User talk:JMF

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)

It is a well-known fact that the Shenzhou space project has been designed from the beginning to support the construction of a Chinese space station, the function of which will be to host orbital surveillence platforms and nuclear bombardment devices. The 'previously orbited space station' refers to this spacecraft. 68.230.195.237 (talk) 22:11, 9 October 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)

Agree. Yet the People's Republic of China should have no monopoly over the use of the word "China" according to Wikipedia policy. And "China" as used in this way is not unambiguous. Montemonte (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The convention throughout Wikipedia and most periodicals is to refer to the PRC as China and ROC as Taiwan. Regardless of any political implications of that naming, it's just what's most common. I don't know what "Political NPOV policy of naming conventions" you are referring to, but as far as I know I've never seen a Wikipedia policy explicitly outlining how PRC and ROC should be referred to. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:31, 29 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)

Ok, try the entire launch procedure, the entire space walk. Basically the entire "event" described in the Fake News Report. Don't forget the thousands of people who watched it at the launch pad, including foreign journalists. So what's so controversial here? Is there any doubt in your mind that this space mission is somehow pre-recorded like the current section suggest? Also, I removed it so people can move it to another section, as they have done, why are you getting so mad?? 129.173.136.99 (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the launch and spacewalk were broadcast live; we all know that, and no one is disputing that. But it doesn't have anything to do with the news reports that surfaced earlier. To clarify: the "controversy" is not over whether or not the spacewalk happened (we all know it did happen, and that's why we don't need your assurances that it was broadcast live--the veracity of the events themselves are not being disputed at all), but over the fact that a fake news report was recounting these events before they happened. In other words, this section is not about the spacewalk or the launch at all; this section is about the media, and about the false article that surfaced before the launch. The live coverage of the events has nothing to do with that, as the live coverage all occurred, by definition, after the false report. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"This section is about.. the false article that surfaced." Then I suggest you make another article about the false article. If you don't have any quarrels about the actual topic of Shenzhou 7. Then to be frankly speaking, it doesn't belong here. If you do, may you kindly in a clear and concise manner, describe it, so we can add it to the controversy section. Thank you. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As the false report was related to the mission and precipitated by it, the report is more fitting here than in just about any other article on Wikipedia. Editors other than me have fought to restore that content to the article (see, for example, this edit and this edit). There is already a precedent (I don't have any examples of articles handy, but if you demand examples I will track some down for you) of articles about events also including information on media coverage of those events. I personally am not making any judgments about the importance of the Controversies section; rather, the information was present in the article when I began copyediting the article yesterday, and I did not judge it to be a blatant violation of any Wikipedia policies or common sense, so I chose to maintain the status quo. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And, just to be clear, I would like to point out to you that I am not including this information in the article because I want to "China-bash" or say something bad about Xinhua. I merely am trying to maintain the information that was already in the article when I arrived and that I do not feel is a violation of any standards or policies. As the information given in that section is all properly sourced and factual, I believe it has a neutral point of view; likewise, it does not give the issue undue weight (as the section is very short—a little bit shorter, in fact, than the recommended length of a good paragraph on Wikipedia). Like everyone else, I am very excited about China's accomplishment with this mission and I've been telling all my friends about it whenever I can, and my inclusion of the false news report in the article is motivated only by the desire to make the article as high-quality as possible. So please don't think that I'm just trying to put negative information in the article to China-bash. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, you can china-bash if you want, we are on the internet after all. 129.173.159.193 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke of Xinhua Agency, it doesn't play down the mission itself. I'v never thought it as "China-bash", bash when Chinese roam in the space? What I don't like is: 1) the false report is in fact not important enough to have a section, someone have tried to remain it because they personally thought it's funny and important. Typical 拿起雞毛當令箭. 2)You'v tried to dominate the edit and exclude other's contribution, based on seemingly Wiki standard virtually personal standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.69.36.164 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

As I showed in my previous message, I am not the only one who had made edits to the False News Report section and I am certainly not trying to dominate the article. If you are going to make this personal, please continue your discussion at my talk page and not here. (I am leaving you this message here because, as you seem to be using at least three different IP addresses to edit, I don't know if messages on your talk page will reach you.) Good day. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 04:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, 218.69.36.164 and 24.224.182.97 are two different people; and I don't think neither of us are making this personal. You on the other hand, seem to be the one getting emotional. In anycase, I must agree with 218.69.36.164. It's just more logical. Would you add the The Birth of a Nation to the Silent film page because it's controversial? Of course not. I don't know what example you were talking about, but I can provide tons of examples where it does NOT happen. 129.173.159.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your advice about "~". But I don't think I have made any personal attack and nothing needs a private talk. My IP is automatically appointed by ISP. I'v expressed my opinions but I didn't edit anymore eventhough I disagree. 218.69.36.164 (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So given the logic provided above, do we have an agreement that there is no controversy for this event? If you don't reply, then it's a default consent. 129.173.136.51 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What logic? Lots of different things have been said above, and as this is the first time the IP address "129.173.136.51" has even appeared in the conversation, I have no idea who you even are. If you want us to be able to follow your argument when you keep posting from different locations, please consider registering.

Your claim that "if I don't reply, it's a default consent" is just preposterous; don't tell me whether I consent or not. I have already detailed in many different ways the reasons I believe the False News Report section is worthy of inclusion in the article, and if you glance at the history you will see that many other editors have also been in favor of keeping that section.

Regardless of whether or not you believe the event is worth keeping or whether it was a controversy, here are the facts:

1. 1. The event happened.
   2. The event was related to Shenzhou 7 (a news report about Shenzhou 7)
   3. The event was covered in several mainstream news sources, as shown in the article.

That is why other editors and I have all been keeping that section in the article. If this is not enough explanation for you, please read the rest of the comments about this issue (spread throughout three sections on this page). —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 15:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my question, but as you are confused,let me make some common sense clear:1) IP is assigned to users by ISP software, with some random change at the latter two codes, mine is 218.69.*.* and 129.173.136.99(129.173.136.51) probably from another person of Canadian. There were several people disagree with you, not one. 2)Not every one have to regist in order to gain collection of "Where I have wasted time on Wiki".2) I don't see "many" be in favor of keeping that section(yes, a SECTION, not a sentence). And we, all of us, have no consent if it's worthy nor unworthy, it has nothing to do with mainstream or non-mainstream. 3) There are more valuable facts HAPPENED AND RELATED TO SZ7 never been added even in a single sentence while a report joke deserves a section and four references. Wise.

The wrong claim in "controversies" section is still there. I'm sure all guys love that section cannot or haven't comprehend what the false report is about, and none has enough knowledge about astronautics to decide what is worthy and what isn't in a related article.

It sad to see a space mission article is ruined in this way.218.69.36.247 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to explain ISP software to me; I know what an IP address is. I was merely trying to point out to the previous editor that he cannot expect me to be able to follow all of his arguments when he is not registered and is IP keeps changing.

If you don't see people in favor of keeping the section, I will leave you a message at your talk page showing all of the previous edits in which other editors have either added to the False News Report section, or have restored it after it was deleted.

If there are more valuable facts about SZ7, feel free to add them. I haven't prevented anyone from adding valuable information to the article.

You keep referring to a "wrong claim" in that section. Please be more clear about what you're actually talking about. I have seen that section and everything in it is factual. The article says that 1) a news report appeared on Xinhua before the events had happened (that is true, verified by sources); 2) the article was reported in mainstream news sources later (true); 3) the report described some things (true, you can see the full text of the report); 4) the report was taken down (true, it's not online anymore); and 5) a Xinhua staffer said that it had been a mistake (true as far as we can tell, the AP article reports that interaction). That is all factual and verifiable information. If you think something is wrong, please actually state what the problem is, rather than vaguely mentioning a "wrong claim" as you keep doing.

Finally, I would like to remind you that the section in question is very small as compared to the rest of the article, and is not doing anything to "ruin" the article. Please take a moment to remain calm and keep things in perspective. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can follow his arguments even his IP change a bit.

I never delet that section because I saw someone love it so much.

It's not interesting to share knowledge with people not be interested in, or cannot enjoy it.

It's interesting to see an open problem unsolved for a long time. How cursed I am!

You don't know where it goes wrong.

I'm not only calm, also logically thinking.218.69.36.247 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to that comment at your talk page. If you would like to continue this discussion, please do so there. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I sound like a egomania. No, in fact I have shared my knowledge with people here already. Anyway, I have no offensive to anybody.

(My IP changes too, my talk page is instantaneous)218.69.36.247 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

SZ7 mission is over, my mission is also over. Byebye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.69.36.247 (talk) 21:11, 30 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)

You guys are ignoring the fact that the clause to which you were attaching those bad refs was not about the false news report in general, but a clause claiming that "the false article was first reported on BBC." Thus, it would have been totally irrelevant to have links to the false Xinhua article itself; the reason I put there was because it needed a source corroborating that it really did appear on BBC first. Everything you guys are saying is just irrelevant.

I have now removed any mention of the BBC from that section and rewrote the sentence to make more general claims, claims which we can source with valid sources. Problem solved. Please do not revert that edit or add any of your blog/forum sources without first discussing it here. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow...things go worse. Mainstream....what an exquisite polish!

BBS=Bulletin Board Service, NOT BBC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.69.36.226 (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all

I have added a reference that includes the original text of the article and an english translation. There was a comparable but less descriptive paragraph in the Wikipedia Xinhua page so I copied the Fake news report paragraph from here and pasted it over there as well.

Peter Pberrett (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC).

Thank you. I have removed the excerpt from the original article, as it gives undue weight and is available anyway through the footnotes. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Translations of source titles

This morning I tried to translate the headlines/titles of as many of the Chinese sources as I could. Those of you who are native Chinese speakers will probably notice that some of my translations may be a little off, and you are free to correct them as you see fit. I did translations even when I wasn't 100% I understood the headline right, assuming that maybe someone later will notice the bad translation and fix it—so I figured that way it would be better to have bad translations than none at all. If you notice a translation that needs to be fixed, please don't hesitate to help out by correcting it! —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

pressure suit

Is there a name to the pressure suit worn during launch and reentry? It's not the Orlan spacesuit or the Feitian spacesuit. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction section

Is this new section worth keeping in the article? The whole section is only one sentence long and is little more than a list of foreign heads of state; furthermore, the mere fact that foreign leaders "congratulated" China doesn't really give us much information about the real international reaction. My suggestion would be to somehow integrate the one sentence in this section (removing the long list of heads of state, which can be found in the source given) to some other section of the article, such as the Mission highlights or lead-in; as it stands, this section is not really notable or worthy of inclusion unless someone is ready to add a lot more information to it. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and changed it. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of info out there on the international reaction to the mission. I will move it back and continue to improve the section. 130.113.189.109 (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the new information you've added has not really helped to make the section more worthwhile or notable. First of all, everything you are listing is more or less the same thing: a head of state or other high-ranking official congratulating China. That does not say much about the true international reaction, as such congratulations are a courtesy that happens all the time. For example, the fact that NASA wished China success and wished the crew a safe return, that doesn't mean anything; NASA would wish anyone success, that's just what you do.

More seriously, all of your information is from the same source: Xinhua. I'm not going to say anything for or against the validity of Xinhua as a source, but suffice it to say you can't make sweeping generalizations, especially about worldwide reactions, from nothing but a single source.

Finally, on a slightly related note...even if you must include this section, please do not list every single head of state that has congratulated China, as your earlier version does in the first paragraph. There is no need for such a list; it would be more than sufficient to say "numerous foreign leaders have congratulated China..." If you must list some, mention two at most, and then say "and others." Furthermore, please properly format your references using the {{cite web}} template that is used throughout the article; WP:CITET has more information on how to use that template. Thank you, —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If the thrifty virtue and reasonable "worth" standard were applied to the "controversies" section which contains a wrong claim, the quality of the item would have been better. Diligent work.218.69.36.165 (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is not a single "wrong claim" in the Controversies section; you seem to be misunderstanding the content of that section. See here and here for an explanation of the section.

You guys seem to think that I am trying to make the article anti-China by removing positive sections and maintaining negative ones. I would like to point out to you that the vast majority of the article (the Mission Highlights) is very positive and praising China's accomplishments, and the very small Controversies section does not at all detract from the overall positive tone of the article. To be perfectly frank, I am the editor who went through the article two days ago and cleaned up the Mission Highlights and made sure that section would be kept and would accurately describe the magnitude of China's accomplishments, so I am starting to be offended at the number of people accusing me of breaking NPOV. Please take the time to consider the whole article, rather than just one or two little bits that you don't like. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 18:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(and PS, I already know about WP:OWN, so don't worry about reminding me. I'm not trying to claim ownership of this article, but rather am just reminding people that my edits are in line with NPOV.) —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 18:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You falsely claimed my opinion. I don't think you are making the article anti-China, your improvement of phraseology is a nice contribution. I also think a "International reaction" is not necessary and seems high-sounding, a single sentence mention is enough(or totally not mention). There is a wrong claim in "controversies", but I won't edit anymore:) as I have done enough: I reconstructed the skeleton of the article, wrote important technical facts of the mission, contributed basic contents which are the real important stuff, I did these before you came here.218.69.36.165 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous flights

There is no point putting an ambiguous and confusing number (1) after each crew member's name and then explaining it with a footnote. All that needs to be said is "This was the first spaceflight for all three crew members." or something like that. Juzhong (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I made that edit before, but as per Rillian's edit summaries, I am inclined to agree with Rillian that we should follow the standard for other space mission articles. If most articles on space missions give the number for the crew members, I think we should do it here as well. (I do not normally edit articles on this topic, so I don't know, but I'm sure Rillian can offer us some examples.)

And, as a side note, I don't find the (1) ambiguous or confusing; when I removed it before, I just thought it was unnecessary since all the astronauts had a (1) and that I could make things more concise by editing it as you have suggested. But, again, since someone has pointed out to me that there is a standard, I believe we should follow that standard. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 21:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't see it in Vostok 1 but it's there in Mercury-Redstone 3 where it's even more ridiculous. Wouldn't it be more sensible to have a standard like "numbers should be added in parentheses unless it's quicker to explain in prose"? Juzhong (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also present on the vast majority of mission pages. Just because this mission had all first-time flyers is not a reason to not follow the standard layout. If one of the crew members had flown before, you would be okay with following the standard, but since all were rookies, it should be left off? Rillian (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no reasonto follow the alleged "standard layout" in this case. It's just dumb. Go add it back to Vostok 1, why should anyone expect a project like this to produce readable articles anyway. Juzhong (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Oh you did that already, beautiful. It will be like a emblem of stupidity for wikipedia. 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Epoch Times

Regarding the removal of Epoch Times footnotes in this edit: I don't see why you call Epoch Times "hardly a verifiable source." Sure, they are controversial, but lots of news sources are; people accuse both Fox and CNN of being biased, that doesn't mean they should never be cited. And the majority of the sources in this article are Xinhua and People's Daily, which are hardly seen as glowing standards of journalism by most Westerners (note to Chinese people: I'm not trying to pass any judgment about those news sources here. I'm merely pointing out that in the West they are at least as controversial as Epoch Times, if not more). Just because some people don't like Epoch Times doesn't mean everyone doesn't; see The Epoch Times. And, besides, the information in the False News Report section of the article is fairly credible because it's mentioned in many other news sources; the reason the Epoch Times source is being kept there as well is because it contains the full text of the original Xinhua article in question, which makes it a nice resource for readers. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened Politizer? You don't write replies in the "Fake News Report" section anymore. Come back. 129.173.136.51 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please only leave messages that are relevant and constructive to this section. If you want to discuss the Fake News Report in general, you may do so in that section. If you have personal issues or you want to stalk me, you can take it up with me at my talk page. Please do not leave inappropriate messages in this section, as it just makes it more difficult for people to discuss the issue in a constructive way. Thank you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 15:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I had a change of heart and commented the Epoch Times sources back out. They do have quite a few inflammatory comments about "brainwashing," etc.; even though they have full text of the original Xinhua article, you have to go through a few paragraphs of biased remarks to get there, so that might not be desirable. Also, the AP sources in the same section also have excerpts of the original Xinhua article, which should make up for removing Epoch Times sources. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New Section on Fake News Report

Ok, I am back everyone. Hope you all had a good time while I am gone. In anycase, old section was getting long and hard to follow so I'l start a new one. Now, let's not confuse the two "events" here.
1). Shenzhou 7
2). The Fake News Report
And that's pretty much all there is to it. I'll be here all week. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There has already been consensus; for at least a week, no one has been messing with that section. Please read the old discussion before you open this up all over again. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)