Talk:Fringe science

message: In the introduction:
"Though there are examples of mainstream scientists supporting maverick ideas within their own discipline of expertise, fringe science theories and ideas are advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline."
While in the Description section:
"Traditionally, the term "fringe science" is used to describe unusual theories and models of discovery that have their basis in established scientific principle. Such theories may be advocated by a scientist who is recognized by the larger scientific community (typically due to publication of peer reviewed studies by the scientist), but this is not always the case. Mainstream science is likely to fail or make errors, but broadly speaking, a fringe science is in accord with accepted standards, and its character of resistance to change forms a mark of sound judgment as a reaction."
These two passages give clearly conflicting accounts of who "does" pseudoscience (those without a traditional academic background vs (often? sometimes?) recognised scientists. As an aside, the statement that fringe science is within accepted standards doesn't seem to fit with the definition of fringe science presented in the rest of the article; and the idea that resistance to change marks sound judgment doesn't make any sense - aren't revision and change characteristic of sound judgment and good science? CowboyBear (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And this observation of contradictory definitions is still true today, 3 years later! In just the introduction it states both (1) "Fringe science is scientific inquiry" and (2) "Fringe science covers everything from novel hypotheses that can be tested via scientific method to wild ad hoc theories and "New Age mumbo jumbo" with the dominance of the latter resulting in the tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, or quacks". The term therefore becomes useless as a descriptor, since it will mean different things to different people. I will add something to say that the term is not well-defined. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflicting passages?

message: From the village pump
See first two sections (the second, entirely new): 1 Definition, and 2 Relation to Scientific Evolution and Progress. Comments
and criticisms are welcome. -- Alan2012 06:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Re-Write Just Completed

message: Vitamin-S, fringe science or real science, YOU be the judge! Seriously though, is there any validity to this article? At the very least, the language needs a touch-up to be more encyclopedic (whatever that means). 
While we're at it, can someone please write an article on fringe science? I'll also add it to the list of articles that need creating, but hey, as long as I'm here... --Dante Alighieri 19:16, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is fringe science another name for pseudoscience? Or maybe junk science, or protoscience? Not to mention pathological science, and just plain bad science... Given the length of some of those talk pages, I'd tread carefully with your definitions! - IMSoP 19:54, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the above, and here's why... Pseudoscience doesn't subscribe to scientific methodology, fringe science does. Junk science is agenda driven (with disregard for proper methodology), fringe science is not. A protoscience is a new "science" or field of inquiry in the process of becoming established, fringe science research occurs within established fields. It's not bad science because it's not characterized by sloppiness or lax standards. Fringe science is, simply, real science that's just kind of out on the edges of mainstream and widely-accepted theories. In other words, it's the kind of science/theory that stands a shot of becoming respected at some point, just not quite at the moment. This means that the researchers have to be real researchers (and not just some crank in his basement) and they have to use the scientific method. I guess the best alternative label would maybe be "speculative theories" that don't have quite the weight of established doctrine. At least, that's MY take on it. Maybe I should just write the darn article and be done with it... --Dante Alighieri 22:01, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Dante, you make a valliant effort to rehabilitate "fringe science", but I am afraid it is to no avail. It is the effective equivalent of "pseudoscience", in common and technical usage. The only way "fringe" can be defended is if a strictly literal meaning is intended; unfortunately that intent will be lost in the overwhelming (negative) connotations of the word. This is a noble but doomed effort. I am currently re-writing the article to reflect this. The re-write will include references. -- Alan2012 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good enough for me, I read (pronounced reed, not red) that magazine. Now, if someone cares to examine the language to make it slightly less subjective sounding... --Dante Alighieri 06:44, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitamin S?

message: I would say that fringe science is a pejorative term.  The article implies that it isn't a pejorative term.  It doesn't strike me as neutral at all.  The word "fringe" conjures up "lunatic fringe" and is used by the media to marginalize people.--GordonHogenson 14:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is missing several words, among them: "derogatory", "pejorative", "label, "paradigm", and "Kuhn". I don't think anyone would appreciate being called "fringe". Show me a scientist who uses this word to describe her own work. --Smithfarm 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: eXACTLY. Mainstream scientists are always on the lookout for theories that will challenge their rigidly-held paradigms and are quick to use derogatory terms to slam them and discredit them, even when there may be some truth to the ideas. Many such terms include "quackery" and "psueodscience" which are hurled around las if they were effective "disproving" techniques. I do not understand why Wikipeda is apparently dedicated to supporting these militant attempts at holding back the progress  of science and human discovery and I am posting here to announce my attempts to edit this article this article to represent a fairer and more reasonable non-biased point of view. Smith Jones 17:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedias role" is the consequence of a rule system, so Wikipedia is not acting consciously. The major principles here, I think, are: WP:BOLD, WP:Neutral Point of View, citability and consensus. If you want to affect the workings of Wikipedia you should challenge the "militant attempts", and as you say "edit this article to represent a fairer and more reasonable non-biased point of view" (WP:Neutral Point of View). I believe the "militant attempts" are the result of WP:BOLD, which is an important factor for the expansion of the "fact base" of Wikipedia, but we can always recommend editors to mention their examples in the talk page of the article, before writing them into the article itself – mentioning them here first, diminishes their risk of immediatelly being reverted away by some opposing editor. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pejorative?

message: Content was merged here from controversial science which was deemed by consensus to need merging to this article.
I note that the "controversy" section which comes exclusively from the article merged into this one could use some generalizing and expanding. Also citation formats should be standardized.
Fradulent Ideas 14:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from controversial science

message: The controversies section shows obvious POV. It has numerous comments that are obviously intended as slams against creationism and intelligent design and appear to take a very specific position on them. These comments don't conform to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and ought to be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't.  Creationism and ID are on the fringe of science.  In fact, they actually do not qualify as a science since they posit the existence of a supernatural.  Science is firmly grounded in the natural processes and cannot rely on some magical being for explanation.  65.24.120.124 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Creationism" is a term generally used to describe belief in a literal view of Genesis (or some equivalent religious creation myth), not just a belief that "God is responsible for it all" (that's why "theistic evolution" isn't classed as creationism).  As Genesis has been disproved (i.e. "falsified"), it isn't scientific, and any attempt to pretend otherwise is definitely pseudoscience.  And ID is "rebadged creationism" (this is clear by the writings of its own advocates, and has been found to be so in a court of law: try googling the phrase "cdesign proponentsists").  Advocates reject (among other things) the scientific principle of methodological naturalism, and also generally reject the empirically-verified fact that mutations can and do create "information". --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty uniquely among "fact vindication systems", creationism and intelligent design have been judged not sciences by the US federal court, so by US laws they cannot be taught in the same context as just any science. Since the creationist and intelligent design systems are not using the ordinary fact acquisition query and test methods, and in some cases imposes thought taboos on the practitioners, they should be regarded religion, not science. Fringe science follow the rules of science, but makes annoying statements that mainstream is not accepting. Creationism and intelligent design should be in another article, not in this one. I think they already are. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these points.  Do you have citations for the judgments you mentioned?  "Creation science" is given as an example at Pseudoscience.  If you have sources which use phrasing similar to what you just said we can further differentiate this article from pseudoscience.  As you can see by the IP below asking for a sourced definition, that would be helpful.  NJGW (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Why does "Fringe theory" redirect here?  I understand that many Fringe theories involve Fringe science, but there are Fringe theories in other accademic disciplines (especially in history), as well as in pop culture.  I suggest that we create a short article on the concept of Fringe theories in general, one that prominently links to this article. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it - there are plenty of fringe theories to go around. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Fringe theory" redirect here? 

message: Does anybody have a serious objection to removal of the dubious tag from the first sentence of the Controversies section?
As an aside, is there an analogue to the globalize tag that could be applied to encourage expansion of this section to cover more than just the one set of controversies? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: List of minority-opinion scientific theories overlaps heavily with this page.  I prefer that title since "fringe" is somewhat judgmental, but this is clearly a more thorough article.  At the very least, the two should be linked to each other.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: User:Ramdrake has suggested that a section on human population dysgenics be added to this article. The section would summarize the information in the old version of the Dysgenics article so that article can be changed to focus more on the biological dysgenics of fruit flies and mice. Comments? --Jagz (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of dysgenics 

message: fringe theories, or pseudosciences and voodo science?
The first paragraph talks about all of those: The term pseudoscience is used to describe fields which are referred to as sciences, but lack scientific rigor or plausibility, though such fields are sometimes labeled fringe as well. Scientists have also coined the terms voodoo science and cargo cult science to describe inquiry lacking in scientific integrity.
Are those the same, or are they different, or do they overlap? Why are they put together in the very beginning of this article?
Lakinekaki (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that statement and made it a third paragraph instead.  See how it looks.  I tend to believe there is overlap in that where a field falls in the taxonomy of sciences (mainstream, maverick, fringe, psuedo-) can be very subjective (though this article attempts to remove the subjectivity by finding consensus in the literature).  NJGW (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better now. Lakinekaki (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this article about? 

message: The Science article says the following --"Any established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science". How come the intro to this article is so wishy washy and does not reflect that statement? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from all the discussion above, not everybody sees this as a cut-and-dry issue.  Some people don't like being told that their area is fringe, and others take the opportunity to try and change the meaning of "fringe".  Feel free to wp:be bold.  NJGW (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: What Science article are you referring to? II | (t - c) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello II. I suppose your question was directed at me and not NJGW. The answer is our own Science article which says "Any established body of knowledge which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science; it is often known as fringe- or alternative science. " Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I thought you meant the magazine. We should not state opinions as if they were categorical facts; let the readers make up their mind. I think the third paragraph of the lead covers this pretty well; many things called fringe science could just as easily be called pseudoscience. II | (t - c) 07:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how you got from "There is also the possibility that a science considered fringe by the public will eventually become mainstream" to "fringe science can never become mainstream science".  If you are happy with the more precise wording then that's fine too.  As for paradigm shifts, without context it's just a disconnected phrase at the bottom of the article.  If it's discussed in every article you've read, then the thing to do would be to add a section on the connection.  NJGW (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I read the statement in question, "there is also the possibility that a science considered fringe by the public will eventually become mainstream, but this is attributed to a lack of scientific understanding by non-scientists" fast and took away the second clause: "but this is attributed to a lack of scientific understanding among the public". So my reading of that was that there's the public perception of the possibility, but it's actually impossible. If the second clause had instead said that "but the general perception by the public that fringe science will become accepted is attributed to lack of understanding" it would have been easier for me to interpret. Again, my apologies for misinterpreting your statement. Feel free to restore similar wording which emphasizes that it's the public perception if you want. II | (t - c) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Just found this article, having searched for one on this topic. It's a very interesting and sometimes tragic topic. See the Michael Brooks reference that I added. I think this intro is great. "fringe science can never become mainstream science" would be awful. It's utterly POV. We should not argue about the definition of words but rather use the best word we can find and clarify just exactly what we mean by it. It's the meaning and clarity in the text that matters not the exactitude of the words used. It's really important to to say that most great science starts on the fringe until it gets enough evidence to be accepted. Consider Darwin and Wegener as examples. Budhen (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "fringe science can never become mainstream science"  I'm really confused as to why that keeps getting repeated, as I don't see the statement being made anywhere.  As for Darwin, he seems to me to have sat on the social/religious fringe, not the scientific (he had tons of evidence).  This type of characterization issue is an ongoing debate at talk:Pseudoscience.  Continental drift on the other hand seems like a great example (though one of few).  Perhaps some of Einstein's ideas could aslo be considered fringe at first, given the initial scientific opposition and lack of experimental evidence (though those were clearly not pseudoscience as pointed out at that talk page).  NJGW (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro

message: I'm a practicing [mad <g>] scientist, and just stumbled across this article, which I generally think is great.  But... early on it states "On the other hand, the history of science contains many instances of the eventual widespread acceptance of fringe sciences. "  However, there aren't any examples of such instances listed.  It would strengthen the article to include several such examples.  Three that I can think of:  (a) Big impact event killed off the dinosaurs - K-T boundary stuff, Chixilub crater, 65 million y.a.  (b) Plate tectonics.  (c) Mars-size impact event at around 4 billion y.a. leading to formation of the moon.  Um, I'm a biologist, how come these are all from geology?  anyway, any other thots on the subject of adding in such examples? Lanephil (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Echo of the Big Bang by Princeton University Press clearly states "Forty years ago the Big Bang was a somewhat crackpot theory" (pg 7) so it is firmly documented that at one time Big Bang theory was considered crackpot ie fringe science.  Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need examples of prior fringe science which has become mainstream 

message: Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe scientists is being discussed here. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by fringe scientists  

message: I just wanted to make a stylistic point - the article attempts to distinguish "fringe science" from "pseudoscience" way too many times. The tone comes off as very defensive, and sounds like someone on a mission to uphold fringe science. The distinction between the two concepts should certainly be made, but it looks like this article is doing it more than necessary. SnehaNar (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix this. Just as there is a demarcation problem between science and non-science, there is also a demarcation problem between fringe science and pseudoscience. There is not a clear dividing line, but it is clear that some (if not most) consider the term pseudoscience to be more pejorative than fringe science. 140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much repetition

message: I rewrote the intro because a lot of opinion was masquerading as fact and vice-versa. I tried to keep the main ideas but remove the commentary. You can see what I did here: 
140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrote the intro 

message: I rewrote the description to remove a lot of opinion masquerading as fact and vice-versa. I tried to keep the main ideas but remove the commentary. You can see what I did here: 
140.252.83.232 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 140.252.83.232 do you have other reccomendations for improving this article? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why let these edits by an anonymous IP lead to advisory position? See my comment here. Mr Gearloose (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering one of the edits removed information referenced to a book published by Princeton University Press which clearly states "Forty years ago the Big Bang was a somewhat crackpot theory" I have serious reservations about these anonymous IP edits.  When a reference based on its publisher qualifies as being among Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources "usually the most reliable sources" is removed with no explication or explanation in the talk page something has seriously gone wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote the Description

message: Re: The opening paragraph saying the term should be avoided... I agree with the sentiment... but, it is inappropriate for an article to include an editorial comment telling people what terms they should avoid. I have removed the editorializing. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial comment in the lede 

message: This entire lemma and all references to it should be removed from Wikipedia.
There is no notion of "fringe science" in the philosophy of science. This is not a mere opinion about the subject: the entire notion is nonexisting.
The fact that someone used the term once in a paper doesn't merit its inclusion in Wikipedia.
The whole term is solely used as a derogatory label to publicly discredit theories that deviate from some accepted model. It is complete and utter nonsense to include a lemma that insinuates that there is some accepted use of the term "fringe science" in scientific discourse: there isn't. 
For comparison, Heisenberg mentioned in a letter to Pauli that he considered some writings of Schroedinger "crap": does that mean that we now have to include a lemma in Wikipedia about the notion of "crap"? Of course not.212.78.214.166 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but no. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 212.78.214.166 that this page can be put up for speedy deletion. This doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia.131.155.202.216 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed a genuine thing, as demonstrated by the 34 sources used in the article, and numerous others. Whether or not it is accepted in "scientific" discourse vs. public discourse is not a meaningful question regarding the existence of the article. siafu (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: REMOVE THIS PAGE

message: The source is dead. It no longer links to anything. So we should remove it and replace with citation needed.  Why do you keep reverting?--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Don't remove sources. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Even if we couldn't find an online version, it is a reliable source and shouldn't be removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF.  Didn't realize the source was even published on PM, have replaced with proper journal sourcing so that since it doesn't exist as full text, people can find it in paper at the local medical library. :P--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what AGF has to do with it. Do you understand that removing a reference is inappropriate, regardless or whether or not it is available online? --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to stick to WP principles. If the source is no longer available in any form, it should be removed and replaced with a source that does exist. It is available elsewhere, so I shouldn't have removed it. You, though, should assume good faith in that I was attempting to fix the ref, not delete it for some agenda or whatever.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You simply are mistaken. I know it's written down somewhere, stronger than WP:PAYWALL, but I'm having trouble finding it. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

text: WP:BADLINK, WP:DEADREF. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: From my talk : 
:Due to a mistyping, I forgot to add a summary to my recent reversion.  I was going to say "Regardless of what the reference says, inclusion of "New Age" here is POV and not permissible. The term "mumbo jumbo" alone makes the point." Wahrmund (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't understand how this context could be a problem, only it's removal. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ref is good, it's perfectly fine. It shouldn't be removed. I think it's verifying the "mumbo jumbo" claim. But "New Age" in mumbo jumbo might be overkill and edging into POV, I think Wahrmund has a fair point there.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. How's this? --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's good, except I really like the (mostly the latter) wording. I think it's stylish, reads well, and is very in-wiki. It's very encyclopedic, in my opinion.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, if my suspicions are correct, I think the original wording intended the entire clause "wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo" to be the antecedent to (mostly the latter), not just "mumbo jumbo."--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age mumbo jumbo and reference

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fringe science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090206195757/http://skepticalinvestigations.org:80/anomalistics/perspective.htm to http://skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/perspective.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fringe science. 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/20080912101731/http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/opus/OPUS%20Report%20Final.pdf to http://www.univie.ac.at/virusss/opus/OPUS%20Report%20Final.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fringe science. 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/20070813201055/http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm to http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fringe science. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=%2FDocuments%2FWorkingDocs%2FDoc07%2FEDOC11297.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091127152153/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_mousseau.pdf to http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_2_mousseau.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations