Talk:Tom Van Flandern

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Van Flandern article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 6 January 2010, see discussion.
keep, March 26, 2007, see discussion.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Astronomy Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tom Van Flandern. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Van Flandern. 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/20101120071353/http://astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib03.html to http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib03.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tom Van Flandern. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major revisions

I reverted a bulk revision to the article that removed many facets of the subject's career. I believe that each of these edits deserves a discussion on if it should stay or go or needs to be improved. In the spirit of wikipedia's Bold-revert-discuss guideline, I have reverted the bold edits, now let's discuss them. StarHOG (Talk) 14:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? You can't just say, WP:BRD GO! You have to explain what the problem is. jps (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... Which will be difficult, because the edits were fine. Merging references, cutting unduly-weighted and poorly-sourced material, trimming a link farm — I can see no problem with any of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I wonder why wikipedia has that entire section on Bold edit, revert, discuss if some editors just think that edits are great and don't need to be discussed? I mean, if you don't see anything wrong with an edit, personally, why would you want to follow wikipedia guidelines and discuss it with other editors? And when they complain about it, just throw it back in their face telling them you're not following the guidelines and if they have a problem with that, they can state their reasons why. StarHOG (Talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to let us know what your concerns are. We're waiting. jps (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is we're not following wikipedia guidelines. Let's figure that out before anything else. StarHOG (Talk) 23:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBURO. Let us know the issues with the edits, please. jps (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about BRD, although the recent edits and comments indicate a small consensus to move forward it seems; if there's a particular text you would like restored, why not specify? Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 05:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not follow the guidelines? A call for consensus, which has not been done here yet, is not a vote of the majority to bypass the guidelines. I'm not a wikipedia historian, but something in my bones tells me that these guidelines were put in place for this very reason, so that one or two editors that think their right don't walk all over other editors, that there is a process to be followed and it doesn't change because of how many editors line up on one side of an issue. StarHOG (Talk) 12:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the string of edits [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] a bold edit, as two editors were involved. I'd rather call your undo (with an i.m.o. unfriendly, uninviting edit summary) the bold edit, which I then undid with an invitation to go discuss on the talk page. I now count four editors who think the trimmed version is better than the original, so I think it will be more productive to discuss the article here, rather than our interpretations of the BRD policy supplement. - DVdm (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

many editors line up on one side of an issue isn't this what WP:CONSENSUS is about? —Paleo Neonate – 09:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating and notable operator in fringe areas. I should like to see the original version restored so that the extent of his claims can be assessed. Could somebody give a diff for clarity? There is no issue in the BIO of his ideas being claimed as mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I mean, the point is that this guy wrote a library about all the different things he thought were wrong with the "mainstream". The current article makes it clear that this is his approach. Lovingly detailing all his claims is obviously WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. What we can do is pay attention to those ideas which have received significant outside notice. All that was removed was stuff that was solely sourced to Van Flandern's own writing. WP:PSTS should be at least considered in our editorial decisions. jps (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's have a diff then so we are clear what we are discussing. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It's easy to see from the history, but here's the difference after recent edits: [7] —Paleo Neonate – 09:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]