Talk:International Star Registry/Archives/2012

NPOV

WOW...this page is INCREDIBLY biased. It reads like an opening argument against SRI. I think it's a bunch of crap myself, but you can't let that show in the article, it needs be NPOV. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the version that you described as "incredibly biased" was *completely* unbiased and accurate. "Unbiased" doesn't mean "treating everything equally." It means "referring to the situation accurately and fairly." The current version is biased, because it says that the organization enables people to do something that it does not, in fact, enable them to do.

How about, as a compromise, having the opening read that the company sells packages that indicate that a star has been named after a person, although those names are only applied in the company's own literature? I think that's more accurate than what we have now, but less critical than what you objected to. Brettalan (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since they state that they register the star name in "book form through the U.S. Copyright Office", shouldn't this be added to the text? I think this is the most significant aspect of this organizations business practice.Santabarbaradianne (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

I tagged the article as containing original research, but the tag was removed.

Here's why I think it contains OR:

Just because individual claims/statements might be referenced, strininging them together can easily be original research. take the following from the article as an example:

"Their FAQ incorrectly states that "Only 2873 stars are visible to the naked eye"[12] (while over a million have been sold).[7] In reality the number of visible stars is closer to 10,000, depending on sky conditions."

If you can find a reliable source that states the above it's not original research, but if you can't, we must assume that the editor researched the three seperate pieces of information and strung them together to make a point. That's called original research.

Similarly, although probably less obvious the following:

"The IAU has called the ISR's star-naming business "a deplorable commercial trick."[5] However, the ISR does not claim to officially name a star, saying: No. We do not own the star, so we cannot sell it to you. This is like adopting the star. This star is associated with that special someone. It is something you can point at to know that there is something special out there for you.[6]"

Is the second reference a direct response to the first reference? If not, then it's the editor linking the two together and making something a response to a question the original source isn't referring to.

It's risky to link two seperate sources into one common thought - especially where the two sources are contradictory. Such editting easily becomes original research. So, in short - if an article makes a claim or presents an argument that can't be supported in its entirity by a secondary source, it is more than likely original research.

I'm putting the template back and hopefully someone can edit the article to fix this.

Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering you've identified the passages in question, why don't you try your hand at it? Rework it a bit and see if you can come up with something satisfactory. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My level of interest is a little too low at the moment and my level of tiredness a little too high! :) But I hope someone can fix it! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I am in the business of star naming. I have made this quite clear. Does this now disqualify me from commenting on a subject in which I am an expert? I do not think so. I am wishing to post an external link to http://www.starnamer.net/editorial.html and I have a conflict with another editor that does not wish me to do so. Quote from the COI page: When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor.

I am trying to speak on this subject and should be allowed to do so. Others have stated that this article in incredibly POV. I am trying to balance this POV with other perspectives.

Glennconti (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the article that you have linked to, and I would take a pass on it. Reason is that it's too close to the actual star naming companies. If it were written by a third party, I think I would be more inclined to retain it, but this editorial is nothing more than an appeal for business from the star-namers themselves. Kind of a here's-how-I-scammed-you discussion. So no link.

Otherwise, you should not edit the article page for this topic directly since you have a conflict of interest related to the topic. However, just because you have disclosed this does not give you a free pass to edit all you would like. Comment on the talk page, and let other people do the article editing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"here's-how-I-scammed-you"? Naming a star is not a scam. Commercial companies saying their star naming is "official" is considered a scam. But with proper disclosure, informed consumers make the choice to name stars anyway and commercial star naming is not a scam. Ask a person if he can name a star and he will tell you sure I can. But astronomer's say you can't so that's to be the last word on it. I don't think so. People demand to name stars and it is a legitimate novelty business. Additionally you say the link is too close to star naming companies however you allow the IAU link. Why aren't they too close to the astronomers point of view? Why is it that you completely air the astronomers POV but hush the commercial star naming industries POV? In this astronomer's survey, the majority of well informed people still wanted to name stars even after being exposed to the astronomers negative POV on commercial star naming http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/information/namingstars.htm#surveyres Glennconti (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Comment on the talk page, and let other people do the article editing." The article is incredibly POV. In the best interest of WP I am not going to relinquish my right to edit. "So no link." I also take issue with you reverting my edit while it is still under discussion on this page as if you had a greater right to make a decision than I do. How is it that you get to make this action? Isn't consensus an important WP principle too? Glennconti (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The conflict of interest guideline was determined based on consensus, and unless/until the guideline changes (based on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest), I must enforce that guideline. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My interest is that of improving WP and eliminating POV, therefore COI does not apply. Yet you still revert my edit while the matter is under discussion. And make no comment about my rebuttal of your fallacious implication that all commercial star namers are scammers (ie you appear to be POV pushing unless you will admit that commercial star naming can be a legitimate business)((Really how dare you call me a scammer? Would you call an abortionist a baby-killer or a civil rights activist a ni--er? Get real! At least you have proved that you have no sensitivity to this issue.)). And have not addressed my issue of the article's POV. Please respond to these issues. Glennconti (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not link to material that you have written yourself and published yourself, especially if you have a vested business interest in the topic. This is pretty much the definition of "conflict of interest", although even disregarding this, it is still WP:Original research. You can improve this article by citing reliably published sources (WP:RS). As a side note, if anyone's interested, I can name a star for you for free if you like. I'll even write it in a book and send you a certificate, you'll have saved $20 or more.

So you are saying I have free range to edit this article if I can find reliably published sources? So I can quote as follows from the Wired article: "Is ISR's star-naming business therefore a scam? No, not legally. The company promises to send you a piece of parchment, a booklet and a star map -- and it delivers. It also promises to copyright your star's new name and location in a book -- and it does." and further "We've been given a clean bill of health by the attorney general of Illinois," Mosele said. "They find no problem with what we do; we're not trying to mislead people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennconti (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No one is stating or implying that you have free range to edit the article if you find reliable sources (of which the survey page you cite elsewhere is not). You need to contribute via the talk page and let others edit the article itself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"if anyone's interested, I can name a star for you for free if you like." That's very generous of you because by my count millions of people are interested in naming a star for their loved one. When do you start? Glennconti (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo other editors urging for you to avoid editing this article, even if you have reliable sources. You have a conflict of interest and should limit your contributions to this talk page where other editors can then perform the edits. This will help ensure that the article remains as neutral as possible. If you edit the article yourself, you run the risk of other editors removing your edits, regardless of content, simply because of COI concerns. Play it safe and make your edit requests here. I, like other editors, am watching the talk page and will respond within a day or two to requests.--RadioFan (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is too POV. It needs to point out that commercial star naming, properly disclosed, contrary to astronomer opinion, in NOT a scam. Please reference the Wired article and make this point abundantly clear. I would prefer a section on counter criticisms. Also, please make it clear that the majority of people still wish to name stars for their loved ones even though they have been exposed to the Astronomers negative POV as per http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/information/namingstars.htm#surveyres Thank you. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Glennconti (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Something like: "In the company's defense, the product and advertising is not illegal, and they make no explicit claims about the official nature of the service. ISR's vice president of marketing and advertising, Rocky Mosele, believes that customers accept the 'unofficial' nature of the star naming, and that the experience may even help educate them about astronomy" Sorry if my grammar's off, it's quite late at night. Marasmusine (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason this article exists is because of the controversy the company, and the practice of star naming has generated. ISR's side of the story is well represented. If there is some 3rd party (i.e. not ISR or any other company selling star names and not the IAU) that has written something positive or negative about the practice, it should be included. Additional references to the ISR's marketing aren't necessary however.--RadioFan (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason the company is notable is specifically because of the controversy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Marasmusine: What source are you using for the proposed passage? SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is from the Wired story.[1] I agree that saying "well at least it's not illegal, and here are some nice thoughts about the company from their PR dept." makes for extremely weak content. I'm just trying to establish exactly what Glennconti wants to see here, in the most neutral terms. Although even if we did manage to fit in the "what's the harm" defense, there's further content in Phil Plait's book that addresses this. Marasmusine (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your interest and contributions. Your working towards NPOV is commendable. As a side note I was wondering how everybody thought about the "Deplorable Commercial Trick" comment. It would seem that this would need to be referenced directly from the IAU (and the reference is old ,1988, the industry has cleaned itself up since then). The way it is it is simply hearsay. And the comment is very explosive. Does it really need to be included? Or at least some counter point? Glennconti (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The IAU still takes a very strong stand against the practice (not just this company's). If there is a more recent reference that could be used instead, that would be fine but considering the IAU's current language includes words like "deceiving" and talks of lawyers "laugh[ing] their heads off" at claims of authenticity, the veracity of the current quote doesn't seem out of line and doesn't recognize any industry cleanup. Please provide some links to news or other coverage discussion how "the industry has cleaned itself up", it's worthy of consideration for addition to this article.--RadioFan (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The bone of contention in the past was star naming companies tricking consumers into thinking that their star naming was official (much to the consternation of astronomers which are protecting their turf). This all changed when ISR was fined for deceptive advertising by the city of NY. Since then the industry does not use the word "official" and even disclaims association with the scientific community. The only way to show clean up is that the FAQ's started speaking to this issue and disclaimers were put on the home page of the star naming web sites. Has this been reported on by news organizations? No, but the tone in the press has moderated as I am wishing that this article will moderate. However I will see if I can find some notable reference to this change in tone. Glennconti (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That bone still exists today. ISR and any of the other company's offering this product, market the product as "name a star", not "buy a certificate and an entry in our book". Sure there they disclose exactly what you are buying a FAQ but it's not on the main page and not up front in the marketing. Even the disclosure on ISR's radio ads contains language that is interpreted as more official than it actually is: "your star's name will be registered in the U.S. copyright office". I can take this sentence here, and register it with the copyright office for $35 and the copyright office doesn't care what it is. As long as the primary marketing message is "buy a star" this will be seen as deceptive and coverage in the press of this will remain slanted against the practice. The press probably has a good memory of ISR's long standing reluctance to add any language that clarified how official what they are selling actually is. Also, this isn't "astronomer's turf" because they dont "name" stars, names are impractical and make finding stars again difficult. There is an IAU reference on the article that details this. Even astronomy educators take steps to get kids away from using what "official" names exist. People (beginner, amateur or professional) have much more success remembering and locating Orion α, β, γ than Betelgeuse, Rigel and Bellatrix. --RadioFan (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as astronomer's turf goes, all they are doing is protecting their power. Anything that attempts to usurp the authority of the IAU is to be attacked. Don't be nieve. Or maybe you think most of the people are simpletons to be protected by the IAU? How noble! Just a bit patronizing don't you think? Glennconti (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the IAU approaches this either from a standpoint of protecting "simpletons", protecting their turf, or preventing their authority to be usurped. The IAU doesn't name stars in the manner that ISR or similar companies do anyway. It's not a service they offer. If you read the IAU's page on the practice, it's snarky, it's judgmental but its educational. The IAU is under no obligation to approach this subjet neutrally, wikipedia is. If there is a specific edit you'd like to request, then please do. Name calling isn't going to gain you many supporters here. --RadioFan (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I meant no disrespect. But I personally question the motives of the IAU if others do not. As far as a suggested edit. I would like to remove the "deplorable commercial trick" language and replace it with "charlatanry" which is what the IAU currently calls it in their star naming FAQ. It is less incendiary, more current and directly attributable to the IAU. Glennconti (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that support your proposed change? Netalarm^talk 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The IAU statement here http://www.iau.org/public/buying_star_names/ calls star naming "charlatanry". Do a "find" on the word "charlatan" at the IAU statement. Further they call it a non dangerous kind. No where could I find the IAU directly calling star naming "deplorable". Only the second hand reference from 1988 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/826/can-you-pay-35-to-get-a-star-named-after-you Glennconti (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Free service

It's probably not appropriate for addition to the external links part of the article but I thought some of you might be interested in a free star naming service: http://www.painterofdreams.com, It actually offers more than the paid services in that it links to a google sky image of the star in question.--RadioFan (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee, why stop at stars? Offer to name cities, countries or even continents after loved ones! It won't be officially recognized, but you get a certificate, etc. Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll take a look at Tammy Plotner's comments over the next few days and take a crack at it. Marasmusine (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So am I to infer that free unofficial star naming is ok, but for profit unofficial star naming is some how distasteful? Philosophically I have to think about that. By the way, Painter of Dreams gets paid when you want them to print the certificate. They do that for a fee and the star naming is a loss leader. It seems that everyone needs to eat. Glennconti (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, neither is "ok", but at least the free one is free. That addresses one of the major problems people have with most star naming services.--RadioFan (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to announce a new name for the Sun. It is now named Wikipedia in honor of this project. (I've also replied to GC above about providing a source). Netalarm^talk 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would propose that people thinking star naming services are not "ok" implies that they have a biased POV on this subject. Star naming is a legal novelty gift that many people demand. Can't we keep the POV out of this discussion? Glennconti (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any specific issues with POV in edits I've made, please make them here. I or another editor will respond to them. In the meantime you should probably look into this someone is muscling in on your business. On a re:::lated note, Netalarm, you might want to check with this person just to make sure we are still good calling it the "Wikipediarise" each morning.--RadioFan (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with what the woman did as it appears that she broke no laws and got some fun from doing it. However the IAU and their minions probably have a problem with it and have a good laugh on her. Really how could this lowly individual dare to name a star uh uh especially when astronomers have a treaty and such and such? As far as edits are concerned, I know where you "stand" on the issue; you think commercial star naming is not "ok" and have made that abundantly clear. Minion? Is that right? Yeah that works. I also need to look up Sin of Omission. Glennconti (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that just about this entire thread is being used to make sport of your industry, right, Glennconti? SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And that only proves that editors are taking a stand on this issue as opposed to helping me improve WP by decreasing POV. I think it is shameful (and as I have said have not relinquished my right to edit via wp:IAR and others.) Glennconti (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lighten up, we are having a bit of fun with you. No I dont approve of the practice of star naming as a commercial product and/or service. That's an opinion, not a conflict of interest. I am capable of writing about it in a neutral way. Again, if you have a specific concern about the article, post it here and it will be evaluated.--RadioFan (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

Here is an astronomer with a moderate tone http://www.universetoday.com/13721/name-a-star-real-or-ripoff/ Glennconti (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Those comments are coming from Tammy Plotner, author of the Night Sky Companion book. Her moderate tone comes with a lot of conditions, more than I'm comfortable writing in a way that still sounds neutral. Anyone want to take a swing at writing something to add to this article based on her comments?--RadioFan (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, see new proposal from Gelnnconti below.

Suggested edit

What about this language as a counterpoint: "In the company's defense, the product and advertising is not illegal, and they make no explicit claims about the official nature of the service. ISR's vice president of marketing and advertising, Rocky Mosele, believes that customers accept the 'unofficial' nature of the star naming, and that the experience may even help educate them about astronomy" As per Marasmusine from the Wired article and Tammy Plotner also sees some redeeming educational value in star naming. Glennconti (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this, it's a bit more specific: The company defends the practice of selling star naming packages saying that they make no no explicit claims about the official nature of the service and the practice breaks no laws. Vice president of marketing and advertising, Rocky Mosele, has stated that that customers accept the 'unofficial' nature of the star naming. Astronomy columnist Tammy Plotner wrote of some redeeming educational value saying that it can "motivate someone into taking a deeper look at what’s above them". With the Plotner quote reference to the universe today article and the Mosele quote ref'd to the ISR FAQ (or wherever that came from).--RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thank you for putting aside your opinion and writing to neutrality. It does you credit. Glennconti (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way the Mosele quote is from the Wired article. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/12/49345 Glennconti (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I approve. Marasmusine (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. This looks like something we can include. Netalarm^talk 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --RadioFan (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)