Talk:Laika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laika article.
Article policies
Featured article star Laika is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 2, 2004.

Contents

[edit] B&W capsule photo

Without wanting to start an edit war, putting the black and white picture back just makes the article look cluttered. It would look better without it. Zerbey 02:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zerbey - The black and white photo is very famous and recognizable, and I thought the article was incomplete without it. But remove it if you like. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if shrunk a bit. --Yath 02:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like a good comprimise, I'll figure something out tomorrow. Zerbey 03:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved issues

[edit] Dates

Did Sputnik 2 re-enter on April 4th or 14th? Most news sites agree it's April 14th (as does NASA) but some sources quote April 4th or even May 12th. Anyone care to add another date into the mix? :-) Zerbey 21:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In von Braun (I think), it's mentioned as 14 April. I've never seen 4 April or 12 May. Trekphiler 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First in space?

Many credit Laika with being the first living being in space (e.g. [1]); others think the sub-orbital flights with animals have priority (e.g. [2]). Accordingly, we currently have: She was the first living being to enter orbit as a passenger on the Soviet Sputnik 2 spacecraft; some classify her as the first to enter space, although others point to previous missions placing animals into sub-orbital flights. — I hope this is sufficiently NPOV. — Matt 21:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the U.S., which was also testing rockets with animals inside them at the time, sets the boundary for space lower. ~ FriedMilk 16:38, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
Can we be sure that Sputnik 1 was sterylized? Primitive organizms (e.g. prokaryotes and protozoa) can survive really harsh conditions (thus, modern Mars landers are routinely sterylized to avoid contamination of that planet with terrestrial organizms). So if there is no data of whether Sputnik 1 was steryle, we cannot absolutely correctly call Laika "the first living being to enter orbit". I would suggest "the first living being to be intentionally put into orbit". 193.111.251.242 13:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Dogs section

This has been added, and removed - but the article would be more complete if a comparison was made to other famous dogs in history.

[edit] Claim of retrieval intentions

Great article. I'm curious about this claim: "to this date, Laika is the only living passenger ever to have been launched into space without the intention of retrieval." Two questions 1) Is this really true, taking into account the many flights involving "primitive" lifeforms? Specifically, I'm wondering if all the living rodents, insects, plants, and microbes over the years were launched with the intention of retrieval. I'm not interested in an ethical discussion; I'm genuinely curious if space researchers bother with the expense of sustaining and retrieving even simple lifeforms when the data collection and transmission could be accomplished without physical retrieval. 2) Is postmortem retrieval ever intended? For example, sustaining life during a flight, re-entry temperatures/forces, and landing would seem complicated and expensive for sensitive life forms. --Ds13 21:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With Laika, there was absolutely no hope of retrieval, the intention had always been to let the craft disintegrate on re-entry. Several other dogs died on both sub-orbital and orbital flights (see Russian space dogs) but I've found no evidence to suggest they where deliberate. As for other organisms, I don't know. --Zerbey 02:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The animals in space page makes reference to "[t]wo bullfrogs [that] were launched on a one way mission on the Orbiting Frog Otolith satellite on November 9, 1970". I'd never heard of it before, and the info in the animals in space article isn't terribly descriptive. However, according to NASA's Life Science Division's website: "The satellite carrying the OFO-A experiment remained in orbit for almost seven days. Recovery of the spacecraft was not planned." (Source) So it would appear that Laika was not the only animal sent into orbit with no plans of recovery. 198.164.41.62 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Excellent research! The article you reference makes it clear that the bullfrogs where not meant to be retrieved, and bullfrogs are definitely animals :) The article has been corrected. Zerbey 00:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieval was in play sometimes. NASA flew a monkey (chimp?) named Gordo, which drowned when the float system of the spacecraft failed. And the first ever safe return mission, Sputnik V (flown 19 Aug 1960) included 2 dogs, 40 mice, 2 rats, & 15 containers of fruit flies. (One of the dogs, Strelka, had a litter of pups, 1 of which was gifted to JFK.) Trekphiler 06:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future Improvements

[edit] Laika Memorial

Does anyone have a PD picture of Laika's plaque at Star City? This would really benefit the article.

[edit] Scientists Thoughts

Some discussion of how the Russian scientists who worked with Laika felt about the mission would be a definite plus.

[edit] Assorted Stuff

For instance, that Laika in Sputnik II orbited higher (@ 1671km) than Sputnik I, & made 2370 orbits in 163 days. Trekphiler 06:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Literature Reference

I could swear I read a Bruce Sterling story involving Laika, probably in Globalhead. Unfortunately my copy is in storage; does anyone have a reference? Epithumia 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember such a story but I tend to read only Asimov's and Best of the Year type anthologies. You could look through the Locus index of short stories to see whether any titles ring a bell. Or [Bruce Sterling online index]. Elf | Talk 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Found it: Storming the Cosmos from Globalhead. Epithumia 17:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article candidacy (successful)

[edit] (Contested -- Jun 28) Laika

Self-nomination. I've done a lot of updates to this article recently and it is an interesting story. Laika was the first living creature in space Zerbey 17:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Support. Object. There is too much missing from the story, e.g. the training, the feelings of her handlers, the news stories, the equipment. It also needs another photo, perhaps of a postage stamp or the plaque. It's a rather short article. --Yath 19:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Even though it's kind of short, I don't know whether more material is available. And it is pretty well-rounded. --Yath 21:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I doubt if there was any significant training for the stray from the streets of Moscow. The Soviet Union didn't provide so much detail in their news. I'm impressed to see so much on the top dog. Captions could use some work. -- ke4roh 16:18, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Following suggestions by other users, I've added the requested updates and tidied up the article. Feedback would be appreciated. --Zerbey 20:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Small objection: Image credits: What makes the stamp PD in the US - Are we sure it wasn't protected under Berne once the US signed that? Is the Sputnik 2 image actually produced by NASA (hence PD) or someone else's that was on their site? Same for the image of Laika - David Gerard 21:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The Sputnik 2 image appears on NASA's website with no attribution, it appears on several other websites captioned as a mockup of Sputnik 2 on display in a museum in Russia. It appears to be public domain. I have corrected the attribution on Laika, this was also taken from NASA's website. The stamp picture also appears to be public domain and appears on many web sites about Laika, but I will try and find out if it is definitely OK to use. I'm investigating all pictures to make sure they are PD. --Zerbey 21:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Found [3]. How annoying. But I'm sure Philip Clark doesn't own them either. The article definitely needs pics, probably these pics ... do we have any readers based in Russia? - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Copyright solved: as per Wikipedia:Copyright issues, "Soviet Union (pre-1973): Soviet copyright laws are non-retroactive, and all Russian works published prior to May 27, 1973 remain unprotected outside the former Soviet Union." The clearly Soviet pics are clearly PD. - David Gerard 23:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutrality 03:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • SupportAvala 19:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) One of the scientists said, "We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of a dog" — what exactly did the scientists learn from the mission? The article could do with some discussion of this. 2) The lead needs to summarise the entire article, including the controversy about how the dog died. 3) "In Russia and elsewhere, it sparked a debate on animal cruelty." — I think we should attempt to provide a brief summary of this debate. 4) "References to Laika" should be merged with "External links" 5) " Laika's final voyage was as a shooting star in the night sky." — this is a tad sentimental / slushy for an encyclopedia article; could we reword it? 6) Russian Space Dogs discuss Laika and say that "She was also known as Zhuchka ("Little Bug") and Limonchik ("Lemon")."and "She died between five and seven hours into the flight"; this information isn't included in the main Laika article. 7) There's internal links in

the external links section. 8) "It sparked a debate across the globe on the mistreatment of animals to advance science" — was this the first / one of the earliest / a well-known reactions to animal testing in science? 9) There's too much information about Sputnik 2 in this article; we have a separate article on the spacecraft itself, we only need at most one paragraph. 10) There's information about Laika in the Sputnik 2 article that's not present in the Laika article. — Matt 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Updates have been added to the article which should address your concerns --Zerbey 16:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I've still a few issues, I'm afraid. — Matt 16:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • 1) This is addressed at the end of the article, 2) Lead has been reworded to include the requested information, 6) Alternate names have been added, but the rest is already in the article, 7) fixed, 8) I couldn't find any more on this! Any other Sputnik buffs out there who can help out?, 9) This has been condensed, 10) More information please, I can't see anything relevant in the Sputnik 2 article that is not included in the main Laika article. --Zerbey 18:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • OK, I think most of these are covered between your and my changes. Re: "8" — it's just that Laika seems to be an important? early? example in the history of the debate over Animal testing, and it would be good to go into that in a little more detail. I'll "unobject" on this point, though. — Matt 19:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but a couple of small comments: 1) The stamp doesn't look Russian to me, as it's not using a cyrillic alphabet; 2) I don't think there is a need to summarise the debate on animal cruelty directly, but I'd like to see a link to a Wikipedia article on vivisection, and would suggest that such an article include a ( brief ) note on Laika's contribution to the vivisection debate. IM.
    • The stamp turns out to be Albanian. How annoying. And Albanian law is closer to European law. More research is indeed needed. - David Gerard 13:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • It turns out, after research, that Russia never had an image of Laika the space dog on a stamp. Apparently, there's also a breed of dogs called Laika that have feature, but they look different (Laika was a mongrel). They did have an image of Sputnik 2, however. She has appeared on numerous other items, such as posters, toys, clothing, cigarette packets, etc so I'll put one of those up. --Zerbey 15:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • A new section has been added that covers the vivisection debate, the stamp has been replaced with a different memorial and is definitely Russian this time. --Zerbey 14:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1. We could do with a Russian Cyrillic alphabet spelling of Laika (and possibly Kudryavka) (and if this was to be a Wikipedia:Perfect article, Zhuchka and Limonchi as well!). 2. How famous is Laika among real dogs? I'm trying to think of other famous, non-fictional dogs, but I can't think of any (Lassie go home...). Surely Laika isn't the world's most famous dog? 3) What's a "Blok A" core? Could we mention what it is in the article? — Matt 02:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've no idea what a Blok A core is, and it's beyond the scope of this article anyway, I've rephrased this section. --Zerbey 17:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • If you can't think of any, that doesn't mean it's the nominator's job to try to concoct some. We are, after all, working to Wikipedia:What is a featured article, rather than necessarily Wikipedia:The perfect article. (Though you've done a hell of a lot for the article yourself.) I'll see if I can turn up the Cyrillic - David Gerard 10:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the objection was phrased badly; let me try again. The article really should mention how famous a dog Laika is compared to other canines and animals. As an aside, I've a suspicion that she's the most famous real-life dog ever, but I wanted to check that before adding it, hence the somewhat speculative wording. — Matt 13:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I should have something for you later, I already had plans to add this to the article. We're getting dangerously close to TMI here, though.. Added some other famous dogs. --Zerbey 17:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Object. The list of famous dogs doesn't belong here, but should probably appear in the general dog article. Other than that the article is excellent. 81.168.80.170 21:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I've removed it (again), following discussion in #wikipedia the general consensus seems to be it's not worth using but I'd appreciate Matt's comments as well. Maybe this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page? See talk page for more. --Zerbey 22:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

Someone has made a note of it in the History page, but I guess it's worth registering this on the Talk page. It really makes no sense at all having a Disambig header linking to nonexistent articles. There's just nothing to disambiguate! I'm surprised that the people directly involved with this article have not gotten rid of this aberration yet. Sorry. Redux 05:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Yath for fixing that! Redux 02:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdrajevskaya :)

From what language this abomination of a word came from? Polish? :))) Should be "Kudrjavka" ("Кудрявка" cp-1251).

Hmmm, I was about to ask how to spell "Kurdrajevskaya" in russian. It's not a word, and seems like crap someone made up. No sources to confirm, but your spelling makes much more sence. --Mikko Paananen 21:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I put it up there, but honestly can't remember where I found the name (it was way back in June, sorry). If a native Russian speaker says it should be "Kudrjavka" I'm not going to argue :-) It does need research, however, maybe we should just remove it until it's confirmed? --Zerbey 02:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Name "Kudryavka" (better transliteration) was mentioned in this Space Enciclopedia article.

[edit] Caption?

Did Laika die from "the stress of overheating" (as the caption says) or from "stress and oerheating" (as the article says). They are not the same thing! --Fastfission 16:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is overheating the right word? Isn't there some medical term for this? I know humans have heat stroke or heat exhaustion and things like that, don't dogs have something too that isn't "overheating"? That makes them sound like machines, I'm not sure it's right.
The medical term is Hyperthermia, at least for humans. I'm pretty certain it's the same for canines but I think someone with vetinary knowledge should make that determination. None of the Laika articles I read explain exactly what happened. I think it would be impossible to determine her exact cause of death without a post mortem, which would have required her to be returned to earth. Zerbey 02:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Hello there, I am a native Russian speaker, and the proper word for it is Kurdrajevskaya. Best regards.

[edit] Planet Laika

From what I can tell from the Babelfish translation, the game is called "Planet Laika" but that's were the similarities end. There's no mention of Laika the dog in the writeup for this game (which is about humans contacting Martians). Could someone who speaks Japanese confirm this? If so, the reference needs to be removed as it's unnecessary. --Zerbey 01:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No responses in 6 months! I'm removing the reference, but am still interested in a decent translation of the page. Zerbey 05:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pulse?

The article contains this sentence: "After reaching weightlessness, her pulse rate decreased, but it took three times longer than it had during earlier ground tests, an indication of stress." I don't understand what this means. "It took three times longer"? Does this mean that the pulse rate was 1/3 of what it was on the ground, or does it mean something else? --LostLeviathan 06:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It means that the time for her pulse to drop from X to Y was three times as much in the launch as it had been during tests. --Yath 07:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Part Samoyed terrier?

In my opinion it is very doubtful if this dog had anything to do with Samoyeds or terriers. There is nothing similiar to them (neither to Samoyed nor to any terrier) in her appearance. Also her weight (6 kg) is far from what Samoyeds are (20-30kg). Probably there is also a problem with the phrase "Samoyed terrier". My English is not wery well (as you can see ;) but am I right that "Samoyed" is adjective in this sentence? If so, this suggests that there is a breed "Samoyed terrier". I think a better solution would be to write "Samoyed mixed with terrier", and even better is to remove it from the article, unless there is a trustworthy source of this information. PrzemekL 07:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. I can find:
  • husky-mix stray[4]
  • she had been one of many stray mongrels wandering the streets of the Russian capital... There's also some disagreement over the nature of Laika's mixed blood. Clearly, she could claim Spitz ancestry (possibly of the Siberian variety - fearless yet good companions) and there's one suggestion on the Internet that one of her other close ancestors - perhaps even a parent - may have been a Beagle. ... [5]
  • The dog, described as a female Russian breed, [6]
  • female part-Samoyed terrier originally named Kudryavka (Little Curly) but later renamed Laika (Barker). She weighed about 6 kg.[7] (This is a gov't site but I don't know where they got their info)
I'll change the page, although you could have, too. :-) Elf | Talk 16:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! The article is more objective now. I think the best source of our knowledge are the pictures of Kurdryavka. I wouldn't belive in any written words about husky, Samoyed or terrier, even if the author says he knows personaly her father ;-) PrzemekL 20:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. I'm really afraid of editing articles on En:Wikipedia because of my poor English.
Thanks for pointing it out, then. Your English looks pretty good on this talk page. If you edit something and it's not good English, someone's bound to notice it and edit it for you, so that's OK, too. Elf | Talk 20:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laika TV Appearances

I believe that Laika was shown briefly in the intro sequence of the anime show Planetes. --TcDohl 05:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It does and I had already added it, however it was removed 2005 November 3 by 149.142.103.63 "stop adding unimiportant trivia".

[edit] Disagree with etymology of portmanteau "Muttnik"

Quote: American press dubbed her Muttnik (a portmanteau of mutt and Sputnik).

The Russian -nik is a common agent suffix (of which there are many others, such as -vik ("Bolshevik")) and has no special connection to "Sputnik". Check the Wikipedia reference -nik for more information. "Muttnik" is no more related to Sputnik than is the word BEATNIK.

Recommend that the reference be changed from Mutt + Sputnik to Mutt + -nik.

Mfryc 09:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the American press either know or care what -nik means in Russian. The point is, it sounded Russian to call her Muttnik. Maybe the article could use some clarification although I personally think that would be superfluous. Zerbey 00:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Suggest del Muttnik ref. It's stupidity irritates me, & as far as I know, it's gained zero currency; everybody knows her as Laika. Trekphiler 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it was used extensively by the American press at the time of the mission. Zerbey 04:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed my mind and take it all back - Muttnick is a pun! It would only be a neologism if it were used to refer to all Soviet Space Dogs generically as Muttnicks. So it IS a pun that is also a portmanteau. Lisapollison 11:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The weight of an atomic bomb and Laika

That was important. Circling the planet. Cold War and Yellow Umbrella, Missile Defense, Evil Empire and Ronald Reagan as well as the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. (Posted by User:194.215.75.17)

Sorry, I can't figure out what you're referring to. Was there an edit that was removed? Do you know when it was done (by looking at the article's history tab)? Elf | Talk 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
the most important result of Laika circling the planet was the insight that anything which could carry a dog could also soon carry an atomic bomb. That is one of stories of history, true stories, duck and cover, partly described in The Atomic Cafe (however, I could not find a link to that Yellow Umbrella, that little girl sitting under a Star Wars Umbrella, picking the leaves of that flower(name in english??), or whatever way it went. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/dac.html (not the original, except for the audio??)
OK, I found some links leading almost to that Yellow Umbrella, "Lyndon Johnson, 1964, “Daisy” A little girl is standing in a field and a voice is counting down, and then you see a big nuclear explosion", Propaganda If I remeber right, the LBJ-girl was better doing the plucking?? http://mariassmat33.free.fr/Projects/Gallery/Media/Video/DaisyBroadcast.mpg
THere they are, some of them http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1964b.html


So, I take it you are suggesting that Sputnik II was principally a covert ICBM missile test and that Laika was chosen to represent a warhead’s weight?
If so, your idea is basically wrong. The Soviets put a dog in space for the same reason we put chimps in space: To run tests in anticipation of manned space flight. The Soviets put a man in orbit in April 1961. Laika and Ham the Chimp were selected for their availability and biology, not their weight (except that they would need to fit the launch vehicle’s parameters, of course). The biology of such animals made them fine test proxies for humans without risking valuable lives. If you really just wanted to test warhead payload, a less dramatic (and less expositive) method would be to launch some sort of amorphous scientific data package, as in Sputnik I or Explorer I.
Another reason the idea won’t hold water is the fact you’re talking about apples and oranges: Laika was being put into orbit. This supports the fact that Sputnik II was primarily to lay the ground work for the Vostok manned orbital flight program. ICBM’s that bear one or more nuclear warheads are different. ICBM warheads are necessarily sub-orbital because they are intended to follow a ballistic path back to the Earth’s surface where the people you want to kill are located. Achieving orbit would be a total failure of an ICBM’s flight profile.
Don’t get me wrong, both in the USSR and the US, the intimate co-operation of military and “space exploration” rocketry cannot be overstated. Virtually every major rocket used by the U.S. space program prior to Saturn (e.g., Redstone, Atlas, Titan) was previously or jointly used for military purposes. This was even more true with the Soviets. Accordingly, almost any testing or development of such rocket types could be of military value. This is well demonstrated by the fact that the rocket used on the Sputnik missions, the 8K71PS, is just a modified version of the R-7 ICBM rocket. However, any intended nuclear warhead was a thermonuclear design and in that timeframe these necessarily weighed a lot. The warheads the R-7 was designed to carry weighed in at 5,300kg/11,685lbs or more. Even the lightest warheads available for the R-16 (the R-7’s successor) were three times heavier than Sputnik II’s weight of 508.3 kg/1120.6 lbs. (Specifically, the 8F17, 8F115 & 8F116 warheads weighed between 1,475kg/3252lbs and 2,200kg/4850lbs.) While breakthroughs in the US allowed delivery of the dramatically lighter, 733lb, W-47 in 1960, no similar leap was anticipated in the USSR when Sputnik II was launched in 1957, a fact that the R-16’s warhead weights tend to illustrate.
The space doggie was not a covert warhead surrogate. Laika was a flying vivisection, designed to explore what impact rocket launch and orbit might have on a prospective human passenger, as well as to prestigiogenically demonstrate the useful Soviet ability to fly a dog into earth orbit. Ruff! ---Criticality 05:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio accusation

Some anon slapped a copyvio notice on this, but the link is to nasa.gov. It should be properly acknowledged, of course, but aren't all works of NASA in the public domain? —Keenan Pepper 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's bogus. Near as I can tell, there is only exactly one short paragraph in this article that appears exactly as on that site; the rest of the article is fine:
The pressurized cabin on Sputnik 2 allowed enough room for her to lie down or stand and was padded. An air regeneration system provided oxygen, and a cooling fan was set to activate whenever cabin temperature exceeded 15°C. Food and water were dispensed in a gelatinised form. Laika was fitted with a harness, a bag to collect waste, and electrodes to monitor vital signs. The early telemetry indicated Laika was agitated but eating her food.
Elf | Talk 19:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of work 'however' in 'Controvery' section

Animal rights groups at the time called on members of the public to protest at Soviet embassies.

However, these protests were politically motivated, at least in part.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. It is like saying 2 + 2 is 4. However, 7-2 is 5. Do what? Worse, the sentence doesn't make any sense even without the 'however'. To suggest that a (political) call for protests 'were politically motivated, at least in part' is like saying that a person's desire to save money is 'financially motivated, at least in part.' What is the point of these back-to-back 'however' sentences? Typical right-wing tactic to lessen the impact of an incriminating statement. --shmooth- 10:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was with you until you had to throw in the annoying accusation "Typical right-wing tactic to lessen the impact of an incriminating statement." This sentence just doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "2 + 2 = 4. Typical left-wing tactic to try to make language appear as if it were some sort of equation." What is the point of this sort of comment? It would be better to point out the grammatical and/or logical error and not attempt to get a rise out of other people while doing it. Better yet, just fix it. Elf | Talk 19:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


I would think it was a matter of opion as to whether it is controversial @ all, how else could they have done it? They couldn't send a man into space first, obviously some animal rights campaigners beleive that an animails life is of equal importance to a humans, but the vast majority of people don't. It's sad that a dog had to die to further man knowledge, but other animal died and plenty of humans have died also, two Space Shuttle accidents, the fire during the plugs out Apollo test, and the Russians have lost people also. Yakacm 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC Proposed

I will give two weeks for the following items to be fixed up, as they do not meet featured article standard:

  • There are no inline citations/footnotes.
  • Several parts sound awkward or are poorly written, such as:
    • "Laika (from Russian: Лайка, "Barker") was one of the Russian space dogs and the first living creature from Earth to enter orbit." (sounds awkward)
    • "Her true cause of death was not made public until decades after the flight, with officials stating that she was either euthanized by poisoned food or died when the oxygen ran out." (passive and active voices put together)
    • "The early telemetry indicated Laika was agitated but eating her food." (nonparallel structure)
    • "On March 9, 2005 a patch of soil on Mars was unofficially named "Laika" by mission controllers, it is located near Vostok Crater in Meridiani Planum." (run-on sentence)
    • and many more places.

If this article is not improved, I will nominate it for FARC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out. The article does contain poorly-written parts, and I will try to improve it. I'm not sure that the passive voice in the second example you gave is problematic, though. --Yath 05:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The second example is one of the many cases of nonparallel structure in this article, or treating different parts or forms of speech as if they were equal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laika on the Cosmonaut Obelisk in Moscow?

I have a photo of the base of the space obelisk in Moscow. It shows, what i believe to be, Laika. Would that be of interest in this article? I can upload the photo if you are interested.--Mark 15:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the copyright status, and also on whether it can be verified that it indeed depicts Laika. --Yath 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Stellar! The copyright is clear, as we (my wife and i) took the photo and can assign the rights appropriately. I can put it in the commons tonight and place a link here in the talk section. I will leave it to the experts to determine if the photo is of Laika. Also, feel free not to use it if it looks terrible. Now where is that file... Mark 06:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Done - that was easy! Here is the link:
Wiki Commons Link to Picture of Entire Memorial.
Oh wait, there are some better pictures already of the monument:
Laika on the Moscow Space Monument
Please use which ever you think is better. The ones from Vladimir Menkov are quite nice! Mark 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this a featured article?

This is a very well-written article, quite literate and quiet in tone, but it lacks attributions and makes statements that seem to be the authors' opinions, even though very well-reasoned ones.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is quite a nice article. A bit short, perhaps. After reviewing Wikipedia:What is a featured article? I can only conclude that its featured status is well-deserved. It is indeed a bit light in the citing and verifiability department, but not troublingly so. --Yath 16:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's that and also because FA status is getting harder and harder to achieve! This article is getting quite old by now. As our quality increases, so does our need to review old FA articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

"In the later years it was revealed that the Soviets had designed the spacecraft's shape in such a manner that it would be exposed to dangerous sun heat and radiation to measure how living bio-organisms would withstand such harsh conditions.[citation needed]"

We need a source. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR passed

I read through the article last night, unaware that Marskell was planning to change the FAR status to keep. I have raised some additional concerns about the sources used for this article on its FAR page; can we remove the "keep" status for now? Only two editors actully moved to close (which may be enough; I'm not sure of the particulars). But I think there are some remaining issues to address. — Amcaja 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edits

I just wanted to drop a line to let Yomangani know the justification behind some of the copy edits that he or she evidently disputed (by reverting them). It's not my intention to edit war, just to remove redundant language and make the article the best it can be. So, here they are:

  • Words like as well as and in order to are just longhand for and and to respectively. Best to avoid them or replace them with their simpler, non-redundant counterparts.
  • The article needs to be consistent on the way it represents numbers. The way I've edited it, one through ten are spelled out, 11+ are in Arabic numerals. It would also be possible to convert everything to Arabic numerals, but it looks clunky in my opinion. At any rate, it should be consistent, hence my change back to "seven-day".
  • If there's a change of subject after an and, there needs to be a comma. If there's no change of subject, there should be no comma (usually). Hence the change at "seven-day flight, and the dog . . . ."
  • I've tried to add some chronological sense to the section about the dog's name. We start with an unnamed dog. Then she is named various things and nicknamed others. Then she is named Laika. The American press calls her something else. At any rate, it makes sense to give these names in chronological order, not start with Laika, then say she was called this, then this, then Laika again.
  • On a related note, names should not go in quotes. You never say "My name is 'John'." Words used as words are in italics per WP:MOS. So, nicknamed her Zhuckha (Little Bug).
  • Not sure why we need to reitirate that Sputnik was the name of the Soviet space program. There's an entire section devoted to Sputnik earlier in the article, so readers will know this by that point.
  • "Laika's pulse rate had settled back to 102 beats/min, but this was three times longer than it had taken during earlier ground tests, an indication of the stress she was under." Why but? What are we contradicting?
  • I reinserted a bit about Laika's remains because I think it's important for this article to stay centered on the dog as much as possible. Yes, Sputnik 2 burnt up in orbit, but so did Laika. And this is, in the end, an article about Laika.
  • "The mission . . . was viewed by many . . . " Better to replace this with specific quotes from specific people or reporters. "Viewed by many" is a classic weasel term and should be avoided.
  • I've tried to avoid passive voice in a few places. Not a big deal to change these back, but active verbs are generally better according to most style guides.
  • I don't think anything is added by keeping the long semicolon snake about the novels Laika's been in. Periods have their uses, too. :)
  • The pop culture section in general is a mess. We talk about songs, then albums, then start talking about songs again. I've reinsterted the {{cleanup}} tag.

Again, my intent isn't to undo the good work Yomangani and others have done. But I do believe the changes I've "reinstated" are warranted and needed. Thanks, — Amcaja 12:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I was just leaving you a message on your talk page asking about your changes to avoid getting into an edit war, but I'll answer over here instead:
    • I generally remove "as well as" and "in order to", but an occassional change in phrasing doesn't harm the flow of the article.
    • Agree with the seven-day change - that was an artifact from copying back over the details about the fan.
    • I reinstated the Sputnik details because this referred to the Sputnik programme in general rather than the Sputnik 2 capsule (but not a big deal).
    • The naming section isn't necessarily chronological - the nicknames may have been used concurrently with the original name and Laika. In addition we don't know it was the scientists who renamed her, and "eventually" is vague and unverifiable.
    • I replaced the "...but this was three times longer..." as your replacement, "Laika's pulse rate had settled back to 102 beats/min, three times longer than it had taken during earlier ground tests..." suggests that 102 beats/min is three times longer. The "but" isn't necessary though.
    • I think the destruction of Laika's remains is taken as read, so is an unnecessary addition (but again, no big deal)
    • I swapped the "viewed by many" back in, as the phrasing you initially replaced it didn't read well (to me at least) and was just as weaselly, but I agree it should be replaced.
    • The substitution of "is still popular" for "continues to be sold" introduces a fact that we don't know is true
    • The items in the semicoloned list are referring to the theme of her survival and rescue, the later sentences refer to other themes, so I think the semicolons are appropriate here (The use of periods here only serves to fragment the flow)
    • The popular culture section went from songs called Laika, to songs in which she was mentioned, then to albums, so I'm not sure what you mean (if you are referring to the mention of the CCCP album that is merely to break up the "listiness" of that section). I think a cleanup tag is a bit harsh there (but I'm generally against tags in articles anyway, as they have no benefit for the reader).

Anyway, I won't be reverting it back. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoned response. Replying to a few points:
  • I tried another reword on the fan to satisfy my aversion to "in order to". :) Hope it works.
  • I see your point about mentioning the Sputnik program. Perhaps something could be added earlier in the article about the Sputnik program, since it seems a bit out of place to suddenly mention it here. (Incidentally, the fact that a dog was intended to occupy Sputnik 2 is introduced rather suddenly in the first major section of the article. We should probably add a note earlier in the description of Sputnik 2 about the craft's intended occupant.)
  • I've tried to reword the naming section again. Laika is the preferred name in all countires I can check via the inter-language links, anyway.
  • Weasel terms must die. I'll revisit this later.
  • Reworded the auctions bit.
  • I still think the pop culture section is way too detailed and crufty. It suffers from one of Wikipedia's common woes, trying to be exhaustive rather than encyclopedic. Someone else has removed the cleanup tag, so I'll leave it be for now, but I suggest that some of the random items be removed and examples be offered instead.
Thanks again. The article looks quite nice. — Amcaja 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That looks good. I agree about the pop culture, but I cut it down from a long bulleted list to something that I thought covered most of the information people were liable to add back in (somebody still added something almost immediately). The problem with these sections is they are a target for everybody who wants to add their "interesting" fact, so without a fairly comprehensive coverage they tend to devolve back into a list of vaguely connected items with no structure or balance. Not sure what the solution is. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
While on the subject, I have a problem with the following assertion:
In the Soviet Union, there was apparently less controversy. Neither the media, books in the following years, nor the public openly questioned the decision to send a dog into space to die. It was not until 1998, after the collapse of the Soviet regime, that Oleg Gazenko....
Wasn't the Soviet Union a communist and undemocratic country with no freedom of press? Perhaps the "absence" of any negative reaction to the cicumstances of Laika's death had something to do with it? In any case, I find it very difficult to believe that the general climate in the country in those days was conducive to people expressing criticism at what must have been seen as the Soviet prestigious project. RedZebra 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be unverifiable due to the nature of the assertion - I haven't been able to find any material about either negative Soviet reaction to the event or repression of such a reaction. For that reason I removed the statements regarding repression during the Soviet regime, and replaced them with the paragraph above using statements we can verify - I think it suggests the reasons without speculating, as, after all, it is possible there was no negative reaction. We could add general sources for control of the media during the Soviet era, but it would still be supposition as to whether this occured in relation to Laika. Yomanganitalk 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I think it is acceptable if it is left as it is right now until we have evidence to the contrary. I voiced my concern over the above statement as I am convinced that it is unlikely that few in the USSR would find the circumstances leading to Laika's death controversial. It was the omnipotent Communist Party that was responsible for "conveying" the public sentiment in a country with a non-existant civil society. I can only imagine that they were probably not too keen on casting aspersions on their own political/ideological projects. RedZebra 18:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect quotation?

Originally in the "Training and Voyage" section, there was a quote from the Sven Grahn article referenced in which he quotes Malashenkov as saying "It was practically impossible to create a reliable system of a temperature control in such small [sic] term."

However, if you actually read the Malashenkov abstract referenced, the correct quotation is "It turned out that it was practically impossible to create a reliable temperature control system in such limited time constraints."

I don't know where Grahn got his quote, but I fixed this.

[edit] propaganda stunt: unclear phrasing

Sputnik 2 was not designed to be retrievable, so Laika had always been intended to die.[3] The mission sparked a debate across the globe on the mistreatment of animals and animal testing in general to advance science,[11] and was viewed by many, including some Soviet citizens, as a propaganda stunt,[3] especially considering the fate of most monkey passengers of the early American sub-orbital rocket missions.

This is unclear, at least to me. What was the fate of the early American monkey passengers (you can wiki that, but it could be added in a few words as well)? Are we talking intended or actual fate? How does that link to calling Laika's mission a propaganda stunt? Are the monkeys propaganda stunts as well or not? Why(not)?

In short, this paragraph implies a lot but doesn't state what is implied.

That said, nice and interesting article!

Nicolas Herdwick 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The addition of the monkeys to that sentence didn't make any sense. If anything it would imply that the US were using Laika as propaganda stunt which doesn't make sense. In addition it was uncited, so I've removed it. Yomanganitalk 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of Laika

I have never found a Russian article that said there was a poison meal meant to euthanize Laika. I do not believe that is true. The system was designed to support Laika for 7 days, not 10. The article by Malashenkov that got so much attention didn't actually say anything new. The chief scientist (Yazdovsky) has written about the overheating of the capsule decades ago. The Russians state that the telemetry system reporting on Laika failed 5-7 hours after orbit, NOT that Laika died then. Nobody knows how long Laika lived, they just believe that the capsule got too hot. DonPMitchell 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The use of poison: It doesn't make sense because it would be a lot easier and cheaper (and relatively more humane) to just switch off the Oxygen to the animal. Poisoning is just too messy and unreliable. Plus why carry the poison all the way up to orbit where every gram counts - when you can just switch off the air? I'll check the ref and remove it if its unsourced (or plain unreliable). --Eqdoktor 05:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't find a cite after a cursory check on the listed online references. Just used a 'citation needed' tag on the item in the off chance that they actually planned to use poison no matter how unlikely. --Eqdoktor 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I had actually just come across the following "The dog died of the heat after a week, drawing protests from animal-lovers. But the flight proved that a living being could survive in space, paving the way for human flight." This was obtained @ Fox News Article Can anyone shed some light on this? Jason Scalia 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've searched high and low, and haven't been able to cite the statement. However, I'd like to let it ride for a while in case someone else can find or a cite or on the chance that Yomangani (talk · contribs) (the author of Laika, and involved in 30 other FAs) reconsiders his retirement and comes back with the cite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Any of you can do a search on Google Books to see examples of writing that state she was poisoned. Now, the article says that this ultimately may not have been the case. To the extent this further information is cited, the article is more accurate than these books. I've removed the "ten day" part, and the citation tag is no longer necessary. –Outriggr § 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)