Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moon landing conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Moon landing conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Is this article unfairly biased or non-neutral because it debunks the conspiracy theories? (No.)
No. While it is always possible to improve the wording or the structure of an article to make the prose more neutral and dispassionate, including material in opposition to the conspiracy theories is part of achieving a neutral article. Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories state that "reliable, verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories." Should information debunking the conspiracy theories be included in the article? (Yes.)
Yes. Material critical of the Moon landing conspiracy theories must be included in the article. The articles on Wikipedia include information from all significant points of view. Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories state that the article must "document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." Is the term "conspiracy theory" unfairly biased? (No.)
No. The term "conspiracy theory" is used by reliable sources to describe the collection of ideas discussed in this article, including a few sources which are themselves sympathetic to the ideas. The ideas as a whole are considered "fringe theories" as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines, and should be treated as such. There are no reliable sources that contain good evidence to state otherwise. Has NASA conclusively shown that the Moon landings occurred? (Yes.)
Yes. NASA has provided mountains of documentation that the moon landings occurred, and have met the "burden of proof" required by various Wikipedia rules. There is also plenty of independent evidence that the moon landings occurred. No reliable sources exist to contradict this evidence. Does NASA hold the "burden of proof" to disprove conspiracy theories? (No.)
No. Wikipedia policies state that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so the "burden of proof" is to conclusively prove that the Moon landings, which are a matter of historical fact, did not occur. No reliable sources have met that criteria. Should the article Criticism of moon landing conspiracy theories be created? (No.)
No. Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Excluding criticism of the conspiracy theories gives them undue weight in the article. Editors should strive to edit the same article by creating consensus on the topic. Should there be a "Criticism" section in the article? (No.)
No. Information opposing the conspiracy theories should be presented alongside the conspiracy theories, in order to achieve neutrality in the article. Putting the content in a "Criticism" section would give undue weight to the conspiracy theories. Should this article be merged in to Apollo project or another Moon landing article? (No.)
No. Merging the conspiracy theory article in to an article about the Moon landings would give undue weight to the topic, and make the conspiracy theory appear more prominent than it really is. Should this proof I found that the Moon landings never occurred be included in the article? (Likely no.)
Most likely no. Alleged proof that the Moon landings never happened has yet to come from reliable sources. However, the opinions of some believers in the conspiracy theories have become prominent enough to cause independent sources to comment and thus may warrant some attention in this encyclopedia. The goal of the article is to provide a summary of the available knowledge on this topic and include opinions only according to their prominence.
If you have found a reliable and independent source, such as an academic study or a reputable news report, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. In the interest of writing clear and concise articles, the consensus of editors may be to not include the material due to its obscurity or lack of relevance. Should information from YouTube, blogs, or forums be included in the article? (No.)
No. As per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, most YouTube videos, blogs, and forums are not adequate sources for information, since anybody can make up any information through these formats. The only circumstance these sources are admissible is when describing the opinion of the person who created the content in question. Even then, if the material is really notable, a reliable source most likely would have already done so. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
How did they get off the Moon?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Landing is one thing but how did they managed to get BACK to earth?????! 2600:1011:B12C:4342:F457:3EC:2626:383 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Have a look at the article Apollo Lunar Module, particularly the section titled Ascent stage. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The top half of the lunar lander (the ascent stage) took the 2 astronauts back to lunar orbit to rendezvous with the command module. It was then discarded. It was much smaller than the Saturn V rocket because it had less mass to haul up and the moon is 1/6 the mass of Earth, so the ascent stage was fighting less gravity. The Saturn V had to lift everything and fight against the much larger mass of the Earth. Both the mass to lift and the mass to fight against are exponential (double the mass and you quadruple the problem), so lightness helped a lot.
- Once the astronauts had transferred back to the command module (and the lunar model discarded), the command module fired its engine to return. The command module leaving lunar orbit was much smaller than what left Earth orbit and was also fighting the smaller gravity of the moon rather than the larger gravity of the Earth. In fact, after a short while the Earth was pulling the command module (gravity tends to do that), so the command module only needed enough energy to leave lunar orbit (technically, it only raised its lunar orbit high point enough for the Earth gravity to dominate over lunar gravity and then let the Earth gravity do its thing). Stepho talk 05:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- See Lunar orbit rendezvous. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- How did they risk the lives of the astronauts? What if there was a technical issue that arose on the moon? There would be no way back.
- It is clear to most logical thinkers that NASA would not have sent the astronauts on a mission with even a small chance of failure. It would have been a PR catastrophe and extremely unethical. In all my time researching this issue, I have never seen a satisfactory response to this point.
- To argue that there wasn't a small chance of failure is ludicrous. The lunar landing alone (without an atmosphere to slow the craft down) relied on untested and extremely complex technology. Even 50 years later unmanned craft have a poor record on moon landings. See Beresheet and Japanese moon lander . And even had the moon landing gone to plan the craft would have to have landed in a perfectly aligned manner on a totally flat surface to have even the slightest chance of relaunching. This would have been known to mission planners and there is no way they could possibly take such a massive risk. 185.182.71.18 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- NASA knew there was a risk. So did the astronauts. They had all seen the results of the Apollo 1 fire and they decided to continue on anyway. They did all they could to mitigate the risks down to a sensible level but nobody deluded themselves into thinking that there was no risk. In fact, each mission had several prepared speeches for when things did go wrong. These covered things like if the vehicle crashed, if they got stuck on the moon, if they got stuck in orbit, if the craft lost all its oxygen, etc. They also had multiple backup system where possible and did massive training to cover practically every eventuality. Eg, the LM lifeboat technique that saved the lives onboard Apollo 13 was initially a theoretical exercise that was never expected to be used but they practised it anyway - just in case. There is no such thing as zero risk in such an environment at the leading edge of technology and they all knew it.
- Also, the majority of pilots were from the armed forces that knew all about risk. Many of them came from flight testing centres where the risk of dying is even higher than the rest of the armed forces - testing new aircraft with new, untried technology. Risk was their constant companion. Stepho talk 10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- To add to what Stepho said, here is a NASA assesment of the risks involved in the Apollo and Shuttle programs. Donald Albury 11:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Plus the equipment and Lunar Module were extensively tested in flying conditions. Many forget things like the Apollo 10 mission, which flew to the Moon in order to take the Apollo Lunar Module out for a test drive. Successfully completing four lunar orbits on its own, unattached to the Command Module, astronauts Stafford and Cernan then docked, proving that an independent LEM could complete all phases of its mission. An interesting nugget: NASA did not give the Apollo 10 Lunar Module enough fuel to land and take-off, as they were a bit worried that the astronauts, seeing the Moon so near beneath them, would decide to break-mission, mutiny, and land for the historical first exploration. Stafford and Cernan could have done so if they had the fuel, and the success of Apollo 10 proved that it was possible to fly, maneuver, and function relatively safely within the Apollo Lunar Module, setting the stage for Apollo 11 and beyond. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
New Section
Would it be possible to include an "In Popular Culture" section with the following information? :-
In the 2024 film " Fly Me to the Moon", a NASA director hires a marketing specialist brought in to fix NASA's public image and stage a "back-up" plan for a fake moon landing in case the transmission from the real moon landing fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.210.117 (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe but probably not? While "In Popular Culture" sections used to be popular, they're becoming less so. Wikipedia isn't a place for random trivia, after all. If Fly Me to the Moon and real-life Moon landing conspiracy theories are widely connected in reliable, secondary, independent sources, then it's best to incorporate that into the article somewhere. Woodroar (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{subst:trim|1=
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class Astronomy articles
- High-importance Astronomy articles
- C-Class Astronomy articles of High-importance
- C-Class Moon articles
- High-importance Moon articles
- Moon task force articles
- C-Class Solar System articles
- High-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- C-Class spaceflight articles
- Low-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
- North American military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
- United States military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
- Cold War articles needing attention to referencing and citation
- Military history articles needing attention only to referencing and citation
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- Mid-importance Cold War articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia articles that use American English