Talk:Patrick Flanagan

message: There is no need to put another biography of this man on the Internet. The Neurophone device, and the other various snake oils sold by this man deserve to be described on Wikipedia in detail on separate pages. Agree (with earlier comment) that making a biography about Flanagan is wrong as a trenchant description of his commercial activities may constitute defamation. Additionally the page, in its current state, gives the man and his sock puppets an opportunity to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Suggest article about Neurophone, with what ever non-sales related media can be found on the device. Other spurious inventions by this person can be linked from a "Neurophone" article in a "see also" section. Note on due/undue weight: The stakeholders in the Neurophone device have made a sterling effort to populate every corner of the web with marketing materials on Flanagan's "health" and wellness products. A huge proportion of what can be found via a casual search for these products is marketing media.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.104.5.227 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: retitle page Neurophone and remove (auto)biographical content

message: None of the external links mention the doctorates and neither does the Guardian article about him from 2005. The Daily Mirror article refers to him as "the late Dr. Flanagan". So the doctorate claims appear dubious. AxelBoldt 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this has not been addressed 6 month later, I propose to begin the deletion of unsourced statements.DGG 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Flanagan. AxelBoldt's comments above are incorrect. -- ChrisO 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I have seen his web site, which does not mention a doctorate except in medicine, but just advanced degrees in some of the fields.  I've used the quote  as a replacement. DGG 01:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The citations provided fail to meet WP:Verify.  I suggest they be removed and replaced with reliable ones, as the sources cited are run by the subject of the article.  -Interested2 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate sourcing 

message: Incase anybody removes the official U.S. patent office website connections for the Neurophone and Electron Field Generator , here are the links ;
Neurophone patent no.3,393,279 , patent no.3,647,970
Electron Field Generator patent no.4,391,773 , patent no.4,743,275
Flumstead (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official U.S. Patent Office connections . 

message: Here are some links to published peer review papers by Flanagan about Silica Hydride  . I don't know about you , but this doesn't seem like pseudoscience . These papers also seem to invalidate the criticisms made in the University of California , Berkley wellness letter suggesting that negative hydrogen ions can't exist in water . This is real science which is being applied in pharmacology , biochemistry and industry . Flumstead (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: has a pretty thorough debunking of these claims.  Were Flanagan's claims remotely based in fact they would warrant massive media coverage and probably a Nobel prize, not two articles by persons without legitimate degrees in the Journal of Medicinal Food. -Interested2 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that it needs a citation, unfortunately, I didn't originally add that.  I'll try to find a citation in the mean time.  -Interested2 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Although it does need a cite, the official site  is pretty clearly not that of a legit academic institution. -Interested2 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silica Hydride . 

message: I got linked to this page about Patrick Flanagan when I searched for Neurophone. Can you please make a separate page for the neurophone, which is a device and not a man. There is a lot of people in the world using the neurophone. Wikipedia should have an article about how the device works, and about what effects it has on the brain. --Zanthius (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Neurophone 

message: Just delete the page.  Clearly it's more of a vendetta then a biography.  There's nothing "pseudo" about his inventions, they are patented inventions -- period.  There's nothing "pseudo" about silica hydride, it's used by top athletes (who claim it) for superior performance and there are validated scientific studies proving the voracity of the "claims". Scientists arguing is nothing new. It's like arguing if Linus Pauling deserved the Nobel prize(s).  Many claim no special benefits from vitamin C either.
Just tell the man's story without all the "claim" and "pseudo" and "woo-woo" references and let people decide for themselves.  This is why Wikipedia gets a bad name, people can't keep from opinionizing these articles.
To the person above who implies that Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize for scientific work he had done with Vitamin C . . . give me a break. Fantasy is not fact.
In 1954, Pauling was awarded the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances. His theory on Vitamin C came after his Nobel Prize and mainly received publicity due to the fact that he was a Nobel Prize winner. 1962 he won Nobel Peace Prize Laureate which again has nothing to do with Vitamin C. Astroboyretro (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir NPOV doesn't mean tell a story with out exploring it. It means Describing reality with as little bias as possible. Next what you've described there is practically the definition of pseudo science. Look up How the patent system works, confirmation bias, and anecdotal evidence. The fact is that the article covers some pseudoscience and it should be marked as such.
Along that line I've removed links to his own website used to cite his accomplishments. Phisciences.com has a clear bias and frankly is a lousy source.Donhoraldo (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article 

message: Does anyone have any suitably sourced material to add concerning Patrick's late wife, Gael Flanagan nee Gordon? Perhaps someone living locally might be able to get access to the coroner's report? Peter raines (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gael Flanagan nee Gordon 

message: I added a WP:COI tag because a major contributor, User:ForestDog, is a blocked sockpuppet who has been linked to another account that appears to be doing paid promotional editing as evidenced here WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CastleKing1440/Archive.  Earlier versions of this article were rather promotional in tone.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of COI tag 

message: I'm notifying creators and early contributors of the proposed deletion of this article. The most notable thing about this BLP is his commercial product  "the Neo-Neurophone", which is being marketed widely online. It can't really be called an invention on his BLP as there are no RS that say what it actually is. There are lots of marketing sources which make the usual wide reaching CAM medical claims, but those are not  wp:RS. I strongly suggest rewriting this as an article on the neurophone and depreciating biographical information about Flanagan into a short section in the article. I would also consider taking the information from the subject and merging it into the relevant fields of pyramids and the articles on CAM, which the subject of this article promotes on his online businessesEdaham (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: having posted the deletion notice I can see that it's been previously nominated. Apologies if this re-proposal is unhelpful in anyway. Please consider the policies on commercial articles when improving it. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion notification