery announcement is C.C. Porco et al. (2005) which DOES NOT mean that the discoveror of Polydeuces is 'C.C.Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team'.

If we are going to start naming people in relation to the discovery then Carl Murray should be named if Carolyn Porco is. We should either follow one proceedure or the other. Its just 'Cassini Imaging Science Team' or 'Carl Murray and the Cassini Imaging Science Team lead by Carolyn Porco'.

The current practice of one editor who claims to represent Dr Porco (I have no reason to doubt that he doesn't) of removing anyone else's name and inisiting that the discoveror is 'Carolyn Porco and the Cassini Imaging Team' is both inaccurate/misleading and quite frankly worrying.--Syntaxis

I share the opinion of Syntaxis here. I add that this editor also removes the discoverer's name from Pallene and Methone, both satellites of Saturn too. Med 14:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current formulation seems to follows the IAU guidelines in both letter and spirit. But does the detailed explanation (and especially the complaints about earlier, inaccurate versions of the attribution) really belong in the main article itself, even in a footnote? I would suggest to simply use the correct attributions for discovery and announcement without explicit justification, but to include an html comment alerting potential editors about the full discussion and consensus on the Talk page. Hqb 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

One could be interested by [5]Rebjon's request for arbitration. Med 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Rebjon21 has made a Request for Arbitration[6] regarding the Wikipedia entries for Methone, Pallene and Polydeuces. Specifically regarding their discoveries and who gets named as discoveror. This request has been denied as being "premature" with a request to "follow all the steps in dispute resolution". Having refreshed my memory [7] it looks like the initial advice "Avoidance" isn't going to fly. Personally I think that we are still at "First step: Talk to the other parties involved" with a dash of "Discuss with third parties". I thank Rebjon21 for refraining from making further edits to the discoveror info and I will also do likewise until we reach some sort of resolution but I will add a note that there is a dispute and link to this Talk page. Dicuya has made a contribution [8] stating that Polydeuces was discovered "by the Cassini Imaging Team lead by Carolyn Porco ". Now its correct that the Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco. The problem I have with using this exact phrase in this particular context is that an individual has been specifically named in relation to (or at the very least in the same sentence as) the discovery of the satellite. In my opinion this is certainly against the spirit of the IAU discovery convention and I believe it is also contrary to the letter of that convention. After all the IAU names the discover as "Cassini Imaging Science Team"[9] not "Cassini Imaging Team led Carolyn Porco". A user of Wikipedia could develop the impression that Dr Porco was the main contributor to the discovery if she was the only person individually named.

O.K. I'd now like to talk about the press release regarding the discovery of Methone and Pallene [10]. This press release was issued by NASA/JPL. A contact at Dr Porco's group (Cassini Imaging Central Laboratory for Operations) is named. Now interestingly there is a press release on Dr Porco's CICLOPS website regarding the discovery of Methone and Pallene [11] with the attribution being "MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE, SPACE SCIENCE INSTITUTE, BOULDER, COLO. 80301". As far as I can tell the text is exactly the same as the NASA/JPL release[12]. Dr Porco is at the Space Science Institute. This press release from SSI states that "The moons were first seen by Dr. Sebastien Charnoz". My understanding of the way these press releases happen is that a Cassini Scientist/their home institution decides they want to issue one and then contacts the JPL press office to coordinate. If NASA/JPL wants to be involved then the press release has to go through various tedious stages of an approval process and then gets released by NASA/JPL. If they don't want to be involved then the scientists home institution issues the press release. The point I'm trying to make is that the press release naming Dr Charnoz as the person to "first see" the moons was either written by or at least approved by Dr Porco herself.

Its been argued that only the "official" IAU document, IAU8389 announcing the discovery and the the IAU official name website [13] should be used as sources of information regarding the discovery of these saturnian satellites. The NASA/JPL press release [14], the corresponding SSI press release [[15] and the BBC online article [16] according to some editors MUST NOT be used as sources of information. I think that an arguement can be made either way. However I believe that all reliable sources of information should be used rather than just "official" sources. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the International Astronomical Union is anything but a non-partisan, ethical, unbiased international body of scientific professionals but there are quite clearly some "offical" sources e.g. governments, religeous movements, companies etc whose information is quite clearly unreliable and other reliable "unofficial" sources have to also be used. As far as I'm concerned a NASA press release and a BBC new article are from sources that have some integrity and do check their sources. If accurate information is out there then it should be included in Wikipedia articles and we shouldn't just limit ourselves to "official" sources. And another thing why should be we bound by what the IAU decides anyway? Even some professional astronomers refuse to toe the IAU line in some cases e.g. [17]

Just to restate my position I believe we either follow both the letter and spirit of the IAU and the discoveror simply be the "Cassini Imaging Team" with no individuals named or we name names and Murray and Charnoz be mentioned along with the Cassini Imaging Team and Porco can be mentioned as Imaging Team Leader if desired. I don't believe its either fair or in the spirit of the IAU naming convention to mention Dr Porco but not Drs Charnoz and Murray.

As a parting thought Rebjon21 states that "..The BBC article has been incorrectly written and they have been notified of their mistake.." [18]. I've just checked the BBC article that names Murray & Charnoz as the first people to see Polydeuces - Methone & Pallene [19] and to my surprise the article has been changed to remove reference to Murray & Charnoz. The Google cached original version of the article where Charnoz and Murray are named can be obtained by following this link [20] (this cached version is from 14 June 2007 so it might be overwritten with the edited version by the time you follow the link). So the BBC appear to have changed a 2 year old web article following a complaint of inaccuracy when Charnoz is named in relation to Methone & Pallene in a NASA/JPL press release. Have the BBC been caving in to pressure from someone? And worse have they caved in without actually checking the facts? Syntaxis 16:35 UTC 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. About the BBC. If they have changed the attribution due to some external pressure, it is clearly not acceptable. I am considering the idea of contacting the competent authorities. If it appears it is not a mistake, some people will have to take their responsabilities. Is there a Science ethics committee in the USA? Med 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification from Carolyn Porco

I have been made aware of the dispute over the issue of credit for the discovery of moons made with the Cassini cameras, and have decided to respond myself. There are some terrible misunderstandings within the postings on these pages, which need to be rectified.

Let me first give a sense of what a spacecraft team's work is like.

First, there is an enormous amount of work that goes into building a camera system like that on the Cassini spacecraft, and in ensuring that it is a scientifically useful instrument for studying the Saturn system. Once the cameras are built, there is of course the work of planning the sequences of images that it acquires, as well as building software, databases, processes, training staff personnel, etc, etc. etc. In the case of Cassini, there were 14 years of such work between the time the mission was started in 1990 and arrival at Saturn orbit in 2004. Many of those years were without a break: solid 10 and 12 hour days, week after week, month after month, with no vacations or holidays, just to be prepared for Saturn orbit insertion. And this is the case in general for all spacecraft missions nowadays: To be in a responsible position on such a mission is to have an extremely demanding, all-consuming profession.

During the latter part of those 14 years, the science team members were engaged in the planning of the science investigations. The Cassini imaging experiment alone involved many, many different types of scientific objectives that have guided the construction of the imaging sequences. Each objective has its own special design, involving image layout and timing, exposure times and filter selections, etc. Then there is all the negotiating work to be done in convincing other Cassini investigators of the necessity for the images being designed. Observing time is a precious commodity on a complex mission like Cassini. Negotiating with the other scientists, both on the imaging team and on the other science teams, took many hours of teleconference calls, every week for years on end.

All of this one might say is the `decisive' part of any successful observation: If the camera is not built properly, and if the image strategy and design are not done correctly and if one is not successful convincing others of the necessity for the observations, the objective can be entirely lost.

So, on a mission like Cassini, and indeed on most spaceflight missions, the analysis of the images is actually the least of the work entailed in making any discovery.

This is not to discredit those individuals working on our team who are poring over our images, trying to extract important scientific information from them. But to say that looking at images, and writing software to analyze them is the most `decisive' part of a discovery is patently not true. The decisive work was done over the previous decade and a half and generally involved many different people.

Thus, on an experiment as complicated as the Cassini Imaging Science experiment, no one person can be listed as the `discoverer' of new objects like rings and moons. The International Astronomical Union recognizing this particular aspect of spaceflight missions has established conventions that support this. The official credit *must* be the full team. If my name appears, it is not because I am the `discoverer' above other team members, but because I am the leader of the team. The usual practice, when a team is too large to mention every member, is to list the team leader followed by `et al.', or by `the Such-and-Such Team'. Stating `the Such-and-Such Team, led by So-and-So' is equivalent.

Secondly, it is of course our job to produce scientific results and to write scientific publications. But, to generate public interest in our work, it is also our job to release our results to the public in a readily-understandable way. Press releases are written to tell an appealing story in a way that engages the non-scientific public. Often, we bring out the human-element for this very purpose. But press releases are not meant to be the definitive word on the discovery and they are certainly in no way comprehensive sources of information. Often, what is written in them ends up being shown to be wrong, or at least eventually superceded by more thorough analyses and more accurate conclusions. And news stories based on them are therefore equally wrong or incomplete.

Hence, in the presence of other information, when there is no need to establish the timing of a discovery (because it can be established by other means, and in this case, the IAU Circulars establish the timing), referneces to press releases should be avoided.

I hope this clarifies the issue and puts it finally to rest.

Thanks for your input, unfortunately it is largely fallacious. When scientists discover something with hubble (for instance, could be fuse, galex, spitzer, whatever), the credits go to the scientists not to the team of the instrument. If you want a proof, just read astroph. They are cited and acknowledged of course but certainly not primarily creditted. If you want to be cited, Murray/Charnoz/whoever should be cited too.

You request that the whole team is creditted for the discovery. I agree on this particular point, and more than this, the team is already creditted so i do not see the problem. Murray/Charnoz are cited too as having been the first to see those satellites (and i think you can't deny this), and you are cited as the team leader.

Oh and if by chance you know the person having put pressure on the BBC to change their 2 years old article you should tell him/her to tell the BBC to revert back to the original version.

Regards, Med 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., Carolyn Porco's contribution basically attempts to explain why the IAU attributes the discovery to the 'Cassini Imaging Science Team'. I have no problem with this. I might differ about the amount of work involved in actually finding candidate objects which might be previously unknown satellites and then all the follow up work necessary to confirm this, but I won't go into that now. But what I have to keep comming back to is that the official IAU attribution is 'Cassini Imaging Science Team'[21] not 'Cassini Imaging Science team led by Carolyn Porco' or some other variation of this which includes Dr Porco's name. "The usual practice, when a team is too large to mention every member, is to list the team leader followed by `et al.', or by `the Such-and-Such Team'. Stating `the Such-and-Such Team, led by So-and-So' is equivalent". Yes, when referencing publications in peer reviewed journals it is common practice to use the name of the first author and "et al." to cover all the others. For example the Cassini Imaging Team publications where the entire Team are co-authors [22] are correctly referenced as Porco, C.C. et al.followed by the appropriate year of publication. The IAUC circulars announcing the discovery of Methone, Pallene and Polydeuces can also be correctly referenced as C.C. Porco et al. (2005) - I've explanied why the discovery IAUCs are "C.C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team" not just the "Cassini Imaging Science Team". However it is NOT common practice to attribute discovery to the "Cassini Imaging Science Team led by Carolyn Porco" -- can I demonstrate this? Yes. The IAU itself --the "official" body in this case-- does not do this, they attribute the discovery to just the "Cassini Imaging Science Team" and Dr Porco's name is not mentioned in any way shape or form as Team Leader or otherwise. Next onto Press releases. Dr Porco states that "press releases are not meant to be the definitive word on the discovery and they are certainly in no way comprehensive sources of information. Often, what is written in them ends up being shown to be wrong, or at least eventually superceded by more thorough analyses and more accurate conclusions". Well yes, but that is also equally true of scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. Although in such papers it is usually the data analysis and/or conclusions that are sometimes shown to be in error or at least other authors later publish differing interpretations. If a press release says that a particular named person was the first to 'see' a new moon then this is either true or it isn't. I think it safe to presume that these press releases are at the very least vetted and approved by Dr Porco and she would have quickly corrected anything she believed to be incorrect. So it follows that at the time she believed a person named was indeed the first person to 'see' a new moon -- its difficult to see how such a basic piece of information could later turn out to in inaccurate. Now incidently in the 3 papers published to date in peer reviewed journals giving Polydeuces information only one goes into any detail about how the discovery was actually made and describes the discovery circumstances, gives the images and locations in those images etc - that one being Murray, C. D.; et al. (2005). "S/2004 S 5: A new co-orbital companion for Dione". Icarus 179: 222. This paper is devoted solely to Polydeuces, in the other two Polydeuces forms only a small part of the paper's content.I draw no conclusions from this although you might. Now I understand that the complete story behind a discovery might not be strictly relevant scientifically, a simple "discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team on..." being sufficient. But, and its a big but, the full backstory complete with human interest, politics, personality clashes, triumphs and failures etc is exactly what scientific historians want to know and what many members of the general public find fascinating. I again raise the point that we here at Wikipedia don't have to be bound by whatever "The Establishment" (in this case the IAU and the professional astronomical community) may have decided is the way they want information to be presented. As long as information is accurate we should feel free to include it. Just to restate by personal position -- I think that the discoverer should follow both the letter and spirit of the IAU position and be simply the "Cassini Imaging Science Team" with no individual (in any capacity, Team Leader or other) being named. If any one individual is named is any way in relation to these discoveries that ALL the relevant individuals should be named (certainly Charnoz, possibly Murray (no solid reference as yet) and Porco as Team leader if necessary) --after all this is Wikipedia and we don't necessarily have to toe the line of some "official" body or whatever is "common practice" among a small professional community as long as we're providing accurate information. Syntaxis 13:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Rebjon21

In response to what Carolyn has added and Med's reply, I have the following comments. First, I see that Med has changed the pages related to the three satellites, despite Carolyn's explanation. Second, I think now that this is the definitive word and the attribution for the discovery of the three satellites should, rightly, go to the "Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco", with Carolyn being named ONLY because she is the team leader NOT because she discovered the three satellites (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces) which is NOT what I have been claiming and I would never claim something that was clearly not true, especially something as important as the discovery of astronomical bodies orbiting Saturn. Can everyone involved in this dispute please look carefully at the following proposed sentence, what is being said, and the order of the words:

"It was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco".

Please read that again. It (Pallene, Methone, and Polydeuces respectively) was DISCOVERED by the CASSINI IMAGING TEAM - i.e. NOT by Murray NOT by Charnoz and NOT by Carolyn, but discovered by the TEAM - i.e. the words "Cassini Imaging Team" follow directly after the word "discovered" so it is clear to everyone who reads the articles on Wikipedia that the TEAM discovered the three satellites not any one individual. As for Carolyn's name being included in this sentence, this adheres to normal scientific protocol and again it is clear in what capacity she is included in this sentence, i.e. as the team leader NOT the discover. Please look at the order of the words.

It is clear that no individual team member should be singled out for this discovery, since many, many were involved.

I would like to add that it is interesting why Syntaxis, and more importantly Med, feel so passionately about this issue. Surely if they did not have a vested and personal interest in this issue they would not continue to insist that Murray and Charnoz be mentioned. Do Syntaxis and Med know Charnoz and Murray I wonder? It is clearly inappropriate for someone to make changes based on personal preferences.

As for what Med has said about Hubble, Cassini doesn't work like Hubble. The individual scientists using Hubble only propose and use the images. They did NOT build the instruments they are using, and they didn't take 15 years out of their careers to devote to a mission. It is not appropriate to compare two dissimilar scientific endeavours.

In my response in the section "Clarification from Carolyn Porco" on the Polydeuces talk page [23] I have argued that it isn't common practice to attribute discovery to "The Cassini Imaging Team led by Carolyn Porco". The IAU itself does not do this so it can't be common practice. I'm not insisting on Charnoz or Murray being named, I want no-one named apart from the Cassini Imaging Team. But if we do decide to name names then we should name all the relevant people. As for why I feel passionately about this small point? Why does anyone else? Because I care about about the absolute accuracy of information and removing the possibility for misinterpretation. I note that these pages have now been protected, at least we get to discuss this without constantly changing things backwards and forwards. Syntaxis 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, i would like to say that as Carolyn Porco works for Cassini she should not intervene in this debate. She is free to add any useful information on the page of course, but not take position. One cannot be judge and party at the same time.

About the attribution, citing only Carolyn Porco is clearly not acceptable to me. Either the person who has first seen the satellites (being Charnoz or Murray, you cannot deny this) is cited too or Porco is not. As you are really fond of the IAU communicate, has Syntaxis has already showed many times the attribution is not "Cassini Imaging team led by Carolyon Porco" (adding her name has frankly little interest here but i added it to find a consensus), but "Cassini Imaging team".

I find very interesting you feel so passionate about this issue. Do you know Carolyn Porco? More seriously i only care about proper attribution of discoveries and the respect of research ethics. And i also strongly dislike manipulations like having a BBC article changed, this could have some unfortunate consequences for the person having pressured the BBC to do this.

About various tspace telescope, i fear you are not so right. Take Spitzer for instance. There are three teams who have built the three instruments on it. This way they have got many hours of guaranted time. The whole team is not credited for the discoveries made using this guaranted time, but the individuals having made the discoveries. Read astro-ph there are many examples. Med 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: we should really limit this talk to only one page. It is a mess currently.

Med, I would really like to see a resolution to this dispute. If only saying "The Cassini Imaging Team" is what will end this, fine. While I still prefer "Cassini Imaging team led by Carolyn Porco" as the most correct solution, saying just "The Cassini Imaging Team" is an acceptable compromise solution, if it will put an end to this. However, making personal threats and ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia are not the way to resolve disputes. It only further entrenches people's opinion against your own. I would ask that you not make such threats in the future here. The people editing here, I believe, are editing in good faith and I would like to believe that you are as well. So please, try to resolve this without the ad hominem arguments you have presented here. --Volcanopele 18:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still believe that the formal discovery attribution should be just "Cassini Imaging Science Team" (no individuals), there's certainly nothing preventing an article from including additional, well-sourced material about the discovery process and individual contributions to it – either in a footnote or in a separate subsection. I would also like to point out that the current IAU rules, while sensible, are by no means set in stone, and are in fact quite recent. Looking at archived versions of the IAU "Planetary Nomenclature" web page, we see that the 1979 discoverer of Thebe is listed as just "Synnott" until December 2003, then "S. Synnott and the Voyager Team" until April 2005, and only "Voyager Science Team" after that. I'm rather uneasy about such retroactive reassignment of discovery credit more than 20 years after the fact, especially since it's apparently not based on newly-discovered facts, but purely on a political decision. (It's a bit like Clyde Tombaugh not actually having discovered a "real" planet after all.) On the other hand, the new attribution rules seem to have been in effect by the time of the Polydeuces discovery (or very shortly thereafter), so I have no problem with just referring to the whole team as "the" discoverers there. Hqb 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

The pages Pallene (moon), Methone (moon) and Polydeuces (moon) have been protected because of persistant edit warring and reverts.

I encourage involved users to edit the talk page, resolve their differences, and craft a common version which suits everybody. You are all grown scientists, you are intelligent enough to do this. Rama 13:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Remarks from Carolyn Porco

So this is how Wikipedia works? MED states: "And i also strongly dislike manipulations like having a BBC article changed, this could have some unfortunate consequences for the person having pressured the BBC to do this." People attempt to win their arguments by threats and bullying? I'm absolutely appalled. I believe that this immediately disqualifies the individual calling himself Med. Whoever you are, you have no right to offer further commentary.

I will say that Voyager and Cassini simply do not work the way the Hubble and Spitzer (apparently) do, if what is written on these pages by others concerning those missions is accurate. Planetary programs have a different culture.

And as has been said already several times, any appearance of the team leader's name is not in the capacity of a discoverer. What has just been proposed by the individual RebJon is certainly agreeable to me.

And I hope this brings this issue to a close. - CP

Yes, some people attempt to win their arguments by threats and bullying, having a two years old BBC article stripped to hide the name of the people having seen some satellites for the first time, and i am absolutely appalled too. If you happen to know the person having pressured the BBC for this, suggest him/her to read a bit about research ethics. May i remind you too that here you are both judge and party? And you think you are in the position of telling me that i "have no right to offer further commentary"? As precised earlier you are free to add any interesting information about the Cassini related articles as you are certainly the person on Wikipedia having the widest view on Cassini currently. However as this dispute is partly about you i would be grateful if you could refrain from intervening on this point. Med 22:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to cite "research ethics", then you should be in favor of the convention, agreed upon by all team members and the IAU, for the credit: Cassini Imaging Team. It's difficult to fathom how any other credit is ethical, considering that the parties who are actually directly involved agreed to this and that the body which arbitrates such matters has approved. Attempting to re-write the history through revisionist "Wikiality" sounds pretty unethical to me. CheshireCatCO

If you want to cite "research ethics", then you should be in favor of the convention, agreed upon by all team members and the IAU, for the credit: Cassini Imaging Team. It's difficult to fathom how any other credit is ethical, considering that the parties who are actually directly involved agreed to this and that the body which arbitrates such matters has approved. Attempting to re-write the history through revisionist "Wikiality" sounds pretty unethical to me.

Notice that my proposed version credits the Cassini imaging team already. You should also read Syntaxis explanations about IAU communications to avoid any misunderstanding about this. And revisionism, such as the one having occurred in the BBC article is clearly unethical too, i agree with you. Med 23:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethics" means something other than your usage implies. Requesting that a story be revised to make it more accurate is common practice and a thoroughly mature and ethical way in which to proceed. If you pick up any reputable periodical, you'll notice that in any given issue there are likely to be a number of errata listed for older issues in which the editors acknowledge mistakes and set the record straight. On the web, the process appears to have become simply editing the article to fix the mistake. There is nothing unethical about this and your continued accusations to the contrary are ad hominem in nature and surely beneath any attempt at reasonable discourse.

If you think that the current attributions, as given by the IAU, are incorrect, then you're welcome to do the corresponding thing and petition the IAU to change them. Constantly editing the Wiki pages for these moons isn't an ethical or mature way to proceed: it's an attempt to revise the history anonymously through the back-door. CheshireCatCO 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do not realise the nature of the changes made to the BBC article. I advise you to compare both articles and you will understand straight away. The changes have been made only to make a point and removed perfectly correct informations stating who had first seen those satellites. This is just trying to erase some people from history. Who has any interest in this? I think you must see what is unethical in this. Requesting Murray and Chanoz to be removed is certainly not a mistake made in perfect good faith.

About the IAU attribution, read Syntaxis explanation. He has explained much better than i could do and i agree with this position.

Oh and please don't try to invert the roles. Thanks. Med 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Rebjon21

For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, I am suggesting that we credit the discoveries of the moons to the Cassini Imaging Team. Period. In addition, and in a separate sentence that is totally unrelated to the discoveries, I suggest we add Carolyn's name as the leader of the Team as this is factually accurate and in no way distracts from or interferes with the preceding sentence relating to the discoveries of the moons. As for Med's vociferous response, I agree with Volcanopele that Med is being abusive. Volcanopele and I have calmly suggested that we try to resolve this dispute amicably, but clearly Med does not agree with us. Med is being totally unreasonable -- who is s/he to say 'this is not negotiable'?! Furthermore, the BBC wouldn't change something they knew was correct. Does Med take them for fools!??? Rama, can you please note that Med is behaving uncooperatively and erratically and that he or she is not helping us to resolve this dispute and in fact is escalating it by his or her attacks, which undermine not only the issue under discussion but the reputation of Wikipedia --Rebjon21 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking, right? I have tried to rephrase my proposition quite a few times trying to find a consensus. You (Rebjon21, not talking about volcanopele who has evolved) have not changed your position, wanting to keep the cassini imaging team (which is fine) and porco (which is not fine). If you prefer Porco in a separate sentence, i can certainly live with Murray/Charnoz in separate sentences too. What about "Polydeuces has been discovered by the Cassini imaging team. As part of this team led by Carolyn Porco, Carl Murray is the first to have seen this satellite". The team is clearly creditted. Porco is cited as the team leader and Murray is mentionned to have seen it the first (note that i do not use the word "discover"). I notice that for now i have agreed for way more changes than you. You are clearly less cooperative than i am. Med 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Simply changing an old article to conform with the correct convention is hardly unethical. Declaring that there will be consequences for those who asked for said corrections is, unfortunately. Fhqwhgads17 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What convention? Is there a convention stating that the people have first seen a satellite should never be mentionned (i do not say creditted)? But if there is no problem about this i don't see why anyone would bother that the competent authorities are told about those actions. Med 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

New accounts

By the way, i find weird that some people create new accounts just to defend Carolyn Porco's point. See Special:Contributions/CheshireCatCO, Special:Contributions/Fhqwhgads17 for instance. The first one having an IP from the University of Colorado… Med 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However as i have already told before, you are all welcome to add interesting informations and images related to Cassini. :) Med 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has convinced me to get an account in order to join in. So what? I'm not Carolyn Porco, if that's what you're trying to suggest, nor am I Fhqwhgads17. And that fact that these are coming of CU-Boulder is moot, is it not? CheshireCatCO 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, how did you (Med) determine the IP address of a user account on Wikipedia? I wasn't aware that this information was readily accessible to ordinary Wikipedia users once a user had created a user account which hid a person's IP address in posts. So this seems to imply that you are in fact involved with Wikipedia, in which case you should be disqualified from this argument. In addition I wish to add that there is no good reason to add Charnoz and Murray, as they deserve no special distinction in the discovery of these moons above the other hardworking people on the imaging team.--Rebjon21 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this has to stop. I do not want further personal attacks, provocations, or any form of attempts at discrediting people in particular. This is true for everybody. Med, be civil in your development. Rebjon21, stop provoking Med and please make genuine attempts to finding a compromise.

I already had to block three articles, that should be quite enough. The people involved in the discussion are apparently scientists, they should be mature enough to discuss things in a civil and honnest manner. Rama 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few unanswered questions

I heard about this interesting story some time ago. Basically the main issues seem to be : what are the well-established facts, and who does deserve some or most of the credit; and, as a corollary, how Wikipedia should handle this issue. This is a sociologically interesting question, and I can certainly testify of it, having witnessed several hot discussions in some moderate/big scientific collaborations on some related issues (who will sign the discovery paper ? How will the author list be sorted ? and so on). In my own field, it is widely known that several CMB and Big Bang related issues are quite scarsely credited to the proper persons (for example almost everyone in the US forget, or at least used to forget citing Lemaître as one of the founders of the so-called Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric — see the WP entry for some very basic introduction to this issue). So regarding these moons, I have some factual questions

Does anyone agree with the sentence "CM was the first to see Polydeuces (then named S/2004 S 5)" ? (same applies for the other moons, of course, possibly with a different author)
Would the sentence "CM was the first to identify Polydeuces a as moon" be more accurate ?
How crucial was CM in performing this step ? I mean : did he use some public software to discover the moon, or some software of his own, or anything else ?
Would someone else (e.g., SC or CP) have made this final step equally easily ?
Did some other person of the Cassini imagin team (or anyone else) process the same data before CM ?
When CM suspected/knew Polydeuces to be a moon, did he confront his results with some other people of the Cassini imaging team (or other people) ?
Did these people agree with CM's conclusion, did they consider more investigations were necessary ?
If so, who did investigate ?
Once there was an agreement within the Cassini imaging team about the reality of the discovery (I presume there was), what happened ? Who did what ?
Was any procedure regarding this situation already existing ?
Was it followed ?
Btw, who proposed the official moon name ?

Now, I have some more personal questions to Mrs Porco, if she happens to read this (and apologizing if this was already discussed somewhere) : what is your preferred option : citing the team only, you only, CM only, CM and the team, CM and you, you and the team, or both three ? In any case, how credit should be given ? Do you know CM's opinion on that matter ? Alain r 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Response from Carolyn Porco

Sorry...I do not really know how to use Wikipedia, and so don't know how to indent in another response. This will have to do.

Since this has been addressed to me, I will answer. And the answer is:

Most of these questions are irrelevant, because they ignore what happened before the images even hit the ground, which was a lot of work on the parts of others. The work of CM and SC were important in these discoveries, but no more important or worthy of mention than others. Discoveries of this sort are all vetted by the team, and so we all discussed the significance of the results, whether or not we had adequate information to make an announcement, etc. We work as a team, and we get credit as a team. And I've given my opinion several times above as to how credit should be given in this case: to say `discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team' is the correct attribution. To mention the team leader name somewhere thereafter, as someone else suggested, is only an informational descriptor about the team, not about the discovery. As for the official proposal for the name of the moon, in this particular case I proposed the name Polydeuces, but that too is completely irrelevant and earns me no more credit than anyone else. Once again: the Cassini Imaging Team works as a team, and that's how credit for these kinds of discoveries gets attributed. To single out any one individual for one particular role they played in these discoveries is to deny the credit that is rightfully shared by all of us. - CP

I understand the point that reducing a discovery to the last data processing step is unsatisfactory. Everybody understands that. Still, I am surprised by you use of the word "irrelevant". I would not approve such wording, and I doubt any historian of science would either. I must say that I am not satisfied with your line of reasoning which, if I understand correctly, says : "We won't give details for this because then we should give details on that [and we don't want/don't have time to]". Actually, a project like Wikipedia would never have become what it is if people had had such complaints about any topic ("we won't enhance this article because then that aticle would be too short as compared the the other"). Probably part of the misunderstanding comes form this. I would find it more appropriate to state when necessary who performed this or that important step. If the team really works well as a team, then everybody should be more or less equally credited for his/her actual contribution at some point. Of course, it would be rather complicated — and possibly boring — to explain who designed the filter wheels of the cameras and so on and so forth, but still, doing so would be more accurate. So, instead of requesting that some facts are removed here and there, the philosophy of Wikipedia would be rather to encourage you to enhance other parts of the article, or possibly other articles. So, a welcome move would be to enhance the Cassini–Huygens article, and in particular the parts related to the various scientific instruments, which, I am sure, could contain well enough material to become separate articles. Alain r 02:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details of who did what with the data really are irrelevant to Wikipedia. When you read a formal scientific paper, you don't expect to see details of which co-author reduced the data and which one fit it, do you? Of course not. Some details really are left out because they really don't matter. A team effort is a team effort.

What is the motivation of outside parties to swing into this team agreement and try to pry it apart and give credit to individuals, here? (Individuals who, as far as I know, are OK with the team agreement.) If the team agreed on collective credit, that's a private matter. Yes, there is such a thing as information in the world that the world does not have the right to know.

There is a logical problem in saying "XXX are irrelevant to Wikipedia. When you read a formal scientific paper, you don't expect to see details of XXX".

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a formal scientific paper. Rama 08:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to wonder how came that I am interested in this, know that 1) I hold a permanent position in astrophysics, with around 30 articles published in peer-reviewed journals 2) I am a Wikipedian, mostly active on the French Wikipedia 3) In that wiki, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee, whose aim is to deal with disputes that are hard to solve. I happen to read what happens on the other Arbcoms, including the one on the English Wikipedia, and I discovered this controversy (or whichever way you want to call it). Considering myself as an expert of both scientific related issues (which CP is, but not everybody else here is) and Wikipedia related issues (which CP is not, but some here are), I allowed myself to ask a few questions. I do not want to start a dispute here — I have an already large number of far sillier disputes to solve on fr: — I was just curious about this one. So I will no longer comment this nor any other related pages. Alain r 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, Rama, but not a problem with the argument at all. Unless you are arguing that Wikipedia should include more detail about methodology than a formal paper rather than less? I think that's an absurd notion; papers should be one extremum of that continuum. Wikipeda, as an encyclopedia, should be nearer the other end. If it isn't suitable information for the paper and it's in violation of the team's agreement about credit, I don't see how it's relevant to an encyclopedia. CheshireCatCO 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the same mistake again by saying "it's in violation of the team's agreement about credit" : we are not the Cassini team, here, so what is in force among the Cassini team does not concern us. Rama 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, and you cannot dismiss it with a casual statement, Rama. The entire team agreed to this system, so it's private information who played what role. That that information might have been leaked is irrelevant, Wikipedia has no business spreading private information. People do not have the right to any and all information that they can get your hands on, some information should not be spread. Or are you trying to take Wikipedia down the road toward intellectual thuggery in that regard? What's next then, posting information about what people had for breakfast? CheshireCatCO 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am afraid that we'll have to disagree on this: one of Wikipedia most baic principles is that it is a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia. As such, it does not seek to upset external conventions, but it is not bound by them either. Rama 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that you entirely avoided the point (that some private data simply does not belong on Wikipedia), how are you going to confirm private information? There is no official record of who did what, so you're just using hearsay.CheshireCatCO 15:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing scientific data is not a matter of private life.

Please bear in mind that the aim of a talk page is to improve the article, and that what is written here is public, and even appears on Google. You are not servicing yourself with this sort of arguments. Rama 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about scientific data, Rama. Who did what isn't scientific data, it's a matter of internal concern among those involved. And please do not try to make this personal by attacking me. If you want to get personal, I would think that as the admin who locked these articles, you would have stayed totally out of this discussion. Failing that, you should at least try to be civil and/or neutral, especially since you've repeatedly claimed that everyone else ought to be nice.

My arguments have stuck to the key points. If you can't address the arguments themselves, then please don't reply at all. Frankly, I see little point in continuing this. Everyone has made his or her stance clear and we only seem to be rehashing the same old arguments: some feel that references should follow the rules given by the IAU and the Cassini Imaging Team itself, others feel compelled to try to grant credit (however inaccurate it may even be) and feel it's the public's business to know anything and everything. (My biased perspective.) Seems like an impass to me.CheshireCatCO 17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Rama here. You of course see the glaring hole in your arguement CheshireCatCO, you state that "it's in violation of the team's agreement about credit". How do we know that this statement is true? Are you perhaps party to "private information" that you are now "spreading" on Wikipedia. I'm quite prepared to accept that the "entire team agreed" to this policy but how do you, or in fact any of us, know that its true? Are you perhaps one of the aforementioned team members who was present at the relevant time and agreed to this policy? You yourself argue that "how are you going to confirm private information? There is no official record of who did what, so you're just using hearsay". Following your own arguement are you yourself using "hearsay" to support your case? And again I'm having problems with this apparent insistence on the use of only "official" sources. As for posting information about what people had for breakfast? As long as the information is accurate the only problem I'd have with it, apart from it being very boring, is that it might/would infringe on the personal privacy of individuals. I tend to think of private information as my bank balance, weight, credit card numbers, sexual orientation and preferences etc not the goings on in an ultimately PUBLICALLY FUNDED scientific research group, especially when the reseach in question has absolutely NO commercial, political or national security impact. Syntaxis 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the IAU is also on-board with the agreement tells you that it's an accepted agreement. I really don't see where you think you have found a flaw in my argument, there, except a very contrived attempt. As for the publicly-funded aspect of the research, that is completely irrelevant and you surely must know that. Many things happen under publicly-funded research grants that you have no business knowing. The funding source does mean that the results of the investigation should be made public, but not necessarily vaguely-related information. It's a thoroughly specious, if depressingly common, argument.CheshireCatCO 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've taken one data point, the fact that the IAU lists "The Cassini imaging Science Team" and argued that this supports your conjecture that the Cassini Imaging Team has an internal agreement about credit. An equally valid hypothesis is that the Cassini Imaging Team preferred to have all members (~>30) named but that the IAU decided that this was too many and in line with their publically stated policy in such cases simply gave the credit "to the science team". This hypothesis is consistent with all known facts -- as it happens I believe that there is such an internal imaging team agreement and that the IAU simply followed the wishes of the team but thats simply a belief. There is insufficient verifiable information to support a single conclusion Syntaxis 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter whether the IAU lists the discover as "Cassini Imaging [Science] Team" because of some internal agreement to share credit or whether the list of discoverers is so long that it is more convenient to list the team as the discoverer? Either way, the IAU still lists the team as the discoverer, not individual people. Either way, what it tells you is that press regarding an individuals who might have had a hand in the discovery were not telling the full story. If it is the former, than the press didn't cover that internal information that has not been disclosed, so it is inappropriate to cover that in the article. If it is the latter, then it goes to show that far more people were involved in this discovery than just the two or three people mentioned so far, and again it would be inappropriate to single out people as the "discoverer", and again, the press articles would not show the full story.

These articles have been locked for several days now and I think it is time to just have a vote in order to resolve this. --Volcanopele 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Rebjon21

I'm glad that some unnamed individual agrees, that to put one team member out front -- ie, to pry apart the team agreement and single out one member -- is not appropriate. This is why I think it should be left 'discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team'. After that, to include Carolyn's name is just simple journalistic practice...to put the head of an organization or team in the article describing that organization or team.

I hope my compromise statements (below) meet with approval:

Why don't we separate the discovery from the information about the team leader as this actually and symbolically disassociates the two? Porco's name would therefore be added as additional descriptive information about the Imaging Team, and nothing more. So the separation between the mention of the discovery and the fact that she leads the team should suffice. We can do this as follows?

METHONE

It was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team [3][4] and given the temporary designation S/2004 S 1. Methone is also named Saturn XXXII. The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco.

PALLENE

It was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team [3][4] in 2004 and given the temporary designation S/2004 S 2. The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco.

POLYDEUCES

Polydeuces was discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team and given the temporary designation S/2004 S 5. The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco.

After all, you have to admit: The Imaging Team as a whole has made remarkable discoveries about Saturn, we owe them a lot, and Carolyn deserves mention as their leader.

Sorry, but the occurrences of "The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco" strike me as typical journalistic practice.

Also, as a layman, I fail to understand why the chief of the Imaging Team should be cited rather than, say, the chief of the Cassini-Huygens mission, or the directors of NASA and ESA. Rama 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: that dones't mean that I've made up my mind in any way (besides I don't intend to have one), I just mean to underline that your position is not understandable for a layman like me. Rama 13:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is the Imaging Team that is directly responsible for the observations that resulted in the discovery of these moons, not the project chief and not the heads of NASA and ESA. Rebjon21 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also repeatedly stated that I object to use of "The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco" in close proximity to the discovery information. Its use elsewhere in the text, while entirely accurate, seems unnecessary. I agree with Rama that it is "typical journalistic practice", its the sort of thing you see in press releases, news articles and puff pieces. I get self-promotion vibes from it. As I've argued several times I also believe that its against both the letter and the spirit of the IAU convention. While I think its use unnecessary and I'm not happy with it I can live with Rebjon21's suggeted compromise. The extra text separting the "discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team" from "The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco" is sufficient to prevent casual readers from developing the impression that Dr Porco necessarily played a more significant role than any other member of the Cassini Imaging Team in the discovery of any particular satellite. I should also like to point out that this current discussion is also relevant to the way the discovery information is given for Daphnis. To date I don't believe that any peoples names have been mentioned in connection to this discovery but it has the "it was discovered by Carolyn C. Porco and the Cassini Imaging Science Team" line of text that I have strongly objected to the use of for Methone, Pallene and Polydeuces. Syntaxis 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with "The Cassini Imaging Team is led by Carolyn Porco" is that this line is not relative to Polydeuces, but to Cassini, or the Cassini Imaging Team. In other words, intuitively, I'd tend to have a link to the article on Cassini, where informations on the administrative structure will be, but I fail to grasp why Carolyn Porco leading the Cassini Imaging Team belongs to this article. While, on the other hand, mentionning the individual scientists who first saw Polydeuces might or might not be advisable, but clearly has something to do with the matter at hand.

Again, I am not pushing for a version of another, but I am vain enough to think that if I don't understand something like this, chances are that our casual readers might not either. Rama 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAU policy on satellite discovery

I thought that I'd try to find some indication of the IAU's policy for attributing discovery of new satellites. And I did indeed find the relevant information [24], the relevant bit is the very last paragraph in the page .."When a satellite has been discovered through the efforts of a large scientific team, the list of individual team members may be too long to include all contributors. In such cases, credit for the discovery will go to the science team." Note that this is a "convention" not a "rule" and it does not state that the credit must go to the team but that if the list of people is "too long" to include everyone then the credit goes to the science team. I believe that the clear intention here is that either everyone who contributed to the discovery is named or no-one is named and the credit is given to the science team collectively. (And once again I point out that its not "the XXX Science Team led by YYY" since this names an individual but doesn't name all the individuals who contributed which is contrary to the convention).

The question that immediately occurs to me is how many contributors is too many? The offical IAU page,[25] list 8 people (B. Gladman, J. Kavelaars, J.-M. Petit, H. Scholl, M. Holman, B.G. Marsden, P. Nicholson and J.A. Burns) as the discoverers the the saturnian satellites Ymir, Paaliaq, Tarvos, Ijiraq and 7 others. So 8 individuals aren't too many to be named. Another relevant question is what is meant by "scientific team"? Is this just the scientists who analyse that data and publish papers in peer reviewed journals. In the Cassini context I believe this would be the 13 competetively selected Team Members and the Team associates who either work directly for Team Members on Cassini data or are invited to join the Team after the selection process because of the scientific contribution that can make. I'll call these people the "imaging scientists", a list of them is basically the author list of the ISS Team Reports [26]. The Team Members stay the same but there seems to be some turnover of team associates over time which isn't surprising. It varies slightly but the list is about 30 or so. Alternately does "scientific team" mean the imaging scientists plus all the other people (I'll call them "others") involved in either the Cassini Project generally or the imaging experiment specifically. Past practice in the astronomical community appears to be to name the "imaging scientists" plus specific individual "others" when appropriate.

As for the question of whether the actual work involved in satellite discoveries was/is done by a handful of the "imaging scientists" (probably less than 9) or the entire 30 odd "imaging scientists" plus all the "others" is something I won't even try to go into right now.

And a final thought. What happens if a new satellite is discovered in publically available Cassini ISS images that are obtained via the Planetary Data System [27] and the people who make the discovery aren't members of the Cassini Imaging Team? Will the IAU insist that the credit go to the Cassini Imaging Science Team or will the people who actually made such a discovery get the credit? I notice that the credit for the discovery of the saturnian satellite Pan is given to Mark Showalter [28], this was made in 1990 from publically available Voyager images taken in 1980-81, and not the Voyager Science Team.

And once again I point out that, to quote Rama, (Wikipedia) "does not seek to upset external conventions, but it is not bound by them either". We don't have to follow whatever decisions have been made by the IAU or the Cassini Imaging Team, if information is accurate and appropriate then we should consider including it Syntaxis 16:21 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does for just about everything else. When Eris was named, the article name was almost immediately changed to reflect that, despite the fact that 2003 UB313 was the more well known name at the time. When the IAU decided to make Pluto, Ceres, and Eris dwarf planets, those respective articles were changed regardless of many Wikipedians opinions that the decision was wrong. When a feature has a well known nickname, when it is given an official name by the IAU, the article doesn't stick with the informal name, it switches to the official name, regardless of what it is better known as. So can we please just say "The Cassini Imaging Team" and end it at that. We were pretty close to an agreement at least on that. --Volcanopele 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't intended to suggest that we shouldn't, for example, switch to using 'Eris' rather than 2003 UB313. But that we should also mention all other information (whether its "officially" approved of or not)-- that its provisional designation was 2003 UB313 and that its nickname was "Xena". Which I note the current Eris [29] page does indeed do. There is also a summary describing how it came to be classified as a dwarf planet. Incidently since you brought it up I also notice that the Eris pages includes a nice summary of the discovery circunstances. Something which I'd like to see in due course for these satellites. I think I've already said I can live with just the "Cassini Imaging Team" as long as no names of individuals are mentioned in close proximity in the text. Syntaxis 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree more. Having Carolyn's name there as the team leader certainly does NOT give the impression that she's played a larger role in this particular discovery. Quite the contrary: most people don't think of the leader as having any direct role in the technical aspects of a scientific investigation of this magnitude. When Microsoft puts out new software, do you assume that Bill Gates had a direct role in its creation? Of course not! It is clear that this is personally motivated, and is shameful. Carolyn's name belongs there. Period. I also want to add that I agree with what CheshireCatCO has said about Rama and his/her influence in this debate and how against the rules it is for a moderator, like Rama, to be involved. Rebjon21 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia isn't bound by the IAU conventions, I would be happy to see the text read "disc. by the Cassini Imaging Team (consisting at the time of A, B, C...)". After all, we've straightforwardly corrected various errors which the IAU/MPC pages still sport after all these years, and even asteroid discovery credit is sometimes reported differently by the IAU/MPC and the discovering observatory. (I can supply specifics if needed) Urhixidur 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem, it seems, lies in what is meant by "credit" and "discovery" (which in Wikipedia terms is meant to be the moment when some human realised that what he was looking at was something new). I propose we write something like: « Polydeuces' discovery was the result of a large team effort, and is accordingly credited to the Cassini Imaging Team. The first team member to actually spot the satellite was Carl Murray. » The idea is to set the credit to the team, and mention the specific "discoverer" as trivia. Urhixidur 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

volcanopele has a great point, why can't we just say "The Cassini Imaging Team" and end it at that? I also agree with Rebjon21 in that having Carolyn's name in there DOES NOT imply a larger role in this particular discovery. She is the leader of the imaging team. It is a whole team effort. Every team has a leader. For good for bad the leader is the public face of any team. In a team setting many individuals come together to form a cohesive unit under someones leadership. In this case the Cassini Imaging team made a discovery, under the leadership of Carolyn Porco. She is the public face. So another option might be "Discovered by Cassini Imaging Team. The Cassini Imaging team is led by Dr. Carolyn Porco." What am i missing here?Dusty14most 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it would be wrong, misleading and entirely inappropriate for Murray or Charnoz to be mentioned above all other team members. I offered the compromise above. Others agree that Carolyn's name deserves mention. Let's go with it. Rebjon21 13:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Madness

I am a science journalist with an academic background in astronomy – specifically, planetary astronomy. I’ve been very fortunate to have covered stories about everything from project Apollo to the Voyager spacecrafts and now Cassini. I’ve also learned from some of the best: the late Drs. Harold Masursky, Gene Shoemaker, Carl Sagan and current veterans like Gentry Lee -- gentlemen and great scientists all.

When a friend suggested I check this dispute out – I was frankly disinterested. More important fish to fry and deadlines to meet. I am not very familiar with the Wikipedia culture though I do use the site sometimes as a starting point when developing story ideas.

I was appalled to see that the tone of this discussion is more typical of what one might expect to find on some science fiction discussion group. It’s one thing to have an opinion, another to engage in childish personal attacks and stubbornly defend contrived, agenda-driven points of view. Dr. Carolyn Porco is one of the world’s finest planetary scientists and has worked with passion and dedication over many years now to bring us all those fantastic Cassini images. I don’t understand why she shouldn’t be acknowledged as the head of the team. She certainly deserves it, and it is relevant to the issue of any Cassini discovery -- that the team was (and is) under her leadership.

It has been clear in my dealings with the Cassini Imaging Team in the course of my job that they are exactly that – a team. Any attribution should therefore be to the team. But noting that she leads the team is also important, since the buck truly stops with her. To imply that this is some kind of ego quest by her or that somehow she is trying to deny credit to other deserving individuals is utterly ridiculous. The most egregious postings here had the tone of a fourth grader saying something along the lines of, “if you get yours then I get mine.” Well no, not when one view is so obviously personally motivated to discredit Dr. Porco and remove her from mention.

As for the so-called Wikipedia neutrality – I see absolutely no evidence of it here – just a lot of personal agendas. Leave Dr. Porco alone and go do something constructive.Lassenmichael 05:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)lassenmichael[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a general public journalistic publication; for instance, we use much less adjectives, we source our statements ("finest planetary scientists" -- says who ?), and we refrain from loaded statements.

As for this talk page, I regret to say that you are insulting, and that your preconceptions regarding the motivations of your fellow contributors are not tolerable. We'd be grateful if you could refrain from such behaviour in the future. Rama 11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rama that I used too many adjectives. I will use fewer (not less) now. As for says who? How about Carl Sagan and Gene Shoemaker? I will leave you with a simple thought: Individual team members shouldn't be singled out for discovering anything and a team leader is mentioned simply because she is just that. Have fun with the rest of your discussion.--Lassenmichael 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)lassenmichael[reply]

Poll Regarding Attribution

Given that this article has been locked for several days, I believe it is appropriate to poll the editors here to see if we can at least decided one something rather than continue to allow the articles to be locked. For this, we should use Preferential voting. Each editor gets two votes: you can vote twice for one selection if you strongly prefer it, or you can vote once for two selection, if you want to voice support for two selections. I think we should vote this way since there are two what I guess you could call opposite positions and one "compromise" position. The choices are:

Attribute only the team

In this case only the "Cassini Imaging Team" or "Cassini Imaging Science Team" will be referred to as the discoverer of Polydeuces, Pallene, Methone, and Daphnis.

Votes

Attribute the team as well as either Carl Murray, Carolyn Porco, or Sébastien Charnoz

In this case the "Cassini Imaging Team" or "Cassini Imaging Science Team" will be referred to as the discoverer of Polydeuces, Pallene, Methone, and Daphnis, and either Carl Murray, Carolyn Porco, or Sébastien Charnoz will be described as having seen these moons first.

Votes

Patteroast 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I think the discoverer should be listed as the team, and the whole mess with any additional information should go in the text of the article, both Porco's status as team leader and if information points to someone who saw them first, who that might be.[reply]
Urhixidur 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Credit the team in the infobox, mention the "glimpser" in the text. By the way, I doubt C. C. Porco has ever actually had the chance to make any discoveries of this kind herself --being team leader is mostly a mountain of management work. But I may be wrong, and she may have kept a slice of her time for real work. (Hooray for her in that case!)[reply]
Med 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute only the team and mention Carolyn Porco as the team leader

In this case only the "Cassini Imaging Team" or "Cassini Imaging Science Team" will be referred to as the discoverer of Polydeuces, Pallene, Methone, and Daphnis. In a separate sentence or clause, Carolyn Porco will be referred to as the leader of the imaging team.

Votes

--Volcanopele 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Fhqwhgads17 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--CheshireCatCO 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Lassenmichael 21:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Rebjon21 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Mustangklrbee 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Dusty14most 12:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ShaRamanatukara 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC) By hard work and strong determination some people are discovering amazing facts and dont know why some others are behind it by criticism and fake facts.[reply]

it quite ridiculous that some people came up with certian conclusions, but the fact is fact, it's Carolyn porco and the mighty Cassini Imaging team that discovered the moon. May be some other guys find this moon. I appreciate his efforts. But IAU has its own laws and guidelines. so to sum up i vote for Cassini Imaging team under the leadership of respected carolyn porco.

And another cheer for another new contributor, who managed to find his way to here for his first and perhaps last edit to Wikipedia ! Rama 16:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly remind the people here, and maybe introduce newcomers to the notion, that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Editorial decisions are made by consensus (not by a majority). Rama 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may not be a democracy, polls can be taken to see if we have a consensus view. Discussion seems to have petered out, and it is important to resolve this since the articles have been locked. --Volcanopele 21:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I just meant to underline that voting never happens, only polls. Rama 22:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Volcanopele "you can vote twice for one selection if you strongly prefer it". Why then has my two votes for option 3 (and that of Lassenmichael) been removed and by whom? And why has the person who removed our two votes for this option not explained why they did this and who they are, deciding instead just to remove the votes? Also why is Volcanopele allowed two votes but everyone else is denied the same option. This is an absolute disgrace. Rebjon21 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-read the above statement. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting does not happen. You are fre to hold an opinion polling to enquire people's opinion, but thinking "Preferential voting" or anything is a waste of time. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Rama 09:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite striking that of the people who have expressed an opinion, 5 have less than 50 contribution, are very recently registrated, and have not edited on other topics than this one. Rama 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Rama, but all of the editing here seems to be okay. The points that all parties have made seem to be on topic, and of interest to this article. I was not aware that new members had to be vetted before they could begin contributing. What you are saying is that seasoned contributers opinions should be given more wieght whilst newcomers opinions are slighted... Sounds cabalish.. Dusty14most 02:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what he's saying is that opinions of users who have actually shown some sustained interest in contributing to the quality and coverage of Wikipedia tend to get more consideration when determining consensus among editors. This is the case in most other large-scale collaborative endeavors as well, such as Linux development. Useful input from newcomers is always welcome, but anything like "one account, one vote" (or even "one voice") is meaningless, given the trivial effort involved in signing up for a new account. There are plenty of ways in which even newcomers can quickly demonstrate their commitment to improving Wikipedia in general, if they expect their opinions on specialized, controversial issues to count as much as that of regular editors. Hqb 08:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vipinmaars 20:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC) the credit for the discovery of Saturn's moon Polydeuces for no doubt goes to Carolyn Porco and the cassini Imaging team. According to me all other arguments are just ridiculous.[reply]

Thank you, Vipinmaars, for your one valuable contribution to Wikipedia.

Frankly, this is getting ridiculous. Rama 09:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrypc 08:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to congratulate Carolyn Porco and her team for this wonderful accomplishments as far as the debate is concerned, its a waste of time.

And a warm welcome to a another new contributor ! Rama 11:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delving back in here, Charnoz's own wikipedia entry even says "By using a numerical code he wrote for an automatic satellite-detection (among the hundreds of images of the ISS camera system), he helped the Imaging Team to discover the two smallest known moons of the Saturn system in 2004[1],[2],[3],[4]: Methone and Pallene." Sounds like he himself is adhering to the conventions spelled out of "team first", making this whole arguement even more ridiculus. On a bio page that may make sense. I thought I would point that out in the name of consistancy. It might have some relevence here. Dusty14most 10:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that I understand your argument. If this person is the discoverer of the moon and that this can be sourced t the point that it is mentioned in his biographical notice, it would seem to me that it'd make sense to link his biographical notice from here.

Again, Wikipedia is (attemps to be) self-consistent. It is not bound to be consistent with the conventions of others. Rama 11:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see that Charnoz would be adhering or not to anything? I don't see his name on the list of authors of this page. Moreover it is bad for anyone to edit his own biography. Additionally, an older version shows that he is creditted for having been the first to see those satellites: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9bastien_Charnoz&oldid=69282444 and the one having changed the sentence you are talking about is … Dicuya: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9bastien_Charnoz&diff=123599699&oldid=121166584 . Therefore the consistency argument cannot be valid here. Med 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 double votes under Option #3 that were removed. Why did Rama remove those and leave the other double votes alone? Or is it that he removed the votes from the one option he dislikes? This is vote tampering. It is clear, even with the double votes gone, that Option #3 has won. So contest is over. Let's go with that. Rebjon21 14:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that obviously votes with newly created accounts (a trick as old as wikipedia) are discarded, and in this case option 1 is leading. Second is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Med 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record ... from Carolyn Porco

I have been dropping in on this exchange every once and a while, and have received emails from individuals from all over the globe who also have been reading this discussion, and I must say, from my own reading and from what I've been told, I find what's transpired here both eye-opening and disturbing.

The so-called `moderators' have more than demonstrated their lack of impartiality by removing double votes from certain categories but not from others, preventing other people from voting (which conveys the very loud message that no one else is allowed to participate in this discussion), altering the content of the `locked' pages even after they've been locked, and then, of course, constructing the most contrived and contorted arguments in support of an invalid, biased stance. The contents of this exchange make it patently clear that Wikipedia does indeed operate by its own conventions, and ones that appear to follow the personal whims of a few rogue individuals.

To those who have been as dismayed as I have been at this, you may be relieved to hear that a new on-line astronomical encyclopedia is being created, called Encyclopedia of the Cosmos, which will be edited by experts only. This encyclopedia will be part of the Digital Universe, an education initiative of the Digital Universe Foundation, a non-profit organization (http://www.dufoundation.org). The goal of the Digital Universe is to organize a worldwide network of scholars to create a subset of the Web in which high-quality information is well organized and readily available as a free public service.

So there is hope that accurate and reliable information, vetted by people who understand and respect the need for accuracy and reliability, will eventually be on-line.

In the meantime and for the record, I will say that it doesn't matter to me personally one way or the other whether my name is called out as the team leader of the Cassini imaging experiment. And to repeat what I've said before, no one individual can be rightfully singled out in these discoveries as they were the work of many individuals. What matters is that the credit for the discovery goes to the entire team and the entire team alone. So, while I am touched by all of those who voiced their support for calling out my name as team leader, the obvious course of action to take in order to get by this impasse is to simply remove the names of any and all individuals, including mine, and move on.

Also for the record, and in response to a comment made above, I will say that I do indeed participate heavily in the research conducted with the Cassini Imaging experiment, from the design, planning, and execution of the imaging sequences, to the analysis and interpretation of the images after they hit the ground. And that includes the searches and discoveries of new satellites, among other research topics I am involved in (like ring structure and photometry, and the Enceladus plumes). Yes, being a team leader and directing CICLOPS is a *very* large management job, but I didn't work for the 14 years before getting into Saturn orbit so that I could merely wave a baton. I am a scientist first. That is my passion, and that's what I (still) do.

Hopefully, this will now put the lid on this matter. # CarolynPorco 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Carolyn has written here shows a remarkable degree of magnanimity and stands in marked contrast to the pettiness and personal bias exhibited by the others in this dispute. I voted to have her name included, and I think that would have been a perfectly reasonable, appropriate and informative thing to do .... to mention her as the leader. But following her lead, I think we should all stay focused on the science and the usual conventions for these things and leave out the names of individuals. Rebjon21 21:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 6 days now since anyone left a comment about this issue. Surely, in light of Carolyn's magnanimity and the views expressed here regarding crediting just the Cassini Imaging Team, we can sort out the three articles now and unlock them. Rama, can you please instigate this? Rebjon21 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion regarding the substance of the matter. If the other parties are agreed with you, we will naturally implement the common version. Rama 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rama: the three pages have stagnated and something obviously needs to be done to resolve this dispute ASAP so that visitors to the pages are presented with accurate information and not presented with a dispute and locked pages. You say that "If the other parties are agreed with you, we will naturally implement the common version". Well if you look through the comments you will see that even though people disagree about whether or not to include the names of individuals, people are in agreement about one thing: that we should credit the team only. As we are in agreement and there is ample evidence for this agreement on this talk page, why isn't something been done about it? Rebjon21 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there are no delays we're supposed to hold, I am quite agreed that unprotection is somewhat overdue. I have messaged the users who have given an opinion above and are genuine Wikipedia contributors. If no objection is raised, I'll unprotect Polydeuces (moon), Pallene (moon) and Methone (moon) tomorrow (Sunday). Cheers ! Rama 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good. When you have unlocked the pages can you please ensure that the three articles use the following text, agreed on by people contributing to this discussion: "discovered by the Cassini Imaging Team". Can you also remove names of individuals such as Murray from the attributions in the three articles. Thank you. Rebjon21 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Rama hasn't sent me a message at all. Am I not a legitimate Wikipedia user? Rebjon21 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, I have no particular authority over the editorial content of the article.

You are a legitimate user in the sense that you are entitled to the priviledge of using and editing Wikipedia; you are not a genuine contributor as, for now, you have limited your interventions on Wikipedia to the matter at hand [30]. Rama 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using just "The Cassini Imaging Team" is fine with me. Sorry I haven't responded until now, I have been moving and have had limited internet access for the least few days. --Volcanopele 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polydeuces (moon), Pallene (moon) and Methone (moon) are now unprotected. My appologies for the not doing it yesterday, the thing had slipped off my mind. Good continuation to everybody. Rama 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the three articles to reflect the consensus reached regarding crediting the team only. Rebjon21 17:04:, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proactivity

See Talk:Pallene_(moon)#Proactivity. Urhixidur 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)he was a hero of greek mytyhs[reply]

Spoken Wikipedia recording

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

orbit variation

... Polydeuces' orbital radius also varies by about ± 7660 km with respect to Dione's.

Does this last phrase mean that the difference between P's and D's distances from Saturn varies by that much, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 06:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polydeuces (moon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, grabbing this review. I'll finish this in a bit. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 23:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Copyrights are in order.
I see where the information is cited on the commons, all the images sources are good on my end.
~~For the 'Cassini images of Polydeuces' caption, please clarify these are approximates.~~

Done

I would love to see alt text for the images, this isn't a requirement but is good practice (Optional).

Copyright

Spot checking doesn't raise any immediate concerns.
Earwig only flags proper nouns

Sourcing

"Polydeuces". Lexico UK English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 24 October 2021.

- Not a huge fan of the Tertiary source but it is only used for basic pronunciation, I will allow it.

Manual check finds that all sources are still live, I recommend archiving but don't require it.

MISC

Stable page
Nominator is also main author.

Prose

~~In the infobox, I don't see surface gravity or escape velocity cited in the main body~~

Comment: The surface gravity and escape velocity values were automatically calculated via the Gr and V2 templates. Unfortunately there aren't any up-to-date sources for these quantities since they either use outdated values for Polydeuces's dimensions or do not bother calculating them at all since Polydeuces's density is unknown. Not sure if this qualifies as original research (because of assumed density) or routine calculations, so I'll leave you to decide. Nrco0e (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can stay, but can you footnote a brief methodology? Like what you did for the mass and volume.🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done

~~"systematically" reads like WP:Puffery~~

Comment: "Systematically" here means "regularly". I'm quoting the reference (4:223) that is attached to this statement: "Cassini ISS images shuttered since the start of science imaging on approach, on 2004 February 6, have been systematically examined for previously unknown saturnian satellites." If that's still unclear to you, would it be fine if I replaced the word as "regularly" instead? Nrco0e (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e 'routinely' would work fine. It's boarding on WP:TECHNICAL in this case since it has a astronomy specific definition. Systematically can have a couple of definitions, I actually read this as 'methodical" or "In depth". 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done

~~"detections of the moon" specify this is Polydeuces~~

Done

~~"precovered" I'm not sure if this is even a word~~

Comment: I already wikilinked precovery in a preceding sentence in the same section: "...Cassini Imaging Science Team was able to identify 52 precovery detections..." If it's too technical, I can replace "precovered" with "found pre-discovery images" instead. Nrco0e (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be fine since its a linked term. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done

One possible explanation is that Polydeuces's eccentricity is primordial; its orbit was initially eccentric when it formed and has remained that way since Simplify sentence, too many words to say something rather simple.

Done

~~' as known for' Just say 'similar to'~~

Done

~~'researchers may assume' vague wording, clarify or explain~~

Done

"only show it spanning more than ten pixels across" clarify what this means.

Comment: I tried to remove the wordiness and extraneous detail, though I still would like some feedback on how it looks now. Nrco0e (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e The phrase "over 10 pixels wide" is a remark based upon FN 13 where they reference the methodology they used to estimate the shape of Polydeuces. The issue here is that it makes little sense without the context of why 10 pixels is important. In table 3 is discusses that the images are over 500 pixels in total. Simply put, "more than 10 pixels doesn't mean much. Clarifying that this is the first time they got images of Polydeuces larger than 10 pixels across would read better and provide better context. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. I've replaced it with your suggestion. Let me know if there are any more issues. Nrco0e (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's all from me, page is on hold. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e, at this time I do not see any additional issues within GA criteria. Article passes. Congrats on another GA, this was an easy review and the page was incredibly well written. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 06:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pronunciation

Norwegian info

Diameter of Polydeuces

Rotation

Saturn satellites

Response to your comments from Carolyn Porco

Discovery Attribution

Dispute Resolution

Clarification from Carolyn Porco

Response from Rebjon21

Suggested solution to the dispute by Rebjon21

Protection

Additional Remarks from Carolyn Porco

Response from Rebjon21

New accounts

A few unanswered questions

A Response from Carolyn Porco

Response from Rebjon21

IAU policy on satellite discovery

Poll Regarding Attribution

Attribute only the team

Votes

Attribute the team as well as either Carl Murray, Carolyn Porco, or Sébastien Charnoz

Votes

Attribute only the team and mention Carolyn Porco as the team leader

Votes

For the Record ... from Carolyn Porco

Proactivity

Spoken Wikipedia recording

orbit variation

GA Review

Images

Copyright

Sourcing

MISC

Prose