Talk:Bart Sibrel

Article Review and Rewrite Discussion

It is clear after reviewing the discussion and debate that this article is not well settled in any fashion. In addition, there is a great deal of unregistered anonymous edits that are adding items with either a POV or a clear agenda due to either agreement or dislike of his views. I wish to take part in the discussion from an NPOV and work to make this a better article. The subject is noteworthy in that he is in the media on a consistent basis regarding his theories. However, iw ould like to discuss the article prior to further editing an any major way. While we should avoid publicizing his theories as fact, a review of his work is necessary on in light of other articles such as Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories. I would submit to editors that the following steps should be taken during this discussion and begin within the next seven days:

1) Research and Inclusion of larger volume of verifiable third party citations regarding work and notability

2) Include banners of other WIKI Project that may wish to contribute

3) Finalize the format and tone of the article

I welcome thoughts and discussions regarding this article, and ask that anyone seeking to edit use the talk page during this period to help build consensus.

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations Review

I would like to begin the discussion on citations and information. Please discuss in an appropriate fashion, and make comments below the individual citation to ease reference please.

1) The first one under the references tab is a New Times article "Vocal Minority Insists It Was All Smoke and Mirrors", referencing Sibrel and his encounter with Aldrin, as well as the issue of the moon landing and Mythbusters approach to testing the theories set forth.

2) This second article, also by the NYT, is a short write up on the altercation between Aldrin and Sibrel.

3) This third NYT article is more detailed on Sibrel, and covers the subject through his routine and operations.

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

4) A Fourth citation regarding Bart Sibrel and his 2002 incident with Aldrin, is listed in the book, Rumor Mills.

5) A fifth citation from the same author also mentioning the 2002 incident in a journal article for review:

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit Issues in Criticism Section

As I mentioned above, I am all for a complete rewrite of the article to better conform to WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. However, for now, to put the section of debate to rest, I have reviewed my prior citations, and further reviewed the one in the section prior to the edits and found the support the statements currently on the page. Please take the time to review the citations prior deleting as edit warring is problematic and takes us all off the goal of the wiki, which is to add content where appropriate. Again, I am asking for people to actually review the citations. Had this been done before, it was clear the prior citation backed up at least a portion of the deleted text. Please discuss thoughts here in this section so they can be incorporated into the eventual rewrite.

Please note, the citations listed were researched using UIUC's broad database and availability of material. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I found the citation for the "history of stalking" sentence in the Newsweek article. It doesn't really say the same thing in the Newsweek article as what we say in the Wikipedia article, which is why I didn't find it the first time I read the Newsweek article, but it's close enough that I'm not going to dispute it. 173.170.157.188 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

??

How would you react if a stalker cornered you? There is no reason to believe the landings were fake, or to condone a stalker's actions like Sibrel. ````Bellahdoll —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellahdoll (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Moon Maiden continues to revert this page back to show information that is not true. I would ask that Moon Maiden please e-mail me (Moonmovie) to discuss this "edit war." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonmovie (talk • contribs) 12:50, 1 July, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Added NPOV template. This article is attempting to show that Bart Sibrel is wrong, when Wikipedia's goal is to be informative about all sides of a subject. Wikipedia articles are not intended to form people's opinions for them (no matter "obviously" incorrect Sibrel may seem).

The second 2/3rds of this article needs to be re-written in a neutral tone, and include the counter-arguments, i.e. some of Sibrel's own reasons for why he believes what he does. The allegations can remain, but need to be reported from a neutral stance. lunaverse 21:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think about him, Caesarion, Sibrel is a public figure of some notoriety. So, he should have an article. By your reasoning, Adolf Hitler wouldn't deserve to have an article about him. But he does have an article. Writing an article about someone does not necessarily mean you agree with them. GeorgeC 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, will diarise cutting this down to a) a smaller article and b) something which conforms to NPOV - Having looked at the article, it will probably be a pretty big edit so we could do with some hardcore conspiracy theorists around to balance the discussion. Anyone know any? [half-smile ;)] --Si42 01:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If I print a newsletter stating up is down, down is up, and gravity is a mass hallucination. I'll be able to go to the article on gravity and append a section saying "Recent publications have drawn a shadow of doubt over existing theories of gravitation". That's not NPOV, it's wikipedia policy but it's not neutral, it's bullshit. Sibrel is a lunatic (mwahha) and his insane ramblings shouldn't be given the respect due scholarly work. I doubt if there's any mention of his bullshit in Britannica. 83.70.219.86 10:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why liars like Bart Sibrel should have their opinions given equal weight. It's no one's obligation to present their whacked out ideas as truth, especially when the majority of the evidence weighs against them. Stating that in an encyclopedia hardly exhibits bias.129.2.167.219 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

This page needs some serious revision. Added NPOV template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.146.29 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Is it really a "Moon Hoax Documentary" film if the only thing it documents is Bart's insanity and need for attention? Need better wording for that section heading.

---

Is this new revision satisfactory? GeorgeC 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd say so. The article is pretty clear about what he suggests, how he's suggested it, includes incidents related to his notability, covers notable legal events from his off-screen life, and is reasonably clear about the status of his claims as, "conspiracy theory". I'd consider any other proposed additions (baring new events) are likely to be biased... either severely or surreptitiously, one way or the other. Good work.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.68 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Sibrel

I see it's been removed. It's a screenshot (from the Fox special) which, according to the rules, is allowed. I even said it was a screenshot! Honestly, it's BS like this that's ruining Wikipedia. GeorgeC 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

There have been a couple of cases of vandalism to the See also section - one was reverted earlier and I reverted to the last unvandalised version. Sibrel is clearly a crank, but that's no excuse for vandalising the article. Autarch (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this person noteworthy?

There are many people who have made films or been punched. What makes this person noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.96.114 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

by noteworthy, do you mean he should have a wikipedia entry? my answer would be a firm Yes. He has a moon hoax movie, a moon hoax site, and he appears, as an "Investigative Reporter" no less, on Fox's own moon hoax "documentary"-- its very important that information about him is available in a forum such as wikipedia. --Petzl (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He was widely mocked after the Aldrin incident (including apparently on Jay Leno, etc.); should probably be more on that... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Many people have been punched, but I'll wager there are darn few that have been punched by someone who walked on the Moon. It was a newsworthy event, and that makes it encyclopedic.--Edgewise (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He's noteworthy for reasons other than being punched. Being punched was just notable fallout from his otherwise somewhat well-known activities. He is a public figure of repute (ill or otherwise), and therefore an article is both useful and justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.68 (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Charles Manson was asked who he (Manson) was & he said he's "nobody". Sibrel is less than nobody 14.202.132.63 (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy

"Sibrel's claims of a lunar landing hoax have been widely refuted and laid to rest by the scientific and space science communities, in addition to a recent testing of Sibrel's theory's by the creators of the show Mythbusters." Damn, who writes this drivel? Jay, is that you. How'd you get that Hasselblad? How'd the LM stay cooled by car batteries for two full days in 230F temp? Do you have to have a retro-reflector to bounce a laser off the moon and detect a return? How do objects in shadow get backlit with no air to scatter light? Why do the LRO photos absolutely SUCK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.177.149.37 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Objects in shadow get backlit by sunlight scattered by the lunar surface's dust - see mythbusters. The LM stayed cooled by sublimation of water ice. The LRO's cameras have resolution specs that match the quality of the photos they make. Future spacecraft might show more detail. Even the Soviets acknowledged the US landings. 145.97.222.186 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel is more of a lunatic than a filmmaker.

Why does this lunatic/bully/stalker get a wikipedia page that doesn't mention that he is a lunatic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.255.239 (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know. He is nobody,