580:
his doings, too? Frankly, the ESO folks are trying to play up for undeserved press. I've seen all sorts of wild speculation about a much-larger-than-Pluto-or-Eris object found. Or some other bizarre object. Rings have been predicted for quite a while around KBO's. Pluto's potential rings are a serious hazard for the NH mission. Somebody should go ahead an start the editorial revision to include the ring notice, and stop trying to hide reality, to build false press speculation.
325:
253:
222:
349:
191:
263:
579:
It is a sin against the principles of
Knowledge not to go ahead and adjust the article. IT IS PUBLISHED IN NATURE TODAY! That's already been printed, and mailed. People are getting it this morning in their mailboxes presumably. I'm sure Vladimir Putin would love for us to embargo all the news on
667:
Whether or not WRAL broke the embargo is not our concern. Knowledge did not sign up for ESO's embargo system and is not bound by it. The archived version of WRAL's page is a matter of public record. It's not a great source, because as you note the original has now been hidden (which is why I tagged
645:
Anyhow, there seems to be an edit war on the page about
Chariklo, to which I will not contribute as I am at work. I do not like it when embargoes are broken, as they do exist for a reason. And no, I do not work for the ESO or any affiliated organization ā I am an amateur journalist who does respect
1193:
indicates the possibility that the moon is responsible for the formation and retention of the 10199 Chariklo rings. The team used an N-body simulation, simulating the motion of millions of particles that make up the rings. According to the results of the study, the moon in orbit of
Chariklo should
726:
I must agree, it's a typical site
Knowledge uses to cite something. Although the main version has gone offline, we have a way to cite it when it was still online. The reason that it has gone offline is relevant. If it is actually this ESO embargo, I'd say its rather credible, because they wouldn't
526:
The
European Southern Observatory is going to announce that Chariklo has rings this afternoon. They have embargoed this information until their press confrance but there was a brief leak this morning. We should probably not update the article until after the official announcement.
641:
While we could discuss for a while whether or not
Knowledge is bound by ESO (or other) embargoes, the news item about asteroid Chariklo was NOT public and was NOT cited. The source, WRAL.com, had removed the news from their website (at the demand of the ESO from what I gleaned).
955:
The onus on blogs is to demonstrate them as reliable. By default they are presumed unreliable. However, given that the domain for this one is registered to a residential address in the UK, that would strongly imply that this blog is not run by an expert nor a
1240:
1170:
All is in the title, Pluto about 10x larger (and 2x farther) and it appears almost featureless when pictured by Earth scopes (incl Hubble). Show us a single real pic where the rings are visible, or give some sort of explanation why no such pic is available.
960:. Ergo, I have demonstrated that it is not a reliable source even though the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's reliable. Given that you have a lot more edits than I do, I'm a bit surprised you haven't run into this practice before.
1135:
Just a quick note about a small conflict on the identity of
Chariclo the nymph for whom the asteroid is named. The article states that "Chariklo is named after the nymph Chariclo (Ī§Ī±ĻĪ¹ĪŗĪ»Ļ), the wife of Chiron and the daughter of Apollo."
1043:
Agree on b (which is why I didn't feel it was worth removing), but disagree on a.) I don't think removal of articles which were released too early was one of the intended uses of caching in the linkrot policy....
153:
727:
make such an embargo if some site posts wrong information, but rather because there is something interesting that don't want to have public yet. And
Knowledge is certainly not obliged to obey such embargos. --
974:
I have run into the blog thing before. Looking at the information there, it appeared rather on the reliable side to me, and I was curious about your assessment. How did you determine where it is registered?
784:
646:
the embargo, and one reason why I don't like when they are broken is that all of us journalists (amateur and professional) lose the "scoop" on the news when it pops up somewhere by an embargo breach...
557:
we are not bound by any press embargoes that others may or may not have imposed on information or may or may not have agreed to or feel ethically bound to follow. we are only bound by
1113:
is actually already linked to by ESO. Strangely, it claims the opposite: "Charikloās shape is not known" (p. 6), apparently because they only have two independent occultation chords. --
358:
236:
1230:
895:
as I was unable to verify that it was a reliable source. It looks like it's just some random blog, not a news website and the domain is registered to a random house in the UK.
1072:, but they do not go on to state the observed shape. It'd be very interesting to know if Chariklo is round or not, is this reported somewhere else? (ESO's footnote on SSSB's
833:
Is this your discoveryĀ ? I don't think soĀ ! Maybe the discovers don't want it published before the end of embargoĀ ! But you obviously did not have enough respect for themĀ !
315:
741:
I've repeatedly reverted anonymous IP users (from ESO and Obs. Paris locations) removing this material without explanation or discussion. However, that takes me up to my
147:
1194:
have a diameter of about 6 km. Its gravitational influence may be a key element holding the rings in a delicate shape, as planetary rings tend to dissipate over time.
759:
672:, not some moral judgement about whether it should be public or not. I'm going to copy this discussion to the article talk page, which is a better location for it.
530:
1235:
1250:
363:
869:
Since when are caches of unpublished articles a reliable source, and since when do we need to publish news before it's officially news? I mean sure we have
1225:
334:
305:
232:
79:
1245:
44:
855:
You can place your respect where you want to. You cannot continue to edit war to remove information that meets
Knowledge content policies. --
877:
up at MfD if we're scooping major media outlets.... Tempted to raise the issue at RSN, but it will probably be moot in a few hours anyway...
587:
85:
927:. Blogs can be reliable sources, but those are an exception, rather than the rule. Generally they aren't considered acceptable sources.
506:
1220:
1172:
840:
548:
992:
on firetrench.com. Also looks like it might be a site for automatically reposting press-releases if you look at the other articles.
1255:
909:
It's more detailed than the other source. I don't see the unreliableness. Being a blog doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. --
785:
20 Seconds that changed our understanding of the Solar System. Surprise discovery of double-ring system around asteroid-like body
531:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.wral.com%2Fdiscovery-an-asteroid-with-rings%2F13510966%2F
276:
227:
99:
30:
168:
104:
20:
135:
74:
697:. As a matter of default we accept major TV stations as valid sources and we accept third party archive pages as meeting
202:
409:
Good catch! The old Minor Planet box used "dimensions=" and did not make it clear that it was referring to radius. --
65:
1070:"By comparing what was seen from different sites the team could reconstruct the shape and size of the object itself"
989:
668:
it), but it's a source nonetheless. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant - the threshold is whether content is
1110:
856:
713:
591:
562:
1076:
suggest it's been found to be a SSSB, i.e. not in hydr. equilibrium, but that's very indirect, OR reasoning.) --
129:
1118:
1081:
502:
484:
432:
1176:
544:
479:
Maybe you misunderstood me: I'm referring to Image:Comparechariklo2, which notes a "mean radius" of 225 km.--
1035:
844:
821:
768:
751:
678:
633:
109:
125:
1096:
1049:
997:
965:
932:
900:
882:
427:
The image still uses a radius of 258 km (at least the text on it says so). Maybe someone can change it. --
398:
1146:
I will leave the corrections to the professionals here, but just wanted to point out the inconsistency.
870:
792:
657:
617:
540:
208:
1156:
175:
836:
583:
536:
494:
190:
1202:
1114:
1077:
686:
498:
480:
428:
339:
161:
55:
1152:
1030:
1022:
957:
816:
763:
746:
673:
70:
324:
1092:
1045:
993:
980:
961:
946:
928:
914:
896:
878:
874:
806:
732:
458:
414:
394:
51:
653:
268:
141:
760:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#10199_Chariklo_and_embargoed_press_releases
924:
1190:
1198:
24:
449:
It is listing the correct 258km diameter. I rv'ed someone's Minor Planet edit back on
1214:
788:
742:
613:
607:
976:
942:
910:
802:
728:
694:
454:
410:
1241:
Pages within the scope of WikiProject
Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
698:
690:
669:
558:
687:
Knowledge:Help_desk#What_is_Wikipedia.27s_policy_in_regard_to_news_embargos.3F
610:
258:
1065:
281:
252:
221:
1026:
604:
390:
348:
1206:
1180:
1160:
1122:
1100:
1085:
1053:
1037:
1001:
984:
969:
950:
936:
918:
904:
886:
864:
848:
823:
810:
796:
770:
753:
736:
721:
680:
661:
621:
595:
570:
488:
462:
436:
418:
402:
386:
941:
I'll ask again: What makes this one specifically unreliable? --
184:
15:
347:
323:
1021:
This is silly. a) Cached versions are fine as sources, see
453:. The old Minor Planet Box is suppose to use diameter. --
701:. so unless WRAL has officially retracted the material as
1191:
A recent study published in The Planetary Science Journal
1140:
892:
450:
1091:
I suspect you'll have to wait for the Nature paper...
160:
783:There's another news article about this discovery:
745:. Could someone else keep an eye on this please?
608:http://www.eso.org/public/announcements/ann14022/
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
708:if you can provide evidence that WRAL story is
1166:Rings invisible in real photo = phantom rings
815:I've added it as a reference in the article.
389:? I was thinking this is actually the object
174:
8:
1231:C-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
712:wrong, then we have something to discuss.--
338:, which collaborates on articles related to
280:, which collaborates on articles related to
611:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUoNtEKaAsk
1139:The linked article on Chariclo the nymph (
216:
705:inaccurate, it is appropriately sourced.
1143:) does not list Apollo in her lineage.
605:http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1410/
385:Is the size listed correct as the mean
218:
188:
1236:C-Class Astronomical objects articles
689:. The matters for concern for us are
7:
1251:Mid-importance Solar System articles
1109:I've just seen that the (complete?)
274:This article is within the scope of
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
873:but, my god, we might as well put
14:
1226:Mid-importance Astronomy articles
1131:Name History from Greek Mythology
1141:http://en.wikipedia.org/Chariclo
335:WikiProject Astronomical objects
261:
251:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1186:Shepherd Moon binding the rings
310:This article has been rated as
290:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
1027:The embargo is over now anyway
489:14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
463:14:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
437:13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
293:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
1246:C-Class Solar System articles
356:This article is supported by
332:This article is supported by
42:Put new text under old text.
1181:14:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1272:
1221:C-Class Astronomy articles
1161:13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
1123:18:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1101:18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1086:18:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1054:18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1038:18:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
1002:18:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
985:18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
970:16:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
951:16:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
937:16:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
919:16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
905:16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
887:15:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
865:15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
849:15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
824:15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
811:15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
797:14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
771:15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
754:15:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
737:14:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
722:14:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
681:14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
662:14:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
631:
622:18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
596:14:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
571:13:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
316:project's importance scale
1207:12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
1060:Shape determined by ESO?!
419:03:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
403:02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
355:
331:
309:
246:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
758:I've opened a thread at
1256:Solar System task force
860:aka The Red Pen of Doom
717:aka The Red Pen of Doom
634:User talk:Modest Genius
566:aka The Red Pen of Doom
359:Solar System task force
352:
328:
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
393:and not its radius.
351:
327:
277:WikiProject Astronomy
100:Neutral point of view
340:astronomical objects
233:Astronomical objects
105:No original research
893:removed this source
801:Fixed the link. --
353:
329:
296:Astronomy articles
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1066:ESO press release
861:
839:comment added by
718:
586:comment added by
567:
553:
539:comment added by
511:
497:comment added by
378:
377:
374:
373:
370:
369:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1263:
862:
859:
851:
719:
716:
649:My two cents...
598:
568:
565:
552:
533:
510:
491:
298:
297:
294:
291:
288:
271:
269:Astronomy portal
266:
265:
264:
255:
248:
247:
242:
239:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1211:
1210:
1188:
1168:
1133:
1062:
857:
834:
714:
636:
630:
588:130.111.163.179
581:
563:
534:
524:
492:
383:
295:
292:
289:
286:
285:
267:
262:
260:
240:
230:
201:on Knowledge's
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1269:
1267:
1259:
1258:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1213:
1212:
1196:
1187:
1184:
1167:
1164:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1115:Roentgenium111
1104:
1103:
1078:Roentgenium111
1061:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
987:
871:WP:NOTCENSORED
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
706:
652:Best regards,
629:
626:
625:
624:
601:
600:
599:
574:
573:
523:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
499:Roentgenium111
481:Roentgenium111
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
442:
441:
440:
439:
429:Roentgenium111
422:
421:
382:
379:
376:
375:
372:
371:
368:
367:
364:Mid-importance
354:
344:
343:
330:
320:
319:
312:Mid-importance
308:
302:
301:
299:
273:
272:
256:
244:
243:
241:Midāimportance
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
25:10199 Chariklo
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1268:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1216:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1192:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:102.164.96.77
1165:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1137:
1130:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1032:Modest Genius
1028:
1024:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
988:
986:
982:
978:
973:
972:
971:
967:
963:
959:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
863:
854:
853:
852:
850:
846:
842:
841:145.238.168.3
838:
825:
822:
820:
819:
818:Modest Genius
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
787:(my 2 cents)
786:
782:
772:
769:
767:
766:
765:Modest Genius
761:
757:
756:
755:
752:
750:
749:
748:Modest Genius
744:
743:three reverts
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
725:
724:
723:
720:
711:
707:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
682:
679:
677:
676:
675:Modest Genius
671:
666:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
650:
647:
643:
639:
635:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
609:
606:
602:
597:
593:
589:
585:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
569:
560:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:81.137.245.65
538:
532:
528:
521:
508:
504:
500:
496:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:Sethhater123
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
380:
365:
362:(assessed as
361:
360:
350:
346:
345:
341:
337:
336:
326:
322:
321:
317:
313:
307:
304:
303:
300:
284:on Knowledge.
283:
279:
278:
270:
259:
257:
254:
250:
249:
245:
238:
234:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1197:
1189:
1169:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1138:
1134:
1111:Nature paper
1093:Sailsbystars
1073:
1069:
1068:states that
1063:
1046:Sailsbystars
1031:
1020:
994:Sailsbystars
990:WHOIS lookup
962:Sailsbystars
929:Sailsbystars
897:Sailsbystars
879:Sailsbystars
835:ā Preceding
832:
817:
764:
747:
709:
702:
674:
651:
648:
644:
640:
637:
632:Copied from
603:other links:
582:ā Preceding
535:āĀ Preceding
529:
525:
395:Sethhater123
384:
357:
333:
311:
275:
237:Solar System
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1023:WP:DEADLINK
958:wp:NEWSBLOG
654:CielProfond
638:Greetings,
628:ESO Embargo
493:āPreceding
148:free images
31:not a forum
1215:Categories
875:WP:NOTNEWS
670:verifiable
451:July 26th.
1199:Jamplevia
710:factually
703:factually
685:see also
287:Astronomy
282:Astronomy
228:Astronomy
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1149:Thanks!
925:WP:BLOGS
837:unsigned
789:Cesarakg
614:Cesarakg
584:unsigned
549:contribs
537:unsigned
507:contribs
495:unsigned
391:diameter
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1153:Susarie
977:JorisvS
943:JorisvS
911:JorisvS
803:JorisvS
729:JorisvS
455:Kheider
411:Kheider
314:on the
199:C-class
154:WPĀ refs
142:scholar
858:TRPoD
715:TRPoD
564:TRPoD
387:radius
205:scale.
126:Google
1074:might
1025:. b)
695:WP:RS
561:. --
522:Rings
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1203:talk
1177:talk
1157:talk
1119:talk
1097:talk
1082:talk
1064:The
1050:talk
998:talk
981:talk
966:talk
947:talk
933:talk
923:See
915:talk
901:talk
883:talk
845:talk
807:talk
793:talk
733:talk
699:WP:V
693:and
691:WP:V
658:talk
618:talk
592:talk
559:WP:V
545:talk
503:talk
485:talk
459:talk
433:talk
415:talk
399:talk
381:Size
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
306:Mid
176:TWL
1217::
1205:)
1179:)
1159:)
1121:)
1099:)
1084:)
1052:)
1029:.
1000:)
983:)
975:--
968:)
949:)
935:)
917:)
903:)
891:I
885:)
847:)
809:)
795:)
762:.
735:)
660:)
620:)
594:)
551:)
547:ā¢
509:)
505:ā¢
487:)
461:)
435:)
417:)
401:)
366:).
235:/
231::
156:)
54:;
1201:(
1175:(
1155:(
1117:(
1095:(
1080:(
1048:(
996:(
979:(
964:(
945:(
931:(
913:(
899:(
881:(
843:(
805:(
791:(
731:(
656:(
616:(
590:(
543:(
501:(
483:(
457:(
431:(
413:(
397:(
342:.
318:.
211::
172:Ā·
166:Ā·
158:Ā·
151:Ā·
145:Ā·
139:Ā·
133:Ā·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
