Talk:Astronauts Gone Wild

Answers.com a reference for this article?
Why is Answers.com a reference for this article? As of today, the only thing that Answers.com has on Bart Sibrel is from Wikipedia, which really isn't a valid external reference. I'm taking it out, but we may need to look at the information gleaned from Answers.com to make sure that it's properly sourced. superlusertc 2007 August 16, 15:38 (UTC)

You tube link removal
1 link removed - incident footage - No indication from clip information or uploader profile that uploader has rights to the footage concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! the moonmovie site was the wrong address. This kind of crap shows how lame faux truthers really are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.17.114 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to label everything a conspiracy theory. The reader can decide this for him or herself.
Subject says it all.Sukiari (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a valid reason for removing sourced, relevant, information. Verbal chat  21:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it only me...
...or is something seriously wrong with this sentence: On July 20, 1969, according to NASA, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon.? "According to NASA"? That sounds really POV to me - that they had indeed landed on the Moon is an almost universally accepted fact, and only a handful of crazy conspiracy theorists out there would say otherwise. I call undue weight here. Removing the blurb. --TomorrowTime (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So you've been to the moon to prove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.217.246.241 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Intro last sentance
The title of the film is a rather lazy and unintelligent attempt at wordplay

That is so POV its causing me physical pain. Taking it out immediately. J.Rly (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)