Well, then maybe someone should get busy revising the wikipedia entry on Velikovsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velikovsky
The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits that do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.[citation needed]
Velikovsky relates in his book Stargazers & Gravediggers how he tried to protect himself from criticism of his celestial mechanics by removing the original appendix on the subject from Worlds in Collision, hoping that the merit of his ideas would be evaluated on the basis of his comparative mythology and use of literary sources alone. However, this strategy did not protect him: the appendix was an expanded version of the Cosmos Without Gravitation monograph, which he had already distributed to Shapley and others in the late 1940s—and they had regarded the physics within it as absurd.[citation needed]
By 1974, the controversy surrounding Velikovsky’s work had permeated US society to the point where the American Association for the Advancement of Science felt obliged to address the situation, as they had previously done in relation to UFOs, and devoted a scientific session to Velikovsky featuring (among others) Velikovsky himself and Professor Carl Sagan. Sagan gave a critique of Velikovsky’s ideas (the book version of Sagan’s critique is much longer than that presented in the talk; see below). His criticisms are available in Scientists Confront Velikovsky[34] and as a corrected and revised version in the book Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science.[35] Sagan’s arguments were aimed at a popular audience and he did not remain to debate Velikovsky in person, facts that were used by Velikovsky’s followers to attempt to discredit his analysis.[36] Sagan rebutted these charges and further attacked Velikovsky’s ideas in his PBS television series Cosmos, though not without reprimanding scientists who had attempted to suppress Velikovsky’s ideas.
It was not until the 1980s that a very detailed critique of Worlds in Collision was made in terms of its use of mythical and literary sources when Bob Forrest published a highly critical examination of them (see below). Earlier in 1974, James Fitton published a brief critique of Velikovsky’s interpretation of myth (ignored by Velikovsky and his defenders) whose indictment began: “In at least three important ways Velikovsky’s use of mythology is unsound. The first of these is his proclivity to treat all myths as having independent value; the second is the tendency to treat only such material as is consistent with his thesis; and the third is his very unsystematic method.”[37] A short analysis of the position of arguments in the late 20th century is given by Dr Velikovsky’s ex-associate, and Kronos editor, C. Leroy Ellenberger, in his A Lesson from Velikovsky.[38]
I won't look, but I imagine wiki agrees with that.
Not one word of that obviously biased entry pertains to his historical revision; regardless, the value of wikipedia varies greatly by the entry (to say the least).
My few efforts at editing a couple of pages were short-lived — in one case, the paragraph I’d altered to correct a couple of things was reworded by someone else to state exactly the same thing, minus one of the points. The other effort was simply removed and the original text restored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology#Expert_Commentaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology_school#Biblical_archaeology_today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Minimalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed#Reception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible’s_Buried_Secrets#Reviews_and_reception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Controversial