Talk:Troy Hurtubise

Merge from Trojan Ballistics Suit of Armor
From my comments at that AfD: I've added another cite [to Trojan Ballistics Suit of Armor], and although this technically meets the threshold for multiple independent sources, they are not substantial or in-depth enough to cover the subject to the level of depth the article goes, raising issues of WP:NOR. The inventor is certainly notable enough for the media coverage of his exploits, and the section in [this] article can be expanded with the WP:V content from [that] article. The effort needed to clean up [that] article would be better spent cleaning up [this] one. If the suit becomes sufficiently notable later, the content can always be split out again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Angel Light
This section should be removed. It's written as if these claims are actually rational in someway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.211.226 (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that self-reference? ;)BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no bork, obviously not (this) section on the talk page, the section "Angel Light" on the article page.

Hurtubise made his claims about his "Angel Light" invention a dozen years ago, and there's no evidence that supports them. However, since much of the article is attributable to the subject (i.e. claims made by Hurtubise himself), it is might be worthwhile (for a neutral point of view) to include some of his more improbable claims along with a note that they are unproven (or unfounded). So basically like: ==Invention X== On (date), Hurtubise revealed he had made Invention X which he claims can do Y. There is no evidence to date that Invention X actually can actually do Y, and Skeptic Z doesn't believe it can. Stating Hurtubise's claims like they are facts makes the article biased since the source is biased, but if it is a fact that he made said claims and making such claims is noteworthy in itself, then it's ok for it to be included in the article. However, since Hurtubise's claims are generally pseudoscientific it is important to note that they are not supported by actual evidence. The best way is to cite a reliable source who says as much, but because mainstream scientists are often likely to just ignore pseudoscientific claims it might be hard to find a reference. If that's the case then just stating "Hurtubise claims about his invention have not been confirmed by the mainstream scientific community and there have been no peer-reviewed scientific articles published that support his testimonials to the media." Even without citing a specific source this wouldn't be original research because it is attributable to the reliable, published sources that are scientific journals' indexes/archives, and even if it might take some time it would be verifiable. --IPEditor (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)