Talk:Shenzhou 7

Second phase of Project 921

In which way does Shenzhou 7 start the second phase of Project 921 as the article says in the intro? Kinamand (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

For Project 921-2, China will dock a crew vehicle with a previously orbited space station. Whereas it's easy to think of "docking" as establishing a pressurized passageway between the vehicle and the station, that may not be the case in this design. The first crew transfer ever accomplished, between Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5, was accomplished by a spacewalk. So the author of the phrase you question may be implying the spacewalk aspect of Shenzhou 7 is a precursor to a transfer of crew from a launch vehicle to a station. (sdsds - talk) 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast?

Does anyone know if the Shenzhou 7 launch and mission will be broadcast somewhere on the internet? 130.243.249.252 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder this too. I will try to find out if it is broadcast on any of the CCTV channels and get back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.159.190.87 (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors!

Someone (most likely not a native English speaker) has made a mess in this article about the EVA suits and worries about "gravity damagE", I'll try to interpret what he or she has been trying to say and make corrections.Roswell Crash Survivor (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

taikonauts

The taikonaut articles need updating, the six related to this mission are not completely uptodate or link to Shenzhou 7 70.55.203.112 (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Grammar in this article is terrible! For example: "This subject to changes at when launch happen, becauses of worry that Orlan-M will not sufficient for make gravity strain"

What?

Someone probably used babelfish... 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Orbit (not the sugar-free kind)

Is there an orbital visibility map for this spacecraft if people want to see it with binoculars from their backyards, all around the world? Heavens-above does not have any plot for it. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it does. http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=33386

—WWoods (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violation

China is not just the People's Republic of China. This article violates the Political NPOV policy of the naming conventions. Montemonte (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As the ROC has no human spaceflight program, it's perfectly accurate to speak of "China's first spacewalk", etc. Jpatokal (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

About Xinhua's bogus report before launching

The article should not contain Xinhua's bogus report since it has nothing to do with the launching. Or should every media coverage be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.18.251 (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. It raises fundamental questions about the veracity of information coming out about the mission. If the information being published by the Chinese authorities is fake it brings into question the true purpose of the mission and also the accuracy of the achievements being claimed. Pberrett (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One way or the other, I've fixed up that section with more citations, more accurate statements, and hopefully more NPOV language. -Kieran (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [restored comment to this section - seemed to have floated up to the above -Kieran (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

I disagree. Xinhua is a media agency. It's a tradition that before events happen, media prepare articles so that can send them out in first time. This incident should be categorized as an technical error and put under Xinhua's items but not here. As a mere "template" article for preparation of broadcasting, the bogus report has no value of truth and is not related to ShenZhou itself. Pberrett, the article was not published but shown on website due to a technical error.

Preparing articles ahead of time is fine. Including transcripts of conversations between astronauts in space that haven't happened yet is seriously unethical, and journalists doing things like that get fired in the West for it.

But this debate is irrelevant. The question is, was the event notable and verifiable, and it certainly fulfills both counts: every major news agency carried the story. Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not alleged... alleged mans it allegedly happened, when something happens, it's not POV to state the facts. Remove the allegedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.230.196 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kaldari's gone and changed that. I'm inclined to say that this was alleged by news agencies, who are not always the most neutral or reliable of sources. Unfortunately the nature of the story makes it pretty hard to prove, one way or the other. Anyway, let's leave it without the "allegedly", for now. -Kieran (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

The article should be restructured as a timeline of events, instead of the current jumbled "highlights". Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

foreign language

the external links and the references are in all-chinese. while its quite fair to use certain sources in different languages, the name and info would be better in english with a note off to the side saying it's in chinese. this is used elsewhere in the english wikipedia, at least. Lihaas (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I went through last night and changed the Publisher info to English for those that I recognized (新华 to Xinhua, 人民日报 to People's Daily, etc.). There are still some that are news sources with which I'm not familiar, or are minor enough that they don't even really have an English name; for those, I think it's best that a native speaker go through and add the English names if there is one, or if not just give the pinyin for the Chinese name. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

spacesuit

someone should write an article on the spacesuits... Feitian spacesuit or Feitian 70.55.203.112 (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fake news report

This does not belong in the Other modifications and additions section for obvious reasons. I don't know where people want this to go, but definitely not here. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also, you know how this report is wrong? The thing was broadcasted live. In anycase, I had remove it unless someone want to move it somewhere else. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it in the Controversies section. I've commented it out for now, however, as there is absolutely no source information given. If you have a good source, add the footnote and remove the comment brackets. Until then, however, please don't restore that information to the article. Thanks, —Politizer^{( t | c )} 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fake -> false. I had thought about that myself, but didn't do it. It's definitely more neutral in tone.

As for the dubiousness of the "technical error" claim - that's straight out of the AP article cited in the footnote. The relevant quote:

"A staffer from the Xinhuanet.com Web site who answered the phone Thursday said the posting of the article was a "technical error" by a technician. The staffer refused to give his name as is common among Chinese officials."

So, I guess AP could be lying - it's certainly harder to verify than the existence of the report. I'll put back an "allegedly" to that sentence, but the footnote most definitely makes that claim. -Kieran (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If the thing being called "dubious" is the staffer's claim that it was a technical error, we should not use a {{dubious}} tag (I only put that tag there because someone else had added it and I was restoring it; I wasn't sure why it was actually there). The {{dubious}} tag can be used if the actual content of the article is dubious (for example, if the source is from an untrustworthy website and we are not sure that the false news report ever even happened); for instances in which the claims made by a third party about information in the article are dubious, the correct response is, as you've suggested, to make the wording in the article clear. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's much better. And lol on the edit clashes! -Kieran (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, my bad. Most of my editing is usually obscure linguistics articles and stuff like that, so this is the first time I've been involved in editing an article that other people are actually paying attention to as I edit it, so it's still a bit of a learning experience! —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, how do you guys explain the fact the thing was broadcasted live? If this report was to be true? And the fire isn't really a "controversy", I mean come on. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What was broadcast live? If you want us to consider your argument, please at least explain what you're trying to say—what "event" was broadcast live, and how does that relate to another article that appeared online? And as for the fire, "controversy" may not be the best descriptor, but that is currently the only subsection it fits under and the subsection was originally called "Episode," which is not an appropriate name for the subsection. If you can think of a better section heading, be my guest. But please do not remove cited information, like you did in this edit, without consensus. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The original report of Xinhua has been taken down, so neither forum nor AP&telegraph can afford a "valid" link(they even didn't afford). I'm not a NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER, I won't argue what are "valid" and "good", I only understand what is "I believe....". The whole stuff is just a stupid reporter's pre-written article for a scheduled mission events, it dosen't deserve so long "controversies" here. Maybe a United Nations investigate report will end the edit-reedit-rereedite....Wiki shoud concentrate on the core issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.69.36.226 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Backup crew

There are only two backup crew members listed, but later the article states that a total of six astronauts trained for this mission... Bgwwlm (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not inconsistent, that just means two people were sent home without being chosen for any responsibilities in the mission. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three backup crew members listed in the article. Shenzhou 7#Back-up crew. —Politizer^{( talk | contribs )} 02:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I undid the vandalism so that it is now accurate. 70.24.137.253 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan's Space Report - Next Issue

Jonathan has a draft of his space report number 601 available. It has more information on Shenzhou 7, but he has flagged it as a draft and that it "may include wild rumours and downright nonsense". It does have more detailed EVA times than the BBC though. Here is the link - I will not cite it until Jonathan makes it official:

OFFICIAL STOP PRESS

-84user (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese blog/forum sources regarding the false news report

Regarding the sources added in this edit: I am inclined to remove these sources and leave the {{Fact}} tag in the article until someone brings in a better source. This is because 1) the sources added there are all blog and forum sources, which are admissible in some contexts but are not desirable in this context if a suitable news alternative exists; and 2) they are in Chinese, which makes them useless for the majority of Wikipedia readers and editors. Sure, you and I are able to read and understand them, but our responsibility here is to provide sources that every reader can take advantage of.

Furthermore, I have tried the link given within one of those forum posts, and the link was dead.

For these reasons, please do not restore those sources without first discussing here. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign media are not keen on reporting Shenzhou 7 in details. You must accept this fact. -59.149.32.100 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that our sources have to be from "foreign media" to be valid; I said it should be in English. There are plenty of Chinese newswires that publish in English—I know 新华 and 人民日报 both have extensive English publications. Furthermore, if you can't find a good source for something stated in the article, that doesn't mean you should just put in a bad source instead! If, by the end of the day, no one had put in appropriate sources for the sentence claiming that the false news thing was first reported by BBC, the simplest option is not to include the bad sources (listed above), but simply to remove that wording from the article, and rewrite that section of the article so that it's saying something we can verify. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The original report of Xinhua has been taken down, so neither forum nor AP&telegraph can afford a "valid" link(they even didn't afford). I'm not a NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER, I won't argue what are "valid" and "good", I only understand what is "I believe....". The whole stuff is just a stupid reporter's pre-written article for a scheduled mission events, it dosen't deserve so long "controversies" here. Maybe a United Nations investigate report will end the edit-reedit-rereedite....Wiki shoud concentrate on the core issues.

Believe me, there won't be better refs from Chinese sources.

AP&telegraph even did’t give a link to the dead Xinhua article which WAS IN CHINESE, their reports as sources are even worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.69.36.226 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)