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 pod ous  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 pod ous  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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish obviously discovered it but the Americans have to take credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.39.132 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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 pod ous  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 pod ous  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 pod ous  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 pod ous  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 pod ous  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 pod ous  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)

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. - Running On Brains (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).- Running On Brains (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
I've tagged the article, as it has a serious POV problem. All the Caltech stuff is presented as facts, while the Spanish stuff is full of weasel words, "claims to have examined", "He says that he found" etc etc. Some serious agenda pushing going on here. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we are pushing verified facts, and trying to avoid spin by the parties involved. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Controversy over the discovery of Haumea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006182705/http://www.pluggd.tv/audio/channels/kcet_podcast__hammer_conversations/episodes/2h10l to http://www.pluggd.tv/audio/channels/kcet_podcast__hammer_conversations/episodes/2h10l

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Chthonic name
The article claims that the chthonic name was inappropriate because Haumea wasn't resonant with Neptune -- however, this source, as well as the article itself (The nominal trajectory suggests that Haumea is in a weak 7:12 orbital resonance with Neptune, which would make it a resonant object instead.[3]), indicates that that has been disproven. The section should be revised to clarify that it was thought at the time to be inappropriate.38.134.125.11 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)