Talk:Document 12-571-3570
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Document 12-571-3570 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Document 12-571-3570 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Former trainee edit
Spacefacts.de, which lists quite extensively the astronauts trainees, has no trainee named Pierre Kohler http://www.spacefacts.de/english/bio_cand.htm. Is this another hoax ? Hektor 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Created by Kohler? edit
The page says this document was created by Kohler for his book. However, the snopes.com page linked to in the article [1] suggests that it was floating around the Internet for years -- long before there was actually an STS-75 -- and that Kohler was taken in by it. I'm not saying that we should take snopes as gospel, but do we have any evidence that Kohler concocted this thing himself? --Jmeisen (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Kohler didn't write it. Halfway decent citations added to reflect what can be determined about the date of authorship -- making it very clear that it's fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.38.164 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hoax? edit
Is this document really properly described as a hoax? First publication in alt.sex certainly doesn't give it much authority, and publication half a decade before STS-75 was launched is a big give-away that it was written as fiction. We may need some other way of talking about such documents -- it was the continued redistribution of this document, stripped of any trace of where it was first found, that allowed it to serve as a hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.125.108 (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not the year 1263. edit
"The descriptions of sex are further evidence that it is a hoax because there were no women aboard STS-75." Because only a man and a woman can have sex, right? I am considering changing "sex" to "vaginal intercourse" but I don't know if this would properly apply to the document (i.e. is vaginal intercourse described as such in the document?). Another option may be to remove the entire sentence. Bobber0001 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Read the original document please, as cited in footnote 2. The document repeatedly refers to such things as "the conventional approach to marital relationships" and at one point defines this as "(sometimes described as the missionary approach)". Douglas W. Jones (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just fixed it. See my edit summary. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)