![]() | 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. |
After reading this article for the first time, I was pleased at the effort and quality of the article and the pictures that went in. Congratulations must be awarded to those who put the effort into the First half of this article. By the time I had read that much, I was asking myself, "why isn't this a featured article?" But by the time that I got to the section that discussed the Legacy of the space race, I could understand why. Tables discussing the modern numbers of satellites launched by countries that were not part of the original space race, while important to WikiProject Space/Space Exploration, Do not belong on the page discussing the 1950s-Early 1970s Competition between the USA and the USSR. The data tabled is redundant, because a similar table is already on wikipedia under
Satellite#Launch capable countries, which also Links to
Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality (Which happens to be a featured article itself).
Another section of Irrelevant content is in the Legacy continued by Japan. This is probably one of the largest blocks of text, but once again, I have to ask, should the Plans of the Japanese Space Progam to Launch a Probe to Venus have to do with the 1950s-Early 1970's Space Race Between the USA and USSR? On a brief review of that major body of text, is seems to be translated directly from the JAXA website, with broken links, wrong tenses and generally bad writing that would make my english teacher fail me if I handed it in! This Text needs to be taken from this page and put on the page for JAXA, not to mention needs to be Wikified.
If no-one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll be deleting the tables, and putting the text on JAXA onto it's own page. I'm also adding my reccomendations to the to-do list on the top of the talk page
I'll be commenting later on, once this has been actioned, on how we can probably add to the article. I want to help get this page back to FA Status.
We need to rewrite the content of this article to be the same as the subject described in it's title. Let's give it a try people! MichaelHenley ( Page- Talk- Contribs) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese Space agency JAXA will be launching the moon probe, SELENE in the near future. SELENE is the most sophisticated lunar exploration mission in the post-Apollo Era. The major objectives of the SELENE mission are the global observation of the Moon to research its origin and evolution. Other scientific data captured will also be used for exploring the possibilities of the future utilization of the Moon. JAXA will also establish the basic technologies for future Moon exploration, such as, lunar polar orbit insertion, 3-axis attitude control and thermal control in lunar orbit. In addition, SELENE will take pictures and movies of the beautiful Earth-rise from the Moon horizon. SELENE is planned to be launched in 2007, using the H2A launch Vehicle. Japan launched the Nozomi ( PLANET-B) of the Mars space probe on July 4, 1998. Mars orbital injection is given up on December 9, 2003. It passes through 1000 km points from Mars on December 14. The return to the earth is aimed at. In addition, Japan plans launching of Venus space probe in 2010. PLANET-C is the next planetary exploration project for the Martian orbiter NOZOMI. This project’s main purpose is to elucidate the mysteries of the Venusian atmosphere. Though often referred to as Earth’s sister planet in terms of size and mass, Venus is actually very different. It is veiled in carbon dioxide, with a high temperature and thick sulfuric-acid clouds. Clarification of the causes for this environment will provide us with clues to the understanding of the birth of Earth and of its climate changes. Therefore, Venus is a very important subject for exploration. PLANET-C will usher in a new era of Venusian exploration. The probe vehicle is scheduled to be launched in 2010 and is expected to reach Venus orbit. Furthermore, BepiColombo of the Mercury exploration plan are advanced together Japan and Europe. I launch it in 2013, and it is a plan to cast into orbit of Mercury in 2019. BepiColombo is a Mercury exploration project jointly planned by Japan and the European Space Agency (ESA). The proximity of Mercury to the Sun makes it difficult to observe and hard to reach by space flight. Three passes by NASA’s Mariner 10 in 1974-75 have been the only exploration conducted so far. The mission was inspired by the late Italian astrophysicist Dr. Giuseppe BepiColombo, who suggested that a spacecraft could get close to Mercury several times by using a gravity-assist swing-by of Venus. Hence the name of the project, BepiColombo. Mariner 10 revealed the presence of a magnetic field and magnetospheric activities in Mercury. BepiColombo will conduct comprehensive observations of Mercury’s magnetic field, magnetosphere, and both its surface and interior. That will help determine how much it has in common with other planets and what elements are unique to Mercury as well as the origin and evolution of terrestrial planets. Moreover, in February, 2007, it is H-2A12 By a rocket, I launched Information Gathering SatelliteⅡ. Four systems were set by it, and ability for intelligence rose markedly. Furthermore, Japan participate in International Space Station. JAXA
Why does the article have to solely use either "USSR" or "Soviet Union"? A mixed usage of equivalent terms usually serves to break up monotony in an article and make for a more attractive writing style. Is there a wikipedia policy against using multiple equivalent terms in an article? If so that policy definately sets wikipedia apart from all other encyclopedias whose authors freely switch between equivalent terms wherever it would seem to serve their stylistic purposes. Zebulin 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
nonesense. I want to keep it that way. I was referring to the recent reversions of multiple instances of USSR to Soviet Union and vice versa. Each edit would make the changes entirely in one direction to the detriment of the article. I posted this in hopes heading off any effort to make the article uniform in that sense.
Zebulin
16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete this. This article does not treat only space race of the cold war period. I think that the article of the recent space development is included.-- 218.110.154.112 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Space Race was a competition of space exploration between the United States and USSR, which lasted roughly from 1957 to 1975. It involved the efforts to explore outer space with artificial satellites, to send humans into space, and to land people on the Moon.
Another Idea would be for you to start another article on the present-day space race that you are referring to. We can then link most of content on the Legacy page onto that page then, as a "Main article:" link.
Not only that, the tables which you continue to place on the article are already present on other pages on wikipedia! Have a look at Satellite#Launch capable countries, and Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality, which is also a featured article.
Feel free to use the paragraph of JAXA content in the JAXA page, but please do not put it here. The only "space race", (apart from the US-USSR one that is the main body of the article) that is going on at the moment is that which is speculated upon in this article, which also needs to be deleted.
I invite any and all comments on this topic, from both sides of the discussion. Clearly no progress can be made on this article can be made, until this issue has been resolved. Please note that We are on the verge of Violating the 3RR Rule, and if this isn't resolved, this will break this rule.
Can other users please comment on what has been going on here? I feel like I have been the only one able to explain this. P.S. 218.110.154.112, have you considered getting an user account? Kindly, MichaelHenley ( Talk- Contribs) 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
this article has one major problem. it fails to name a clear winner in the space race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.57 ( talk) 11:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Real life conflicts seldom end with clear cut victories. The concept of winning is more appropriate to games. As such articles on real life conflicts are better served by providing the reader with the information to form their own judgment on the outcome should they choose to frame it in those terms.
Zebulin
20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
And here are references:
1. American Atlas 5 uses RD-180: http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av004/050309atlas5rocket.html 2. russian plans for mars landing: " http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Russian_Dreams_Of_Reaching_Mars_First_999.html", " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article539874.ece" , " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2101861.stm"
Do we need more references? 99.231.63.253 ( talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)PAvel Golikov.
One important satellite, TIROS-1, which was the first successful weather satellite sent up by USA is missing from the timeline. Could somebody please add this? There is a Wikipedia page about it. //Kada 10 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.81.202 ( talk) 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that Russia currently has plans to land on Mars by 2015? After all, this has to do with space race. 99.231.59.7 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 7, 2007.
I deleted this:
as irrelevant to the article. Anybody who wants can move it to V-2. Trekphiler ( talk) 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What's this then? -- Leladax ( talk) 10:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, neither China nor USA have the resources to spend on a frivilous space race that would have little gain for the winner. That is why there is no real race per se but just 2 nations slowly expanding thier respective space missions. 99.249.228.146 ( talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
in the history of manned flight, i think space station play a big role in developing the technology and capability. going to the moon is great; but the ability to stay in space of years and really carry out some long duration operations and studies on human endurance in space, is this not important in the race to conquer the space? how could one truely be seen as winning the race without having the ability to "just stay up there"? the salyut, skylab and mir deserve some recognition as being part of the race. what do you think? Akinkhoo ( talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Lunokhod 1 picture is ok, but it lacks a certain impact in comparison to the many space race era pictures that might be selected to start the article. The old Titan II launch picture certainly fit the bill in this respect but it was probably removed because it was a US project. Would it be possible to find a suitably dramatic soviet image (or perhaps a soviet/US diptych) and move the Lunokhod picture to a less prominent portion of the article? Zebulin ( talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
From the article, by early 2008. India also has plans for manned space flights in 2014-2015 (that will make it as the fourth space superpower) it would appear that edits which use the term space superpower define it as any country that launches a person to space. From where does this idea originate? As it stands it appears to be an original research neologism which should be removed from the article if no source can be found. In particular there doesn't appear to be any reason why manned flight would set the bar for space superpower status and number of successful satellite or space probe launches or total mass launched to orbit or other possible criteria would not. Zebulin ( talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the timeline graph is pretty POV. It states in the description that:
"This image takes significant events from the timeline of the Space Race from 1957 through 1975 and plots them into a y-axis that gauges the relative significance of those accomplishments"
I dont think its good practice, nor the place of wikipedia, to judge one accomplishment against another, let alone quantify them on a graph. For many people, the first man in space could be seen as the most significant, for others the first to land on the moon. I reckon we should remove the graph and replace it with something a little more neutral. How do others feel? Thestealthmonkey ( talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It is worth describing in the Lunar landing section, however briefly, John F. Kennedy's proposal for a joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. manned lunar expedition. The offer was first communicated directly to Nikita Khrushchev in 1961, and then again in 1963. [1] JFK also had Dean Rusk and his brother, Robert, secretly push for a joint mission. [2] He openly pressed the issue again at the United Nations ( video clip). More amazingly, according to Sergei Khrushchev, his farther had decided to accept Kennedy's offer and was preparing to make a statement on the issue. [3] It was a very uncertain time for Project Apollo. Dynablaster ( talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
the only thing this article is lacking is the structural benefits of being featured to be talked as a more important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.165.180.252 ( talk) 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. As I read the article it seemed to me more and more like non-English speakers wrote it. It is riddled with small spelling and grammatical errors. I would have fixed them, but I have the gut feeling that this article is hotly contested by some? It also seemed that some things were written from a very subjective view point (look at the shuttle section). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.252.104.131 (
talk)
05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The section has a {{Copyedit|date=May 2009}} tag on it, but it is loaded with awkward-isms, many incomprehendable. I'd do it, but yes, I'm too lazy. It's easier to complain anonymously here on the talk page. :-) An alternative is to delete the subsection (or even the whole "Legacy" section) as off-topic.
71.126.239.205 ( talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (a currently not-logged-on regular user)
Do we really need to say "US-Air Force", "US-NASA" etc? That information is relevant only to someone who wants to know how various US space efforts were organized. The material fact that is necessary for the table to work is the name of the country. After all, no casual sterotypical reader from the USA is interested in which design bureaus designed the various rockets.
Bottom line: IMO the various "Air Force", "NASA" etc. things need to go. 118.90.6.70 ( talk) 14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In reference to an above comment, the grammar in the "Recent Events" subsection is so poor that I believe it will take some time to try to figure out what the original author/editor was trying to say. Nonetheless, the section is in need of significant cleanup.
Alvincura ( talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
After reading this article for the first time, I was pleased at the effort and quality of the article and the pictures that went in. Congratulations must be awarded to those who put the effort into the First half of this article. By the time I had read that much, I was asking myself, "why isn't this a featured article?" But by the time that I got to the section that discussed the Legacy of the space race, I could understand why. Tables discussing the modern numbers of satellites launched by countries that were not part of the original space race, while important to WikiProject Space/Space Exploration, Do not belong on the page discussing the 1950s-Early 1970s Competition between the USA and the USSR. The data tabled is redundant, because a similar table is already on wikipedia under
Satellite#Launch capable countries, which also Links to
Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality (Which happens to be a featured article itself).
Another section of Irrelevant content is in the Legacy continued by Japan. This is probably one of the largest blocks of text, but once again, I have to ask, should the Plans of the Japanese Space Progam to Launch a Probe to Venus have to do with the 1950s-Early 1970's Space Race Between the USA and USSR? On a brief review of that major body of text, is seems to be translated directly from the JAXA website, with broken links, wrong tenses and generally bad writing that would make my english teacher fail me if I handed it in! This Text needs to be taken from this page and put on the page for JAXA, not to mention needs to be Wikified.
If no-one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll be deleting the tables, and putting the text on JAXA onto it's own page. I'm also adding my reccomendations to the to-do list on the top of the talk page
I'll be commenting later on, once this has been actioned, on how we can probably add to the article. I want to help get this page back to FA Status.
We need to rewrite the content of this article to be the same as the subject described in it's title. Let's give it a try people! MichaelHenley ( Page- Talk- Contribs) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese Space agency JAXA will be launching the moon probe, SELENE in the near future. SELENE is the most sophisticated lunar exploration mission in the post-Apollo Era. The major objectives of the SELENE mission are the global observation of the Moon to research its origin and evolution. Other scientific data captured will also be used for exploring the possibilities of the future utilization of the Moon. JAXA will also establish the basic technologies for future Moon exploration, such as, lunar polar orbit insertion, 3-axis attitude control and thermal control in lunar orbit. In addition, SELENE will take pictures and movies of the beautiful Earth-rise from the Moon horizon. SELENE is planned to be launched in 2007, using the H2A launch Vehicle. Japan launched the Nozomi ( PLANET-B) of the Mars space probe on July 4, 1998. Mars orbital injection is given up on December 9, 2003. It passes through 1000 km points from Mars on December 14. The return to the earth is aimed at. In addition, Japan plans launching of Venus space probe in 2010. PLANET-C is the next planetary exploration project for the Martian orbiter NOZOMI. This project’s main purpose is to elucidate the mysteries of the Venusian atmosphere. Though often referred to as Earth’s sister planet in terms of size and mass, Venus is actually very different. It is veiled in carbon dioxide, with a high temperature and thick sulfuric-acid clouds. Clarification of the causes for this environment will provide us with clues to the understanding of the birth of Earth and of its climate changes. Therefore, Venus is a very important subject for exploration. PLANET-C will usher in a new era of Venusian exploration. The probe vehicle is scheduled to be launched in 2010 and is expected to reach Venus orbit. Furthermore, BepiColombo of the Mercury exploration plan are advanced together Japan and Europe. I launch it in 2013, and it is a plan to cast into orbit of Mercury in 2019. BepiColombo is a Mercury exploration project jointly planned by Japan and the European Space Agency (ESA). The proximity of Mercury to the Sun makes it difficult to observe and hard to reach by space flight. Three passes by NASA’s Mariner 10 in 1974-75 have been the only exploration conducted so far. The mission was inspired by the late Italian astrophysicist Dr. Giuseppe BepiColombo, who suggested that a spacecraft could get close to Mercury several times by using a gravity-assist swing-by of Venus. Hence the name of the project, BepiColombo. Mariner 10 revealed the presence of a magnetic field and magnetospheric activities in Mercury. BepiColombo will conduct comprehensive observations of Mercury’s magnetic field, magnetosphere, and both its surface and interior. That will help determine how much it has in common with other planets and what elements are unique to Mercury as well as the origin and evolution of terrestrial planets. Moreover, in February, 2007, it is H-2A12 By a rocket, I launched Information Gathering SatelliteⅡ. Four systems were set by it, and ability for intelligence rose markedly. Furthermore, Japan participate in International Space Station. JAXA
Why does the article have to solely use either "USSR" or "Soviet Union"? A mixed usage of equivalent terms usually serves to break up monotony in an article and make for a more attractive writing style. Is there a wikipedia policy against using multiple equivalent terms in an article? If so that policy definately sets wikipedia apart from all other encyclopedias whose authors freely switch between equivalent terms wherever it would seem to serve their stylistic purposes. Zebulin 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
nonesense. I want to keep it that way. I was referring to the recent reversions of multiple instances of USSR to Soviet Union and vice versa. Each edit would make the changes entirely in one direction to the detriment of the article. I posted this in hopes heading off any effort to make the article uniform in that sense.
Zebulin
16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete this. This article does not treat only space race of the cold war period. I think that the article of the recent space development is included.-- 218.110.154.112 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Space Race was a competition of space exploration between the United States and USSR, which lasted roughly from 1957 to 1975. It involved the efforts to explore outer space with artificial satellites, to send humans into space, and to land people on the Moon.
Another Idea would be for you to start another article on the present-day space race that you are referring to. We can then link most of content on the Legacy page onto that page then, as a "Main article:" link.
Not only that, the tables which you continue to place on the article are already present on other pages on wikipedia! Have a look at Satellite#Launch capable countries, and Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality, which is also a featured article.
Feel free to use the paragraph of JAXA content in the JAXA page, but please do not put it here. The only "space race", (apart from the US-USSR one that is the main body of the article) that is going on at the moment is that which is speculated upon in this article, which also needs to be deleted.
I invite any and all comments on this topic, from both sides of the discussion. Clearly no progress can be made on this article can be made, until this issue has been resolved. Please note that We are on the verge of Violating the 3RR Rule, and if this isn't resolved, this will break this rule.
Can other users please comment on what has been going on here? I feel like I have been the only one able to explain this. P.S. 218.110.154.112, have you considered getting an user account? Kindly, MichaelHenley ( Talk- Contribs) 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
this article has one major problem. it fails to name a clear winner in the space race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.57 ( talk) 11:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Real life conflicts seldom end with clear cut victories. The concept of winning is more appropriate to games. As such articles on real life conflicts are better served by providing the reader with the information to form their own judgment on the outcome should they choose to frame it in those terms.
Zebulin
20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
And here are references:
1. American Atlas 5 uses RD-180: http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av004/050309atlas5rocket.html 2. russian plans for mars landing: " http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Russian_Dreams_Of_Reaching_Mars_First_999.html", " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article539874.ece" , " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2101861.stm"
Do we need more references? 99.231.63.253 ( talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)PAvel Golikov.
One important satellite, TIROS-1, which was the first successful weather satellite sent up by USA is missing from the timeline. Could somebody please add this? There is a Wikipedia page about it. //Kada 10 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.81.202 ( talk) 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that Russia currently has plans to land on Mars by 2015? After all, this has to do with space race. 99.231.59.7 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 7, 2007.
I deleted this:
as irrelevant to the article. Anybody who wants can move it to V-2. Trekphiler ( talk) 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What's this then? -- Leladax ( talk) 10:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, neither China nor USA have the resources to spend on a frivilous space race that would have little gain for the winner. That is why there is no real race per se but just 2 nations slowly expanding thier respective space missions. 99.249.228.146 ( talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
in the history of manned flight, i think space station play a big role in developing the technology and capability. going to the moon is great; but the ability to stay in space of years and really carry out some long duration operations and studies on human endurance in space, is this not important in the race to conquer the space? how could one truely be seen as winning the race without having the ability to "just stay up there"? the salyut, skylab and mir deserve some recognition as being part of the race. what do you think? Akinkhoo ( talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Lunokhod 1 picture is ok, but it lacks a certain impact in comparison to the many space race era pictures that might be selected to start the article. The old Titan II launch picture certainly fit the bill in this respect but it was probably removed because it was a US project. Would it be possible to find a suitably dramatic soviet image (or perhaps a soviet/US diptych) and move the Lunokhod picture to a less prominent portion of the article? Zebulin ( talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
From the article, by early 2008. India also has plans for manned space flights in 2014-2015 (that will make it as the fourth space superpower) it would appear that edits which use the term space superpower define it as any country that launches a person to space. From where does this idea originate? As it stands it appears to be an original research neologism which should be removed from the article if no source can be found. In particular there doesn't appear to be any reason why manned flight would set the bar for space superpower status and number of successful satellite or space probe launches or total mass launched to orbit or other possible criteria would not. Zebulin ( talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the timeline graph is pretty POV. It states in the description that:
"This image takes significant events from the timeline of the Space Race from 1957 through 1975 and plots them into a y-axis that gauges the relative significance of those accomplishments"
I dont think its good practice, nor the place of wikipedia, to judge one accomplishment against another, let alone quantify them on a graph. For many people, the first man in space could be seen as the most significant, for others the first to land on the moon. I reckon we should remove the graph and replace it with something a little more neutral. How do others feel? Thestealthmonkey ( talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It is worth describing in the Lunar landing section, however briefly, John F. Kennedy's proposal for a joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. manned lunar expedition. The offer was first communicated directly to Nikita Khrushchev in 1961, and then again in 1963. [1] JFK also had Dean Rusk and his brother, Robert, secretly push for a joint mission. [2] He openly pressed the issue again at the United Nations ( video clip). More amazingly, according to Sergei Khrushchev, his farther had decided to accept Kennedy's offer and was preparing to make a statement on the issue. [3] It was a very uncertain time for Project Apollo. Dynablaster ( talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
the only thing this article is lacking is the structural benefits of being featured to be talked as a more important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.165.180.252 ( talk) 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. As I read the article it seemed to me more and more like non-English speakers wrote it. It is riddled with small spelling and grammatical errors. I would have fixed them, but I have the gut feeling that this article is hotly contested by some? It also seemed that some things were written from a very subjective view point (look at the shuttle section). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.252.104.131 (
talk)
05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The section has a {{Copyedit|date=May 2009}} tag on it, but it is loaded with awkward-isms, many incomprehendable. I'd do it, but yes, I'm too lazy. It's easier to complain anonymously here on the talk page. :-) An alternative is to delete the subsection (or even the whole "Legacy" section) as off-topic.
71.126.239.205 ( talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (a currently not-logged-on regular user)
Do we really need to say "US-Air Force", "US-NASA" etc? That information is relevant only to someone who wants to know how various US space efforts were organized. The material fact that is necessary for the table to work is the name of the country. After all, no casual sterotypical reader from the USA is interested in which design bureaus designed the various rockets.
Bottom line: IMO the various "Air Force", "NASA" etc. things need to go. 118.90.6.70 ( talk) 14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In reference to an above comment, the grammar in the "Recent Events" subsection is so poor that I believe it will take some time to try to figure out what the original author/editor was trying to say. Nonetheless, the section is in need of significant cleanup.
Alvincura ( talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)