Talk:Astronaut/Archive 2

Fair use rationale for Image:Tereshkova2.jpg

Image:Tereshkova2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Youngest astronaut?

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

The youngest woman in space was also the first, Valentina Tereshkova so she has always held this record, at 26 years 3 months. Helen Sharman was also younger than Yi at 27 years 11 months. Incidentally, on broadcasts today, NASA have corrected their previous error, but many news stories had already quoted them, so this error of fact has now been quite widely quoted.(Wilde1 (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Correct, I was listening to the launch live on NASA TV, and the error was made during the broadcast as well. Just PAO at NASA that didn't get their facts straight. Likely they verified against a list that did not contain Russian astronaut launches. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Countries whose citizens have flown in space as of April 2008

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

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

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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

• "program" :
  • NASA (2007). "Astronaut Candidate Program". NASA. Retrieved October 4 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • NASA (2005). "Educator Astronaut Program". NASA. Retrieved October 4 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

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

Taylor Wang

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

Cultural bias?

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

I think it's just because there are two English-language names for the same thing. It's not implying any bias, it's just that "yuhangyuan" isn't a term used in English. Neither is "spationaut" or "angkasawan". --Joowwww (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't biased. There are already multiple discussions about the terms, please take a look at the rest of the talk page to see why consensus has the terms where they are, and why some are not included at all. Ariel♥Gold 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Atleast they are given mention, but Indian term GAGANAUT is not even given mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TUSHANT JHA (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But the (incorrect, but used in English) term "Taikonaut" was argued to not be used on this page. Why? If using both those other terms in the lead in is because they are English terms, why not the current English term for Chinese astronaut? Still smells like cultural bias to me. I think that China, with their strong space program, deserve to be recognized on the page as equals with the other spacefaring nations. Just a thought, Nesnad (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Taikonaut missing is definitely linked to a cultural bias. (Even if Taikonaut is not necessarily nthe right word). Like wise, Astronaut is used as a generic term on Wikipedia instead of space traveler! Cosmonauts are barely considered. Spationautes are ignored ! Non-American; Unite ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Baptiste (talk • contribs) 11:20, 12 January 2009

But we don't actually say "taikonaut". It's just a buzzword invented by the media. In common speech we just say "Chinese astronaut". --Joowwww (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See my reply below, thanks. Nesnad (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased title

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

Not really. We also say "European astronaut", "Indian astronaut", "Chinese astronaut", "Japanese astronaut" etc, the same way we say "American astronaut". "Cosmonaut" is used for Russia in the media, but I would be more likely to just say "Russian astronaut". --Joowwww (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No bias other than the English Wikipedia using the most common English term for a professional space traveler, i.e. "astronaut". Why would we change the title of an article about astronauts to not use the word astronaut? Rillian (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Joowwww, sorry, you're rebuttal doesn't make sense. I don't think you can show a source that says "taikonaut" is an invented word, any more than any other new word. Words are "invented" thats how they come about. (Check out the word "blog" and what not if you don't get that.) And if "we" say (do you know me?) Russian Astronaut why do we include cosmonaut in this article lead in but not taikonaut or the Chinese word? Seems to be cultural bias yet again. And to make myself clear, I do not say Chinese astronaut any more than I say Russian astronaut, we don't all talk the same. I personally say "taikonaut" even though I am aware it isn't the Chinese word (and personally no one I know says Russian Astronaut, cosmonaut is quite common so you're argument doesnt work there either). And Rillian, I agree with sdsds, we need to be NPOV in Wikipedia. It seems POV to favor certain countries when describing a spaceflight crewmember. Nesnad (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You just told me that I can't speak for what other people say then you go and do it yourself. I have never heard anyone say "taikonaut". It is an artificial word constructed by and only used in the media. The word "blog" was invented 10 years ago, and has now filtered into the public consciousness. Let's have a discussion in another 10 years and see if we are all using "taikonaut". Until then, it's not a commonly used word, and shouldn't be in this article's intro as per WP:COMMON. And I don't see how I'm being biased - I'm not American, Russian, or Chinese, and I fully support the space program of all nations. --Joowwww (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I did the same thing as you in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that you can't know how everyone speaks. I belive you that you don't use taikonaut, but there are many who do. Heck, there is a taikonaut.com for crying out loud. It is a word that is in use, even if you don't use it. My main opinion is that this article seems to be leaning too strong towards certain countries, which seems to be against what the NPOV in Wikipedia is all about. No? Nesnad (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I still haven't seen any evidence to back up your claim that the article is biased. And the name of a website is certainly no indication of a word entering the popular consciousness. --Joowwww (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, let me keep it clear that I'm not trying to start a big long debate over the same topic in a logic loop. If you can't see the evidence in the article, then we have a fundamental difference in opinion. Any other people want to chime in? (Oh, and regards to taikonaut not being a word... come on! There are endless news sources that use the word: [1], [2], [3] [4], [5] notice this one is the flipping BBC and its from 2000, 8 years ago! We can have a difference in opinion regarding culture bias of this article but arguing that taikonaut is a not used word is nuts. Just my opinion! Any others? Nesnad (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say that it wasn't a word? I didn't. I said it was an artificial word invented by the media. And your citing numerous media sources proves my point. --Joowwww (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we have a basic difference in opinion in such a way that we can't come to understand each other. Because in my opinion, calling most new words artificial is nonsense. What is a natural word? Words that slowly evolve over 1,000s of years? Words come into existence, often suddenly. I can find a lot of media references for any other words, such as blog or anything else. Does that make them invalid? I guess we are just butting heads here unless someone else wants to come in and offer another opinion. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The BBC link given about says: 'China is aiming to launch an astronaut or "taikonaut" into space next year' (their quotes). I think in all mainstream sources you'll find "taikonaut" and "yuhangyuan" explained as "(Chinese) astronaut". Juzhong (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Juzhong, I was wondering if any more people would show up! However, I must point out that your argument is broken in seconds. For example, with out even having to point out any other new sources, the middle source CCTV (China Central Television, the definition of a mainstream source) doesn't use quotes nor even finds it required to say Chinese astronaut like you claim. BUT! Please people, what I want to discuss is weather there is culture bias in the exclusion of China. Being that America seems to have gone out of their way to make sure China doesn't partner in their space interests, I guess many of you might not understand my point. In any case, I would like to hear opinions about how excluding anther equal spacefaring society is NPOV. Seems a bit POV to me. Nesnad (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're being paranoid. I presume you are Chinese or of Chinese descent because a lot of Chinese are being paranoid and nationalistic lately thinking the West hates them. My argument is not against the Chinese space program, but against the term "taikonaut". I fully support China's space program. I was happy when they did the spacewalk. I think the more nations that look towards space will benefit all of humanity. But the simple fact is that in the English language, "taikonaut" has not entered the mainstream of general public conversations. I'm not talking about 10 years in the future, I'm talking about now, today. And I'm not talking about the media, who like to sensationalise and make up catchy new words. This article should follow established Wikipedia policy, where article content reflects current common usage. If "taikonaut" enters the public consciousness, then I will support its inclusion. Until then, I will stick with Wikipedia policy.--Joowwww (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are, since you forgot to sign? But I thought I should point out I am not Chinese, and I find the assumption that I am Chinese as a further push in the evidence that this page is very culturally biased. If you look at the edit histories on most of the people debating with me, they are mixed all up with the space program and what not. If you look at mine, I have very few such edits. That's not my focus, simply I noticed what seemed to be a hidden cultural bias in this Wikipedia page. As a true believer in the concept of Wikipedia (check out articles such as NPOV if you don't get it) I believe that even when a lot of people seem to not get it I should point out bias. Wikipedia is not the place to promote certain specific countries only. As a country with a nearly equal space program, or atleast currently in the top three, I see it as a cultural bias to lock them out. It seems something like a "Old boy network" which some of you seem to be very threatened by including any other "member" besides America and Russia. Why is it such a threat to some of you if China is included and the definition of astronaut is made slightly more open? Don't we all benifit from an open perspective? Nesnad (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It was me, I forgot to sign it. You seem to be accusing me of trying to inject a POV into the article. Could you please provide some examples to back up this accusation? Why do you think China is being "locked out"? --Joowwww (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

China is included in this article. Its space program is included with an appropriate weight compared to space programs of other nations. However, this discussion is about whether the name of the article should be changed based on the argument that the word astronaut is somehow POV. This is the English wikipedia and the most common English term for a professional space traveler is "astronaut". Yes, sometimes English language news articles use the word "cosmonaut" (generally for astronauts employed by Russia and/or who fly on Russian spacecraft) and sometimes English news articles use the terms like spationauts or taikonauts, but astronaut remains the primary, generic term for a professional space traveler. Why would we change the name? Rillian (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Rillian, thanks for trying to get to the point! Actually it was user sdsds' idea to change the name (something I don't intrinsically disagree with, but NOT something I'm pushing). I guess I am not making myself clear? I think it is POV to exclude China from the lead in since I think it is not giving them appropriate weight, since they are now a space program sending people to space. It seems a bit POV to exclude China from the top of the page when America and Russia (the other to space programs that send humans to space) are included, and as you pointed out some news articles refer to China too, it seems like excluding China is a "members only" club that isn't being fair. If you have a strong reaction to China being included next to America and Russia, ask your self why. To me, it seems that I have uncovered a cultural bias. I think "appropriate weight" (as you said) isn't being used since other countries aren't sending people to space, and China is, which (regarding the definition of "astronaut", the point of this article) brings it close to the level of Russia and America. Shouldn't they be included in the intro to this article? The problem with these kind of POVs is that they are so cherished for some of you that what I'm expression might be hard for you to ever agree with. Cultural POVs are something we shouldn't have in Wikipedia, and I hope we can bring ourselves to understand that? Nesnad (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the term "astronaut", not individual space programs. I have already told you that if "taikonaut" was a commonly used word among the English-speaking public, then it would be in this article's intro. However it's not, so it isn't. Wikipedia also has another policy, WP:Undue weight. Also, please assume good faith. --Joowwww (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you are losing me. If this article is only about the term ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astronaut&action=edit&section=46stronaut, then why is the term cosmonaut in here? You are talking yourself in loops because you don't want to address the POV that is inherit in the intro of this article. You throwing quotes of "good faith" doctrine doesn't quite make sense, that works just as well towards me. Please don't assume I am out here to destroy the article or whatever. I am here to do good on Wikipedia, that is why I am trying to point out the perceived POV. I am here to discuss it rationally. Sorry to sound snappy here, but did you ever even read the undue weight link? It talks about how we should "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors". Are you trying to say that China doesn't deserve mention because this article is about the term astronaut? If so, please delete the term cosmonaut from the intro and I would really have no problem. My discussion would be over, it would get rid of the POV problem. However, if cosmonaut stays, some term to refer to the Chinese equivalent should be made since China now has people in space, or in American terms, China has astronauts just like Russia, so to not include them is a cultural bias. Joowww, I guess you are set against even listening to me. Please give me good faith and listen to this fairly. Trust me, I just want this to be a NPOV article, that's all. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Astronaut" is a commonly used term. "Cosmonaut" is a commonly used term. "Taikonaut" is not a commonly used term. Keep digging. --Joowwww (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"common" as defined by who? You? Taikonaut is in the dictionary, I think you have deep seeded bigotry towards including China, and you wont be able to challenge your own POV. Sigh. taikonaut. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7). It says it was coined in 1998 which is the 10 years that was oddly asked for up there. You are dead set against hearing me, you have set up a campaign of not even reading my comments I suppose. Anyone else notice that I'm not the only one who brought this issue up? (and even if I had been, it's worthy of notice anyway.) I think this "members only" mentality needs to end. It was argued above that Russian should be included in the article because they have a people space program too. Thats all I am saying, taikonaut (or whatever term) is justified to give equal weight since this article refers to people who go to space for their countries. Doesn't anybody get this is about being NPOV? Sigh. Nesnad (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Common" refers to in the common vernacular, the general public consiousness, as I have already stated above. "Proboscis" is in the dictionary, but it's not common usage. You just seem to be repeating yourself. --Joowwww (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Joowwww--- Claiming that I am personally attacking you and threatening me (on my talk page) with "reporting me" is more of a personal attack from you, in the disguise of bureaucracy. I did not say you are a bigot, and if you are not one you would not have felt attacked even if I had called you such. I said "you have deep seeded bigotry towards including China" which I intend to mean as a reference towards the issue at hand, not your own personal existence/lack of bigotry in general. (As an example of how me and you don't see eye to eye: I know you are involved in Hong Kong projects and what not, that doesn't mean you wouldn't have a personal issue with including China. To me, it seems to increase the reason why you would.) Basically, I was trying to express the same thing as you said to me. We are both saying the same thing, and it isn't going anywhere... Simply you deeply disagree with me, and I deeply disagree with you. Realizing that I must be civil about this (since clearly you are ruffled by this?) I must step down from my discussion with you. I will be open to discussing it with anyone else, but Joowwww (and this isn't an attack) isn't up to discussing this together with me with out feeling threatened, something I honestly do not wish to do. Wikipedia is for discussing things with people, not hating on people. So unless anyone else wants to come in, I think I will let the matter be for the moment. (Don't say I didn't try though!) Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to this on your talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've formally requested a third opinion. --Joowwww (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also replied to this on your talk page which you have deleted immediately which felt very aggressive. In fact, I am unable to conduct a civil discussion with user Joowww even on Joowww's talk page as he removes any comments I make there. This makes it clear that I also deeply want other people to join this discussion. Clearly we are taking this too personally. Deleting my replies (on talk page) and posting odd "welcome to Wikipedia" templates (and I know Joowww didn't write the templates, but the use of them is still clearly a personal jab or an odd choice of behavior) on my talk page is a great sign that Joowwww is about ready to slap me here. ;) Calm down everyone! And yes, please share your opinions about this people! Otherwise with out other people joining in this discussion, I don't think I will continue this discussion. Thanks, have a great day, Nesnad (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussion about how I contribute, which is why I both started discussion and replied to you on your talk page. --Joowwww (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you! I've been wanting a second opinion. All your points were very clearly stated, and I agree with most of what you said. My issue isn't with taikonaut being included (however, I seem to not understand how something could be so randomly decided as an invalid word? I know many people who use and know that word, and I have provided many media references. Regarding referenes to people to prove this is a spoken word, I'm not sure how to do that? It seems to be kind of subjective. I could argue any article has words that "I don't speak, they only are used by the media" but how would I prove that in a clear way?) my issue is with China being excluded from the initial definition of astronaut. That seems POV to me, since China clearly is a society with such indviduals now. I agree that words that are clearly foreign (such as futebal) don't need to be placed in prominance. But if a word can be understood (because it is in media, 5 of which sources I have included) why is it excluded? And beyond that word, why is a country with astronauts not mentioned in the initial definition? I'm not arguing for the use of any particular word to include them in the definitin, I am saying simply excluding them seems POV. Being that there are only three countries sending astronauts to space by their own power, excluding one seems odd. What are your thoughts Hughcharlesparker? Nesnad (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You made two points in your last post: firstly, the "invalid word" thing: no-one's suggesting the word taikonaut is invalid, they're suggesting that it isn't in common use.

As to references - interesting question. I hadn't thought about how to find a citation for word frequency until you asked me. A bit of research turned up two searchable text corpuses - the British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English. The BNC has 97 uses of the word astronaut, 19 for cosmonaut, and 0 for taikonaut. The CCAE has astronaut 1653 times, cosmonaut 134 times, and taikonaut 6 times.

Your other point was about China being excluded from the initial definition of astronaut - I don't understand this. The lead section doesn't mention any country's space program - it excludes everyone equally. Have I misunderstood you? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, by acknowledging cosmonaut as Russian (with Russian cyrillic) gives weight to Russian interests while ignoring the only other country (China) in regards to manned space programs with astronauts. If that reference to Russia is removed from the intro, I see no POV in this article and I have no issue. If that reminds, I see POV in the intro. Make sense? Nesnad (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the nub of the matter. I don't see how mentioning the Russian word gives weight to Russian interests. The whole article is in English, but that doesn't give with to US interests, or Britain's interests, as part of the Eu's space program. I simply don't see how using the Russian word and not the Chinese makes the point of view of this article less neutral. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading the lede paragraph, I agree that including the Russian pronounication but no other foreign language could lead to a POV concern. I've edited the opening paragraph to only refer to the English words: astronaut and cosmonaut. The terminology section can provide the details on foreign languages. Rillian (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And thus all my issues have been addressed for the time being! If no one disagrees with the edits made by Rillian then I am on happy ground discussion-wise. That's all I was trying to get out, that it didn't seem fair as worded previously and that has been addressed nicely. Nesnad (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

deaths

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

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

Ambiguous statement in terminology/other terms

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

First known use

According to Oxford English Dictionary the first known use of the term "astronaut" is not from 1930, but from one year earlier:

1929 Jrnl. Brit. Astr. Assoc. June 331 "That first obstacle encountered by the would-be ‘Astronaut’, viz., terrestrial gravitation."

Tavilis (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well let's see, with similar names like Aristonautes (or Archenautes, etc., etc.) and many other -naut suffix proper names in ancient Greek getting pretty close the possibility arises of it's attested surfacing in that arena. If there is anybody named such after stars in that culture with that name element affixed it looks as though the term (as a name) could be older than 400 B.C. 4.242.174.117 (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)astroauts are uniqe in their way....

bakit sinosoot ang mga astrnout sout

pls answer <unsigned comment by User:112.200.228.55>

Dahil ang mga astronaut ang naniniwala na ito ay mabuti. —Stephen (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Australian astronauts

This map does not show Australia highlighted, which has had two Australians (dual-citizens) fly into space: Paul Scully-Power and Andy Thomas

Source regarding Andy Thomas - http://www.curriculum.edu.au/cce/default.asp?id=17566

Spindocbob (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities of deceased cosmonauts

The Deaths section of this article lists the nationalities of those who died during spaceflights as "thirteen Americans, three Russians, one Ukrainian, and one Israeli". Since at the time of the two Soyuz accidents Russia and Ukraine were part of the USSR, shouldn't the four cosmonauts be listed as Soviets. --GW… 11:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia again

Hey, I know this may be a bit of an iffy topic but Andy Thomas was an Australian born who became an American citizen so he could become an astronaut, and has been to space through NASA several times. If we're talking about nationality rather than citizenship shouldn't Australia be coloured also? La Suricata de vuelo de España (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Random People

I think a clean-up of the astronaut pictures should be done. For instance, a picture of the first Afghan in space... whoopdee-do, so what? The majority of astronauts were/are great and all, but I find that having some of their pictures are more to serve a biased purpose. If anything, maybe the pictures can be constrained to somebody on a spacewalk, the first person in space, and the first person on the Moon. I don't even think having a picture of the first woman is useful, because I think gender is irrelevant in this article. If there aren't some clearer rules, people may start uploading pictures of the first person to rendezvous, the first Canadian, the first black person, the first Buddhist, the first commercial space traveller that has one leg, etc. I won't be removing the pictures, I am just presenting my opinion on how to make this article more encyclopedic. What do you think? 69.196.177.40 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right; the pictures should be selected on achievements and not on religion or nationality. I have nothing against the current pictures of the Arab and Yew but they are one of many. It is not like they are launched by their own country's independent space program.86.87.73.104 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SUPPORT please go ahead and create some kind of order. Due to space and size restrictions outlined in wiki policy, this article is not intended to showcase every space traveler. Those photographs do not belong here, OR in the following articles, List of space travelers by nationality List of space travelers by name Timeline of space travel by nationality unless that individual fits additional criteria for their pictures inclusion pictures must conform to a selection process. It needs to be discussed first, and then they can be reconsidered for inclusion. Otherwise they belong on the articles about those particular individuals. Penyulap _talk 03:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel that there should really only be 3 milestones listed in this article: the first human in space, the first woman in space, and the first human on the moon, (and later on, the first human on Mars, and other planets/moons). This way, there won't be a cluttered listing of every single first person of a nation. This is not the point. The point is to document the first human to achieve something, not the first for a nation. No political aspects should be involved. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers?

After reading through the beginning where it discusses the definition of an astronaut/cosmonaut I was confused about the numbers of people that qualify. It says that according to the FAI definition space is at 62 mi(100km) and the U.S. definition is 50 mi(80km), and with the FAI definition there have been 505 astronauts, while with the U.S. definition (which is of a lower altitude) there are only 496. That would mean that there are nine people who did not count according to the U.S. even though they were past both definitions. This seems to be an error in either the numbers of the qualifications of the two definitions or in the numbers of people listed by each. This is something that should be looked in to and fixed. Achris51 (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems inconsistent sources have been used for the two separate figures. Ordinary Person (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the terms man-days and astronaut-days seems kind of confusing. It seems from the math that a man-day is the same as an earth day (24 hours). I'm assuming the same for astronaut-day though it might be the time it takes the astronaut to circle the earth? The references only refer to crew-days which also appear to be 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinrobin (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talking in article: alleged inaccuracy?

Recent IP edit from 68.0.141.63:

As of June 20, 2011, a total of 654 people (a wildly inaccurate number ) from 38 countries (or 36, or 37, or 39, depending how you count. 38 actually is a wrong number as it uses a double standard.) have reached 100 km (62 mi) or more in altitude, of which 520 (possibly a correct number 2 years ago ) reached low Earth orbit or beyond.

This is the proper place to discuss the accuracy of what's on the article page, not in the article itself. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

The "Terminology" section is organized around the idea that the difference between terms like "astronaut" and "cosmonaut" comes down to where the speaker is from. For instance, the first sentence is "In English-speaking nations, a professional space traveler is called an astronaut."

That's just wrong. Whether somebody gets called "astronaut" or "comonaut" depends on the nationality of the astronaut, not the speaker. "Cosmonaut" is not the Russian word for "astronaut" (though it's cognate with it). It's an English-language word for a Russian astronaut. Contrary to the sentence quoted above, there are many examples of English-language texts that refer to a space traveller as a "cosmonaut".

I propose replacing the contents of the entire Terminology section with something like this:

With the rise of space tourism, NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency agreed to use the term "spaceflight participant" to distinguish those space travelers from professional astronauts on missions coordinated by those two agencies.

Professional astronauts themselves have long been distinguished by nationality. The term "cosmonaut" (from the Russian "Космонавт") is sometimes used for an astronaut of the Soviet Union or the countries which formerly constituted it, or for an astronaut from a nation other than the United States who travels on the spacecraft of one of those countries. Less commonly, the term "taikonaut" has been used for a Chinese astronaut. The term spationaut (French spelling: spationaute) is sometimes used to describe French space travelers, from the Latin word spatium for "space". The Malay term angkasawan was used to describe participants in the Angkasawan program, and the Indian Space Research Organization hope to launch a spacecraft in 2018 that would carry vyomanauts, coined from the Sanskrit word for space.

TypoBoy (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

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

• Use of cosmonaut in the UK [6], [[7]],

[8]

• Use of cosmonaut in New Zealand [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fvtFd6tQ5uc

c_id=5&objectid=10341229], [9],

• Reference to seperate US and Soviet / Russian usage, this from New Zealand [10]
• Another reference to seperate US and Soviet / Russian usage, this time from Australia [11]
• Use of cosmonaut for non-Soviet / non-Russian but who travelled on their programmes [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"very widespread use of both cosmonaut and astronaut for, respectively, those on the Soviet / Russian and US programme" Cosmonaut is defined as equivalent to Astronaut in the very first sentence and the article makes very clear in the Russian section the usage of cosmonaut in English and the convention that Russian astronauts and others flying on Russian spacecraft are often referred to as cosmonauts. What would you propose changing? Rillian (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this point. The current Astronaut article represent a US-centered poinht of view that goes against every wikipedia guideline. Astonaut should direct to the American space program, and tyhe correct generic term is "space traveler". BTW, this article is good. User: J-Baptiste —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Baptiste (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 January 2009

J-Baptiste (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reason that the word "traveller" is spelled with two Ls in international English and only one L in American English. We should try, wherever possible on Wilipedia, to have non-nation-specific varieties of English in article, titles, to preserve international harmony. Whayever references there may be to "cosmonaut" in the UK would be few and far between: practically universally in the UK we say "astronaut" (spelled the same was as in America!) Therefore I am very happy to continue using the American word here for the article title. EuroSong ^talk 15:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm filing a complaint about a disagreement about Cosmonaut,Astronaut, Spationaut and Taikonaut being equal or not. Those terms have such a nationalistic innuendo that corporate meetings in Europe are called astronauts if everyone can speak its mind and cosmonauts if people just have the right to shut up and listen. The correct term - and neutral term- for everyone is "Space traveler", not US-centered Astronaut. Please ask Chinese people how they feel about astronauts and taikonauts. Please ask Russian whether Astronaut is a generic term or not. Using non-neutral and US-centered vocabulary diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia J-Baptiste (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It is not neutral, for the reasons already given. EuroSong ^talk 19:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel bad for Russia, they won the race to get a man into space yet everyone refers to them by the American wording. --82.153.35.70 (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between the words "astronaut" and "cosmonaut"? The lead is written as though what matters is who is speaking (like the difference between the American "fries" and the British "chips"). People have posted comments on this talk page that suggest they think it's a matter of what language is being spoken. But that's nonsense; we're talking here, on the English-language Wikipedia, about the English words "cosmonaut" and "astronaut" (and, God help us, "taikonaut").

Whatever your view on this politically-charged topic, let's acknowledge what we all understand: the English word "cosmonaut" is used to mean an astronaut from the Soviet Union or one of its former republics, or an astronaut from a nation other than the U.S. who travels on a Soviet or Russian spacecraft.

What matters is the astronaut's nationality. Not the speaker's, as the lead claims. TypoBoy (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't understand the brawl around these two terms. I could tell from russian perspective that these two terms are equally in use here and not many trying to fill them with some nationalistic meaning. You could google in russian "астронавт"(astronaut) and "космонавт"(cosmonaut), and it will give you 1 380 000 and 1 300 000 results respectively. So this fight on terminology is basically a fight with a shadow in the english part of informational space. 85.26.183.251 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When does the term apply?

I was under the impression that another difference between "astronaut" and "cosmonaut" was when the term began to be applied - that a US-based professional space person was an astronaut as soon as they're accepted to the program, while a cosmonaut wasn't until they'd actually been in space. I also thought that one remained an astronaut even after retirement / resignation much like US Presidents are still called Presidents even when they are no longer in office, but I've seen "former astronaut" used in a few pages here. --zandperl (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014

Greek words kosmos (κόσμος), meaning "universe" => I is not correct, in Russian "kosmos" ("космос") means "space", not "universe" ("вселенная") Deplerx (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam ^Sing! 14:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Astronaut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213031153/http://www.space.com:80/missionlaunches/SS1_pilot_040620.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_pilot_040620.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061125035402/http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/space_educator_030203.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/space_educator_030203.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosmonaut

Kosmonaut is derived from the russian word kosmos (космос) which means "space". The russian word "kosmos" is indeed of greek origin, but it's not correct to tell that "kosmonaut" was derived from greek. 178.70.243.195 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what the article says; the Russian "kosmonaut" is derived from the Greek words "cosmos" and "nautes". There is no problem. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016

An Astronaut is a somebody that is trained to travel in spacecraft. 110.21.8.131 (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The lead sentence in the article already says that. You also did not follow instructions and word your request as "please change X to Y". JustinTime55 (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2016

In the "Definition" section, please replace the following:

As of 2008, the man with the longest cumulative time in space is Sergei K. Krikalev, who has spent 803 days, 9 hours and 39 minutes, or 2.2 years, in space.

with this, to reflect a new spaceflight record:

As of 2016, the man with the longest cumulative time in space is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 879 days in space.

121.98.124.75 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astronaut. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091029061057/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/ADUM.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/experiments/ADUM.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Space Station Milestones

Part of this section doesn't make sense. Its mentions firsts for countries, ethnicities and continents. Its all over the place. Mentions first muslim astronaut but than next part mentions first Afghan. Since you already have the first muslim the first afghan should be removed. Otherwise why not just have first for every country? Also the other firsts that are sorta the same just slightly different and seems unnecessary to have every variant. Just the first white, black, hispanic, oriental, muslim, indian and american indian. No need to have every variant and sub variant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.69.250 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Astronaut. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926175913/https://www.utahstatesman.com:80/campus_news/1.563784 to http://www.utahstatesman.com/campus_news/1.563784
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/hundred.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/live/international-space-station-launch/breaking-space-records/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719102624/https://www.iafastro.org/index.html?title=History to http://www.iafastro.org/index.html?title=History
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423074712/https://www.adm.yar.ru:80/english/section.aspx?section_id=74 to http://www.adm.yar.ru/english/section.aspx?section_id=74
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516050936/https://wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov/neap.asp to http://wwwedu.ssc.nasa.gov/neap.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Astronaut. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827140010/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/hundred.htm to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/hundred.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/live/international-space-station-launch/breaking-space-records
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/astronauts/training.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713124805/http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/745 to http://www.jultrasoundmed.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/745

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) 02:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astronaut. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/live/international-space-station-launch/breaking-space-records
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208224003/http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/other/stat_kk.sht to http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/other/stat_kk.sht

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) 07:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astronaut. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011074934/http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/content/broch00.htm to http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/astronauts/content/broch00.htm

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) 09:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

Change

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) Sporting Code for astronautics recognizes only flights that exceed an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 mi).

to

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) Sporting Code for astronautics recognizes only flights that exceed an altitude of 100 kilometers (62 mi). SONY (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Change the plain text word "otolith" to a link that points to Wikipedia article "Otolith" Cassandratoday (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done JustinTime55 (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020

I would like to change the opening line as follows:

"An astronaut, cosmonaut, spationaut, taikonaut, or vyomanaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft." Cortina Airlines (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are not common words in English and so don't need to be mentioned in the intro. I think it's sufficient to mention them in the Terminology section. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)