Talk:Robert M. Bowman

Untitled

Now, lets just wait for someone to AFD this, claimin he is not notable... --Striver 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. Discuss and vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Bowman --Mmx1 03:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Books and articles quoting Bowman that might be incorporated somehow into the article (but don't just copy and paste this):

• Reagan's America by Lloyd deMause (1984) ISBN 0940508028 quotes RMB: "Carter's space weapons chief, Col. Robert M. Bowman, called it 'the ultimate military lunacy, easily overwhelmed and vulnerable,' which would give the nuclear holocaust 'a hair-trigger of milliseconds.'"[1] citing "Bowman's appearance on 'The MacNeill-Lehrer News Hour,' WNET-TV, November 10, 1983. Also see his statements in 'Star Wars-Pie in the Sky,' New York Times, December 14, 1983, p. A35."[2]
• Space Policy: An Introduction by Nathan C. Goldman (1992) ISBN 0813810248 citing RMB's "Arms Control in Space: Preserving Critical Strategic Space Systems without Weapons in Space" in America's Plans for Space (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1984).
• Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire by Carl Boggs (2003) ISBN 0415944996 citing RMB's "Wounding National Security, Star Wars II Endangers the American people." The News Insider, July 23, 2001.
• Censored 2001: The Year's Top 25 Censored Stories, by Peter Phillips & Project Censored (2001) ISBN 158322064X citing RMB's "Our Continuing War Against Iraq," Space and Security News May 1998.
• Smashmouth: Two Years in the Gutter with Al Gore and George W. Bush by Dana Milbank (2001) ISBN 0465045901 quotes RMB.
• The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (2005) ISBN 1566565960 blurbs RMB.
• "Air Force Reports First Firing of Space Weapon" by Jeff Gerth, New York Times January 22, 1984
• "Shuttle Repair Capacity Called Militarily Useful" by Wayne Biddle, New York Times April 19, 1984
• "Split Over Buchanan Splinters Reform Party Convention" by Mike Allen, New York Times September 26, 1999
• Representative Les AuCoin (D-Oregon) placed an article by Bowman in Department of Defense Appropriations for 1985: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee of Appropriations by United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Dept. of Defense - U.S. G.P.O. 1984. [Not sure what article, since Google Books only shows that much.]
• Robert M. Bowman, "Star Wars and Arms Control," Institute for Space and Security Studies issue paper, January 1985
• Robert M. Bowman, "Why the Soviet Union is so Concerned about Star Wars," Christian Science Monitor, January 10, 1985

(above two cited in Japan-U.S. Missile Defense Collaboration: Rhetorically Delicious, Deceptively Dangerous Gordon R. Mitchell)

Also apparently referenced in some way in Arming the Heavens: The Hidden Military Agenda for Space, 1945-1995 by Jack Manno (1984) ISBN 0396082122 per OMNI Center for Peace, Justice, & Ecology which names Bowman as one of their Nonviolent Heroes and states See Chap. 17 of Manno's book. Schizombie 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bowman explains his PhDs in this radio interview: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/wolseybowman911.mp3

Removed sources

["Wounding National Security: Star Wars II Endangers the American People" News Insider May 29, 2001]

Is a press release from Bowman himself - note the contact info at bottom.

Removed references to his autobio; left the link.

Sorry hadn't noticed that you had removed that, when I just added it back in I thought I had just forgotten to include it - my mistake. However, it seems fair to cite it has representing his position on an issue (as opposed to something he did or received)? It was cited in Boggs' book above. Schizombie 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

replaced with primary source quote. Don't want the misrepresentation that it's a news article (not your fault, the site looks legit but the piece....not so much) --Mmx1 19:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not deleting most of the new content out of repect for inclusionism, but how encyclopedic is this, really? You're trying to put together all referenceable appearances this man has made or written ANYWHERE. Outside of NYtimes and CSM, I'm not seeing very much. I mean, the "madison institute"?

• Would the madison Institute be worthy of a wikipedia entry.
• If something isn't notable enough to have an entry here, why cite it?
• please don't respond by creating the article Madison Institute. Look at its history [[3]]. It's just a local PIRG, like a political version of the Madison LUG, with no indication of any notable achievements.

--Mmx1 21:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to create an article for the MI - I hope that wasn't directed at me? Would it be notable enough for its own entry?: I don't know for sure, probably not. Is it notable enough to be mentioned in Bowman's article as an example of his anti-SDI/peace activism or apparent desirability as a speaker among the anti-SDI/peace activism community?: I think so. It seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." Bowman appears to be of interest to anti-SDI/peace/Reform Party/911 conspiracy communities, even if he flew under your and my radar. Besides the NYTimes, appearing MacNeil/Lehrer seems fairly notable, perhaps the Congressional hearings, perhaps his 1986 book (two printings - maybe 5,000 copies [WP:BIO]?), and the CSM article (must be circulation of 5,000+?). Schizombie 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just heading off potential replies, that wasn't directed at you. By its nature, no conversation on wiki is truly 1-1 anyway. My point is, it's the equivalent of Linus speaking at the New York Linux Users Group, or for a political comparison, the New York Young Republicans. I'm highly skeptical of his prominence because of the manner in which he pushes himself and his accomplishments, relative to how well known he is in the context of SDI - his carefully phrased "Star Wars under Republican and Democratic administrations", the Eisenhower Medal which has yet to be identified or confirmed (but is most definitely not the prestigious Dwight Eisenhower Medal), the nonexistent (at least according to google) George F. Kennan Peace Prize, etc. With respect to the reform party, the straw poll indicates that he rated at 13% as opposed to 63% of the frontrunner - even among the Reform party he was an also-ran! The peace and 911 conspiracy communities seem keen on hyping him up because of his resume (which they are only too happy to take at face value), but if he were so notable, wouldn't Alex Jones have interviewed him? (Going by one of the few conspiracy theorists I know to be notable). His modern relevance is resting on largely his own site and some blog hits and public appearances (which, for a guy stumping for congress, is not that incredible).

--Mmx1 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

K. He seems self-aggrandizing, but at the same time, if people buy it, it's self-fulfilling: people have been calling on him as a speaker for twenty years. The Reform Party situation and his possible significance to them is difficult to judge as an outsider, since that year the party was being taken over from the outside (Buchanan and Hagelin) and also had a draft Trump campaign. That he was travelling the country to get the nom seems supported. The Salon article mentions Bowman was a frontrunner for Hagelin's running mate. Bowman's site (salt shaker!) mentions one of the other RP candidates Daniel Clay expressed an interest in being his or Hagelin's running mate after Clay dropped out. Also http://www.politics1.com/greens.htm mentions a minor Connecticut Green party candidate Ron Ouellette endorsed Bowman for President after "dropping out" himself (not sure how "in" he ever was). Seemingly there were people who thought he had a chance. http://www.politics1.com/reform.htm was skeptical though.

United Catholic Church

One of the more curious things is the United Catholic Church. I don't know what to make of that. I suppose he has his own church he preaches at? He's mentioned at some other sites with regard to the UCC, at a church in Hawaii http://www.unitedreformcatholicchurch.com/mjkimokeawe/ and AZ http://www.holyfamilygoodyear.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1119025554&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5& and MI http://www.anamcaraacademy.org/OrderoftheAnamCara.html The LA Times supposedly called him “probably the best public speaker in America today,” http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2003b/050903/forum/forum3.htm That cite from the National Catholic Reporter which also published him http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1998d/100298/100298l.htm and his claim to be a Bishop of the UCC, without negative comment on that. Schizombie 23:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You and me both on that. I believe he had strong religious beliefs near retirement, and started the UCC. There appear to be other parishes under the UCC if you check out the site, but its significance and how this relates to other Christian movements; I am wholly unqualified to evaluate or answer. --Mmx1 23:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave posing some questions about subjects related to the UCC a shot over at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Apostolic Succession from Old Catholic or Independent Catholic_Church Schizombie 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bowman is not a member of THe United Church of Christ. He is the founder of the United Catholic Church

Bowman's claims

An IP had added: "It must noted that there are some discrepancies in Robert Bowman's claims. His claim to have been a two time award winner of the Society of American Military Engineers Gold Medal is false. According to SAME web site he has never won the award. In addition the claim that he came in third among Reform Party canidates in the 2000 California primaries cannt be backed up by the facts." WP isn't keen on "it must be noted"; I'll find the policy or guideline if necessary. I already had noted that Bowman isn't listed on the SAME's site; I suspect this is because he's falsely claiming to have won the award, but I don't know that we should go beyond what I wrote "Bowman is not listed among the "Past Gold Medal Winners" on the official site of the Society of American Military Engineers." There might be other explanations. As for the primaries, don't the footnotes support what is written? Шизомби 20:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

New Claims

Bowman has a new biography on the website http://thepatriots.us/pg_02_about.html

He now claims he received the "Society of American Military Engineers' ROTC Medal of Merit (twice)."

Some of his other medals seem dubious, such as "the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Republic Aviation Airpower Award." Anyone know has awards these medals?

Misrepresentation

If Bowman did indeed lie about (as opposed to misrepresent) his SAME medals I think that does warrant a mention. --Mmx1 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we need to be cautious about accusing someone of lying. I had added the footnote "Bowman is not listed among the "Past Gold Medal Winners" on the official site of the Society of American Military Engineers, http://www.same.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3583" As I wrote above, I don't know if we can go beyond that. It's possible he won a similar award and confused it with another or some other possibility. I had e-mailed SAME and they responded to me, but I don't think I can post their response (WP:OR & I hadn't asked permission to forward it). You're welcome to try contacting them too, or you could ask a Florida journalist or the Brevard County Democrats to take a closer look at his claims, which might give us something we could cite to. I thought about doing that, but his claim neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Шизомби 20:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to contact Bowman himself and ask him to put the specifics of his awards (when, why & where he received them, who gave them, etc.) on one of his sites. Шизомби 20:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

When I looked into this guy's claims, I found these award misrepresentations and other bogosity, giving me the impression that the guy is a con artist. But the current article mentions nothing of it, giving the false impression that no one has raised any issues of concern about any self-misrepresentation. That's a serious defect in the article. Lippard 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Star wars

He talks about his role in it here, throughout all the interview. --Striver 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[4] And this guy Adames (a write-in candidate) claims he's the mayor of New York but him saying so doesn't make it so. It's established that there was no such thing as Star Wars untill after he left the Air Force. --Mmx1 15:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that Bowman is not a reliable source for himself, as odd as that sounds. Шизомби 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How about including the fact that he was credited as "Military Consultant" in the 1985 Val Kilmer film Real Genius? This seems relevant to me, considering that the movie shows how a space-based laser would have a much easier time hitting a human target rather than trying to hit an ICBM and this very topic is mentioned in Bowman's books. Sbunny8 (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Bowman's books

I don't know if anybody's had an opportunity to look at them. I ordered one - it was cheap used: Star Wars: A Defense Insider's Case Against the Strategic Defense Initiative. That's the title on the title page, although the cover substitutes "Expert's" for "Insider's." Publisher was Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc. and distributor was St. Martin's Press. Skimming it, it doesn't seem to provide much more info about Bowman's military experience. The bio on the back cover states "Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., is the president of the Institute for Space and Security Studies and a former executive with General Dynamics Corporation, where he was responsible for satellite products in the Advanced Space Programs division. During his 22-year Air Force career he was the director of Advanced Space Programs Development and controlled the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) studies in high-energy laser development, advanced space vehicle subsystems, and other Star Wars-related research." Appendix D, page 139 mentions he was "former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division." Appendix E, page 148 mentions he was Director of the ASPF for the Air Force from 1976 to 1978. There are praiseworthy blurbs on the front and back cover from Brigadier General Homer Boushey [5] and Major General Jack Kidd [6], both USAF, ret. Шизомби 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Air Force biographies has some General officers related to the Air Force Space Division. Lt. Gen. Richard C. Henry, was the commander of the Space and Missile Systems Organization in May 1978 and in October 1979 the organization's name was changed to Space Division. Maj. Gen. Gerald K. Hendricks was vice commander of the Space and Missile Systems Organization, Los Angeles Air Force Station in July 1978. In October 1979 the organization was redesignated Air Force Space Division. Both these bios seem to indicate there was no such thing as an Air Force Space Division until 1979. Those officers are O-9 and O-8 so I'm not sure how a Lt. Col (O-5) fits into this picture. --Dual Freq 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Page 85 n. 422 states in part "The Talon Gold program was one of those 'Star Wars' projects directed by the author from 1976 to 1978. It is one of the three projects making up the Space Laser Triad of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The other two projects are developing the laser device itself and the mirror." Only mention of Talon Gold on WP appears to be in Donald C. Winter. Bowman's claim about directing Talon Gold also appears in this PDF of the Arizona Newsletter, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness March 1986, Vol. 2, #3 in which Robert Jastrow calls it 1/200 of a Star Wars program: http://www.oism.org/cdp/mar86.pdf Шизомби 23:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Talon Gold appears to be a laser pointing and tracking program, not an actual laser. Also, former Colonel Dino A. Lorenzini seems to think he managed Talon Gold. --Dual Freq 23:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It could have more than one person in charge of it over the years. Bowman didn't say Talon Gold was a laser; the above said the laser device itself was a different project within the Space Laser Triad. In Bowman's Glossary, page 162 Talon Gold is defined as "DARPA program to develop and test a pointer-tracker system for a laser battle station. The name is now defunct, as the program was officially terminated in 1984 and replaced with a modified program better aligned with SDIs timetable." The rest of n. 422 states "Talon Gold, with Lockheed as prime contractor, has been developing the pointer-tracker system for the laser battle station. The program has been proceeding toward a demonstrationflight aboard the Space Shuttle. In early 1985 the Talon Gold program was cancelled. In actual fact, it was merly restructured and hidden under a new name. Now a part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), the testing aboard the Shuttle is being accelerated, while the development progrzam has been expanded toward the production of a more capable system. The end result of the restructured Talon Gold program will be a pointer-tracker system that can be combined with the other two elements of the DARPA triad to form a prototype laser battle station. The import of this program is that is represents the first publicly acknowledged use of the Space Shuttle for large-scale space weapons tests."

This is possibly interesting: page 95, n. 501 "'The Socio-economic Benefits of a Global Space Applications Program,' Robert M. Bowman & Carol S. Rosin, IAA 81-244, September 1981, Rome, Italy." Rosin is the one traditionally credited with nicknaming SDI "Star Wars." IAA is the International Astronautical Federation. Шизомби 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The only shuttle mirror tests I've found so far is the 1985 High Precision Tracking Experiment. I don't think that it was a large-scale experiment. Non-Shuttle Relay Mirror Experiment followed in 1991.[7] Maybe Lorenzini could be contacted and asked if he knew of Bowman. It looks like he may have been involved with Talon Gold in the late 70s early 80s. I'm not sure if involvement in a laser tracking program makes you a subject matter expert on SDI or MDA. Does he say if Talon Gold worked? The SBL page seems to indicate that it was a success. --Dual Freq 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Contacting Lorenzini is more something somebody would have to do just for their own curiosity; I don't think a reply could be included in the article (unless it cited something that could be). Bowman indicated he worked on other "'Star Wars' projects" than Talon Gold, but I haven't noticed if he named any of the others. There doesn't seem to be much more in the book about TG than what I quoted above. Шизомби 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It proved cheap to pick up a copy of Star Wars: Defense or Death Star? as well. It turns out to be the same book, just a different edition this one being published by Bowman's ISSS. Just as well, since somebody had sliced out a passage from the other edition I'd bought. This turned out to be signed by the author, too. Anyway, the "About the Author" on the back cover does have some different info:

"Until July 1982 he was a Vice President of Space Communications Company, which owns and operates the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, (TDRSS). Before that, Dr. Bowman was Manager, Advanced Space Programs at General Dynamics, where he was responsible for the communications satellite product line.

"Culminating a 22-year Air Force career in 1978, Dr. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for what is now the Air Force Space Division. In that capacity, he controlled about half a billion dollars worth of space programs for the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), including what are now the 'Star Wars' programs. Included in his responsibility were all the high-energy laser developments for space, the development of advanced surveillance spacecraft, and the development of advanced space vehicle subsystems." Шизомби 18:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this prove that there was a Advanced Space Programs Development? --Striver 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it does. The book was self-published initially, and while reprinted by an established publisher, it may not have been entirely fact-checked. I think we're looking for a source other than Bowman for the program. Шизомби 21:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Credibility, Fighters, and Conspiracies

Without a citation, it is OR to say that he's "familiar" with NORAD as a result of his own claim of being a fighter pilot (four decades ago). Is McNamara a reliable source on Ford cars? The last time McNamara worked for Ford is about the time that Bowman was flying. Moreover, Bowman himself has been proven an unreliable source due to the medal controversy above. The only reason it's not in the article is because there's no secondary source making that link. But the evidence is there for you to examine Bowman's autobio SAME website. Schizombie feels we should shy from calling him a lying sack of shit, but I don't.

Even if he were an "authority" on NORAD, that does not change the characterization of his activities and beliefs as a conspiracy theorists.

REvert.--Mmx1 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as you wish. But I will say that you are not helping your country.

CB Brooklyn 04:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think WP should shy away from that until a source can be found, e.g. if SAME put something on their website about him. For WP to be the first to make the accusation seems inconsistent with OR, and potentially a legal problem if there is some reason why we can't substantiate his awards that we're missing. You're certainly free to call him what you like, and I at least share the suspicion. Шизомби 14:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I meant. It's not going to go in the article, and I can accept that. But it's pretty damning for anything that comes out of his mouth with respect to his qualifications and it is fair to use OR to evaluate the credibility of sources. --Mmx1

About ready for another Afd?

What do you think? Morton devonshire 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is in much better shape than when it was originally nominated, and the result of that nomination was no consensus. If renominated, I suspect the result would be keep, or at worst no consensus with a larger keep margin. What possible reason could there be to renominate it? I wouldn't vote for him if I were registered in his district, and I think he has credibility issues, but it's a reasonably good article about someone people legitimately might want to know more about. Шизомби 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a) it doesn't qualify as notable and b) agree with Schizombie's assessment of an AfD outcome. His military and political credentials are miniscule. He only gets in on authorship, for which the 5000 book threshhold I think is far too low - besides, the self-published books and that both copies you found were autographed are not promising for the possibility that he did in fact sell 5000 copies. The Lexis returns indicate someone of very little repute. --Mmx1 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one of them is autographed. :-) Шизомби 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist"

Going forward, we cannot label them in the lead with pejorative labels. You can after call them a conspiracy theorist, if such a statement/observation is sourced, but not in the lead at all. Also, you need to say "Is considered a conspiracy theorist by xyz", not doing that is a violation of original research policies as well, by playing a "Connect the dots" game to try to bypass the no original research rules, as some might say. See also WP:LIVING. rootology (T) 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

9/11

I have removed content relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories. WP:BLP says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Claims that the subject believes that the U.S. government deliberately allowed the slaughter of 3,000 people are contentious, and this material should not be reinserted without high-quality sources giving the subject's views. Films uploaded to Google Video by the 9/11 Truth Movement are not good sources. Hut 8.5 16:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Bowman's 9/11 views are expressed in his statement on the Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth website.

• http://pl911truth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:bowman-dr-robert-m&catid=27:members-statements&Itemid=37

• "Statement of Dr. Robert M. Bowman
• The 9/11 tragedy has been used as the excuse for two deadly wars of aggression, for taking away our rights through the misnamed Patriot Act, for destroying America's reputation around the world with acts of torture and war crimes, and for transferring trillions of dollars in wealth from the people to global investors, banks, and weapons manufacturers. Even now, the phony "War on Terror" continues under a new administration. Only by exposing the Truth of the events of 9/11/01 can we end this madness and achieve real peace and justice."

• He has also expressed them in a variety of TV programs and events around the USA, including his tours.
• 88.192.44.135 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A 9/11 Truth website is not a reliable source. Hut 8.5 19:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia is not censored. It is common knowledge that Bowman is actively involved in 9/11 Truth movement. You cannot be serious in suggesting that what Bowman considers one of the most important things in today's world and his very active involvement in it should not even be mentioned in a Wikipedia article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.44.135 (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a credible source that he's involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, (I mean Truth), movement, it should be added. http://pl911truth.com is not credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly find this hard to believe. You guys really do not believe that Robert Bowman is active in the 9/11 Truth movement?

Is this website founded by him enough evidence for you?

http://www.thepatriots.us/index.html

If his own website is not enough, I ask you to specify what kind of evidence you qualify. In that case, a broader discussion by editors is also warranted.

Here you can watch him discussing 9/11 in a TV interview:

http://rediscover911.com/2010/05/patriots-question-911-robert-bowman-interview/

Surely you don't think his person and voice in that and other interviews has been falsified?

Actually, I suggest that the link to Bowman's official webpage be changed to point to http://www.thepatriots.us/index.html, as the currently linked http://www.rmbowman.com/ is almost devoid of content and out of date.

88.192.44.135 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they are both "official pages", and you include subpages of http://www.rmbowman.com/ in the external links, so, no. As for his activity, if http://www.thepatriots.us/ is his web site, it's a reasonable source of his involvement. There are a number of 9/11 "truth" websites with clearly falsified statements, so it's not a forgone conclusion that the videos weren't falsified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Arthur. And may I cordially suggest that you actually listen to what this man - a real, concerned patriot - has to say. 88.192.44.135 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Far too many idiots deciding what's credible and what's not. No wonder wikipedia is unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.112.13 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

no longer a living person

Given that the article says Dr. Bowman died on August 22 2013, how do we move this article from list of biographies of living persons to list of biographies of deceased persons? Sbunny8 (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert M. Bowman. 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/20150610032911/http://www.obitsforlife.com/obituary/760964/Bowman-Robert.php to http://www.obitsforlife.com/obituary/760964/Bowman-Robert.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rmbowman.com/Bowman2000/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 18:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)