Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

1. REDIRECT Template:Press

Demonstrably false

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

The contents of lead do not have to be cited when they are a summary of the article. The article amply demonstrates the claims are false and is sourced. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over your change. The lead is a summary of the article, that is what a lead is supposed to do. It does not have to cite everything that is discussed later in the article, which is full of cites that contain the views and analysis of experts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

And just to note; Phil Plait has a doctorate in Astronomy, and holds a number of awards for his science journalism and publications. He was part of the Hubble Space Telescope team. He is a regular contributor to Scientific American. His book was called "good ammunition for debunking the notion that NASA never went to the Moon point by point." by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (the world's largest general astronomy education society). He is amply qualified to discount moon landing conspiracy theories, which are sourced throughout the article to people who have no qualifications in anything relevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The only reason the lede even has cites is because this article has been a constant target for conspiracy theorists who would challenge every statement just to make a WP:POINT. Putting cites there was our way of telling them to fuck off.

We normally wouldn't even have cites for the lede, as Escape Orbit points out, but this was the best way we had to put a stop to the constant, belligerent harassment.

As it stands, the statement in question is more than adequately backed up by the article itself, as it should be. The book is just a simple way of telling people to quit challenging every statement in the lede because they don't like it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, well said 71.76.146.141 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Original reseacrh

I removed the following piece: Template:Bquote

Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not speak about the article subject, i.e., about an alleged hoax. Therefore any discussions about what is written in GSE and what not, and why, is Wikipedian's interpretation, hence original research in context of this particular article. --Altenmann >talk 05:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is not just quoting the Great Russian Encyclopedia and then claiming that there was no hoax - that would be OR, as Altenmann says.

What the article does do is to mention Phil Plait's claim (a secondary source providing analysis quite separate from Wikipedia itself, as per WP:PSTS) that the Soviets had every incentive to call out the US on a fake moon landing but instead listed the US moon landing in their own encyclopedia. The article then provides references from the Great Russian Encyclopedia to support those claims made by Plait. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (especially when conspiracy theorists deny anything than isn't presented as 100% complete and tied up with a bow), so we provide both Plaits analysis and the supporting evidence to go with it. No OR on Wikipedia's part, just reporting from sources.  Stepho  talk  05:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq - this is exactly WP:SYNTH: to decide that GES "supports" these claims is Wikipedian's conclusion. A valid supporting reference would be "Plait claimed that..." footnoting with a secondary source, and then citing Plait himself as a primary source, as an extra proof that the secondary source did not misinterpret Plait. But putting two secondary sources side by side and draw a conclusion that one supports another is a textbook example of creeping, sneaky WP:SYNTH. --Altenmann >talk 07:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Err, no. Synth is where you take one reference, then put another reference next to it and then make a claim that neither of the first 2 explicitly say. That is not what is happening here.

In this case, we are putting one reference (Plait) that explicitly says the Soviets had an incentive to call out a false moon landing but instead put it in their encyclopedia. Then we put in more references that back up his point. We don't add any new points. We don't add anything that was not explicitly mentioned in the Plait reference. The Great Russian Encyclopedia references are only to support what is explicitly mentioned in the Plait reference.

Or to look at it from another angle - why are you so determined to remove them? Do you think that Plait is wrong when he says that the Great Russian Encyclopedia mentions the moon landing as fact? That's a strong reason why we have those extra references. Do you think the Plait was wrong when he said the Soviets never denied the moon landing? You are free to bring up such a reference as a counterpoint.  Stepho  talk  07:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me, I am reverting my deletion, but I will remove unnecessary verbosity and detail. --Altenmann >talk 08:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for a civil discussion. 👍 No problem with trimming the verbage.  Stepho  talk  08:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Definition of “conspiracist”

In some places in the article, “conspiracist” refers to those who were part of the alleged conspiracy to falsify a moon landing. In other places within this article, “conspiracist” refers to those who promote the theory that the moon landings never occurred (and who are more properly called “conspiracy theorists”).

I think a unified usage of this word would improve the article. 2600:4041:51:4A00:D5C8:ED6D:B661:CE43 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

People who take part in a conspiracy are conspirators. People who believe in conspiracies are conspiracists. That being said, I don't see any instances of conspiracist in the article that refers to a conspirator, they all refer to people who believe in and propagate the conspiracy theory. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)