Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Moon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories.

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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Additions to Kubrick section[edit]

I have added a brief note on the basis for most theories of Kubrick's involvement, that is, clues left in the Shining. 95% of theories refer to the room 237 (and the apollo 11 sweater and futuristic/launchpad carpet as their main piece of evidence, therefore it deserves a mention, though there's no need to go into the dozens of pieces of evidence people refer to in the film. Another editor reverted my edits, but I think they should stand. The section is currently heavily biased, titled 'allegations of' 'no evidence offered' and predominantly consists of 'debunking' and explanations why Kubrick was not involved, synopses of mockumentaries and other criticisms on moon landing CTs, rather than actually discussing what the conspiracy theories are, which is the subject of the article, and letting them stand or fail on their own merits. The section reads as if it was written by someone who is strongly opposed to moon landing conspiracy theories, and needs more balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.66.88 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you DO need deal with cited sources.. Any material likely to be challenged needs to be backed up by sources per WP:V. I have reverted your changes for the time-being. Please do not re-add it unless reliable sources are supplied, as well. Thank you! Chrisw80 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
For these theories to be mentioned, you need to demonstrate that they are already "out there" and referenced/believed/disproved/discussed by people in general. You don't provide any sources to demonstrate this and the article is not the place to publish new theories. Personally I've never heard of them. Where did you hear of them? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moon landing conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate title[edit]

While the article is called "Moon landing conspiracy theories", there really is only one conspiracy theory (that the 1969 Apollo moon landing was faked). Shouldn't the title reflect that? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because there is an unending stream of different theories about how or why the moon landings are supposed to have been faked. I have more experience of mathematical crankery, but the one constant is that cranks can never agree among themselves. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
And it doesn't apply only to Apollo 11 in 1969, but also the five more from 1969-1972. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
And, depending on the theory, to Apollo 8, 10, and 13 that orbited/flew by the moon but did not land. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Right, because some of them say that we can't go through the Van Allen radiation belts, that the Saturn V wasn't powerful enough, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Finally this article's kryptonite![edit]

This published peer-reviewed journal article proves what any sane and rational person has been saying since the year dot! Basically a study by Dr David Robert Grimes suggests that large groups of people sharing in a conspiracy will very quickly give themselves away. Hence the fact that no one has ever come forward from NASA to say the moon landings were fake is evidence enough.

This published paper proves once and for all that this article is a load of old doody and it is only maintained by people with the mental capacity of said doody!

Here are the findings:

[..] estimating the maximum number of people required to be in on the conspiracy, in order to see how viable these conspiracies could be. These include: the theory that the US moon landings were a hoax (411,000 people); that Climate Change is a fraud (405,000 people); that unsafe vaccinations are being covered up (22,000 people assuming that only the World Health Organisation and the US Centers for Disease Control are conspirators and that others involved in advocating, producing, distributing and using vaccines are dupes. 736,000 people if, as would be more likely, pharmaceutical companies were included); that the cure for Cancer is being suppressed by the world’s leading pharmaceutical firms (714,000 people).
Using the equation, Dr Grimes calculated that hoax moon landings would have been revealed in 3 years 8 months, a climate change fraud in 3 years 9 months, a vaccination conspiracy in 3 years 2 months, and a suppressed Cancer cure in 3 years 3 months. In simple terms, any one of the four conspiracies would have been exposed long before now.

This article has been a complete waste of time from the start. You have wasted your time creating an article about bullshit from bullshit.

Or are the tin-foil hat-wearing dingbats now going to question the integrity and motivations of an Oxford University physicist? Delete this waste of space now. You might as well start somewhere as it's just one of many that makes Wikipedia an online laughing stock. 86.182.40.253 (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

IP, have you read this article? What specific changes do you propose making to it? VQuakr (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or this article. You might start by actually reading it. Thanks for the link though. Interesting stuff. Worthy of addition to the number of conspirators section? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So much for an "unbiased, neutral" article[edit]

The FAQ makes it look like the purported moon landings are a scientific certainty when upon closer investigation it is far from it. Of course, NASA's lapdogs will claim that everything has been debunked and that the sun is shine by sticking to the same, boring talking points like a broken record (ie. the eternal flag waving) while serious anomalies which prove that some photos were not taken on the moon as claimed are ignored. Galileo Galilei was hounded by the church for going against conventional beliefs held at the time but in the end he was right. Similarly, scientific evidence studies undertaken by image analysts and film experts proving that at least some pictures were faked here on Earth cannot be ignored because unrelated points have been "debunked" and the possibily of a hoax makes the faint-hearted squirmy. All this to say that this page should be balanced by showing both pro- and anti- conspiracy theory arguments, not just pushing one view by claiming it is the right one, or at the very least deleted. Truth does not fear investigation. 209.197.169.159 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is balanced. Considering how fringe these theories are, I think the article treats them in a very even-handed way. If you have exact and specific suggestions for improving the page, rather than simply saying "this sucks", please post those suggestions here in talk. Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke

Clear consistent bias[edit]

This article is biased throughout, when it should be dispassionate and present all sides of all arguments as clearly and fully as possible as is reasonable for a summary in wiki form. Its premise is, wrongly as a so-called encyclopaedic article, the intransigent assertion that the moon landings irrefutably happened and viewing the claims of them being a hoax as unquestionably flawed and absurd. Its tone in discussing the claims of the 'conspiracy theorists' is dismissive and can barely disguise its scathing towards them and its bias towards the veracity of the moon landings. 'Reliable evidence' is actually out there in support of the 'conspiracy' claims, if you look for reputable sources and yet insufficient information is conveyed in support of the hoax claims in this article, which I believe, based on the article's tone, is intended to serve to strengthen the case of the landings having been genuine. Discussion of the Van Allen Belt radiation is insubstantial and biased. Also, the article does not mention the argument against the plausibility of the landings in the fact that no further missions to take humans to the moon have been launched by any country since the last Apollo missions. Wikipedia appears to support the biased content and tone of this article in its FAQs and itself rejects all notion of potential truth in the 'conspiracy' claims. I regularly donate to Wikipedia but I am not going to continue doing so now I have witnessed for the first time how biased and agenda-driven they can be in their work. Whether the writer of an article believes an argument or series of arguments roughly forming some cohesive ideology or not, he or she should not be communicating and conveying information in this way. I don't trust Wikipedia or Nasa and I don't fully subscribe to any 'conspiracist' ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.223.165 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That is because the hoax claims are indisputably false. It is not are job to give "equal validity" coverage to silliness, but to cover what has been written about such theories in reliable sources. See WP:FRINGE for more information about how we write neutrally about this sort of subject. VQuakr (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)