Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea

Comments

note: add images of the two claimants. Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I am tempted to submit this to GA. anybody? Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. We might want to write stubs for the red links. kwami (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

npov issues

This article is heavily slanted towards the Caltech team, including even having only a picture of the team leader for Caltech but not the Spanish team. This is a pretty nasty violation of NPOV.--Cerejota (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any free-to-use images of Ortiz Moreno. Serendi^podous 08:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the other neutrality issues? This article is clearly biased.--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't provided specific evidence of supposed bias. Serendi^podous 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think saying "suspects" instead of "accuses" or even "says that he suspects" in the opening paragraph talking about the controversy introduces a certain viewpoint immediately. Matthew Miller (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a statement of fact. Its either true that he suspects fraud or it is not. To suggest that we must say that "he says he suspects" is absurd. Why should we doubt him. If he SAYS he suspects fraud,then its reasonable to say that he suspects fraud,if he suspects fraud,then I presume he has said so,otherwise its unlikely we would know. (or at least,we unless he stated it would would be simply guessing)

Actually,accuses is NOT a weaker statement,its far stronger. In normal English usage,"I suspect you of X" ,means I have some level of information that I find sufficient to think X. But if I say,"I accuse you of X" its a very strong statement. It means,"Im saying you did X" The implication is,your not uncertain,you firmly believe it.

I DO see a problem with the article. I see no reference for the claim that he suspects fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Was this article written by someone on the Caltech team? It's written like a short story where the Caltech team is the protagonist and the Spanish team the villain. I'm tagging this with POV, it really should be looked at by someone neutral.

Discovery

On verifying the sources, I realized that the "Discovery" section has serious factual errors. For example, it adjudicates discovery to one team, while this is precisely the fact on controversy. It should be rewritten to give parity in their claims to both teams, as this is what the sources actually say.

Of course, the "Synthesis" issues around the actions of the Spanish team still remain, and these affect the entire article.--Cerejota (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Haumea (dwarf planet) says the Spanish team is the discoverer but that the naming was made using the Caltech proposal.--Cerejota (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does not say that. It leaves open the possibility that the teams made independent discoveries, Caltech predating Ortiz, but Ortiz beating Caltech to the announcement. kwami (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If this was simply a matter of discovery credit, then yes, I think your proposal would be a good idea. But the problem is that the Spanish team could very well be guilty of fraud, a serious crime. To give parity to both sides would be to give credence to a potential fraud.Serendi^podous 11:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be true, but we do not have crystal balls to tell. There are unproven allegations of fraud. Perhaps fix for neutrality and tag {{current}}? In fact, since the controversy has not been resolved, it should be tagged {{current}} anyways.--Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it tendentious to speak of 'could be guilty of fraud' and 'potential fraud' if, as far as i can see, there's no source added with proof of fraud? Mpvdm (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact tag should go in the Haumea article, not here, since that article depends on this for its conclusion. (I'm going by your edit summary, where you say you're tagging this article because it disagrees with the main article.) kwami (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it goes where the incorrect information is, until it is fixed. --Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. The only thing you did until now is to bitch at what the article says. If you want to be something else than a troll, please add information and sources in order to improve the text. Nergaal (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am as well. You say the fact tag goes here because here is where the error lies, but you haven't presented any evidence that there is an error. All you did was (falsely) state that this article contradicts the Haumea article, which even if true would not tell us which was in error. Do you have a point to present for discussion? kwami (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What exactly is wrong with this article? Specific examples please. Serendi^podous 11:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I opened the section with specific examples and presented the errors. While the burden doesn't rest with me to "prove" anything, specially on the obvious nature of the issues, but realize they are not. For example, instead of saying "The discovery is in dispute" or somesuch this article clearly attributes the discovery to one team, using the blog of the CalTech team leader as a source (or at least, the first source to appear in the following sentences is that). This goes against WP:RS regarding primary sources, not to mention iffy by NPOV standards.

Furthermore, the only two secondary sources (New York Times and New Scientist) both provide a coherent synthesis of the controversy - on which this article should be basing itself, rather than basing itself on Michael Brown's blog. If all we had to go on were primary sources, the synthesis issue would be lesser, but with two solid realiable secondary sources, there is no need to develop an original narrative.

The sourcing is immaculate, but they are misrepresented in the article. I hope we can have a productive conversation around this, to fix the article. These are clear content policy issues. --Cerejota (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you weren't implicitly accusing us of obfuscation. Serendi^podous 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To make it clear, an example of factual inaccuracy is the section "Discovery", both sources open with the claim of discovery of the Spanish team, and mention the initial congratulations given by them to the Spanish team. However, the article says that Haumea was discovered by the CalTech team, and then after going into details, in the second paragraph mentions the Spanish team. This is a factualy innacurate presentation, a synthesis from sources, and is based on a primary source that has its NPOV comprised, namely, the Blog of the CalTech team leader. These things are obvious by cursory reading.--Cerejota (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the second paragraph mentions the Spanish team. This article is in chronological order, and Brown found Haumea first. Either both Brown and Ortiz discovered Haumea, or only Brown did. Either way, Brown certainly discovered Haumea. Serendi^podous 13:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We also use the blogs of the Spanish team. Neither team disputes when the other first observed the object; the dispute is over whether the Spanish team's discovery was independent. Let's suppose that it was independent, nothing untoward occurred, and that logging onto the CalTech logs was merely for confirmation, as the Spanish team says. We still have the CalTech team as the first discoverer, but the Spanish team as the first announcer. That isn't disputed by either side. kwami (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why use blogs if we have secondary sources? Two wrongs do not make one right. And still nope: the discovery was made on 2003 files: that is the whole nature of the dispute: precovery or not. It is heavily slanted towards supporting the POV of the Caltech team, while the controversy is still alive. Thats plain synth. --Cerejota (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather ingenuous def of "discovered". It's been precovered on plates from the 50s, but that doesn't mean it was discovered in the 1950s! The Caltech team discovered it first. However, under IAU guidelines, the Spanish team should be credited with the discovery, since they reported it first. That rule was devised to avoid disputes of two teams each claiming to have discovered it first. But in this case the Spanish team does not dispute the Caltech discovery date, so it's not really a controversy over who discovered Haumea, but over who should receive credit. And who should get to name it—if the IAU were following its house rules, the Spanish team would get that honor (though Ataecina doesn't seem to qualify.) kwami (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

All that might be true, but does it verify? You see, the issue is synth, which is what you just did.--Cerejota (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. Just read the sources. Serendi^podous 22:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy hasn't posted in three days. Since he has yet to explain how this article could be made more balanced, can we call the issue closed? Serendi^podous 15:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is fine by everyone except for that guy. Nergaal (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is a quick fail. It has dispute tags on it, POV tags, and its accuracy is being questioned. There is an argument underway on the article's talk page.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Article is a quick fail because of current edit wars over NPOV. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a good piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I've made some MoS fixups that you can check

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   For now, hopefully will stay that way

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments in no particular order:

• The lead section needs some kind of conclusion. It's good that the lead overall is light, because this is a subarticle that readers have probably already seen the summary of before they clicked, but still something of the IAU resolution should be mentioned.
• "Haumea ... clearly did not fit the bill": It should be spelled out why it didn't (because it wasn't larger than Pluto, I guess)
• I'm okay with the neutrality of the article in general. But, the citing is very light here, and in a "controversy" article, the citing should be much more thorough. I know per-sentence footnoting is tedious to some, but it's really required here, at least in the 'controversial' spots.
• I'm okay with using the scientists' blogs to support what they thought or some aspects of what they did. But they can't be used to support other facts. Current footnote 2b ("Within an hour,") and footnote 3c ("At the CSBN, the name was decided by a single vote.") have to be cited to neutral sources.
• Cite 4 "Minor Planet Electronic Circular 2005-O36 : 2003 EL61" needs a publisher ... I wasn't sure what it should be.

The citing is really the biggest issue. "... Brown came to suspect fraud." isn't cited, and it and most of what's in the "Reaction" section needs to be. "IAU protocol is that ..." isn't cited. "... accusing the IAU of political bias." isn't cited. And so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anything happening to resolve the issues raised in this review? There were a couple of edits by the nominator in this direction on March 1, but nothing else. It's already been longer than the specified 7 days since the review was done for changes to be made. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the resources to verify these things myself. If we were able to access the primary data (computer logs etc.), wouldn't that be OR? I'm not sure where else we'd get the info, if not from Brown, who's the one bringing the charges. The IAU has sided partially w Brown, but I don't think they've ever made their reasoning public for us to cite (and the Spanish team, of course, accuses them of bias). I'm not sure it's possible to correct RS reqs. kwami (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You've misread my review comments. The article doesn't have to decide who's right in the controversy, but it does have to fully cite the description of the controversy that it presents. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further activity on this article, so I'm failing the GA. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I don't have time to do a full GA review just yet, but I will say that the article seems to end a bit abruptly...the aftermath and/or resolution of this controversy should maybe have its own section? Otherwise this article seems very good, haven't examined the POV details yet though. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what can be included in this section you are suggesting. Ever since the discovery, no news seem to have come out. Nergaal (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Still, I would suggest re-arranging the final paragraph(s) so that it sounds a bit more like the article is at a conclusion. Currently, the final sentence is "Supposedly, the 'neutral' name Dagda, the name of god from Irish mythology, was also proposed." It sounds like the article got cut-off. (Also, supposedly should be replaced with a more encyclopedic word; see WP:ALLEGED).-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article does not meet the criteria for GA at this time, especially problematic in terms of criteria 2 and 4. Please feel free to renominate the article at a later time after the noted concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "IAU officially recognized the Californian's team proposal in September 2008." - rather ambiguous statement. I think you're referring to the proposed name, correct? Should say so explicitly. Also, grammar - "Californian's team" -> "Californian team's"
• Haumea didn't "fit the bill" because it was small, but most people won't understand why size is so important
• "Haumea was the first object currently[update] classified as a dwarf planet to have been discovered since Pluto in 1930" - since it is currently classified as a dwarf planet, could remove that from the middle, and add a phrase at the end of this sentence to explain its initial classification if necessary (i.e. "...though it was initially classified as...")
• Perhaps mention why the California team was in Hawaii?
• If his name is José Luis Ortiz Moreno, why is he referred to as Ortiz and not Moreno?
• This article could use a general copyedit for spelling, grammar and clarity
• Could use a few more wikilinks, but some are duplicated
• "The announcement was made earlier than planned to forestall the possibility of a similar controversy with that discovery" - at that point, there was no controversy yet - should reword
• "Scooped" is a slang term and should be explained or eliminated
• The name of the Iberian goddess is spelled differently in the text and the photo caption - which is correct?
• There are some minor issues with encyclopedic tone
• "(136108) 2003 EL61 " - should explain where this comes from
• The article is tagged as containing potentially dated statements

Accuracy and verifiability

• In the lead you say that the Ortiz team accused the Americans of political interference, while the naming section says that they accused the IAU of political bias. Which is correct?
• Given that this is a possibly controversial topic, citations should be much denser
• Citations needed for:

• "Santa", as they nicknamed it at the time
• Instead he kept it under wraps, along with several other large trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs), until through additional observation he could better determine their natures
• When his team discovered Haumea's moons, they realized that Haumea was more rocky than other TNOs, and that its moons were mostly ice. They then discovered a small family of nearby icy TNOs, and concluded that these were remnants of Haumea's icy mantle, which had been blasted off by a collision
• He says that he found Haumea in late July on images taken on March 7, 9, and 10, 2003
• the team came across Brown's internet summary
• without making any mention of the Caltech logs
• The next morning they again accessed the Caltech logs, including observations from several additional nights
• Stoss found precovery images of Haumea in digitized Palomar Observatory slides from 1955
• The same day as the MPC publication, Brown's group announced the discovery of another Kuiper belt object, Eris
• Brown, though disappointed at being scooped, congratulated Ortiz on their discovery. He apologized for immediately overshadowing their announcement of Haumea with his announcement of Eris, and explained that someone had accessed their data and he was afraid of being scooped again. Ortiz did not volunteer that it had been him. Upon learning from web server records that it was a computer at the Sierra Nevada Observatory that had accessed his observation logs the day before the discovery announcement—logs which included enough information to allow the Ortiz team to precover Haumea in their 2003 images—Brown came to suspect fraud
• He emailed Ortiz and asked for an explanation
• IAU protocol
• The dispute over who had actually discovered the object delayed the acceptance of any name, or of formal classification of the object as a dwarf planet
• The Ortiz team has objected, suggesting that if Ataecina were not accepted the IAU could at least have chosen a third name favoring neither party, and accusing the IAU of political bias

• Personal blogs are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinion of their authors. News blogs are allowed under certain circumstances, but efforts should be made to find better sources
• Some of the details in the article don't match up with some of the details in the sources. For example, the article claims that the complaint was made August 9, while this source says August 14. These contradictions negatively impact the accuracy of the article. If the sources are wrong, more reliable sources should be found. If the article is wrong, it should be changed.
• Refs 5 and 12 are the same
• Need consistency in formatting of references
• Ref 11 is broken
• Ref 19 doesn't support the sentence it's citing

Broad

• The section in Haumea has some additional information that would be useful to help explain events here - should be included
• What was the end result of Brown's request to the MPC for Ortiz to be stripped of discovery rights?

Neutrality

• 3 external links for Caltech + 1 for Ortiz = lack of balance
• Per WP:WTA, certain words add an editorial bias to an article and should be avoided
• "it is rumored that Dagda, the name of god from Irish mythology, a "neutral" name was indeed proposed but not used in the end" - first, "rumored" is a poor choice of words without a definitive source. Second, who made this proposal?
• You devote quite a bit of space to explaining why Haumea is an appropriate name while not explaining the reasoning behind Ataecina
• In general, the article seems a bit stilted towards the Caltech team

I agree, but that may be due to language barriers. Most of the pro-Ortiz material is likely to be in Spanish. Serendi^podous 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In what specific way is the link deficient in necessary and relevant information. Or should we simply add links for the sake of having them. Should we add references just for references sake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1905:210B:0:0:0:464 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Stability

No issues noted; the article has a history of edit wars but these seem to have been resolved. The page has been relatively uncontroversial for the past several months

Images

• There's a picture of Brown but not of Ortiz, which shifts the balance of the article somewhat. If no photo of Ortiz is available, consider a photo of the Spanish observatory that he worked in, or something of the sort
• It might be helpful to include a picture of Haumea itself

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Controversy over the discovery of Haumea/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll review this article within the next few days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is certainly much better in terms of neutrality than it was. Anyway, here are the issues I found:

• I'm skeptical of using Mike Brown as a source for some of this, seeing as how he was a major party in the dispute. Namely, ref #2 and possibly ref #4 I'd prefer to see a different source used. 17, 21, and 29 are fine because of when/why they're used.
  • Ref #4 is only referencing an exact date and "within an hour" now. Nergaal (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have minimized the use of #2. How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the only issue I have, so I'll put the article on hold. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • It looks better now, so as a result I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:2003 EL61.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2003 EL61.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)