Talk:Neil Armstrong/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Oldest posts

Armstrong speculated after the mission that his voice — operated transmitter may not have picked up the word.

“The ‘a’ was intended,” Armstrong explained to reporters. “I thought I said it. I can’t hear it when I listen on the radio reception here on Earth. So I’ll be happy if you just put it in parenthesis.” [1]

Nonetheless, since he meant to say the "a" I think we should put it in without parentheses. Otherwise his classic line sounds unnecessarily enigmatic. It's almost like saying that Kennedy called himself a jelly doughnut simply because he did a Bushism on Ich bin ein Berliner vs. Ich bin Berliner (the audience knew what he meant). --Uncle Ed

I understand the difficulty in quoting what he actually said versus what he meant to say, but it seems to me that mentioning the quote both ways along with pointing out that he botched it is a little much for an encyclopedia article. (Am I being revisionist and trying to edit/cover up his mistake? I don't think so: I'm just trying to deemphasize it somewhat.) Then again, perhaps the explicit discussion of the issue on the article page is required because of the wiki effects. -- Ke4roh 03:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1. It is the mistakes that we make that help to point out our humanity. The need to pretend that we are perfect (and actually hide them) is one of our gravest failings.
2. The rules for language are always in flux, what was wrong in the 1500's is the only way to say it today. Whose to say that in 2552 someone will here those words and comment, "He said that so eloquently. Why did people keep trying to change it?"

In the end Neil said what he said. The way it is presented here allows for the needs of the many. Just thought I would add two cents. MarnetteD | Talk 00:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't he say : "It's one small step for man, but a giant leap for mankind." ? --Garo 11:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote is "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Armstrong forgot to say "...for a man...", and the audio recording clearly demonstrates that static was not at fault for the omission -- the pause necessitated by such an explanation simply doesn't exist.

On that note, I would think "for (a) man" should be edited down with a note similar to the above added. Any thoughts / objections / cookies? — Lomn | Talk 20:33:02, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

I concur. The discrepancy with the quote ought to be explained in the entry. Simply deciding to include or excldue the parenthetical "a" does a disservice to both sides of the story. The sentences above would seem to be sufficient. --Anson2995 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong is not a convert to Islam. Please see http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features99/mus-celeb.htm among many other sites for evidence refuting the claim that Armstrong became a Muslim.

It doesn't mention his death. Didn't he die a while back ago? I believe he died in like 1998 or something? But it says stuff about him in 2005? -- Jason_Q

He is very much alive as of today. JackofOz 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Neil Armstrong is alive and well to my knowledge. Sean (talk || contribs) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Family?

Doesn't he have any children? If I remember, during those older space programs it was "a must" to be married or you couldn't be selected to go to space.

According to his NASA biography, Armstrong was married with two children at the time of the Apollo 11 mission. This 2000 article says the same thing, suggesting he didn't have any more. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be added. --Anson2995 05:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

He has two sons, Mark and Rick. He also had a daughter, Karen, who died in 1962 when she was two, from a brain tumor. --165.254.107.2 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The requirements of being an Astronaut included logging time as a test pilot, being under a certain height, and passing a brtual psychological exam, but marriage was not an issue. Apollo 13's Jack Swigert is a prime example.

Those famous words

'The simple statement came from a train of thought that he had during the hours after landing. He knew he would have to say something as he took the first step, and "step" seemed like a good place to start. It just grew from there. Theories that he consciously took the statement from J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit ("not a great leap for a man, but a leap in the dark") or a memo from an associate deputy administrator of NASA are denied by Armstrong.'

I'm sure that I read somewhere that NASA had told Neil to say that days before the launch. Could someone cite this?

I have been told by a college friend of Neil Armstrong, that his correct middle name is "Aladdin." Can anybody substantiate either "Alden" or Aladdin? 144.132.194.134 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Adam B.

[2] contains a 1958 signature which contains the middle name; it's clearly too short to be "Aladdin" (for a start, it doesn't have enough risers) Shimgray | talk | 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

His wife

The dates in this article regarding his wife Janet don't add up. It says that she died in 1962, and then that they were divorced in 1994. Does anyone have an accurate date for when she actually died? I suspect it is later than 1962 given the comment about her regretting not finishing her education, and the unliklihood of a solo father going to the moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhys.lewis (talk • contribs)

It is weird how many people seem confused by that paragraph. It says nothing about Janet dying. It is talking about Karen, their daughter. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

dood,he has old children around the age of 50.the children are mostly around 30 yrs younger than their parents.

user:dark-hooded smoker

user: eternalshogunx I know I'm going off on a pretty weird topic here, but I heard that Neil Armstrong said "Yabba Dabba Doo!" shortly after landing on the Moon. Is this true because I cannot find proof anywhere on the net of this? Thanks in advance!

I have never heard such a thing. Though you may want to have a search and read through the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal which has full transcripts of everything the astronauts said on the surface. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that Wally Schirra said "Yabadabadoo" on Apollo 7 after a successful firing of the spacecraft's engine. This may be where you heard it. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of conjecture that Neil armstrong DIDN'T walk on the moon, this should be included on the trivia part of the actual page, if included also is a 'supposed' fact that that people used to believe he had converted to muslim. mnemonic 01:19, 19 october 2005

First of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that there is "a lot" of conjecture on this topic. There is a lengthy and (in my opinion) well written page on the moon landing hoax. If someone feels obliged to mention it and add a link, I'm not sure that I'd object, but I don't think it's really necessary.

--Anson2995 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This hoax is a hoax. Rlevse 11:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The thought of the hoax being a hoax is a hoax, once one puts enough time and effort into investigating the matter. In any case, I move to have the article changed to read, "...is thought to be the first..." instead "...was the first..."

Short of anyone going back to the moon or someone pointing a telescope at the landing sites on the moon, you cannot call the hoax theory a hoax because you cannot prove the landing happened or did not happen. Both sides have to rely upon assumptions and while the non-hoax folks think they have the upper hand, besides the astronauts, not one of them can claim that they went to the moon themselves.

Whether he landed on the moon or not I can't say since I wasn't there but it strikes me as very odd that he was not more vocal and in the public eye about his experience afterwards. One has to assume that the US government selected him because he was mentally fit and they had to realize that if they landed on the moon first, it would be great for publicity and you would think they would pick a fellow who would bask in the spotlight and not retire into the shadows. Makes you wonder why he did the turtle act afterwards. While his experience may have been profound, you would think he would want to share his experience. Unless he is riddled with guilt about being involved in one of the greatest lies in history. Makes you wonder.

I recall he was quite vocal after the landing; all three went on a nationwide tour. Armstrong seems soon to have become fed up with the attention - the point has been made that he knew he wouldn't be allowed to go into space again, as with Gargarin he wouldn't be risked. So he was like the most famous rock star but without any possibility of making another record. He didn't do many personal appearances, but he has done some interviews over the years, he's just very selective and who can blame him. Apepper 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh be quiet. I presume you'll also be arguing as vigorously about the Earth being flat, as you cannot conclusively prove that unless you go into space either. Of course, even from terra firma you can demonstrate that the Earth is not flat, in the same way that you can demonstrate that man landed on the moon, should it not intefere with your agenda. Ajmayhew 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you ajmayhew. Dappled Sage 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of the Landing

The date usually quoted, 20 July, is an arbitrary one. This event occurred on a world where time has never been defined. At the moment the landing happened, it may have been 20 July at Cape Kennedy, but it was a different date in other places on Earth. Since he talked about one giant leap for "mankind", not just for Americans, I think something needs to be said about the choice of the date. Not sure what, though. JackofOz 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Official NASA documentation refers to Neil's epic step as taking place on the 21st of July, 1969 at 2:56 GMT. See: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11i_Timeline.htm

Also, "world where time has never been defined" is, honestly, rediculous. Time is a property of motion. The Moon has motion, therefore the Moon has time. Beyond that, the Moon's motion is regular and seperated in to distinct periods of light and darkness. Therefore, not only does the Moon have time, but it has a day, a night, and a year; all of which were calculated long before 1969. See: Month. (YingPar 4:35 15 Dec 05 PST)

Thanks. The very fact that the fateful step occurred at 2:56 GMT proves my point. Greenwich Mean Time has relevance to the planet Earth because it is related to the Greenwich meridian, which is a line passing through a place in London. All time zones on Earth are related in some way to their distance East or West of Greenwich. GMT obviously has no relevance to extraterrestrial bodies. If we ever establish a colony on the Moon or Mars, we will presumably decree a base meridian there, and the diurnal motion of that body will be measured with reference to that meridian. It will certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with GMT. I guess the real reason we date the Moon landing using a terrestrial date of 21 July 1969 is that that's the only one we had at the time (and for the forseeable future will still have), and it makes intuitive sense to us. However, what the date and time are really saying is that, when Armstrong walked on the Moon, it wasn't 2:56GMT 21 July 1969 on the Moon, but 2:56 GMT 21 July 1969 back on Earth. The GMT bit is all I really needed to know. Cheers.

During the missions, GET, or ground elapsed time was used. That's why NASA transcripts use 109:24:19 GET as the time of Armstrong's first step. Yes, this translates into 21 July GMT, but since Mission Control was in Houston (Central time), it happened on the 20th.

So Mission Control was in Houston. So what? This event did not occur in Houston, or anywhere else in the USA, or anywhere else on Earth. It happened on an extraterrestrial body commonly known as "the Moon". Whatever date and time we ascribe to the moment Armstrong steeped onto the moon's surface is absolutely arbitrary, because our calendar, and our time and date systems all apply to the Earth and only to the Earth. Apparently we nowadays refer to the Moon event using UTC because that is the international standard used on Earth. And I would support that convention. That makes it 21 July, not 20 July. But it is still arbitrary. JackofOz 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, John Lennon was shot and killed at about 11:00 PM in New York City on 12/8/80. Does that mean, because New York is GMT-5, that he was really killed on 12/9/80 and that's the day that they carved in his tombstone? No. --Jkonrath 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Events on Earth are dated according to the time zone applying in the place where the event happened. Lennon died on 8 Dec, because that was the date in New York at the moment of his death. That it was 9 Dec in other places on Earth at that same moment in time is irrelevant. JackofOz 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, that's just silly. What would you have the article say? "Since Earth time doesn't apply on the Moon, we actually don't know when the landing took place. Too bad." Any chosen time will be arbitrary, and there's nothing we can do about that. IMO, following your argument of the mission being "for all mankind" (although in reality it obviously wasn't), the "most correct" thing would be to use Earth standard time, i.e. GMT (or UTC, if you will).Michael riber jorgensen 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat of a neologism so I won't put it in the article, but one could argue that human time on the moon started with Armstrong's first step. (Equally valid points in time are the crash-landing of Luna 2 or the moment of Eagle's touchdown, but I digress.) Anyway, that would put Armstrong's first step at 00:00:00 on Lunar Day 0. (Or would it be Lunar Day 1?) — Michael J 01:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

one giant leap for mankind

I'dont hear the "one giant leap for mankind" in the audio.

Credit?

I'm currently reading First Man, his biography. Much of this article sounds like an extensive rip-off (paraphrasing would be generous) of the book. What is Wikipedia policy on this? Telliott 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

copyright violations are unacceptable and should be reported. sources of the article should be stated, both for credit and encyclopedic standards. paraphrasing is fine, as facts and organization are not copyrightable. particular verbal expression is protected. which particular parts do you suspect might be rip-offs? Derex 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The basis for thew rewrite was First Man. If I have used specific phrasings I apologise and would like to know where so that they can be changed. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the term rip-off. What seems to have been done is to mine a thousand factual details from the book and use them to build the article. Hansen spent spent a lot of his time gathering these gems through interviews, sorting and sifting them before writing. You could presumably go to the same sources and re-record their answers to the questions, but it's not like you can find many of these details in the newspaper or something. And Neil Armstrong wouldn't talk to you. I don't think it's fair use but I guess it's debatable. Telliott 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

well, it is unquestionably legal. it's not even fair use, because this use of a collection of facts doesn't even fall under copyright law at all. whether you think it's fair in an ethical sense is a different issue. look at it this way, this article definitely ought to include citations to source materials, giving "First Man" a little free PR. further, it absolutely should list "First Man" under further reading if that is a useful enough book to be such a prominent source. all in all, use (with credit) here should really be a big benefit to the author by pointing interested readers to the book. but whether or not you, or the author, agree with that point; it's flat out legal. thanks for raising the issue, though. it's always best to be sure we're compliant. Derex 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Evil M, if you wrote any sections primarily based on that book, would you mind listing the relevant chapter as a reference. I'm not sure the appropriate format for a lengthy reference, but maybe something at the section bottom like:

Source: First Man, Chapter 3.

Thanks. Best to get it down while it's fresh. 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started to go through and add footnotes for the article, which are probably basically all going to be Ibid to specific pages of First Man. This could take me a while just because my access to the internet is rather limited (I won't have it at home again until Tuesday at the earliest). Also will write the bit the covers the world tours he did just after Apollo 11. Want to mention when he was in the USSR and he watched the Soyuz 9 launch, after being with the Tereshkova all day, who was the wife of one of the cosmonauts on board and who hadn't mentioned a thing about there even going to be a launch. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the stuff in this article is pure plaigarism. I liked First Man too, but come on, this is embarassing.

According to the Wikipedia article on plagarism, it "...is a form of academic malpractice specifically referring to the use of another's information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." I fail to see how this article meets this description. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Detail

I agree this article now seems too heavily drawn from First Man. Lots of details are too obscure for an encyclopedia article and some are plan irrelevant out of the book's context (i.e. the Banshee crash was a big episode in the book, but Armstrong wasn't flying that day and wasn't injured, so the mention in the wiki article is just superfluous and should be removed). Other stuff like the details about the 1202 alarms should be moved to the Apollo 11 article. 71.141.251.153 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

many hands make quick work :) your comments are welcome, and so are any edits you think would improve this article, or Apollo 11. I do agree that much of the detail in the Gemini & Apollo 11 sections should be moved to those articles respectively. Derex 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't submit to Wikipedia if I didn't want people to rewrite, remove and otherwise edit "my" work :-) . I did find it difficult when writing the material to remember that this article is a bio of Armstrong and not about the missions. I only tried to include material that was relavent to Armstrong - ie his piloting on Gemini 8, his thoughts on the program alarms etc. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through and culled some unneeded detail from the Gemini 8 and Apollo 11 section. Feel free to do some more mercilessly editing :-) . Evil Monkey - Hello 02:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not the first person on the moon

Technicaly there was I believe a woman who made the first steps on the moon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.41.211 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I follow? Evil Monkey - Hello 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I wouldn't. DirkvdM 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But why is the short form of "lunatic" spelled "looney"? ➥the Epopt 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No it was neil Armstrong, women haven't went to space until a few years ago! (Unless you count the Soviet program but they never took a Women to the moon).

Elven6 July UTC

pic of neil with american flag

could you add a picture of neil holding the flag in the moon i need it for a project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.41.211 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, there is no picture of Neil Armstrong on the Moon with the flag. In fact there are only five images in total during their moonwalk, which can all be seen here. If you just want a generic image of an astronaut and the flag, how about:

Buzz Aldrin on Apollo 11

Pete Conrad on Apollo 12

Al Shepard on Apollo 14

Dave Scott on Apollo 15

John Young on Apollo 16

Harrison Schmitt on Apollo 17

Gene Cernan on Apollo 17

Evil Monkey - Hello 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe this is true. The first man to walk on the moon and there is not one good picture of him on the moon?

Only Neil had a camera on the EVA. Note that all of the Apollo 11 EVA photos are of Buzz, with Neil perhaps reflecting in the visor. 35.11.183.95 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There was one camera, and it was usually held by Armstrong, but it was occasionally handed over - there are a small number of photographs which have been identified as of Armstrong by Aldrin. Almost all are of Aldrin, yes, but not all... Shimgray | talk | 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Business commitments & various 'he's a nutter' allegations

Two disparate issues:

The article refers to his wife leaving him due to his over-busy work commitments, but the article doesn't make clear what they were. What exactly was he doing to make himself so busy things were bokeda year in advance?

and

Various urban legends refer to Armstrong becoming a recluse due to the mental strain of being on the moon (more wacky versions are that he encountered alien artefacts and withdrawing from society made it easier to cope). Should these be referenced in the article - and, in a link to the above, just what is he doing seeing as he never appears in the public eye?

Last August I wrote a whole section on his life in private business, but it appears to have been removed at some point. In the zeal to make this article read like an excerpt of "First Man," an awful lot of good info got lost. After leaving the University of Cincinnati, Armstrong served as chairman of AIL Technologies, an electronics and avionics manufacturer. He was there until his retiremnt in 2002. He has kept a low profile, but he is far from a recluse. There used to be links here to interviews he has given and to articles about his public appearances, plus things like the opening of the Armstrong Museum in Ohio. Again, not sure how the article benfited by removing those. The wholesale addition of content from "First Man" and wholesale deletion of other content has made this article suffer. Anson2995 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The paragraph that I think you are referring to, or something similar, disappeared amid some vandalism around Dec 16th. Leon7 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the "Business activities" subsection discussed above, but trimmed some of it away to shorten it a bit. I thought we need something more about what he's been doing for the last 35 years. Leon7 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong Limit

Does anyone happen to know if the Armstrong Limit is named after Neil? I can't find anything on the source of the name for the article and, while its probably unlikely, i thought i would ask here. Thanks. Rockpocket (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

More about his family

I just heard that his daughter died as a child. I looked through this article and there is very little about his family at all. Maybe there should be some info added? -OOPSIE- (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The story "how he met his second wife" (when he was still married to his first one) is corny and tasteless and has no place in an encyclopedea.

The section on his family is self-contradictory... the part about his navy duty says he was married to one lady, of which they had three kids. She died. Yet later, Janet is referenced as his first wife, and 38 years would have put them married before the first wife died.. something is fishy here. (talk): 29-Mar-2010 –Read it again, it was his daughter that died and not his first wife.109.253.240.229 (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

-- 84.180.236.153 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In the section titled "Teaching"...

There is a small, but significant, error:

Armstrong announced shortly after the Apollo 11 flight that he did not plan to fly in space again. He was appointed Deputy Associate Administrator for aeronautics for the Office of Advanced Research and Technology (DARPA).

The acronym in parenthesis should be OART, not DARPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.36.235 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DARPA was originallly named ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency). It could simply be yet another name or an office within DARPA but I agree clarification or at least a link to the agency's wikipedia page should be provided if anyone can find a more clear history of his work there and add a citation. IRMacGuyver (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gemini 8

The article is not correct about the thruster failure during the Gemini 8 mission. The crew drove their own training schedule, using their time to practice rendezvous rather than to learn and recognize systems failures. Cunningham was partially right, there was a procedure to stop the rotation caused by the thruster failure, but it only involved a single switch to be thrown that would take the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) from the primary to the secondary drivers. It would have stopped the rotation, not required the use of the Re-Entry Control System (RCS), and saved the mission. Cunningham knew it and so did others.Blattmobile (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Civilians in space

The article is wrong in calling Armstrong the first US civilian in space. This distinction belongs to Joseph Albert Walker from X-15 Flight 90 (there are citations on both those pages) about three years prior to Gemini 8, Armstrong's first spaceflight. It was also incorrect in saying that Armstrong was the first civilian in orbit, because he was preceded by Tereshkova on Vostok 6, and Feoktistov and Yegorov on Voskhod 1. I removed those words while leaving the original citations, which show that Tereshkova was the first civ in orbit. DrZygote214

(talk) 03:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

First Moon walk

In this section it mentions how few images were taken of Neil then shows a picture of an astronuat without commander stripes claiming to be Armstrong. I'm marking that citation is needed because obviously if you can't see the red stripes it probably isn't him as they should be plainly visible on his arm and legs. I also marked the image's page but may have done it wrong as the template isn't showing up correctly. IRMacGuyver (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• His suit has no markings. See here for a picture of his suit. If you scroll down to the LEVA section, you will see a photo of him on the surface during the EVA and it clearly has no markings on it. Then again neither does Buzz Aldrin's suit.--NavyBlue84 15:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• The reason that the commander stripes on Armstrong's suit aren't visible is because the suit never had any. They weren't used until Apollo 13.[3] --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Add residence

{{editsemiprotected}}

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, he lives in Indian Hill, Ohio. Please add something about that after the sentence that ends with "at San Ysidro Ranch in California." 140.182.236.163 (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 02:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.161.82.121, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 8 days 14 hours 12 minutes and 32 seconds

173.161.82.121 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Favonian (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Typo

"Op November" should read "On November". --92.200.62.243 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can you tell me where the error is more specifically. I looked and couldn't see it.--NavyBlue84 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here. Easy enough to find by doing a Control-F search for "op n".

But 92.200.62.243, it would have been easier for you to edit the article and fix this tiny one-character typo yourself without further ado, than taking the trouble to make it an item of discussion here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is protected from editing, which is why I went through the pain of mentioning a trivial typo here. --92.200.52.71 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Typo

The sentence:

This sheared off an estimated six (2 m) of its right wing[14].

is missing the word feet, as in estimated six feet (2 m). JimTittsler (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's now fixed. Mlm42 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Leading Image

Shouldn't we have a picture there that's a little more recent than one from 1969?--Craigboy (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is standard to use images of people in the infobox from their "prime", showing them in role they are most recognisable/famous for. For example the image of Ronald Reagan is the official president's portrait from 1981. Only if the person continues to be engaged in other notable activities is it usually updated. The image here perfectly illustrates to the reader the significance of Neil Armstrong at a quick glance with no need to even read the text which is precisely what a good infobox image should do, picture says a thousand words and all that. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case never mind.--Craigboy (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speech 2010

Removed video links to prevent clutter in the references, They are available in the linked article Meet the Future, Science & Technology Summit 2010. SpeakFree (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Test pilot section

The first paragraph's last sentence says "He applied at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics High-Speed Flight Station at Edwards Air Force Base; although they had no open positions they did forward his application to the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio, where Armstrong began working at Lewis Field in March 1955.[24]". But then, the second paragraph begins with "On his first day at Edwards...". How did he get at Edwards? Did he do anything noteworthy at Lewis? --KFP (contact | edits) 11:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Live Radio Audience

The world population of 3 point 631 billion would be much more easily compared with 450 million if expressed as 3,631 million or 3631 million. I'm sure I'm not the only one to double-take this and closely examine the comma/full-stop. Worth a little edit, O privileged ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeYates (talk • contribs) 11:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Few pictures of Armstrong on Moon: questionable source

I'm troubled about this passage in the First Moon walk section:

Aldrin has said that there were plans for him to take more photos of Armstrong, but he claimed to have been distracted by the Nixon phone call.

You might have heartburn with "claimed" because of WP:ALLEGED, but this seems a thin excuse, since Nixon's minute-long greeting and Armstrong's 30-second reply couldn't have possibly taken much time away from their surface work. (I know Nixon-bashing is popular, but that doesn't make it acceptible here.) Also note the (quasi-tabloid) source, and how Bates words this: "He said he had intended to take some shots after the flag planting but they then received an unexpected phone call from Richard Nixon."

It's unclear; did Aldrin personally make this comment in an interview with her? I think we could only fairly report that Aldrin (according to Bates) blamed the phone call for the lack of photos, but not report it as being the factual reason. I think our verifiability standards are best served by moving this in here for now, until we resolve it. It may be best just to leave it out. What say you all? JustinTime55 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"is an aviator"

I removed the words in brackets from the lead sentence: "Neil Alden Armstrong (born August 5, 1930) is an American [aviator and] former astronaut, test pilot," ...etc. Nothing in the article supports the idea that Armstrong flew after his NASA service, or continues to do so today either professionally or privately (though he might have privately.) One might put "aviator" after "former", but that's covered by test pilot and United States Naval Aviator, so it would be redundant. At age 80, pretty much all of his notable activities are in the past. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

a moot point probably but his official biography shows a still of him at the controls of a Cesna 421 with his wife Carol in October 2003. However, I agree his post moon experience pales into insignificance. Nasnema  Chat  21:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Silly Typo

Moter is not a word. Early Years section mentions the Ford Trimotor as "Ford Tri-Moter". Would be nice to make into a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.90.67 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, and done. Good catch. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Time inconsistency

In the fall of 1979, Armstrong was working at his farm near Lebanon, Ohio. As he jumped off of the back of his grain truck, his wedding ring caught in the wheel, tearing off the tip of his ring finger; he calmly collected the severed digit, packed it in ice, and it was successfully reattached by microsurgeons at the Jewish Hospital in Louisville, Kentucky.[109] Less than two years later, while skiing with friends at Aspen, Colorado in February 1991, he suffered a mild heart attack,[110] a year after his father had died, and nine months after the death of his mother.

According to that paragraph there are two years between 1979 and 1991. A quick search seems to suggest the years are correct, maybe the "Less than two years later" is extraneous (or maybe Wiki is the source that the other places used after my "quick search") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundu (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the 1991 date is correct, and somebody just couldn't subtract, so I removed the incorrect phrase and reworded the sentence slightly. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2012, Neil Armstrong college years

Please add The University of Southern California to Neil Armstrong's college years' section. He received his masters degree in Aerospace Engineering from USC in 1970.

173.66.232.82 (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! The information is on two of his NASA bios; I left off the year, as they don't cite it.

Edit request on 3 March 2012

Please change the text "with whom Armstrong had worked closely with at Edwards" to "with whom Armstrong had worked closely at Edwards." The second occurrence of the word "with" is superfluous and it makes the sentence annoying to read. Thanks.

78.234.204.164 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"That's one small step for [a] man..."

I don't think the word in brackets should be there, since I think Neil Armstrong meant to say it. 97.81.137.254 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he didn't say it, but it should be there to indicate what he meant to say, the form [a] should remain. Nasnema  Chat  17:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

new interview

• http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/small-step-for-a-man-great-get-for-accountants-20120524-1z6cn.html

"Notoriously reclusive Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong gives a surprising interview to Certified Practicing Accountants of Australia."

67.119.14.156 (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 June 2012

Neil Armstrong converted to Islam after coming from the moon.In the moon he heard the Adhan i.e the call to prayer of the muslims .Later on wen he came back and found the match with the muslim call to prayer ,he was shocked and he converted to islam.

Shakeel18248 (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dru of Id (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

Please link the mentions of Purdue University to our web site at www.purdue.edu.

Thank you for your consideration,
Martin Sickafoose
Director of Digital Marketing
Purdue University

MSickafoose (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, but that would violate our rules, as it would be an example of spamming. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of promoting institutions, even ones as prestigious as Purdue. This article links to the Purdue University wikipedia page, and this in turn links to the website in its infobox. That should be sufficient. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Granddaughter Kali Armstrong?

i don't know if he used to visit or if he actually owned a home in the silver creek country club in san jose california, but i went to elementary school with his granddaugther kali (think neil armstrong's face on a 12 year old girl's body... in hindsight it was creepy...) any more reputable sources though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47EB:7299:21B:77FF:FEAD:46DE (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Death

According to superstition, one day after Peter Balogh threw out his Apollo 11 model rocket, Armstrong perished. This claim is pending investigation by the FBI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.35.241 (talk • contribs)

EDIT REQUEST: cause of death.

His family said in a statement that it was from complications from a cardiovascular procedure. Please can someone edit it in?

Aadmm (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

According to superstition, one day after a man in New Mexico threw out his Apollo 11 model rocket, Armstrong perished. This claim is pending investigation by the religous and spiritual proponents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmiCxComrade (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing request for August 2012

Editing request for August 2012:

The words "roommate" and "antiaircraft" are not hyphenated, hence please correct these.
"Anti" is never hyphenated onto anything except for proper nouns such as in "anti-Catholic", "anti-American", and "anti-Israeli". Otherwise, see antimatter, antiparticle, anticommunist, antilearning, antimilitary, antimissile, antinuclear, antipollution, antiscientific, antisuperstition, antisubmarine warfare, antitechnology, and antiwar.

The word "Australia-based" is incorrect, and we can give countless examples. The first word in this is always an adjective. See: American-based, Belgian-based, Canadian-based, Dutch-based, French-based, German-based, Greek-based, Italian-based, nuclear-based, Omani-based, Portuguese-based, Russian-based, Swedish-based, Swiss-based, Spanish-based, solar-based.

For example, "The American-based International Monetary Fund"; "The Belgian-based military headquarters of NATO", "The people on the Cape Verde Islands speak a Portuguese-based creole language."; "The Swiss-based United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
98.67.106.59 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - missing comma

In Return to Earth section, "Armstrong and Aldrin discovered that in their bulky spacesuits, they had broken the ignition switch for the ascent engine;" needs a comma after "that": "Armstrong and Aldrin discovered that, in their bulky spacesuits, they had broken the ignition switch for the ascent engine;" Or else remove the one after "spacesuits". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.120.51 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. ----AE Daily (speak!) 19:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: cause of death.

A cause of death had been reported by AP News. http://apne.ws/Rb0Hi9

His family said in a statement that it was from complications from a cardiovascular procedure. Please can someone edit it in?

Aadmm (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tvoz/talk 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

EVA

Says "EVA" several times in the article without explaining what it stands for. Apparently it means Extra-vehicular activity. First mention should be an internal link to aforementioned article. (Obviously, the same goes for all other articles about astronauts/whoever where none of the "EVA"s is linked.) --82.170.113.123 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point - I've Wikilinked the first 'EVA' in the article body. And you're right - this seems to be a widespread problem. I'll raise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Well since the page is protected now, here's a fix for a dead link I was going to make; http://www.wapakoneta.net/history for Reference 3. Ebrockway (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  No problem doing it for you, but fyi the page is only semi-protected (no IPs or brand new accts can edit) - so you should be able to do subsequent edits directly yourself. Tvoz/talk 21:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I did try and got a message that I couldn't as it was protected. Maybe I didn't read far enough. Thanks. Ebrockway (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved section (from "Editing request for August 2012")

The description of Neil Armstrong as the first person to set foot on the moon is incorrect. Buzz Aldrin Was the First of the crew to set foot on the moon, Neil Armstrong is given credit for the famous quote, But the right as first to set foot on the Moon is Buzz Aldrin's
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.172.27 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.135.171 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2012‎

* I moved the above 'comment' and reply from the top of the page under "Editing request for August 2012" to its correct chronological position. 220 of ^Borg

 Not done. If it is an edit request, as not supported by any source (ie. crap, my POV! See Neil Armstrong#First Moon walk) - 220 of ^Borg 04:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quotation in 'Lead Section'

Second time quotation has been deleted. The Edit Summary I gave was:- (historic quotation. therefore, reverted deletion. per MOS:LEAD/WP:LEAD --> section 'Relative emphasis'). Please read that section and also the section 'Citation' on that style/policy page which clearly mentions the usage of quotations in lead sections.Yaara dildaara (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles always begin with the lead sentence. No article, ever, begins with a quotation. This is just completely against our commonly accepted article structure. There are many people who have some famous quote associated with them, but this is Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And this man was not notable for his quote. He was for something else. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Its one of th emost famous quotes in the century (akin to I have a DREAM), it ould be mentioned/referenced in the lead. Its part of what made him notable (ie- as a result of the primary feature)Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against some sort of mention of the quote in the lead, but I absolutely oppose having any sort of quote box or other set-aside quote in the lead. As for what WP:LEAD tells us about situations like this, the most relevant sections are "Elements of the lead" and "First sentence", neither of which provide any sort of provision for the use of a quotation to introduce the article. Yaara dildaara specifically cites the "Citation" section, which deals with when to use inline citations in the lead. Yes, quotations are mentioned, but not because we should introduce articles with quotations. If you read it that way, you're taking the section out of context. Quotations, maybe even including this one, can certainly appear in the body of the lead when appropriate. Putting a quotation, however famous, before the body of the lead, is not done on Wikipedia. The Hamlet article does not begin with "To be or not to be...", the Martin Luther King, Jr. article does not begin with "I have a dream...", and this article should not begin with "That's one small step for man...". szyslak (t) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OSE is not a reason to keep it out, albeit i agree with you on the quotebox mentioning the words alongside the landing would suffice i thinkLihaas (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My mention of the Hamlet and King examples was not intended as an OSE argument. More importantly, I absolutely support the mention of "One small step..." in some form in this article, even in the lead. I just don't support a set-aside quote before the body of the lead. Is that clear to you? szyslak (t) 04:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2012

Under legacy section please add:

The Civil Air Patrol cadet program has also honored Neil Armstrong by naming the 8th cadet achievement after him. It requires the cadet to accomplish several tasks including but not limited to:

1.write a 300-500 word essay and present a 5 to 7 minute speech to the unit on one of the topics below:

   A. Explain why America’s aerospace power is vital to commerce, science or national security.
   B. Describe leadership mistakes you have made and explain what you learned from them.
   C. Explain the difference between followership and leadership

2. Pass a leadership exam.

3. Pass a physical fitness exam.

Leadership, physical fitness and the ability to speak and write were vital to his roles in space, the military and in his teaching life.

Reference :

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/stripes_to_diamonds/neil_armstrong_achievement.cfm

Rpgennrichiii (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Robert P. Gennrich, III

The article is about Neil Armstrong. It isn't about The Civil Air Patrol cadet program - and if it were to mention this at all (which seems unlikely), it certainly wouldn't go into that sort of detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That the award was named after him can be added to the legacy section, though i agree the details are not relevant.Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't see it as noteworthy enough for inclusion but would have no major objection if a short summary, per Lihaas's suggestion, were added. Rivertorch (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic material

Immediately following Armstrong's death there have been repeated attempts to lard up the article with quotes from the Narcissist-in-Chief, Barack Obama, overloaded with the pronoun "I". Who cares? Several years before his death, Neil Armstrong penned a letter, along with along with ex-Apollo commanders Jim Lovell and Eugene Cernan, highly critical of Obama's diminished plans for future United States space exploration. Anyway, the article is about Neil Armstrong, not Barack Obama. — Quicksilver^{T @} 01:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, when a noted individual dies, it's relevant when important people, especially the president of the country of his citizenship, make comments expressing their grief. You know what's off topic, though? Linking to an article that's two years old, and bringing petty name-calling politics into a Wikipedia talk page. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Tvoz likes this.

Given the language Quicksilver is using I suspect he's out to POV push. In full disclosure, I'm a Republican. Dick Inyo CA (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sang'gre Habagat, if you're thinking that Wikipedia is free of politics, you're deluding yourself. There are some articles that I don't even bother editing, because they have become de facto soap boxes for various political pressure groups. — Quicksilver^{T @} 23:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest you "don't bother editing" more, if your only contribution is going to be political soapboxing of your own? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Place of death

Reliable sources seem to differ on his place of death. Some sources say he died at a hospital in Columbus and some sources say he died in Cincinnati, presumably at his home there. Anyone know which is accurate? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

missing "a"

The article contains the following text:

The broadcast did not have the "a" before "man", rendering the phrase a contradiction (as man in such use is synonymous with mankind).

The phrase is obviously not a "contradiction". In context the word "man" (ie an individual male person) is obviously being contrasted with the concept "mankind" (ie all humanity). In the words "Man goes into a bar, orders a drink" no one would think that the speaker was making a reference to humanity generally. The sentence in fact sounds more poetic and effective without the "a", even though in ordinary speech one would more usually say "a man", because the contrast "man" with "mankind" is much stronger to the ear than "a man" and "mankind" would be. But what do I care 90.221.84.165 (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I listened to this again on the TV last night and I'm convinced Armstrong never said [a] at all. There is just no interval between the words "for" and "man" that would enable "a" to be fitted in, and the "for man" fragment sounds normal, with no static or anything and flows naturally. 86.29.127.15 (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mankind!

Quote "NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that Armstrong will be "remembered for taking humankind's first small step on a world beyond our own". If this guy can't even use Armstrong's own words then his quote doesn't deserve to appear in this article. What an idiot! Can the quote be removed? 86.29.127.15 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all quotes about a person have to use words from that person's catchphrase. Most don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dryden 'Bio'

This bio (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Biographies/Pilots/bd-dfrc-p001.html) from the Dryden Flight Research Center may help expand on Armstrong's career as a test pilot. - 220 of ^Borg 08:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The famous quote?

Shouldn't the quote that heads Armstrong's page be 'That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind' rather than just 'man'? It's clearly just static covering up the 'a'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.97.38 (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Neil, when you land you are to say 'That's a small step for one man, a giant leap for mankind.' Got it? These words will go down forever in human history. Say them very slowly and clearly."

"Sure. 'That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'"

Lestrade (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Edit request on 25 August 2012

How come does this article have "USAF" under his picture when he was in the Navy? Yet another example of wikipedia's uncontested brilliance.

67.238.224.194 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article says that Armstrong was"...A participant in the U.S. Air Force's Man In Space Soonest and X-20 Dyna-Soar human spaceflight programs...", which might justify calling him a 'USAF astronaut'. You may have a point though. We'll need to think about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He was in USAF and he made training with Chuck Yeager, that surely wasn't in the Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.225.207 (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To the IP: But we could live without the sarcasm - we actually do try to get it right, and helpful comments are welcome. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing "USAF" from the above mentioned comments. Armstrong was in the US Navy and then worked for NASA. He may have participated in a program that the Air Force led, but he was never a member of the USAF, thus this is misleading. His NASA Bio should clear up any questions. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/bios/neilabio.html --Revmqo (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Already done - removing template to clean up backlog in category. — Deon^talk 06:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone added back USAF when describing Armstrong as an astronaut. First, the USAF has no astronauts, only NASA does. Second, when referring to astronauts by military branch, it is customary to use the branch they actually served in.... in this case the Navy, not the Air Force, but since Armstrong was already out of the Navy when he became an Astronaut, lets agree to leave it as NASA Astronaut. --Revmqo (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Moon landing

It should be mentioned that "Hoax theories, saying Apollo astronauts had never walked on the Moon" see Moon landing conspiracy theories. Moreover add that "Polls taken in various locations have shown that between 6% and 20% of Americans surveyed believe that the manned landings were faked".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.195 (talk • contribs)

No. This article is about Neil Armstrong, the Apollo astronaut. It isn't about conspiracy theories - see WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is essential part of the whole Moon landing and hence his legacy and history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.151.195 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely not - Andy is right. Tvoz/talk 21:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should mention the hoax theories. This article has a large segment about a "moon landing". However, the vast majority of the world don't believe in this landing, as it was more than likely faked. Therefore it should definitely be made clear in the article about Neil Armstrong that his status as being the first man on the moon is only a theory. Especially now that he has died, the viewcount will rise quickly, so we need the facts out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.69.8 (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Already Covered in the article Moon landing, where it belongs. It has no place in this article about Neil Armstrong. Please learn about Hoax and the Scientific method. All Wikipedia articles must reference reliable sources for inclusion of facts. Intrepid (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The article states "He was notable for being the first human to set foot upon the Moon.". It should state "According to NASA, he was notable for being the first human to set foot upon the Moon." Wiki guidelines state "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." "According to NASA" makes it verifiable. "He was notable" is against Wiki guidelines. You might as well say that Neil Armstrong's moon landing is already covered in the Moon Landing article, so no need to have it on his personal page. Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.69.8 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 August 2012‎

Ridiculous. Please read Wikipedia policy on fringe theories. Despite your claim to the contrary, reliable sources are universally agreed that Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"first human to set foot on the moon" was accepted with no qualifiers by the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and any other major news outlet anywhere in the world, and any source generally considered WP:Reliable. I don't see why Wikipedia should place qualifiers on such universally accepted fact, just because there's a fringe theory which is not accepted by any WP:Reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.231.226 (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama

Obama is a well respected figure but it is not encyclopedic to add President Obama's comments to every death. President Obama was not involved in the space program at all. In fact, some of Armstrong's family and friends may take it as an insult because Armstrong went to the President to protest cutting of space programs.

The neutral thing would be to remove Obama's perfunctory comments. This is not to say President Obama is bad. It's just not the best for WP. Auchansa (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of public comments...John Glenn, Buzz Aldrin, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, NASA's Charles Bolden (Besides being one of America's greatest explorers, Neil carried himself with a grace and humility that was an example to us all. When President Kennedy challenged the nation to send a human to the moon, Neil Armstrong accepted without reservation.

"As we enter this next era of space exploration, we do so standing on the shoulders of Neil Armstrong. We mourn the passing of a friend, fellow astronaut and true American hero.", the Armstrong family: "Neil was our loving husband, father, grandfather, brother and friend. "Neil Armstrong was also a reluctant American hero who always believed he was just doing his job. He served his Nation proudly, as a navy fighter pilot, test pilot, and astronaut. He also found success back home in his native Ohio in business and academia, and became a community leader in Cincinnati. "He remained an advocate of aviation and exploration throughout his life and never lost his boyhood wonder of these pursuits. "As much as Neil cherished his privacy, he always appreciated the expressions of good will from people around the world and from all walks of life. "While we mourn the loss of a very good man, we also celebrate his remarkable life and hope that it serves as an example to young people around the world to work hard to make their dreams come true, to be willing to explore and push the limits, and to selflessly serve a cause greater than themselves. "For those who may ask what they can do to honor Neil, we have a simple request. Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.", etc.... Auchansa (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of the current President is relevant, although it may need to be limited here to a few words. Armstrong's family and friends may be insulted because Obama described him as "among the greatest of American heroes"??? Oh please; give me a break! Cresix (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant. No need to add these things, no matter who it is.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Auchansa, we don't base article content on suppositions about 'family and friends' being insulted by the fact that the head of state has commented on the death of a man widely seen as a hero. As for 'perfunctory', are you aware of what the word means? Your usage of it seems to suggest otherwise. And given your ridiculous attempts to replace Obama's comments by entirely irrelevant ones that Richard Nixon fortunately never had to make, [4], I can see no other way to read your latest edit summary except as complete bullshit. [5] Frankly, as a foreigner, I am disappointed that yet again, an article where US politics is clearly irrelevant should be come yet another arena for petty sniping. Do you not have any sense of decency at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoever the President is, it is common and easy (and perfunctory) for comments like "he was a great man" to be said. It's not really encyclopedic. That's the bottom line. Auchansa (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So what was all the bullshit about Nixon for then? As for 'perfunctory', I suggest you stop using words you don't understand. You have tried to use the death of a great man as a platform for petty political pointscoring. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the personal attacks. This is not a forum for flame wars. As for the content, I think it is notable. It's the President of the United States, the ultimate authority for the space program. Whether we like him or not, or whether we think his comments are generic, they are notable and covered by RS. Whether someone's family does or does not think them appropriate is not a metric for inclusion. If anything, the discussions over NASA funding involving President Obama make him MORE relevant, not less. I say it should be in there.204.65.34.237 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of the current president of the country for whom any major figure dies is necessary, not to promote the president, but to reflect the public significance of the passing. Fine, the speeches are ghost written and may seem shallow. Fine some editors may not like said president. The quotes are a vital part of a Wikipedia though. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Korean war ejection

Hansen's biography at p94 says 6ft was sliced off Armstrong's Panther's wing, not 3 as it states in this wiki article, and also he didn't hit a pole at 20 feet he hit a cable at 500 feet (presumably the footnote is mistakenly referring to the earlier inaccurate reports also cited in the bio rather than what Hansen says happened to Armstrong, based on his interviews in preparation of the book). Can someone fix this (admittedly very minor detail)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.33.9.89 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Return to Earth - factual error

In the paragraph on Apollo 11's return to earth, mention is made of a pen used to operate a damaged switch. The current version of the article says that Aldrin kept the pen until his death - but he is still alive. Either that needs correcting or it was Armstrong that kept the pen.EmleyMoor (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - see below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Aldrin possessed that pen up until his death)

Heading "Apollo program" Sub heading "Return to earth"

"(Aldrin possessed that pen up until his death)"

Aldrin is not dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.26.162 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes - an obvious error. I've removed the statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Death confirmed by Jay Barbree 3 pm MSNBC

The death is confirmed on the air by Jay Barbree just now on MSNBC - print citation coming shortly. Cause of death is complications from recent heart surgery. Tvoz/talk 19:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a citation yet, then don't add it. Wikipedia is not a real-time news service. We don't have to report current events fast. 200.127.89.241 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful advice. I'm well aware of what we are or are not. Tvoz/talk 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I've removed any link between the surgery and Armstrong's death from the article. I've yet to see a news source that states the cause of death or links it directly to the surgery; anything else would be WP:SYN on our part. matt (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Look again, please. His family's statement made the connection, and many news outlets are so reporting it. Tvoz/talk 20:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

and here's just one of them. Tvoz/talk 20:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that was added to the article with a ref. However, at the time of my posting, I had not seen one news source stating this (despite reading quite a few) and not one of the ones given in the article verified the claim at the time of my previous post. matt (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for snapping - that's fair enough. Tvoz/talk 21:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No probs. matt (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Complications"? I'm not sure that any coroner worth his salt would enter "complications" or "complications from x" in the "cause of death" field on a death certificate. I seriously doubt whether that would be legal. Cardiac failure, pulmonary failure, and also why. Probably thrombosis. I don't think you could get more vague than "complications". Also, you're right..."complications" necessitates a causal link arising from the previous bypass surgery. Something doesn't pass the sniff test here. Paul63243 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not for us to determine if this passes the sniff test - if reliable sources are reporting it, then it is ok to include, unless there is some dispute which we'd be free to include as well. But it's not for us to decide what a coroner would say. Tvoz/talk 07:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

25. August is correct?

His death was reported on 25th, but seems the site http://neilarmstronginfo.com had been created on 24th. --Kucharek (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It was definitely reported today (the 25th), but as it's already 4:30 in the afternoon on the east coast, I can't say what that means for the actual date of death.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 20:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It was reliably reported on the 25th at around 3pm EDT that he died on Saturday the 25th, so that's what we're going with. Don't know who did that website or when. Tvoz/talk 20:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen dates of death be reported incorrectly by the media before, based on when the story breaks. See Richard Winters. His death wasn't reported for over ten days, and we got it wrong at first. There's no hurry, as long as the date is corrected in the end.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it's that big of a gap. If it does turn out to be something other than today, it will in all probability have been yesterday.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

They are talking about Richard Winters as an example of delayed reporting causing confusion, not about Neil Armstrong. Britmax (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Age of His First Flight

If his first flight was on July 20, 1936 he could not have been 6 years old because his birthdate was on August 5, 1930, therefore he was 5 years old.

Why has noone edited this yet? HE WAS FIVE NOT SIX. Im going to ask Wikipedia to do something about the lazy editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.217.116 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Britmax (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

also?

In the second sentence, the word "also" is superfluous and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.172.205 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

While not strictly necessary, it seems to help the sentence flow logically. He was primarily an astronaut, but he was also those other things. Rivertorch (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reflection on the Article

My 2 cents - this is quite well researched and written. Understandably, we are trying to get it polished up quickly to salute the man's passing, but although I usually find lots of weak sentence structure or needless repetitions in articles - not here!

My only caveat is, the article is quite long. Some of the stories seem more relevant to articles about the subjects, such as the lunar landing. My only suggestion, lets make sure each story adds to the picture of the man, not the famous event, or move it to the appropriate article.

To the complainer about the Obama quote: Neil Armstrong appears here to be a man above personal gain and petty politics, and therefor especially deserving of his own president's accolades and salute to his passing.

Nice work! I got a real sense of his personality. Rare for a Wiki article. Billyshiverstick (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, nice work. JohnPritchard (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article has about 45K of "readable prose", which is comfortably within guidelines. Given the length and significance of his life and career it doesn't seem excessive to me. Tvoz/talk 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Astronaut infobox

For years, the astronaut infobox on this article has correctly noted that Armstrong was part of two USAF astronaut programs prior to joining the NASA astronaut corps. Then comes along an editor who says "Armstrong wasn't a member of the USAF, therefore we can't include any mention of USAF in the infobox." Per the astronaut infobox template, people who have belonged to more than one human spaceflight program have the multiple programs listed as "Program1 / Program2 / Program3" Rillian (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: the USAF ran the programs, but did you have to be a member of the USAF to participate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. Armstrong was a civilian member of the USAF's MISS and Dyna-Soar programs. He was a USAF Astronaut, but not a USAF officer. The USAF in "USAF / NASA Astronaut" refers to the program sponsor. Rillian (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly misleading to label him as a USAF Astronaut. If you want to leave the USAF in the program section I personally see no problem with that but heading the section up with "USAF/NASA Astronaut" is inaccurate. Nowhere on his NASA bio page does it refer to the USAF, nor does it on his personal page maintained by his family. What was his AF rank? Ensign? Lt JG? No, those were his naval ranks. He didn't have an AF rank because he WASN'T in the AF, he was a civilian pilot flying for them. I believe he was NACA at the time.Norbytherobot (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You're exactly right. He was a civilian member of a human spaceflight program run by the USAF. That makes him a USAF Astronaut per the astronaut infobox guidelines. He was also a civilian member of a human spaceflight program run by the NASA. That makes him a NASA Astronaut per the astronaut infobox guidelines. If he had never joined the NASA astronaut corps, he would be a "USAF Astronaut". If he had not been part of MISS or Dyna-Soar but had joined NASA, he would be a "NASA Astronaut". Since he was part of spaceflight programs run by two different organizations, he is a "USAF/NASA Astronaut". Listing him as only a "NASA Astronaut" is incorrect.Rillian (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"The USAF in 'USAF / NASA Astronaut' refers to the program sponsor". Does it? I cannot see why anyone would interpret it that way without prior knowledge. Stuff that needs that sort of explanation shouldn't go in infoboxes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what does "NASA" in "NASA Astronaut" refer to? Or "ESA" in "ESA Astronaut? Or "Project Juno" in "Project Juno Astronaut"? In any case, sounds like a great topic for the astronaut infobox Talk page. Rillian (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of USAF in that manner would imply to most people that he was in the USAF, which he was not. We're writing for a general audience, not specialists who would understand the USAF was in this case a sponsoring agency: it should either be explained appropriately, or left to to the article text, not attempted to be shoehorned into an infobox. We should avoid hairsplitting in the infobox that requires reader interpretation. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He was in two USAF programs for a total of five years. He may not have "served in the USAF" , but he was "in the USAF" by some definitions. Rillian (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My point is that readers shouldn't be called upon to parse such fine distinctions in the userbox, which is a quick-and-simple guide, not an exhaustive discussion. The userbox version that you advocate could lead a layman to conclude that Armstrong was a USAF officer at some point: we all know that he was not, and while the USAF/Dyna-Soar interlude is interesting, it's of secondary, and potentially misleading importance. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to Andy's question is actually a strait-forward NO. You did not have to be a member of the AF to participate.Norbytherobot (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't an officer of the USAF, but he certainly served as a civilian member of two USAF programs. The USAF and all branches of the US military have civilian employees. Who paid Armstrong's salary during his time in MISS or Dyna-Soar? Who provided his benefits? Did he have a USAF ID card? But back to my question, if he had only participated in MISS and Dyna-Soar, wouldn't it be correct to list him as a "USAF Astronaut" in the infobox? If not, then there is a problem with the guidelines for the astronaut infobox. Rillian (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Rillian actually raises an important and bigger point, which is that the term "astronaut" is probably used more than it should be in the Wiki articles. Both the MISS and Dyna-Soar programs were cancelled before either produced any actual astronauts, yet the pages of some of the people in those programs describe them as astronauts when they should probably be just test pilots. The US recognition (both military and civilian) of astronaut is awarded to those who travel above 50 miles (80 km), and there are several pages for people from these 2 programs where they never achieve this. I think this is probably a better conversation for the Astronaut Infobox Talk page as Rillian suggested below but am not sure where that is - can someone advise?

Back to Neil though. I believe he was on the payroll of NACA at the time of these programs. I think he actually first qualified as an astronaut on the X-15, which was a joint AF/NASA program. The AF also only gave their coveted "Astronaut wings" and AF Astronaut designation to those who qualified [above 50 miles] and were AF pilots; the civilians here got designated as NASA astronauts. Interestingly, Neil actually has 2 sets of Astronauts wings, and neither is from the AF. The 1st is from NASA, and the 2nd was an honorary one given by the NAVY!Norbytherobot (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Having participated in years of discussions on who is and isn't an astronaut, I can share the consensus that has developed over time and succinctly stated on the Astronaut article: "an astronaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft". You don't have to fly in space to be an astronaut (however, you may need to do so in order to earn a specific badge or other award). MISS and Dyna-Soar are both "human spaceflight programs". People who participated in those programs with the intent of commanding, piloting, or serving as a crew member of a spacecraft qualify as astronauts per the current Wiki consensus. Rillian (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if so, he was a member of NACA at the time. And it would still stand to reason that if the AF didn't consider him an AF Astronaut, than he's not one...Norbytherobot (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article itself states "A participant in the U.S. Air Force's Man In Space Soonest and X-20 Dyna-Soar human spaceflight programs," and "In 1958, he was selected for the U.S. Air Force's Man In Space Soonest program". It seems clear that he was a USAF Astronaut. Rillian (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that as being clear at all. How do you interpret "participant" and "selected for" to imply membership in an organization. The AF designates pilots as "USAF Astronauts" (and gives them Astronaut wings)if the fly over 50 miles AND are members of the AF. No one in MISS or Dyna-Soar actually achieved that, which is a separate conversation that should also be looked into. Neil's designation was as a civilian with NASA, and his wings were from NASA, plus an honorary one from the Navy. Nothing from the AF. Norbytherobot (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A plain reading of the word participant means someone was a member. What else would those words mean? Are you saying Neil was selected as a Dyna-Soar pilot-engineer (aka astronaut) in 1960 and was in the program for 2+ years, but was somehow not a member of a USAF human spaceflight program? Please note that I'm not talking about the criteria to earn an USAF Astronaut Badge. Since Armstrong was a civilian member of Dyna-Soar, he would have never been awarded a USAF Astronaut Badge, even if he had flown aboard the Dyna-Soard. Rillian (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He was a NACA participant in an AF program. Writing "USAF Astronaut" implies he was an USAF Astronaut, not a "Civilian Astronaut" is a AF program. And I don't really think any plain reading of "participation" implies "membership". You can participate in something without being a member of the organization putting on the program. Norbytherobot (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read the Dyna-Soar article. Armstrong is one of eight people selected as pilot-engineers for the Dyna-Soar, a USAF spaceflight program. He was clearly a member of that spaceflight program from 1960 to 1962 when he became a member of the NASA spaceflight program. Rillian (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If Armstrong wasn't in the USAF, describing him as a 'USAF astronaut' in the infobox is simply misleading. Expecting readers to read another article in order to understand what we intend to mean, rather than what they would expect the words to mean is frankly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion to read the Dyna-Soar article was for Norbytherobot who apparently is arguing that while Armstrong was a "participant" in the Dyna-Soar program for 2+ years, he somehow was not a "member" of that same program. Rillian (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never argued he wasn't in the program, and even said I was fine with "the program" being listed as a USAF one. But he was not a member of the USAF, and it is misleading to have a header calling him a USAF Astronaut when he was never in the Air Force.Norbytherobot (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly misleading to describe Armstrong as a USAF astronaut when it is clear he was never employed by the air force. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you know he was never employed by the USAF? Who paid Armstrong's salary during his time in MISS or Dyna-Soar? Who provided his benefits? Did he have a USAF ID card? Rillian (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you got any sources that say he was employed by the USAF etc? If you have them, provide them. Then we can discuss the issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick google search for "famous Air Force Astronauts" brings up the Air Force Association Online Journal article "Air Force Astronauts". Besides be interesting on it's own, it's perhaps educational for this discussion here. From the article: "Each of the Apollo flights was significant, but the most famous was the July 1969 Apollo 11 mission, in which two Air Force astronauts, [Buzz] Aldrin and Michael Collins, participated. Neil A. Armstrong, a NASA civilian astronaut and Navy veteran, was the Apollo 11 mission commander and the first man to set foot on the moon. He was followed on the lunar surface by Aldrin, while Collins orbited the moon above them." http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2006/October%202006/1006astronauts.aspx His official bio on NASA's site btw describes him as working for NACA and its successor NASA for the 17 yrs between 1955 and 1971. Norbytherobot (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We still seem to conflating "a member of a USAF spaceflight program" with "he was an officer in the USAF." Let me repeat a question from above - if he had never joined the NASA astronaut corps and had just been member of two USAF spaceflight programs (MISS and Dyna-Soar), what should the infobox read: simply "Astronaut", "USAF Astronaut" or something else? The consensus guidelines on that field in the infobox are [Agency Name] [Astronaut or Cosmonaut]. The agency for MISS and Dyna-Soar is USAF. Rillian (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Rillian, I agree with you completely about the meaning of "USAF Astronaut"; it doesn't (didn't) require or imply USAF membership at all. But I think we might have a bigger problem than that, in that the template has only one designation line, while Armstrong was an astronaut of multiple agencies.

But he was not unique in this. The MOL astronauts also found themselves orphaned by a canceled USAF space program, and NASA gave them the opportunity to join its astronaut corps. Look at Richard H. Truly, among others, who went on to fly the Space Shuttle. Notice his infobox says "USN/NASA Astronaut". The template allows multiple agency names separated by a slash, so logically Armstrong should be listed as "USAF/NASA Astronaut".

However, notice Truly's listing is also incorrect, since MOL was also a USAF program (to my knowledge, there were no "USN-sponsored astronauts"), so the confusion exists elsewhere. Also, those who think the infobox is inherently confusing also have a good point; remember, Wikipedia is for its users, not its editors. I think this is a bigger issue which we should move to the template's talk page, soliciting input on the Wikiproject's talk page. Consensus is one of our sacred principles to which we always give homage, but in practice they sometimes seem just to evolve by default, and sometimes require some revisiting. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - what the template guidelines say is completely irrelevant. Infoboxes must only be used to give brief clear statements regarding uncontroversial facts. We don't ever mislead our readers for the sake of bureaucratic convenience. Armstrong was never in the USAF, and we aren't going to imply that he was, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: We still seem to conflating "a member of a USAF spaceflight program" with "he was an officer in the USAF." We are not the ultimate consumers of this information: we are writing for general readers who come here to learn and understand. We all know that Armstrong was not in the USAF as an officer: that's not at issue. We must compose the information so that infoboxes, text, photos, whatever, are not ambiguous or misleading to someone who lacks that knowledge. I'd rather omit than be incorrect or to mislead someone who is trying to interpret the Cliff's Notes in the infobox to imply, as Rillian's version (unintentionally) does, that Armstrong was in the USAF. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I cant see what is wrong with NASA Astronaut in the infobox it is what Armstrong is noted for anything else can be explained in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Or even better, how about just "astronaut"? He will long be remembered for what he did, not what agency he did it for. Rivertorch (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily "first U.S. civilian in space"

Actually, it is in dispute whether Armstrong was the first U.S. civilian, although he was widely perceived so in 1966. Please see Gemini 8 and Talk:Gemini 8#Armstrong was NOT the first civillian in space. At the time that was written, I was of the opinion he was the first U.S. civilian (sp.?), but since then, consensus id that the definition of space is recognized as the Karman line, and an X-15 pilot was actually the first American to cross it in 1963. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about Joe Walker. How about "first U.S. civilian in orbit"? Ylee (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be accurate, but I think "in orbit" really detracts from the point, since by that time many humans had flown in orbit. How about something like, "he was the first member of NASA's astronaut corps to fly in space." That would be accurate and significant. Armstrong was notable at the time he flew Gemini 8 for being NASA's first spaceflight-program astronaut to fly, who wasn't actively in one of the military services. The state of the art at that time involved two-man orbital flight, as opposed to taking a reasearch rocket plane temporarily out of the atmosphere.

(A pet peeve of mine has been Wikipedia's tendency to want to compile statistics, such as "so-and-so was the nth male left-hander to fly in space, above the Karman line, but below highly elliptical orbit, while wearing red suspenders ..." getting bogged down in technicalities. I think we should keep highlights like this simple and in meaningful context.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

First wife

You have Neil Armstrong's first wife listed as having died in 1962 and then you mention she divorced him in 1992 after 38 years of marriage. Cannot be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.63.232 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says that their daughter Karen died in 1962. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the article says he married 1st wife in 1956 and they divorced in 1994 (not 1992), which would make it 38 years (give or take some months). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Couple of comments

Neil just passed away. He was one of my greatest heroes. I had to read this article. After going through it, I have to admit that it's well written. I made some minor changes to the text and improved the layout. I want to add a few more comments:

1. "the 1202 and 1201 alarms were caused by an executive overflow in the lunar module computer."

The 1201 is not introduced before this sentence (it probably should).

2. "Armstrong thought they had a strong engineering division, plus they were in financial difficulty.

The sentence doesn't sound good. Should it be "but they were" instead? It sounds more appropriate.

3. "The Justice of the Peace read from an unrepealed 400-year-old law that required him to hang any Armstrong found in the town."

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence.

4. "This prompted many responses, including the Twitter hashtag "#WinkAtTheMoon""

In my opinion, this sentence is nothing but garbage.

May Neil be remembered not for just being a hero but also for the person he was and for the model of inspiration he was for millions of people around the world.

ICE77 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree about #4. What relevance does a Twitter hashtag have? 94.168.37.235 (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with #4. These responses are significant, and for reasons we may not understand completely. This article, here, should recognize the cultural, social and historical significances by this record. It's not about twitter. Perhaps we should add Obama's own "wink at the moon" from tumblr. JohnPritchard (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 4, nobody really cares about Twitter hashtags and mentioning them in this article is not only silly but also out of context and adding them here shows lack of style when it comes to writing (Neil would have certainly had the same opinion). There are many other things or people like Neil that had impact on culture, society or history that are much more important than useless hashtags.

ICE77 (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

#3 a "Justice of the Peace" is the title of a officer of a court of law. Someone who judges minor court matters. 100.43.114.202 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking what "Justice of the Peace" means. I'm trying to understand the meaning of the sentence and its relevance to the article.

ICE77 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

PLEASE CHANGE "Armstrong's family announced he would be buried at sea.[137]"

TO

“Armstrong was honored in a tribute at Washington’s National Cathedral on September 13, 2012. In attendance at the tribute were fellow Apollo 11 crewmates Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin. Also in attendance was Eugene A. Cernan, the Apollo 17 mission commander and last man to walk on the moon, and John Glenn, the former Senator and first American to orbit the Earth, as well as the current NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Armstrong was laid to rest in the Atlantic on Friday, September 14, 2012 in a burial at sea ceremony aboard the USS Philippine Sea (CG 58). ”

Spacegeek1 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nice work. ColinClark (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Remarriage

Hi. I found a source that Neil remarried not in 1994 but in 1999. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/science/space/neil-armstrong-dies-first-man-on-moon.html?pagewanted=all

What do you think is correct? Greets from Germany --Alecconnell (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know; this is in direct conflict with Ref. 117, which says their two marriage ceremonies were in 1994, within several days of each other. (Perhaps the ref tags should be moved around a bit to clarify what exactly is being cited.) The NY Times never makes a mistake, does it? :-) Maybe this is a good case to be taken to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 28 Edit Request in >> "Life after Apollo" > "Business Activities"

I think this sentence could be clarified:

"He joined Thiokol's board after he served on the Rogers Commission; the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed due to a problem with the Thiokol-manufactured solid rocket boosters."

Although the Rogers Commission is discussed in earlier sections, it wouldn't hurt to clarify the relationship between Armstrong's position on the Commission and his subsequent board appointment:

"He joined Thiokol's board after serving on the Rogers Commission (which found that the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed due to a problem with the Thiokol-manufactured solid rocket boosters)."

Also, the article lists many firms having Armstrong on their board. Most of these have Wikipedia articles, and could be linked (Thiokol included).

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.225.106 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam Section

There seems to be some controversy surrounding the section. Suggestions are invited. I support inclusion. --Aditya Saxena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion - take your idiotic coatrack somewhere else. The internet is full of vacuous trivia about all sorts of things - we don't engage in WP:OR to make them out as relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This trivial urban myth is not appropriate for an encyclopedia biography. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

With State Department response in 1983 it is not so trivial. I reworded it for encyclopedic style, and used better sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. There's more to it than I thought. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks the inclusion is welcome. --188.29.238.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012

Much has been written about Neil Armstrong’s achievements as the “first man on the Moon” but hardly anyone knows that in 1976 he participated in an important scientific expedition to the Amazon rainforests. Back then Erich von Daniken had became a best selling author (similar to Dan Brown) by making sensational claims that aliens from outer space had visited planet Earth. Stanley Hall took very seriously the evidence presented in “Gold of the Gods” and so he set about organising a joint British and Ecuadorian expedition. It so happened that Stanley’s wife was a member of the Armstrong clan and so, after the super star’s visit in 1972 to his ancestral hometown of Langholm, she made contact and was surprised to find that he agreed to become honorary president of this jungle adventure! The expedition members consisted mostly of military and scientific types but when Stanley Hall realised the cave entrance was a 130-foot vertical shaft he wisely decided to recruit six cavers, including myself, so that the cave system could be safely and thoroughly explored. After all the book “Gold of the Gods” claimed that “the caves were part of an immense trans-Andean chain extending as far south as Chile and northwards to Columbia and that they contained evidence of previous occupation by an unknown early civilisation.” When we assembled at Heathrow there was much excitement that the cave might yield such treasures that would make Tutankhamen’s artefacts look like something out of Steptoe’s back yard! We flew via Miami and Bogata into Quito. Next day a military coach transported us through the Andes. The following day we flew again this time in a tiny aircraft to a remote military airstrip on the border with Peru. An advance party set off in a couple of boats fitted with powerful engines only to be swept away by the strong currents (almost a case of “last seen drifting down the Amazon”) until finally a helicopter ferried people and equipment in stages to a big campsite alongside of the cave entrance. If you remember the TV series “Mash” then you’ll have a good idea of living conditions at the campsite for the next six weeks. To cut a long and amusing story short, we found the caves were formed naturally and without the help of aliens carrying laser beams although on the plus side many new species of plants and insects were discovered. However, in the last few days we were fortunate to unearth some seashells and fragments of sophisticated pottery that proved to be of great interest to the archaeologists. News of these finds got back to Neil Armstrong who to our amazement flew straight down from Cincinnati, arrived by helicopter and suddenly wanted to go caving! It fell to me as health & safety officer to attach a safety rope around his waist before descending the 130 foot entrance shaft. The picture shows me (sporting a beard) struggling to tie a bowline knot around the astronaut whilst another caver looks on. I was never very confident about tying a safety rope onto another person when the knot is viewed upside-down and my only consolation was the thought that if I got the knot wrong then the Los Tayos Expedition would go down in history as the place where the first man on the Moon met an untimely death! Mercifully the knot held and Neil Armstrong seemed to enjoy being shown around the massive cave passages; in-fact our group were late getting back to the surface. By then the last helicopter had flown back to base so the few of us that remained had no choice but to sit around the campfire until collapsing into our sleeping bags. First, there was a magical interlude when Neil, who was by nature very reserved, glanced up through the trees and commented “the Moon was just like that when we blasted off in 1969….” For several minutes we were spellbound as he recounted highlights of the Apollo 11 mission. Although I didn’t make it onto Neil Armstrong’s Christmas card list (!) that brief period together in the jungle made a lasting impression. I was sad to learn that he died age 82 on 25th August. For verification I can send you articles written in speleological magazines, colour pictures, testimonials of caving friends who met Neil Armstong; as well as a reference to a British TV documentary about the Los Tayos expedition (VHS). RevdArthur (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

I'm a little surprised that you decided to add Obama's statement, but leave out Romney's. It is raising many red flags for me. Please, to balance the article add a sentence from Romney also! See the statement: http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/08/mitt-romney-neil-armstrong-today-takes-his-place-hall-heroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.78.136 (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama is the current head of state, and as such (whether you like it or not), represents the American people in circumstances like this. Romney isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesnt change the fact that romney is a notable figure.Lihaas (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Romney is of minor note, as are most presidential candidates. We don't typically remember or care very much about the people who lose the election. Jslist (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Romney is a notable figure in some contexts, like "the history of Bain Capital" or "the Republican party in the 21st century." Regarding Neil Armstrong or the Apollo program, his opinions have no more interest or relevance than mine or yours. He wasn't involved in Apollo, he never knew Armstrong, he doesn't know anything about Armstrong that everybody else doesn't know, etc, etc. ColinClark (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 January 2013

NEIL A. ARMSTRONG NASA ASTRONAUT (DECEASED)

PERSONAL DATA: Born on August 5, 1930, in Wapakoneta, Ohio. Married. Two sons. Died on August 25, 2012.

EDUCATION: Armstrong received a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from Purdue University and a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Southern California. He held honorary doctorates from multiple universities.

SPECIAL HONORS: Armstrong was a Fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and the Royal Aeronautical Society and an Honorary Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the International Astronautics Federation.

Armstrong was a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco. He served as a member of the National Commission on Space (1985 to 1986), as Vice-Chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986) and as Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee for the Peace Corps (1971 to 1973).

Armstrong was decorated by 17 countries. He was the recipient of many special honors, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Congressional Space Medal of Honor, the Explorers Club Medal, the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy, the NASA Distinguished Service Medal, the Harmon International Aviation Trophy, the Royal Geographic Society's Gold Medal, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale's Gold Space Medal, the American Astronautical Society Flight Achievement Award, the Robert J. Collier Trophy, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Astronautics Award, the Octave Chanute Award and the John J. Montgomery Award.

EXPERIENCE: After serving as a naval aviator from 1949 to 1952, Armstrong joined the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1955. His first assignment was with the NACA Lewis Research Center (now NASA Glenn Research Center) in Cleveland. Over the next 17 years, he was an engineer, test pilot, astronaut and administrator for NACA and its successor agency, NASA.

He was Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati between 1971 and 1979. During the years 1982 to 1992, Armstrong was chairman of Computing Technologies for Aviation, Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia.

NASA EXPERIENCE: As a research pilot at NASA’s Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, Armstrong was a project pilot on many pioneering high speed aircraft, including the well known, 4000-mph X-15. He flew more than 200 different models of aircraft, including jets, rockets, helicopters and gliders.

Armstrong transferred to astronaut status in 1962. He was assigned as command pilot for the Gemini 8 mission. Gemini 8 was launched on March 16, 1966, and Armstrong performed the first successful docking of two vehicles in space.

As spacecraft commander for Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, Armstrong gained the distinction of being the first man to land a craft on the moon and first to step on its surface.

Armstrong subsequently held the position of Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. In this position, he was responsible for the coordination and management of overall NASA research and technology work related to aeronautics.

He resigned from NASA in 1971.

AUGUST 2012

Aaronjpizza1234 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

DECLINED Template:Persondata is already used in the article, and has a narrowly defined scope that apparently doesn't support this level of detail, which again should also be covered in the article. Not sure exactly what you're asking for. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Status"

Is there really a need to list his status as deceased when the date of his death is two lines below? I would suggest deleting the status line altogether. Jamie (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 April 2013

Please Change "after complications from coronary artery bypass surgery" to "after undergoing a failed coronary artery bypass surgery". 117.200.254.42 (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, why do you think it is wrong as currently written? Britmax (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dying from complications from surgery, makes no sense. Dying from failed surgery makes sense. This will make more sense to the readers.117.200.254.42 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine just the way it is. To me, making the change implies that the surgeons made mistakes. As written, the direct cause is left vague. I vote to keep it as is. Revmqo (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: There is no consensus for this edit and the OP has provided no sources to justify the request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"A small step for man..." contoversy

Another Matt if you want to include this controversial statement, then do it in the proper manner. Also, please include a citation that actually leads to the quoted material. Pretty easy I should think. Revmqo (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if the statement is properly sourced, in my opinion it's not really interesting or important enough to be in the article. The important bit is that it was Armstrong's phrase that he came up with himself, and his brother isn't contradicting that. ColinClark (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The documentary is the citation. In the documentary, his brother explained, on camera, in some detail, the circumstances in which Neil Armstrong showed him the line and asked him his opinion about it, prior to launch. Maybe the brother's memory is faulty; maybe Neil Armstrong's was faulty when he said he made it up during the flight. We will never know now. However, this is a relevant matter for the article, and a plausible reason to question the version of events that was previously stated as fact by the article. Another Matt (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Matt, you don't seem to get that the citation as you wrote it is not sufficient for a reliable source to establish verifiability. All you say to identify it is "TV documentary, 2012". Who produced it, and how was it broadcast? Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Otherwise, as you say it is just a "he said, he said". It could also be a WP:notability issue; if it's a significant deal, why no other media coverage of it? JustinTime55 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with JT. This info doesn't belong on the page. Revmqo (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The documentary at issue appears to be the BBC production Neil Armstrong - First Man on the Moon, see [6]. Dean Armstrong's claim in the documentary is discussed in a Collectspace article here. Based on how it is presented, I don't think it rates inclusion. Dean's said nothing for 40+ years; his claim is self-serving, getting him special attention; the circumstances of his waiting until his brother's death are suspicious; his claim contradicts Neil's; and Armstrong's biographer James Hansen dismisses it. Based on this, it's not worth including. It is WP:FRINGE or close to it and just a tiny speck with respect to the topic of the article; its inclusion violates WP:UNDUE.

If there were an article solely about the phrase, it would be worth including. In such an article, about the words and not about the man, I would not have any issue about WP:UNDUE, and while it would still be close to WP:FRINGE, it would be worth documenting in an article so focused. But not here. TJRC (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that a quote from the freaking guy's brother in a filmed interview is "fringe" is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard in a long while. 86.160.216.43 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Date of death

Why does it say under his picture that he died today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.136.73 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Now fixed. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Neil Armstrong/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well written article. Reference citations sorely lacking. Former feature article nominee, now also a Wikipedia:Good Articles nominee. Badbilltucker 16:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Has recently won Wikipedia:Good Articles recognion. Badbilltucker 15:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)