Talk:Tom Van Flandern/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Tom Van Flandern. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Honors and Asteriods

As was mentioned previously on this Discussion page, the article seems to give undue weight to the asteriod naming, presenting it in a separate section with the banner heading "Honors". For one thing, it should be singular (Honor) because only one item is listed. But more seriously, the naming of asteriods is not really an "honor", like an honorary degree or a prize. There are so many asteriods that the vast majority don't even have names, and anyone who wishes to propose a name for one can do so. The only rules are that they don't allow vulgarity, and they no longer allow naming one for your pet. Here is some background on the history and significance of asteriod naming, taken from http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/asteroid/naming-asteroids.html

Sources for names

As modern discovery techniques have discovered vast numbers of new asteroids, they are increasingly being left unnamed.

The first few asteroids were named after figures from Graeco-Roman mythology, but as such names started to run out, others were used —famous people, literary characters, the names of the discoverer's wives, children, and even television characters...

As the number of asteroids began to run into the hundreds, and eventually the thousands, discoverers began to give them increasingly frivolous names. The first hints of this were 482 Petrina and 483 Seppina, named after the discoverer's pet dogs. However, there was little controversy about this until 1971, upon the naming of 2309 Mr. Spock (which was not even named after the Star Trek character, but after the discoverer's cat who supposedly bore a resemblance to him). Although the IAU subsequently banned pet names as sources, eccentric asteroid names are still being proposed and accepted, such as 6042 Cheshirecat, 9007 James Bond, or 26858 Misterrogers.

Also, as far as I can tell, the TvF asteriod name was not proposed by the discoverer of the asteriod. It was spotted in 1986 by the Shoemakers (and Eugene passed away in 1997). It appears to have simply been proposed for a previously known un-named asteriod (one of tens of thousands) by some of TvF's friends/associates shortly after his passing, in a fond gesture. In view of this, it seems most fitting to include it as a reference along with the newspaper obituary. These two things (the newspaper obituary and the asteroid citation) are on roughly equal footing in terms of significance.Urgent01 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Worthy Ideas

One editor has suggested including the sentence "Van Flandern advocated the fostering of inquiry into worthy ideas not otherwise supported solely because they conflict with mainstream theories in astronomy." It seems to me that this is not compliant with Wikipedia standards, because it consists of assertions that are not verifiable, and are not from reputable sources. The editor in question has persistently tried to base this article entirely on TvF's own web site, but that is clearly not suitable, per Wikipedia policy. It is not verifiable from any secondary reputable sources that TvF's ideas were "worthy", nor that they were unsupported "solely because they conflict with mainstream theories". In fact, there are secondary sources that state that TvF's ideas were rejected by mainstream scientists because they were regarded as UNworthy. Also, the editor persists in talking about "astronomy", whereas the article immediately goes into discussions of fundamental physics theories. In general, I think we should strive to accurately represent the data about the subject from reputable secondary sources, in accord with Wikipedia policy.Urgent01 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

These are not my words, I am not writing a biography. All material in the article that had been stable for several months was a compilation of quotes from verifiable sources, including that opening line regarding TVF's 10 principles. They are not assertions of my own. Each sentence is not referenced, sometimes two or three sentences are given from the same source and then referenced. This was true of the USNO work he did, and then the consulting work for the GPS, do we have to place a citation after every statement? I don't think so. I had cited his article from his website as the basis for that statement, but it was four months ago and I can't find it on the fly, however, I would happily replace the statement with another I found in the article "The principles of physics are inviolate rules because any contradiction would be tantamount to magic, a miracle, or the supernatural. Allowing miracles into theories makes them non-falsifiable, and therefore unscientific. Adhering to these logical principles and accepting "no miracles" as the only valid "first principle" is now known as "deep reality physics"

Also, your complaint that the article dives into explanations of physics principles and therefore some other things don't mesh is your own fault, you are the one that has expanded the description of physics ideas in the article. I take exception to these sentences "He contended (as had Laplace around 1800, but contrary to the current scientific consensus represented by general relativity) that the absence of gravitational aberration implies that the speed of gravity must be billions of times greater than the speed of light. The journal in which this paper appeared subsequently published two follow-up papers, explaining why Van Flandern's claim is incorrect" where we spend more time detailing who first thought of the idea and citing sources why people think its wrong then we do on the idea itself. What is more notable here? his views or links explaining them or other people's views? Akuvar (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Website and contents, biography

The information is cited is from two sources, both biographies of Van Flandern. The second source is a biography from the Mufon people on the youtube page where they present his video lecture. The author of that biography is unknown, but it cannot be called an autobiography without a citation saying that Van Flandern wrote it. the Biography on the MetaResearch website is entitled "Biography" not "biography and resume" or "autobiography." Regardless of what editors may think, without a citation you cannot come to "a consensus that this is really an autobiography." Although I have no reason to doubt his son's word, his son is not an wiki appropriate source when he speculates that his father wrote this biography. A consensus of editors all speculating together and coming to the conclusion that this biography was in all likelihood written by Van Flandern constitutes original research. Unless a citation can be given that shows Van Flandern as the author, the website's title page must be taken prima facie. Akuvar (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in bringing up a point about the nature of the metaresearch website, one that had been arbitrated on by a wiki administrator under archive 5, 2nd to last section, not only are you inappropriately rehashing a closed subject, you reverted all of my edits for the past hour rather than just the edits you are questioning. Akuvar (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If an article on a site lists no author, I think that the source is generally considered to be highly unreliable, and cannot possibly be used per basic WP:VERIFY. We do not need "a consensus of editors all speculating together and coming to the conclusion that this biography was in all likelihood written by Van Flandern". If you claim that Tvf is not the author or the Metaresearch articles that you cite, then per WP:PROVIT it is entirely up to you to prove it. We don't need a consensus here. We need proof. Failing that, the sources can be removed as self-published ancd unreliable at will. DVdm (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So any website on the internet used as a source that does not list an author at the bottom of the page is considered an unusable source! I think not. No such requirement is listed under wiki sources, in fact, websites are considered valid sources of information and the burden would be upon you to show that a website is unreliable. If you are now going to launch into a campaign to say that the Metaresearch site is unreliable, please see the wiki administraor's ruling on that in archive 5, which I have pointed out many times. If you have a problem with that ruling, take it up with that administrator, do not vandalize this article. Akuvar (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(after ec). Of course you can think or think not what you want, but If you claim that the source should be admissible because Tvf is not the author, then clearly the burden of proof is yours. Get serious, everyone can see that it is an autobiography - unless of course you happen to have written it, in which case there would be a COI, right? DVdm (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm. TvF's website is not a suitable source. It appears to have been written by TvF himself, and until/unless someone can show otherwise, it doesn't qualify as verifiable or reputable source of information. I would also add that the Natural Philosophy Alliance is not a reputable source of information (in fact, it's almost the definition of a non-reputable source).Urgent01 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Life on Mars

I am removing the quote about life on mars. This is the section:

"He gave lectures on the subject[18], usually sponsored by UFO organizations, and at the conclusion of the lectures he described his overall conception, well summarized by his co-enthusiast Alan Alford

In summary, both Van Flandern and I are willing to entertain the idea that a human-like extraterrestrial race once lived upon Mars, and perhaps on another body in the original Planet V system, but migrated to Earth after its home world (or worlds) had been destroyed or made uninhabitable millions of years ago by the explosion of Planet V and one of its moons. Such a race might then have survived on the Earth, perhaps by hybridisation with a native terrestrial species, and might have retained a racial memory which generated the myths of the ‘golden age’, the ‘lost paradise’ and ‘the fall of man’"

If TVF concluded his lectures with this idea, please provide a quote from one of them, not a quote from another person who "is willing to entertain the idea" and says the subject is as well. If one of the referenced lecture videos has Alford and Van Flandern together saying this, I have not seen it. Akuvar (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as soon as I have time, I'll transcribe TvF's lecture, and post the quote. It's fairly similar to the Alford quote (not surprisingly, since Alford got it from TvF). I remember it ends with "WE are Martians". Having said that, I want to reiterate that Wikipedia encourages reliance on secondary sources whenever possible. Alford is a published author who has extensively discussed TvF, so this is exactly the kind of data that is supposed to be in the article. It is not valid to insist that the article consist only of what TvF thought about himself, sourcing every statement and comment to TvF. That is the opposite of Wikipedia policy. As it says in Wikipedia policy, if there aren't enough reputable secondary sources on a subject, then perhaps the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.Urgent01 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that in the opening line you state that it is what Van Flandern concluded his lectures with, and then provide a quote from another person. Even in that quote, it uses the line "..willing to entertain.." which doesn't seem like a source for something that Van Flandern believed, or as your opening sentence stated, that he concluded his lectures with that theory. That is why I asked you to find a quote from the subject before including it in the article. Akuvar (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a transcription of the conclusion of TvF's 3-part lecture on "Mysterious Mars", presented to a large UFO gathering. It's rather difficult to jot down all his words, since they were somewhat disjointed and delivered rapidly, but I think this is reasonably accurate.

"We've shown conclusively that at least some of the artifacts on the surface of Mars were artificially produced, and the evidence indicates they were produced approximately 3.2 million years ago, which is when Planet V exploded. Mars was a moon of Planet V, and we speculate that the Builders created the artificial structures as theme parks and advertisements to catch the attention of space tourists from Planet V (much as we may do on our own Moon some day, when lunar tourism becomes prevalent), or perhaps they are museums of some kind. Remember that the Face at Cydonia was located on the original equator of Mars. The Builder's civilization ended 3.2 million years ago. The evidence suggests that the explosion was anticipated, so the Builders may have departed their world, and it produced a massive flood, because Planet V was a water world. It is a coincidence that the face on Mars is hominid, like ours, and the earliest fossil record on Earth of hominids is the "Lucy" fossil from 3.2 million years ago. There have been some claims of earlier hominid fossils, but Lucy is the earliest that is definite. So I leave you with the thought that there may be a grain of truth in The War of the Worlds, with the twist that WE are the Martians."

I think it's clear that this fits perfectly with the Alford quote, which describes TvF's views on the subject. But since the Alford quote was written to be read, rather than spoken extemporaneously, it seems more coherent. I wouldn't mind adding the transcription of Van Flandern's remarks to the article, although it will be somewhat redundant to the Alford quote. Perhaps we can just agree that the current article accurately conveys this content, without needed the repetition?67.170.7.41 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer this to the Alford quote, it is TVF's own words. Thanks for going to the work of transcribing it. It is also a good summary of everything TVF believed about Mars, so I think it is very appropriate. Akuvar (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Inserting negative references

I have complained that this is not a science article, and that it is not a place to argue if the subject's ideas were right or wrong, only noteable. However, editors continue to insert material and references to sources that argue against the ideas, or provide counters to arguments. I have noticed on Nicolaus Copernicus's article no such efforts have been made to belittle his theories or provide references to sources that show how wrong he was. I was just seeing if any of the editors here wanted to jump over there and start inserting the same style of negative arguments that are being done to this article. Of course, if not, then I think it is a pretty good argument that this kind of nonsense does NOT belong in biographical articles about scientists and their ideas. Akuvar (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Akuvar, what you, as a close friend of the subject, see as nonsense or unimportant, might be seen by others as interesting and notable. You are free to question and discuss the notability of certain aspects here on the talk page.

On the other hand, if you feel that efforts should be made to fix some shortcomings on the Nicolaus Copernicus's article, then by all means do. If you see disturbing unreferenced belittlements, then please go there and fix it. Make proposals on the talk page, put some citation needed tags, etc. You know the drill. On the other hand, if you think that the artcle needs to mention how wrong he was, feel free to add the material, properly sourced. - DVdm (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying I was a close friend of the subject. Are we now inserting speculative outing references when referring to each other? I have no wish to edit the Copernicus page, although it seems your comments look like you completely missed the point, I actually think you're smarter than that. But your advice looks good on paper. Akuvar (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to look this up again. Apparently you wrote: "I knew the subject when he lived in Washington DC and when he was employed at the US Naval Observatory. I kept communications open with him after his retirement...". This, in combination with your continuing insistence to remove the less flattering aspects of the subject's work (which actually seem to be the aspects that make the subject notable), must have mislead me into assuming that you were indeed a close friend. If I misjudged that, please accept my apologies. DVdm (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Above Akuvar said to you if you're accusing someone of COI you should state your facts. Your response of day 16 Apr was There is no need for you to accuse me of "accusing someone of COI". I am not accusing anyone of anything. It seems to me that you are accusing him now with your above statement that Akuvar is a close friend of the subject. At this point is may be fair to remark that a search in Internet reveals your close antagonism with Tom van Flandern maintained during many years. For instance next:

http://groups.google.la/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/99be9db2e677ba70

Of course, I agree that Tom was wrong regarding cydonia, but in above link you are naming him a fraud (this was one of your weakest adjectives). It may be also relevant that you maintain a personal website where you store copies of some Tom van Flandern messages in USENET, which you reminded often in your attacks against him. JuanR (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No judgement should have been made in the first place. I have made no attempt to remove any information that is not flattering to the subject, I object to information being removed with the purpose of making the subject appear he had no credentials. I also object to argumentative information being added that brings us down to the level of making the article into a discussion of what ideas were right or wrong, who thought so, etc. The article is what the subject was noteable for, it is made abundantly clear from the introduction that his ideas were controversial. I don't mind inserting argumentative viewpoints into the references section, but it seems we are moving all the biographical data to the references, and turned the article into a "why he was wrong" campaign. Akuvar (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The article on Christopher Columbus says that Columbus believed he had sailed to India, but that most modern scholars believe he was mistaken, and had actually sailed to locations around North and South America. This isn't "argumentative", it is merely reporting verifiable reputable views, in accord with Wikipedia policy. It would be silly for the Columbus article to state that he sailed to India, with a footnote that some people dispute this. Columbus isn't notable for having sailed to India, despite the fact that this is what Columbus himself believed. The Columbus article also says "According to testimony of 23 witnesses during his trial, Columbus regularly used barbaric acts of torture to govern Hispaniola." This is a rather negative statement, but it is verifiable from reputable sources, so it's appropriate for the article. In general, the criterion for inclusion of some material in Wikipedia articles is not whether it is "positive" or "negative", but whether it is from reputable (preferably independent) sources, with the emphasis on mainstream views of the subject. The material that you seem intent on removing from the article is among the few actually reputable independent sources on the subject. I think your editing proposals are directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. Urgent01 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of comparing apples to apples and discuss the example of Copernicus, a scientist working with theories, you try to compare theory with an explorer of the physical world. I'm not discussing people who run around in boats. If you care to tell me why this article is treated unlike the Copernicus article, I'll hear your explanation. Akuvar (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

All articles in Wikipedia, regardless of subject, are to be based on the same editorial policies. In general, the criterion for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is that it be relevant to the notable aspect of the subject, and that it be from reputable (preferably independent) sources, with the emphasis on secondary mainstream views of the subject. If you think the article on Copernicus violates these policies, I would encourage you to propose whatever edits you think would be appropriate to improve the Copernicus article. For example, Copernicus was most notable for his belief that the planets revolve around the sun. If you can find reputable mainstream sources that say he was mistaken about this most notable belief, then it would surely be appropriate (even mandatory) to include that in the article. For less notable beliefs, it would be a judgement call as to how much space to devote to presenting discussions of the mainstream view of those details. But definitely if his notability is based on belief in ideas that is described in reputable mainstream sources as mistaken (or absurd, or idiotic), then that needs to be reflected in the article.Urgent01 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The point here is not positiveness/negativeness but that early discussion, editings, and consensus achieved are ignored for repeating the same mistakes and incorrect affirmations in new editings, as the last one. There was here (search in archives) a long debate about the content of Carlip article in PLA. The quotes extracted from Carlip paper did clear two things: (i) Carlip agreed that the speed of gravity has not been measured, and (ii) phenomena is compatible with a speed of gravity much more faster than c. Moreover, Carlip paper is open to objections even when it is again presented here as if it was error-free. JuanR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC).

Edit War

I believe several editors of this article, including myself, are engaged in an edit war. I have personally just violated the three edit rule in undoing what I believe to be vandalism of the article. This is no excuse. However, my reasons have been plainly documented many times in the edit summary notes and this discussion page, and I stand by them. Editors are raising the subject again that the TVF company page, www.metaresearch.org is not a company page, but a personal web page of TVF and that information on that site is unreliable. Under archive 5, 2nd to last section, the wikipedia administrator Materialscientist issued a ruling on this matter, and I have asked all editors to review that ruling before making further edits. But no one seems to do that, continued reverts are made, and I now consider that vandalism. Further edits based on that premise will be reported by me as vandalism to the article. Even with this belief, I am voluntarily stopping all edits for a 24 hour period by myself on this article. Akuvar (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this could be labeled as an edit war. We are merely trying to have properly sourced content here. For some aspects the information on www.metaresearch.org is unreliable, and for some aspects the information is reliable but unsuitable. Please make that distinction. I also advise you not to use www.worldnpa.org as a reliable source. Just have a look at their principles. I don't think that more needs to be said. DVdm (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I need you to be more specific why information on these websites is unreliable or unusable. Especially since we are using something as simple as biographical data from both of them. Do you have reason to believe that the data is fictitious or posted as misinformation with the purpose to mislead people? Akuvar (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You find the specifics higher up on this talk page and in varous edit summaries. There is no need to repeat all this. DVdm (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I see is a discussion about if the page is an autobiography, which it cannot be labeled as such, and the suitability of the website because the feeling it is a personal website, which a wiki administrator ruled it is not. As for the NPA website, I don't see any argument as to why that cannot be used as a source for TVF biographical data. Further, the youtube link currently used as a source for the Mars lecture contains biographical information in the introductory text. That is three sources that give TVF's title at the USNO. So, either tell us why these sources are unreliable or we need to restore the information in the article. Akuvar (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, see higher up and elsewhere. Also, it turns out that your vandalism complaint was dismissed and that some advise was given. DVdm (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find it. Please assist me by being more exact. Akuvar (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Want a solution? Find more sources. If this individual is particularly notable his information should be verifiable in multiple third party reliable sources, none of which appear to be provided for the disputed content. BTW Akuvar, it appears that you have misinterpreted the comments made by Materialscientist. His comment was solely on the name attributed to the link that was disputed here. He made no comment on whether the source was reliable. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. DVdm (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves

And,

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material

Wow, sounds BETTER. Akuvar (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the guideline with no context isn't really helpful. What are you getting at? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The basis for my complaint is that people are saying the www.Metaresearch.org site is not a reliable source because it is written by its founder, Tom Van Flandern. I thought the matter was settled by Materialscientist that it is a company website, you say not so. OK. I contend that if it is a company website, it is a valid 3rd party source with science articles and a biography page of its founder. I now also contend that if those arguing that feel it is a personal website, that it also meets source guidelines under wikipedia rules. That either way you label it, company or personal website, it meets wikipedia guidelines and can stand alone as a source for the subject's credentials and work titles. 74.96.246.95 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand what third party means, but perhaps I shouldn't have used that term specifically because it can confuse things. I should have said secondary sources. You need to use sources that are created by an entity that has no relation to the subject. The company web site is a primary source. Have a read of WP:PRIMARY. A primary source generally does not stand alone as an only source for information. You've also misinterpreted the section you quoted above from WP:RS. Those would fall under questionable sources and would require a higher level of scrutiny. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have provided two other sources for the biographical data, one is the introduction text at the youtube video of his lecture [[1]] and the second is his information as a member of the NPA [[2]] neither of these organizations were controlled by the subject, both have biographical data, but other editors have dismissed them for seemingly no reason. Perhaps you can help clarify if these are valid 3rd party sources or not. Akuvar (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming to support with the Youtube video? The only thing that it supports is his name and the fact that he gave a lecture to a fringe group. A quick look at the World Science Database web site indicates that the content is produced by its readers. That would make it an unreliable source. To get back to what I initially saw as an issue with the sources: anything that is sourced to Metaresearch.org should be supported by an alternate source. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you go to the youtube video, under the video window there is a title, click on the "expand" arrow and it gives a text introduction to the video as well as a biography of the subject. Can you also explain what is the difference between unreliable and questionable for sources? 74.96.246.95 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Read this. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 00:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So it seems quite clear to me that as far as his biography goes on the metaresearch site, we can use all that biographical material. It is from [in your opinion/ruling] a questionable source, but it is information about the subject being, alegedley written by the subject, used in a wiki article about the subject. I'm just talking about the biographical information, not the papers, ideas, or articles. Akuvar (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand Wikipedia policy. If someone says on their web page that they hate tennis, it would be okay for a Wikipedia article to say that the person hates tennis, because the truth of this statement is determined by the person himself. He is the sole authority on whether or not he hates tennis. This is an example of using someone's web site for information about what they person wrote on their web site. It does not involve any 3rd parties. But if someone says on their web site that they were once the CEO of Microsoft, it is not considered a suitable source, because a person isn't the CEO of Microsoft simply because they say so. This is a matter of factual record that involves 3rd parties (in this case, Microsoft), and it is also self-serving, so we need some independent verifiability for this statement. For your information, I have actually asked the USNO to confirm TvF's claims, but they have declined to so so. Lacking any independent verifiability of such statements, Wikipedia policy forbids including them in the article. Rather than arguing with this policy, or engaging in edit wars, I think it would be more productive for you to simply find an independent reputable source for the statements you want to include.Urgent01 (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I understand it as it was presented by a wiki administrator in this section. A person listing a job they held is not unduly self-serving, nor does it make "claims about a third party." If you still believe this is wrong, please get a wiki administrator to refute it. BTW, I don't know if your claim to contact the USNO about TVF is true, or just a red herring to make editors believe that the information can't be verified or that he didn't hold the post, but it does constitute original research, which is completely forbidden. Akuvar (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your understand of "original research" is backwards. Removing unverifiable claims from articles is not original research. The inclusion of unverifiable claims would be original research.Urgent01 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is clear, let me make it crystal for you. An editor (you) contacting the USNO for information to be presented here is original research. Period. Akuvar (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your understanding is backwards. Original research consists of inserting material into articles that does not come from reputable verifiable sources. For example, if you have a web site, and you claim on your web site that you were once the CEO of General Motors, this would not be a suitable source for including that statement in a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, if someone can locate an official publication of General Motors (or any other reputable independent source) stating that you were indeed the CEO of General Motors, then that would be a perfectly valid thing to include in a Wikipedia article. This is not "original research", it is the opposite of original research. It is presenting verifiable information from reputable independent sources, which is precisely what Wikipedia policy requires.Urgent01 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Most Noteable?

an editor just moved the face of mars information to the top of the article claiming it is what the subject was most noteable for. On what is this based on? A quick google search has the metaresearch website as the first hit, so I'm thinking that is what is most noteable? Akuvar (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

An individual's personal web site is not notable. A google search on the subject's name turns up the first hits on his "Faces on mars" video lectures, etc. The sponsors of the available lectures were UFO organizations. If anyone can find a reference for a TvF lecture on the faces on mars being given at any other kind of organization, it would be worth mentioning in the article.Urgent01 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. According to you we would rewrite the bio of Hawking, because performing a search in google gives first hits to his "Don't talk to aliens" warns. Moreover, ranking in google is forced to vary according to certain algorithms to impede unfair rankings. If we were to accept your to match notability with first hits then at least use an academic search engine as scholar JuanR (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (I forgot to login first)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tom+van+Flandern

It is not a personal website, that has been covered, see above or the archives. I don't argue that the youtube videos of a lecture were sponsored by a ufo organization, I object to the statement that they were mostly sponsored by ufo organizations. I don't have to prove a negative to get the statement removed, someone needs to prove that most of his lectures were sponsored by those organizations to justify writing that statement. "Most of the ones that we have videos of on youtube were sponsored by ufo organizations" would be accurate but ludicrous. Akuvar (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken about TvF's personal web site, which is well recognized as such. This has been fully covered in the archived discussions. Also, multiple presentations given by TvF on the "faces on mars" are referenced and available, and each of them was presented at UFO conferences. How about saying "All known publich lectures that TvF gave on this subject were at UFO conferences, but one editor of this article, who uses the name Akuvar, suspects that TvF might have given such presentations at non-UFO venues, although this editor is unable to cite any such presentations". Would that be better?Urgent01 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You also said "TvF's espousal of limitless free energy is well documented." It isn't. That's why there has been a lot of discussion on it. If it is well documented, please give us the sources so we can put it to rest. A person reporting about a conference and injecting their own opinions on what the implications of what TVF said is not the same as TVF saying it or believing it. I believe TVF understood that the "switching a gravity plate on and off" to make it rise and fall would take more energy than it could possibly generate as a power source, as the laws as we understand them dictate. If you can prove he threw that aside, then maybe we can talk. Akuvar (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In the linked utube video he explicitly states that the ultramundane flux can be used as the source of limitless energy. This is a direct quote, and we have him saying it on video, and giving the same explanation as described in the Infinite Energy Conference. Also, the TITLE of his presentation at the Infinite Energy Conference was "A Complete Theory of Gravity and Free Energy". Nothing could possibly be more fully verified than this. Also, this has been thoroughly discussed previously. Please stop trying to delete the most verifiable and notable features of this article, and replacing them with your own unverifiable (and erroneous) POV. ThanksUrgent01 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, your most recent edit summary suggests that you haven't seen the latest comments on this discussion page. See the section on "Edit War" above, for an explantion of your misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy regarding questionable sources such as TvF's web site. Urgent01 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar's Edits

One of the editors of this article, Akuvar, a former personal friend of TVF who's avowed mission here is to make this article as favorable as possible to TVF, has been repeatedly making the same set of edits, most recently with no Discussion at all.

One of the editors of this article, Urgent01, a former enemy of TVF who's avowed mission here is to make this article as disreputable as possible to TVF, has been repeatedly making the same revert of the page, deleting all new items to the article, instead of specific items that he discusses at length. I am unwilling to discuss the specific items he objects to until he becomes a more friendly wikipedia editor, and only reverting items that he has objection to. Although I feel that any favorable additions to the article he will find fault with. Akuvar (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The main edits he seems intent on making are

(1) Insert the statement that TVF was Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the USNO.

(2) Remove the statements referring to TVF's espousal of limitless free energy.

The objections to both of these edits have been explained several times in this discussion page, by several different editors, but Akuvar persists in trying to make these edits. For the record, the objection to the "Chief of Celestial Branch" is due to lack of verifiability, because the only source for this claim is TVF's own web site, which does not qualify as an independent reputable source for a claim that is obviously self-serving and that involves 3rd parties (the USNO). This article already contains too much unverifiable material from TVF's web site, but it has been allowed because frankly there is a lack of reputable secondary sources on this subject. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and most editors seem to agree that the "Branch Chief" claim should not be included until someone can provide an independent reputable source for it. (If there is no such source, then is it really notable?) I have tried to track down a source for this claim, including contacting the USNO, but have been unable to get any confirmation.

There is an entire section on this above in the discussion area where a wiki administrator pointed out the specific references in the wiki rules that allow information about a subject to be included when the article is about the subject. The matter is closed unless Urgent01 shows that he too is now a wiki administrator. Akuvar (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the limitless free energy, TVF's espousal of this is the best documented thing in the entire article. We actually point to a videotaped public lecture in which he explains why his theory of untramundane particles zooming through the universe at superluminal speeds is a source of limitless energy, and we have published secondary sources (the best kind, per Wikipedia policy) on his public lecture at the Infinite Energy Conference, entitled "A Complete Theory of Gravity and Free Energy". Full references to these verifiable sources are provided in the article (except intermittantly when Akuvar deletes them).

There have been extensive discussions of this, and there are references pointing to several sites where the name of the lecture was different on each site. Even the "best source" quoted above does not have TVF say FREE energy, so if it is the best source, we can't use "free" as a descriptor. Akuvar (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of Akuvar's edits are contrary to clear Wikipedia policy. He inserts unverifiable material, and deletes verifiable material. My suggestion is to try harder to learn, understand, and comply with Wikipedia policy.Urgent01 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaky suspicion that if we were all following wikipedia policy, you wouldn't be permitted to write anything on these pages. Akuvar (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the third edit that Akuvar has been repeatedly making. It is the insertion of an "Honors" section, consisting of the asteriod that TVF's friends arranged to have named after him, shortly after his passing. This topic has been discussed at length previously in this discussion page, and it has been pointed out that people have named asteroids after cartoon characters and their pets and their children and spouses, etc. There are thousands of un-named asteriods, and anyone who wants to propose a name for one can do so. The naming of asteriods is not an "Honor" is any reasonable sense of the word, per Wikipedia groundrules. At most it would be "Trivia", but Wikipedia rules discourage Trivia sections, so as a compromise, it was placed in a footnote. This seems to be the appropriate place for it, or else delete it altogether. Akuvar's attempts to make this into an "Honors" section for his friend is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.Urgent01 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length and proven that all your statements are false. The footnote also espoused that the asteroid was named by "friends" of TVF's but I see no documentation of that. Since you brought it up again, could you provide proof that that statement is true and not just inserted to belittle the honor? Akuvar (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The circumstances of the asteriod naming by friends of the family was discussed previously in this Discussion page, as was the meaning and significance of such naming. It is at most a point of trivia, not an "Honor". It's significance has absolutely no verifiability of any kind, and it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, but I think it's okay to mention it in a footnote.Urgent01 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is significant, it is not easily achieved. There is no point in listing items in a footnote when he is the subject of the article. Akuvar (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read the discussions of this point, you will see that cartoon characters and people's pet dogs and cats have had asteriods named for them. Neither those cartoon characters nor those pets did anything notable in scientific terms to "merit" the naming. I don't think there's much point in belaboring this issue. It is mere trivia, and should either be deleted or, at most, placed in a footnote.Urgent01 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read and took part in those discussions, did you? The end result was that it is noteable, regardless of what some asteroids are named, to have an asteroid named in your honor. If it is no small feat, please provide a reference for me to get an asteroid named after my dog. Akuvar (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Already done. The process for applying for an asteriod name was given previously in this discussion page - which you would know if you had following the discussions.Urgent01 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For an additional comment, Akuvar has now starting inserting another "Honor", this time citing TVF's paper on Variations in the Gravitational Constant. What Akuvar doesn't realize is that even TVF himself later acknowledged that this paper was in error, and it was an embarrassment, since it misled people for a time into thinking there was empirical support for the variations in the gravitational constant. It is now understood (and even TVF agred, see his book) that his reasoning was founded on faulty premises, and was therefore invalid. So, if we really want to include that reference, it is essential that we also make it clear that this was one more example of an embarrassing error, just the opposite of an "Honor". Do we really want to do this? I think it would be gratutiously disrespectful to TVF, but if Akuvar insists, I guess we would include the whole regretable story.Urgent01 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. Please make sure you cite proper reference material for people to verify. Many awards and citations have been awarded in history that have later been proved wrong or theories built upon. The award was still given, if you want to provide additional source material, I think that would be appropriate. Akuvar (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to add some text describing the variable G fiasco.Urgent01 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

no you didn't. You removed the award completely, then added the debunking info, so it had no reference. It belongs as a footnote to the award at best. You also continue to revert the entire article, removing ALL edits that you do not like while only discussing a single item. You are close to vandalizing this article. Akuvar (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the reference to TVF's (discredited) paper on variations in G. Regarding the "Gravity Research Foundation Award", you should be aware that it is a crackpot organization. Read the Wikipedia article on it. Loony tunes. To get SECOND prize from a crackpot organization is a highly questionable "honor", especially for a paper that has subsequently been discredited. This again would be trivia at best.Urgent01 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on Gravity Research Foundation Award:

The annual essay prize drew respected researchers who didn't mind a shot at a few thousand dollars—including physicist Stephen Hawking, who won several times [...]. Recent winners include California astrophysicist George F. Smoot, who later won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics.

The above extract (earlier deleted by Tim Shuba) shows that above Urgent01 edits are biased and inaccurate JuanR (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

There is a nice chapter in a Martin Gardner book about the Gravity Research Foundation. The fact that this "honor" is the best that Akuvar can dredge up does show that virtually no scientists take Van Flandern's garbage seriously. I'm not sure if a good collection of reliable sources can be found to back this up, but Van Flandern is certainly one of the darlings of a particular variety of conspiracy theorists. Richard C. Hoagland, for example, is a self-promoting science crackpot who has appeared on stage with Van Flandern. Regarding the asteroid naming, there already is a recently created article, and I think one sentence in this article linking it would be reasonable.

In any event, having two editors piddling on each other for months isn't productive. The are better options available. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on Martin Gardner book Fads and Fallacies:

General Semanticist Bruce Kodish critiqued Fads and Fallacies as addressing the style and character traits of "cranks" rather than the substance of the views Gardner objects to, with particular reference to the supposed five characteristics of a pseudoscientist:

The main problem with depending on the criteria of crankdom to determine the value of a set of formulations was noted by philosopher Morris R. Cohen: "If the premises are sufficient, they are so no matter by whom stated." Gardner’s criteria not only do not rule out the scientific value of a set of formulations, quite the contrary, they can encourage the premature rejection of potentially useful viewpoints.

A skeptic who presumes to defend science has the duty to adopt an ‘impartial’ scientific attitude and carefully examine controversial viewpoints on their own merits. Overzealous ‘fringe watchers’ defining and guarding the borderlands of science, may make some very serious misevaluations— particularly when they become overly dependent upon, and uncritically apply, these criteria, based on presumed character traits, for detecting ‘cranks’ and ‘pseudoscientists’.

Gardner's criteria can easily become excuses for ad hominem attacks

The above extract (earlier deleted by Tim Shuba) shows that Martin Gardner book is a suspected source for this page and quoting again wikipedia article "can easily become excuses for ad hominem attacks". In this case the target of ad hominem attacks is clearly tvf. JuanR (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC).

Tim, I thought you had removed yourself from this page because of your POV comments made to editor MikeVF, so not only am I shocked to see you here, but you have also deleted discussion comments made by another editor. This is in clear violation of wikipedia policy and I assumewhen editor JuanR sees what you have done he will take appropriate administrative action against you. Akuvar (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't "removed myself" from this page, that is a fiction invented by Akuvar without any basis. I removed text which disfigured and obscured the meaning of others' comments. That Akuvar defends such an action says plenty about his motivation. Go ahead and pursue "administrative action", that could be entertaining, but do so in a proper venue, not here. Tim Shuba (talk)

Not a fiction, I guess you forget your own words where you declare your non-NPOV for this page in case you've already forgotten. Here is your quote and MikeVF's reply from your talk page, which you have conveniently deleted. Akuvar (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tom Van Flandern was unquestionably an extreme relativity crank. The utter tripe about special relativity found at the junk site metaresearch.org is pathetic. Tom Van Flandern was seething with intellectual dishonesty regarding the subject of relativity. Of course these are my opinions, but they are in line with the experts quoted in the Salon/Cosmos article, which does accurately represent the mainstream view. Will this be properly discussed in the article? Or will the article remain an Akuvar-owned hagiography? Many other fun questions wait to be answered, and I can see several possible directions, each of which promises to provide some level of amusement. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)"

"Tim, if your personal interest is the development of the article about my father is "personal amusement" I'm kindly asking you to desist. You are maligning an honest, decent, hardworking man with a solid resume and credentials. I understand you don't like some of his theories, but there's no need for ad hominems. Please remember, you are talking about a real person. Thanks -Mike Van FlandernMikevf (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)"

Further, you have deleted comments by another editor on this talk page, you can call it "cleaning up" but in my book, cleaning up doesn't mean deletion. Akuvar (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Deep, Um, Reality

In TVF's book he claims that the mainstream modern physics is based on the belief that "there is no deep reality". In fact, this claim appears FIVE separate times in the book. TVF then argued for the rejection and replacement of modern physics with what he termed "deep reality physics". According to the actual mainstream physics view, the ideas put forward by TVF under this heading are pure crackpottery, and they were never accepted for publication in any reputable source. This is not really a notable item, but I think it's worthwhile to state that TVF espoused "deep reality physics", because the phrase makes clear the character and level of his thought. But at the same time, it is not appropriate to use this article as a platform to present crank claims from non-reputable sources. So, the proper description is as it currently appears in the article, simply stating the fact that TVF advocated the replacement of modern physics with ideas that he called "deep reality physics". The only real source for this complete phrase is self-published newsletters and web site, but it's okay to simply state that he used this term to characterize his ideas.Urgent01 (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It offends me that you are resorting to personal attacks against the article's subject. Why can't you present your arguments in a NPOV? The phrase that you are using is not sourcable, as he never wrote it. He did not advocate the replacement of modern physics, he stated very clearly in the article that is cited that all physics rules should be subjected to a multi-point set of principles. If they meet the test, they can be dubbed Deep Reality Physics and kept. If they don't meet the tests, they should be thrown out. Akuvar (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and TVF also claimed strenuously that modern physics does not "meet the test" of "deep reality" and therefore should be thrown out, and replaced with his own alternative set of ideas - ideas which were dismissed as crackpottery by the mainstream physics and astronomy community. (See for example the description in TVF's book about the time he was hooted down for incompetence at a professional conference where he tried to present his "exploding planet" claims. And this was during his supposedly "mainstream" career, at the time when you claim he was being promoted to the Chief of the celestial mechanics branch of the USNO.) So, the wording that I proposed is appropriate, accurate, and verifiable, expressing the mainstream view of the subject. The wording that you proposed expresses your own POV and novel narrative (attempting to portray TVF as a respected scientist with ideas that were not dismissed as crackpottery by the scientific community), and therefore is not appropriate.Urgent01 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, anonymous editor Urgent01 makes biased and inaccurate claims against TVF. Of course, Urgent01 avoids to cite what those deep reality principles are, because if he did, we could see that many of them are not so unrelated to modern research. Some of those principles are:

The Causality Principle
No time reversal
No true action at a distance
No creation ex nihilo
No demise ad nihil
The finite cannot become infinite

The former is a fundamental principle of science. The second is the basis for some modern extensions of physics published in top journal by Nobel laureates and other recognized experts. There was a recent Solvay conference a few years ago specifically devoted to irreversibility and the breaking of time reversal (I think was the XXI). The third is the basis of field theory (albeit several of us strongly disagree with this principle, e.g. Feynman and Wheeler showed that their action-at-a-distance electrodynamics was not inferior to the more traditional field theory). The fourth is the basis of some modern post-big-bang cosmological scenarios (e.g. cyclic scenarios, free-lunch scenarios...). The fifth is related to black holes predicted by general relativity. TVF argued against the formation of black holes and more specifically against the information paradox. After several years of misunderstanding Hawking has finally agreed with us that information is not lost and that black holes do not really form (links to Hawking words could be given here if needed, but this is well-known and reported in many science news services). TVF introduced the sixth for avoiding the nonsensical spacetime singularities allowed by general relativity and other theories. Precisely the modern quantum gravity approaches are attempts to ride those nonsensical singularities out of physics. Of course, TVF principles are subjected to criticism (e.g. above I explicitly showed disagreement with his third one), but are not pure crackpottery as the anonymous editor Urgent01 is claiming. JuanR (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits - Table of Contents, and "known as"

Some recent edits have suggested adding a table of contents block, but this seems out of proportion, because the article has only two sub-headers, plus "references". (In some edits an additional sub-section appears, called "Honors", but this subsection is POV and doesn't belong in the article, IMO.) In addition, it's been suggested that the "known as" in the lead sentence should be omitted as superfluous. I that phrase serves a purpose, because the sentence is trying to convey first that TVF was nominally an astronomer, but that his notability was not as an astronomer, it was for his unorthodox views on a variety of subjects, such as faster than light travel, limitless free energy, extra-terrestrial life, and so on. Even his unorthodox views related to astronomy were not actually astronomy. So the purpose of the "known as" is to convey the subject's notabiliy as distinct from the subject's early occupation (for which he was not notable). The words are not superfluous.Urgent01 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Honors and Awards?

One editor has advocated inserting a new section on "Honors and Awards", in which he wants to place the statements about the 2nd place "Gravity Foundation" paper and the condolance asteroid naming. Both of these items have been discussed previously. The Gravity Foundation is a crackpot organization of no legitimate scientific standing, and a 2nd place award from them is of dubious significance.

From the wikipedia article on Gravity Research Foundation Award:

The annual essay prize drew respected researchers who didn't mind a shot at a few thousand dollars—including physicist Stephen Hawking, who won several times [...]. Recent winners include California astrophysicist George F. Smoot, who later won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics.

The above extract (earlier deleted by Tim Shuba) shows that Urgent01 suggestions are irrelevant and must be safely ignored JuanR (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Morevoer, the paper in question was later shown to have been misguided and it conclusion erroneous. So, creating an "Honors" section for this is (in my opinion) extremely inappropriate and misleading. Likewise the asteriod naming has been discussed at length, and it's clear that anyone can propose any name they like for any of the tens of thousands of un-named asteroids, and as long as it isn't profane or otherwise objectionable, such proposals are typically accepted. The asteroid naming was arranged by some of TVF's friends and well-wishers as a kind gesture. It's fine to mention this as a footnote, but it does not warrant a dedicated "Honors and Awards" section in this article.

But in addition to the dubious nature of the two specific "Honors and Awards", there is a larger problem with the section. It conveys the impression that TVF was an honored and awarded member of the scientific community, which was simply not the case, as is verifiable from many sources. In fact, even TVF's own web site gives an accurate appraisal of his standing. It says

"Alternative ideas are often rejected out of hand ... because they challenge the status quo. Those who question any widely accepted theories are labeled ignorant, and if they persist are branded cranks, charlatans, or worse. ...here at least it is safe ... to make a case for alternative hypotheses."

His is a very accurate description of 'mainstream' rejection of new ideas. Many Nobel Prize winners have stated similar views than TVF (all of them could be cited here if editor Urgent01 want to learn something). For instance in a recent interview, Murray Gell-Mann has explained how he was labeled as crank:

"A lot of people thought the quarks were a crank idea."

Quarks challenged orthodox physics on several levels, violating at least three prevailing principles. "One of them was that the neutron and proton were elementary--they were not composed of anything simpler" Gell-Mann said during the Princeton interview. Second, quarks had to be permanently trapped inside observable particles, also defying beliefs held by many physicists. "That was a crazy idea, they thought" he said.

Third, quarks possessed the awkward property of fractional electric charge, something never observed (even to this day) for a subatomic particle. All observable charged particles possess some integral multiple of the charge on an electron, the smallest unit of charge that nature offers. "The idea of particles with fractional charges--that was considered to be a crank idea too" Gell-Mann said. "So the quarks had three strikes against them, from these three principles--all wrong, of course."

Of course, TVF theories are subject to criticism and revision, but the above extracts from Murray Gell-Mann show that Urgent01 suggestions are irrelevant and must be safely ignored JuanR (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

This verifies that the ideas which TVF sought to promote were contrary to "widely accepted theories", and that the mainstream scientific community rejects such ideas out of hand, and that the mainstream community brands people who espouse such theories (including TVF) as "ignorant, cranks, charaltans, or worse". Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the mainstream view of the subject, and it's clear that the mainstream view of TVF was as he described it on the Welcome page of his web site. With this in mind, it is obviously biased and POV to include a section on "Honors and Awards" in the article. If editors really want to include a section describing how TVF's ideas were received by the scientific community, it would have to be labeled something like "Reception by Mainstream Scientific Community", and this section would pre-dominantly convey the same view that TVF described on his web page, i.e., that he was regarded as and "ignorant crank, charlatan, or worse". But surely this is un-called-for. I don't favor adding such a section to this article. It would be needlessly unkind. But by the same token, I think it's clear that an "Honors and Awards" section is totally inappropriate for this article. TVF's notability was for being opposed to the mainstream scientific community, not for being an honored and awarded member of the mainstream scientific community. Let's try to avoid biasing the article in ways that are contrary to verifiable facts.Urgent01 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what one might think of the gravity foundation as a whole, one editor has provided references that extremely noted scientists, such as Steven Hawking, have sought out and been awarded these prizes. Based on this alone, to be placed in the same category as a winner, seems noteable. The asteroid naming convention, although you repeatedly argue it is an easily obtainable honor, you cannot produce any evidence of that. You also say it was done as a kind gesture by friends and associates, but you can't prove that either. Constantly typing your POV opinions about both these subjects but never following up on other editor's requests for you to substantiate them doesn't make them any truer then the first time you wrote it.

Your quote from the website is comical. TVF was describing people like you in the mainstream and how they fight to discredit and label those that question it. This is exactly what you do, so I can't really believe you pointed this out. This doesn't make TVF more of a crackpot, it means he was right about people like you. Akuvar (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The point is not that the mainstream scientific community is right in regarding TVF as an ignorant crank, charlatan, or worse, the point is merely that the mainstream scientific community regarded TVF as an ignorant crank, charlatan, or worse. Wikipedia policy is specifically designed not to determine what is right or wrong (true or false), but merely to report the mainstream views of a subject to be found in reputable independent sources (publishers with a good reputation for scholarly standards, etc). It is entirely possible that the mainstream view found in reputable sources is wrong, but Wikipedia policy is not concerned with this. For your information, here is a quote of official Wikipedia policy:

"Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows: The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide."

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

I suggest you try to keep these principles in mind when considering any future edits to the article.

On the subject of the Gravity Foundation, I have some good news for you. The Annual Urgent01 Award for Excellence in Physics has just announced that Akuvar is the winner of this year's 2nd prize. I have previously awarded this prize to Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein, so it is a very prestegious award, obviously. But wait, no, of course it's not. Any crackpot can give awards to anyone they wish, but this does not make the award prestegious. The level of honor of an award is decided by the mainstream scientific community, which regards the Gravity Foundation as a crackpot organization. Case closed.Urgent01 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the fictitious "Annual Urgent01 Award" that you have invented out of nothing, George F. Smoot, who later won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics, consider his Gravity Foundation award good enough to cite it in his own curriculum vitae: http://aether.lbl.gov/PDFs/GFS-CV&Pubs-407.pdf

Other editors are right to cite the award in a ssection of honors of TVF JuanR (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above is all excellent if it applied to this article, but the article is not about a non-mainstream scientific theory, it is about a person. the article has been up for deletion twice and editors have voted, almost unanimously, to keep because of the noteability of the subject. If the article was on "martian life as origin of earth species" then I might see your point for providing the above excerpts, but it isn't. The subjects fringe theories are what made him noteable and that is why they are listed and to some degree explained in the article. However, I agree with editor JuanR that we should use google scholar as an indicator of what ideas the subject was most noted for and the order they take in the article.

I would also like to take one final opportunity to remind you about responsible editing. I have done this on your talk page but you continue to engage in reverting the article back to a state from several weeks ago. This overwrites good faith edits by other editors, that you do not post objections to on this talk page. Even minor edits, like correcting where a reference is placed in punctuation is an important, valid edit that needs to be carried forward to future edits. It is the responsibility of every editor, especially when resorting to a complete article reversion as you do, to go in and preserve these edits. IMO your wholesale reversions and stamping out these edits is tantamount to vandalism as it certainly is not productive. Akuvar (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very mistaken. If you review the full policy statement (of which I extracted only a portion), you will see that it specifically says the same principle applies to history, i.e., biographical, articles, and every other kind of article. This is the fundamental principle on which Wikipedia is based, called "verifiability", which means not true or factual, but representative of material to be found in reputable sources. And the definition of reputable sources is given as sources from mainstream publishers with a good reputation for scholarly standards. In other words, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the mainstream view of the subject. This applies to all subjects, not just to articles about pseudo-scientific cranks. Basically, Wikipedia policy was specifically designed to thwart the efforts of original thinkers and those who espouse ideas that are rejected by the mainstream scholarly community, and people who want to place novel narratives and interpretations into Wikipedia articles.Urgent01 (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with some of the things you're saying here, but if the article stays, as it has been voted to "keep," then you're faced with having to talk about the ideas that the subject was noted for. No place in the article does it say the ideas were correct, and in many places the article points out that the ideas went against main stream science. So, we're faced with nominating for deletion again based on the guidelines you've just posted, or we have to state the ideas he believed in and made him noteable. You may be surprised by this, but I favor deletion of the article, but I think if it went up for vote again, it would get the "keep" again. So I recommend we continue making the article as representative as it can be, without introducing our own POV, and let people make their own decisions by clicking on links and the footnotes. Accordingly, it needs to be an actual article about the subject. You don't want me raising him up on a pedestal, and I won't tolerate it being dragged through the mud. Isn't there someplace in the middle we can get to and let the article live in peace? Akuvar (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summaries and Discussion Comments

I noticed a recent edit that significantly altered the form and content of the article, by an editor that has not previously participated in the editing of this article, and there was no edit summary accompanying the edit, nor any comment on the Discussion page. I know Edit Summaries and Discussion page comments are optional, but many people find them helpful for communicating the intent of their edits, and for explaining extensive or complicated edits. I think it would be helpful, especially for new editors on this article, to at least provide a few words in the Edit Summary, or even better, some rationale on the Discussion page. ThanksUrgent01 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me be frank. Editors like user:NuclearWarfare and myself have worked on so many bios, dispassionately, that we are not likely to explain our every edit to someone, like yourself, who is focused on a single bio. We are of course keen to have the input of people who are passionately interested in a specific topic, as you can provide crucial guidance and information. We are both very well versed in policy. Another point I want to make is that there has been a disproportionate amount of discussion to date, with very little content developed as a result. The current approach to developing this article has been unnecessarily time consuming for all involved, and I hope that all parties will get on board and help bring this towards a stable & good article quickly. I'm not here to muck around; I hope the interest parties are going to muck me around. If you have specific concerns, by all means raise them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Accomplishments

I am appalled at the lack of coverage of the subjects scientific accomplishments. It would be a very foolish person who thought that the subject had garnered so much credibility with the scientific community, which was subsequently consumed, without having some substance behind that. Yet our article says very little about his accomplishments. In short, this article is biased towards his more outlandish ideas which followed his scientific accomplishments, and we need to add balance by expanding on his scientific achievements and accomplishments.

The citation from MPC lists four:

predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s
published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets
helped improve GPS accuracies
established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas

Obviously the citation came soon after his death, so it is not going to be as objective as we should be, but it is a good framework.

Please, could those who are familiar with the subject list a few of his most important scientific accomplishments, specifically pointing out the highly cited journal articles and/or other work which was highly regarded at the time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent remarks! Effectively, he had several papers published in top journal including ApJ and Science albeit some anonymous editors want delete those facts http://scholar.google.es/scholar?hl=es&q=tC+van+flandern. It is more, the own USNO lists one of tvf papers in their section of selected reports http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/publications/sel-tech-rep/ JuanR (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding. The subject was not a notable scientist. His notability, and the only justification for this Wikipedia article, is for his espousal of ideas and beliefs regarded by the mainstream scientific community as pseudo-scientific crackpotery. Even during his supposedly "mainstream" years, he was being hooted down as professional conferences for proposing what the mainstream community regarded as nonsense. (See TVF's book for an account of one such incident.) The "accomplishments" cited above are a collection of trivialities and falsehoods. Labeling lunar occultations is utterly trivial. Improving GPS accuracy is a false claim (and more importantly, not verifiable per Wikipedia policy). Establishing Metaresearch is a non-accomplishment, since it consisted only of himself and his self-promoting activities (and ecclipse viewing tours). Pionieering papers on binary planets is another "non-verifiable" claim. Honestly, the only work for which TVF was genuinely notable in the scientific community, aside from his "outlandish" claims (faces on mars, etc) was his early work on Dirac's idea about varying G, but that work was soon shown to have been misguided and erroneous, not statistically significant, which even TVF himself acknowledged. I support the idea of inviting some scientifically literate people to review the article and provide comments.Urgent01 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(i) The subject is Tom van Flandern. Therefore the article would contain a selection of both his contributions and his mistakes otherwise the article will be incomplete.

(ii) Being "hooted down" at some conferences is another minor issue. Feynman was hooted down as professional at Pocono conference for proposing what the mainstream community (including Dirac and Bohr) regarded then as nonsense. Years latter, Feynman wrote about this in the next terms "it didn't make me angry, it just made me realize that ... [ they ] ... didn't know what I was talking about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further." But you do not ask to include this episode on Feynman's article. Do you?

(iii) Your comments continue being biased. You angrily reject to cite TVF references for info such as his affiliation, but you do not doubt to cite TVF book above as source and support for your claims.

(iv) You continue neglecting any reference given to you, including papers in top journal as Science, USNO citation of van Flandern papers, etc. whereas you continue doing unverifiable personal claims with no support and of course giving us zero citations JuanR (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Firstly, this discussion section is not for ragging on the man. Please start new discussions for any negative aspects of his life.

Secondly, the citation from MPC is patently verifiable. The information in the MPC citation could be wrong, and that is a valid concern, but that does not make the contents of the citation unverifiable. Please stop this nonsense of claiming that facts cited to credible publications are somehow unverifiable according to Wikipedia policy. Those sources may be wrong, but the onus of proving that they are wrong is on the person who is claiming that. If it is wrong, we have three options. 1) discard it entirely, which I see is your preferred approach, but that is only done if the source can be discredited somehow, or 2) refute it, using more credible sources, or 3) use pieces of it that are not contested, and refute the remainder where possible with more credible sources.

Wrt Meta Research, I have no opinion yet, except that this article should mention it, and should mention the Bulletin, as these are verifiable facts. At this stage, I think the article should send the reader away knowing that Meta Research and the Bulletin were not institutions that were respected in the scientific community. I think we need a new discussion about Meta Research, but I am not ready to start one as I haven't investigated this aspect in detail, yet.

Thanks for providing one scientific aspect which has a degree of notability to it.

I disagree that his notability is solely based on his outlandish claims. If only it was so simple. At the very least, his notability is slightly more complicated - he was a well published researcher, in a respected position in household name institution, with a few successes under his belt, and then left this to be consumed by his outlandish ideas which were rejected by the scientific community. This entirety of his journey needs to be covered in our biography, for it is that which makes him notable and interesting.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Asteroid naming citations are not peer-reviewed publications from academic publishers with a good reputation for scholarly work (which is the definition of a reputable source per Wikipedia policy), nor are obituaries written by family and friends. Such sources can only be used for non-self-serving information, and even then, only sparingly. The basic Wikipedia policy is that if you can't find a good cite from an independent reputable source (per the definition of a reputable source), then it isn't verifiable and probably isn't notable.

TVF was not a well-published researcher. If you review the criteria for notability of scientists for Wikipedia articles, TVF was not a notable scientist. Simply having a PhD and having a job at the USNO does not make someone notable as a scientist or scholar. Also, even in 1976, TVF was being hooted down at professional conferences, and this was in the middle of his supposedly mainstream respected career. As mentioned above, TVF's only arguably notable scientific activity was the "variable G" study, which unfortunately turned out to have been fundamentally flawed, misguided, and erroneous. But since few people ever took it very seriously anyway, it wasn't a large enough embarrassment to make it noteable as an embarrassment (let alone as a scientific achievement). TVF's only notability is for his espousal of ideas that the mainstream scientific community regarded (and still regards) as kooky. To comply with Wikipedia editorial policy, the article needs to reflect this.Urgent01 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor Urgent01 continues repeating the same kind of criticism than banned user 63.24.104.99 did. Banned user became known by ignoring the responses and citations given to him and then repeating himself in an endless loop (including his multiple reverting of the article). Editor Urgent01 has been warned above with a blocking from editing Wikipedia, somehow as banned user was warned before... Next I add some arguments and citations that prove that editor Urgent01 must be safely ignored once again:

(i) Nasa database citation for the asteroid named in honor of tvf http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=52266+Van+Flandern

(ii) Obituaries written by family and friends are sources when are published by third parties (e.g. reputable journals).

(iii) TVF is not a notable scientist by "Simply having a PhD and having a job at the USNO". his notabiltiy has been pointed before several times and references were given. Above I gave a Nasa database citation for the asteroid named in his honor. The reference explains the reasons for such one honor:

"Tom Van Flandern (1940-2009) predicted and comprehensively analyzed lunar occultations at the U.S. Naval Observatory in the 1970s. In 1979 he published pioneering papers on the dynamics of binary minor planets. He helped improve GPS accuracies and established Meta Research to support alternative cosmological ideas."

I think that Wikipedia article could use that.

(v) The episode of "TVF was being hooted down at professional conferences" was replied above. Moreover, editor Urgent01 gives not reputable source for his claims (in the same comment where he has systematically asked to other editor for reputable sources).

(vi) Editor Urgent01 has avoided to answer the questions directly asked to him above JuanR (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

What does Carlip's PLA paper really say?

October 2009 discussion

The article continue falsifying that tvf paper [9] really says and what Carlip paper [11] really says about it, in despite that this was corrected before. What tvf paper really says is:

"Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the 'speed of gravity' yields a lower limit of 2x10^10 c"

And what Carlip really says in his paper is:

"In a recent paper in Physics Letters A [1], Van Flandern has argued that observations show that gravity propagates at a speed much greater than c. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, Ref. [1] relies instead on directional information, in the form of observations of (the absence of) gravitational aberration. But the translation from a direction to a speed requires theoretical assumptions, and the implicit assumptions of Ref. [1]—in particular, that the interaction is purely central, with no velocity-dependent terms—do not hold for general relativity, or, for that matter, for Maxwell’s electrodynamics [...]

Finally, let us return to the question asked in Ref. [1]: what do experiments say about the speed of gravity? The answer, unfortunately, is that so far they say fairly little. In the absence of direct measurements of propagation speed, observations must be filtered through theory, and different theoretical assumptions lead to different deductions. In particular, while the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation (with an extra interaction somehow added on to explain the gravitational radiation reaction), it is also consistent with the speed-of-light propagation predicted by general relativity."

The article says "He published one such belief in a paper claiming the existence of "faster-than-light gravitational interactions"" whereas the paper by Carlip says that it is not just a belief but that "the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation" i.e., compatible with v > 2x10^10 c. JuanR (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you go one step further and propose a new wording, or link to a previous version of the article which was worded in a way that you consider to be acceptable.

I don't want to see the Sept. 2009 discussion rehashed by the same people. This discussion should be focused on how to phrase this part of the article. If there are intractable disputes about it by the interested parties, I will invite other Wikipedians, esp. people who have a firm grasp on the topical area, to provide assistance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do not just quote what the papers really say? For instance, the current version of the article says:

"He published one such belief in a paper claiming the existence of "faster-than-light gravitational interactions[7]." He contended (as had Laplace around 1800, but contrary to the current scientific consensus represented by general relativity) that the absence of gravitational aberration implies that the speed of gravity must be billions of times greater than the speed of light.

However, the tvf paper exactly says:

"Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the 'speed of gravity' yields a lower limit of 2x10^10 c"

A possible new wording for the article could be:

He published one paper claiming that "Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the 'speed of gravity' yields a lower limit of 2x10^10 c" [7].

The current version of the article continues:

"The journal in which this paper appeared subsequently published two follow-up papers, explaining why Van Flandern's claim is incorrect.[8][9]"

But if you take a look to the papers, e.g that by Carlip you discover at least two points. First, that the paper did not analyzed the whole work by tvf but only the section devoted to aberration (note the the current version of the article provides a false presentation of tvf paper, giving readers the impression that was only about aberration and then that Carlip paper refuted it completely, when it never did). Second, the paper by Carlip agrees with tvf claim that observations are compatible with the existence of "faster-than-light gravitational interactions" when he says that (a more complete quotation was given above):

the observed absence of aberration is consistent with instantaneous propagation.

Then it is not just a belief by a crank, as editor Urgent01 pretends, but a verifiable fact for anyone who knows the physics a little. Similar remarks apply about the "faster-than-light electromagnetic interactions". This has been proved in recent physical review papers and in other places, but the author who wrote the article is unaware of up to date research in physics.

I would add that the current version of the article cites the FOP paper by tvf and Vigier [10], but fails to notice that in that paper the two authors offered a reply to Carlip criticism. That is the current version of the article is biased. For instance this is part of the response of the tandem of authors:

Our problems with Carlip's equations begin with his (1.6). This is missing transverse aberration, the largest manifestation of propagation delay. That is obviously a critical error for such an early step. If one never considers genuine retardation of propagation between source mass and target body, then infinite propagation speed for gravity is being assumed, whether one says so or not.

And effectively the mistakes by Carlip already at this point (he does many more) were corrected in recent papers in Physical Review as (Phys. Rev. E 53, 5373 (1996)) where it is showed that "faster-than-light electromagnetic interactions" are real JuanR (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

I would add that recent work published in top journals (J. Appl. Phys. 101 (2007), 023532) finds a lower limit of v>10c for electromagnetic interactions and with v>>10c experimentally indistinguishable and v=c disproved. All of this can be casted into a general theoretical framework that as a bonus explains why Carlip analysis is plain wrong JuanR (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

I don't think it is appropriate to quote from the papers, as that would a) endorse the papers, and b) most readers won't be able to understand it. It needs to be summarised in a way that can be understood by the average reader. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, quotations do not mean endorsement but reproduction of exact content. However I think that I agree with your (b). The basic idea is that tvf wrote a paper [9] where he analyzed a number of laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments and found that yield "faster-than-light gravitational interactions". Responses from other authors [10,11] analyzed part of his work. For instance, Carlip analyzed the issue of aberration with some detail (this was only one section in tvf original paper as I recall now) and confirmed that the current observations of (lack of) aberration are compatible both with "faster-than-light gravitational interactions" and with gravitational interactions propagating at c. That is, the main conclusion by Carlip was that observations of aberration alone cannot be used to differentiate between both models. In a posterior work [12] tvf and Vigier analyzed and criticized Carlip paper and next extended their analysis of interactions to electromagnetism as well.

I think that above is the minimum that the article would cover. Moreover, as a bonus I point that several recent works published in top journals (some were cited above) also discredit the analysis of the physics of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions done in [10,11]. For instance the Physical Review E 53, 5373 (1996) paper explain why electromagnetic potentials used in [10,11] are not valid and why a more rigorous treatment confirms that interactions are faster than c JuanR (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Journal of Scientific Exploration - Reputable Source?

A recent edit added an obituary written by TVF's fried Halton Arp, publish in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration". Another editor has defended this by claiming that this is a "reputable journal".

Nowhere I find what editor Urgent01 is claiming. What editor? Where he said so. Give citation for this or retract. JuanR (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

However, a quick look at the Wikipedia article on this "journal" reveals that it is not listed in the major comprehensive listings of scientific periodicals, and that it is known as a "fringe" publication in which all manner of pseudo-science (telekenisis, dowsing, ESP, etc.) is promoted. This is quite clearly NOT a reputable source per the Wikipedia definition (a publisher with a good reputation for fact checking and scholarly standards).

Again, the basic Wikipedia editorial policy is that articles should reflect the verifiable mainstream view of a subject, where the word "verifiable" means simply what is to be found in reputable sources, as defined above. Over and over again we find edits being made to this article, attempting to introduce material and points of view that are clearly POV and inconsistent with the mainstream view of the subject, and that are clearly not reputable under the Wikipedia defintion. Each time an editor introduces such material, I try to place a comment here, explaining why it is inappropriate and why it's being removed. When it is subsequently re-inserted (as it inevitably is, by editors who are sympathetic to the POV of those non-reputable sources), I try to just point back to the original explanation for removal, rather that re-typing it again.

The same editor who contents that JSE is a reputable scientific journal has also placed several comments on this discussion page, arguing that TVF was correct in his claims about "faster than light" propagation.

I did modern claims about propagation and cited papers published in top journals as physical review, applied physics, foundations of physics... supporting the claims. References which editor Urgent01 has ignored. Moreover, it is blatantly false that I did any comment about JSE. Editor Urgent01 would retract from such claims JuanR (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

These comments are not really relevant to the editing of this article.

They are relevant and correct the flawed version of the article proposed by editor Urgent01. Detailed rationale was given but editor Urgent01 has ignored JuanR (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

The question here is not whether some fringe pseudo-scientific claims might actually be true. Wikipedia is not the place to argue about such things. For purposes of this article, all that matters is that it is abundantly verifiable (in mainstream reputable sources) that TVF's claims on this subject were mistaken, so the article needs to reflect this.Urgent01 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The question in this discussion section is whether or not an obituary by Arp (added by me) is an acceptable external link, and/or acceptable reliable source. I am surprised that you think it is unacceptable to mention this~~, so I will asked for external opinions on this.~~ John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Actually, re-reading the obit, I don't see anything in it which I would want to use as a fact. I still think it would be acceptable to mention the obit, but would rather devote our energies to find consensus on other more important aspects of this article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography or Autobiography?

One of the many points of dispute in this article is over the question of whether the life details appearing on TVF's web site should be referred to as "biography" or "autobiography". The verifiable fact is that it is autobiography, because TVF's web site says specifically that everything on the site, unless otherwise noted, was written by TVF, and there is no note stating that anyone else wrote the section describing his life. By the way, when this question was discussed previously, TVF's son (who was editing this article at the time) confirmed that the material in question was written by TVF himself. Therefore, I think the verifiable fact is that it should be called AUTObiography. This is a significant distinction, and we should not mislead readers as to the sources of information. Unless anyone has any objection, I'll fix this in the article.Urgent01 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

References for your claims? E.g. give links and quotes to the site. JuanR (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In Archive 5 of this discussion page, TVF's son wrote the following comment to Akuvar, who was claiming that TVF did not write the autobiography on his web site. Here is how TVF's son responded to Akuvar: "Akuvar, the biography link should at the very least be labeled "autobiography". While it's inaccurate to claim ALL the articles on Meta Research were written by Tom, he certainly did write the content in the biography link." This is quite unambiguous. Also, on TVF's website you can find the statement in each of TVF's bulletins saying "The editor-in-chief and author of all articles not otherwise credited is astronomer Tom Van Flandern." This shows that even TVF's newsletter consisted essentially of nothing but his own writings, and his web page was just a reflection of those writings. Taken together, this is more than ample verification that TVF wrote the material on the "biography" link of his web site. It surely does not meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability to call it a biography. If it's going to be linked at all, it needs to be labeled accurately as an autobiography. Does any rational person disagree with this?Urgent01 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. The statement about the author of articles refers to the scientific articles, not about the general content of the site. Many authors did contribute articles and the statement was important to note. Also, as discussed previously, no editor can take the word of an editor as a verifiable source. Do you have any proof that editor MikeVF is the subject's son? How would an editor, say, 5 years from now check your facts? how do you source that? I'm not delusional, I believe editor Mike VF to be the subject's son, and I believe the biography was authored by TVF himself, but it is listed as "biography" on the site, when it could have been listed as "autobiography" easily enough. Taking what an editor said and a statement somewhere on the website and forming an opinion about it and changing the reference is violating WP No Original Research. Akuvar (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked you for explicit references (e.g. links to the website) supporting your above claims. You have not given any link or reference (ambiguous citations to supposed editor comments in archived talk pages do not qualify as references per Wikipedia policy). Therefore, I object to your modification of the article because your claim is unverifiable. Note: once again you violate NPOV policy. You reject valid references given by other editors as support for their editings whereas you give us absolutely no verifiable reference supporting your multiple reversions and modifications. JuanR (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than have a discussion and/or edit-war about whether this is autobiographical or not, metaresearch isn't a very good source anyway, as it isn't independent either way. What we typically do is move autobiographical links down to the External links section, ensuring that the reader is able to deduce that it as not independent.

Do we need this source to support any facts? I don't think we do, as it is only used after "Thereafter he did some consulting work, organized eclipse viewing tours, and promoted his unorthodox views in his "Meta Research Bulletin" newsletter, web site, and public lectures." and I think everything in that sentence can be sourced without using the metaresearch bio. How about we find better sources, and then remove the metaresearch bio from the list of citations. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that TVF's web site is not a good source (per Wikipedia editorial policies), and it would be best to not rely on it, especially not for any statements that are self-serving and/or that involve more than just TVF's opinions. We should try to find independent reputable sources for all statements in the article. If TVF's web site is retained in the article at all, I agree that it should be moved down to the External Links section, and it should just be a link to the entire site, not separate links to the autobiography and the resume, etc.Urgent01 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a natural place to put the link to Metaresearch site is just after the honor text from the JPL Nasa, where the site is cited. And the honor text from the JPL Nasa would be posted at the very start of the article as introduction to the subject. JuanR (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids external links in the body of the article. I have added it to the bottom, and have started listing all of the publications on a Wikisource author page, so that we don't link to the publication list on metaresearch. Wikisource is a separate project, but anyone can edit it. The policies there are a bit different; feel free to ask me questions about it. The author pages are supposed to be merely a listing of the persons works, and works which mention them. The blurb on the Wikisource author page is currently just "American astronomer", as Wikisource does not allow complex descriptions. We will probably need to alter that description, however I would prefer to not have a messy discussion over on Wikisource until we have consensus here first. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems we have had in finding alternate sources for biographical information is that they appear to be verbatim copies of what is posted on the metaresearch site. It is possible that these sources did their own research and found out this information, but it is more likely they got it from TVF one way or another. However, this leads back to the wiki sourcing debate, a questionable source such as metaresearch is allowed when the article is about the subject and the info is written by the subject. Einstein has books written about him that we can source, TVF does not, so in the absence of better, alternate sources, we need to fall back on the wiki policy that allows this. Akuvar (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. The Wikipedia policy about using self-published sources as sources about themselves doesn't mean what you think it means. If someone has a web site and they say their favorite color is green, it might be (marginally) acceptable for an article to say the person said their favorite color is green, and to reference their web site. They are the sole authority on their favorite color. But if someone has a web site claiming that they were once the CEO of Microsoft, this is not a suitable source for making that statement in a Wikipedia article. A statement such as this needs to be sourced to some independent reputable source. The criteria is whether a statement is self-serving, and whether it involves third parties (e.g., Microsoft). This also bears on the threshold of notability, i.e., if someone claims to have been the Chief of the Cleveland branch of the Astronomy Club of America, but no independent reputable source can be found to show that such an office ever even existed, and if it did, how significant it was, then it fails both verifiability and notability.Urgent01 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I merely add that references from independent reputable sources to the notability of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office of the USNO were found and given. And references from independent reputable sources that tvf was Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch were also found and given. JuanR (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article wasn't using the metaresearch bio for any bold claims, so it could have been used. Still, it is better that readers are sent to independent works. I have found 'better' refs for everything in that sentence; the two print-on-demand sources are not brilliant, however they are better than using the metaresearch bio. The Gonzo Science source isn't strictly necessary, but it does expand on what is found in other sources, and an interview which provides a great "In so far as I know, I think I have the unique distinction of being the only member of the American Astronomical Society's Division of Planetary Sciences for whom the suggestion was made that all submitted papers by me be automatically rejected." John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)