Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Escape Orbit in topic Demonstrably false
Former good article nomineeMoon 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
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 24, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


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

I don't see much value in changing. "Conspiracy theory" is a well-known term that has a well-known meaning of being a bit paranoid and association with the lunatic fringe. "Conspiracy claim" seems to soften it a bit.
Why do you want to change it? Do you have some agenda? Are you preparing further changes to convert this to a we-didn't-really-go-to-the-moon article? Are you in league with Kubrick? Do you support the Capricorn One documentary? Quick, where's my tin foil hat? ;)  Stepho  talk  10:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You might want to read through the archives, this has been debated before and consensus is that "conspiracy theory" is an accurate term backed by reliable sources. "Conspiracy theory" implies wackiness, not scientific rigor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply


Isn't this Moon landing denial

edit

Given that these claims are demonstrably false, isn't this not a conspiracy theory but denialism? And should we update the article to reflect that?

23haveblue (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

All conspiracy theories have some form of denial.  Stepho  talk  22:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Conspiracy theories try to explain denial. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or rather, conspiracy theories are excuses for the lack of evidence against the facts denied by denialists: Conspirators destroyed the evidence (their dogs ate it, for instance). --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think my point is shouldn't this article be written more strongly that these are denialist positions? We don't have an article titled and worded on Holocaust Conspiracy Theories, we have an article on Holocaust Denial. Likewise for this article, this should be written from the point of Moon landing denial 23haveblue (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
We follow the common names for things in English language sources. Sources do not necessarily use consistent terminology in different fields and contexts. When reliable sources write about this topic, do they tend to say 'Moon landing denial'? A quick search of Google scholar indicates that 'Moon landing conspiracy' references outnumber 'Moon landing denial' by 10 to 1. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this is a case where WP:COMMONNAME takes effect. We've had people request different titles for this article over the years, but the fact is that it's called a conspiracy theory in mainstream & academic sources, so that's why we stick with this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Demonstrably false

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply