Talk:Luis Elizondo: Difference between revisions

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from Harry Reid confirming not only his involvement but his involvement at a leadership level within AATIP should superseded both the Intercept article and the Pentagon.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)

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)

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)