Talk:Star/Archive 2

Stars shine because they are hot

This phrase in the introduction is not true:

"a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. "

The energy created by the thermonuclear fusion in the core of the star do not creates light that traverses te star's interior. A star shines because it is hot, and radiates light with a spectra that depends on its temperature (as do all the bodies in the universe). The light created in the core of the star is used to prevent the star to collapse into a point, and to heat the outer material up to several thousands of Kelvin degrees. Then, the star emits light due to its temperature (as a black body).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.170.106 (talk • contribs)

You are inserting words into the article sentence that are not there. The sentence says "energy"; you say "light". Heat is a form of energy. The information in your statement is already embedded in the article, which you would know if you had read it.—RJH (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The energy released by thermonuclear fusion works to prevent further gravitational contract, but it is this history of gravitational contraction that causes the star to shine, this article is misleading in that it appears to indicate that nuclear fusion is the cause of the star shining. Check specifically page 3 of pdf I have referenced. http://www.astro.uu.nl/~pols/education/binaries/lnotes/Binaries_2007.pdf IRWolfie- (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether you consider that a brown dwarf "shines" or not. The current statement in the article is factually correct; it just doesn't tell the entire story. But that is what the third paragraph of the lead is for.—RJH (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The third paragraph does not tell the entire story. I will quote from my source above: "It is important to realize, however, that stars do not shine because they are burning nuclear fuel. They shine because they are hot due to their history of gravitational contraction." It is not that the photons traverse the star and simply leave from the core. It is the contraction of the star that makes the star shine. This directly contradicts the introduction in the article of: "star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen in its core releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space.". Nuclear fusion prolongs the period of energy release, but it is not why the star shines (in the same way the digestion of food is not the reason my arm moves). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be fine the way it is, I can not find sources that agree with this one IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The way it's worded at the start indicates that the energy from thermonuclear fusion is directly released after traversing the star. I think most people would agree that any body that releases it's own source of visible photons "shines" and nuclear fusion is not a requirement for something to "shine". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Earth's fate

There's been a bit of back and forth about a recent result regarding the Earth's fate (in the Post-main sequence section). I loathe to accept a new paper (even in a journal) as fact, and I don't think the fate of the Earth or the exact maximum radius of the Sun as a red giant is at all settled.

However, is the fate of the Earth even worth including in this article? Mentioning the Sun as an example star is surely useful, but I'm not sure we need to include the Earth's fate (especially since it's also discussed in Sun, where I think it's more relevant). Ashill (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Discussion of the Earth's fate is probably superfluous here, or at least has an unnecessary level of detail. The Earth#Future section also covers the topic.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ashill (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

just saying, here is a list os the colors of stars, from left to right they are in order by their tempature(highest temp. to lowest temp.), yellow, blue, red. I bet you thought red would be first right!? I learned this 2 years ago in 4th grade when a planatarium came to our school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensnice (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

reflist box

A user put the reflist in a box. I undid the revision because it makes it much harder to see read the references, particularly on a mobile device. ASHill (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

"...a star shines because thermonuclear fusion in its core releases energy that traverses the star's interior..." I question the use of "energy" cause it seems to mean that energy is a kind of "thing or object" by itself radiating from the core and it does not well explained why the star shines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiloa (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Chiloa (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)--Chiloa (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear what the objection is; energy does traverse the star's interior and then radiate (travel) out into space in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

The fusion releases energy; the release of that energy is shining. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply use "form of electromagnetic radiation" rather than "energy"?--Chiloa (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the energy would be in the form of heat conduction, and convection, and non electromagnetic radiation, such as neutrinos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Main sequence

• "As a consequence, in order to maintain the required rate of nuclear fusion at the core, the star will slowly increase in temperature and luminosity."

I don't understand this sentence. Is the star really "required" to maintain a rate of nuclear fusion? The rate of nuclear fusion is surely determined by pressure and temperature, is it not? Causality, right? This sentence makes it sound as if the star actively increases its temperature and luminosity to maintain its rate of fusion, which, as an inanimate object, doesn't make much sense - it seems backwards. Could somebody either correct or explain this in the article? Thanks. AJKGORDON«» 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The rate of fusion required to maintain an equilibrium configuration. WilyD 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that still doesn't explain the sentence above. At least not to me, a layman. The way the current sentence reads is that the star will slowly increase in temperature and luminosity to maintain the required rate of nuclear fusion. Why does it have to maintain that rate? Why is it required? What's making it "maintain an equilibrium configuration"? AJKGORDON«» 18:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it'll loose heat faster than it produces heat, and start to collapse; then density will go up, fusion rate will go up and it'll heat up. Things move to stable configurations and then stay there because they're stable. WilyD 18:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to say the following?

As a consequence, in order generate the energy needed to maintain equilibrium, the star will slowly increase in temperature and luminosity.

The subject is covered in more detail on the main sequence article.—RJH (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Planetary system

Should a sub-section on "Planetary system" be added to the Characteristics section? While it is not really a physical characteristic of a star, it is related to the star's evolutionary history. Thus it might be worthwhile summarizing. (I'm not sure whether "Planetary system" is the best name, as some may only consist of a debris disk, for example.)—RJH (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead

The opening was desperately in need of a re-write, please do not edit war over this, explain whatever POV you may have here on the talk page. the opening claimed stars are massive and failed to point out they are part of a solar system in many cases and part of a galaxy in many cases, removing such added information is clearly unhelpful. My own perception is that the lead was one of the most badly written I have come across on wikipedia and I am mystified as to why one user would revert back to the poor opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hall, with your edit warribng and your refusal to discuss your edit warring and your poor edit summaries you appear to think you own this article. You do not own it so please stop acting as if you do. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at risk of starting a diplomatic incident, I'd like to suggest you take a break and come back when you've calmed down a little. I wrote some legitimate issues on your talk page which you apparently just removed... without response. Here is what I wrote:

Please stop making additions to the lead that are not covered in the article. See WP:LEAD: the lead should summarize the article. The article is also about stars, rather than star systems, and so discussion of planets is besides the point. Your additions are also unsourced and thus go against wikipedia policy. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being provocative and argumentative. The last time I checked this talk page, there was no discussion regarding the lead. Thus I am starting to think our dispute may be a timing issue.

I welcome a discussion that leads to article improvements. But I think I do have some legitimate concerns over your edits not meeting FA criteria, being off topic and unsupported, and not necessarily being an improvement.—RJH (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The new lead is terrible as well though. It's certainly not better. It is not an essential characteristic of stars that they're generally found in and around galaxies. WilyD 14:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking to write a comprimise version, the original lead was roughly what I intended to write but more eloquent. While most stars are probably orbited by planets, this isn't established yet (~15% is probably the rate established). Further, while stars are often in galaxies (and far less often in star clusters - not sure on that rate), this is fairly incidental to their fundamental character. Certainly some unknown fraction of stars are not, and being in a galaxy has very little effect on a star. WilyD 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely agree. My feeling on the matter is that the article is about stars and should focus on those objects. Whether stars have planets and/or belong to galaxies is a somewhat secondary matter and doesn't rate priority placement in the lead. The topics aren't even significantly covered by the article body. The statement about planetary systems is not properly sourced, and that is an issue for me as well. The current lead has gone through many edits and has been well reviewed. It may not be perfect, but significant re-edits that are not an improvement have questionable weight.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugged by a para

This paragraph irritates me, for something like shooting-mites-with-cannon-logic:

As well as certain constellations and the Sun itself, stars as a whole have their own myths.[23] They were thought to be the souls of the dead or gods. An example is the star Algol, which was thought to represent the eye of the Gorgon Medusa.

Strictly the third sentence fails, and the second sentence is far irrelevant. If Medusa is a myth, that doesn't mean the eye of Medusa is a myth. That means that the eye of Medusa is a mythical representation, but the eye of Medusa has no elaborate story that antique Greeks told their antique Greek children. And how can the eye of Medusa be a soul of the dead or be a god? What's the point, with that sentence? A sentence including myth, Medusa, eye of Medusa and mythical representation is most certainly needed but the paragraph might need some reformulation in order to get the logic right. ... said: Rursus (Bork, Bork!) 09:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I see what is the error! "Myth" acc2 WP itself is a story a saga, but in transfered meaning "myth" can also mean "mythical thing", and if Medusa is a mythical being, then the eye of Medusa is a "mythical subcomponent" of the mythical Medusa. But, nevertheless, the logic becomes confused by switching to and from the primary and secondary meanings of "myth". ... said: Rursus (Bork, Bork!) 10:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Factual error?

This sentence is probably factually wrong:

Later the English astronomer John Flamsteed came up with a system using numbers, which would later be known as the Flamsteed designation.

I'll make a try to find a source (prob Tirion/Uranometria 2000.0) for that Lalande invented this numbering, adding it to his French version of the Flamsteed catalogue. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lalande invented it, acc2 Tirion/Uranometria 2000.0 (ISBN 0-943396-14-X and ISBN 0-993396-15-8). Just a few minutes... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I might be wrong in this (as well as Tirion/Uranometria 2000.0 being wrong). Many sources claim that the unauthorized Flamsteed catalogue contain these numbers, and it might be that Tirion's working group (Tirion, Lovi and Rappaport), didn't have access to this catalogue version. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've decided I was wrong in this, claiming that the text on IAU and on SEDS take preceedence before Tirion, because Tirion's latest source was dated 1986, while SEDS uses Bakich, 1995, Cambridge. I'll fix it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• IAU on this
• SEDS on this

... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed (for this time). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Star From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the astronomical object. For other uses, see Star (disambiguation).

heavy elements not produced by stellar cores

By heavy I mean elements heavier than Fe-56 that don't get produced inside stellar cores. As the heavier nuclei are less tightly bound than the Fe nucleus, the dense core environment tends to make them slide back to iron when produced by chance. I am not a good enough in the element abundancy subject but aren't these crazy heavy elements mostly produced during the blow-up of dying Suns(like novae, etc.)? Correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding is that the heavy elements are mostly created by supernovae and red giants. C.f stellar nucleosynthesis. This might be worth mentioning in the 'Nuclear fusion reaction pathways' section. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mass is not converted to energy

The relation E = mc^2 says that mass and energy are two different manifestations of the same thing and only exist together, so it is not correct to say one is converted into the other. We should re-word that part of the article (under the heading "Nuclear fusion reaction pathways".) 69.140.12.180 (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Nightvid

What alternate wording would you suggest (that does not immediately result in increased confusion)?—RJH (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the anonymous user has a point, although I don't think there is any risk of confusion in this context. You could change "energy" to "thermal energy", which would be more correct. Timb66 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but his point about mass/energy being the same thing brings up the new question of what do we call that "thing" and how do we avoid confusing the lay reader by doing so? Thus my question. Anyway I changed the wording slightly to avoid the use of the word "converted". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They are indeed different manifestations of the same thing, though we have not named that "thing". We have named the manifestations, mass and energy, and in so doing have made it explicit that they are different things. A diamond and a lump of coal are two different manifestations of the same thing, the point is in the conversion, the cause and effects. Ninahexan (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Chemical Composition of Stars

In "Characteristics" section, under "Chemical Composition" subheading, the first sentence says "When stars form they are composed of about 70% hydrogen and 28% helium, as measured by mass". This is wrong. The reference given is an unrelated press release from ESA. These percentages are for the current H and He content of the Sun, and not of past composition of the Sun during its formation or of another star.

True, it should probably be a range instead. How about, "...70–74% hydrogen and 24–28% helium..."? Or perhaps you could suggest a better reference.

I added a second citation and modified the values slightly to match. If you have a better citation, please let us know.—RJH (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Too bad I cannot remove the false information. Wikipedia is not editable anymore unless I sign in. A topic on which so much scientific information is available on the web contains unforgivable mistakes. It seems 10 year olds can edit wiki articles so long as they sign in, while scientists cannot unless they provide their personal info. It seems the best way to create an encyclopedic database.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.172.209 (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not need to use your name for your account sign-in. I choose to just use my initials, while others select purely anonymous identifiers. Hint: it also helps to be civil here and not immediately slam the other editors.

Since you mention "unforgivable mistakes", I can only assume you have identified multiple egregious errors that you have yet to describe. Well there is always room for improvement, so please fill us in. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythologies

It seems that the section of Star designations treats myths erroneously.

1. Stars have no myths by themselves, in a few cases the brightest star got the name that originally belonged to an entire constellation, such as Capella (only an independent constellation in the antiquity), Arcturus and Procyon, but the attached image "little she-goat", "bear-watcher" and "fore-dog", mostly belonged to an entire constellation.

2. It also seems, among others from J. H. Rogers' investigations, that the image was primary for the constellations, and the myth was something borrowed from the culture and attached in order to fit to the image.

This stars-representing-souls stuff and individual-stars-having-myths stuff seems to be extrapolations without any factual foundation. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is why I tagged those sentences as needing citations. It was my hope that the original editor would address those, otherwise I was going to yank them out after sufficient time had passed.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted re-org.

I reverted the recent re-organization primarily because the original article had a certain explanatory flow that was disrupted by the section relocations. I think the article should explain certain facts before using them in a description. For example, the existence of white dwarfs is explained in the section on formation and evolution before their classification is listed. If you reverse the order, then the reader is left wondering what is a white dwarf... up until it is explained. This flow was created in order to satisfy the FAC.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's one possible re-organization that would maintain a sequence of explanation while including sub-groupings in the ToC:

• Observation history
• Unit of measurement
• Designations
• Formation and evolution
  • Protostar formation
  • Main sequence
  • Post-main sequence
  • Massive stars
  • Collapse
• Characteristics
• Populations
  • Classification
  • Distribution
  • Variability
• Energy generation and emission
  • Nuclear fusion reaction pathways
  • Structure
  • Radiation

What do you think?—RJH (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No response, so never mind.—RJH (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

10 well known stars

1.sun 2.sirius 3.pollux 4.arcturus 5.aldebaran 6.rigel 7.pistol star 8.antares 9.mu cephei 10.vy canis majoris-is a hypergiant star —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.37.91 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting request...

rv mass culling of "See also" links from an FA page. Please discuss on talk page.

Considering I'm bringing the page to being within guidelines, I wonder "why not"?... --Izno (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, RJH has been acting precariously close to as if he owned the article. Many of his edits are simply reverting other users (not vandalism) with somewhat tenuous reasons. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your accusations, see WP:Civility. As I don't own this article, neither, I might point out, do you. I believe I reverted for reasonable reasons and we can discuss the issue when you approach this in a civil manner.—RJH (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Izno, please explain how a mass culling of the "see also" links is bringing it within guidelines because I am unclear about your reasoning. As I see it, the current links are related to the article. They have also been contributed by multiple editors and the article was reviewed during the FA process, during which time the section was not raised as an issue.

Per WP:SEEALSO, it is reasonable to remove links that are already linked in the body. However, I did not see that as the pattern here; the list just appeared to be gutted. Instead, I would prefer to discuss the matter.—RJH (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All links, as I said in the history, were either linked via the very big template at the bottom of the page, or were elsewhere within the article. The number of editors that has contributed to them is a non-issue; how they got through FA is a wonder, but that's a part of FA I guess... it might have been that Template:Star was expanded after the FA to include the majority of the links (which would be borne out by the fact that it is not located on every page that it links to). As for Rad1's "accusations", I would stand that they were merely observations; they were made quite civilly, if I may so. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I started the {{Star}} template after this page made it to FA, which may explain matters of timing. I'm not clear why the presence of a link in the Star template is really relevant to whether it should be removed from the "See also" section of this article. There doesn't seem to be any guidelines about that in the MoS. Typically that template will be contracted, so the links will be less visible. To me the "See also" section seems a more focused approach than a general template anyway.

Izno: As a compromise, I'd like to propose a logical approach used in the "See also" section of the Earth article. That section includes a link called "List of Earth-related topics" that points directly to the {{Earth}} template. Something similar could be done here, which I think would satisfy both our interests.—RJH (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

SEEALSO also mentions navboxes as a possible place to find links; if we can avoid duplicating content, then we should, and so I removed the links in the "See also" because they were in the navbox. The funny thing is about the link to the earth related topics is that it just ends up linking to the Earth related navbox, which shouldn't be linked explicitly in the text. In the spirit of compromise, if that's how you want to do it, that's fine with me... The bigger problem here is that the references section is located between the see also section and the navbox, which makes it [more] difficult for its intended use as a suitable navigation tool. But aye, if you want to include a link to the template as a "list of topics", and then revert to my edit removing the majority of the links, that would be suitable for me. --Izno (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there was a ruling at some point that the navboxes must go at the end of the article, which I think negated much of their effectiveness. I'm not sure though why you say that the Earth related navbox shouldn't be explicitly linked in the text. Unless there is a consensus policy stating such, I don't see that as inappropriate. I suppose it could be just included in a short article page instead, but that does seem to be against policy, per WP:Notability type issues. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the navboxes are at the end of the article for usability reasons. Some articles have 8 or 9 collapsed navboxes; would you want that in the middle of your article (also consider that some people don't have Javascript, which means that the navboxes are expanded, making pages unreadable for such people)? =x. The real problem is that the sections called "further information" and "see also" (and such) are located before the references section (which is more pertinent to the article at hand) than either of those two, I'd argue. But good luck getting that changed….

Why it shouldn't be explicitly linked in text: Cross namespace link. Just a no-no, as far as I'm concerned (and I do believe there's a guideline or policy lying around about it…). "Meh", in this case, as I've already noted above my issue with the displacements of "see also" from "external links" and such.

As for a different article, you could actually make something like List of star-related topics, as lists of topics are generally safer from the bounds of WP:N than are other articles. If you'd like to go with that, I see no reason to oppose that as a solution either. --Izno (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I found a better solution, so the "See also" section has been updated accordingly. Thanks for the discussion.—RJH (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RadicalOne began his discussion with an opinion about my actions and nearly accused me of exerting ownership. This hardly seemed constructive, and was clearly intended to put me on the defensive from the start. To me it was somewhat uncivil to initiate the discussion in that manner. The comment about the number of editors was relevant regarding whether I was exerting ownership, rather than about their significance.—RJH (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not intended to make you defensive. It was the voicing of an observation about your edit habits with this article - mostly reverts of non-vandalism edits. Because you seem to want to interpret any disagreement as an attack, I have no interest in this discussion. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is non productive and we are clearly not communicating our meanings properly, so I will leave off as well.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Carbon, Neon, Oxygen or Carbon, Oxygen Neon?

There are several references to the Carbon, Neon, Oxygen escalation as fusion happens at higher temperatures in the core. The escalation part is fine, but Neon follows Oxygen in the periodic table. Should the sequence be Carbon, Oxygen, Neon? Cyreenik (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, it's non-intuitive. But see for example: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit2/himass.html The oxygen nucleus needs a higher temperature than neon to fuse efficiently.—RJH (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Neon burning is actually a misnomer. In reality it is a radiation induced dissociation of weakly bound Ne nuclei into oxygen and alpha particles:

$Ne^{20}+\gamma \;\to \;O^{16}+\alpha$

Little energy is released in it. This process happens before the oxygen burning.

$2O^{16}\;\to \;Si^{28}+\alpha$

The latter process requires much higher temperature and density in order to overcome repulsion of two oxygen nuclei. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

Seems out of place as a "see also" in a scientific article. I removed it, but that edit was reverted. What are people's thoughts on this? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant to the human culture regarding stars. The various scientific articles concerning the planets include a section about culture, so it is not inappropriate. I think it would certainly be appropriate to add a section to this article regarding stars in culture.—RJH (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Stars in culture probably warrants its own article, but this is an entirely scientific article, aside from that one mention. It seems reasonable to keep the two separate, as they are entirely distinct magisteria. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well we disagree then. I would appreciate it if you would point to the Wikipedia policy that says a primarily scientific article needs to be purged of anything that smacks of non-science. If such exists, then we can also remove Stars and planetary systems in fiction, which is clearly not scientific.—RJH (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Star portal

Hi, everybody. I want to just remind you that the star portal has nominated for featured status. Feel free to give comment here. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 08:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent discovery in the star formation process / Vast holes of empty space / Reinserting deleted text

This addition is not about the effect of stars on nebulae but of a significant discovery with regards to how stars eliminate the material surrounding it during the star formation process. Please read the article first to understand the importance and relevancy of this new discovery. Feel free to improve on the wording of the text but this information is of high relevance. It is at par with the inclusion of Bok globules and Herbig-Haro objects. The phenomenon still has no specific name solely due to its nature of being recently discovered Herschel telescope provides new glimpse at the end of star-forming process. GaussianCopula (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed your original entry because the focus of this article should primarily be about stars, rather than the surrounding medium. I understand your point, but the section is question was written per WP:SS and your addition also seemed much too long and, in effect, carried excessive weight for what is effectively a preliminary finding. I went ahead and trimmed the sentence per WP:SS. Hopefully you will find that acceptable. Otherwise we may need to seek a broader consensus.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

At issue here is the inclusion of a new discovery which does go against the established and easily verifiable understanding of the birth of a star. Herschel did find and later was confirmed that black space surrounding birth creation star systems in a particular region is actually composed of a black void. Previously it was believed as stated in this article that a part of the star birth system was composed of Bok Globules and Herbig-Haro objects. There has been a new discovery which indicates, very clearly as confirmed by other observatories, that there are vast holes of empty space which are created during the star creation process. GaussianCopula (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This topic is already covered to the same level of detail on Star formation#Empty space. The Protostar formation section is a summary of that entire article. The relevant information can be summarized in a single sentence, and the reader can view the Star formation article to see more.—RJH (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fusing iron?

During translation of this article I encountered a problem. In section "Massive stars" we can read:

"Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy. Likewise, since they are more tightly bound than all lighter nuclei, energy cannot be released by fission."

Article about iron states however that:

The most abundant iron isotope ⁵⁶Fe is of particular interest to nuclear scientists. A common misconception is that this isotope represents the most stable nucleus possible, and that it thus would be impossible to perform fission or fusion on ⁵⁶Fe and still liberate energy. This is not true, as both ⁶²Ni and ⁵⁸Fe are more stable, being the most stable nuclei. However, since ⁵⁶Ni is much more easily produced from lighter nuclei in the alpha process in nuclear reactions in supernovae (see silicon burning process), nickel-56 (14 alpha particles) is the endpoint of fusion chains inside extremely massive stars, since addition of another alpha particle would result in zinc-60, which requires a great deal more energy. This nickel-56, which has a half-life of about 6 days, is therefore made in quantity in these stars, but soon decays by two successive positron emissions within supernova decay products in the supernova remnant gas cloud, to first radioactive cobalt-56, and then stable iron-56. This last nuclide is therefore common in the universe, relative to other stable metals of approximately the same atomic weight.

and

"Nuclei of iron atoms have some of the highest binding energies per nucleon, surpassed only by the nickel isotope ⁶²Ni. This is formed by nuclear fusion in stars. Although a further tiny energy gain could be extracted by synthesizing ⁶²Ni, conditions in stars are unsuitable for this process to be favored. Elemental distribution on Earth greatly favors iron over nickel, and also presumably in supernova element production.

Iron-56 is the heaviest stable isotope produced by the alpha process in stellar nucleosynthesis; heavier elements than iron and nickel require a supernova for their formation. Iron is the most abundant element in the core of red giants, and is the most abundant metal in iron meteorites and in the dense metal cores of planets such as Earth."

It suggests that the iron nuclei isn't the most tightly bound of all, and the final product of stable stellar nucleosynthesis is in fact nickel, not iron. Link form "extremely massive stars" leads to "population III stars", which "have not yet been observed directly" and "astronomers consider Population III to be something of a mystery" - so what is the source of this information about nickel being produced?

Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seems that someone is here wrong, and I wish to know who. Thanks in advance for your help. 87.207.144.160 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably a slight rewording can address this issue, which is discussed in some detail in the Silicon burning process article.—RJH (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this as an alternative wording?

"Since iron nuclei are among the most tightly bound nuclei, if they are fused with helium they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy. Likewise, since they are more tightly bound than all lighter nuclei, energy cannot be released by fission."

—RJH (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 23 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I've run across some of Jagged85's edits in various astronomy articles, and I often took them with a grain of salt; correcting them where the issue was obvious and trying to refine them where it seemed necessary. But I think you are grossly exaggerating with your statement about undermining Wikipedia's "credibility". Also, not all of Jagged85's edits were necessarily bad, and, to his credit, he did try to introduce more non-western historical information.—RJH (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Star name registration "scam"

Wired is not qualified to give legal opinions, and cannot be cited to support them. – Smyth\^talk 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You did significantly restate the lead sentence, which was properly cited from Space Law: A Treatise. I am not clear why.—RJH (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the editor's edits. Something doesn't smell right, what with him claiming "NPOV" on a featured article. I find that highly dubious. Further, the editor was requested to appear on the talk page here sometime yesterday but he did not do so. He's pushing a point, I think. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you at least read Star naming controversy before reverting my edits? This is very disheartening. I did not appear on this talk page because I have discussed the subject at great length in the article Star naming controversy. However, if you want me to talk about it here I will do so. As a starting first point the Star article calls private star naming companies a fraud. This is a legal term and it has been reported that in many cases private company star naming is indeed legal and therefore not a fraud. The point is unnamed astronomers should not be passing on legal opinions. It is not their purview and it is not pertinent. All mentions of fraud should be removed as per NPOV. I'm sorry that I have found a flaw in your "featured" article, but it does indeed exist. And further why is it that only the astronomer's view of commercial star naming is included? There are also the views of the private companies and the consumers. Glennconti (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're currently involved in an AFD in "star naming controversy" and a content dispute on its direct parent star designation. I see no reason that you should need to carry your dispute here by attempting to change this article, especially given that it is featured. --Izno (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I'll wait but if Star naming controversy is accepted or merged partially with Star designation, the issue of Star NPOV will need to be addressed. It is only a matter of time. Glennconti (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely, given WP:WEIGHT, which is a core tenant of the WP:NPOV you seem to espouse. This article is the top article for stars; further, it's a fairly scientific article, which suggests that WEIGHT is very much in play. You're unlikely to even see much changed in 'star designation', so the likelihood of seeing anything changed and then accepted here is low. --Izno (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern with Glennconti's edits were not so much the subject matter as that the added comments did not match (or else distorted) what was stated in the cited sources. That is too close to PoV pushing, and thus is reasonable reversion. Granted, the paragraph as it stood was in need of some improvement, but that is another matter.—RJH (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. RJHall, I dispute that the comments misrepresented the sources. Mr. Izno, as far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned I would hope that astronomers could put aside their biases and that alternative view points wouldn't be shouted down even in a forum such as this. What, this is an astronomer's forum so only astronomer's opinions can be presented here? Is that what you mean by "weight"? Glennconti (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's take your comment that "Many astronomers call it a scam". Can you prove this? Is this here-say evidence or do you have citations from an authoritative source to back it up? If you can't then it does not belong in the article. The Straight Dope article being used as a source does not say that astronomers call it a scam. The IAU statement only says that attempts to exploit ignorance on a matter are a "deplorable commercial trick." Clearly they are saying that the trickery lies in not communicating that the name is not internationally recognized. This differs from your broader assertion that any such sale of a star name is a fraud. Thus I would ask you to demonstrate that the broader instance is seen as a scam by many astronomers.—RJH (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What WEIGHT says is that the majority opinion, especially in science articles, should be the one represented with the majority of the text, and that this should be backed up by the number and quality of the sources. You would have it be a 50-50 basis in this article when it is clear that it is weighted much better toward science. This is highly inappropriate, especially for such an important (and featured!) article on Wikipedia.

Are you being shouted down? No. You're being told a) that this article is the wrong place to be arguing about it, and b) that currently you are in a dispute even on Star designation, which is the direct parent to the article you wrote (and the child of this article). You want to argue about it, well and good. But WEIGHT suggests that you are doing so in the wrong place, and the behavioral guidelines suggest that you are doing so at the wrong time.

Re RJ: You're better fixed to assess the sources than I, so I'll let you handle that if necessary. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, you are obviously here to PoV push, as the only articles you've edited since joining have been this one, 'Star designation', and the article you created. That makes you a single purpose account. Each time your edits have been rejected, you have simply taken your views to another article. That also is inappropriate behavior (known as forum shopping). Now, do you want to abandon the pretense that you're here to make this article NPOV? --Izno (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am new here to WP and therefore learning the ropes. I think I am doing pretty well for myself considering the heavyweights arrayed against me. No, in actuality, I am here to NPOV push. Glennconti (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you view this discussion as a contest doesn't bode well. Please take a look at WP:Civility.—RJH (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry as I said I am new here and it is frustrating that you and I worked on this article for three days and Izno gets to revert it all on a hunch. But I guess thats the way it works. Glennconti (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's normal for contested edits to get taken to the talk page to reach consensus, so I don't have a problem with that. We can always check back on the page history.—RJH (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid Cecil Adams at the straight dope doesn't count as a reliable reference to describe academic consensus. Wikipedia:RS#Academic_consensus, and scientists are not really qualified to claim fraud. We really really dont want a debate on the star page since its also occuring on other pages. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but there are other, better sources. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.—RJH (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is what appears to be the statement of policy from the IAU:

• Andersen, Johannes. "Buying Stars and Star Names". International Astronomical Union. Retrieved 2010-06-24.

I think this can probably be taken as the consensus view of "many astronomers".

The following source documents where a specific astronomer, Astronomer Bob Martino, Perkins Observatory at Ohio Wesleyan University, called the ISR practice a scam:

• Plait, Phil (2006). "Name Dropping: Want to Be a Star?". Skeptical Inquirer. 30.5. Retrieved 2010-06-24. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I think this is the Times article source for at least some of the Cecil Adams article, although it is a bit dated:

• Golden, Frederick; Faflick, Philip (January 11, 1982). "Science: Stellar Idea or Cosmic Scam?". Times Magazine. Time Inc. Retrieved 2010-06-24.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is an interesting read. But note that in both cases, the use of the word "scam" and "fraud" are particular to the ISR, rather than the more general case.

Here is a related article:

• Sclafani, Tom (May 8, 1998). "Consumer Affairs Commissioner Polonetsky Warns Consumers: "Buying A Star Won't Make You One"". National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, Aricebo Observatory. Retrieved 2010-06-24.

ISR never used to disclaim the fact that the scientific community doesn't recognize their service. They now do. Apparently they have changed their ways since 1998 and even 2001. I would be leery of using references that are too old. Also, the Cecil Adams article is from 1988. To be fair, some info from the Wired article http://philosophyofscienceportal.blogspot.com/2008/05/ethical-advertising-name-star.html should be included if you insist on calling star naming companies frauds. Glennconti (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By saying, "if you insist on calling star naming companies frauds", I believe you are being uncivil.

Yes we can include the link you provided, but to me it appears to cover pretty much the same ground as other links. I also don't believe it is inappropriate to include older articles when they are addressing a specific historical incident, which they are.—RJH (talk)

I am not trying to be uncivil. Can we reset here? What I meant to say, by the comment that you took as uncivil, is the wired article is important because it refutes the claim of fraud (which I believe is the purview of legal people not astronomers; that is, astronomer's legal opinions are not pertinent). If you allow astronomers to make legal opinion then you should also allow other groups opinions such as philosophers or the AG of Illinois for that matter. In my humble opinion, if you allow the claim of fraud then you also need to say "However etc etc." and show that there are differing opinions on whether or not it's fraud. As an alternative, remove the claim of fraud altogether. The wired article is important to because it also quote the opinions of a private star naming company. For this reason I believe both sides have been explored; a rarity in the literature. Glennconti (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Can we agree that the bone of your contention is regarding a generalized opinion of the astronomical community regarding all such practices? It appears to me, from all of the evidence, that the statement about 'scam' and 'fraud' were specifically with regard to the ISR's practice during the 1980s. This is a singular case. You are continuing to generalize this opinion, which I don't find to be appropriate. But that is a flaw, also, of the paragraph in the article. I have no issue with clearing that up, as long as the text sticks to the content of the citations and doesn't try to extend the opinion.—RJH (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we can re-craft the paragraph out of this and similar material. The existing Lyall & Larsen (2009) cite provides a reference for the IAU's status of "international recognition", and the Cecil Adams cite provides further reading. —RJH (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's I'll throw out a first draft of a re-write:

The only internationally recognized authority for naming celestial bodies is the International Astronomical Union (IAU). {Citations: Andersen, Lyall & Larsen (2009)} A number of private companies purport to sell names to stars; however, these names are neither recognized by the IAU nor used by them. {Citation: Andersen} Once such company is the International Star Registry, which, during the 1980s, was accused of deceptive practice for making it appear that the assigned name was official. Such a practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud, {Citation: Pliat (2006), Golden and Faflick (1982), Di Justo (2001)} and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs issued a violation against ISR for engaging in a deceptive trade practice. {Citation: Sclafani (1998) } The IAU has disassociated itself from the commercial practice of selling names to astronomical bodies and features. {Citation: Andersen}

Let me know what you find unsatisfactory about this.—RJH (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Such a practice, which has been largely discontinued, has been labeled a scam and a fraud by some, including by members of the astronomical community, and others view private company star naming, in it's current form, as a legal activity" Glennconti (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The statements "which has largely been discontinued" and "view ... as a legal activity" need to be supported by reliable sources. Otherwise you are just stating personal, unsupported opinions and that is inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Especially on a page that I would like to see kept at Featured Article quality.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel the wired article is a reliable source to show that "others (the AG of Illinois) view ... as a legal activity". As far as the "which has largely been discontinued" the wired article in 2001 says that ISR nowhere claims to be official which was the problem for which ISR was fined by the NY Dept of Consumer Affairs in 1998. http://www.naic.edu/~gibson/starnames/isr_news.html It seems the old dog learned some new tricks after getting burned in NY. Glennconti (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "purport" is probably best left out - as they do sell a name, it's just not officially recognised (as the rest of the sentence states). Star is not really the ideal page for this - I think we could do with the first two lines (before one such company), and have the issue in (slightly) more detail on Star designation. This is also true for Astronomical naming conventions.

That's fine then. However, the topic does not appear to be properly covered on any of the main article pages linked from that section, so I'm resistant to getting rid of it completely. Once it is covered on the star designation page, it would still be appropriate to summarize it here.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as fraud is a legal term, we need to be careful how it is used - In this case astronomers may have an opinion, but it is no more valid than an astrologers, as naming is about convention not science. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the references, I thing we need to remove the fraud and scam line - there is no suitable reference to say there is scientific consensus, and one of the two people that used the word "fraud" in the references had to retract due to legal reasons. The "such a practice" sentence really doesnt fit with wikipedia as it is comparing "some" vs "others". Unless we can find a reference which cites a legal fraud we really can't include it (immoral and illegal are not the same) or provides a consensus view of "scam" and "fraud" the sentence doesnt belong.

Sorry I can't resist. Not to belabor the point but I think even the issue of morality is debatable. On utilitarian grounds a greater good is being served by letting the common man show his love by naming a star. As I said there have been millions. I'll shut up on this issue now. Glennconti (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is not saying that they (ISR) committed a fraud or a scam. It only says that people called it such. We only need to reliably demonstrate the latter.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I am with Hall on this. Because if you google "Name a star scam" tons of sites come up. Lots of people definitely call commercial star naming a scam. But, But, But is the wired article enough to say others don't think it is. To eliminate the confusion (POV) we need to show two view points. I don't think it is "fair" to say "some" without showing there are "others". Glennconti (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, as it is not an encyclopedic statement (Weaselly and untestable). By that same arguement, on the Justin Bieber page we should have the statement "some people, including musicians, think Beiber is an annoying and talentless, others disagree" Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Very clever example. I see your point. However, the weaselly accusation of fraud is very wide spread and is testable. It exists. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/BewareThese5holidayScams.aspx The fact that star naming companies are NOT scams is also demonstrable because they don't claim to be official and haven't since at least 2001 and that they have been given a clean bill of health by the AG of Illinois, as per the wired article, needs to be made to clear the air. I would have preferred to clear the air in a featured article. Especially since the weaselly views of fraud have existed there for so many years without rebuttal. However, I think Mr. Hall doesn't like the wired article to refute the "some". I'm not sure. In any case, I don't want to keep saying "some" without including "others"; that would be a travesty. Glennconti (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words are those like "some" and "others", they dont belong in an encyclopedia as they are unquantifiable (WP:Weasel_words). Even if google gives many examples of somethings, wikipedia also need solid sources for statements. Otherwise its considered synthesis. (WP:Synthesis). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the sources support the assertion that the statement has been made on more than one occasion by specific and notable individuals. I revised the sentence and added a note about the IAU's position.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Hall, do we really need to mention deceptive trade practices twice and fraud and scam once without ever saying private company star naming is indeed legal? I still don't understand why we can speak to the IAU's position at length without speaking to the position of the Illinois AG and that of Private Firms selling star names citing Di Justo 2001. Common sense dictates fairness. Something just doesn't seem right about this. (WP:NPOV) (WP:Common) and (WP:IAR) Glennconti (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is already covered by the statement: "A number of private companies sell names to stars; however, these names are neither recognized by the IAU nor used by them." Nowhere in there does it state this activity is illegal. The only statement of illegality is specifically with regards to the ISR practice of the 1980s. How is this unfair? (Also as has been previously pointed out: informal sources such as Di Justo 2001 are not a suitable reference for citing legal opinion. You need something from an authoritative legal source, or, well, you have no case.)—RJH (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

{Deindent} I've modified and reordered the paragraph slightly so it is more specific and logically ordered.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am tending to agree with you. But I really would have liked to find some way to clear the air. Representing the IAU and astronomers, Bob Martino calls it a scam and representing US State law enforcement and private star naming companies, Rocky Moselle says it isn't. But I am too new as an editor to know all the rules. (WP:Common) Can't you use your superior knowledge of WP rules to find some way to clear the air on this contentious issue? That is, I would prefer to not sweep it under the rug which I feel we would be doing. Glennconti (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "purport" is less than desirable. However, as far as moving the issue is concerned, this issue has been dealt with on Star for many years with the accusation of fraud. There is a confusion that since the IAU is the official body, then no one else can legally name stars. But, the IAU dictates only cover the behavior of astronomers. There are scientific names and there are "common" names. Both types of names are legally allowed and should be able to coexist without accusations of fraud. In lieu of that we need to answer the accusation. But most importantly, we should try to clear up the confusion. Also, there are millions of consumers that have purchased star names so this is my second reason that I think we should deal with it on Star i.e. it is a popular issue long standing issue. But I will bow to consensus. Glennconti (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Here's a second revision that attempts to address above concerns:

The only internationally recognized authority for naming celestial bodies is the International Astronomical Union (IAU). {Citations: Andersen, Lyall & Larsen (2009)} A number of private companies legally sell names of stars. {Citation: astrometry.org} However, the IAU has disassociated itself from this commercial practice, and these names are neither recognized by the IAU nor used by them. {Citation: Andersen} One such star naming company is the International Star Registry, which, during the 1980s, was accused of deceptive practice for making it appear that the assigned name was official. This ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud, {Citation: Pliat (2006), Golden and Faflick (1982), Di Justo (2001)} and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs issued a violation against ISR for engaging in a deceptive trade practice. {Citation: Sclafani (1998) }

Any concerns?—RJH (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect thanks! (Apologies for not trying to reword myself - I have a pHD due in 3 days so am a little busy..) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the public might easily get the mistaken impression that all private star naming companies are frauds. Using the sources we have, can we make some sort of statement that private company star naming is allowed and therefore not a scam or a fraud, as long as there are no claims of it being official? Glennconti (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to paint an entire industry based just on the actions of ISR in the 80's and 90's. Glennconti (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "A number of private companies sell names of stars and the IAU can't stop people from assigning names to stars in the sky." This would even be as per IAU spokesman Gareth Williams http://cache.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=235564497&page_url=%2f%2fwww.standard.net%2fstandard%2fnews%2fnews_story.html%3fsid%3d00011207191058043930%2bcat%3dfeatures&page_last_updated=12%2f8%2f2001+11%3a19%3a48+PM&firstName=Rocky&lastName=Mosele Glennconti (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

RJHall's wording's fine with me. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't think it is, for lack of a better term, misleading? To clarify I'm not saying that it's not truthful. I'm saying it leads people astray to the point of being POV. Glennconti (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see anything at all misleading about it. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are taking this personally. Sincerely I mean no disrespect by my comments. Please don't take any. 174.57.153.58 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you haven't signed in, I'll assume you are Glennconti. I have taken no offense. You do appear to have a non-neutral agenda here, so I'm viewing your remarks accordingly. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was me. Is your position on your language firm? I am trying to work with you here. What is your opinion of "and the IAU can't stop people from assigning names to stars in the sky."? Glennconti (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The intent of your statement is already apparent from the current wording. The scope of the IAU's level of control is also quite clear. Thus your words are both redundant and accusatory; they appear to be PoV-pushing. I want no part of that.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

They aren't my words they are the words of the IAU spokesman Gareth Williams. The scope of IAU control is in my opinion not clear. I am trying to clarify a point which the common man could easily miss. Does this mean you are unwilling to negotiate with me the language being used even when it comes from the IAU? Glennconti (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To be included in an encyclopedia, such an aggressive opinion needs to be quoted, a source specified, and the background expanded upon. If you want to generate a more detailed clarification of the issue, then I suggest you begin by developing Star designation#Sale of star names. This "Designations" section should be written per WP:SS, and I believe the above would serve this purpose.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with RJHall's proposed wording. This wording is to the point, properly referenced and is not misleading. Aldebaran66 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• This may be worth including to satisfy Glennconti (and because its noteworthy)

"Extraterrestrial objects are under the juristiction of Space law, a form of International Law. However no laws exist which pertain to star naming, so the industry is currently unregulated. IAU designations are based on scientific convention as there is no legal authority which covers this matter." Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of a non-legally authoritative site for citing legal opinion has already been object to. But we could perhaps change the second sentence to something like, "A number of private companies legally sell names of stars, which is an unregulated industry." Do we have a legal source for that "unregulated" assertion? I added "legally" to the proposal above. Would that serve?—RJH (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Library calls private company star naming "unregulated". Is that a notable enough source? http://www.bl.uk/names.html Glennconti (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability isn't the issue; it's legal expertise. Yes the British Library is a reliable source; but I don't think it carries legal weight or authority.—RJH (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think we really need to cover whether the industry is regulated or not. It's getting too far off the topic. Above, it now unambiguously says the practice is legal, while the ISR example further demonstrates that calling the names "official" is not proper business practice. This appears to be the crux of Glennconti's dissent. I think that any further details can be covered on the Star designation article, or on a separate article on star naming.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, then again, the legality of it isn't established by a legal authority. So maybe that won't work either... I guess I've changed my mind. We can't state that the practice is legal or illegal because there is no authoritative legal document and it hasn't been challenged in court. All we have are people's opinions on the matter, and I think that belongs on the Star designation article rather than here.—RJH (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow my logic. If a company was involved in a illegal activity then they would not have access to the courts for redress. The ISR has sued for trademark infringement http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2008cv01378/case_id-217905/ . The business must be legal. Grand star registrar Glennconti (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer by any chance? Well (a) I don't have access to the documents, and (b) the only thing that appears to prove is that the firm has the legal right to trademark protection. It says nothing about the legality of a particular business practice. You also assert that, "If a company was involved in a illegal activity then they would not have access to the courts for redress." I would think this would be highly unlikely, since it would state that any company that broke the law loses all legal rights. The trademark only needs to be legally registered for it to be protected. Ergo, I don't agree with your logic.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What we could say using the British Library reference is something like the following:

"A number of private companies sell names of stars, which the British Library calls an unregulated commercial enterprise."

Thoughts?—RJH (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not ideal, but i cant think of anything better. I like the idea of mentioning space law - its frustrating as theres clearly no law covering naming (but thats synthesis to state that) and we wont get legal opinions on laws that dont exist.. (Thats why the weaker reference was used) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the first sentence is citing a work on space law, we could begin the paragraph with, "Under space law, the only internationally recognized authority..."—RJH (talk)

I can go along with that if it's the best we can do. Is there some way we can reduce the redundancy as concerns the deceptive practices language. The paragraph uses one sentence show accussation of deceptive practice then another to show issued violation for deceptive practice. I just mean as a matter of housekeeping can we consolidate the two sentences somehow? I think we are in the home stretch. Glennconti (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine for now. Once the topic is properly covered on Star designations, we could use that to build a summary.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am in complete agreement with your language once we add your "unregulated" British Library quote. Thank you for your patience and hard work. Glennconti (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay, consensus!

Thank you for your input.—RJH (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Stars in culture

Is it just me, or is there no page on wikipedia that looks at the socio / cultural aspects of stars? Stars are key in numerous mythologies (Aboriginal creation stories, star of bethlehem etc..) and people spend money on unscientific pursuits (naming as above, astrology, etc.). Is there any page that brings this together? I can't find anything on the disambig page. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and the idea of a "Stars in culture"-type page has been on my to-do list for a while now. If you are interested in putting that together, I think that would be most excellent.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It'll be a hard one to build - I think a list would probably a reasonable start - I'll start creating one when I have time. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

True. It would probably be easier to write about constellations in culture, although some specific stars have cultural associations as well. (E.g. Sirius, Algol and Polaris.)—RJH (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Star Composition

According to NASA, the first sentence of this article is wrong. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/star_worldbook.html

"A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity." - Wikipedia

"The sun and most other stars are made of gas and a hot, gaslike substance known as plasma. But some stars, called white dwarfs and neutron stars, consist of tightly packed atoms or subatomic particles. These stars are therefore much more dense than anything on Earth." - NASA Snowleopard100 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. White dwarfs can be mostly ions and are held up by electron degeneracy pressure, rather than just existing as a solid atomic lump. Plasmas can be subatomic particles, such as a mix of protons and electrons, or they can be partly ionized atoms. There might be an issue with neutron stars, which I understand are only 10% plasma (allowing the formation of a magnetic field).—RJH (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We could add a sentence such as the following immediately after the first:

"At the end of its lifetime, a star can also contain a proportion of degenerate matter."

This would cover both cases, while leaving open the exception (red dwarfs and core-collapse supernovae). What do you think?—RJH (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am far from a expert in this area. Others reading it might get confused at the sentence in its current state. I think clarification is almost certainly need. Thanks! -- Snowleopard100 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay I made the change, so now we'll see if it draws any more commentary. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference doesn't match claims

the line "The surface temperature of a main sequence star is determined by the rate of energy production at the core and the radius of the star and is often estimated from the star's color index" cites the source http://web.archive.org/web/20070626090138/http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s5.htm . This reference does not offer anything to verify the claim that the surface temperature is determined by the nuclear energy production nor radius. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes well that's one of several pages in a series. Perhaps it should be linked to the table of contents instead? http://web.archive.org/web/20070711023610/www.astronomynotes.com/ —RJH (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

New Count on the Number of Stars

I think it would be of interest if this article quoted the approximate number of stars in the universe. The new count approximation is 300 sextillion. Can we add this as referenced by http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131729046 Glennconti (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Star

The WP article HE 1523-0901 only calls this the oldest star in the galaxy. Not the oldest star. As of Oct 2010 the most distant (oldest) object was a galaxy UDFy-38135539 http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpps/news/astronomers-discover-oldest-most-distant-galaxy-dpgonc-20101021-fc_10210876 Is this something worthy of an article update? Glennconti (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Darren-darrenevans, 28 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} sphere instead of ball. DARREN EVANS 10:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The plasma is not just on the surface, thus ball. Materialscientist (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request Star Naming Scam

Sorry I don't want to open up a whole can of worms again. But, the article currently reads "This ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud,[46][47][48][49]" I would like it to say "This discontinued ISR practice has been informally labeled a scam and a fraud,[46][47][48][49]" ISR has not been claiming to officially name stars for over ten years as per reference [49] and their current website FAQ which says:

Q: Is my Star Name "officially" recognized? A: No. We offer our service services as a unique gift idea. All stars are numbered and we offer the gift idea of putting a name on that actual numbered star. The name is recorded in our book Your Place in the Cosmos© and the book is listed with the US Copyright Office. However, the scientific community does not recognize our star names.

Yes what they did back then was deceptive but do we still need to keep beating a dead horse? Can't we at least say that the offending practice has been discontinued? Glennconti (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support—As long as the bold font is not used, I have no issue with that proposal. RJH (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

RJHall can you undertake to make this edit or should I? It seems this edit is not going to generate any controversy.Glennconti (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I modified the sentence. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)