Talk:Tom Brown Jr.

message: Aqhille, you are a complete brainwashed idiot.
Ive been thinking about this for a few years now. Tom has not provided any evidence of Stalking Wolf. If you read his books he says that tracks stay for years after their maker leaves them. So with people asking for proof of Stalking Wolf, why hasnt anyone talked about his tracks? I have never heard or read anything about anyone finding or studying Stalking Wolfs tracks. With that said Im sure we will have a bunch of brownies coming to Toms rescue talking about S.W's tracks, Im calling B.S on those people right now for the simple fact that they would have used this as proof years ago.
The whole S.W story reminds me of stories about a man that I loved and respected in my youth. He did wonderful things for people. He brought them great joy.... He also had magical powers. There are more stories about him around the world than can be counted. But the simple fact remains, and I am sorry kids, but Santa Claus is fake, plain and simple.
 
"Also, representatives of the Native American anti-cultural appropriation organization New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans have repeatedly denounced Brown as a fraud."
I have to say that the allowing of the inclusion of such blatant biased statements made by a supposed organization that has in itself a very plastic (ie. shallow, void of information, broken) website and whose source is an INTERNET FORUM where anyone can sign up and post just lost Wikipedia any validity IMO as a source of accurate and unbiased information.
I see all over the place in that forum and links people asking for proof.. How did Sandra whats-her-face disprove Tom Brown, what specifically is it that makes his school cult-like, and all these other questions which remain UNANSWERED!
If this is not removed then all those negative things people say about Wikipedia is true. I'm sorry but I won't be able to say "Hey, Wikipedia is a place you can get accurate information" anymore. Before it used to be well.. Avoid pages without citations, ok well then chcek the citations. but allowing something as proposterous as this is ridiculous.
I say someone answer those peoples' questions and post proof of this, or the entire thing should be removed from the page, or completely rewritten. It's ok to do "Brown claims" about everything in his bio but then say that such-and-such organization denounced him as a Fraud, as if they are in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER reputable when they don't even have a working website in 2009?!?!??
I've seen PEOPLE who know nothing about computers get websites set up for their small business, so that's not an excuse. This is an outrage really.
Everything that Tom Brown Jr. teaches is at the core of every form of spirituality that I have ever encountered that does not expect you to try and convert the masses into. If Christianity weren't so popular I would really hate to see what these faithless "If it can't be proven by science it's a fraud" people would do to the religion on a Wikipedia page. What Brown teaches is what every Indian elder around the world has been hoping for-- that the old ways get passed on. How can this organization dare claim to give a damn about Indian culture? What Tom teaches is from all over the world. Forget the spiritual stuff. All the physical skills are from all over the place.
This organization IMO is in itself a joke saying that there are Indian stereotypes in his books. Sounds like the psycho ramblings of a radicalist nutjob who cannot read things properly. If anyone wants to know the real deal on Tom Brown Jr. or has any questions you can freely ask on my talk page and I will answer all questions there, to the best of my ability. - Aqhillie (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Age Frauds and Plastic Shamans 

message: Check Wikipedia's Verifiability section here.  Direct quotes need a source.  I am removing the block quote that has no source, and the quote that cites a website and not a newspaper.  The burden of evidence is on the editor that adds or restores material.  Material that is challenged or likely needs to be challenged needs sources as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.99.10 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His "autobiographies" ARE NOT "reliable sources."  They are merely his claims, without any evidence to support them.
I feel that the fact Brown has never presented any verifiable proof of Stalking Wolf or Rick needs to be posted in the controversies section. Although his books are considered reliable enough for wikipedia, they really are not a 3rd party verification. His brother seems to be willing to back him up on his claims, but once again, where is the proof? Auroravision (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: At the moment, all the external links in the article are either links to articles Tom Brown's written or links to websites controlled by him. The requirements for notability WP:N state: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. - while it seems very likely that it's easy to satisfy this criterion for this article, I don't believe the article currently documents that it's satisfied. --Alvestrand 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has written 17 very popular books, the first of which was a Reader's Digest featured book. The fact that there is little on the web about him speaks of his reclusiveness and his shunning of publicity, which is all the more reason to have this article, because many people want to know more about him but have no way of finding it. Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs documentation of notability 

message: This article portrays Tom Brown in a very positive, almost god-like light, without any citations.  The very large quotation in the middle has no citation at all.  The following quote is cited:
This amazement is possibly best illustrated in the following quote by Ocean Township Police Lt. Scott Sprague who worked with Tom in 2003 to successfully find a missing boy (taken from "Expert Tracks Missing Child" by Erik Larsen, Asbury Park Press, 2003):
    "Have you watched him (Brown) do this?" Sprague asked. "You watch him and you say to yourself, 'This guy is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. There's no tracks on the pavement to see. Who does he think he's kidding?' Yet, he was able to do in two hours what nine cops, a bloodhound and a guy in a helicopter could not do in twice that time."
I did a Google search for with the name of this article and the author and the only result was this page.  
:This article is not online in the Asbury Park Press archives, yet. However, it is in pdf form on the "tracker trail" website (not affiliated with Tom Brown). I added a link to this pdf in a formal wikipedia reference in the main article. Also, I removed the banner which stated the article did not cite "any" sources. I know more citations are wanted, so if there is a similar banner, but one which is not so extreme, please add that one.--Lensim 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This source does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards.  While a cite to the newspaper would be sufficient, a cite to a self-published website is not acceptable.  The website you are referring to is maintained by a self-described fan, student, and employee of Tom Brown.  The fact that the website frequently says it is not affiliated with Tom Brown does not mean it is an objective source.  Until a verifiable source can be found, the quote should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.99.10 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: If you feel something is left out, go ahead and put it in! I will make a personal comment which is appropriate here. This is a first-hand account. Over a few days one December, my brother and I, along with tracker school students and instructors, helped prepare some tracker school property to be sold to a new owner. As we were leaving, my brother and I casually said good-bye to one tracker school instructor who was taught by Tom himself, among others. This man thanked us, verbally, from the bottom of his heart, but my brother and I continued our casual departure. A few paces later, my brother and I both stopped cold in our tracks. I mean, from a quick walking pace to zero, in an instant. We both turned around to face the instructor. From a few yards away he again thanked us, and this time my brother and I had no choice but to feel the weight of his heartfelt thanks. After a long pause, we peacefully parted ways. There is no doubt in my mind that this man "froze" my brother and I, in order to properly thank us.--Lensim 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work so far. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree: a more neutral tone is appropriate for Wikipedia. Keep it up.--Lensim 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is highly biased 

message: I reverted an attempt by User:Springburn to remove a lot of critical commentary from this article.
One reason is that he's not discussing his changes (I agree that a lot of the critical commentary deserves removal, because it's not sourced - in most cases, Wikipedia should REPORT critical commentary, it shouldn't CREATE it), but the other reason is that he was adding some rather stilted - AND unreferenced - theories about what happens to a bathroom scale when you turn your head. I felt those additions to be entirely unsupportable. --Alvestrand 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the material described one of the ways in which Brown reads tracks.  I've taken the introductory course at Brown's tracking school, and part of the training involves being able to read very subtle changes in tracks which are caused by minor changes in body position, which Brown calls "pressure releases."  I think that may be covered in Brown's book The Science and Art of Tracking, but ATM I don't have the time to properly verify that that's in there, and won't for another couple of weeks.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: RE the Bullshit link - Even though I'm a supporter of Brown, if the show featured him as part of its material, then it deserves mention in the article, especially if there's a link that can be used as a reference.  Other controversial people have been featured on that show and have references to such in their Wikipedia articles; Brown is no different and must be treated impartially.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted removal of skeptical commentary 

message: A lot of this article is unsourced, reason being that there isn't much on Tom Brown that he himself has not written, but the most recent claims, regarding his copying of a Peterson Field Guide, need sourced. If it cannot be sourced than I suggest it be deleted, which is what I just did to the claim the the "Grandfather" audio book had been nominated for awards. In full disclosure, I'd consider myself a Tom Brown fan, but I'm not above suspicion. I would just like to see the proof. If whoever made those edits would add some documentation (scans of the pages or the like). In addition, the simplified system of animal gaits, while not entirely accurate, is a workable model, which is all you can hope for with complected phenomena. An analogy would be with the electron shell theory, not perfect, but workable. 
I would also add in support of Tom Brown's claims to military advising, that the Army's Survival Manual 21-76, uses the exact illustration of a debris hut with similar description as Tom used in his book on wilderness survival, despite the survival manual being published years afterwards. 
I am a fan of Tom Browns, but I doubt his claims of teaching the military. While I was at tracker school his wife Debbie insisted that his training the military was a secret. If it is such a secret, then why is he publishing it?? Not only that but some of his other supposed "classified" stories that have been published. Doesnt the government usually prosecute those that leak classified information? Its the inconstancies in his stories that make me wonder what is truth and what isnt. I also know a navy seal, he said he has never heard of brown. Just like most of Toms claims, there is not one shred of proof.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.190.8 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently Added Controversies 

message: I wonder wether the source that the date of birth was taken from would not also give a hint to the place? Some autobiographical remarks contained in his writings (which unfortunately I did not yet have an opportunity to read myself)?
Regards, -- Sophophiloteros (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: The article states that Tom Brown is a "Naturalist", that is; someone who studies the natural environment for scientific purposes. Now I don't know much about the guy, but from reading the article there is nothing that would lead me to believe this man is a naturalist. As far as I can see, he's a survivalist not a scientist. A naturalist learns about animals and plants, this guy just seems to eat them. That's like describing Bear Grylls as a "naturalist", he most definitely is not and I doubt this guy is either. I suggest all reference to him being a "naturalist" be removed, unless he has some kind of training in biology or zoology. --Hibernian (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly disagree. This is semantics and really ridiculous. It's like the argument that Cesar Millan is not an animal behaviorist simply because he doesn't have any "format ivy league" education. It's really IMO arrogant and stupid. I would suggest a lot more or explain further but it will fall on deaf, ignorant unwilling ears. - Aqhillie (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Naturalist? 

message: Dates of at least some of his book do not indicate the true publishing history:
The Tracker 1978
The Search 1980
The Vision 1988
The Way of the Scout 1995
There is no point in giving the dates of the latest paperback edition else 1984 would be recorded as having been published in 2007.三人莫然 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation 

message: There is speculation floating around that this is in fact a super secret cult. Brainwashing, sex, secrets, rituals, everything that comes with this territory. I was one of Toms biggest haters, but I think I am wrong, I believe my friends have proven me wrong, so Im changing my atitude until someone proves the cult rumors for a fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.232.123 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cult? 

message: The section entitled "Controversy" has been deleted due to these violations of wikipedia policy:
Verifiability':  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.This "core content policy" informs us not only that sources are required, but that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources", which most certainly applies here.  The only source given in the section about "controversy" quotes Brown himself as saying that the skills involved in tracking require years to learn.  No controversy there!  Fortunately, wikipedia provides a remedy for this situation:  "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately."
Biography of Living Persons:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP.This policy informs us of the following:
* "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects..."
* "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once..."
* "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced..."
No Original Research:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research.This is a polite way of saying "goofy goofy goofy".
Neutral Point of View:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
If anyone would like to defend this section on "Controversy", then get some citations in order and we'll go through them one by one.  Hopefully, they'll be from noted sources and not some unknown writers of drivel.  There are some other problems with this article, most notably the notion that Brown has some association with the "New Age Movement", and is not only a "New Age Writer", but a "New Age Spiritual Leader"!!  That would certainly suffice to create a "controversy" if it were true.  Where are the citations?  Who said that Brown is a "spiritual leader"?  Is there any reputable source who claims that Brown is as famous as the Pope?  Who says that Brown is associated with the "New Age Movement"?  Does any responsible person think that Brown is as great a story teller as the academic luminary Carlos Castaneda?  Or maybe someone wants to associate Brown with some supposedly-Christian reputedly-pedophiliac cult?
Is this what is called "infotainment"?  Step up, boys.  Who wants to own these gems?  ~ E.N.Stanway (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of deletion of offensive material

message: Substituted at 22:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Roy Brown, Jr. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress