Select Page

Talk:Luis Elizondo

"Non human"

The term "non human", "NHI", etc. is peculiar to ufology and its proponents. Wikipedia shouldn't standardize it as if it is universally understood to mean...whatever it is they claim it means (insects? bacteria? spirits? leprechauns?) - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks. It's always ducks. Polygnotus (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sen Reid statement needed as important substantiation?"

I confess, I skimmed parts of this cumbersome page, but I haven't seen mention of Senator Harry Reed's confirmation of Elizondo's leadership role in AATIP. It seems crucial to proving his most important bona fides. In fact, it's foundational to have a written statement by a US senator with access to classified information and close knowledge of AATIP. Does anybody know the history of this on the page? Doesn't it require some editing and perhaps rethinking of the pages main thrusts?

according to GQ magazine https://web.archive.org/web/20211109143249/https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/luis-elizondo-interview-2021 :

[although] a Pentagon spokesperson called into question Elizondo’s claim to have worked on AATIP. In response, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to NBC News vouching for Elizondo’s story. “As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo’s involvement and leadership role in this program,” Reid wrote. Gcherrits (talk)

Great point, but Reid's letter is already discussed in the article. Feoffer (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, Reid's there but his statement is 1) buried many graphs down, 2)very ambiguous: "I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo's involvement and leadership role in this program". What program? no idea. 3) plugged in, sorta randomly where it is and also out if place under a different heading. this could be poor editing or it could be designed to obfuscate. Because it does.
All things considered, would you agree that Elizondos page is a bit of a mess and doesn't serve to enlighten anyone. Probably because of the
"conspiracy" and pseudoscience" disputes, it's not Wikipedias best work. :-) Gcherrits (talk) Gcherrits (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, welcome to Wikipedia! One of our policies is to Assume Good Faith when talking about our fellow editors. Not everyone really has good faith, but questioning others intentions is a pointless exercise that goes nowhere and does nothing to actually improve the article. Instead, I would just straight up ask you: How would you improve the quote. What text would you use for the additional context/expanded quote? Where do you think Reid letter should go? I don't have the answer key hidden away, nobody thinks the current text is perfect. We're all just doing our best :) . Propose some changes and let's see if they make sense and get consensus. Feoffer (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading it. It ended up sounding snippy and snarky. That wasn't my intention. I was trying to get straight to the point and it came out unpleasant. Sorry.
Anyway. I've spent some time in this Elizondo, Malmgren, Putoff, et al fireworks and delet-a-rama. The one thing I know for sure is that these people don't seem to be treated neutrally and as people of good faith. Things don't feel right.
The big problem here is that the delte-a-rama ends up having a chilling effect on the discussion and improvement of the Wiki.
I have some thoughts on how Elizondo might be handled more fairly. I'll see what I can do. He's a complicated fellow. The page should invite discussion, not settle it. IMHO Gcherrits (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to specific changes you'd propose, ala "Where do you think Reid letter should go?" In general, it's easier to get agreements when you have small, gradual, specific text changes, as opposed to broad ideas. Feoffer (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
would you agree that Elizondos page is a bit of a mess and doesn't serve to enlighten anyone. Absolutely not. The page is far, far better (i.e., encyclopedic) now than it had been previously, when it was dominated by sensational and promotional content (note that the latter links to a subsection of the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT). I also note that it's foundational to have a written statement by a US senator is incorrect, at least per the Wikipedia guideline WP:RS. US senators, along with pretty much any muckety-muck in any government ever, are not what most people would consider particularly reliable sources. But do go ahead and suggest edits here, as that is a primary purpose of article Talk pages. You might also want to review the many previous discussions on this page (see the archives), to better understand how Reid's letter is currently handled, and why the article has its current form. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just occurred to me. I'm new. When I said poor editing, I meant poor "editing" not "Editing", as in by an unserious vandal not a devoted Editor. I've been interpreting most idiosyncratic things, lately, as part of the outbreak of vandalism. I think its put everyone on edge. Its just a theory. and how do I get to the archives? Gcherrits (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The top box on this page has the bolded word Archives. Click there. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add onto @JoJo Anthrax:, you can click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&prefix=Talk%3ALuis+Elizondo%2F&search=Reid&ns0=1 -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To edit again, the article wasn't bad, and is probably healthier than it has been. The main mess leftover after the last brouhaha was that the timeline was a complete trainwreck and some sources were misused, and there were still too many sentences unsources. It's all 100% sourced now and in order. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources explicitly call Elizondo a "Ufologist", so the category is removed. WP:BLP and WP:OR violation.

As this is a BLP, we require sourcing for 100% of content here. I tried to find something:

Based on this:

1. If there are no sources that support this, the category must be removed as a violation of WP:Original Research. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." There seems to be no WP:RS for this.

2. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Based on this and in strict scruity and adherence with Wikipedia policy, I have removed this category. Please feel free to re-add it only when and if you can find WP:RS that is compliant to maintain absolute WP:BLP standards. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizondo was quoted here as having said, "I am not a UFO guy, I am not a UFOlogist, I never have been and never will be." Somewhat ironic given that his memoir has the subtitle Inside the Pentagon’s Hunt for UFOs, but if no RS refer to him as a ufologist, or even a "UFO guy," why should Wikipedia suggest otherwise? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: American non-fiction writers and American media personalities

I have added this category for non-fiction as it appears WP:RS and media are all classifying his book Imminent as non-fiction. This is wholly uncontroversial as there is logically nothing controversial about uniform statements of fact by WP:RS here. Anything opposing this would need substantially good sourcing that supersedes all of these as this is a WP:BLP:

(wrong URLs)

I also trivially found a source for calling him a media personality and added that too. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The media personality one is fine but I think I screwed up when I saved a notepad file with those other URLs so I struck them and pulled that non-fiction category. I know I've seen this, but apparently saved the wrong ones. I'll try to find it again later. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo updates

Take a look today: Luis Elizondo, most recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&oldid=1287967380

I did another huge round of clean up, and focused especially on timeline accuracy, readability and *extreme* fidelity to what sources say, which was still harmfully deficient for a WP:BLP. I also found a new free-to-use quality image of him from a video. The article looks better today than it has ever before, and is an even drier and more WP:NPOV read now. For the first time ever, I will say the article looks to be completely both WP:BLP compliant over ANY other policy (as BLP outranks anything on this site, full stop) and is also 100% sourced for the first time ever. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your work is indeed an improvement! Jusdafax (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article is still a mess. Unreliable sources, sources that do not support the claims made in the article, WP:CITEBOMBs et cetera. Polygnotus (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sourcing. What named publication fails WP:RS?
We have United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Sunday Times; The Intercept; Huffington Post; Sarasota Herald-Tribune; Politico; GQ: The Guardian; Washington Spectator; The New Republic; New York Times; Popular Mechanics; CNN; New Yorker; Washington Post; The Independent; The Debrief; Wired; Variety; History Channel; Deadline Hollywood; Global News; CBS News; Yahoo News; Harvard; Australian Broadcasting Company; and Daily Beast.
Can you specify which numbered source here at this link is a problem, and why? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: NPOV. Can you specify the exact sentence violates WP:NPOV, and qualify why under policy it fails? Remember, this is an article about Luis Elizondo, not an article about UFOs. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Yahoo News... Nope, that is https://theweek.com/speedreads/983018/ufos-are-real-60-minutes-reports-theyre-still-unidentified-arent-american Their publisher just has content licensing agreement with Yahoo for whatever reason. Polygnotus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1288506102&oldid=1288385508
Please answer the WP:BLP concern below immediately with a link like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo#cite_ref-Kloor_Issues_Mar_2019_1-0 so that the exact mis-cited thing can be seen and addressed. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at "The Debrief"? It is a blog by like 6 people and the guy (Micah Hanks) who wrote the article also wrote the books The UFO Singularity: Why Are Past Unexplained Phenomena Changing Our Future? Where Will Transcending the Bounds of Current Thinking Lead? How Near is the Singularity? and Magic, Mysticism and the Molecule: Altered States and the Search for Sentient Intelligence from Other Worlds.
He is also the man behind https://www.gralienreport.com/
"At the forefront of a new generation of UFOlogists, Micah Hanks is someone who isn't afraid to tackle new paradigms, ideas, and theories. The future of flying saucer seeking is in good hands!" —Nick Redfern, author of The NASA Conspiracies
He does claim to have studied Cthonic Studies at Miskatonic University and I gotta admit; I like that. But a reliable source he ain't. Polygnotus (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection; see here for removal in this instance. Note: by you wanting that removed, we have no sourcing that calls him a "media personality" so that 100% in out of bounds for a WP:BLP, it was removed with The Debrief. No user may re-add that without sourcing -- you violate WP:BLP if you do. No exemptions. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how WP:BLP works, obviously. Polygnotus (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not say, verbatim, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"? Right here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yahoo News sucks; they just republish stuff written by others.
The Debrief/mr. Hanks is clearly not a good source for reliable information about this topic.
Do you think that calling someone who has been in the media a bunch of times a "media personality" is accurately described as "contentious" material?
Merriam: 1) : likely to cause disagreement or argument 2) : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes.
Anyway I am fine with leaving the "media personality" descriptor out, so that is moot. Polygnotus (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you please immediately address and provide a URL like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Elizondo#cite_ref-Kloor_Issues_Mar_2019_1-0 for your below concern and clearly and sufficiently explain what in the linked citation does not support the sentence it is paired with, and why? You also are required to explain clearly and sufficiently the NPOV tag and remediation expectations or it can be removed per Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. Drive-by's are not allowed. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by shootings are frowned upon in civilized society. Polygnotus (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And drive-by tagging mandates and requires you to take action here to explain per Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. Please fulfill the obligation you put on yourself, or remove the tag. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you chill out? This is just Wikipedia, it is not very important in the grand scheme of things.
Anyway, the article still uses Billy Cox of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune as a source and I believe I already explained that someone who has been a UFO-activist for 45 years is unlikely to try to debunk claims that he thinks confirm his world view.
If you agree that Micah Hanks is biased and unreliable, then so is Billy Cox. Polygnotus (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am chill, and it's serious, because it's the de facto authoritative source on most anything and anyone for so many people. This is not a game.
Billy Cox is fine as a source for how he is used, as it's not about whether aliens are real, or UFOs are real. It's a profile on Elizondo and an interview. He's used on Wikipedia here as citations that buttress Popular Mechanics reporting and cross-confirms it for the alternating government statements on his professional career (cite A in lede); background supplemental data on Elizondo's father (cite B); when Elizondo enlisted in the Army (cite C); again the same as lede/cite A for cite D; his prior GS-15 government rank, which is unrelated to anything FRINGE (cite E); a professional career change (cite F), which can be replaced if you wanted by any number of other sources; that's it, and it's all just the boring non-FRINGE background.
"is unlikely to try to debunk claims that he thinks confirm his world view."
That isn't a requirement under any WP:BLP or WP:RS policy that has any authority here for how the source from a long-time professional reporter is being used. There is no policy justified reason to not use the source in the way it is being used. Provide a compelling policy-based (required) argument why not to use Cox for non-FRINGE topics (the entire article is not FRINGE--just Elizondo's stated claims about UFOs is), and it's an article about the man, not UFOs, as well. FRINGE is not the god-king of this site; it has a narrow lane and is overdue for being reminded of it's limited scope. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the pages you link to? WP:RS says When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.
The level of independence from the topic the source is covering is zero.
Here is a list where that ref is used,
Elizondo's reported position as a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), associated with the Pentagon UFO videos, has generated controversy as his role has been both confirmed and contested by Pentagon officials and the media.
Elizondo is the son of Luis Elizondo III, a Cuban exile who volunteered for Brigade 2506, a CIA-sponsored group of exiles formed in 1960 to attempt the military overthrow of the Cuban government headed by Fidel Castro, which culminated in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Government spokespeople have issued alternating and conflicting accounts of his role in government, both confirming and denying his intelligence work related to the topics of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAPs).
At the time of his resignation Elizondo was a federal "GS-15 employee", the civilian equivalent to colonel rank.
Elizondo along with former Senate and Pentagon official Christopher Mellon left TTSA in late 2020 to focus on government lobbying for UFO transparency.
Quite a few controversial claims in there. Basically all of that is disputed, and we can't use an unreliable source for WP:DISPUTED claims in a WP:BLP. Wikilawyering works both ways. Polygnotus (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. User opinions on validity of claims are irrelevant, only what sources say. We have Politico and Popular Mechanics and Keith Kloor (!) all confirming, among others, that Elizondo was in/part of AATIP. That is settled -- our views as users are dead irrelevant to that. It's settled, and done. The Pentagon themselves confirmed it via Dana White, and that was reported by Politico. I know that is inconvenient to some people, but that's not our problem.
"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."
Show us why the Sarasota-Herald Tribune fails WP:RS for basic biographical data that is also cross-corroborated broadly by other WP:RS. The extraordinary claim was made by you, so show the extraordinary evidence, or withdraw. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what you are talking about, and your repeated demands are getting old fast. See WP:OWN. Also, when you mean "me" you shouldn't say "us".
And we already had a discussion about the question if we could use someone who has been a UFO-activist for 45 years (after allegedly seeing one) as a source, and it ended with you getting blocked because of, among other things, your refusal to accept the consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are still wrong, and stubborn, and another fight will be costly to you, so let's compromise so everyone has an easy off-ramp. Remove the NPOV tag that you have still failed to explain any logic or actionable remediation toward for your next edit, and within one week I will source every single thing from Cox to someone else, or remove it all myself, and then we can all go back to the article being in stasis until some Big Huge News about him drops or something. Agreed? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person another fight will be costly to you Can you explain what this means? Polygnotus (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means the entire affair is clearly extraordinarily taxing upon you and stressful, given every time you seem to talk to me about this article you end up twitterpated and anxious seeming. I was offering you a deescalation compromise for what you seemed to want, to spare your posting on a multiple venues about how this article ends up stressing you. I'm not stressed at all -- I know I will "win" in the end as all I want is absolute rules compliance. It may take a year or ten. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/405/393/569.jpg Polygnotus (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"sources that do not support the claims made in the article"
This is a bold statement. I insist you specify the citation link that does not support it's connected sentence in the article body. Please use urgency, as this is a WP:BLP. I will correct any discrepency. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person Do you watch the saveitforparts channel on youtube? Polygnotus (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with Luis Elizondo? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but its pretty interesting if you like satellites. I recommend it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the urgent WP:BLP issue you raised and either specify the precise and specific sentences that do not match the connected citations, or withdraw the concern? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bold statement because you surrounded it by triple apostrophes. Polygnotus (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best bit of text in the article currently is Elizondo has stated in interviews that UFOs/UAPs may or may not be from another dimension. I want to go one step further and say that everything may or may not be from another dimension. Polygnotus (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that something - UFO, pear tree, bulldog, whatever - is not from another dimension is not particularly notable or WP:DUE. Dog bites man, and all that. That Elizondo claims that any object may be from another dimension is worth noting. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The point was that he thinks that UFOs are just as likely to be extraterrestrial as interdimensional, which may be worth remarking upon. Unfortunately he did not specify how likely he thinks it is that they are neither or both. Polygnotus (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]