 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Moon landing conspiracy theories. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please update this material when needed. |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Is this article unfairly biased or non-neutral because it debunks the conspiracy theories? (No.)
No. While it is always possible to improve the wording or the structure of an article to make the prose more neutral and dispassionate, including material in opposition to the conspiracy theories is part of achieving a neutral article. Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories state that "reliable, verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories."
Should information debunking the conspiracy theories be included in the article? (Yes.)
Yes. Material critical of the Moon landing conspiracy theories must be included in the article. The articles on Wikipedia include information from all significant points of view. Wikipedia's policies on fringe theories state that the article must "document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."
Is the term "conspiracy theory" unfairly biased? (No.)
No. The term "conspiracy theory" is used by reliable sources to describe the collection of ideas discussed in this article, including a few sources which are themselves sympathetic to the ideas. The ideas as a whole are considered "fringe theories" as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines, and should be treated as such. There are no reliable sources that contain good evidence to state otherwise.
Has NASA conclusively shown that the Moon landings occurred? (Yes.)
Yes. NASA has provided mountains of documentation that the moon landings occurred, and have met the "burden of proof" required by various Wikipedia rules. There is also plenty of independent evidence that the moon landings occurred. No reliable sources exist to contradict this evidence.
Does NASA hold the "burden of proof" to disprove conspiracy theories? (No.)
No. Wikipedia policies state that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so the "burden of proof" is to conclusively prove that the Moon landings, which are a matter of historical fact, did not occur. No reliable sources have met that criteria.
Should the article Criticism of moon landing conspiracy theories be created? (No.)
No. Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Excluding criticism of the conspiracy theories gives them undue weight in the article. Editors should strive to edit the same article by creating consensus on the topic.
Should there be a "Criticism" section in the article? (No.)
No. Information opposing the conspiracy theories should be presented alongside the conspiracy theories, in order to achieve neutrality in the article. Putting the content in a "Criticism" section would give undue weight to the conspiracy theories.
Should this article be merged in to Apollo project or another Moon landing article? (No.)
No. Merging the conspiracy theory article in to an article about the Moon landings would give undue weight to the topic, and make the conspiracy theory appear more prominent than it really is.
Should this proof I found that the Moon landings never occurred be included in the article? (Likely no.)
Most likely no. Alleged proof that the Moon landings never happened has yet to come from reliable sources. However, the opinions of some believers in the conspiracy theories have become prominent enough to cause independent sources to comment and thus may warrant some attention in this encyclopedia. The goal of the article is to provide a summary of the available knowledge on this topic and include opinions only according to their prominence.
If you have found a reliable and independent source, such as an academic study or a reputable news report, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. In the interest of writing clear and concise articles, the consensus of editors may be to not include the material due to its obscurity or lack of relevance.
Should information from YouTube, blogs, or forums be included in the article? (No.)
No. As per Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, most YouTube videos, blogs, and forums are not adequate sources for information, since anybody can make up any information through these formats. The only circumstance these sources are admissible is when describing the opinion of the person who created the content in question. Even then, if the material is really notable, a reliable source most likely would have already done so.