Talk:Space Race/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

When did the Space Race end?

I'm thinking we may have a serious verifiablility issue here, which I'm sorry to say I may have helped to create. The race's beginning is easy to identify and well verified, when both nations declared intent in 1955 to launch satellites. But did it really end with Stafford and Leonov's handshake in 1975 (which was mainly just a political/diplomatic stunt), or with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its replacement with the Russian Federation in 1991, after which true cooperation in space was started (Shuttle-Mir Program, International Space Station, Westerners flying on Soyuz, etc.)?

If, as we say the Space Race is a creature of the Cold War, how could it have ended before the end of the Cold War? Did the Apollo-Soyuz flight really end the Race, any more than Nixon's détente "ended" the Cold War? We were trying to (but then gave up on) building our own space station called Freedom, and they were still putting cannons on their Salyut (Almaz) military stations.

Trouble is, we don't have reliable source verification either way. Ideas? JustinTime55 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

When did the competition/rivalry between them actually end? (I don't know, and didn't live while the Soviet union was around to tell what it was like). Since the moon landing was the ultimate aim of the space race, then maybe draw the line when the Soviets gave up on a manned moon landing. How much more competition could exist beyond a moon landing? (Besides manned missions to Mars/Venus, which neither did). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Engvar question

Which spelling variety are we supposed to be in here? At the moment I see examples of both. --John (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Presumably American English. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 12:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not specified (no use-engvar template). There is no strong national tie to Britain. I would prefer American, since the US was actually involved in the Space Race, but I suppose that could be argued. We should probably make the decision based on which is currently in the majority; I would assume that's American.
@John: I have a couple of questions:
  • What British spellings have you found?
  • This article is large and complex enough that I find it hard to read the whole thing closely enough to find British spellings or usage. Is there a tool that helps detect spelling variants? The only thing I can think of is searching for the most common "our" (e.g. colour) and "ise" (e.g. civilise), and it came up negative for both of these. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice the Template:American English above. I just found two occurrences of "centre" and changed them to "center", consistent with the five other "center"s on the page. I also added Template:Use American English to the article page. Have you found any more British? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --John (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Kennedy's political motivation out of scope here

I'm moving a recent IP user's rewrite of Kennedy directs the race toward the Moon here for discussion. It's all well and good that you have citations, but I have a few major objections to it:

  • I think too much detail of Kennedy's politics (based on criticism of Eisenhower) leading up to the 1960 election is out of scope of this article, which should focus on the contrast of the two nations' space policies and their implementation. You might want to add this to John F. Kennedy#Space policy instead.
  • It's inherently unbalanced, because we don't have equivalent insight into Khruschev's motivations for making his space policy decisions (USSR not being a democracy with a free press).
  • I think it's worded a bit too POV (personal analysis): "Some may say that... This in fact would be incorrect."

Some may say that before Gagarin's flight, the sitting U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, had lukewarm support for America's manned space program. This in fact would be incorrect. Prior to his inauguration, Kennedy had been very vocal about the nation's space program. During the 1960 election, Kennedy used the topic of space as a springboard to win the election. In fact, Logsdon in his book, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest reinforced the argument that Kennedy did in fact use the topic of space to his advantage in the 1960 election, to the extent that his victory could partially be explained by his aggressive stance on space matters.[1] Kennedy depicted the coming decades as "a time of uncertainties, challenges, and opportunities for the American people."[2] This had been a strategic play to evoke a spirit of fear, without leaving a resounding feeling of hopeless, as he attempted to move the nation in a new direction--a play that held roots to his world view. Kennedy blamed the Eisenhower administration for misleading the American people and has been recorded many times taking the position for a more aggressive space program. Kennedy was careful with his wording about the space problem as his words were vague and never explicitly defined the program's future. Kennedy's vagueness allowed for an ambiguous program as he himself was disinterested in the subject. He in fact used space as a tool to advance a new era of change.

JustinTime55 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest (Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1970), 64-65.
  2. ^ Stephen P. Depoe, "Space and the 1960 Presidential Campaign: Kennedy, Nixon, and 'Public Time'", Western Journal of Speech Communication: WJSC 55, no.2 (Spring 1991), 215, Accessed March 5, 2016, American History & Life, EBSCO (15722297).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Space Race. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Should "Space Race" be capitalized?

At various places in the article, "Space Race" is written in either capital letters or lower case letters. MOS:DOCTCAPS indicates that it should not be capitalized. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes (Sigh)...I need to count to 10 and take several deep breaths before replying...I really believe you are running amok with "improper noun" decapitalization in this case. I believe DOCTCAPS does not apply here: the Cold War was not a "philosophy, theory, movement, doctrine, method, process, system of thought and practice, or field of study." It was a historical period, like the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Cold War, etc. Would you seriously advocate moving these articles? Our MOS capitalization guideline seems to be missing something if it does not cover historical periods. (I realize it explicitly covers "accepted full names of wars" such as World War II, American Civil War, etc.)
In fact, I would go a little further: treating it as a generic ("space race") can only tend to mislead people into erroneous notions such as the modern "Asian space race", which is just something a too-clever-by-half journalist coined, and totally unrelated to this period of history.
If the article is inconsistent, it should be made consistent, I believe with capitals. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@JustinTime55: Cool your space race jets friend, I found an inconsistency and asked for input. No running amok with nouns. I asked because a few years back I created Cold War playground equipment, and I want to be sure the grammar and so forth are correct in that article. Let me get this straight, the Space Race was a historic period that began in the Post-War Period and ended following the Peaceful Revolution. Yes? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • First, I do not intend any personal attack. I apologize if I mistook you for one of a recent spate of editors who seem bent on interpreting our style guide as mandating conversion of all "generic (improper) nouns" associated with the space program to lower case ("Apollo command module", "payload specialist", etc.).
  • My mind-reading skills are a bit rusty; I had no way of knowing your question was motivated by references in the Cold War playground equipment article.
  • I'm at a loss to interpret the noise about "Post-War Period" and "Peaceful Revolution"; I can only assume you are being snarky. I certainly don't mean to imply I'm an expert on history, or that the consensus of history scholars recognize it as an official era (though I would suspect that to be the case). Perhaps the most eloquent way to express this is the simple statement made by JFG, who seems to agree with me: "The Space Race was a thing". JustinTime55 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes – The Space Race was a thing, and must remain capitalized. The so-called "Asian space race", though, isn't, and should be lowercased. — JFG talk 17:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space Race. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

After Effects

Should there be more info on how it started and then what came out of it? (Brooklynsweney (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)).

Are "Moon Race" and "Space Race" something different?

I hearn here and there, USA won "Space" race (Neil Armstrong everywhere).

I have been thinking, isn't it Moon Race? I respect after-1969 achievements, such as Voyajer and Pioneer launches, and in this regard, "first object to leave Solar System" achievement is often overlooked. Uchyotka (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I need to add more questions. AFAIK, there are rumors the whole Saturn V original purpose was military (as in "park a warhead right on the Moon, lauch it if needed"). Is there any confirming/debunking information on such claim? Uchyotka (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting “US Won” comment in summary

I have just deleted the following comment in the summary: 

This leads many to conclude that the US "won" the space race.

Reasons include:

  • it is unreferenced. Who are the “many”?
  • in the body of the article it states that the US won to the race to the moon. However USSR won the race for:
the first satelite,
the first man in space,
the first woman in space,
the first landing of a probe on another celestial body, etc.

There is one source stating that landing on the moon overrode all other achievements, however I bet there will be other sources out there with a different view.

  • the fact that the US has had to rely on Russian space craft to get to the international space station for the past 9 years. Yes I acknowledge the Space X is now operating, however between 2011 and a week ago you could hardly state that the US was “leading” in the space race.
    • As Russians say, "I'm signing after every word". Postfactum, I know. Uchyotka (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Would suggest that the article should focus on that the “space race” concept has died away and been replaced by cooperation, as evidenced by the International Space station. Stating the the US “won” the space race is too subjective. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and I vaguely remember that's what the article used to focus more on at some point. Arguing who is thought to have "won" should not be a focus in the lead and is, of course, inherently biased. The lead currently does a decent job at explaining this. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed: USA's side had not just "legacy", but some "first" achievements (such as "first navigation system" (the GPS satellites))Uchyotka (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Your cute little Russian / Aussie/ Dutch caucus does not make a consensus. You first must understand this article is not just "spaceflight achievements". It is an historical article about events that happened during the Cold War. No one who was not alive in the US or USSR during the 1950s through 1990s truly appreciates what that means. Worldwide historical consensus among free Western nations is that the USSR had a temporary advantage in compiling firsts, but got their butts handed to them when the US landed men on the Moon. Denying this is the bias. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Most sources give the Apollo 11 Moon landing as being the end of the Space Race declared by President Kennedy. Thereafter, the US quickly lost interest and put its cue in the rack. Uchyotka is correct in saying that before 1968 the Soviet Union racked up all the notable "firsts". Indeed, that was precisely why Kennedy chose a Moon landing as his finish line: he didn't think the US could beat the Soviets to anything less. I have seen some claims on Wikipedia that the Space Race continued after 1969, but if anyone has any sources claiming this, feel free to post them here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

negative wording / bias

It seems to me that the wording is biased in a few places. For example "The Soviet Union, failing to land humans on the Moon, concentrated on low Earth orbit space stations such as Mir." It is rewriting history as far as I know. The US made it a goal to "win" by going to the moon and the USSR also did try but they did not "settle with less" as the wording implies. One could easily argue that a space station is a much more important goal and just as hard. I think the article should be less biased/more neutral. Dustie (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Race/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Neopeius (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


I am delighted to assist. I think the biggest challenge will be reducing the length of the article as it is currently half again as long as the maximum length recommended by Wikipedia. I don't think trimming will be too difficult, actually.

I'll go through the various sections over the next week and make my suggestions.

Thank you very much for taking on this onerous task! --Neopeius (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • One thing I am not happy with: having to use the picture of Fallen Astronaut to illustrate Soyuz 1. What I would like is the gruesome photo of the wreckage (which I know is available on Google image), which is on par with the Apollo 1 charred cabin photo. Can we find out if it is copy-free, or else have to settle for fair use? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The infobox is one contentious issue that has popped up; I hope that does not kill this. Given your concern about the article length, I'm sure you would agree the infobox doesn't need to be overcrowded. I am firmly opposed to Halo FC's four-image photomontage, and MOS:FLAG makes flags by everyone's name inappropriate decoration, and only adds unnecessary drama rather than useful information. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
As I told Halo, editing the article is currently more important than the infobox. There is value to identifying the nationality of the key names in the space race (MOS:FLAG notwithstanding, I frequently use flags in my spaceflight infoboxes; q.v. Spaceflight_before_1951) but I agree that *former* nationalities are not germane. Even for Germans. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

First thoughts

  • Cut the Germany section down to one paragraph.
 Done I'll work on that. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I wonder if it might make sense to remove the Rocket Development section entirely, putting vital information in the following section. That'd lose about 8K. That section could be saved somewhere else, perhaps in an "origins of rocketry" article (if one doesn't already exist).
Hmmm...interesting idea. I'll have to digest that. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I've found History of rockets#Modern rocketry to be the ideal place to move more detailed text out of here. I'm thinking the Theoretical foundations subsection is out of scope and should go out, but the German, Soviet, and American subsections should be cut down to summary style rather than removed. Cold War missile race could maybe be trimmed down a bit. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
With a suitable renaming? "Lead-up to the Space Race" or something. --Neopeius (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Vostok is twice as long as it needs to be.
OK Think I've made a good dent in this. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Definitely. Also, in the last paragraph, the last sentence would be better served in the parachute section several paragraphs up, and the sentence before, describing the dimensions of the Vostok, would be better served near the top rather than at the end. --Neopeius (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • First "multi-crewed" spacecraft
What about it? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Right now it's just "First crewed" which is incorrect (since Mercury and Vostok were crewed!) :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to be argumentative, but no, they weren't in the traditional sense of crew which is "more than one person operating a vessel". The Russians have always listed "first crewed spacecraft" (Voskhod 1) as one of their accomplishments. Calling Mercury and Vostok "crewed" with single occupants is just ideosynchratic Wikipediaese, trying to find a politically correct, unawkward substitute for "manned" or "human spaceflight". JustinTime55 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't blame me. Blame NASA. And then there's this. The fact is, Vostok (and Mercury) capsules were crewed and uncrewed. And you can't really call them "manned" given that one sixth of the human Vostok flights was "womaned." Crewed just means human-operated, as opposed to "robotic" or "automatic." NASA and Space.com represent broader usage than idiosyncratic Wikipidiaese :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
But, the issue could be avoided with, perhaps, "First multi-seat spacecraft." --Neopeius (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The rest feels the right length. That would get us down a lot closer to the 100K length. From there, it's streamlining. What do you think? --Neopeius (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: I asked in the Tea House what to do about the length of the article, and they said "hey, it's really only 74K of 'readable prose' so it's cool." It's still 12224 words, and that's not counting the lists under Gemini accomplishments and the Outer Space Treaty, which make it longer. I still feel that the first section can be removed and the most pertinent bits added to the following section. --Neopeius (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Status report (19 May 2021)

@Neopeius: It's now 69,559 67,375 prose characters, 11,309 10,973 words. How does it look? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Thanks for the ping and for the cutting. I will get to this over the next few days. If the length is right, I'll go into substantive edit review. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Alright. So length-wise, we're probably fine. The first thing we need to work on is the first section. It's vitally important that an article on the Space Race begin with...the Space Race. I strongly reiterate that the first section is counterproductive as is. This is easy to fix, at least to a first order of utility:

  1. Rename the second section: Origins of the Space Race
  2. Move the Missile Development section to the beginning of that newly renamed section
  3. Move the Soviet rocketry section to the beginning of the Soviet planning section
  4. Move the American rocketry section to the beginning of the American planning section
  5. You'll need to explain the German origins of ballistic missiles and the importance thereof to both superpowers -- possibly as the third section of the new Origins of the Space Race section makes sense.

--Neopeius (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not everything you suggest makes a lot of sense to me.
  • "An article on the Space Race must begin with the Space Race": Agreed, but articles structured historically (like this one) sometimes begin with a Background or Origins section. That's basically what I did here, but my latest draft has what I think was an overly-detailed history stripped out.
  • By "second section", I assume you mean Rocket development, and are counting the introduction (article summary) as "section one". I also assume by "Missile Development" you mean Missile race. If I just rename "Rocket development" to Origins or Background, and move the Soviet and American subsections, that will be all that is left, and nothing has to be moved for step 2. (Also, the MOS suggests not unnecessarily repeating the article title in headings, so "Origns" instead of "Origins of the Space Race".)
  • If I move those sections downstream of the Missile race, this will be in the reverse of historical order and disrupt the flow. Historically, the Soviet rocketry and American rocketry sections had to preceed the missile race (else where did the technology come from?)
  • I thought I did explain the German origins and the importance (just not in excess detail).
  • Your point 5 contradicts the rest; if I move Soviet and American sections down, there is only one left (Missile).

I put this together with a logical, historical flow; I don't think whatever change you want (as I understand it, and I don't really understand it) is simply a matter of moving around what is here, without a lot of rewriting. Why do you think the first section is counterproductive as is? The first time around, you said you wonder if it should be moved out to another article, to strip out 8K; but now you say we're OK on size. This section does "explain the German origins of ballistic missiles and the importance thereof to both superpowers".

Is this what you meant?

Origins

Missile race

First artificial satellites

Soviet planning
Soviet rocket development
United States planning
American rocket development

??? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This is what I meant:


Origins

Missile race
Soviet planning
Soviet rocket development
United States planning
American rocket development

Tell you what. This weekend, I will do a quick draft of that section and you'll see what I mean. We can go from there. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: Ok, this is really quick and dirty, but [this] is the structure I was thinking. You can embellish as you feel necessary, but I think the flow is much better this way. Most importantly, you've got a summary statement at the beginning that explains why we're starting with rockets. Everything flows from there. The Germans are important, and they have a thread throughout, but they are not the start of the Space Race story -- only one of the players. --Neopeius (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Neopeius: OK, I merged in your ideas. I think it's important to keep the part which explains why Goddard missed the party and did not become America's founding father of rocketry instead of von Braun. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@JustinTime55: Cool. :) This week is shaping up to be very busy so I may not get back to the GAC until early next week. We'll see. Sorry for the delay! --Neopeius (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@JustinTime55: I am finally getting my head above water and look forward to giving the article a thorough editing over the next few days. Thank you for your patience! --Neopeius (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead Edits

(This section needs a lot of revision, more so than most of the rest of the article. Since this thing is 25+ pages long, I'm going to do it in sections. I think the beginning will be more arduous than the rest.)

  • "The technological advantage demonstrated by spaceflight achievement was seen as necessary for national security, and became part of the symbolism and ideology of the time."
Replace with "Spaceflight achievement was deemed necessary to national security, strategically and ideologically. Not only was it seen as vital to secure the "high ground" of space to forestall a military advantage by the other power, but success in space demonstrated technological superiority and provided material for propaganda."
  • "The Space Race brought"
Replace with "Milestones of the Space Race included"
  • "The USSR achieved the first successful artificial satellite launch on October 4, 1957 of Sputnik 1, and sent the first human to space with the orbital flight of Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961. The USSR demonstrated a significant early lead in the race with these and other firsts over the next few years, including the largest Earth orbital lift capability, flight durations measured in days instead of hours, the first multi-person crewed spaceflight, and the first spacewalk."
Replace with "The USSR quickly developed a significant early lead, achieving the first successful artificial satellite launch on October 4, 1957 of Sputnik 1, the first human to space with the orbital flight of Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961, the first multi-person spacecraft in 1964, and the first spacewalk in the same year. During this period, Soviet flight durations were measured in days; American missions were measured in hours."
  • "The USSR lost its early lead after US president John F. Kennedy raised the stakes by setting a goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth".
Replace with "On May 25, 1961, US president John F. Kennedy set the stage for overtaking the Soviets by setting a goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth".
  • "development of the first super heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Saturn V,"
Replace with "development of the first super heavy-lift launch vehicle: the Saturn V," (just swapping comma for colon)
  • " a singular achievement generally considered[by whom?] to outweigh any combination of Soviet achievements."
Replace with "to mark the beginning of the end of the Space Race."
  • " to outweigh any combination of Soviet achievements."
Replace with "to mark the end of the first stage of the Space Race."
  • "The USSR pursued two"
Replace with "From 1964 [1], the USSR had pursued two"
  • "A period of détente followed with the April 1972 agreement on a co-operative Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), resulting in the July 1975 rendezvous in Earth orbit of a US astronaut crew with a Soviet cosmonaut crew and joint development of an international docking standard APAS-75."
Replace with "A period of détente followed with the April 1972 agreement on a co-operative Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (ASTP), which in in July 1975 culminated in the first rendezvous in Earth orbit of an American and a Soviet spacecraft."
  • "But the competition did not suddenly stop then;"
Delete
  • "Apollo–Soyuz began a period of transition from competition to one of US and Russian space cooperation"
The 1980s saw a resurgence of the Space Race corresponding to the return of tension between the superpowers: Star Wars, Shuttle vs. Buran. You'll want to replace this sentence with something more accurate.
  • "by December 1991, when the collapse of the Soviet Union brought the end of the Cold War and enabled the Shuttle–Mir and International Space Station programs between the US and the newly founded Russian Federation.[10][11]"
Replace with "The Space Race formally ended in December 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The end of the Cold War ushered in an era of cooperation in space between the US and the newly founded Russian Federation, including the Shuttle–Mir and International Space Station programs."

All of these are just wording changes that should be able to keep the citations. The only one you'll want a new citation for is the line you come up with regarding the 1975-1991 era.

Origins

  • "Although Americans and Soviets experimented with small rockets before World War II, launching satellites and humans into space required the development of larger ballistic missiles such as Wernher von Braun's Aggregat-4 (A-4), which became known as the Vergeltungswaffe 2 (V2) developed by Nazi Germany to bomb London in the war.[12] After the war, both the US and USSR acquired custody of German rocket development assets which they used to leverage development of their own missiles."
Please put this paragraph after the following one ("Soon after the end of World War II, the two former allies became engaged in a state of political conflict and military tension known as the Cold War (1947–1991), which polarized Europe between the Soviet Union's satellite states (often referred to as the Eastern Bloc) and the states of the Western world allied with the US.")

@JustinTime55: That's what I have the spoons for today. That took an hour. :) Again, I think the rest of the article will be smoother sailing. Cheers! --Neopeius (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: @Nsae Comp: I've failed the GAC. One of the requirements is stability, and Nsae Comp has begun a complete rewriting of the article. Please feel to renominate when the article is stable (note: I may not be available as reviewer at that time). --Neopeius (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius:, I am sorry I was not aware of the GAC process. But I am basically finished, since I am not geting into the main body of the article, I was only focusing the lead. I know I did a row of edits but they look more than they are text alltogether. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@JustinTime55: @Nsae Comp: @Halo FC: Hello folks. I had just gone through and spent an hour making notes for the revision of the lead. :) It was dispiriting to then have a third party come in and then completely change everything. Anyway, for the future, Nsae, before making significant edits, you might go to the Talk page to see if the page is undergoing some kind of review. It should say that on the top of a regular page, too, but the Talk page will give more info. Justin, you've got my notes from before. If you want to revert Nsae's edits and implement, we can see about renomination and continuing.

Nsae, if your primary interest lies with the space race, I've got lots of projects to work on if you're game. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Space Race?

Extensive initial discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Obviously no reasoning with Halo FC. Infobox conformant to MOS guideline has been added to the page. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

Not every Wikipedia article needs an infobox, if an appropriate template does not exist. Please stop adding "military conflict"-style infoboxes to this article. Calling the spaceflight engineers "commanders and leaders" and adding decorative military flags defy our style consensus. Also, the so-called "end of the Space Race" occurring with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program (1975, not 1971; where did you get "January 12, 1971" from?) is WP:original research. Competetive space development on the part of the Soviet Union continued until the end of the USSR in December 1991, as the Buran programme definitely proves. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The flags aren't military, just national flags. I think the heading can be changed to just "Leaders". As for the end date, I guess it should be 25 December 1991? Thank you Halo FC (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
No. You still haven't defended why this adds any value to the page. You, like many people, don't seem to be able to think abstractly very well. Infoboxes are intended for topics which belong to classes, groups which include other topics related to it. That doesn't seem to be true of the Space Race. What else is like it? Please read Help:Infobox. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I thought the line of discussion was on some elements of the infobox. And first time you reply to me and you're already insulting me; I think we can avoid such things. So, there are several space-related race articles. I think it also provides a handy summary of the info, so I guess let's not oppose it lol
I checked that your initial opposition to the infobox was that the Space Race was not a military conflict, and agreed, so I was thinking that changing the header to just "Leaders" and stuff like that would ensure that it's not militarily-inappropriate Halo FC (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry; I seem to still be prevailing upon your limited abstract thinking abillity. I began my post by saying "Not every article needs an infobox." That is a wikilink to an essay on the misuse of infoboxes, titled WP:Disinfoboxes. I also referred you to Help:Infobox for more guidance as to what is and is not appropriate. You have not addressed the fact Space Race does not belong to a class of items, therefore it's impossible to identify what kind of infobox, if any, would be appropriate. Also please see MOS:FLAG for guidance on acceptable use of those little flags.

I tried not to insult you personally: I said many people are not good at abstract thought. I have to guess where you're coming from and what you bring to the table since you don't see fit to fill in your user page. JustinTime55 (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I guess you could say that the issue requires abstraction without referring to people. So, I mentioned, though maybe not so clearly, my bad, that the Space Race falls into a class of space races. And more broadly, into a general class of races, such as arms races, and tech races.
For the flags, they are national political leaders, and space heads racing for the glory of their country, so I'm thinking that it's ok to use the flags
As for the appropriate infobox, such races usually take place amidst periods of heightened geopolitical tension, and they involve two or more heavily competing sides, so it seems like having two columns side-by-side can be the form of presentation.
also noting that sidebar infoboxes can be of many different topics or fields, but they all use about the same sidebar box formatting Halo FC (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"The Space Race falls into a class of space races"? Do you have a reliable source that says that is the consensus? And where are these "several space-related race articles? The other spaceflight articles are not "race-related".

A flag by everyone's name is TOO MUCH for an infobox and is distracting, as Help:Infobox says. All the people you list are not "political leaders" (e.g. von Braun who never ran for office. Placing the Nazi flag by WVB's name is inflammatory.

There are way too many names listed for an infobox; this is clutter, again as the Help says.

I don't think you're going to have much luck getting a consensus to design a new "tech race" or whatever infobox from scratch, and you still haven't shown why the article needs an infobox so badly that it would be worth the effort. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox "Politics of outer space" has a row on space races. And in addition to arms and tech races. I think the general category would also be "Non-warfare real-world conflict/competition". (Although my view is also that unique topics can also have infoboxes, to give a summary of the key info)
Template:Politics of outer space is a WP:sidebar WP:navbox, not an infobox. Please learn the difference. The purpose is quite different; it is to help users navigate to related articles, not to summarize page information. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
As for the flags, well, all the conflict infoboxes place flags, though if you don't want them, I don't mind, no problem. And to clarify, I said "political leaders, and space heads", iffy grammar. And I reiterate that the space heads were also working for the glory of their nation.
Saying they were all "working for the glory of their nation" is inaccurate and point-of-view. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
(For the Nazi flag, I was thinking to give a sense of the history, of the Cold War springing forth from the ashes of WW2 in Europe)
Some conflict infoboxes also have lots of names, though if you find it too cluttered, I also don't mind leaving just the national leaders.
I also don't mind putting in the effort myself, and I think we can just copy the conflict infobox but with different headers, which is what I did in this infobox also.
Please don't do anything until you have a consensus of spaceflight editors. You might want to go to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Spaceflight to ask for opinions. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, if there's a need to differentiate infoboxes, I think we can change the color of the headers, maybe from blue to pink. Halo FC (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh its getting kinda messy. So, yeah, navbox, apologies, my bad. I think it's indicative of a class of sorts. And you seem kinda tense, it's alright, I'm not a "mad dog" or anything lol
I think it's pretty accurate haha, if informal. But yeah, I guess they were officially working on behalf of their nation, and their government.
So, thanks for all the help Justin, much appreciated Halo FC (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Halo FC's draft

I've added the sections of 'Operations' and 'Costs', and just wanna check what other suggestions for modifications you might wanna edit

Space Race
Part of the Cold War
Clockwise, from top left: A model of the Sputnik 1 satellite, astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, the Soviet Mir low earth orbit modular space station, the Apollo 11 Saturn V lifting off
DateAugust 2 1955 – December 25 1991
(36 years)
Result
Competitors
Political leaders
Technical leaders
Major operations
Major achievements
Costs

US $170.631 billion (1958–1991)

Near catastrophes
Catastrophes
This is not what I told you to do. You must first establish a WP:consensus whether or not the article Space Race should have an infobox added to it, not just assume everyone knows what kind of infobox you're talking about and ask for design suggestions.
Dude you need to chill, I think your instructions were kinda vague. But anyway I also acknowledge that you're a great help, thank you.
So I think you were concerned about the infobox's prescence due to thinking about whether others would be concerned about it, I think it should be alright Halo FC (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

JustinTime55's critique

Allright, I guess it's time for me to pull out the old adage "if you can't beat them, join them" and I'll entertain your notion that the infobox is a good idea. But that is only so if the box summarizes useful, appropriate, significant, essential, non-trivial information about the topic. So here's a detailed critique, item by item:

  • It's too damned big. 225 pixels is the standard width of an infobox, and you should not hardwire this. Users get to set desired display widths as part of their profile.
  • Remove "and Spaceflight" from second row.
  • Too many pictures in the montage; only two are needed: the two already at the lead of the article, because these are iconic of each nation's best achievement in the race. Infoboxes usually assume the topic has an iconic image, such as a logo, to go here. You are not going to find any reliable sources which say someone has created a notable logo for the Space Race.
  • Location – field is not necessary or meaningful.
  • Result
  • There is no such verb as "dissolute"; and the dissolving of the USSR was not a result of the Space Race.
  • Both nations put satellites and humans into space, not just the USSR. The purpose of the race was to develop mastery (dare I say "supremacy"?) of spaceflight capability, not a literal "race" to do something first.
  • "The United States lands humans on the Moon" (not just "the first human").
  • Detente was again, not a result of the Space Race, and the Apollo/Soyuz mission is not significant enough in the context of history of the race. Highlighting this is just a way of avoiding saying "the USSR lost".
  • The United States developed a reusable Space Shuttle; the Buran was a failure not worth noting (see the definition of product development.)
  • Leaders – Get rid of the damned flags by everyone's name! You say "If you don't want them, I don't mind, no problem." So why are they still there? Only two flags are necessary, next to United States and Soviet Union.
  • This should have Political leaders (Presidents, NASA adminisrators and Soviet equivalents) and Technical leaders (von Braun, Korolev, etc.) I never said the technical leaders should not be included; I only said your assertion von Braun was a "political leader" was absurd. And don't clutter it with too many names: what did Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush have to do with the Space Race? Their names aren't even mentioned in the article. The US government had a lot of other things on its plate besides the Space Race; just because a president was in office doesn't warrant his name here.
  • Operations – should not list all programs, especially failed ones such as Buran. This should be replaced by Accomplishments, and add Catastrophes (loss of life at Nedeyin and in spacecraft cabins), and Near-catastrophes (Voskhod 2, Gemini 8, Apollo 13, Soyuz launch incidents)
  • Cost Problem with this is:
  • That US cost is only the well-known cost of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Moon landing and does not include the Space Shuttle or the rest of the Race. Need to sum up Budget of NASA figures from 1958 to 1991 to get a more accurate total.
  • Soviet costs are virtually impossible to assess in a meaningful way comparable to US costs. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Justin, it's good to see that you've come aboard, I ain't someone to beat, we're both on the same side, we both wanna make it a good article, and I think reviewers will think that yeah, an infobox does make it look good

So I've updated my draft, I think it's ok to have 4 images, as it's quite a common theme in conflict/competition infoboxes, and has aesthetic appeal too.

I also think that the Space Race was about both the supremacy of capability and being a literal race, as being first commands a great deal of national pride and prestige.

So I have the flags by everyone's names, was just wondering what you thought about this being a common practice for such infoboxes.

I think that they also look good, two neat rows of flags, and they're almost all of the same two countries, so I don't think it's distracting.

It also encapsulates the nationalistic, intense competitive Cold War tension between the two rivals.

so I never asserted that von Braun was a political leader, and anyway, that wasn't why I changed it the way I did, I just wanted to abide by your suggestion to reduce the number of names, so I just included the biggest shots, the world leaders who were in office.

But anyway, I followed your example on the list of names. Halo FC (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You are still being divisive and contentious. The matter is closed for now, because the article is under formal review for Good Article by a third party. This is a formally defined proceedure with which you must become familiar; a casual "hey, what do you think?" doesn't cut it. You should not change the infobox unless asked to by me or the reviewer.
It is not necessary to overcrowd this infobox with a photomontage, when two pictures showing each country's biggest achievement serves to illustrate the topic.
Overuse of flags in infoboxes is never looked on favorably by the majority of the wikipedia community.I don't know how to get you to hear me that no more than two flags by the countries' names are necessary, not each individual person's name.
"I think it was about a literal race." I call that Original Research. The term "Space Race" was probably coined by some unknown journalist; a WP:reliable source is necessary to establish validity of that conjecture.
Again, there is no need to clutter the infobox with a photomontage; one photo of each country's greatest achievement is sufficient. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I'm being divisive and contentious, or "hardline", just giving my reasoned inputs, I said that "we're both on the same side". I don't like to disagree but sometimes disagreements do pop up.
and well, 4-photo infoboxes are so common on Wikipedia, it's a way of illustrating a wider scope for a big topic, like the Space Race. And many of the infoboxes have more than 4 photos, sometimes 6 or 7
so I think most people won't find it cluttering, and maybe instead think it looks good
Likewise for the flags, all of the conflict infoboxes do do that, so I think this would be fine with the community. You haven't touched on that. And while the Space Race wasn't a military conflict, it does have similar themes. I guess it's also better to not assume that all of the people in a column automatically follow the above nationality.
And I've also explained why I'd like to have the flags prior.
As for the Space Race also being a race for time, I think almost everyone does hold that it had that component, hopefully the reviewer doesn't object to that Halo FC (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
There are three major reasons you are divisive and contentious:
  • You don't seem to understand an infobox's purpose as defined in MOS:INFOBOX: it is to make the article's key information accessible at the reader's fingertips, NOT to decorate or dress it up (see MOS:FLAG), have aesthetic appeal, or make artistic or editorial statements about the topic.
  • You don't understand how inflammatory putting the Nazi flag next to von Braun's name is. "I guess it's better to not assume that all the people in a column automatically follow the above nationality" is complete BS: guess again. von Braun and his team made the conscious decision to be red, white and blue Americans, not Communists. His page is constantly being vandalized by idiots bent on branding him a jew-killing Nazi. Also, the infobox guideline explicitly says that peoples' ethnicity and nationality are to be avoided in most cases, unless relevant to the topic.
  • Even more basic problem: you talk as if you can read editor's minds and guess what their consensus will be, even when in some cases these have been explicitly declared to contradict your opinions. You seem to see only what you want to see. JustinTime55.
Well I do try to address your points and be polite. But alright, let's put these personal remarks aside and focus on the official stuff.
yeah I guess that's not really the purpose of an infobox, but I'm thinking why not if one can. I also mentioned that the images help illustrate a wider scope for a big topic. Secondly, I don't think that 4 images are cluttering, and in fact, as I mentioned, it's quite a common practice on Wikipedia.
The last time we talked about von Braun's nazi flag was me describing the sense of history, how the dynamics of the Space Race were affected by the outcome of WWII. Though you might consider that marginal. As for it being inflammatory, it's a fact that that's the regime which von Braun chose to live and work under. So I guess this feature is ambivalent.
And yes, von Braun wanted to become an American, but I'm not sure how that relates to what a reader who comes across the article is supposed to assume. So I meant that the infobox shouldn't be viewed with the convention that all of the people in a column automatically follow the above nationality, instead, these should be specified by using flags.
Their nationality is also relevant as they were working for their respective governments and for the benefit of their respective national space programs, and the Space Race was an extension of the rivalry between the two superpowers.
I don't think that I talked as though I can read an editor's mind, I said "hopefully the reviewer doesn't object". But anyway, I would like to ask, when did you first start thinking that the two superpowers weren't in a race of time against each other
Also, I think that, regardless, the infobox should highlight humanity's major technological firsts as results of the Space Race, after all, it's the race that made humanity make those leaps and achieve those major firsts.
And, I would think that a reviewer would be a real crazy-ass if he denies GA due to seeing 4 photos and a row of flags, which is a convention for tons of articles. though I think it'll be fine and not to worry Halo FC (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

My version

Based on this, here is my draft version:

Space Race
Part of the Cold War
The United States directed the Space Race to landing humans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (pictured) on the Moon.
The Soviet Union, failing to land humans on the Moon, concentrated on low Earth orbit space stations such as Mir.
DateAugust 2 1955 – December 25 1991
(36 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days)
Result
Competitors
Political leaders
Technical leaders
Achievements
Catastrophes
Near catastrophes
Costs

170.631 billion $USD

——— JustinTime55 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems the Achievements part is missing a lot. I'm not sure how to pick on achievement over another so it could quickly become a long list. Listing the shuttle is a bit of a controversial pick IMO since both sides built shuttles but while the one side (US) used theirs a lot the other had a more capable shuttle. Anyways I don't think it belongs in the list. Dustie (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've updated my draft above in response to sugestions and Justintime55's version Halo FC (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dustie: Good, bad, or indifferent, the US developed a reusable Shuttle and flew it for 30 years. You apparently aren't familiar with the history of the Buran. The USSR misinterpreted the intent of our Shuttle as being a military satellite killer, and intended the Buran for the same. They stole the orbiter design from us, but our counter-intelligence was able to feed them disinformation about the heat shield tiles, so even though Buran made one successful flight, the heat shield did not survive in a reusable condition, so therefore it was an absolute failure. (Plus, they ran out of money in the financial chaos of the regime's collapse.) Also, it was still intended to be landed by pilots; the automated landing capability simply allowed testing without risking pilot's lives. The US could have very easily added the same capability to the Shuttle, but NASA saw no need. Every other human spacecraft was first launched with robotic flight capability for the first uncrewed tests; we don't call them superior to the human flight versions. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@JustinTime55 please keep the conspiracy theories and nationalism out of this. Dustie (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
There are no conspiracy theories involved. Check the citations here, in Buran programme, and Soviet space program. And nationalism consists of continuing to toe the Soviet line that Buran was a glowing success, when it was definitely not. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

GAC Fail

The article is too unstable for me to continue my review. If and when the article be stabilized, it is encouraged that the article be re-nominated. I may not be available to be the reviewer, however. --Neopeius (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead pictures

Hi, I see that there has been some discussion about the images before, but only in the context of the infobox.

I dont want to get into the infobox discussion, I only want to find a solution for the lead images, since I believe they can add a graphical overview if they are structured chronologically.

So my proposal looked like this at first:

| caption = Top: Sputnik 1 (1957), the first artificial satellite (USSR) and cause for the Sputnik Crisis which ignited public attention to the competition. Middle: Apollo 11 (1969), the first crewed landing on the Moon (US) and climax of the competition. Bottom: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP, 1975), first docking between the two competitor states, testing shared docking systems enabling future cooperation programs away from the competition.[2]

and then for aspect ration and space reasons the following

| caption = Top left: Sputnik 1 (1957), the first artificial satellite (USSR) and cause for the Sputnik Crisis which ignited public attention to the competition. Top right: Apollo 11 (1969), the first crewed landing on the Moon (US) and climax of the competition. Bottom left: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP, 1975), first docking between the two competitor states, testing shared docking systems enabling future cooperation programs away from the competition.[2] Bottom right: Space Shuttle (US) docked to Mir (USSR/Russia) (1995), both products of the ending competition, joined in the Shuttle-Mir program (1993-1998) which facilitated the ongoing International Space Station programme.

But both were taken out particularly the last one without any explaination.

Also the selection of images was changed and I want to defend it. For example the Moon image is more representative since it features Armstrong and Aldrin, as well as the lander and flag. The Mir picture since it has also the Shuttle. All of them showing the main events chronologically.

PS: regarding the Infobox; scrap the overlaping "Result" and "Achievement" sections. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

PPS: The picture I proposed for the Moonlanding is also the most used for reports about it.[3] Nsae Comp (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

PPPS: If it wouldnt be for the somewhat streched definition of the duration of the race, I would take the Shuttle-Mir picture out (as in my first proposal) and put one of Gagrin in. But I am fine with Shuttle-Mir since for the readers its more important what it changed into, depicting the main changing points chronologically, and they are all in nice ~10 year steps (if you take the first missions of Mir and Shuttle outside the program). Nsae Comp (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I did implement the above selection again (sorry for the quasi revert), but since the previois edit note was about conciseness I addressed that and put the uncommented picture selection back. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nsae Comp:, apologies for taking them out without explanation, you had said that it was your proposal and I had assumed that. I'm alright with your choice of photos, except that the Buzz Aldrin on the Moon photo is already used for the Apollo 11 article, so I was thinking that we could use a different photo for variation.
Another more important issue is that I'd rather switch the Apollo-Soyuz photo to that of a rocket launching off, as rockets are very integral to space operations, and I think this infobox is to highlight the competitive nature of the Space Race, which I think a blasting rocket reflects much better than Apollo-Soyuz.
Another changes considered were due to aspect ratio considerations, though I think that can be addressed if we finalize which images to use, and then I can create a new collage image with the aspect ratios fixed, thanks Halo FC (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Halo FC: to represent the feeling of the time more vividly maybe it would be better to take this image for the moonlanding:
Regarding Soyuz-Apollo VS rocket: I would then rather take the Mir picture out and have instead Soyus-Apollo and a rocket, since Apollo-Soyuz was forshadowing the ISS and a clear cooling of the race (see literature/citation). But I must say that I strongly prefer to depict the major changing points of the race, as noted by the literature, since depiction of subjective representation of the race can be more easily challenged. So the above comments are a compromise for me and not what I think is the best collage. PS: besides the rocket image should be placed before the moonlanding image. PPS: I get that the Mir image you use is in ratio with the rocket image, but having the Shuttle docked to the Mir not only allows to depict the milestone of the Mir and Shuttle but also the final end of the Shuttle-Mir program. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Oddbjørn Engvold, Bozena Czerny, John Lattanzio and Rolf Stabell (30 November 2012). Astronomy and Astrophysics - Volume I. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). pp. 228–. ISBN 978-1-78021-000-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NatSecEncyclopedia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Charles, Amy; Santos, Victor Dos (2019-07-15). "The most beautiful photos taken on the Apollo 11 mission". BBC Future. Retrieved 2021-06-08.

Removed "propaganda" comment about Tereshkova

EVERYTHING in the space race was a "propaganda stunt", including the "MISS" program and Apollo 11. Either add this comment everywhere or remove it here. 90.154.70.129 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

infobox details

Hi Mr. Justin @JustinTime55:, so I guess we've gotta continue our discussion on the infobox. I do think that my infobox is alright, and you said "Obviously no reasoning with Halo FC", though I think I did always try to address to your points. Anyway, you could remember why you even started this, because you were concerned about the GA, and I took that into account too, and now the reviewer has said that it's alright, and you got you wanted, it's all good

Anyway, if you still wish to push this, what would you like me to do in order to get the infobox acceptable Halo FC (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You can WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. (Click that wikilink and read the page, please.) You are never going to get your infobox acceptable. I have told you so many times what is wrong with your infobox I am blue in the face (flags by everyone's names and the four pictures). The article already has an acceptable infobox. You prove there is no reasoning with you because you refuse to see my point of view and keep harping on this, no matter how you think you are "addressing" my points. You started this, not me. You were the one clamoring for an infobox; you lied and said you would give up the flags and not theme it like a military conflict. I then decided an acceptable infobox could be made without these elements. What do you mean, "I got what I wanted?" It's the other way around; you got what you wanted. Controversies (it's called article instability) are one sure way to kill a Good Article promotion. Is that what you are trying to do?
You are the one pushing this, not me. Neopeius did not endorse your infobox; he said he didn't care that much; this still does not make a consensus. He said his major concern is the length of the article, and that is what should be focused on. And your ex parte discussion with him on his talk page is out of order; if you think you have something to contribute, it should be in the GA nomination discussion. Now if you will excuse me, I need to stop wasting time on your autistic nonsense and get back to responding to the GA reviewer about his issues. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
if I'm harping this, then you are also contributing to it by undoing my edit, you could also have just left it be. I think it's prolonged not because I'm not addressing your points, but you not doing it, making it hard for me to get your point of view. I didn't lie, I just thought that since Neopeius didn't object, and so it wouldn't be an obstacle to your GA. An infobox wouldn't have been an obstacle to GA anyway, and now we know, and ultimately what you want most is that right. And I just wanted to avoid your fury before I would get a reply from him lol
And, in no way I am wishing to harm the GA promotion, as I said previously, I too want to make this a good article, that's why I wanted to put in an infobox. And of course, I'm not gonna sabotage my own efforts after spending so much effort on the infobox.
Edit: (missed out the word "not"), dang Halo FC (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, I mean, I don't think there's anyone who would take issue with the flags or photos, only you, because you were initially pretty high-strung about the GA stuff, and now that's no longer an issue.
Anyway, I just wanna ask, in essence what I've said previously, could you not object to the flags since this is such a common practice on Wikipedia (and also considering that the reviewer doesn't object)? I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question, but as an actual question. And also, maybe consider the idea that most readers don't find it cluttering? I'm speaking plainly, and I don't mean to sound rude, though it can appear that way over text. Halo FC (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
"I didn't lie, I just thought that since Neopeius didn't object, and so it wouldn't be an obstacle to your GA." You must have poor longterm memory; why are you talking about Neopeius to say you didn't lie? You lied on 21 April, 2021, (before Neopeius came on board) when you wrote "As for the flags, well, all the conflict infoboxes place flags, though if you don't want them, I don't mind, no problem." And you never ever stopped fighting for inclusion of the flags. Therefore I can only conclude you were lying when you said you don't mind if I don't want them.
I never said having an infobox (or not having one, for that matter) would be an obstacle to GA. The obstacle is your edit warring. There is absolutely no reason your version of the infobox is necessary for GA.
"I don't think there's anyone who would take issue with the flags or photos, only you, because you were initially pretty high-strung about the GA stuff"" You are mind-reading again; you have absolutely no proof that no one would take issue. MOS:FLAG proves that many people do. There are also people who take issue with the infobox looking like "military conflict". Look at the Article milestones at the top of this talk page, and read past FA reviews. (This used to be rated FA by someone who didn't understand our requirements, and it lost the rating. There was another contentious editor, Abebenjoe, who put Template:infobox military conflict in the article, and someone explicitly said this was inappropriate; I removed it on 23 February, 2011.) If I am "high-strung" it is not about the GA, but about your imperviousness.
"Could you not object to the flags since this is such a common practice on Wikipedia (and also considering that the reviewer doesn't object)?" No. Again, you have no proof of how "common" a practice it is; it contradicts the Manual Of Style, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is universally not considered a valid argument.
"I'm speaking plainly, and I don't mean to sound rude, though it can appear that way over text." Here's a hint: stop typing "lol". There isn't anything about this that I find the least bit funny. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS guideline for flags

Sorry for such an extended quote of guidelines here, but to make it clear why I am opposed to use of individual personal flags here, I quote the relevant passages here and explain how this applies to this infobox.

For the purposes of this section of the guideline, "icons" refers to flags and similar images unless otherwise stated.

Appropriate flag use

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.

The Space Race participants are neither a military unit nor a national sports team. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words.

See #Inappropriate use 2 for when to not use flags even if the information seems pertinent (in which case, add it in word form).

Consistency is not paramount

If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.

Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.

Again, this is not a military conflict or international (sports) competition. A single set of flags for the national competitors (US and USSR) is sufficient to convey the desired information.
Space Race
Part of the Cold War
Clockwise, from top left: A model of the Sputnik 1 satellite, astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, the Soviet Mir low earth orbit modular space station, the Apollo 11 Saturn V lifting off
DateAugust 2 1955 – December 25 1991
(36 years and 5 months)
Result
Competitors
Political leaders
Technical leaders
Major operations
Major achievements
Costs

US $170.631 billion (1958–1991)

Near catastrophes
Catastrophes

Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations

Some flags are politically contentious ;– take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are:

  1. Use of the Nazi flag to represent German rocket scientists who became US citizens after World War II JustinTime55 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Biographical use

Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. For example, the actress Naomi Watts could be said, depending upon context and point of view, to be any or all of: British, English, Welsh, or Australian. She was born a British citizen in England, lived in Wales for a long time, then moved to Australia and became an Australian citizen. There is no single flag for that, and using all four flags will not be helpful.

Flags are discouraged in the individual infoboxes of biographical articles. Special care should be taken with the biographical use of flag templates in the following situations:

  • In a case of reliably sourced renunciation of citizenship of a country, do not use the flag and name of that former country to indicate an article subject's nationality; if a flag is used at all, use that of the later nationality.

QED JustinTime55 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


Hello @Incegnetty:, this is regarding the infobox photos. I think the user @Indomiteus: brought up a good point, that the aspect ratio has to be considered. He also created a single collage photo. Previously, I had made something similar, using the photo montage template. The photo montage template is flexible, but not always able to work, and we might need to use single collage photos like the one Indomiteus made. Though before that we should work on which images to use, thanks.

Also, I'd like to suggest this infobox "Result" version as a well-rounded and concise set of points to be used for the article, thanks again. Halo FC (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Halo FC:, your proposal looks good to me. However two questions, firstly, is it accurate to list Wernher von Braun with the West German/German flag? AFAIK, he was already in the United States years prior to West Germany's establishment in 1949. If the Nazi flag is too terse, perhaps this alternate German flag would be much more accurate? It was after all the flag of Germany at the time of his birth, and was used up to 1935. Secondly, I do think the events of the Luna 2, Venera 7 and Mars 3 are significant achievements in the context of the Space Race that should stay listed on the infobox. Thanks. Incegnetty (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thank you. Previously, I had tried to explain the importance of von Braun's Nazi origins to the entire grand situation. Then, it was brought up that von Braun was already an American by the time the Space Race began in 1955. However, in 1955, he was already a West German citizen, so I edited the flag to comply with that.
And yeah, I think the planetary and moon probes can be listed as one point Halo FC (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, @Halo FC: and @Nsae Comp:: you've succeeded in killing the GA nomination on 7 June 2021! Quoth the reviewer: "I've failed the GAC. One of the requirements is stability, and Nsae Comp has begun a complete rewriting of the article." JustinTime55 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Current length status

The last GA reviewer was concerned about article length. According to MS Word, the count currently stands at 12,372 words, 76,670 characters including spaces and footnote refs. The Page History X Tool says 11,126 words, 68,235 characters. The mellow, laid-back folks at the Teahouse are down with this. (WP:Article size recommends "10,000 words (50 kB and above)".

At this point, I don't think it needs any more cutting just for the sake of cutting, although fat can always be trimmed from the lean. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Winners - the Russians?

It seems to be a view that Russia won the space race and the moon shot was a late consolation prize as outlined here: "the real pioneers of space exploration were the Soviet cosmonauts, telling the story of how the Russians led us into the space age." Since the article is 'the space race', how should winning the space race be defined? Burraron (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That "view" belongs exclusively to the Russians and their sympathizers, and fails to keep the Space Race in its proper historical perspective. It was much more than simply a "race to be first"; first satellite and first man in space do not prove technical superiority, which this was a struggle for. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
That "view" belongs exclusively to the Americans and their sympathizers, and fails to keep the Space Race in its proper historical perspective. It was much more than simply a "race to be first"; first man on the moon does not prove technical superiority, which this was a struggle for.
See how stupid that sounds? There were no "winners," it was a collective achievement of humanity. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:503C:6677:65D6:AB99 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Race/Archive_4&oldid=1127126630"