User talk:Branson03/tracked

Are you suggesting we just ditch the moon rocks? Gravitor 07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who said that it wouldn't fit. Branson03 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like it wouldn't fit - I'm asking if that is your intent, or whether you are trying to integrate them. Gravitor 16:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, It is already on the hoax page (I think). Branson03 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a discussion of whether the moon rocks were hoaxed or not. What was in here before an edit was swept it away was independent analysis of the moon rocks. I don't see a place for that on the new page, and was wondering what you are suggesting doing with it. Gravitor 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about merging it to Project Apollo or Moon rock Under "Analysis of Moon Rocks"? Branson03 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm not really that excited about the idea of breaking it up and sprinkling it about on other articles. I'm not really sure what the purpose would be, and it seems to make it less easy to navigate the information. Gravitor 06:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think that this page is a good idea. If it is presented solely as observations and tracking, then it is a logical sub page of Apollo. However, given this new title, it is now necessary that all information related to the hoax be removed: Without the word "evidence" in the title, there is no connection to the hoax at all (I don't understand why gravitor never responded to my proposal to just rename the page to "Independent observations of the Apollo Moon landings", or something similar). In particular, we need to delete the section "Tracking of landings (unmanned or human)" and "Future plans that may generate evidence". I will help out with this after the merge proposal closes on that page (I'm giving it five more days). We should also decide if this is going to be a list, or an article. In any case, irregardless of the merge decision, I'll try to help out here. Gravitor's comment about the Moon rock section is a red herring: It has nothing to do with the scope of this new article, and I have not problem not including it. Based on his behavior that is documented at his RfC, I can only conclude that he is trying to sabotage this idea by bringing up this pointless non-argument. Lunokhod 10:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, you might just want to create this article after removing the hoax references. This would give support to the orginal merge proposal with the hoax article, as there would be "nothing to merge" (I already merged the largest section.). Lunokhod 10:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully on board because of the issues with loosing the moon rocks. I'm glad you removed the hoax references. Gravitor 16:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the hoax material. I hope you don't mind.... Lunokhod 11:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, I just Copy&Pasted the article, then look for things that didn't fit the title. I'm sure I missed some. Branson03 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, Are references 11 and 12 the same, so can we lose the second occurrence? Is it worth dropping the second one? Would it be useful to kick off with the Australian TV bit, as (my reading is) it covered all the missions. All the other bits are mission specific. LeeG 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC) I've done as I suggested above, hope you don't mind me messing with your userspace Branson. LeeG 14:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name

As on the independent evidence here are some variations for the name of the article:

Branson03 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more option, that would not require the deletion of the moon rock material. Let me know what you think. Gravitor 16:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy about the idea of losing the non-observational information

I think that before we get too far ahead of this, it would be useful to clarify the scope of the article. I am worried that this is looking like an attempt to remove and delete evidence. Gravitor 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "evidence" has not been deleted, it remains in the corpus of Wikipedia, just in a less controversial and contentious way is how I see it. The moon rocks stuff is still around, and everything else on this page is an observation. Nothing has been lost. LeeG 14:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the intention of this page - the evidence relating to the moon rocks does appear to disappear from this page, with no solid plan about where to put it - I am worried this is another 'hide the evidence' attempt. Gravitor 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title Independent Study and Observation of Apollo Missions avoids this - what do you think? Gravitor 16:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remeber, this article will be its own. It will be created even when the evidence article is in existence. There still will be time to deal with the evidence article. The only question is what to name it. Branson03 16:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not quite, what will happen is that someone with a n agenda will take your initiative, and use it to delete material from the evidence page, and then move to delete it. I am not convinced that this is a good idea. What do you think of my suggestion as a rename? Gravitor 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing a page move on the Talk page for independent evidence and see what other people think. I'm not trying to deleted evidence, I made a suggestion the was supported by people on both sides of the edit war. If you want to make a suggestion on what to do, you have to go ahead and do it.

What do you think about the rename suggestion? Gravitor 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'll think about it. Branson03 17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: ==Evidence Against Hoax==
===Definition of Evidence===
===Significance of Evidence===
===Moon Rocks===
===Evidence of Moon Landings===
===Future plans that may generate evidence==

The would be on the hoax page (or another page it would fit). Nothing will be lost, only split into two articles. Branson03 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're back to the bizarre idea that the only reason for evidence is the hoax, which I thought we had got rid of. None of the evidence was collected in response to the hoax, none of the people presenting it are presenting it in the context of the hoax - one of the people who is collating is made a one-line throw away about the hoax, and yet you want the defining narrative for all of these people who collected evidence a decade before the hoax even emerged to be the hoax? I just don't understand why you keep pushing this weird idea that is not supported by any evidence. Gravitor 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you need to keep evidence that isn't tracking/observation? What evidence is not related to the new article besides moon rocks, future plans and moon landings. Why do you need evidence of the moon landings if it doesn't have to do with the hoax? As you said this was collected before the hoax idea came up, So no one then needed evidence, because they all knew it happened. Did they post on the source "Hey we got evidence that nasa put a man on the moon, even though we already know they did", or "We saw/tracked the apollo (#) mission"? And Gravitor, the merge with the hoax is still open, so it could merge with the hoax (so the idea isn't gone yet). Or I could suggest merging the rest into 3-4 different articles, but it was you who said you wanted to keep it together (not split it into 3-4 articles). Branson03 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you split Project Apollo into issues of engineering, moon rocks, personnel etc, and then delete that article? No? Really? Can you really suggest that no one collected evidence before the hoax ideas? If so, where did it all come from? Perhaps you want to make the case that it's all a huge conspiracy? That the folks who observed the orbiters, and have measure the rocks are all in a huge pact to deceive the world? If not, then please don't continue to try to disrupt this legitimate article. Gravitor 08:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - One: There are two articles, not one. your article still is there, I didn't do anything to it. Two: I have never once at all edited your article, Only the talk page. I've left your article alone. Branson03 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My article? I think you must be mistaken. Gravitor 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it takes longer to write I left the article that you created and do alot of stuff with alone. Branson03 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]