Talk:Antoine Prioré

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-19. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Invention

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention 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.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Needs coverage of the establishment view, and references, doubting Priore claims. NPOV flag added QuiteUnusual 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the establishment view should be covered. But the establishment's view on Priore's method is extremely vague other then the fact the scientific establishment rejected it without question. Regardless of whether one feels his work is a hoax or not, leave it out of pseudoscience. There is nothing in Priore's work that points to fakery, only the ACCUSATION of fakery. For those of you who are reviewing this article, please look at this with an open mind. After all, so many brilliant scientists and engineers were called crazy during their greatest discoveries: Einstein, Newton, Tesla, Pasteur, how many references should I cite here? BC

The balance of the article is closer now. Maybe more references for the claims made and dates, such as when the devices were built and so forth. Also more info on the output(s) of the devices would be helpful. I'm voting the dispute tag should be taken off. More work needs to be done with referencing. The article states claims of Priore(namely from Bird) and critics (Bateman and reference to French Academy and media criticism). Counterinduction 06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still a POV mess[edit]

As a very general guideline, articles containing the phrase scientific establishment should be deleted on sight. Unfortunately the article survived it 1st AfD, so for now I've only tagged it. --Pjacobi 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a POV mess?[edit]

Constructive critcism would be helpful here. Not all of the sources are electronic, but some of them are, do the research yourself. Can you read French? Dossier Priore is a credible source for this material. But I take it you probably don't care much about this article anyway.

Send me a list of critcisms and I will respond accordingly. I may not be able to meet all of YOUR criteria, but I can meet most of wikipedia's. This is a controversial issue, so good sources are hard to track down, however, three of them: Esquire Article, Dossier Priore and U.S Naval Report are published widely, but clearly not widely enough.

The others: Christopher Bird article, Academic thesis require library work. Something I was able to do, because like you I disbelieved this to begin with, but after finding the sources I decided to write it.

Post a list of criticisms and we'll go from there. Counterinduction.

Well it's amazing what an open mind is capable of, there are plenty of wiki links that in some way refer to what this article is about. Yet another reason why it shouldn't be deleted. Now, the sources do originate from those who support electromagnetic medicine, I do not disagree with that, however, does that make it "false" automatically? The most documentation on the "fog index" and possible fakery of Priore's method is in the U.S. Naval Report. I will look through it thorougly and include ALL of the criticisms brought up. Counterinduction. 4.26.2007

As someone who has done archival research (on the Rhoads affair) and who can speak a little French, I agree the article is still a POV mess in the sense that it implies that Priore's radiation research was suppressed, based on primary source interpretation which is leading. It would be very interesting if there were some way to find out that Priore's use of radiation was in some way predicate to Rhoads' or to the development of chemotherapy; since he seemed to be a fraud even if a pioneer in radiation experimentation on human subjects, perhaps describing it as an "unsolved mystery" is leading. Andrevan@ 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the "unsolved mystery" sentence at the end was very un-encyclopedic and opinionated. I removed it. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improvng this article[edit]

As it stands this article contains many factual errors and does not give a balenced view of the historical facts. The corresponding french article does give all the information, but is rather long.

In view of the concerns about electromagnetic pollution and health questions that weak EM waves generate today, I think it would be a good idea that the biological effects actually observed by university researchers with the Prioré apparatus be described from a balenced point of view.William Ellison (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]