Jump to content

Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMoon 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
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Isn't this Moon landing denial

[edit]

Given that these claims are demonstrably false, isn't this not a conspiracy theory but denialism? And should we update the article to reflect that?

23haveblue (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All conspiracy theories have some form of denial.  Stepho  talk  22:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories try to explain denial. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, conspiracy theories are excuses for the lack of evidence against the facts denied by denialists: Conspirators destroyed the evidence (their dogs ate it, for instance). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point is shouldn't this article be written more strongly that these are denialist positions? We don't have an article titled and worded on Holocaust Conspiracy Theories, we have an article on Holocaust Denial. Likewise for this article, this should be written from the point of Moon landing denial 23haveblue (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the common names for things in English language sources. Sources do not necessarily use consistent terminology in different fields and contexts. When reliable sources write about this topic, do they tend to say 'Moon landing denial'? A quick search of Google scholar indicates that 'Moon landing conspiracy' references outnumber 'Moon landing denial' by 10 to 1. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a case where WP:COMMONNAME takes effect. We've had people request different titles for this article over the years, but the fact is that it's called a conspiracy theory in mainstream & academic sources, so that's why we stick with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably false

[edit]

The assertion that the denialist theories are 'demonstrably false' has one supporting reference, to a book by Plait. In light of the recent edit war pertaining to this point, I think a precis of those arguments should be at least alluded to. Furthermore, are the book and its author of sufficiently reputable to merit inclusion? It is considered to be a 'pop science' book thereby of of a lower standard, surely, than something more scholarly. Phantomsnake (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of lead do not have to be cited when they are a summary of the article. The article amply demonstrates the claims are false and is sourced. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring over your change. The lead is a summary of the article, that is what a lead is supposed to do. It does not have to cite everything that is discussed later in the article, which is full of cites that contain the views and analysis of experts. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note; Phil Plait has a doctorate in Astronomy, and holds a number of awards for his science journalism and publications. He was part of the Hubble Space Telescope team. He is a regular contributor to Scientific American. His book was called "good ammunition for debunking the notion that NASA never went to the Moon point by point." by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (the world's largest general astronomy education society). He is amply qualified to discount moon landing conspiracy theories, which are sourced throughout the article to people who have no qualifications in anything relevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the lede even has cites is because this article has been a constant target for conspiracy theorists who would challenge every statement just to make a WP:POINT. Putting cites there was our way of telling them to fuck off.
We normally wouldn't even have cites for the lede, as Escape Orbit points out, but this was the best way we had to put a stop to the constant, belligerent harassment.
As it stands, the statement in question is more than adequately backed up by the article itself, as it should be. The book is just a simple way of telling people to quit challenging every statement in the lede because they don't like it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, well said 71.76.146.141 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original reseacrh

[edit]

I removed the following piece:

Instead, far from calling the landings a hoax, the third edition (1970–1979) of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which was translated into English between 1974 and 1983 by Macmillan Publishers, and was later made available online by TheFreeDictionary.com[1]) contained many articles reporting the landings as factual, such as its article on Neil Armstrong.[2] Indeed their article on space exploration describes the Apollo 11 landing as "the third historic event" of the space age, following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, and Yuri Gagarin's flight in 1961.[3]

Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not speak about the article subject, i.e., about an alleged hoax. Therefore any discussions about what is written in GSE and what not, and why, is Wikipedian's interpretation, hence original research in context of this particular article. --Altenmann >talk 05:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not just quoting the Great Russian Encyclopedia and then claiming that there was no hoax - that would be OR, as Altenmann says.
What the article does do is to mention Phil Plait's claim (a secondary source providing analysis quite separate from Wikipedia itself, as per WP:PSTS) that the Soviets had every incentive to call out the US on a fake moon landing but instead listed the US moon landing in their own encyclopedia. The article then provides references from the Great Russian Encyclopedia to support those claims made by Plait. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (especially when conspiracy theorists deny anything than isn't presented as 100% complete and tied up with a bow), so we provide both Plaits analysis and the supporting evidence to go with it. No OR on Wikipedia's part, just reporting from sources.  Stepho  talk  05:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to support those claims - this is exactly WP:SYNTH: to decide that GES "supports" these claims is Wikipedian's conclusion. A valid supporting reference would be "Plait claimed that..." footnoting with a secondary source, and then citing Plait himself as a primary source, as an extra proof that the secondary source did not misinterpret Plait. But putting two secondary sources side by side and draw a conclusion that one supports another is a textbook example of creeping, sneaky WP:SYNTH. --Altenmann >talk 07:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no. Synth is where you take one reference, then put another reference next to it and then make a claim that neither of the first 2 explicitly say. That is not what is happening here.
In this case, we are putting one reference (Plait) that explicitly says the Soviets had an incentive to call out a false moon landing but instead put it in their encyclopedia. Then we put in more references that back up his point. We don't add any new points. We don't add anything that was not explicitly mentioned in the Plait reference. The Great Russian Encyclopedia references are only to support what is explicitly mentioned in the Plait reference.
Or to look at it from another angle - why are you so determined to remove them? Do you think that Plait is wrong when he says that the Great Russian Encyclopedia mentions the moon landing as fact? That's a strong reason why we have those extra references. Do you think the Plait was wrong when he said the Soviets never denied the moon landing? You are free to bring up such a reference as a counterpoint.  Stepho  talk  07:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you convinced me, I am reverting my deletion, but I will remove unnecessary verbosity and detail. --Altenmann >talk 08:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a civil discussion. 👍 No problem with trimming the verbage.  Stepho  talk  08:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ TheFreeDictionary.com, Our Main Sources, Retrieved August 17, 2013.
  2. ^ ""Neil Armstrong." The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. 1970–1979. The Gale Group, Inc". The Free Dictionary [Internet]. Retrieved February 25, 2021. ... Armstrong made the historic first flight to the moon with E. Aldrin and M. Collins, from July 16 to 24, 1969, serving as commander of the spacecraft Apollo 11. A lunar module with Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon in the area of the Sea of Tranquility on July 20, 1969. Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon (July 21, 1969); he spent two hours, 21 minutes and 16 seconds outside the spacecraft. After successfully completing its program, the crew of Apollo II returned to earth. ...The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970–1979). 2010 The Gale Group, Inc.
  3. ^ ""space exploration." The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. 1970–1979. The Gale Group, Inc". The Free Dictionary [Internet]. Retrieved February 25, 2021. ... The space age. Oct. 4, 1957, the date on which the USSR launched the first artificial earth satellite, is considered the dawn of the space age. A second important date is Apr. 12, 1961, the date of the first manned space flight, by Iu. A. Gagarin, the start of man's direct penetration into space. The third historical event is the first lunar expedition, by N. Armstrong, E. Aldrin, and M. Collins (USA), July 16–24, 1969.. ...The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970–1979). 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. (Warning to avoid possible confusion: At the same cited web address the Soviet-era article is preceded by a 2013 article on space exploration from The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1279760691"