Talk:Glenn Dennis

message: the epilog of http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcnuhRC4oQ says that glenn dennis is already dead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.115.254 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Glenn Davis dead?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "problems" section lifted from website

message: 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.Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004) "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)
thread_title:  Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position 

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

message: We assume good faith here, so I have to assume the addition of "Many people also believe that these hoax accounts, were merely a smear tactic. Aimed to try to make these events look frivolous" at the end  of the "alien drawings" section was inserted as a rejoinder to the skeptical account of the drawings, or of the overall skeptical accounts. But the insertion needs citation and some clarification.
While there may well be many who believe as much, we need to actually quote or reference those "many people" who have specific disputes with the skeptics here (such as on the alien drawings) or who support the Dennis accounts specifically. It is not enough to pluck, for example, a poll reading which states 70 per cent of Americans believe aliens landed at Roswell, or what have you. That general point is made in the Roswell article, it has no place on the page which discusses the accounts of one witness. Canada Jack (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Many people" also believe...

message: I removed the deletion proposal template.  I would argue that notability is sufficient - Dennis is relatively widely quoted in various publications and has also authored his own published works.  As far as poor citations go, one should compare early edits with material added afterwards.  I agree that there has been a lot of unsourced material added since the early versions of the article and these need considerable cleaning up, but that of itself is not reason for deletion of the entire article, although it may support removal of large parts of the article.  I have retained the "multiple issues" template, as I agree that the article needs a lot of work. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROD 

message: The entire section is so poorly written that I made an account just to speak on this. I'm not defending Glenn but seriously has anyone read that section of the article? It's filled with logical fallacies and sentence structure errors eg. "For some, like Karl Pflock and Kevin Randle, these inconsistencies were great enough to discount Dennis’ credibility entirely." when no "inconsistencies" are brought up until later which are wrong as well. To my knowledge he was never asked to do any embalming nor did he ever disclose information about the name of the nurse he was friends with which makes "Several researchers, including Karl Pflock, investigated Dennis’s claims and found a number of inconsistencies, including the identity of a nurse who Dennis claimed was a witness to the alleged alien autopsies and the need for Dennis's own involvement in any embalming process when qualified pathologists were said to have performed the autopsies." totally unfounded, confusing and inaccurate. Also this "Pflock also questioned the validity of sketches of aliens provided by Dennis." well that's fine to question the validity of anything but so what? Why is that even there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please edit "Analysis of testimony" to standards