Talk:J. Allen Hynek

message: Although there is some good information in the J. Allen Hynek biography article, I feel there are far too many quotations. For a book or web-based article, extensive quotations are often appropriate. However, for an encyclopedia article, there are excessive quotations included for J. Allen Hynek. Other Wikipedia academic biographies include more selective use of quotations, e.g., Frank Drake, Edward Condon, and Solomon W. Golomb.
Bivariate-correlator 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive Quotations

message: Hi, Nima Baghaei! The background of my deletion of the paragraph ("Revelations", Vallee, p. 290): I read the book. And I looked especially for the quote. There is no such passage as I stated already ten times, I think. Besides, the contents of the paragraph in question is included in the other paragraphs of "Origin Hypotheses" (which I edited), so there is no need for this special quote which cannot be found. Regards, Bwilcke alias -- damnedfacts 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sounds good (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yet another source for the famous quote:
Jacques Vallée, Forbidden Science: Journals, 1957-1969, , page 426, published 1992 by North Atlantic Books:
Google Books
84.133.40.99 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO origin hypotheses

message: Hi, Nima Baghaei! Do you know that - actually you only want to have a look, and suddenly you find yourself in a process of thinking and - editing. That was the case with me. Now, you say you see what I did. So I need not explain much, right? Actually, I reset an older version that gives credit to Hynek's UFO organization CUFOS by an own section, which now (again) was mentioned - more: hidden - in a marginal part of one single sentence somewhere; and I reset the section about the speech before the United Nations which (again) was also nearly invisible in the middle of other things. Moreover, somebody added (again) passages that repeat things, and repeat them without regard of the sections and chronology, including the quote in "Revelations" not to be found. Also I found it necessary to delete the attempts to undermine Hynek's reputation by trying to place him in - or near - the lunatic fringe by speaking at length about his interest in paranormal things (knowing that many people do not take seriously such studies) and adding "See also: Pseudoscience", serving the same purpose. - Regards, damnedfacts alias -- Bwilcke 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sounds good! (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: The only thing written in the article as a source for a couple of statements is "Schneidman and Daniels, 110," but there's no elaboration as to what book or anything this is from. (Exact statements are here and here.) I've Googled for these names but nothing UFO-related comes up. Anyone have any ideas? Whoever originally added those references must have known, but I don't have the time to dig all the way through the article history to find out. --clpo13(talk) 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schneidman and Daniels 

message: See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)>  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations & References

message: excerpt: ...including some made by credible witnesses, including astronomers, pilots, police officers, and military personnel ...
Why do think that these are somehow special? The are like everybody else. The make the same mistakes than other people do. But to say that say are more credible makes them to people we have to believe. This is a kind of argumentation which is often used by by people who believe in UFOs.
(Sorry for my bad english.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.119.104 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: credible witnesses

message: It is ludicrous for Wikipedia to allow an article on Hynek, suggesting that he 'sort of believed in UFOs but that more consideration is needed' etc without at least a summary of his book Close Encounters which stated quite certainly that only three of the thousands of cases examined were slightly tricky to explain. Hynek plainly considered that UFOs were a creation of media people wanting a story. The article is unworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagley (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Close Encounters 

message: Why do Hynek’s starlight fluctuation studies merit a section, or mention at all, for that matter? If there is some particular significance to them, it should be elucidated.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a minor but verifiable detail of his early career and easily moved to the appropriate section (which I did). More concerning are problems in the rest of the article created by sourcing details to books espousing the UFOlogy POV (e.g. Fuller, Schneidman, Stringfield). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starlight fluctuation studies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on J. Allen Hynek. 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/20040904014414/http://mimufon.org/1970%20articles/JAllenHynek_Pied_Piper.htm to http://www.mimufon.org/1970%20articles/JAllenHynek_Pied_Piper.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050215232944/http://ncas.sawco.com/ufosymposium/hynek.html to http://ncas.sawco.com/ufosymposium/hynek.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031221921/http://www.ufopsi.com/researchers/en_hynek.html to http://www.ufopsi.com/researchers/en_hynek.html
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) 14:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Line in question: "Regardless of his own private views, Hynek was, by and large, still echoing the post-Ruppelt line of Project Blue Book: There are no UFOs, and reports can largely be explained as misidentifications."
This line just seems out of place and still lacks a citation. Being new to the page - thought I'd open it for talk. If no talk commences I will remove.
--Dobblestein (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to a "post-Ruppelt" viewpoint prior to introducing Ruppelt