Talk:Milky Way

Changing "our" in lead

There as been a brief discussion at the Village Pump about the informal use of "our" Solar System in the lead. I will change the word to "the" if there is no serious objection. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Abundantly discussed already. Please see archives: [1]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the archive. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. I absolutely agree. This discussion is nonsensical. There is no actual argument in that discussion for why MOS:PERSON is blatantly ignored. Using "our" is okay because everyone reading the article is from Earth? you don't see Human saying "homo sapien is the binomial name of our species". And then they touch on solar system referring to other planetary systems - which even if true, there is only one Solar System (capital S capital S). Someone actually argues that Earth's solar system doesn't make sense because "the Earth does not have a solar system, the Sun does" - absolute nonsense. You can absolutely use the possessive to shorted "the Solar System from which the Earth is from/a part of" down to just "Earth's solar system". And to top it all off, the people arguing against removing "our" are, of course, the top contributors. The entire discussion smells of WP:OWN. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 14:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are expressing a very strong opinion about something that is not actually very important. And, by the way, the top contributor is an astronomer expert on the Milky Way. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You point to that discussion and dismiss StarryGrandma's concerns as "Abundantly discussed". I have merely demonstrated that the discussion that was had was definitely lacking in some places. And I said top contributors. One person is fine, but when you have two or three of the top 5 contributors all on the same side and all shooting down suggestions, it starts to look like a WP:TAGTEAM. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

kBrightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 15:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to kick off another argument but again guidelines such as MOS:PERSON are being invoked without being read. First sentence ---> "Wikipedia articles must not be based on one person's opinions or experiences". "our Solar System" is everyone's experience and it is not an opinion that we all live there, therefor it is wording that does not go against the guideline and the guideline is not being "blatantly ignored". Some other very solid rational needs to be cited to even open this up again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, read the lede for Human, there is a reason it reads like it was written by an alien. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 17:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha. Actually the FAQs on the talk page express what I'm trying to get at perfectly. Basically all readers and editors are going to be human, English-speaking, and living in the Solar System, but we shouldn't refer to these facts at all. Sure, using "our" could be thought of as some sort of idiom and therefore an exception to this, but using "the" is an indisputable alternative. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 17:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The Human FAQ notes the point of view at some times is not universal. The POV of this article's lead sentence is, literally, universal. Maybe read the archived discussions again?...."the" is covered re: average readers don't know which solar system you are talking about. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That isn't what those FAQs say at all. Could you elaborate at what you are trying to get at? Addressing your second point, Solar System and solar system are as different as Moon and moon, there is no ambiguity.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 07:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the first two paragraphs (66%) of the FAQ. As to Solar System ---> solar system, that is an editors construct which probably means nothing to the average reader. Again, this has already been covered. I agree with StarryGrandma at this point, "that's not how I would have written it, but it is good enough" ---- a conclusion I drew a while ago (look up ""our Solar System" looks familiar" in the archives). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you read that first 66%? Those first two paragraphs are completely unrelated to this discussion, and deal with changes in tone - this is only one instance of "our" in Milky Way, and it's the one we are discussing. Ah yes, I see this discussion now, where consensus decided that "the" should be used. I absolutely disagree with you - first person should be eliminated wherever possible. And it is certainly possible here. Shall I go ahead and start the dispute resolution process? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to link an FAQ and then pick and chose what you think proves your point that's fine. You linked a discussion that ended in keeping "our". WP:DR would probably be an argument for arguments sake since I don't see anything that would overturn status-quo ante, but knock your self out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Read it! Please read it! It talks about switching back and forth between first and third-person and how unnatural that would be - that doesn't apply here because it's one instance of "our". And please try to see the difference between consensus (almost everyone in that discussion agreed with "the" with good arguments given) and what actually happened (which seemed to have occurred because discussion died). Addressing dispute resolution, I think this article is just an example of a larger problem (see this page I whipped up yesterday) so I don't think of this as an argument-for-argument's-sake. Anyway, I've started by linking this discussion at the Third opinion page, please check the description I wrote for neutrality. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 08:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Brightgalrs: Unfortunately, third opinion is only for disagreements between two contributors, this discussion already has four participants. There are other legs of dispute resolution, i.e. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests (requests for comment would be the most applicable in this case), that may be able to help if desired. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright I'll do exactly that. New section below. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1]

I am sorry that this turned up on the Dashboard and that I saw it there. I spent the early part of my life living in ordinary places where the Milky Way arched overhead. But that was ages ago and few places are dark enough any more. I am just back from a trip to a usually dark sky place, but not only was it cloudy but it absolutely stormed. I do not care whether the lead says "our" or "the". It is my Milky Way and I miss it! Wikipedia is many encyclopedias in one built by editors with a wide variety of backgrounds and personalities. Everyone has a different way of doing things. Consensus is hard enough without having to redo it constantly. We need to be able to say "that's not how I would have written it, but it is good enough". StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Every article certainly brings its own unique issues! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Which of the following should be the first sentence of this article (with the first one being status quo)?

• The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains our Solar System.
• The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Solar System.

Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 10:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Our is fine. We have had abundant discussion on this already; see above and see archive for this article: [2]. More generally, there are many more important issues at Wikipedia than this tiny one. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please summarize the main arguments? (Hypocrisy acknowledged, my arguments summarized below) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm too busy. You can read the previous discussion. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not have posted in this discussion at all if you unwilling to discuss? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note Isambard Kingdom is referring to comments already made in previous discussions, which are plentiful, on this page and as such I think they are entitled to not spend their time repeating them.Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Our per Isambard Kingdom. Consensus was arrived at by many editors of more than one discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. If it's been argued before, then my arguments below should be easy for you to tear apart. With that said, I contest that consensus has been reached at all. Plenty of ambiguous discussions with good arguments for "the" though. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Either the or our would be acceptable to me. However, I have problems with the use of the term Milky Way to refer to the whole Galaxy. My view is that the article should be called The Galaxy or, possibly, Milky Way Galaxy. So I would prefer the first sentence would reflect this. To me, the term Milky Way refers to the band of light in the sky, and consequently to the Galactic disk, bulge and bar, but not the entire Galaxy. It is the entire Galaxy which is the subject of this article. including the stellar halo, globular clusters, gaseous halo and dark matter halo. TowardsTheLight (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As might be expected, this has also been abundantly discussed, though quite some time ago: [3], [4]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

As a way of background - the distinction between Milky Way Galaxy and the "Milky Way" was in a cleanup (I think I did) to reflect "One article - two things" and referenced to a college level text. But it was more recently changed without comment and what is there now no longer reflects the citation at the end of the sentence (fyi - same cite, newer text). It should probably be put back. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I put a cite to that book in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The for a few reasons.

• MOS:PERSON
  • The spirit of this policy is avoid first person at all costs as unencyclopedic.
• MOS:SELFREF
  • The text of this policy says nothing about first-person pronouns. However, the spirit of what it does say is in-line with avoiding any references to "us humans". Every time there is an "our" in reference to something universal, you are referencing that both the author and reader are both human/living on Earth/whatever. This line of reasoning (among other things) is used in the FAQ's in Talk:Human which explain the lack of first-person pronouns in that article.
• Precedent set by other articles
  • Human - as stated above, this article never refers to the fact that both author and reader is human.
  • Sun - "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.", completely comparable.
  • Moon - "It is the fifth-largest natural satellite in the Solar System,..."
  • Earth - "the Solar System", admittedly does use "...shifts in our view of the planet."
• About the perceived triviality of this discussion:
  • MOS:PERSON doesn't explicitly say "our" is wrong. I am relying on perceived spirit of the policy. I think it could be clarified if consensus is reached here.
  • This would give a go ahead to enforce MOS:PERSON in many instances, including references to human anatomy, psychology, and evolution (see this list to get an idea) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The for basically the reasons that Brightgalrs indicates. In particular an encyclopedia should be written without explicitly assuming anything about the author or the reader; the use of "our" is jarring for this reason. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we do assume a great deal about the reader re: MOS:JARGON, WP:TECHNICAL/WP:EXPLAINLEAD/Wikipedia:Write one level down, WP:AUDIENCE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Good points. The problem with your line of reasoning there it's a binary choice: either the reader is an expert in the field or they are not. Is it possible to write an article that perfectly caters to both of these? It is not. Or maybe a better answer is it is possible, but it takes two articles (Introduction to quantum mechanics vs Quantum mechanics). In Milky Way it is possible to cater to all readers regardless of which solar system they are from by using "the". As comical as that sounds, it explains the difference between the two audience assumptions. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note the word "explicitly" in my original response -- sure we assume certain things about what the reader is able to comprehend, but we don't tell them they are or are not an expert! CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The — Wikipedia needs to preserve it's policy of being entirely neutral and not assuming anything of the reader. Using the word our ruins that purpose, it makes the very first sentence of the article sound unencyclopedic and more of a story. If need be, instead of saying our solar system, it should be specified what our solar system is. Even though it is quite evident that most people who will be reading this article indeed like in this solar system, it is not up to us to assume that, and it does not make it okay to use such phrasing. --NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC) The per User:Brightgalrs. ^∞ Target360YT ^∞ (talk · contribs) 09:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)