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)


 * seconded/thirded? Is this guy famous (or infamous, or notorious) for anything other than being a 38 year old "man" who got his ass beat by a 72 year old hero? Not even remotely notable.108.31.242.232 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2015 (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)

Maybe this guy is not noteworthy? This page should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.105.200 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2014 (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)

Clearly this person doesn't warrant an entire article to himself, perhaps not even a foot note on Aldrin's page. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Much as I dislike lending credibility to charlatans like Sibrel, I can't deny that he is "notable" in the sense that the clip is widely known and there are plenty of media stories about it. Conspiracy believers still like to cite his videos as 'evidence' for their claims too, so I find this page useful to point out that Sibrel has no qualifications in science and is now driving taxis for a living. Not that there is anything wrong with being a taxi driver, but their opinions on science are hardly equal to those of scientists. The page could do with some serious trimming, though, as he certainly doesn't merit the lengthy coverage of the current page. It should be little more than a paragraph or two. TuringBox (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2016 (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)

Arrest / vandalism incident
In this edit user QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV removed the legal section which is properly sourced. The reason given was:
 * Some WP:FRINGEBLP problems here. Cleaned up.

This is no reason to remove a properly sourced incident that actually happened and was mentioned on a news website so I have restored the section. Everyone else, please check the page history from time to time to make sure this section is not deleted. --Hooverplant (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion on the appropriateness of this section on the BLP noticeboard here.   DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can justify including the section on the "vandalism incident". It is unrelated to the reasons why he is noteworthy at wikipedia. Wikipedia editors should not be involved in discrediting Mr Sibrel like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esperion (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism incident is a matter of public record (see https://web.archive.org/web/20110711081414/http://www.newschannel5.com/story/10799169/inside-story-apollo-conspiracy-theorist-arrested-after-tirade) and should never have been removed. It is not for Wikipedia to airbrush negative PR out of the history of such dubiously 'notable' entities. Either the vandalism reference stays or the entire article should go. --TuringBox (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bart Sibrel. 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 tag to http://wtvf.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/Investigates/SibrelAffidavit.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916052629/http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=89752 to http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=89752

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) 19:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Where was Bart Sibrel born and suchlike background....
What school, college and so forth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.144.165 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"Taxi driver"
The box on the right mentions "Taxi driver" and that is like saying that Tom Cruise is a pizza delivery boy since he did that kind of work once... Jim Carrey was a homeless, so why not add this info as well? Well, for a good reason, because that does not represent the known person, even though it is OK to mention any side info in the biography section, but not in the right-hand box.

Bart Sibrel clearly states in his article here, posted July 20, 2017: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/land-moon-1960s-technology/

"The fact that I, during one past occasion (though no longer), drove a taxi on weekends to help pay the bills during an economic downturn, is used by some desperate critics to negate the fact that I have been a professional filmmaker for more than thirty years, and as such, can highly discern fraudulent photography when I see it. (See a list of my films, whose budgets ranged from $2000 to $500,000, by clicking HERE.) If you really think about it, what these lovers of denial are saying is that if you drive a yellow car, this disqualifies you from being able to perceive the Truth. Anyone who makes such a nonsensical argument to begin with, is likewise proving, by their own ridiculous misstatements, that it is they who lack the ability to perceive reality."

Regardless of what anyone might think of Bart Sibrel, a "crackpot" or whatever, he is clearly NOT a taxi driver, even if he did had to earn some money at a certain point in his life. That can be mentioned in his late-life biography section, but not on the occupation box. Bart Sibrel is known for his stance on the moon landings and his work as a filmmaker on the subject. Portraying him as a "Taxi driver" is clearly an attempt to belittle his documentary film work (regardless if we agree with his work or strongly disagree with his work).

Per my explanation above, I will remove the Taxi driver reference from the right-hand box.

John Hyams (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of your position regarding references to Sibrel's stint as a taxi driver, John. The link you have provided to Sibrel's blog article no longer seems to contain his statement about the temporary nature of his taxi driving. The date on that link is now July 15, 2019, so it appears that Sibrel replaced it with a different article. However, as the last known reference to him driving taxis was in 2009, let us assume that he is no longer a taxi driver until proven otherwise. --TuringBox (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The Birmingham News citation - not really available
When checking the Birmingham News citation regarding Jim McDade's review of Bart Sibrel's film, the link leads to the following site: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Bart%20Sibrel.htm. When checking the root domain, a blog site can be found: http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk. Accordingly, by no means can this website be used as a reference. There is no way to verify the accuracy of quote from the Birmingham News article, and overall, this "thekeyboard.org.uk" website does not meet the requirements for a reliable citation source on Wikipedia. Therefore, I will remove this citation and call for a more reliable/proper citation. I will not delete the paragraph but rather add a notification that a citation (a reliable one) is needed.

If no reliable citation can be provided, then this "Birmingham News article quote" can eventually be deleted, per WP:BLP.

Note: Overall I think that the paragraph with the film review (even with proper citing) does not match the section title, and it actually belongs in the article about Sibrel's film, not the article about Sibrel himself. The Criticism section in the film's article would be a more appropriate place for this kind of critique/review.

John Hyams (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Article must adhere to Wikipedia's biography template
The current structure of the article should be revised to adhere with Wikipedia's biography template.

John Hyams (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Somebody should make the point to this guy..
That he can probably earn a lot of money offering himself up to be punched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.11.220 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Awards
I have deleted this section after searching in vain for any evidence of the supposed awards. It is only on Sibrel's own web sites and YouTube channel. I think that unless any source can be found it is better to just leave this off.Garyvines (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

3RR on adding Sibrel's opinions as fact

 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

have a couple of problems:
 * "Bart Sibrel stated the following main reasons that the Apollo missions were a fake:" is putting Sibrel's own theories into WP's voice. We can't do that: we should leave this as "Bart Sibrel claimed the following main reasons for why he believed that the Apollo missions were a fake: ", as it was.
 * Secondly, "Apollo's achievement with its 50 year-old technology cannot be reproduced in 2019" may be true, but 2019 has no relevance to 1969. The hypothesis "If we can't do it in 2019 we couldn't do it in 1969" is a different statement. I don't know if that's Sibrel's claim, but it's not a statement supported by Don Pettit's statement as cited here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have renamed that section accordingly, to make it clear that these are Sibrel's statements only. John Hyams (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, these two points still apply and need to be fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * See for Sibrel's own comments on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issue on this BLP page
I have been on Wikipedia as an editor since 2005 (!). I am stunned by the audacity and non-neutral approach by which this article is written. The article as it is now, clearly violates Wikipedia's NPOV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). John Hyams (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Wikipedia is not a platform for defaming living people. John Hyams (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP aside, which aspects of the article violate WP:NPOV? Note that WP:FRINGE is entirely relevant here, and sourced debunking of Sibrel's theories is entirely appropriate. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is very little debunking of Sibrel either here, or necessary. In the canon of Apollo denialists, Sibrel is well known for his personality, but not for his point-by-point claims against Apollo (such that they'd be concrete enough to debunk). His specific claims are mostly just too vague "Of course they didn't go" to address (or to be convincing). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. I just cited a documentary called Lunar Legacy which successfully refutes many of Sibrel's claims, including his argument that the astronauts were filming earth from low orbit through a round window or similar cutout, when in fact such a representation would be impossible due to earth rotation + spacecraft orbital velocity.  There are other errors in his DVD, including mistaking a window frame edge for an "arm", and other spurious nonsense. I'm asking that my edits be approved through consensus. Cr20324 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

“false belief” ?
This wiki entry should be rewritten as an unbiased article related to Bart Sibrel. The first sentence makes the biased nature of this entry abundantly clear, by stating that the views expressed by Bart Sibrel regarding NASA are a “false belief”. This article should simply convey the relevant information. Not speak to the validity of Bart Sibrel’s documentaries/beliefs. The reader can decide that for themselves without prompting. Pushing a narrative or dictating perceived truths is not a service to anyone. 2600:8804:6500:4B10:50D5:F8F1:53C0:F959 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:GEVAL policy. When someone is known for WP:FRINGE views or other quackery, this is what we're supposed to do, not give them undue validity through false "neutrality". KoA (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quackery is believing that NASA possessed technology in the 60s that no country in the world comes near to matching today!! 185.182.71.38 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion of what people can do is not relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reproducibility" is the foundation of assessing scientific studies; many conclusions have been overturned based on the inability of other parties to reproduce the same results.
 * It is entirely undisputed that no country in the world has been able to duplicate the heavy-lift capabilities of the Saturn V rocket. Perhaps SpaceX with the current Starship is coming close but this tech is currently untested. This casts increasing doubt on what NASA's real capabilities were in the 1960s.
 * It is utterly wrong to classify "moon hoax theories" as being false. That is by definition a subjective judgement. Which is almost certainly wrong for anybody who has actually bothered to study the overwhelming body of evidence demonstrating that the claimed 1969 moon landings were nothing more than a "PR stunt that has no place in the history books!" (direct quotation from Buzz Aldrin interview with Vanity Fair 2010. See https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/06/buzz-aldrin-is-not-all-that-impressed-with-walking-on-the-moon) 212.159.116.167 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * no country in the world has been able to duplicate Wrong. No country has tried to do it, so you cannot know if they were able to.
 * Moon landing deniers are the same type of bullshit peddlers as truthers, birthers, creationists, and Holocaust deniers, and they have the same status as those. That is the consensus among reliable sources. Your opinion and your reasoning are still irrelevant. Wikipedia just does not work the way you imagine. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are beyond disgusting to associate Moon landing deniers with Holocaust deniers!
 * There were hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. My friend's father personally lost his parents, grandparents and 11 siblings in the Holocaust. My maternal grandparents were both German Jewish refugees who fled for their lives. The evidence to the Holocaust is tens of thousands of times stronger than the evidence of the moon landings. Why don't you research the 44000 Nazi camps (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camps)? Why don't you go to Yad Vashem and visit the Hall of Names with millions of victims and millions of pages of testimony? There is nothing remotely comparable when it comes to the Moon landings. In fact I consider your above comment soft-core Holocaust denial.
 * The moon landings were each allegedly viewed by a mere 2(!) eyewitnesses - the astronauts who claimed to have landed on the Moon. These astronauts have long been discredited, as they have constantly contradicted each other on basic facts of their mission, such as engine noise, types of re-entry etc, apart from their scientific cluelessness, Alan Bean was unaware of the Van Allen belts.
 * Holocaust deniers have been shown repeatedly to be vicious antisemites who attempt to drum up hatred against Jews by accusing the Jews of perpetrating the "Holocaust Hoax," as has clearly been demonstrated in various court cases, most notably the Irving v Lipstadt case in the 1990s. Whereas those exposing the Moon landings as a hoax have no such bias at all, there is nothing to be gained except a search for the truth. Most people who have done rudimentary research on the moon landings see it as science fiction. 185.182.71.38 (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And several countries including the US have tried to design heavy lift rockets which to this day have failed. China are currently pursuing a moon landing program. Russia in the 1980s tried designing the Energia Buran heavy-lift rockets which failed. There is a reason the US uses boosters on their rockets to achieve more power today, something that was supposedly unnecessary in the 60s.
 * Do your homework! George Bush Sr wanted to go to the moon but wasn't able to. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Exploration_Initiative) His son asked NASA to go back to the moon. In 2005 they issued a report that it would take until 2020! After several years of no progress, the Constellation program was cancelled by Obama. Fancy that; they were going every 6 months in the early 70s. Wake up! 185.182.71.38 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, bullshit peddling. Your standards for evidence "a mere 2(!) eyewitnesses" are ridiculous. Holocaust deniers have slightly different, but equally ridiculous excuses for ignoring evidence. They also claim that the eyewitnesses are not credible, with equally silly justification.
 * Also, you are in the wrong place for it. Go convince the scientific community that your wacky ideas have merit, get reliable sources to agree with you. Until then, there is nothing you can achieve here because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That exact issue is what brought me here. Totally agree RManPT (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Order of Events
Watching the interaction between Sibrel and Aldrin, the order of events is clearly logged here incorrectly. Aldrin tells Sibrel "Will you get away from me?" and THEN Sibrel insults him, saying "You're a coward, a liar, and a thief-" at which point Aldrin punched him. The article does not accurately reflect the confrontation. 203.123.117.108 (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
In the first paragraph "the false belief" should be changed to "the belief". The article should not make judgment of the information or suggest to the reader what to think about the information. RManPT (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Would violate WP:NPOV to not accurately describe the belief. WP:FRINGE beliefs are stated as such. KoA (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel book
There should be a link to Bart Sibrel's 2021 book: "Moon man: The true story of a filmmaker on the CIA hit list." https://www.amazon.co.uk/Moon-Man-True-Story-Filmmaker/dp/1513686569 185.182.71.38 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Moon landing denial section
The moon landing denial section mixes in the rebuttals with the claims, and is not clear on which the citation applies to. Could these maybe be reorganized as a two column table or indented bullets, to more clearly distinguish claim from rebuttal? Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Biographical data
Easily found when he was born.

He has a publicly available criminal history available here (archived).

He was born Dec 15 1964.

The criminal history is DUIs and vandalism that got downgraded from felony to misdemeanor.

The page is locked so I put this here for future reference.

71.224.252.76 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)