Talk:George Knapp (television journalist)

Edward E. Murrow National Award
Despite my best efforts, I have been unable to find any confirmation of Knapp ever winning the Edward E. Murrow National Award in 2004. That his info does not include what did he win the other awards for (and when), his entire 'career' is another indicator that there's something wrong in all of this. Importance? Not much of it, except that Knapp's work is cited as evidence to support outlandish claims of Bob Lazar in another Wiki article. Someone should deal with it. Marko Parabucki (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Marko Parabucki
 * I looked into the purported UPI award in 1990 - which seems unlikely. The UPI was only a shadow of its former self by then, and was in bankrupcty.  That was the period of time when Chuck Harder and his associates was attempting to buy UPI. Their awards page  (this is awards they received, not gave) ends abruptly at 1976.  I'm going to be bold and declare the entire awards paragraph to be a defacto self-published source for which independent sources are needed.  The local Emmy awards can be confirmed for at least the last two years, but it is my opinion that each one needs to be listed and identified so that readers/editors can confirm the existence of each award and judge their significance to his credentials as a journalist.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph regarding "media reports" about his work at the public relations firm and cleaned up the related POV bias regarding the purported assocation with the nuclear waste facility. The supplied reference gets a 404 error and is not available in archive.org. Regarding his "Emmy" awards, they are local Emmy awards within the local media area. Depending on the source, he has between 8 and 20 of them, but they should not be confused with the national awards. Local Emmys are commonly used to dress up a media person's biography.StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The UFORC "reference" is to a web site that isn't responding. One of the requirements to be a credible source is that it is not a group actively promoting a fringe point of view. That begs the question of what would be an example of a reliable source on the topic of UFOs for which I don't have an answer. I'm not removing it, just questioning it... (and no, I'm not a grey, at least I don't think so).StreamingRadioGuide (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Awards
I'm going to try and verify his claimed awards with some good sources. From what I understand most of his emmys are claimed for the show "Street talk", he also claims mark twain awards. I think only one of his awards was for his UFO work, the rest were for far more mundane subjects.

Here's the first one I found:

http://www.nataspsw.org/emmy2007.asp

"Specialty Reporting: Environment · Water Grab, George Knapp, Matthew Adams, KLAS-TV · California Condors, Wendy Thies, KSBY-TV · Cementerio de Llantas, Claudia Rodriguez, KBNT Univision San Diego"

The mention of KLAS-TV there should make it certain it's the same Knapp in my opinion.

the emmy pages only seem to have recent winners, the same with the mark twain awards at http://www.aptra.com/ Also, some of the ones he won may have been as awards to KLAS for news, not knapp in particular, but his team.

It seems really tough to research this online, in part due to the flood of sites that will not be deemed RS, due the UFO content. This is the closest I found to a reliable site, and while the site may be deemed OK, as a mainstream news source, it appears to be just a standard bio, so who knows what level of fact check went into that:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=175403

Will try and find more...

Whothewhat (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This might be of interest if it's also a real print book, the S&S site seems to show it as download..

http://www.simonsays.com/content/destination.cfm?tab=6&pid=503341

Whothewhat (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does Knapp have a question mark next to his notability?
Wikipedia itself references George Knapp as a long-time host of Coast_to_Coast_AM, the 14th most listened to radio show in North America and dominant in its time slot for more than 15 years. A nationally and internationally syndicated radio show with a US weekly audience of 2.75m unique weekly listeners in the fully cited List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs wiki page. This alone makes a journalist and broadcaster notable, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbyyy (talk • contribs) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Knapp (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307081414/http://www.uforc.com:80/news/KLAS-TV_Knapp_UFOCRC_111006.htm to http://www.uforc.com/news/KLAS-TV_Knapp_UFOCRC_111006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes by WP:SPAs
Regarding this much needed rollback to the last good version of the article: recent changes had left the article looking like a whitewashed WP:RESUME. WP:SPAs had been watering down sourced criticism, adding WP:PUFFERY that is unsourced or sourced to promotional materials etc. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, press releases or publicity materials that are unduly self-serving, involve claims about third parties, and weight the article so it is based primarily on such sources should be avoided.

Since Knapp is best known for and primarily engaged in the promotion of ufo conspiracy theories, WP:FRINGE and WP:FRINGEBLP apply to this article. We need to avoid using sources that promote or merely repeat WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims uncritically. WP:FRIND sources are best to use when describing extraordinary claims. When extraordinary or fringe claims are made, a rough WP:PARITY of sources can help provide critique or analysis of those claims.


 * "George Knapp was (and still is) very much a believer in aliens, having built a considerable segment of his career in promoting the claims of Area 51 confabulator Bob Lazar as factual. " Skeptical Inquirer
 * "a dangerous new rage that is overtaking some conspiracy-oriented UFO believers and influencers, who are demanding “disclosure now” by the government about its purported encounters with aliens. Helping to fuel this rage, broadcaster George Knapp and filmmaker Jeremy Corbell, whose Netflix movie promoted hoax “scientist” Bob Lazar, claim the government has a live alien and crashed vehicles it hasn’t told us about." Washington Spectator
 * "George Knapp is the go-to journalist for all things concerning To The Stars, or Bob Lazar, Robert Bigelow, or anything UFOlogical for that matter. Knapp doesn’t care if a story is true or not, so long as it boosts his ratings." Skeptic Magazine
 * "In the middle 1990s Bigelow began funneling money from his hotel business into the study of fringe science, particularly UFOs and the paranormal. This is when he crossed paths with Las Vegas journalist George Knapp, another longtime Democrat, and UFO nut. Knapp had been reporting incredible (literally and figuratively) stories about Area 51 and government UFO secrets since the 1980s, but in 1991 Knapp left his journalism career to do public relations work for a company representing advocates of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The company attempted unsuccessfully to lobby Sen. Harry Reid, who had been elected in 1987 and opposed the waste site. But the connections formed would play an unwitting role in creating the UFO research funding decades later." Jason Colavito
 * "Grusch had close ties with the usual suspects—prepped by Chris Mellon, advised by George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell, flanked by a UFO documentary crew," Jason Colavito
 * Various criticism of Knapp Jason Colavito
 * "George Knapp is a journalist who turns up absolutely anywhere there might be a good story about UFOs." Robert Scheaffer, Badufos

There is likely more critical analysis of Knapp and his work available. The article should not be avoiding it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, self-published blogs (by Colavito or anyone else) are never to be used in BLPs per WP:EXPERTSPS and WP:BLPSPS. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent Changes
Wikipedia is a source for the public, and therefore should remain a source of integrity without bias. George Knapp is a public figure who has spent many years as a respected mainstream news investigative reporter in Las Vegas, NV.

Shortly after my edits as a wiki editor I was accused of conflict of interest (the COI was amended to add a clause that I was being paid to edit this page), with no basis of fact to try and deter me and the next step was to remove my page edits by the same person who handed me a COI.

I have only added facts to this wiki page, after researching George Knapp, and then added relevant citations. Facts that are all public information. I have improved this page and I believe I have improved Wikipedia as a source for data integrity.

Because this page has to do with what some consider "fringe", paranormal and UFO related, some of the information added in the past has been opinion driven, and not fact based giving George Knapp's page a one sided slanted negative view of his work. All sides of the issue should be represented but not as bias. Bias can ruin a persons character, affect their job, and can have a adverse affect on public opinion, which is not the intent of Wikipedia.

Providing facts, and locations, and events are appropriate. Wikipedia should not be a source of disinformation. DuncanGT (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have only added facts and Wikipedia should not be a source of disinformation. Wikipedia policies and guidelines require all editors to add content that is sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources. It does not matter if you, me, or any other editor thinks/believes/knows/assumes that certain content is "disinformation" or "facts." If the content is reliably sourced per Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, and satisfies WP:DUE and WP:NPOV (the former is an important subsection of the latter, which is Wikipedia policy), it can be included.
 * Please also note that the basic model for determining what content is, or is not, included in Wikipedia articles is WP:CONSENSUS. I encourage you to also read that Wikipedia policy. If there is consensus here on the Talk page for content that has passed the standards of WP:NPOV, etc., then it will be included in the article. If consensus is not in favor of that material, it will not be included. That's how Wikipedia works.
 * All sides of the issue should be represented No. Again, please read the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, and in particular its subsection WP:DUE.
 * I know that's a lot of suggested reading, but I do encourage you to read that material, as it might help you to better understand how Wikipedia operates. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional platform (please see the Wikipedia policy page WP:NOT, and its subsection WP:PROMO). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring
@DuncanGT: please discuss your desired changes here first. I don't think you understand the encyclopedia's editorial policies. For example, this edit directly contradicts the cited source. And this edit is cited to a promotional page by the subject of the article, rather than an independent source. WP:EDITWAR against consensus is not the way to go. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I support all their changes. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not support all their changes. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2024
curprev 05:19, 6 February 2024‎ Gene Stanley1 talk contribs‎ 10,073 bytes +9‎ These edits assert that Mr. Knapp's theories have been "debunked," a claim that currently lacks verifiable and consensus-based evidence. It appears these changes may have been made in response to disagreements on another page (Bob Lazar's), rather than based on factual accuracy or a neutral point of view, which is fundamental to our editing principles.

George Knapp is a noted figure in investigative journalism, particularly in topics that are, by nature, controversial and open to interpretation. While it is vital to present multiple viewpoints, especially in areas involving unverified claims or theories, it is equally crucial to ensure that such presentations are backed by reliable sources and maintain a neutral stance. The recent edits seem to lack this balance and veer towards a subjective interpretation not universally accepted or supported by concrete evidence.

Furthermore, the tone and nature of these edits seem provocative and potentially made in bad faith, which goes against the collaborative and respectful spirit of Wikipedia.

I belive the edit made by Gene Stanley1 on 6 February 2024‎ should be reverted: George T. Knapp (born April 18, 1953) is an American television investigative journalist, news anchor and talk radio host noted for promotion of debunked UFO conspiracy theories, especially the claims of Bob Lazar. Knapp's work has been recognized with Edward R. Murrow Awards, Peabody Awards, and twenty-four Pacific Southwest Regional Emmy Awards.

The original text bellow should be retuned the word debunked removed: George T. Knapp (born April 18, 1953) is an American television investigative journalist, news anchor and talk radio host noted for promotion of UFO conspiracy theories, especially the claims of Bob Lazar. Knapp's work has been recognized with Edward R. Murrow Awards, Peabody Awards, and twenty-four Pacific Southwest Regional Emmy Awards. 80.189.187.159 (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 23:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, I will try and make this more clear:
 * For the reasons listed above
 * I propose the change made by Gene Stanley1 reverted as it does not look like it was performed in good faith Reference to change: "curprev 05:19, 6 February 2024‎ Gene Stanley1 talk contribs‎ 10,073 bytes +9‎"
 * The change is in the opening section of the page
 * change X "George T. Knapp (born April 18, 1953) is an American television investigative journalist, news anchor and talk radio host noted for promotion of debunked UFO conspiracy theories,"
 * to Y "George T. Knapp (born April 18, 1953) is an American television investigative journalist, news anchor and talk radio host noted for promotion of UFO conspiracy theories,"
 * The cage is to Remove the word "debunked" from that section and return the section to the state it was in prior to this edit.
 * If any of the proposed conspiracy theories have been debunked, then I would propose this is covered else where. While some conspiracy theories may have been debunked, some like the existence of Airforce bases have over time been proved true. The use of this inflammatory catch all term, is incorrect in at least a few cases.
 * E.g the existence of Area 51, was a conspiracy theory George knapp highlighted, this was confirmed as true in 2013 "https://swampland.time.com/2013/12/08/obama-area-51/" 80.189.187.159 (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Undone, but for different reasons. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, discredited, so the use of "debunked" doesn't improve the lead in any substantial way. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024
PLEASE ENTER THE CORRECT BIRTHDAY 172.103.156.31 (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Updated credible and reliable sources for Knapp's Russia trip
Here is the updated version of George Knapp's trip to Russia with reliable mainstream source data:

Over a ten-day period In March of 1993, Knapp traveled to the former USSR to meet with government officials,  scientists and investigators to learn more about Russian UFO/UAP investigations. According to Colonel  Boris Sokolov, the entire USSR, the entire military had a standing order to fully investigate these anomalous events and report back to the Ministry of Defense. Knapp was able to obtain copies of these investigative reports which included classified information for thousands of UFO/UAP incidents. According to Sokolov, the Russians wanted to duplicate this advanced UFO/UAP technology to beat the United States in terms of stealth technology. ​

Knapp also learned that a number of Russian scientists had been studying this phenomena in secret for a long time often at their own peril. On his subsequent trip to Russia in 1996, Knapp met with scientists who studied UFO/UAP landing sites. This included the work of Dr. Yuri Simakov, a biologist looking at microorganisms in the soil at UFO landing sites. Simakov found little opaque orbs or spheres in the soil and gave them to Knapp who brought them back to the US for further study. ​

Knapp's investigative UFO/UAP work in Russia has been confirmed by Colonel Boris Sokolov, the UK Ministry of Defence, MUFON, Dr. Hal Puthoff, and in Knapp's own words on the record submitted into the US Congressional record by Representative Tim Burchett. ​

Knapp further determined similarities between US and Russian UFO/UAP programs and messaging to the public. Both countries said "nothing to see here" but behind the scenes maintained secret UFO/UAP studies. DuncanGT (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not determined by you using random criteria, but by WP:RS. WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:FRINGE apply too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)