On another note   Ive decided that I dont give a shit about scuro taking advantage of the system In the middle ages witch burning was considered acceptable by the majority but that does not make it any less wrong Long ago people believed in alchemy which was untrue as well Whether or not information is supported by the majority of experts should not be relevant to its place on wikipedia What is needed is objective factual information Whether or not most scientists or people support or do not support it or whether it is a fringe view is completely irrelevant Galileo was considered a fringe scientist in his time but we owe it to ourselves to do better than a metaphorical lynch mob angry because the majority belief has been challenged Ill be back soon to perform some major edits on this page though I am pleased that some minor ones have already been accepted   Wikipedia should serve as an objective informational tool not one to avoid sparking controversy wherever possible in order to keep things quiet Sometimes the truth hurts pretty badly We are not trying to keep the masses placated here we are trying to present fair and balanced no reference to faux news intended here view of the subject from both scientific and social standpoints I do not spend all my time on wikipedia unlike a few users on here but look at yourselves does being on more frequently make you more right and more eligible to edit No it doesnt One CAN debunk a huge body of evidence if it can be adequately shown that the evidence was gathered in a flawed and biased way The same thing happened with the heliocentric view and the equivalent of probiopsychiatry advocates of the day threw a tantrum I would expect better