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)