Talk:Daniel Fry

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed Gallery

message: 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)
thread_title: Undid revision 503707911 by [[Special:Contributions/ققنوس|ققنوس]] ([[User talk:ققنوس|talk]])

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable.  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source