Talk:Apollo 15 postal covers incident

"2 were Destroyed"?
Why were two destroyed? If they were destroyed deliberately, why? If by accident, why only two? Were they left on the Moon? CFLeon 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The two destroyed covers were damaged prior to being packaged for spaceflight and never flew to the Moon. The article, as written currently, is incorrect in stating that there were 400 flown covers. --Collectspace 03:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this one?
See this completed eBay listed, sold for $1,800: It says there were only 36 of this type... http://www.ebay.com/itm/APOLLO-15-SIGND-CVR-FLOWN-MOON-W-COPY-LTR-AUTHENTICATN-AL-WORDEN-HV83-/200666432577?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2eb8a6c441

(eBay item 200666432577)

Tim-mnm (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging
The accounts here, in Apollo 15, and now inadvertantly :-), astrophilately, should probably be coordinated better, with the bulk of the narrative here so as to not maintain multiple slightly-different versions. "Apollo 15 flight cover scandal" would be a better title, since the objects at issue were whole covers, not just the stamps. Stan 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion to merge entries, but this entry in particular is inaccurate. To call it a scandal in the title is also likely too strong a word; "incident" is probably more accurate. All three entries as they are presently written seem to pull information from unconfirmed third-party sources. I think it would be best to limit the entry(ies) to the facts presented within the linked NASA report and what little is written by the crew members. (Sieger's account would also be valid source material, though to my knowledge, he has never chosen to share his view.) --Collectspace 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Incident" would be OK; scandal suggests that wide publicity is a part, and certainly this did not get much notice at the time. The collectspace.com article does cite four references, so I think it's likely to be pretty solid. Probably those works reference Worden's court papers and the like as their primary sources. Stan 06:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The collectSPACE article to which you refer (Profiles In Memorabilia: The Apollo 15 "Sieger" Covers) was recently (and temporarily) removed* from the site due to questions raised about some of the information it presented. Three of the four sources cited were third-party; the only direct reference was Irwin's "To Rule The Night"). To my knowledge, none referenced the Worden court papers, which I have never seen made public (Worden to date is the only Apollo 15 astronaut to not have gone on the record about what transpired.) That is why I suggested limiting the article(s) to only the NASA, astronaut and Sieger records, as exist. (* I am the editor of collectSPACE.) --Collectspace 16:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, interesting... Third-party references are not intrinsically defective, but if there is reason to believe they're not authoritative, or their own research is defective, then either we alter our text from "X happened" to "According to Y, X happened" (a standard practice for WP articles on controversial subjects), or remove altogether. Do you want to make a pass at fixup, or should I? I have no refs for the subject myself, so am somewhat handicapped. Stan 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The just-linked-to de: version of this article has a bunch of references to (English-languge) printed works that would be worth checking out. Stan 19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've renamed (moved) the article to Apollo 15 postage stamp incident; I agree with what's been said, calling it a scandal is inappropriate. I mean, imagine telling someone who didn't know at all about this incident: "So on Apollo 15, three astronauts risked their lives to fly to the Moon -- for which the US government paid them $30 -- and since they took along some stamps, they were all fired. And, oh, they decided before being found out not to accept the money from it, and as it turns out, they probably just forgot to notify NASA -- they'd had a hundred other stamps authorized." --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved section from David Scott
The "history" section was originally written as part of the David Scott article and moved here. Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Apollo 15 postage stamp incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929131615/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/940711/archive_013131_7.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/940711/archive_013131_7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apollo 15 postage stamp incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003023153/http://www.novaspace.com/LIVEAUCTION/Auctionitems/Auctioncat.html to http://www.novaspace.com/LIVEAUCTION/Auctionitems/Auctioncat.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912054406/http://www.novaspace.com/LIVEAUCTION/Auctionitems/Catalog.html to http://www.novaspace.com/LIVEAUCTION/Auctionitems/Catalog.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to 'Apollo 15 postal covers incident'. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 15 postage stamp incident → Apollo 15 crew-carried mail incident – The current title implies the incident was about postage stamps. That is blatantly not the case, it is about the covers carried by the crew on the mission, so should reflect the essential facts and define the topic per WP:PRECISE and would then comply with WP:CRITERIA too. I doubt using the term covers in the title would be useful to readers without some philatelic knowledge. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "mail", none of the covers ever entered the mailstream. Maybe "Apollo 15 postal covers incident"?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support "postal covers" language, per nom and Wehwalt. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain "mail" is correct but I tried to choose a word that regular non philatelic readers could understand. "Special event covers", as described in the first paragraph, is what they are but that just seems too long winded. On the other hand "envelopes" seems to miss the point too though I'm open to suggestions. While they did not actually enter the mailstream, "mail" describes their essence and, as created, were in an acceptable mailable format for the USPS except for the address. So maybe Apollo 15 crew-carried postal covers incident is a suitable compromise. ww2censor (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Apollo 15 astronaut postal covers incident"? It's obviously the "crew-carried" that gives me pause.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Apollo 15 postal covers incident. I can't speak to whether the average reader will know what a postal cover is.  I don't think "crew-carried" is necessary. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The shorter language sounds better to me too. And a postal cover is probably more known than is being guessed at here (or not, but it is accurate). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Apollo 15 postal covers incident I don't think "mail" is correct. These were covers; there was no mail in them, and what was being sold were covers, not just stamps.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sourcing
I wanted to ask how they feel now about the sourcing? The reports and such are actually secondary sources in my view, taken from the investigation, papers of which would be the primary source. I've asked NASA about those papers btw but they don't think they have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At second glance, the sources don't appear much different from last time. My concern was less that primary sources are used but that the article as a whole relies more on primary/affiliated sources than secondary/independent sources. I can pull all kinds of documentation on government investigations but that doesn't mean the underlying topic is notable unless also picked up (significant coverage) by secondary & independent sources. If the topic (postal covers incident) is independently notable from Apollo 15, it should split out summary style based on a preponderance of coverage from such secondary/independent sources, not based on potential expansion from affiliated reports. My understanding is that, as a tertiary source, we take our cues/proportionality from what secondary sources choose to cover. So if no outside/independent source finds select aspects of the investigation sufficiently noteworthy to warrant coverage, then we would too find those same aspects insufficiently noteworthy to warrant coverage from us as a tertiary source. The exceptions should be sparse, to fill in crucial detail, and not compose the bulk of the article. Does that make sense? (not watching, please )  czar  17:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking at it again. I shall give some thought on what to do next.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually quite surprising you have not included any citations from philatelic publications or websites. So, it surprises me there actually seems to rather little immediately available though considering the time, printed works are more likely to be a source as opposed to online. I found some references in my copy of the American Air Mail Catalogue 5th ed published in 1985 by the American Air Mail Society which 2 pages of details (pgs 2635-6). There may be a newer edition. Also a small mention in Air Mail, an illustrated history 1793–1981 by Donald B. Holmes. There really has to be more material available but a search of Linns Stamp News brings up nothing which surprised me. You could also search the American Philatelic Research Library's catalog at https://stamps.org/Learn/Library. Just some ideas for you to seek support for secondary WP:RS. ww2censor (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I will look into it. If I sent you an email, could you send me scans of those short articles?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Send me an email. ww2censor (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Siegel
Is "Robert E. Siegel, a prominent New York dealer" actually Robert A. Siegel? JennyOz (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an error in the underlying source. Fixed and linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wehwalt JennyOz (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Who knew?
Never heard of any of this before. Articles like this are why I read Wikipedia (almost) every day. Eric Cable ! Talk 19:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I had only vague recollections of it myself, but someone mentioned it to me online and well, it's an incredible story.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You know it's funny, I remember reading about this here a while ago, but there's more detail added and it's a regular soap opera. Fascinating, really, to hear about the goings-on behind the scenes that no one knew about for so long. Sure adds flavor to the astronauts' stories! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.39 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I put a lot of effort into this one. Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition re " thereby effectively rescinding charges of impropriety by the astronauts."
I've looked at the addition, I don't seem to find support for that statement in the Slate article on the sculpture, to which you've cited. , can you point me at it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! "Only after the post-Apollo hangover had subsided did NASA reconsider its position regarding the postage stamp incident. A 1978 investigation by the Attorney General’s Office largely exonerated Scott, Worden, and Irwin. Five years later, NASA returned the stamp covers to the astronauts, effectively rescinding the accusations.". Perhaps it would be good to get that quote in the direct reference? The Slate article IS kinda long. Buffs (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm OK with adding in the discussion of the settlement that Slate says that this "effectively rescind[ed] the accusations". I think it's a little too much of a conclusion on Slate's part to be used without inline mentioning who said it. So I think it should be in the Aftermath section, not in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's too much of a conclusion, but we can make the lead more broad/less specific (so one "side" isn't left out) by leaving out the rationale. We can just say that the covers were returned. But I'll leave that to your judgement (or anyone else's). Buffs (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read the 1978 Justice Department report, it's a source in the article, and it really only goes to the ownership of the covers. Anyway, let me think about it and take another shot at it and we'll see who salutes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, but I think the "exoneration" portion is worth putting in there. NASA ok'd it either tacitly or explicitly. The Astronauts had no intention of breaking any rules, even if Congress wanted to skewer NASA. I'll leave it to everyone else to make any changes; I've made my point and it's in the body of the article, even if not the lead. Buffs (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Worden's lawsuit
I've trimmed some of the detail regarding the lawsuit that I find interesting as a lawyer myself but which perhaps is too much detail for the general reader in an article where the lawsuit and settlement are only a small part. Also, Worden's books should be approached cautiously since, possibly due to the passage of time, some of the things he says regarding the covers are contradicted by the other memoirs, such as Scott's, or by primary documents, such as the mission transcripts. Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)