Talk:Bob Lazar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]


self-employed photo processor on documents[edit]

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.[1] 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???71.123.94.189 (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A panderer is a person who furnishes clients for a prostitute, or supplies persons for illicit sexual intercourse. -- Singe onion (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
When reading the article it does make me question if he deserves the physicist tag.
I don't know why Freakyflow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) 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?[edit]

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)

--Singe onion (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


"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 71.213.199.155 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob definitely does not have a degree from MIT. I have access to the MIT Alumni Directory and there is no "Robert Scott Lazar" in our records of even registering for a term. Chclee (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Los Alamos[edit]

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)
It should be part of this show, which the YouTube uploader didn't have license to distribute. --Voidvector (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad grammar[edit]

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."

How did this get by the editors? 67.34.133.212 (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been some serious vandalism, but I reverted the problem. BBiiis08 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad sources 9-15[edit]

Revision of 02:20, 24 May 2009 [1] is in infraction of [[2]]: 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)
I re-added the Friedman material per WP:Consensus above. DeltaT has been blocked and his appeal denied for his editing problems in a variety of articles, and his misunderstanding of policy was the only objection. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DeltaT's white wash[edit]

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 [3] is in infraction of [[4]]: 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)
Note: DeltaT has been blocked and his appeal denied for his editing problems in a variety of articles. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP has a point: what about the UFOs?[edit]

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.

What gives? Phiwum (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

Thodef's removals[edit]

I'd like to know why Thodef removed the following sources:

These are the few WP:RS that discuss him, and white washing these sources is not acceptable. NovakFan76 (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

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"[edit]

Polonium is a different element, not an isotope of Uranium. Different elements have different number of protons. Different isotopes have different number of neutrons.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium"


I'm making the appropriate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.76.4 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Polonium[edit]

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)

(GHPINK) I agree with this and this is exactly why I was here. It gave me this impression as well for awhile that Lazar sold the actual Polonium that Litvinenko was killed with, until I correctly read it deeper and followed the sources. By linking Polonium in the news at the time (because of Litvinenko) it gives the impression that Lazar sold the material but this sourced article shows that the amount he was selling was not any where close to the amount needed to poison someone and it had to go through a rigorous scientific process even to create the poison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghpink (talkcontribs) 23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack page[edit]

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 60.240.147.135 (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 203.9.151.254 (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)

As an anonymous person, I will add some of my thoughts in. When I finished reading the page, I was not that surprised at how garbage it was, because remember, this IS Wikipedia after all. I don't ever trust Wikipedia for any credible information. But still, it cannot be ignored, that this page was just an attack on Lazar's character. Why do you have to bash united nuclear so much? Why do you have to try to tear down what he has tried so hard to build up? United nuclear is a great company, I buy from them all the time! They have some darn good quality things that rival even Flynn scientific... Yet here you are,(whoever wrote this sorry piece), who probably never bought anything from united nuclear, and probably has little to no experience in chemicals, just acting like a brat. "Unverified claim that it has "over 400,000 served"". It's really funny how you just HAVE to say "unverified" in front of everything that he says. You couldn't just say "He claims"? And so what if what he says is not true? why does it even matter? He still runs a good company. The least you could do at this point, is explain and justify your absolutely childish behavior, and your blatent personal attacks on some guy who just wants to make sure that people can buy scientific equipment.

Edit summary correction[edit]

I mentioned in the edit summary that a graviton exists. I meant to say that it exists in theory. My bad. My edit still stands, though. Lighthead þ 07:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My George Knapp edit (putting back old info.)[edit]

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)

Hydrogen car[edit]

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 74.82.132.35 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Atomic weight/number[edit]

The reference to "atomic weight of 115" should rather be to atomic number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:376D:9730:25F7:8E99:F615:D714 (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Phil Schneider[edit]

Need to mention Phil Schneider, as a continuation of a story. 176.15.217.221 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Credentials in lede[edit]

@ScrapIronIV: I don't think we should mention his educational BS in the lede. It's not why he's notable. "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." (MOS:BLPLEAD). IMO, it also smacks of trying too hard at character assassination, like it was written by a rival UFOlogist or something. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here for discussion. The lede is used to summarize main points made in the body of the article. This is a short article, and a very short lede; however, one of the main topics in the article is the subject's lack of credentials. It is central to understanding who he claims to be, and is covered in multiple sections of the article. As such, the short mention in the lede is appropriate. ScrpIronIV 20:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, that last deletion was entirely appropriate; the article cited made no claims about the subject at all. ScrpIronIV 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's one of the main topics. The main topics are all the crazy shit he said. In any case, if you are going to keep it in the lede, you should rewrite it so it's not so jarring, and add a cite (WP:BLP says cite in lede and body for stuff that makes subject look bad). But I think you should just take it out. Dingsuntil (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Restoring long-standing content; if you wish to have more opinions, feel free to start an RfC. There is not a lot of traffic to this page. The lede needs to be expanded, not trimmed. These claims are mentioned in two sections of the article, are properly sourced, and are prominent enough for inclusion. I would recommend against any name-calling of the subject, as it falls under WP:BLP ScrpIronIV 17:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I was going to make a 3O request, but I don't entirely understand all your points, and I don't want to misrepresent you. So: Why is the fact that there isn't a lot of traffic relevant? Why do you say the lede needs to be expanded? Dingsuntil (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The traffic comment simply meant that I didn't expect anyone to just wander by and offer an opinion, which is why I was suggesting an RfC. As for expanding the lede, WP:LEAD states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." As the lede is written now, it falls short of that goal. I welcome a Third Opinion, or RfC. ScrpIronIV 18:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Third Opinion Request Greetings, both. One of you posted a third opinion request, which I am responding to. This is a non-binding process, and my opinion carries no special weight. In all honesty, I think the issue here is a little broader than you both are discussing. Per WP:LEDE, the lead should summarize the article, and should therefore mention all significant points in the article. It is certainly not limited to the reason for the subject's notability. This particular lede needs to mention the educational controversy, given the weight it has in the article (although I would prefer to rephrase it a little, to a wordier but more precise and less-like-character-assassination "Lazar claims to hold a degree from XYZ, but XYZ has no record of him.") However, in addition to that particular controversy, the lede should also grant a sentence or two to the other major body paragraphs. Precisely what did he claim to work on? What about the supplies controversy at the bottom? Why did he get media attention? The article deserves a more thorough lede, IMO, and I think that might take care of some of the seeming POV issues that Dingsuntil points out may be perceived in the current version. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Any credibility this person has when making his extraordinary claims is because of an implication based on false credentials. Accordingly, it is necessary to summarize what truly reliable sources say about any claimed or implied credentials. This is a core part of how reliable sources describe this person, which must be presented with due weight in the biography of such a person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this implies that we ought to summarize what they say about his credentials, but it's not clear that this necessarily means in the lede, rather than just in the article. Nonetheless, I accept the consensus. Dingsuntil (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Polonium[edit]

I've just had a read of the source used to support: "Small amounts of polonium, a radioactive element which was in the news at the time because of its role in fatally poisoning former Soviet intelligence agent and whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko, had been sold by the company."

The source is good, but the statement is not. Sure, in isolation, the statement is accurate. However it's just not notable. The article, presumably written because Polonium was in the public consciousness at the time, makes clear that there was nothing wrong with his company selling the stuff and that it was in no way a lethal dose/dangerous/etc: "And each dose comes encased in a foil shell that is insoluble and inert in most chemicals. In this sealed form, the polonium will not be absorbed if swallowed, and therefore, “it’s not a health hazard,” says David McIntyre, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). “You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium 210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million to have a toxic amount,” says a recent statement on United Nuclear’s Web site. All the isotopes the company sells, according to the statement, are so small the NRC permits their sale without a license . . . The NRC has seen United Nuclear’s Web site, says McIntyre, but doesn’t plan on investigating."

I.e. possibly of interest at the time, but not notable in an encyclopaedia.

The other issue with the entry is that it's included in the middle of a real case where the company really did get into trouble. That makes it look like he has been in-and-out of court for numerous issues, whereas it's all actually just one fireworks-related issue.

So looks to me like Ghpink was correct to remove it. Smarting from a recent near edit war when I made a change that seemed obvious, I thought I should check with ScrapIronIV that, in light of this, he's alright with removing this now? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, and concur. I will self-revert ScrpIronIV 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

firing for car stuff[edit]

Maybe I shouldn't have included it. It's not a terrific source, and it does cast him in a somewhat bad light, but not, in my opinion, terrible. To me, it seems to fit with my existing view of him as a sharp, ornery guy who really liked his jetcars. I wanted to add more info about him at Los Alamos, since previous versions made it sound like he'd made the whole thing up and was never there. It's not a terrible source either. Mark Farmer is an actual journalist, although this isn't his website. Although Mahood is critical of Lazar, he's also fair and measured enough towards him that I feel comfortable assuming he didn't just make up the Farmer interview. Seems BLP enough for government work, but your mileage may vary. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Lazar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Split articles[edit]

I propose that S4 the research facility should be moved back were it was. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens! Trip to...". Los Angeles Times . May 6, 1993.