Talk:Luis Elizondo/Archive 1

References

I have noticed that there is a lot of back-and-forth between editors re: Luis Elizondo’s formal title and function while working at the DoD/AATIP. The preponderance of evidence suggests that Elizondo is who he says he is. This has been thoroughly vetted and validated by numerous articles e.g. NY Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, etc. The only doubt that has been cast on Elizondo's role thus far is one article from the Intercept. As such, I highly recommend that editors continue to weigh Elizondo’s credibility using articles by NY Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, etc., and not the Intercept. Tmatla (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I provided a rebuttal using an article from The Hill, two (2) separate articles from Politico, and another from The Guardian. These include rebuttals to the Pentagon's spokesman Sherwood who claims Elizondo had no involvement with AATiP (one was from Dana White in 2017 who attested to Elizondo's leadership of the AATIP program, as well as an unidentified Pentagon official who also attested to his leadership of the AATIP program). I also provided information about the Pentagon Investigator General investigation that was prompted by a 64 page complaint filed by Elizondo on May 3, 2021. I also provided other reliable sources concerning the Pentagon's disinformation campaign against Elizondo, which was allegedly perpetrated by a senior official at the Pentagon. Elizondo deserves a rebuttal to these claims, whether a person chooses to believe his story or not. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Third Revert on edit always with a different (invalid) reason

@ජපස: [1] This is the third revert on this edit with a different reasoning. The first two were invalid and were reverted by me [2][3]. This third one has a completely unrelated reason which is unclear and poorly explained. Care to elaborate how WP:SOAP applies to this edit? It seems an error or completely irrelevant. Those unclear edit summaries and constant reverts may be considered (or start) an WP:EDITWAR. Discussion is usually preferable. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You're trying to trump up Luis Elizondo into making him more important to the declassification than he was. He was not important in that declassification at all. He was not mentioned by the spokesperson who declassified the videos, for example. jps (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That is very demonstrably false/inaccurate: In an interview with Popular Mechanics, the man who applied for the release of the videos, Luis Elizondo, staunchly defended against any accusations he’d deliberately tried to circumvent DoD policies or hadn’t followed proper procedures. [4] The whole article is basically about this if you wish to inform yourself better. Is the edit clear now or do you have any additional question regarding it? If anything we should expand the history of those disclosures by Elizondo as it has been reported on at length. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 01:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Its relevant since. He was the one who made these public, then it was confirmed by the pentagon It should stay.Driverofknowledge (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: stop reverting this. The discussion above is against you and me and Driverofknowledge have reverted you several times. You are edit warring and WP:IDHT. Also you are infringing WP:CANVAS here: [5]. If this continues I will have to report you. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We can only include content that are related to the person. This is not a page to expound upon related matters. There is no discussion to be had about this. jps (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have told you why your argument is not relevant in this case. I have maintained the appropriate parts of your last edit but restored, improved sourcing and expanded the sections you were questioning to clear up any confusion over this. Please discuss any changes here before continuing to revert the same edits. You are turning this into an WP:EDITWAR and you are repeatedly ignoring requests to stop. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources which do not mention the subject of the article are not to be included in the article. See WP:OR. jps (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please just add an "improve source" template if you don't have the time to research it yourself. I am clearly following closely this page but would have missed it if I wasn't paying attention so closely and we would have lost valuable content. Thanks.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You added a source which does not mention Elizondo again. See WP:SYNTH. If a source does not mention the subject of the article, please do not add it. jps (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What source are you referring to? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The video release from the DoD does not mention Elizondo. jps (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Recreated the Luis Elizondo article

This has gone on long enough. No reliable sources have been found to include this information. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all - because of all the media coverage lately, this page needed to be written. I've done my best on little sleep to get this out. There is still much to be done besides just fixing my grammar. It needs better categories as well as ... well just more. I was thrilled when at the very last article I reviewed at the very bottom there was some biographical information. WooHoo! The info box remains mostly blank. Enjoy! And think well of me, I will sleep like a babe tonigh. Sgerbic (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks, if there were to be an BLP on Elizondo, this would be a great an excellent start. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you Louie - but the page is gone already. Here is the discussion on the page it was directed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Rewritten_the_Luis_Elizondo_page. Sgerbic (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC) WTF So the discussion has been closed on the Pentagon UFO page and we are told to have the conversation on the Luis Elizondo talk page. But this page redirects to the Pentagon UFO talk page. I can't even find the talk page I'm writing on right now unless I look under my past edits. I don't know how to find this otherwise and no one else does either. I don't know how to make the Elizondo page without changing the redirect which is what I did before that started this mess again. Ahhh let me ping Loganmac JoJo Anthrax I hope this works. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) BTW the page I'm requesting be used (with additions of course) is this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgerbic/sandbox Sgerbic (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Perhaps it would be easiest at this point if you blank your current sandbox Talk page and direct comments there. When you believe the proto-article has been sufficiently discussed/vetted/edited/etc., submit the draft page for review. (You can, of course, submit it for review now if you are so inclined.) When the new article is ultimately accepted, request that the associated sandbox Talk page be moved into the new article's Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC) That's one possibly but it could take months to be reviewed, that last time I looked a couple weeks ago it was a 5 month wait. I'm a long time editor and I know that the page as it exists now is fine. It needs additions to the page that have come out in the last couple days, but I'm not interested in sitting on my hands waiting for someone with probably years less editing history than me to come and give me permission to post it. The whole situation pisses me off. The page should be live right now today and this discussion of notability is silly. The man is being called on by media as an expert nearly every day and it is increasing. If it wasn't for this redirect mess I would have insisted that it go though the AfD discussion where people could weigh in, at least in the meantime there would be a separate Wikipedia page for readers to find. But this BS about me making it live and ONE editor swooping in and saying NOPE and then it's gone without a word of warning or discussion isn't helpful. Let's just say that I'm not happy at the moment, I know, I know Wikipedia doesn't care if I'm happy or not. But this is frustrating. Sgerbic (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC) I've restored the page following the original content, your content and new information. I agree, the notability discussion is silly now. I'm sure all claims are properly sourced by multiple mainstream WP:RS, I made sure to follow all WP:BLP guidelines, and also made sure to not make bold claims in Wikipedia's voice per WP:FRINGE. Also per WP:WEIGHT added skeptic claims over his position on AATIP. Loganmac (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC) I see you left out the bulk of the criticism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC) For the record, here is the discussion earlier this month with the the Elizondo Afd nominator and closer, from the closer's Talk page and with his approval. Jusdafax (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Improving the article I believe, along with others here, that the notability of Elizondo is established, and thank User:Loganmac for the work. I have updated the lede regarding Elizondo's employment, and added a photo. Needless to say, the article needs additional work. Jusdafax (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC) I see that discussion - I hadn't read it when I wrote this page completely from scratch a few days ago. I'm really concerned that there is nearly no criticism in this article. In my article I used RS with Journalists that are notable themselves explaining their impressions of him. This is completely relevant to the article and does not come into issue with BLP. In fact to leave it out, is glossing over the sources. These journalists find him and his claims to be quite off and should be included. The statements about him working for the Pentagon UFO in the lede need to reflect that many RS can find no documentation of this, the only sources are Elizondo, his close associates that are tied to the History Channel story. I think that it is important to add to the lede. I'm prepared to re-add in the information. Sgerbic (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Further I think that most of this current content is from RS but directly from Elizondo. To not add content from RS would be presenting this as a fluff piece written by Elizondo himself.Sgerbic (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Yes, since there is now a live article, and apparently there is now consensus that there are sufficient sources to justify an article, I suggest text sourced to Elizondo’s web site be either in-text-attributed or removed as WP:SPS. Also, per WP:FRINGE, the criticism and analysis from SGerbic’s draft should be included. If no one has gotten to it by Monday, I’ll have time to work on it myself then. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC) The only statement sourced by his website that I included is his education (his majors/minors), the University he attended is already corroborated by another source. I don't see these statements as contentious. WP:FRINGE is kinda tricky in this article since most of the mainstream coverage of him right now is positive or neutral, the only MSM article I've found that casts doubts on his claims is The Intercept, which quotes a Pentagon statement that is now outdated (it has been updated with "no ASSIGNED responsabilities") which makes the Pentagon statement ambigous. Still, he's often quoted as an authorative voice in a topic deemed WP:FRINGE, for this reason I made sure not to include any "out-there" claims in Wikipedia's voice. Two criticisms in Sgerbic's draft were sourced to blogspots, and again the bulk of the doubts were sourced to the one single Intercept article. Editors should be reminded that a topic being WP:FRINGE does not mean to disregard the bulk of WP:RS or only include outlier sentences in otherwise neutral coverage (WP:UNDUE). Per WP:FRINGEBLP "Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject." Loganmac (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC) The NYT's article and The Daily article were both about the extensive interview by Cooper (who is notable) and she talks about her impressions of him and what he told her. I think that should be included. There is probably more but I'm writing this in haste. Sgerbic (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC) I don't think I'm going to get to this before Monday - LuckyLouie it's all yours. Looking forward to what you come up with. Sgerbic (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC) I forgot Monday’s a holiday, but I’ll work on it next week. BTW, BLP does not exclude relevant criticism that is attributed and well sourced, no matter if the subject feels it’s denigrating or not. Any questions about what falls under FRINGE (e.g. Elizondos more colorful claims) can be cleared up at WP:FTN. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC) OK, I have integrated criticism, some that was left out of existing sources and some from new sources. I'm sure there will be more WP:RS in coming days from which to draw upon, but I overall, I think this is an improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Recent edits Have done more copyediting to remove lots of repetition and extraneous details. Pared the criticism section down to focus only on actual criticism, and more can certainly be added as sources come available. I've moved the discussion of Elizondo's AATIP employment to the Career section where it makes sense, since his complaint is reacting to that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Just gave it a full read. Thank you so much, you took what I clumsily wrote and trimmed just enough to make it readable. Sgerbic (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC) There’ll be more to do I’m sure. The guy has just told the NYpost he plans to run for Congress if he doesn’t get his way. I’m off duty for the weekend so it’s all yours ;) - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Harry Reid Senator Harry Reid, who gathered the government funding for AATIP, has provided a letter to NBC certifying Mr Elizondo is who he claims to be, and has served in the position he claims. LuckyLouie Please stop removing this important information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.43 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC) It has been explained several times now that you cannot use Twitter as a source on Wikipedia. Find a reliable source please.OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC) An NBC Reporter (Gadi Schwartz) is the source, not Twitter, Twitter is the platform that is hosting the image. Don't be dense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.43 (talk • contribs) 138.163.128.43 (UTC) Insulting people because you don't yet understand how Wikipedia works is not going to get you very far. It doesn't matter who put what on Twitter, read and comprehend these links -->WP:RS, WP:SECONDARY. After reading those if you still feel that Twitter is a reliable, secondary source for content on this page then come back here and discuss it with us like a grown-up.OneUpOnUs (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC) The letter itself is a primary source. If you're offended by my saying you were being dense then I apologize, but it seems you are being willfully difficult.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.59 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Firstly, please learn how to sign your Talk page comments. You do so by typing four consecutive tildes (~) immediately following your typed text. Secondly, if you take the time to read and understand WP:RSPS you will learn, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Twitter cannot be used as a source. Thirdly, both Don't be dense and you are being willfully difficult are violations of Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:No personal attacks. If you continue to violate that policy, you are likely to be blocked from editing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Sure, I will be happy to sign my comments. Here's the thing though, the letter provided by Senator Harry Reid clarifies Mr. Elizondo's position; this letter clarifies the confusion that is described in this article. Again, the letter is a primary source and Twitter just happens to be where the NBC News correspondent who received it hosted it. Do you understand the importance of this letter? If you did, you would see what is inclusion in this article is extremely important. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC) An NBC reporter posted a letter on Twitter. The fact that the letter hasn't moved beyond Twitter (and into formal news reporting by NBC or by other news outlets) tells us that it isn't considered significant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC) But it's always nice to keep an eye on. Sgerbic (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Here is an article which publishes the previously referred to letter, does this suffice? 138.163.128.41 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC) That does not look like a reliable source to me. Also, please comment above any reflist template. You can see it at the end of the editing pane, it looks like this{{reflist-talk}}ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC) ”The Black Vault” is basically one guy’s website that aggregates FOIA documents and adds a sensational contextual frame. There is no editorial oversight as is expected of a WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Yeah. I think I actually remember this site from many years ago, but I'm not sure. I've been looking into it. It might pass muster as a reliable host of the FOIA files it collects. It's used by other, highly reliable sources like CNN and CJR for these documents, and it's actually got decent coverage. See This CJR article, for example. The article the IP linked to, however, is pretty clearly no good for establishing any weight for the letter. It's a blog post, and I can literally go find a blog post about what the author had for dinner last night in 5 minutes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC) There's also this document, which also lists Elizondo as an employee of the program.138.163.128.43 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC) That letter identifies Elizondo only as a "Special Agent" (whatever that is) attached to USDI. It hardly qualifies as Reid certifying Mr Elizondo is who he claims to be or list[ing] Elizondo as an employee of the [AATIP] program, nor does it clarif[y] Mr. Elizondo's position. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC) @138.163.128.43, see WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia's role is not to dig up and publish WP:PRIMARY sources in order to refute criticism or disqualify controversy. We are not investigative reporters, we can only summarize what the bulk of reliable WP:SECONDARY sources have said about such things. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC) @LuckyLouie Sorry, I guess I misunderstood Wikipedia's role. I thought it was intended to provide accurate information and truth to its users.138.163.128.43 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia has never been in the business of providing truth. We do provide accurate information, but accuracy is not a sufficient criteria for inclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC) @MjolnirPants Now I understand why people would say this isn't a credible platform. If the purpose isn't to provide truth bias will come crashing through the front door. I'm not after opinions, I'm after the truth, blocking the truth is immoral.138.163.128.41 (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC) I'll try to contain my complete and utter dismay at the fact that some rando on the internet doesn't think WP is credible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Wouldn't it be great if factual information was provided instead of misleading the audience? Again, blocking people from the truth is immoral.215.1.59.10 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC) If you're intent upon continued whining, your edits here can simply be reverted, per WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. I have every intention of doing so if you persist, and edit warring will only result in you being blocked, or this page being protected so that you cannot edit it. Please stick to discussing improvements to this article, and try to recognize and accept what the multiple, experienced editors are telling you here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

Since year of birth was removed due to inadequate sourcing, change the {{short description}} from this:

{{Short description|American UFOlogist and former US military intelligence officer (b. 1975)}}

to this:

{{Short description|American UFOlogist and former US military intelligence officer}}

– 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't UFOlogist be listed as Known for (aside from his AATIP involvement). I don't see how that can be an occupation and he hasn't been described as that in any WP:RS from what I've seen. Loganmac (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there some guidance on short descriptions preferring a paid occupation over an assumed (as in, "he assumed the occupation", not as in "we assume that's his occupation") one? If so, then yeah, something like {{short description|American former US military intelligence officer known for UFOlogy}} might be the better route.

If there is no such guidance (I don't expect there to be), then I don't think we need to set a precedent here. See Mark Dice for one example where the short description is: {{short description|American conspiracy theorist}} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Loganmac is talking about how the Infobox "Occupation" field is filled. "Former X..." isn't an occupation, it's a description. The closest thing to a current occupation I've seen him described as in RS is "UFO investigator". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The thing is Dice is described as a conspiracy theorist in WP:RS. There's no RS labeling Elizondo as an UFOlogist. While he studied them under AATIP (as all other potential "Aerospace Threats"), we don't know if he has continued to do so, even at To The Stars. He's often invited as an UFO expert, but I don't think all UFO enthusiasts would qualify as "UFOlogist". Loganmac (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no RS labeling Elizondo as an UFOlogist If they call him a "UFO investigator" as Louie pointed out above, that's literally the definition of a UFOlogist. See UFOlogy.

If you feel that "UFOlogist" is treating him too credibly, you should spend more time in the UFO circuit; it's not a title that bears any prestige, and it's as likely to be claimed by some 19yo working to Expose The Truth^TM out of his parents' basement as it is by some tenured professor at a tiny private college with an odd hobby.

Note that I'm not attached to the word "UFOlogist," and if you want to change it, I won't object per se. Though, if you changed it to "internationally renowned expert in unidentified aerial phenomenon" I'd object to that. I wouldn't want to object to "crackpot lunatic", but I'm afraid I'd have to, purely on BLP grounds, if you went that route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If they call him a "UFO investigator" as Louie pointed out above, that's literally the definition of a UFOlogist, that's WP:OR and I'm sure you know that. By this logic Mick West would be an UFOlogist since he studies UFOs for a living (he's similarly described as an UFO expert in media [6] and self-describes as studying UFOs [7]). I see you're very passionate against this topic and your comment is already borderline WP:BLP but I don't really care tbh Loganmac (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No, that's categorically not OR. If an RS states "Mr. X repairs framistats" and "repairing framistats" is the definition of "framistatologist", then it is not, in any way, shape, or form WP:OR to suggest that Mr. X is a framistatologist. See WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not summary and WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not unpublishably unoriginal.

As for Mick West; He's a debunker, which even a cursory glance at his WP page would confirm. I can't believe I actually have to explain this, but here we go:

I am a woodworker, an artist, a musician, a dioramist, a gamer, a killer, a father, a medic, a bodybuilder, a ginger, a lover, a fighter, a smoker, a joker and a midnight toker. I'm also a UFOlogist, a skeptic, an atheist, a redneck, a nerd, a boss, a martial artist, a gun collector, an encyclopedia editor and a damn handsome man if I say so myself (and I frequently do). But if I ever end up with my own Wikipedia article, I guarantee you that the short description would read "MjolnirPants is an American veteran of the US Army and a software developer," because those would be the things I'm known for and the best way to succinctly describe me in a single sentence fragment. So yes, in some sense, West is a UFOlogist, he's just one of the rare few competent ones.

As for my passion, I'm pretty sure I've clearly indicated a distinct lack of passion for this subject, by, for example, stating clearly that I don't give a shit if you change the short description. Where you got the opposite impression from is beyond me.

As for BLP: I don't know what crawled up your ass and made you feel the need to make that comment, but obvious joke is obvious to everyone but you, so save your veiled threats for someone who might actually be intimidated by that kind of crap. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's please reduce the WP:GASLIGHTING (e.g., I see you're very passionate against this topic) and images of things crawling into dark entries and return to the topic at hand. On one side is the fact that no WP:RS explicitly refers to Elizondo as a ufologist, so he should not be attached to that occupation/whatever using Wikipedia's voice. On the other side is the WP:BLUE argument that someone who investigates and regularly opines about UFOs is by definition, and independently of the subject's self-identification, a ufologist. Until a RS utilizes the ufologist descriptor, how about identifying him as a "UFO investigator?" Yes, that's clunky and seems operationally equivalent to ufologist (scientists, after all, are typically not referred to as "Science investigators") but the phrase is supported by RS. For those digging the ufologist descriptor, it seems only a matter of time before Elizondo is widely identified as such in RS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with this. Again, I don't have any attachment to any particular way of phrasing it, I just reject that whole "we're not allowed to summarize a description of something from the sources with the word that literally means the same thing as that description" argument because it's utterly ridiculous, laughably naive, willfully ignorant and only ever seems to be brought up when an editor doesn't like the way the facts portray something.

Note that I wouldn't object to keeping the "UFO investigator" description even in the presence of sources using "UFOlogist," because, as I pointed out, the two terms mean the same thing.

And I'm thoroughly disappointed that you didn't say anything about my self descriptions. I mean, you really should have asked if I'm also a picker, a grinner, a lover and a sinner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I really love your peaches. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Wanna shake my tre- Okay, I'm sorry, that got really weird, really quick.... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Two mainstream news sources in the US (New York Post) and UK (The Independent) refer to him as a "UFO whistleblower" here and here. If Wikipedia continues to call him a UFOlogist (orig res?) then circular referencing will begin to kick in as news sources begin repeating it. Maybe call him a whistleblower for now? 5Q5|^✉ 14:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm slightly disinclined to do that, as it lends him some authority. But I'm not necessarily opposed to it, because it's also a fair description of his role. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have seen only a couple marginal sources like the New York Post call him a whistleblower however they tend to be on the WP:SENSATIONAL end of coverage, and are the same ones who call Bob Lazar a whistleblower. The bulk of reliable sources call him "former X", e.g. "former Pentagon official" etc. It's the John Dean problem (although I doubt Elizondo will ever become as iconic as Dean) where someone who served in government a relatively short time and has gone on to become an author, TV personality, etc. is most often described as "former X". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

He apparently doesn't have a current occupation. I agree with changing it to "Known for" until he gets one, then add that parameter, too. 5Q5|^✉ 15:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I just changed it to {{Short description|American former US military intelligence officer known for UFO investigation}} ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be an UFO investigator, UFO whistleblower (he's not, everything he made public was done through proper channels and methods, he's pretty insistant on not violating this) or UFOlogist moniker. The "Known for" line can just cite what he's mostly known for: Director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. He's specifically cited as that in pretty much every RS there is. The editor that suggested the UFOlogist moniker already backed down. This will lead to WP:CITOGENESIS. If we need a less controversial description, we can just go by former Military intelligence officer and that's that. Loganmac (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you find a way to make a field that says “known for” = “former director of AATIP” or “former military intelligence officer” in the info box? It’s pretty silly for WP to assert “former-something” is an “occupation”. This might involve finding a different type of info box that has the right fields. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Known for" field can be added, I just added "Director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (defunct)". Let me know if there's better wording. WP:MOS is of no help for the occupation field. I've seen it used interchangeably with "former", listing the active years, "(former)" at the end, etc. This isn't even standard in Good/Featured articles Loganmac (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerning what Elizondo himself claims as his occupation, there are a couple of discrepencies. On his Twitter account (where he claims "I will always tell you the truth") and his official website in both places he says he is a "Discloure Advocate," fine, no problem, but in the latter location he also says he was a "host and technical producer" on the History channel series UNIDENTIFIED: Inside America’s UFO Investigation. That is not supported by the series' web page on him or IMDb both of which list him simply as a cast member, one of many. He claims to be a national security expert and security consultant, but the state of Wyoming business search, where on Twitter he claims to live, has no record of him owning a business in the state. There was a music producer name Adrian Elizondo who owned Elizondo Productions, LLC. which appears to be unrelated and which shut down in Feb 2021 (the Wyoming address is a mail forwarding service, a "virtual office" used by other businesses as well). On his official website Elizondo claims to be an inventor and links to his patents, which check out. He definitely is an inventor, could even be receiving patent income. Maybe he has a security consulting business registered in another state and hasn't transferred it to Wyoming yet, I don't know. Can't really give his occupation as security consultant in the infobox without a verifiable independent source. UFO disclosure advocate is more of a "known for" than an occupation. With 10 patents, I think "Inventor" could be safely added to the info box as one of his verifiable occupations. 5Q5|^✉ 13:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Unidentified credits discrepancy could be due to the show being produced by To The Stars, obviously by his position, he was more than a host and most likely helped with the content of the episodes (of course we can't prove this and Twitter and iMDB are WP:PRIMARY sources). I checked the ending credits and he isn't listed. There is a company he owns but I'm not sure if this could be doxxing (the name of the company can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPUq_nE_Hs&t=61s) and there are public records of it that list him. Listing him being an inventor is fine for me, I don't know if this has been covered that much though. He has claimed in a few podcasts and interviews to still be working with the Government in some capacity, these aren't WP:RS but this could explain the lack of info on a current occupation.Loganmac (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Skyfort involvement

Came across this investigative article that shows Elizondo is on the advisory board of a newly formed Wyoming-registered UAP-disclosure-related media company called Skyfort and is assisting him with analyzing the large number of incoming media inquiries. 5Q5|^✉ 11:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one I hinted about. So far I don't think there's been any WP:RS coverage to include it tho. Maybe when the company is officially revealed there'll be some fuzz. --Loganmac (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

GQ interview

Elizondo's interview in GQ Magazine is full of wild hyperbole about interdimensional craft, government cover ups, bending space time, etc. [8], yet the quote selected for this article was his pithy observation that he might have been chosen for AATIP because of his "lack of interest in science fiction". That gave me a real chuckle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, rarely do I find that editors go back to the source and add more, everyone is so ready to cut back. I think when I originally wrote this Wikipedia page I had a lot more of this kind of content, but it was cut way back. I also thought it was a bit odd that the editor who inserted the GQ article didn't add more. Be Bold is one of our policies. Sgerbic (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I see you appear to have a bias against Mr. Elizondo as evidenced by your statement "his pithy observation that he might have been chosen for AATIP because of his "lack of interest in science fiction". That gave me a real chuckle." Do you have any credible sources to back up your claim that Mr. Elizondo had an interest in science fiction?. Is this based on your personal observation (i.e., original research not allowed by Wikipedia), or are you surmising this was the case at the time? This may be humorous to you as evidenced by your statement "That gave me a real chuckle", but does not have any place in Wikipedia. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, claiming another editor has a "bias" can be interpreted as a personal attack. Before commenting further please read WP:NPA, which explains the relevant Wikipedia policy. Violating that policy going forward could lead to you being blocked. Secondly, there is no original research here, as the credible source you desire was explicitly provided by LuckyLouie in their comment above. If you read that source you will find the following:

[interviewer]: Why did they approach you?

[Elizondo]: I have no idea. I think probably because I wasn’t prone to any flights of fancy. I wasn’t a particular fan of science fiction.

Based upon everything else in that article, it is difficult to not chuckle in reaction to that statement by Elizondo. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my previous reply. There was no personal attack. If you would prefer we take this up in the form of arbitration, that is acceptable to me. Your own reply quoting Elizondo stated he was not interested in science fiction. If you have a a source that states he in fact had an interest in science fiction prior to joining the program, please share it with us. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of having a "bias" is a personal attack, and once again I suggest that you read WP:NPA. Please comment on content, not other editors. Regarding your point of contention, the source you apparently require probably does not exist. Fortunately such a source is not required, because we do have a reliable source in which Elizondo, while claiming he "wasn't a particular fan of science fiction," makes several statements that can fairly and neutrally be characterized as science fiction (e.g. "I think it’s [UAPs having an extraterrestrial origin] just as likely as something that is interdimensional"). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If you will read my original reply, I stated "it appears you are biased". Appearance of a particular trait does not necessarily claim the particular trait exists. So again, I stand by my original reply. I take issue with your claim Elizondo was a fan of science fiction, as your statements discuss his interest after the time in question. Elizondo stated he had no particular interest in science fiction prior to joining the AATIP program. So I will again ask if a specific source exists otherwise, it be produced. Sorry you feel I was attacking anyone, as that is not my intent. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

JoJoAnthrax, I took a look at the link you provided about NPA. If you would, can you take a look at my original post where I stated it appeared the editor was biased based on his statements, and let me know how that qualifies as a personal attack? I would appreciate it. I work in a professional environment where such a statement, especially if evidence is provided to support the apparent bias, would not be a personal attack. Rather, it would be recognized as a genuine concern. I have been guilty of apparent bias, and applaud others who point that out. It is a positive for our organization. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I intend for this to be my final comment here about this issue. You wrote above about LuckyLouie: I see you appear to have a bias against Mr. Elizondo. That comment disparages the targeted editor, and so per WP:NPA: "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (italics from the source). I note also the sentence that immediately follows: "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." There is nothing in WP:NPA that indicates, or implies, that disparaging comments about an editor are rendered acceptable if they are qualified with words like "seems" or "appears." Please just stop commenting/speculating about other editors or their motives. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the portion of the original quote you omitted from my original reply to Lucky Louie: "...against Mr. Elizondo as evidenced by your statement "his pithy observation that he might have been chosen for AATIP because of his "lack of interest in science fiction". That gave me a real chuckle.""

Finally, to address the issue of original research versus a credible source:

"there is no original research here, as the credible source you desire was explicitly provided by LuckyLouie in their comment above. If you read that source you will find the following:

[interviewer]: Why did they approach you?

[Elizondo]: I have no idea. I think probably because I wasn’t prone to any flights of fancy. I wasn’t a particular fan of science fiction."

The credible source you referenced was describing a time before he was engaged in the AATIP program. Mr. Elizondo may be a fan of science fiction now, but that is open to speculation and is not the issue. Mr. Elizondo stated he "wasn't a particular fan of science fiction" prior to joining the AATIP group. I am only attempting to understand your position on this matter, so please do not take any of this as a personal attack on your knowledge, length of time you have worked on Wikipedia articles, expertise on the subject matter, or anything else related to your character. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Lu's Frustration

see WP:TPG - "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject"

I'm a Canadian who's watched with amazement Mr Alizondo be polite ( at times with jaw clenched) self-effacing and still lazer focused on the message. We are closing in on the truth. Our previous beliefs, interpretations, assessments...were wrong. We are among at least one and perhaps many Entities, Civilizations ..choose your word who like the reigning defending undisputed Champion of the world gets a challenger who proves he isn't . Even then the Champ can retire, re- challenge or learn from Challenger the skills he lacks. Anyway bottom line..Lu..thank you the thousands who support you and I'm so glad your taking yourself away from the toxicity, even though the toughest battles lay ahead assuring laws can't be parsed to keep truth from the world. I hope I'm even close by interpreting your message as, Folks, there's been some bad , maybe immoral decisions made by certain people with the ability and reasons (just or otherwise) regarding these multi- faceted phenomena , and while everyone wants to..is demanding to know NOW!!.. the government's of the world must look at a secret longest kept from humanity in our history and decide how to share the information in a concise but calming manner, but also have answers as to why who how...and perhaps most important...what now??!! This must never happen again..if everything isn't shared equitably..the powerful ( understandably ) will try keep monopolies in every area. We aren't all that evolved and add poverty hunger desperation ..well it needs thoughtful consideration this narrative. So I state again..Lu, Tom, Chris and all unmentioned..Thank You!!! I get it..y'all done it!!! God Bless and let the rest of us be grateful for what no one else did ( Especially Free!!!!) And even out of pocket ...even tried. Why think you can threaten or taunt them into giving you info you truly " can't handle!"? So greedy and ungrateful. Shame on you! The Unidentified, ATTS's..thank you . First timer..I hope this gets to the Heroes who deserve it. Spcesense56 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC) This is a Wikipedia talk page Spcesense56. It is not a forum. You have created a Wikipedia account, I suggest you start off with small edits, grammar, spelling and just rewording confusing paragraphs. As you make these small edits you will learn how editing Wikipedia works. We are not allowed to give our opinion or to do original research. Sgerbic (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead section

Recent changes to the lead (example) introduced extensive pro-Elizondo argumentation. The WP:LEAD is intended as a summary of what's already in the article. The place for presentation of such detail is the article body, and I'd advise it be a more neutral and concise version. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I might have time later today to attempt a wee streamlining of the lede. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

To explain my reversions of Alanwilliams101 edits: the issue of whether Elizondo was director of AATIP should not be argued in the lead (as was attempted here). If there are independent reliable sources that give differing perspectives, maybe the best solution is to carve out a separate section or paragraph in the article body to present these neutrally, and then briefly summarize this in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the lede in an attempt to better match MOS:LEDE, and of course I might have made some errors that I trust others will correct. While adjusting the references I accidentally omitted the Warrick citation, which I believe is a Washington Post article to which I unfortunately have no access. I would be much obliged if someone could restore it to the end of the second sentence of the "Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence" section. There remains plenty - make that good and plenty - of work to do in the article body. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax - thank you. There appears to be contradictory statements from various sources on Elizondo's involvement with AATIP, and this appears to be discussed quite well elsewhere in the article. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you Lucky Louie. I completely agree with placing the Pentagon statements concerning Elizondo's alleged work responsibilities within the Pentagon AATIP program elsewhere within the article. It makes much more sense. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That there are independent reliable sources that give differing perspectives is yet to be determined. The sources being inserted were repeating a detail from a single story in Politico, and picked quotes from Elizondo interviews reiterating his conspiracy allegations (which are already summarized in the article). - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you Lucky Louie. I have no other source other than the Dec. 2017 Politico story where Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed Elizondo's role with AATIP. I will continue to monitor additional reliable news sources for relevant information. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish Between Senator Harry Reid and Garry Reid

I added a very minor edit adding "Senator" in front of Reid, as Sen. Reid is mentioned further up the article and may be confused with Garry Reid, Director for Defense Intelligence (Intelligence and Security); Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The importance will become apparent later, as Elizondo was an employee within Garry Reid's office. Hoping this meets with everyone's approval. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Garry Reid Inspector General Probe

An Apr. 15, 2022 Politico article written by Bryan Bender about the results of an Inspector General (IG) investigation into complaints against Garry Reid, the Pentagon official who allegedly worked with Mr. Elizondo, included the following quote:

"Two former government officials said he [Garry Reid] is also named in a separate IG complaint into whether DoD officials retaliated against a former employee who went public in 2017 with complaints that officials were not taking seriously enough reports of “unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP),” the nomenclature the Pentagon now uses to describe UFOs."

I know these "two former government officials" are anonymous, but would it be fair to improve the article in some way utilizing this source? Alanwilliams101 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a gossipy tidbit that falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

ok thank you Lucky Louie. Makes sense. Alanwilliams101 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

"Suggested" versus "Stated"

Added a minor edit to correct the context of the Tucker Carlson interview. Elizondo "suggested" the US government had in its possession fragments of UFOs, then quickly invoked his NDA when pressed further. He did not "state" this was the case. Hoping this meets with the approval of others.

I cannot figure out how to eliminate the Politico reference, so please ignore. 
The reference in question is from The New Yorker listed below Alanwilliams101 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Undoing of the removal of biased wording.

I'm contesting the undoing of my edits to line 36 where it was stated that "Elizondo claims to be the former director...". I changed that to read "Elizondo was the former director..." since it was confirmed by Senator Harry Reid that he did indeed hold this position. Further on I changed the wording to include "...but conspiracy theory minded critics question his credibility..." since the matter was factly settled by Senator Reid, I also added a citation to the published letter below this area where Senator Reid is discussed. I don't see why anyone would want to remove a citation to a known fact unless there was an intended bias. A bias that is clearly visible in some of the wording that I tried to correct to make the article more subjective. I also changed the sentence "Regarding his military career..." to list out his duties without his quotes since that quote was not cited and seems unnecessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:BluMoon777 (talk • contribs)

What does citation 1 have to do with Elizondo? It's about Reid. Following the thread on citation 3 on Twitter (not a RS) from the comments we can see that there is still a bunch of concern about the accuracy of what Reid stated. I'm just not following your logic here - can you please be clearer. Sgerbic (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation 1 is there to address the issue of the disputed, and now discredited, questioning of Mr. Elizondo's directorship of AATIP. The overwhelming majority of any debate in the comments are coming from conspiracy theorists. It is my opinion that the word of, at the time, a standing Senator that held top secret clearances should outweigh the word of tabloid writers and conspiracy theory advocates. One of the requirements for a top secret clearance is the Personal Conduct criterion [9]. The senator would have been in clear violation of the item mentioning a "Pattern of dishonest, unreliable, or rule-breaking behavior" if he lied about Mr. Elizondo in the letter to NBC. It doesn't make sense that he would be put his clearance in jeopardy in such a public manner. BluMoon777 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Where do you put Mick West in that conversation? Sgerbic (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is not a WP:RS for Reid's letter. The GQ reference is, but without editorializing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@BluMoon777: I have reverted your edits because I do not believe they improve the article. You are apparently a new editor, so permit me to explain a bit about how editing is done here at Wikipedia. I refer you to WP:BRD, and ask you to please click on that link and read the content therein. In the BRD cycle, editors are encouraged to first make a bold edit (which you did), then other editors might revert/remove the edit if they believe it is problematic (which two editors did, including me), and then a discussion will take place on the article's Talk page, through which consensus can be achieved. Please also read WP:CONSENSUS, which describes a fundamental policy that helps determine what is, and what is not, included in Wikipedia articles. Repeatedly restoring reverted edits is considered to be edit warring, which is another policy that, if violated, could lead to you being blocked from editing.

The primary reasons why I believe your edits are problematic are that they (1) reference an unreliable source (Twitter; see WP:RSPS) to establish in Wikipedia's voice a "fact" that is not supported by other reliable sources (see WP:RS), and (2) involve the insertion of non-neutral/editorial phrasing ("conspiracy theorists") that is absent from the reliable sources, and seems instead to arise from your personal interpretation (see WP:OR). I also note here that the nature of your proposed edits seems to reflect a desire to unduly promote the article subject (see WP:PROMO).

Going forward, if this discussion results in a consensus to retain your suggested edits, great! They will be included in the article. If consensus is against those edits, however, they will not be included. Please note that whether your desired content is "right" or "true" is not relevant to that determination (please see WP:RGW and the essay WP:TRUE). I understand that I have suggested to you a lot of reading. That reading is important, however, because a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will help you to productively edit articles, and in so doing will (presumably) make that experience more rewarding for you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• I have removed "claims" and added a reference from NBC news. Jusdafax (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms

The information in this tab is outdated, and new sources should be referenced. Also the controversy appears to be leading toward a false conclusion or to persuade the reader to doubt the factual information he has provided. 50.109.136.3 (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, the information is not outdated. Secondly, the content in Wikipedia articles is based upon independent, reliable sources, and not upon what we as individual editors wish/desire/think/believe (please read WP:RS and WP:OR). The content in that section is explicitly referenced to reliable sources. Thirdly, if you wish to supplement/improve that section, or indeed any part of the article, with new, reliably sourced material, please do so. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warrior blocked

Indefinitely, a single purpose account who clearly wasn’t going to stop even after a 3rr warning. I doubt very much a short block would have made a difference and an unblock appeal with a promise not to edit war would almost certainly be granted. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Also a year old account with no edits until today, so maybe a sleeper. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Somedays I wonder about the statement "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" it gives the impression that it's like email or social media, you can just add anything anywhere and it should reflect that editors opinion. The truth is anyone can edit most of Wikipedia at least the first time they try, until they prove they won't/can't follow instructions. Good thing there are so many people watching this page. Sgerbic (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the photo?

Could someone please catch me up on what happened to the photo? We had two different ones to choose from and now neither are being used. I apologize, I haven't been following the page as closely as I probably should and between all the activity happening here the photos went poof. Sgerbic (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There was apparently a licensing issue, with the removal performed by a bot. See this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JoJo, so both are gone? Can't we upload a low rez image from somewhere? I don't understand why there always seems to be some unclear reason we can't use photos. We have sent multiple men to the moon decades ago and we can't get WMC straightened out? Sgerbic (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What's with all the "claimed" everywhere?

I just fixed one that was flat out wrong versus the same cited reference article. Then I looked around more and control-F 'claimed' is wild. I clicked on several, like NBC News and other fine sources stating outright he was director of AATIP. What is the basis and justification for us to dispute all the sources we cite? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A user just undid every edit I applied to this article without context.

Please do not vandalize. Thanks. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with this specific edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard reported

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested edit to remove BLP violation. BLP violations do not need talk page consensus.

This edit must be restored according to policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

Currently in section Luis_Elizondo#Office_of_the_Under_Secretary_of_Defense_for_Intelligence:

From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo claimed to work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon.

Change that to:

From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo worked with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon.

There are already several confused Wikipedians who are conflating topics. My edit request is for this EXTREMELY specific granular change. The Pentagon unambiguously confirmed Elizondo's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence involvement.

Rationale and policy supporting that NO consensus is required for this change

That explicit change should be restored. There is no disputing whatsoever that subject worked at and/or for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon. The same source quotes a DOD spokesperson who says so, and then that same source is incredibly cited to say that the subject "claimed" to have worked there. So Elizondo "claimed" to work somewhere where the DOD confirmed he worked there... why are we saying "claimed" and presenting this WP:BLP subject as a liar? If you have a Wikipedia article about you and say, "I worked for Wikpedia," and then Wikipedia posts a statement saying you did in fact work for Wikipedia... is it appropriate for Wikipedia to put any conditional on the fact you worked there?

Per Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Planning_a_request:

Consensus isn't needed if a change is not controversial. Uncontroversial changes don't require sourcing, such as correcting typographical errors or disambiguating links. If this is the case, you don't need to establish consensus, but instead propose the change as stated above.

There is nothing in any universe controversial about saying Elizondo worked there as my "diff" link here changed. To dispute that is to insert non-neutral bias and violates WP:BLP. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged, which apparently has binding authority on anyone reading these words:

...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.

No actual dispute exists anywhere whether or not Elizondo worked at or for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon. No legitimate source says he "claimed to", and any source would be fringe/have no standing to outrank the Pentagon's own public human resources statement. The Pentagon says he did--and they did--then that as a primary source supersedes literally everything on that topic.

Please restore what is in that edit. As this is a BLP violation and indisputable consensus is NOT required per binding authoritative policy. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it appears the source cited supports the statement that Elizondo worked for Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The same source however makes it very clear that Elizondo's claim to have been a Director for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, as asserted in other parts of your recent extensive edits [10] (see infobox) is very much open to question. Accordingly, I'd be a little wary of throwing around claims of WP:BLP violations willy-nilly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't whataboutism? My requested change is extremely precise and has nothing to do with AATIP. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As to all my other edits, I intend to multiply source every single one into absolute BLP compliance over time. I am happy to document this to any painful level of detail and scrutiny required. I enjoy precision and technicality. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, now we've confirmed that your mass edit wasn't all WP:BLP compliant, by your own admission, how about you drop the hostile tone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it not understandable for me to be testy given my initial attempts to work here were met with overt personal attacks and hostility? I just assumed everyone was frosty given my reception and that was how it works. If that's not the case, that's nice. The 'edit warrior' who basically told me fuck off was a charming non-human biologic.

There was no "mass edit". I performed dozens of slow, I thought carefully documented edits. If I got one of 80 or so slow motion granular edits wrong--I'll redo every single one with a Starlink-level chain of references behind every sentence. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• The Washington Post says unambiguously that Elizondo was head of AATIP and here's the link. Jusdafax (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that a WaPo correspondent interviewed him for a podcast. In the podcast Elizondo says that the program is still secret. So how did the interviewer confirm that he was director? Did they file FOIA? They don't explain it and I think this is a big enough deal that we deserve some explanation for how they proceeded with fact checking. jps (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it standard for Wikipedia to challenge to a granular level ALL sources for small details about BLP subjects, like where they worked? If we have five major London newspapers who all say Mr. Smithly Smith of Somewherebury worked for MI:5 from 1980-1999 as a classified employee based on his own remarks, but none show their homework in validating that, can we modify Smithly Smith from "worked for MI:5" to "claimed to work for MI:5"?

I want to understand on what grounds it is acceptable under Wikipedia policy, and which policy, to dispute otherwise reliable sources if they don't outright explain their fact checking on some small particular piece of a large article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be just as careful using Mr. Smithy Smith's words that he worked for MI-5. If he said he graduated from XYZ University and it seemed reasonable then we wouldn't be so concerned about the claim. But Elizondo and your fictional Smithy Smith are talking about a job that is entirely different, super secret and the agency that they say they work for can't validate it. We can use "claimed". You claim that you are not Alexander Hamilton, do you have some way we can verify that? Why is removing "claimed" so important to you? Sgerbic (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh I just noticed ... you are blocked. Opps! Sgerbic (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• So WaPo, a WP:RS and their fact checking that Elizondo was Director of AATIP is questioned, noted. A brief Google search shows the following backup, all mainstream Wikipedia reliable sources:

1) 60 Minutes Buried away in the Pentagon, AATIP was part of a $22 million program sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to investigate UFOs. When Elizondo took over in 2010 he focused on the national security implications of unidentified aerial phenomena documented by U.S. service members.

2) Harvard University Elizondo is a former counterintelligence special agent and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). He served in the U.S. Army in intelligence for twenty years

3) Politico According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.

4) The Hollywood Reporter "The former head of the U.S. government’s secretive UFO program" in the subtitle, and "In 2008, he was asked to be part of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a $22 million program sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to study UFOs. In 2010, he was made director of the program."

I submit that these reliable sources make a strong case indeed, and according to them Elizondo was AATIP Director. Jusdafax (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that the claim is that this was a secret program that is still secret, no? Most of these sources are sourcing their information from Elizondo himself as far as I can tell. Doubt has been cast that this story is accurate and the sources themselves do not seem to have offered much in the way of explanation for how any of this is confirmed beyond interview. Generally, I would accept such things, but seeing that there are questions raised as to whether and how AATIP actually worked, it does not seem to me that this is a justified WP:ASSERTion. Threading this needle is difficult, indeed, but Wikipedia should not just pretend Greenstreet's accusations do not exist even if we will not be including them in the article. There are ways to be delicate and careful with what information we include and what we don't and, importantly, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. jps (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This has now changed with regards to Harry Reid's confirmation of position as noted in the article. This should surely shift the NPOV stance to one that on the balance of probabilities at least should fairly weigh the statement that Luis was the director (and allow for the quoting of the sources saying this) - as well as fairly weighting the "both reports and Pentagon officials" statement to better reflect something that seems far less challenged than this article makes it appear. 77.102.202.71 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This should surely shift the NPOV stance. No. Firstly, being professional politicians, United States Senators are hardly reliable sources for...well, pretty much anything. That Robert Bigelow was a close associate of Reid certainly does not improve the latter's credibility, especially with regards to fringe topics like UFOs. Secondly, if any editor can find reliable, secondary sources (per WP:RS, WP:FRIND, etc.) that are independent of Elizondo's own claims in interviews, then please present them. Elizondo first claimed to be the Director (capital D) in 2017. If he truly was the Director, by now there should be many such sources. So where are they? Thirdly, the lede includes two reliable sources that question Elizondo's claim, with the Washington Spectator source (here) presenting a particularly compelling and thorough analysis (see the sidebar at the bottom of the article). At best, the reliable sources indicate that Elizondo's claim is suspect. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This article Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program states that Harry Reid was the one responsible for AAWSAP and also the AATIP. As he was the one responsible, surely, his statement of Elizondo's position should carry more weight than "general United States Senators" 77.102.202.71 (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This will be my final response to this thread. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its policies and guidelines require us to only include content derived from reliable sources (please read the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT, and especially its subsection WP:PROMO, and also the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, particularly its subsection WP:WIKIVOICE). Elizondo's claim has been questioned by multiple, independent, secondary sources, but it has not received a similar level of support from such sources. Until and unless it does, his claim(s), if they are to be included at all, can only be presented as his claims. Nothing more. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"as his claims. Nothing more" - This statement is patently false, as demonstrated by the Harry Reid document referenced directly in this article. Further, as stated, Harry Reid appears to be responsible for the creation of the AATIP, and so would be a contextually valuable source of information on this topic. 77.102.202.71 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

further - https://twitter.com/g_knapp/status/1135986135602290688 based on this partially unredacted document from Knapp (as referenced in this blackvault article https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/harry-reid-and-his-aatip-letter-the-mystery-deepens/) it clearly seems that Harry Reid had always intended Luis Elizondo to be a part of the AATIP program that he was responsible for. So, so this would be an additional source to add weight to the claim. 77.102.202.71 (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, n.b., I would appreciate it if Wikipedia(ns) stopped attributing Avi Loeb's Galileo Project to Harvard University as if it is being sponsored by the institution. It is not. It is a pet project of one astrophysicist who does not currently enjoy the support of most of his community for his antics. jps (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to have that dispute tag? They are so annoying right in the face of the person reading the page and they are never specific enough for people to understand what is the problem. They would have to read though the talk page to possible understand and even still they aren't sure the dispute is about what is on the talk page. I don't want to remove something that someone else seems confident about. Even I'm not sure that the dispute is about the conversation over the word "claimed" or if it's about something else. Sgerbic (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as how the person who added the tag is now blocked indefinitely and I don't really see a justification here on the talkpage for the tag, I think removing it is fine. If someone knows exactly what sources are being misrepresented in the text, feel free to let us know here and we can try to fix them, but I'm guessing that this is something more like a WP:POINT disruption rather than a good faith identification of a sourcing dispute. jps (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Given the original requester is now blocked, I'm going to set this to answered. Anyone who thinks there is still merit to the exact change requested may feel free to reactivate this. Izno (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Going forward...

Now that the disruption has settled (and putting aside the "was he or wasn't he AATIP director" issue for the moment) I've been looking at how the article could be improved. Elizondo has expressed a number of fringe views in the media, so I don't think there's any dispute that some critical analysis is needed to temper the extraordinary and WP:SENSATIONAL WP:FRINGE claims - e.g. aliens, UFOs, government conspiracies, other dimensional beings, etc.

The present criticism section is a mixed bag. Colavito, Kloor, and Lewis-Kraus might be retained and improved. In my opinion, the Helene Cooper piece is more about Cooper's feelings (I trust him, I don't trust him, oh I just don't know) than analysis of Elizondo's claims, e.g. he likes to sit with his back to a wall is a cute observation, but this kind of stuff doesn't add anything to his bio. There may be a place outside of the criticism section for a detail or two from the Cooper interview, but I'm not sure where.

Here's some sources that could be used for actual critical analysis [11], [12], [13], [14]

And of course we should mention he's landed a big book deal: [15]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This Keith Kloor ?

[16]https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/keith-kloor-the-agrichemical-industrys-favorite-writer/ ObjectiveWheel (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Emails obtained by U.S. Right to Know, posted in the UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library, reveal instances in which Kloor coached and edited his sources, obscured the industry ties of a source, and selectively reported on information in ways that bolstered the pesticide industry’s product-defense narratives. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)