Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

This article is inappropriately biased!

This article is supposedly about the various theories surrounding the Apollo moon landing hoaxes, yet the article seems to be focused entirely on "debunking" those theories, which is surely a separate subject, if not an entirely inappropriate task for an encyclopedia . A proper encyclopedia has no place "debunking" anything. Present the information in a neutral manner, let the reader decide what to make of it. Leave the mythbusting to the Mythbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.157.218 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard, tiresome "unbalanced/biased/POV" complaint. Is there anyway to put a standard retort at the top of the talk page so that it persists there even after the archiving moves everything else? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The talk pages for our articles on Intelligent design[1] and the 9/11 attacks[2] both have FAQs at the top of the page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is neat, but also beyond my skills as an editor; is anyone interrested in taking on adding the FAQ as a project? If so what specific issues do we address? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FAQ is a good idea. Talk:Homeopathy also has an excellent FAQ that could be used as a model for the one here. Mildly Mad^T_C 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, for the record I do believe that the moon landings happened, but I came here to read an article about the conpsiracy theory regarding faked moon landings. The idea that the single most famous conspiracy theory short of the assassination of JFK is not in and of itself a noteworthy article and shouldn't be given undue weight is something I find unusual. I simply do not see the need for a point by point rebuttal of these claims, surely if this is a page on the subject then the subject should have prominence. This has nothing to do with POV, and everything to do with letting people read the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.48.237 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I find that a bizarre notion. One of the most striking facts about these conspiracy ideas is that they are totally without scientific basis, and not to indicate that fact would be to give a distorted, and indeed biased, view of the subject. To report the (in some cases very plausible) arguments in favour of the conspiracy view and not explain why those arguments are mistaken would amount to encouraging readers to believe in them, which would be biased. I am bewildered by the fact that anyone can think that because an article is about a particular subject it follows that it should report the subject principally from that subject's point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page FAQ

I've created Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories/FAQ. See Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ for the syntax of making the FAQ page. Including {{FAQ}} on this page will then include the FAQ content. Subsection below for discussion of potential questions. Mildly Mad^T_C 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Questions for inclusion

• Is this article biased? (No, as per WP:NPOV and WP:RS)
• Should the article debunk the conspiracy theories? (Yes, as per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE)
• Is the term "conspiracy theory" a POV? (No)
• Should information from YouTube be included in the article? (No, as per WP:RS)
• Should the article Debunking Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories be created? (No, as per WP:POVFORK)
• Should proof that the Moon Landings never happened be included? (No)

Two points, both related to the same topic, the last one above. I don't see the "Should proof..." included in the FAQ above, and am not sure myself if such "proof", if it exists, should not be included in the article, if such "proof" is a significant part of the conspiracy theory. However, I frankly know little or nothing about this subject, so will bow to those who know better in any event. The only "proof" I see clearly mentioned are in Archive 14, about how the rockets were insufficient to carry the payload, and Archive 12, referring to YouTube, which is mentioned elsewhere in the FAQ. Personally, I could see, maybe, mentioning the rocket point, if it can be reliably sourced. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, and I added the "proof" question now :-) You're exactly right, there are no reliable sources that give real evidence of the TRUTH^TM, which is why it shouldn't be included in the article. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Two additional points I think should be covered: 1) "balance", and 2) the nature of what constitutes acceptable proof. E.g., "proofs" are entirely constructions, based on both evidence and the interpretation of same. There is, properly speaking, no "proof" that (e.g.) the rockets were insufficient, but only evidence which might be argued supports a proof. (Likewise regarding the landings, except for the massive evidence in support.) I am not familiar enough with WP policies to know if this has been touched on already, so would welcome any references. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for protection

Should we request for this page to be semi-protected? This page is vandalized daily by anonymous editors and there are almost no constructive edits by unregistered users. It's disruptive and persistant. This page is has way more than 5% of posts as vandalism cited wp:ROUGH as typical. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. Bubba73 (talk), 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month, and we can review it again then or shortly thereafter. Furschlugginer slow wifi makes it take too bloody long for anything to happen, but it's there, or at least should be by now. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The statistics in that article are very interesting. About 5% of edits are vandalism, so that level is seen as acceptable. Wow, not to me. And 97% of the vandalism is from anons. Cut out anons and that gets it down to 0.15%. Or instead of 1 in 20, it gets it down to 1 in 600. That would really cut down on the workload of vandalism patrolers. Bubba73 (talk), 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never understood why anonymous edits are tolerated in the first place. But when I look for current discussion on this (and vandalism in general) it appears that most of the discussion is non-current. Has there been some of waning of interest about this? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it is still a very bad problem and hurts Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 02:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the reason for allowing anonymous edits is to make Wikipedia as free and open as possible. From a more pragmatic standpoint I'm not sure forcing people to create a username would stop that much vandalism; There are some very persistant vandals that have usernames that have caused a lot of damage. Edits by anonymous users tend to draw more attention and are more quickly reverted if vandalism occurs and it is generally much easier to have an anonymous user blocked for vandalism than a logged-in user. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And by an odd coincidence I just finished explaining to a user that "free" does not mean "anything you think you can get away with". I think that one of the lessons WP is pointing towards is that completely "free" – as in all conductor and no dieletric (insulation, including air) – tends towards the lowest common denominator. Which in the short run means garbage. WP has standards and expectations (i.e., dielectrics), and "free" is necessarily constrained. As to the alleged pragmatic aspects: getting a WP account is a bit more constraint than just coming through another anonymous IP address, and getting multiple accounts is a prima facie violation. So I think it would be more pragmatic to force misbehaving users into real accounts. There is also the sock puppetry aspect: in a current case the user has a WP account, but he's been connecting without logging-in in an attempt to conceal his identity. Perception of anonymity encourages bad behavior, so I think that perception of non-anonymity (even if it is imperfect) would greatly reduce incivility and vandalism. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

According to a study, 97% of vandalism is by IP users. Requiring an account in order to edit has some benefits: (1) it takes more effort for the potential vandal (2) Accounts can be blocked (3) if the vandal has a static IP address you can prevent them from opening other accounts, and (4) a lot of the trouble comes from shared IP accounts - especially schools. Requiring accounts to edit will block the vandals while not interfering with the good editors. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

One reason for vandalism is that they can do it with so little investment of time. If they had to sign up for an account and have the email verified there would be very little vandalism. And if with the first vandalism that account was blocked and account creation from that IP address was blocked there would then be very little repeat vandalism. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly puzzled by opening paragraph

Various Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo Project and the associated Moon landings were falsifications staged by NASA and members of other involved organizations. Since the conclusion of the Apollo program, a number of related accounts espousing a belief that the landings were faked in some fashion have been advanced by various groups and individuals.

I'm puzzled by what the word "related" means here. Does this part mean that the accounts are related to the conspiracy theories (but somehow distinct, in a way that's not made clear), or does it mean that the accounts are the conspiracy theories and are related to one another. Could someone perhaps tweak the wording to make this clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.30.43 (talk • contribs)

It probably needs to be worded better. MY interpretation is that the conspiracy theories are related because most of them share some common elements - no stars in the photographs, waving flags, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 04:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Marcus Allen is referenced in one of the passages.

Marcus Allen, a Moon hoax proponent, pointed out in the story that no images of hardware on the Moon would convince him that manned landings had taken place.

This passage references Marcus Allen, ex-football player, and not Marcus Allen, publisher and moon hoax proponent.

Rjgriggs (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LRO has imaged the Apollo 17 site!

Not that it will ever convince conspiracy believers, but the Apollo 17 landing site has been imaged by the LRO. It's blurry, but detailed enough you can even see the struts for the lander! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's great! But some people might say that they can't tell that that is a flag. They will say that they can't see individual footprints. And if you could see them they would say that they are the wrong size. And if you measured them and they matched the astronauts shoe sizes, they would say that a machine could have put them there or NASA faked the photos. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that many people remain and will remain not entirely convinced that the landings really happened in spite of the attempts at debunking this theory. We just have to read the comments in many websites and yotube videos.