Talk:Glenn Dennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Removal of "corroboration" section

I see that Dr Fil is at it again. He has chosen to take a page on Mr. Dennis and use it as a forum to promote his particular beliefs about aliens at Roswell. But the article is not entitled "the case for and against aliens at Roswell's base" it is called "Glenn Dennis." And, as far as I can tell, there are no "corroborations" of Dennis' various claims about the nurse, about autopsies, about being threatened, etc., which is where the questions arise. And, since Dr Fil seems to have an extremely liberal view of what "corroboration" means, let's be specific: one who corroborates an account is not simply one who confirms that Person A said x - it is one who confirms that "x" happened as Person A said it happened because the corroborater ALSO witnessed the event in question.

Additionally, since I am not aware of anyone arguing that a lot of other acccounts "confirms" what Dennis said is true, the entire section has to go because it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and therefore forbidden under wikipedia. If you want to include a section, Dr Fil, then you should consult the sources which in fact argue that Dennis' account is believable because of these other accounts. Like with that new Carey and Schmitt book. As it stands, this is YOU simply making a case for Dennis which is not the function of the page. The case AGAINST Dennis? MANY have made that case. Canada Jack 02:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, Dr Fil, for this to be in a proper wiki style, a new section might be entitled "researchers suggest Dennis accounts confirmed"
Then, something like: "Researchers Carey and Scmitt, while acknowledging that Dennis is a non-credible witness (as they do in the latest book) nevertheless suggest that others have supplied details which tend to corroborate his accounts. Such as.... Canada Jack 02:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "problems" section lifted from website

I've discovered that the "problems with Dennis' story" section has been lifted, almost entirely verbatim, from a website, specifically http://www.roswellfiles.com/Witnesses/glenndennis.htm.

I am doing a redo of that section and will replace it soon. Canada Jack 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a "controversy" section which is longish - might stand some cutting down, or might expand the original Dennis account here. Canada Jack 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Fil changes reverted

AGAIN, Dr Fil has enacted substantial changes to a page without a single word of explanation. I therefore have reverted most of these changes. It seems he wants to turn this into a court case for the presence of aliens at Roswell by inserting a bunch of "corroboration" to this page. I, as I have repeatedly done in the past, request a discussion before these substantial alterations are included. Canada Jack (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you, Dr Fil have seemingly been on this website as an editor for several years, there are a few basics here which you seem not to get. If you note what I have done on this page - and on the Roswell page - you will see a particular pattern. You will see that the accounts are either verbatim, or paraphrased. You will find that if there is a dispute, that dispute is DESCRIBED and those who make the various claims are also described.
It is NOT our place to simply post an extensive counter-argument to some claim without referring to those who make that counter-argument because it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH to do so. Which is why just about the entire pile of stuff you added had to go - there was NO indication of WHO made such a counter-argument, it was simply YOU adding a bunch of accounts which YOU claim "corroborate" the accounts of Dennis.
Which is why, when I included stuff about certain persons saying that Dennis had talked to them in the past about aliens, it wasn't written along the lines... "but person x said that Dennis said the same thing thereby corroborating the account," it was along the lines... "authors Scmitt and Carey point out that witness x says Dennis talked about aliens years ago, thus suggesting his accounts were therefore credible..."
You are guilty of the same nonsense on other pages, for example including a long account of a skeptic who supposedly changed HIS mind as "balance" to those ufo believers who became skeptical of Roswell. Problem was, you simply stuck it in there without saying WHY this was an example of that and, most crucially WHO claims that this is an example of a skeptic changing his mind! Because without so doing, you are engaging in ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Canada Jack (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't need your permission to make changes as I see fit. Once again, you treat as your own personal articles granting yourself sole authority to add and delete material at will.

Second of all, it was YOU who changed this from a simple page on Glenn Dennis' Roswell story, when you added a very lengthy and unbalanced, "Let's attack Glenn Dennis' credibility and destroy his Roswell story" section. This was after you fully deleted a short section I had on some corroboration for Dennis' story, claiming it had no place in an article on Glenn Dennis (see your own comments above). This is typical of your unending hypocrisy on editing material. Your material is always OK. Mine is always bad. Basically you have attempted to turn this into another of your "anti-Roswell" articles.

I added back in a corroboration section to balance your very personal attack on Glenn Dennis, basically calling the man a total liar. Notice that I did NOT delete or revert any of your material. Instead I tried to add a balancing section, which Wikipedia recommends on controversial subjects. There is another side to the Glenn Dennis story.

I provided fully cited references from where the stories of the corroborating witnesses is derived. You have some strange notions of what "original research" is. All Wikipedia articles involve synthesizing and citing work of others. I did not interview these witnesses, which would involve original research.

I will now add this to your list of inappropriate reverts of my material. You have repeatedly violated Wikipedia's rules of reversion. I have already issued you a warning, which you have again ignored. Therefor I am going to report you, itemizing all your violations, and ask that your editing privileges be revoked. Dr Fil (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't need your permission to make changes as I see fit. Once again, you treat as your own personal articles granting yourself sole authority to add and delete material at will.
Your attitude is on full display, Dr Fil. If you want to add substantial content to a controversial page what do you do? Engage in a discussion on the discussion page citing the need for your substantial additions? Nope. You simply add a lot of stuff and act outraged when some raise objections. And we aren't talking about a line or two here and there. On the Roswell page, you plonked down 10,000+ bytes on a page which was the result of a long process of collaboration and from which you had been warned before to cease your vandal-like approaches in adding you POV texts.
Second of all, it was YOU who changed this from a simple page on Glenn Dennis' Roswell story, when you added a very lengthy and unbalanced, "Let's attack Glenn Dennis' credibility and destroy his Roswell story" section.
Uh, no. It had a rather unbalanced argument against his testimony which others had created. And which had, I realized, been pulled almost verbatim from another website. So I omitted the counter argument, then quite a while later, added virtually the COMPLETE TEXT of what Dennis in fact claimed, THEN added what the ufo researchers discovered about his claimed. What you don;t seem to get, Dr Fil, in your rather naked attempt to bolster the credibility of Dennis, is that many who believe aliens were at Roswell don't find Dennis credible! Nevertheless, I had the stuff from Witness to Roswell wherein they suggest that despite his credibility problems, some of his claims were made years before the incident was well-known.
This was after you fully deleted a short section I had on some corroboration for Dennis' story, claiming it had no place in an article on Glenn Dennis (see your own comments above). This is typical of your unending hypocrisy on editing material. Your material is always OK. Mine is always bad. Basically you have attempted to turn this into another of your "anti-Roswell" articles.
No, your material isn't always "bad," it is almost ALWAYS designed to counter some point about a witness to make your alien scenario look good. When it is RELEVANT or not POV or not original research, then that is fine. But, in your case, you simply don't seem to get how wikipedia works, your idea of "encyclopedia" seems to synonymous with "stuff everything onto the page"; yopu have demonstrated NO interest in actually cooperating with other editors, declaring yourself an expert on the subject and therefore somehow immune to the approach and practices carried out at wikipedia. And though you admittedly may be simply referring to an old section on "corroboration," your complete inability to employ ANY discretion and succinct writing is on display when you describe a "short" section as being 14,000 bytes of text!
I added back in a corroboration section to balance your very personal attack on Glenn Dennis, basically calling the man a total liar. Notice that I did NOT delete or revert any of your material. Instead I tried to add a balancing section, which Wikipedia recommends on controversial subjects. There is another side to the Glenn Dennis story.
And this is what you don't seem to get. YOU may believe there is another side to the Dennis story, but if you are to add a section, this is how you do it: "Authors defend Dennis" and describe how author A and author B defend Dennis despite the accusations. ALL you did was add a ton of material which YOU describe as "corroboration" without describing how this stands as "corroborating" evidence by anyone other than YOU.
Here is an example of what I am talking about: Dennis in his affidavit said the nurse told him the alien bodies were 3-1/2 to 4 feet tall, with disproportionately large heads. In addition they were hairless, had sunken eyes, only a hint of a nose with two holes, two holes for ears, a slit mouth, and four fingers with no thumbs. There are now several dozen second-hand witnesses and a few eyewitnesses to alien bodies, as described largely in the 2007 Carey and Schmitt book but also other books. Physical descriptions, when provided, generally agree on various details with the one initially provided by Dennis. You then proceed to supply A DOZEN accounts which you suggest buttress the claims.
The problem is many UFO researchers describe his accounts as NOT being credible, so WHO IS SAYING THIS MATERIAL CORROBORATES THE ACCOUNTS OF THIS DISCREDITED WITNESS???? So far, besides a comment in "Witness" as to some old comment he made pre-1978, it seems that "who" is YOU. THAT is called "Original research," Dr Fil and the way you present it is at odds with the approach here.
All Wikipedia articles involve synthesizing and citing work of others. I did not interview these witnesses, which would involve original research. I didn't assume you had interviewed these witnesses. But you ARE drawing inferences from their testimony which seem to come from one person - YOU. THAT is why, when you read the above stuff I inserted, you don't see a list of a bunch of problems with the Dennis account, you see stuff like this: For some, like Karl Pflock and Kevin Randle (see below), these inconsistencies were great enough to discount Dennis’ credibility entirely. You will note that it is the RESEARCHERS who found problem with the accounts, not Canada Jack. And you will also note that the accounts from those who investigated his claims are given, NOT a laundry list of problems with accounts which are not connected to those who claim these accounts support or don't support the claims being made.
Here is a suggestion. Redo that section you had inserted and simply do it from the point of view of THOSE WHO CLAIM the accounts corroborate the Dennis accounts. It is not enough to simply list a bunch of similar accounts to what Dennis said - you HAVE to link those to the authors who claim as much. Otherwise, it's simply YOUR opinion that these are corroborating accounts. For example, with what I posted above of a section you inserted, one could quite reasonably ask: If this is "corroborating" evidence, then why is there no mention of someone agreeing that the nurse made the claimed comments? After all, the claim was NOT that Dennis saw aliens, it was that a nurse told him that. And since that is what the issue was about - did he make up the nurse, and her story? - you aren't "corroborating" anything but the belief of some that aliens were present.
If you care to reread the Roswell page, you will see a similar approach. There, I don't characterize what was claimed, I quote from those who make the claims! Both pro and anti- alien. To you, clearly, it seems enough to post a bunch of links to transcripts on various websites. But in "synthesizing" what others have done, you are in fact doing original research. You can assemble, as I have, the CONCLUSIONS that OTHERS have made, but it is not up to you to "synthesize" disparate pieces of evidence to supply a conclusion, in this case, that Dennis' claims are supported by others. That is YOUR view, fine. It should be portrayed as the opinion of others who have written on this subject.
I will now add this to your list of inappropriate reverts of my material. You have repeatedly violated Wikipedia's rules of reversion. I have already issued you a warning, which you have again ignored. Therefor I am going to report you, itemizing all your violations, and ask that your editing privileges be revoked.
The "three-revert" rule doesn't automatically apply in every case, Dr Fil. Such as when someone inserts some obscenity and a page is reverted by the same person numerous times over a short period. And it ALSO doesn't apply to those who reverts posts by those carrying out large edits on controversial subjects without any notice or discussion. IOW, Dr Fil, I can make a very good case that you are not acting in good faith with your edits. Especially when there are numerous examples where many of your edits have been left standing, despite your general disregard for the opinions of other editors here.
So, go ahead, Dr Fil. If you believe you have the unfettered right to add 10,000+ bytes to a controversial subject without discussion, without first seeking consensus, then cite me. But here's a piece of advice on that score: I have engaged - or tried to engage you - in discussion many times and history shows you usually ignore me, then eventually question my right to revert and ignore my pleas about discussing issues of substance. Further, you add "unbalanced" tags willy-nilly to pages without engaging in discussion. In short, your actions will be seen to be that of a troll, and one who wants to ignore the collaborative effort that is wikipedia by imposing material on the hope no one will notice and when they do and take appropriate actions, instead of engaging, you threaten. It's your battle to lose, Dr Fil. Canada Jack (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another added note here, since Dr Fil doesn't seem to understand the nuances here when it comes to original research. Dr Fil makes the point that all his "corroboration" for Dennis' claims have been researched and footnoted, that HE didn't interview these people, therefore there was no "original research," viz:

I provided fully cited references from where the stories of the corroborating witnesses is derived. You have some strange notions of what "original research" is. All Wikipedia articles involve synthesizing and citing work of others. I did not interview these witnesses, which would involve original research.

My interpretation of "original research" is different. I say it is not just in supplying original quotes or original research, it is in supplying original CONCLUSIONS. I am unaware of a published source whereby someone claims, using the list of "evidence" provided by Dr Fil, that Dennis' crediblity is thereby established. There may in fact be an author who makes that argument, and if there is, then Dr Fil HAS to frame the section in the terms with which someone has said certain evidence "corroborates" the Dennis accounts. Indeed, that is what I did by including what several authors cited as "corroboration" when it was noted Dennis had made comments suggesting aliens many years before the incident was known.

But what I interpret "original research" to be is in fact completely in line with what wikipedia says it is. I am reproducing the relevant section below from Wikipedia:No original research (I reduced the heading size so as not to make the following appear like a new section):

[edit] Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Policy shortcut:
WP:SYN

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.


Cheers, Canada Jack (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Typically, Dr Fil has, again, without discussion and without addressing my above points, has simply re-inserted his "corroboration" section, without identifying ANY author who claims what he has added supports his claim that these accounts "corroborate" Dennis. He has additionally declared any reversion by me as "vandalism." I indeed reverted as these additions, save the opening paragraph, were ORIGINAL RESEARCH as described above. Canada Jack (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)