|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bob Lazar article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Paranormal||(Rated B-class)|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 self-employed photo processor on documents
- 3 Education section needs some work?
- 4 Los Alamos
- 5 Bad grammar
- 6 Bad sources 9-15
- 7 DeltaT's white wash
- 8 Anon IP has a point: what about the UFOs?
- 9 Thodef's removals
- 10 RE: "Polonium, the Uranium isotope"
- 11 Polonium
- 12 Attack page
- 13 Edit summary correction
- 14 My George Knapp edit (putting back old info.)
- 15 Hydrogen car
- 16 Atomic weight/number
- 17 Phil Schneider
self-employed photo processor on documents
I added the Los Angeles Times who looked into his background and found that in 1990 Lazar had pled guilty to felony pandering, declared bankruptcy and listed his occupation as self-employed photo processor on documents. This is a much more solid source that the UFO links supplied. BBiiis08 (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) [Did you expect him to list his occupation as "Researcher - Extraterrestrial Technology" on his documents? LOL]
- What is pandering???220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why added a fact tag to the source. The Times clearly talks about the court records so I've removed the tag. 22:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Education section needs some work?
Much of the section about Lazar's education or claims of qualifications is actually about his criminal record. Shouldn't the section be split into three:
- Education (could be expanded to mention Lazar's BSc in Physics and Electronic Technology, by correspondence from Pacifica University)
- Criminal record to get a section of its own, and
- Michael Hesemann's evidence (which is about his alleged work but currently appears in the education section)
- "Pacifica University" is an infamous unaccredited diploma mill. Their "degrees" would not be recognized by any science or engineering program in academia, private industry or government/military operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention that he claims to have worked at Los Alamos. That claim is somewhat easy to validate, as there is an article in Los Alamos Monitor on him showing him dealing with jet car (according to the video the issue was volume 27, number 127). That was prior to his UFO claim. See this video: about 2:30 minutes into the video --Voidvector (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Voidvector, do you (or anyone else) happen to have another link for that video? (It's been taken down.) Thanks! -- itistoday (Talk) 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
This article has some bad grammar and the meaning of a sentence is lost. Someone please fix this. I am not sure of the original intended meaning.
"Lazar describes how he was given top secret ent by extraterrestrial people with this planet was divulged."
- There has been some serious vandalism, but I reverted the problem. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Bad sources 9-15
Revision of 02:20, 24 May 2009  is in infraction of []: contentious material about living persons. Whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — (it) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. An encyclopedia article presents clear, concised and well referenced information. It's not relevant whether a person was arrested during his life, or whether another person (i.e. Stanton Friedman) doesn't believe what he has to say. Wikipedia is not a gossip corner. DeltaT (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Stanton Friedman's website is a reliable source - "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- In agreement with Hipocrite. Friedman's material is WP:RS as his work is widely cited and his considered an expert on UFO-related claims. More importantly, that specific quote is WP:ATT. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
DeltaT's white wash
DeltaT (talk · contribs) wrote "Whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — (it) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" then white washed the whole article.
I'd like to know why DeltaT removed WP:RS about Lazar's past and the legal problems of his business. The sources about calling into question his claims include two articles in the Los Angeles Times, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Newsweek, Albuquerque Tribune, and Wired. DeltaT removed these sources and simply left George Knapp's uncritical reports, which have been widely criticized.
DeltaT if you have a particular claim you think relates to WP:BLP then quote it here and discuss it. Do not whitewash the article just because you think its negative. I also recommend you read WP:NPOV. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- If all he did was remove the business info we could have a discussion about that. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Your revision of 02:20, 24 May 2009  is in infraction of []: contentious material about living persons. Whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — (it) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In other words, I have a problem with criticism by 'ufologist' Stanton Friedman, and with the info about Lazar's arrest. Compare the article to another article: eg. about Einstein. Does such an article present similar unwarranted biographical information? DeltaT (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have provisionally removed the information sourced only to Friedman, as that may be a relevent criticizm. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- DeltaT, I suggest you read WP:BLP and quote things IN CONTEXT. BLP reads: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Are you saying two articles in the Los Angeles Times, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Newsweek, Albuquerque Tribune, and Wired are poor sources?
- Specifically, I ask again, what issues do you have? Quote what you consider to be "contentious material". BBiiis08 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Anon IP has a point: what about the UFOs?
Recently, an anonymous IP added a section asking why there is so little material on UFOs in this article. His addition was properly reverted, since he added it to the article proper, not the discussion page. I have to agree, however, that there's rather little on UFOs in the article. The only mention I see is in the lede itself.
Now, of course, I don't believe that the problem is due to gov't conspiracy (unlike the anonymous editor), but surely the primary reason we have an article about Lazar is because he's famous for his claims that he's worked on UFOs, right? Surely these claims should have more attention than a single mention in the introduction.
- The bulk of the missing material was removed by User:Hipocrite in | this edit. He explained the removal by claiming that this material is dubious and unrelated to Bob Lazar! The latter claim is just silly. The material removed is exactly what makes Bob Lazar notable: he has claimed to have worked on UFOs at S-4 and for whatever reason, a relatively large number of folks have discussed these claims. The material is dubious in one sense, of course: Lazar's claims are obviously false — I don't believe for an instant that he has worked on extraterrestrial spacecraft. But that's okay, because the material removed does not claim that Lazar has worked on UFOs. It merely says that Lazar claims so and this is precisely why Lazar is notable.
- I have thus undone Hipocrite's edit. Without some discussion of Lazar's claims, I just can't see why this article should exist. Phiwum (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to keep his claims in whilst making it clear that there is no evidence to support them (and that they contradict basic physics). What can happen over time is the important distinction between claims and fact is lost during multiple edits. To avoid this danger the claims were removed completely; some even went so far as to delete the entire article. A brief summary of claims with a strong disclaimer is justified, but so far impossible to maintain.
I'd like to know why Thodef removed the following sources:
- "...so credible was Lazar's highly detailed story--until Lazar's credibility crumbled. Schools he was supposed to have attended had no record of him, while others in the scientific community had no memory of ever meeting him..." "Tales of Vegas Past: The truth was out there". Las Vegas Mercury. June 12, 2003. Retrieved 2008-12-12.
- In 1993, the Los Angeles Times looked into his background and found there was no evidence to support his claims.Rivenberg, Roy (May 6, 1993). "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens! Trip to...". Los Angeles Times.
- He worked as a photo processor.Rivenberg, Roy (May 6, 1993). "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens! Trip to...". Los Angeles Times.
- His educational and professional background cannot be verified.Sands, Shannon (March 20, 1991). "Believers Are Not Alone Outer space: A Nevada military base lures the Faithful". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-02-02.
- Stanton Friedman was only able to verify that Lazar took electronics courses in the late 1970s at Pierce Junior College. (The Bob Lazar Fraud December 1997 By Stanton Friedman)
- I stumbled upon the Bob Lazar page and noticed a user white washed all the sources. I reverted the changes and went to the talk page to notice that a person blocked made similiar edits on different articles. Compare the edits and interests of DeltaT (talk · contribs) and Thodef (talk · contribs). NovakFan76 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see an IP removed WP:RS without justification. Him69696969696969 (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
RE: "Polonium, the Uranium isotope"
Polonium is a different element, not an isotope of Uranium. Different elements have different number of protons. Different isotopes have different number of neutrons.
The phrase Lazar again gained attention in 2006 from news reports that he sold small amounts of Polonium, the radioactive element, used to fatally poison former Soviet intelligence agent and whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko. can be read as implying that Lazar sold the very polonium used to poison Litvinenko. Given that this breaches WP:BLP, it needs rephrasing.Autarch (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow! This page really is an attack site against this poor guy! The article seems strange - it mentions little about what he is famous for, i.e. his interesting alleged UFO work, and is largely devoted to discrediting him and attacking his character. To the editors of this site the phrase "you doth protest too much" seems to apply. I remember seeing a documentary about his claims and the makers of that documentary provided some evidence to verify his claims of involvement with the military establishment, but yet none of that is in the article. It is known that intelligence services do trawl Wikipedia articles to muddy the waters. You see this particularly with articles involving Israel. This article has echoes of that same type of activity. HansNZL (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. This man is extremely credible and there is plenty of evidence out there supporting the fact that he worked on s4, just look at the footage he filmed with different people on 3 consecutive weeks of UFO's. I'm not sure I know where to start as far as rewriting the article goes! Brad from Aus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The English language admins of Wikipedia are on a crusade to sanitize reality into a nice simple picture they can wrap their small minds around. If you want to get real information off of wiki do your searches in Spanish, Russian, Swedish, or any other language except that spoken by the idiots in charge of the United States. Psychicattorney (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am an enwiki administrator. I have no crusade against anything, except poor sourcing, patent nonsense, etc. Anything you add which meets the standards of verifiable, reliable sources which are on topic, I will not only not remove, but will defend them to remain in the article. —EncMstr (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely the very nature of this subject being "Above Top Secret" makes any verification difficult. Do you expect CIA spies to list "Spy" as their occupation on an application for a credit card? I've heard the guy talk and he seems credible to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Most conmen and liars do, indeed, seem "credible" to the credulous. For my part, it sounds like the guy watched Buckaroo Banzai in the 8th Dimension too many times. Ravenswing 14:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit summary correction
My George Knapp edit (putting back old info.)
If anyone changes my edit about George Knapp confirming on his own that Bob Lazar most likely worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, you have to give me a really good reason (absolutely beautiful reason... ). The references are there... George Knapp is an Edward R. Murrow award winner... whoever made the edit a while back was inspired. Lighthead þ 08:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would also like to take the time to symbolically strike out the comment I made in the edit summary of said edit about User:BBiii08. It was uncalled for and really stupid for me to say something like that. I'm sorry. Lighthead þ 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Saw this video recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag4iy6yg4R4 and then laughed when I realized it was Bob Lazar. The punchline comes at the end, where he claims to have a particle accelerator to make lithium-6 deuteride he uses to store his hydrogen. It smells like prankster material to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Need to mention Phil Schneider, as a continuation of a story.