Talk:Bob Lazar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Be a skeptic but respect facts

Bob Lazar studied at MIT los alamos, whatever your beliefe on UFOs, if you are Skeptical or pro believer, please do not change the truth. Bob lazar is a scientist, certified, there’s evidence, typing that he is a self-proclaimed scientist goes beyond false news. That’s why wikipedia shouldn’t allow kids as editors. Vinsol100 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Bob lazar is a scientist, certified, there’s evidence In that case, please go ahead and add that evidenced (i.e., reliably sourced) content. I look forward to reading that evidence, because although I have been surrounded by scientists for several decades, I had no idea that one could be "certified" in that career. (although I know more than a couple who should be certified) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, if there is no such thing as certification of scientists, then what makes Mr Lazar any more "self-proclaimed" of a physicist than anyone else? Perhaps say "a self-proclaimed college graduate," if that's the bit of evidence you see missing, here. How many Wikipedia articles have required proof of a scientist's education? Further, anyone with an Associate's Degree in any science is, by definition, a scientist. Do we call Steve Jobs a "self-proclaimed inventor" since he never finished college? The answer to that is obvious; so is your attempt to defend the biased language in this article. I visited this page because I am a professor of public speaking and a student gave a speech about Lazar. I teach my students that Wikipedia is not the one-sided, biased, inaccurate place it was a decade ago. Sadly, this article disproves my claim about Wikipedian accuracy while serving to prove Lazar's claims more than disprove them. --Aristotle's Granddaughter 198.209.17.240 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to strike your accusation of defamation. See No personal attacks which is a blockable offense and you also need to log into your account. Its fine to debate content as long as that content is supported by sources but you cannot make disparaging comments about other editors. Also, not sure JoJo Anthrax is a Mr. (no gender declared that I can tell). S0091 (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I made the specific revisions you suggested. However, in the interest of ethos, to anyone who believes the tone JoJo Anthrax has used reflects a bias, I invite you to visit his talk page and observe the breadth of topics on which he publishes as an expert. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on the statements, JoJo Anthrax is asking for sources to support your position which are required per WP:V. And yes, Wikipedia does require reliable sources to support someone has a degree or is otherwise considered a subject matter expert, as described by reliable sources. Unsourced claims can be removed and should be removed for Biographies of living persons. S0091 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not my position--I haven't stated one. JoJo made the assertion that there is no such thing as a certification process for scientists. In fact, we (Americans) grant degrees at a number of institutions. Lazar has, like Thomas Edison, claimed he has one. I do not believe that the article about Thomas Edison offers a notarized statement confirming his education. Lazar has stated what education he received, and, according to my student who gave an excellent speech, Lazar has provided copies of his diploma. What is the threshold of oppositional evidence to a primary source that would require more secondary support? 198.209.17.240 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: What is the threshold for "reliability" when using it to evaluate secondary sources? For example, would it be appropriate to cite one of the recent biographies of him and report his side of the story by citing those elements of documentary journalism? I know the answers to these already, but I'm not going to waste time fixing this article only to have a self-proclaimed middle schooler change them back. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Read reliable source. For example a self-published book would generally be considered unreliable but a book from a reputable publisher with editorial oversight and a history of fact checking is generally considered reliable. I used the term "generally" because it depends on the source and the content it is supporting. For example, the New York Times is generally considered a reliable source but it may not be a reliable source for certain content. Context matters which is why a source first has to provided so it can be analyzed to determine if it is reliable given the content. So far, you have provided nothing but words. With that, I am stepping out of this discussion because, honestly, I am completely disinterested in this topic and only commented because I saw your disparaging comment but that has been sufficiently rectified. Although I will say, once again, you do need to long into your account. S0091 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, S0091, but I do not have a wikipedia account. You may verify my credentials with my ip address. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

according to my student who gave an excellent speech I suggest, 198.209.17.240, that you read WP:RS to learn why your student's speech is not a reliable source. As for self-proclaimed middle schooler, I suggest that you also read WP:NPA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, JoJo. I would not cite a student speech, obviously. I came here to confirm things from my student's speech, particularly whether Lazar had in fact passed several lie detector tests from impartial examiners as part of a published documentary film. I do not believe "self-proclaimed middle schooler" is any more of a personal attack than "self-proclaimed physicist," and it relies on information you asserted, which I'm sure was not intended as an attack, when you confirmed that this page was trolled by a middle-schooler. If you have evidence that the aforementioned middle schooler has, in fact, graduated, for example, I'd be glad to tell you if the evidence is good enough. Please not that I use "trolled" in the sense of one who stands by a bridge and won't let anyone past out of indignant self-importance; I could be wrong. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: I'll come back if I can find any sources that show both sides of this issue. I appreciate that it seems you folks here would accept evidence from published sources, such as the 1989 media coverage of his claims that I vaguely recall. I'll do research. Please be 1% more civil with those that are here to contribute and preserve knowledge, and please have a nice day. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe "self-proclaimed middle schooler" is any more of a personal attack than "self-proclaimed physicist," The difference is that one is a derogatory comment directed at a specific editor on the Article Talk page, the other is article text containing a summary of what cited WP:RS say about the article subject. If you cannot understand the difference, then you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. I hope you'll read the links to Wikipedia editorial policies I left on your User Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Lucky, I was summarizing JoJo's post. JoJo's exact words were, "Yes, a middle schooler protected this page." Are you quite sure JOJO was not directing that comment at a specific editor? I have no idea if JoJo meant you, JoJo themself(s), or someone else, just that it was offered as an excuse here in the talk page for the biased tone of the actual article, without identifying the editor who protected the page. Further, I do not have a user talk page since I am not a registered user; I'm an anonymous editor. If you post something to your user page that you would like me to review or comment on, please let me know here. Finally, I take your question of my competence as a personal attack, as I have already established my credibility as a rheterician, and encourage you to review this link: Wikipedia:NPA 198.209.17.240 (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: Using an "If...then" construction won't shield you here. I already stated that I do not see a difference, so your use of "If you cannot understand the difference" does nothing to insulate you from the fact that you directly questioned my credibility as a competent editor. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, yes you do have talk page as everyone does regardless if they are registered or not, see User talk:198.209.17.240 and again, you keep addressing JoJo as a "he" but I not have seen anything the states JoJo's gender. This suggests you do either do not read comments or disregard them. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed my typo and rectified it prior to your post. I apologize profusely to all males on the planet for my potential error. 198.209.17.240 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"MIT Los Alamos" is not a school; MIT is a school in Massachusetts, while Los Alamos is a laboratory facility operated by the US government in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Bob Lazar claims to have a masters in physics from MIT, earned in 1982. However, a search of the MIT Libraries returns no record of any thesis paper submitted between 1/1/1981 and 12/31/1982 by a Robert Lazar. He is notably absent from all alumni association records, does not appear in the 1982 yearbook, and has not produced a shred of evidence to corroborate his claim. A masters program is an intense 2 years of study - one does not simply forget any identifiable detail about it.

Instead, it appears that Lazar is claiming the work of an actual MIT student as his own: Robert Seth Granetz, who *did* earn his masters in 1982 at MIT, and did write his thesis on magnetohydrodynamics. "Study of resistive MHD instabilities in Alcator C" Granetz, Robert Seth.; Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Physics. c1982

Granetz is in fact the Principal Research Scientist for the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT today. The two men share a first name and middle initial, and it's not unreasonable to suggest Lazar padded his credentials by cribbing them from someone else. Perhaps most telling, some of the concepts and "alien" tech Lazar has described are not dissimilar to a layman's description of the tokamak plasma reactors Ganetz works with; many of Lazar's assertions about how alien tech functions read like a poorly summarized version of Ganetz' thesis.

In summary. Bob Lazar is not a scientist; he's just adopted an actual scientist's bona fides as his own, and managed to sound convincing to people who are ready to believe. 73.183.152.80 (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for addition of information

Forgive my MLA citations. If one of you kind editors could assist me in the conversion to WP style, I would be forever in your debt.

Lazar is identified as a "physicist" in Newsweek, therefore this declaration of his profession is not self-proclaimed, because Newsweek proclaimed it after confirmation common of professional journalism:

O’Donnell, Paul, and Lucy Howard. “Model Aliens.” Newsweek, vol. 124, no. 14, Oct. 1994, p. 6

Also, please add the following where you see fit:

According to Vinay Menon of the Toronto Star, despite the views of skeptics, "nothing Lazar said has ever been disproven."

Menon, Vinay. “Time for NASA to Take Bob Lazar Seriously.” Toronto Star (Canada), 27 Oct. 2022. 71.36.193.227 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) --Aristotle's Granddaughter (working from home) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.193.227 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That Newsweek "piece" is hardly a reliable, journalistic source for supporting Lazar's claims about himself. Coming in at a whopping 107 words total (I may have miscounted by one or two), it is essentially a tongue-in-cheek advertisement for model UFOs made by the Testor company. Here is a link. Regarding Vinay Menon, he is an "Entertainment Columnist," and although others might disagree, to me that makes his reliability suspect. The claim that "nothing Lazar said has ever been disproven" cements that assessment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

JoJo, thanks for the feedback. I honestly have no agenda here, so if it turns out there's not more reliable information, I'll accept your assessment. I'm a person of reason. --AG 71.36.193.227 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

There is already a cluster of sources in the article to support the fact that Lazar has been dubbed a "physicist", so the Newsweek bit could perhaps be added there. There is greater sourcing for the idea that "physicist" is a self-declared title. There's also the issue of his claimed MIT physics degree being a big ol' lie (yeah, the government "erased" him, sure)... 81.157.51.184 (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Lazar is likely claiming the degree and thesis of Robert S. Granetz as his own. Granetz is the Principal Research Scientist for the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT; he earned his Masters in Physics at MIT in 1982, and his thesis, "Study of resistive MHD instabilities in Alcator C" was in magnetohydrodynamics 73.183.152.80 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

In the public appearances section, his interview with Joe Rogan from 2019 needs to be added. The video can be found here: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=joe+rogan+bob+lazar+episode&mid=9CE145BEFBCD42E267FB9CE145BEFBCD42E267FB Candlesatnight (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It is already included in that section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions

• “Testimony of Gene Huff and Video Recording of UFO” - claim of flying saucer test and videotape written as fact in Wikipedia’s voice and sourced to videos by fringe advocate George Knapp posted on YouTube, and a book by ufologist Stanton Friedman who cites Lazar to support his belief there is “overwhelming evidence that aliens are visiting earth”.
• “2023 US Congressional Hearing on UAP” - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Lazar is not mentioned in any of the source material.
• “UFO Sightings Around the Globe” - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Lazar is not mentioned in any of the source material.

I have reverted accordingly - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

[1], and [2]: two more problematic additions. Joe Rogan podcasts are not a WP:RS or WP:FIND source of verifiable fact for the kind of changes you seem to want to make. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Scottygang: Perhaps you aren't aware of WP:BRD, WP:FRIND, WP:FRINGE and a host of other policies, and may be not aware of how to use the Talk page? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Video Tape of UFO

The fact that Bob Lazar has a video tape of a UFO, along with a witness who has publicly corroborated his claims deserves to mentioned on this page. Scottygang (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I moved this section to its proper place at the bottom of the page. Content needs to be reliably sourced. Please read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, including the latter's sub-section WP:FRIND. Without a reliable, independent, secondary source(s), content cannot be included. I note here that YouTube is not a reliable source. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

Request for removal of a name in the section about Bob Lazars criminal convictions. At the very end, it is mentioned, Jeremy Corbell, among others, concur with the assertion of doubt over Bob's claims(due to criminal convictions). There is no information to verify this. As a matter of fact, quite the contrary. I think Jeremy's name ought to be removed from this portion to ensure the pages credibility. 2600:6C44:77F:26D5:1C81:8A74:12BA:3F5A (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done. In that section, the second of the cited sources includes the following: "Corbell brings up and describes the various challenges to Lazar’s authenticity and character, including a lack of proof as to his education and his various criminal activities." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The way it is implied is clearly misleading. Jeremy has not casted any doubt. You know and I know it. 40.129.49.206 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about "Corbell brings up and describes the various challenges to Lazar’s authenticity and character, including a lack of proof as to his education and his various criminal activities." As for what you or I "know," I suggest that you read this: WP:RS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Corbell acknowledges that the convictions may cast doubts for some, but Does not himself agree that Lazars claims are doubtful because of these convictions. 157.131.18.65 (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The way it is written clearly is meant to convey that Jeremy Corbell doubts Lazars claims due to the convictions. This is inaccurate. 157.131.18.65 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether Corbell doubts anything or not is not our concern, only the facts that he collected. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this article protected when there is so much disinformation contained in it?

Really, this article is an embarrassment and is the reason why so many people view Wikipedia as no different than CNN or Fox News -- entertainment, not factual reporting.

Lazar IS a scientist, not a "self proclaimed" one. He went to MIT at Los Alamos. The copious amount of slanderous adjectives in describing Lazar - "conspiracy theorist", "self proclaimed scientist", etc etc etc.

https://thewebmatrix.net/disclosure/lazarinbook.jpg

https://external-preview.redd.it/x1u9zRa0feMLuoUK0LJhKtjRTWJhXe6c9A0yqS2woHc.jpg?auto=webp&s=9ec38da2d83f00fb8f36bab01ef095f2812a4d1e Flynismo (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A Reddit posting and a fringe conspiracy website. Not WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk)

@Flynismo hi bob 75.174.94.22 (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Seriously. This is the most negative biographical entry I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It reads like a hit piece. Only validates that's he's the target of discrediting efforts. I wonder why…? 2603:8080:1CF0:7D40:3918:2CC6:2FE4:3652 (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You are not kidding. If I remember correctly, Bob was asked about the assisting pandering charges and explained that a friend had asked him to wire up a burglar alarm at a home. Bob had no Idea the home was a brothel and was later charged with assisting prostitution. If that is correct, then it is really Draconian to describe him as 'involved in a prostitution ring '. Johnwrd (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Lazar had admitted that he recruited a locally known prostitute and encouraged her to solicit customers at a Tamarus Street apartment complex. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This website is a joke. Reputable sources have now corroborated parts of Lazar's story, including uncontroversial evidence such as his records of his employment at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but you would never learn it by reading here. Supoettly2 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Nor by reading the comments! Markshinshu (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

As has been mentioned in any number of previous discussions on this Talk page, if you, or any other editor for that matter, can support with actual reliable sources the claims that Lazar's "story" has been corroborated, including uncontroversial evidence such as his records of employment, then please add that sourced content to the article. Go right ahead. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

With recent congressional hearings it’s about time Mr Lazar is not labelled a conspiracy theorist.

^^^ Dankcomms (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the recent congressional hearings have nothing to do with Lazar, and suggesting they do is WP:OR. Secondly, there are at least ten reliable sources in the article that identify Lazar as a conspiracy theorist. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct, it's WP:OR (more precisely, WP:SYNTH). The "conspiracy theorist" label stemmed from Lazar's assertion that he worked on reengineering an alien spacecraft. User Dankcomms is presumably referring to Mr Grusch's House testimony ("I was informed in the course of my official duties of a multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program"), where the said reengineering work was put in a less scandalous light. Is still WP:SYNTH to relate the two in a WP article, however, I see where the user is coming from. Your "nothing to do with Lazar" is true when "to do with" means direct relationship, but untrue to the degree they have commonality of "reengineering alien craft". --IHTS (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This needs to be looked in a new light after all of the revelations and released video recordings of UFOs from the pentagon, as well as the claims of credible ex-US government whistleblower David Grusch

While this may have nothing to do with Lazar, UFOs are no longer a significant fringe topic and there is significant attempts by various actors to disinform and discredit people like Bob Lazar, David Grusch and others. Mr vili (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The same old tall tales do not become less tall when new gullible people tell them. If you want the article to reflect your opinion, you need reliable sources that agree with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

this may have nothing to do with Lazar Indeed it doesn't, and per WP:TPG, that pretty much ends the discussion. Note also that Wikipedia, including its article Talk pages, is the wrong shop for presenting unsourced, sensational, conspiratorial theories like your supposed significant attempts by various actors. Without a supporting reliable source(s), such claims are inappropriate here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2024

1 February 2024‎ Gene Stanley1 talk contribs‎ 32,648 bytes −16‎ If his convictions aren't notable, then his small-time enterprise hardly is either. The user above seems keep making small controversial edits to the Page, the alterations are not constructive and appear inflammatory.

The most recent edit appears to be done in reaction because previous attempts were reversed due to their inflammatory content as noted in the comment: "If his convictions aren't notable, then his small-time enterprise hardly is either.".

Rather than an edit to truly contribute to the topic discussed in this page. The edit does not appear to have been performed in good faith of the community of page editing and it should therefore be reversed. If the removal of the reference to the person is done, it needs done properly, as now it leaves the page as suggesting that Bob Lazar is a full time conspiracy theorist. I would suggest this change is reverted from: Robert Scott Lazar (/ləˈzɑːr/; born January 26, 1959) is an American conspiracy theorist who claims he was hired in the late 1980s to reverse-engineer extraterrestrial technology. This work supposedly occurred at a secret site called "S-4", a subsidiary installation allegedly located several kilometers south of the United States Air Force facility popularly known as Area 51.

Back to the original version as the edit does not contribute:

Robert Scott Lazar (/ləˈzɑːr/; born January 26, 1959) is an American businessman and conspiracy theorist who claims he was hired in the late 1980s to reverse-engineer extraterrestrial technology. This work supposedly occurred at a secret site called "S-4", a subsidiary installation allegedly located several kilometers south of the United States Air Force facility popularly known as Area 51. 80.189.187.159 (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is it important to have "businessman" in the lede?

"Dennis" Lazar is famous for his conspiracy theories only. That he happens to have a smalltime scientific supplies business is incidental.

If his business is somehow noteworthy, then his crimes are also noteworthy. I'd argue the crimes are noteworthy in any case, since the article establishes that they have shaped public perception of Lazar and have thrown doubt on the very claims that made him famous in the first place. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the edit requester in the section above. You wanted to add the word "criminal" to the lead, and when you couldn't get agreement on that, you tried to delete "businessman" to prove a WP:POINT. This seems to be the definition of editing in bad faith. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

So you're unable to rebut my comment? Okay. Seems my version is the way to go (adding "criminal" to lede). EDIT: Looking back in time, it seems you once had a legitimate complaint about users trying to right WP:GREATWRONGS. However, the article could be freely edited at that time; it's now indefinitely extended-protected. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is or ever was WP:CONSENSUS for adding "criminal" to the first sentence of the lead, e.g. “Bob Lazar is a criminal” or "Bob Lazar is a convict". According to the majority cited sources, he is best known for his conspiracy theories that the US is hiding alien technology at Area 51. There is much less notability for his criminal conviction that is reflected in cited sources. Which is why it is more appropriately mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead: "Lazar's public image has also been affected by criminal activity: he was convicted in 1990 for his involvement in a prostitution ring, and again in 2006 for selling illegal chemicals." If you feel this is in error, you can always make your case at WP:BLPN and form a consensus for your desired change. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like something that might be worth doing. In the meantime, why is "businessman" in there? Surely the elements of his Wiki notability would be ordered: 1) Conspiracy theories, 2) criminal activity that cast doubt on said theories, and 3) smalltime business. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I belive it is also with noting since this Gene Stanley1, has been editing George knapps wiki page in relation to conspiracy theories, to now name them debunked. The edits have been performed in bad faith it seems and it looks to be quite underhand in the way they are being performed by Gene Stanley1 80.189.187.159 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't be encouraging nonsense about ghosties and aliens. Lazar's story has been torn apart over and over. Knapp is his biggest fruitcake enabler. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@80.189.187.159: Concerns about the George Knapp page should not be aired here. Please read WP:FORUMSHOP and see your own Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Lazar's public image has also been affected by criminal activity"

But how true is this really? Writers of course comment on it to indict his credibility, but it seems that more than anything what animates his image in the public eye is the boldness of his claims, and the unverifiable nature of his educational and employment history. The pandering conviction is quite old and is a crime that people care less and less about every year, and the hazmat violations are just heavy handed bureaucratic garbage that is knowingly and unknowingly violated on a daily basis by legitimate individuals. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 08:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were true, the wording is weird. It could also mean that other people have committed crimes in order to make Lazar look bad in public. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have re-worded (and shortened) that passage to improve its clarity. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

Change "Elements of Bob's employment history have been exaggerated or fabricated" to "elements of Bob's employment history have been erased by officials from S-4 and the government" 2605:59C8:410:6710:7627:5764:4A1A:1E1D (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per WP:SELFSOURCE a statement by the subject of the article on a podcast with no editorial oversight can't be used to support claims about third parties like this. Jamedeus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

References