Talk:Apollo 15 postal covers incident

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "2 were Destroyed"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this one? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moved section from [[David Scott]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Send me an email. ww2censor (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks. I put a lot of effort into this one. Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who knew? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure thing! . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition re " thereby effectively rescinding charges of impropriety by the astronauts." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worden's lawsuit