Talk:Luis Elizondo

Work for AATIP

Why is his work with AATIP being questioned? The latter from Harry Reid confirming not only his involvement but his involvement at a leadership level within AATIP should superseded both the Intercept article and the Pentagon. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This has also been confusing to me as well. There is evidence that has been chosen to be ignored, we should work to fix this. Atreon (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Further the partially unredacted source in the debate above - https://twitter.com/g_knapp/status/1135986135602290688 https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/harry-reid-and-his-aatip-letter-the-mystery-deepens/ and you have multiple sources all confirming this, which is very much different to being a single "claim". Webmaster2981 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of these come even close to what we would use as sources. See WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

How about this one: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111/ Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo. But she could not say how long he was in charge of it and declined to answer detailed questions about the office or its work, citing concerns about the closely held nature of the program. Webmaster2981 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I realize this has been argued to death above, but I dont think that argument was done in good faith. I also think at this point this is a WP:BLP issue as the overwhelming majority of all reliable sources (including the form Senate Majority leader who started the program) state Elizondo was the Director of AATIP but the article is using one source to claim otherwise. Im going to take this over to the BLP board. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

New sources on this topic - https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/new-foia-release-highlights-redactions-in-key-aatip-correspondence-what-is-the-pentagon-hiding/

Surely now we can put this to rest, that he was involved with AATIP as here is proof from a FOIA request (and corresponding leaked image of that same document unredacted) showing Mr Elizondo transferring responsibilities at AATIP on his resignation. Webmaster2981 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We cannot use 'theblackvault.com' as a source for anything, see WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the sourcing per the New York Times, specifically this article -https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/books/booksupdate/imminent-luiz-elizondo.html Jusdafax (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A New York Times book review is generally held to the same fact-checking standards as other types of journalism produced by the publication. The New York Times maintains rigorous editorial standards across its sections, including book reviews, news articles, and opinion pieces. 94.124.0.50 (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not investigative journalism. It's a book review by authors who have been criticized for being UFO believers [1], [2],[3]. So no, it's not the authoritative source you may feel it is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So is the standard that simply no one who believes in UAP can be credible? Even people that retain security clearances, have been corroborated by high ranking military and government officials? Or are even those officials not credible and we just slide down that very convenient slope? 2607:FEA8:E2C1:600:F9F5:69FC:D087:7AC4 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard is that lower quality sources cannot be used to impeach higher quality ones. MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo was never the head of AATIP. The pentagon has made this clear. They restated it after Reid wrote his letter. Consider that you have, on one side the official records of the DOD and, on the other side, the memory of an 82 year old man dying of cancer concerning events that occurred over 10 years in the past. AATIP was shut down in 2012 IIRC. So, it's clearly false equivalence to equate memory with US government records. I am frankly shocked that you have allowed this article to be written in this manner.

Rgrds-Ross Salinger Rgsalinger (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Who took out "Luis Elizondo is a conspiracy theorist, media personality and former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent...."

A regular shit-stirrer on Reddit just launched a post calling for UFO believers to basically amend Googles description of Elizondo based on his original description as "a conspiracy-theorist" as originating here - post https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f1lxhq/when_you_google_lue_elizondo_the_first_thing_it/ - For the record, when was the term conspiracy theorist actually edited out and does that have anything to do with the timing of the release of his new book - enquiring minds and all that.

All I know is I didn't fuck with it, so who did and why. Einheit947 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be in the edit history. Are there several mainstream non-blogger source that call this person explicitly a "conspiracy theorist" so that we can call them one? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That post appears to have 100,000 views, FYI. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Reddit Post...? Yeah, it's from a regular karma-farming account: they hit the up twice a day regular as clockwork just for the karma. They appear to be a US based account, Reddit now encourage monetization of post content providing you're a US based citizen. This particular account just goes for what they know are crowd pleasing issues and rakes in the upvotes. It's a premium account, whoever behind it is clearly a semi-professional of some description. We're still looking into their actual background for now.

As to the original - or more accurately - cached version of this Article on Google: Elizondo is documented a counter-intelligence officer who worked for the US Defence Department - for all we know he probably still is - you can find corroborating emails as to his employment status with regard to ATTIP on Black Vaults site - https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/aatip-memo-unveiled-after-foia-battle-dod-inconsistencies-exposed/ - so when Elizondo talks in his memoir about his life and work in military intelligence, etc, sure - that's legitimate and was appropriately covered in description but - when he's linking that actual work experience to conspiricy theories concerning the USG cover-up of retrieved crashed UFO's without proffering corroborative evidence of any kind - it doesn't matter the excuse - that's conspiracy theory plain and simple.

His original description as cached by rights should reflect that aspect about him until such time as Mr Elizondo antes up actual evidence to the facts of his claims and quits hiding behind this magical NDA of his that, on the one hand, supposedly prevents him from telling everyone classified information and yet magically allows him to divulge everything there is to know about UFO's and the alleged threat they purportedly posed to US National Security as posited as fact in his memoir - so: why was the conspiracy theorist part of his bio removed...?

It's valid and accurate description within editorial policy, going to need a valid reason why it's been removed please. Einheit947 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"Reddit now encourage monetization of post content providing you're a US based citizen."

Redditors get paid for posting? Do you have a source? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/17331720493972-Understanding-Contributor-Earnings-Payouts

einheit947 2A00:23C6:7980:5201:81FE:F488:8320:ED3C (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

And, just in case you're unsure - he's - the Reddit User - is now karma-farming a rejoiner attacking Wikipedia and accusing us of stalking and doxing whoever they are. This is live:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f1rfmz/comment/lk1764y/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

To be back on topic: Who took out the description of Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist" - it's a perfectly valid description of the man's claims concerning the USG covering up the existence of crashed/retrieved UFO technology: it's all complete nonsense without a shred of evidence other than the usual "Trust me, bro" that goes with all of this. Einheit947 (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:LABEL. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok well that’s editorializing in violation of the rules. I can’t find a single reputable source that called him a “conspiracy theorist”. You’re welcome to provide one. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For the last two years or so (stopped looking into history at that point), the lead has said "media personality and former...". The phrase "conspiracy theoricist" was only added two days ago, by an IP.[4] Schazjmd (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it may have been added at the point you say but is it equally not possible it was simply put back in after a previous removal - I have cached offline copies of this article from at least 6 months back with the term "conspiracy theorist" very much in the forefront of his bio-description.

The actual term itself certainly predates the point you refer to and, lest I have to remind you - Google caches aren't that frequent. the current existing one was cached, how long back....? Einheit947 (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources call this person a "conspiracy theorist" by that term? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

One might argue the subject's own memoir, which alleges a secret government conspiracy in possession of non-human technology, supports the addition. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What do our rules require as a standard to include that language here on Wikipedia? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That there is some sort of sourcing in support and consensus on this talk page. Note that sources should be paraphrased, we don't have to find the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' somewhere to copy-and-paste from. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I just looked up the guy after reading that book review, I work on more technical stuff. I was just asking what articles that aren't things like blogs would support that under our policies. Which sources support calling him a conspiracy theorist? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed what I wrote above, I'll repeat it: One might argue the subject's own memoir, which alleges a secret government conspiracy in possession of non-human technology, supports the addition. MrOllie (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just asking what policy and where says we can infer that to apply the label. I am admittedly pedantic about following a sites rules that I participate on. My reading today (which I figured I should brush up on as I sometimes edit articles of "living people") seems to be what "one might argue", that we require independent sourcing, rather than our own inference and analysis, to call someone something. If I am wrong, I am happy to learn otherwise. Could you please provide links demonstrating your position? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You might have a read of WP:WIKILAWYER. There aren't firm rules to be pedantic about here. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just asking how the rules would validate that label being applied to this "BLP". Can you explain it to me? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia is not a system of rules and laws. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is sometimes optional? I'm not following your logic. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a mistaken assumption about how Wikipedia operates. Polices are designed flexible and are subject to consensus decision making and common sense. This does not mean they are 'optional', it means that they are expected to be applied based on the particular needs of the situation. If you ask me to explain a 'rule' than can be applied objectively or mechanically to arrive at a conclusion I cannot, because Wikipedia does not function in that manner. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply asking what is the convention and justification under the policies that govern us that would warrant putting "conspiracy theorist" at the front of the article of a living person if no reputable third-party sources call the person a "conspiracy theorist" and the subject (apparently) does not self-identify as a "conspiracy theorist". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I've given the answer above, I don't see any value in repeating myself any more here. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s editorializing without a source. “Conspiracy theorist” has a large negative connotation. You should provide a reputable source for that. Betaparticle1002 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

How have you been on Wikipedia for so long without realising that reading a BLP's biography and interpreting your own conclusions from it is inappropriate? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead sections paraphrase and summarize the article. That is the case across Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Summarising the article doesn't mean adding contentious labels that aren't included in the body. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked the article history, not google. It's possible that there was an earlier edit that also added "conspiracy theorist" in the past two years, but if so, it was quickly reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well look -i respective of these claims, Google has in fact cashed a copy of this article referring to Elizondo as a "Conspiracy theorist" - trying to make out like the article didn't lead with this until just a couple of days is moot - that cache version is older than just two days ago.

Now, to get back to topic: Obviously, since Elizondo clearly has had a military career and at least some of that in Intelligence - a memoir recounting this career is just that, a memoir.

But when the author uses that memoir to make claims concerning their alleged "insider" knowledge of UFO Retrieval Programmes and his own governments wilful suppression of any public knowledge of these "facts"- presenting no evidence of this other than his say-so - this is peddling a conspiracy theory, there is no other description adequate.

The Reddit member who originally kicked this off is now riling the faithful against Wikipedia editors and trying to make out he's somehow the threatened party - https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f1rfmz/apperently_editors_on_wikipedia_noticed_my_post/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I kid you not you can't make this crap up.

Can we make a decision or just kick it further up the chain - yes or no...? Einheit947 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It wa originally added by MrOllie, about a week ago. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that this change in description occurred recently under a minor language update, whoever added it, it’s important to ensure that the language used remains neutral and objective, especially given the contentious nature of this topic. To uphold Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and accuracy, I suggest that we moderate our claims to maintain an objective and balanced tone and work together to make sure the article is objective. I currently do not feel it uphold's wikipedia's mission. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not accurate. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

'Luis Elizondo is currently in the news as a former Pentagon director who wrote a book about UFOs. Apparently several users have added uncited negative material calling the individual a conspiracy theorist with no mainstream or apparently any sourcing actually calling them a "conspiracy theorist", leading to editing fights and the page being protected'

User:MrOllie here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242115774

User:Sgerbic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1242107345

User:Sgerbic here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242101175

User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242094480

User:Ixocactus here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242046430

User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549

User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242005341

User:2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241987543

User:2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900 here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241976670

" ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see the link to the BLP notice concern below for more information. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. But It wa originally added by MrOllie, about a week ago. is still not true. MrOllie (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You literally added that he was a conspiracy theorist , and your edit note was "Restored revision 1242005341 by MrOllie (talk): Grammatical nonsense" ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not an accurate reading of the article history. Just read it again and retract your false statement, please. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549

How is it false ? ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Please correct me, I want to make sure I am being objective. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The text was present before I edited this article for the first time. It was not 'originally added' by me. I don't know how else to explain it to you. MrOllie (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay than I retract that part of my statement. This was the oldest edit I was able to find that added this information and even then under a grammatical notation. I am not here to argue with people. I just want this site to live up to the objectivity it supposed to live up to and not just a reflection of the contentious conversations about this man or any other man or woman on social media but just the blind facts as they are. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I posted this as this seems to be a BLP concern:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_%22conspiracy_theorist%22_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked

Good luck, all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Googler here. There has been some brief internal discussion about removing the bio stub all together as Luis doesn’t meet all of our requirements for both credibility or noteworthiness. There is an aspect of newsworthiness for now, but there are some serious concerns that folks will be getting the wrong information concerning non human life or believe that this is an official endorsement even though there is no credible evidence for the scope his employment or claims. 50.175.73.194 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

History of the lead sentence:

• Initial: Luis Elizondo is a career US military intelligence officer.
• A few weeks later: Luis Elizondo is a former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI).
• A year after creation: Luis Elizondo is a former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSDI) and a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent.
• A year after that (May 2021): Luis Elizondo (born c. 1975) is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
• By Feb 2023: Luis Elizondo is a media personality and former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

That Feb 2023 version lasted until this past week, when an IP added "conspiracy theorist" and the warring began. I suspect that some of the editors reverting "conspiracy theorist" back in thought that the IPs/newer editors removing "conspiracy theorist" were removing established content. But that label in the lead sentence was never established by consensus, explicit or implicit.

Unless reliable sources routinely characterize Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist", I don't think wikivoice should either. Schazjmd (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, what editors here think about him or his memoir is not relevant. We need reliable sources to verify the description, and the sources must be high-quality per BLP - Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. And even if the label does start to creep into sources because of his memoir, WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM must be considered if it is an appropriate label for the lead sentence, in order to change an article's well-established wording in the lead section on the basis of those sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is he Alex Jones ? No ? Perhaps conspiracy theorist should be the first thing in the article before his actual career (as contentious as his background is) was verified in the times as recently as last week, But no one knows that because someone edited it out. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/books/booksupdate/imminent-luiz-elizondo.html ObjectiveWheel (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I restored twice the "conspiracy theory" label only because it looked like vandalism from one of the topic's fans. I left in the summary to discuss the change on the talk page of the article. I also want to add that I don't think it's a great idea to have discussions about this subject on other Wikipedia sites, it only makes it confusing to know where you read something and what was decided. So can we please keep the discussion HERE on the relevant talk page?

I always thought you needed a r/s that specifically uses the words, I remember the battle trying to get the word "quackery" onto the lede of Homeopathy, a Wikipedia editor using that word is original research and opinion so should not be used. What happened was a bunch of notable sources started using the word quackery to define homeopathy. And that is what probably will happen here now that the subject has hit Reddit and probably elsewhere in that world. We are going to start seeing reliable sources using the words "conspiracy theorist" to define Elizondo, and when that does it will be right back onto this article. I do agree with others that the words need to be removed as they are too close to opinion by editors. Let's air on the side of caution and not paint too broadly, this is a living person and Google is picking up on the changes (which is NOT something Wikipedians have anything to do with). If things change we deal with it then. This isn't important for readers of Wikipedia, it might harm Elizondo and until we have great sources it probably should not be there. Sgerbic (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems only a matter of time before reliable sources explicitly identify Elizondo as a conspiracy theorist, and per WP:NORUSH we can wait until that happens. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

M'okay - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Imminent-Inside-Pentagons-Hunt-UFOs/dp/1789466040 - top left of page: how is this book categorised by the retailers selling it...?

Religion & Spirituality/New Age/ Occult

Does that convey to anyone concerned with this that here we're dealing with a wholly factual book - it's a simple question. If the book's own retailers categorise it as occult - what business does Wikipedia have legitimised this person's unsubstantiated claims about UFO's...?

There is clearly a diametric involved here, by which the author deliberately uses his own factual biographical details to promote new age religious viewpoints and conspiracy theories as if fact.

You want a clear, unequivocally published source pointing to the fact Elizondo is a conspiracy theorist...?

Try reading Imminent in which he not only claims substantial factual inside knowledge of the US Government's involvement in the cover-up of recovered off-word technology - he also professes to possess super-human powers in the form of being a "remote viewer" - shall we test that claim by getting Mr Elizondo to correctly remotely view the number of finger I'm currently holding up or shall we inform the reader of this article to approach it with some degree of caution - as is our responsibility to the public.

Whatever the perceived origins of this articles' description of Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist" - it's actually pretty tame in comparison to the superhuman feats of mind powers he claims to possess, as well as his family being visited by miniature UFO orbs in his kitchen...

There's a list, it's long - the public have the right to be informed as to the veracity of the claims made in this article concerning this man: anybody else would be, I fail to see why Mr Elizondo should form an exception.

Do you not agree...? Einheit947 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any Wikipedia:Reliable Source compliant material that says Luis Elizondo is a "conspiracy theorist"? It seems without that, it can't be in the article per all the above people and the discussion over here. From that noticeboard we have remarks:

"Still not appropriate at all to label the person as a conspiracy theorist without many reliable sources to back that claim up. We here may all agree that claim about UFO is bonkers, but it is our responsibility to avoid describing ppl in labels not used in RSes"

And:

"The edit warring to restore the label is troubling especially given one user has an Arbcom warning/sanction and the other thinks his own original research based on the subject's biography is appropriate for the label."

Here on this page people have said:

"I do agree with others that the words need to be removed as they are too close to opinion by editors. Let's air on the side of caution and not paint too broadly, this is a living person and Google is picking up on the changes (which is NOT something Wikipedians have anything to do with)."

And:

"Unless reliable sources routinely characterize Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist", I don't think wikivoice should either."

And:

"Agreed, what editors here think about him or his memoir is not relevant. We need reliable sources to verify the description, and the sources must be high-quality per BLP - Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. And even if the label does start to creep into sources because of his memoir, WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM must be considered if it is an appropriate label for the lead sentence, in order to change an article's well-established wording in the lead section on the basis of those sources."

And:

"How have you been on Wikipedia for so long without realising that reading a BLP's biography and interpreting your own conclusions from it is inappropriate?"

And:

“Conspiracy theorist” has a large negative connotation. You should provide a reputable source for that."

And:

"Ok well that’s editorializing in violation of the rules. I can’t find a single reputable source that called him a “conspiracy theorist”."

I'm no expert, but it seems like consensus is that today this would be a violation of the sites rules to call him a "conspiracy theorist" and for good measure it would be wrong to put that into the lede of the article, as there is no broad reporting that Luis Elizondo is, or is known as, a conspiracy theorist. I guess you need to provide several reliable sources from high quality mainstream sources to get it added back into the article. If you can find them, I'd be happy to help you format up the references, which I decided to clean up the messiness on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That is actually a very well reasoned, cogent reply - thank you for the time spent there. Sincerely.

Okay, without appropriate WRS's it stays out for now. You do know though that the person who kicked this up over on Reddit is now going to claim this decision a victory - especially since enough of them got whipped up enough to petitioned Google to update the page cache.

Take a read of this - https://ibb.co/mhLKjNW - and - https://ibb.co/wK03Twb - these are cached copies of the mob whipping up posts this user started and the speed with which hostility is immediately directed toward Wikipedia editors is concerning.

Yes, I know most of these people are more than a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic but even so - direct hostility has been whipped up with intent and encouraged against Wikipedia editors via r/UFO's - there's even evidence of one of their moderation team engaging with the hostility and the culprit is aware of how far they've gone, he self deleted the evidence.

Wikipedia should take this up with Reddit - during the course of our investigation into this sub it's come to our notice this isn't the first time Wikipedia editors have come into direct threat issued against them from users of this particular sub, whipped up no doubt by activist such Guerilla Sceptics vandalising articles here no doubt, which is unfortunate.

Unfortunately, we're not really dealing with people disposed to differentiate between a fact and some complete fantasy they might get stuck in their head.

It's only a matter of time before one of these cells turns into the next QAnon - we should pass this incident further up, get Wikipedia to maybe reach out to Reddit, bring their admin into it - that sub is a powder keg waiting to go off somewhere.

Thank you for your time. Keep up the good work. 2A00:23C6:7980:5201:D992:DC7D:AFB3:4A26 (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:7980:5201:D992:DC7D:AFB3:4A26? But I guess we need User:Einheit947 to answer (a different user), who began this discussion. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know most of these people are more than a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic but even so - direct hostility has been whipped up with intent and encouraged against Wikipedia editors via r/UFO's - there's even evidence of one of their moderation team engaging with the hostility and the culprit is aware of how far they've gone, he self deleted the evidence.

Wikipedia should take this up with Reddit - during the course of our investigation into this sub it's come to our notice this isn't the first time Wikipedia editors have come into direct threat issued against them from users of this particular sub, whipped up no doubt by activist such Guerilla Sceptics vandalising articles here no doubt, which is unfortunate.

What? What threats? Who was threatened? What does this have to do with the article? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read here - https://ibb.co/mhLKjNW and here - https://ibb.co/wK03Twb - screen grabs of the source material are clearly linked to previously.

The Reddit user responsible instigated two separate posts on sub r/UFOs - the first instigating sub users to direct hostility towards Wikipedia editors, specifically those responsible for this article fully aware of already engrained attitudes prevalent on that sub directed people here - the second winding them up further directing them to this talk discussion here: I don't think you'll have much trouble finding hostility directed towards our editors - they have it in their heads we're all part of Guerilla Skeptics or some other alt-right conspiracy group dedicated towards suppressing the "truth" about UFOs...

As to what it has to do with this article - I have gone to dome trouble explaining this to you personally before - might I respectful direct you to read and not just skim - its pretty clearly written - even one of the respondents on reddit described it a fair assessment.

You'll find that too in the screen grabs provided - these belligerent attitudes directed towards Wikipedia editors on the smallest pretense is not remotely new on that sub: they direct hatred towards basically anyone not singing from their own personal hymn sheet, but they seem to have it in for Wikipedia editors almost as much a people who work for NASA.

As I say, we should pass the incident further up, see if the platform can't reach out to Reddit admin, get this stuff stamped out.

It's obviously not going to stop these people harbouring ungrounded resentment - but at least it might stop them forming an lynch mob.

Or just takes your chances, see what happens. The choice is entirely yours...

Now, since the matter is basically agreed can we at least agree to keep this discussion for future reference so as, the next time it comes up - and it has, sequentially as pointed out above - we can just point to this and everyone gets their facts straight.

In the meantime, if you want to ignore evidence of hate mongering directed towards you - good for you, that's the spirit!

For those however who might want to see something done, I provide evidence that can possibly help - sound fair enough...? 81.132.236.133 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. I am apparently the one that is blamed, it aways comes down to that. I've written about the threats and the hate I receive from the UFO community, you can find articles about it on my user page. There is no reasoning with this community they have turned it into a religion. Sgerbic (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that, sincerely. You're not wrong, ever since 2017 and the first appearance of Lue Elizondo the UFO community as whole has been increasingly weaponized as a political tool - they've got them blindly lobbying politicians statewide expressing unconditional support for something called the UAPDA - it's an amendment bill proposed by Chuck Schumer that basically uses the UFO topic as cover for getting legislation passed Congress and the Senate granting eminent domain to the US Department of Defence - sold to the UFO community as "Disclosure":they've been made to believe the act will lead to the full, official public disclosure of the existence of UFO's.

Basically, it's a backdoor bail out for the Defence Department - eminent domain is a cash for seizure transaction - the USG can't simply confer eminent domain to a branch of Federal Government just because they want to, it has to be shown to serve a public issue or concern - hence the public engagement on the part of congress with the UFO topic these past couple of years establishing the veneer of the American government serving a public issue.

Half the time you never know if your dealing with real people over there or agitators steering the community the way it serves the correct political purpose - all I do know is these people are incredibly hostile to anything that appears to deviate from their beliefs about UFO's and aliens - UFOs and NHI as they term them these days.

You don't have to suffer or put up with abuse alone - contact the platforms admins, dump as much evidence as you can on their desk and basically force them to take the issue up with whichever platforms you and your colleagues are being attacked from.

It's Wikipedias duty to protect the people working here from abuse but this kind of thing goes way beyond their means to control here - these attacks come from people hosted on multiple platforms so its this platforms duty to reach out to places like Reddit and X and insist they enforce their anti-bullying protocols.

They all have them, they just ignore individual complaints - a complaint coming from another platform can't so easily be ignored.

If anything I've posted helps towards these ends, please don't hesitate to use - it's really no exaggeration to state these people are being constantly wound-up day-in-day-out - constant radicalised posts, 3-4 hour long podcasts using cult recruitment techniques, political radification - it's all happening right now and has been for far too long completely unchecked.

I hope I can press you and other affected to take this further up the chain - no one working through this platform should have to deal with this level of threat from radicalised people - its not acceptable.

If there's anything you need, drop me a line, I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, like I say - don't suffer this in silence. Einheit947 (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You want a clear, unequivocally published source pointing to the fact Elizondo is a conspiracy theorist...? Yes, absolutely. WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS are core policies, and we are not going to ignore them in favor of editors opinions about him or his book. If you have high quality reliable sources using that label, then please present them here on the talk page, so we can evaluate them. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. For now it stays out. As long as we're all on the same page here - issue dealt with.

Thank you and everyone for your time and attention. 2A00:23C6:7980:5201:D992:DC7D:AFB3:4A26 (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

i read the first line of this page and blanched for the integrity of wikipedia.

(1) a "media personality" is "an individual who gains recognition and influence through their work in the media industry. This person is typically well-known for their presence on platforms such as television, radio, social media, podcasts, or other forms of mass communication. Media personalities often engage audiences through their charisma, expertise, or entertainment value, becoming public figures associated with a particular niche or genre." (ChatGPT). before you guffaw that i used ChatGPT, it's because there is only one web page that either defines or uses this term i can find ("thefamouspeople.com"). (Google returns its own AI definition.) use of a nonstandard or flippant term is a form of prejudice.

(2) why are the accomplishments of this individual, who served honorably in the armed forces for most of his life, reached the highest civilian rank with many honors and service awards, and thereafter became an advocate for government accountability and transparency on issues of national security, demoted to a secondary role? Elizondo appears in congressional hearings, news reports, conferences and blogs pressing a single issue. he is not a broadcaster, actor, singer, director, dancer or any other kind of entertainer. he is no more a media personality than Daniel Ellsberg or Betty Friedan. and he is far less a "media personality" than Neil DeGrasse Tyson, whose wikipedia page never uses the term.

(3) the USG has repeatedly and officially stated since the DoD/ODNI 2021 "Preliminary Report on UAP" that UAP are "real", display "advanced technology", and may be "a national security concern", and Elizondo advocates on that sole issue and no other. the subtext that wikipedia considers the UAP issue "entertainment", and treats people on one side of the issue with less care for words and context, is not a service to anyone except people who wish to ridicule and suppress the topic -- as some comments on this page illustrate.

i understand this is a vexed page and a headache for wikipedia editors. but if you can't say anything nice, at least try to say something accurately impartial. Drollere (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The article does state that he was a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, but a former occupation isn't a current occupation. On Wikipedia we go by what WP:RS reliable sources say is his current occupation:

• "...the release of Imminent marks the latest stage in Elizondo’s post-government efforts to bring awareness to the UAP situation after becoming a media personality for his public advocacy for greater U.S. government transparency on the issue in recent years."
• "A little more than half of the book is Lue Elizondo’s professional journey from the Army to the intelligence community to the History Channel to “media personality,” as his publisher now bills him."

- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

All sources have been edited, checked for access, archived, cleaned up, all ref names are now unique, and cleaned up (reversed)

(since reversed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1242596519&oldid=1242543705

That summarizes all the edits. Nothing remarkable, a little bit of readability/chronological formatting. Each source now is archived. Each source now has a unique ref name of author-source-date structure. All sources are now moved down to the references section so we can use the tags/anchors in prose. The raw text was borderline unhinged and unusable as-is from the references and code wedged into paragraphs; some paragraphs were like 9/10th sources by volume. The article for this purpose should be far, far easier to work on now going forward. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR you shouldn't have done this, though. Please move the sources back inline. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I moved them back. Are there reasons we shouldn't go with the easier to edit formatting structure to make this easier to work on? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll find at least as many editors who despise list-defined refs as editors who prefer them. When multiple styles of language/citation/etc. are allowed, deference is given to the established style chosen by the editor(s) who established it in an article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

People actually find the 'current' way it's setup... easier to edit and work on? There are literally sentences with sources that are 10x as many characters for sources as there are sentences... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Some do, yes. Some editors prefer the inline-definition style because it's easier for them to add content with new refs, as opposed to defining/naming it in one place and then calling it in another, particularly for refs that are unlikely to be reused. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

TIL... the inline seems painful.

What is the method to ask if I can swap out here for the defined one/bottom way? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And list-defined is painful when using the visual editor. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ironic, the visual editor (most of them on any site) make me want to not just grind my teeth so much as rip them out with pliers. Is there any middle ground option to not have massive code-level walls of mess in the middle of nearly every paragraph? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Perhaps someday the Mediawiki devs will make list defined refs work with the visual editor, but it doesn't seem to be a priority for them at the moment. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. The point is that both inline and list-defined methods have advantages and disadvantages, so it basically comes down to editor preference on any given article. You're welcome to establish list-defined references on articles that you create, but please don't unilaterally change other articles that already have an established style.

To "ask if I can swap out here for the defined one/bottom way", start a discussion specifically on that question and see if you gain consensus for the change (or possibly a month will go by with nobody opining in which case you can venture the change and see what happens). Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that an RFC? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss before starting a formal RfC.

Just fyi, I'll oppose the change. When I used list-defined refs on some of the articles I wrote, I chose that method for specific reasons, but I don't think that those reasons would apply here. I think an article with only a few refs being reused and in a continual state of flux (constantly being updated) is better served by inline definitions which more editors are accustomed to and which works better with VE. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

https://pastebin.com/AKNem9NY

I guess I'm an outlier, because I look at that and yikes. When I started really working on Invention Secrecy Act and I looked up how to manage all that, I settled on the list way because it made the inline raw text so much easier to work on. But if that method is super unpopular, I guess it is what it is. I guess I'm just surprised there is no way to make it easier to read. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting helps. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Dang, it does. I didn't notice that feature before. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

New Yorker Gideon Lewis-Kraus is cited to something not in their article; removed for review.

I removed this here:

--> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1242648540&oldid=1242648138

Article:

--> https://web.archive.org/web/20210427234352/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously

Passage:

According to Gideon Lewis-Kraus, Elizondo initially explained to the Pentagon in a memo that the videos would "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety", but in later interviews he stated that his goal was to shine light on the program he ran for seven-years to "collect and analyze reported UFO sightings".

The text strings "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety" and "collect and analyze reported UFO sightings" do not appear in this article/archive. This edit by User:LuckyLouie on May 31, 2021, three years ago, seems to have introduced it:

--> Introducing edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1026166278

Should this stay out based on it not appearing in the source? What is protocol? I will leave a note on User:LuckyLouies page to let them know. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that those quotes appear in Joby Warrick's Washington Post article, also cited in the article. Seems like an easy enough error to make. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Warrick piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20171217013458/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagons-secret-ufo-office-sought-to-make-evidence-public/2017/12/16/90bcb7cc-e2b2-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.1e5961fa55e9

Warrick passage:

Elizondo, in an internal Pentagon memo requesting that the videos be cleared for public viewing, argued that the images could help educate pilots and improve aviation safety. But in interviews, he said his ultimate intention was to shed light on a little-known program Elizondo himself ran for seven years: a low-key Defense Department operation to collect and analyze reported UFO sightings.

User:LuckyLouie passage:

According to Gideon Lewis-Kraus, Elizondo initially explained to the Pentagon in a memo that the videos would "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety", but in later interviews he stated that his goal was to shine light on the program he ran for seven-years to "collect and analyze reported UFO sightings".

Would this be a sufficient redo citing to Warrick?

Proposed passage:

Elizondo, in a Pentagon memo, stated the videos could "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety"; in interviews after their release, Elizondo remarked his intention was to "shed light" on the Defense Departments program to collect UFO data.

Hows that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, the relevant updated passage is now reintroduced here at this edit, and I will let User:LuckyLouie know on an update on their talk page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Inventions section

This was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1243186164&oldid=1243185486

I had actually found a third one and was preparing to add it, when I saw the whole section removed: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140278704A1

What is the policy standard to list inventions by someone on their Wikipedia page? I would like to read the specific policy, for awareness. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I would start with WP:NOT, including its subsection WP:PROMO, then the WP:BLPPRIMARY subsection of WP:BLP. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo and a friend tried to start a business based on one of those patents[5] but I don't think it went anywhere as there is no coverage of their company other than the one article (reprinted in a few newspapers). Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Would that article plus Elizondos otherwise established notability be sufficient to include a passage on the inventions? It wouldn't be more than about two sentences and the three patent links, I imagine. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Including content based upon a single, obscure article from many years ago about a topic that does not seem, as Schazjmd suggests above, to have gone anywhere seems to me a violation of WP:NOT. Elizondo is not known for this, and not every single thing ever done by, or written about, an article subject is significant, or notable, or encyclopedic. But who knows? Perhaps you can gain WP:CONSENSUS here for that content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Would two sources be sufficient?

1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2009/11/14/idea-for-how-ships-can-trim-turnaround-times
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20240831184018/https://www.baltimoresun.com/2009/11/14/idea-for-how-ships-can-trim-turnaround-times

Sara Russell, an instructor of maritime and supply chain management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., said Never Ship Empty’s approach could help shippers get around the cost of off-loading some cargo from large ships before they reach port. But there could be other expenses that such an approach could incur, such as the storage of the hulls, that may cause shippers and ports to balk at the idea.

It's in the The Star Democrat and also in The Baltimore Sun. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be the same article, just in The Baltimore Sun instead of The Star Democrat. I mentioned that the same news article was reprinted in several newspapers. That doesn't make it multiple sources. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? They seem to have completely different language and verbiage. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, you're right, they are different articles. Schazjmd (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that enough? Between the two articles we have analysis from multiple experts, commentary on Elizondo and his partner, and confirmation via news media they were actively meeting with and engaging with government officials at the area port/county systems. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's something that apparently is of little to no significance to his biography seeing that nobody writing about him ever mentions it again. He had an idea for a business. Schazjmd (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that enough? Here I am violating my own desire to WP:COAL discussions like this, but no, for the reasons I wrote above. I now suggest that we wait for other editors to come along and comment. It is the weekend (and a holiday in the US) so there might not be a great many people poking around on WP at the moment, but this page is on plenty of Watchlists so I am sure that others will come along over the next few days and provide their opinions. There is WP:NORUSH, and you just might gain consensus for your desired content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed invention section draft

Thank you User:Schazjmd and User:JoJo Anthrax, and agreed, no hurries at all. This is what I am thinking of the maximum that would be added as the simple addition of one extra section, as seen here:

User:Very Polite Person/Elizondo maritime section draft.

Thanks all. Let me know your thoughts. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Still a "no" from me, for the reasons I presented above. Others might think differently. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

NYT Bestsellers list

It's typical to mention that a book is listed on the NYT Bestsellers list; I think it should be included.[6] Schazjmd (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1243469739&oldid=1243432844

I have included that with this edit. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It had been added once already, but @JoJo Anthrax: reverted so I was hoping for a discussion first. Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still unfamiliar with what constitutes consensus. Does precedent factor or do we act unique to each article on the transient views of arbitrary users who show up? I'm not sure how it is intended.

1. Bessel_van_der_Kolk#Writings_and_views
2. Jodi_Picoult#Career

I looked up some of the other names on the present NYT Best Seller list beyond well-known names and they do all seem to mention if their works appeared on the best seller list. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. When an editor has reverted the addition of specific content, it's appropriate to start a talk page discussion to work out their objections to the content before re-adding it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For my understanding, do norms, customs, precedent and standard among other articles apply in turn to similar ones, like your remark of how this is common practice for author articles routinely note if their works were best sellers, and how I easily found various articles supporting your statement? Should thus author articles list if they were best sellers, if sources support that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's just wait and find out what JoJo's objection is. Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought, and still think, that content serves no purpose other than WP:PROMO. But IMO much of this article is already suffused with a promotional tone, and if other editors consider this factoid to be hugely important/critical/necessary, then I will switch my stance to a solid "Whatever." I will, however, refer VPP to WP:OTHER, wherein it is explained how the argument 'Other articles do it this way' is generally not a good one. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JoJo - I've tweaked the wording (the NYT didn't announce it). Schazjmd (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Debuted is a good word, that was original language before revision for WP:PROMO. I could level some pretty common sense arguments about why this wasn’t WP:PROMO along with 1:1 examples but since the objection is dropped, I won’t bother. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

technology protection and Intelligence cycle security

Hi, in regard to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1243518399&oldid=1243516830

I believe in the detailed context that creating this linkage is the most relevant and appropriate for readers, as the broadest/top level entry point into the concept of this sort of and manner of work, which most readers won't be aware of. I'm going to keep looking for a better link or perhaps a sublink in a more specific article. If anyone can find something better first, please drop it in or reply here. I don't think there is any obvious better fit, but I could be wrong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

All we know is in Elizondo's quote. The article that you linked the phrase to doesn't mention that phrase. It is misleading to readers to guess what might be involved in what Elizondo called "technology protection". Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Thanks for reverting that. I'm trying to find any lingering jargon-level things to fill in readers. I suspect otherwise we're at about the limits of content on current sources, possibly? It seems like the relevant high level/big things from the book are all in unless more comes up in relevant reliable sources. There isn't much more yet on his history. I think that's about it too now for wikilinks. I was thinking about List of active United States military aircraft or similar/more inclusive all-US flight/space inventories for that, or maybe covert operation for covert action, but it doesn't seem important. The article feels pretty NPOV, dry to read, and comprehensive. It could go far deeper into the weeds from the sources, but this feels fine. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's about it too now for wikilinks. Glad to hear it; I think there's too many as it is. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo as a WP:FRIND WP:RS

I don't think it's wise to use Elizondo as a source of fact for the inner workings of government agencies such as was done here, given the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims he makes elsewhere in the book. Especially if you are trying to buttress a claim made by other sources, I wouldn't use Elizondo as the ultimate authority to justify statements of fact made in Wikivoice. Attribution ("According to Elizondo...", "Elizondo wrote..." etc.) is the best bet here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted to keep attribution of statements to who said what and when, and leave the statements otherwise as-is to keep things tightly bound to sourcing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1243820686

Is this sufficient as an adjustment? It simply quotes the book passage for readers in references; notes that Stratton and Elizondo made a 2023 joint statement that they both worked at AATIP, and simply reports what the article subject and another DOD official announced. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why Stratton would later in 2023 state he participated in AATIP with Elizondo in a joint statement is in any way important, or interesting, content for this article. At the risk of being pointy, and ignoring the citation to Twitter (?!), how is it relevant or encyclopedic that some non-notable person worked with Elizondo anywhere? Once again I invoke WP:NOT, specifically its first nutshell comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary-style reference work that does not aim to contain all the information, data or expression known on every subject. Or am I missing something? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What I'm missing is why this article shows up on my watchlist 10 times more than anything else on my watchlist for weeks? Why is someone picking though information trying to get ever piece off the bone? Put a fork in it already. If something new happens, then we can revisit, but in the meantime readers are getting enough content, if they want more, they can buy the book, watch the videos and follow the citations already in the article. We aren't going for a Pulitzer here! Sgerbic (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It blew up in the news, which is how I got interested in it, and then that entire incident with the 'conspiracy theory' label. I simply enjoy making comprehensive articles. But beyond that one bit for Stratton that I just replied on, I don't think there's any more data out there online. I have as you put it chewed the bone clean beyond noodling/formatting/iterative prose improvements and such. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I included it as Stratton is named explicitly in the book by Elizondo as who initially 'brought him' to AAWSAP/AATIP, has been mentioned by journalists both 'pro' and 'con' Elizondo as a key figure in the entire government affair. There is more on Stratton by his proper name, John Stratton, confirming his position in the Pentagon. Including a direct statement by Stratton (issued with Elizondo) seemed a useful relevant piece of information to add as a source; Elizondo claimed Stratton was involved in X capacity circa 2009-2012; in 2023 Stratton himself confirmed same? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced by this argument, so I am going to remove the content per WP:NOT, questionable sourcing, and apparent WP:PROMO. If you, VPP, think it is vitally important information for this article, then I suggest that you restore it, but only if it is cited to some independent (i.e., not Elizondo himself), secondary sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Totally fine by me, thanks. Like I said, we're down to the gristle here. Pending new reporting, unless I've missed something on some rather deep searches, that's about it, having gone through every source multiple times now. I guess we all just need to see whatever else shakes out over time. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with JoJo Anthrax. There's been some useful and objective additions to the article, however there's also way too much WP:UNDUE detail being cited to Elizondo's recent book and publicity tour (e.g. podcast appearances (?) like The World Of Big Ideas). We'd only cite a podcast interview or a subject's autobiography for material that has been discussed in reliable independent WP:SECONDARY sources, and even then we'd be careful to attribute it ("According to Elizondo..."). I am also a bit disappointed to see that only praise for Elizondo has been extracted from critical sources such as Keith_Kloor. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"I am also a bit disappointed to see that only praise for Elizondo has been extracted from critical sources such as Keith_Kloor.

Was there any issue with this source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo#cite_note-Kloor_Issues_Mar_2019-19

It seems to be a very good one given the publication and author? We had already used Kloors other piece as well. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe the more important element of LuckyLouie's comment, to which I agree, is there's also way too much WP:UNDUE detail being cited to Elizondo's recent book and publicity tour. FWIW I hope to return to this article soon and do some pruning along those lines. I do encourage everyone to read/review WP:NOT, WP:PROMO, WP:SECONDARY, WP:FRIND, and WP:UNDUE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The tour-related articles are simple Wikipedia:Reliable Sources--is the genesis of why the articles were written any factor in why we would consider them? If so, I'd be curious to see such a rule.

For sourcing to the book itself, is it not suitable to attribute remarks about oneself to their own autobiographical work? What policy governs that?

For sourcing to the book, we have a general overview of the book itself which seems fine, in the book section. We have this here that simply is him affirming he was asked to run security for AATIP, which is fine because it matches what a multitude of sources from various people and publications (including the US Senate) have that put him in that role, time and place, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and from 2009 to 2024 all say that.

Or are you referring to these here and here about the Pentagon collateral deletions? I'm neutral on those and can remove them myself. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

User:JoJo_Anthrax, I pulled those here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

VPP, it may be that you're not familiar with the nuances of NPOV. Per WP:FRINGEBLP, our BLP policy doesn’t excuse exclusion of criticism from a biography. Note that the Kloor piece you've cited is generally critical, e.g. Kloor observes that Elizondo et al “seem to be working in the great American tradition of P. T. Barnum”. However you’ve used the source only to bolster employment narratives being promoted by the subject himself, e.g. “Elizondo has reported that he worked with officials from the U.S. Navy and the CIA out of his Pentagon office for this program until 2017, when he resigned to protest what he characterized as "excessive secrecy and internal opposition”.” It's likely that independent analysis and review of the subject's recently launched autobio will be forthcoming, so this will help us assemble BLP-compliant critique, especially concerning the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims made by the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

User:LuckyLouie, you have selectively quoted the Kloor piece here and framed it as 'generally critical'. You wrote:

"Note that the Kloor piece you've cited is generally critical, e.g. Kloor observes that Elizondo et al “seem to be working in the great American tradition of P. T. Barnum”."

What the piece in fact says is, quote in full:

"If Elizondo, Mellon, and the To The Stars Academy seem to be working in the great American tradition of P. T. Barnum, the irony remains that the Pentagon may well have its own good reason for keeping the UFO story alive. Not that they’d ever admit it."

The 2019 Kloor piece is relatively neutral on Elizondo aside from the closing passage; I only used it to source biographical data on his career, which there is no logical reason to exclude or question given we took the critical 2021 Kloor piece without concern; the statute/reputable nature of the 2019 publication would seem to exceed comparatively the 2021 one.

I am familiar with the NPOV policy. If there is critical sourced content from quality reputable mainstream sources, please share the links, and I would be happy to integrate them myself. I think the only one that was removed recently was simply circular blogspam type stuff that simply restated with no value what was said in actual reliable sources. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Pentagon data sections sourced to Imminent book and a podcast--removed currently

Starting a thread to note my removal of this content here in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1244001585&oldid=1243866884

Let me know if you have any questions. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerns re Keith Kloor 2019 article from US's National Academies

Starting discussion for transparency and to get feedback from others. User:LuckyLouie raised concerns here in the above section about our usage of this source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190404113127/https://issues.org/ufos-wont-go-away/

They wrote,

"VPP, it may be that you're not familiar with the nuances of NPOV. Per WP:FRINGEBLP, our BLP policy doesn’t excuse exclusion of criticism from a biography. Note that the Kloor piece you've cited is generally critical, e.g. Kloor observes that Elizondo et al “seem to be working in the great American tradition of P. T. Barnum”. However you’ve used the source only to bolster employment narratives being promoted by the subject himself, e.g. “Elizondo has reported that he worked with officials from the U.S. Navy and the CIA out of his Pentagon office for this program until 2017, when he resigned to protest what he characterized as "excessive secrecy and internal opposition”."

The sourcing as used presently in the article is used to add sourcing/data on Elizondos professional history. This is what the article uses it for today:

First usage: Elizondo has reported that he worked with officials from the U.S. Navy and the CIA out of his Pentagon office for this program until 2017, when he resigned to protest what he characterized as "excessive secrecy and internal opposition".

^ sourced to Kloor and the NY Times. Mundane, seems vanilla.

Second usage: Elizondo's resignation was tendered on October 4, 2017, directly to then Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

^ sourced to Kloor from passage: "On October 4, 2017, Elizondo submitted a resignation letter—that he later made public—addressed to then Defense Secretary James Mattis."

Third usage: In 2019, journalist Keith Kloor reported in Issues in Science and Technology from the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that in a 2016 government performance evaluation, Elizondo was "lauded" for "his ability to manage a highly classified program in a manner that protects US national security interests on a global scale", and that Elizondo's office had "identified and neutralized 6 insider threats" and "co-authored 4 national-level policies involving covert action". Elizondo's performance was further evaluated by the Pentagon as exemplary, and noted that it "cannot be overstated the importance of Mr. Elizondo’s portfolio to national security".[19]

^ sourced to Kloor in quite surprisingly his opening paragraph--he opens his article with Elizondo's (apparently glowing) professional appraisal.

Fourth usage: In spring 2019, journalist Keith Kloor reported that Elizondo was asked to take over management of security for AATIP, and had "experience in technology protection", having worked with Boeing on protection of Apache Longbow helicopter technologies, and with Raytheon on cruise missile technology.[19]

^ sourced to Kloor, paragraph 36, where he wrote, "When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). He had experience in technology protection, having previously worked with Boeing and its Apache Longbow helicopter, and also with Raytheon and some of its cruise missile technology. A new aerospace-related assignment made sense."

That fourth one seems as basic as the third one. Given an otherwise "critical of Elizondo" reporter asserts these items in the third and fourth usage as fact, which also corrobates several Pentagon, US Senate, and other media reports from 2009-2024, it all seems... fine?

For everyones convenience I extracted to User:Very Polite Person/Elizondo Kloor 2019 analysis every single relevant reference to Elizondo in the piece with a high-level review of what is said for each.

The article is overall decidedly 'neutral' to 'lightly positive' on Elizondo to any reasonable examination, and I've read this one enough times the past few days to be sick of reading it. Posting this for transparency and in case there are concerns with my usage of this source. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Claimed versus Asserted versus Stated in the lede

For some time the lede of this has said:

Since 2017, he has been known for asserting that UFOs (or UAPs) exist and are not the result of human technology.

Today someone changed that to from 'asserting' to 'claiming' on this edit. I undid that here on this edit and changed it at last to 'stating' per WP:CLAIM and WP:RULES, which appears to mandate that for WP:BLP articles especially, where our rules demand:

To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

This should thus remain as 'stating'per the WP:RULES. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question Yes, and calling its credibility into question is the right thing to do here since that is an extraordinary claim. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

His UFO claims are extraordinary and WP:FRINGE qualifying. His rote human life/employment history are WP:BLP ruled. If Martha Stewart suddenly became the 'queen' of "UFO Disclosure" championing the "cause", her entire lifes history and totality of her article doesn't suddenly or retroactively fall under some sort of higher level WP:FRINGE guideline (less than a policy like WP:BLP) because of one part of her existence. The idea itself, reading the rules/guidelines, comes off as rather comical. Elizondo's non-UFO stuff is standard BLP fare. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo is not credible. His UFO claims prove it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo is not credible. His UFO claims prove it.

That's your personal opinion, and we don't operate under those, yours or mine? Do you have anything actionable under policy we can discuss? I would help get this stable and vigorously WP:BLP compliant so I can work on other things, and many hands make lighter work. Let's fix anything broken under the WP:RULES that control us. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, well said VPP. The rules that control us also state, per WP:BLP, “Material about living persons added to any [italics in the original] Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.” The above statement Elizondo is not credible. His UFO claims prove it. regarding the article subject’s credibility is in my view a clear violation of that BLP policy, and the opinion expressed merely adds to the heat of this subject. Wikipedia:Contentious topics, as the notice labeled “WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES” at the top of this page observes, is also applicable. Jusdafax (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP does say...

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.

Is that a violation of WP:BLP here on the talk page? There seems to be a decent amount of negative commentary re Luis Elizondo here on this talk page and venues like Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Do we allow more WP:BLP non-compliant discussions of "WP:FRINGE" people? It would be nice to know where the boundaries are and how/when/who can use whatever enforcement measures there are. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What reporters and the Pentagon disputed

@JoJo Anthrax:, you changed the lead to:

Elizondo reports he was a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which was associated with the Pentagon UFO videos. Since 2017, he has stated that UFOs (or UAPs) exist and are not the result of human technology, assertions that have been contested by reporters and Pentagon officials.

I think the phrase I bolded belongs with the first quoted sentence (that he was director of AATIP). That's what the article seems to state. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already edited that again because User:JoJo Anthrax violated several policies including WP:BLP apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1246266867&oldid=1246266351

Prior version was sourced and WP:RULES compliant. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, we are required to say disputed by some, because even the media (source used in the article) have identified the conflicting Pentagon back and forth on Elizondo's role: Various spokespersons alternately confirmed the story, denied AATIP was a UFO/UAP program, and discounted Elizondo’s role in it. (link). This fact is actually called out in the article. One (1) Pentagon spokesperson has denied Elizondo's role in vague terms from sourcing, while several others confirmed his role(s). We are not allowed to pick and choose so have to call out the conflict. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User:JoJo Anthrax violated several policies including WP:BLP apparently That is a false aspersion/accusation and I ask you to strike it now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I decline to strike it pending any conversation and your demonstrated understanding and full compliance with WP:BLP. This WP:BLP was attacked by half a dozen users inserting substantial enough BLP violations some weeks ago that the involved actors all similarly mass-apologized on the BLP noticeboard. You violated WP:CLAIM WP:BLP concerns and inserted false/incorrect information which was already contextualized and stable, that there is sufficient conflict among Pentagon "spox" that even the media has called out the Pentagon's shifting, changing, and conflicting "Elizondo narratives". It is literally cited in the article itself as a conflict. You are forbidden from a blanket "contested by" remark, as only one (1) Pengaton spox of several has done so, and anything and everything BLP-negative requires citation. To insert negative uncited content is itself a violation. Please confirm you understand. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

You violated WP:CLAIM WP:BLP concerns and inserted false/incorrect information That is false.

To insert negative uncited content is itself a violation. I did no such thing.

Please confirm you understand. Oh, I have a pretty good understanding of what is happening here. I once again invite you to strike your false accusations against me (per WP:PA) and to read WP:OWN. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have worries here that are extensive about BLP with this article since I discovered it. Your edit here re-added unsourced negative data that there was implied general disagreement with his 'role' or remarks, when there is no WP:RS that says this, and in fact, WP:RS have highlighted the fact the Pentagon has repeatedly changed the Elizondo narrative, from 'hero' to other things several times. By saying "assertions that have been contested by reporters and Pentagon officials," you violated WP:CLAIM (impossible to dispute) and WP:BLP (reasonable people may disagree) by putting a negative unsourced spin in his lede. But in any event, you and @Schazjmd: did a great thing calling it out and here like this, because now thanks to both of us, we have the most WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and MOS compliant lede apparently in the article's entire history as of here. This feels like a tempest that became a win for WP:BLP, which is all that matters. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree on removal of standard biographical data, discuss before removing again

@JoJo Anthrax:, I have re-added this content here. Please cite explicit policy based reason to support removal. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Please cite an explicit policy based reason for why my edits to this article require your approval. I suggest that you read WP:OWN. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I am asking if you have a policy based reason. If you do and demonstrate that, I will happily accede, but otherwise, this is a content dispute and you shall, not may, talk it over. Thank you. This is where to discuss substantive changes. Your change was disputed, so now you must discuss it to proceed further. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the removed material, I am again in agreement with VPP. The material in question is relevant and pertinent to the article’s subject, and should not be removed without further discussion and consensus. Jusdafax (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The "AATIP" question and the fact journalists and Pentagon officials give conflicting info versus WP:BLP

I just added that there is a conflict around this into the lede to be exemplary in deference to WP:BLP. In one article from 2019, we have Keith Kloor citing military collateral that Elizondo was AATIP and an "exemplary" DOD asset while writing for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, then in the less reputable The Intercept, he goes hard against Elizondo. We have a sitting United States Senator in 2009 requesting Elizondo (we have documentation in the article) be attached to AATIP and confirming this 19 years later in 2021 after leaving office. We have several Pentagon spokespeople saying Elizondo was AATIP and one single one saying no, which led to an Inspector General investigation the very next day (sourced).

The article in it's prior lede configuration made it sound like there is immutable conflict of some sort by simply saying "some" reporters contest his AATIP role and "some" Pentagon officials, which is not accurate against the sourcing, which is a big WP:BLP problem. The lede in this configuration now includes both of Kloor's pieces from 2019, Art Levine's piece, and the Sarasota piece that specifically notes the conflict:

Luis Elizondo is a former United States Army Counterintelligence special agent, former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, media commentator and author. Elizondo reports he was a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which was associated with the Pentagon UFO videos. Elizondo's statements about his Pentagon role with AATIP have been contested by some reporters and Pentagon officials, but confirmed by others. Since 2017, he has stated that UFOs (or UAPs) exist and are not the result of human technology.

That seems like a completely reasonable WP:BLP-friendly position and would appear to lean just as hard into WP:NPOV. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with your reasoning, as I have been concerned about the WP:BLP aspects of this article for some time. Jusdafax (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

@Very Polite Person: In the infobox are a list of organizations, do you have citations for those? If not they should be removed.

Also, the entire United States Army intelligence subsection does not appear to be sourced to reliable sources that did some digging. They just appear to be repeating his claims.

Looking at a source that did investigate his claims it says: There is no discernible evidence that he ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one. and Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told me. However, he added: “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017.”

So we can write in wikivoice that he stated that he had done these things/worked at these places, but not that he actually did. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Even 007 doesn't deal with ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, coup d'états, black market terrorism, violent drug cartels et cetera all in one short career. That would be a very inefficient use of resources because you can easily spend a decade learning about and dealing with one of those groups.

So I think the question is not if he is lying but how much he is lying.

Also, whenever Harvard is mentioned there is a 93% chance that people are using the namedrop to appear more important than they actually are.

The article contains:

Regarding his military career, Elizondo stated he "dealt with a lot of stuff, like coup d'états, black market terrorism, violent drug cartels, all that kind of stuff".

There are 3 refs. I search for "mark" in each and could not find the quote. I googled "dealt with a lot of stuff, like coup d'états, black market terrorism, violent drug cartels, all that kind of stuff" (including the doublequotes) and there were no reliable sources.

And "black market terrorism" isn't even a thing that exists.

And Billy Cox of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is not a neutral journalist who doesn't have a dog in this fight but someone who has been a UFO enthousiast for decades and ran a blog about it on the heraldtribune.com domain, see [7] and [8]. So why are we acting as if he is a reliable source?

Polygnotus (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Elizondo, AATIP, the lede and sourcing

Hang on, you have raised a huge collection of concerns here so I am going to answer independently to several as discussions should be compartmentalized so goalposts are cemented down (as they should be) and so we don't get into any tangents. This will take a bit to reply to each.

The Sherwood quote and AATIP conflict. We cannot take that as definitive law and face value because we also have multiple conflicts. First, you did not read the sources fully on this subtopic because you cited this Keith Kloor article here on an internet blog/news advocacy site The Intercept, while ignoring this Keith Kloor (same Keith Kloor) article for the more reputable Issues in Science and Technology from the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, where the same Keith Kloor flat-out says in the same year of 2019 that, quote:

When Luis Elizondo was at the Pentagon in the late 2000s, he was asked to take over security for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). source: paragraph 36

We also have Harry Reid as a sitting Senator in 2009 in a public DOD letter putting Elizondo into AATIP plus a 2021 letter from Reid confirming this again, 19 years later. We have Politico reporting and confirming that the Pentagon in 2017 directly confirmed Elizondo worked for AATIP. We then have this Sherwood person putting out a more ambiguous statement that Elizondo "had no responsibilities with regard to" AATIP, and we have several journalists noting this conflict and discrepancy, plus a factually sourced thing that in response to Sherwood, Elizondo filed an Inspector Generals complaint/investigation, which based on the sourcing became an investigation the next day. We never found out any further resolution that I have found in sourcing... so all we can say is there is a conflict. Sherwood is not some higher level of authority versus all the rest by WP:NPOV.

We have multiple independent WP:RS all saying conflicting versions:

1. 2009: US Senate says put Lue Elizondo into AATIP.
2. 2017: NY Times says Lue Elizondo was AATIP.
3. 2017: The Pentagon says Lue Elizondo was AATIP.
4. 2019: Keith Kloor says Lue Elizondo was AATIP.
5. 2019: Keith Kloor says Lue Elizondo may not have been AATIP.
6. 2019: The Pentagon said Elizondo had no "responsibilities" with AATIP while working for a different part of the government.
7. 2021-2024~: various news reports put Elizondo into AATIP and note the discrepancies and conflicts about this topic, alluding to the involved secrecy.

We have a multitude of valid sources, and his job in AATIP, I will be blunt, is not and cannot reasonably be considered a WP:FRINGE thing, because it's a question of his employment, not his UFO belief system. Therefore WP:BLP is our "God-king" on this niche sub-topic, full stop.

We cannot pick a winner so all we should say is some say he was, some say he wasn't, and leave it at that, until or if we somehow get his full employment record public on government documents and that reported on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Elizondo, Galileo and Harvard

Re Harvard University and this edit here, totally cool, 100%. Good call. Go look at my other stuff; I default to putting all the things in and then edit back/pare down. First draft is longest and all that. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The only kind of writing is rewriting. Polygnotus (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Elizondo, black market terrorism

Re Black market (?) terrorism in his military career section, we all missed that. Just to be pedantic, "mark" as a string shows up plenty in those sources, just not "black market". That text string seems to have been introduced way, way back in May 2021 on this edit here by @Loganmac:, unless I'm missing something earlier. There seem to be deleted revisions (why?) in the article history and lots of chaos early with sweeping massive ad hoc revisions done in big huge moves. I've removed the words "black market" here on this edit just now. Good catch. For what it's worth, apparently "black market terrorism" is a real but very obscure thing related to financing terrorist activities via black markets. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Talk:Luis Elizondo#Elizondo Army career sentence 4
2. And this edit.

Thanks to User:Polygnotus for helping catch this, we now got this corrected. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: Yeah, I have been accused of being pedantic at times. Polygnotus (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My brother and/or sister and/or (apparently...?) NHI/other, we are the same. And yeah, that's the name of the game here, right? :) -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Elizondo, infobox citation requirements

Re Infobox; do items in the Infobox require in-line citations on the Infobox itself, if the same items are sourced in the article body? If so I was not aware of that and would like to see the explicit WP:RULES for that so that I am aware going forward of our boundaries on this. If that is a WP:RULES requirement for all BLPs, for double-citing the Infobox what is in the article body, I'm happy to do that and would do it today. I removed one ref link from the Infobox that was left there for ages on his being born in Texas, which for whatever reason was itself controversial, when it's been settled for years from WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Luis Elizondo#United States Army intelligence

Re you wrote about Luis Elizondo#United States Army intelligence:

Also, the entire United States Army intelligence subsection does not appear to be sourced to reliable sources that did some digging. They just appear to be repeating his claims.

I am omitting the next section that was about "Sherwoood" and AATIP, which is chronologically in real life a later part of his career and this section is about what came before that, and a gentle reminder that WP:BLP is not something we can mess with. So on to Luis Elizondo#United States Army intelligence... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo Army career sentence 1

Says currently:

Elizondo served in the United States Army for twenty years with service in the Republic of Korea, Kuwait, and in the United States, and then as a civilian intelligence officer during which he ran military intelligence operations in Afghanistan, South America, and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and its Camp Seven.

Sourced to:

1. Sunday Times (fine as a source)
2. GQ magazine (fine as a source)
3. Elizondo bio page on his site

For his personal website, before getting into the content and other sources, we apparently are required to obey these:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
• And of course WP:BLP above all else.

From RS page we seem to meet all five boxes for rote questions of his pre-UFO/WP:FRINGE career; the Pentagon has never disputed any of this nor has any source I have found, and I have looked. His pre-AAWSAP/AATIP life in the military seems boringly non-controversial in WP:RS terms. His site is fine as an additional source then, as we are definitely not primarily using that as a source, and his site didn't even exist until 2024, and if anything he seems to have written up most of his website bio from various news sources, so that implies he is confirming what the news says, for what it is worth. The Wikipedia:Verifiability page echoes the same requirements.

So back to those sources versus paragraph 1, and looking at this now it's a mess that we again all missed from people always unhelpfully using hammers instead of scalpels and sources moving around.

1. "served in the United States Army for twenty years" -- I know I've seen this in at least one source literally with this or nearly these words, but it's implied given the times in the various sources. If required for a seemingly non-WP:BLP controversial remark, I can dig it out. I will remove it for now as per this edit.
2. Korea -- his site.
3. Kuwait -- Sunday Times.
4. USA-side service -- various sources all over plus Sunday Times.
5. civilian intel officer -- Sunday Times plus a litany of others in other sections.
6. Afghanistan -- Sunday Times plus I think I saw it in two or three others.
7. South America -- Sunday Times plus I think either a Politico or a NY Times, maybe one more.
8. Guantanamo -- Sunday Times plus others.
9. Camp Seven -- Sunday Times plus (I think) either NY Times or Popular Mechanics.

That seems thoroughly and sufficiently sourced and none of this sentence is even slightly WP:FRINGE related, so we would use WP:BLP and other policies like any other article here for this bit.

Yes, because I like to be thorough and not have the same conversation repeatedly, I will answer sentence by sentence. Weeds are good and ambiguity never is. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo Army career sentence 2

Says:

During military tours in Afghanistan he was an operations officer, joined the United States Army Counterintelligence program, and was "battle captain" managing a tactical operations center.

Sourced to:

1. His site
2. Second link if for readers to explain what a "battle captain" role is in that context to a military website.

The United States Army Counterintelligence angle is mentioned in what seems to be half a dozen if not a dozen sources, and I know there are overt mentions of this such as in Cox (which I will address in a completely separate section Re: Cox detached from this). WP:FRINGE again has no bearing here; only WP:BLP and other policies like RS and V. If there is consensus beyond us to remove this sentence, I don't mind, but I would ask for more people to weigh in with justifications. Given the history here I will politely demand we are slavish toward the WP:RULES and that this WP:BLP article are outright under a level of attack weeks ago, which is why it is now protected through 2025. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo Army career sentence 3

Says:

Elizondo ran anti-terrorist missions against the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Sourced to:

1. Sunday Times

Josie Ensoor appears to be a very well-regarded journalist. The Sunday Times seems to be a very well-regarded news service. If we have issues with either: per WP:THETIMES, the Sunday Times is fine. Ensoor shows up nowhere on the RS noticeboard. Searching "Sunday Times" on the RS noticeboard seems to bring up no credibility issues. The Media Bias Fact Check site lists the Sunday Times as reliable, with "Factual Reporting: HIGH" and "MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY". If there are issues with this sourcing, they need to be proven with evidence, I believe. WP:FRINGE again is not applicable on this sentence. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo Army career sentence 4

Says:

Regarding his military career, Elizondo stated he "dealt with a lot of stuff, like coup d'états, terrorism, violent drug cartels, all that kind of stuff".

Sourced to:

1. Cox/Sarasota--I say it's fine and will post that again in a separate section why, and I believe my argument is compelling and extremely WP:RULES compliant.
2. CBS News/60 Minutes -- good source.
3. McMillan/Popular Mechanics -- good source.

This is actually a VERY interesting catch that like other things we ALL missed. Why?

We sourced it to the wrong Popular Mechanics McMillan article for this self-statement by Elizondo. I'm not going to spend time digging out how this one got mangled over the years and will just fix it instead after I hit submit on this section. Google wasn't showing this one from it's paywall, and we didn't use it as a source yet. This is actually a treasure trove of data, so thanks for finding Inside the Pentagon's Secret UFO Program. It has forty-nine (49!) Elizondo references and also is the genesis of this term:

Elizondo’s first stop as an intelligence operations specialist was running counterinsurgency and counternarcotics operations in Latin America. “We dealt with a lot of stuff, like coup d’etats, black market terrorism, violent drug cartels, all that kind of stuff,” Elizondo says.

So I think this one is more than covered. Again, WP:FRINGE is invalid against this sentence. This source you led to us finding is actually a bit bonkers, good work, @Polygnotus:. I'll come back to this talk page to address the rest of this section and Cox after I fix this one. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, this sourcing is fixed here now on this edit. That's good to go. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: From three sources that did not support the claim to one that does. That is a huge improvement, thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo Army career sentence 5

Says:

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported in 2021 that during the course of his military career, Elizondo reported to the United States Secretary of Defense, the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, Office of National Intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House.

Sourced to:

1. Cox/Sarasota--again, I will raise that one last why it's fine as a WP:BLP source irrespective of any WP:FRINGE considerations, since his life "before" AATIP is not WP:FRINGE.
2. Leslie Kean in Huffington Post. I have come to understand some people here really seem to dislike her, but we go by the WP:RULES and all.
3. A Securities and Exchange Commission legal filing.

His places that he's listed as having reported to in his career:

1. United States Secretary of Defense -- Cox/Sarasota plus a number of others.
2. National Counterintelligence and Security Center -- this is the "National Counterintelligence Executive" listed in Kean/Huff Post.
3. Office of National Intelligence -- Cox plus I think a few others.
4. Director of National Intelligence -- Kean/Huff post plus I believe a McMillan/Mechanics and a NY Times.
5. White House -- Cox, McMillan, and I think I've seen it in 2-3 others.

I think this is fine under WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, we have a litany of sources all covering this. WP:FRINGE again non-applicable on this sentence, it's basic career stuff. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

Just to get this out of the way, again, I stand by my position that things from earlier in Elizondo's life, like his pre-"UFO" career, are not WP:FRINGE, going back to my Martha Stewart analogy. If she suddenly stood up before Congress and became the USA's main champion of all this "UFO disclosure", everything else in her article(s) pre-"UFO" don't suddenly fall under or become WP:FRINGE. Even if someone became notable because of WP:FRINGE stuff, WP:BLP still outranks WP:FRINGE in all circumstances.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune by itself is fine and doesn't even come up on any WP:RS related searches. The newspaper checks out fine on the Media Bias page as seen here with "least biased" and high credibility all around.

You wrote the following about this Billy Cox reporter:

And Billy Cox of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is not a neutral journalist who doesn't have a dog in this fight but someone who has been a UFO enthousiast for decades and ran a blog about it on the heraldtribune.com domain, see [9] and [10]. So why are we acting as if he is a reliable source?

Note: the article in question that we use as a source is this, from 2021:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20210104084311/https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2021/01/03/riverview-high-school-grad-luis-elizondo-forces-ufos-into-mainstream/4064093001/

Your concerns or opposition to Billy Cox as a reliable source are because as a working journalist for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, he wrote a news blog on the UFO topic in addition to his other work for the news paper as their listed Senior Features Writer? This google search for Billy Cox on their site, excluding Elizondo, UFOs, UAPs, and his blog, reveals that this person is a very regular working journalist:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Billy+Cox%22+site%3Aheraldtribune.com+-%22de+void%22+-%22devoid%22+-ufo+-uap+-elizondo&oq=%22Billy+Cox%22+site%3Aheraldtribune.com+-%22de+void%22+-%22devoid%22+-ufo+-uap+-elizondo

There, I see thirty-one (31) pages of results of nine news articles each page that have nothing to do with UFOs, for a total of about 275 news articles on a huge diverse array of topics spanning decades. This guy having ran a "UFO blog" on his news site--which means editorial oversight--from July 2008 to December 2010--while he's been working and writing for the same paper as far as I can tell from 2008 to 2024... I don't see any issues here with this person being used as a WP:RS on really any article.

Further, we use Cox on Luis Elizondo for the following:

1. Not controversial/no WP:FRINGE: An additional/supportive source on a biographical note about Elizondo's deceased father's connections to Cuba and Bay of Pigs, which ties into Elizondo's spoken of upbringing being trained as a combatant by his dad to fight Castro when he grew up.
2. Not controversial/no WP:FRINGE: Background on Elizondo's college education.
3. Not controversial/no WP:FRINGE: That he was born in Texas and his family moved to Sarasota.
4. Not controversial/no WP:FRINGE: One sentence about his activities growing up/BLP background stuff.
5. Not controversial/no WP:FRINGE: As mentioned in the above Army career section, WP:RS on some of his pre-UFO/non-FRINGE government career. This one three times.

Then we finally get to two invocations of "UFO related stuff".

• Partially WP:FRINGE: See this link which goes to the repeatedly mentioned conflict about his status with AATIP--was he, or wasn't he?--where Cox writes, Various spokespersons alternately confirmed the story, denied AATIP was a UFO/UAP program, and discounted Elizondo’s role in it, confirming the conflicts as a secondary source.
• Partially WP:FRINGE: See this link which is just a quote/note about why Elizondo says he left "To the Stars".

That is all we are using Cox/Sarasota for here. If there was anything else notable, I would have already added it while doing that big wave of clean up. So, if we want to question whether Billy Cox of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune is not WP:RS as used, I think we need some extremely compelling WP:RULES-based justification with citations to make that work, but I am always open to learning more if someone can present that.

But, that opens the door to "neutrality" of every single journalist we use, because we use Keith Kloor in this article eight (8) times from two different sources and publications, one neutral and one extremely critical of Elizondo, both from the same time period, and both in the lede today for neutrality. Kloor is also, having checked, regularly hostile to both Elizondo and all things UFO-related on Twitter, without any exaggeration on my part, so by your logical position, Kloor is far from neutral. If a standard is to be weighed and applied to one source, the same has to apply to all sources. Do we have a WP:RULES based reason to consider the historic background of all journalists we cite for mundane, non-WP:FRINGE matters?

I honestly don't see any issue with this Cox/Sarasota article and especially with how we use it. I think we would need something extraordinary to show why it's not valid to use based on everything here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I again thank you. This WP:BLP article has badly needed a comprehensive overview of the sourcing for years. This detailed analysis, as I see it, brings light to the process. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Cox, aboutself, ref(/area) 51

Billy Cox’s interest in UFOs began during March 1979 because he thought he saw one. He then spent decades talking and blogging about them.

People who have been obsessed with UFOs for 45 years are unlikely to write critically about people who confirm their beliefs. So I think it would make the article stronger to get rid of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune stuff. See also WP:BIASEDSOURCES, specifically the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.

And luiselizondo-official.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 so I would get rid of that too. I would consider everything he says "controversial" because I would dispute it all. It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar.

We are also treating Imminent as if it is a real memoir, while it should be added to List of fake memoirs and journals.

When the best remote viewers were in the “zone,” they could penetrate enemy installations and have a look around. They could locate personnel or vital assets. They could even allegedly disrupt or incapacitate the minds of adversaries. During a viewing session, a seasoned viewer could draw images, maps, coordinates, details of everything they had seen.

Luis Elizondo claims he was trained as a "psychic spy" in addition to all his other fanciful claims. Dude is yet another Jason Blaha/Bob Lazar and it is unclear why this article treats him seriously.

We cannot use these sources, even for unimportant details. Polygnotus (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

First, please stop putting a bunch of stuff into one comment. Subdivide and isolate topics. The question of using Lue Elizondo as a source for himself should be questioned in isolation.

I left an extensive, extremely sourced, cited, and WP:RULES-based breakdown here of why the Sarasota Cox sourcing is 100% fine for Luis Elizondo and especially for how we use the sourcing, detailed here:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

Which was a direct reply to you, @Polygnotus:. You can't just re-state your original concerns as that's how it is without addressing this. There is no policy-based standard that supports your position whatsoever, unless you can demonstrate that. Again: rote, routine biological data/historical data about any WP:BLP what has nothing to do with their pseudoscience, etc. beliefs has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE.

Last, I have left you a notice on your talk page here over your WP:BLP violation here on Talk:Luis Elizondo:

User talk:Polygnotus#User talk:Polygnotus

Do not violate WP:BLP again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your opinion on a source is not a BLP violation. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How is this source: Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

Not a reliable source for basic biographical inforation on a WP:BLP subject, or a WP:BLP violation for being used? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS is clear that the author can and should be taken into account when evaluating a source. Someone doing that is not a BLP violation. Issuing people warnings and such is deeply unhelpful to collaborative discussion. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP is crystal clear that it's restrictions apply to this page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant to what I just said. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else somewhere else? MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Unsourcable?

The article contains:

In the memoir, Elizondo describes his early experiences in various government and military programs, ranging from his time in the regular Army, his experiences in military intelligence, a [[remote viewing]] program under Hal Puthoff when younger, to his years later his recruitment into the UFO research program where Puthoff was among the project scientists.<ref>{{cite book |last=Elizondo |first=Luis |author-link=Luis Elizondo |date=2024 |title=Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs|chapter=|page=|quote=|isbn=978-0063235564}}{{page needed|date=August 2024}}</ref>

and that appears to be the summary of someone who read the book, which means that the reference is wrong. I removed it. Polygnotus (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Restored with quotes. Feoffer (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: That did not fix the problem. It is not a reliable source, and while the ref talks about a remote viewing program led by Puthoff, the quotes do not mention that he was among the scientists in a UFO research program. Polygnotus (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Notable people are RSes for their own properly-attributed views; we're explicit that we're just describing the content of the memoir, not asserting it as factual. I'll add the quote about him being the project scientist, at least according to the memoir. Feoffer (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Notable people are often but not always reliable sources for their own opinions. But this is not an opinion, it is a disputed claim about reality. See WP:ABOUTSELF 1, 2, 3 and 4. Since the source does not meet the standards of WP:RS and we are on a WP:BLP it cannot be used for claims about reality. And the quote you added still does not support the claim (although that is moot because it is not a reliable source and we cannot use it anyway). Polygnotus (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

How are we making claims about reality? The sentence literally begins In the memoir, Elizondo describes.... Feoffer (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Imagine writing, in wikivoice, "In his memoir, Feoffer describes Polygnotus' heroin addiction" that is a bit weird considering I am not addicted to heroin. So it is a claim about reality, which is not allowed. Also it is not a memoir, it should be added to List of fake memoirs and journals. Polygnotus (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have alternate language what would make it clearer we're relaying Elizondo's claims rather than reality? Mind you, RSes report Puthoff really was involved in the remote viewing program and the UFO program, so it's not as if those are slurs against Puthoff's character. He's known to be FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I would have to think about that, which requires at least some caffeine. And the book is very very positive about Puthoff so he is unlikely to be offended. Dude reminds me of HAL 9000. Polygnotus (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Book vs memoir

@Feoffer: (in response to your editsummary) problem is that this is not written from memory. It is fiction, not the flawed memory of a reliable narrator. Polygnotus (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I certainly understand wishing it were fiction, but the US government genuinely do have a long history of funding FRINGE research. Elizondo's conclusion are certainly unsubstantiated and almost certainly false, but no RS refers to them as 'fiction'. You imagine 'memoir' to imply factuality, when it actually connotes the exact opposite. Feoffer (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: Oh no I love staring at goats. They are awesome. But this is a book, not a memoir. What are the downsides of calling a book a book? Polygnotus (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yay goat-staring. The downside to calling it a 'book' is that memoir makes it clearer that it's content is less reliable than would otherwise be expected from a book. By telling the read it's a memoir, we're reminding them that the author isn't citing his sources, he's just telling a story that may or may not have any bearing on reality. Feoffer (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: In that case, per NPOV we should use "book" (in wikivoice) which is a neutral description. Polygnotus (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a memoir. Would you prefer I cite all these? I'm happy to format up all these if required to match this edit here?

[11][12][13][14][15][16] -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer: If you are saying that memoir is a negative term used to let people know that it is not to be trusted, then we should use "book" in wikivoice because "book" is a neutral term. Also those other websites don't follow and don't have to follow WP:NEUTRAL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an opinonated news site or a blog. Polygnotus (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

And this is WP:POINTy stuff which is discouraged. Polygnotus (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Religious-level compliance with WP:BLP is compulsory which outweighs anything else, including literally any thought in our minds. We have lanes to live in. So does this article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Very Polite Person: Far more than religious-level compliance, we actually have to practice what we preach and believe in. That means that we cannot use unreliable source like Imminent, luiselizondo-official.com and Billy Cox. Polygnotus (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have an entire space here:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

To rebut against my WP:RULES and data-based breakdown on why Cox is fine for how we use it. The next step is for you to address that with evidence and data, not opinion or emotion. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can use whichever section I like, thank you very much. And I already explained that you cannot use Cox because he is not a reliable source in this context. And you cannot use an unreliable source on a BLP. Polygnotus (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reply where you like; you will not be able to remove the Cox source as it is rules compliant and your framing of a conflict of interest is, respectfully, supported by no reasonable reading whatsoever of any policy at all by any reasonable framing. Your position is not how things work. Cite policy supporting your position or the position has no validity. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

you will not be able to remove the Cox source Sounds a lot like WP:OWN problems. as it is rules compliant false, you are not allowed to use unreliable sources on BLPs. Your position is not how things work. Cite policy supporting your position or the position has no validity. that is not how things work around here. We are not a bureaucracy or a software program. We can use WP:COMMONSENSE to see that someone who has been a UFO activist for 45 years is not a reliable source when talking about UFOs. Polygnotus (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm WP:OWN nothing and the article history shows me routinely removing things by request, and asking constantly here to a pedantic level for feedback. The history is obvious. But this is a continuation of the very odd trend of many users here using nearly bizarre framing of things in extremely inaccurate ways that I haven't seen anywhere. Someone on this page on a still active thread tried to frame an entire source as extremely negative toward Luis Elizondo, and when I broke down the article literally paragraph by paragraph here:

User:Very Polite Person/Elizondo Kloor 2019 analysis

Proving that 'take' as completely and totally wrong, no one wanted to continue on and reply further or admit error. I am unsure why they walked away when I demonstrated that.

I am asking you to demonstrate under policy how this person:

Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS

Used on entirely on a non-WP:FRINGE matter, it is a suitable source, as a decades long working journalist at a newspaper with top marks on low bias and high credibility. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can talk about my experience with the goats instead? I used to feed them sandwiches with permission from the farmer who said they literally eat anything anyway, and my sandwiches were healthier than the stuff they would normally eat. Once I gained their trust they would cuddle like a cat. Polygnotus (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you really want to we can talk about serious stuff too, but I think that I already explained why Cox is not a reliable source. And I haven't seen a cogent rebuttal to that. Maybe I missed it? Polygnotus (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is my rebuttal: Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I disagree that the source was not used for controversial stuff. The source was used for the sentence: Elizondo's statements about his Pentagon role with AATIP have been contested by some reporters and Pentagon officials, but confirmed by others. I believe that a UFO activist is not a suitable source in that context. I may be a very nitpicky and pedantic person, which certainly can be annoying (my wife can confirm that) but I am not interested in a fight and I care little about this particular article. I think we have the same goal of a NPOV encyclopedia, and the fact that we may disagree about minor details on how to achieve that goal does and should not make us enemies. You said something silly, I forgive you, lets move on. I believe that BLPs require special care and attention, and that it is important to use only and exclusively reliable sources on BLPs. I also believe that, while a publication in general can be reliable, there can be exceptions with certain people working for that paper and for certain topics. If you look at WP:RSP you will see that some sources are considered reliable in general... except in certain topic areas. I know a moon landing denier irl and he is a lovely person. He just isn't a reliable source for information about the moon landing. You can choose any other topic to talk about and he will give a normal response. Polygnotus (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with the usage of a source for one (1) citation then the source can be examined and debated for consensus against that one citation, but consensus is a team geam. The non-WP:FRINGE portions of an article have no reason or requirement to consider WP:FRINGE factors, and Elizondo's life from 1975-2008 has nothing to do with UFOs in our article. Cox is fine for basically any usage as per Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS, and you are the only person who forcefully disagrees, and no offense, still without a policy basis or facts. You also never answered the double standard you are presenting about Cox for apparently being "open" to UFOs, but you don't raise the same concerns about Kloor for being apparently routinely hostile to Elizondo and "UFOs" on social media. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that was the most egregious example, but I object to using Cox in general as a source on a BLP related to UFOs because I do not believe that they meet the requirements to be a reliable source and I think it is wise to insist on reliable sources on BLPs. Note that this also helps cover our asses in case of litigious BLP subjects. The idea that I am the only person who disagrees with you, on this particular topic and others, is clearly false. The idea that policy allows you to use unreliable sources on BLPs is false, see WP:BLP. The idea that I have not mentioned facts to support my ideas is also false. I have no idea if Kloor is, as you say, apparently routinely hostile to Elizondo and "UFOs" on social media.. I have no idea if that is true or not. Are you saying that that is the case? Do you have any evidence I can look at? Polygnotus (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Google Keith Kloor twitter, let it scroll to open a few pages and start doing control-f's for Elizondo and UFO. The person is heavily cited in this article as an author.

You still have addressed none of my points in Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS as of this time, which demonstrates this source is 100% fine for any non-WP:FRINGE sentence we use them for; and the totality of a WP:BLP is not WP:FRINGE because part of it is. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry I have blocked the Twitter domain from my network. They would probably not let me see any tweets without an account anyway. If you can quote them I'd be happy to read them of course. I do believe I have addressed points in that section, specifically if it was used for a controversial statement or not, perhaps you weren't satisfied with my answer but it is weird to pretend that I ignored it. That section does not demonstrate that the source is fine to use, just that you believe it is. I haven't even mentioned WP:FRINGE as far as I can remember (but I could be wrong). Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Explain why Cox would not be an OK source for when Elizondo moved from Texas to Florida. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already. I can quote myself for you if you want? Polygnotus (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It may be for the best, as your wild volume of editing pace/responses makes anything impossible for any reasonable person to keep up with. Please make efforts to reply once, in detail, and let people answer without a supplemenantal raft of edits. Please include the diff link to where you did as well. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record I agree that you were doing well until you fell into the trap of falsely accusing me, which is a doomed strategy, but we can let bygones be bygones and move on from that if you want. Polygnotus (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I used to work at a place where every break I could spend with some baby goats and I considered that a serious perk. Baby goats are adorable anarchists. Polygnotus (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Luis Elizondo persistent recurring WP:BLP issues on WP:BLPN

Given the persistent ongoing WP:BLP violations around Luis Elizondo but especially of late Talk:Luis Elizondo, I have filed this for wider attention, after my initial attempts to address it locally and on user talk were rebuffed:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Luis Elizondo persistent recurring WP:BLP issues

Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Bit useless, since I had already posted there explaining what happened, and a consensus began to form. Polygnotus (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No consensus forms in 10 minutes, and you do not get to tell anyone what reports or complaints they may raise on a noticeboard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I? I don't think I did. Please don't be mad at people who merge the sections at BLPN, it is standard practice on some pages (like BLPN), and they are certainly not trying to silence you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• For both of you, please see WP:BLUDGEON. – notwally (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Assessing the reliability of a source is not a BLP violation. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

    Framing must be accurate. It was not assessing the accuracy; it was calling the BLP subject a "liar" explicitly by the word "liar". -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:STICK. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, because I'm not going to participate in these silly acronym tennis matches, first, and two, the outstanding problem remains that per WP:BLP:

1. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
2. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
3. The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
4. The template BLP removal can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.

Does WP:BLP mention "talk pages" in error? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 here has made well over 100.000 edits on Wikipedia in the past 15 years. They have been an administrator for the past 7 years. They probably know what they are talking about. They know what is and what isn't a BLP violation. Polygnotus (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should let the process play out without you having to leap in to defend yourself every time, and I am going by WP:BLP which says, again, what is quoted, which means it covers this page. Assessing a source is not dropping bon mots of them being flat out non-credible and calling them expressly and explicitly a "liar", and just because you put it into two sentences is not protection or coverage for you. Your problematic edit.

The more I look at this I'm starting to sense a subtle if not overt rules enforcement double standard where WP:BLP is scarecly enforced with any consideration on "WP:FRINGE" people, which is patently improper in every way. If WP:BLP has conditions where it is firmer for some BLPs but not others, that is wrong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You may or may not be interested in User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. I certainly found it enlightening. I think the essence of what you are saying, that Wikipedia is biased against bullshit, is correct. I think this is inherent in the policies and guidelines and community and history of Wikipedia.

But lets not exaggerate, using unreliable sources is a BLP violation, but you did not experience any repercussions as far as I know. Polygnotus (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in that currently and prefer to stay on the track until the train arrives. Going forward I will ignore any time you bring up your personal content dispute about a source up, when I am talking about what I believe is your direct WP:BLP violation here. Unless you want to talk about that and whether or not WP:BLP applies to talk pages, like it says repeatedly it does, we have nothing else to discuss in this section, and your reply is not required unless along those lines. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Staying on track until the train arrives is certainly a dangerous and bad idea. No one should be on the train tracks except perhaps maintenance personnel. I am not sure what you mean when you say your personal content dispute. You have been repeatedly explained by other people that the supposed BLP violation was not a BLP violation, despite the fact that you repeatedly misrepresented what I actually said. Polygnotus (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the same talking point does not give the talking point validity. WP:BLP applies equally to this page as the main article page per WP:BLP itself, and equally so, per WP:BLP itself. Based on that, this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1246487079

Is logically a WP:BLP violation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Repeating that over and over will not make it any more true or any more convincing. BLP applies to the talk page, true, but discussing the reliability of a citation's author is not such a violation. BLP is not a weapon to wield to prevent people from disagreeing. MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Per MrOllie, honest opinions of potential sources on talk are NOT BLP violations. Feoffer (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

UAP DF

"On June 2, 2024, Elizondo joined the UAP Disclosure Fund Board of Directors. The UAP Disclosure Fund is committed to uncovering the truth about Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) through transparency, declassification, and political advocacy."

Requesting to please add this info to Lue's page with the following citations. Thank you.

Citations​

• https://uapdisclosurefund.org/​
• https://cbs4indy.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/716634660/the-uap-disclosure-fund-launches-to-fight-for-transparency-and-whistleblower-protection/​

DuncanGT (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the organizations own website and a press release, and your suggested text is very promotional. Are there any secondary sources? MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the body of the article, he is named as Lue, rather than Luis. Thanks. 2605:59C8:187F:2110:857A:AF38:3CD:8D6 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's in the context of a direct quote. Schazjmd (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous statement re: federal employment

The article states, "At the time of his resignation Elizondo had reached the highest level of civilian non-political appointment employment in the Federal government of the United States as a 'GS-15 employee', the civilian equivalent to colonel rank."

Employees on the SES scale (Executive Schedule) have a higher civilian, non-politically appointed position in federal government than those on the GS scale. Accordingly, the quoted section should be changed. WyldKard (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Removed as unsourced. – notwally (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)