Talk:Sputnik crisis

"Sputnik Shock"?
How are the Sputnik Crisis and Sputnik Shock related? Are they the same? The latter term is mentioned on the NASA page, under "Space Race." --Grant M 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

More worldy POV
Is it just me or does "Sputnik Crisis" seem quite POV? Was it a crisis to the Warsaw Pact countries, or to the rest of the world, or just a percieved crisis to the western world? 142.25.77.67 18:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was very much a US/USSR thing. They were the only two that, at that point, cared. Other countries cared (see  'Sputnik' Could Be a Spy-in-Sky; Chinese Reds Wave Big Stick, Washington Post, Oct 7, 1957) but had no way of dealing with the issue. I'm sure you could make an argument that other countries were involved as well, but this is the historically accepted point of view and should be the main POV of this wikipedia article. I do think we could use a bit more about the Soviet side of things -- you can make an excellent argument that the Soviet scientists gave months and years of warning. --zenazn 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The USSR and the US were the main countries involved.  However, given the title of this article, "Sputnik crisis", it's clear that this article focuses more on the US and the West's reaction of disbelief and fear to the launch of Sputnik, rather than a more balanced view of the attitudes of both superpowers. --Ericdn (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, so what? The article is in fact specifically about the sense of panic that Sputnik generated in the West, which is an interesting episode in American and W. European history and worthy of an article longer than this one.  If you want an article about the Sputnik mission itself, that's what the Sputnik 1 article is for. --Jfruh (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sputnik crisis has to do with america, i didnt see the USSR have a crisis with sputnik, therefore it is perfectly fine to only illustrate the american side, it is the ONLY side to this article. Prblem solved. period. -anonymouus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.183.42 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the first paragraph makes it clear that this article is about the U.S. reaction to Sputnik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.115.95 (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I too agree that 1) the article's title leads itself to a non-neutral point of view, since it assumes that the english-speaking edition of wikipedia caters exclusively not only to english-speaking readers (mainly western world), but SPECIFICALLY to the United States population. 2) "Crisis" definitely is NOT a neutral term for a situation that was created by AND for the benefit of the former Soviet Union. They didn't had a "crisis" based on their demostrated success. 3) For example, if one of my neighbours has a dog on his backyard that only I perceive to be a threat (wheter I dislike dogs in general or that animal barks at me angrily) I should not be allowed to post a wikipedia article called: "Neighbour X problem dog". I'm still not allowed to pass final judgment on something that in the first place is not mine, nor was brought for my personal sake (or torment). "Owner X's dog" IS the neutral term, and the article should be based on such title. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED POINTS PRESENTED: I propose that the title of THIS article be renamed, if contributors still insist on instill their single (western) point of view on the matter, from "Sputkit crisis" to a more clarifying "United States crisis based on Sputnik" (or something more catchy). That way, It will clarifiy that the Sputnik program generated a so-called "crisis" (no doubt about it) only to the United States (or NATO nations, for that matter). ADITIONALLY, contributors are encouraged to still add "crisis"-related QUOTED material to clarify the extension of the "crisis" part, so as to decide the title suffix of "Sputnik crisis" will be NATO- or just U.S.A.- Since there's a neutral article based on sputnik (see sputnik program, THIS article's name must be changed to eliminate the neutrality flag. --Flurry (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No POV problem
This article is about the Sputnik crisis, which is the United States' reaction to the Sputnik-1 launch. There is no need to present information on other countries, because this article's subject is ONLY the US reaction (i.e. if the UK had a notable reaction to it, then it could have its own article too; if one wants to discuss the global reactions, then perhaps there should be a Global reactions to the Sputnik-1 launch page). As such, I've removed the POV tags. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

- Then the article's NAME should reflect that the "crisis" is only when viewed from the United States of America and its citizens. In Russia, it was NOT a crisis but a success. POV issues are specifically designed to keep nationals from trying to "own" a version of Wikipedia to their own agenda or propaganda or whatever. That is, Wipikedia.org Engilsh edition should not be sinonimized as "Wikipedia USA-only Edition. Everybody else that reads english should go elsewere."

Precisely, and since there never was a so-called "global reaction" to Sputnik, then you yourself just gave solid reason for the NPOV tag on the article at hand. Please consult the NPOV guidelines tag before replying. NPOV doesn’t stands for “Its not true”.

How about we propose to rename, say, the Tomahawk cruise missile article with “Tomahawk Crisis”? Undoubtedly, and using your very same logic, there was a Tomahawk crisis in the Politburo and the Soviet Republic since they “felt” they were threatened with that Weapon of Mass Destruction. It doesn't matter if nobody else was scared, its the individual opinion of as single national (or group) that should decide for all the world to agree without consent? Sounds fair and unbiased? I think not. Flurry (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what your problem is with this article. Your analogy with the Tomahawk article doesn't make sense: nobody is trying to renamed the Sputnik 1 article "Sputnik crisis"; instead, this article explains how the phenomenon was understood in the U.S.  It stands alongside the Sputnik 1 article; it does not replace it with a U.S.-only POV.  Was there a reaction to the constrction of Tomahawk missles in the USSR that resulted in changes in major Soviet policy, a reaction that Soviet commentators at the time referred to as a "Tomahawk Crisis"?  If so, it would obviously be a worthwhile article.  Are you arguing that this article shouldn't exist at all?  If not, what changes need to be made, in your opinion, to make it NPOV --Jfruh (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Solutions
I am shocked at the disgraceful propaganda in this article. The way I see it, one of the following MUST happen, in order of preference: I can't believe that this article has been in place for several years. We don't have the Concorde crisis, or the HDTV crisis, so why is such a great success trested in this way?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.220 (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete the article as non-neutral, misleading and unsourced
 * 2) Merge the article so that it is a section called "Reaction" in the main Sputnik article
 * 3) Add punctuation to the title, so it's called Sputnik "crisis" or Sputnik "shock"


 * Tried to do this, it got reverted. Don't have enough interest to pursue it. Actually think you're overreacting but that the merge is nonetheless valid. Also I'd merge Sputnik I and Sputnik program as well. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The current plan is to merge Sputnik program into Sputnik 1, with some content going into Sputnik 2, Sputnik 3 and this article. We're just discussing where to put a disambiguation or set index page before the merger takes place, but since that article won't be around much longer it doesn't make sense to merge anything into it. -- G W … 07:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you're long on planning and short on doing. This is all just copyediting, there's no development of templates, or what not to justify protracted delay from a clear action if someone is willing to donate the labor. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I am going to take a stab at rewriting this article over the next week or so, with proper prose, citations, etc. The article is about the American reaction to Sputnik, and that is fair game, and not a NPOV issue.--Abebenjoe (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material
I'm removing the following unsourced material from the page and leaving it here in case it proves useful (or a source is eventually found: "*The Polaris missile program
 * Project management as an area of inquiry and an object of much scrutiny, leading up to the modern concept of project management and standardized project models such as the DoD Program Evaluation and Review Technique, PERT, invented for Polaris."

- Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page Critique
This page contains a lot of useful information surrounding the political climate between Russia and America at this time. However, a few improvements could be made. Additional citations are needed for some of the article's assertions, including the first paragraph of the "Background" section, which makes the unsupported assertion that "The same rocket that launched Sputnik could send a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes, stripping the continental United States of its oceanic defenses. The Soviets had demonstrated this capability on 21 August with a successful 6,000 km test flight of the R-7 booster." Additional context on the relevance of the people and quotes mentioned would be useful, particularly of that with Khrushchev and others in the "Response" section. Additionally, all of the quotations in the "Response" section need context for why the speaker and their statement are relevant and significant enough to be a part of this article.

Hratliff25 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I question the validity of footnote 12 in the article, which seems to dismiss public concern as just that of "elites". I well remember the looks of public shock looking at newspapers the morning of October 5. Of course, the action of two FBI agents seizing the first broadcast audio tape from WKCR that morning could be dismissed as an elite response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6A01:AD31:9855:9E2B:BBC8:AE0 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"Launch of Sputnik" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Launch of Sputnik. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Question
"The perception of the Soviets being more modern than the Americans was reinforced by Eisenhower's old-fashioned style" -> old-fashioned style in what? In speech? Eisehower already made it clear in three "stark facts" that the Soviets had surpassed America in technology. If anything, this sentence is confusing and redundant. 71.90.118.101 (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)