Dirtclustit (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Removed POV essay. Not a contribution to improving the article |
||
Line 325: | Line 325: | ||
Who did the nice FAQ on this page? Good job - I wish more people would read it before editing the main article or talk page. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 23:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
Who did the nice FAQ on this page? Good job - I wish more people would read it before editing the main article or talk page. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 23:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Bearing False Witness Does NOT Negate All Other Work == |
|||
NASA has accomplished a countless number of necessary landmark endeavors in order for modern telecommunication systems to operate the way they do today. It was accomplished by many, many, many gifted experts from a broad range of technical disciplines and the research and experiments taken to task have been implemented into many different facets of our modern life besides aeronautics. Claiming to have landed on the moon was a noble effort that I once believed was the result of a "pissing contest" however I firmly believe it was an attempt to distract men from destroying our world with war. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not set out with the plan of intentionally fooling the world |
|||
and it is sad how far people go in attempt to force others to accept their lies, or worse collaborate the stories by introducing new lies |
|||
I am embarrassed of those who call themselves scientists as opposed to engineers, as any scientist with integrity is loyal to the truth and understands exactly why lies or even justified stretching of the "truth" cannot be condoned for any reason what-so-ever. I have absolutely no respect for those who call themselves physicists, when they know without any doubt what-so-ever, that not only do we have optics very capable of producing images that would show a landing -- clearly -- and clearly there has been no landing on any part of the surface seen as illuminated for earth. |
|||
Not only is there clearly nothing that made it to the surface by the human race as we know it, by nothing more than lay person's logic anyone can easily discern we have NOT landed on the moon during the 60's or 70's. Being able to even hit the moon with a rocket would be an astonishing feat even by today's Truthful technological standards. Simply by remembering how much of a production goes into just launching a "Space Flight" it is preposterous to believe that there is any way in hell they could have landed a craft that would be carrying all that is needed to be able to return, as one simply has no control to steer a craft when it's flight is not through an "ocean" . When travelling through a vacuum or close to it, the direction and velocity you enter the vacuum is more or less maintained. I know the moon and earth are relatively "big targets" but objects moving as fast as the earth orbits the sun and as fast as the moon orbits earth and not being able to modify trajectory with any significance makes even hitting the moon -- from earth with all our technology -- not currently possible |
|||
This is a perfect example of the dangers of dishonest media, and their ability to fool the majority of the world regardless of the number of very capable and fully educated scientists who know better, yet will allow their minds to be poisoned by what they know cannot be true. Because of this, we have severely stunted the minds of great physicists and every new young mind who enters the scientific field as maintaining these great lies has seriously stunted our understanding of Gravity and how much object's density relative to the density of the "ocean" of liquid or ocean or air that it resides in is NOT so much gravity as it is the principles of buoyancy. Had we been to the moon -- or any other planet without such a deep, thick multi-layered atmosphere of air -- such as Our home has, it would be painfully obvious how what the masses -- even scientists -- currently call "gravity" is much more accurately stated as principles of buoyancy according to densities, and how little we actually do understand. |
|||
Not to knock NASA, but I am extremely upset at those who understand these principles, and believed there could ever be any justification for withholding this knowledge -- for any reason -- unless you first fed, clothed, and sheltered every single human that walks this earth, and did it without any strings, religious or other attached or even mentioned, it is hard to not label the human race as despicable |
|||
Lies and inequity will blind US from all truth, so long as we allow them to[[User:Dirtclustit|Dirtclustit]] ([[User talk:Dirtclustit|talk]]) 22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:17, 7 September 2013
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 article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Van Allen Belts New Data
Should the new data coming from the Van probes providing actual levels and types of radiation as well as the discovery of a third Van Allen Belt be incorporated into the section on environment. We only talk about two belts not 3. Also with the discovery of the third belt would this increase the time required to traverse the belts and modify the flight path taken to maneuver around the belts. Initially Wikipedia had 30 minutes one way then modified to 4 hours one way and now based on new discovery and speed and flight path X hours one way. Until the new data can be processed [1] and the correct total radiation exposure and time provided at minimum we should mention 3 Belts not 2 since NASA has provided this information [2] --216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Two Van Allen belts, three, who cares, there is no new data suggesting that the radiation dose would be anything like enough to have prevented the astronauts from completing the journey alive. On the other hand, what we do say must be accurate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Two or three belts is relevant as the addition of a third belt increases the distance they would have to travel through the radiation irrespective of the levels of radiation they were exposed to. There does appear to be new data available as per above reference it just needs to be interpreted. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The newly discovered belt is known to be transient. It also must be pretty weak, otherwise it would have been discovered decades ago. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The newly discovered belt was also between the two previously discovered belts, so there would be no change to the transit time even if the belt existed at the time of the Apollo program. VQuakr (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Radiation levels are determined based on the Rads/sec exposure spent in the actual radioactive regions of the belts and not the total 60,000klm region that the belts reside in. With the addition of a 3rd belt within the radioactive region would increase the time spent in the radioactive region. The belts distance and strength Wax and Wane low strength large region to high strength small region so we need NASA to release the actual dosimeter values from the astronauts to review the radiation exposure. If NASA was to release this information so we could correlate to the new data released by the probes and this would help provide the necessary evidence of safe moon travel --216.58.23.145 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- That info might be in the Apollo Mission Reports. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Van Allen Rebutted Claims
The Document states "Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[83]" The reference given is this site http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html I am sure who ever wrote that believes this is the case that Van Allen was watching fox and said that but without some evidence or a reputable media source we should have validation before it is included. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did some google-ing and I found that Clavius sources this statement to a letter from Van Allen, shich he has posted on photobucket. Kind of borderline as a source if you ask me, but about as good as you can expect for this type of topic - so I would say verified! Puddytang (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is the same source name of the person who runs the Clavious.org blog Jay Windley that is being questioned as a valid source for wikipedia reference. Jay contact details on the domain are not available (Private) and on the letter are also marked out so he is essentially an anonymous person who posted this.--216.58.23.145 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is the kind of thing you might need OTRS to verify. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found an article that may be able to make the same point from a more reliable source. From Time Magazine 5/12/1958, Vol. 71 Issue 19, p92, an article discussing Van Allen's discovery:
- "The radiation zone is by no means a "death belt" that will keep humans from reaching space, but it might do some damage to men who live for a long time in a satellite. Van Allen figured that the radiation level inside the satellite might reach about 0.06 roentgens per hour. At this rate a man would receive in five hours his maximum weekly permissible dose of 0.3 roentgens. A small amount of lead shielding would reduce the dose to a supportable level. The crew of an outbound spaceship need not worry about the radiation belt. If moving fast enough to leave the earth, they would pass through it in about 20 minutes."
- A great find! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Van Allen statements were prior to the moon launch and recent Van Allen probes. The accuracy of his information is questionable as he only discovered 2 belts not 3 and the technology to measure radiation levels in space without actually sending a probe is still not available today hence the reason we just sent up two probes. Even if his estimations were accurate Van Allen as above stated the need for "a small amount of lead shielding" to protect the astronauts that was not installed on any of the Apollo missions. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the quote above he is discussing shielding for manned spacecraft that orbit in the belts. He mentioned passing through in the next sentence. As mentioned above, the third belt is known not to be permanent, so there is no particular reason to think that it existed in the 1960's. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced Information
Several points are unsourced in the document. Example Take one sentence from Van Allen Belts. "The spacecraft moved through the belts in about four hours" UNSOURCED "and the astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft" UNSOURCED. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. UNSOURCED I am sure sources all exist but until they are included unsourced information should not be included. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- The same references that are used later in the same paragraph. But I've added them and expanded the info. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Bubba73 much better read. If you have an online sources instead of a book that can only be purchased would be better. I am not sure what makes this book a credible resource. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like online sources because many of the links go dead after a period of time so the information is no longer available. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe we need to be VERY CAREFUL on the accuracy and sourcing of this specific information and make sure it is publicly available. If we look at the historic responses in this wiki document we state it took 30 minutes a couple of years ago to 4 hours last week to 1 1/2 hours + several minutes now. I believe by continually changing the answer we are losing creditability so we want some direct responses that quote NASA especially since they have all of that information. The astronauts were wearing Dosimeters and according to the logs we have several data points on the velocity and negative acceleration rate (V1-v0) so this is a high school calculation if we source the actual data. NASA in now providing new data for the VAN Allen belts and we also now know they start at 200 to 1000klm and extend to 60,000klm and radiation ranges from 50MeV to 400MeV so the answer to the question also needs to reflect real world data. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like online sources because many of the links go dead after a period of time so the information is no longer available. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the four hour figure is for passing through both of them, from the start of the inner belt to the end of the outer belt. The inner belt takes about 30 minutes, the outer belt about 1-1/2 hours. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a reasonable explanation. I googled around and found an old SPACE MATH Page provided by NASA but the data appears to be incorrect. It shows 1) Constant velocity and we know based on earth gravity this is not correct (you would undergo negative acceleration), 2) Assumes that the 3mm of aluminum shields 100% of radiation and we know that is not the case. 3) Radiation levels here http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf do not correlate with data provided here. http://athena.jhuapl.edu/home_overview --216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the four hour figure is for passing through both of them, from the start of the inner belt to the end of the outer belt. The inner belt takes about 30 minutes, the outer belt about 1-1/2 hours. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
What did you expect?! the entire article is filled up by lies and misleading propaganda - protected by the admins. IF anyone changing something in the article (i.e changing a lie to the truth) then excpect to be blocked from editing! Many many users has over the years pointed out the errors, lies, and misleading propaganda in the article but its impossible to remove / change anything of it because its immediately even gets removed (censored) from the talk section!! Its hard to take an article like this seriously 31.209.16.177 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Clavius.org
Clavius.org appears to be a website focused on debunking the moon landing hoaxes. A large number of proof points come from this single source. The articles documented sometimes are sourced elsewhere or sometimes not sourced at all. I do not think one person registering a domain name and creating a blog is a credible source and should not be used in the wikipedia article. As previously stated I am sure Jay Windley is a great guy and I am also sure his blog should not be one of the main sources we provide in proving NASA really did land on the moon.--216.58.23.145 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It could be pointed out that there are no reliable sources for the landings being a hoax, period. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out that there exist NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATIONS to prove that the manned moon landings were real, NONE - PERIOD. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you gotten to the 20th century in history class yet? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- A good place to start for 31.209.16.177 would be Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - but I guess JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, the Soviet Space Transmissions Corps, Kettering Grammar School, H.R. Hatfield, M.J. Hendrie, F. Kent, Alan Heath, and M.J. Oates, Pic du Midi Observatory, McDonald Observatory, Lick Observatory, Bochum Observatory, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Larry Baysinger, Paul Maley, Chabot Observatory, Corralitos Observatory, Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr., Jewett Observatory, Bochum Observatory, and Sven Grahn (to mention a few) are not independent of NASA... never mind the existence of moon rocks, the retro-reflectors placed by the Apollo missions, and images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission (to mention a few other pieces of evidence). WegianWarrior (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Third-party evidence? what evidence? the only evidence in that article is that its full of LIES and misleading propaganda - protected by wikipedia admins (as usually) and the talk page of that article is also heavily censored. Sven Grahn (among others) used a NASA OBSERVATORY but is still listed as independent (!?) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, zing. I do think it's a fair comment though that we're so heavily reliant on a single source for the debunking, someone who probably has as much of an agenda as the hoax theorists in the first place. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, that's actually a fair point. I frankly don't see any indication that the Clavius website meets the standards of being a reliable source; it may have to removed altogether (or, at the very least, supplemented with better sources.) JoelWhy?(talk) 19:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do we have consensus that Clavius AKA Jay Windley's personal blog does not meet the standards of a credible source so we should remove approx 15+ points from this article until they can be re-sourced with credible references 216.58.23.145 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, that's actually a fair point. I frankly don't see any indication that the Clavius website meets the standards of being a reliable source; it may have to removed altogether (or, at the very least, supplemented with better sources.) JoelWhy?(talk) 19:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, zing. I do think it's a fair comment though that we're so heavily reliant on a single source for the debunking, someone who probably has as much of an agenda as the hoax theorists in the first place. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- No. I think that many experts contribute to that site and it is not a blog. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Who are the "experts" the domain name is "Private" ie anonymous and the only email is at a third party web hosting company with no real world contact details. The statements on this website should only be viewed based on the creditability of the Author and as there is no information regarding the author then the information is not credible. This site does not meet the standards for a Wikipedia source. We either need to petition Wikipedia to change the standards or delete the source and provide real sources. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. I think that many experts contribute to that site and it is not a blog. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hate to say it, but the IP does have a very good point. Verifiability not truth means we need good reliable references to back things up, and if we can't prove the reliability and accepted standards of this source then we shouldn't be using it. Is it used as sources for other areas that could back it up as being a reliable source? Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Mythbusters used Clavius. If we insist on reliable sources, all of the hoax claims will have to be removed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Bubba73: There is a long list of credible and credentialed sources in this wikipedia article who are questioning the moon landing. I believe we need to stick to facts and data and refrain from making statements like "If we insist on reliable sources, all of the hoax claims will have to be removed." or the creditability of the editors will also be in question. At this stage without any support for Clavius.org as a reliable source I believe we have no choice but to remove the references. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- As discussed I have submitted an edit request and tried to remain unbiased by providing alternative references where available to support the current article. I believe we can still leave Clavius as an external link as we are not using it as a reference it is there just to provide additional informaiton for readers of the article. This is a lot of small edits. I don't have a wikipedia ID to make this edits but would appreciate if someone could. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Mythbusters used Clavius. If we insist on reliable sources, all of the hoax claims will have to be removed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hate to say it, but the IP does have a very good point. Verifiability not truth means we need good reliable references to back things up, and if we can't prove the reliability and accepted standards of this source then we shouldn't be using it. Is it used as sources for other areas that could back it up as being a reliable source? Canterbury Tail talk 12:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Concerning "Bill Kaysing (1922–2005) – was an employee of Rocketdyne [51] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Kaysing" - Wikipedia cannot serve as a reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kaysing 2002 reference [8][9][51] are used throughout this article with a link to the wikipedia article. We either need to accept this as a reference and link or change the other references. {{unsigned}216.48.23.145}}
- Those are references to Kaysing's book. You want to change the reference to a Wikipedia article. Repeating, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:CIRCULAR about not using Wikipedia as a source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kaysing 2002 reference [8][9][51] are used throughout this article with a link to the wikipedia article. We either need to accept this as a reference and link or change the other references. {{unsigned}216.48.23.145}}
- Please read wp:fringe, and pay particular attention to the parity of sources section, especially the second paragraph of that section. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- wp:fringe is for referencing the conspiracy and not the actual facts that prove the conspiracy to be incorrect. If the conspiracy was reversed stating "Man has landed on the moon" then this would be a permitted reference and the facts stating we did not land on the moon would need to be credible reference. I appreciate the spirit of parity of sources and the fact it specifically and conveniently mentions the moon landing hoax but as the most significant event in the history of human evolution it would be disingenuous to dispute a conspiracy using an unreliable source 216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- wp:fringe is about more than referencing. But the section on parity of sources addresses the issue:
So clavius.org, Mythbusters, etc are OK. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer reviewed.
- My understanding is a CNN and a Gallop poll both show 6% of US citizens (=18 Million + Americans) and a fox presentation stated that 20% of People (= over 1Billion people world wide) believe the moon landing was a hoax. If you are comfortable that we can respond to such a large number of people who believe we never landed on the moon with a TV entertainment show and an anonymous website I am a perfectly fine with this. On the other hand if you seriously want to continue to maintain the position that we actually did walk on moon, I strongly suggest we provide credible resources to support this position. 216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- wp:fringe is about more than referencing. But the section on parity of sources addresses the issue:
- There is no issue with the references that we did land on the moon, and those are contained in the correct article on the Moon Landing. This is about references against the specific conspiracy theories against the landing. And to be fair, the article is about the conspiracy theories, not about debunking the theories. As for X million don't believe it happened do remember also that a lot of people in the US believe wrestling is real. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- See Moon landing (in particular Moon landing#Manned landings and Moon landing#Manned Moon landings (1969–1972)), Apollo program, and many others for evidence that we landed on the Moon. Clavius addresses the claims of a hoax. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Request on hold for review 216.58.23.145 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please Remove the following lines using the references associated with Clavius.org
- 1) This matches with the sunlit part of Armstrong's spacesuit.[49]
- 2) If the astronaut is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit yields a similar effect to a spotlight.[49]
- 3) There was a similar hoax article, originally posted as a joke, but which has been quoted as in earnest by Clyde Lewis.[173]
- 3) The film was not in direct sunlight, so it was not overheated.[126]
- 4) He is the main proponent of the 'whistle-blower' accusation, arguing that mistakes in the NASA photos are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by knowingly adding mistakes that they know will be seen.[64]
- Please Change the following references
- 1) Bill Kaysing (1922–2005) – was an employee of Rocketdyne [51] > [8] Kaysing 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Kaysing
- 2) Furthermore, NASA and others say that these gains by the Soviets are not as impressive as they seem; that a number of these firsts were mere stunts that did not advance the technology greatly, or at all, e.g., the first woman in space).[167] > http://wiki.nasa.gov/cm/blog/ISS%20Science%20Blog/posts/post_1371493907761.html
- 3) Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing.[148][149] > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/04/1154198328978.html
- Please remove the following redundant references only and not actual statements. There were multiple references so the additional reference is not required
- 1) Grumman appears to have destroyed most of their documentation [149]
- 2) The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage—the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that when the astronauts let go of the flagpole it vibrates briefly but then remains still.[129]
- 3) Jack D. White (1927–2012) – was an American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos and the Zapruder film related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[86]
216.58.23.145 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Mythbusters
Several of the conspiracies appear to be debunked by Mythbusters. I did not realize mythbusters was a peer reviewed scientifically recognized show I thought it was a TV show who's sole purpose was to entertain. So yes you can breath from the tire of a car underwater, minto wheels do work and you can die of electrocution from urinating on high voltage line http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/06/nasa-curiosity-mars-press-conference-live Mythbusters is a great TV show but it should not be one of the main sources we provide in proving NASA really did land on the moon. --216.58.23.145 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a short paragraph about the Mythbusters episode, stating that they tested some of the theories and 'busted' them. Nothing in the article implies that the CT has been proven false because of this episode. Still, I removed the word "scientifically," as this show is not intended to be used as "scientific" evidence. It's meant as infotainment. (Plus, we have oodles of far superior evidence that debunks this silly CT.) JoelWhy?(talk) 18:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Mythbusters should be removed as a source since they got everything wrong, here's some examples: They didnt show us the albedo for one of their light/shadow test, nor did they get the jump salute test correctly. The conspiracy claim is that it was slowed down PLUS wires was used(at same time) yet mythbusters screwed up this one as well by testing the claims independently. They tested the footprint in a fraction of an inch regolite, yet Aldrin himself claimed it was 2 inches of lunar dust where he made the famous footprint. Further more, David Scott never used a rig for his feather and hammer experiment, yet mythbusters used a rig to drop the feather and the hammer - probably because it would had been impossible to hold something tiny as a feather between your thumb and the finger INSIDE a vacuum, which all along proves that David Scott was on earth when he made his test. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. But seriously, if the criticisms the IP brings up have been published in reliable, secondary sources then they might be suitable for inclusion in the article. No sources have been presented so far, though... VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? you need a source for the fact that David Scott did not use a rig but mythbusters did? you need a source for the fact that mythbusters never showed us the albedo? if you dont have a clue what this is all about (which u dont) then stay away! please stop making a fool of yourself and go censoring some barbie articles 31.209.16.177 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd like to see a reliable source say that you can't hold a feather between your finger and thumb in a vacuum. :-) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I've heard that one before. Really? What does a vacuum have to do with being able to move your fingers. The dexterity of the gloves being called into question yes, but the composition of the atmosphere around them, or lack thereof? Canterbury Tail talk 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd like to see a reliable source say that you can't hold a feather between your finger and thumb in a vacuum. :-) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- To 31.209.16.177: Can you explain what albedo has to do with it? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Mythbusters had the change to put a guy into a vacuum chamber in a pressurised suit (like the same model and gloves they had in 1969) but as usually, they screwed it up... on purpose, because they knew its impossible to hold a feather between your thumb and finger in a pressurised glove 31.209.16.177 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- As asked before, please provide a source stating why holding a feather betwwen you thumb and finger is impossible.--McSly (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it did make a difference (hint: it does not - observing the fall of objects in vacuum have been done on earth both before and after the Apollo missions), I'm somewhat amused by 31.209.16.177 naivety... it's not not spacesuits and their gloves can be bought off the shelf, and certainly not within the budget of a entertainment TV show. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, my high school science teacher demonstrated it before the Moon landing. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You nailed it; "entertainment TV show" STILL mythbusters is used as some kinda evidence in this rotten article, and is being protected by even more rotten admins (even the talk section is heavily censored) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please point out who these rotten admins are (that's a personal attack by the way) that are supposedly protecting the article. All the users who have been blocked from editing as a result on this article have been blocked due to their disruptive editing, personal attacks and abusive behaviour. Not for editing the article to add sources. Posts that attach other editors, call others propagandists or attempt to impose labels on other editors will be removed as a normal rule, not just here but all across Wikipedia. Talk pages are to improve articles, not comment on other users, and such comments will be removed. I've left the above in in order to address this point but generally it is considered and attack and not aimed at improving the article and yes could be used as a potential blocking offense. No one has ever been blocked for trying to improve the article, and anyone can be blocked for attacking other users. Canterbury Tail talk 14:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Its not a personal attack, its a FACT. Every single admin who has censored posts for no reason are the rotten ones, some of them cannot even stand to NOT HAVING the last word. You claim that the talk page is to improve the article, yet you dont allow the errors and misleading propaganda in the article to been pointed out(!) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no point in engaging these conspiracy theorists (especially those who post anonymously based on their fear of oppression by a conspiracy of Wiki admins.) You don't get to believing this theory by relying on facts, evidence, or rational thought. So, you're not likely to get anywhere by using these methods in regards to this article. Let us all return to our Illuminati fortress and resume our control of the world banks, Big Pharma, and the Mattel corporation (what, you're so naive that you didn't realize Barbie a is shape shifting lizard alien designed to brain wash children?) JoelWhy?(talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comments like that don't help, assume good faith. People have the right to a properly referenced article. Perhaps it is a failing of Wikipedia editors so bent on disproving the anti-landing theorys that they can't see the wood for the trees and dismissing everything out of hand. Canterbury Tail talk 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no point in engaging these conspiracy theorists (especially those who post anonymously based on their fear of oppression by a conspiracy of Wiki admins.) You don't get to believing this theory by relying on facts, evidence, or rational thought. So, you're not likely to get anywhere by using these methods in regards to this article. Let us all return to our Illuminati fortress and resume our control of the world banks, Big Pharma, and the Mattel corporation (what, you're so naive that you didn't realize Barbie a is shape shifting lizard alien designed to brain wash children?) JoelWhy?(talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
And there is for me (and other truth seekers) no point to discuss with the propagandists 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case the question is more interesting than the answer: why didnt they? if the propagandists could prove we went to the moon in the first place we wouldnt had this coversation 31.209.16.177 (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Number of conspirators involved
Why is the argument that 400,000 needed to be in on the conspiracy relevant? That defies common sense that everyone involved with the NASA project would need to know the conspiracy of the supposed moon hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.31.73 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The silly thing is that every single one involved in this one way or another has been counted in this "400,000" propaganda nr - everyone from employee's for japanese microchip makers to dish washers, chefs, caretakers, cleaners, to the astronaut's barbers. So who are these 400,000 ppl? someone better be sure to list them - or its just a bullshit propaganda lie 31.209.16.177 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Lunar Legacy
Its being said in the article that Bart Sibrel's claims in the film "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" is being debunked by Svectors video series "lunar Legacy" and we can also find these videos as source. Making a claim that someone is being debunked and then just put a nr of videos as a source with no further explanation, isnt good enough.
Lunar Legacy is like clavius, private site/videos all about one mans opinion. Svector is misleading the viewers which Jarrah White's video series proves - a videos series so devastating to the propagandists that they flagged copyright claims to it and had it removed from youtube - when it contained NASA PUBLIC DOMAIN(!). The cited Svector video series contains edited footage, piece by piece, till the point that it fits him. Jarrahs video on the other hand includes non-cut off footage and we will later compare the two videos. Its time to put the truth in the article, and its time to start address many of the false and misleading claims in the article.
Since i have being involded in this for many years i already know whats this is all about but everyone else has the right to demand that the one/ones writing this into the article to come forward and explain exactly WHAT Sibrel said who was debunked, and how was it debunked. Give the timestamps in the videos where Sibrel is debunked by Svector. If not, its time to remove it from the article. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
SO HOW AND WHERE IS SIBREL DEBUNKED BY SVECTOR? (as claimed in the article) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Bad Astronomy
Like clavius, "Bad Astronomy" - by Phil Plait, is a site often cited in the moon hoax article, and much like clavius this site also contains many errors and misleading propaganda, sometimes even pure LIES! Both sites should be removed from the article 31.209.16.177 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- References. Otherwise it's just your original research. Everything needs to be backed up, we can't remove something because a person claims it's lies and misleading propaganda. Canterbury Tail talk 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been backed up many times here in the talk section, but every time removed (censored) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- We do not censor on Wikipedia. We do however remove posts where editors call other editors names, accuse them of being in cabals or label them as propagandists or liars. If you wish your perspective to be heard then you need to stop talking about other editors and make your points calmly and back them up with reliable references, and I can guarantee you you will be heard. If you call other editors liars or propagandists I can guarantee you you will be blocked. Just like other editors will be warned and blocked if they call you names, call you a liar etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Drop the bullshit since IT IS censored, by the admins... viewing the history proves that very fact! 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Provide evidence. Don't just make claims, that constitutes original research. Please provide diffs of where Admins have censored the page in the history. Wikipedia does not censor, and if there is evidence to the contrary please produce it and it will be looked into. Canterbury Tail talk 15:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have pointed out numerous of errors and misleading propaganda in the article (sometimes pure lies) and everytime when i get into specific details it will for sure be censored (been there, seen that) Admins who cannot stick to the truth should never be respected or tolerated. 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- And not just places where things were removed because of policy violations such as no or poor sourcing, etc. Removing unsourced conspiracy theories is not censorship. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it really worth responding to any editor crying "Lies & Propaganda!", but who will not or can not produce any evidence? I'm afraid all this IP editor has stated so far is some personal opinions and personal original research. Wikipedia is not the place for these, which is why they have been removed. However, if you have any actual facts to suggest the sources used in the article are not reliable then please produce them. Otherwise no-one is likely to pay you any attention.
If you don't understand the problem with personal opinions and personal original research, please click on the links to read more about what they are, and why Wikipedia doesn't contain them. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- CANT YOU READ?! "viewing the history proves that very fact" - thats the proof! have had posts deleted for no reason, thats CENSORSHIP! And should you really talk about "evidence" ?! its pathetic and equal laughable that something that cannot be proved must be protected by the admins (the moon landings) 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Provide evidence. Please provide links showing the diffs that demonstrate that censorship is going on. If there is indeed censorship going on, it will be looked into, but I do not believe that is the case. Remember that removal of information for lack of sources, useless sources or the source not saying what the text says is not censorship. Unless you can provide evidence to back up your assertion you do run the risk of being blocked for making attacks against groups of Wikipedia editors. Comment on the content, not the editors. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Stay out from comment on comments meant for others 31.209.16.177 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. Anyone can reply here. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It has been up before but here it is again, Phil Plait claimed in a radio program with Joe Rogan that ALL shuttle astronauts who has ever gone into space has been through the van allen belts, at 6 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvIC1QDSnIc
If thats not misleading propaganda i dunno what is... his website should be removed as a source 31.209.16.177 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference that says they haven't all been through the VAB? Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This is beyond pathetic! (and what wikipedia has become) PHIL PLAIT is the one making the claim and you asking ME to prove that the shuttle astronauts DIDNT GO THROUGH the van allen belts?! OMG 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yup, and now it's time for you to put up or shut up.--McSly (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Editor is not here to make a genuine improvement to the encyclopaedia, they have been blocked for gross incivility, personal attacks, lack of good faith and disruptive editing which doesn't help their case. Canterbury Tail talk 16:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unlike you im here to make improvements, you on the other hand is here to censoring opinions and facts you dont like and you are blocking users for no reason 31.209.16.177 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- 31.209.16.177, please stop accusing others of censorship. If you want to add something to WP you need to supply a reliable source to support it, otherwise it can be removed. Removal of unsupported claims is not censorship, it is how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As I feared..!!!
Extended rant, not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This article is now - wait for it - 103.22 KB!!! Whereas the actual/real/true article on the Apollo program is just a mere 79.85 KB. This has to stop because this article is nothing more than a repository for bullshit, BS that has no real merit except for piquing the interest of a vocal minority. There are now hi-def images of the moon showing the moon buggy tracks and even the shadow cast by the flags planted on the surface. Yet this article in many way represents the Achilles' heel of Wikipedia, the concept that something is only "notable" based on footfall (i.e. people making a noise about it) irrespective of whether what is being promulgated is complete bollocks. For instance, a professional astronomical researcher cannot create an article about their peer-reviewed work on the Moon Landings because it would infringe WP:OR, WP:ONESOURCE and WP:SELFPUBLISH, however any retard who has a book published making unverifiable accusations and unsubstantiated claims can be placed here on this shrine to stupidity. Even now this entire talkpage is being taken over by people who are utterly clueless about "real science" but know everything about agendas i.e. the Moon Landings are fake. It is all very ironic because it just proves another point by religion vs science. A believer would say there is a god but a sceptic would demand physical proof. Yet in the moon landings' case there is plenty of physical evidence but sceptics say that is not good enough and instead believe in their "faith"!! Come on this article should be trimmed according to WP:SOAP because it is just a platform for people who don't get out much due to probable character disorders and paranoia. Saying that this article must include all claims is just plain dumb. That is like saying that everyone who wanted to be a major league player but missed the cut should have an article of their own. Everything on this page never happened, it is fantasy. There is far too much independent evidence, sources and material to prove this. Besides...Armstrong did all this in the Cold War, only eight years after the Bay of Pigs. Do you think the Soviets or the Chinese missed the opportunity to score a massive propaganda victory if they did not already have independent telemetry tracking the Apollo mission to the moon and back again (derrrr they had sophisticated tracking for all kinds of missiles)!? Please will someone just stop this nonsense...Wikipedia is supposed to have a policy called WP:DENY that states vandalism should be ignored and no attempts should be made to empower those conducting such acts. Well what about these kind of articles then? This page is an endorsement of bullshit!! Profoundly, ridiculous, unadulterated twaddle which is placed here only by people who believe such rubbish; it a place to peddle their "wares". That does not mean it should be ignored completely, noting that bullshit exists is enlightenment in itself, but to actually engage in the deception is a fallacy. These conspiracists claim they are refuting acknowledged facts but they never actually refute anything. I sincerely want to see this article cut to about 25% of its current size because then it is stating quite clearly showing that the topics covered in this article are exist but they're the fringe delusions of a desperate few. (Thought experiment: would the Wikiepedia project continue to be taken seriously if the article on alchemy (turning lead into gold) was double in size to the article on the Higgs boson? Personally I don't think so.) 216.185.35.134 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC) |
While I can appreciate your frustration with conspiracists, this is not the page for you to vent on. Especially when you're throwing around comments suggesting people have developmental disorders ("retard," "paranoia," etc.).
More to the point, this article is long because it doesn't really have enough separate issues to spin into their own articles. While the main article on the moon landings is shorter, that's because there's enough other subjects to spin out into sub-articles, deflating the main page while allowing for more total information to be spread over multiple pages. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh wow, no shock, no horror for the typical Wikipedian response. If you can't delete it, then hide it or, better still, disparage it, oh and throw in a couple of ad hominems to boot. The poster has made the same clear points I did a couple of years ago.
- the article is just about fringe theory.
- it is only here because enough people say it should be, notability (Wikipedia consensus: the practice where any two idiots can shout down a genius)
- unlike, say conspiracies about 9/11, the poster is saying that there are now images showing the marks and the rockets on the lunar surface negating nearly everything this article is claiming. Compare all this nonsense to the conspiracies about Elvis: Did he fake his death? It's a section and three pars, that's all, because he is categorically dead! No needs to list every titbit, myth or theory because it is not true. Meanwhile even though the Apollo missions did happen, vis-a-vis with the Elvis article, this should be the end of the story on conspiracy theories. The article actually notes, quoting the guy from Penn& Teller, who says that considering the thousands of people involved, someone would have blabbed by now if it any of it were true.
- the poster is also right to question the moral agenda of the interested parties on this page. Only people who care will want to read about shadows, fake lighting and film sets. They and I are talking about empirical data...maybe you're feeling a little bit hurt as you identify with those souls who could be described as someone with "developmental disorders"
- the issue of this article won't go away simply by burying the topic and calling it a "rant".
- In my view this article remains an open affront to all those people who worked on the Apollo missions from the astronauts, the mission controllers, and all the unrecorded back room techies etc. The information in this article is just laughable, the only proviso being it can be here because it has been published. The poster notes this and states that it even trumps a real scientist because of Wikipedia's own rules. Wikipedia editors can't just cherry-pick topics because the same test should be applied to all articles and their purpose of informing. More often than not, other counter articles are deleted in moments because they are classed as fringe cases. So why are lies allowed to remain here? [Sigh] like the voice of reason above has said already, this article should be deleted or heavily redacted but then again I don't need a rant to know that.86.179.86.22 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Honestly, much of the material in the article isn't because it's been raised by various conspiracy theorists but because it's been pretty thoroughly debunked by various experts. It something is just spouted by CT's and not covered in good sources, it's not going to show up here. The quality of the debunking also adds to the length of the article. The article has been shorter but over time as various misguided folks say "but what about X", editors find material debunking X and add it to the article.
- Yes, to most people the view that the Apollo landings were faked is laughable. I think this article makes that point extremely clearly, using the best reliable sources available for all sides and conclusively shows that this is a junk theory. Many of the CT articles on Wikipedia end up fairly big because of the need to show to the reader how completely debunked they are by experts. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Ravensfire. It is a pity that an article like this article is required but that facts are that millions of people actually believe this crazy theory. I think this article makes a reasonably good job of debunking the theory. If the stupidity of the conspiracy theory can be made clearer that would be a good thing, which I would support. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do love how 86 goes on about the "typical Wikipedian" reaction is to "delete it, then hide it or, better still, disparage it" then goes on to state that "this article should be deleted or heavily redacted." Pot, meet kettle. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Debunking the Skeptics
This is the funniest article I read on wikipedia! The threat level posed by the skeptics must be really high for this article to read the way it does. By comparison The Flat Earth Society article is downright tame. The numerous talk pages make a good read also. Keep it up and thanks! 67.206.185.219 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, oh, I forgot to suggest that the article be renamed to "Debunking_the_Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories". :) 67.206.185.219 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Many "bucking against common thought" pages are written this way. Try reading "Objections to Evolution" - I've said many times on that Talk page that it is written as Objections to the Objections to Evolution. The typical response is "we want to make sure everyone understands this is fringe and no one gets the wrong idea" which is an interesting take on non-NPOV. Not agreeing that there is anything wrong with this page - just saying... Ckruschke (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- The most neutral way to describe fringe theories is to indentify that they are fringe theories. This requires explaining why they are not accepted by the mainstream. Not only is this format compliant with NPOV, it is really the only way to write about fringe theories in compliance with that policy. VQuakr (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't get me wrong, I agree with that. If a theory is fringe - say that up front - and strongly (THIS IS NOT ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT). What I disagree with, and have done vocally on the Objections to Evolution Talk page, is the "Point 1 - why point 1 is stupid. Point 2 - why point 2 is stupid" writing style. Even if something is fringe, it should be honestly related. However, some people have an almost irrational fear that if it isn't said in big, bold letter in every other sentence that the text on the page relates non-scientifically accepted ideas, that some poor dove will stumble on the page and have his world view absolutely rocked. That strawman is not pretty naive and implies that some people think they "know what is best" for all the rest of us... Ckruschke (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- Wikipedia's concept of "neutral point of view" is not "give equal weight to all opinions" but "give weight in relationship to the coverage in reliable sources". If reliable sources say "this is crap" then we should say "this is crap", not pussy-foot around presenting the crap from a point of view that gives more respect to it than any reliable source does. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I'm more in the "faithful representation" crowd. I agree that if majority/scholarly opinion says its crap, say it loud and clear in the lede. After that faithfully relate the beliefs of that page. Continually hitting people over the head over and over throughout the article to again and again drive the point home that it's crap may not be a violation of NPOV, but it certainly takes away from the readibility of the article. I think that's all I'm trying to say - it makes the article read like a disjointed pile of mess. Ckruschke (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
- This an interesting discussion. How do we deal with fringe views? I think the answer depend to a degree on how likely the fringe view is likely to be misunderstood as a reasonable one by the reader. In the Flat Earth Society article there is no perceived need to continually defend the mainstream view that the Earth is not flat, because the flat earth theory is so patently absurd and accepted by almost no one.
- On the other hand, a surprisingly large fraction of people do believe in some kind of moon landing conspiracy, mainly due to scientific ignorance and the mischievousness of the media. I think this is one case where we do need to explain in detail how silly the conspiracy theory really is.
- One that really baffles me is the absurd overreaction to the Tau (circle constant) (follow back the redirect) article. Some people are so worried that this insignificant proposal might take root and that Pi might somehow be harmed that they have actually deleted the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- There has never been an article entitled Tau (circle constant): that has always been a redirect. At first, I assumed that by "deleted the article" you meant that they had blanked the redirect, but then I saw that you were one of the people who did that, so presumably you must mean something else. Was there an article on the same subject under a different title, which has been deleted? If so, can you give its title? And can you give the evidence that it was deleted because "some people are so worried that this insignificant proposal might take root and that Pi might somehow be harmed"? Obviously, without knowing what article was involved, I can't tell why it was deleted, but it would seem more likely that someone might think ti should be deleted because it is not notable (in your words, an "insignificant proposal"). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is probably not the right place to discuss this topic, the original AFD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tau (mathematics). It look like I got the name wrong. There probably should be a central discussion somewhere on how organisations/movements/people who support fringe views are treated in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- One problem is deciding which mainstream view to take if there is more than one, but geographically delineated. Most of the world thinks the US gun lobby is a semi-dangerous bunch of nutters, but we can't say that because in the dominant American culture here the view is different. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, that is no problem. If there is more than one "mainstream view" then we report them all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not when Admins from the gun lobby block me for writing what I wrote above about how they're perceived outside the US. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't know about your block, and found it very interesting looking it up. Personally, I don't agree that you should have been blocked. However, I think you are misrepresenting the situation (albeit unintentionally) when you say the block was for "what [you] wrote above about how they're perceived outside the US". You were blocked for saying that you personally considered certain people as "nutters", not for reporting that they are referred to as such in reliable sources. My own view is that blocking you was a misuse of Wikipedia policy, but you certainly were not blocked for reporting that a certain view is one of the various "mainstream" views in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know about this particular case but I think we do need more and clearer policy on how we state the views of people who are not in the majority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- There's a enormous difference between views that aren't in the majority and fringe ideas. A continued belief that dinosaurs were cold-blooded would (possibly) be a 'minority viewpoint' that at least has some level of science supporting the claims (although, at this point, even that is arguable). Believing the moon landing was a hoax is, and always have been, a fringe viewpoint completely unconnected or reliant upon facts or evidence. We don't pussyfoot around calling a spade a spade. JoelWhy?(talk) 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know about this particular case but I think we do need more and clearer policy on how we state the views of people who are not in the majority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't know about your block, and found it very interesting looking it up. Personally, I don't agree that you should have been blocked. However, I think you are misrepresenting the situation (albeit unintentionally) when you say the block was for "what [you] wrote above about how they're perceived outside the US". You were blocked for saying that you personally considered certain people as "nutters", not for reporting that they are referred to as such in reliable sources. My own view is that blocking you was a misuse of Wikipedia policy, but you certainly were not blocked for reporting that a certain view is one of the various "mainstream" views in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not when Admins from the gun lobby block me for writing what I wrote above about how they're perceived outside the US. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, that is no problem. If there is more than one "mainstream view" then we report them all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- There has never been an article entitled Tau (circle constant): that has always been a redirect. At first, I assumed that by "deleted the article" you meant that they had blanked the redirect, but then I saw that you were one of the people who did that, so presumably you must mean something else. Was there an article on the same subject under a different title, which has been deleted? If so, can you give its title? And can you give the evidence that it was deleted because "some people are so worried that this insignificant proposal might take root and that Pi might somehow be harmed"? Obviously, without knowing what article was involved, I can't tell why it was deleted, but it would seem more likely that someone might think ti should be deleted because it is not notable (in your words, an "insignificant proposal"). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- One that really baffles me is the absurd overreaction to the Tau (circle constant) (follow back the redirect) article. Some people are so worried that this insignificant proposal might take root and that Pi might somehow be harmed that they have actually deleted the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The FAQ
Who did the nice FAQ on this page? Good job - I wish more people would read it before editing the main article or talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)