Talk:Sputnik crisis

message: How are the Sputnik Crisis and Sputnik Shock related?  Are they the same?  The latter term is mentioned on the NASA page, under "Space Race." --Grant M 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sputnik Shock"? 

message: Is it just me or does "Sputnik Crisis" seem quite POV? Was it a crisis to the Warsaw Pact countries, or to the rest of the world, or just a percieved crisis to the western world? 142.25.77.67 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was very much a US/USSR thing. They were the only two that, at that point, cared. Other countries cared (see  'Sputnik' Could Be a Spy-in-Sky; Chinese Reds Wave Big Stick, Washington Post, Oct 7, 1957) but had no way of dealing with the issue. I'm sure you could make an argument that other countries were involved as well, but this is the historically accepted point of view and should be the main POV of this wikipedia article. I do think we could use a bit more about the Soviet side of things -- you can make an excellent argument that the Soviet scientists gave months and years of warning. --zenazn 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The USSR and the US were the main countries involved.  However, given the title of this article, "Sputnik crisis", it's clear that this article focuses more on the US and the West's reaction of disbelief and fear to the launch of Sputnik, rather than a more balanced view of the attitudes of both superpowers. --Ericdn (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so what?  The article is in fact specifically about the sense of panic that Sputnik generated in the West, which is an interesting episode in American and W. European history and worthy of an article longer than this one.  If you want an article about the Sputnik mission itself, that's what the Sputnik 1 article is for. --Jfruh (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sputnik crisis has to do with america, i didnt see the USSR have a crisis with sputnik, therefore it is perfectly fine to only illustrate the american side, it is the ONLY side to this article. Prblem solved. period.  -anonymouus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.183.42 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I really don't see what your problem is with this article.  Your analogy with the Tomahawk article doesn't make sense: nobody is trying to renamed the Sputnik 1 article "Sputnik crisis"; instead, this article explains how the phenomenon was understood in the U.S.  It stands alongside the Sputnik 1 article; it does not replace it with a U.S.-only POV.  Was there a reaction to the constrction of Tomahawk missles in the USSR that resulted in changes in major Soviet policy, a reaction that Soviet commentators at the time referred to as a "Tomahawk Crisis"?  If so, it would obviously be a worthwhile article.  Are you arguing that this article shouldn't exist at all?  If not, what changes need to be made, in your opinion, to make it NPOV --Jfruh (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More worldy POV 

message: This article is about the Sputnik crisis, which is the United States' reaction to the Sputnik-1 launch. There is no need to present information on other countries, because this article's subject is ONLY the US reaction (i.e. if the UK had a notable reaction to it, then it could have its own article too; if one wants to discuss the global reactions, then perhaps there should be a Global reactions to the Sputnik-1 launch page). As such, I've removed the POV tags. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see what your problem is with this article.  Your analogy with the Tomahawk article doesn't make sense: nobody is trying to renamed the Sputnik 1 article "Sputnik crisis"; instead, this article explains how the phenomenon was understood in the U.S.  It stands alongside the Sputnik 1 article; it does not replace it with a U.S.-only POV.  Was there a reaction to the constrction of Tomahawk missles in the USSR that resulted in changes in major Soviet policy, a reaction that Soviet commentators at the time referred to as a "Tomahawk Crisis"?  If so, it would obviously be a worthwhile article.  Are you arguing that this article shouldn't exist at all?  If not, what changes need to be made, in your opinion, to make it NPOV --Jfruh (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: No POV problem

message: I am shocked at the disgraceful propaganda in this article. The way I see it, one of the following MUST happen, in order of preference:
#Delete the article as non-neutral, misleading and unsourced
#Merge the article so that it is a section called "Reaction" in the main Sputnik article
#Add punctuation to the title, so it's called Sputnik "crisis" or Sputnik "shock"
I can't believe that this article has been in place for several years. We don't have the Concorde crisis, or the HDTV crisis, so why is such a great success trested in this way?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to do this, it got reverted. Don't have enough interest to pursue it. Actually think you're overreacting but that the merge is nonetheless valid. Also I'd merge Sputnik I and Sputnik program as well. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The current plan is to merge Sputnik program into Sputnik 1, with some content going into Sputnik 2, Sputnik 3 and this article. We're just discussing where to put a disambiguation or set index page before the merger takes place, but since that article won't be around much longer it doesn't make sense to merge anything into it. --GW… 07:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're long on planning and short on doing. This is all just copyediting, there's no development of templates, or what not to justify protracted delay from a clear action if someone is willing to donate the labor. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solutions 

message: I am going to take a stab at rewriting this article over the next week or so, with proper prose, citations, etc. The article is about the American reaction to Sputnik, and that is fair game, and not a NPOV issue.--Abebenjoe (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: I'm removing the following unsourced material from the page and leaving it here in case it proves useful (or a source is eventually found:
- Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: This page contains a lot of useful information surrounding the political climate between Russia and America at this time. However, a few improvements could be made. Additional citations are needed for some of the article's assertions, including the first paragraph of the "Background" section, which makes the unsupported assertion that "The same rocket that launched Sputnik could send a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes, stripping the continental United States of its oceanic defenses. The Soviets had demonstrated this capability on 21 August with a successful 6,000 km test flight of the R-7 booster." Additional context on the relevance of the people and quotes mentioned would be useful, particularly of that with Khrushchev and others in the "Response" section. Additionally, all of the quotations in the "Response" section need context for why the speaker and their statement are relevant and significant enough to be a part of this article.
Hratliff25 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Critique 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Launch of Sputnik. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Launch of Sputnik until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Launch of Sputnik" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "The perception of the Soviets being more modern than the Americans was reinforced by Eisenhower's old-fashioned style" -> old-fashioned style in what? In speech? Eisehower already made it clear in three "stark facts" that the Soviets had surpassed America in technology. If anything, this sentence is confusing and redundant. 71.90.118.101 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question