This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shenzhou 7 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Shenzhou 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 September 2008. |
A news item involving Shenzhou 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 September 2008. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 25, 2012 and September 25, 2013. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it really that hard for people to understand the difference between RUSSIA and the SOVIET UNION? the first spacewalk was done BY THE SOVIET UNION - that is, it drew on the combined talents of not just russia, but engineers and specialists from the entire union. This is why the rockets at the suits had CCCP (USSR) written on them, not "Russia." The current space suit is a copy of a Russian one because the company is now actually Russian. To not get this correct over and over and over and over again both inappropriately fuels the russian nationalist ego and does dishonor to the many talented people of many nationalities and ethnicities who felt that they were working on a SOVIET space program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.244 ( talk) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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?
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)
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)
[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)]]
, rather than giving a vague "it is readily linked" over and over and over again? Not that it matters; there is a giant tag on that page saying that the guideline is disputed, so there's no need for anyone to shoehorn this article into following some "guideline" that doesn't even have consensus yet.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)
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.
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)
The article should be restructured as a timeline of events, instead of the current jumbled "highlights". Jpatokal ( talk) 10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
someone should write an article on the spacesuits... Feitian spacesuit or Feitian 70.55.203.112 ( talk) 10:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- 84user ( talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This probably won't be enough to appease all the people who object to the subsection about the false news report, but anyway, I was just thinking, we could change the name of the Controversies section to something more like "Media coverage," with the "False news report" subsection within that. Then we'd just have to add some other media coverage stuff outside of "False news report" (to avoid undue weight concerns). Does anyone object to this renaming? — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Some, hysterical imagining things, are giving it a weaponized role. [1] [2] Geo8rge ( talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The idea that it was a "near miss" with the ISS is not only pure POV, it's also pure OR as far as I can tell. You aren't supposed be using this as a forum to push your own interpretation of events. Juzhong ( talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Politizer rev my edit, and called it 'China bashing', which in itself seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.
'undue weight'? Maybe you have just arrived from Mars. Arilang talk 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Chinese President Hu Jintao talks on a phone that connected him at the Beijing Aerospace Control Center (BACC) with astronauts on the spacecraft Shenzhou-7 in Beijing, capital of China, Sept. 27, 2008. (Xinhua Photo/Li Xueren)"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/27/content_10122755.htm
This all important piece of news should be included in the article I think. Arilang talk 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:CNSA.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The Controversies section seems to contain no mention of how many people say the spacewalk was faked. See for example this article and this video. Shouldn't the article at least mention that some people think it's a big fake? -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep this article clear of conspiracy nut rubbish. If people really strongly insist, perhaps it can have its own article like the Apollo conspiracy nut page. Seeing as Wikipedia has (wisely, IMHO) seen fit to keep the main Apollo programme articles free of such paranoid ramblings, the only neutral policy is to do the same with regard to the Chinese space programme. GrampaScience ( talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This was removed:
The EVA carried out during the flight makes China the third country to have conducted an EVA, after the Soviet Union and the United States.
I don't agree with the removal, but I can see how the editor may have been confused. From the Extra-vehicular activity article, it seems that people of other nationalities (British, French, and Canadian) have done EVAs, but they were always on US or Russian missions. Any suggestions on how to reword this to make it clearer? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shenzhou 7 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Shenzhou 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 25 September 2008. |
A news item involving Shenzhou 7 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 September 2008. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 25, 2012 and September 25, 2013. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it really that hard for people to understand the difference between RUSSIA and the SOVIET UNION? the first spacewalk was done BY THE SOVIET UNION - that is, it drew on the combined talents of not just russia, but engineers and specialists from the entire union. This is why the rockets at the suits had CCCP (USSR) written on them, not "Russia." The current space suit is a copy of a Russian one because the company is now actually Russian. To not get this correct over and over and over and over again both inappropriately fuels the russian nationalist ego and does dishonor to the many talented people of many nationalities and ethnicities who felt that they were working on a SOVIET space program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.244 ( talk) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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?
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)
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)
[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)]]
, rather than giving a vague "it is readily linked" over and over and over again? Not that it matters; there is a giant tag on that page saying that the guideline is disputed, so there's no need for anyone to shoehorn this article into following some "guideline" that doesn't even have consensus yet.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)
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.
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)
The article should be restructured as a timeline of events, instead of the current jumbled "highlights". Jpatokal ( talk) 10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
someone should write an article on the spacesuits... Feitian spacesuit or Feitian 70.55.203.112 ( talk) 10:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
- 84user ( talk) 23:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This probably won't be enough to appease all the people who object to the subsection about the false news report, but anyway, I was just thinking, we could change the name of the Controversies section to something more like "Media coverage," with the "False news report" subsection within that. Then we'd just have to add some other media coverage stuff outside of "False news report" (to avoid undue weight concerns). Does anyone object to this renaming? — Politizer( talk • contribs ) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Some, hysterical imagining things, are giving it a weaponized role. [1] [2] Geo8rge ( talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The idea that it was a "near miss" with the ISS is not only pure POV, it's also pure OR as far as I can tell. You aren't supposed be using this as a forum to push your own interpretation of events. Juzhong ( talk) 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Politizer rev my edit, and called it 'China bashing', which in itself seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.
'undue weight'? Maybe you have just arrived from Mars. Arilang talk 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Chinese President Hu Jintao talks on a phone that connected him at the Beijing Aerospace Control Center (BACC) with astronauts on the spacecraft Shenzhou-7 in Beijing, capital of China, Sept. 27, 2008. (Xinhua Photo/Li Xueren)"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/27/content_10122755.htm
This all important piece of news should be included in the article I think. Arilang talk 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The image File:CNSA.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The Controversies section seems to contain no mention of how many people say the spacewalk was faked. See for example this article and this video. Shouldn't the article at least mention that some people think it's a big fake? -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep this article clear of conspiracy nut rubbish. If people really strongly insist, perhaps it can have its own article like the Apollo conspiracy nut page. Seeing as Wikipedia has (wisely, IMHO) seen fit to keep the main Apollo programme articles free of such paranoid ramblings, the only neutral policy is to do the same with regard to the Chinese space programme. GrampaScience ( talk) 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This was removed:
The EVA carried out during the flight makes China the third country to have conducted an EVA, after the Soviet Union and the United States.
I don't agree with the removal, but I can see how the editor may have been confused. From the Extra-vehicular activity article, it seems that people of other nationalities (British, French, and Canadian) have done EVAs, but they were always on US or Russian missions. Any suggestions on how to reword this to make it clearer? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Shenzhou 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)