Talk:Bob Lazar

Why is it important to have "businessman" in the lede?

"Dennis" Lazar is famous for his conspiracy theories only. That he happens to have a smalltime scientific supplies business is incidental.

If his business is somehow noteworthy, then his crimes are also noteworthy. I'd argue the crimes are noteworthy in any case, since the article establishes that they have shaped public perception of Lazar and have thrown doubt on the very claims that made him famous in the first place. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the edit requester in the section above. You wanted to add the word "criminal" to the lead, and when you couldn't get agreement on that, you tried to delete "businessman" to prove a WP:POINT. This seems to be the definition of editing in bad faith. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

So you're unable to rebut my comment? Okay. Seems my version is the way to go (adding "criminal" to lede). EDIT: Looking back in time, it seems you once had a legitimate complaint about users trying to right WP:GREATWRONGS. However, the article could be freely edited at that time; it's now indefinitely extended-protected. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is or ever was WP:CONSENSUS for adding "criminal" to the first sentence of the lead, e.g. “Bob Lazar is a criminal” or "Bob Lazar is a convict". According to the majority cited sources, he is best known for his conspiracy theories that the US is hiding alien technology at Area 51. There is much less notability for his criminal conviction that is reflected in cited sources. Which is why it is more appropriately mentioned in the second paragraph of the lead: "Lazar's public image has also been affected by criminal activity: he was convicted in 1990 for his involvement in a prostitution ring, and again in 2006 for selling illegal chemicals." If you feel this is in error, you can always make your case at WP:BLPN and form a consensus for your desired change. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like something that might be worth doing. In the meantime, why is "businessman" in there? Surely the elements of his Wiki notability would be ordered: 1) Conspiracy theories, 2) criminal activity that cast doubt on said theories, and 3) smalltime business. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I belive it is also with noting since this Gene Stanley1, has been editing George knapps wiki page in relation to conspiracy theories, to now name them debunked. The edits have been performed in bad faith it seems and it looks to be quite underhand in the way they are being performed by Gene Stanley1 80.189.187.159 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't be encouraging nonsense about ghosties and aliens. Lazar's story has been torn apart over and over. Knapp is his biggest fruitcake enabler. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@80.189.187.159: Concerns about the George Knapp page should not be aired here. Please read WP:FORUMSHOP and see your own Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Lazar's public image has also been affected by criminal activity"

But how true is this really? Writers of course comment on it to indict his credibility, but it seems that more than anything what animates his image in the public eye is the boldness of his claims, and the unverifiable nature of his educational and employment history. The pandering conviction is quite old and is a crime that people care less and less about every year, and the hazmat violations are just heavy handed bureaucratic garbage that is knowingly and unknowingly violated on a daily basis by legitimate individuals. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 08:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were true, the wording is weird. It could also mean that other people have committed crimes in order to make Lazar look bad in public. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I have re-worded (and shortened) that passage to improve its clarity. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Lazar is not a conspiracy theory, stop misleading people

Its quite clear what the man talked about is true and what is happening in the sky and it is out there 105.235.246.101 (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If you, or any other editor, has any reliable sources to support the claim that Its quite clear what the man talked about is true, then please present them here. There's no rush. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Bob is telling the truth 100%. The government has now come forward and said that they have been working on and retrieving alien technology and bodies both living and dead from crash and donation sites (donation sites being sites where there were "crashes" without a body or a survivor leading officials to speculate they sent us that craft for some reason) 2605:59C8:410:6710:7627:5764:4A1A:1E1D (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read the post immediately above yours. I will paraphrase it here: If you, or any other editor, has any reliable sources to support the claim that Bob is telling the truth 100%, then please present those sources here. Click here to learn about reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

Change "Elements of Bob's employment history have been exaggerated or fabricated" to "elements of Bob's employment history have been erased by officials from S-4 and the government" 2605:59C8:410:6710:7627:5764:4A1A:1E1D (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per WP:SELFSOURCE a statement by the subject of the article on a podcast with no editorial oversight can't be used to support claims about third parties like this. Jamedeus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Biased source(s)…

The first reference used on this page does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources. Ken Layne’s article is opinionated, unserious, and speculative, lacking the objectivity required for a neutral citation….

Secondly, the description of Bob Lazar as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ is biased and does not accurately reflect his role within the UFO community. A more appropriate and neutral term would be ‘controversial figure in UFOlogy.’

Next, there is a repetitive pattern in the page editor’s comments suggesting an openness to any ‘reliable source’, which contrasts starkly with the current use of sources that themselves are not unbiased.

This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the article. 104.153.228.17 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

See footnote "d". The first sentence is summarizing cited content in the body of the article. If this is contentious, we could duplicate footnote d in the first sentence. If he's widely described as a "conspiracy theorist", wikipedia policy (including WP:NPOV) is to say "conspiracy theorist". Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the whole article smells strongly biased. If the reader comes here after watching interviews of the subject (e.g. Joe Rogan), they will believe Bob's side of the story rather than this article. Many of the people used as a source in this article have questionable reputation themselves. On the other hand, a highly respected US Navy pilot, Commander David Fravor, after meeting Bob, when interviewed by Joe Rogan, said that Bob Lazar is a normal guy, not crazy at all. All in all this article seems quite far from being objective. 88.112.43.242 (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe Rogan has been roundly criticised for promoting and enabling conspiracy theories.[1][2][3] Brian Dunning even confronted Rogan on camera over this.[4] Gene Stanley1 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned Joe Rogan only as one example of many interviews by many different people. That being said, everyone can watch The Joe Rogan Experience podcast episodes themselves. When recorded episodes are publicly available, they become the most reliable source, therefore you shouldn't use some random person and their personal opinions as a source, as they can be strongly biased.

Analogous to, you should always use a book as the source directly, rather than a person who has read the book. This is the standard procedure for Wikipedia articles - a book or scientific journal is referenced as a source directly, not via some person who has read it (because biased opinions, PsyOps etc). 88.112.43.242 (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wikipedia, like most encyclopedia, is a tertiary source and generally relies on WP:SECONDARY sources. Please see WP:YESPOV EvergreenFir (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In order to prevent further misunderstanding, I feel I should more carefully explain what I mean.

The Wikipedia guidelines for the use of primary, secondary and tetriary sources. Secondary sources should be used only as interpretation of primary sources. It should go without saying, unless the secondary source is a scientific study about the primary source, it's prone to biased, sometimes meaningless opinions, and carefulness should be applied, especially if the primary source is closer to a scientific study. I will give an example of what I mean by that in practice, at the end of this reply.

The link you provided to SECONDARY has PRIMARY right on top of it and states:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source

This corresponds to, whatever is actually said in a book, journal or any media source, without interpreting it further. It continues:

but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

The common understanding of this guideline is that primary sources are used, as an example, to say The Album has 12 tracks, they have such and such names and track lengths. Secondary sources could be credible critics giving their opinion about those tracks. Secondary sources should not be used to say things like, The Album has only 6 tracks because I don't consider the other 6 music.

Again,

an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Articles about The Joe Rogan Experience episodes #1315, #1347, or #1361 can cite what was being said in these episodes, as facts, as in, it's a fact this was said, and such references are considered PRIMARY sources by Wikipedia guidelines. SECONDARY sources can then be referenced to further elaborate the reader about what was said, e.g. whether the scientific community considers what was said facts or not. Are you with me so far?

Now, if we refer to e.g. what Cmdr. David Fravor said about Bob Lazar in The Joe Rogan Experience episode #1361 (citing the actual content of the episode), it should be considered a fact that David Fravor said this and it should be considered legitimate use of a PRIMARY source. How e.g. Brian Dunning interprets what Cmdr. David Fravor says in the episode, is a legitimate use of a SECONDARY source and should be used only to comment the PRIMARY source. Then it's up to the Wikipedia reader to decide, if they rather believe the PRIMARY source Cmdr. David Fravor, a highly respected US Navy pilot... or a SECONDARY source giving his opinion about the podcast in general, e.g. Brian Dunning, who according to tetriary source Wikipedia, makes a living as a professional skeptic (possibly a biased opinion without scientific study to back it up), and who has been charged of wire fraud, pleaded guilty to said wire fraud, and went to prison for it.

Personally, I consider it somewhat suspicious if Wikipedia articles use random secondary sources as logical fallacies against primary sources that are referenced correctly. Especially if the whole article seems biased in similar fashion. Just to be clear, saying that Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist and therefore every guest he has on his podcast, is by default not a credible source, is a logical fallacy. 88.112.43.242 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What is written above by the 88 IP is nonsense. When writing about fringe topics as well as WP:BLPs, we are required to rely on the highest quality reliable independent sources. Since Joe Rogan makes money by allowing kooks and cranks to rant and rave on his show without pushback, for clickbait profit motives, then anything that appears on that sensationalist show is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, except for something uncontroversial that somebody said about themself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So for example Neil DeGrasse Tyson (episode #1347 I already mentioned to see if you're even paying attention) is a "kook and crank" who raved on without pushback? If I understood you correctly, you are saying that if you don't personally like the content of some episodes, then anything that appears on that show, is not appropriate to use as a source on Wikipedia, even though the PRIMARY source guidelines specifically state you can cite ANY publicly available book, journal and other media. How is that not a logical fallacy and a very biased opinion?

Have you ever looked through the Joe Rogan podcast episode list? The podcast has had guests from all around the spectrum, including people such as Eric Weinstein, Brian Greene, Dr Phil, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert Kennedy Jr, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Anthony Bourdain, and many others you would otherwise never question in any other context. Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot cite any of them so as long they said it in The Joe Rogan Experience show?

If we write an article about Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, we cannot cite Rickson Gracie or Royce Gracie, only because they said it in the Joe Rogan podcast?

Seriously? 88.112.43.242 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So for example Neil DeGrasse Tyson [..] is a "kook and crank" who raved on without pushback? That is a non sequitur. The fact that Rogan invites kooks and cranks does not mean that everybody he invites is a kook and crank. This is very simple logic. To call a source "reliable" means that you can rely on it. Sometimes inviting serious people and sometimes inviting kooks and cranks means that Rogan is not reliable. Also very simple logic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)