Talk:Donald Howard Menzel

"Top Secret Ultra"??

Is there really such a security clearance in the US government? Or is the security clearance "top secret ultra" itself a secret?Phiwum 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know one way or the other, but classified information doesn't list it. Maybe you could ask there. (well, I decided to ask.) Bubba73 (talk), 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. agr's response was informative. I think that this information should be included in the article, but only if we get an authoritative source that we can cite.

Sorry but I won't pursue it. I'm afraid I'm not too interested in this topic, but perhaps someone else could do so. Thanks again, Bubba. Phiwum 19:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Ultra" part may be some sort of tag added (which may been changed since then) onto Meznel's TS rating to allow him access to super sensitive information. What bugs me is researchers such as Stanton Friedman attempt to cite Menzel on the basis of having relations with the intelligence and academic communities. I've always thought "so what?" The government routinely retains individuals from the civilian sector to work and consult on various things. Shadowrun 04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the classified info articles as they exist now, the "ULTRA" keyword referred to information obtained by cracking the Enigma cypher; so if Menzel had "TOP SECRET ULTRA" clearance that would mean he knew the Enigma was broken. Ben Standeven (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Source doubtful

I cannot find any evidence that the report attributed to Menkello actually exists. Searches at DTIC or the successor organization to Environmental Technical Applications Center produce no hits, and every reference to the document that I can find is in pro-UFO literature, or here. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I have removed this. Even the USAF could not find this article. 92.235.165.32 (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Donald Menzel

OK, I see your point that the text was coming down hard. This 'talk' is to see what we can do for a reasonable compromise. The two added paragraphs (on the Menzel Gap and the Bond Astronomical Society) are indeed adequately referenced. And the reorganization/corrections are long past being needed. So it looks like the problem is in the one sentence at the start on the legacy and perhaps the use of words like 'enmity'. So I would propose to put back in the reorganization and the two basic paragraphs, but to not include the opening 'legacy' sentence, and to reword the opening sentences to the two added paragraphs. I am using this talk box so as to get discussion so as to avoid back and forths in editing. (I'll look for your reply on this page.) As you can see from my prior edits of the Menzel page (adding his honors, adding the symposium honoring him, and adding all his eclipse expeditions, as well as adding many career details), I do not 'have it in for him', but am rather adding more information that I have found that appears to matter to many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChronHigherEdReader (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely tone down the condemnatory language. Harsh criticism should be sourced and attributed ("According to X, Menzel was [this and that and the other thing]") whenever possible. This and any factual info (personal, career, etc.) added needs to be cited to a source conforming to our WP:RS policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the text you have added is again way over the top. You have Wikipedia's voice saying that an act by Menzel did "cause lasting bitterness and feelings of betrayal and shock among a large section of astronomers"….and act by Menzel "caused long-lasting damage to astronomy"….and "destruction by Menzel caused irreparable damage to many branches of astrophysics, even to today". None of this analysis is contained in the sources. This is your own interpretation of the sources and is definitely WP:OR original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. The NYTimes only mention of Menzel is "In the 1950s, a budget-wary observatory director, Donald Menzel, suspended the plate-taking operation for a while, resulting in what is now ruefully called “the Menzel gap.” The a student thesis paper (really?) you cite mentions vague "oral history" and "offhand remarks". The autobio you cite is inaccessible for examination online, but given your exaggeration and insertion of personal analysis, it seems dubious that sources actually verbalize anything close to what you've written. I've reverted it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the reference and did not see the statement about Menzel damaging astronomy in the reference. The revision deleting that statement and resulting in the current statement about the Menzel gap seems accurate, neutrally stated, and reliably sourced.Coaster92 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Membership in MJ-12?

Why is that not mentioned as a part of the UFO-headline? I mean there are those(including respected physicist Dr. Stanton Friedman) that hold the MJ-12 documents incriminating Menzel as a member of the comittee to be real. Would explain a lot of the debunking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.156.120 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Menzel secretly on government payroll to debunk ufos" etc.

Recently added is a sentence that ufologist and free energy conspiracy theorist conspiracy Steven Greer has claimed "uncovered documents prove that Menzel was secretly on government payroll to debunk UFOs". This is sourced only to a YouTube video. Greer's fringe/conspiracy opinion might be notable for inclusion if multiple WP:RS and WP:FRIND sources covered this, but that is not the case. It should be removed per WP:BLP until reliable sources can be found to justify inclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed LuckyLouie - before reading your note here on talk I removed the Dr. part of Greer's mention as it is an argument to authority and should be removed. Then I read the talk page and your note. Totally agree that if there were evidence to prove this, where is it? Once it is "proved" outside the UFOlogist community then we can add it back in. Until then... no.Sgerbic (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The opening line of this segment of the article states: The Psychological Strategy Board commissioned Menzel to advocate for skepticism concerning the reality of UFOs.

While this is a reasonable conclusion, I've never seen a citation to a specific document that supports this as a verified fact. Is there such a document and if so, why is there not citation to it? Thank you in advance. 32.215.149.136 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donald Howard Menzel. 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/20130928090549/http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v30/i5/p96_s1?bypassSSO=1 to http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v30/i5/p96_s1?bypassSSO=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Psychological Strategy Board

I noticed a comment asking about a credible citation for the unsupported claim in section "Menzel secretly on government payroll to debunk ufos etc" that:

"The Psychological Strategy Board commissioned Menzel to advocate for skepticism concerning the reality of UFOs."

I'd like to second the request for any supporting evidence of that claim. 96.86.79.185 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe you will find a source for this as it likely originates with Stan Friedmans claims about MJ12 and is not based in fact. This was brought up about two years ago with the UFO History Group (the people who published UFOs and Government, ie the Swords reference later in the paragraph). No one in the group could provide any reference or sources for that claim. It was of the opinion that someone probably read the MJ12 member list and Stan's book claiming Menzel was basically a paid debunker, and conflated the story that the PSB hired Menzel (Gordon Gray followed by PSB was listed right above Menzel's name). The timeline doesn't work out for his first book to have been commissioned by PSB, and PSB was disbanded shortly after it was created. If my colleagues in the history group know of no reference for this, and think it comes from Stanton's book and MJ-12 name list, there is probably no truth to this claim and it should be removed. - Jeff Knox 2601:1C2:4F80:DE60:15B9:7A6F:306F:88DC (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reverted to earlier version. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)