Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:16, 29 November 2024

This is an archive of past discussions about Luis Elizondo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

This edit request to Luis Elizondo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Elizondo was born in Texas not Florida. He has tried to fix this issue but your moronic group that is going around making pages and "fixing" things you don't like on everything you feel is pseudoscience won't let it happen. You guys don't know everything. You are not always right. You took pictures at the mall for god's sake. Capstonecomplaints (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source cited in the article says he was born in Miami. You'll need to provide a reliable source that supports that he was born in Texas. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to accept good faith but this new editor’s post does certainly make them look like another WP:MEATPUPPET coming here from the same site or sites as the others. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, but letting them goad me into responding in kind would be playing their game, so.... Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely.. Doug Weller talk 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It ilterally says in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune article cited in the section Born in Miami, Luis Elizondo IV moved to Sarasota around 1975. That’s when his father, Luis Elizondo III, a food and beverage manager, helped open the Hyatt hotel in Sarasota.. It's not something that Misplaced Pages editors randomly made up. If you can find sources that contract this please cite them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Elizondo was born in Texas not Florida.

We at Misplaced Pages are aware that some people are saying Elizondo was born in Texas. This is why the infobox notes that his birthplace "needs independent confirmation". We have made a major effort to look for reliable sources saying that Elizondo was born in Texas, but our search has turned up nothing. If you can find a reliable souce that we've overlooked, we'd be happy to try to update the article to reflect the most accurate sources. Feoffer (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The Herald-Tribune first published on January 3, 2021 by Billy Cox has updated their article to show that Elizondo was born in Texas but the family moved to Sarasota around 1975.Sgerbic (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Okay, @Capstonecomplaints: looks like this issue has been successfully addressed. Anyone in communication with the subject of this article, or his supporters, please relay my sincere truth that we as a project meant absolutely no disrespect to the subject and I'm happy this got solved. Thanks to everyone who helped us improve this article, especially whoever got Herald-Tribune to issue a correction! Feoffer (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

All sources have been edited, checked for access, archived, cleaned up, all ref names are now unique, and cleaned up (reversed)

(since reversed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1242596519&oldid=1242543705

That summarizes all the edits. Nothing remarkable, a little bit of readability/chronological formatting. Each source now is archived. Each source now has a unique ref name of author-source-date structure. All sources are now moved down to the references section so we can use the tags/anchors in prose. The raw text was borderline unhinged and unusable as-is from the references and code wedged into paragraphs; some paragraphs were like 9/10th sources by volume. The article for this purpose should be far, far easier to work on now going forward. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR you shouldn't have done this, though. Please move the sources back inline. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I moved them back. Are there reasons we shouldn't go with the easier to edit formatting structure to make this easier to work on? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll find at least as many editors who despise list-defined refs as editors who prefer them. When multiple styles of language/citation/etc. are allowed, deference is given to the established style chosen by the editor(s) who established it in an article. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

People actually find the 'current' way it's setup... easier to edit and work on? There are literally sentences with sources that are 10x as many characters for sources as there are sentences... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Some do, yes. Some editors prefer the inline-definition style because it's easier for them to add content with new refs, as opposed to defining/naming it in one place and then calling it in another, particularly for refs that are unlikely to be reused. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

TIL... the inline seems painful.

What is the method to ask if I can swap out here for the defined one/bottom way? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And list-defined is painful when using the visual editor. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Ironic, the visual editor (most of them on any site) make me want to not just grind my teeth so much as rip them out with pliers. Is there any middle ground option to not have massive code-level walls of mess in the middle of nearly every paragraph? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Perhaps someday the Mediawiki devs will make list defined refs work with the visual editor, but it doesn't seem to be a priority for them at the moment. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. The point is that both inline and list-defined methods have advantages and disadvantages, so it basically comes down to editor preference on any given article. You're welcome to establish list-defined references on articles that you create, but please don't unilaterally change other articles that already have an established style.To "ask if I can swap out here for the defined one/bottom way", start a discussion specifically on that question and see if you gain consensus for the change (or possibly a month will go by with nobody opining in which case you can venture the change and see what happens). Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that an RFC? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss before starting a formal RfC.Just fyi, I'll oppose the change. When I used list-defined refs on some of the articles I wrote, I chose that method for specific reasons, but I don't think that those reasons would apply here. I think an article with only a few refs being reused and in a continual state of flux (constantly being updated) is better served by inline definitions which more editors are accustomed to and which works better with VE. Schazjmd (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

https://pastebin.com/AKNem9NY

I guess I'm an outlier, because I look at that and yikes. When I started really working on Invention Secrecy Act and I looked up how to manage all that, I settled on the list way because it made the inline raw text so much easier to work on. But if that method is super unpopular, I guess it is what it is. I guess I'm just surprised there is no way to make it easier to read. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting helps. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Dang, it does. I didn't notice that feature before. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

New Yorker Gideon Lewis-Kraus is cited to something not in their article; removed for review.

I removed this here:

--> https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1242648540&oldid=1242648138

Article:

--> https://web.archive.org/web/20210427234352/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentagon-started-taking-ufos-seriously

Passage:

According to Gideon Lewis-Kraus, Elizondo initially explained to the Pentagon in a memo that the videos would "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety", but in later interviews he stated that his goal was to shine light on the program he ran for seven-years to "collect and analyze reported UFO sightings".

The text strings "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety" and "collect and analyze reported UFO sightings" do not appear in this article/archive. This edit by User:LuckyLouie on May 31, 2021, three years ago, seems to have introduced it:

--> Introducing edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1026166278

Should this stay out based on it not appearing in the source? What is protocol? I will leave a note on User:LuckyLouies page to let them know. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems that those quotes appear in Joby Warrick's Washington Post article, also cited in the article. Seems like an easy enough error to make. MrOllie (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Warrick piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20171217013458/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagons-secret-ufo-office-sought-to-make-evidence-public/2017/12/16/90bcb7cc-e2b2-11e7-8679-a9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.1e5961fa55e9

Warrick passage:

Elizondo, in an internal Pentagon memo requesting that the videos be cleared for public viewing, argued that the images could help educate pilots and improve aviation safety. But in interviews, he said his ultimate intention was to shed light on a little-known program Elizondo himself ran for seven years: a low-key Defense Department operation to collect and analyze reported UFO sightings.

User:LuckyLouie passage:

According to Gideon Lewis-Kraus, Elizondo initially explained to the Pentagon in a memo that the videos would "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety", but in later interviews he stated that his goal was to shine light on the program he ran for seven-years to "collect and analyze reported UFO sightings".

Would this be a sufficient redo citing to Warrick?

Proposed passage:

Elizondo, in a Pentagon memo, stated the videos could "help educate pilots and improve aviation safety"; in interviews after their release, Elizondo remarked his intention was to "shed light" on the Defense Departments program to collect UFO data.

Hows that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey all, the relevant updated passage is now reintroduced here at this edit, and I will let User:LuckyLouie know on an update on their talk page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)