Talk:John Keel

 

Link to Pratchett?

Should it be included that the pseudonym of the main character in Terry Pratchetts Nightwatch is "John Keel"? -- 132.230.104.57 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I, for one, was looking for the character in the Pratchett novel, not this ufologist. 88.193.159.86 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Middle name

I thought - on the basis of librarians' entries (in the Cambridge University Library), and so on - that John A. Keel's middle name was Alva. Can anyone confirm this? If so, the article may be suitably updated. Hair Commodore (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's confirmed by several sources:

• Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia on Answers.com
• SCIFIPEDIA on Scifi.com
• Mothman and Other Curious Encounters by Loren Coleman on Google Books

These are definitely reliable enough to add it to the article. --MCB (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Troubles with Bootlegging and Piracy of his works

A problem that constantly dogged most of Mr Keels' life was the unauthorised publishing of his books, for which he received no payment. There was also the problem of his telephone being tapped at times by persons unknown. He was not paranoid, a New York Telephone engineer pointed out to him the clumsy way his phone was being re-routed at a local exchange. (see 'our Haunted Planet'). He did not think such clumsy Tapping looked like the work of Official Agencies, he never discovered who the eavesdroppers were.Johnwrd (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultraterrestrials

Please correct: the term "ultraterrestrials" was already used several times in 'UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse'.Gertdik (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem if you have a WP:RS saying something different than what was reported by The Daily Telegraph. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fickle Finger of Fate

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Keel-John-A-FICKLE-FINGER-FATE-/220687161244?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item3361fad79c Is this a book by THE Keel or a different one? Same publisher as 1971 Our Haunted Planet and earlier Strange Creatures from Time and Space —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.74.204 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Keel's Jadoo originally came out in hardback.

Operation Trojan Horse

I recently started an article Operation Trojan Horse, and after I spent a few hours summarizing the book for the sake of interested parties, some administrator deleted it on the grounds that it was "original research" or "not notable". I think it's a notable book, based on how much it was "quoted and plagiarized". And of course, I didn't do any research at all. What do you think? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have for Keel's claim that his book was frequently quoted or plagiarized? So far, all you did basically was regurgitate the claims he made in this obscure book. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence that the book satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria for books. You asked on my my Talk page if I think the article should have been deleted. Yes I do. Aside from the notability issues, you seem to have confused a book report (reading a book and then summarizing what you think is the important content in it) with a Wikipedia book article (reading what multiple, reliable secondary sources have said about the content and then summarizing that). There really was nothing useful or otherwise worth retaining in what you wrote, and so deletion was justified.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the motivations really are for invoking all kinds of Wikipedia policies in order to suppress what I wrote. LuckyLouie even deleted the copy I put here in the discussion page so that other people could judge! ([1]) I've never seen such a thing happen before. Wikipedia should be a place where people can come when they want to find out information on a subject that interests them. It shouldn't be a purified sanctum sanctorum where certain things are suppressed supposedly on grounds of not being "notable" or whatever. (Just because you haven't heard of a book, you can't issue a decree that it is not notable, or worthy of an article for those who find the subject interesting and important.) I'm sure that when Wikipedia was set up, the rules were not meant to be used in this way. Unlike you, I don't have time for protracted fights on Wikipedia, nor do I put "watch points" on articles to make sure nobody goes against my will. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We are invoking our policies to explain what you did wrong and why you are being repeatedly reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike, I noticed that you reverted my edit in which I gave a link to my synopsis of Operation Trojan Horse. I wonder what motivation or justification you have for that. Don't you think people should be directed to further information on the book if they are interested? And why did you revert somebody's "See also" list? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the links were not to articles, but to evanescent expressions of opinion which violate WP:OR (and WP:NPOV. Some links were also placed on articles utterly irrelevant to Keel, such as that on H. P. Lovecraft. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't justify getting rid of my link to my summary. I'm putting it back in. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your summary is original research and synthesis, and does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing; it has been removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore whether it's original research or synthesis, since it's not part of Wikipedia. And I disagree that it's unreliable. You are saying that I am an unreliable person when it comes to reading a book and summarizing it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It's in Wikipedia, it's part of Wikipeda. You don't link to it unless it qualifies as a reliable source (and no, something you or I write here is by definition not a reliable source, since it's not undergone any form of stringent editorial control. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Keel, John A. (1996). Operation Trojan Horse (PDF). ISBN 978-0962653469.. Originally published in 1970 [2].

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Books

Hi there, big fan of John Keel here, just wanted to add a missing book from the list, surprisingly, to me at least, he had a diet book. In his defense though, it was a diet book with a twist: ..."New Saucerian proudly presents John Keel's suppressed classic, "The Invisible Diet," in which he shares "classified" health secrets rumored to have been developed by either the CIA or NSA, specifically for their agents in the field." That's all, thanks for your time,  ;) Somejungguy MorgaNational (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Laugh In

Laugh-In had a regular feature "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award". The show first aired as a special in Sep 1967 then as series the following year. Given Keel's near-eponymous book published in 1966 are these two things connected or is the chatbot wrong to say the similarities owe merely to coincidence? OrangeCounty (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Keel didn't invent the phrase, it has been around since at least the 1930's as pop slang.[3] Here's a reference to it by The Hollywood Reporter in 1960: [4]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Please note that Facebook postings and Barnes and Noble sales pages are not considered WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @LuckyLouie

I've read WP:RS, and below are my thoughts.

I agree about the Barnes and Nobles description. I will clarify that's the source and move it to trivia.

I fail to see why it would be wrong to use a Facebook post as a source in this case. The author is someone who was worked with Keel and it's his personal opinion about Keel. He doesn't claim to be an expert about John Keel, he's just stating his opinion about Keel. Supermindway (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO, you have improved the article with a few RS, but you have also added a fair amount of questionable WP:FANCRUFT. I'll leave it to others who may stumble on this in the future to clean up. Happy holidays. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect source for famous quote

This quote is central to John Keel and his ultraterrestrial hypothesis:

I abandoned the extraterrestrial hypothesis in 1967 when my own field investigations disclosed an astonishing overlap between psychic phenomena and UFOs... The objects and apparitions do not necessarily originate on another planet and may not even exist as permanent constructions of matter. It is more likely that we see what we want to see and interpret such visions according to our contemporary beliefs.

The original source for the quote in the Wikipedia article was the 1996 version of Operation Trojan Horse. I have downloaded it and searched for the quote, but it's not to be found. I have read the 2013 version of the book, and the quote is not to be found there either. Since it's quoted in the Telegraph obituary I've changed the source to that article.

We need to find the source of the quote or remove it and rewrite it as a conclusion he arrived at during his work and use Operation Trojan Horse as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermindway (talk • contribs) 08:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Error in the Telegraph obituary

In The Telegraph obituary it is claimed that "In Our Haunted Planet (1971), Keel coined the term 'ultraterrestrials' to describe UFO occupants." This is however incorrect, the term ultraterrestrial is used 36 times in Operation Trojan Horse (1970). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermindway (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)