Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories
(Redirected from Talk:Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Escape Orbit in topic Demonstrably false
| 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. |
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, 17Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| 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. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories.
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. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | 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. |
Phrasing of "Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories"
editWould "Moon Landing Conspiracy /Claims/" not be a more accurate and less confusing title than "Moon Landing Conspiracy /Theories/"...?
I see this has been discussed at least once before (and heckles were raised), but I can't see if finally concluded. And, besides, maybe times have changed...
Doesn't '(Moon Landing Conspiracy) Theories' give some undue weight to a view which has no good quality evidence to support it (but pretend or imply to have such)?
I tend to call them "Moon conspiracy /claims/" (when the context doesn't lead me to less polite terminology).
I know, of course, that 'Conspiracy Theory' is a term in itself - and that it has /historically/ had the connotations of 'nonsense' and 'wrongness'. However, because of the rise of the internet and the resulting ability for trolls, the uninformed (accidentally and intentionally flavours), and the insane to collect together, that very term is slowly changing its connotations. It is becoming a non-pejorative term; partly fashionable, but more worryingly, it's becoming 'reasonable'.
So, I wonder if now is a good time to reconsider whether the inclusion of the word 'Theory' (which today is primarily associated with science and rationality) is no longer apt, and "Moon Landing Conspiracy Claims" might be a better phrase. Gordon Panther (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see much value in changing. "Conspiracy theory" is a well-known term that has a well-known meaning of being a bit paranoid and association with the lunatic fringe. "Conspiracy claim" seems to soften it a bit.
- Why do you want to change it? Do you have some agenda? Are you preparing further changes to convert this to a we-didn't-really-go-to-the-moon article? Are you in league with Kubrick? Do you support the Capricorn One documentary? Quick, where's my tin foil hat? ;) Stepho talk 10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to read through the archives, this has been debated before and consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is an accurate term backed by reliable sources. "Conspiracy theory" implies wackiness, not scientific rigor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this Moon landing denial
editGiven 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)
- All conspiracy theories have some form of denial. Stepho talk 22:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Conspiracy theories try to explain denial. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Conspiracy theories try to explain denial. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Demonstrably false
editThe 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)
- 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)