Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:00, 17 September 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moon landing conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 60 days

Moon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 24, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Is this article unfairly biased or non-neutral because it debunks the conspiracy theories? (No.)

No. While it is always possible to improve the wording or the structure of an article to make the prose more neutral and dispassionate, including material in opposition to the conspiracy theories is part of achieving a neutral article. Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories state that "reliable, verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories."

Should information debunking the conspiracy theories be included in the article? (Yes.)

Yes. Material critical of the Moon landing conspiracy theories must be included in the article. The articles on Wikipedia include information from all significant points of view. Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories state that the article must "document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

Is the term "conspiracy theory" unfairly biased? (No.)

No. The term "conspiracy theory" is used by reliable sources to describe the collection of ideas discussed in this article, including a few sources which are themselves sympathetic to the ideas. The ideas as a whole are considered "fringe theories" as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines, and should be treated as such. There are no reliable sources that contain good evidence to state otherwise.

Has NASA conclusively shown that the Moon landings occurred? (Yes.)

Yes. NASA has provided mountains of documentation that the moon landings occurred, and have met the "burden of proof" required by various Wikipedia rules. There is also plenty of independent evidence that the moon landings occurred. No reliable sources exist to contradict this evidence.

Does NASA hold the "burden of proof" to disprove conspiracy theories? (No.)

No. Wikipedia policies state that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so the "burden of proof" is to conclusively prove that the Moon landings, which are a matter of historical fact, did not occur. No reliable sources have met that criteria.

Should the article Criticism of moon landing conspiracy theories be created? (No.)

No. Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Excluding criticism of the conspiracy theories gives them undue weight in the article. Editors should strive to edit the same article by creating consensus on the topic.

Should there be a "Criticism" section in the article? (No.)

No. Information opposing the conspiracy theories should be presented alongside the conspiracy theories, in order to achieve neutrality in the article. Putting the content in a "Criticism" section would give undue weight to the conspiracy theories.

Should this article be merged in to Apollo project or another Moon landing article? (No.)

No. Merging the conspiracy theory article in to an article about the Moon landings would give undue weight to the topic, and make the conspiracy theory appear more prominent than it really is.

Should this proof I found that the Moon landings never occurred be included in the article? (Likely no.)

Most likely no. Alleged proof that the Moon landings never happened has yet to come from reliable sources. However, the opinions of some believers in the conspiracy theories have become prominent enough to cause independent sources to comment and thus may warrant some attention in this encyclopedia. The goal of the article is to provide a summary of the available knowledge on this topic and include opinions only according to their prominence. If you have found a reliable and independent source, such as an academic study or a reputable news report, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. In the interest of writing clear and concise articles, the consensus of editors may be to not include the material due to its obscurity or lack of relevance.

Should information from YouTube, blogs, or forums be included in the article? (No.)

No. As per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, most YouTube videos, blogs, and forums are not adequate sources for information, since anybody can make up any information through these formats. The only circumstance these sources are admissible is when describing the opinion of the person who created the content in question. Even then, if the material is really notable, a reliable source most likely would have already done so.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System C‑class High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).

Spaceflight C‑class Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States / Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Cold War C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Loony Landing". The Sydney Morning Herald. June 6, 2009.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I want to add something that I saw in a video game which I thought is related to the moon landing conspiracy theories. Delta-one-X-ray (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were specific enough to act on it: No. You need a reliable source. "I saw something" is not enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Lheureux" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lheureux and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 3#Lheureux until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukebbaldwin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of NASA and USSR personnel deaths

Comparison of NASA and USSR personnel deaths is a disingenuous analogy - only 4 USSR personnel died before the Apollo 11 launch; NASA had almost three times as many during the same period (11). Saying these instances are "similar" is a stretch. The NASA deaths say a lot about the state/dangers of the Apollo program. 2600:1700:1E13:A810:DC6F:97A2:2888:5A07 (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Lukebbaldwin|Lukebbaldwin]] ([[User talk:Lukebbaldwin|talk]]) 21:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
+== Comparison of NASA and USSR personnel deaths ==
+Comparison of NASA and USSR personnel deaths is a disingenuous analogy - only 4 USSR personnel died before the Apollo 11 launch; NASA had almost three times as many during the same period (11).
+Saying these instances are "similar" is a stretch. The NASA deaths say a lot about the state/dangers of the Apollo program. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1E13:A810:DC6F:97A2:2888:5A07|2600:1700:1E13:A810:DC6F:97A2:2888:5A07]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:1E13:A810:DC6F:97A2:2888:5A07|talk]]) 15:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)