Talk:Anousheh Ansari

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
	WikiProject Space exploration	Importance to Space exploration: Mid
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Some edits 2 Back-up 3 Iranian 4 Iranians or Persians ? 5 Space Tourist vs. Astronaut 6 Maiden name? 7 Fair use image policy 8 Really first female space tourist? 9 Not the First Female Civilian In Space 10 Panturkism Now 11 First Muslim Female Astronaut? 12 Image 13 Possible copyvio 14 Prodea (investment firm) and Prodea Systems 15 Date/Place of Birth 16 Contradiction 17 Women on Top 18 Leaving Iran 19 Offensive material placed under the picture of Anousheh Ansari 20 Reservations about Ansari's visit 21 Iranian citizenship 22 Misc. 23 References 24 Space Tourist? 25 Firsts, firsts, firsts 26 Fair use 27 Muslim 28 Helen Sharman 29 Prodea 30 Image for article 31 POV 32 Replacing image on a protected page 33 Deleted images 34 Replace image in the infobox 35 Ramadan 36 Semi-protected 37 Astronaut, Cosmonaut or a Space Tourist? 38 a bit obvious... 39 Amount Paid 40 Remove "Current Events" 41 This image & Machocarioca's edit war 42 First blogger 43 Infobox astronaut

[edit] Some edits

I took out the following:

"He is said to be interested in taking a tourist flight on SpaceShipOne, the likely winner of the X Prize, as he wants to experience spaceflight as soon as possible without waiting for orbital flight to develop or for prices to drop with the development of routine tourist flights."

Anousheh is a woman, so there is clearly something wrong. Does this belong here or in Amir Ansari? ✏ Sverdrup 15:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Back-up

What does this back-up thing mean ? will she be main on a subsequent flight ? when ? I understand that the Malaysians have booked a flight in 2007 ? and maybe the South Koreans as well ? does it mean she won't fly before 2008 ?193.56.37.1 09:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is obsolete, but just to explain: For every flight there is a prime crew, and a back-up crew. The back-up crew is trained and ready to step in right up to the last moment before a flight. Before the medical disqualification of Enomoto, Ansari was back-up. For a professional astronaut, being back-up is (alas!) no guarantee of eventually getting a prime slot, but as Ansari paid Roskosmos to fly, it was probably guaranteed that she would fly eventually, most likely on the next available Soyuz third seat, unless she herself were disqualified medically. When the next available seat would have been is mainly up to the Russians. Still, there are probably 2-3 potential opportunities a year, as long as Shuttle is flying, and it's obvious that Russia is trying to sign up as many "clients" as it can, for the cash. --Dhartung | Talk 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian

Technically, has she really an Iranian passport ? Or have our friends in Tehran taken her nationality from her ? Hektor 05:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would they take her nationality from her?! --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but according to the article in YAhoo to-day, she is an American and NOT an Iranian citizen. 211.225.32.57 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about this myself, she is a U.S. Citizen, wouldn't that make her the first "Iranian-American" in space? Even the USA Today article that is quoted says:

"Ansari will also be the first person of Iranian descent to fly in space. " So in fact she is not the first Iranian as she is a US Citizen, but rahter the first person of Iranian Descent, or Iranian-American to be in space. I think it needs to be clearified in this wiki article.

An example would be for astronaut Taylor Gun-Jin Wang, he is the first ethnic chinese and chinese-american into space in 1985, he was born in China but was an American citizen at the time he went into space. The first Chinese citizen (nationality) into space was Yang Liwei which was done in 2003. As you can see a distinction is made, there are many other examples in the case of Nationality. That distinction should be made for Anousheh Ansari as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limitedexpresstrain (talk • contribs) .

Unlike Mr. Wang, Ms. Ansari is financing her own trip and she's both an American and an Iranian citizen. Saying the first Iranian-American is pointless when there have never been any other Iranians in space, she's the first Iranian in space. Reuters: "A Russian Soyuz spacecraft blasted off on Monday carrying a woman set to notch up three space records: the first female tourist, first female Muslim, and first Iranian in orbit." --ManiF 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Financing has nothing to do with who is first or not, I'm not sure why that was brought up, also there is nothing in the wikipedia article that says she is a duel citizen, if she is, then there should be something noted and referenced to in her biography, as I think thats an important thing to know about someone if you are reading their biography. As far as a reader is to know, she's just an American who immigrated from Iran if that were the case then she would not be the first Iranian in space, but if she did have duel citizenship then the situation changes. Another example would be Paul D. Scully-Power, was born in Australia, but was an American citizen when he went into space, therefore he would not count as the first Austrailian into space. If Anousheh Ansari is a duel citizen then it needs to be an indicated that she holds duel citizenship in both countries. I can't find anything that says she retains her Iranian Citizenship, but rather everything I'm reading says she attains US Citizenship, or became an American, or that she is Iranian born but American now, or ethnic Iranian. Reuters, may say she is the first Iranian, but there are many other news agencies that do not note that she is the first Iranian, but rather the first women space tourist, and that she is of Iranian decent or Iranian born. I do not think it is pointless to say that that she is the first Iranian-American in space, its not pointless because there have never been any other Iranians in space. Is it pointless to say Gary Locke was the first Chinese-American to become Governor of a US State, even though no other Chinese-American has become Governor of a State? She is Iranian-American, therefor is the first Iranian-American into space. I noticed she also flies with the US Flag on her outfit. I'm just seeking better clearifcation onto her Nationality and citizenship(s).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limitedexpresstrain (talk • contribs) .

She is an Iranian citizen. She was born in Iran, and therefore, by Iranian law, a citizen, no matter where else in the world she goes. If she acquires citizenship elsewhere, then she automatically gets dual citizenship. Iranian citizenship is also passed through the father for people who are not born on Iranian soil, like Andre Agassi, who is also an Iranian citizen.Khosrow II 23:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my point a general reader might not know this fact. All they read is she is Iranian-American, therefore is an American Citizen. It would be nice to know that by Iranian-law she is still an Iranian, this in a small notation on her biography page. As there are many different criteria to who is "first in space" based on Nationality, ethnicity, depending on what convention or organization that keeps these records. While news articles say she has broken these space records, it does not record based on what organization and what that organization's standards are for recording who is first. All I am seeking is better clearification for a reader.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limitedexpresstrain (talk • contribs) .

She's an Iranian citizen by law. She was born Iran and lived in Iran until she was a young adult. It doesn't matter where an Iranian migrates or whatever citizenships he or she holds, an Iranian citizen is an Iranian citizen unless he or she revokes her Iranian citizenship, and there is no evidence of Ms. Ansari revoking her Iranian citizenship, she even has an Iranian flag on her official website: http://www.anoushehansari.com/. --ManiF 00:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From an Iranian legal perspective to clear things up: Iran does not recognise dual citizenship [1]. Any one who is a citizen of Iran (by birth within Iran or by nationality of father or mother [2]) remains a citizen of Iran and can technically not obtain foreign citizenship unless they renounce their Iranian citizenship. However, the government of Iran turns a blind eye towards the 100,000s of people who have obtained foreign citizenships from countries that do accept dual nationality (i.e. UK, US, France, etc...). Thus in practice accepting dual nationality, but not legally. This also raises questions as to precedence as can be seen in the case of Zahra Kazemi. [3]

(resetting indent) On the Paul D Scully example - actually people do claim he's the first Australian in space [4] (although I thought that should go to Phillip Chapman). When it comes to "firsts" there's no authority that gets to set rules around these things. There are some facts - like is she a citizen? Was she born there? Did/does she live there? that we can use to qualify things, but in general for a first, one doesn't qualify it if there isn't some previous claim to the title that one needs to be able to seperate oneself from. for instance, if there weren't three men before her we'd be calling her the fist space tourist not the first female space tourist. She'd still be female though. Is it that you think the article fails to make her American-ness clear? --SiobhanHansa 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranians or Persians ?

i dont know why all those iranain who Run away from the Iran-Iraq war they forgot they Country Completly a very good example is this woman who denny even her nationally ... they would like to say that we are persian I dont know Who are persian it was for 4000 yrs ago its simmillar to it that Itallian say we are Romans ! she even shame to say her country name Iran...

i dont know what should i say to those people

I suggest you read a bit more about the history, and also about the name of the countries in different languages, before blaming anybody on such matters. Here, I tell you about the names. About the history, I leave you with a question, so you may go on finding the answer yourself.

Many countries and languages have different names in other languages. For example, Germans call their country "Deutschland" but in English people call it "Germany", in French "Allemagne", and in Polish, "Niemcy". People of Greece, Armenia, Finland, India, Albania, Egypt, Algeria, Japan and China call their countries, respectively Ellas, Hayastan, Suomi, Bharat, Shqipëria, Mesr, al-Jaza'ir, Nippon or Nihon, and Zhōnggúo or Chung-kuo in their respective languages. Similarly, the native name of "Persia" is "Iran". The difference between the two names, therefore, is just a matter of language translation.

If you still think that Persia is from 4000 years ago, and Iran is from today, here is the question for you: "In what time during the Persian history has the name of the country changed?" Let me say it in another way: "Was there a war or an invasion (like what happened to the Ottoman Empire) which destroyed Persia? Or was it just a switch between the names without any change in the country?" I let you find the answer yourself. Just a hint: you can find the answer in Wikipedia!

Fakhredin 13:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Tourist vs. Astronaut

Ansari is a space tourist. I have objections using the astronaut box on her page. The same applies to Christa Mcauliffe, who according to NASA was not an astronaut, but a mission specialist. Technically there is a difference.--Daysleeper47 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Everybody who goes beyond 100 km or 120 km altitude is technically an astronaut. Ansari will become an astronaut a few minutes after Soyuz lift-off. But since we put astronaut on all astronauts in training as well, I think the infobox is fine.
  

Regarding Mcauliffe, all Shuttle passengers who are not Commander, Pilot or Payload specialists are Mission specialists. There are generally 4 or 5 of them in each Shuttle. Hektor 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, object to calling her an astronaut until she has flown. She is at best a trainee astronaut. She has not earned her astronaut's wings and is not recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale as such. See the definition of astronaut at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut.

Deke Slayton was selected to train as an astronaut in 1959 but did not become one until he flew in 1975. It is clear and unambiguous. Wikipedia can only retain credibility and respect if it adheres to high standards of fact, not exaggeration and promotion of people by their fans, which is what is happening here. That is too arbitrary.

It is a weak statement to say "we put astronaut on all astronauts in training." Doing so does not justify it. "That is how it has always been done" is a poor argument. An astronaut is one who has flown in space. A child could tell you that. It couldn't be simpler.

• The definition you provide is: (an astronaut) "is a person who travels into space, or who makes a career of doing so." The "makes a career of doing so" covers precisely the astronaut trainees, and therefore Ansari. Hektor 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the use of the term. NASA considers all astronauts-in-training to be "astronauts", because it's the job they were selected and hired to do. This is not the same as earning your wings. The astronaut box is informational and entirely appropriate. The blank mission box shows that she hasn't flown yet. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maiden name?

Anybody know what her name was before she married Hamid Ansari? I can't seem to find it online. --NeuronExMachina 00:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Her name was Anousheh Raiesie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.116.254.114 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks! We already have it as Raissyan, the name under which she attended GMU. Basically a different transliteration. --Dhartung | Talk 09:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image policy

• Right now we have a fair use image. You can only use a fair use image in the absence of a free alternative, but there is a free public domain NASA image in the Commons, which is used by the German language wiki and others. So I think that the fair use in unjustified. Hektor 06:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really first female space tourist?

Is she really the first female space tourist? It seems to me that "British lottery winner" Helen Sharman might be considered for that title [5]. --NeuronExMachina 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why not Valentina Tereshkova when you are at it ? What is this lottery story. Timothy Mace and Helen Sharman were selected [6][7], not lottery drawn, I think the MSN piece is a typical example of journalistic exageration. Please take a good reference; I would suggest Spaceflight, the magazine of the British Interplanetary Society. As a publication from UK, it should provide full details. I positively hate it when journalists are diminishing the accomplishments of individuals just to write a catchy sentence in an article. Hektor 20:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Despite the "plucked from obscurity" angle, Sharman did not pay for her flight, so she isn't considered a space "tourist" in that sense. Though sponsored by a private consortium, not a government, she had a great deal more training and probably more rigorous duties on her flight. She is akin to the many guest-country astro/cosmonauts that have flown, most similar of all to the US Teacher-in-Space program. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sharman would probably be best described as a corporate-sponsored mission specialist. 203.143.238.33 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have modified the article to clarify the facts about Helen Sharman.Hektor 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not the First Female Civilian In Space

I note, as a matter of interest, that some news outlets are saying she is the first female civilian in space, including this story which the Wikipedia article references.

# ^ Maher, Heather, "U.S.: Iranian-American To Be First Female Civilian In Space", Radio Free Europe, 2006-09-15. Retrieved on 2006-09-17

I think that by any reasonable definitions, Ansari is NOT that. Helen Sharman (mentioned above) for instance was an earlier female civilian in space.

203.143.238.33 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not just Sherman. I believe Valentina Tereshkova was a civilian when she went up, only joined the military after her flight. But I think the first civilian claim is just a bit of headline abbreviating. In the article they talk about her being the first female private citizen (and 4th overall private citizen) - which I think is their way of avoiding the "tourist" terminology. --Siobhan Hansa 02:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Although incidental to the main discussion, Valentina Tereshkova was a military officer when she was launched in 1963. Although a civilian when selected in 1962, the cosmonaut team at that time was run by the Soviet Air Force, so to begin training, she joined as a Private. Later, in November 1962, when she passed her cosmonaut examinations she was commissioned as an officer, with the rank Junior Lieutenant. She was then given a double promotion, on the day of her launch to Captain, and remained an officer until her retirement at 60, in 1997. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wilde1 (talk • contribs) .

This information would be a valuable addition to the Tereshkova article. Is there a citation you could add? --Dhartung | Talk 14:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This information sourced from a Russian language book 'Soviet and Russian Cosmonaut 1961-2001'. The article of Tereshkova is full of inaccuracies, that I wouldn't know where to start to fix them, but happy to have a discussion there some time. Wilde1

[edit] Panturkism Now

I can not understand the relevancy of "Azeri" in the phrase "She is set to become the first Iranian Azeri in space". I think she is not only an Iranian, but an American too. So, she is an American with Iranian origin. Of course she is an Azeri Iranian, but this is not the right place to mention than. I suggest "She is set to become the first Iranian American in space", without mentioning "Azeri" in this sentence. It can be mentioned correctly somewhere else in the article, for example "Born in 1966 in Tehran, Iran (Persia), in an Azeri family". However I can't understand correctly the relevancy of this piece of information. It's like saying "She is set to become the first Texan American in space" or "She was born in New York, in a Texan family" about someone who has emmigrated to England two decades ago!

محمود 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually she was born in Mashad and not Tehran and her family is not Azeri..I am not sure who put up that dubious information. --alidoostzadeh 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of pages on the web saying that her ethnicity is Azeri, like this United Nations page, for example. -- Hux 19:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not the UN pages but an un-az.org page which is Azeri. She was born in Mashhad actually and as far as her interviews have been conducted, she does not seem to speak Azeri. --69.86.16.239 09:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

un-az.org is part of UN-series sites, anyways for some other sources who confirm that her ethnicy is Azeri, check out: http://www.regnum.ru/english/694478.html Russian sources state: Azerbaijani woman to fly to space

Yes but it takes its report from the Azeri government. The following was also part of the article you mentioned: As Azeri Press reports, it became known in the last moment that major candidate Daisuke Enomoto from Japan will be replaced by US citizen of Azerbaijani origin Anousheh Ansari.. Outside of Azeri press, this claim is invalid. . Arriving in the United States speaking only Farsi and French. [8]. The stuff about her being Azeri was madeup by Chehregani's site(calling her dad's last name erroneously ansari and associating her with some other family that has ansari as a last whereas ansari is a popular name but anoushe's real family is ra'isian and ansari is her husband's name). As I mentioned in another article, she the Azerbaijani press took this bogus news and spread it. If you look at her blog which is in both Persian and English, she mentions she is Mashhadi and not Azeri. And in her faviorate music sections she mentions Persian and English. Either way until there is actual interviews with her, we will not be sure, but it is certain she does not speak any Azeri which makes it likely she is not Azeri since if her parents and family were Azeri, she would speak the language which she does not. --alidoostzadeh 15:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Muslim Female Astronaut?

I've seen several articles that say she will be the first Muslim female space tourist. However, the bulk of the articles state that she will be the first female space tourist. Not that it's any of my business what her religion is, but if her religionous preference is publicly known, does anyone know if she is a Muslim? Regardless of her religious status (I still respect her whatever her religion), I'm glad to see a woman of Middle Eastern descent showing the rest of the world that Middle Eastern women have the right stuff. —Taka2007 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

find one quote that she considers herself a "liberal muslim." [9] Thus she would be the first Muslim women in space. -Taka2007 07:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that she will also be only the second Muslim to have gone into space (there was a Saudi prince, Sultan Salman al-Saud who was a payload specialist), unless one or more of the Russian cosmonauts have been Muslims. This article says that he was "the first Arab, the first Muslim and the first member of royalty in space." ^BlankVerse 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

True, however (despite (or because of) my comments on firsts below), it is really not relavent. Most of the time, being first is what counts. - Taka2007 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

• I still have shortcomings with the image. So far we had a free picture from NASA. Now we have a picture which I think is unappropriately tagged from a licence standpoint, since it is advertised as Public Domain, although it is an image from Roscosmos. Hektor 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if this change [10] was necessiry or aesthetically pleasing. The previous picture was just o/k. Change it back? Downtownee 22:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyvio

Someone User:71.164.169.26 is replacing the article by text copied from the X-Prize web site : http://www.xprizefoundation.com/about_us/boardAnsari.asp. This must be copyright violation. Hektor 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The text from the X-Prize site was first generated by the Ansari's firm, Prodea, and then sent to the X-Prize Foundation for posting. It also appears/appeared on her official site, www.anoushehansari.com, as her official biography. Anyone concerned about copyright infringement from the X-Prize's site is welcome to contact their webmaster, Susan Cohen. Jake@Prodea.com

Regardless, it is inappropriate to copy primary sources into Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodea (investment firm) and Prodea Systems

Also, Prodea is different from Prodea Systems. Prodea Systems is the Ansari family's latest company, while Prodea is their investment firm; the agreement with Space Adventures was done through Prodea, and is unrelated to Prodea Systems. Jake@Prodea.com

• In this case the Prodea systems article is very wrong.Hektor 15:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Prodea systems was updated Jake@Prodea.com

[edit] Date/Place of Birth

The referenced articles list three separate dates of birth (1966[11], 1967[12], and 1968[13]) and two different places of birth: Mashad, Iran[14] and Tehran, Iran.[15] This is certainly unhelpful. The 1967 or 1968 dates could be consistent with the claim that she came to the US in 1984 at the age of 16 while the 1966 date is inconsistent.--Burzum 11:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a bit of mess! The most reliable source from the list would probably be USAToday, but even that article doesn't seem like the sort of piece that would have checked this out to any great extent. I suggest we remove the reference to her being 16 when she went to the USA and keep the 1966 d.o.b until something better comes along (we could note that various d.o.b.s are mentioned by other sources). I left a note on User_talk:Jake@prodea.com to see if he knows of a definitive source, or can at least clear up the discrepancy so even if we can't source it we'll have some way to decide what to put up. --SiobhanHansa 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anousheh was born on September 12, 1966 in Mashad, Iran. This should clear up the confusion. Jake@Prodea.com

Thanks for the update! I wonder why so many articles are screwed up. --Burzum 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hah, Hah and what is this?: Hey guys, if you look here [16], you can see, that she is born in Tehran. It is a NASA-page, so it might be correct. (I wrote this already on Hektor's Site - no reaction anywhere)-GreetingsEastfrisian 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The contributor Jake@Prodea.com works for Ansari, so I'm inclined to take his word. We could cross-source this with Prodea if necessary. Keep in mind that to NASA, Ansari is basically a third party. There are quite a few other sources that contradict what NASA said. --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The article says the was born in Mashhad and later says she was born in Tehran. Hektor 11:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

She was born in Mashad, and later moved to Tehran. Jake@Prodea.com

[edit] Women on Top

Woman_on_Top list_of_female_top_executives I'm_Sitting_on_Top_of_the_World Sittin'_on_Top_of_the_World

Possibly, this might be improved by saying both "cosmonaut" & "astronaut"? Particularly based on citizenship?

__________________________________________

The Ansari_X_Prize article insists:

"...to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into,..."; "manned spacecraft"; "manned spaceflight".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/manned_spacecraft >.

Maybe, possibly, conceivably, it might be time to say?: "humanned spacecraft"? "humanned spaceflight"? Ms. Ansari's on-top. It's possible to have a collection that's totally unmanned, that would consist of thousands of women. That could be a spaceship's crew. Thank You. Hopiakuta 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up and reorganized (a little). What is the point of this post? --Burzum 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The gender neutral term is "crewed spacecraft"

[edit] Leaving Iran

user:Dhartung added some text claiming "Unable to pursue engineering under the Islamic government..." This rather sounds to be some false judgement, unless Dhartung please provides their sources on the claim. Even if a government is ruthless, that doesn't mean you cannot study engineering in its university. I temporarily remove the copy. The History keeps the text to replace again if needed. Downtownee 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This link [17] said “Unable to pursue engineering under the Islamic government”, it is disgustingly WRONG! Not only they can pursue it (about %25 of students in Faculty of engineering in University of Tehran are women); but also there are lots of female professor in that faculty. [18][19][20][21]

Edward Said has expalined this better "So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pejman47 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 September 2006.

The sentence needs to be clearer. The universities were closed for two years from 1979 to 1981/2 (the "Cultural Revolution" of the Islamic Republic). That is why she couldnt persue her studies at the time.Khosrow II 22:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Cultural Revolution is a possiblity. But it is still to be approved. Perhaps Jake@Prodea would help us if they are in cantact with her family.Downtownee 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

makes no sense: 1986+16=1982. in the previous year(1981), the universities were re-opened.--Pejman47 23:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an error in many articles that have been cited for this entry. See the "Date/Place of Birth" section above.--Burzum 08:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to attempt to scold someone, you can at least sign your post. I have adjusted your post for this purpose. Additionally, the previous user's statement did not justify a response where you characterized him or her as the stereotype described in the Edward Said quote.--Burzum 02:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my edit offended anyone, but the source, an alumni magazine with presumably good access to Ansari, made this claim. I did not. As it is a reliable source, if there is any objection to the claim it should be refuted by citing other material. Ansari may have had her own reasons for leaving Iran; she may believe what she told the interviewer. And while Jake@Prodea (whoever he is) may indeed have access, we should keep in mind that he seems to be a public relations flack and as such is professionally biased. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the alumni magazine (especially not an alumni magazine from a US university) is a particularly reliable source for the claim that was made. It seems highly unlikely to me that an alumni magazine would have done anything other than a brief interview with Ansari and (maybe!) check their own records on her attendance at GMU. This does not make them particularly authoritive on education and gender in Iran. When you look at a reliable source, you have to look at not just the publication, but also the nature of the claim.

I have seen elsewhere that the family moved to America because they wanted Anousheh to be able to pursue science and engineering to the highest levels. That's a slightly different claim, for which a personal interview is appropriate (because it's about their perception of educational opportunity - for which they are reasonably authoritive sources :-). I'll try and find that article again.

We do, unfortunately, have a problem with sources on this article, because most of the biographical information is from sources that are unlikely to have done any actual fact checking. In most cases it's not too important. But when there is a controversial claim, we need to be particualrly careful about what we say and how. --SiobhanHansa 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the source -"Ansari's left Iran at the age of 16 just a few years after the Islamic Revolution, in part because her family wanted her to pursue her passion for the sciences to the fullest extent possible."[22] (I think I originally saw it, slightly different, in another CNN article). I'll try and work it into the article. --SiobhanHansa 12:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive material placed under the picture of Anousheh Ansari

I attempted to remove ofensive material that was placed under the picture of this aspiring Cosmonaut. The words "Islamic Fundalmentalist and Jerks off Osama" were placed under her picture. When I refreshed the page however I saw that it had already been removed, her picture changed, and the word "Cosmonaut" replacing the existing words. I hope she makes her dreams come true.

September 17, 2006 (8:56 EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.9.217 (talk) .

We had a vandal on the article for a short while but s/he's been blocked now. Hopefully that will be the only one! --SiobhanHansa 01:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, he/she's back as an anonymous coward (24.76.232.39): 2006-09-18T18:42:38 and 2006-09-18T18:46:43.

As soon as someone appears in the media some people think they can beat Wikipedia by doing some vandalism on that persons article, while they forget that the media attention also draws people to the article that will immediately revert their lame jokes.--Pettsams 17:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservations about Ansari's visit

I think this is relevent to the Article. It's a comment from the pilot of the vessel she is travelling on about her participation. It is one point of view, not given undue weight considering who it's from. Why would this not be relevent? --SiobhanHansa 21:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

These are the exact comments from the same astronaut: Astronaut Lopez-Alegria said just a few years ago he was skeptical of private tourists. But he said now it was clear that the Russian space program needed such investment — and that without the Russian space program, the U.S. space program would suffer.

"If that's the correct solution... then not only is it good from the standpoint of supporting the Russian space program, but it's good for us as well," he said. Ansari's presence in space "is a great dream and a great hope not just for our country but for countries all around the world."

Cosmonaut Tyurin called Ansari "very professional" and said he felt like they had worked together for a decade. [23] The section is misleading. Khorshid 03:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds relevant. But in effect isn't it more like "about tourists visits to ISS," concerning all four people, hence more appropriate for another article or section?Downtownee 08:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the other quotes. That's even better. I think it's great to have the whole sub-section. Ansari's goal (at least as I understand it) is to open up space travel to "regular" people. I think comments like these put some real perspective on that effort. --SiobhanHansa 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian citizenship

Some user claimed that He does not know wether Ansari is still Iranian citizen or not. The concept is not valid for Iran. According to Iranian law, anyone whose father is Iranian born is considered an Iranian citizen regardless of other citizenships. --alidoostzadeh 03:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

She's not iranian, she's as american as you since she took american citizenship ,right? So, she's not the first iranian in space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.37.55.37 (talk • contribs).

New citizens do not lose their old citizenship or nationality when they take the new one. Ever heard of Multiple citizenship? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. But to go even further, as long as you are born from an Iranian father, by Iranian law, you are an Iranian. So she is both American and Iranian. For the sake of argument whereas she can even one day disclaim American citizenship since being American is based on citizenship, she will always be an Iranian because her father is Iranian by Iranian law.. --alidoostzadeh 11:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

She has not multiple citizenship. She may be iranian under Iran's laws but she's only american by US laws because she has american citizenship. This is not an iranian Wikipedia, but of english language. The laws here, for fair use, for example, are under US laws. Then, Ansari is an american who was born in Iran, just that. The article is wrong. And she is not the first female tourist in space, Helen Sharman, from UK, is it (see Helen Sharman article here[24]). Ansari is the first one who paid for her ticket. Machocarioca 19:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

It doesn't matter if this is a French or English or Persian wikipedia. English is an international language used by everyone. UK, Australia, US, Canada could have different laws. She is an Iranian citzen by Iranian law and Americanc citizen by American law. And to say which law is better or more important or should take primacy is pushing a POV (and also a bit arrogant). Also Ansari is the first space tourist because she paid for it and is not ding anys scientific work like Helen Sharman. --alidoostzadeh 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it matters!! And of course all you said is YOUR POV. Ansari is an american who was born in Iran. Ansari is not the first tourist, she's the first one paying for it, what's a lot different. She's doing scientific work, read the newspapers, ok? As Helen Sharman did. Sharman is the first one and this is not a POV. Sources? Read her article. Read the books and newspapers about Sharman.Machocarioca 07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

English is the international language and does not belong solely to the US. So US POV's can not be imposed on English Wikipedia. Ansari is considered both American by American law and Iranian by Iranian law. As per space tourism, it is a new industry which started after the USSR. She is the 4th space tourist and first female one. Here is a source: [25] --alidoostzadeh 07:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

People who acquire American citizenship by naturalisation are required to renounce former citizenship, however, their former nations usually continue to recognise them as citizens in the original countries. This would suggest Ansari is Iranian and American. Perhaps the resolution could be found in referring to her as "Iranian and American" rather than contentiously calling her "American," "Iranian," and "Iranian-American," even though all those labels are true.I regard her as Iranian and American since...she is!

A Stand-Up Guy 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ansari is an Iranian citizen by Iranian law, whether or not she holds US citizenship. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of Article 976 of Iran's constitution reads:

"The following are defined as Iranian citizens:

1. All those residing in Iran, except for those with an accepted foreign citizenship.

2. All those whose father is an Iranian, whether or not they were born inside Iran. (so it doesnt matter even if Ansari was born in the US (which she wasnt), she would still be an Iranian citizen by law whether or not she has a US passport). By this law, even Andre Agassi and Pierre Omidyar are required to serve in Iran's Army!

3. All those born inside Iran, if their parentage is not clear.

4. All those born inside Iran to foreign parents, provided at least one of the parents are Iranian.

5. Those living in Iran, whose father is a foreigner, but who have lived inside Iran more than one year, after the age of 18.

6. All foreign women who have Iranian husbands.

7. All foreigners who have obtained Iranian citizenship."

(Taken from website of Iran's Foreign Ministry: [26] Translated by Zereshk. You can check my translation if you like).

That being said, leaving Iranian citizenship is almost impossible. The requirements are stated here: [27]. Among them: obtaining approval from Iran's cabinet of Minsiters. And all Iranian citizen males are required to serve in the Army. Except for those stated here: [28] (students studying abroad, people with medical problems, etc).

Hope that helps.--Zereshk 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think as someone pointed out, the most important factor in determining Ansari's Iranian or American-ness is herself. If she regards herself as a citizen of both Iran and the US, and is legally accepted by both countries as a citizen, then there is no dispute. She considers herself both an Iranian and an American so she is both. Definite

[edit] Misc.

• She's cool but what's up with all these photos of herself on her website? It's just a bit weird for a businesswoman, "first female space tourist" and especially for "empowering girls" claptrap. Is it me or does anyone else get the feeling of oversexed promotion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.58.119 (talk)

I can't see oversexed promotion in the current artcile. This discussion is not very well appropriate for this place. Downtownee 09:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good luck to you Ms. Ansari. We are all proud of you. I am sure you have enough sense to ignore the negative comments that some of the discussions contained. Regardless, have a safe trip and come back home with pride. Note: I am not sure who put the biography together. However, the dates and the age don't match. Not a big deal to me, yet it may be good to correct it. signed, fellow Iranian living in the U. S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.217.219 (talk)

[edit] References

We have some some footnoted references, and others that are just inline external links. Since we started with foototed I'm going to change the others to the same. I'd like to do so using the citation templates (which most if not all of the current footnoted references use). Does anyone object to this? --SiobhanHansa 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the references over. I'll continue to update references put in as inline links in this fashion. If you hate the cite templates, let me know and I'll stop inserting them. --SiobhanHansa 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Tourist?

All the press outlets are describing Ansari as a "space tourist". However, "tourist" significantly downplays her role. It implies that she paid the money and is simply along for the ride, whereas in reality she has a scientific background and will be conducting a variety of experiments during her trip (e.g. on behalf of the ESA). It's also notable that the Space Adventures website never describes her as a tourist. Instead they use the term, "private explorer". Is this enough to warrant a change in the article, do you think? -- Hux 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With WP:NPOV we should represent all significant views. It's worth talking about her view of what she is doing in spcae, but I think the majority view is that a private individual who gets to go up in a Government space craft simply because they paid their own fare is currently a "tourist". It's not quite the same as a trip to Orlando, but it's still a matter of individual whim. It's also what WP's Space tourism article thinks Ansari is (not that WP is a reliable source). --SiobhanHansa 20:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I see where you're coming from. I note from further reading that Ansari isn't the only such tourist to refrain from using the term, so it might be useful to add a discussion of this either to this article or the one on Space Tourism (or both) - I'll give it a shot when I get a spare second. -- Hux 10:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firsts, firsts, firsts

Given the constant changes to the firsts claims and the qualifications and explanations that get put in in an attempt to overcome whatever opposition each editor percieves, I thought we should try to come to some understanding of what were actually trying to say, why, and how it's best communicated.

My perspective on this is that it is great to be able to claim the "biggest" (by which I mean least qualified) first you can for a subject. but at the same time, I don't think firsts are a particularly important part of a biography once more than a few people have basically done what you're doing. So while I find the qulifications on the Iranian first inappropriate, I also wonder about the appropriateness of putting in all these claims anyway. I see Ansari's work in encouraging commercial space flight as a much bigger legacy than her flight to the space station. I wonder if some of the constant revisioning isn't a reaction to a perception that all these "firsts" claims are stretching things a bit far (I notice the main astronaught bios on WP rarely claim any firsts for their subjects).

So what are the arguments around the "first" claims anyway? Why do people object to Iranian on its own? First female muslim also seems to attract dislike. Is there a way for us to represent all major points of view here? Should we have this stuff in at all? --SiobhanHansa 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is my views:

1. Anousheh Ansari is American first and foremost.
2. That said she also obviously maintains Iranian identity and has not nullified her Iranian citizenship.
3. Contrary to what another user says, becoming American citizen does not automatically nullify previous citizenship. That is 100% false. America is not dictatorship - when you become American citizen they do not force you to revoke other citizenships. She has dual-citizenship and all Americans have 100% right to multiple-citizenship.
4. Most important Anousheh has clearly stated that she is going to space as both an American and an Iranian.

I don't think there is much room for argument here since she is clear about these things. The only issue may be "Muslim" but if she has stated that she is Muslim, then there is again no room for argument.

If you ask me the article looks good and is sourced and people who want to deny this and that are only vandalizing. Khorshid 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that becoming an US citizen does not automatically *remove* previous citizenship. However all people who become naturalized US citizens are required to *renounce* their former citizenship via the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance, which begins, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen", and ends, "so help me God." So if she still asserts that she is an Iranian citizen (as distinct from culturally Iranian) then that's a pretty serious lie, especially if she is religious.

Also, your claim that "all Americans have 100% right to multiple-citizenship" is false. US law affords no such right. The ability to be a dual citizen is purely the result of the physical inability of the US government to take away a person's foreign citizenship. Only the nation conferring citizenship is able to take it away.

Finally, you say, "she also obviously maintains Iranian identity and has not nullified her Iranian citizenship", and, "Anousheh has clearly stated that she is going to space as both an American and an Iranian." Do have any evidence for these claims? We can't simply take your word for it, after all! -- Hux 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hux. In the first (currently!) reference on the page (CNN's Female Space Touris Blasts Off) Ansari is quoted as saying ""Me being the first female has inspired a lot of women and girls in Iran, especially being Iranian, and I've received numerous e-mails, messages of different sorts saying how proud of me they are."" (My emphasis). I think her (thwarted) attempt to wear both American and Iranian patches on her flight is also illustrative. In another reference (WAFF's Local space tourist's Iran patch spurs dispute) her husband is quoted "'She's from Iran no matter what,' Ansari said of his wife." Just a few examples from the references we have at the moment. --Siobhan Hansa 10:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Siobhan: Note that I drew a distinction between asserting that one is culturally Iranian (i.e. country of origin, upbringing, etc.) versus asserting Iranian citizenship. In bringing up the naturalization pledge I was simply noting the disconnect between swearing an oath before the US government and before God that one has renounced all other citizenship...and then going on to continue to assert citizenship of another country. From your quotes it seems that Ansari is not really talking about citizenship; her statements are more culturally oriented, so that clears up the third point in my post above. The other two points were simply attempting to address some misconceptions in Korshid's post and are not relevant to the article specifically. I hope that makes more sense! -- Hux 10:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there are 'constant' changes to the claims of firsts. Just clarifications. Wikipedia is a source of information for people curious about some subjects. We should include relavent firsts or whatever accomplishments/deeds for people. That is not to say that everyone needs a first. It is not always relavent. Of course relavence is in the eye of the beholder. Still, firsts, should deal in facts not opinions. There does also need to be a limit of relavence (e.g. "the first red-headed brown-eyed....")

Being first does not necessarily disappear over time. Yuri_Gagarin will always been known as the first person in space, and more than a few people have been in space.

As for objections to Iranians or Muslims dislike, that is the reader's problem. We're not going to water down an article about President Bush just because someone finds doesn't agree with his policies. People need to deal with the fact that it is not just westerners who get the firsts.

A year from now, the firsts may no longer seem relavent. As such time, I would agree about possibly removing those firsts. Until such time, let's leave them in there. - Taka2007 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By Iranian law as long as her father is Iranian she is considered Iranian. To claim US law as more correct than Iranian law is not correct. Both governments have their own law. So Ansari is a Iranian citizen by Iranian law. And a US citizen by US law. The US law does not hold in iran and the Iranian law does not hold in the US. Finally here is quote from Anousheh herself: "I'm hoping by portraying a different image of an Iranian woman I'll be able to help people's minds open to the possibility of Iranians not all being terrorists," she says.[29]. Note the source is the USA today newspaper which is an widely read newspapers. So if she has referred to herself as an Iranian Woman, then there should not be any commotion about this. --alidoostzadeh 07:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Taka2007 By "dislike" I did not mean we should water down the article. Merely that there are editor's who do seem to thnk the claims are correct. To have the article be of a neutral point of view we need to consider this. Of course if they really are just plain wrong then we shouldn't be changing the article. Particulalry on the muslim front I have seen nothing that contradicts our source that she is a muslim.

Some of the other issues have reasoning behind them. They may not be my POV but they're not all completely a matter of denial. I'm hoping that here we can all come to some agreement on how the article should be, and work to keep it stable as casual readers (or editors who do not want to work with concensus) come in and make edits that have not been dscussed. --Siobhan Hansa 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

I am somewhat concerned that the magazine cover shown in this article is not really fair use. How do you justify it ? Hektor 08:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim

Someone removed that she is the first Muslim women in space but left the category "Muslim women". So which is it now? If she is a "Muslim woman" then she is the first Muslim in space. If she is not, then remove the category too. Someone here has said that in an interview she has said she is a Muslim. Khorshid 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To User:Hux: You say that US law affords no right to multiple citizenship. Show me the law. As for the oath I was told it is symbolic. When you go for naturalization no one and I mean no one will attempt to take away your citizenships or demand that you revoke your citizenships or even ask what you are going to do about the other citizenships. No one tells you, "You have to drop all other citizenships". There are people who are citizens of 4 or even 5 countries and they are open about it and have no problems with US authorities. This is the wonderful thing about US, no matter what anyone says it is more free than most (if not all) other nations. This is my opinion of course. Khorshid 12:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Korshid: When I said that US law affords no right to multiple citizenship I was implying that there is no law saying that anyone has that right, hence the statement, "all Americans have 100% right to multiple-citizenship", is false. If you are asserting that one does have such a right under US law then the onus is on you, as the positive claimant, to prove it. Note, however, that my saying that no such right exists does not equate to saying that a person is incapable of having multiple citizenship. Like I said, even though one renounces all claims to other countries upon becoming a naturalized US citizen, the US government has no power to take away foreign citizenship.

Regarding the naturalization pledge, it's certainly not just symbolic! It's an oath that, in part, forms the basis of the government's legal justification to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act, e.g. if a naturalized citizen joins the army of a country fighting against the US, the government is empowered to revoke US citizenship. There is also a very significant moral component to the oath if one is religious, given that it concludes, "so help me God." To suggest that it is nothing more than symbolism is to seriously downgrade the part it plays in what it means to become a naturalized US citizen.

Anyway, this is all becoming very off-topic. If you'd like to discuss this further then post on my user talk page and I'll be happy to talk about it. -- Hux 11:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

She considers herself to be muslim according to this news report[30] (a reference that was removed along with the claim). She's the first muslim womn though, not first muslim. There was a Saudi prince who wwent up a couple of decades ago. --Siobhan Hansa 12:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• There was also a guy from Afghanistan, and are we sure there is no Muslim among all the Soviet cosmonauts ?Hektor 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

there were a lot of muslims cosmonauts: Abdul Ahad Mohmand of Afghanistan, Musa Manarov of Azerbaijan, Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, Muhammed Faris of Syria and probably more --83.21.120.174 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the bios in the Women in Space category and didn't see reference to it. To be fair though, it's not the sort of thing most of those pages seem likely to list. It's also very possible that under the Soviet regime a Muslim would have been reluctant to advertise the fact, the regime would have been unlikely to promote it, and there was far less interest in the popular press around "Muslim" first 20 - 40 years ago. So it's always possible there's another there that we don't know about. But as far as I can tell (with a very brief scan) there were no other Muslim women. --Siobhan Hansa 17:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I was just writing that in case someone was wondering about the possibility to label her as "first muslim". Hektor 17:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the reference, do we have a concensus on including "first female Muslim"? If not, what are the objections, or other suggestions? --Siobhan Hansa 19:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Muslim and Iranian women are fine, since Ansari has explicity used these terms to describe herself.. Unfortunately some users removed articles from ABC news and USA today.. --alidoostzadeh 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Sharman

Why does the lead say "She became the world's second female space tourist (the first one who paid for her ticket; Helen Sharman, from UK, was the first one)"?

This is frankly, a complete load of crap.

1. The grammar is atrocious.
2. Helen Sharman was NOT a "space tourist", nor did she see herself as such
3. Helen Sharman did not pay for her ticket.

Please sort this out. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations - the article has been protected with this crap inside. This is disgusting. We have a guy who keeps adding this nonsense about Helen Sharman PLUS puts copyrighted Roscosmos images which he has loaded in Commons and now the article is locked this way. This is ridiculous. Hektor 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth using http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5345872.stm as a cite when we can edit again. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You should note from the Wikipedia:Protection policy: "The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one." However, you have brought up a good point about copyvio. At the least this page should be reverted to a form without copyright violations.--Burzum 00:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone really contending that the majority POV isn't that Ansari is considered the first female space tourist at this point? I read Machocarioca's edit summaries and followed the advice to read the Helen Sharman page. It doesn't talk about her being a tourist at all. There was one news article that refered to Ansari as the seconf space tourist, but this seems to be a very minority POV. How can we cover this porperly in the article? It really isn't good at the moment. --Siobhan Hansa 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Machocarioca is a trouble maker. His behaviour regarding copyrighted images is really irritating. He reverts warning tags and other such nice stuff and obviously did not get what a copyvio is. And of course he has his own personal version of reality regarding Helen Sharman. Hektor 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a note of this at RFPP asking for the nonsense to be reverted. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup. Thanks to Mr Machocarioca I am discovering all these administrative procedures... Hektor 19:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To GW Simultions: What crap? You think Sharman was not a space tourist? Well, Gegory Olsen thinks he wasn´t too. [31], what you think? But is clearly that Sharman was. How do you define a woman who worked as a chemist and was selected as "astronaut" beating 13,000 applicants responding to a radio advertisement? I call her a space tourist that do not paid for her ticket ( I didn't say she paid, read again.) And I'm not alone here or outside wiki. You know what an astronaust is all about? I think you don´t.

To Hektor: I think the trouble maker here are you, because you understand nothing about photo copyright, my friend, and want rule your POV to me as "The Truth".

I will repeat what I said and pay attention this time, please: Of course the image series has a credit, all photographs have, someone did that shots, right? The camera do not work by itself. But it doesn't have copyright, of course. Why? Did you read copyright in the credits? No.

Because Soyuz flights to ISS are a joint-venture among Russia and US. All press material belongs to both spacial agencies. And all press material by NASA is public domain. That photo(not the one you showed) was uploaded from Ansari's official biography on NASA site. That press kit and all in it belongs to NASA and is public domain, ok? Thank you Machocarioca 07:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

• Soyuz flight are Russian governmental flights which have nothing to do neither with NASA nor with the US government. The press material related to a Soyuz flight does not belong to NASA, but to Roscosmos, the Russian space agency. The pictures were taken on the Russian territory, at Star City, by a Roscosmos employee or contractor. The fact that Roscosmos allows NASA to use this material on their own web site does not mean that the use by a THIRD PARTY is allowed. Hektor 08:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hektor, I think you have some difficulty to understand what people say to you, man. Soyuz flights are Russian governmental flights, I agree, but this is not just a Soyuz flight, is a Soyuz-ISS flight, an international misson to ISS, ( with a russian cosmonaut, an american astroanut and a space tourist}) and this type of missions are, you want it or not, a joint venture among both space agencies. All press material belongs to both agencies. Roscosmos didn't ALLOWED NASA to use the material, the material belongs to NASA too. All photographs of past three male space tourists are in the same case. "The pictures were taken on the Russian territory" ?!?!? What?? What is this linked to copyright, man? If it was a mission launched from Cape Canaveral, with russian and american crew, image probably would be done in US Territory and the mission would be the same.

An enployee did? Of course. And...?? The copyright didn't belongs to the employee but to both agencies. There's not a third party here, the material, all about this mission, is public domain, your arguments are ridiculous, sorry you're an amateur. What do you study in France? Arts? Talk about arts, not copyrights, is better for you.Machocarioca 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Hi Machocarioca. Thanks for coming to talk about this. Hopefully we can all work to develop a good encyclopedic article here. I don't think the whole space tourist thing is very clear cut. It's a fairly new term, and those to whom it's applied seem to find it distateful (Ansari included). But it is a term in common useage at the moment and one that tries to make a distinction that people are very interested in. When it comes to who falls into the category, there's no one official body that we can turn to for a definitive list. Nevertheless, your argument above is a matter of original research. We aren't supposed to be giving our opinions of what a term means. We should be writing an article that reflects all significant points of view in a way appropriate to their weight in the field of experts in the given area (difficult in what is currently, mainly a news-based story). Your view of Ansari as the second female space tourist does not seem to be widely shared, especially by those who study space exploration. --Siobhan Hansa 11:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Siobhan Hansa, thanks for your message. Nice words , let´s work to develop a good encyclopedic article here, this one is not and I´m not the "bandit" here, just an user trying to improve the article. Really, the whole space tourist thing is not very clear cut, then people can't say that Ansari is the first one. The only distinction here is who paid the ticket first . Tito, Ansari, Olsen,Shuttleworth paid their tickets. Sharman and Akiyama (first japanese in space, a journalist not an astronaut) not. All of them are space tourists but only the first four paid for the trip, right? Space tourist isn't who pay the ticket but who isn't an astronaut/cosmonaut/taikonaut.

If I am minority here, many agree with me. As you, I´m a space exploration student and afficionate too, and can't accept this thing on Ansari being the first tourist, she's obviously the first female who paid, just that. NBC ("Others, including British lottery winner Helen Sharman and Japanese TV journalist Toyohiro Akiyama, have flown to Russia's Mir space station under commercial arrangements as far back as 1990, but those passengers didn't pay their own way.")[32] and BBC ("The telecommunications tycoon from Texas, became the fourth person - and first woman - to pay an estimated $20m to travel into space. Ansari is the first space tourist to have passionately pursued the development of private space flight, using her grounding in business and science to do this.")[33] agree with me. Mr Hector do not like sources that disagree with his POV.

My friend, we don't have a consensus here and I can't accept what is written in the article. Now it's protected but is my right change it when it turns operational, until we agree in a consensus about how to write the hole thing. The fact is, we need appropriate terms there. Sorry for my english , I agree with GW_SimulationsUser , is atrocious, but you can read it. .Machocarioca 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

I am disappointed to read that you are trying to bully this issue. I think you've lost your sense of perspective and should refrain from editing this article. I would recommend that you just leave comments on the talk page and let others determine if it merits inclusion. All that your bullying is accomplishing is delaying updating information about recent events.--Burzum 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullying?? Trying put things into correct perspective?? You call this bullying?? Sorry, I can't agree. Others determine the merits of a truth?!?!? The article is their POV, just that, why would they determine anything, my friend?? I want discuss the theme here, they don1t. I'm not the bandit here, I repeat. Thanks. Machocarioca 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Machocarian, you provide one source that backs up your claim, but the other (the BBC article) does not. It states Ansari is the "fourth person and first woman to pay" (talks about her being female but no explicit definition of this being tourism or not), and the first "tourist to have passionately pursued the development of private space flight" (talks about her being a tourist but no reference to whether there were other women or not). So there's nothing in the article that shows a position either way on whether there were other female space tourists before her. So far you have provided just the one reference, which would make it a very minority POV given that there are 11 references in the article right now that label her first female space tourist. So I'm not sure how useful it is for you in the long term, to simply say "it's my right to change it." Sure (once protection is lifted) you can change it. But it'll just continue to be an ugly mess if there aren't a greater proportion or higher quality of external sources supporting your position. In this situation, if this ends up going through other dispute resolution channels, it is unlikely you'd find the support from the community to continue putting your wording in the lead summary. So we all need to open up a little and try to find a way that represents the external sources appropriately.

I wonder if we could change tack with this, and look for entirely different wording that will satisfy everyone. In the BBC article you linked to they label Ansari - "The first space tourist to have passionately pursued the development of private space flight." It seems to me this is a much more significant claim than "first female tourist", and one that better reflects Ansari's previous involvement in the X PRIZE and the partnership with Space Adventures Ltd. Would everyone be comfortable with that wording. --Siobhan Hansa 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are not going to allow the edit war to end until you get your issue resolved, thereby blocking other users from updating topics in this article that have nothing to do with your particular gripe. You are therefore bullying. If a consensus is never reached I suppose it wouldn't bother you to have this article protected for eternity? What you need to do is understand that conflicts happen, but edit wars are not needed to solve them. Ask for a vote on your gripe or do as I suggested and refrain from editing this article (except the talk page) so that the article can progress with more current information.--Burzum 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Siobhan Hansa. Well, I think the point is: there are, by actual standards, reasonable doubts (not for me ) about this fact, "the first" one, including among press sources and among users here. This is an encyclopedia and we must try being exact. Then, this "first female tourist", isn't exact, right? So, I'll be confortable with that wording you found. It´s exact. What's written now in the article, I can´t agree anyway. As I said, we need appropriate terms there. Thanks. Machocarioca 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Burzum, I never reverted the article, I just inserted my views in the right place. All updates in other topics of the article are never damaged, I´m not a rookie over here. But thanks for our message too. Machocarioca 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

You completely missed the point of my post. How many edits in those other topics are being perfomed right now? Zero? Why? Oh, because of your edit war. Other users have tried and tried again to resolve this conflict, but you are not listening. It is a pity that it will probably take an RfC for you to allow others to update this article.--Burzum 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, please feel free to indent when you reply. Your moving around of posts and replying with zero indent is really making this section difficult to read.--Burzum 08:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Burzum My edit war or Mr Hektor edit war?? I just corrected the facts, pall. Machocarioca 08:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

My advice for everyone is to start a "Request for comment" about User:Machocarioca. This is required if the user continues to insist on this thing. If this doesn't work we take more drastic measure. Khorshid 00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Khorshid, are you kidding? I'm not insisting in anything, is Mr Hektor and few others who insists in their point of view about this "first one". What are you talking about, please? Machocarioca 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

No you are incorrect about everything. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you will have to wait until the RFC and you will find out. Khorshid 06:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm incorret in yout opinion, right? Not in mine. Not in many sources, users and people who like this subject. Is this RFC something to make a consensus? Good, let´s wait for it. Machocarioca 08:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

This is entirely original research. While Sharman may be closer in spirit to NASA's discarded "citizen in space" program, she was a working scientist with a Ph.D., had a full training regimen, and ultimately flew at the Soviet space program's expense (the Juno program failed to raise the money it promised). The RSA does not retroactively consider her a "space tourist" and neither should we. Finally, she did not win her place by lottery. To give Sharman and others, such as the Japanese journalist, their due, I've updated the space tourism article. But this claim doesn't have any place in this article. By Russian designation she is the first female space tourist, period.--Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mr Dharthung, everybody who goes to space has a training regiment, that's not a Washington-New York ticket in a flightplane. By russian designation Sharman is a space tourist? By NASA too? Well, she's in mine too. Machocarioca 08:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

By Russian designation Sharman is a cosmonaut.[34] By Russian designation only Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen, and Ansari are "space tourists", or technically, the joint USA/Russian term "space flight participants". NASA never designated Sharman anything, so far as I know. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to voice my disapproval of the way this issue has been handled. Machocarioca, the article is currently locked and thus cannot be updated entirely because of this edit war you have engaged in over something that is really very pedantic. Yes, there is room for discussion on whether Ansari is the first female space tourist, but continually changing the article to your personal opinion in defiance of, it seems, pretty much everyone else's views is not a reasonable way to deal with the issue. If your edits get reverted then the proper course of action is to raise the issue here and perhaps call for a vote in order to find a consensus. Right now your actions have simply screwed things up for everyone. Hopefully you'll learn from this and refrain from such edit wars in the future. There are established procedures for dealing with these situations on Wikipedia. If they're followed then we all benefit. Thanks. -- Hux 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hux , if there's a room (a large one) for discussion on whether Ansari is the first female space tourist and a reasonable doubt about how this afirmation is exact, I think the expression "first female tourist" isn't apropriate, agree? Then, it can´t be there. I feel more confortable with "The first space tourist to have passionately pursued the development of private space flight." claimed by user Siobhan Hansa, meanwhile we discuss the final term here. What do you think about?

This is not just my POV.(this is not a POV really, is the fact) The fact is that I'm the only discussing the hole thing here, not the only one with this POV. Was it me who was changing the article or them??Thanks Machocarioca 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Machocarioca, this is POV-pushing and is getting out of bounds. "First female space tourist" is both the official description (NASA/Roskosmos) and the commonly-accepted one (wire services, major news media). I have no idea why it's important to you to muddy these waters, but you are not providing any citations for your original research. Sharman did not buy her own ticket to space, she was an accredited research cosmonaut sponsored by a private organization. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Machocarioca: You seem to be making an assumption of, "if there is any doubt then [term x] should not be used". This is a poor assumption. The accurate assumption for Wikipedia would be, "use the most commonly used term; if there is significant doubt then note that doubt in the article and list alternative terms." Accordingly, we should use "first female space tourist" by default since that's what nearly every media and official outlet is using. (PS Could you please use colons correctly when adding your comments? It's getting difficult to know what part of this epic discussion you're responding to.) -- Hux 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung It's important to me to muddy these waters as you said, because this statement is not an exact fact. You want my citations or sources? There's one here [35] . So, Sharman didn't buy her ticket? You need to buy one to be a tourist?? Can't you win one as a gift? She won hers. POV is people saying Ansari is the first one. Machocarioca 07:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)machocarioca

Machocarioca: First off, your link doesn't support your position. The paragraph near the bottom that begins, "Anousheh Ansari would be the world's fourth..." clearly groups her with Tito, Shuttleworth and Olsen as space tourists. It then goes on to draw a distinction between these four and Sharman/Akiyama, the implication being that the latter two were not tourists.

Secondly, the distinction is obvious: Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen and Ansari all booked their passage through Space Adventures, which is a tourism company, so it is appropriate to call them "tourists." Sharman's situation was very different: Project Juno could never reasonably be described as a project to select a space tourist. It was about finding Britain's first astronaut and she was picked from 13,000 applicants.

Finally, Wikipedia, being a descriptive, explanatory source, should stick to the most commonly used descriptions wherever possible, particularly when they match the official description. As Dhartung notes, Ansari is the first female space tourist according official sources as well as the vast majority of news media. This fact alone should trump anyone's individual opinion. -- Hux 18:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Machocarioca: The Helen Sharman article notes that

"Sometimes it is said that Helen Sharman was 'selected by lottery' which is wrong, the confusion coming from the fact that a lottery organized in the UK was used to raise money to pay for part of the cost of the flight."

You have been repeating over and over that she won her flight though it appears to me that she was selected just like any astronaut or cosmonaut from a pool of a large number of candidates. This is consistent with the British National Space Centre biography of her[36] which in my opinion is the highest quality source since it is the organization responsible for UK space activities. The BNSC further notes:[37]

"Because the UK doesn't currently support manned missions, people in this country are extremely unlikely to become astronauts. The one exception to this was Helen Sharman, who was part of the crew on the Juno mission to the Russian MIR space station in 1991. This is because the mission was partly funded by British companies. Michael Foale and Piers Sellers, the other two Britons who have been in space, were both able to do so because they have dual British-American citizenship."

This is consistent with the statement that a lottery and other private funding was used to pay for the mission, but that Helen Sharman was selected through the normal cosmonaut selection process.--Burzum 21:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a NASA document on the Mir program, describing Sharman specifically in relation to NASA definitions:

Helen Sharman, a cosmonaut-researcher, sat in Soyuz TM-12's third seat. Cosmonaut-researcher is a designation roughly equivalent to the designation Payload Specialist in the U.S. Shuttle program.

NASA does not classify the four space tourists as payload specialists, but as spaceflight participants. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I should also note that WP:BLP gives us the policy to follow in this case. The individual space agencies cited are higher quality sources than the newspapers cited. We don't have the option to edit the contested 2nd female space tourist aspect of this story unless we can verify with a higher quality sources than the newspaper articles.

This page in a nutshell: Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

--Burzum 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodea

can someone write-up Prodea (as opposed to Prodea Systems)? They seem to be more significant than Prodea Systems. 132.205.44.134 22:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Have you found somewhere a source of information about Prodea ? there is no web site or anything of the kind. Hektor 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• If you ask me, neither is really notable and both should redirect back here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This was already discussed here. The decision was to keep the Prodea Systems article as it is.--Burzum 00:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image for article

I'm inserting this image for the nth time into the article. It seems some people here have a desperate desire to conceal or delete this image merely because of the Iranian flag. That is so pathetic. Either an image with the American flag and an image with the Iranian flag must be used for the article, or use an image with no flag at all. She officially holds Iranian citizenship as well as US citizenship. This has been explained above.--Zereshk 09:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you provide does not seem to be the owner of the copyright of the image. I have no problem with politics but I have a problem with the way you handle intellectual property. Hektor 09:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk: This has nothing to do with any country's flags shown on her clothing. I was one of the people who removed the image and I gave a clear reason in the edit summary - it violates Wikipedia's copyright rules. The image is copyright Getty Images, as can be seen in this BBC article. As you can see, the version shown on this page has been edited to remove the "Getty Images" phrase at the bottom, clearly in order to hide the fact that it's a copyrighted image. -- Hux 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, I hope your fair use rationale is sufficient to get it back on the article page, it's a great picture of her. However, there is no fair use rationale for having the image on this talk page. Could you please make it a click through link to the BBC hosted image instead. Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 12:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Images licensed for fair use may never be placed on talk pages. Please do not replace this image here. Please do read WP:Fair use which deals with the use of Fair use images on Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. We wont use it on a talk page.--Zereshk 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Its more than that though, as Hux noted above this seems to be an image whose copyright is owned by Getty Images. If that's the case then you cannot upload it to Wikipedia. Please clarify the "permission" you received to post this image. Unless its Getty Images who gave you permission to post it, it will shortly be removed from Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldnt matter. It's a Fairuse image. Unless of course there's a law forbidding Fairuse for getty images as well, which as far as I know, does not exist. Does there?--Zereshk 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk: there are two issues in play here. Firstly, can the specific image you uploaded be used under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy? I argue that it cannot be for two reasons:

• The image itself has had its copyright attribution removed
• The copyright attribution on the image's hosting page is incorrect (azargoshnasp.net is not the copyright holder and is not authorized to give such permission).

The second issue is whether the original image (with the "Getty Images" text at the bottom) can be used. This is more open to interpretation, but I would argue that it still cannot be used, again for two reasons:

• It falls foul of the statutory four point test for Fair Use (points three and four, specifically).
• It falls foul of the first three points of Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of non-free images.

Basically, the Getty company makes a living selling such images to the media, so we can't just use them for nothing when freely usable images are available unless there is something specific about that image that no other image can convey AND only a portion of the image is used, not the whole thing. -- Hux 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that Ansari/Prodea are making photos -- screen captures, really -- available on Flickr under a Creative Commons Sharealike/Attribution license. Most of them post-launch seem to be taken off of the NASA feed, which is US public domain. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hux,

I think youre basically putting up an argument against all fairuse images, because getty isnt the only company that makes a living off of photos, and yet we see many other images (including getty) accepted and used here on WP. Furthermore, it's not a problem: like I said, we could change the link to BBC instead of Azargoshnasp and we could replace the image with the image that does have the copyright tag. But I see that youre highly reluctant to do even this. And that is sad, because such moves will only be seen in a highly negative light by many many (in fact millions) readers such as myself, and will discredit WP even further as a biased source of info. We will all be thinking: see? they just had to erase the Iranian flag even for a single event like this. The only time they will put up an Iranian flag in the media is next to a nuclear warhead or some zealous Ayatollah. Especially that NONE of the three points of WP:Fairuse are violated as you claim there are. Anyhow, you can enforce and hide the fact that she is Iranian, but that wont change reality. Cheers.--Zereshk 00:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Zerkesh, The argument has always been that there is no fair use argument when there is another image available that is not copyrighted. And you have not addressed that argument; an argument that is about the ability of wikipedia to operate in a legal (and for many participants - ethical) way. It makes no difference if some people are heartened that WP showed an Iranian flag if WP is no longer able to serve any pages at all. If you want your truth to be heard in the world through WP, you need to try and do so in a manner that is in keeping with WP objectives and policies, and won't get WP into too much legal trouble to operate. Copyright is one of the issues that could shut WP down. So find a reasonable quality, Free image of Ansari that shows the flag on her uniform, and it will be welcome on the page. I'm sure most editors here would thing it was fantastic and defend its inclusion. --Siobhan Hansa 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Zerkesh: Your objections to my earlier post make no sense. I'm not putting up an argument against Fair Use. If there was something about that image that was unique and if no free alternative was available then I would support it being used according to Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. That image does not satisfy this criteria so, as Siobhan notes, it should not be used. It's that simple.

Regarding your assertion of systemic bias, I'm sorry but that's weak. This has nothing to do with bias whatsoever. If you can find a freely usable image that shows Ansari with the Iranian patch on her uniform then I would have no objection at all. In fact, if it was a better quality image than the one we currently have then I would actively support it. Personally I think the quality of the current one is pretty nasty.

And as for your implication that I, personally, am trying to "hide the fact that she is Iranian", that's an amazingly ignorant, not to mention rude assumption. It reminds me of the people who immediately categorize anyone as antisemitic the moment they voice any disapproval with the concept of Zionism. Guess what: it is possible to remove an image that happens to feature an Iranian flag for reasons that have nothing to do with that flag. This is one of those occasions. And for your information, if anyone changed the article to remove the fact that she is Iranian (e.g by changing "Iranian-American" to "American") I would revert it ASAP. -- Hux 19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is unique, Hux. Please show us another image, even just one, with Ansari wearing the Iranian flag. Is there any? Furthermore, the image is highly significant because of the de-emblemed flag of Iran she is wearing. She's making a political statement right there, which is directly relevant to the article and very important. She is pro-Iranian, but not pro-I.R.I. and not pro-opposition (royalist, MKO, etc). That image speaks volumes about her position on feedom in Iran.--67.11.240.167 23:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:67.11.240.167 (perhaps you could give us a name instead of an anonymous IP address?): First, please do your research - Ansari wanted to fly with the US flag on one shoulder and the pre-revolution Iranian flag on the other. Both the US and Russian space agencies objected to this so she compromised by removing the emblem. If she was originally intending to make a political statement then it was clearly an anti-theocratic one. However, she and her husband have both said since then that she simply wants to indicate support for both the US and Iran. Secondly, the issue is not just whether it is unique, but whether that uniqueness is something that is vital to the article. Imo, the Cosmonaut infobox should show the best quality Cosmonaut image we can find. That one clearly isn't it, plus as has been said numerous times: if there's a choice between an image used under Fair Use and a free image, we should always use the free one. However, I do think it would be good to have an additional image showing the Iranian flag, perhaps in a section of the article that specifically talks about her choice of wearing both flags. I would support this particular image in that context since I don't think there is a better one. But frankly, having said all this why don't we just wait a while? I'm sure over the next ten days Nasa will get a great looking image of her with both flags, so why are we spending so much time arguing over this? -- Hux 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

What's this POV everyone's going on about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.162.99.17 (talk • contribs) .

All Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view - as far as possible stick to reporting facts, not opinions. This idea is referred to by the shorthand NPOV. You can read more about it on this policy page. When articles are written from a particular point of view, we use the shorthand POV. You can read more about why POV damages Wikipedia and should be avoided, here. I hope that helps, Gwernol 21:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing image on a protected page

I have created an image: "Image:Soyuz TMA-9 Patch.jpg". Can some kind administrator please replace Image:Soyuz-TMA-9-patch.gif with this? Scolaire 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Scolaire , don't you think that the patch is a little better on the pictures of Daisuke Enomoto :
  • http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/hires/jsc2006e27945.jpg Hektor 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Hektor, but I can't seem to replace my original one with this one (on Commons). It keeps telling me I've uploaded it, then the old one is still there!! In the meantime, a proper .gif file has appeared so I've now linked to that instead. Scolaire 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's too bad; I am not fully happy with the .gif file since the user who uploaded it has not provided any statement about where it comes from. I fear it is from spacefacts.de, and the owner of this web site has already complained here about unauthorized downloads of his images.Hektor 09:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The 'nicer' .jpg was there this morning so I've gone back to it (and on the Mikhail Tyurin and Michael Lopez-Alegria articles as well). Scolaire 13:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted images

There are no more images on this article and it looks like 2 have been deleted. Khorshid 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replace image in the infobox

Hi, since the old picture image:Anousheh Ansari portrait.jpg in the infobox has ben deleted from the database, could an administrator please replace it with the public domain Image:Anousheh Ansari.jpg. Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Gwernol 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts on using this image for the infobox? It's part of the press kit at Ansari's website, so there's no copyright problem, and it was used previously in the infobox until it was replaced by the Getty Images one and, since then, the current image (which I believe comes from NASA). Is there a particular reason why it should not be used? It seems to be the most appropriate given the purpose of that infobox. The only reason I can think of for not using it is because it implies that spaceflight is her profession, when obviously she's a businesswoman first and foremost. What do you all think? -- Hux 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a "problem" with the copyright - it's copyrighted and not realeased under an Open License. Ansari is keeping the right to determine how the image is used by not releasing it under a license that protects the users - so she could demand it be taken down at a later date if she wanted. Under Wikipedia's rules we can only use it in fair use situations. Since we have a public domain photo of Ansari, it fails the fair use conditions. Wikipedia's intention is to create an encyclopedia of Open content as far as possible, so others can take that content and do as they please with it. If we include images that cannot be used under the same conditions as the text, we're not doing our best to get there. At least, this is how I undeerstand the situation. Hopefully we'll get more open content material soon. --Siobhan Hansa 16:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your points and agree wholeheartedly with the open content argument. However, your interpretation of Wikipedia's Fair Use policy is overly strict. Copyrighted images can be used under that policy if they depict something for which there is no free image available, which in this case would be "Anousheh Ansari the cosmonaut" as opposed to just a generic image of her. I haven't been able to find a freely usable image of Ansari in her spacesuit so in lieu of that I would say that this is usable under the context of the policy (although I accept that there is room for argument on this point). The free image that is currently being used is in the cosmonaut template but it doesn't effectively illustrate that she's a cosmonaut. I think this one is better, at least until we can find a free one. -- Hux 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that similar images that were copyrighted were removed from this page by admins. So you may need to convince other people who aren't on this talk page if you want the image to stay around. I would !vote, if possible, to get broader support for using the image first, because it seems we've had a lot of image changes on the page, and significant amounts of time with no images, and I don't think that's particularly good for the article. But if Wikipedia is going to let it stay, I think it's a grat photo. --Siobhan Hansa 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I just scoured the Nasa site and unfortunately the best image of Ansari that is credited to Nasa (and thus public domain) is this one, which even if it were cropped still doesn't look very good, imo. I like your vote idea. How would I go about doing that? I've never put anything up for a vote here before! Alternatively, maybe we should just wait for a while and hope that Nasa gets a good shot of here floating around in the ISS. ;) -- Hux 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And the plot thickens: the image now in place is the same image I uploaded, but it looks to have come from a Nasa press kit, which would make it public domain. If that's acceptable to Wikipedia then we can just go ahead and stick with that, which renders my original question moot. -- Hux 20:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify what happened. The image we have there is copyrighted by Roscosmos / Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center. Images on NASA websites are PD "unless otherwise specified", and the picture here has been taken by Roscosmos. Normally NASA takes pictures from the crew when they come to Johnson Space Center for familiarization training, but unfortunately at that time Daisuke Enomoto was Prime so they took only good pictures of Enomoto, such as the one which illustrates the Enomoto article. The picture of Ansari with the space suit was taken at Star City, the "not-so-good image" of Ansari but free was taken at NASA JSC in Building 9 in the Destiny laboratory mock-up. It is a crop of a picture where she was with Enomoto. IMHO, there is no Fair Use justification since after all there are free alternatives. The "not-so-good image" being taken in an ISS lab mock-up it is a good demonstration she is indeed a cosmonaut. My suggestion : why don't you just wait for a while for a good picture taken while on board the ISS by the crew ? They will be NASA and PD !!!Hektor 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Otherwise, why not this one ?

Hektor: I think you're mistaken on the copyright issue. There are two different images in play here:

• This image (credited to Roscosmos).
• NASA bio image (PDF file - no copyright attribution given - source page here).

As far as I can see, people are confusing the former with the latter because they look so similar. I can't find any source that says the latter is a Roscosmos image. Therefore, given that it's on a NASA bio it's PD "unless otherwise specified," as you say. (I'm betting that both images were taken at the same time, one by the Roscosmos photographer and one by NASA's photographer.)

Having said that, I'm not going to bother inserting it for the umpteenth time; I agree that it's better to wait for a decent image to show up over the course of the mission. I just thought it was worth making this point because as far as I can tell, the image on the bio is perfectly fine for us to use. -- Hux 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramadan

I came here to add a link to this column which speculates that Ansari may, in the clarity of space, be able to see the moon of Ramadan before anyone else.

But this page deals with a current event. It should be unprotected as soon as possible. Septentrionalis 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not a column, but a newsgroup posting and is not appropriate under WP:V (verifiability) and is obvious WP:OR (original research). The issue of Ramadan is 100% irrelevant to this article anyway. Khorshid 06:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's James Oberg and it's harmless. WP:V says Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, so it's appropriate to say

James Oberg says in a newsgroup posting...

Original research does not apply to something cited in a source of dubious reliability. It's Oberg's research, not the editor's. If this had anything controversial or potentially defamatory about it, of course, it would be a different story, but I fail to see the harm done to Wikipedia here. Obert is a well-known author and commentator on space issues and frequently writes online during notable missions. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not question of harmlessness. This is question of verifiability. If this person published his opinion in a news report or journal or something, then that is something. But a newsgroup??? No way. Additionally as I said this issue of Ramadan has nothing to do with the article. For all we know Anousheh Ansari is a secular Muslim or non-observant. If the tourist in question was anyone else, we would not even be discussing this because so-and-so author would not decide to give his opinion about Ramadan. This is far from harmless, but insensitive and potentially misleading, among other things. Khorshid 07:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the source used in the article she is a "liberal Muslim" [38]. She does not observe hijab obviously, and for all we know she does not pray (according to Islamic ritual method) or observe this and that. It is subjective. Perhaps someone like Oberg and many others like him assume all Muslims are the same. This is false. To add the information you call "harmless" is in fact controversial. This is a biography article and one should take care what is added, and there is a WP policy on this. Khorshid 07:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're going to great lengths to interpret what is potentially harmful. (I just think it's interesting, for example. I have always found most Muslims are eager to have open-minded discussions about many things with regard to Islam, and would not expect this to offend.) This is not a fact about Ansari herself. Indeed, such religious questions have been raised before, when Prince Sultan flew (directing figuring into Ramadan) and when Ilan Ramon flew, and Malaysia in particular is formally investigating the issue for its Muslim astronauts.[39] That said, I agree the importance of the issue is low (and on her blog, she speaks of God as "it", the meaning of which choice is known only to her). --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No but I am going to great lengths to illustrate something which is not always clear to non-Muslims. See for instance this quote from article on Ilan Ramon:

"Although a secular Jew, Ramon sought to follow Jewish observances while in orbit. In an interview he said, "I feel I am representing all Jews and all Israelis". He was the first astronaut on a NASA flight to request kosher food."

In that quote the astronaut has directly stated that he is religious and observant and feels as though he is "representing all Jews". So you see he has already brought the issue of religion into play. And Salman Abdulaziz is a blood member of the House of Saud - a royal family and like all members of monarchies a "representative" of whatever religion they belong to which in case of House of Saud is the extremist Salafist/Wahabi sect of Islam which al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden also belongs to and are dedicated to imposing on the entire world.

Anousheh Ansari has neither made issue of religion nor has any connection to religion. She was simply asked in an interview if she is Muslim and she replied that she is "liberal Muslim" which could mean lots of things. She has nowhere stated that she feels she is representing Muslims or anything having to do with religion or that she will observe Ramadan nor has she requested halal food or anything like that. Khorshid 09:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The point you're making that she has not introduced the issue herself is a good one. I will just express my disappointment that you're jumping to some big conclusions about what was undoubtedly meant in a spirit of generosity. It's unfortunate that this divide between cultures remains so great and so full of suspicion. --Dhartung | Talk 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? People like Oberg are directly responsible for the continuation of so-called "cultural divides" by assuming all Muslims are the same and that we have the same practices and beliefs etc. People like him are responsible for the misconception that "Middle Eastern" is a race and ethnicity or that everyone from that region is Arab or speaks Arabic or is Muslim. Cultural divides are put up by people who have racist views but who ironically deny that they are racist. Iran and America are more similar than people like him would like to accept. Before revolution there was no "divide" between America and Iran. It is people like him (and Jimmy Carter and BushCo. and the like) who wanted to see Iran become what it is today. But I am digressing here. Khorshid 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does Oberg say any of that? I think you are unable to separate your own biases, Khorshid. I find that sad, and it does not bode well if you assume the worst of a conciliatory gesture. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I pretty much agree with Korshid. I don't think including this piece of information is particularly harmful, but its accuracy is certainly questionable given its source and, much more importantly, it is not really at all relevant to a biographical article. -- Hux 09:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, James Oberg is a pre-eminent space journalist and author whose writings on the Soviet space program, for example, are the gold standard. It's unfortunate that we would discount what he says because of where he distributes it.--Dhartung | Talk 11:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again the issue of Ramadan has nothing to do with Anousheh Ansari. If Oberg put up a post speculating whether Ansari will be eating chocolate bars in space would you be insisting on a link to it??? Put the link on his page but keep it as far away from here as possible. Personally I find the link and his insensitive opinions to be offending! Khorshid 06:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the first "liberal" muslim in space. Well I think she is nominally muslim so stating it is okay also, but if some users objects, then it should be discussed. --alidoostzadeh 09:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Such furore. I agree that this is tangential, but (as I said) it's going into external links, not the text of the article. Septentrionalis 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not keen on this link. Including it implies it's something Ansari is interested in, when as far as I can tell, she has nothing to do with it. Using external links doesn't let us off the need to have it be encyclopedic and topical for the article. It should go on an appropriate article, otherwise it's a form of link spamming - using an article to push a site to more prominence, whether that's in order to make money, or to promote a particular issue/POV. --Siobhan Hansa 20:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no connection with the site, although I've heard of Oberg. I have no idea whether we have other links to it. I came across the article by chance and found it interesting; readers may too. The assumption of POV-pushing gets tiresome. Septentrionalis 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have explained enough. It is not my problem if you do not understand. I have removed the link and will do so and if it is added again I will take this to the Admin noticeboard as it is a clear case of linkspamming. Khorshid 06:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not care for non-negotiable demands. This is less severe than a legal threat, but has the same effect on discussion. Also, it is vacuous. Since nobody is linkspamming, Khorshid may find some difficulty convincing ANI. Septentrionalis 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Septentrionalis, i don't want the use of one term to get in the way of communication. The question is - in what way is the link you want to see connected to the subject of the article? And is the content linked to encyclopedic? In general usenet groups are not cosidered encylopedic because (among other things) it is not normally possible to verify the identity of the poster and are not subject to fact checking. And with this post specifically - it is not related to this article. The fact that a poster uses Ansari as a jumping off pointto talk about Ramadan is not sufficient connection to the subject of this wikipedia article. It might have been a reasonable connection had Ansari brought it up - but this is not. --Siobhan Hansa 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the abuse and threats, I probably wouldn't have added it back, and I certainly won't revert war with a civil editor. (I take it that Ansari wasn't actually watching for the New Moon?) However, I don't see the post as jumping off into Ramadan; this is a space buff discussing a possible effect of space flight. As for verifiability: we can certainly take the link to James Oberg off; the rest of it makes no assertion except that the post exists and has that title. If it were being cited for anything, that would be different. Septentrionalis 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Without Ansari (or someone else in a position to know) telling us, I don't see how we can know if she was watching or not. It's mere speculation. Which is one of the reasons I think the link is highly inappropriate. External links are still supposed to further the encylopedic purpose of the article. Even if the link was to a well respected, peer reviewed paper from an authority in the field, I think it would be inappropriate. But to a newsgroup posting? If we can't be sure the posting is by someone who's an expert then it's not really an appropriate link for any wikipedia article. Would you please consider removing the link yourself? With the recent increase in interest in the implications of space travel on religious experience and practice, it may be an appropriate subject for a well sourced article of its own, but it's relevence here escapes me. --Siobhan Hansa 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Siobhan. Even if we completely ignore the fact that the source is a Usenet posting, at some point there is a line that must be drawn between "biographically relevant" and "connected, but tangental". The former belongs in the article; the latter does not. In my opinion, this particular example falls squarely in the latter category. It could prove very interesting and worthwhile as part of a separate article, but it's very much out of place in this one. -- Hux 20:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I consider this point moot, and I've made personal peace (I hope) with Khorshid. The only reason I defended the link Pmanderson added was a) a naive hope it could be illuminating to non-Muslims, and b) the historical connection to Prince Sultan who did perform the sighting. James Oberg is certainly an "authority in the field" (history of space), the only question is how he posted his article. (Oberg freelances and if he doesn't sell an idea he tends to just post it.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

I've moved the article into semi-protection, meaning it cannot be edited by IP users or new user accounts, but other editors can now edit.

Please note, if we return to the edit wars over this article, I will reprotect it. I will be strictly interpreting Wikipedia's policies on WP:3RR and WP:POV-pushing. Please use caution when editing this article, and work to achieve consensus before making changes. Thanks, Gwernol 12:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astronaut, Cosmonaut or a Space Tourist?

This Wikipedia article says Anousheh Ansari is a cosmonaut? (normally used to identify the Russians). [Just below her image]. Can anyone correctly describe her official title? 130.194.5.129 06:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

She is a cosmonaut because she was launched aboard a Russian vehicle. Her cosmonaut rank is Spaceflight Participant, a title which was agreed on between the US and Russia for space tourists. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. However, this explaination seems fussy and incorrect.

No where in NASA web sites state that Anousheh Ansari is a cosmonaut [40]. NASA web pages mention her as a Spaceflight Participant. Also, if the cosmonaut title is given to human who travels in a Russian spacecraft, then what about the commander of Expedition 14, Michael Lopez-Alegria?. He is called as an astronaut in NASA pages. Again Thomas Reiter is an astronaut [41] and has flown in both Russian and American spaceships (Euromir - 95) and the shuttle.

Hence, can anyone supply the exact defnition of the astronaut and cosmonaut titles ?. Can Anousheh Ansari be called as a cosmonaut?

In one of the Johnson Space Flight Center's web pages [42], the following is stated: The term cosmonaut refers to those space sailors who are members of the Russian space program.

This is a tricky question, because the word astronaut has a generic meaning as well as being an applied title. I'm going to open up a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Astronaut#Astronaut/Cosmonaut, because this applies to several different pages, not just this one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. Yes, indeed it is a tricky one and that is why I thought of asking the question from Wikipedians. Once people/experts come to an agreement about using the words astronaut/cosmonaut, it could be applied to all Wikipedia pages. Personally, in Ansousheh Ansari's Bio, I would like her not calling as a cosmonaut [this is also consitent with NASA web pages]. As NASA and Russian space agency have agreed better to stick to the title Spaceflight Participant. 130.194.5.129 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think there are two solutions:
  • Use only the astronaut term as a term established in English language for all those people.
  • Use both terms based on official qualification/rank of a person. So a person travelled in space of received special training could be cosmonaut, astronaut, or both, or neither, depending on their qualifications, official status and certificates. At least in Russia there are official terms (qualifications) "pilot-cosmonaut", "cosmonaut-tester" etc. But then we maybe should use not generic, but more specific term "pilot-cosmonaut" for example instead simply "cosmonaut" as any Russian encyclopedy does. But this approach requires additional research on every person.--Nixer 07:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would Very strongly oppose the first option because it is a serious factual inaccuracy caused by the unnecisarry Americanisation of Wikipedia. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Using astronauts for those carried by NASA, and cosmonaut for those transported by the Soviet/Russian program appears to be usage; I would support that for simplicity. Septentrionalis 17:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• First things First:
  • ASTRONAUT is a word in the dictionary meaning: a person who travels beyond the earth's atmosphere; also : a trainee for spaceflight Source: Merriam-Webster
  • COSMONAUT is a word on the dictionary meaning: an astronaut of the Soviet or Russian space program Source: Merriam-Webster
  • SPACE TURIST: is a NON EXISTENT word in the dictionary Source Merriam-Webster

End of the discussion, why?, because that's why we have dictionaries to resolve disputes in terms, not for us to invent them, 'space turist' is clearly and apocriphous term invented byt the uneducated press, now, who rules the language?, the press or the academy? Ansari, Tito, Shuttleworth, Olsen, Simonyi, are COSMONAUTS, period. now, COSMONAUTS have RANKS, their rank is SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANT

Hi. Yelling doesn't make your point sound stronger. Certainly choosing the one generic term "astronaut" is one way of approaching this, but there is long-established usage precedent for calling everyone who goes up on a Russian vehicle a cosmonaut. On the other hand the Chinese government translates itself with the word "astronaut". Other countries insist on their own terminology. This will only become more difficult as more countries send people to space. We were unable to resolve this satisfactorily at Template_talk:Infobox Astronaut#Astronaut.2FCosmonaut, unfortunately. In any case, we are not limited to using only words that have dictionary definitions, especially since new words arrive all the time and dictionaries only come once every few years. The newspapers all use "space tourist", so are you going to write to them all and tell them they are using a made-up word? --Dhartung | Talk 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact Ansari is not a member of Russian space program. She is a member of her own space program ;-). Chinese officials call their astronauts "cosmonaut" in Russian.--Nixer 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a bit obvious...

In the section titled "No Politics" there is this line: "although Ansari was aware of the divisions between the governments of her adopted U.S. home and the land she left at age 16." Honestly, who in the world is not at least slightly aware of "divisions" in US-Iranian relations? Let alone a highly educated Iranian immigrant who presumably has family (parents?) still living in Iran. Anyone object to this being reworded? Messiahxi 15:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Her parents moved to the US with Ansari. Presumably there is other family still in Iran. The MoS does say to state the obvious, but I'm not sure they mean i quite like this. I'm not personally particularly attached to the current wording - but I guess it all depends on what you change it to. Be bold. It's a collaboration. --Siobhan Hansa 15:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just trying to be a respectful noob... to a fault perhaps. I changed the sentence to: "She and her husband have said no political message was intended, despite the increasing tension in US-Iran relations, which has dominated world headlines in the weeks leading up to her historic launch." Messiahxi 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole current events section, especially the parts based on interviews, is excessively detailed and written in a conversational style, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Much of it is redundant. I was going to tackle it the other day but the article was protected due to a certain editor's shenanigans. But it could use a thorough rewrite and trim -- we don't need to keep track of everything she says to the media. (An interview isn't an "event", usually.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amount Paid

According to the current article, "Her contract forbids disclosure of the amount paid, but previous space tourists have paid in excess of US$20 million." This article on smh.com.au states that she paid "$26.6 million". It does not state the currency (US or Australian) that this is supposed to be in but I thought someone might think it deserves inclusion Henare 02:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As 26.6 AUD is roughly 20.0 USD, I think it simply means they translated the guesstimate into local currency for the benefit of their readers. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Current Events"

When I first wrote "Interview" I tried to note her interview was politically charged underneath. The sentence that helped this in the text were later trimmed. (In interview she implicitly insisted on going free, etc.) "Current events" is in bad shape, which is it is not encyclopedic, and wants a thorough rewrite and trim; the talk about ".. series of experiments.." when the section begins would be kept. "Interview" and the rest may be deleted, except for the flag story which would be kept briefly. Indeed I suggest we delete the whole "current events" and keep the flag story and the experiments.

Previous discussions in note [a bit obvious..] above.

Downtownee 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This image & Machocarioca's edit war

As astute editors will see from the history, Machocarioca keeps changing the image in the infobox, after which another editor immediately reverts it. This has been going on for several days and each reverter has requested that Machocarioca build consensus on the talk page, something that he has thus far failed to attempt. I am opening this specific discussion to attempt to build such a consensus on the legitimacy of this photo's use on Wikipedia.

The photo in question can be found at the sites listed below, all of which are relevant to my comments here:

• Anousheh Ansari's website
• NASA website (PDF file)
• nouvelobs.com (in French)

As you can see, the photos on the first two links above do not show any copyright attribution. Ordinarily, one could assume from this that it is a NASA image (since NASA's policy is that all images on their site are NASA images "unless otherwise stated") and thus public domain. However, the third link above clearly attributes this photo to "AP Photo/Prodea Systems Inc". If this attribution is correct then according to Wikipedia policy we cannot use it when there are freely usable images available that will serve equally well on a biography article.

I have emailed Mrs Ansari's press contact to see if she can clear up the copyright issue. Hopefully that will put a lid on this. In the meantime, Machocarioca: will you please stop repeatedly inserting this image until we can sort this out. Comments anyone? -- Hux 14:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the correct way to proceed. I agree that until copyright is established we shouldn't use that image, even though its a pretty nice picture. Gwernol 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want we can start a Biography RfC on this topic along with the Helen Sharman being the first space tourist claim. That way we can get everything out of the way in one discussion in case we eventually need to go to arbitration to determine a solution.--Burzum 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the image issue more of a copyright one (i.e. one that needs expertize in law rather than in appropriate biography writing)? An RfC on the space tourist issue would be good if that's the next step in dealling with a single disagreeing editor. Might help the article anyway to get more eyes on it. Machocarioca is on a 48 hour block at the moment, are we supposed to wait until he's able to participate? --Siobhan Hansa 16:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of hours ago I received a friendly email back from Erin, Mrs Ansari's press contact, to say she was looking into this for me and a few minutes ago I got her reply: she says that the photo should be correctly credited to NASA. Can we all agree that the photo is okay for Wikipedia then?

As far as the Helen Sharman controversy goes, I think that Burzum's RfC idea is a good one. -- Hux 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Hux. Sounds good to me. I remember reading somewhere (though I have no idea where) that emails about copyright should be forwarded to some wikimedia foundation address. Just FYI. Someone else might know more.

Has anyone here started an RfC before? Do we need to prepare at all, or just have someone list and we all jump on in? I just went and read, so I guess we don't have to prepare. Is the suggestion to ask for an RfC on Machocarioca's conduct, or on the article content? --Siobhan Hansa 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

An RFC is just a neutral request for people to come by and comment. It isn't a complicated process. Regarding the photo credit, the simplest approach would probably be to ask for a photo credit to NASA on the anoushehansari.com website. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that address is at Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. It should be acceptable for them to confirm that the original is public domain, without separately contacting NASA. NASA does have its own photo department which might be amenable to further confirmation. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I forwarded the email conversation to the address above. Also, the image uploaded by Machocarioca doesn't appear to be working properly (it's as if it's been half-deleted, in that you can still see the image but if you try to edit that page it says no page exists). I had previously uploaded a better quality version anyway so I've edited the notes there to reflect the email and this discussion. If anyone wants to use this image, use this version of it. -- Hux 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Machocarioca: since you are just "out of prison" so-to-speak, will you be willing to not reverting the article for a while so that an Biography RfC can take place and perhaps resolve the issue of whether or not she is the first female space tourist? If so, I'll start the RfC.--Burzum 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This Image was mirrored from NASA's International Space Station Imagery JSC2006-E-38876, there it is written in clear letters, that this photo is credited to "Roscosmos / Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center". The NASA GUIDELINES FOR USE OF NASA IMAGERY (PDF) says, that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted." and here it is noted! So if you want a copyright agreement, you have to e-mail/ask "Roscosmos / Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center" and NOT Ansari's Pressguys! Ansyri's Pressguys can only sanction this image for personal interest, not for copyright interest. --TH-Foreigner 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Of course this is totally wrong, 'cause it's a different image, I thought I've reverted this edit properly yesterday. Sorry for your stolen time, next time I proof my intented reverts.--TH-Foreigner 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The basic point is that the editor advocating for and uploading an image should have the primary responsibility to the community for seeking out permissions. Unfortunately, that obvious polite course of action has not occurred to someone. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

TH-Foreigner: Read the whole discussion - you are mistaken. The image you linked to is NOT THE SAME IMAGE as the image we are discussing. This image (which is just a better quality version of the one Machocarioca uploaded) is perfectly acceptable for use on Wikipedia since I have researched the source and confirmed that it is a Nasa image. All this has already been dealt with above. -- Hux 06:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You have second hand information from the Ansari company guys, but you have no direct info from NASA. Frankly, I think now we need an email from NASA PR to confirm the rules at this point. This image seems like one from a set, and since one is copyrighted Roscosmos, I would like to be sure that all of them are not copyrighted by Roscosmos. Since we don't know the copyright agreements between NASA and Roscosmos, the fact that the image can be found in a NASA press kit is not definitive proof for me. All we know for sure is that a very similar image, taken in the same context, is copyrighted. Hektor 09:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. Any idea how to contact NASA on this? I'd be happy to do it since I've already gone this far with it. However, I don't think that just because one is a Roscosmos image that all similar ones must also be. It could easily be that the Roscosmos photographer took the first one and the NASA photographer took this one at the same time. That would make sense given that they wouldn't want to set everything up for the official photo more than once. Much easier to get all the photographers together in one place and let them get their shots. -- Hux 15:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

But why then should NASA put Roscosmos images in the image gallery and not their own? You should note that all images of this set (cosmonauts in Sokol space suits in front of their land's flag) are credited to Roscosmos, many other images instead (see [43]) are taken by the NASA photograph Victor Zelentsov and so credited to NASA. I fear the discussed Ansari image is indeed a Roscosmos one, but the best way to know this would be to contact NASA in the matter of using Roscosmos images (there are many of them in NASA's gallery, e.g. some of the official photos of Soyuz crews, which could be usefull for us). If someone could do it, it would be great. --Bricktop 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA say on their website that everything is available for free use unless otherwise stated. How does NASA normally state an image isn't free? Because while I see that the image is credited to Roscosmos, the page doesn't say that he has copyright. It is possible (some would even say good practice) to credit an author even if the work is public domain. --Siobhan Hansa 18:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My email to NASA dated Sep 23: "Dear Mr XXX - Could you clarify for me the rules of usage of images such as this one : http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/html/jsc2006e38876.html which can be found on a NASA web site gallery, but which bear the mention : "Photo credit: Roscosmos / Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center" Should they be employed under different rules than plain NASA images? Kind regards" Answer from NASA from today : "Yes, they should. They are not NASA photos and therefore may not be in the public domain. You need to contact the Russian Space Agency. "Hektor 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great perseverance Hektor. That should pretty much clear that up then. Hopefully more free images will come availble over the coming months. --Siobhan Hansa 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud! I really don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before it sticks, but I guess I'll try one more time: THE PHOTO WE ARE DISCUSSING may look similar the one that is credited to Roscosmos in Bricktop's link, but it is not the same photo. The photo we are discussing does not appear anywhere in that photo gallery. The only place on NASA's site that I have seen it is on Ansari's bio page, where it is not credited to anyone. In addition to this, I have received a communication from Ansari's press contact that the image should be credited to NASA. Therefore, as it stands right now it should be considered a NASA image. The last thing to do, just to be absolutely 100% certain, is to get confirmation from NASA themselves. -- Hux 21:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So you think that NASA shipped a photograph at 5000USD the roundtrip plane ticket from Houston to Moscow plus 300 USD the hotel night in Moscow these days, just for the fun to take the same picture as Roscosmos, and, by the way, not put this picture in their galleries and just on the Press Kit ? Hektor 05:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A photo inside a press release is specifically released to the press to be used in news stories. Since the press release doesn't explicitly cite whether the photos are by NASA (being public domain) or a copyrighted work of Roskosmos, we are in sort of a tough position. I think we have a strong argument that use of the photo in Wikipedia is acceptable since there is a very strong indication that the photo was released specifically for news and information by a reputable government organization even if it doesn't properly cite ownership. If this image is copyrighted, then we probably have implicit permission to use it since it was in a press release (and presumably NASA received permission to include it for the purpose of disseminating it to the press for use). I think this is sort of a silly issue since there are many PD images with Anousheh Ansari on the ISS that can used just as easily. This image is not worth all the energy that people have been expending.--Burzum 06:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Burzum on all points. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the details for the relevant contact at NASA and have fired off an email to try and sort this out. Yes, Burzum, in hindsight it was probably not worth the effort but now that I've come this far I may as well go all the way and have something to show for it! Oh and Hektor: all I'll say is that I wish I had your faith in the efficiency of government bureaucracy! ;) -- Hux 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're giving this the college try, may as well contact Roskosmos at their press office. --Dhartung | Talk 09:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, in my best level 1 Russian! We'll see what happens. -- Hux 11:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have one update: the NASA guy wrote back to me, but the email was pretty much useless. He basically doesn't know who the photo should be attributed to, but wrote the email in that way a lot of people do when they're deliberately trying to avoid actually saying "I don't know." Don't you just hate it when people do that? ::sigh:: Hopefully the Roscosmos folks will write back. -- Hux 06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If NASA does not know whose image it is, I guess we can assume this image is not NASA.Hektor 17:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First blogger

I'm not sure if it's wise to bring this sort of thing up again but... First blogger from space seems a little trivial for the opening paragraph. I was thinking about moving it down to the current events section. What do you all think? --Siobhan Hansa 00:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, but we should have a citation. Other astronauts have certainly had e-mails published online. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't need to be in the leader, but I'd say it's better placed in a "Trivia" section rather than "Current Events", assuming we can all agree on whether or not she is the first space blogger, of course. ;) -- Hux 04:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm loath to start a trivia section. In most cases they seem to become breeding grounds for unencyclopedic and tangential information. If the claim shouldn't be there (a decision I'd live with easily) we should just take it out. If we do keep it it could sit in with the sentance about her blogging in the "stay" section.--Siobhan Hansa 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think since it is a first, it is not a bad information to include. --alidoostzadeh 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean in the begining. --alidoostzadeh 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox astronaut

• There has been quite a lengthy discussion at Template talk:Infobox Astronaut#Astronaut/Cosmonaut regarding the infobox fields and the designation of space tourists. Please don't ignore it and don't modify the infobox violating a consensus which has taken quite some time to establish. Hektor 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)