Talk:Luis Elizondo

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

"Sen Reid statement needed as important substantiation?"

[edit]

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 :

On X there is a post from a NBC reporter, Gadi Schwartz, showing the referenced letter from Senator Henry Reid. Reid does say Elizondo headed AATIP. Further down on the same page on X you can see a quote from the pentagon completely contradicting this statement. I think this information would enhance the main article. https://x.com/GadiNBC/status/1386872125835812864 2001:56A:6FF8:C446:E89E:1201:FA8B:2E9 (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC) 24 July 2025[reply]

[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]
So, welcome to Wikipedia! FWIW, Gcherrits has been editing Wikipedia since 2011. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:26, 25 July 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]

"had run" versus "was run"

[edit]

User:Polygnotus, I see what happened here -- this removed here, saying "had run" does not appear in that source, which is <ref name="Bender Politico Dec 2017" />. Flagged text:

In 2017, the Pentagon confirmed to Politico that Elizondo "had run" AATIP.

That's this source:


Text from absolutely valid WP:RS:

Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo.

Would this not support "had run", or should it be:

In 2017, the Pentagon confirmed to Politico that AATIP "was run" by Elizondo.

Thoughts? The fact has to be included in at least the latter format; as both Pentagons statements are indisputably valid. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person If you put text in quotation marks then people think it is a direct quote, which it is not. Polygnotus (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hold on -- Politico literally wrote this: "Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White confirmed to POLITICO that the program existed and was run by Elizondo." There's no way that can be contested by any of us.
So by your remark here, if we simply exclude the quotes around "had run", we're fine?

In 2017, the Pentagon confirmed to Politico that AATIP was run by Elizondo.

This Pentagon statement here is recorded, a factual statement from the Pentagon to WP:RS, and settled fact they told this to Politico. So is the latter the preferred language under policy for a WP:BLP? Trivially passes WP:V. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop throwing acronyms around, it is not helpful.
If you use quotation marks then it must be a direct quote, right? We can't pretend someone said something else because it is more convenient, right? Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use acronyms, thanks, to support my position against policy, which is what empowers my actions and grants them support. I've updated the article in absolutely strict accordance with the source. We don't have any leeway to micro-scrutinize this remark as you propose. I will have to insist you support your position with policy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, your use of acronyms is not helping, because you do not use them correctly. And you don't seem to understand the PaGs or how to use them constructively.
I am not saying this to be mean; I am trying to help you.
On Wikipedia we use our brains to make decisions, and PaGs can sometimes help steer us in the right direction, or save time when explaining something. But using them as magic incantations, incorrectly, makes communication difficult. Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about you focus less on me and on what the WP:RS source says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1290570924&oldid=1290569564
Is there any policy-based justification that challenges that edit? Yes or no. If yes, cite the exact thing that says I should change that, and I will happily. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improvement. The old version was a fake quote, which is not in the source.
I am familiar with every PaG and every commonly used essay so you don't have to write: "WP:RS source". Linking WP:RS would only make sense if I wasn't already intimately familiar with it. And calling it a WP:RS source instead of simply a source makes no sense because I know what is and isn't a reliable source.
Asking for a policy-based justification is also pointless, especially in response to me saying that you shouldn't use them as magic incantations.
If we want to have a normal conversation on the talkpage it would be nice if you could reduce all that stuff to an absolute minimum, as a favor to me. Please? Polygnotus (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, you all on these pages have me--and others--anxious and conditioned to hyper-detail to a policy T what we are doing at this point. This is another reason why the hostility toward editors who do not toe certain lines here is dangerous and disruptive to the project. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell. But I am not the enemy. And I honestly thought it sucked when you got blocked and I even tried to give you advice so you'd get unblocked as soon as possible. I am just some human; nothing to be afraid of.
I think it would make both our life easier if the conversations could be a little more, you know, laid back and relaxed. Polygnotus (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like that, but when you consider my initial welcome to dipping my toes into "these articles" was this, I think you can understand why so many editors react negatively to the "defender types". Tone matters. We saw that extensively with Chetsford to the point that Jimmy Wales came down on the Harald Malmgren fiasco. I get some people think everyone who touches these can be a lunatic. If you notice, I don't even really touch the woo nonsense. I focus on their careers and government intersections. Just the facts. It almost feels at times like a key aspect of the WP:FRINGE defensive... is strategy the right word? Is to get editors wound up to the point they make errors. That's an objectively bad thing to do. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is... there is 2 sides to the coin. Or you know, infinite+2 because the edge of the coin is round.
New Wikipedians often think "those old Wikipedians are all assholes, they treat me like an enemy invader". The flipside of the coin is of course that Wikipedians sometimes have to deal with truly terrible stuff, and have good reasons to suspect newbies who are interested in fringe topics based on years of experience dealing with people who behave badly.
I recently saw a complaint about a very experienced Wikipedian being rude. An hour later I saw that experienced Wikipedian mention that they had received gory photos by email from a troll who was harrassing them.
You are on the way to becoming an "old" Wikipedian and soon you will think "oh those horrible newbies who come to ruin our beautiful articles". This is the lifecycle of a Wikipedian.
I also bumped into @Chetsford: at some point, we butted heads, and I also(?) found him annoying at the time, but he is a goodfaith user and is genuinely working towards our shared goal of a perfect Wikipedia.
I hope I am making sense. I'll go read the Harald Malmgren's AfD now. Polygnotus (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Malmgren (2nd nomination). It was a bit unexpected to see the founder of Wikipedia explicitly cite me there by name. I've worried if that and my resurrecting Christopher Mellon with unimpeachable sourcing is what got Chetsford so mad at me. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one who has been here a while really gives a fuck about Jimbo's "status" unless they want to use him (I mean, want him to use his position) for something, which is reasonable.
This may be a weird thing to say, but the AfD, and the attention it generated, certainly improved the article.
I am no Chetsfordologist, but since he is a goodfaith user I am sure you guys can peacefully co-exist, and possibly even work together.
We all have our, ehm, peculiarities, right? "Normal" people watch sports, we share knowledge. It takes a special breed. Polygnotus (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're all fuckin nerds or we wouldn't be having this conversation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And nerds gotta stick together! Polygnotus (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I have raised this matter for outside opinions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#If_WP:RS_says_that_per_the_Pentagon_person_X_ran_a_program,_is_that_sufficient -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person Please revert that, it makes no sense to ask that question without context and without explaining the problem. Polygnotus (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline. I would like additional uninvolved eyes on the question. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person But if you ask the question without its context and without explaining the problem, the answer is worthless. Polygnotus (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because I respectfully disagree with the non-policy view that this source is dubious -- it is not, in any way -- or that this passage within WP:RS, somehow, is unsuitable simply because a small minority of editors, respectfully, seem to disagree with what it says or because the journalist apparently didn't do some unrequired by any Wikipedia policy disclosures or public-facing validation of how they came to write that passage. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person This is like asking the other parent, without telling them you already had a sweet.
And again, please stop talking about policy and WP:RS. Please. Polygnotus (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does "'non human' origin" mean?

[edit]

In the lede of this article we state, Elizondo has claimed there is a government conspiracy to suppress evidence that UFOs are of "non human" origin.

What does "'non human' origin" mean? Does Elizondo define it? Does anybody else? I don't think the sources included for this inquire deeply enough about this, so I am unclear whether this deserves inclusion in this fashion in the lede. It might, but it is completely unclear what we mean by such a statement.

jps (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks, obviously. Stupid question. The government does not want you to know about ducks. Polygnotus (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
??? I don't think this is correct. If it is supposed to be funny, that's fine. But the point is that Wikipedia articlespace should not be this ambiguous. Should we just remove all this verbiage or is there a source which explains what is meant by all this? jps (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified this. It's discussed in the GQ interview. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But this brings up a bigger problem -- this is a misuse of the multiverse article. We really ought to have something like multiverse (pseudoscience) for proposals that deal not at all with the substance of the serious speculations surrounding the multiverse. Since Elizondo and GQ do not seem to have done their due diligence in investigating what kind of physical possibilities there may be for such claims, what is the obligation of Wikipedia to present them? Is it WP:PROFRINGE WP:COATracking? jps (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think in any of these various sources I've ever seen a single person articulate what this dimensional stuff is. Anywhere. Does it even need a link to an article? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interdimensional hypothesis is our article on the subject. It is not very good, unfortunately. jps (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shame, it seems like interesting stuff. Even I wouldn't want to dive into trying to source that currently. Too much headache. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This "interdimensional hypothesis" as championed by Vallee, Elizondo, and Grusch is really just a way to sidestep the heavy and damning plausability arguments made by mainstream scientists and skeptics directed towards the extraterrestrial hypothesis -- plausibility arguments, mind you, that can be made on the back of an envelope in most physicists' spare time. I personally do not think these two articles deserve separation as the substance of the argument is basically the same. "ETH" and "IDH" have no practical difference. Whether the aliens come from Mars or whether they come from Dimenseion X or whether they are supernatural demons does not matter to the extraordinary nature of the claims being made. jps (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel universes in fiction probably comes closer, but it may come off as mocking to link to it (even though the influence of sci-fi on UFO culture is undeniable). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Elizondo tries to distance himself from science fiction as often as he can in rhetoric if not in substance. I don't know what to do with this. jps (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. While those of us at this article may understand what is meant by "non human origin" it's sort-of just the latest jargon and we should substitute it per WP:JARGON with more widely understood terminology like space aliens or something similar. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elizondo does not want to say it is aliens. But it is aliens. And we have sources which say that. So maybe we should say that? jps (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe we should say that? That seems appropriate, and certainly if attached to attribution. It might make for clunky text, but something along the lines of "non-human (a term equivalent to extraterrestrial beings <source here>)"? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do WP:RS say about what Elizondo says? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily that Elizondo uses the term, but that the term itself, as used in UFO/fringe circles, has a particular meaning. jps and @LuckyLouie: might have specific sources in mind. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a start [1]: "during his media blitz Elizondo carefully avoided mentioning the term “UFOs” or anything that might be construed as a reference to extraterrestrials. But in one instance he deviated from his careful phrasing when he said on CNN, “My personal belief is that there is very compelling evidence we may not be alone.” jps (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the group is intentionally engaging in a propaganda campaign of muddying the waters via a euphemism treadmill. The term "UAP", for example, is one meant to distance themselves from past critiques which still hold water but the believers would hope we all forget about. Same thing is true with "aliens" or "ET" turning into "NHI". jps (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "NHI" and "Non Human" is part of the euphemism treadmill the UFOlogy promoters are employing. A few credulous sources repeat them in news stories, so many die-hard fans have pasted it into our UFO-related articles in an attempt to make it sound like these terms are the latest scientifical cutting edge thing. I either remove them, or put them in quotes to signal that these terms are peculiar to UFOlogy. I don't mind removing them on the grounds that they are only notable among a subculture which hasn't gained traction in the mainstream expert community. However in a FRINGEBLP, it is pretty crucial to clearly state what fringe belief the subject is pushing. In this case, he feels that aliens (for want of a better word) and their technology exist and are being hidden by the US government. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"may be"

[edit]

Re: Elizondo has claimed that UFOs may be of extraterrestrial or "interdimensional" origin, I'm not sure why we are hedging. Elizondo has been explicit that we are definitely "not alone" and yes, he means aliens. This claim ("not alone") is central to his book and speaking tour so there's no need to water it down with "may or may not be". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the interview he also said "I also think it’s possible that [UFOs/UAPs are] something that has been on Earth for a very long time" presumably a reference to the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis, which are not strictly "aliens". Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the bulk of coverage is unambiguous, e.g. Pentagon Alien Hunter: Why I Know We are Not Alone or Safe. Even his own website explicitly states he believes "the evidence is clear mankind is not alone in the universe". Interpreting this as may-or-may-not-mean-aliens-could-even-be-interdimensional-travelers-who-are-not-aliens is splitting hairs unnecessarily. To have the lead say he believes it "may be" or is "likely" aliens is out of sync with the coverage in RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation(s)

[edit]

Why do we only describe Elizondo as an "author?" That hardly seems sufficient, as he is clearly also a "media personality," as evidenced by his speaking tour (see LL's link above to the Texas Theatre), his multiple appearances on television (as sourced in the article), etc. Seems a WP:BLUE situation to me, and it certainly isn't a pejorative descriptor. The entire basis of his notability rests upon activities that extend far beyond writing a memoir. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DeBrief and Colavito were two sources that made explicit reference to him as a “media personality”. Some other non-credulous sources have referred to him as “UFO booster and entrepreneur Lue Elizondo” and “UFO Messiahs like Elizondo “. Interesting that all such criticism has been scrubbed from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that describing him as an author is somewhat WP:ASTONISHing considering he is known mostly as a UFO booster in a variety of venues. His book is only one way he has been noticed. jps (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added "media personality" and "UFO booster" per two of the sources you give here to the lead, and added "UFO speaker" to the short description. I agree that without those statements, this article is wildly out of step with the sourcing. Elizondo is most definitely not known only for being an author and retired DOD employee. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kloor, AATIP and the Lead

[edit]

I am removing Kloor's reference as to Elizondo's role in AATIP on WP:BLP grounds. Every single source with the exception of Kloor confirms Elizondo's role in AATIP. On this topic, Kloor would be considered WP:Fringe and as such his use in this article should be treated with caution. It stays out of the lead until its fully justified in talk. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source with the exception of Kloor confirms Elizondo's role in AATIP That is false, and the content you removed was accurate, sourced, and appropriate. There are no BLP grounds supporting your edit, which does not improve the article. But who knows, perhaps WP:CONSENSUS among editors will favor your desired content? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is a BLP issue as its clearly WP:UNDUE to put a fringe opinion in the lead of a biography. Provide another source aside from Kloor that states Elizondo had no role in AATIP because I can provide dozens, including the programs founder, which will explicitly state he did. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply false, as discussed in the RSN thread [2]. Reading the RSN thread, there was consensus again describing his alleged role in AATIP as fact in the lead Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of those sources is Kloor and the other is not considered a RS for the topic. Got anything else? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you can just arbitrarily exclude sources written in reliable sources (in this case Science magazine) because they disagree with your point of view? Cool story bro. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arbitrarily doing anything. Newsnation was formally depreciated on UFO topics. Hoisted on your own petard. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you have reading comprehension difficulties, but Science magazine is not in fact NewsNation. Otherwise, you might need a pair of glasses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kloor wrote the article in Science. Try keeping up. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Science published it. Robocop is riding a unicorn. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tentatively okay with this removal. The content was arguably WP:SYNTH that was contrasting Kloor and the Politico piece. While I agree that that's categorically 'conflicting claims', it's a borderline enough thing that I'm not entirely comfortable endorsing it. We need a source that states 'conflicting claims', otherwise, we should be attributing the claims to the named spokespersons. Something that would be fully acceptable to me could read like "Pentagon spokesperson Dana White confirmed that Elizondo ran the AATIP[Politico]. However, another Pentagon spokesperson, Christopher Sherwood, stated "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017."[Intercept] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Within the body of the article, sure, but that seems far too much text for a lede. The original lede content before this latest round of WP:CRYBLP was "The Pentagon has given conflicting claims regarding whether Elizondo had a role in the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program," attached to two reliable sources. Concise, accurate, covered in greater depth within the article body, and not a violation of BLP or SYNTH. Perhaps one could substitute whether Elizondo had a role with "Elizondo's role," which has the advantage of being shorter. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. What would you think of something like "The Pentagon has, at different times, both confirmed[Politico] and denied[Intercept] Elizonda's claim to have run the AATIP. ? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the suggestions that was repeatedly made in the RSN discussion was to remove any mention of his alleged role in AATIP from the lead at all, and just mention him working at the Department of Defense. I would support this suggestion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kloor is a mainstream journalist writing in mainstream publications. Fringe clearly does not apply, nor does BLP. The content is well-cited. MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, dozens of high quality sources identifying Elizondo's involvement with AATIP as well as the US Senator who established the program vs Kloor citing a Pentagon spokesman who said he isn't. This is fringe as well as BLP. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that Kloor is a WP:FRINGE figure is extremely spurious. There is a vast difference between a minority view and a fringe view, and editors are expected to know it. "Citing a Pentagon spokesperson" is literally the gold standard for such a claim, and it is exactly how the Politico piece does it, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying Kloor is fringe, just his assertion that Elizondo was never part of AATIP is fringe. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Art Levine endorsed it, and I have found a spokesperson (Sue Gough, for the DoD) who stated the same thing. [3] It is very obviously not a fringe view, nor would it be a fringe view, even if Sherwood were the only one to state it and Kloor the only one to report on that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source with the exception of Kloor confirms Elizondo's role in AATIP. Not at all. Per Art Levine, you could call Elizondo's claim "discredited" “Elizondo, whose now-discredited claim to have headed the Pentagon’s $22 million UFO research program “. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Levine is definitely endorsing that claim, but it comes through an... Interesting... Site, ultimately originating with the same quote of Sherwood in the Kloor article. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just playing devil's advocate here. I'm on board with citing both Kloor and Levine to state that. I'm also curious if there are more sources out there.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Art Levine wrote another earlier article in 2023 in the Washington Spectator that discusses the claim in detail:

In a landscape that is saturated with unverified and unproven claims, it has also been difficult to pin down the facts in the biographies of several of the more outspoken UFO adherents. Most journalists have touted Lue Elizondo as the former director of a Pentagon UFO research program. But Elizondo’s claim to have been the director of a secret program known as AATIP (Advanced Aerial Threat Identification Program) has never been verified, as The Intercept first reported in 2019. Yet critics observe that this assertion by Elizondo, first printed by the Times in 2017, has been endlessly repeated by news outlets uncritically quoting the original story through “cut-and-paste journalism,” a practice that is unusually prevalent in the coverage of the UFO field.

To complicate matters, the 2017 Times article mistakenly conflated AATIP (which in reality was a tiny, unofficial and unfunded “activity”) with AAWSAP (Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program), the actual $22 million Pentagon program run by the Pengagon’s James Lacatski, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) official; the real name and scope of this latter program wasn’t known until May 2018.

To this day, the exact name of the program, its dates and functions, and what–and when– was Elizondo’s precise role, if any, in researching UFOs for the government has changed with different tellings by the Pentagon and especially by Elizondo. In fact, as a new trove of internal DOD memoranda obtained by UFO researcher John Greenewald shows, even Elizondo’s immediate supervisors at the Pentagon were baffled after the 2017 Times story broke by his claims that he ran the AATIP UFO program.

Garry Reid, then director of Defense Intelligence at the USDI office, wrote in a memo that Elizondo had “aggrandized his role” and “to the best of my knowledge, he had no job responsibilities related to the AATIP.” (Apparently, AAWSAP was such a can of supernatural worms they didn’t even refer to the program by its correct name internally.) The Reid memo also said Elizondo claimed that for several years he had been tasked on a super-secret project (see 4th page) on UFOs directly for Defense Secretary James Mattis, and that “nobody at USDI was cleared for this program and would not discuss it further.” Reid noted, “I discussed his claims with senior officials who would likely have known of such an arrangement, but was unable to substantiate them.”

After the new revelations about AAWSAP broke in 2018, Elizondo at first said he had no role in AAWSAP, but then later started claiming that he held an array of leadership posts with AAWSAP, too. These assertions have been contradicted by the actual leaders of that program, who have indicated he never worked there. As one former Pentagon official familiar with AAWSAP bluntly told this reporter: “Lue Elizondo played no role in AAWSAP.”

Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes three spokespersons and the director of DI who have denied Elizondo having a role. That's pretty damning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"has never been verified" .. umm .. Senator Harry Reid verified it:
As one of the sponsors of AATUP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo's involvement and leadership role in this program. Mr Elizondo is a former intelligence officer who has spent his career working tirelessly in the shadows on sensitive national security matters, including investigating UAP's as the head of AATIP. He performed these duties admirably. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the United States Senate should be considered unreliable sources for pretty much everything, and especially senators who were associated with this guy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the topic is duly noted .. although not especially relevant to the discussion. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer reviewed academic journals hold the highest reliability for sources. From what I have found, he is described as the director of AATIP:
  • The main source for this exposé was Luis Elizondo, the director of the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP) who, after resigning from his post, has now written 'Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFO's'. [4]Intelligence and National Security
MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Passing mention. As I mentioned in response to Hemiauchenia above, I have now counted two Pentagon spokespersons, one DoD spokesperson and the then-director of Defense Intelligence who have all denied this claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the US Senator who authorized the program? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the habit of believing politicians. Especially with regards to anything to do with any kind of conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kloor in Issues in Science and Technology vs Kloor in The Intercept

[edit]

In two articles published a month apart in 2019, Keith Kloor gave strikingly different accounts of Elizondo's role in the AATIP, the one in Issues in Science and Technology [5] flatly states that 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). while in the article in The Intercept published shortly afterwards [6], Kloor said there was no evidence that Elizondo was involved in AATIP in any capacity. Doesn't this bring the reliability of the original Kloor article in Issues into question if the writer of the article later flatly contradicted its assertions? The Issues article is currently extensively cited in the article. (Hat tip to VPP for notifying me of this) Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it bring the reliability of both pieces into question? Interestingly enough, The Intercept has been used as a platform for damaging material against David Grusch .. specifically his PTSD hospitalizations. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Journalist learning new information and then modifying their stance in subsequent articles is what is supposed to happen. That's support for reliability rather than the opposite. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this bring the reliability of the original Kloor article in Issues into question if the writer of the article later flatly contradicted its assertions? That's not the way WP:RS works. Initially, Woodward and Bernstein did not directly link the White House to the Watergate burglary, but shortly afterward they did. Updated reporting can't be used to deprecate the reliability of a source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but currently Kloor's assertions in the Issues article regarding Elizondo's role in the AATIP are currently stated as fact in the body unattributed. What I am suggesting is that we should attribute these claims to Kloor in Issues and then note that Kloor later contradicted them in The Intercept article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear that the information reported in Issues was obtained by an interview with Elizondo and/or documents provided by Elizondo. We ought to treat it as any other interview - reliable for noncontroversial claims, but not when it conflicts with other sources. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]