Talk:Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
"it has recently gone into orbit about our galaxy having somehow become detached."
What is the meaning of this clause that appears in the article as of today? I cannot interpret it. Detached from our galaxy? Surely not! Can someone elucidate this? Thanks. Zaslav 02:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
May 30th "discovery"
I deleted the segment concerning the "discovery" that our solar system is from SagDEG, as it's external link  is, to be blunt, full of crap. The site makes grandiose claims, but none of their references substantiate these claims in any way. It's entirely unprofessional and, until it's actually verified by a respectable source, it should remain out of the article.--NME 09:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted this segment as well, primarily because of the breathless POV ("breakthrough", "astounding", "pivotal"), not to mention gibberish (what in the world does "substantiate the May 30th SagDeg theorem into discovery mode" mean?). However, I've now looked at the external link, and it clearly doesn't meet the standards of WP:VERIFY (it's a webpage written by the same "independent researcher" responsible for these so-called "breakthrough surprise discoveries"). And considering that the same page claims that this is the true cause of global warming, I'd say that not only does it fail WP:VERIFY, but it is also truly not a reliable source.
- Oh, and Mr. 3LevelChess: surely the correct action to take regarding a profanity (if it indeed qualifies as such; it's an awfully mild word, by modern standards of profanity) is simply to remove the single offending word, not the entire comment? 126.96.36.199 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We are in a bit of a pickle in that those deleting and/ or amending the page are either apparently lacking the I.Q. to allow comprehension of the discoveries involved ( or ) are not attempting to -- based out of sheer ignorance-- I cannot pretend to know which. It simply is not possible to link to a better verification than the ABC News Release Link that lays to waste all previous related science as inacurate that normally would have been the substantiation point as proofs to the new data in question:
Please make an effort to understand this point. The above science release makes clear that all related foundations are built upon these directional inacuracies and therefore cannot be used in the verificatiion processing of contrary theories and discoveries without a correction to the very roots-- involving the daunting task of the rewriting of all relevant science possibly all the way back to Copernicus, for that is how long we have been incorrect in our thinking. Do you know of the man who discovered why all the women were dying in childbirth? He discovered germs. All would either not hear of it and/or thought of how they could be actually guilty of causing a string of deaths themselves as medical practitioners. Medical practitioners would not wash their hands going between ill and diseased patients and those child birthing. The result? the knowledge was suppressed and thousands upon thousands more women died simply because these particular individuals all decided to quash the data -- those entrusted with overall academic authority who would not allow the new data to be published.
The discoverer? He died penniless, and watched thousands more women die out of deliberate ignorance.
The actual true cause of Global Warming was (attempted)to be presented which could possibly change the course of history (or not)-- because of choices made here by those who decide the fate of new theorem and discoveries.
You have a responsibility to the truth and the future. Choose wisely.
I have chosen to update my thoughts posted here earlier to reflect what is most accurate in my thinking. Please do not edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3LevelChess (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- In blatant violation of the three-revert rule, I note. And with a bonus insult disparaging fellow editors' intelligence. Your link  makes no reference whatsoever to the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, so is not remotely relevant to this article. I have reluctantly left your version standing, lest I myself violate WP:3RR; hopefully one of the many other editors who reverted your edits before I came along will notice your changes shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I find it amusing that 3LevelChess asks that we "please do not edit," yet at the same time found it necessary to delete my original talk segment... But in any case, the link about the Sol system being part of the SagDEG is literally rubbish. As I've already said in my original response, none of the references back up any of their claims. Additionally, available evidence contradicts the claims made that we're from a different galaxy. We know that the SagDEG is at an almost-90 degree angle to the Milky Way. Which means that all stars just entering into the Milky Way would be in an almost-90 degree angle orbit around the galactic core. If Sol was from SagDEG, then it, too would be at a similar orbital angle. While it's true that the system's plane is at odds with the Milky Way itself, our orbit is consistent with a solar system that has, at the very least, been a part of the Milky Way for (at least) millions of years. (Here's a hint... gravity never forces celestial bodies to make 90 degree turns.) Now, if you want to insult my intelligence again, that's fine, but when you do so, at least try to back your nonsense up with some actual facts, rather than ill-conceived hypotheses. --NME 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for some of the comments in my last response. I was in a really nasty mood, and ended up venting here. -- NME 10:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious why this object is referred to as Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical. Nowhere in the literature is this designation used, not even in the original discovery paper. It's always referred to as the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal (dSph). It's listing in SIMBAD and other references is as a dwarf spheroidal. And the listing as SgrDEG is especially confusing as there is a galaxy titled SgrDIG.
Moreover, dwarf eliptical is usually reserved quite specifically for objects that are nucleated, which Sgr is not, and much brighter than Sgr (wikipedia's entries on dwarf elliptical and dwarf spheroidal galaxies are incorrect on this point).
Does anyone object to changing this object to Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy?
Hal 10000.0 21:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not quite correct to say that the identifier "Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical"/"SagDEG" is not used in the literature. A search of ADS turns up a few, here are a couple of them: Bernabei et al., Myers et al.; also so-called in the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Paul Murden (ed.) 2000. In SIMBAD "Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical"/"SagDEG" are two of nine listed identifiers for this object.
- True enough, the original discovery paper didn't call it that (only Sagittarius Dwarf), and the spheroidal/dSph identifiers do seem to appear more frequently in papers. I don't know whether that's down to any actual difference in interpretation of the structure.
- I think the article could be moved to Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, but the alternative identifiers such as SagDEG etc should be mentioned, and retained as redirects.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has been 7 years since this suggestion was made, in the mean while, there are 185 publications on NASA ADS with Sagittarius dSph and at most 3 there with SAGDEG. It's clear that the scientific community does not use this name, it's time we stop confusing others by using the wrong name on Wikipedia. Can someone with a username move the article and make a redirect for SAGDEG? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)