Talk:What Happened on the Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading.

Contents 1 NPOV label 2 How about this? 3 'Government propaganda'? 4 Re recent resurrection of removed material 5 Synopsis edited 6 Revert and proposal

[edit] NPOV label

This article was written by a moon-hoax believer [1], and it clearly doesn't follow NPOV rule (WP:NPOV). By editing it to reflect both points of view, you'll be helping to improve Wikipedia. It can be of help the article about this theme that already exists in Wikipedia: Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_accusations.

[edit] How about this?

I rewrote the article and shortened it a lot - I didn't see that the whole sysopsis of the film was necessary. I tried not to be too harsh on it. --Brianyoumans 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Government propaganda'?

I think this article is about as mild as I think is reasonable. If people insist on reverting out the fairly reasonable second paragraph, I'm going to have to call an admin and get the article locked down or something. If you don't agree that most experts believe in the moon landing, present facts, not deletions. --Brianyoumans 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the second paragraph should remain in; for a film which claims to be a documentary, it is an important piece of information about it that most experts do not agree with the information in that film. Encyclopedias can cover minority views, but they have a responsibility to present the consensus view as to what the facts are and not proselytize for a view of reality that has not achieved wide acceptance.

---

in other words, it would've been valid to insist on flatness of the Earth some 5 centuries ago, because it was the view of the majority back then? Nope. By the way, your strong *personal* beliefs are irrelevant. B5322

• For the purposes of an encyclopedia, what matters is the consensus of informed expert or scientific opinion. (Aside: in the time of Columbus, I think many scholars actually believed in a round earth; the concept had been around since the Greeks. The flat earth theory was more of a folk belief.) So, even if I believed something personally, if the majority of scientific opinion was against my view, I would want to see the majority view given priority in an encyclopedia. --Brianyoumans 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a flat out lie. Most people went for flatness, so that was never a mere fairytale, as you attempt to portray it. If you're making claims - support them by credible scientific literature, and not by info from some cheesy sources filled by botched up statements provided by the likes of yourself. And keep public opinion the hell away from scientific document. B5322

I think that most of this material is covered in the main Apollo moon landing hoax article, but if there are verifiable things about this movie - reviews, info about how many people have seen it, etc. - feel free to add them, with references. --Brianyoumans 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re recent resurrection of removed material

I disagree with having such a detailed description of this movie. I think that these arguments are all covered in more detail - and with more discussion - at Apollo moon landing hoax. Also, I have a suspicion that summarizing the movie is more or less an excuse for presenting the arguments of the movie without any rebuttal, thus making them seem more credible. If we in fact decide to retain a summary of the movie in this article, I think that we should put a discussion of each claim directly after it, with links to rebuttals. Much of it could be imported from the Apollo moon landing hoax page, with some work.

Though I could care less if this particular portion of the article stays up or not, I do wish to comment that those intended links to so-called 'rebuttals' would be of disservice to the integrity of wikipedia's claimed objectivity of presentations, as none of them, and I underscore *none*, actually refute anything that is stated (and not claimed) in this document, in light of the fact that those rubuttals merely spoken with an authoritative tone and an outright dismissal of an opposing view, without actually having any scientific or even statistical data. The arguments they make can only have an effect on two groups of people: 1) one belonging to the group of unsophisticated masses representing consumers feeding off of mass media, who would gladly embrace their views, 2) and another corresponding to those who are 'sophisticated', yet they have some vested interests in keeping group #1 in the 'dark', and seemingly 'substantiating' the credibility of the NASA account. <---- user # B5322

• I don't think it is useful for us to argue through the merits of the claims in this movie. This has been done already, in great detail, at Apollo moon landing hoax, with many links to discussions of the various issues. Thinking it over, I guess I am OK with leaving the synopsis in, although I think the text needs a bit of improvement. However, I think the dreaded second paragraph needs to remain. --Brianyoumans 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I was hoping that this could be avoided, and I thought that everyone involved might feel the same.--Brianyoumans 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Elimination of non-neutral POV doesn't mean destruction of the entire article. The article is meant to explain what the video is about. You can add a spolier template at the beginning of the description but cannot remove it. That's wrong.--tequendamia 08:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry about removing the synopsis without asking first; there was an NPOV tag on the article, and I thought that making the changes I did would deal with that. Looking back, I think I over-did it. I will go though the synopsis soon and rewrite it a bit for grammar and English style.Brianyoumans 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• I do think, however, that the article needs a clear statement at the top that most scientists and experts believe that the charges in the documentary have been answered, that an overwhelming number of people believe the landings were historical and real, and a link to Apollo moon landing hoax (which is a much longer and better article on the matter.) Brianyoumans 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Percy analysis is about the photographs. How can a scientist other than a photograph expert refute the claim that the photographs of all the Apollo moon missions were taken in the same studio? On the other hand Percy is open to the possibility that men went to the moon. But he doesn't believe they arrived alive nor that they came back. So i believe that if a scientist gives a particular or specific response to any of the claims the name of the that scientis should be included in the article otherwise leave it out. To make a general statement in the name of all scientists is not correct as there is no knowledge that such a survey has ever been carried out. --tequendamia 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

While I am not a scientist myself, I went to a science and engineering university, and I have always associated with scientists, programmers, engineers, etc. My wife worked on a space science program for a time. Neither of us has ever met anyone who expressed doubt about the moon landings. If you scan the web, it is not a common topic of conversation, but in general, I would say that educated persons tend to assume the actuality of the landings. Under the circumstances, I would say the proof should go the other way. Has any survey ever shown any degree of doubt among experts? The opinion survey that gets quoted most often - from 1999 - says that only about 6% of Americans doubt the moon landings - and 6% of Americans will disagree with just about anything!

I understand that in certain areas of the world - for instance, Cuba - the hoax theory is taught in schools, but I think that is more due to politics than to any hard evidence in its favor. Brianyoumans 00:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you din't know. In China the story of the man on the moon has never been told. Not officially at least.--tequendamia 01:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis edited

I have gone through the synopsis and cleaned up the English a bit. I also altered the POV to a more neutral tone, where I felt that was necessary. I hope people find it easier to read, anyways... --Brianyoumans 01:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert and proposal

I have reverted the latest removal of the information about public and scientific opinion of this film. I still feel it is important to have that in. I do have an alternate proposal, but I don't think people are going to like it better; still, I will throw it out. If you don't want the second paragraph info, then I think it could be dropped IF we remove all reference to this as a documentary and instead call it a "pseudo-scientific conpiracy theory film". Would you like that better? Brianyoumans 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)