Jump to content

Talk:Astronaut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.224.22.238 (talk) at 02:11, 29 December 2008 (Terminology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAstronaut was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:WPSpace

Taikonaut

Taikonaut is the term I have seen in every article by western media, and the term apparently used by many people in China. Despite it not being the official term, I'd say it is definately in major use. — Swpb talk contribs 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be and we should certainly add some citations to that effect, it is coined term by the media and not the Chinese word for an astronaut. Consider that nine citizens of France have flown in space, while only three from China. Should we not list the coined term "spationaut" in the opening paragraph? As this is an article in the English Wikipedia about professional space travelers, I suggest we stick to "astronaut" in the opening section and detail all international versions of the word in the Terminology section. Rillian 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you propose removing cosmonaut from the introduction too? Why should use by governments be the criterion for including an alternate name in the introduction, rather than popular use of the term? It seems to me popular usage would be a more important factor, perhaps even the most important. What places taikonaut in the category with astronaut and cosmonaut, as opposed to spationaut and all the various other alternate-language versions people regularly add to the introduction, is that China, like Russia and the U.S., has its own manned space program. The three Chinese space travellers were launched from China, aboard Chinese spacecraft (Admittedly glorified Soyuz redesigns, but still) - I think this is a pretty concrete distinction, and between the official, government-sanctioned term and the term in popular usage, I would favor the latter. — Swpb talk contribs 05:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose that governments should be arbitrator, I said that the Chinese word for astronaut is not taikonaut. The word is hángtiān yuán (in Pinyin), not taikonaut, and when the Chinese translate hángtiān yuán into English, they translate it as astronaut, not taikonaut. Unless we can find some citations that show the term has become as commonly used and as commonly known as the Russian version космона́вт, it doesn't merit mention in the opening paragraph. Rillian 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember reading that in China, the term in common use was "taikong ren" which was translated to taikonaut, but I can't find anything to back that up. So I suppose that if the common Chinese term had a unique English translation, it would merit placement in the introduction - but I don't know anyone in China and the google will only tell me what terms the media use. — Swpb talk contribs 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the term has been accepted and used by Western media years ago. See [1] for example. Even Bob Casta introduced the pretend astronauts as Taikonauts during the NBC broadcasting of the Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony. I really don't understand why some Wikipedia police tries to censor this term? What is the big deal? Kowloonese (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sensed that there was a misunderstand in the thread of discussion above. Taikong Ren is a transliteration of a Chinese term. Taikonaut is an English term used by Chinese and Western media in English publications to refer to the spacemen sent to space using Chinese rockets. Some one probably the dinosaur type seems to forget language is living and evolving. When a term become popular and common, it should be acknowledged as part of the language. e.g. Bling Bling is added recently to some dictionary. So are you trying to tell me Bling Bling wasn't a English word before some arbitary publisher decided to include or exclude the word? The English language belongs to the public, not some publishers. Kowloonese (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on taikonauts sucked. I tried to fix it, but it's still lacking, and no sources either. Please someone fix it. -Jaardon 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will this do? It mentions the term repeatedly, links it to the usage of astronaut and as far as I can see it seems to be coming from a reliable source. I'll put it in for now and if anyone objects it can be removed at their discretion. --Candlewicke (Talk) 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"taikongren" and "astronaut" is use more often in south east asia. "taiko" sound more like "big brother. Don't even know there is "Taikonaut" until I read this page.Mclelun (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tereshkova2.jpg

Image:Tereshkova2.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 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 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) 09:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest astronaut?

While this subject area is in the news again, I thought I'd ask here: is Yi So-yeon the youngest female astronaut ever? This article reports that (actually, it reports that AP reports that NASA says that) she is, but Google and math plus Wikipedia suggest that Valentina Tereshkova would have been the youngest (26). Anyways, I just thought someone who's more familiar with this topic might want to find some definitive evidence/sources. Wikimancer (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest woman in space was also the first, Valentina Tereshkova so she has always held this record, at 26 years 3 months. Helen Sharman was also younger than Yi at 27 years 11 months. Incidentally, on broadcasts today, NASA have corrected their previous error, but many news stories had already quoted them, so this error of fact has now been quite widely quoted.(Wilde1 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Correct, I was listening to the launch live on NASA TV, and the error was made during the broadcast as well. Just PAO at NASA that didn't get their facts straight. Likely they verified against a list that did not contain Russian astronaut launches. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries whose citizens have flown in space as of April 2008

This section contains comments about the diagram labelled "Countries whose citizens have flown in space as of April 2008".

Australia has sent at least one citizen into space (Andrew Thomas) though it is not shown in this diagram. Thomas flew into space with the American space agency, NASA, on a number of occassions and that organisation lists him as a "NASA Astronaut". There is more info about Andrew on the NASA website here: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/thomas-a.html. Can we get an update of this diagram? 124.168.80.57 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "program" :
    • NASA (2007). "Astronaut Candidate Program". NASA. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
    • NASA (2005). "Educator Astronaut Program". NASA. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Wang

I moved Taylor Wang out of "international astronauts" since he is a naturalized US citizen and hence not a international astronaut. Roadrunner (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths: "...three were Russian, one was Ukrainian"

I think four Soviets would be better, just as they are described here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Astronaut#Names_of_Those_Listed_With_Sculpture and on their personal Wiki pages. Would anyone care to fix this? Thanks 93.172.70.129 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China

The phrase "tàikōng rén" (太空人, "space person") is often used in Taiwan and Hong Kong.

That looks wrong, because Hong Kong doesn't speak mandarin. So how can Taiwan and HK use the same transliteration? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there should be a transliteration of the Cantonese as well as the Wade-Giles Mandarin version I guess. Juzhong (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural bias?

Just a thought, why are the English and Russian words astronaut and cosmonaut right up at the top but the Chinese words for the same thing (yǔhángyuán" (宇航员)) are burried below? Is this cultural bias? Any objections to me adding the Chinese word to the top? After all, the Chinese have a manned space program and all that. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just because there are two English-language names for the same thing. It's not implying any bias, it's just that "yuhangyuan" isn't a term used in English. Neither is "spationaut" or "angkasawan". --Joowwww (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't biased. There are already multiple discussions about the terms, please take a look at the rest of the talk page to see why consensus has the terms where they are, and why some are not included at all. Ariel♥Gold 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atleast they are given mention, but Indian term GAGANAUT is not even given mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUSHANT JHA (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the (incorrect, but used in English) term "Taikonaut" was argued to not be used on this page. Why? If using both those other terms in the lead in is because they are English terms, why not the current English term for Chinese astronaut? Still smells like cultural bias to me. I think that China, with their strong space program, deserve to be recognized on the page as equals with the other spacefaring nations. Just a thought, Nesnad (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't actually say "taikonaut". It's just a buzzword invented by the media. In common speech we just say "Chinese astronaut". --Joowwww (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below, thanks. Nesnad (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased title

The current title of this article (Astronaut) reflects a cultural bias. It should be changed to Spaceflight crewmember. (sdsds - talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We also say "European astronaut", "Indian astronaut", "Chinese astronaut", "Japanese astronaut" etc, the same way we say "American astronaut". "Cosmonaut" is used for Russia in the media, but I would be more likely to just say "Russian astronaut". --Joowwww (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No bias other than the English Wikipedia using the most common English term for a professional space traveler, i.e. "astronaut". Why would we change the title of an article about astronauts to not use the word astronaut? Rillian (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joowwww, sorry, you're rebuttal doesn't make sense. I don't think you can show a source that says "taikonaut" is an invented word, any more than any other new word. Words are "invented" thats how they come about. (Check out the word "blog" and what not if you don't get that.) And if "we" say (do you know me?) Russian Astronaut why do we include cosmonaut in this article lead in but not taikonaut or the Chinese word? Seems to be cultural bias yet again. And to make myself clear, I do not say Chinese astronaut any more than I say Russian astronaut, we don't all talk the same. I personally say "taikonaut" even though I am aware it isn't the Chinese word (and personally no one I know says Russian Astronaut, cosmonaut is quite common so you're argument doesnt work there either). And Rillian, I agree with sdsds, we need to be NPOV in Wikipedia. It seems POV to favor certain countries when describing a spaceflight crewmember. Nesnad (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just told me that I can't speak for what other people say then you go and do it yourself. I have never heard anyone say "taikonaut". It is an artificial word constructed by and only used in the media. The word "blog" was invented 10 years ago, and has now filtered into the public consciousness. Let's have a discussion in another 10 years and see if we are all using "taikonaut". Until then, it's not a commonly used word, and shouldn't be in this article's intro as per WP:COMMON. And I don't see how I'm being biased - I'm not American, Russian, or Chinese, and I fully support the space program of all nations. --Joowwww (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same thing as you in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that you can't know how everyone speaks. I belive you that you don't use taikonaut, but there are many who do. Heck, there is a taikonaut.com for crying out loud. It is a word that is in use, even if you don't use it. My main opinion is that this article seems to be leaning too strong towards certain countries, which seems to be against what the NPOV in Wikipedia is all about. No? Nesnad (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still haven't seen any evidence to back up your claim that the article is biased. And the name of a website is certainly no indication of a word entering the popular consciousness. --Joowwww (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, let me keep it clear that I'm not trying to start a big long debate over the same topic in a logic loop. If you can't see the evidence in the article, then we have a fundamental difference in opinion. Any other people want to chime in? (Oh, and regards to taikonaut not being a word... come on! There are endless news sources that use the word: [2], [3], [4] [5], [6] notice this one is the flipping BBC and its from 2000, 8 years ago! We can have a difference in opinion regarding culture bias of this article but arguing that taikonaut is a not used word is nuts. Just my opinion! Any others? Nesnad (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that it wasn't a word? I didn't. I said it was an artificial word invented by the media. And your citing numerous media sources proves my point. --Joowwww (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have a basic difference in opinion in such a way that we can't come to understand each other. Because in my opinion, calling most new words artificial is nonsense. What is a natural word? Words that slowly evolve over 1,000s of years? Words come into existence, often suddenly. I can find a lot of media references for any other words, such as blog or anything else. Does that make them invalid? I guess we are just butting heads here unless someone else wants to come in and offer another opinion. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC link given about says: 'China is aiming to launch an astronaut or "taikonaut" into space next year' (their quotes). I think in all mainstream sources you'll find "taikonaut" and "yuhangyuan" explained as "(Chinese) astronaut". Juzhong (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the discussion Juzhong, I was wondering if any more people would show up! However, I must point out that your argument is broken in seconds. For example, with out even having to point out any other new sources, the middle source CCTV (China Central Television, the definition of a mainstream source) doesn't use quotes nor even finds it required to say Chinese astronaut like you claim. BUT! Please people, what I want to discuss is weather there is culture bias in the exclusion of China. Being that America seems to have gone out of their way to make sure China doesn't partner in their space interests, I guess many of you might not understand my point. In any case, I would like to hear opinions about how excluding anther equal spacefaring society is NPOV. Seems a bit POV to me. Nesnad (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're being paranoid. I presume you are Chinese or of Chinese descent because a lot of Chinese are being paranoid and nationalistic lately thinking the West hates them. My argument is not against the Chinese space program, but against the term "taikonaut". I fully support China's space program. I was happy when they did the spacewalk. I think the more nations that look towards space will benefit all of humanity. But the simple fact is that in the English language, "taikonaut" has not entered the mainstream of general public conversations. I'm not talking about 10 years in the future, I'm talking about now, today. And I'm not talking about the media, who like to sensationalise and make up catchy new words. This article should follow established Wikipedia policy, where article content reflects current common usage. If "taikonaut" enters the public consciousness, then I will support its inclusion. Until then, I will stick with Wikipedia policy.--Joowwww (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you are, since you forgot to sign? But I thought I should point out I am not Chinese, and I find the assumption that I am Chinese as a further push in the evidence that this page is very culturally biased. If you look at the edit histories on most of the people debating with me, they are mixed all up with the space program and what not. If you look at mine, I have very few such edits. That's not my focus, simply I noticed what seemed to be a hidden cultural bias in this Wikipedia page. As a true believer in the concept of Wikipedia (check out articles such as NPOV if you don't get it) I believe that even when a lot of people seem to not get it I should point out bias. Wikipedia is not the place to promote certain specific countries only. As a country with a nearly equal space program, or atleast currently in the top three, I see it as a cultural bias to lock them out. It seems something like a "Old boy network" which some of you seem to be very threatened by including any other "member" besides America and Russia. Why is it such a threat to some of you if China is included and the definition of astronaut is made slightly more open? Don't we all benifit from an open perspective? Nesnad (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was me, I forgot to sign it. You seem to be accusing me of trying to inject a POV into the article. Could you please provide some examples to back up this accusation? Why do you think China is being "locked out"? --Joowwww (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
China is included in this article. Its space program is included with an appropriate weight compared to space programs of other nations. However, this discussion is about whether the name of the article should be changed based on the argument that the word astronaut is somehow POV. This is the English wikipedia and the most common English term for a professional space traveler is "astronaut". Yes, sometimes English language news articles use the word "cosmonaut" (generally for astronauts employed by Russia and/or who fly on Russian spacecraft) and sometimes English news articles use the terms like spationauts or taikonauts, but astronaut remains the primary, generic term for a professional space traveler. Why would we change the name? Rillian (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rillian, thanks for trying to get to the point! Actually it was user sdsds' idea to change the name (something I don't intrinsically disagree with, but NOT something I'm pushing). I guess I am not making myself clear? I think it is POV to exclude China from the lead in since I think it is not giving them appropriate weight, since they are now a space program sending people to space. It seems a bit POV to exclude China from the top of the page when America and Russia (the other to space programs that send humans to space) are included, and as you pointed out some news articles refer to China too, it seems like excluding China is a "members only" club that isn't being fair. If you have a strong reaction to China being included next to America and Russia, ask your self why. To me, it seems that I have uncovered a cultural bias. I think "appropriate weight" (as you said) isn't being used since other countries aren't sending people to space, and China is, which (regarding the definition of "astronaut", the point of this article) brings it close to the level of Russia and America. Shouldn't they be included in the intro to this article? The problem with these kind of POVs is that they are so cherished for some of you that what I'm expression might be hard for you to ever agree with. Cultural POVs are something we shouldn't have in Wikipedia, and I hope we can bring ourselves to understand that? Nesnad (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the term "astronaut", not individual space programs. I have already told you that if "taikonaut" was a commonly used word among the English-speaking public, then it would be in this article's intro. However it's not, so it isn't. Wikipedia also has another policy, WP:Undue weight. Also, please assume good faith. --Joowwww (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are losing me. If this article is only about the term ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astronaut&action=edit&section=46stronaut, then why is the term cosmonaut in here? You are talking yourself in loops because you don't want to address the POV that is inherit in the intro of this article. You throwing quotes of "good faith" doctrine doesn't quite make sense, that works just as well towards me. Please don't assume I am out here to destroy the article or whatever. I am here to do good on Wikipedia, that is why I am trying to point out the perceived POV. I am here to discuss it rationally. Sorry to sound snappy here, but did you ever even read the undue weight link? It talks about how we should "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors". Are you trying to say that China doesn't deserve mention because this article is about the term astronaut? If so, please delete the term cosmonaut from the intro and I would really have no problem. My discussion would be over, it would get rid of the POV problem. However, if cosmonaut stays, some term to refer to the Chinese equivalent should be made since China now has people in space, or in American terms, China has astronauts just like Russia, so to not include them is a cultural bias. Joowww, I guess you are set against even listening to me. Please give me good faith and listen to this fairly. Trust me, I just want this to be a NPOV article, that's all. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Astronaut" is a commonly used term. "Cosmonaut" is a commonly used term. "Taikonaut" is not a commonly used term. Keep digging. --Joowwww (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"common" as defined by who? You? Taikonaut is in the dictionary, I think you have deep seeded bigotry towards including China, and you wont be able to challenge your own POV. Sigh. taikonaut. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). It says it was coined in 1998 which is the 10 years that was oddly asked for up there. You are dead set against hearing me, you have set up a campaign of not even reading my comments I suppose. Anyone else notice that I'm not the only one who brought this issue up? (and even if I had been, it's worthy of notice anyway.) I think this "members only" mentality needs to end. It was argued above that Russian should be included in the article because they have a people space program too. Thats all I am saying, taikonaut (or whatever term) is justified to give equal weight since this article refers to people who go to space for their countries. Doesn't anybody get this is about being NPOV? Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Common" refers to in the common vernacular, the general public consiousness, as I have already stated above. "Proboscis" is in the dictionary, but it's not common usage. You just seem to be repeating yourself. --Joowwww (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joowwww--- Claiming that I am personally attacking you and threatening me (on my talk page) with "reporting me" is more of a personal attack from you, in the disguise of bureaucracy. I did not say you are a bigot, and if you are not one you would not have felt attacked even if I had called you such. I said "you have deep seeded bigotry towards including China" which I intend to mean as a reference towards the issue at hand, not your own personal existence/lack of bigotry in general. (As an example of how me and you don't see eye to eye: I know you are involved in Hong Kong projects and what not, that doesn't mean you wouldn't have a personal issue with including China. To me, it seems to increase the reason why you would.) Basically, I was trying to express the same thing as you said to me. We are both saying the same thing, and it isn't going anywhere... Simply you deeply disagree with me, and I deeply disagree with you. Realizing that I must be civil about this (since clearly you are ruffled by this?) I must step down from my discussion with you. I will be open to discussing it with anyone else, but Joowwww (and this isn't an attack) isn't up to discussing this together with me with out feeling threatened, something I honestly do not wish to do. Wikipedia is for discussing things with people, not hating on people. So unless anyone else wants to come in, I think I will let the matter be for the moment. (Don't say I didn't try though!) Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to this on your talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've formally requested a third opinion. --Joowwww (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also replied to this on your talk page which you have deleted immediately which felt very aggressive. In fact, I am unable to conduct a civil discussion with user Joowww even on Joowww's talk page as he removes any comments I make there. This makes it clear that I also deeply want other people to join this discussion. Clearly we are taking this too personally. Deleting my replies (on talk page) and posting odd "welcome to Wikipedia" templates (and I know Joowww didn't write the templates, but the use of them is still clearly a personal jab or an odd choice of behavior) on my talk page is a great sign that Joowwww is about ready to slap me here. ;) Calm down everyone! And yes, please share your opinions about this people! Otherwise with out other people joining in this discussion, I don't think I will continue this discussion. Thanks, have a great day, Nesnad (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for discussion about how I contribute, which is why I both started discussion and replied to you on your talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I saw this dispute listed on WP:Third opinion, and I've just read it all through. It seems to me that the key fact here is that this is the English-language Wikipedia. The decision to use only the English and Russian words in the lead section is a linguistic one - it's simply a question of mentioning terms which English-speaking readers will know. The strength of China's space program isn't relevant here - there have been plenty of astronauts from all sorts of countries, but astronaut remains an English word, cosmonaut is less common but also well known, yyǔhángyuán is simply a foreign word, and taikonaut is a neologism coined by, and as far as I'm aware only used by, the media. As a useful analogy, it's worth looking at the Football article: although there are huge numbers of successful foreign players and teams, there are no translations at all in the title. Brazil has the most successful national team, and arguably the best player ever was Brazilian, but it wouldn't make sense to add (Português: Futebal) to the first sentence.

As an aside: it isn't up to Joowwww to show that taikonaut isn't a well known term. One of wikipedia's core policies is that all debateable material on Wikipedia should be verifiable - the burden of evidence is with the editor who adds or restores material.

A final note: Please, everyone, remember to be civil, and assume good faith on the part of other editors, no matter how hard they might make it for you to do so. Making assumptions about other editors' nationality, viewpoint, motives, or anything else, only serves to raise the temperature, without making any progress on the debate itself. For that reason, it would be inappropriate to continue this discussion anywhere but on this page: either the discussion is about this article, in which case it should be here, or it's become a discussion of each other's motives, in which case it should simply stop. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've been wanting a second opinion. All your points were very clearly stated, and I agree with most of what you said. My issue isn't with taikonaut being included (however, I seem to not understand how something could be so randomly decided as an invalid word? I know many people who use and know that word, and I have provided many media references. Regarding referenes to people to prove this is a spoken word, I'm not sure how to do that? It seems to be kind of subjective. I could argue any article has words that "I don't speak, they only are used by the media" but how would I prove that in a clear way?) my issue is with China being excluded from the initial definition of astronaut. That seems POV to me, since China clearly is a society with such indviduals now. I agree that words that are clearly foreign (such as futebal) don't need to be placed in prominance. But if a word can be understood (because it is in media, 5 of which sources I have included) why is it excluded? And beyond that word, why is a country with astronauts not mentioned in the initial definition? I'm not arguing for the use of any particular word to include them in the definitin, I am saying simply excluding them seems POV. Being that there are only three countries sending astronauts to space by their own power, excluding one seems odd. What are your thoughts Hughcharlesparker? Nesnad (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made two points in your last post: firstly, the "invalid word" thing: no-one's suggesting the word taikonaut is invalid, they're suggesting that it isn't in common use.
As to references - interesting question. I hadn't thought about how to find a citation for word frequency until you asked me. A bit of research turned up two searchable text corpuses - the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English. The BNC has 97 uses of the word astronaut, 19 for cosmonaut, and 0 for taikonaut. The CCAE has astronaut 1653 times, cosmonaut 134 times, and taikonaut 6 times.
Your other point was about China being excluded from the initial definition of astronaut - I don't understand this. The lead section doesn't mention any country's space program - it excludes everyone equally. Have I misunderstood you? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, by acknowledging cosmonaut as Russian (with Russian cyrillic) gives weight to Russian interests while ignoring the only other country (China) in regards to manned space programs with astronauts. If that reference to Russia is removed from the intro, I see no POV in this article and I have no issue. If that reminds, I see POV in the intro. Make sense? Nesnad (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the nub of the matter. I don't see how mentioning the Russian word gives weight to Russian interests. The whole article is in English, but that doesn't give with to US interests, or Britain's interests, as part of the Eu's space program. I simply don't see how using the Russian word and not the Chinese makes the point of view of this article less neutral. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the lede paragraph, I agree that including the Russian pronounication but no other foreign language could lead to a POV concern. I've edited the opening paragraph to only refer to the English words: astronaut and cosmonaut. The terminology section can provide the details on foreign languages. Rillian (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thus all my issues have been addressed for the time being! If no one disagrees with the edits made by Rillian then I am on happy ground discussion-wise. That's all I was trying to get out, that it didn't seem fair as worded previously and that has been addressed nicely. Nesnad (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deaths

Does anyone have a list of astronauts who have died either in space or on thier way to/from space? (that is any time between when they enter the craft intending to go to space and when they get out of the craft after thier return from space) Plugwash (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a comprehensive list at Space accidents and incidents. Rillian (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous statement in terminology/other terms

At the moment, it says "While no nation other than Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United States, and China has launched a manned spacecraft, several other nations have sent people into space in cooperation with one of these countries." This is somewhat ambiguous, as the Japanese and ESA modules of the ISS should probably count as "manned spacecraft", although they were not manned until after launch. Metamoof (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

"In the United States and many other English-speaking nations, a professional space traveler is called an astronaut." This statement (my highlighting) is at best an oversimplification, and worse is edging to error. It is true that outside the US some refer to all space travellers as being astonauts, but there is very widespread use of both cosmonaut and astronaut for, respectively, those on the Soviet / Russian and US programmes. This is supported by the citations below. The terminology section needs to recognise this. And whilst we are at please can the unsubstantiated (and incorrect) "..and the usage of choice is often dictated by political reasons." be removed.

  • Use of cosmonaut in the UK [7], [[8]], [9]
  • Use of cosmonaut in New Zealand [10], [11],
  • Reference to seperate US and Soviet / Russian usage, this from New Zealand [12]
  • Another reference to seperate US and Soviet / Russian usage, this time from Australia [13]
  • Use of cosmonaut for non-Soviet / non-Russian but who travelled on their programmes [14]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astronaut&oldid=260597439"