Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 17: 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 22, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 24, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

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.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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.

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance).

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Cold War Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Loony Landing". The Sydney Morning Herald. June 6, 2009.

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

New Section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

{{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)[reply]

Phrasing of "Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories"[edit]

Would "Moon Landing Conspiracy /Claims/" not be a more accurate and less confusing title than "Moon Landing Conspiracy /Theories/"...?

I see this has been discussed at least once before (and heckles were raised), but I can't see if finally concluded. And, besides, maybe times have changed...

Doesn't '(Moon Landing Conspiracy) Theories' give some undue weight to a view which has no good quality evidence to support it (but pretend or imply to have such)?

I tend to call them "Moon conspiracy /claims/" (when the context doesn't lead me to less polite terminology).

I know, of course, that 'Conspiracy Theory' is a term in itself - and that it has /historically/ had the connotations of 'nonsense' and 'wrongness'. However, because of the rise of the internet and the resulting ability for trolls, the uninformed (accidentally and intentionally flavours), and the insane to collect together, that very term is slowly changing its connotations. It is becoming a non-pejorative term; partly fashionable, but more worryingly, it's becoming 'reasonable'.

So, I wonder if now is a good time to reconsider whether the inclusion of the word 'Theory' (which today is primarily associated with science and rationality) is no longer apt, and "Moon Landing Conspiracy Claims" might be a better phrase. Gordon Panther (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]