Talk:International Star Registry/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Protected
Just to let everyone know, the page has been protected for now due to an anonymous user (66.87.145.165) repeatedly trying to turn it into what is essentially advertising for the company without any information on the criticism it has received and is receiving. I hope to be able to lift the protection again soon. Thanks! If you have any questions, please post them here or on my own talk page. -- Schnee 19:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
For the record, the troll has been banned, so the protection is lifted again. -- Schnee 14:10, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Suggested Edit
I propose to remove the language "deplorable commercial trick" out of this article. It is attributed to the IAU but I can find no source material at the IAU which uses such language. There is a reference from 1988 that purports to quote the IAU however as the IAU exists we should have directly referenced current quotes (especially since star naming companies by and large no longer represent themselves as "official" as they may have done in 1988). The IAU opinion currently is that star naming by commercial companies is a form of "charlatanry".
The edit I would propose is:
"The IAU has called the ISR's star-naming business far from dangerous "charlatanry"
From http://www.iau.org/public/buying_star_names/
Q: The IAU pretends to be in charge of the sky - why don't you DO something about this??!
A: Sorry, much as we would like to, we are not under the illusion that the IAU can eradicate charlatanry: It has survived and thrived for countless centuries in many disguises - some far more dangerous than this particular example. All we can do is warn the public and try to prevent the abuse of our name and scientific reputation to mislead well-meaning customers.
Glennconti (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you think it's a good idea, be bold and go for it! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
DoneGlennconti (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
IAU = Cartel
Sounds like the IAU is a two-bit cartel trying to soft-soap people into acccepting their naming monopoly. Every human has the right to name anything. People with University degrees have no more right to name anything. If someone wants to use IAU names, that is his prerogative, but they're not "official names", they're IAU names. Why is it that University grads tend to operate like two-bit gangsters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.191.141 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- The IAU is a long-standing organization of professional astronomers who actively work and contribute to the science of astronomy. Moreover, their conventions are rational, well thought-out and strongly debated. I'd say that they've earned their authority by merit. Their decisions aren't final, but they hold alot more weight than the charlatanry and chicanery that is the International Star Registry. Yes, they do state that the naming isn't official, which keeps them out of legal hot water. But the fact remains that they make money by misleading their customers. If people were fully aware that a spiffy certificate and mention in their book is the only thing they're spending upwards of a few hundred dollars on, it wouldn't be successful. Bigdan201 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a consumer survey of people looking to name stars after people: http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/information/namingstars.htm#surveyres It was constructed by astronomers. It concludes that the majority of consumers still want to buy stars for their loved one(s) even after they have been completely informed about the IAU and the non-official nature of commercial star naming. So contrary to your point people are interested in star naming even when fully informed. Glennconti (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- The exit poll shows that the respondents were very divided on the merits of star-naming after having read the page. In particular, they were split almost 70/30 against star-naming being worth the price. I could see the argument that it's a sentimental gesture, and I admit it's not actual fraud, but it still doesn't sit right. The lowest price for this is $50, and you could probably spend less than that making up your own certificate at an office depot. I'll give them credit for making money, but I don't see this as something really straightforward or constructive. Bigdan201 (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't want to blow this out of proportion. But if you Google "Name A Star" you can see that there is more than one service that will assist you in naming a star for less than $20. So the survey's point about the expense of star naming is dated. And as far as being constructive, would you also say that about giving a greeting card for birthdays and such? Very sentimental but not very constructive. Glennconti (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- The exit poll shows that the respondents were very divided on the merits of star-naming after having read the page. In particular, they were split almost 70/30 against star-naming being worth the price. I could see the argument that it's a sentimental gesture, and I admit it's not actual fraud, but it still doesn't sit right. The lowest price for this is $50, and you could probably spend less than that making up your own certificate at an office depot. I'll give them credit for making money, but I don't see this as something really straightforward or constructive. Bigdan201 (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a consumer survey of people looking to name stars after people: http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/information/namingstars.htm#surveyres It was constructed by astronomers. It concludes that the majority of consumers still want to buy stars for their loved one(s) even after they have been completely informed about the IAU and the non-official nature of commercial star naming. So contrary to your point people are interested in star naming even when fully informed. Glennconti (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)