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. superluser_tc 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)