text:
Don Revie

Donald George Revie (10 July 1927 – 26 May 1989) was an English footballer and manager. He is best known for managing Leeds United from 1961 until 1974, winning the Football League First Division twice and the FA Cup once, before being the England national football team manager for three years.

A forward, he began his career with Leicester City in August 1944, before a £19,000 move to Hull City in November 1949. He was sold on to Manchester City in October 1951 for a fee of £25,000, where he became the main focus of the "Revie Plan" which saw him named as FWA Footballer of the Year in the 1954–55 season, after innovating the role of the first deep-lying centre forward in England. He won the FA Cup in 1956, having finished on the losing side in the 1955 final. He was bought by Sunderland for £22,000 in October 1956 before moving on to Leeds United in November 1958 for a £14,000 fee. In total, he scored 108 goals in 501 league and cup appearances in an 18-year professional career, also scoring four goals in six England appearances, as well as winning representative honours for the Football League XI and the England B team.

In March 1961, Revie was appointed player-manager of Leeds United, then a Second Division club that had never won a major trophy. Under Revie's management, Leeds became a major force in English football, winning the Second Division in the 1963–64 season, the First Division in the 1968–69 and 1973–74 seasons, the FA Cup in 1972, the League Cup in 1968, the FA Charity Shield in 1969, and the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in 1968 and 1971. Additionally, Leeds were First Division runners-up five times, three times FA Cup runners-up and runners-up in the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and the European Cup Winners' Cup. In July 1974, he accepted the job as the England manager. He had an unsuccessful three years in the role before quitting in highly controversial circumstances to take the management role with the United Arab Emirates. He later had spells in Middle Eastern club football with Al-Nasr and Al-Ahly.

As Leeds manager, he was criticised for his teams' physical and often negative approach, though the period was noted for its highly physical football across the country. His resignation as England manager fuelled criticism of him as money-obsessed, and unproved allegations of bribery and financial misconduct tarnished his reputation. He retired in 1984 but was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in May 1987, which led to his death two years later. He remains a highly popular figure in Leeds and has a stand named after him at Elland Road and a statue outside the ground.

Early life
Revie was born in Middlesbrough, North Riding of Yorkshire, on Sunday, 10 July 1927. His father, also named Donald, was a joiner who found himself frequently out of work during the Great Depression. His mother, a washerwoman, died of cancer on 27 November 1939, aged 50. He played youth football for Newport Boys' Club and then Middlesbrough Swifts, who were coached by influential manager Bill Sanderson. He learnt the rudiments of the game using a small bundle of rags in the tiny yard behind his home. This influenced his thinking in later life, and he argued that young players should learn using smaller footballs on smaller pitches so they would be more adept in control when progressing to a bigger football.

Leicester City
He signed as a professional footballer for Leicester City in August 1944, choosing them ahead of local club Middlesbrough primarily due to the close links between Middlesbrough Swifts and Leicester City; he also worked as an apprentice bricklayer. Leicester originally thought he was not good enough to turn professional, but he was taken under the wing of Leicester player Sep Smith, who mentored Revie on many of his ideas about the game. Smith instructed Revie that "When not in position, get into position; never beat a man by dribbling if you can beat him more easily with a pass; it is not the man on the ball but the one running into position to take the pass who constitutes the danger; and the aim is to have a man spare in a passing move. Soccer would then become easy." He played in the wartime league before making his debut in the Football League on the opening day of the 1946–47 season, a 3–0 defeat to Manchester City, who would go on to win the Second Division that season. He showed good form at Filbert Street before breaking his right ankle in three places after a tackle from Tottenham Hotspur's Ron Burgess; the injury could have ended his career, but he recovered to full fitness within 19 weeks.

Manager Johnny Duncan identified Revie as the player to build his team around for the 1947–48 and 1948–49 seasons, and though the Foxes fared poorly in the league they managed to reach the 1949 FA Cup final. Revie scored the opening goal of the semi-final victory over First Division champions Portsmouth, having been told pre-match that opposition goalkeeper Ernest Butler tended to palm the ball over the attacker's head before reclaiming possession Revie positioned himself to take advantage of the situation when teammate Jack Lee challenged Butler for the ball, leaving Revie with a simple conversion. However Revie suffered a nasal haemorrhage caused by a burst vein one week before the final, and the condition became so severe it would threaten his life and see him miss his first chance to play at Wembley. He could only listen on the radio as Leicester lost 3–1 to Wolverhampton Wanderers in the final. Revie left Leicester after Duncan left the club, having already been dissatisfied with the club's lack of progress in the league.

Hull City
In November 1949, he joined Second Division club Hull City for a transfer fee of £19,000. He chose to join the Tigers ahead of bigger clubs like Arsenal and Manchester City, who had shown interest in signing him since Hull were managed by Raich Carter, who had been a great player before and after World War II. Carter did improve Revie's game but was not a success as Hull manager, as City finished mid-table in the 1949–50 and 1950–51 seasons, before becoming involved in a relegation battle in the 1951–52 season. Teammate Andy Davidson later said Revie failed to fulfil his potential at Boothferry Park as he was not a tough player. The rest of the Hull team were not physically dominant enough to protect him and allow him to dictate play with his accurate passing. As at Leicester, Revie felt the time had come for him to move on and handed in a transfer request once Carter departed.

Manchester City
Revie was sold to First Division side Manchester City for £25,000 (including a part-exchange for Ernie Phillips, valued at £12,000) in October 1951. The Citizens struggled in the 1951–52 season and then went on to finish just one place above the relegation zone in the 1952–53 campaign. Revie was often isolated from the rest of the team due to his lack of pace. The sale of Ivor Broadis then allowed Revie to drop deeper down the field and allowed manager Les McDowall to put Revie in what eventually proved to be a pivotal role, introducing to English football the position of deep-lying centre forward. This evolved into the so-called "Revie Plan", with Revie as the central figure. His role derived from the more traditional inside right position and was based on the style of the successful Hungary national team, and in particular Nándor Hidegkuti, who invented the role. Revie devoted 20 pages to analysing and explaining the plan in his autobiography Soccer's Happy Wanderer written in 1955.

Revie had improved his goal tally to 13 in the 1953–54 season, but only once the Revie Plan was implemented in the 1954–55 campaign were Manchester City able to fully make use of his abilities. The new tactic opened with a 5–0 defeat to Preston North End, but then Ken Barnes replaced John McTavish at inside-forward and the team clicked. Though the tactic was named after Revie, it had initially been introduced at the reserve team level by Johnny Williamson. However, Revie's superior passing talents meant Williamson was overlooked for the position at first team level. City's league title campaign fell away, but they went on to reach the 1955 FA Cup final at Wembley, where they were beaten 3–1 by Newcastle United; a first-half injury to Jimmy Meadows left City down to ten men and unable to compete effectively. At the end of the season, Revie was named as FWA Footballer of the Year.

McDowall fined Revie £27 for missing two weeks of training for a family holiday in Blackpool, which infuriated him as he had received permission from trainer Laurie Barnett and had promised to train whilst on holiday. McDowall dropped Revie for much of the 1955–56 season, preferring instead to play Bobby Johnstone. Revie played only one FA Cup match that season before being named in the team for the 1956 FA Cup final against Birmingham City, with Johnstone being moved to the wings. He provided the assist for Joe Hayes's opening goal and instructed Ken Barnes to deviate from the manager's instructions at half-time, with the result being a more dominant second half display and a 3–1 victory; Revie was named as Man of the Match. However the rift with his manager was not forgotten, and he was moved to right-half in the 1956–57 campaign, leaving him to seek a move away from Maine Road.

Sunderland
In October 1956, Sunderland manager Bill Murray bought Revie for a £22,000 fee. Poor results left the Black Cats facing relegation towards the end of the 1956–57 campaign, but a late seven-game unbeaten run lifted them to safety, just one place above relegated Cardiff City. A financial scandal over illegal payments to players resulted in harsh sanctions at Roker Park from The Football Association and forced Murray's resignation. His replacement, Alan Brown, preferred a more physical style of play that did not suit Revie. Sunderland suffered relegation from the First Division for the first time in the club's history in the 1957–58 season, and Revie was dropped for the 1958–59 Second Division campaign in favour of a youth policy. In September 1958, he rejected the opportunity to sign for hometown club Middlesbrough – had he joined the club then he would have played alongside captain Brian Clough and goalkeeper Peter Taylor.

Leeds United
Revie returned to the First Division when he joined Leeds United in November 1958 for a £14,000 fee. Manager Bill Lambton had hoped that Revie's creativity would help the Peacocks to turn their poor form around and appointed him as captain. Leeds avoided relegation in the 1958–59 season, but new manager Jack Taylor took Leeds down in the 1959–60 campaign with the division's worst defensive record. Revie recognised his playing days were coming to an end and relinquished the captaincy to Freddie Goodwin.

International career
In October 1953, he was called up to The Football League XI to face the League of Ireland XI at Maine Road, and scored a hat-trick in a 9–1 victory. He went on to play for the England B team in March 1954. He scored on his England debut on 2 October 1954, in a 2–0 British Home Championship victory over Northern Ireland at Windsor Park. He also scored during his second appearance on 2 April 1955, a 7–2 victory over Scotland at Wembley Stadium. He made three further appearances that year, playing in defeats to France at the Stade Olympique Yves-du-Manoir and Wales at Ninian Park, and scoring twice in a 5–1 win over Denmark at Idrætsparken. His sixth and final cap came in a 1–1 draw with Northern Ireland on 6 October 1956.

He was one of many signatories in a letter to The Times on 17 July 1958, opposing "the policy of apartheid" in international sport and defending "the principle of racial equality which is embodied in the Declaration of the Olympic Games".

Leeds United
Revie was made player-manager at Leeds United in March 1961 following the resignation of Jack Taylor, who left after Leeds found themselves struggling in the Second Division. He had initially applied for the vacant job at Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic, but they were unable to find the £6,000 Leeds demanded, and the Leeds directors decided to appoint Revie as manager instead. At the time the club was in debt and was located in a rugby league territory, with very little football tradition. Less than 7,000 turned out for the final home game of the 1960–61 season, while Leeds Rhinos' championship game of the 1960–61 Rugby League season had an attendance of over 50,000. He immediately began to institute radical changes, such as ensuring the players stayed at higher-quality hotels. He instilled a "family atmosphere" at Elland Road, making sure to take an interest in the lives of everyone at the club, from the cleaning staff to the star players and ensuring there were no "big egos" at the club. He showed trust in his players, leaving them mainly to their own devices, though he always made sure he was fully informed as to what they were up to off the pitch, even going so far as to tell them to dump their girlfriends if he viewed them as unsuitable. He also introduced lengthy dossiers on opposing teams to ensure his players knew every detail about the opposition and were able to exploit weaknesses and nullify threats. Other changes were based on some of his many superstitions, such as his belief that birds were bad luck which resulted in him getting rid of the owl on the club badge and the discontinuation of the "Peacocks" nickname in favour of the "Whites".

Leeds struggled in the 1961–62 season, as aside from Billy Bremner and Jack Charlton, his playing squad was filled with journeymen pros; he did though inherit a good coaching staff that included Les Cocker, Maurice Lindley and Syd Owen who would all spend many years with Revie at Leeds. He developed a youth policy at the club, notable graduates of which would be Eddie Gray, Norman Hunter, Peter Lorimer and Paul Reaney. He had a difficult task in persuading young players to join Leeds over more glamorous clubs. Still, he made sure he put in extra effort to make the youngsters feel happy at Leeds, and in one instance, drove to Scotland to talk to Bremner's girlfriend to successfully persuade her to encourage Bremner to stay at Leeds rather than return to Scotland to be with her. Revie played his last game in March 1962 before concentrating entirely on management.

After new investment at board level, Revie was able to spend £25,000 on Everton's Scotland international Bobby Collins, who he installed as captain. Other arrivals included former Manchester City teammate Billy McAdams, forward Ian Lawson and left-back Cliff Mason. He spent £53,000 to bring John Charles back from Juventus. Though he proved not to be as effective as during his first spell at Leeds, Revie was able to sell him on to Roma for a £17,000 profit within just a few months. Leeds pushed for promotion in 1962–63, but the harsh winter caused many postponements and a backlog of games at the end of the season proved too much for Leeds, who fell away to finish in fifth place.

United secured promotion as champions of the Second Division in the 1963–64 season, helped by the late signing of striker Alan Peacock from Middlesbrough for £53,000. However, the overly physical approach typified by captain Collins earned Leeds a reputation as "dirty" that would shadow the club throughout Revie's tenure as manager and continue to this day. Leeds adapted well to the First Division early in the 1964–65 campaign but caused controversy in Collins's return to Goodison Park as the game against Everton descended into a brawl. The referee ordered the players off the field after 35 minutes to prevent further violence. Leeds went on to maintain a strong title challenge, finishing second to rivals Manchester United on goal average after failing to beat Birmingham City on the last day of the season. They also reached the final of the FA Cup, losing 2–1 to Liverpool at Wembley after extra-time.

Revie felt he did not have to strengthen his squad for the 1965–66 campaign, and made no new signings. With Leeds in the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup he showed his gamesmanship, sending his team out against Italian club Torino wearing unfamiliar numbers in an attempt to confuse the Italian club's tight man-marking system. However, Collins had his leg broken by Torino's Fabrizio Poletti, meaning Revie had to partner Giles and Bremner in central midfield and sign Huddersfield Town winger Michael O'Grady for £30,000. Although Collins would be missed, the partnership of Giles and Bremner would prove highly effective. Leeds again finished second in the league, trailing Liverpool by six points. They reached the semi-finals of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, losing on aggregate to Spanish side Real Zaragoza despite Revie ordering the fire brigade to flood the pitch before the replay at Elland Road.

Leeds struggled at the start of the 1966–67 season, though despite winning just three of their opening eleven games, they finished in fourth place. They reached the semi-finals of the FA Cup, losing 1–0 to Chelsea at Villa Park. They reached the final of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup against Yugoslavian side Dinamo Zagreb, but were unable to scout the opposition due to Syd Owen having his flight cancelled on him; Leeds lost 2–0 on aggregate and Revie was criticised for his negative tactics.

With his team coming close but failing to land a trophy, he brought in a gypsy to lift a curse he believed had been placed on Elland Road so that there would be no bad luck for the 1967–68 season. A more practical measure he took to increase United's fortunes was to nearly double the club's record transfer to buy Sheffield United centre-forward Mick Jones for £100,000, who would replace the frequently injured Peacock as the main striker. Soon after the purchase, Leeds recorded a 7–0 victory over Chelsea, though ironically, Jones was not on the score sheet. Revie's first trophy would be the League Cup, as they eliminated Luton Town, Bury, Sunderland, Stoke City and Derby County to reach the final against Arsenal; Terry Cooper scored the only goal of what was a dour and tense final as Revie told his players to "shut up shop" and defend their 1–0 lead. This success did not immediately translate into league and FA Cup success, however, as they finished in fourth place and were beaten in the FA Cup semi-finals by Everton. They instead reached a second successive Inter-Cities Fairs Cup final, beating Spora (Luxembourg), Partizan (Yugoslavia), Hibernian (Scotland), Rangers (Scotland), and Dundee (Scotland) to reach the final against Hungarian club Ferencvárosi. Leeds won the first leg 1–0 and a month later defended their lead with a 0–0 draw in Budapest, by which time Jimmy Greenhoff, a substitute in the first leg, had been sold to Birmingham City.

Having found success in domestic and European cup competitions, Revie focused exclusively on the league for the 1968–69 campaign. They went the rest of the season unbeaten in the league following a 5–1 defeat to Burnley at Turf Moor on 19 October, and secured the title with a 0–0 draw with challengers Liverpool at Anfield; after the game Revie led his team back out onto the pitch to applaud the Liverpool supporters, who in turn applauded the Leeds team. His team set several records: most points (67), most wins (27), fewest defeats (2), and most home points (39); a still-unbroken club record is their 34 match unbeaten run that extended into the following season.

Revie strengthened his front line by breaking the British transfer record with a £165,000 purchase of Allan Clarke from Leicester City, who would partner Mick Jones up front. This allowed him to sell O'Grady to Wolverhampton Wanderers for £80,000 and move Lorimer to a more attacking role. He targeted the treble in 1969–70 and came close to achieving his aim only to fail on all three fronts in a congested close season, finishing second in the league to Everton, losing the 1970 FA Cup final to Chelsea (after a replay), and exiting the European Cup with a semi-final defeat to Celtic in front of a competition record crowd of 136,505 at Hampden Park.

Rejecting a £100,000 four-year contract offer to manage Birmingham City, Revie elected to remain at Leeds and stick with the same squad for the 1970–71 campaign. Leeds and Arsenal soon pulled away from the rest of the pack, though it would be the Gunners who would claim the league title, finishing one point ahead of Leeds after the latter lost to West Bromwich Albion following a controversial offside goal in front of the Match of the Day television cameras late in the season. United were embarrassed in the FA Cup, being knocked out by Fourth Division side Colchester United in a famous "giant-killing". Leeds again found success in the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup though, beating Sarpsborg (Norway), Dynamo Dresden (East Germany), Sparta Prague (Czechoslovakia), Vitória (Portugal) and Liverpool to reach the final against Juventus. They drew 2–2 at the Stadio Olimpico di Torino before claiming the trophy on away goals after a 1–1 draw at Elland Road.

The previous season's defeat to West Bromwich Albion led to Revie criticising referee Ray Tinkler. As punishment, Leeds were forced to play their first four home games of the 1971–72 season at a neutral venue; they played at Huddersfield's Leeds Road and boasted four wins and two draws from the opening seven matches. Leeds played good football, particularly winning praise for their 7–0 and 6–1 wins over Southampton and Nottingham Forest respectively, but again could only finish as runners-up after a late collapse and final day defeat at Wolves, allowing Derby County to claim the title by a single point. Revie had attempted to strengthen his squad before the final run-in with a £177,000 bid for Asa Hartford, but the deal was cancelled by the medical team who spotted a heart defect in the attacker's medical records. United reached the 1972 FA Cup final after beating Bristol Rovers, Liverpool, Cardiff City, Tottenham Hotspur and Birmingham City, and lifted the trophy after a 1–0 victory over Arsenal in the final.

Looking for a successor to Jack Charlton, early in the 1972–73 season, he signed Gordon McQueen from St Mirren for £30,000. He also spent £100,000 on defender Trevor Cherry and £35,000 on centre-half Roy Ellam, both from Huddersfield Town, and started playing young Scottish forward Joe Jordan more regularly. Leeds again came close to a Treble, but their league title campaign tailed off and they finished third, some seven points behind champions Liverpool. They did reach the 1973 FA Cup final to face Second Division Sunderland, but despite manager turned pundit Brian Clough's remark that "there is no way Sunderland can beat Leeds", United lost 1–0. Leeds also reached the final of the European Cup Winners' Cup against Italian club A.C. Milan at the Kaftanzoglio Stadium, where they were beaten 1–0. The match saw a controversial refereeing performance from Christos Michas, which eventually saw Norman Hunter get sent off after he reacted badly to being consistently fouled by pushing Gianni Rivera to the ground. In 2009, Yorkshire and the Humber MEP Richard Corbett unsuccessfully petitioned the European Parliament to reverse the result of the match over allegations that Michas accepted a bribe from the Italian side.

Revie was offered a five-year £100,000 contract (plus £50,000 signing-on fee) by Everton in the summer, but remained with Leeds after the move broke down due to a new law introduced in Parliament that prevented wage rises to curb inflation. He chose to continue with largely the same line-up for the 1973–74 season. He told his squad that the aim for the season would be to go unbeaten throughout the campaign. Though Leeds failed to achieve this as they lost three successive games in February/March, they did secure the title with a five-point lead over Liverpool. Completely focused on the league, and finally accepting that he was asking too much of his players to try and win every competition he played weakened teams to allow an early exit from the UEFA Cup. He chose to take the job of England national football team manager ahead of leading a European Cup challenge at Leeds and breaking up the ageing team he had stuck with for many years, and though he was well loved at the club he was not popular with the Leeds boardroom members, who appointed Brian Clough, a fierce critic of Revie as his successor. Despite lasting just 44 days in the job, Clough spent more in transfer fees than Revie had in his 13 years at the club.

England
In July 1974, Revie accepted the offer of the England manager's job, succeeding Alf Ramsey and caretaker-manager Joe Mercer. The Football Association, particularly Ted Croker, were impressed with Revie's personality and ideas. He was a popular appointment with the press and supporters; noted journalist Brian Glanville wrote that "Revie was the obvious choice". Revie attempted to build a relationship with the media, and also invited 81 prospective and established England players to a meeting in Manchester to make everyone feel included, where he announced that he would establish extra pay for international players as well as bonus payments for wins and draws. He held a meeting with Alan Hardaker, chairman of the Football League, but Hardaker had long resented Revie and was very reluctant to accept his proposal to rearrange league fixtures to benefit the England team. He also had difficult relationships with figures within the FA, most notoriously with chairman Sir Harold Thompson, who allegedly attempted to influence Revie's team selections and undermine him publicly. As well as this he found difficulty in his attempts to introduce the Leeds traditions into the England camp, such as carpet bowls and bingo, which were met with resentment and disdain by some England internationals. Colin Todd stated that Revie was ill-suited to the England job, with his strengths lying in the day-to-day contact found only in club management rather than the politics and committee meetings of international management.

For UEFA Euro 1976, England were drawn in a tough qualification group including Czechoslovakia, Portugal and Cyprus, with only the winner progressing to the finals. England began the campaign well with a 3–0 victory over Czechoslovakia at Wembley, Mick Channon and Colin Bell scoring the goals. However, a 0–0 home draw with Portugal was a minor setback, despite Malcolm Macdonald scoring all the goals in a 5–0 win over Cyprus following a morale-boosting 2–0 friendly win over 1974 FIFA World Cup champions West Germany. Kevin Keegan scored the only goal of the game at the Tsirion Stadium to secure maximum points in Cyprus and leave England in a strong position going into the two tough final group games in Czechoslovakia and Portugal. Though only drawing with Wales and Northern Ireland, a 5–1 victory over Scotland secured England the 1974–75 British Home Championship title and left England in confident mood for the crucial qualifying games. However, despite Channon opening the scoring, they fell to a 2–1 defeat to the Czechoslovakians in Bratislava after playing with what was for Revie uncharacteristic attacking tactics. A 1–1 draw in Lisbon then allowed Czechoslovakia to clinch the group with a win over Cyprus. Czechoslovakia then went on to win the whole tournament. Revie was criticised for his constant changing of players during the qualifying group, particularly his decision to drop captains Emlyn Hughes and Alan Ball from his squad entirely, his mistrust of flair players like Charlie George and Alan Hudson, and his willingness to play players out of position.

With England unseeded, Revie was handed opponents for qualifying for the 1978 World Cup of Italy, Finland and Luxembourg. Only the winner would progress to the finals. Just before the campaign began, England suffered a 2–1 defeat to Scotland to finish second in the 1975–76 British Home Championship. England made heavy work of both Finland and Luxembourg, winning 4–1 away and 2–1 at home against the Finns and 5–0 at home and 2–0 away against the Luxembourgers. The failure to inflict heavier defeats on these sides was ultimately the reason why Italy qualified for the finals on goal difference alone. England fell to a 2–0 defeat in Rome, where Revie was criticised for his previously untested back four selection of Emlyn Hughes, Dave Clement, Roy McFarland, and Mick Mills; he also played Trevor Brooking out of position and surprised many by selecting Stan Bowles ahead of Stuart Pearson. Sensing that he was disliked by FA chairman Sir Harold Thompson, and with further criticism coming his way after England could only finish third in the 1976–77 British Home Championship, Revie began to look for a way out. He missed a friendly with Brazil in Rio de Janeiro for what he claimed was a scouting assignment on the Italians, when in fact he had travelled to Dubai for contract negotiations with the United Arab Emirates. Revie asked for his contract with England to be cancelled, which the FA refused to do and the FA offered Revie their full support despite having already approached Bobby Robson to replace him. The game with Brazil ended in a 0–0 draw, and their tour of South America concluded with draws with Argentina and Uruguay. On 12 July 1977, Revie revealed in an exclusive to the Daily Mail that he was quitting the England job to become manager of the UAE. The FA suspended Revie from football for ten years on a charge of bringing the game into disrepute; Revie contested his suspension in a lawsuit against the FA, and the court overturned the suspension after ruling that the FA had overreached its powers.

""I sat down with my wife, Elsie, one night and we agreed that the England job was no longer worth the aggravation. It was bringing too much heartache to those nearest to us. Nearly everyone in the country wants me out. So, I am giving them what they want. I know people will accuse me of running away, and it does sicken me that I cannot finish the job by taking England to the World Cup finals in Argentina next year, but the situation has become impossible.""

- Revie's revelation to the Daily Mail under the headline "Revie Quits Over Aggro".

When Revie departed, England were three points behind Italy in the qualification group, with two matches remaining, including an encounter with the Italians at Wembley. Revie's replacement Ron Greenwood led the national team to victory in both remaining matches. England thus finished level with the Italians on points but behind them on goal difference. Since only the winner of the group qualified for the finals, England missed their second consecutive World Cup tournament.

Middle East
His contract at the United Arab Emirates ensured him a £340,000 four-year contract, though caused irreparable damage to his reputation in England. Selling the story to the Daily Mail also earned him £20,000, but only furthered the criticism that he was a "mercenary". UAE finished sixth in the seven team 5th Arabian Gulf Cup in Iraq, but it was his work in helping to improve the footballing facilities in the country in the long-term that were more important, helping the UAE qualify for the 1990 FIFA World Cup. He left the UAE coaching role in May 1980 as the UAE searched for an Arabic speaking manager. He returned to club management with Al-Nasr of the UAE Arabian Gulf League, but was sacked in 1984 with the club sitting third in the league. The next year he had a brief stint with Egyptian Premier League club Al-Ahly of Cairo, but did not settle in Egypt and returned home to England. He was approached to replace Alan Mullery as Queens Park Rangers manager by chairman Jim Gregory, but the deal was not completed and Revie never worked in football again.

Personal life
Revie married Elsie, the niece of Leicester City's Scottish manager Johnny Duncan, on 17 October 1949. They had a son, Duncan, and a daughter, Kim. Elsie died of cancer on 28 March 2005 at the age of 77.

He published an autobiography, Soccer's Happy Wanderer, in 1955. He was appointed an OBE for his services to football. In April 1974, shortly before departing from Leeds for the England job, Revie was a special guest on the TV guest show This Is Your Life. Revie was an active freemason attending Leodiensis Lodge No. 4029 from 1965 until his death.

Illness and death
After living in Surrey for two years, Revie moved to Kinross, Scotland, in 1986, where he intended to spend his retirement. He was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in May 1987. He publicly announced his illness in August of that year and made his final public appearance on 11 May 1988 at Elland Road in a wheelchair, at a charity football match held to raise money for research into the disease. He died in Murrayfield Hospital in Edinburgh on 26 May 1989, aged 61, and was cremated four days later at Warriston Crematorium in Edinburgh. Though his funeral was well attended by representatives of Leeds United and many others involved in football such as Kevin Keegan, Brian Moore, Lawrie McMenemy, Denis Law and Alex Ferguson, The Football Association did not send any representatives.

Legacy
The family atmosphere Revie instilled at Elland Road ensured that many Leeds United players remained friends and fiercely loyal to Revie long after their playing days had ended; his players also generally avoided financial, addiction or family problems, enjoying largely stable lives even after retirement. In May 2012, a statue of Revie was unveiled outside Elland Road. The North Stand of Elland Road is formally known as the Revie Stand.

In a survey of leading football writers, historians and academics by Total Sport magazine, Revie's Leeds United was voted one of the 50 greatest football teams of all time. James Corbett of the Guardian wrote that Revie "had been the most innovative manager of his generation" and "not until Arsène Wenger would a manager exert such a profound influence on his club - and the English game as a whole".

"Dirty Leeds"
The combative nature of his teams earned United the moniker of "dirty Leeds", as key player Eddie Gray admitted that "it was brutal stuff and, definitely win-at-all-costs". Alan Peacock said that one of the attractions for joining Leeds was that he would not have to play against them and "then they won't be kicking me". In 1963 Leeds were labelled by the Football Association's own FA News as "the dirtiest [team] in the Football League". On more than one occasion referees had to order Leeds players off the pitch for a break mid-match to break up mass brawls. His teams were notorious for dour play and playing to defend 1–0 leads, though he allowed a more attacking style later in his career. Nevertheless, the unpopularity and poor reputation stuck with Leeds throughout Revie's time as manager and afterwards. George Best said that he "hated playing against them" and that the only time he needed to wear shinpads was when he was playing against Leeds.

One of Revie's most notable critics was Brian Clough, who initially gave some degree of praise to Leeds following the 1969–70 season, commenting that "they have made the season". However, Clough's attitude soon changed as the competition between their clubs intensified and for subsequent seasons, he would use his newspaper columns to attack Revie and Leeds, particularly in August 1973 in which he branded the Leeds players "cheats" and called for the club to be relegated to the Second Division on disciplinary grounds, though Clough would surprisingly succeed Revie as Leeds manager in an ill-fated tenure that lasted only 44 days. In 2009, Revie was portrayed by Colm Meaney in the film The Damned United, which focused on Clough's reign as manager of Leeds United.

""When people talk about Leeds being dirty, they forget that was the culture back then. You had to look after yourself. There were so many players around who would now be suspended all season long. We just made sure nobody ever managed to bully us.""

- Johnny Giles defending Leeds' approach to games.

Allegations of financial misconduct
Revie's reputation suffered in the late 1970s after his highly controversial England resignation. Both the Daily Mirror and The Sunday People claimed that Revie had attempted to bribe Wolverhampton Wanderers players to lose a crucial match in May 1972. The papers quoted Wolves midfielder Danny Hegan and former Leeds United goalkeeper Gary Sprake's claims that Revie's captain Billy Bremner had tried to arrange a bribe. Bremner sued for libel and won £100,000 libel damages and legal costs after both Hegan and Sprake refused to repeat their allegations under oath in court. Wolves player Derek Dougan, who had scored against Leeds in the match, testified that he had heard no mention of the alleged bribes. Neither the police nor FA investigations found any evidence of wrongdoing.

Additionally, Bob Stokoe would later claim that while managing Bury on Good Friday 1962, Revie had offered him a bribe of £500 to "go easy" on his Leeds side who were at the time struggling against relegation to the Third Division and that he had become enraged when Revie responded to his refusal to accept the bribe by asking "in that case, may I speak to your players?". Alan Ball also alleged that Revie made an illegal approach for him, and despite pocketing the £300 bribe, he signed for Everton instead of Leeds; both men were charged with bringing the game into disrepute. The allegations of corruption earned him the nickname of "Don Readies". Though Mr Justice Cantley lifted the FA's ten-year ban on Revie, during his conclusion of the case the judge said that Revie "lacked candour", was "greedy" and "prickly", focused on "imagined wrongs" and his resignation as England manager showed a "sensational, outrageous example of disloyalty, breach of trust, discourtesy and selfishness".

International

 * Source:

 * Scores and results list England's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Revie goal.

Player
Manchester City
 * FA Cup: 1955–56

England
 * British Home Championship: 1954–55, 1955–56 (shared), 1956–57

Manager
Leeds United
 * Football League First Division: 1968–69, 1973–74
 * FA Cup: 1971–72
 * Football League Cup: 1967–68
 * FA Charity Shield: 1969
 * Football League Second Division: 1963–64
 * Inter-Cities Fairs Cup: 1967–68, 1970–71

England
 * British Home Championship: 1974–75

Individual

 * FWA Footballer of the Year: 1954–55
 * Officer of the Order of the British Empire: 1969

title: Don Revie


text:
Talk:Space Race

Encyclopedia Astronautica not reliable
I noticed that there are quite a few references on this article to Encyclopedia Astronautica however the site is no longer being updated and I noted this comment from on the site’s wiki article talk page:
 * "Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct.  Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired.  Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, pp. 484–485.

Would suggest that we should start replacing thse references with reliable souces and deleting any errors. Ilenart626 (talk)
 * Have today replaced the Encyclopedia Astronautica references Ilenart626 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 * This sounds like Encyclopedia Astronautica is unreliable at all - which it is not even if there may be minor flaws (as in many publications and encyclopedia in spite of peer reviews). Just take the quote literally: "not all of it is correct" might also be understood as "most of it is correct". Therefore I'm using it as a reference if the data is consistent with other sources. SchmiAlf (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reference links to Encyclopedia Astronautica (deleted by @Ilenart626 in July 2022 as "unreliable", see diff) were restored because the RfC for the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica concluded that "there appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource". So far no specific errors were addressed for the items linked to this article. SchmiAlf (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchmiAlf has misrepresented the rfc, which concluded “There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but which lacks editorial oversight, contains errors and is no longer updated…caution needs to taken in using the source .” The rfc found that no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply on the reliability of the site, which includes “It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question.” Given the issues with this source I am reverting SchmiAlf's change pending consensus for inclusion.Ilenart626 (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

German influence on Soviet space program
The statement "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet rocket program was marginal." in the Space Race section is based on the lead section of German influence on the Soviet space program. A survey Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program with options for changing the lead was opened by the moderator. Please participate in the survey and vote for your preferred option! SchmiAlf (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I revised the rating of German influence based on Anatoly Zak and Ordway/Sharpe which have a more detailed view than Siddiqi (2000) and Neufeld (2012). Further details can be found in Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program which is still open for participation in the survey. SchmiAlf (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * SchmiAlf, as detailed on Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program, you have pushing a fringe theory which overstates the German influence on the Soviet space. Their is no concensus for your changes and the rfc has not been finalised. Therefore I am reverting your controversial edits. Would suggest you stop trying to expand your fringe theory to other wiki articles until the rfc is complete Ilenart626 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ilenart626, you are blaming me "fringe". Since January 2022 (see old version) you have removed a lot of (previously undisputed) contributions related to German influence from this article. I have restored references to G-2 and G-4 because they are essential for this topic. I have added statements of several space historian to outline the on-going dispute. I kept the Siddiqi (2000) "after 1947 ... marginal" statement (you are clinging to), but it sounds rather strange here as compared to Neufeld (now with his original quote) and Zak. I'm convinced that this version is closer to Wikipedia's neutral point of view than it was before. SchmiAlf (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * SchmiAlf, for the last 12 months you have pushed a fringe theory which overstates the German influence on the Soviet space. I note that I am not the only wiki editor with these views, in this discussion DonPMitchell called it a conspiracy theory and this discussion on Talk:R-7 Semyorka @DonPMitchell and @Mark Lincoln discuss the “myth” of German involvement.
 * Anatoly Zak concluded that the "German ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup's team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and accelerate their efforts" This is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Zak’s website in the German contribution in the Soviet rocketry: Myth and Reality section summarises both arguments for and against German contribution, which he concluded with “As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between: Germans did not designed Sputnik or its rocket, however the ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup’s team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and thus accelerated their efforts.” In other words, Zak’s website supports the original wording in this article, as supported by Siddiqi (2000).
 * As you now appear to be supporting Neufeld, I have replaced the conclusion with option C of the rfc, which incorporates both Neufield and Siddiqi, including the suggestions from @Caeciliusinhorto. You have also included way to much information about German details, this article is about the Space race and this information should be left in supporting articles, hence the link to German influence on the Soviet space program embedded in this section. Again, I suggest you stop trying to expand your fringe theory to other wiki articles until the  rfc on the talk page of German influence on the Soviet space program is complete.Ilenart626 (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I strictly reject your allegation that I'm propagating a fringe theory. It has been your objective, since 18 months, to downgrade the contributions of captured German scientists to Soviet rocketry by synthesizing Siddiqi (2000) with differing statements of Neufeld (2012) and Zak (2003/2012) as if they said the same. Arbitrarily you delete essential German design studies and reference to Ordway/Sharpe (1979) which obviously do not fit your limited view and/or your strange mission. As argument you bring up an outdated talk from 2009 which has nothing to do with my edits (i.e., no word that the Germans designed the R-7).
 * A week ago I restored valuable references to Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica here and in several other articles (Soviet rocketry, Intercontinental ballistic missile, Vostok 1, R-7 Semyorka). Contrary to the result of the RFC you have deleted them a second time without giving a proper argument on a case-by-case basis as suggested. Therefore I'm inviting @ActivelyDisinterested, @Daranios, @PM3, @Neopeius, @Wehwalt, @InvadingInvader to comment on this dispute and potential fringe theories. SchmiAlf (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you find a better source than Encyclopedia Astronautica to reference the desired information? Remember that WP:OSE, though targeted towards deletion discussions, is best used in any discussion when only comparing to featured articles and good articles.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 12:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely clear what we are discussing. The survey appears to be dormant, but had I chimed in, I would have been for Option C based on the only sources I have on hand (Chertok and Siddiqi). However, since the sentence was not proper English ("However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used, the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal."), I'd instead say, "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, after 1947-48 they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used; the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal." If we need further sources, I can ask Asif (we are both members of the AAS History Committee) if he can recommend other published sources on the issue. --Neopeius (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Neopeius, if you could ask Asif for additional sources, including his thoughts or sources that also deal with Olaf Przybilski’s claims, that would be appreciated. Note that as you are obviously discussing the survey on the talk page of German influence on the Soviet space program, I will copy your response to that page. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ilenart626 Which claims specifically are in question? --Neopeius (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neopeius Claims that after 1947 German specialists had an extensive influence on Soviet rocketry. In particular Dr. Olaf Przybilski pointed out similarities between later Soviet rockets and the studies carried out by German specialists, for example, resemblance between a cone-like aerodynamic shape the Gröttrup team had proposed for several rockets and the conical shape of Korolev’s largest designs—the R-7 and the N1 moon rocket. Ilenart626 (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ilenart626, I have posed the question to the committee as a whole. We shall see what they turn up. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neopeius, in the following I'm summarizing arguments which I brought up in the early moderated dispute. Many of these details were already mentioned by Ordway/Sharpe's The Rocket Team (1979), pp. 329-344. Surprisingly they had access to the 1953 CIA interrogation of German returnees (see reference on p. 442) which describes the full details of G-4/R-14, although this secret CIA document was not released until 2010. Based on this insight knowledge they concluded: "The R-14 finally proposed by the Germans [in October 1949] was certainly no 'uprated' V-2. It was a new departure in rocket design. Indeed, at the time, it was considerably in advance of anything proposed or thought of by von Braun and his team in the United States."
 * The most important details are as follows (referring to the item numbers in the 1953 CIA interrogation):
 * Item 50: Conical shape of G-4 (with its astounding similarity to the R-7 boosters as documented by comparative drawing). This essential design approach is also described by Helmut Gröttup's 1954 CIA interrogation, his comprehensive book Über Raketen (1959) and Werner Albring's Gorodomlia (1991) (available as Gorodomlya Island in English since 2016 with additional material from Soviet archives).
 * Items 26-33: The use of pressure-stabilized balloon tanks based on thin-walled self-supporting (monocoque) structures (1 mm) to reduce weight (documented by Uhl (p.177-178) and applied for R-7);
 * Items 8d, 8g: Low initial acceleration by thrust/weight ratio of 1.44 (instead of typically 2.0) (R-7's Sputnik shot had a value of 1.4);
 * Items 36, 72: Gimbal arrangement of the motor instead of rudders (first used by Soviet design of R-9 (Russian source);
 * Item 50: Exhaust nozzles adjustable in direction (vernier thrusters) for roll control (used by RD-107/108 for R-7 and R-9, see above);
 * Item 42: System for simultaneous emptying of both tanks as described by Ustinov's 1948 task "fuel level sensor in the rocket’s tanks" (also documented by Russian Tank emptying system and Chertok (p. 292, Vol 2);
 * Items 28, 29: Arrangement of the oxygen tank ahead of the fuel tank to solve structural issues during fueling and to improve the center of gravity position (applied for R-5 and R-7).
 * All German ideas were limited to theoretical design sketches, accompanied by some experiments for areodynamics and engine trials. In parallel, the Soviet teams under Korolev in NII-88 and Glushko in OKB-456 successfully solved the challenges of the technical implementation, based on adopted approaches (until 1952 continuing to ask advice from the 100+ German scientists isolated on Gorodomlya) and own ideas.
 * Due to strict consealment during Stalin's era it is hard to find Soviet documents which explicitly prove the level of German contributions to the early Soviet rocketry (Uhl's, Zak's and other historians' dilemma). Nevertheless, the Russian 70 Years of Zwezda 1946-2016 document (2016) acknowledged them as follows: "The German experience in terms of basic research and practical engineering application became a good school for the Soviet scientists. Many valuable ideas were adopted from the German collective, which saved the Soviet rocket industry many years of development and mistakes. [...] In the technically simplified design of a single-stage rocket with a conical shape, many innovations were again implemented: For the first time there were no gas thrusters, the rocket was equipped with stages in longitudinal and transverse pitch, with a bundle of three engines as a propulsion block and engine control during acceleration."
 * As ever in technology, the success was based on 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration - but with more than marginal contributions by the German team in 1948-49. SchmiAlf (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchmiAlf It sounds as though the Soviets had a quantum leap from the R-1/R-2 (German copies) era and the R-5/R-7 (German ideas/home-grown) era. If Zwezda be a reliable source, it certainly seems that insight (which you quoted in italics) should be reflected in an article that incorporates the German impact on the Soviet program. Otherwise, you make a compelling argument, but it would be OR-ish without dispositive external sources. --Neopeius (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchmiAlf 70 Years of Zwezda 1946-2016 is sourced from https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/XTAeeiz4wfbS3X7 and I have noticed that a number of your sources are linked to “owncloud.birkenwald.de. Can you clarify how you found this source?  In particular, is this your own website? Ilenart626 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * True, this is "my" cloud for providing documents which cannot be found otherwise in the web. The Zvezda document was handed over as a printed copy to Ursula Gröttrup, Helmut Gröttrup's daugther who grew up on Gorodomlya.
 * More information can be found for Zvezda history. Zvezda has its origins as Branch No. 1 of NII-88 in 1946 to 1950 and has been continued as a plant for Soviet and Russian space technology in Solnetschny (Twer) on Gorodomlya island. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchmiAlf I suspect using your own cloud website to provide documents would not be a reliable sources, as per WP:RS particularly WP:USG. I believe the quickest way to resolve will be to raise the issue on the reliable sources notice board, will do so and you can respond with your explanation. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * refer Reliable sources/Noticeboard Ilenart626 (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As some have noted in that discussion, hosting a document does not make it unreliable. It just makes it publicly accessible, which is desirable. For instance, I got a list of R-5 launches from Asif Siddiqi (no one is going to challenge that he's a reliable source given how many articles use his published works), but because I have my own hosting, I wanted to make the list accessible to everyone. It can be found here. That doesn't necessarily make @SchmiAlf's documents reliable, but his hosting them does not prima facie make them unreliable. --Neopeius (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As already stated in the RSN, the Zvezda document was published in 2016 with an edition of 2000 pieces. This can be evaluated from the bottom of page 9 of the document (including the reference of the printing works). SchmiAlf (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Neopeius, obviously the current discussion on "reliability of source" and "copyright" noticeboards is trying to discredit the sources mentioned above. If needed, an original print of the Zvezda document can be added to the public library of the Deutsches Museum as part of Helmut Gröttrup's inheritance (NL 281). I provided this and other documents under the conditions of fair use as common ground for our dispute.
 * For further discussion of the content I'm asking how I can support you to reconsider your initial preference for Option C (as you stated on 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)) which was copied by @Ilenart626 to the survey of the RFC. Any proposal to get out of the deadlock is welcome. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * obviously the current discussion on "reliability of source" and "copyright" noticeboards is trying to discredit the sources mentioned above. @SchmiAlf I raised the issue on the reliability board as I have never heard of an Editor using their own website to provide links to articles. Sharing documents for the benefit of other editors on talk pages may be acceptable, but you currently have your own website linking your sources to the Helmut Gröttrup and German influence on the Soviet space program articles to support your claims, a practice the majority of Editors on the reliability board find unacceptable. It has also highlighted the issue of wp:PUBLISHED to ensure that your sources were not “found in my grandmother’s attic”, as one of the Editors has elegantly stated.  Many of these Editors also raised serious concerns over the copyright issue, including not complying with wp:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO. Hence it has nothing to do with “discrediting” your sources, but all about ensuring you are complying with Wikipedia policies.Ilenart626 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My support of Option C was solely based on my materials at hand. As I said before, Zvezda seems to support your amendment, and so long as it's a reliable source, I'm fine with it. I just don't know how to assess Zvezda's reliability (the primary documents are less useful since interpreting and synthesizing them becomes OR). So tell me what Zvezda is and why it's reliable. Everything else, including the specious "it's invalid because it's hosted on a personal website", is immaterial. --Neopeius (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Zvezda (see homepage) is a Russian company (full name: Филиал АО «НПЦАП им. академика Н.А. Пилюгина» «Завод «Звезда») which goes back to August 1946 prior to the Operation Osoaviakhim to host the 170+ German rocketry specialists on Gorodomlya Island. As "Branch No. 1 of NII-88" it was under supervision of the Soviet minister of armaments Dmitry Ustinov and headed by Sergei Korolev as chief desginer. From December 1946 to October 1953 it was base for
 * Design studies (e.g., G-1, G-2, G-4) and labs for radio-control systems, simulation of rocket trajectory, shallow water channel, supersonic wind tunnel, test stand for engines) (more information and pictures can be found in Werner Albring's Gorodomlya Island (English edition of 2016 includes research by Irina Suslina, pp. 1-34 of attachment);
 * Transfer of German knowledge to the Soviet rocketry team under Korolev who visited the branch (at least) in 1948 and 1949 for technical discussions;
 * In autumn 1950 several German experts for the trajectory simulation ("Bahnmodell", called "MU simulator" by Ustinov) were transferred to Moscow (among them Johannes Hoch) to work on the control of anti-aircraft missiles further developed from Wasserfall surface-to-air missile. (But this is another story.)
 * After the last Germans had been returned from Gorodomlya by October 1953, the site was continued as a Soviet only branch and, based on Zvezda's history, "switched to the production of high-precision float gyroscopic devices for their installation on rocket and space technology" in 1958. Under the Russian era it was reorganized as "Research and Production Center for Automation and Instrumentation named after Academician N.A. Pilyugin" known as Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Zvezda" (FSUE) "Star") enterprise, part of Roskosmos.
 * Since 2013, the Zvezda homepage is tracked by the WaybackMachine, with an example 70 years anniversary in August 2016.
 * The 1946-2016 brochure was compiled by Елена Бориса (Elena Borisova) who was employee of Zvezda (and organizer of the Zwezda museum). The enterprise is the main employer on the island with its "closed administrative-territorial entity (ZATO)" Solnechny, Tver Oblast with 2,200 inhabitants (in 1948 they were about 500). Even nowadays, this area is not accessible for the public.
 * Since February 2022, the beginning of the Russion war on Ukraine, contact is difficult and the scope of the Zvezda homepage has been reduced (especially on the news and product page (see archived version for comparison). SchmiAlf (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So how about truth in advertising: "Historians have generally discounted the contribution of German scientists to the Soviet missile program; however, per the company history of Zvezda (the successor organization to Branch No.1 of NII-88 to which the Germans had been assigned)..." and then summarize Zvezda's view.
 * Perhaps you can phrase it more elegantly/accurately than I have, but this would seem to address any issues. --Neopeius (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (you might also inquire with Zvezda about permission to host and reproduce their document. That would take care of potential copyright issues.) --Neopeius (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@SchmiAlf and @Neopeius there are still issues with the reliability of the Zvezda document. And let’s be clear, we are talking about a publicity brochure promoting a Russian Company celebrating their 70th anniversary, which SchmiAlf is suggesting should overide a number of reliable sources. I note on the Reliability notice board that @Blueboar, @Slatersteven, @Selfstudier and @ActivelyDisinterested have all questioned the reliability of this source; including fails "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", fails “been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party” and all the issues with WP:PRIMARY. I also have concerns with SchmiAlf’s suggestion that the Zvezda document can be added to the public library of the Deutsches Museum as part of Helmut Gröttrup's inheritance. What is SchmiAlf’s connection with the museum? Will the museum verify the authenticity? What fact checking will they carry out? Or will it just be filed? Given the above, I do not believe this document helps in resolving the current discussion on this Talk page, or on Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah… Until this document is turned over to the Deutsches Museum (or similar) authenticated and catalogued by that institution, and made accessible to the general public, I don’t think we can call it reliably verifiable as a primary source.
 * I also have concerns relating to WP:No original research. It sounds like a Wikipedian is the first person to review this document, and is using WP to inform the world on what it says … that is a classic NOR violation. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing the seven (7) facts (or call them presumptive evidence) which I outlined above on 11:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC) of this talk. Each of them is contradicting the notorious claim that the "German contributions to the Soviet rocketry were marginal after 1947" (solely based on Siddiqi (2000), p. 84). The Zvezda brochure is additional evidence for the value of the German contributions and is the closest source we can expect from Russia for describing what happened on Gorodomlya Island. It was not a publicity brochure promoting a Russian Company but summarized the enterprise's history for their employees as clearly stated on its second page with its headline "Dear colleagues, employees of the company and valued veterans!" For Russian circumstances it required quite some courage to publish (!) this (overdue) admission to the factual German achievements in 1946 to 1949. Therefore @Ilenart626's last argument/question above may be perceived as the next step for discrediting the Russian brochure, trying to annihilate it by formal arguments and ignoring the testimony of contemporary witnesses and insiders.
 * As an example, the conical shape depicted in this sketch compares two sources (CIA 1953, R-7 design). Some Wikipedians may argue here that this visualization is "OR-ish". But this astounding similarity was already brought up by Ordway/Sharpe (p. 337), Przybilski and Zak, all of them well-known scholars and space historians. Every open mind can figure out this level of German involvement with little engineering background. Therefore the Russian brochure does not override a number of reliable sources, but confirms them as another jigsaw piece of Soviet rocketry history. Calling the Russian brochure unreliable means propagating the (incorrect) view that the German influence was finished after they had supported the design of the R-1, the Russian copy of the V-2. Under regular circumstances, the later use of these German ideas (detailed in the 1953 CIA interrogation and 1954 CIA interrogation) would be considered patent infringement because there was little information flow from the Soviet to the German team.
 * Basically, our dispute is mainly driven by the current wording in the section Soviet rocket development of this article:
 * "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, from the late 1940s they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used, the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal."
 * which is not supported by Zak (2012) and Mick (2000), other than pretended by the used references. Instead, the German contributions in 1948-49 should be acknowledged as follows:
 * "However, due to a combination of secrecy and political requirements, the Soviets froze out the German specialists after 1949 and thereafter made little use of their expertise for the Soviet space program."
 * in this article as proposed per Option B in this survey. In addition, the "after 1947 ... German influence was marginal" (or similar) statement should also be revised accordingly in the following articles: German influence on the Soviet space program, Soviet rocketry, and Soviet space program. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since Zak is accepted as RS, I don't know why we're arguing given this (from the Zak reference):
 * "As it often happens in history, the truth might lie in between: Germans did not designed [sic] Sputnik or its rocket, however the ideas and concepts developed by Gröttrup’s team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and thus accelerated their efforts. "The work of the captive German scientists and technicians served as a yardstick against which Soviet accomplishments could be measured, and the Soviets were capable of extracting those developments useful to their program and of discarding others which they had already surpassed," concluded a US historian."
 * So change this line in the article:
 * "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, from the late 1940s they were excluded and set to work on theoretical designs that were never used, the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their future influence on the Soviet space program was marginal."
 * to
 * "However, due to a combination of security and political requirements, from the late 1940s they were excluded from Soviet rocket design, while they continued developing plans for the G-2 and G-4, they were never produced. Nevertheless, the Soviets used the work of Gröttrup’s team to verify their own efforts and incorporated useful innovations by the Germans into their own designs."
 * (as it stands, the original sentence is clumsy and also doesn't quite follow—it suggests that there were rockets beyond the G-2 and G-4 that they were working on, which wasn't the case.)
 * Beyond that,, you need to write an article and submit it to Quest Space Quarterly, and then you can cite it. :) This talk page is not really the forum for your erudite arguments (though I have enjoyed them). --Neopeius (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal sounds much better than any option before. And I like your idea to submit an article to Quest Space Quarterly (although this will take several weeks). It is true that neither the talk page nor the article are a forum for these distinctive arguments. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I'll be happy to make that change. What say you, @Ilenart626?
 * (Quest is a great mag. It may yet be the only peer-reviewed space history journal out there. I've been published there four times.) --Neopeius (talk)
 * Neopeius, I do not support your suggestion. Also note that @Caeciliusinhorto-public has previously supported a modified option C, which I also support, where you appear to be suggesting a modified B, which SchmiAlf supports.  So unfortunately their is no concensus.  However considering the conflict of interest that has arisen with SchmiAlf, would suggest this discussion be suspended until that issue is resolved. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchmiAlf is not the issue (he has already conceded that WP is not the place to advance his arguments)—my suggested revision is based solely on the Anatoly Zak, which is already cited in the article. What is wrong with my proposed language? Mostly, I dislike the current sentence's awkward and misleading phrasing.--Neopeius (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC) @Balon Greyjoy @Gog the Mild
 * @Neopeius I have been busy recently so have not had the chance to respond to your message, plan to do so when I have time. In the meantime suggest you review German influence on the Soviet space program which highlights other sources that argue there was minimal to no German influence, including Chertok p73 vol 2 (Germans had little influence and the R-7 rocket that propelled the Sputnik 1 to orbit was "free of the "birthmarks" of German rocket technology”) and Willey (“In reality, the Germans did not build anything for the Russians, did not “supervise" the firings, and did not "introduce innovations”). How would you include their views in your proposed wording? Ilenart626 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, @Ilenart626. Those rather off-hand comments don't really contradict the Zak. It's true the Germans had little influence on the R-7. The German program would have been useful only at the time it was operating, which was at the early stages of R-5 development. As Zak said, and as I hope my language suggests, the Russians used the German designs as a yardstick against which they compared their own designs. Also, while I like Ley and cite him for some of my early articles, his scholarship is ancient. He had no idea what was going on behind the Iron Curtain...and how could he? Citing him is like citing Oberg's "Red Star in Orbit"—hopelessly outdated. --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Neopeius, the same “ancient” comment equally appliies to Zak. His comment "The work of the captive German scientists and technicians served as a yardstick against which Soviet accomplishments could be measured, and the Soviets were capable of extracting those developments useful to their program and of discarding others which they had already surpassed," is a direct quote from  Schwiebert, Ernest G., USAF's Ballistic Missiles - 1954-1964; A Concise History. Air Force & Space Digest, May 1964, p. 54.  So your suggestion of  “Nevertheless, the Soviets used the work of Gröttrup’s team to verify their own efforts and incorporated useful innovations by the Germans into their own designs." is also based on “ancient” information.
 * I believe the various opinions over this issue is best summarised by Siddiqi. He takes a middle ground by acknowledging Nazi Germany rocket technology and involvement of German scientists and engineers was an essential catalyst to early Soviet efforts. However his analysis of German influence after 1947-48 was “minimal” and his 2009 article provides further evidence and reasons why their influence was marginal. Siddiqi’s opinion is also supported by Nuefeld and Mick.
 * In addition, a major problem with SchmiAlf’s argument is the lack of evidence of German influence in Soviet records and archives, which is an issue which both Zak and Siddiqi highlight and SchmiAlf acknowlege above. I have read comments along the lines that somewhere is the missing evidence in Soviet archives.  I believe there is a simpler answer; these records cannot be found because they never existed as the Soviets ignored their work after 1947-48.  Ilenart626 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'm in contact with Asif, so I will get his take on the situation and get back to you. But if the Zak is NOT a reliable source, it shouldn't be cited, or at least, it should be clear what specific ideas it is supporting. --Neopeius (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * With regard to Mick (2003), there is misconception. In the talk on Soviet rocketry (09:47, 27 November 2023) I have laid out that the referenced abstract is not correct as compared to his original German statement (in 2000) and therefore does not support Siddqi's (2000) statement (p. 84) "after 1947 ... German influence was marginal" as ilenart626 is claiming for his preferred option A in the current RfC).
 * For Neufeld I have pointed to his statement that the Germans were increasingly frozen out after 1948 . This is rather in line with Siddiqi's Germans in Russia: Cold War, Technology Transfer, and National Identity (2009) which provides a comprehensive update in stating (pp. 122-123):
 * From these sources, it seemed likely that the Germans had made significant contributions at the birth of the Soviet ballistic missile program but that their contributions (and utility) diminished in the late Stalin years. When Soviet bureaucrats no longer perceived an urgent need for their presence, the Germans were sent home.
 * Siddiqi (2009) did not repeat his "after 1947 ... marginal" statement and reported on the G-1 project presented in December 1948 (pp. 139-140). Sketches of the G-1 (Soviet R-10) with Russianized labels were found in the Gorodomlya archives (see here (p.9) and Albring (2016) pp. 14-15 of the appendix, also compare with CIA information report June 1953 pp. 31&42, also stateing that development continued until spring of 1950 (p. 26) and inquiries were answered until the beginning of 1951 (p. 29)). During 1949, the Germans worked on concepts of G-2 and G-4 which have been described by Orway/Sharpe (1979) (based on 1953 CIA interrogation R-14), Zak (2012) and Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica in more detail. Korolev visited Gorodomlya for this reason in October 1949. But we are disputing back and forth whether and how these concepts may have influenced later Soviet missile technology. Most probably, we will not find a commonly agreed answer in current space history nor the "smoking gun" in Russian archives.
 * @Ilenart626, there is enough evidence that the Soviets refused to officially acknowledge the German contributions after 1947 due to political reasons (Zhdanovshchina) but kept them isolated on Gorodomlya Island for another four to six years to prevent them reporting on Soviet progress of rocketry to the West. During the Cold War, all technical documents were classified top secret. So far, no original German document from 1945 to 1953 was retrieved from a Russian archive. Does this mean, by your terms, that there were no Germans in Podlipki (NII-88) and its branch on Gorodomlya Island at all and Zvezda is a fake? SchmiAlf (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SchmiAlf I have had a lengthy discussion with Asif, and he has also provided me full copies of articles we have been using for citations. Based on these, I plan on proposing new language that will probably please @Ilenart626 and may well satisfy you, as well. With Asif's permission, I will also relay what he said to me verbatim (this is obviously not citable scholarship, but he has as much right to be heard as we do.) :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strike that last. I find I am out of time for the weekend. I'll just tell you my thoughts:
 * 1) The current language under Soviet rocket development is thoroughly inappropriate (and I'm sorry for not catching this before). Nearly half the verbiage is dedicated to the Germans, which makes it look like the Soviets hardly had their own program. It needs a complete rewrite. You can reference my R-1 (missile), R-2 (missile), and R-5 Pobeda articles for what I think are pretty good summaries of the early history of Soviet work. Mentioning the German involvement in Germany from 1945-1947, and the marginal work done in the USSR till 1953 is fine, but it honestly should not be more than two sentences, and more work done on the Soviet side.
 * 2) I have a copies of Siddiqi's 2001 "Rocket engineers from the Glushko Design Bureau" and his 2009 article "Germans in Russia: Cold War, Technology Transfer, and National Identity"—if you need them, email me at gideon@galacticjourney.org. The former details the contributions of Baum (the second highest paid employee in Glushko's OKB for a time). He concludes: "In sum, there is evidence to suggest that the Soviets benefited from the German contribution [to rocket engine design] much more than they have admitted so far, but much less than some recent German accounts [such as from Przybilski] have claimed."
 * 3) At the end of the email to me, Asif concluded:
 * "1. German technology (V2, rocket engines, test stands, guidance systems) were absolutely crucial to the foundation of the postwar Soviet missile program. There's no way that the Soviets do anything without that.
 * 2. I know I differ from Przybilski on the interpretation of the contribution of German expertise in the 1946-51 period. Besides a few significant things, I don't think it was that important. I will say that while I don't agree with Przybilski (he depends almost entirely on post-facto German memoir material), I am glad that it's out there for people to decide."
 * In the body of his email, he says that, while German innovations were incorporated into the R-2, the R-3/R-5/R-7 were wildly different designs, starting with their change in propellants.
 * Long story short: German influence on initial program, profound. On rocket engines, not inconsiderable, but probably not profound. On post-R-2 designs, negligible.
 * So a rewrite of that whole section would:
 * A) Reduce the German content while expanding the Soviet content
 * B) Reflect Asif's scholarship, which I think is solid, though a side note to Przybilski, if there be any space, might be okay. I doubt this article is the place to go in depth into this discussion, however. There just isn't room, and it takes emphasis away from the main point—the Soviet ICBM is a Soviet invention "free of the fingerprints of German designers".
 * Thanks for bringing me in to offer my opinion. I'm sorry I don't have the energy to do the rewrite myself. --Neopeius (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankyou @Neopeius your input and Asif’s comments are highly valued. Would suggest that your above comments be copied to Soviet rocketry and German influence on the Soviet space program talk pages, with the Soviet rocketry being the article that goes indepth into this discussion. I should have some time available over the Xmas break to work on an update referencing the articles you mentioned. Then summaries can be included in this article, Soviet space program  and similar articles, that point back to Soviet rocketry.  The German influence of the Soviet space program can then be the main article to include  Przybilski’s view.  What do you think? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're not opposed, I'd be obliged and grateful if you copied them there. You have my license to do so. And I agree. Even Asif says it's good to represent that view, even if it is a minority. And who knows? Maybe when @SchmiAlf publishes his article, it'll be convincing. :) --Neopeius (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Neopeius, as discussed above, I have updated the “Soviet rocket development” of this article, mainly from the Soviet rocketry article. Let me know if you have any comments. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I like it! Good job. :) Neopeius (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Did the Soviet win the Space Race
Professor Jennifer Frost opine that they did but I think the argument they made is hugely flawed and should be removed. Nguyen280405 (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Professor Frost is providing balance to the opinion from American political scientist Richard Samuels that the space race was a "decisive American victory". I believe the two comments read together provide a reasonable NPOV.  Also note the comments in the FAQ section above “Shouldn't this article say that the Soviet Union or the United States won the space race?” which concludes with “In essence, the space "race" concluded with a "tie," as both nations achieved feats of technological mastery and exploration that significantly improved humanity's understanding of the cosmos.”. I would be ok to add this, or similar wording to the article.Ilenart626 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://youtube.com/watch?si=qWG8z7WmeZqkfmIY&v=rSK7rUSnFK4
 * If this does not convince you that I am right, I have nothing else. Nguyen280405 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that a utube video by “DeadKennedyInSpace” is a reliable source? What about his other videos, ie “How Flat Earth Uses deception”? “The Day the Internet Failed the Sarcasm Test”? What about “The next level of (stupid) parts 1 to 5”Ilenart626 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am showing you why I think the source is flawed.Besides, those videos, though they can't be considered "reliable", are still insightful Nguyen280405 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you enter Timeline of the Space Race, you can see that the achievements of the US are more meaningful than the Soviet's Nguyen280405 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * and why do you talk like those videos are nonsense? They are actually pretty in-depth. Nguyen280405 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Her argument is not factual, so how can that be counterbalance Nguyen280405 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Frost is, according to her page, "a United States women's historian, focused on social, cultural, and political developments in the twentieth-century United States". She's not a space historian, nor a specialist in USSR space program or even USSR in general. I don't think that it's a 'balanced view' of a specialist. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This arguement equally applies to Richard Samuels as his website states that he is a “Professor of Political Science” and is not a space historian, nor a specialist in the USSR space program or even the USSR in general. So should we remove his statement that the space race was a "decisive American victory"? Ilenart626 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think my edit is correct, just do what you think is right to do Nguyen280405 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You do realise this subject has been extensively discussed in the past. Suggest you search the archives to understand the history behind the FAQ above. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the Faq is about german influence, why do you tell me to read that Nguyen280405 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * my mistake, let me say again.Like I said, American achievements are overall more meaningful than the Soviet's, as you can see in the timeline;therefore, theUS overall had an edge overthe Soviet Union in the "race". Nguyen280405 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So that we are clear on “meaningful” the Cambridge dictionary defines it a “useful, serious, valuable or inportant”. Looking at the Timeline of the Space Race, for the Soviets, a sample of 10 include:
 * Sputnik - 1st satelite
 * Luna 2 - 1st spacecraft moon landing
 * Luna 3 - 1st photos of far side of the Moon
 * Yuri Gagarin - 1st man in space
 * Valentina Tereshkova - first woman in space
 * Mars 1 - 1st Mars flyby
 * Venera 3 - First hard landing on another planet (Venus)
 * Soyuz 4/5 - First docking of two manned spacecraft
 * Venera 7 - First soft landing on another planet (Venus)
 * MIR - First consistently inhabited long-term research space station.
 * Looking at the US list a sample of 10 include:
 * Vanguard 1 - First solar-powered satellie
 * Mariner 2 - First successful planetary flyby mission (Venus)
 * Syncom 2 - First geosynchronous satellite
 * Apollo 8 - First return to Earth after orbiting the Moon
 * Gemini 8/aTV - First spacecraft docking
 * Apollo 11 - First humans on the Moon
 * Mariner 9 - First spacecraft to orbit another planet (Mars)
 * STS1 - First spaceplane in orbit, the Space Shuttle (test flight)
 * Pioneer 11 - First Saturn flyby
 * Voyager 2 - First Uranus flyby.
 * Nguyen280405, can you please explain to me how the above US list is more “meaningful” (ie useful, serious, valuable or inportant) than the Soviet list? For example:
 * How is “First humans on the Moon” more meaningful than “first man in space”?
 * How is “First spaceplane in orbit” more meaningful than “ First consistently inhabited long-term research space station”?
 * How is the “First Saturn flyby” more meaningful than the “first Mars flyby”
 * How is the “First geosynchronous satellite” more meaningful than the “first satelite”?
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1.The US only need a few month to catch up.
 * 3.The US conducted first successful Mars flyby.
 * 4.The US lauched the first truly useful satelite. Nguyen280405 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1I am sorry, a few week. Nguyen280405 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry but you a comparing a sub-orbital ballistic flight to an orbital flight, which was also second and therefore not relevant / not on the timeline. Ilenart626 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it without completely removing the source. But it's an undue weight given to a single opinion of non-specialist, so I would agree with its removal for a better source. Artem.G (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 * @Artem.G the "decisive American victory" is also only supported by a single opinion of a non-specialist, so is’nt this also been given undue weight and should be trimmed / removed for a better source? Ilenart626 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want a reference from a space historian, how about Asif A. Siddiqi, this is from a statement he made in 2023
 * ”Because the United States first made it to the Moon, they are widely assumed to have won that space race, but Siddiqi suggests otherwise. “Before that landing, there was an enormous amount of investment in the robotic exploration of the Moon, both by the Soviets and the US, in terms of all sorts of smaller benchmarks like the first lunar impact, the first pictures of the far side of the Moon, the first soft lunar landing, and the first lunar orbit. We forget, but in those little races, the Soviet Union dominated almost every benchmark, but it is forgotten as the United States won the big one.”
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added! Artem.G (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * then let's remove this as well! These quotes oversimplify the history. Siddiqi is a much better source that should be used instead. Artem.G (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, have trimmed the lead, fixed a broken link and added Siddiqi to the Lead. Perhaps we could summarise the Lead even more, say who won is contested by historian’s and include a summary of what Siddiqi said? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it might be useful to actually define dates for the Space Race in the lead. Also, I appreciate Asif's quote:

"Because the United States first made it to the Moon, they are widely assumed to have won that space race, but Siddiqi suggests otherwise. “Before that landing, there was an enormous amount of investment in the robotic exploration of the Moon, both by the Soviets and the US, in terms of all sorts of smaller benchmarks like the first lunar impact, the first pictures of the far side of the Moon, the first soft lunar landing, and the first lunar orbit. We forget, but in those little races, the Soviet Union dominated almost every benchmark, but it is forgotten as the United States won the big one.”

 * That said, by any measure, the United States took the lead in any Space Race you want to mention by 1965, and it never really ceded it. Source: me, a space historian. :) Anyway, I know this isn't an internet forum, and again, I think the lead is fine (though dates would be a good addition), but don't kid yourself. It was a clear American victory in accomplishments, which was inevitable—we had far more money to spend. --Neopeius (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Space Race was predominantly a propaganda victory. No one disputes that the Soviets also made significant advances in space exploration.
 * Minority views should be it in the article. But saying that the Soviets "tied" or "beat" the United States in the Space Race (in popular consciousness) is not one of those. KlayCax (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus for current Lead was reached after considerable discussion, as detailed above. If you want to propose changes please do so on the Talk page and follow WP:MOSLEAD, in other words, the Lead needs to summarise the conclusion in the Legacy section. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Page titles
Right now, the article is structured chronologically, with titles such as "Disaster strikes both sides" and "Both programs recover". Is this proper formatting? This seems more like a story than separate sections about a topic. Maybe this should be a series? WikiFloath (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Space Race


text:
Talk:Festa del' unità

''As a native Italian speaker I am absolutely sure that the spelling "festa del'unita`" is wrong: the only correct one is "festa dell'unita`", with double "L". ''

title: Talk:Festa del' unità