Talk:William Anders

Anders biography: Alleged repudiation of religion

I removed the two sentences that claimed, "However according to one article his outlook on religion changed profoundly after his participation in the Apollo 8 mission. He found his experience of space made a mockery of his beliefs and he gave up religion.[1]" This statement is completely unfounded. I explain:

1. The contributors sole reference is from the UK Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/nov/30/apollo-8-mission . I have read that article 3 or 4 times. While this article is very interesting and fascinating, nowhere does it state any factual evidence that Anders rejected or questioned his own religion. None of his quotes reflect this. Only an unreferenced and unproven editorially enhanced biography at the end of the article.

2, I could find no other sources that could possibly confirm the claim that Anders rejected or otherwise questioned the religion of his birth, or even suggestions thereto.

3. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, it is highly unlikely that someone who qualified in the NASA missile program and reached Major General in the United States Air Force would issue or utter such an incredible and frankly unbelievable statement.

That said, if contributors can locate refuting data -- hopefully from personal references and not from questionable and highly notoriously socially biased newspapers such as "The Guardian" -- I will happily stand corrected.

Divbis0 (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a post in which Richard Dawkins says that Anders told him at the STARMUS conference that he had no respect for religion: http://old.richarddawkins.net/discussions/646684-celebrating-curiosity-on-twitter/comments#comment_950439

Full quote: "Don't despair, things may not be as bad as they seem. Last year, at the splendid STARMUS conference in Tenerife that brought together astronauts and scientists, I had many agreeable conversations with Bill Anders, astronaut who famously read from the first Chapter of the book of Genesis while orbiting the moon on Apollo 8 in 1968. Major General Anders, a gallant, intelligent and entertaining man, told me he has no respect for religion. He read the Bible in space only because he was told to by NASA." Anon12356 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Divbis0, the Guardian is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. When it reports that Anders abandoned his religion, that is credible owing to the newspaper's reputation and standing. Your claim that "it is highly unlikely that someone who qualified in the NASA missile program and reached Major General in the United States Air Force would issue or utter such an incredible and frankly unbelievable statement" is nothing but personal speculation. The Guardian's report is supported by Richard Dawkins' tweet that "It was Bill Anders who recited Genesis, and not from lunar surface but from orbit. He did it against his will, not being a believer." — O'Dea (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As a "religious" person myself, this is an interesting discussion. Of course, I'm sure Anders knew or had been told that one can recite a message to others without having to personally believe in said message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.188.108.54 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by CSJJ104 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

William Anders's Earthrise

• ... that William Anders took the iconic photo, Earthrise (pictured)? Source: Rowell, Galen. "The Earthrise Photograph". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eva Duldig

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 17:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I like the picture! Earwig's picks up the incorporate public domain text, as expected. No quality issues, as expected from a GA. My only quarrel is with the hook: Does it need the comma? I have occasionally seen it used like this before, but it looked weird to me as a non-native, and I couldn't find any reference to this usage in Comma#Uses in English. Should it not simply be dropped @Evrik? –LordPickleII (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to dropping the comma. It is a parenthetical comma, something you could replace with parentheses. If the comma is omitted, we have a false title phrase. Meh. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Interesting, thanks! I missed that. In this case I have no objection to keeping it, either; may the promoter decide. –LordPickleII (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm a little concerned that the hook will direct most readers to click on Earthrise, rather than William Anders. Would you be okay with removing Earthrise's link in the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong

This part needs clarifying: 'they then returned to China'. In 1933 Hong Kong was a British colony, so not part of China (geographically, but not politically). So did they go back to Hong Kong (as is suggested by 'returned'? Or did they go to a different part of geographic China? 109.152.55.81 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Time Dilation note

'Due to time dilation, he had aged about 300 microseconds more than people back on Earth." a fun tidbit, but just curious, since the crew was going so fast, wouldn't that mean the crew had aged a tiny bit LESS than those on Earth? 137.188.108.54 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"Time magazine said Astronaut Frank Borman had amused audiences during February 1969 European tour by claiming Apollo 8 astronauts deserved overtime pay because they had aged about 300 microseconds more than people on earth during moon mission. At NASA'srequest, Univ. of Maryland physicist Carroll Alley had calculated effects on astronauts of phenomena described in Einstein’s relativity equations- time ran slower for object as its speed increased, and time accelerated for object as it moved away from body exerting gravitational force. Alley found Apollo 8 spacecraft speed was predominant factor when it was within 4,000 mi of earth; time slowed and astronauts actually aged more slowly. Beyond 4,000 mi, effects of earth’s gravity lessened as Apollo’s time passed 300 microseconds faster than earth's. Despite Alley’s calculations, said Time, Borman’s claim was valid only for Astronaut William A. Anders, who made his first space flight on Apollo 8. Astronauts Borman and James A. Lovell had been crew mates on Dec. 4-18, 1965, Gemini VII, when time dilation effect was dominant for entire two weeks. They had aged less than those on Earth by 400 microseconds. Lovell’s time also had been slowed during four-day Gemini XII mission Nov. 11-15, 1966, by about 100 microseconds. “Thus,” said Time, “during all their missions in space, Lovell and Borman respectively spent 200 and 100 microseconds less time than was recorded on earth-which means they were paid for more time than they actually worked." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Death

is he really dead his death isn’t showing on google or here is he dead 81.108.78.218 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Until it is confirmed in a reliable source, I have reverted the change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/william-anders-wa-plane-crash 2600:1700:1420:5D50:7CC0:C9F6:853E:7C68 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The source identifies him as the pilot, it doesn't confirm his death. Another article from the same source says it's unknown if anyone survived. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mail said he's sadly dead... so does that confirm it or not? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13507845/Apollo-8-astronaut-William-Anders-90-named-pilot-killed-small-plane-slammed-Washington-lake-fireball.html TomMasterReal^TALK 00:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You corrected the death date to a week ago. - Kayfox (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it, yay! - Kayfox (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why was his death speculated on a week ago, if he just died today? That's weird... 2600:1700:1420:5D50:7CC0:C9F6:853E:7C68 (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

He didn't die today; his death was confirmed today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7, he died today. The plane went down this morning around 11:40 am, 7 June. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources say he died last Friday. I wish they would give the date instead of the day. It would avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that on the local news. And there have been no reports of downed aircraft in the last week and in the area Anders was flying. Also, I have friends in the local aviation community where Anders flew out of. One of them talked to a good friend of Anders just today about the crash. It definitely happened today. The sources are saying today, his family is saying it was today, his friends are saying it was today, his museum is posting that it was today. The truth is it was today, so we should stick with today. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

And we have. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I just found it odd that you would insist he died a week ago when every news source yesterday not only said it was yesterday but so many of them quoted his own son and his foundation confirming it was yesterday. No big deal, but it was a strange hill to see anyone nearly die on. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

New York Times and The Associated Press reported that Anders died on Friday, 7 June 2024. Not sure why people were thinking he was dead a week ago. The crash happened at around 11:40 a.m. PDT on 7 June 2024. Abebenjoe (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Date formats

Hawkeye7, Anders is an American subject. Isn't there a consensus to use month-first dates for American subjects? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:MILFORMAT: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware of that line in the MOS. This point doesn't seem to applied very well. See Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., Jim Lovell, Buzz Aldrin, Colin Powell, Jim Mattis, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

A little further down in the MOS it quotes an ArbCom ruling that you must preserve the existing date format unless you can generate a consensus for another format. I have done this a few times, but it is often contentious, and usually people cannot be bothered, so articles tend to remain in whatever format someone chose for the first non-stub version. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a pretty dysfunctional state of affairs. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it being pretty enforced and as Jweiss11 pointed out, there's other articles of US military officials that use month-day-year. I'm in support of having dates reverted back to mdy style. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand that US military usage, however, I agree with Jweiss11's point of the dates not being applied to other individuals with military careers. If we're looking to form a consensus that this page should be MDY, I'll gladly join in agreement.

Another point: NASA isn't a military organization; it's an independent government agency. So while they may follow some rules in using military time, I don't know if it would necessarily be as strict. Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Lindsey40186, Anders retired from the US Air Force as a Major General and was in the Air Force while he was with NASA. That easily qualifies the article for use of military style dates. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Other examples of military members using the standard MDY format have been listed as an example, including those who were most well-known for military involvement and others with about as much involvement. If we reduce every article to "X served in the military, therefore we should use DMY" then a lot of articles would need to be changed. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, most military biographies use the standard American military dmy format. This only applies to people whose primary claim to notability is their military (or NASA) service. It does not apply to someone who just served in the military for a time like Elvis Presley. Audie Murphy, for example, uses the standard format. You need to make a case for (a) overrturning the current format (MOS:DATERET), (b) overruling the preferred format per the MOS (MOS:MILFORMAT) and (c) that it is not just POV pushing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Lindsey40186, again, he was a MAJOR GENERAL, which means he rose through the ranks for decades of service. He wasn't just an "X served in the military" individual. While you may not have known of him for his military career, or even his NASA career prior to this article, many others have and did. And even though NASA is not a military branch, the majority of astronauts prior to shuttle missions in the 1980s were either active duty military or prior military. I can't see any reasonable rationale that this article should not utilize the military date format. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I get that he was a MAJOR GENERAL... and Colin Powell was a 4-star general, yet his article uses the standard MDY format; as does Dwight D. Eisenhower, George S. Patton (Army 1909-1945), Oliver North (Marines 1968-1990), William Leahy (Navy 1893-1959), John Glenn (Navy/Marines 1942-1965), Neil Armstrong (Navy 1949-1960) just to name a few. In fact, running through a list of current 4-star officers, most use the MDY format on their own pages. Lindsey40186 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Lindsey40186, at this point, all I can respond with is, "See Hawkeye7's comments above and make a case for overturning the current format, overruling the preferred format per MOS, etc.". The current standard for military-related articles is the DMY format already established in this article. I'm unclear on what the big deal is to leave it as it is. The current format is, after all, in accordance with MOS. It seems the others are not and might need to be corrected. Good luck on your quest for change. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Anders is most well known for his NASA career, whereas Leahy, Patton, Schwarzkopf, and many others are notable entirely for their military careers. There's a problem with the MOS here. MOS:MILFORMAT doesn't address biographies of those who are notable for US military service and something else. And MOS:MILFORMAT is circumstantially at odds with MOS:DATERET such that we cannot apply formats consistently across analogous articles. Do we need an RFC to address this? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You can create an RFC to abolish the use of the mdy and impose a English Wikipedia-wide standard of using dmy if you like, but proposals of that nature rarely achieve consensus. (A proposal that all spaceflight articles use dmy failed a few years back.) From experience, what you are more likely to get is a consensus that the issue be addressed on an article-by-article basis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to abolish the use of mdy because dmy would look pretty funny in my main area of focus, American sports. What I would like to see is either 1) MOS:MILFORMAT applied universally, trumping MOS:DATERET or 2) the elimination of MOS:MILFORMAT or 3) a clarification that MOS:MILFORMAT only applies to bios notable first and foremost for military service. The status quo is a dysfunctional, contradictory mess. Lindsey40186 and Alaska4Me2, would you be interested in participating in such an RFC? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I certainly would, and I agree with your point that abolishing MDY would cause more confusion than it would solved problems (and I can only imagine the updating and upkeep it would require!). I came into this discussion thinking of a mix between points 2 and 3, and I definitely think that, if we do continue to use it (which I'm not opposed to), we should consider using it only for non-biographical military articles. Lindsey40186 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)