Talk:Spaceship Moon Theory

POV Dispute?
What POV dispute? It's just a theory--71.185.193.245 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a hypothesis. Devil Master (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of north and south pole
why are they included? How are they relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallind (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume because a Lunar Spaceship would most likely have openings at the poles, similar to the Hollow Earth and Hollow Moon theories. These two, rather unclear shots of depressions on the lunar south pole are probably just the material conspiracy theorists use to "prove" their point. --NFSreloaded (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming proposal
I propose to rename the artical as Spaceship Moon Hypothesis, because a theory is an explanation of a fact The theory of evolution explains how evolution (an ascertained fact) works; the theory of microprocessors explains how microprocessors (man-made objects for which no hypotheses are necessary) work, and so on. However, this is not an explanation of any fact. It would be a theory if it was certain that the Moon was a spaceship and this were an explanation of how its system work, but we lack proof, so this is not a theory at all. It's a hypothesis. Devil Master (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I support a rename, could also be Spaceship Moon Conjecture and/or article could be merged with Hollow Moon. Darmot and gilad (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to throw fuel on the fire there are many, to include many learned, who state that evolution is just a hypothesis and not a theory as it is also unverifiable.--108.36.244.16 (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's called the Spaceship Moon Theory as that is its English common use name.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

References, again
I've removed the references (both the same text) that we had for the hypothesis, as they were hosted on fringe, pseudoscience websites. We need to link to July 1970 of the Sputnik digest, or to a reliable source that reproduces it. Bromley86 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not get to unilaterally remove references since they don't meat your POV. You may submit them for debate.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the references because they didn't meet my POV. I removed them because they were hosted on questionable sources, so could not be trusted.  You've added back:
 * Bibliotecapleyades, which has just scraped the information from The Forbidden Knowledge - "This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history" and talks about subjects such as: "Master numbers encoded within your DNA". This is not a reliable source.
 * Not that I'm not questioning the the reliability of the Sputnik source. As I've not seen it though, I'm not comfortable adding a non-linked reference to it on the strength of the apparent copy hosted on The Forbidden Knowledge.
 * I'll revert your revert this once, as this seems pretty clear to me. If you want to discuss it further, I'll let that play out rather than warring.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me the discussion about Spaceship Moon Theory at anything WP:Questionable. The references stay unless rejected by others, emphasis on the (S). While said reference does not meet your particular criteria it has not been brought up anyone else as Questionable. Maybe you should have started the discussion first or tracked down the references referred to on the quoted site. One doen't just unilaterally remove references because one doesn't like them. I have no problem with tracking down third party references. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:QUESTIONABLE isn't a forum for discussion, is it? Perhaps you're thinking of WP:RSN?
 * Are you seriously suggesting that The Forbidden Knowledge is a reliable source? I'm happy to get some input on that, but it was such an obvious "no" to me that I didn't think it was necessary.  Incidentally, even were I wrong on this, there's no need to discuss changes first - WP:BRD governs how it's handled, and that's precisely the course this has taken.
 * I'm unclear what your final point, regarding 3rd party references, is. I've found an online partial archive of Sputnik, but unfortunately the July 1970 issue isn't one of them.  Bromley86 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked over on WP:RSN to clear this up. Bromley86 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleared up, it is unreliable (see RSN link above). I'll remove it again.  Please do not re-add.  Bromley86 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)