Login
Login

Talk:Christopher Mellon#Extended negative family history is inappropriate for a WP:BLP

{{GA nominee|03:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)|nominator= -- Very Polite Person (talk)|page=1|subtopic=Politics and government|status=|note=|shortdesc=Former civilian member of the Department of Defense, Congressional staffer, and UFO advocate}}

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start |blp=yes |listas=Mellon, Christopher |1=

{{WikiProject Articles for creation |ts=20250508180851 |reviewer=S0091 |oldid=1289439641}}

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Biography}}

{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=}}

}}

{{Old AfD multi

|date= 9 April 2025

|result=delete

|page=Christopher Mellon

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

| age =2160

| archiveprefix =Draft talk:Christopher Mellon/Archive

| numberstart =1

| maxarchsize =75000

| header ={{Archive}}

| minkeepthreads =5

| format = %%i

}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}}

Christopher Karl Mellon, born 1958

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)

: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)

::Neat, I did not know about that template: {{Age as of date|45|2003|March|12}} and {{Age as of date|49|2007|June|30}}? 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)

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1289155503&oldid=1289150580] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Current lede wording review for neutrality and rules compliance

{{Blockquote| text= 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 {{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AChristopher_Mellon&diff=1289242014&oldid=1289236182 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)

:@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:

:*[https://issues.org/ufos-wont-go-away/ Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have requested details on Pentagon’s UFO program; ... Influential to this effort is Mellon]

:*[https://gizmodo.com/another-ufo-report-is-a-bust-so-why-do-so-many-people-1851331674 One influential figure who, at many times, has played a prominent role in helping deliver information about the UFO subject to the broader public is Christopher Mellon.]

:*[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/tim-mellon-maga-mega-donor made headlines when he joined a small group of former officials with security clearances who came forward to reveal secret government studies of UFOs and to sound the alarm about the security threat they pose.]

:*[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/ufos-former-insider-says-pentagon-doesnt-care/9542484 Mellon, an adviser to TTSA]

:*[https://web.archive.org/web/20171219022407/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/12/18/the-government-admits-it-studies-ufos-so-about-those-area-51-conspiracy-theories/?utm_term=.94e33cf1b3e5 Mellon, who now works with UFODATA, a private organization]

:*[https://web.archive.org/web/20171216172629/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html Mellon ... aims to raise money for research into U.F.O.s.]

:*[https://web.archive.org/web/20210628020847/https://www.vox.com/22463659/ufo-videos-navy-alien-drone the man who would become his main partner in UFO evangelism, Christopher Mellon.]

: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)

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

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Christopher_Mellon&oldid=1289423951 this version here]. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Notability

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)

:List them here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yep. Again, just a simple list. S0091 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You got it:

:::# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Kloor_Academies_Mellon_Mar_2019-1

:::# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Marquis_Mellon_SOF_2011-02-01-2

:::# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Military_Mellon_2022-03-07-10

:::# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Levine_Spectator_Jul_2023-26

:::# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Mellon#cite_note-Vice_Mellon_2020-10-20-27

:::Probably those out of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Christopher_Mellon#Notability_and_References_analysis all of these]. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@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)

:::::Afaict, none of these 5 were mentioned in the afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@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)

:::::::@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)

::::::::{{re|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 {{re|Very Polite Person}} you did a great job. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@BuySomeApples of course no issue from my perspective with tagging the article with issues as that is part of the normal editing process.

:::::::::{{pb}}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)

::::::::::{{re|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)

:::::::::::@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)

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)

NPOV tag and Mellon quotes

Hi {{ping|BuySomeApples}} in regard to your remark in the section above about NPOV worries from so many initial Mellon quotes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1289481675&oldid=1289465467 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)

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

:Thanks {{re|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)

::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)

[[Christopher_Mellon#United_States_Special_Operations_Command]]

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)

: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)

''[[Insight on the News]]''

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

: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)

Guerilla Skeptics Group

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)

: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)

Extended negative family history is inappropriate for a [[WP:BLP]]

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.

{{ping|chetsford}} -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::{{ping|Chetsford}} I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=1290153022&oldid=1290151780 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)

{{ping|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)

Should appositive descriptors be used for Matthew T. Mellon?

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

  1. He is the grandson{{cite news |last1=Hay |first1=Jean |title=Content of Mellon Papers Disclosed |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/662799073/ |access-date=May 12, 2025 |work=Bangor Daily News |date=April 28, 1983}} of Matthew T. Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American.{{cite news |title=Mrs. Mellon Becomes Citizen |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/91050911 |access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |date=August 9, 1935}}
  2. He is the grandson of the literary scholar,{{cite news |title=Matthew T. Mellon ’22 |url=https://paw.princeton.edu/memorial/matthew-t-mellon-22 |access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=Princeton Alumni Weekly}} Colby College trustee,{{cite news |title=Colby Accepts Mellon Organ |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/848437923 |access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=Portland Press Herald |date=July 29, 1950}} and Nazi Party supporter{{cite news |title=A Plea for Unprincipled Education |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40220016|quote=Mellon who, although a Harvard graduate student and an American citizen, is a Nazi enthusiast ...|access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors |date=February 1938}}{{cite news |title=Mellon's Nephew Praises Hitler|agency=UPI|quote=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.|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/740242454 |access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=Montreal Star |date=September 11, 1935}}{{cite news |title=Andy's Nephew Hurrahs for Hitler |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/594525481 |quote=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." |access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=The American Guardian |date=May 17, 1935}} Matthew T. Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American.{{cite news |title=Mrs. Mellon Becomes Citizen |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/91050911 |access-date=May 13, 2025 |work=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette |date=August 9, 1935}}

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

2 - Per MOS:NOFORCELINK we should use appositive descriptors when an otherwise notable person or subject may not be common knowledge: {{xt|"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. Chetsford (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&oldid=1290154275#Family This version here in this link is fine]. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

{{reflisttalk}}

Oversight

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: {{tq|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: {{tq|"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: {{tq|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)

: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" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Mellon&diff=prev&oldid=1290146236] — 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)

::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. {{tq|"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)