Talk:Daniel Fry

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Paranormal

	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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removed Gallery

Hi Nima,

I removed the gallery because it is much better to have the pictures beside the text they are there to illustrate. With only two pictures, it doesn't make much sense to have a gallery. This also applies to all the other contactee bio's you modified, but I'm not going to revert all those.

The list of "Ufologist" is also not something I would have added for a number of reasons:

1. It is dated the instance it is created because someone will die, there will be new ufologists, etc. Someone has to keep that list updated, which likely won't happen in six months after the novelty wears off.
2. It will always be incomplete, because there are a lot more ufologists out there then on the list.
3. Others will take issue with labeling Daniel as a ufologist, for example, other ufologists, like Stan Friedman, would balk at being in the same category as Daniel. Secondly, Daniel was a Contactee, which is it's own category under ufology.
4. As a list, it's inefficient if it's on every single bio page. It would be much better to have a single page, like contactee which lists sub-categories of "ufologists"

Cheers,

Sean Donovan 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the pictures, I understand now. As for the UFO template list, I think its a great idea and I will continue to build it as necessary. -nima baghaei 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good writeup on Fry and shows evidence of much original research. I see only one thing that could use a bit more discussion--- even a single sentence more might do. At some point (when and why?) Fry backdated his meeting with A-Lan from 1950 to 1949. He had chosen the date of July 4 because he thought he was alone on the test site on that date in 1950. Did he discover others were there at that time, and so drop back to 1949 to solve the "witness" problem?Cokerwr 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added information about Fry backdating his contact. Daniel was interviewed by Mr. Good during a week in August 1976, but I am not sure when Daniel first changed the date. Sean Donovan 19:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi 128.83.131.92 who I assume is also Cokerwr. First I want to thank you for adding all the information about the contactees to the contactee page, which has really given the topic depth.

I have reverted the latest edits here because they are inaccurate on a number of accounts:

Where your edit states "Among these contactees and cult leaders, Fry is among the best-remembered today", it has two clear problems. First, I wouldn't consider Fry amoung the "best-remembered today" because George Van Tassel and Adamski are much more well known. For example one 1999 film on contactees called "UFOs: The Contacts" devotes all of 10 seconds to Daniel and the rest to Adamski. There have also been alot more books written about and in support of Adamski, for example "We Discovered Alien Bases on the Moon" and "All the Planets Are Inhabited", but none (that I know of) written in support of Daniel. There is a rough way to see which contactee is the best-rememberd by using "google fight", which returns how many instances of the words "Daniel fry" there are compared to "George Adamski" on the web. From that result, we can roughly judge there are over twice as many references to Adamski as there are to Fry. And George Van Tassel has about %50 more references then Fry (hmm, there was when I ran the test back in May, 2006, hehe).

The other problem is that the quote lumps "contactees and cult leaders" together and implies that Daniel was both. There certainly were contactees who were cult leaders, but the evidence suggests that Fry and the organization he formed were not.

The other problem is the link at the bottom of the page, which you have added before and my stated reason for removing it still stands - the link adds nothing to the article and is much better if it is found on the Contactee Introduction page, as it is.

If you still feel the link should stay, then let us discuss here or over email which you should be to send me via Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Sean Donovan 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 503707911 by ققنوس (talk)

ققنوس,

I, more than most, would like to find evidence that makes the case for Fry's contact stronger and appreciate updates, for example, the recent link to the 1970 interview Fry did in Finland. I undid most of your edits, except for the reference to the dubious nature of Polygraphs and removed the word "strong" in regards to the fake UFO evidence, which I agree is a subjective spin. I removed the rest of your revisions for a number of reasons:

I'm guessing that English isn't your first language and, unfortunately, it shows. For example your revision, "The interpretation of the data by a young [...] " is wordy and doesn't really lend anything the linked to article don't already mention.
Using the word "conjecture", which is another way of saying "opinion", to describe the evidence Fry faked his UFO footage is akin to sweeping the evidence under the rug. Can the evidence be interpreted any other way that is favorable? Avoiding the truth hardly makes it true.

Sean Donovan (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

I added a link to the new book which is where all the information came from. Good enough? Sean Donovan (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable.

This is an observation, not something that can be "fixed" unless someone else cares to verify the sources independently. External reputable sources were used when possible, for example, Timothy Good and if not that, then the original documents were referenced, for example, the Understanding newsletters. Not many other people care to do research into Fry which creates a lack of resources to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsdonovan (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source

Unfortunately, yes the newsletters, articles and books available on Daniel Fry Dot Com. Maybe someday the article can reference the Washington Post, The Times, but until then... Sean Donovan (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until then, it needs to be brought into line with WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, which includes removing all the puffery, excessive weight, and reliance on sources such as Fry's own writings and a self published e-book. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]