Talk:Green bean galaxy/Archive 1

Picture_Possible?

A picture is always useful, but you have to get the owner's permission. How about /images/pio/websplash/2012/ws2012-18/fig1.jpg from the Gemini website? http://www.gemini.edu/node/11904 ~Richard Nowell~ 23/04/14

   Have sent an email request to Gemini contact address.  ~Richard Nowell~  24/04/14

Image_Uploaded.

The GB image was taken from the Gemini Observatory website. It is used with the permission of the Public Affairs Program Coordinator. Hopefully it will illustrate the article and decrease any confusion. ~Richard Nowell~ 26/04/14.

Link To GZ Forum

Removed section 'No links to forums or blogs'. I can't find anywhere that specifically deals with citing web forums, but have found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_21#Blogs_.2F_web_forums Richard Nowell (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed link to GZ Forum, as it is already explained in the Pea galaxy article anyway. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed press links

I've removed all press links, apart from the ESO link. Why have more? The original PR is all that is needed. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to convey that this article could do with more Wiki links. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Re-insertion of Some Material

I've re-inserted uncontentious material, while other issues are to be resolved. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Zolotor's Prediction.

The outstanding issue with this article is the 'prediction' of T. Zolotor. His prediction is "I think that a new class of pea galaxies will be found and or it will show these galaxies from way back in the past before they got very bright. I also believe a new form of galaxy will be found soon by this Zoo project".

However, this prediction is from a posting in an online astronomical forum for Galaxy Zoo. The posting is from here: http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=3638.2835 and was made on September 10, 2012, 12:35:55 am. This is the extent of his prediction. It is not cited in any published material or scientific papers. It is not cited in the scientific paper: "M. Schirmer "et al". (2013). "A Sample of Seyfert-2 Galaxies with Ultraluminous Galaxy-wide Narrow-line Regions: Quasar Light Echoes?". The Astrophysical Journal 763 (1). arXiv:1211.7098v2. " (This is the discovery paper for Green Bean galaxies).

In his prediction he writes: "I think that a new class of Pea galaxys (GPs) will be found." This is incorrect. GPs are starburst galaxies, whereas Green Bean galaxies are quasar ionization echoes. The two are very different. Also Green Bean galaxies are not a new class of galaxy, but rather very rare astronomical events. He continues: "it will show these galaxies from way back in the past before they got very bright". This is open to interpretation and is contentious, as Green Bean galaxies are the 'left-overs' from when these galaxies were extremely bright and energetic. He continues: "I also believe a new form of galaxy will be found soon by this Zoo project." This is also open to interpretation. Green Beans are not a new form of galaxy, they are very rare events in galaxies, so are not 'a new form of' galaxy.

So, the sentence about his prediction that now exists in the article should not be included for much longer, as it quotes from an online forum and contains imprecise information. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you on my talk page but you didn't answer to my question now again you're accusing me as T. Zolotor. Please, state your evidences and also read WP:CIV. If you continue to POV pushing then I have to report the harassment to ANI. Bisswajit 18:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at that again, indeed you did ask that, so I have removed that posting from your talk page and reposted it here for clarification:

"Please see the Green Bean galaxy talk page and the 'Resolution of Prediction's Inclusion in Article' in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Please add your views, thoughts and citeable references as soon as possible. Rgds Richard Nowell. (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)."

I hope this is satisfactory. Richard Nowell (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked for moderation, to avoid any conflict issues (which are?), in my posting which can be found in section 13 of the Talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy. From the reply I was given, I quote: ":WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:ADVERT. If the statement is unsourced and added by the person who created the fact, then it is a conflict of interest, and possibly self-promotion. Without a source it fails verifiability, and should be removed." As regards verifiability, I suggest you look at: 'Wikipedia:Reliable source examples section 1.3', from which I quote: "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable." Also, see 'Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published sources',from which I quote: "Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources". Rgds Richard Nowell (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to talk about COI here, and as I mentioned on your talk, there must be no speculation about the identity of other editors.

I have removed mention of the prediction as it is extremely WP:UNDUE. A reliable secondary source would be needed to support the claim that an aside on a forum was a prediction worth recording in an encyclopedic article. People predict things all the time, and some of those predictions turn out to be correct. An encyclopedia does not record such events. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try and get a great article together. Richard Nowell (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed any references to other editors' names that I had used. Richard Nowell (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)