Talk:Shenzhou 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not quite sure but shouldn't it be 神舟5 instead of 神州5? (Axel)

The second character set is the correct term, just look at the mission patch. The second name is a pun - 'Divine land' is a name for China used in Mainland PRC.Roswell Crash Survivor 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the Chinese term should be in the article whether we use the english astronaut or the pseudo-english taikonaut. Saying that it looks ugly doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to remove the correct Chinese term. Ark30inf 03:56, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Time will tell what the preferred term for a Chinese astronaut is in English - my money's on "astronaut". There's no special reason to include a Chinese translation of "astronaut" on this page (any more than there is a reason to include a Chinese translation of the word "rocket" for example). rlandmann

We should probably take our lead from China's official news sources -- both Xinhua and China Daily use "Chinese astronaut" so we should stick to that. Fuzheado 05:52, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Agree. "Taikonaut" is not a Chinese term, it is an english term invented by English news media. It is originated from "Taikongren", a nonofficial Chinese term which I believe is used mainly in Hong Kong. Wshun
The official term (航天员), literal translation is 'space navigator' or 'aviator' althrough even Xihuai uses the term 'Taikonaut' on the English versions.
Yup, it's interesting that only Western media outlets have been using that term. Fuzheado 06:39, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"China the third country to put a person in space," <- this needs to be made clearer. People of other countries have been in space; but that sentence makes it sound like it isn't so. -- Tarquin 08:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this contributes much to the article:

"The Party and the people will never forget those who have set up this outstanding merit in the space industry for the motherland,the people and the nation," said Hu, who also expressed congratulations and respect to specialists and people who have contributed to China's space mission development on behalf of the CPC Central Committee, the State Council and the Central Military Commission its chairman Jiang Zemin.

Add it back if you object. It just sounded too much like the People's Daily. --Jiang 03:28, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and President Bush is quoted in the US media. What's your point? BTW, this statement by Hu concerning the CMC chairman is worth noting due to the endless speculation over Jiang's role after the 16th Party Congress. China-watchers scrupulously analyze all official statements, on the lookout for clues illuminating whether Jiang's influence is waning or enduring. Whether and/or to what extent the current CMC chief and ex-president was lauded after a moment contributing to a great deal of patriotic fervor is something that China specialists worldwide are studying and analyzing right now. The launch not only has strong geo-strategic implications, but also noteworthy - but not earth-shattering - implications for domestic politics as well. 172 17:42, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Where is the specific quote where he speaks "on behalf of the CPC Central Committee, the State Council and the Central Military Commission its chairman Jiang Zemin", if that's what's important? --Jiang

Seen in that context, the statement is rather important, but probably should be summarized with the context rather than quoted. Something that seems pretty clear to me (and a lot of other China-watchers) is that Hu's speaking on behalf of Jiang is actually a sign that Jiang's influence is significantly waning, in that Hu was speaking for Jiang rather than having Jiang deliver the message himself. That isn't obvious from a direct quote. --Roadrunner

Not sure why this was here, since I don't know of anyone who suggested that the launch was a hoax.

Although news reports of the launch were strictly controlled by the PRC government, and a live broadcast of the launch apparently canceled, the launch was congratulated by NASA, which implied that NASA also confirmed the launch.

---User:Roadrunner

I imagine NASA and NORAD would be pretty quick to spot of a launch was faked. Slightly more problematical actually proving that the whatever-naut was actually in the capsule, though! Lee M 01:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The last pic makes the width in Opera too wide. Anyone could help? --ILovEJPPitoC 17:04, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too wide on Mozilla too. Why is the right-margin:15? I guess the author wanted to match up the left margin with the above photograph, but the page has become too wide in the process. -- Tlotoxl 17:07, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Statement in question: "Normally seen in far more rehearsed and scripted gatherings, China's leaders here are letting their genuine patriotic enthusiasm show."

Moved the caption about the Politburo Standing Committee members normally being seen in formal occasions. The PSCSC rarely is seen collectively, and when they are now, its often in informal or semi-formal occasions. (i.e. NPC meetings) -- User:Roadrunner

I modified and restored the sentence. You're right, but even on informal and semi-formal occasions the Standing Committee members generally don't act outside professional bureaucratic norms (save Jiang's outburst in Hong Kong a few years ago). By and large, a good analogy for the PSCSC would be Thorstein Veblen's "soviet of engineers." One of the most telling unscripted comments I've heard lately is Wen commenting, "the former Swiss ambassador to China once said that my brain is like a computer...indeed, many statistics are stored in my brain." It's still interesting to note how human the reactions of these high-caliber technocrats seem to be. 172 20:57, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think we should refrain from analyzing the emotions of the PSC members. How do you know this "patriotic enthusiasm" is not scripted too? (This may be their geniune feelings, but how do you know its not scripted?) Aren't they supposed to respond this way? Or are they not supposed to smile on TV? Haven't they smiled and clapped before? They obviously aren't jumping up and down, which would be unexpected. However, clapping and smiling would be the expected response for such an event. The statement is better left out. Let each reader come to the conclusion that these people are smiling and clapping. We don't need to tell them. --Jiang 21:04, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jiang:
Sometimes I get the sense that you haven't gotten over the CPC's victory in '49. You hardly fail to dissect any sentence perceived somehow as suggesting the reality that the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. In this case, nationalism - and yes, Chinese nationalism expressed through the PRC - is significant. The Chinese space program, in large measure, was resumed in 1992 under Jiang's tutelage partly as a way to promote patriotism, national cohesion, and legitimacy for CPC rule as the country was still coping with the shocks of the Tiananmen crisis.
The PRC sought - and achieved - the passing of yet another milestone in its long-running quest for international prestige and domestic legitimacy– propelling it ever-closer to the center of the world stage along with the benefits that this affords. The launch follows Beijing's winning bid to host the Olympics in 2008; and the resumption of economic growth, after weathering the East Asian Crisis in '98 and SARS in '01-2. Especially among middle class urbanites, the Shenzhou V is seen often as a reflection of China's progress from a poor, backward country subject to national humiliation to the "New China". There is considerable pride as China is seen as rising, growing stronger.
Modify the sentence and try to improve it, but keep in mind that the nationalist overtones of the launch warrant mentioning, and that China's leaders are obviously tapping into that. Besides, no one seriously doubts the strong nationalist credentials of the third and forth "generations" of CPC leadership. Even the most cynical observer notes the devotion to order, development, efficacy, national sovereignty, and social cohesion of the current leadership base. 172 02:54, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's actually not true that no one seriously doubts the nationalist credentials of the third and fourth generation of leaders. There is an undercurrent of thought that considers the Chinese leaders insufficiently nationalistic. It's quiet right now, but it pops up from time to time. It doesn't take very much for the Chinese public to view from heroes of the motherland to traitors of the motherland (and back again).
Much of the reason for Shenzhou is to prove the nationalist credentials of the Chinese leadership to the Chinese public.
Yes. Since the CPC realizes that stability and good relations with the main trading partners are requisites for development, they often have to contain mass nationalism, such as the aftermath of the embassy bombing in Belgrade. Momentary surges in patriotism at times have to be subordinated to developmentalism and modernization. But some of the things that I mentioned on the talk page could be added into the main body of the article. 172 03:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Personally what I think is much more interesting about the picture is not so much that the Politburo members are clapping and emotional, but rather that the PLA people in the back are being restrained. My own theory is that this is a sign of the heavy involvement of the military in Shenzhou and that it's unseemingly in Chinese social contexts to be congratulating yourself. --User:Roadrunner
Ah, excellent, suggestive point. That would explain Jiang's seclusion (since he probably played the greatest role in making this possible by reviving the program in '92 and now serving as CMC chief). But it's shocking how seldom he has been mentioned - and praised - by the current PSC members, state media, or the People's Daily. 172 03:34, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think you're right about the significant role that national pride has played in the launch, but writing 'leaders here are letting their genuine patriotic enthusiasm show' is clearly editorializing. The picture speaks for itself -- everyone looks very happy -- and the article itself can discuss the nationalistic context of the launch. -- Tlotoxl 04:01, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't dispute the nationalism behind this launch. Perhaps this article should also mention nationalism as a motive behind it.
Saying "China's leaders here are letting their genuine patriotic enthusiasm show" proves nothing of your point - that the latest space launch is intended as a symbol of accomplishment of prestige. It only states that the leaders have "patriotic enthusiasm". Do not equate this to "patriotic enthusiasm" by all Chinese or as admiration by the world.
Please stay on topic. Trying to speculate what my political views are don't serve your purpose. I still don't see how smiling and clapping is anything to be suprised about. Some of your response can be transplanted into the article, if that;s the point you are trying to demonstrate. The caption should not stay. It fails to demonstrate your point. --Jiang 04:09, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang, Wikipedia doesn't need analysis. So should I remove that statement? --ILovEJPPitoC 04:55, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Are you serious when stating, "Wikipedia doesn't need analysis?" It's impossible to avoid in any serious China-related article. This statement is so absurd that I don't even want to bother addressing it. Roadrunner will agree, I'm certain. This is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. 172 05:15, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, this is an encyclopedia, not an almanac, so we don't need to analyze anything, we are just telling the truth. Analysis can't be NPOV, and that's against Wikipedia's policy. You can cite other people's remarks, but not in a analyzing way, how can you promise your analysis is right? esp. concerning politics? --ILovEJPPitoC 05:38, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No. Almanacs are the factbooks. Without the analysis, we'd be just be left with a list of facts in each article. 172 05:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't thought that that smile meant so much -- "patriotic enthusiasm" -- before I read the description belowe. C, you convinced me to believe that. --ILovEJPPitoC 05:50, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
While some "analysis," namely in the kind of many of Roadrunner's additions to articles (like in Sino-American relations) is helpful, there is a point where analysis turns into mere opinion and speculation. As Tlotoxl put it, the caption is editorializing. Consider it either opinionated or overly obvious. Is this "patriotic enthusiasm" not already evident? --Jiang 05:54, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Jiang's right, but should have pointed out that qualified speculation is necessary in some contexts in articles on Chinese politics due to the opaqueness of party and state functions. BTW Jiang, were you suggesting that my work has been "opinion" and "speculation?" 172 06:12, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No, I am not suggesting that.--Jiang

I am just worrying if analysis causes problem. People from different background analyze things in different ways, and come to different conclusion. Since wikipedia is not a collection of argument, I am wondering what's the limitation of analysis? :O --ILovEJPPitoC 06:10, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Enough with this ultra-relativistic b.s. If you go by that logic the disciplines of history and the social sciences would be irrelevant. Please don't turn this page into a debate on the role of "analysis." in an encyclopedia. Don't generalize this issue; point out problems that you believe are evident in a certain context. 172 06:24, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Actually since 172 explicitly mentioned me, I personally don't believe that the picture should have a analytical caption. The reason for this is that I don't see how one could write an NPOV analysis of the photo in anything less than a page. One problem is that I disagree *very* strongly with 172's analysis. It's not particularly rare to see PSC members in unscripted moments, and that photo isn't particular remarkable in this respect. I think that 172 vastly underestimates the "people skills" of the Chinese government and their ability to show emotion. My experience with Chinese politicians are that they can be remarkably charming and aren't anything like the Western stereotype of the gray appracthik. I also object to the term genuine, since I've found through personal experience that Chinese politicians (like politicians everywhere) show a remarkable ability to control their outward emotional expressions.
You're right, perhaps I feel into the trap of over-empahsizing the differences between today's technocrats and the revolutionaries (e.g., Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Zhu De, Chen Yun, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, Deng Xiaoping, Peng Zhen, Li Xiannian, Yang Shangkun, Bo Yibo, etc.) Often the contemporaries of the leaders I listed are viewed as stereotypical peasant revolutionaries, with all the traits and characteristics associated with that, while cadres of the "forth generation" are seen as "gray appracthik" from Soviet times. We notice a stark difference of culture between the first and forth generations; so it's probably easy to view them as ideal-types of sorts. I have long railed against Westerners who fall into that perennial habit of viewing China as an abstraction, but I guess I might have been guilty of it here. So like many Chinese Communist cadres, I'd like to write a self-criticism and move on. BTW, I thought that Zeng looked the most content while Jia the least; my impression was the opposite. 172 02:57, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Also, I don't think that the enthusiasm of the PSC is particular important or worth mentioning. Playing amateur CIA sleuth, I would say that the most important thing about the photo is that you had the PSC there at the launch. The second most important thing is that the military people in the back row are noticably more reserved. Also its interesting to note the differences in the expressions. Zeng Qinghong seems noticably less happy than Jia Qinglin. It might mean that Zeng ate a bad eggroll for lunch or it might mean that he is upset over something that happened at the Central Committee meeting.
The people in the back are *very* interesting. They all are ranked major or higher. Also they all are Army people except maybe for one Air Force person in the middle. The one in the middle looks sort of like Guo Boxiong, which suggests that they might be the Central Military Commission. If that's the case then this photo is really significant because photos of the CMC together are really rare. If they are the CMC, then it is really signficiant since it means that the military has undergone the same generational transition that the civilian leadership has. (i.e. not seeing Chi Haotian or Xiong Guangkai in the picture is much more important than not seeing Jiang).
Very interesting observations. I know that the former Defense Minister Chi Haotian has been retired. But isn't Xiong Guangkai still a deputy chief of general staff of the PLA? 172 03:18, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't care enough about this to change things, but I don't think that that sentence on enthusiasm belongs.

-- User:Roadrunner


"Neither the launch nor the reentry was televised live. Some believe that it was due to government fears that a disaster could create an embarrassment, but news appeared on Chinese Central Television (CCTV) shortly after both events." - I think phrases like "some/many believe that" is important to highlight that "government fears" is not an established fact. (Kornfield)

Opps, then I agree. I was mistaking everything earlier. For some reason I thought that you had removed "some believe...," perhaps attempting to improve readability. I assumed that I was restoring the wordy, but nonetheless requisite qualifier. I guess that I got the two columns mixed up when comparing the differences between the two versions. Sorry about that. And good job catching the problem. 172 04:19, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the substitution of the more relevant 'person' for the sexist 'man' in such contexts as 'the first to put a man in space', but as discussed in Talk:Shenzhou spacecraft, crewed seems a pretty clumsy (and inaccurate) substitution for 'manned'. Is the wiki classification of 'manned' as a sexist expression a fait accompli? -- Tlotoxl 04:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jiang:

First, the caption does not intend to - and due to space constraints on a photo caption, lacks the capacity to – make all the points that I sketched on the talk page. I was merely justifying the caption's relevance; I was not explaining all the things that I wanted to convey in a single sentence. A caption can bring up surging patriotism without being a dissertation on Chinese nationalism; just as a couple of sentences in the article can point out clues vis-à-vis Jiang's role these days, but doesn't have to be a dissertation on the PRC decisional flow after the 16th Party Congress. Perhaps you'd want to develop some of the things that I mentioned in the article. Maybe that can give readers some contextual background to better understand the caption. But in itself, the caption, while needing some work, properly relates Chinese nationalism and the top PSC leaders.

Second, I cannot speak with certainty, but it doesn't seem to be a secret that you question the regime's legitimacy. It's odd that Wiki is the only sourcebook these days that still qualifies China with "Mainland" or "People's Republic of," due in large measure to your attentiveness on this matter. Yes, it's the most exacting way of putting it; and I suppose that Wiki is using the terms more precisely than most professional China specialists. But usually there is a de-facto assumption on the part of the mainstream media, business, and even scholarship that the PRC refers to China and vice versa. The vast majority of sovereign states have formal ties of recognition and/or trade with the PRC as well, which comes with the caveat of de-jure recognition of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.

It's by no means out of place, but you do generally seem to be on guard when it comes to this issue with the usual reluctance to convey anything that could come across as legitimizing the PRC. And the expression of nationalism through support of the PRC - which deserves mentioning in this article - is an ideological principle legitimating CPC-rule. So perhaps you're a bit uncomfortable with this? I was merely suggesting that you're probably predisposed toward viewing the content of the caption with suspicion. My comments weren't intended to attack the rationale behind your statements; they just sought to invite us all bring the sources of our reservations over certain sentences out in the open. Then we can get all that behind us and quickly agree on a way to address the issue of the space program and nationalism in general, and fix the caption in particular. 172 05:11, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It may make sense to bring up patriotism in the caption, but I think the word 'genuine' has no place (and is beyond our capacity to know). -- Tlotoxl 05:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Not really. See some of my earlier comments that address this. 172 05:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I've read all your comments but I still disagree. Maybe you could write, 'the leadership looking uncharacteristically jubilant in their patriotism' or something, but I really don't think we're in a position (even if it seems obvious) to state that the display was genuine. Some of history's most famous spontaneous political displays (take Canada's PM Trudeau's pirouette for the Queen) turn out to be scripted. It's better and more accurate to merely state what the context and show the picture. -- Tlotoxl 05:59, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Don't read too much into this sentence. The sentence doesn't imply per se that their reactions weren't planned. Moreover, no one seriously doubts that China's top leaders are believers in their system, all right? 172 06:17, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's not a matter of how the caption fails to "make all the points" you have brought up, but rather, the main point in it is irrelevant to your defense. It conveys a different subject matter. The caption implies that this smiling and clapping (actually, Jia Qinglin doesnt seem to be smiling or awestruck) is not expected of PSC members, who are usually "seen in far more rehearsed and scripted gatherings." My point is that this smiling and clapping can't be considered anything special. Take out the second sentence and change "view the launch of Shenzhou V" to "react to the launch of Shenzhou V" and let the reader decipher that they seem to be please/proud, etc from the expressions on their faces.
They're supposed to smile and clap. Even if the caption meant that they are pleased/awestruck/proud/ etc. (which, judging from the first clause of the sentence, is not its main point), the nationalism you speak of concerns the entire populace and overall world opinion, not just the reaction of the leaders. The reaction of the leaders does not imply that everyone is feeling the same. After all, this nationalism is directed at the populace, and not the leaders.
Believing that the PRC is not entirely synonymous with the word "China" does not necessarily imply that I believe the PRC is illegitimate. I do not believe the PRC is illegitimate. But if you want to argue and justify why the PRC is the sole legitimate govt of China, then email me. I want to avoid turing this page into a political forum. Keep in mind that I played no part in moving the PRC country template to where it is now and making China into a geographic/cultural article. Wikipedia, in adhereing to NPOV does many things differently. (Republic of Macedonia, not Macedonia; Republic of Ireland, not Ireland, etc.)
My problem with the caption is not that these leaders are happy and celebrating. I just think it conveys a non-issue (that somehow their reaction is unexpected). If it is conveying what you mean it to convey, then I think it's not our job to make that observation for people. We don't tell them these people are clapping. It's evident to anyone who is not blind. --Jiang 06:20, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Then come up with a concise yet both more carefully worded and suggestive sentence for the caption. But try to relate it to the points that I was bringing up, which were neglected in the article's text. 172 06:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
BTW, I was not trying to frame a debate on the PRC's legitimacy. It's just important to note that the launch is liked to a surge in nationalist sentiment, which has been cultivated by the PRC leadership since it can often contribute to PRC legitimacy, which in turn helps to reinforce the CPC's aims of national cohesion and order. 172 06:39, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I do not find the footer unneccessary. All of the other 79 articles (last I checked) on space missions have it. It is a matter of standardization. And there is nothing speculative about it. The article already says it is the first Chinese mission and already links to Chinese space program. The empty box for next mission is there awaiting the next mission which the Chinese have already announnced they will make. Rmhermen 14:52, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

When will be the next mission? There a element of flexibility with these templates. All of the other 79 articles consisted of missions/programs with either successors or predecessors. This situation is unique from the rest. We'll add in the footer once the other mission exists. So far it doesn't and the footer adds absolutely no new information. --Jiang 14:55, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I added Shenzhou 6 a while ago, perhaps you could link to that. Fuzheado 05:25, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In that case, I added the link. --Jiang 07:15, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] International reaction?

I think, it's unusual, that an article about the second manned PRC flight (Shenzhou 6 has International reaction section and the article about the first one (Shenzhou 5) hasn't. Cmapm 01:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mainly because I created one for Shenzhou 6 as it happened, but not for Shenzhou 5. Consider it a case of Wikipedia:Recentism. Evil Monkey∴Hello 09:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the fast response. Cmapm 11:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created a section now for this article. It is based off the People's Daily article in the new references section. I'll try to find some more later. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/e/Talk%7EShenzhou_5_8440.html"