Talk:Chinese space program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

organization[edit]

Just as a note. It's amazing that with all of the attention on Shenzhou, that no one has written an account of how China's space program is organized. It's not as if these these are state secrets as this information is on Chinese web sites and much of it is in English.

The closest thing out there is the FAS website, but most of the information there is very outdated and does not take into account the massive 1998 reorganization.

i agree its not talking enough about how its organized. the artilce is way to long right now it tals to much about the past we dont need to know about events before the space program was founded. all the information about the military weapons tests needs to be cut out. and a separate article called the history of Chinas nuclear weapons progam could be made instead. even the NASA article does not talk about german V2 rockets or even go back to goddard in the 1920's. all this information has got to be cut out and put in a separte article. the theme is space exsploration and the space race not the Arms race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.107.14 (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


--Roadrunner

reread[edit]

As another note, I ask the community to reread this article; at several instances I can find a lack of sources and biased language. Let's get this article up to the same quality as the NASA and ESA articles! -- anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.152.81 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone generally[edit]

Was this written by Xinhua News Agency?? The tone is very strident and bombastic, bordering on propaganda. e.g. lots of references to China mastering this or that. I've nothing against national pride (加油 and all that), but this survey doesn't seem very objective. Matt Whyndham (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, much of the article seems like a glorified link dump -- chronologically sorted one-liners with non-English references. And the quote from Mao doesn't even pertain to space program, it pertains to nuclear program. --Voidvector (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of how wikipedia falls into the same trap as other providers of information: it is just too easy to take what's given (e.g. by a government or corporate public relations source) and use it as if it were the result of independent research! It's a shame wikipedia has so few editors with the time, abiility and inclination to be bold and fix this kind of article! (sdsds - talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Be bold" argument fails miserably in trying to convince people to make major edits. The contributor can spend hours making an edit, and it can be reverted by a single click by someone else who dislike the new version. The "bold" editor would end-up defending his contribution on the talk page. --Voidvector (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The tone is very strident..., well I rewrote most of this article the way articles such as the Indian Space Research Organisation for instance was written, and inspired by their extravagant chauvinist claims and abusive use of quotes have added Chairman Mao's own. Prior to doing this, I checked that none of you have complained about that said article's tone!!! Beside, the obvious bad faith shown by Voidvector can easily be expected in light of his desperate and fruitless attempts to sabotage my outstanding contribution concerning Base 603 (六○三). Lately I even specially added for him Base 061(航天○六一基地)!!! Non-English references ? Yes, and keep googling for months if not years if you want to find the English language media version. And yes, the space program can not be dissociated with the nuclear program... As an old veteran anonymous wikipedia contributor, you can't fool me. —219.76.104.1 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is nice of you to join the conversation by accusing me of "bad faith" and "sabotage". We are in a discussion about this article's content and tone. This is not in a formal argument, but I believe what you said constitutes an ad hominem and is used to divert attention. Nevertheless, I am gonna explain what happened at Base 603 for those don't know.
The article Base 603 was originally located at Shijiedu, it was named based on the satellite launch data found on Western websites. You came by and recreated the page at Base 603 and made Shijiedu a redirect. It was a stub so I didn't care much. I made mostly minor edits after you recreated the page. My edits contained no content removal, mostly on reference syntax and usage of English names. I commented most of my edits, nevertheless, I took the liberty of explaining my edits once again:
  • [1] "六○三基地" to "603基地" since I cannot find any source actually write out the numbers.
  • [2] Move the more meaningful name to the front so it is more friendly to the reader; add a cite to 中国科学院 on its name. (中国科学院 is the organization that managed that base) Fix some spelling errors you made.
  • [3][4] I spent time researching various organizations involved to see if they have English name. Amended accordingly.
  • [5] Improve {{cite web}} references.
  • [6] Add another citation from 中国科学院 (中国科学院 is the organization that managed the base)
  • [7] Sync English and Chinese name
--Voidvector (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Shijiedu was originally named based on Western websites, well that means that the author of this entry simply relied blindly on Mark Wade's astronautix website. Unfortunately, this author like many others, has proven on many occasions in the past that he simply doesn't master the Chinese language good enough. Past notorious absurdities included:
Hasty corrections have also been noticed soon after the information was first published by myself here in wikipedia on various websites such as:
219.76.104.1 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Finally, to end this goundless and needless dispute, as millions of readers have just recently been mislead by irresponsible newsgroups who propagate complacently unverified rumors, only to be contradicted the following day, to confuse further the people, here is the advise of China's first astronaut:
HAHAHAHHA,,,ROFL
218.102.39.154 (talk)15:23, September 6th, 2008 (PRCT) —corrected by 58.152.46.178 (talk) 17:46, September 7th, 2008 (PRCT)


I'd just like to point out that the mention about nuclear weaponry and possibly even the Mao quote can be considered relevant to the Chinese space program since nuclear deterence was a major impetus for it. Certainly the cold war and space programs were topics that were closely tied. Also consider that talking about the genesis of the U.S. and possibly Russian space programs would warrant a mention of v2 rocket technology from WWII Germany...

Other thing is I removed the horribly irrelevant introductory sentence for '1.History and Recent Developments':

"Although the black powder, the rocket, the multistage rocket[7], the manned rocket propelled flight concept, the flight to the Moon theme and great exploratory fleet program[8] were all first mastered in ancient China, it is not until after the proclamation of the PRC that a space program was started."

A sentence like this adds no informational value to the article and is pretty much propaganda besides. --I (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I must disagree with you, since most serious astronautics books start their first chapter this way. 218.102.39.154 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (PRCT)
  • Does it strike anyone else as asmiss that this is the only article discussing an National Space Exploration Agency that provides a "rank" for the Agency? It seems somewhat arbitrary, impertinent, and inconsistant with the style of other articles on similar topics. --63.86.199.34

Currency[edit]

I've changed "$170 million" into "US$170 million" to clarify possible confusions about the currencies as $170 really means nothing without a currency stated. Please note that it's not a good approach to take USD as the "default" currency. Deryck C. 06:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This may be a showing that China can launch missles into space! -anon
Can I have some of what you are smoking anon? It sound pretty good. Yongke 15:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
err, with USD falling like crap even to the chinese yuan, i think we should requote the price in gold standard!!!! >:D Akinkhoo (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Taikonaut or Astronaut?[edit]

IMO, Taikonaut should be used throughout the definition instead of Astronaut, and not just in a few places. I think it's a little ethnocentric to use Astronaut in this context. --Ramsobol 17:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

fixed. --Revolución hablar ver 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The official word used by China is astronaut. Taikonaut is a (Western) media invention. See Taikonaut. I believe that should be used instead. The word does not even agree with the Chinese term for astronaut. The word cosmonaut was used for differentiation, not national pride. When more and more countries become spacefaring, it would be unhelpful to coin more terms for their respective astronauts. I am Chinese, I don't find the word to be ethnocentric. --Voidvector 12:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Got rid of taikonaut. The official PRC sources tend to use Chinese astronaut Roadrunner 09:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
yup, taikonaut is another cool useless invention by the media again. actually i think it was from a couple of scholar who suggested that chinese need their own term since russia and us coin their own; but it never caught on with the official, beside it should be taikongren if they wanted to be correct! mixing chinese with european is just bad. >:) i actually oppose the the term astronaut and asteroid, because astro is star which astronaut doesn't travel the star and asteroid is a just a rock and is misnamed because they look similiar in size to stars on earth. cosmonaut is a more accurate description for "space travellers". but that's just me! :) Akinkhoo (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to use authentically chinese term for astronauts, its yuhangyuan, though this word has really permeated english dialogue yet. Taiko is a japanese drum, and it is cultural misappropriation to make the word 'taikonaut' for chinese astronauts Ottawakismet (talk) 15:46, Sept 25, 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC).
It's not so much that's it's a Western media invention that bothers me but that it's just such a horrific product of Chinglish word splicing. A completely Chinese or completely English word would do fine, but whoever came up with "taikonaut" has no sense of aesthetics at all. I say that for the purposes of Wikipedia we just go with "astronaut" Masterblooregard (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I don't like the word "taikonaut", it just seems like a media-invented gimmick. --Joowwww (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

title[edit]

This should be Chinese space program not Space program of China. The only instance where "of" would sound okay is "Space program of the People's Republic of China" but that's a very long and unwieldy title. --Revolución hablar ver 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved, since there seems to be no opposition. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Name translation[edit]

Please note that 'signs for the four tones' are not applied when translating Chinese people's names. 请注意,中文人名,地名翻译时不标四声。

lol, maybe that is why no european can pronouns chinese name ;) but standards are standards, best keep eveything in line. :) Akinkhoo (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shenzhou6training.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Shenzhou6training.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

Not at all related to this article, but I am still wondering... Why does the logo look so much like the Star Fleet insignia? If it was designed in light of the Star Fleet insignia that might warrant mention in the article. Maybe...it does sound a little like trivia. Ugh... Matthardingu 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakdowns of Project 921 are in error. As stated: - Project 921-1 — Shenzhou spacecraft - Project 921-2 — Chinese Space Lab and Chinese Permanent Space Station short term and then permanent occupation - Project 921-3 Space Shuttle — Second generation manned spacecraft (This project appears to have been cancelled)

The actual breakdowns are: - 921-1 - astronaut - 921-2 - spacecraft applications - 921-3 - manned spacecraft - 921-4 - launch vehicle - 921-5 - launch site - 921-6 - tracking, telemetry, and telecommunications - 921-7 - recovery site

What this article probably is referring to are the three PHASES of Project 921, and even here, there is error. Phase 1 was to launch unmanned craft, culminating in a manned launch to finalize design. This has been completed. Phase 2 is to launch a temporary 8 ton space station. This is currently in development. This phase should be completed by approximately 2010. Phase 3 calls for a permanent space station of approximately 20 tons. This will be complete in the 2020-2025 time range.

Project 921 was born from the studies and proposals of Project 863-204 and Project 863-205. In 1987, the Project 863-204 committee took proposals for a space launch and transportation system. By 1988, the number of proposals had been reduced to six. Two of those were then accepted for further evaluation. One was for a ballistic capsule based on the Soviet Soyuz, the second was the ChangCheng 1 space shuttle. About 1990, the ballistic approach was chosen over the shuttle approach. That was the end of the Chinese space shuttle, Mark Wade not withstanding. --65.78.77.86 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Exploration of the Moon, People's Republic of China.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Exploration of the Moon, People's Republic of China.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Exploration of the Moon, People's Republic of China.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Exploration of the Moon, People's Republic of China.jpg 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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of "Space" in Chinese[edit]

As a native Chinese speaker, I find that the image used to show a translation of "space" into Chinese was incorrect. The two character used, 空间, is used to describe in words such as "personal space 个人空间". The "space" as in "space exploration is in fact written as 太空, which is used to refer exclusively to the extraterrestrial space that this article is concerning.

Request to remove the image or change the image to correct this mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouselmm (talkcontribs) 18:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I've fixed it now. I'm still learning :-) --Joowwww (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda aspects of Chinese space programme[edit]

Obviously there is a lot of propaganda involved in the programme - surely we should cover this in a NPOV type of way? See here for an example of an 'interview' with the current astronauts written and released by the Xinhau agency before they took off! There must be an appropriate place for this? Where? Malick78 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

so your idea of NPOV is to link to an article in a british newspaper that claims the whole thing is a fake? good point.

US israeli controled Black propaganda is far more vicious and harmful! Watch out of US nuclear blackmail (Your money or you'll be nuked!) US blackmailed Europe and Russia in 1969; Some Islamic and Arab countries in 1974, 1991 and 2002; North Korea since 1951.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.231.3.238 (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the propaganda of the program in question related to the article, not the propaganda of other agencies unrelated to the subject at hand. 63.86.199.34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.67.98 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastery[edit]

  • The last four paragraphs of the "After the end of the Cold War" section:
    • "China became the third country in the world to master manned space capsule technology..."
    • "...making the country the only third in the world to master ASAT technologies..."
    • "...making China the fifth nation in the world to master this technology."
  • And here, under the "Space laboratory" heading:
    • "...will allow China to master key technologies"
  • Right before the end of the "After the Sino-Soviet split" section:
    • "...making China the only third country in the world to master this technology."
      • (also, the wording of "the only third country" was a typo.)
  • And in the "After Chairman Mao's death" section:
    • "China mastered the technology of multiple satellites launch with a single launch..."
    • "China mastered the technology of the neutron bomb..."

This also sounds very opinion-based. Unless there's a scientific rubric for "mastery". 24.3.14.157 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional I agree the use of mastery seems far fetched. Neither NASA nor Russia claim to have mastered Space in any way shape or form. The Chinese claiming they have 'mastered' spaced flight yet have not launched anything larger than a 3 man capsule is laughable. Perhaps mastery should not be used at all in the context as I believe mastery is something any country is far from when it comes to space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.153.57.100 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • China is not NASA or Russia and should have the right to keeps its specificity. Indeed, the expression "掌握" (to master a new technology level) is omnipresent in Chinese astronautics documents and elsewhere. You have to learn to respect cultural differences. —219.76.104.17 (talk)14:12, 27 September 2008 (PRCT)
  • I don't really think of this as a matter of cultural disrespect. Besides, uh, 219.76.104.17, the point of the article isn't to quote Chinese documents. I'm sure there's specific language that goes into how they deal with Falun Gong, too, but we deal with that issue (hopefully) in a NPOV way. AND NO - I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO. I'm just saying that another group's prevailing use of a term doesn't qualify that term to be used in Wikipedia. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • " another group's prevailing use of a term ": Mastering a new technology level is a universal principle you can't negate, as the constants in Physics. It applies to the whole mankind including YOUR civilization whatever your race. Don't mess with NPOV or Falungangs. 218.102.39.153 (talk)14:27, 27 September 2008 (PRCT)

I believe when they say "mastered" they mean "mastered it for themselves". They're not implying they have invented it themselves. --Joowwww (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine, fine. Uhm, 218.102..39.153, in addition to disregarding that weird neologistic threat at the end, I'm also going to ignore your attempt at linking to a non-existent article. Mastering a technology is not a universal principle, because it's an infinitely subjective thing. Is there a quantifiable amount of data that must be accrued about something to reach "master" level? If China's space program is only in it's infancy as far as manned missions are concerned, then what level of proficiency does NASA have, when it's 120+ missions are taken into account? "Super mastery?" Is that a universal principle, too? All I really meant was that there was repetitive language with slight POV issues. I didn't mean to incur the wrath of some mystical rocket fanboy with all the credibility and typing skills of someone from "Anonymous".
Also, Joowwww, I'm kinda disconcerted by your use of "they say" and "themselves" when referring to something in an article. Who's "they"? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese. --Joowwww (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
But are all 7 of those instances quotes? They're just plainly stated in the article. If they're going to be attributed and sourced, then whatever, that's fine. But as it stands right now, you're saying the Chinese are putting that information on here? Uh, that's great. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I didn't say that. I see nothing wrong with use of the term "master". First the Soviets mastered human space travel, then the Americans, then the Chinese. The Chinese aren't saying they invented human space travel, just they mastered it. If Slovenia built a rocket and launched someone into space, then the Slovenians would have mastered human space travel. It doesn't imply invented or discovered. --Joowwww (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I never said it did imply those things! I'm just saying, in all the instances I listed in my original post, is "mastering" the same as "doing"? You're doing just about everything in your power to say that it is. BESIDES: You just said: "The Chinese aren't saying they invented human space travel, just they mastered it." Got it. THE CHINESE ARE SAYING THAT. Why are we saying that here on this article though? It just strikes me as odd that the people who are the ones overseeing the development of (oh, sorry, I meant "post-mastery of") these technologies can say they've mastered it and we put it on here as straight-up statements. If you want to find quotes from Chinese officials, or include statements like "The Chinese claim to have mastered". Mastery is, as I said before, a really, REALLY, REALLY subjective thing. How can we claim it for one group (the Chinese) when other space programs have far exceeded the Chinese program in terms of research, function, etc.? This isn't a perfect analogy but it's an extreme one that outlines my point:
Person A runs a marathon and kicks a soccer ball, and goes on-point in ballet.
Person B curls his pinkie toe.
Are they both masters of foot movement, just because they both technically moved their feet? If you say that they are, then I will shut up and leave because this is getting stupid. (Forgive my stupid topic of comparison: Foot movement? WTF?) 24.3.14.157 (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "using everything in my power", and no valid discussion is "silly". I just (and still) don't see why you have a problem with the term "master" in the quotes above. Your foot movement analogy isn't really relevant. To "master" something means to have done it, not be continually good at it. Yesterday the Chinese mastered EVA. The Soviets and the Americans mastered EVA in 1965. This doesn't imply they are now equal in the area of EVA. "Master" (verb) has a different meaning than "master" (noun). --Joowwww (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your words: "To "master" something means to have done it, not be continually good at it". Huh? Since when? According to my dictionary, master (verb) means "to become an adept in". Which clearly makes a point that one must enter a different phase of skill (adeptness). Also, I didn't use the word "silly" anywhere, so don't act like you're quoting me on that. (For proof, you can go to the talk page do a Ctrl+F search. You'll only find your original false attribution and my use of it here where I clarified your mistake.) Secondly, I didn't accuse you of "using" everything in your power, I said you were "doing just about everything in your power", which was hyperbole for the sake of argument. If you require them, I can get ahold of my local LensCrafters as well as a medical research lab and see about you getting some reading glasses and a brain, pronto. If you're going to be condescending, please do it right.
I am fully aware of the difference in definition between the verb and the noun, which is my issue with the 7 original examples was not "Hey, why's this noun here?" but rather whether it sounded too much like Chinese press releases or something. I still think that it does. Not that it's verbatim or anything, but enough to cross a POV boundary. If master (verb) simply "means to have done it", then just put that. You're the one who said they're synonymous. The pages for NASA and the Soviet space program make no such reference to "master[ing]" anything. Why does the Chinese space program page mention it 7 times in almost identical phrasing? That doesn't seem fishy and a little too glowing of a review for you? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out my misquotes, for it contributes so much to the discussion. I don't see any suspicious use of the term "master" in the quotes above. The fact that the Chinese successfully completed an EVA would seem to me that they've mastered it. If the ship blew up or the guy died in space then I wouldn't say they'd mastered it. They don't need to do it over and over again to be able to say they've mastered it. --Joowwww (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I should've said: You're quite correct, chum (No, I'm not calling you shark bait)! Let's leave this stuff in here! I'm sure it will all be resolved in the future as this article has already been tagged as suffering from neutrality issues! I apologize if I came across as somewhat of an asshole / whole ass earlier. Well, "sorry" isn't the term. I guess, "civil despite you responding with sarcasm in kind". I'm going to say KEEP THESE USES OF THE TERM "MASTER" IN THE ARTICLE. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, glad it's settled. --Joowwww (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it use. We seem to have an anonymous user bludgeoning Joowwww on the talkpage. While I won't take action without having this resolved, I think mastery should be removed and replaced with more neutral terms like "possess", "aquire" and "engage in". Stargate70 (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

this kind of political bickering is sickening, wiki is getting less and less readable just because of crap like this. there needs to be a new Godwin's law for china related topics "As a Usenet discussion about china grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning tibet/falongung/tianamen square/whatever other overhashed subject about china, approaches one". Nationalism sucks it doesnt matter where you are from, and making your own country look better or another country look bad on wikipedia is ultimately inconsequential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

it's sickening indeed. leave it to the americans to bring up the faluen gong on an article about space. i have yet to see the Chinese bring up how the white americans oppress the blacks, or how they have fascist laws that allow arizona cops to arrest anyone that looks hispanic. heck, there are tons of videos of american cops beating innocent people, yet most americans are perfectly ok with this. thats the kind of world we live in. where fascism is mistaken for freedom and freedom mistaken for fascism — Preceding unsigned comment added by F34534534534 (talkcontribs) 08:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ "杨利伟:将随时准备接受神七飞行任务". 人民网. 2008-09-05. Retrieved September 5 2008. 

2008 Fake?[edit]

The video I saw of the the Semtepber 2008 EVA was hard to believe. The Chinese flag appeared to flap in the wind.... the last time I checked, that shouldn't happen unless the flapped object was within the atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dugong.is.good.tucker (talkcontribs) 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Which video? Can you give us a link? --Joowwww (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g Adalee0104 (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a video from the same lot that say there were bubbles around the astronauts and that lights from a stadium were reflected in the astronauts' suits. I wouldn't believe them if I were you, according to these people, 9/11 never happened, Elvis is still alive, and aliens once abducted them. --Joowwww (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm... after watching that, interestingly, it was the flag that convinced me that it's very unlikely to have been faked. Films of the American flag being planted on the moon show it waving as well, but just due to it being handled by astronauts and the flag's own inertia--no wind necessary. The only way I can think that it might have been faked is to speed the video up so the flag looks like its not encountering water resistance, but tell the astronauts to move very slowly so the end result is that their motion appears normal. Even then, though, I think the flag's motion would be clearly distinguishable from that of a flag in vacuum. I actually had to laugh... the poster of that video seems to have answered one of his own questions: the clouds appear to be moving too fast because the spacecraft actually is orbiting, but the horizon would appear to not move because the eccentricity of its orbit would be very small, and the spacecraft's control system probably keeps it at the same attitude relative to the horizon. If it is a fake, it's a pretty damn convincing one. 98.203.198.33 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the only fake videos are the ones that the cia makes in qatar that is supposedly green square in Libya — Preceding unsigned comment added by F34534534534 (talkcontribs) 08:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think most space programs are not fake for instance, apollo 20. However if there was a bad sheep in the crowd it would be the nasa eurospace industry coupled with japan. These entities tend to hide vital information and even technologies from the public eye limiting the imagination to the populace by a few thousands of years. The Chinese-Russian space industry has never been as secretive as the western ones. In a space war, china-russia would def win btw its called intercontinetal warfare and its back, no colonization here. Middle-east, africa are still in caves so why would i care. Oh yeah and israel is def an alien in the crowd. peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Budget[edit]

What's their budget? Article should have the same summary-in-a-box at the top as the article about india's program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.130.97 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE it should have a bot for there buget. im a american i know that nasa has the biggest buget and gets the most done in space im not sure if nasa is the most cost effective in learning about the universe but they do get alot done. Russia ,Japan ,Europe ,USA and India all have boxes for Bugget on there pages why not china? i would exspect India to have lowest bugget casue all they did so far was exsplore Luna. but china must be more casue they have Humans in orbit and are planing a small space station like Skylab or salyut so i would also be excited to know how much cash they are putting down on space exsploration.

Necropolis 99.164.107.14 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

$500 million, according to CNSA. Polylepsis (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In recent news: China enables satellite maneuvering[edit]

Apparently China is now able to control satellite movement whilst in space. Should this be mentioned, and if, so, how/where? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese moon rocket[edit]

There is a mention of a 500 ton to lunar transfer orbit-capacity chinese launch vehicle in the wikipedia article about the chinese space program. This sounds too unbelievable (at least to be a serious chinese undertaking). Can anyone find another reference for this? (I have already found a reference stating that the chinese are at least conceptually concidering a 50-ton to lunar transfer orbit-rocket, but 500 ton sounds too much). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.190 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

perceived threat[edit]

got to love the wikipedia bias here. when the u.s attacks others, it's a perceived threat, but when the u.s claims others are a threat, then it is real, even when the u.s is caught red handed fabricating intelligence. and jimmy wales wants me to donate money to him for publishing this propaganda. haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F34534534534 (talkcontribs) 08:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

frontpage NYT resource[edit]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)



Chinese space programSpace program of the People's Republic of China – According to WP:AT, more specifically WP:PRECISION, an article's name should be precise enough to "to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." However, the title "Chinese space program" might be confusing to readers as Taiwan is also called "Republic of China". The new title should be a little more clear to explicitly state the topic of the article and not be at all confusing to readers. -- Luke (Talk) 01:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a Wikipedia consensus that China is the appropriate term for the nation. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment does Taiwan have a space program? I don't think Wan Hu could be confused with the modern space program either. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Taiwan does indeed have a space program, which the native Taiwanese colloquially called the "Taiwanese space program" in English (I was there last year, got the official tour, and spoke with researchers and engineers affiliated with it). The most prominent project they've conducted so far would probably be COSMIC/FORMOSAT-3, and the (maybe) upcoming COSMIC-2/FORMOSAT-7. siafu (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no real ambiguity in the current title. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The country article at "China", so the title of this article should correspond. Those who have followed the Wiki-debate too closely may have a distorted view. But in real-world English, the two states involved are nearly always referred to as "China" and "Taiwan," never "PRC" and "ROC". So there is no reasonable basis to think the current title is likely to confuse readers. Kauffner (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The country name is China, and the Taiwanese, when speaking English, don't have any hesitation in using "China" to refer to the mainland. siafu (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There's an established consensus on naming of China and Taiwan. Plenty of people aren't happy about it, and you don't need to be either, but this is not a battle we want to refight at every article related to either country. --BDD (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't create a second problem to cope with the first problem. When there's ambiguity we reduce and avoid it. Jeremy (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What ambiguity? There's no other Chinese space programme. —  AjaxSmack  03:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose no ambiguity found per WP:COMMONNAME. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History and recent developments re-write[edit]

So, this section bears well-deserved tags about lists where there should be prose and possibly needing to be completely rewritten. Whoever originally built this section seems to have mostly just dumped a bunch of events and dates; there's very little qualitative description -- little description of the motivations behind the shifts in the program, of cultural significance, of political machinations behind these events, etc. My thinking is that either a lot of these basically statistical one-or-two-line items need to come out, or most of them should be fleshed out in order to actually have a descriptive and readable history that would give people a decent idea of the subject. Unfortunately, I don't know enough right now about Chinese history to be able to do either well. For now, I've put the event-date stuff in bullets so that people can read what little descriptive writing there is. I did this in response to Northamerica1000's post over at Wikipedia:Cleanup. However, more cleanup is definitely necessary; I just don't really have the knowledge to do it. Rainspeaker (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)