Talk:Neil Armstrong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Good articles Neil Armstrong (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Neil Armstrong has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Miscellaneous article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Space
Portal:Space
 Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Space exploration WikiProject Space exploration Importance to Space exploration: Top
Comments:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neil Armstrong article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] older comments

I have been told by a college friend of Neil Armstrong, that his correct middle name is "Aladdin." Can anybody substantiate either "Alden" or Aladdin? 144.132.194.134 10:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Adam B.

[1] contains a 1958 signature which contains the middle name; it's clearly too short to be "Aladdin" (for a start, it doesn't have enough risers) Shimgray | talk | 11:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong is not a convert to Islam. Please see http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features99/mus-celeb.htm among many other sites for evidence refuting the claim that Armstrong became a Muslim.

It doesn't mention his death. Didn't he die a while back ago? I believe he died in like 1998 or something? But it says stuff about him in 2005? -- Jason_Q

He is very much alive as of today. JackofOz 06:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Neil Armstrong is alive and well to my knowledge. Sean (talk || contribs) 03:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Armstrong speculated after the mission that his voice — operated transmitter may not have picked up the word.

“The ‘a’ was intended,” Armstrong explained to reporters. “I thought I said it. I can’t hear it when I listen on the radio reception here on Earth. So I’ll be happy if you just put it in parenthesis.” [2]

Nonetheless, since he meant to say the "a" I think we should put it in without parentheses. Otherwise his classic line sounds unnecessarily enigmatic. It's almost like saying that Kennedy called himself a jelly doughnut simply because he did a Bushism on Ich bin ein Berliner vs. Ich bin Berliner (the audience knew what he meant). --Uncle Ed

I understand the difficulty in quoting what he actually said versus what he meant to say, but it seems to me that mentioning the quote both ways along with pointing out that he botched it is a little much for an encyclopedia article. (Am I being revisionist and trying to edit/cover up his mistake? I don't think so: I'm just trying to deemphasize it somewhat.) Then again, perhaps the explicit discussion of the issue on the article page is required because of the wiki effects. -- Ke4roh 03:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  1. It is the mistakes that we make that help to point out our humanity. The need to pretend that we are perfect (and actually hide them) is one of our gravest failings.
  2. The rules for language are always in flux, what was wrong in the 1500's is the only way to say it today. Whose to say that in 2552 someone will here those words and comment, "He said that so eloquently. Why did people keep trying to change it?"
In the end Neil said what he said. The way it is presented here allows for the needs of the many. Just thought I would add two cents. MarnetteD | Talk 00:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't he say : "It's one small step for man, but a giant leap for mankind." ? --Garo 11:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The quote is "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Armstrong forgot to say "...for a man...", and the audio recording clearly demonstrates that static was not at fault for the omission -- the pause necessitated by such an explanation simply doesn't exist.
On that note, I would think "for (a) man" should be edited down with a note similar to the above added. Any thoughts / objections / cookies? — Lomn | Talk 20:33:02, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
I concur. The discrepancy with the quote ought to be explained in the entry. Simply deciding to include or excldue the parenthetical "a" does a disservice to both sides of the story. The sentences above would seem to be sufficient. --Anson2995 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Family?

Doesn't he have any children? If I remember, during those older space programs it was "a must" to be married or you couldn't be selected to go to space.

According to his NASA biography, Armstrong was married with two children at the time of the Apollo 11 mission. This 2000 article says the same thing, suggesting he didn't have any more. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be added. --Anson2995 05:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
He has two sons, Mark and Rick. He also had a daughter, Karen, who died in 1962 when she was two, from a brain tumor. --165.254.107.2 18:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The requirements of being an Astronaut included logging time as a test pilot, being under a certain height, and passing a brtual psychological exam, but marriage was not an issue. Apollo 13's Jack Swigert is a prime example.

[edit] Those famous words

'The simple statement came from a train of thought that he had during the hours after landing. He knew he would have to say something as he took the first step, and "step" seemed like a good place to start. It just grew from there. Theories that he consciously took the statement from J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit ("not a great leap for a man, but a leap in the dark") or a memo from an associate deputy administrator of NASA are denied by Armstrong.'

I'm sure that I read somewhere that NASA had told Neil to say that days before the launch. Could someone cite this?

[edit] His wife

The dates in this article regarding his wife Janet don't add up. It says that she died in 1962, and then that they were divorced in 1994. Does anyone have an accurate date for when she actually died? I suspect it is later than 1962 given the comment about her regretting not finishing her education, and the unliklihood of a solo father going to the moon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhys.lewis (talk • contribs).

It is weird how many people seem confused by that paragraph. It says nothing about Janet dying. It is talking about Karen, their daughter. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
dood,he has old children around the age of 50.the children are mostly around 30 yrs younger than their parents.

user:dark-hooded smoker

user: eternalshogunx I know I'm going off on a pretty weird topic here, but I heard that Neil Armstrong said "Yabba Dabba Doo!" shortly after landing on the Moon. Is this true because I cannot find proof anywhere on the net of this? Thanks in advance!

I have never heard such a thing. Though you may want to have a search and read through the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal which has full transcripts of everything the astronauts said on the surface. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Just found out that Wally Schirra said "Yabadabadoo" on Apollo 7 after a successful firing of the spacecraft's engine. This may be where you heard it. Evil Monkey - Hello 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Landing Hoax Theory

There is a lot of conjecture that Neil armstrong DIDN'T walk on the moon, this should be included on the trivia part of the actual page, if included also is a 'supposed' fact that that people used to believe he had converted to muslim. mnemonic 01:19, 19 october 2005

First of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that there is "a lot" of conjecture on this topic. There is a lengthy and (in my opinion) well written page on the moon landing hoax. If someone feels obliged to mention it and add a link, I'm not sure that I'd object, but I don't think it's really necessary.
--Anson2995 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This hoax is a hoax. Rlevse 11:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Short of anyone going back to the moon or someone pointing a telescope at the landing sites on the moon, you cannot call the hoax theory a hoax because you cannot prove the landing happened or did not happen. Both sides have to rely upon assumptions and while the non-hoax folks think they have the upper hand, besides the astronauts, not one of them can claim that they went to the moon themselves.

Whether he landed on the moon or not I can't say since I wasn't there but it strikes me as very odd that he was not more vocal and in the public eye about his experience afterwards. One has to assume that the US government selected him because he was mentally fit and they had to realize that if they landed on the moon first, it would be great for publicity and you would think they would pick a fellow who would bask in the spotlight and not retire into the shadows. Makes you wonder why he did the turtle act afterwards. While his experience may have been profound, you would think he would want to share his experience. Unless he is riddled with guilt about being involved in one of the greatest lies in history. Makes you wonder.

Oh be quiet. I presume you'll also be arguing as vigorously about the Earth being flat, as you cannot conclusively prove that unless you go into space either. Of course, even from terra firma you can demonstrate that the Earth is not flat, in the same way that you can demonstrate that man landed on the moon, should it not intefere with your agenda. Ajmayhew 08:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of the Landing

The date usually quoted, 20 July, is an arbitrary one. This event occurred on a world where time has never been defined. At the moment the landing happened, it may have been 20 July at Cape Kennedy, but it was a different date in other places on Earth. Since he talked about one giant leap for "mankind", not just for Americans, I think something needs to be said about the choice of the date. Not sure what, though. JackofOz 03:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Official NASA documentation refers to Neil's epic step as taking place on the 21st of July, 1969 at 2:56 GMT. See: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11i_Timeline.htm
Also, "world where time has never been defined" is, honestly, rediculous. Time is a property of motion. The Moon has motion, therefore the Moon has time. Beyond that, the Moon's motion is regular and seperated in to distinct periods of light and darkness. Therefore, not only does the Moon have time, but it has a day, a night, and a year; all of which were calculated long before 1969. See: Month. (YingPar 4:35 15 Dec 05 PST)
Thanks. The very fact that the fateful step occurred at 2:56 GMT proves my point. Greenwich Mean Time has relevance to the planet Earth because it is related to the Greenwich meridian, which is a line passing through a place in London. All time zones on Earth are related in some way to their distance East or West of Greenwich. GMT obviously has no relevance to extraterrestrial bodies. If we ever establish a colony on the Moon or Mars, we will presumably decree a base meridian there, and the diurnal motion of that body will be measured with reference to that meridian. It will certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with GMT. I guess the real reason we date the Moon landing using a terrestrial date of 21 July 1969 is that that's the only one we had at the time (and for the forseeable future will still have), and it makes intuitive sense to us. However, what the date and time are really saying is that, when Armstrong walked on the Moon, it wasn't 2:56GMT 21 July 1969 on the Moon, but 2:56 GMT 21 July 1969 back on Earth. The GMT bit is all I really needed to know. Cheers.
During the missions, GET, or ground elapsed time was used. That's why NASA transcripts use 109:24:19 GET as the time of Armstrong's first step. Yes, this translates into 21 July GMT, but since Mission Control was in Houston (Central time), it happened on the 20th.
So Mission Control was in Houston. So what? This event did not occur in Houston, or anywhere else in the USA, or anywhere else on Earth. It happened on an extraterrestrial body commonly known as "the Moon". Whatever date and time we ascribe to the moment Armstrong steeped onto the moon's surface is absolutely arbitrary, because our calendar, and our time and date systems all apply to the Earth and only to the Earth. Apparently we nowadays refer to the Moon event using UTC because that is the international standard used on Earth. And I would support that convention. That makes it 21 July, not 20 July. But it is still arbitrary. JackofOz 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, John Lennon was shot and killed at about 11:00 PM in New York City on 12/8/80. Does that mean, because New York is GMT-5, that he was really killed on 12/9/80 and that's the day that they carved in his tombstone? No. --Jkonrath 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Events on Earth are dated according to the time zone applying in the place where the event happened. Lennon died on 8 Dec, because that was the date in New York at the moment of his death. That it was 9 Dec in other places on Earth at that same moment in time is irrelevant. JackofOz 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on, that's just silly. What would you have the article say? "Since Earth time doesn't apply on the Moon, we actually don't know when the landing took place. Too bad." Any chosen time will be arbitrary, and there's nothing we can do about that. IMO, following your argument of the mission being "for all mankind" (although in reality it obviously wasn't), the "most correct" thing would be to use Earth standard time, i.e. GMT (or UTC, if you will).Michael riber jorgensen 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one giant leap for mankind

I'dont hear the "one giant leap for mankind" in the audio.

[edit] Credit?

I'm currently reading First Man, his biography. Much of this article sounds like an extensive rip-off (paraphrasing would be generous) of the book. What is Wikipedia policy on this? Telliott 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

copyright violations are unacceptable and should be reported. sources of the article should be stated, both for credit and encyclopedic standards. paraphrasing is fine, as facts and organization are not copyrightable. particular verbal expression is protected. which particular parts do you suspect might be rip-offs? Derex 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The basis for thew rewrite was First Man. If I have used specific phrasings I apologise and would like to know where so that they can be changed. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the term rip-off. What seems to have been done is to mine a thousand factual details from the book and use them to build the article. Hansen spent spent a lot of his time gathering these gems through interviews, sorting and sifting them before writing. You could presumably go to the same sources and re-record their answers to the questions, but it's not like you can find many of these details in the newspaper or something. And Neil Armstrong wouldn't talk to you. I don't think it's fair use but I guess it's debatable. Telliott 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
well, it is unquestionably legal. it's not even fair use, because this use of a collection of facts doesn't even fall under copyright law at all. whether you think it's fair in an ethical sense is a different issue. look at it this way, this article definitely ought to include citations to source materials, giving "First Man" a little free PR. further, it absolutely should list "First Man" under further reading if that is a useful enough book to be such a prominent source. all in all, use (with credit) here should really be a big benefit to the author by pointing interested readers to the book. but whether or not you, or the author, agree with that point; it's flat out legal. thanks for raising the issue, though. it's always best to be sure we're compliant. Derex 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Hey Evil M, if you wrote any sections primarily based on that book, would you mind listing the relevant chapter as a reference. I'm not sure the appropriate format for a lengthy reference, but maybe something at the section bottom like:

Source: First Man, Chapter 3.

Thanks. Best to get it down while it's fresh. 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started to go through and add footnotes for the article, which are probably basically all going to be Ibid to specific pages of First Man. This could take me a while just because my access to the internet is rather limited (I won't have it at home again until Tuesday at the earliest). Also will write the bit the covers the world tours he did just after Apollo 11. Want to mention when he was in the USSR and he watched the Soyuz 9 launch, after being with the Tereshkova all day, who was the wife of one of the cosmonauts on board and who hadn't mentioned a thing about there even going to be a launch. Evil Monkey - Hello 21:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but some of the stuff in this article is pure plaigarism. I liked First Man too, but come on, this is embarassing.

According to the Wikipedia article on plagarism, it "...is a form of academic malpractice specifically referring to the use of another's information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source." I fail to see how this article meets this description. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detail

I agree this article now seems too heavily drawn from First Man. Lots of details are too obscure for an encyclopedia article and some are plan irrelevant out of the book's context (i.e. the Banshee crash was a big episode in the book, but Armstrong wasn't flying that day and wasn't injured, so the mention in the wiki article is just superfluous and should be removed). Other stuff like the details about the 1202 alarms should be moved to the Apollo 11 article. 71.141.251.153 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

many hands make quick work :) your comments are welcome, and so are any edits you think would improve this article, or Apollo 11. I do agree that much of the detail in the Gemini & Apollo 11 sections should be moved to those articles respectively. Derex 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't submit to Wikipedia if I didn't want people to rewrite, remove and otherwise edit "my" work :-) . I did find it difficult when writing the material to remember that this article is a bio of Armstrong and not about the missions. I only tried to include material that was relavent to Armstrong - ie his piloting on Gemini 8, his thoughts on the program alarms etc. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through and culled some unneeded detail from the Gemini 8 and Apollo 11 section. Feel free to do some more mercilessly editing :-) . Evil Monkey - Hello 02:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not the first person on the moon

Technicaly there was I believe a woman who made the first steps on the moon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.60.41.211 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure I follow? Evil Monkey - Hello 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure I wouldn't. DirkvdM 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But why is the short form of "lunatic" spelled "looney"? ➥the Epopt 22:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No it was neil Armstrong, women haven't went to space until a few years ago! (Unless you count the Soviet program but they never took a Women to the moon).


Elven6 July UTC

[edit] pic of neil with american flag

could you add a picture of neil holding the flag in the moon i need it for a project —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.60.41.211 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, there is no picture of Neil Armstrong on the Moon with the flag. In fact there are only five images in total during their moonwalk, which can all be seen here. If you just want a generic image of an astronaut and the flag, how about:
Buzz Aldrin on Apollo 11
Pete Conrad on Apollo 12
Al Shepard on Apollo 14
Dave Scott on Apollo 15
John Young on Apollo 16
Harrison Schmitt on Apollo 17
Gene Cernan on Apollo 17
Evil Monkey - Hello 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hard to believe this is true. The first man to walk on the moon and there is not one good picture of him on the moon?

Only Neil had a camera on the EVA. Note that all of the Apollo 11 EVA photos are of Buzz, with Neil perhaps reflecting in the visor. 35.11.183.95 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There was one camera, and it was usually held by Armstrong, but it was occasionally handed over - there are a small number of photographs which have been identified as of Armstrong by Aldrin. Almost all are of Aldrin, yes, but not all... Shimgray | talk | 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business commitments & various 'he's a nutter' allegations

Two disparate issues:

The article refers to his wife leaving him due to his over-busy work commitments, but the article doesn't make clear what they were. What exactly was he doing to make himself so busy things were bokeda year in advance?

and

Various urban legends refer to Armstrong becoming a recluse due to the mental strain of being on the moon (more wacky versions are that he encountered alien artefacts and withdrawing from society made it easier to cope). Should these be referenced in the article - and, in a link to the above, just what is he doing seeing as he never appears in the public eye?

Last August I wrote a whole section on his life in private business, but it appears to have been removed at some point. In the zeal to make this article read like an excerpt of "First Man," an awful lot of good info got lost. After leaving the University of Cincinnati, Armstrong served as chairman of AIL Technologies, an electronics and avionics manufacturer. He was there until his retiremnt in 2002. He has kept a low profile, but he is far from a recluse. There used to be links here to interviews he has given and to articles about his public appearances, plus things like the opening of the Armstrong Museum in Ohio. Again, not sure how the article benfited by removing those. The wholesale addition of content from "First Man" and wholesale deletion of other content has made this article suffer. Anson2995 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armstrong Limit

Does anyone happen to know if the Armstrong Limit is named after Neil? I can't find anything on the source of the name for the article and, while its probably unlikely, i thought i would ask here. Thanks. Rockpocket (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] If I ever met Neil Armstrong

I often imagine that if I ever met Neil Armstrong in my life time and had a chance to sit down and talk with him and ask him questions. My mind filled with all of these questions would probably shut down and go blank in complete awe and reverie of him. Because in one hand I would know and simply acknowledge that he is not God nor any kind of a deity. But he is not a average and a ordinary man. I would imagine that he is probably highly intelligent and kind and private. My mind is filled with hero worship and awe and reverie for when I think of Neil Armstrong walking on that moon. How amazing it would be for any american anywhere to just sit down and to have a cup of coffee with a man that walked on the moon. Could anyone maintain a straight face amd treat him like some ordinary face in the crowd and have a friendly chit chat. I do not think I could. Summerblynk@Yahoo.com, Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio, 44109-4665, Thursday of July 20th of 2006 at 10:00 PM

I had the opportunity to meet him and shake his hand once. You are correct when you say that he is a private person, to the point that you better not ask him anything that has to do with going into space (which I think is kind of sad). But it was awsome just to meet him briefly and say hi. When he left, the group of us joked about not ever washing our right hands :-)... It was a very exiting time. Leon7 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's rather sad actually. Those guys were engineers, pilots - deeply technical types - and at the top of their game. Once they had their few days of glory, they were condemned to spend the rest of their lives talking about almost nothing else over and over again for the rest of their lives - and with little or no chance to carry on doing what they loved. You can see why he'd prefer not to talk about space with every random person he bumps into. I once did some work relating to the shuttle and space station simulators and spent time with one of the astronauts who did the Hubble repair spacewalks. He was being paid to talk to us about it - but you could see his eyes roll everytime we asked an 'obvious' question. Given the choice - I'd much prefer to have been the 10th man on the moon than the first. SteveBaker 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes references

I've noticed that the first note just says "Ibid, pages 49–50". Shouldn't there be a actual name of the reference? At least for the first entry. (ups)

[edit] One small step...

According to this news story, High-tech analysis may rewrite space history, the information on Armstrong's One small step speech in this article (some of which reads like Original research) needs to be revised. BlankVerse 07:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Armstrong never said it. It was no mistransmission. The facts are simple: 1) If he had indeed said "a" in that line, there would have been a quick run-on of words jumbled together, i.e. "one small stepforaman". This is similar to the more familiar "knowwhatImean" from Jim Varney's Ernest P. Worrell character. 2) If there was a mistransmission, then why this particular word? Why is it there's no mistransmission of any other word in his radio transmissions between the Lunar Lander and Houston? All in all, the word "a" was a later inclusion after the fact, and was meant to demean Armstrong's line and make the whole line, and possibly the whole mission, sound less important than it really was. And further, the line intruducing "one small step..." had the phrase "this is the line we believe he said:" Who is "we"? Since it was not a direct quote from anyone but rather someone's personal opinion about what he thinks Armstrong said it was edited from the main article. Carajou 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Was Video Camera Set Up To Record Armstrong's First Step?

We all are familiar with the famous video of Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. My question is: since the video camera records Armstrong's first steps onto the surface of the Moon, then how was the video camera set up outside the spacecraft to record this event in the first place? Perhaps this article could explain how this was accomplished.

This page explains it. Basically, the camera was mounted to another part of the lander.

In which year Neil Armstrong receive his master of science on the University of southern California? 1960 or 1970 Can anyone answer this question?

Philipp Mevius 2nd October 2006

[edit] For a man

The "'for a man' masked by static" claim has not yet been independently verified. In fact, some linguists have doubt about it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003630.html --Kjoonlee 04:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is now growing confusion on the 'a' claim. TruthCrusader 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article now includes a link to Peter Shann Ford's paper. It uses waveforms (not spectrograms!) in its analysis.
Language Log has been covering this recently, if anyone's interested. --Kjoonlee 03:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
And now a phonetician has spoken up and pointed out some inaccuracies. Language Log: First Korean on the moon! --Kjoonlee 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting change to this talk page

i reverted to a previous version to undo this edit.. the edit summary said it changed the fac tag to facfailed - which is rightly did; but it also removed discussions and other useful banners (including two WikiProject banners) for no apparent reason.. i think i've added in all the changes afterwards correctly. Mlm42 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I must have accidentally edited and then saved an old version of the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

This is certainly a good article. I have seen the comments for FA failure and although some objected that it draws largely on his authorised biography, this is to be expected. As long as he is still alive, for the sake of WP:BLP, this would be the best source to use. The red wikilinks should be removed and the first footnote should give the full reference to the book (the rest being Ibid). I am not certain if this article is still being "watched" over so if no one makes the corrections, I will do it myself before promoting it. There are two citation needed tags which will need to be corrected before going on to FA. RelHistBuff 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The corrections were made and promoted to GA today. RelHistBuff 08:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good luck, Mr. Gorsky

Should we note the false, yet well-known and widespread unpleasant urban legend? --Kizor 00:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Neil Armstrong

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] coco milk??

when i press the link it came up with coco milk. What is happening? 87.112.32.174 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, now reverted. --Skizzik 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many flights was Armstrong on?

?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.17.27.157 (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

To quote the Wikipedia article, Neil Armstrong — "Armstrong's first spaceflight was Gemini 8 in 1966[…]. Armstrong's second and last spaceflight was as mission commander of the Apollo 11 moon landing mission on 20 July 1969." Evil Monkey - Hello 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Armstrong article has been vandalized.

The Wikipedia article on Neil Armstrong has been vandalized by someone who thought it would be funny to throw the words "retarded poopsicle" and other similar malicious edits into an otherwise accurate article. Can someone fix this? Thanks! Ken

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/i/Talk%7ENeil_Armstrong_981b.html"