Talk:Bad Astronomy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Skepticism Mid‑importance

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

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Mid‑importance

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

A fact from Bad Astronomy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Phil Plait, the author of Bad Astronomy, attempts to explore common fallacies and popular misunderstandings within the field of astronomy?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bad Astronomy.

Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Plait, Phil (May 23, 2013). ""Bad Astronomy" on the Front Page of Wikipedia Today. Literally". Slate.

Fair use rationale for Image:Babook front.jpg[edit]

Image:Babook front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New image file uploaded and used in info box with appropriate fair useMrBill3 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and Reviews to use to improve article[edit]

This article from Discover Magazine is behind a paywall so I can't read it perhaps a copy is available from a library website or from Phil or the author of the article.^[1]

Nice long review has loads of great stuff, someone read it and use it to improve the article dramatically ^[2]

Article in Savannah Morning News^[3]

UniSci review/article^[4]

Product review from National Science Teachers Association ^[5]

Review in New Scientist also behind paywall.^[6]

This is Phil's rebuttal to a bad review, unfortunately the link to the bad review is dead (damn link rot)^[7] Note that most of these have been inserted as references on the lead of the article, for ease of editing I have put them in WP markup for references.

^ Berman, Bob (Jun 2002), "Sky Lights: Why are media science stories still crazy after all these years?", Discover Magazine, 23 (6), Kalmbach Publishing Co.: 32 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
^ Guldvog, Tormod (19 May 2002), "Bad Astronomy Finally Hits The Shelves", Hypography
^ "The fault lies not in the stars...", Savannah Morning News, Savannah, GA, Heaven knows we don't know the heavens.
^ Radler, Don, ed. (2 Apr 2002), "Book Sets The Record Straight On Astronomical Myths", UniSci, Cape Coral, FL: UniScience Newsnet, Inc.
^ Teuscher, Deborah (4 Jun 2002), NSTA Recommends (product review), Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, Bad Astronomy is "bad"—in the best way!
^ Muir, Hazel (4 May 2002), "Get it right.", New Scientist, no. 2341, London, England: Reed Business Information Ltd, ISSN 0262-4079, OCLC 2378350
^ Plait, Phil (7 Apr 2002). "Rebuttal to a Bad Book Review". Bad Astronomy.

MrBill3 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My review 'copy' ... Tormod Guldvog writes in his review that "It is indeed a gem when it comes to teaching things about common astronomical phenomena. Plait discusses common ways bad astronomy is communicated, in the media, in the classroom, and perhaps, most of all, in our own minds."<put ref here> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap020570 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Science?[edit]

Is there a reason that this article would be tagged as being part of WikiProject Science rather than as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy? KConWiki (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bad Astronomy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Well I put it in the stub category since it is pretty new and I created it myself. But I'm not sure if it should be start instead Snailwalker | talk 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== BAD ASTRONOMY ==

DEAR WIKIPEDIA STAFF: i wish to comment on a SERIOUS-LY MIS-LEAD-ING statement which appears in the FIRST-LINE of the entry "Bad Astronomy": it says there that this excellent web-site is about Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing Hoax ... As it is, this implys that Dr.Plait, the site's developer, thinks that the moon-landing was a hoax, which he most-definite-ly does not ... on the contrary, this is one of the "bad-astronomy" ideas which he "BUSTs" ... in fact, the high-lighted phrase, (above), is in the sub-title of his first BOOK, which was titled, appropriate-ly Bad Astronomy --- Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astronomy to the Moon Landing "Hoax" ... As one can see, it is critical-ly-important that the word "Hoax" have quotation-marks around it; other-wise, Dr.Plait looks like an IGNORAMUS !! PLEASE CORRECT THIS A.S.A.P. !! Sincere-ly, MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO, ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast), ITHACA [Cornell University] NY, 7-MARCH-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.240.136.126 (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 09:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad Astronomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423020957/http://www.badastronomy.com:80/book/ to http://www.badastronomy.com/book/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Berman, Bob (Jun 2002), "Sky Lights: Why are media science stories still crazy after all these years?", Discover Magazine, 23 (6), Kalmbach Publishing Co.: 32 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[Tormod-2] Guldvog, Tormod (19 May 2002), "Bad Astronomy Finally Hits The Shelves", Hypography

[Savannah-3] "The fault lies not in the stars...", Savannah Morning News, Savannah, GA, Heaven knows we don't know the heavens.

[unisci-4] Radler, Don, ed. (2 Apr 2002), "Book Sets The Record Straight On Astronomical Myths", UniSci, Cape Coral, FL: UniScience Newsnet, Inc.

[NSTA-5] Teuscher, Deborah (4 Jun 2002), NSTA Recommends (product review), Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, Bad Astronomy is "bad"—in the best way!

[NewSci-6] Muir, Hazel (4 May 2002), "Get it right.", New Scientist, no. 2341, London, England: Reed Business Information Ltd, ISSN 0262-4079, OCLC 2378350

[rebuttal-7] Plait, Phil (7 Apr 2002). "Rebuttal to a Bad Book Review". Bad Astronomy.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]