Talk:Stolen and missing Moon rocks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huh?[edit]

Is it just me or does this seem a bit like an advertisement for the University of Phoenix or a the very least some sort of class assignment. The topic is interesting, but we don't need the same details repeated over, and over, nor do we need the names repeated forty times using what could often be described as borderline self-published sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect it is...not quite encyclopedic as it currently stands. I'm not willing to delete it wholesale (the topic is deserving of AN article). Either way, it didn't belong on the primary moon rocks page, where it was more than half the page. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this article VERY interesting. Could probably use some cleanup and better formatting, but it has a lot of references. Ng.j (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I policed this up a bit. As most of the newspaper articles mention the efforts done by University of Phoenix students how would you suggest we reduce the presence of University of Phoenix while recognizing the work the students are doing. Even collectspace.com recognizes their effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain02 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I eliminated most of the references to University of Phoenix leaving a few to keep it in context. When I wrote about each individual moon rock initially I repeated the same basic details because they were applicable to each moon rock and I figured that individuals would be looking at the moon rocks individually and not reading the page in the form of a story.Captain02 2 January, 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Unsourced summary[edit]

I found this on the Sex on the Moon article. As the paragraph had nothing to do with the book I deleted it from the article. However, there's material here that could be used on this article if it were properly sourced.

NASA and the United States government treat the moon rocks recovered by the six Apollo era manned mission to the moon as a National treasure, and estimate their value as priceless or equivalent to the Hope Diamond, depending on the source. Most of the 843 pounds of moon rocks NASA brought back to America are under maximum protection at Johnson Space Center or at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio. NASA has loaned out numerous samples of moon rocks to museums, universities and scientists to study. America has also gifted 270 plaques containing moon rocks encased in Lucite balls to the nations of the world and over 100 moon rocks to the U.S. states and territories; mainly from the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 missions. Many moon rocks have been stolen and lost in the mail or while in the care of scientists. Most of the 270 moon rocks gifted to the nations of the world have been lost or stolen. There were two successful sting operations that recovered moon rocks, one was the 2002 FBI sting operation which "Sex on the Moon" is about and the other, the first of its kind, was led by NASA Office of Inspector General and included a member of the Postal Inspection Service and Agents from U.S. Customs. This first undercover operation occurred in 1998 and was called Operation Lunar Eclipse, it was a sting operation that recovered the Honduras Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock, that had been offered to an undercover Agent for 5 million dollars. This story was documented in a 2004 Geotimes Magazine article entitled "In Search of the Goodwill Moon Rocks: A Personal Account" and in a 2011 story entitled "A Memoir: A Decade-Plus of Tracking Lunar Larceny".[1][2]

--Marc Kupper|talk 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The young thieves did more than just try to sell off a collection of lunar samples worth as much as $21 million. In the process, they also contaminated them, making them virtually useless to the scientific community. They also destroyed three decades worth of handwritten research notes by a NASA scientist that had been locked in the safe.69.174.171.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ In Search of the Goodwill Moon Rocks: A Personal Account Geotimes Magazine. November 2004.
  2. ^ A Memoir: A Decade-Plus of Tracking Lunar Larceny Earth Magazine. March 2011.

Meaning behind Counterfeit rocks > New York[edit]

Can anyone make sense out of:

In an October 23, 1999 story entitled "Atlanta Man Admits Trying to Sell Bogus Moon Rock", Reuters reported two brothers, Ronald and Brian Trochelmann, who were previously charged in 1998 in "U.S. District Court in Manhattan…"for…"a scheme to sell a phony moon rock for millions of dollars," both plead guilty to wire fraud, a felony, for perpetrating that scheme.

I can't figure out what it was intended to be. Although it desperately needs correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friecode (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how much is missing?[edit]

Does any reliable source give exactly (or best estimate) how much (in weight) is missing of the samples collected? This would be a useful piece of information to know in aggregate, and also for the individual losses/thefts. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Texas counterfeit[edit]

I looked at the Columbia Tribune article cited, and it doesn't look to me like it says any of these:

  • Gutheinz "confronted" Navarro;
  • Gutheinz told Navarro he didn't believe him, and that he should take down the auction;
  • that the sample was returned to NASA, which forced removal of the auction.

It also could mention how Navarro claims he got the rock. This needs a rewrite to be more consistent with the article. I may do this when I get a chance.

If User:Zackaryas is indeed Rafael Navarro, he has an obvious conflict of interest and his edit history indicates he is not here to build an encyclopedia. But the page still shouldn't exceed the press verification. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see his comments on my talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Riker photo[edit]

Elizabeth Riker's photo is in the article twice - it only needs to be in once. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it from the gallery under "United States" as that was confusing; no context explaining what it meant there. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


"which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known"[edit]

Is this accurate? Might be one of the few were both are on public display but I'm not seeing much evidence that the average western european country has lost at least one.©Geni (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Apollo_lunar_sample_displays#International suggests there are quite a few.©Geni (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be right about that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 17 rock in Cambodia[edit]

A moon rock in Cambodia turned up, see this. Does someone want to put it in the article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this counts as missing (was anyone looking for it?) or stolen. I've updated List of Apollo lunar sample displays.©Geni (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2020[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen and missing Moon rocks → Stolen and missing moon rocks – This is not what astronomical context means; and "moon rocks" is overwhelmingly lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - "Moon" (capitalized) means Earth's moon. "moon" means a satellite of a planet in general. The rocks in question are from the Moon. And it is very common for people to write "moon" when they mean "Moon". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the many occurrences of "moon rocks" in books are about rocks from other moons than ours? Or are just errors? If it's very common in sources, who are we decide they are errors? Even NASA pages like [1] and [2] got it wrong? Note that MOS:CELESTIALBODIES says we cap it only when "in an astronomical context", not just because it refers to our moon. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rocks in question are from "the Moon", not "a moon". All of the moon rocks we have on Earth are from "the Moon" - the astronomical body that orbits the Earth. I've corrected several of these in Wikipedia. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – I've just noticed the Randy Kryn went through and capitalized "Moon" in about 40 articles where it was previously lowercase, about a year ago. I haven't reviewed these yet to see which ones might be "in an astronomical context", but this is one of them that I think is not. And sources don't support these caps. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, of course, per MOS. Of course the sources don't support these caps, sources almost universally lower-case 'moon' in almost all instances. But per encyclopedic accuracy and common sense, Wikipedia style is that Moon is a proper name, the name of that massive rock-like thing falling towards Earth above us. It has a proper name, Moon, and the same goes for the name of our local star, Sun, also commonly lower-cased in sources. These are cases in which Wikipedia's Manual of Style has it right and most other style books have it wrong. A Moon rock is a rock from the Moon. Moon is upper cased in MOS as a proper name. And I've capitalized not 40 but hundreds of instances in hundreds of articles over the past years, and continue to look for and upper-case more. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And "earth" means dirt or ground - we live on the planet named Earth. That is also a common case where people fail to use caps when they should. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amen. Since Dicklyon mentioned my work, there are many hundreds and probably thousands of pages where I've properly upper-cased Earth and Solar System as well as Sun and Moon, and have gone searching for them on continuous edit runs like Neil and Buzz and the rest looking for the next quality Moon rock. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aside from this, the article's lede seems poorly written enough that Dicklyon deserves thanks for bringing editors to this semi-off-the-beaten-track page. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—On this occasion I must oppose Dicklyon's suggestion. MOS is quite clear about it. Tony (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where MOS:CELESTIALBODIES says

The words sun, earth, moon and solar system are capitalized (as proper names) when used to refer to a specific celestial body in an astronomical context (The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System; the Moon orbits Earth). They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context (It was a clear day and the sun felt warm) ...

we differ, apparently, on what "in an astronomical context" means. More broadly, the general principle of avoiding unnecessary capitalization and only capping things that are pretty consisrtently capped in sources is pretty clearly violated here. So not sure what you think is "quite clear" about capping this one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While this is a bit of an edge case, the "[m|M]oon" in this expression refers to our specific moon, as an astronomical body/placename, so it's like "Apollo 11 was the spaceflight that first landed humans on the Moon"). These aren't rocks from any random moon (a genericized usage, e.g. "Jupiter has many moons"), and it's not a figural usage (like "a ritual performed only under a full moon", which refers to human perception of the disk in the sky, not a property of the actual location orbiting us).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish above. It's still worth highlighting that these are from a specific Moon, not just Phobos and Deimos too.
Otherwise though I'd support some of these: I'd take the noun/adjective split as being the guide to whether they should be capitalised; so in general "moon rock" and "moon landing" would be lowercase, but "landing on the Moon" would stay as capitalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hell, no Do you know what a style guide is? We have our own, and we follow this; we are not bound to whatever style guide our "reliable sources" may or may not be using. This article is exclusively concerned with material collected from Earth's Moon. When and if significant amounts of material are returned from other celestial bodies, and are lost or stolen, a separate article may be warranted. And it is likely that "moon" will be too restrictive, because material from planets and asteroids are likely to be retrieved. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, really, we have our own Manual of Style? Why didn't anyone tell me? Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stolen_and_missing_Moon_rocks&oldid=1200272755"