Talk:Lists of space exploration milestones, 1957–1969

message: What I feared would happen has happened. Instead of one focal point for the hoaxsters, we now have two. I think we should abandon the idea of further sub-articles, as it will become too unwieldy to counter the hoaxsters' parallel-universe viewpoints on so many fronts. Wahkeenah 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you can't control the article, you don't want it? Funny! Gravitor 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just that you, like your pal Canfield (assuming you're not actually one and the same) won't discuss anything, you just slap your POV changes in. Wahkeenah 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Take your accusations back to rfc, where they belong. The community has no patience for your type. Gravitor 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are observations, not accusations. And I use those terms the way *I* choose to, just like the Russkies did. Wahkeenah 22:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, derogatory ethnic names are always funny. Gravitor 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, gringo. Wahkeenah 22:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what you think you're doing, but your constant insults and refusal to offer any evidence of your claims has destroyed your credibility. Gravitor 22:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. Wahkeenah 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, I have not insulted you. Gravitor 23:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. Wahkeenah 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Meanwhile, how about going back to the other page and telling me how you missed the 7 people who supported that RFC on Canfield? Wahkeenah 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They're all your sock-puppets, or at the very least, part of a group committed to imposing their POV on the page. They have a history of trying to drive off anyone who disagrees with them, by any means necessary. Gravitor 23:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good one. Now, make yourself useful, and go back to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, and tell us how you missed the 7 who supported the RFC on Canfield. Wahkeenah 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't intend for this article to be a sub-article from the hoax article.  I meant it to stand independently and be a useful source of information, other than relating to the hoax page.  I included things that were on the direct path to the moon landing.  So, for instance, the first unmanned docking was not listed because it doesn't relate to a manned mission to the moon.  I also left out unmanned probes to Mars, Venus, etc and also I left out "first communication satellite", "first meteorological satellite", "first commercial satellite", first geo-synchronous satellite, etc, etc, because they don't directly relate to the moon landing. Bubba73 (talk), 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but you shouldn't feel that you own the article. I think that it should be a list of all commonly acknowledged space firsts. Let the reader decide which are relevant, instead of cherry picking your favorites. Gravitor 23:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Alas, the hoaxsters want it to mean whatever they want it to mean. It's just another place for them to "rendezvous". Wahkeenah 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's a list of space exploration firsts, not a POV list of space exploration firsts acording to NASA, except the ones that don't fit Bubba's agenda. Gravitor 23:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The moon landing is established history. The fact that a tiny minority like to think it didn't happen is not relevant to such a list. Wahkeenah 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: ? You don't make sense. If it's a list of space exploration firsts, then that's what it should be. Why is first docking less relevant than first rendevous? Oh, because the USSR did it, not NASA? Get real. Gravitor 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, before you do anything else here, how about going back to the hoax page and answering my question as to the 7 people who DID support the RFC against that one guy? Wahkeenah 23:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I answered your question on this page. Copy it over  if you want to. Gravitor 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said they were a group of sockpuppets, which is a way of skirting explaining why you didn't see them at all originally. I really would like to know why. Are there two different pages on that RFC, or what? Wahkeenah 23:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Luckily you avoided insults and personal attacks. I'm not copying your comments elsewhere, you can do your own work. I would be more impressed if you would own up to having overlooked the various comments in support of the RFC that you said were non-existent. Wahkeenah 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We could move this page to List of Space Exploration Milestones that support Bubba73's weak arguments, 1957-1969 if you like? Gravitor 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the rest of the world agrees with the conventional history, despite the hoaxsters' attempts to change that situation. You're just not getting through to them, somehow. Wahkeenah 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not my mission to crusade for a particular POV, but rather to help write a neutral article. I know you don't approve of that, feeling that your POV should dominate, but you are wrong. Gravitor 23:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunately... 

message: Please don't revert without comment - you look like you ran out of arguments on the talk page, it's time to move on and admit you are wrong, or discuss it sensibly. Carfiend 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the facts.  Read the notes in the article.  Read the WP articles that are linked to.  The most authorative online source of space exploration material, including the Soviet space program, is in the notes, and it says that the Vostok capsule didn't even have the ability to rendezvous.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a US source. You don't get what NPOV is, do you? Carfiend 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: US sources can't be NPOV?  Really?? -- ArglebargleIV 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a subpage of the hoax article.  It is a factual listing.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So keep your POV out of it and state the facts. Carfiend 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting is not helpful

message: There probably should be two or three more articles in this chain. Befpre I start them, we probably should work out the ranges covered. Maybe from 1969-1981 and 1981-present? -- ArglebargleIV 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After I started this article, I fould several other articles that overlap somewhat.  See the list under "see also". Bubba73 (talk), 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The next article in line 

message: I fixed some of the more obvious POV issues - don't be afraid to present both sides of the story, even if they don't fit your pov. Gravitor 23:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the npov guidelines. There are two definitions, each one used by a major player in the space race. Putting the one you like in the text, and the one you don't like in a footnote, is NOT npov. Gravitor 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two definitions, one used by the USSR in the sixties, and one used by nearly everybody else.  And this WAS discussed in this talk page -- see above, where I mentioned it. Reverting my changes and claiming my violation of a guideline is WRONG. -- ArglebargleIV 01:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not found any prior definition that the USSR used to justify calling their dual flight a rendezvous.  It was a case of Soviet Propaganda to call it that. Bubba73 (talk), 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop reverting without comment W, there is no concensus to suspend normal NPOV policy for this page. Carfiend 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop your revert wars, and use the talk page.

message: If you won't explain your reverting in the edit summary, please do us the courtesy of explaining it here, per policy. Carfiend 19:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about consensus reality, not hoax fantasies. You are the one who should read the NPOV policy, since you clearly don't understand it. Mark Grant 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not about 'if three of my friends who are editing the article prefer the US to the USSR then that's the consensus reality'. NPOV policy states that we should be neutral. The US and the USSR used different definitions. They were the two major players in the space race. Just because you favor one over the other (and one does not exist any longer) doesn't give you the right to re-write history. NPOV protects Wikipedia from this sort of behaviour, and makes us take a factual account. Carfiend 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a hint for you, since you don't seem to have actually bothered to read the NPOV policy: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. I did think your addition of an NPOV tag to the article was pretty funny though. Mark Grant 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "dispute" in this case, is over the Russians taking a word that means "meeting" and deciding to define it as "two ships in the same orbit, miles apart from each other". This all means nothing. It's just part of the game Carfiend is playing with us while he can, before he gets blocked permanently. Wahkeenah 19:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So in what sense was the USSR a small minority in the space race? Carfiend 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote Abraham Lincoln, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."  Calling "launching two nonmanueverable craft into the same orbit" a rendezvous doesn't make it a rendezvous.  The consensus among space program historians (see the rendezvous article) is that the USSR's achievement, while displaying a commendable ability for precision launching, was not a rendezvous, and it wasn't comparable to Gemini 6A and Gemini 7 maneuvering into close proximity after their launches into similar, but not identical, orbits.  Nevertheless, the explanation in the footnote (which I wrote) covered the dispute -- and it belongs in a footnote, not as inline text on what is supposed to be a short, descriptive table.  The table entry for the USSR achievement precisely states what they did. Even if the USSR thing WAS a rendezvous, it wasn't the same thing that the US did -- the USSR's "rendezvous" was far simpler and not the same level of accomplishment.  The text belongs in the footnote; no "truth" is discarded. -- ArglebargleIV 19:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So, your argument is that, because an American president said it, the Americans are right?! There is no argument to be had. The US defined it one way, the USSR another. US space experts quoted in the footnotes share your POV that the US is right, but that is not what Wikipedia policy means by neutrality. Just because this is the English language Wikipedia does not mean that it needs to re-write history to favor the English speaking world. This was a political issue. Carfiend 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, that is NOT what I meant. The quote was an illustration of the truth that calling something what it isn't doesn't make it so.  I don't know how that can be distorted into an attempt to call on the authotiy of a US president, I really don't. -- ArglebargleIV 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "Pointy Haired Boss" logic. It's parallel-universe reasoning. It's like when the boss missed an important negotiation because he got distracted by an ad for free Irish Line Dancing lessons. When Dilbert criticized him for missing the meeting, he said, "I can't believe you're blaming this on the Irish." Wahkeenah 22:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, THE REST OF THE WORLD defines "rendezvous" as "meeting", and the U.S.S.R. used the Humpty-Dumpty approach and ascribed their own meaning to it, FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES. And that is the unvarnished truth. If you don't see that, you need to go back to the history classes you skipped and read up on the Cold War. Wahkeenah 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Non-NASA source that agrees with the article: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Ergative rlt 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  to clarify (since the article has been changing), it states " Vostok 3 and 4 staged a "joint mission." The craft approached within a few kilometers of each other but did not rendezvous."  Bubba73 (talk), 00:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Kudos. The catch is, Canfield or Gravitor, I forget which, and it may not matter in some sense, said in an earlier talk that Russia can call it whatever it wants to, regardless of what its real meaning is, because "the meanings of words evolve" or some such. There is no way to win with those two/one user on this point. Their/his attitude is that if Russia decided to call Laika a cat instead of a dog, that would be just fine. Note the twisting of the parable above as being about Lincoln instead of being about the point that a word has a meaning, and trying to change it for one's own purposes doesn't make it so. It's "Pointy Haired Boss" logic. FYI, the word "rendezvous" is French, it literally means "render yourself", a French idiom used to mean to gather for a meeting. If anyone has the right to define it, it's the French, not the Russians. As far as the U.S. "defining" it, that's more word-twisting on Canfield/Gravitor's part, because the U.S. meaning follows the French definition. Wahkeenah 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You could hardly be more wrong. The French definition of the word throws some light on this, since, if we're not allowed to alter the definition of a word, it just means to show up in the same place. Of course, you want to allow the US to define it as showing up in a self powered space craft. The USSR defined it just as showing up in a spacecraft. Of course words change and their definitions change depending on who is using them and how, the only way to claim that that is not the case is to have your head burried high up in a dark place. The facts are that the US used one defintion, and the USSR another. They were the only ones who did anything like this at the time. So Japan follows the US, not the USSR? Big surprise, the USSR lost the cold war - that doesn't let you off the NPOV hook. Carfiend 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miles apart is "the same place"? Wahkeenah 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Note handwaving away of non-US source. Ergative rlt 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've left "Claimed by USSR as a rendezvous" in the table, as it may warrant more mention than just in a footnote, but the "disputed by US" and "US definition" go, as these aren't limited to the US. Ergative rlt 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Relatively speaking, yes. Carfiend 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relatively speaking, the earth and the moon are in "the same place". Wahkeenah 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you choose a large enough frame of reference, that's true. If you choose the space of possible earth orbits as your frame of reference, A few miles is fine. Carfiend 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your point of view. So, tell me, Cliff, what color is the sky in your world? Wahkeenah 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not my point of view, it's Wikipedia policy. As for the sky, it looks sort of red/orange to me, although earlier it looked blue, and before that it looked black. To color blind people it no doubt looks different. I'll send them to you though, you can tell them what color it really is. Carfiend 01:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark - why do you consider the NPOV policy to be 'nonsense'? 

message: Two spacecraft in proximity at the same time under their own control. Claimed by the US as the first rendezvous in space. Since the demise of the USSR, this definition of rendezvous has become the de facto standard. [1] [3]
Carfiend 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, if you can't say anything constructive, I'd ask you to do what you already agreed to, which is take a break. Your claims are simply wrong. The US and the USSR both engaged in propaganda, and the definitions that each offered favored themselves. Big surprise. Yes, since the Soviet Union colapsed, they have not been making the claim... Big surprise. That doesn't change history. I understand you partriotism, but this isn't the forum for it. Carfiend 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, maybe the current Russian regime is just more honest. Wahkeenah 22:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In the interests of politeness, Wahkeenah, let me point out a couple of the more obvious factual errors in your post. The Soviet space program was much more than just Russians. The Soviet union stopped claiming this when it stopped existing. How about proposing an alternative wording if you find that one weaselly? Thank you for commenting on the talk page, it is helpful to explain what it is you have issues with. Carfiend 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your citation to support your statement that they switched the terminology when the Soviet government reorganized? Wahkeenah 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It didn't 're-organize', it ceased to exist as the Soviet govt, so by definition it stopped claiming that it achieved the first rendevous. The Russian govt may have continued to claim that the Soviets achieved this, but I am not claiming it in the article. Carfiend 23:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, you have cited nothing to support your statement that "Since the demise of the USSR, this definition of rendezvous has become the de facto standard". That's just your personal opinion, as far as we can tell. Wahkeenah 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, ok then, let's not say that it's become the de-facto standard, and just go back to citing the two competing defintions. The de-facto standard was supposed to be a sop to your insistance that the US POV was the only true one. Carfiend 23:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several ideas have been kicked around today. We'll let the other users weigh in. Wahkeenah 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks to me like the Russians don't even call Vostok 3 and 4 a rendezvous anymore.  Also, as far as I can tell, they didn't claim Vostok 5 and 6 as a rendezvous, even though they passed each other a little closer than Vostok 3 and 4 did.  I'm wondering about two things (1) if there was such a negative reaction to them incorrectly calling Vostok 3 and 4 a rendezvous, they didn't make the same claim about 5 and 6.  (2) I wonder if it was an incorrect translation at the time.  These are just both possibilities I've considered.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Bubba, you, too, seem to be making the mistake of conflating the USSR and the Russians. They are not the same, and the opinion of one cannot be taken to be the opinion of the other. Carfiend 00:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of what I'm getting at. Do we even know for sure that they used the term "rendezvous", or was that possibly someone's mis-translating from the Russian? Maybe we're beating up on the Russkies when we should be beating up on the interpreters. Wahkeenah 00:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe we should stop using abusive racial slurs, and get our facts straight. Carfiend 00:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use that term with affection. :) Wahkeenah 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but it gives the impression that you do not understand the difference between the USSR and the Russians. Since that distinction is important to the discussion, perhaps I can ask you to be more precise. Carfiend 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the two, which do you admire more? Wahkeenah 00:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any possible benefit to that line of discussion. Please try to stick to the point. Carfiend 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's put it this way: of the two, which do you think has the better track record for honesty? Wahkeenah 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that question can be answered in the kind of simplistic sense that you mean. Carfiend 00:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyet. Wahkeenah 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Splendid, your logic is unstopable. Back to the point though, you understand the importance of not confusing the two, as you seem to do quite a lot? Carfiend 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was their space program not a continuum across both governments? Wahkeenah 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not entirely. While Russia is considered to be the successor state to the USSR in some fields, the Russian space program is not entirely continuous with the Soviet one. For more on this, you could read Russian Federal Space Agency, and Soviet space program. Carfiend 01:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you read that last article?  It says First dual manned spaceflight and approach, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, (1962) While considered by some to be the first space rendezvous, Vostok 3 and 4 were 5km apart as they passed each other in the closest point in their respective orbits, and the orbits were in different orbital planes. American Gemini 6A and Gemini 7 were the first true rendezvous, three years later. 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Some' in this context apparently means the USSR. Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is apparently little doubt that the USSR claimed it was a rendezvous. Just because they claimed it don't make it so. Wahkeenah 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And as you have pointed out repeatedly, the purpose of a rendezvous is not to announce, "Hey! We did a rendezvous!" It's to enable two spacecraft to get close enough and stable enough to dock - a maneuver essential to the lunar mission, as that Russian historian pointed out in his side notes. So the Russians did get into a similar orbit, a good timing achievement which was also necessary for their planned lunar mission - but they had no means of maneuvering the ships close enough to each other to "kiss", not just to "wave", which is the other essential part of the process. So, it could generously be called "almost a rendezvous". Wahkeenah 09:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have never pointed out anything about the purpose of a rendevous. Can you site that 'purpose'? Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the paragraph just above: "It's to enable two spacecraft to get close enough and stable enough to dock - a maneuver essential to the lunar mission." Wahkeenah 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We need independent verification that Vostok rendezvoused.  All we have is the 1962 statement by the USSR.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need independent verification for the current claim, which is that the USSR said that it was a rendevous. Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need is verification for the notion that it really was a rendezvous, and not just another Pravda fable. Wahkeenah 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. I'm sure Mr. Citation will provide that information quickly. Wahkeenah 15:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't think 89 % is an overwhelming majority. I wonder what percent of those polled would agree that passing several miles apart from each other qualifies as a "rendezvous"? Wahkeenah 16:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand. It's not that I do or don't think that, but that I think we should cite the source we are quoting. Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is cited. I hope it's clear enough even for those couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Wahkeenah 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it in perspective, the USSR was less than truthful on several things, for instance how Laika lived on Sputnik 2 and why she died; and they claimed that their early cosmonauts landed with their spacecraft when they actually parachuted out.  The objectives of their missions were not announced in advance.  If it was a total failure, they didn't say anything about it, and it didn't get a mission number such as Luna x.  If it was a partial success, they said that it was completely successful.  So if it was intended to soft-land but crashed, they didn't mention the soft-landing part and called it a success.  If they lost control/contact with it on the way to a planet, and it didn't get as close to where it was supposed to go, it was still called a success.  This should be considered in light of the claim of a rendezvous.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance, see Luna programme "Twenty-four spacecraft were formally given the Luna designation, although more were launched. Those which failed to reach orbit were not publicly acknowledged at the time and not assigned a Luna number and ones which failed in low Earth orbit were usually given Cosmos designations." Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Less truthfull? that's funny, considering the Apollo Moon Hoax! Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For which there is no evidence. Are we going to go all through that again? Wahkeenah 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a good metaphor for the Soviet political/economic system in general. They kept telling the world and themselves that everything was just fine, right up to the point where the entire Soviet house of styrofoam cards collapsed. The USA, by contrast, was literally "balls out" all the time. I think a lot of this hoax stuff is borne of general resentment and jealousy of the American system... "sour grapes", as I said earlier. It would be interesting to have a separate page delineating the various fables put out by the Soviet goverment, many of which came to light after the oppressive Soviet regime finally bit the dust and are presumably verifiable. The "rendezvous" humbug is just the tip of Siberian iceberg. However, it's telling that neither the old nor the new regime seems to think there was an American hoax. That's probably a Western Europe thing. Wahkeenah 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be pretty neutral. I think you need a MySpace page, Wahkeenah, that would be a more suitable outlet for your political opinion pieces than a neutral encyclopedia. Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People, just put both definitions in the article andlet it go. Do you have any idea how pathetic you look? How many hours have you discussed deabting this point? It is a stupid minor point. Let it go. Both sides should be able to present their evidence. User:67.162.212.254 16:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well said. Carfiend 21:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering it was probably you that wrote it, yes. Wahkeenah 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny! More false accusations! You're getting close to the bottom of the barrel! Carfiend 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That IP-address user posted some of your comments on my talk page a few days ago, so I jumped to a semi-logical conclusion. It might have just been someone trolling and trying to pin the blame on you. Wahkeenah 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They have. Wahkeenah 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How about this?

message: Hello!
I am False Prophet.  This page was brought to my attention by User:Bubba73, who requested mediation  I would like everyone involved to post a Brief explanation of what they think the problem going on here at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-17 List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 in the following format
== Situation according to (your username here) ==
list explanation here
Thanks! Wikipedia's False Prophet  holla at me   Improve Me 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can close it.  The troublemakers have left.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Space rendezvous
* "On August 12, 1962 Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 were placed into adjacent orbits and passed within several kilometers of each other, but did not have the orbital maneuvering capability to perform a space rendezvous. This was also the case on June 16, 1963 when Vostok 5 and Vostok 6 were launched into adjacent orbits."
* "The first space rendezvous took place on December 15, 1965 when Gemini 6 came within 30-cm of Gemini 7. Astronaut Wally Schirra accomplished the task. The spacecraft were not equipped to dock and no physical contact took place."
Soviet space program
* "First dual manned spaceflight and approach, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4, (1962) While considered by some to be the first space rendezvous, Vostok 3 and 4 were 5km apart as they passed each other in the closest point in their respective orbits, and the orbits were in different orbital planes. American Gemini 6A and Gemini 7 were the first true rendezvous, three years later."
Vostok 3
* "Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 were launched a day apart, and together these missions were the first time that more than one manned spacecraft was in orbit at the same time, giving Soviet mission controllers the opportunity of learning how to manage this scenario."
* "Vostok 3 was manned by Andrian Nikolayev, who reported sighting the Vostok 4 capsule after it entered orbit near him. The cosmonauts aboard the two capsules also communicated with each other via radio, the first ship-to-ship communications in space."
Vostok 4
* "The two capsules came within 5 km of one another and ship-to-ship radio contact was established."
Vostok 5
* "Like Vostoks 3 and 4, Vostok 5 and 6 were joint missions in the Soviet space program, and like the previous pair, came close to one another in orbit and established a radio link."
Vostok 6
* "A joint flight with Vostok 5"
Vostok programme
* (Vostok 3 and 4) "First dual flight"
Project Gemini
* (Gemini VI-A) "First space rendezvous accomplished with Gemini VII, station-keeping for over five hours at distances from 0.3 to 90 m (1 to 295 ft)."
Wally Schirra
* "This was the first rendezvous of two manned spacecraft in earth orbit."
List of human spaceflights, 1961-1986
*(on Vostok 3 and 4:) "First instance of two simultaneous manned spacecraft." 
*(Gemini 3) "First to perform orbital maneuvers"
*(Gemini 6A) "First space rendezvous(with Gemini 7)."
List of human spaceflights chronologically
*(Vostok 3) "With Vostok 4, was a dual manned spaceflight"
*(Vostok 4) "With Vostok 3, was a dual manned spaceflight"
*(Gemini 6A) "First Space rendezvous"
Space exploration
* (no mention of Vostok rendezvous)
* (Gemini 6A) "Orbital rendezvous)" 
Space Race
* "The first space rendezvous took place between Gemini 6 and Gemini 7"
Spaceflight records
*(Vostok 3 and 4) "Dual spaceflight. Two people in space"
* (Gemini 7 and 6A) "Space rendezvous. Four people in space"
Timeline of the Space Race
* (Vostok 2 and 3 not listed)
*(Geming 6A/7) "Orbital rendezvous", with the note "The Soviet Union had attempted an earlier rendezvous on August 12, 1962. However, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 only came within five kilometers of one another, and operated in different orbital planes. Pravda did not mention this information, but indicated that a rendezvous had taken place."
Vostok 3
* "Joint flight with Vostok 4. The first such flight, where Vostok capsules were launched one day apart, coming within a few kilometers of each other at the orbital insertion of the second spacecraft."
* "Of note: Record flight duration. First simultaneous flight of two manned spacecraft. ... Since the Vostok had no maneuvering capability, they could not rendezvous or dock, and quickly drifted apart. "
Gemini 6 
* "Of note: First rendezvous of two spacecraft"
Japaneese site 
* "Vostok 3 and 4 staged a joint mission. The craft approached within a few kilometers of each other but did not rendezvous." Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendezvous links 

message: About Vostok 3 and 4, a top USSR space program official says:
"The group flight ... well, a day after the launch, the first craft was over Baykanur.  If the second craft were launched now with great precision, then they would turn out to be next to each other in space.  And that's what was done ...  The craft turned out to be 5 kilometers from each other!  Well, since, with all of the secrecy, we didn't tell the whole truth, the Western experts, who hadn't figured it out, thought that our Vostok was already equipped with orbital approach equipment.  As they say, a slight of hand isn't any kind of fraud.  It was more like our competitors deceived themselves all by their lonesome.  Of course, we didn't shatter their illusions." - First Deputy Chief Designer Vasily Mishin
from G. Salakhutdinov, "Once more about space" (English title), Ogonek 34 (August 18-25, 1990):4-5.  
English translation from "Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974, by Asif A. Siddiqi Bubba73 (talk), 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link for that translation, by any chance? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 16:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is in a large (67MB) PDF file, here.  It is on page 361 of the book, which is page 379 of the PDF. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 17:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is even more enlightening if you read it in the context of the previous few pages.  In fact, the previous page contains a translation of what is probably the slight-of-hand statement.  It is about 67MB, so it takes a while to download.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think so too.  Mishin was the #2 guy at the time, and became #1 when Sergey Korolyov died in 1966.  There is no "US definition" versus "USSR definition". The USSR knew at the time that they didn't rendezvous, but they let the rest of the world think that they did.  This was in 1962.  By 1965 we knew otherwise.  At least most of us did.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That restates what we've been saying for the last few days, that the Russians knew it was not a true rendezvous. I recommend that you write a proposed re-statement of the facts, which are that Russia knew what a rendezvous, and they knew it was not a rendezvous. Mr. Citation's continual spin on this does not even square with the Soviet view, so that should end it. Wahkeenah 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, you still can't get your facts straight can you? Let's cite this fellow as an opininon, which is what it is. It doesn't look like he represented the USSR in any official capacity at the point when he wrote this book. Carfiend 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He (Vasily Mishin) was the #2 man in the USSR space program at the time!  He became the #1 guy in 1966.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent! Let's quote him on the page! You see how much better it is when you provide facts, rather than just you POV? Carfiend 16:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoted in a footnote, of course, as a demonstration that the USSR claim of a rendezvous between Vostoks 3 and 4 was incorrect and false. -- ArglebargleIV 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Erm, no. How about hidden in the basement in a locked filing cabinet behind a door marked 'Beware of the leopard'? You should not try to hide the truth. Both sides pov should be treated equally. Carfiend 16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me?  The USSR claimed a rendezvous.  That claim was wrong and deliberately misleading, and they knew it, and that is demonstrated by the quote from the article in "Ogonek", the Russian periodical.  Exactly what other POV is there now?  The USSR's rendezvous claim has to be marked as wrong, and the quote has to be in a footnote because it's too long for in-text in a table.   -- ArglebargleIV 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the quote should not be in this article, even in a footnote.  I think it should be in space rendezvous, Vostok 3, and  vostok 4.  In that list of links to other articles saying the same thing, there is none of this convoluted material, just simple statements.  If it is in the three articles I listed, others can link to them.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the quote should be moved. -- ArglebargleIV 16:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This article is supposed to be a simple list, with links to other events for the details. The entire rendezvous question could be covered there, and no more than a footnote here to inform the casual questioner that it was once claimed as a rendezvous but no longer is. Wahkeenah 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Continuing... The Soviet POV was not that they did a rendezvous.  Their POV appears to have been "Let's let the US think we did one even though we didn't". -- ArglebargleIV 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We might have a conflict of facts here. We have one source saying they explicitly claimed a rendezvous, another that they let the west think they had achieved it. Either way, it was a knowing deception on the part of the Soviet Union, which comes as a surprise to none of us, but I'm thinking that specific point might need to be addressed in some way. Wahkeenah 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you're right.  It looks like the USSR made statements and the rest of the world put 2 and 2 together.  The previous page the book/PDF has a statement about it being an important step towards interplanetary travel.  Most of those plans involve either a rendezvous/docking in Earth orbit or a docking in orbit around the moon or other planet.  And at the time, the West didn't know that they couldn't rendezvous. (briefly passing within 5 miles of the craft you need in order to get back home doesn't help much.)  Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprise, surprise! 

message: This list and the Timeline of space exploration overlap completely for events from 1957-1969.  Would it be helpful to merge the two and perhaps subdivide the list so that the period of the space race is obvious but post space race exploration is covered as well?Zebulin (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a merge has been proposed before, and it seems OK to me.  I think the "timeline" article has been expanded quite a bit since the merge was first proposed.  The purpose of this article was to list the major "firsts" of the 1957 to 1969, the "space race" years.  As far as "timeline", I think 1942-present should be subdivided.  Probably 1942-1957, 1957-1969, 1969-present, with Sputnik the first item in 1957-69 and Apollo rhe last in that time period. Bubba73 (talk), 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing, though, I sort of this article'e breakdown by type and chronological within type as opposed to the timeline article strictly being in order by date.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly is nice but it does make for more work than organizing a single article chronologically, especially where category blurring missions are concerned.Zebulin (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a column in the timeline table could indicate that it was (unmanned) interplanetary, unmanned lunar, manned, Earth orbit, etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  On second thought, I don't think that would help much.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hrmmm...more redundancy it seems.  I only just stumbled across Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes.  It seems that all three might find a common home if we can agree on a format for the timeline/listingZebulin (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the breakdown in this article, it is interesting to see how the USSR dominated early manned flights and the early unmanned lunar and interplanetary missions, then the US dominated.  After Sputnik 2, the US dominated Earth satellites.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  As far as combining with Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes, that seems to list all of them, and I think it is useful to have one that only hits the highlights/milestones/firsts.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we define the ones that qualify for the more discriminating list?  Are the mars rovers or HST going to qualify even though neither of them can be called a "first" as such?Zebulin (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a rover on Venus earlier, right?  Was there a major optical telescope before Hubble?  Bubba73 (talk), 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were optical telescopes aboard the early russian space stations in the 70's and there were a few non visible spectrum orbital observatories of varying sensitivity.  Two soviet rovers were landed on mars in the early 70's but one landed very violently in pieces and the other broke down before it could leave it's stowage bay, however sojourner was successfully deployed on mars in the mid 90's.Zebulin (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Timeline of space exploration]]? 

message: The Apollo program wiki still lists this link as "human spaceflight milestones" yet brings us to two different links that to do not necessarily concern itself with human spaceflight. This is a waste of a click. Is there a way to get a list of all wiki entries linking to this page and update?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendolinsky (talk • contribs) 03:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this still relevant?