Talk:Marcos Pontes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Picture

Isn't the official NASA picture too biased? I mean, it has Marcos Pontes with a large American flag behind him, as if he was subservient to the USA... not a pretty picture. --Andrelvis 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The image simply represents reality. I mean, Pontes was training with NASA, he was supposed to be launched by NASA; he was only able to be launched so..."quickly" by the Russians because he had been training with NASA for years (or else he'd still be years of training away from his flight). It is a standard procedure for the official picture of astronauts to feature the US flag behind them (that's where NASA is from, after all). What would be biased would be to discard an official picture, which is in the Public Domain (therefore, is usable on Wikipedia), only because some don't like to see the US flag behind Pontes — that may change when countries other than the US and Russia are able to launch people into orbit, but until then, we'll just have to make due with reality.
On a side note, Pontes does have the Brazilian flag (on his uniform), on prominent display in the picture. Regards, Redux 19:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is smallish Brazilian flag, yes, while there is a much more prominent US flag in the background. --Andrelvis 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad picture. The pose of Pontes posing in front of the American flag is the same way much of our leaders and military figures pose in front of the flag, and if anything, it shows the pride of NASA and the U.S in Pontes' accomplishments.--Folksong 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But the point though is that Pontes isn't one of USA's leaders or military figures. He is a Brazilian austronaut, not an American one. --Andrelvis 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But he is a NASA astronaut. I don't see what the big deal is. Brazil doesn't currently have the capability to launch people into space, so they've been assisted by the US and now Russia. What's wrong with that? Would you prefer he be pictured with a Russian flag? Or else how about providing a picture of him that you think is better; is there an official picture of him from the Brazilian space agency? Kinda cool to learn he's from Bauru. I used to live there. Aranhamo 19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention that the article in the portuguese Wikipedia uses a larger version of the same NASA photograph. Aranhamo 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not be so over sensitive and paranoid about the american flag. People can read the first line of the article and know he is not an american military figure or leader. Even without the article, the picture itself does not imply any of those things. I would also add it would seem biased to you, mr Andrelvis, to have an american flag showing in the article for someone with an history for the derogatory use of the word "statamerican", as one can simply investigate through the history in your talk page, which you might have previously cleared as a cover-up, and just as much for the anti-american statement in which you imply subservience to the USA would "not be pretty" for some reason, even if it is arguable that it IS actually the case. Unless you make a decent case I'd advise you to stop whining. PHF 19:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The statamerican thing is not anti-american, but that is not to be discussed here. In any case, I guess it's natural for English wikipedia to have an American bias, so I won't argue further. --Andrelvis 14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is however, not natural to be oversensitive about an american flag and accuse the english wikipedia of bias screaming bloody murder and opression without a decent argument. Implying the association with the USA is not a "pretty picture" clearly shows your intentions and reveals the real bias in the discussion. PHF 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with both Aranhamo and PHF. There is absolutely no reason to question the official NASA picture. With all due respect, the only bias here seems to be coming from the one person who's managed to see something wrong with it. Regards, Redux 21:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a picture of Pontes on Commons without a flag behind him, maybe you can make use of it. --Bricktop 02:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The image could be used in the article (if we managed to expand it so that we could fit one more image), but not as a substitute to the official NASA image, since it is not quite the same, clearly. Regards, Redux 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a nice picture of him on his official website that somebody just recently added to the article. Aranhamo 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We could add more pictures, but I'm concerned with avoiding "overcrowding" the article with pictures. It's not that long, and there are three images in it already. Besides, we should add images that help illustrate something that is being talked about in the article, not just have images for the sake of images. Regards, Redux 21:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So I see that somebody changed the picture without bothering to contribute to this discussion or even to note why he changed the picture... Aranhamo 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it be reverted to the old one since it seems there is a consensus that the Official Nasa Picture is more appropriate. PHF 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nobody changed the image on this article. What had happened was that, since someone had uploaded the image to the Commons, an Admin deleted the image from the en.wp website. The problem was: the NASA image was designated "Marcos Pontes2.jpg" on the Commons, since that other image was already using the name "Marcos Pontes.jpg". When the Wikipedia image was deleted, the Commons naming took over, and the image was replaced automatically, since the source of the article was still reading "Marcos Pontes.jpg". The Admin who deleted the image should have fixed that, but he didn't, so... Anyways, I've fixed the source, and now we have the right image back up again. Regards, Redux 00:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santos Dumont

This part:

Pontes' flight coincides with celebrations of the 100th anniversary of Brazilian aviation pioneer Alberto Santos-Dumont's successful flight of an airplane in Paris, in October of 1906, which is considered the first flight of a machine heavier than air.

is definitely up for debate, and I think that debate belongs in the Santos Dumont or Wright Bros. articles, not here. Previously someone edited it to say "considered by Brazilians", but someone else reverted it. I think it should say "considered by some" or "considered by many". It is definitely not universally accepted as the first heavier than air flight. Aranhamo 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did a lot of revision under 152.19.193.71, and I think the article is decent now. Roquetin 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

oi estomuito feliz pelo brasil e por voce

I'd like to suggest the mention of Santos-Dumont be worded: "...which was the first public flight in Europe by a heavier-than-air machine and is regarded by many Brazilians as the first airplane flight anywhere." Such wording gives proper credit to Santos for the undisputed fact of Europe's first publicly witnessed airplane flight while retaining mention of the much more controversial idea of "first" in the world. DonFB 04:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The scope of this article is not really to add to the controversy between Dumont and the Wright brothers. This is or should be elaborated on our entries on them, and I do believe that we have an entire separate article dedicated to this controversy. As far as this article is concerned, there was the official designation of this mission relating to the centennial of Dumont's maiden flight. Yes, we might tweak the wording to factor in the fact that the status of this flight is not undisputed worldwide, but the wording you suggested goes in the extreme opposite direction, by removing any scientific importance from the flight (calling it a first public flight in Europe) as well as the broader recognition that it does have -- by the mention that "many Brazilians" regard it as the first heavier-than-air flight, which would transmit the subliminal message that noone else does, since the Wright brothers [would be] the true pioneers. I'm not saying that Dumont was the true inventor, and not the Wright brothers; this was a simple assessment of the text suggested. It doesn't work, not only because of what it implies, but also because it gives too much relevance to something that needn't be discussed in depth in this article. Regards, Redux 07:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astronaut / Cosmonaut

I am not sure about calling Marcos a Cosmonaut, just because he flew with the Soyuz. So, would flying with the Soyuz make an american Astronaut a cosmonaut?

Nevertheless, the Brazilian media and Space Agency reffers to Marcos as an ASTRONAUT. --Pinnecco 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed we should use "astronaut", per the naming used by the Brazilian Space Agency and ordinarily by the media, as well as the fact that he was admitted originally into the US space program, being, in fact, declared officially a "NASA astronaut". Having been launched on a Russian shuttle is not sufficient to alter this condition, or else, as Pinnecco said, all of the US astronauts that have been launched by the Russians since the Space Bus program was haulted for safety reasons would have been "renamed" as well -- but they weren't, for the reasons explained. Redux 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed Ponte's profile to Cosmonaut again, without even considering this discussion. I reverted it back to Astronaut. Do we need to protect this page or what? --Pinnecco 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First step would be to let that person know of this discussion. It may be a newbie who is unaware or just unaccostumed to visiting the talk page before implementing changes. If s/he does not respond to requests to make his case here first and continues to change the article without discussion, and this is assuming that we are talking about a single person, then this specific account or IP may be blocked temporarily for disruption to make a point or just plain simple silly vandalism ("silly vandalism" is a definition, not an adjective applied to "vandalism"). Redux 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I was just going through Category:Out-of-date Astronaut Infoboxes and carrying out updates based on the missions that they had flown. There were over 400, so I did not have time to view each case individually. Please remember to WP:AGF, if you had taken a look at my Contributions, you would have seen this was the case. I am insulted by your allegations. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. All settled then. However, notice that my comment above, and my posting in your talk page thereafter were precisely a token of good faith. I suppose I should urge you to also assume good faith when given a fair "heads up". Cheers, Redux 19:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I appologise as well --Pinnecco 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've carried out the fix that I was trying to do before, but I have ensured that it still says "Astronaut". --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)