On 02/08/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? We put a bit of effort into debunking the Apollo hoax people, and they are equally round the bend wacko.
A while ago, I did some minor edits to various pages - [[Capricorn One]] is the one that I recall - to get rid of passing Apollo-hoax references. There are, I'm fairly sure, none on the "serious" spaceflight pages other than a passing cite of the page. I've always wondered if this could be construed as messing around with NPOV... it likely isn't, but if I wanted to should about it enough it probably would be taken as such.
The history of the Apollo hoax article, when I have enough time, should be an interesting thing to look at...
There's a lot of material on wikipedia that is aimed at countering laughable notions.
In a way, I see this as quite useful. There's a couple of articles wheich consist of pretty much nothing *but* debunking false notions - [[Brass Monkey]], IIRC, or half of [[The Whole Nine Yards]]. Better to have them than not have them; information is better than implicit misinformation.
It's not just a cite, either. This thing has its own article, complete with photographs and circles and arrows and notes on the back explaining what the circles and arrows mean. Perhaps rather than voicing opposition to a notional cite, you should look into what sort of rubbish is appearing on your own site.
It's a typical case of American blind justice!
(sorry...)