Denise Stephens discovers planet, destroys Wikipedia

[CrowsNest]

This is hilarious. Denise Stephens (T-H-L) is a BYU Associate Professor, who in May last, hit the news for discovering a planet bigger than Jupiter.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?i ... type=CMSID

User:Skyes(BYU) is a new Wikipedia editor, whose user page states they are a BYU student, and although not exactly clear, is maybe a Wikipedian In Residence for their (hourly paid) work as a research assistant for the BYU Library.

So anyway, Skyes wrote the bio for Stephens, and submitted it to DYK, the hook being the planet discovery......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... e_Stephens

The reviewers quickly noticed the possible COI issues, expressed concerns about the subject's notability, and bizarrely, even alleged some kind of wider promo scam, since the newspaper is apparently owned by the same people who own the university.

That last accusation (by long term Wikipedian BrownHairedGirl) promoted a general request for feedback on the DYK talk page about a possible mandatory declaration and/or ban of paid editing being part of DYK.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... id_editors

......while the nomination itself degenerated into the usual standoff, being put on hold until a deletion debate concludes.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... e_Stephens

It's all very silly, but Wikipedia being what it is, it could conceivably have all fizzled out, the article either being deleted or displayed, and the wider debate ending in failure. Enter the admin known as Coffee, who I suspect is on a carefully crafted exercise in Wikipedia trolling. As part of this, he decided to give maximum publicity to the proposal, on the basis it affects Main Page content.

The ensuing sound you can hear, is the screeching metal of numerous car crashes. The proceedings had aleady been quite daft up to then, symptomatic of Wikipedia's innate dysfunction, given they'd not really even established the basic facts of Skyes' potential conflict, nor Stephen's notability, thus making this a very bad case on which to establish case law.

The publicity just took it to a whole new level. The meandering, confused, sometimes angry, discussion, has revealed several glaring Wikipedia issues all at once. Process issues, policy interpretation issues, consensus issues, quality control issues, common sense issues, clarity of purpose issues, it's all there. I contemplated listing them all, but there's just too many. The recommendation just has to be to just read it, and marvel at the ridiculousness.

It really is a classic case of the blind leading the blind, to the ritual stoning of another blind person, while random blind bystanders protest their disapproval. When it's all over, nobody who was there is likely to have the slightest clue what has changed with regard to the societal understanging of what just happened, or why, let alone how to conduct themselves in future. The only person who gained anything was the one eyed King, who was yet again forced to conclude his Kingdom isn't worth shit, and he should just go get a job at Walmart instead.

Ultimately, Coffee's publicity of the proposal looks like it will have been for nothing, except to cause lulz filled drama, since the likely outcome before being advertised was going to be inconclusive, ergo no change, and that appears to be what will happen here, post influx. Notwithstanding some Hail Mary act by the warrior monks of the anti-paid editing caste. As is normal, their interpretations of policy and common sense is at odds with everyone else.

What is really quite depressing, is that there is little to no effective communication with Sykes. All they have received is a pretty nonsensical note from Jytdog, who, despite not really even knowing what's happened, let alone what policy therefore requires, is anyway pretty certain Sykes have failed in their duty to present their scarlet letter at the DYK nomination. The only other message has been the boilerplate AfD notice.

Even more ridiculous, is how the Wikipediots have completely failed to accurately describe the disputed content. The things they've said about credit for the discovery, and indeed her notability, display their shocking level of ignorance about both academia, and indeed notability. If the press piece is independent, then it actually makes it very clear why this particular discovery was notable for reasons far beyond the relatively mundane observation that they found a new planet. The Wikipediots, including Skyes (but only presumably due to the lack of competent teachers and useful guidance) have completely failed to convey in the biography, or the DYK entry, the encyclopedic angle here.

What a mess. Who in their right mind looks at stupidity like this, realises Wikipedia was founded in 2001, and still concludes it has some chance of eventually becoming an encyclopedia? The only current practical use it serves, is keeping at least some of these people away from positions of actual responsibility. Like a job at Walmart. Perhaps the world needs to start asking on job applications, Are you or have you ever been a willing hostage of the Wikipedia prison experiment?

[Midsize Jake]

It's all very silly, but Wikipedia being what it is, it could conceivably have all fizzled out, the article either being deleted or displayed, and the wider debate ending in failure. Enter the admin known as Coffee, who I suspect is on a carefully crafted exercise in Wikipedia trolling. As part of this, he decided to give maximum publicity to the proposal, on the basis it affects Main Page content.
...
The only person who gained anything was the one eyed King, who was yet again forced to conclude his Kingdom isn't worth shit, and he should just go get a job at Walmart instead.

Ultimately, Coffee's publicity of the proposal looks like it will have been for nothing, except to cause lulz filled drama, since the likely outcome before being advertised was going to be inconclusive, ergo no change, and that appears to be what will happen here, post influx.

Do you have a link for where Mr. Coffee got involved? I'm guessing he's the "one-eyed King" in this analogy, but I'm not seeing his post-signature on any of the three pages linked to above...? I took a look at his contribs, but nothing obvious stuck out, and at the moment he's doing some "content work" on an article about Fannie Lou Hamer (T-H-L), which I'll just go ahead and predict will be renominated for GA review in the not-too-distant future.

[Bezdomni]

Template:Centralized discussion

I asked Drmies to work on some useful Southern history pages once (regarding a prison strike in Alabama). I guess Coffee doesn't need to be asked.

edit: fixed link (twice ^^) (template not WT)

[Poetlister]

She disn't discover a planet; she discovered an exoplanet. That's the problem with relying on popular newspapers as reliable sources. And it's far from a notable achievement; astronomers have found hundreds and this one is nothing special.

[CrowsNest]

I'm guessing he's the "one-eyed King" in this analogy

Oh Lord no. It's anyone who looks at this farce from inside the cult, and has the same reaction I did from the outside.

[Renée Bagslint]

Two interesting points. Firstly, being a woman scientist, it is necessary to explain that she didn't actually do anything, her students did it, probably men. Secondly,

And note the massive systemic bias underpinning this nomination. If Stephens was a male professional footballer, then her notability would be automatic per WP:NFOOTY even if her only professional appearance was a few minutes as a substitute in a single game. If she was a porn star, then she'd be an automatic keep per WP:PORNBIO#2 for her unique contribution.

What she said.

[Poetlister]

Precisely. That's why academics are grossly under-represented on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, much as I'd like to see more articles on university lecturers, I don't believe that this discovery is notable.

[CrowsNest]

I don't believe that this discovery is notable.

Presumably because you keep pretending this is about the mere fact of the discovery. It is not. Read the press article if you want to meaningfully contribute.

[Randy from Boise]

She disn't discover a planet; she discovered an exoplanet. That's the problem with relying on popular newspapers as reliable sources. And it's far from a notable achievement; astronomers have found hundreds and this one is nothing special.

Now, now, don't go spoiling a perfectly good unhinged rant...

RfB

[CrowsNest]

She disn't discover a planet; she discovered an exoplanet. That's the problem with relying on popular newspapers as reliable sources. And it's far from a notable achievement; astronomers have found hundreds and this one is nothing special.

Now, now, don't go spoiling a perfectly good unhinged rant...

RfB

What goes through your head to even be thinking a post like this reflects well on you? If you can show Poetlister's comment makes perfect sense, I invite you to do so. He appears to have realised it's garbage, hence his disappearance. Please don't give him a reason to come back and further ruin what is a perfectly good thread. Albeit one that is embarassing as hell for the Wikipedians.

[Poetlister]

I don't believe that this discovery is notable.

Presumably because you keep pretending this is about the mere fact of the discovery. It is not. Read the press article if you want to meaningfully contribute.

The article pretends it's notable because undergraduates participated in the discovery. That won't wash. Study up on exoplanet discovery if you want to meaningfully contribute.

[Poetlister]

What goes through your head to even be thinking a post like this reflects well on you? If you can show Poetlister's comment makes perfect sense, I invite you to do so. He appears to have realised it's garbage, hence his disappearance. Please don't give him a reason to come back and further ruin what is a perfectly good thread. Albeit one that is embarassing as hell for the Wikipedians.

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand my post. never mind. But why do you think that I've disappeared?

[Bezdomni]

What to make of Rachel Helps' (BYU) statement that she employs one student worker, Gandhi (BYU) (T-C-L)& Skyes (BYU) (T-C-L) ?

As far as boldly-going goes, the Mormons do have a reputation for it...

[Midsize Jake]

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand my post. never mind. But why do you think that I've disappeared?

I just assumed it was because you had second thoughts about your having implied that the failure to include the prefix "exo-" in the original post pretty much invalidates the entire thing...?

Overall though, I have to admit that it's getting harder and harder to avoid using the word "querulous" around here lately.

[CrowsNest]

I don't believe that this discovery is notable.

Presumably because you keep pretending this is about the mere fact of the discovery. It is not. Read the press article if you want to meaningfully contribute.

The article pretends it's notable because undergraduates participated in the discovery. That won't wash. Study up on exoplanet discovery if you want to meaningfully contribute.

Telling people to study up on something you apparently can't even explain won't wash. I say you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

[Midsize Jake]

The article pretends it's notable because undergraduates participated in the discovery. That won't wash. Study up on exoplanet discovery if you want to meaningfully contribute.

Telling people to study up on something you apparently can't even explain won't wash. I say you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

Actually, given the number of exoplanets that have been discovered lately, successful undergraduate research leading to such a discovery probably is more unusual (and therefore notable) than the discovery is in itself. Or any kind of scientific discovery, really.

[CrowsNest]

The article pretends it's notable because undergraduates participated in the discovery. That won't wash. Study up on exoplanet discovery if you want to meaningfully contribute.

Telling people to study up on something you apparently can't even explain won't wash. I say you're full of it. Prove me wrong.

Actually, given the number of exoplanets that have been discovered lately, successful undergraduate research leading to such a discovery probably is more unusual (and therefore notable) than the discovery is in itself. Or any kind of scientific discovery, really.

Exactly. All is explained in the article, and if it is erroneous, let the man claiming that, dazzle us with his expert knowledge. I feel a call back to a common Wikipedia design fault coming on.....

[Poetlister]

As CrowsNest knows perfectly well, many exoplanets have been discovered by amateur astronomers. Can he explain why undergraduates are particularly interesting in this context?

[CrowsNest]

As CrowsNest knows perfectly well, many exoplanets have been discovered by amateur astronomers. Can he explain why undergraduates are particularly interesting in this context?

Not without you explaining what amateur means in this context. If you read the actually article, we might resolve this issue faster.

[Ming]

As CrowsNest knows perfectly well, many exoplanets have been discovered by amateur astronomers. Can he explain why undergraduates are particularly interesting in this context?

Not without you explaining what amateur means in this context. If you read the actually article, we might resolve this issue faster.

If you could flipping quote the passage in the article that supposedly proves your point, it would speed things up still more.

[Bezdomni]

Ming. There's this:

This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Provo • A group of recent Brigham Young University graduates can already put "discovered a planet" on their resumes.

The story is different than in the local paper at exoplanets.eu where they created a page for the ill-fated body rather than the pioneering prof and linked to an abstract of the article she co-authored (with 49 others) as its data-source: "KELT-16b: A Highly Irradiated, Ultra-short Period Hot Jupiter Nearing Tidal Disruption".

[CrowsNest]

As CrowsNest knows perfectly well, many exoplanets have been discovered by amateur astronomers. Can he explain why undergraduates are particularly interesting in this context?

Not without you explaining what amateur means in this context. If you read the actually article, we might resolve this issue faster.

If you could flipping quote the passage in the article that supposedly proves your point, it would speed things up still more.

If you could realise virtually half of the article is devoted to proving my point, I wouldn't have to. I'm even loathe to pick out a specific paragraph, since it necessarily won't capture the whole argument. It essentially boils down to the unlikelyhood of these people, and this university, successfully achieving this task, and the merit of it as an approach in furthering both the scientific task and the higher education component. If this is happening all the time in amateur astronomy, some detail is necessarily required to see if this is a fair comparison on which to dismiss this achievement.

This is the problem with Wikipedians, they think everything can be distilled into soundbites and buzzwords. Sometimes the real world is a little more complicated than that, and even capturing the essence of a topic is a fine art. Some might even say that's why encyclopedias were invented. Sadly, they're now being supplanted by the Wikipedia garbage pile, written and maintained by people who are evidently barely capable of even reading a source, let alone distilling it.

[Poetlister]

As CrowsNest knows perfectly well, many exoplanets have been discovered by amateur astronomers. Can he explain why undergraduates are particularly interesting in this context?

Not without you explaining what amateur means in this context. If you read the actually article, we might resolve this issue faster.

I mean the ordinary everyday meaning of the word "amateur". I am still waiting for someone to say what is notable about all this. It might help if somebody could find a reference to theis "notable" discovery in an independent reliable source, such as MNRAS.

[CrowsNest]

As CrowsNest knows perfectly well, many exoplanets have been discovered by amateur astronomers. Can he explain why undergraduates are particularly interesting in this context?

Not without you explaining what amateur means in this context. If you read the actually article, we might resolve this issue faster.

I mean the ordinary everyday meaning of the word "amateur". I am still waiting for someone to say what is notable about all this. It might help if somebody could find a reference to theis "notable" discovery in an independent reliable source, such as MNRAS.

The ordinary everyday meaning of amateur is simply someone who isn't paid. It doesn't imply lack of expertise or resources. Hence the request for more detail, so as to make a meaningful comparison.

As for "notability of the discovery", you now appear to be casually mixing the different meanings of notability, between Wikipedia definitions, scientific and general usage. I have only ever referred to WP:N for her biography, and the general sense of notability for the encyclopedic content in the biography and DYK hook about it.

More precision and more detail from you would help clear up your apparent confusion, if indeed there is any way to help you here. I get the sense the goalposts will be continually shifted to suit any outcome that supports your first thoughts.

[Renée Bagslint]

The ordinary everyday meaning of amateur is simply someone who isn't paid. It doesn't imply lack of expertise or resources.

Except in the case of Wikipedia, of course.

[Poetlister]

The ordinary everyday meaning of amateur is simply someone who isn't paid. It doesn't imply lack of expertise or resources.

Precisely. There is nothing noteworthy in amateurs discovering yet another rather unremarkable exoplanet, still less amateurs with the resources of a university.

As for "notability of the discovery", you now appear to be casually mixing the different meanings of notability, between Wikipedia definitions, scientific and general usage.

Appear to whom? It is not notable by any definition, because it has had no substantial coverage other than in a source closely linked to the people involved, a source so unreliable that it claims the discovery of a new planet. Of course, had someone discovered a new planet there would be headlines in newspapers around the world.

[Midsize Jake]

At the risk of appearing to create a compromise here where one might not be warranted... in academia, especially the sciences, there's a fairly clear (and traditional) distinction between "amateur" and "student." As Mr. Crowsnest implies, a student often has school resources that an independent amateur doesn't have, including (professional) professors, big libraries, fancy equipment and such. I guess you could almost argue that a college student is technically "paid" because in most cases they're getting money from parents and/or scholarships to attend school.

What I was saying earlier is that for college professors, unless you're teaching at some sort of super-flash university like MIT or Oxford or Stanford, the vast preponderance of your student-generated research isn't going to be even close to publication-worthy. Sometimes you'll see an undergrad or two added to a paper's list of secondary investigators because that helps with the school's recruiting, but their contributions are usually pretty minimal, even so.

Then again, astronomy is probably a different kettle of fish too, because it's based more on observation than experimentation. That might "level the playing field" somewhat.

Wikipedia, being what it is, is definitely going to eventually want an article, at least in stub form, about every known exoplanet. The many lists they already have won't be enough for them. If you scroll down the lengthy full list, you'll see that the first third or so are all blue links, but after that they start getting to be mostly red ones, probably due to the dizzying number of recent discoveries and the fact that apparently none of WP's mass-stub-creation people have noticed this particular goldmine of red links. (Though that could change soon because one of them might read this post.) Actually, many (most?) of the blue links point to stubs, so maybe they just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Given the nature of the situation I would think that almost any unusual factors relating to either the exoplanet itself (called "KELT-3") or its discovery would cause them to create the exoplanet's article/stub sooner rather than later. But while there's still no article about that, for some reason they decided to do a BLP on Denise Stephens, which now looks like it will be kept despite her clear lack of general "notability" for anything aside from the whole exoplanet thing.

So, to put it simply... yes, this is all very silly and dysfunctional, but to be fair (not that they deserve it) there are one or two extenuating circumstances involved, mostly due to the nature of exoplanet research at the moment.

[lonza leggiera]

The ordinary everyday meaning of amateur is simply someone who isn't paid. It doesn't imply lack of expertise or resources.

Precisely. There is nothing noteworthy in amateurs discovering yet another rather unremarkable exoplanet, still less amateurs with the resources of a university.

As for "notability of the discovery", you now appear to be casually mixing the different meanings of notability, between Wikipedia definitions, scientific and general usage.

Appear to whom? It is not notable by any definition, because it has had no substantial coverage other than in a source closely linked to the people involved, a source so unreliable that it claims the discovery of a new planet. Of course, had someone discovered a new planet there would be headlines in newspapers around the world.

I, for one, do not share your apparent conviction that the International Astronomical Union's adoption in 2006 of a technical definition limiting the application of the term "planet" to bodies within the solar system imposes any compulsion on the rest of us to follow it. Nor, apparently, does the Oxford English Dictionary:

planet, n.

……

3.
a. Astron. Any of various rocky or gaseous bodies that revolve in approximately elliptical orbits around the sun and are visible by its reflected light; esp. each of the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and (until 2006) Pluto (in order of increasing distance from the sun); a similar body revolving around another star. Also: any of various smaller bodies that revolve around these.

[Emphasis added.]

Nor, in fact, do at least some professional astronomers engaged in the search for extrasolar planets:

A Direct Imaging Survey of Spitzer detected debris disks: Occurrence of giant planets in dusty systems

Tiffany Meshkat, Dimitri Mawet, Marta Bryan, Sasha Hinkley, Brendan P. Bowler, Karl R. Stapelfeldt, Konstantin Batygin, Deborah Padgett, Farisa Y. Morales, Eugene Serabyn, Valentin Christiaens, Timothy D. Brandt, Zahed Wahhaj
(Submitted on 11 Oct 2017)
We describe a joint high contrast imaging survey for planets at Keck and VLT of the last large sample of debris disks identified by the Spitzer Space Telescope. No new substellar companions were discovered in our survey of 30 Spitzer-selected targets. We combine our observations with data from four published surveys to place constraints on the frequency of planets around 130 debris disk single stars, the largest sample to date. For a control sample, we assembled contrast curves from several published surveys targeting 277 stars which do not show infrared excesses. We assumed a double power law distribution in mass and semi-major axis of the form f(m,a) = Cmαaβ, where we adopted power law values and logarithmically flat values for the mass and semi-major axis of planets. We find that the frequency of giant planets with masses 5-20 MJup and separations 10-1000 AU around stars with debris disks is 6.27% (68% confidence interval 3.68 - 9.76%), compared to 0.73% (68% confidence interval 0.20 - 1.80%) for the control sample of stars without disks. These distributions differ at the 88% confidence level, tentatively suggesting distinctness of these samples.

I agree, however, that the mere fact of Prof. Stephens's (or some of her students) having discovered an extrasolar planet is hardly sufficient by itself to warrant her being made the subject of an article in anything purporting to be an encyclopedia.

[Poetlister]

I, for one, do not share your apparent conviction that the International Astronomical Union's adoption in 2006 of a technical definition limiting the application of the term "planet" to bodies within the solar system imposes any compulsion on the rest of us to follow it.

Fair point, but astronomy journals and magazines do usually make the distinction. Should Wikipedia do so?

[Midsize Jake]

...astronomy journals and magazines do usually make the distinction. Should Wikipedia do so?

Personally, I'd favor a compromise solution whereby the style manuals would mandate that they be referred to as "exoplanets" up until the point at which closer observation reveals that the exoplanet in question is really a planet and not just a big machine in space that swaps out huge pieces of blue and red stained glass at regular intervals to deliberately fool us into thinking a doppler shift has occurred. Since none of us will be alive when these things can be viewed close-up, it's a good way to kick the can down the road.

[JCM]

I, for one, do not share your apparent conviction that the International Astronomical Union's adoption in 2006 of a technical definition limiting the application of the term "planet" to bodies within the solar system imposes any compulsion on the rest of us to follow it.

Fair point, but astronomy journals and magazines do usually make the distinction. Should Wikipedia do so?

Ohh, if only iii the astronomer were around right now. I would more or less say that we should follow the standard of usage of the leading sources in the field, including the journals and magazines. At least one reason I think so, which iii could probably address better than me, is that I at least think one or more of the extrasolar planets may not single entities, but possibly multiple or at least plural entities so close together as to appear to be a single object according to radiotelescopes. The Earth-Moon system and Pluto and it's satellites might be similar examples in our own solar system. But, for the most part, taking into account the recent information gained about Pluto, we are fairly sure the things we call planets in this solar system are at least pretty much single objects.

[CrowsNest]

The ordinary everyday meaning of amateur is simply someone who isn't paid. It doesn't imply lack of expertise or resources.

Precisely. There is nothing noteworthy in amateurs discovering yet another rather unremarkable exoplanet, still less amateurs with the resources of a university.

Don't say "precisely" as if it means anything here. I will ask you directly, what did you mean when you said amateurs do this all the time? Did you mean amateurs with the resources of a university, or not? And which university? This one, or ones with the sort of resources and equipment which is associated with this research? I am trying to understand what you meant when you claimed this is stuff I know only too well. To answer that claim, I need to know what the hell it is you actually meant. You seem to be having some difficulty nailing that down.

As for "notability of the discovery", you now appear to be casually mixing the different meanings of notability, between Wikipedia definitions, scientific and general usage.

Appear to whom? It is not notable by any definition, because it has had no substantial coverage other than in a source closely linked to the people involved, a source so unreliable that it claims the discovery of a new planet. Of course, had someone discovered a new planet there would be headlines in newspapers around the world.

Please, seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. It's bad enough you're continuing with this whole planet/exoplant nonsense. At least we finally got you to admit you're trying to argue it simply hasn't been noticed by anyone without a motive to notice. Now the big question, why all the previous fuss about lack of evidence of notability in Wikipedia or scientific terms? If all you wanted to argue was, nobody anywhere gives a shit because the SLT is not independent, and therefore there's nothing in the article that is believable as a claim of notability and therefore nothing to write about regarding any of this on Wikipedia, why did you make it so hard to extract that from you? Why did you doggedly cling to this idea the issue was the mere non-notability of the discovery of the planet (now defined as all definitions of notability), not the claims toward notability in the rest of the story?

[CrowsNest]

At the risk of appearing to create a compromise here where one might not be warranted... in academia, especially the sciences, there's a fairly clear (and traditional) distinction between "amateur" and "student." As Mr. Crowsnest implies, a student often has school resources that an independent amateur doesn't have, including (professional) professors, big libraries, fancy equipment and such. I guess you could almost argue that a college student is technically "paid" because in most cases they're getting money from parents and/or scholarships to attend school.

What I was saying earlier is that for college professors, unless you're teaching at some sort of super-flash university like MIT or Oxford or Stanford, the vast preponderance of your student-generated research isn't going to be even close to publication-worthy. Sometimes you'll see an undergrad or two added to a paper's list of secondary investigators because that helps with the school's recruiting, but their contributions are usually pretty minimal, even so.

Then again, astronomy is probably a different kettle of fish too, because it's based more on observation than experimentation. That might "level the playing field" somewhat.

All I'm after is some explanation of how Poetlister's claim that amateurs do this all the time, makes this story non-notable. I am not the one implying they are amateurs, I am trying to point out that the story itself describes the clear reasons why this particular discovery is notable beyond the mere fact it is a discovery, where similar discoveries by more prestigious institutions, or similarly equipped amateurs, might not be. This seems to be what's put the bug up his ass - he's upset these people are being credited with the discovery of a planet, when that is merely half the reason for the credit. He seems determined to avoid this aspect, as we meander around trying to nail down what he means by amateur and notable, and waste our time with his insistence the imprecision over planet/explanet means something here. Now he's clarified he means notable in its broadest terms, it's totally irrelevant.

[Poetlister]

By "Precisely" I mean "I totally agree with you. This is completely correct." Do I need to spell all that out?

It would help if CrowsNest read a few astronomy journals before discussing astronomy. By an amateur astronomer, I mean someone who isn't a professional astronomer with the resources available to professional astronomers. What else would I mean?

What is "this whole planet/exoplant nonsense"? If it means "exoplanet", then why is it nonsense, when discussing astronomy, to use the correct technical terms?

I don't know what I am alleged to have admitted. However, CrowsNest has now clarified that this "notable" discovery "simply hasn't been noticed by anyone without a motive to notice", so we're making progress. My position is, and always has been, that this discovery is not notable by any definition. CrowsNest now seems to agree. Since it is not notable, it cannot be used as a justification for writing an article about anyone involved with the incident.

I am still unable, despite having read through the article carefully several times, to find anything whatsoever interesting about the discovery of yet another exoplanet, bigger than Jupiter but very close to its star. What does CrowsNest think is interesting?

[Midsize Jake]

It would help if CrowsNest read a few astronomy journals before discussing astronomy. By an amateur astronomer, I mean someone who isn't a professional astronomer with the resources available to professional astronomers. What else would I mean?

You don't think the distinction between student and non-student amateurs is important? Even worth considering...?

...CrowsNest has now clarified that this "notable" discovery "simply hasn't been noticed by anyone without a motive to notice", so we're making progress.

I think he said that was what you were arguing, not that he believes it himself. You may be right, but unfortunately I don't think he's agreeing with you. (I say "unfortunately" because I consider this whole argument rather trivial and almost silly, and I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not the only one.)

I do agree that the discovery of exoplanets has largely ceased to be interesting, though. I would imagine there are people who would like to change that, though, and promoting the method/circumstances of any given exodiscovery (hey, new word!) clearly could be one way to do that... I guess I don't really blame them.

[Kingsindian]

Almost the entirety of this thread is noise. The AfD has been closed as "keep". The DYK discussion is going nowhere.

[Ming]

It would help if CrowsNest read a few astronomy journals before discussing astronomy. By an amateur astronomer, I mean someone who isn't a professional astronomer with the resources available to professional astronomers. What else would I mean?

You don't think the distinction between student and non-student amateurs is important? Even worth considering...?

Ming gathers that the point is that making claims about what the distinctions mean must rely upon knowledge and understanding of the field in order to merit being taken seriously. Ming is quite willing to state Ming's opinion about the state of affairs, but they are after all generally Ming's opinions, not inarguable facts, and it does grow tiresome to get a constant stream of dogmatic, not generally particularly concise or clearly set forth statements about matters where there isn't the slightest sense that the one making them has the force of knowledge and experience to back them up.

As far as amateurs in astronomy are concerned, Ming cannot speak to exoplanets, but it's unremarkable that amateurs discover a fair number of comets, though obviously people doing sky surveys at observatories find the majority.

[CrowsNest]

By "Precisely" I mean "I totally agree with you. This is completely correct." Do I need to spell all that out?

You do when it makes no sense in the context of the preceding posts. But I'm sure you know that...

It would help if CrowsNest read a few astronomy journals before discussing astronomy.

Well this is news. Earlier you were claiming I should already have this knowledge. Which is it? Let's proceed on the basis that if there is relevant information to be found in astro journals, and you read those journals, then it's on you to state that information here in the thread. I think you have still yet to do that, no? It's hard to judge, when it's this hard to nail down what you mean.

By an amateur astronomer, I mean someone who isn't a professional astronomer with the resources available to professional astronomers. What else would I mean?

As stated previously, you could mean something else depending on what kind of amateur we are talking about. You already said "Precisely" to my statement that "amateur" need not imply lack of resources or equipment, so no, you can't now make a statement like this as if you're not confusing the hell out of everyone.

What is "this whole planet/exoplant nonsense"? If it means "exoplanet", then why is it nonsense, when discussing astronomy, to use the correct technical terms?

Because, and it's important to note people have already pointed this out to you, the only people who care about this distinction, is the field in question, and even then, its not universal. So, either you mean to argue the Salt Lake Tribune is an astronomy publication, or you're just being obtuse.

I don't know what I am alleged to have admitted.

See below.

However, CrowsNest has now clarified that this "notable" discovery "simply hasn't been noticed by anyone without a motive to notice", so we're making progress.

I have done no such thing. I am merely stating what I believe is your view, as part of the tortuous process of nailing that down.

My position is, and always has been, that this discovery is not notable by any definition.

This is what you admitted. But if you had been clear this was your meaning all along, we need not have had the last ten or so posts trying to clarify your use of "notable" (and by extension, amateur).

CrowsNest now seems to agree.

Not yet. I haven't made my mind up on the independence of SLT issue, nor have I done my own search for any other coverage. I'm conscious, for example, that when Wikipediots declare they can find nothing, it usualy just means they can't find anything on Google. And that doesn't even necessarily mean they have searched the entire internet.

Since it is not notable, it cannot be used as a justification for writing an article about anyone involved with the incident.

Well, you already know that the idea her having a Wikipedia biography is justified solely because of this discovery, is tenuous.

I am still unable, despite having read through the article carefully several times, to find anything whatsoever interesting about the discovery of yet another exoplanet, bigger than Jupiter but very close to its star.

Then I feel very bad for you.

What does CrowsNest think is interesting?

The fact they did this despite the low odds of success, even before considering their lack of resources and the fact she used undergrads. It proves that meaningful contribution to planet hunting can be part of undergrad programs at lesser institutions, it's just a question of the right tuition and persistence, and the competitive element. It is obviously a superior learning tool than whatever they might have been doing instead. This is all explained in the article. You clearly think it's unremarkable, but we really do seem to be struggling as far as obtaining the specifics to back up that view.

[Poetlister]

Mods: Clearly, this thread is going nowhere. I had done CrowsNest the courtesy of assuming that he knew what he was talking about, but he has now made clear that he doesn't, and is quite unable to find any sensible reason for saying that the discovery is notable. Thus this has become a Wikipedia-style discussion rather than a useful or productive one.

I shall now withdraw and let him believe that he has won the argument.

Edit: I think he has entirely proven his point with his response below. All credit to him; he is a brilliant Wikipedian.

[CrowsNest]

Mods: Clearly, this thread is going nowhere. I had done CrowsNest the courtesy of assuming that he knew what he was talking about, but he has now made clear that he doesn't, and is quite unable to find any sensible reason for saying that the discovery is notable. Thus this has become a Wikipedia-style discussion rather than a useful or productive one.

I shall now withdraw and let him believe that he has won the argument.

I clearly have won the argument, by default. Your post here is a prototypical Wikipedia response when they are losing an argument, and can find no path to victory. Not for the first time, you end up pleading to the mods to save you. In another thread, you're struggling with the idea that modelling uses data, so if there's anyone here who needs to prove their claims, it's you. It's not just me you've taken for a fool in here, given this nonsense line of argument about the difference between planets/exoplanets. Is there anything you've actually said in here that you can back up? I will ask you one more time, what did you really mean when you said amateurs discover exoplanets all the time? How is it relevant to this story? You can either explain that, convincingly, with a consistent line of argument and a consistent definition of amateur, as if you're speaking with the authority of subject knowledge and have understood my position. Or you can run away, claiming victory after a tedious journey of sophistry and circular reasoning, claiming your opponents confusion in the face of it, is evidence they are stupid, just like a Wikipediot would.

[Ming]

Crowsnest, you showed up as yet another argumentative loudmouth with an apparent chip on your shoulder, but from the beginning Ming has struggled to to figure out the point of it all. Nothing you post has the form of an argument, at least not that anyone can follow for long. Eventually, often with far too much work involved, it all comes down to some declaration of yours for which there is no justification beyond your authority in speaking it. You go on far too long with far too little substance, the kind of thing which shows up in AFD discussions and which all but guarantees deletion. You attempt to cast your shoe on every exchange, or if you prefer a cruder and less biblical image, you pee on every damn fireplug. Ming at least stopped taking your criticisms of WP seriously long ago, except occasionally as a source of points of error: it has seemed to Ming that whenever Ming could pry a nugget of definite statement out of the mass of tailings, it was sure to be wrong. And Ming wishes that you would kindly go away, but it seems that kindliness is not at all part of your nature.

Poetlister is surely correct that you don't know anything about astronomy and how it is done.

[Kingsindian]

Ming can use the "foe" option to filter out some user's posts.

[dogbiscuit]

Ming can use the "foe" option to filter out some user's posts.

Having been watching the forum for the last couple of months I'd ask the question "What is CW hoping to achieve?"

I would hope that posters to the forum are trying to inform or discover. CW seems rather too intent on arguing to win a point, which may satisfy himself, but for the battle weary observers, it provides nothing. If CW wants to win friends and influence people, a bit less arguing, a bit more "meh" and a bit less volume would help. At this point I have little interest in whether CW is right or wrong in any of his arguments, I simply am not interested in what CW has to say because of the way that CW says it. That is fixable, I am sure.

If it is necessary to recommend that people mute other people, then it is worth considering what image this presents to the outside world.

For example, as far as I can tell without going back over the thread, PL's point was simply that as far as he could see, finding new exoplanets was unremarkable as finding exoplanets is a common occurrence these days and it does not require expertise or equipment beyond the reach of an amateur enthusiast, therefore a person achieving a discovery is hardly noteworthy simply by dint of that action. I'm sure CW has a counter-argument for that, but I really can't focus on what that argument is. CW might even be right, but I really can't be bothered to find out.

My point is that there is no point posting here just to win arguments.

I suggest CrowsNext thinks twice, or three times, every time before they press the Submit button and ask "Who is going to read this, and why would they be interested in what I am saying, and can
I say it in fewer words without the emotion?"

As for Poetlister, as his history is well known, I would ask what his point is in continuing a trivial argument - I'm tending to think that he is showing his worst side (and he has had quite a few of these).

It has certainly reminded me that I have found far better things to do with my life than follow these forums.

[JCM]

At this point, I guess I have only one thing to add, and that is a question: bluntly, as his conduct apparently hasn't changed since his first, to my eyes wholly justified, block, why hasn't CN gotten a second block yet? I myself get the impression that only MMAR may have been actively ignored by more people, and it is really really hard to see how his dubious competence and regularly displayed vitriol to, basically, everybody, could be seen as doing anything other than confirming in the minds of others that his earlier bans were more than justified.

I might also suggest he maybe dial it back a few dozen times, as others have done above, but that suggestion has been made to him before with little if any apparent effect.

[Renée Bagslint]

CN makes good points when he's not being distracted by petty squabbles, a temptation he is all too prone to. I think that he a clear net positive to the project.

[Kingsindian]

If it is necessary to recommend that people mute other people, then it is worth considering what image this presents to the outside world.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the image. Muting people one doesn't want to read is a common feature of all forums and social media. Indeed, it is a simple method to reduce friction on an individual level, while banning people is a blunter method.

For instance, Tom Friedman gets on my nerves, so I never read his columns in the New York Times. But apparently some people give him tens of thousands in speaking fees, so let the suckers spend their money if they wish.

[CrowsNest]

Crowsnest, you showed up as yet another argumentative loudmouth with an apparent chip on your shoulder, but from the beginning Ming has struggled to to figure out the point of it all. Nothing you post has the form of an argument, at least not that anyone can follow for long. Eventually, often with far too much work involved, it all comes down to some declaration of yours for which there is no justification beyond your authority in speaking it. You go on far too long with far too little substance, the kind of thing which shows up in AFD discussions and which all but guarantees deletion. You attempt to cast your shoe on every exchange, or if you prefer a cruder and less biblical image, you pee on every damn fireplug. Ming at least stopped taking your criticisms of WP seriously long ago, except occasionally as a source of points of error: it has seemed to Ming that whenever Ming could pry a nugget of definite statement out of the mass of tailings, it was sure to be wrong. And Ming wishes that you would kindly go away, but it seems that kindliness is not at all part of your nature.

And I suppose the fact I keep showing you up has nothing to do with these kind words. You admitted you approach Wikipedia as a hobby. I don't. It was therefore e inevitable that I'd end up embarrassing you. So just grow up, and deal with it. Or participate properly.

Poetlister is surely correct that you don't know anything about astronomy and how it is done.

Wooop De doooo! If Ming would allow me to point out the fucking obvious, I never claimed I know snhit about astronomy, all I'm doing is interpreting this piece of news and trying get him to explain why he thinks he's right. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a nice little whinge, eh?

[CrowsNest]

his dubious competence.

I can't he bothered to go back and check, but if I did, I'm pretty certain I'd find the reason you began to ignore me, was because it was clear you couldn't back up bullshit claims like this, and didn't much like being told to put up or shut up. Now you're found your voice again, well, put up, or shut up......

[CrowsNest]

Ming can use the "foe" option to filter out some user's posts.

Having been watching the forum for the last couple of months I'd ask the question "What is CW hoping to achieve?"

I would hope that posters to the forum are trying to inform or discover. CW seems rather too intent on arguing to win a point, which may satisfy himself, but for the battle weary observers, it provides nothing. If CW wants to win friends and influence people, a bit less arguing, a bit more "meh" and a bit less volume would help. At this point I have little interest in whether CW is right or wrong in any of his arguments, I simply am not interested in what CW has to say because of the way that CW says it. That is fixable, I am sure.

If it is necessary to recommend that people mute other people, then it is worth considering what image this presents to the outside world.

For example, as far as I can tell without going back over the thread, PL's point was simply that as far as he could see, finding new exoplanets was unremarkable as finding exoplanets is a common occurrence these days and it does not require expertise or equipment beyond the reach of an amateur enthusiast, therefore a person achieving a discovery is hardly noteworthy simply by dint of that action. I'm sure CW has a counter-argument for that, but I really can't focus on what that argument is. CW might even be right, but I really can't be bothered to find out.

My point is that there is no point posting here just to win arguments.

I suggest CrowsNext thinks twice, or three times, every time before they press the Submit button and ask "Who is going to read this, and why would they be interested in what I am saying, and can
I say it in fewer words without the emotion?"

As for Poetlister, as his history is well known, I would ask what his point is in continuing a trivial argument - I'm tending to think that he is showing his worst side (and he has had quite a few of these).

It has certainly reminded me that I have found far better things to do with my life than follow these forums.

As far as I recall, we seemed to share a common purpose here, and thus got on rather well, until you decided that your argument that Wikipedia's problems were largely down to the internet in general, rather than the specific environment of Wikipedia. I am here to inform people, and so that's why I expended much effort in proving you were wrong, and explaining why that argument is a dangerous one to make. I don't recall you offering much of a counter argument, and if the reason you wandered off to better things was because of that, well, sorry dude, but that's your issue, not mine. If you can't even be bothered to figure whose right in any given thread, then I am wondering what you can possibly bring to a forum like this. This thread only exists because of me. Anyone who doesn't want to do the legwork to figure out wtf is being said in it, and therefore who might be right or wrong, can go find another thread that interests them.

[dogbiscuit]

As far as I recall, we seemed to share a common purpose here, and thus got on rather well, until you decided that your argument that Wikipedia's problems were largely down to the internet in general, rather than the specific environment of Wikipedia. I am here to inform people, and so that's why I expended much effort in proving you were wrong, and explaining why that argument is a dangerous one to make. I don't recall you offering much of a counter argument, and if the reason you wandered off to better things was because of that, well, sorry dude, but that's your issue, not mine. If you can't even be bothered to figure whose right in any given thread, then I am wondering what you can possibly bring to a forum like this. This thread only exists because of me. Anyone who doesn't want to do the legwork to figure out wtf is being said in it, and therefore who might be right or wrong, can go find another thread that interests them.

QED