Wikipedia

Talk:Christopher Mellon

Former good article nomineeChristopher Mellon was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2025Articles for deletionDeleted
May 13, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Christopher Karl Mellon, born 1958

[edit]

What is policy around this? We have two sources which put down his ages at the time, over different years, and based on that, as long as this fellow is a human being, unless I'm wildly wrong on my biology, he could have only been born in 1958 to hit both markers. Is that an allowable way to use sourcing for a year of birth? I'm not sure. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some not WP-good sources say born October 1957. I say don't guess, use the Birth based on age as of date template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, I did not know about that template: 67–68 and 66–67? Am I not using this right? I know this sounds dumb but he doesn't look that old. How to do it given that variance? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current lede wording review for neutrality and rules compliance

[edit]

Christopher "Chris" Karl Mellon (born 1957 or 1958) is a former American civilian member of the Department of Defense and a Congressional staff member to the United States Senate, with a focus in defense and intelligence oversight from 1985 to 2017.[1] Mellon is credited with drafting the law that created the United States Special Operations Command.[2][3] After leaving government, he became an advocate for government transparency on the topic of unidentified flying objects (UFOs).[4][5]

This seems to be completely neutral and a basic summation of the entire article. I noticed @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: wrote here possibly too much "his side", which made me wonder if this was some under extra strict WP:FRINGE reading?

Per WP:LEDE, the lead’s job is to give a concise, neutral summary of the subject’s well‑sourced, most important facts, so identifying Mellon’s senior DoD and Senate intelligence posts and noting his later advocacy for government transparency on UFOs fully meets that obligation. Because the sentence about transparency makes no extraordinary claim about UFO origins, it is not "fringe content," and the heightened safeguards in WP:FRINGE or WP:BLPFRINGE do not apply. Instead, ordinary neutrality and proportional‑weight expectations in WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE govern, meaning coverage should simply reflect what high‑quality secondary sources say without promotional wording or gratuitous rebuttal. So long as every clause is backed by independent, reliable references in line with WP:BLP and the core sourcing rule WP:V, the lead needs no additional "challenge" language and is already policy‑compliant. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person I've been looking in the current article-sources for how they describe the Mellon-UFO "relationship." Here's what I've got:
Based on this, the lead-text seems good enough. Btw, check the links in the Huffpost ref, they don't seem right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article timeline, AfD and AfC: zero policy or rules based reason this should not pass

[edit]

Timeline:

Complete history of draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Christopher_Mellon&action=history&offset=&limit=5000

State of article at AfD and each AfC:

  1. AfD: https://archive.ph/mwthk
  2. AfC 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Christopher_Mellon&oldid=1287916603
  3. AfC 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Christopher_Mellon&oldid=1288598503
  4. AfC 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Christopher_Mellon&oldid=1289289048
  5. AfC 4 submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Christopher_Mellon&oldid=1289423951

At this point, I can see between the article and Draft talk:Christopher Mellon#Notability and References analysis absolutely zero policy or rules based reason this should not pass. It is beyond any claim of failure to achieve WP:GNG. You'd have to be deliberately ignoring rules and good faith to !vote Delete on an AfD against this version here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Hi @Very Polite Person, to help the next reviewer, please list the WP:THREE sources that establish notability (no more than 5) and no need for additional commentary. You can simply list the footnote numbers (like sources 5, 8, 10, 16). S0091 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List them here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Again, just a simple list. S0091 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got it:
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Kloor_Academies_Mellon_Mar_2019-1
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Marquis_Mellon_SOF_2011-02-01-2
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Military_Mellon_2022-03-07-10
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Levine_Spectator_Jul_2023-26
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Vice_Mellon_2020-10-20-27
Probably those out of all of these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person were the first two listed discussed in the AfD? Or are those new sources you found? S0091 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afaict, none of these 5 were mentioned in the afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I did not see it either but thought it best to double check with those more familiar. Thanks! Ok, I am going to accept it but of course being accepted via AfC does not prevent another AfD. However,I think with the new sources, the article at the very least would warrant a new AfD should someone be inclined to nominate it. S0091 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thanks, that's how I think of it too, and if someone wants to start a new afd, that's fair. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: I agree that this page is notable for the record and I think these sources are sufficient to demonstrate that. I also think that the article might benefit from some copyediting for npov since it quotes Mellon's beliefs at length and might be viewed as endorsing his claims. I'm going to place a cleanup tag on the page which can be removed when the article is edited (I might do it myself if I have time). Thanks for all your work improving the sources @Very Polite Person: you did a great job. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples of course no issue from my perspective with tagging the article with issues as that is part of the normal editing process.
I also suggest at some point in the not too distant future someone archiving most of the comments/discussion here (like as week maybe?) as the volume of comments is off-putting. I mean, no one is going to read thousands of words (WP:TLDR). I almost did not review the draft because of it. S0091 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: No kidding, I'll maybe give it a day just to make sure that the discussion is unambiguously stale. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples I think this discussion is good to stay just in case someone has concerns about notability, but yes, agree the other can go. NPOV should be a separate discussion if needed. S0091 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and archived the pre-today AFC-related stuff. That massive section was honestly more for me as a drafting tool--I usually do it locally but given the hijinks around sourcing and notability of these UFO-adjacent articles, I wanted it all transparent, and now we have an archival record of every passage related Mellon from each of those core ones at Talk:Christopher Mellon/Archive 1#Notability and References analysis as a future reference tool. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag and Mellon quotes

[edit]

Hi @BuySomeApples: in regard to your remark in the section above about NPOV worries from so many initial Mellon quotes, I've just taken a sledgehammer to my draft. There is now exactly four (4) UFO-related words directly attributed to Mellon only, and unless I'm missing them, none anywhere else either on any topic. All words are NPOV compliant and attributed to other authors, journalists, professionals and so on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just addendum--there should now be zero (0) Mellon quotes in the article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Very Polite Person: that definitely helped. I might end up making minor changes over the next few days but it's already a lot better. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure zero is the best balance, but have no opinion atm on what quotes to include. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher_Mellon#United_States_Special_Operations_Command

[edit]

Quote:

While drafting the bill, Mellon was unaware of an earlier United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) proposal on the SOF topic. Boykin noted in "The Origins of the United States Special Forces Command" that Mellon contributed many of the ideas in the reformation bill related to low-intensity conflicts. In a 1988 interview Mellon recalled that the SOF problem had been unknown to him when he first began drafting the legislation in early 1986. Mellon credited both Locher and Andrew Krepinevich's work in The Army and Vietnam.


Is the first and third sentence here about the same thing? Do we need both/any of them? Is the "SOF problem" that SOF needed rebuilding? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separate. The book mentions there was a few ideas from various stakeholders and participatns on how to deal with reforming SOF. USSTRATCOM had one. The "SOF problem" was the overall problem -- its separate, USSTRATCOM wasn't a problem, just another idea basically dealing with it, that Mellon didn't know about. He and Cohen (and many others) didn't know about the SOF issues overall when they basically sat down to work, and still didn't know about possible ideas when working through the problem. So separate matters connected. I think the wording could be clearer, but I think USSTRATCOM needs to be mentioned as a significant stakeholder with the two Senate sides/House side. IIRC there was another side/angle I saw mentioned elsewhere but wasn't Mellon specific. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insight on the News

[edit]

Per WP-aricle, I'm not sure this source is BLP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive. I put it in for balance reasons/the only other involved reporting I could find. Honestly, for something of this magnitude I was astonished how much more connected Mellon was than I realized, and I can't frankly remember seeing a Senator go to bat for a staffer like this ever before. It would be like a top-level White House secretary writing WSJ to say "fuck you, we're not firing my #1," or something. That was extraordinary. This was the only negative thing about him that I could find so far. The bizarre 2000-page SEC thing that was linked on a Dropbox of all things from some UFO evangelist or something in one article was about TTSA and not Mellon so would be grossly out of bounds for a WP:BLP. The best I could find was the WSJ saying make him a sacrificial lamb for being prominent, some right-wing journal saying "agreed cause our mystery source implies trouble" and then a US Senator defending him in turn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guerilla Skeptics Group

[edit]

Which individuals who have edited this page are a part of the guerilla skeptics group? The group that bands together to ridicule, delete and selectively edit UFO related topics and people pushing for extraterrestrial disclosure? Does the guerilla skeptics group have any federal agents on the pay roll? CIA, DIA, FBI, DoD? Would they know? Square octagon (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. It is not very good faith to be accusing your fellow editors of being deep-state shills - as well as being utter nonsense. CoconutOctopus talk 15:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended negative family history is inappropriate for a WP:BLP

[edit]

I have reverted this -- we don't put the dirty laundry of ancestors of WP:BLP subjects into their own articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290146774&oldid=1290146342

Wikipedia’s BLP and undue‑weight policies say you should include only material about a subject’s own life and career that’s directly relevant and reliably sourced. Detailed allegations about the views or activities of Mellon’s grandfather—however sensational—are neither about Chris Mellon himself nor necessary to understanding his notability, so they belong only if they had a demonstrable impact on him. Per WP:BLP (“Articles about living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy.”) and WP:UNDUE (“Material that is extraneous to the subject and unduly distracts from the topic should be avoided”), removing that ancestral baggage was the right move.

@Chetsford: -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite customary to include familial information in biographies, whether good, bad or indifferent. See, for example, the following FA-classed biographies: Spiro Agnew, Nelson Mandela, Joseph Barbera, Herman Vandenburg Ames, etc. Insofar as UNDUE, I doubt three sentences in a sprawling, 20 paragraph article, are out of proportion. Chetsford (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of those is a WP:BLP, which you are wholly aware of, and WP:BLP trumps your desire to include negative information about Mellons ancestors in the article, because it is a WP:BLP.
Per WP:BLP, “articles about living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy.” Per WP:UNDUE, “material that is extraneous to the subject and unduly distracts from the topic should be avoided.” Per WP:RELEVANCE, “content must pertain to the article’s subject.” Per WP:NPOV, “the neutral point of view policy requires that articles be written without bias and proportionately.” Per WP:FRINGE, “articles should not give undue weight to fringe theories or content.” Per WP:FRINGEBLP, “when writing biographies of living persons, content on fringe or sensational topics must be tightly bounded and directly relevant to the subject.”
Therefore, the detailed ancestral material about Christopher Mellon’s grandfather—while sourced—is neither directly relevant to Christopher Mellon himself nor proportionate to his biography, and must be removed. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely reject the idea that information on a person's immediate family is not relevant to the article in a section titled "family". As for the rest of your statement, you're just firing broadsides of irrelevant policies. There is nothing "fringe" about content examined in-depth in multiple WP:RS just because you don't feel it's illustrious enough for this article; there is no violation of a subject's "privacy" by providing information on immediate family members who have been deceased for 35 years, etc. Chetsford (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: I have reverted the edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290151780&oldid=1290150403 which inserted the appositive “the literary scholar, Nazi Party supporter, and Colby College trustee” for Matthew T. Mellon.
Per BLP policy, unsourced contentious material about private individuals (or their relatives) must be removed immediately. Additionally, per undue weight and relevance guidelines, extensive detail about Mr. Mellon’s grandfather’s political views—especially an extremist claim—does not directly pertain to Christopher Mellon’s own biography and is disproportionate to the rest of the article.
Re MOS:NOFORCELINK, note that WP:BLP always takes precedence over MOS; when BLP and MOS conflict, BLP will be followed at all times.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable secondary sources demonstrating its direct relevance to Christopher Mellon’s life or notability. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely undue for his grandson’s Wikipedia page, obviously. If sources on the grandson often discussed the grandfather’s relationship to Nazism, okay, but that’s not the case here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is it appropriate for an Admin to create an article just to put Nazi ancestral claims into a BLP? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should appositive descriptors be used for Matthew T. Mellon?

[edit]

Which of the following versions of this sentence should appear in the section titled "family"?

  1. He is the grandson[1] of Matthew T. Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American.[2]
  2. He is the grandson[1] of the literary scholar,[3] Colby College trustee,[4] and Nazi Party supporter[5][6][7] Matthew T. Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American.[8]

Chetsford (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2 - or 3 (remove all appositive descriptors from entire article) Per MOS:NOFORCELINK we should use appositive descriptors when an otherwise notable person or subject may not be common knowledge: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." The content is accurately sourced to multiple WP:RS and is not proscribed by WP:BLP as it neither impugns nor implies anything about the subject of the BLP himself. Further, the fact an alumnus of Colby College had a grandfather who was a trustee of Colby, etc., provides pertinent information for the reader. Finally, we're here to provide an encyclopedic treatment of a subject, not a burnished monument to that subject. Mr. Mellon has a personal website that can be used for the latter purpose. In the alternative, if we carve out an MOS exception for this article, we should apply it consistently throughout and remove all appositive descriptors for clarity and readability. Chetsford (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC); edited 11:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 -- User:Chetsford is wrong. WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:RELEVANCE are always, without exemption or option for consideration, higher‑order policies over anything in the MOS that forbid inserting an appositive listing Matthew T. Mellon’s “Nazi Party supporter” status unless it is directly relevant to Christopher Mellon and fully sourced. The Nazi allegation must be removed—or moved only if and when solid evidence shows its clear direct relevance to Christopher Mellon’s biography. WP:BLP forbids unsourced, contentious claims about living persons or their close relatives; the “Nazi Party supporter” tag is unsourced and must be removed. WP:UNDUE bars material extraneous to the subject; an ancestor’s extremist views have no direct bearing on Christopher Mellon’s biography. WP:RELEVANCE requires that content directly pertain to the article’s subject; detailed allegations about a long‑deceased grandfather fail that test. WP:NPOV mandates proportional, unbiased coverage; singling out a sensational ancestral claim skews balance. MOS is lesser and subordinate to BLP any time it comes up, no matter what, and content policies; when BLP/UNDUE/RELEVANCE conflict with an MOS guideline, the higher‑order policy wins. This version here in this link is fine. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 — I think a mere mention with wikilink is enough and does not lend the WP:UNDUE weight of descriptors for this one particular family member whose deeds and ideations are quite removed from this living person. JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 - The descriptors are redundant when Mellon's grandfather is WL'd, and like JFHJr said, verge on WP:UNDUE. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 — We wouldn't describe someone as a "grandchild of a Nazi" even if their grandfather had literally been a member of the Party. Feoffer (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "We wouldn't describe someone as a "grandchild of a Nazi" I'm pretty sure no one is suggesting that. Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, half of Europe are the "grandchildren of Nazis or Nazi sympathizers", but it's very rarely DUE on a bio. Feoffer (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, no one here has suggested editing the article to read he was "the grandchild of a Nazi". Chetsford (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show us any BLPs of modern living people where they have no WP:RS WP:BLP compliant link connecting the subject themselves to being Nazi supporters, where we spend even one sentence prominently highlighting the fact their grandparents or great-grandparents were Nazi supporters, let alone multiple sentences, where that Nazi support predated the notability--or life--of the BLP subject? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand, but the argument I'm making is that since we would NEVER stigmatize the grandchildren of ACTUAL Nazis by singling out their ancestry (absent RSes on the relevance), of course we shouldn't be undertaking any OR ideological genealogy projects to mark the grandchildren of mere sympathizers. It's a little shocking that it's even a suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you do understand. For the third time, no one is proposing to "mark" the grandchildren. Our manual of style simply suggests the use of appositive descriptors for subjects not widely known, which promotes readability. In this case, it happens to be that the person in question is best known as a Colby College trustee, literary scholar, and Nazi. The last bit is too bad, but we don't generally censor information just because it's sad.
    Since the appositive descriptors are being used about an entirely different person from Mellon, this is not a BLP issue, though of course I do understand the position of flying saucer fans who propose we only acknowledge the existence of his illustrious family members; but that type of statue-polishing is probably more appropriate for Chris' personal website. In any case, in a section about his family, it's customary and style-compliant to introduce appositive descriptors to explain to the reader who the family members (not Christopher) were. We use the appositive descriptor "judge", for instance, to introduce Thomas Mellon and no one is clutching their pearls. Chetsford (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand your argument, but like all others in the thread, I have to respectfully dissent from your logic. It would be UNDUE/OR/SYNTH for us to introduce a grandparent's political bias (absent more Reliable Sourcing linking the two). Feoffer (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely don't think you understand. MOS:NOFORCELINK simply says we shouldn't force people to click through hyperlinks to find out basic information on a subject that's been introduced and should use brief, appositive descriptors. Normally that's things like "the grandson of the Iowa legislator John Dow" or (as in the case of this very article) "judge Thomas Mellon". It just so happens that the person in question was best known as a Nazi, and not an Iowa legislator. Per WP:NPOV, we don't contort ourselves into a pretzel to avoid saying someone was a Nazi if, indeed, they were a Nazi. Chetsford (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the ancestor of the WP:BLP subject related to their notability? No argument--none--lets you get around WP:BLP. Please stop bringing up UFO things--that has nothing to do, in any way, no matter what, with THIS discussion. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't need to be. Or do we censor his BA degree from Colby College because that's not related to N? Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a single--one--example of precedent before the past 48 hours of any WP:BLP where the subject has nothing under WP:RS to do with Nazis themselves, but we then explicitly in the article body have called out they are the descendent of a Nazi or a Nazi supporter? Prove precedent and maybe I'll change my position. Show us. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 - Unless a large number of modern sources describe Christopher Mellon as such, this is not due. It may be that no mention of Matthew Mellon at all in this article is due, are there any sources which name both? If not, WP:OR comes into play.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 I saw this discussion mentioned at ANI and BLPN (and never heard of Christopher Mellon before). Unless his grandfather being a "Nazi Party sympathizer" has a significant impact on Mellon's life, I agree with others above that those descriptors aren't necessary per UNDUE and BLP. 2 feels like a sneaky way to slip the word "Nazi" into a BLP and creates the appearance of guilt by association. Some1 (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: When opining, can editors kindly clarify if they feel appositive descriptors generally should be omitted, or only the third appositive descriptor in the suggested second sentence (IOW keep that he was a Colby College trustee and literary scholar)? The third one — Matthew Mellon being a prominent American Nazi — is only one-third of the suggested sentence. Also, if you have an opinion as to whether all appositive descriptors should be excised throughout the entire article (as it's littered with them) that would also be helpful. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Either #1 or the "literary scholar" descriptor is fine. Some1 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of my own ignorance, I don't know if "Colby College trustee and literary scholar" are the best descriptors or not. But the idea of an appositive summary seems fine. Feoffer (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mellon attended Colby College. Isn't it helpful to the reader to know that his grandfather was a trustee and benefactor of that institution? Why does the reader need to be protected from being exposed to that verifiable information? Chetsford (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I literally don't know the man. If "Colby College trustee and literary scholar" are the best descriptors, that's fine! Feoffer (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If "Colby College trustee and literary scholar" are the best descriptors, that's fine!" And what if "Nazi Party supporter" is the best descriptor? (It is.) I'm having a hard time understanding any coherence in your position outside of what appears to be a desire to build a monument to the Mellon family. But I'm sure I'm wrong in that regard, I just am not sure how. Chetsford (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time understanding any coherence in your position outside of what appears to be a desire to build a monument to the Mellon family.
WP:AGF and WP:Civility violation. Consider yourself warned. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Consider yourself warned." Yikes!!! Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's consensus for version #1 above, with no appositive descriptors, so let's just go with that. Some1 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what if "Nazi Party supporter" is the best descriptor? Then you'd have RSes that explicitly discussing how the grandfather's political views are relevant to understand the living person Christopher, and it'd be fine. But it's not, cause you don't. appears to be a desire to build a monument to the Mellon family. I'm stunned by this accusation. As I've said before, I barely know who Mellon is, much less who his family is. I don't believe I've even edited the article! You asked me to look over your work, and I said I don't know, it looks fine so far as I can tell -- and then you accuse me of trying to build a monument? What have I "built"? lol. I suspect you may have mistaken me for some other editor who did contribute to the current article? No hard feelings, I get confused all the time about who is who. Feoffer (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Hay, Jean (April 28, 1983). "Content of Mellon Papers Disclosed". Bangor Daily News. Retrieved May 12, 2025.
  2. ^ "Mrs. Mellon Becomes Citizen". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. August 9, 1935. Retrieved May 13, 2025.
  3. ^ "Matthew T. Mellon '22". Princeton Alumni Weekly. Retrieved May 13, 2025.
  4. ^ "Colby Accepts Mellon Organ". Portland Press Herald. July 29, 1950. Retrieved May 13, 2025.
  5. ^ "A Plea for Unprincipled Education". Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. February 1938. Retrieved May 13, 2025. Mellon who, although a Harvard graduate student and an American citizen, is a Nazi enthusiast ...
  6. ^ "Mellon's Nephew Praises Hitler". Montreal Star. UPI. September 11, 1935. Retrieved May 13, 2025. Matthew Mellon ... expressed admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime as he sailed on the Europa today to lecture on American literature at the University of Freiburg. A Nazi flag was draped over Mellon's berth.
  7. ^ "Andy's Nephew Hurrahs for Hitler". The American Guardian. May 17, 1935. Retrieved May 13, 2025. Matthew T. Mellon, son of the president of Gulf Oil and grand-nephew of Andrew W. Mellon, declared in Pittsburgh his 'strong approval' of the Nazi regime in Germany and "the highest hopes for its ultimate success."
  8. ^ "Mrs. Mellon Becomes Citizen". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. August 9, 1935. Retrieved May 13, 2025.

Oversight

[edit]

There has been some discussion on this already, but I don't think how it is written reflects the source well. Currently, the article states: His work involved oversight of the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence organizations. That makes it sound as he was personally in charge of overseeing the agencies, rather than a member of the congressional committee that oversaw those agencies. The cited source says: "As part of his work in government, Mellon was part of a committee that was given oversight over all of the Defense Department’s special access programs, or SAPS, the government’s highly compartmentalized initiatives that are shrouded in secrecy. As such, you’d think that Mellon would be the perfect person." The source doesn't mention the NSA, at all. I propose to change: His work involved oversight of the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence organizations. to He worked as part of the congressional committee that oversaw Defense Department’s special access programs. [can also be: "was a member of", "sat on the committee for..", and so on.
I'm not denying that he was part of a committee that oversaw the NSA and other three-letter agencies, but the source provided doesn't say so. TurboSuperA+(connect) 07:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this modification. There has been significant fanciful wordplay in this BLP, like referring to "his time in the Senate" (he was never in the Senate) instead of "his time as a Senate staff member". The false claim that he "oversaw the National Security Agency" [2] — which implies Mellon led the NSA (i.e. was the director of the National Security Agency) — is one of those.
Also, I think that regardless of what the source says, we probably should not imply he was a member of the committee, but that he was one of the committee's staff. While this may be RS, the claim that a person who never served in Congress sat on a committee of Congress is so extraordinary that we can safely ignore it as an editorial error. (i.e. If Scientific American publishes "the moon is gold" we don't have to edit our article on the Moon to represent the moon is made of gold, we can assume an editorial error and they meant to write the moon is cold.) Chetsford (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of the guy before. I saw thread linked at ANI. After reading the lead about him, I assumed he was a member of the committee. I agree, no such implication should be made.
I also think his "UFO transparency advocacy" should be mentioned sooner, as that's what he seems to be famous for, rather than for his work as a member of US Intelligence staff. "For the better part of the last decade, Mellon has used his government bona fides to advocate for transparency surrounding the UFO issue." TurboSuperA+(connect) 09:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think his "UFO transparency advocacy" should be mentioned sooner, as that's what he seems to be famous for
That's what he's famous for in the modern media age, but apparently this guy was notable in his industry (defense, intelligence, government) long before this UFO stuff--to the point the Wall Street Journal wanted him explicitly as a sacrificial political lamb as a Senate staffer, the SOCOM work, his DOD work, and so on. The article is balanced for the scope of his topics and the chronology is based around the actual flow of his life by date and time, like any BLP ought to be. Where exactly would you put it? The lede by weight of topic is almost perfectly balanced against the body. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TurboSuperA+ that it's what he's best known for in any media age. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get consensus then. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we have it. Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How much earlier exactly can we put it than the lede? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence. Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a terrible suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290247102&oldid=1290246112
See? You get further in life by being polite and not hostile or aggressive. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is being hostile or aggressive towards you, VPP. No one here is out to get you. Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire tone is seeming to be unnecessarily provacative and inappropriately dominant in tone, the more we interact. I don't understand why. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry you feel that way and I feel at a complete loss about what I can do to address your ongoing and peculiarized concerns. That said -- and I don't mean to upset you when I say this -- please allow me to gently suggest these types of side discussions may be more appropriate for user Talk pages. For the sake of discursive coherence, I would happily invite you to continue it on my Talk page instead of here. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, come to my talk page. I insist. Want to help get this article to FA status? GA is first. I already have some DYK language in mind. -- Very Polite Person (talk) -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person: from what I've seen, you're the only one being "unnecessarily provacative and inappropriately dominant in tone" and "hostile or aggressive". Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not counter-challenge when challenged? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of boldly rewriting/rearranging the lead. I used this source as a general guide on what to call the roles he performed and how to refer to him. The article is quite recent, from March 2024, so I thought it was a good guide. Let me know what you think, @Chetsford and @Very Polite Person. TurboSuperA+(connect) 17:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, going to drop a couple tweaks -- per WP:LEAD we really cannot exclude his 30-year quite notable government career from the opening sentence. What was wrong with the prior version? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This part: "former Department of Defense civilian". I don't think "DoD civilian" is an actual position. I tried to be more accurate in what his jobs/roles were. TurboSuperA+(connect) 20:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, what's there now with my last edit--seems to hit all MOS/rules checkboxes and is clear:
Christopher “Chris” Karl Mellon (born 1957 or 1958) is an American former Department of Defense and United States Senate civilian staff member whose career from 1985 to 2017 focused on defense and intelligence oversight, and advocate for transparency in government investigations of UFOs.
Subject is nationality, former affilation with organization A and organization B as a civilian staffer from year x to year y, focused on ABC topics, and also is known for this stuff. Seems to basically hit the MOS/rules sweet spot. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's good. I'd just separate the clauses with a full stop, like so: Christopher “Chris” Karl Mellon (born 1957 or 1958) is an American former Department of Defense and United States Senate civilian staff member whose career from  1985 to  2017 focused on defense and intelligence oversight. Currently, he is an advocate for transparency in government investigations of UFOs. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14 year blank spot

[edit]

This sentence -- Mellon subsequently left government service and, by fall 2017, was working as a paid adviser to To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences (TTSA) -- makes it sound like he jumped from the government straight into flying saucer advocacy. It's rather abrupt and I think should be rewritten to more cogently reflect there's a 14 year interregnum here but I'm not certain how. Chetsford (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have no WP:RS I've found that covers it so we just have to leave it unaddressed at this point. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While we have to leave it unaddressed, yes, we don't have to present it to falsely imply that the seamlessly went from a government employee to a flying saucer barker. This will have to be rewritten. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specificy policy supporting your position. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
flying saucer barker
How is this not a WP:BLP violation? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed it. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your article edit is fine. Your WP:BLP violation here is not. Do you have to be needlessly hostile and rude? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP violation? Chetsford (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
flying saucer barker -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to call him? He'sHe was employed by To The Stars which produces flying saucer entertainment films [3], in which he stars. It's not a BLP violation to refer to someone's actual occupation. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC); edited 16:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's employed by To The Stars factually incorrect--he's not anymore.
You could just refer to the WP:BLP subject by name, or as "subject", or other things without all the clever bon mots. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and corrected. "You could just refer to the WP:BLP subject by name" So it would have been coherent had I instead written "... we don't have to present it to falsely imply that he seamlessly went from a government employee to a Christopher Mellon"? Huh? Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no justifiable reason for your constant UFO-this and emotional language-that about these various subjects. This is a WP:BLP. Do you see anyone else being needlessly hostile toward BLP subjects here? Are you attempting to evoke an emotional response from other editors? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no justifiable reason for your constant UFO-this and emotional language-that about these various subjects." To what are you referring? If you can be more specific, I'll do my best to address any concerns you have. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to engage in any games. I'm here to build an encylcopedia. Be polite. Be humble. Be civil. Stop tossing around terms here and elsewhere about this BLP with language like you have. Every single other user on this page is trying to be gracious and kind. That's all I'm asking you to do. Ego has no place here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I still don't know to what you're referring, I do agree with your generalized sentiment. Chetsford (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps rude, but not a BLP violation as "UFO barker" does summarize the cited sources in the article. Kloor says, "If Elizondo, Mellon, and the To The Stars Academy seem tobe working in the great American tradition of P. T. Barnum, the irony remains that the Pentagon may well have its own good reason for keeping the UFO story alive." It's closer to the spirit and conclusion of the source than "influential" and other positive quotes in the article from Kloor. I think it will be something of a nightmare to get this article to FA status, since the major sources needed for SIGCOV are so critical of the subject. When trying to establish NPOV, I see this recurring issue in the future where it will always be a debate because the subject lacks a published a biography that we could lean on. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be something of a nightmare to get this article to FA status, since the major sources needed for SIGCOV are so critical of the subject.
Why would we have to worry about sources critical of UFO things, when this is an article about Christopher Mellon? What SIGCOV are so critical of the BLP subject? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue edit about grandfather

[edit]

User:Boynamedsue, I partially reverted you here (2 edits):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290287708&oldid=1290286467

That part, at least, is sourced soundly (I checked). -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if that's the way you read it.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Christopher Mellon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 03:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GeogSage (talk · contribs) 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Good Article Criteria 4 I think this article is an immediate failure for the time being. It was just deleted, and then recreated. There is substantial argument/discussion on the talk page about content. I think this nomination should be revisited in a few months after a stable version is settled on. 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Gertrude aka Gertrud

[edit]

User:Rjjiii brought up a good question in User:Chetsford's RfC above here--what about Gertrude?

It's actually "Gertrud" per this source and her maiden name was "Gertrud Altegoer" per this source. They spell it Gertrud three times between two articles. I've happily re-added his meemaw here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As of 1978, Christopher had not yet met his grandfather, Matthew...."

[edit]

This content in the section Family:

As of 1978, Christopher had not yet met his grandfather, Matthew, though was the beneficiary of a trust fund established for him by the elder Mellon.

was removed by Some1 with this edit summary [4]: people leaving an inheritance to their grandchildren they haven't met in years is not unusual or noteworthy.

I posit that our standard for inclusion of content in an article is not whether or not something is unusual. In any case, however, the principal source (the Koskoff text) spends considerable page count discussing the distant relations between Karl and Christopher on the one hand, and what is presented as a cold and mercurial Matthew on the other, and I think a single sentence reflecting that is probably DUE. Thoughts? Chetsford (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is that this is probably something we should cover, but maybe use an inline quote from Koskoff to do so? The old text did feel a hair "off" in wikivoice, but I get what you're going for. Feoffer (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. I say we just keep it out -- at least for now -- and revisit down the road, if appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you know, on second thought, this might be WP:EXCESSDETAIL. The article is already quite unwieldy and trying to fit in everything possible might not be good from a readability standpoint. In retrospect, I'm fine with its removal. Chetsford (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the way the sentence is written gives off "He's a trust fund baby!!!" vibes. I don't think I've ever seen something like that ("[BLP subject] was the beneficiary of a trust fund...) before in a biography, unless it's part of their notability. If it's not part of their notability, then it seems like trivia. I don't object to adding information about Christopher and Matthew's relationship if there are sources discussing that. Some1 (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're right. Better to just omit it. Chetsford (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Kean labeled UFO enthusiast on Christopher Mellon by User:ජපස

[edit]

Hello User:ජපස -- with this edit here to Christopher Mellon, you did the following:

Edit summary: It is useful for the reader to know that Kean's career is basically that of a booster for UFO-related stories.

Original passage:

Mellon and TTSA played a role in the publication of the ''[[New York Times]]'' report ''"Glowing Auras and 'Black Money': The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program"'', with journalist [[Leslie Kean]] telling the ''[[The New Yorker]]'s'' Gideon Lewis-Kraus that Mellon and [[Luis Elizondo]] were responsible for the creation of the article.<ref name="Lewis New Yorker 2021-04-30" /><ref name="Levine Spectator Jul 2023" /><ref name="Vice Mellon 2020-10-20" />

You added:

and UFO enthusiast

Turning the passage into this (bold is the added text):

Mellon and TTSA played a role in the publication of the ''[[New York Times]]'' report ''"Glowing Auras and 'Black Money': The Pentagon's Mysterious U.F.O. Program"'', with journalist and UFO enthusiast [[Leslie Kean]] telling the ''[[The New Yorker]]'s'' Gideon Lewis-Kraus that Mellon and [[Luis Elizondo]] were responsible for the creation of the article.<ref name="Lewis New Yorker 2021-04-30" /><ref name="Levine Spectator Jul 2023" /><ref name="Vice Mellon 2020-10-20" />

Both Leslie Kean and Christopher Mellon are WP:BLPs. You may not be aware, but this article here is currently under substantial and sustained WP:BLP scrutiny as a result of two active discussions:

Could you please explain the explicit Wikipedia rule or policy that supports and justifies this edit by you? Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the editor in question and have no opinion on the matter one way or the other, however, Kean is referred to as a "UFO enthusiast" by the Center for Inquiry[5] and by Keith Kloor[6] and Jason Colavito,[7] (the latter two of whom are probably experts on the subject under WP:USESPS) and as a "UFO journalist" by the Columbia Journalism Review [8] and the Columbia Daily Tribune[9], among several similar treatments. But, again, I take no position on the underlying question -- as I haven't had time to study it -- just pointing this out. Chetsford (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kloor is RS for his editorially reviewed work, like we use--there's no way we can use his personal blog on Substack. Are that skeptics club and Colavito WP:RS? If so, that's an argument for Leslie Kean the article to say that if compliant with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. We don't put "cautions" on quoted journalists typically in other articles. This seems like a dire thing to attempt here given the ongoing scrutiny and strident WP:BLP adherence we should all pursue. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can't use even expert SPS in BLP and I didn't mean to imply we could. I was merely making an observation, which is why I said I took no position on the underlying question. "Are that skeptics club " There have been past discussions about the use of Skeptical Inquirer in BLPs and I'm not clear as to where the consensus landed off the top of my head. But there are ample sources calling her a UFO journalist (I didn't list them all above, but e.g. here [10] and lots of other places). Maybe instead of either "journalist Leslie Kean" or "journalist and UFO enthusiast Leslie Kean" we just put "UFO journalist Leslie Kean" and call it a day? Chetsford (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What policy supports putting the UFO qualifier there as a baseline consideration and requirement to be considered in the first place? I'm not familiar with such a custom. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have journalist in front of her name? Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have journalist in front of her name?
I'd actually been looking up the guidance around this after starting this section to keep things 5x5...
  • MOS:CREDENTIALS makes clear that a short occupational label is the accepted way to convey a person’s relevance or expertise without resorting to honorifics or long parenthetical explanations.
  • MOS:LEADBIO establishes the “first-mention” principle; editors extend that practice to any notable person who appears in the body text as a source.
  • MOS:CAPS tells us the word should be lowercase, immediately before the name, and not treated as a formal title.
So a construction such as "According to journalist Art Levine" or "Historian Fred Kaplan" is supported; it satisfies the context requirement in MOS:CREDENTIALS, follows the first-mention convention in MOS:LEADBIO, and obeys the capitalization rule in MOS:CAPS § Titles of people.
Am I reading this wrong? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid ambiguity and the potential for misinterpretation by me, would you mind quoting the portion of MOS:CREDENTIALS that says we should use occupational labels in front of the names of people mentioned in articles? Chetsford (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I asked Am I reading this wrong? just now, I wanted your opinion on that interpretation. I interpreted professional titles there initially to include your occupational title--engineer, baker, candle stick maker. Plus, it's how I've always seen this done... on basically any article, it seems. That seemed to make against that inclusion of that link to professional title there. If not that, why do we put that kind of qualifier on people's names on every third Wikipedia article...? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without knowing the specific text in MOS:CREDENTIALS to which you're referring, I can't really answer. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know this discussion stopped a few days ago, just to clear it out I think you misunderstood MOS:CREDENTIALS.
The guideline seems to be for those types of title that confer "authority" to the name attached to it. Something like Doctor or Professor. The guidelines tells us to avoid those titles, unless it's already "become" the name of the person, that is, the person is widely, maybe even better, known with the title than without (for example, Doctor Mike). 2804:14D:E646:83AB:B529:DB07:5A5F:935D (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reader deserves to know that Leslie Kean is a ufology booster. However we put that is fine, but to simply call her a "journalist" without context is misleading. jps (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reader deserves to know that Leslie Kean is a ufology booster. However we put that is fine, but to simply call her a "journalist" without context is misleading.
May I again inquire what explicit policy supports your position in this? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P. We are supposed to give the reader information. Not hide information. Kean is not an independent journalist. She is explicitly embedded within the UFO community and that is evident from her biography on this site and basically everywhere you investigate. Hope that helps! jps (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, actually, and I haven't been able to find any justifiable way in the past day under our policies and guidelines to support this inclusion. Do you have anything to buttress the edit's validity beyond your own individual views, that would survive a challenge against policy? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since competence is required and I explained myself as completely as can be expected, I guess the question now falls back on you. Do you think Kean is not a UFO booster? jps (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The duty is on the editor who wishes to include information in the encyclopedia Article space to justify it under policy. Back to you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already did so. At this point you are WP:SEALIONing. jps (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be crystal clear, and for transparency, you have supplied no policy or guideline that supports this edit at this time. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lie. I provided the policy above. WP:5P jps (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 5 supports an unsourced label on WP:BLP that is not even listed on her own article at Leslie Kean? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it unclear, ask for a Third opinion. At this point you are WP:SEALIONing. A reasonable discussant can understand my point and deal with is substantively... something you have steadfastly refused to do. jps (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see what others will say. I have under WP:BLP guidance applied {{cn}} to the claim. Eventually, and your consent has no consideration in the matter, it will have to be removed per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is rather explicit:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Let's see what others say. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is contentious? Be specific. jps (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is on her own page. She writes books on UFOs and the afterlife. The biography clearly indicates her slant. jps (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is on her own page.
Nowhere on the live version of her WP:BLP does it say anything like "ufo enthusiast" or "ufo proponent" from any source listed. What explict source here supports your assertation about this WP:BLP? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't understand that this is a polite and decent summary of what is essentially her life's work, I'm not convinced you are discussing with me in good faith. Let's indeed see what others think about whether Leslie Kean is just a disinterested, non-involved journalist or whether she is caught up in the UFO hoopla. jps (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is everyone to be humble and deferential to WP:BLP, and to recall that our tastes are irrelevant. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be falling into WP:CRYBLP territory by not dealing with the substance of my argument. jps (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I wanted was sources. As is my right, obligation and duty as an editor. User:Chetsford has supplied some below. I encourage someone to properly source the claim lest any editor can immediately remove it with the full authority of WP:BLP behind them. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once someone starts talking about their "rights" vis-a-vis Wikipedia, I get very suspicious. This is a collaborative space with the goal of trying to convey as accurately and appropriately as possible what is known about a subject. Editors don't have "rights". They have obligation to the goals of the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any of us are always entitled--and yes, we may call it a right--to insist upon sourcing for any Article text that touches WP:BLP. Per... WP:BLP. My request is satisifed, so long as someone integrates the sources. This was thus a collaborative effort. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly in keeping with your moniker, you could have just asked for a source up front, for example. Using policy as a weapon is a form of WP:Wikilawyering and strikes me as tendentious. I would ask you to adjust your approach. jps (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectully ask you as well to not add unsourced material about a living person to a BLP article. I very respectfully asked you to justify your edit in my "OP". All the rest of this seems to be unrequired discussion. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did so in a fashion that made it more-or-less impossible to understand what your point is. The plain reading of your argument is that Leslie Kean is not a booster of UFO stories. If that is truly your contention, then either you are an agenda-driven editor hoping to mislead the reader into believing that Kean is a journalist who is not involved in this story in a heavy fashion or you are simply clueless on the subject. Since you have steadfastly refused to deal with the substance of my position, I think there is plenty of evidence here that you are acting in bad faith. jps (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was obvious in my wording. Did you have a valid reason to make the edit? Your position is irrelevant--nothing unsourced is allowed in a WP:BLP. Now it's sourced and the matter resolved. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was not. I still don't know what you think was contentious about calling Leslie Kean a UFO enthusiast. You have not explained it and, instead, claim you aren't under any obligation to explain it. But we're supposed to be collaborating here and it doesn't help when people refuse to discuss matters plainly. jps (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This, instead, is my last reply: I have explained it. No editor is authorized to put unsourced content into a WP:BLP. That's it. I was being deferential and gracious to you and allowed you to explain the edit. You had no need to launch this entire ambiguous debate. Good day. I will consider further engagement on this settled matter to be disruptive. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You claim the content was not sourced. It was sourced. By continuing to claim it was not sourced, you are continuing to make an implicit argument that I have been asking over and over again for you to make explicit. No matter. If you continue in this fashion, I'm sure we will encounter this problem again. jps (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"paranormal writer" Based on the below list, I suggest we call her a paranormal writer. The title "paranormal writer" is most accurate to what RS refer to her as. On the basis that all UFOs are paranormal, but not all paranormal are UFOs, it seems that virtually all RS either directly or indirectly call her a "paranormal something". Given the choice between journalist, reporter, writer, etc., I think "writer" is more accurate to reflect the multi mediums in which she's worked (e.g. books, newspapers, blogs, etc.). Ergo, "paranormal writer" is probably most true to sources and reality. Chetsford (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's more-or-less fine. The best in-depth gonzo journalism on Leslie Kean is this New Yorker piece. The author is first taken with her claims to neutrality but slowly comes to understand that she basically falls into the same credulous camp as the rest of the UFO boosting/grifting community. jps (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways Leslie Kean is described

[edit]

A non-exhaustive list ... feel free to add to it. Chetsford (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust the Leslie Kean article to support the label here. Thanks. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, but it's not necessary these two articles are in alignment. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I encourage someone who is keen to keep that point on Kean in the article to properly source it, or else some editor has full policy-supported authority to remove it, regardless of anyone's position. WP:BLP is our highest order policy. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a policy meant to protect people. But you haven't explained what we are protecting Leslie Kean from. Are we supposed to just intuit it from your bludgeoning? jps (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Does WP:BLP not mandate that? Just source it on-wiki properly and we're done. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The material was sourced. I would argue now that we are entering the realm of WP:Citation overkill in response to requests that appear to me to be made in bad faith. I assume good faith until I get evidence to the contrary. This discussion is evidence to the contrary. jps (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The material was sourced.
Please forgive me -- can you please show me exactly where, prior to this edit, it was explicitly sourced to WP:RS in compliance with WP:BLP, that we have available on-wiki sources that identified in an obvious way that Leslie Kean was a "UFO enthusiast"? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Literally every source that discusses Kean in any depth describes her work as being deeply embedded with UFO boosting activity. I am not exaggerating here. Choose whichever source you would like. jps (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What source on-wiki prior to your edit supported your edit in compliance with WP:BLP? I'm not trying to get you in any trouble and don't want to do anything DR related here. In fact I want to be done with this article and move back to my more interesting projects. I would simply like you to show me where it was sourced on-wiki before your edit. Or, you or sommeone can just edit the article to clear the CN tag. I don't care either way as long as the article is WP:BLP compliant. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am so very close to taking this up with admins. You have already received notice that this topic is under WP:CTOP. Is that what you want? Do you want your actions here scrutinized by the WP:AE brigade? jps (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What actions? Asking for a non-sourced statement about a WP:BLP to be sourced? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you finally sourced it as required by WP:BLP right here. Thanks. That's literally all I wanted. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But, crucially, you did not ask for that explicitly. You could have posted, "could we have a source for Leslie Kean being a UFO proponent"? Instead, you treated the talkpage like it was a courtroom. jps (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're a veteran editor, so I initially assumed you had some RS and had forgotten it, but noticed none on-wiki when I checked. That's why I didn't (as I was entitled to under policy) immediately revert your edit and asked instead. I figured you had a good reason for the edit, and wanted to ask what it was based on the logical inference on your veteran status that you thus had a sound rules interpretation backing your change. I figured I was missing some policy-based context that made it a-ok. Honestly, that's it. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "good reason" for the edit is that it was true, and if you truly believed that it wasn't true, that would have been one thing. If you had started from the premise that it was true but probably deserved a source to help the reader, that would have been another. But instead you adopted the approach of bad-faith argumentation that has all the markings of WP:CRYBLP. Adjust your approach, please. jps (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjust your approach, please
Sure. Never insert unsourced data into a WP:BLP again, please, as well. This article is basically out of things to really touch up now beyond copy editing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could have just left it at that you would adjust your approach. Instead, you are doubling down with commands that beg the question. So you aren't adjusting your approach. jps (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should both just step away at this point. Neither of us really needs the last word. The article is sorted. Good day. I won't be replying on this subtopic now as I consider it resolved. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rewrite of family section

[edit]

I submit the following rewrite of the Family section for consideration from this version [23]. This rearranges a few things and also acknowledges Mellon had a mother, Ann, instead of making it seem like he only had one parent. It also more clearly identifies siblings and his relationship to them. It also eliminates the word "judge" from Thomas Mellon in the first paragraph. The added information is from the Koskoff text.[1]

Christopher Mellon is a member of the Mellon family and a descendant of both Thomas Mellon and William Larimer Mellon Sr., co-founder of Gulf Oil. He is the grandson of Matthew T. Mellon and Gertrud (née Altegoer) Mellon.
His parents were Karl Negley Mellon, a truck driver and fishing boat crewman, and Ann with whom Karl eloped as a teenager. Raised in Chicago, Christopher Mellon described his early years as "under difficult circumstances". Karl suffered from bipolar disorder — as did Mellon's half-brother Matthew Taylor Mellon — and divorced Ann for a second wife whom he wed in what Mellon family chronicler David Koskoff described as a society marriage. Karl had little contact with son Christopher. In adulthood, the two redeveloped a relationship prior to the elder Mellon's death by suicide in 1983.
Christopher Mellon has at least three siblings: two half-siblings from his father's second marriage, including Matthew Taylor; and a sister from his father's first marriage to Ann.

Any thoughts, opinions, objections, endorsements? Chetsford (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, we'd split a section like this into "Early life" and "Personal life". Perhaps add vitals (birth - death) to ancestors and more descriptors? Who was a teenager, Ann or Karl? or both? Run-on sentence -- one minute he's a kid in Chicago, the next he's a grown man getting a divorce!? multi-decade jump mid sentence is jarring, Move this to personal life. Some of the stuff needs to be very well-source -- "divorced for a second wife" is a BIG claim for a BLP, we need a LOT of sourcing on that. Half-brother having BPD also needs really good sourcing to show it's DUE -- do RSes talk about his brother's condition affecting the subject? But overall, looks like a valuable addition. Feoffer (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Also, the part about the brother is extant to the article and I agree should be removed. Chetsford (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

  1. ^ Koskoff, David (1978). The Mellons : the chronicle of America's richest family. Crowell. pp. 528–529, 563–565. ISBN 0690011903.

Advocacy

[edit]

I don't agree with the use of the word "advocate" in the lead regarding Mellon. Nor do I agree with the subtitle "UFO advocacy" regarding Mellon. Reliable sources need to say he is an advocate or engaged in advocacy. I see that he has gone public, he has testified before Congress, and I think he has been interviewed regarding his point of view. But I don't think this is the same as being an advocate. The Popular Mechanics citation / source recounts some of Mellon's experiences and decision making [24]. Where does it say he chose to be an advocate?

Also comparing the lead sentence where it says that Mellon "is an advocate for transparency in government investigations of UFOs" with the section title: "UFO advocacy" seems to be saying two different things. Being an "advocate" for government transparency is not the same as advocating for UFOs as in the section title "UFO advocacy." And what does "UFO advocacy" mean anyway? Additionally, advocate for transparency and UFO advocacy might appear to be WP:SYNTH. I'm thinking this article should strive for more accuracy beyond simply saying "advocate" or "advocacy" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a solution, but this is a good point. Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to be really specific we can refer to him as a "UFO disclosure advocate".[1][2][3] Chetsford (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is an advocate for transparency in government investigations of UFOs"
I wrote that into the lead and I will tell you why -- that is how he is described in WP:RS: For the better part of the last decade, Mellon has used his government bona fides to advocate for transparency surrounding the UFO issue. [25]
I agree that "Advocating for UFOs" makes no sense, which is why I edited it out of the lead with a description from an RS. If you want to rename the "UFO advocacy" section, go right ahead. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. Based on this discussion, I am thinking that saying "UFO disclosure advocate" might not be understandable to the lay reader that comes along. So I think it might be best to keep what we have in the lead. It is good enough - and that is just my opinion. I would like to change that section heading, but I don't know to what. I'll think about it. And maybe someone else has an idea about what it could or should be. Regards ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hibberd, James (January 22, 2025). "'Age of Disclosure' UFO Documentary Trailer Touts "Biggest Discovery in Human History"". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved May 25, 2025. Former Department of Defense official and longtime UAP disclosure advocate Christopher Mellon declares, "This is the biggest discovery in human history," while former Department of Defense official and member of the government's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program Luis Elizondo says, "You have information being locked away that can change the trajectory of [our] species."
  2. ^ Lytle, Stewart (January 29, 2025). "Are UFOs Real?". The Town Common. Retrieved May 25, 2025.
  3. ^ Matthews, Dylan (June 18, 2021). "UFOs are real. That's the easy part. Now here's the hard part". Vox. Retrieved May 27, 2025. Elizondo, Mellon, Fravor, and other UFO disclosure advocates and ex-pilots do not just dispute this argument but are actively infuriated by it.