| Revision as of 01:53, 17 January 2013 editFiachraByrne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,643 edits →Is Psychiatry integrative medicine?: belated reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:32, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,625 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive 11) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{talkheader|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive nav}} |
|
{{WikiProject Rational Skepticism}} |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 256K |
|
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|algo = old(64d) |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
{{oldmfd|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism|date=], ]}} |
|
{{oldmfd|page=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism|date=], ]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Shortcut|WT:SKEPTICISM|WT:SKEPTIC}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Skepticism/Nav}} |
|
|
|
|
{{archive box| |
|
{{archive box| |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
;Historical |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|search=yes |
|
|search=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = Talkarchivenav |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a notice to let you know about ''''']''''', a ] subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering ], ], ] and other workflows (]). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you are already subscribed to ''Article Alerts'', it is now easier to ] and ]. We are also in the process of implementing a ], which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the <code>display=none</code> parameter, but forget to '''give a link''' to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at ].<!--Addbot-WP-Message-Article-alerts-01--> |
|
|
|
|
|
<small>Message sent by ] to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome ].</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. — ] {<sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">]</sub> – ]} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for input in discussion forum == |
|
|
|
|
|
Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at ], and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. ] (]) |
|
|
<br /><br /><sub>Automated message by ] from ] at 15:44, 5 April 2011</sub> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Attention needed == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone uses this project anymore, but a is promoting ] as if it was an accepted mainstream medical specialty. TTBOMK it's only a fringe alternative medical practice without any scientific support and with some dangers. They are editing and creating articles and also adding categories, all in an attempt to make this seem like an accepted practice. It seems like they are using Misplaced Pages to create an alternate reality and notability for the practice. Their edits need to be checked for NPOV and for adherence to MEDRS. I don't have time to do it. -- ] (]) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
" ] (]) 05:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussion at RSN about ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether by ], professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source for the article on ] (1918–2007). Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in '']'', a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input would be very helpful. See ]. Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] article discussion to restore MEDRS and NPOV content and sources such as ''Annals of ]'' and ''Journal of Academic Medicine'' == |
|
|
|
|
|
A discussion to restore , including ''Annals of ]'', ''Journal of Academic Medicine'', etc., to the ] article is now going on . ] (]) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is psychiatry a pseudoscience? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I made , and plan more similar edits as I find MEDRS for them. The term "]" was coined to mean "medical treatment of the ]". Discussion begins , and be expanded, especially re forensic psychiatry (the modern equivalent of testimony by an exorcist-priest in a witch trial, with almost identical personalities of the players, and identical descriptiopn of "symptoms" but for a change in terminology to create the facade of scientific respectability - all to be reliably sourced, of course). ] (]) 22:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should the ], ], and related articles be held to a lower MEDRS standard than ] and its related articles? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles is here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following discussion re MEDRS, ontologic status of psychiatric categories, and controversy re the scientific methodologies for attaching the term "disease", "disorder", and :lifetime" to the categories (if they really exist, e.g., ]), in the ], ], ], and related article talk pages, FiachraByrne correctly wrote (bolfaced added by me for emphasis of most relevant part, and whose comment I may have distorted by excerpting just a part of it in order to raise the following issue) - |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''"Psychiatry is one of the oldest medical specialisms. It's '''designation as ]''' practice is a disciplinary/professional attribute that has '''little to do with the actual content''' of psychiatric knowledge or the nature of psychiatric practice. '''To establish''' this it is '''unnecessary to evaluate whether''' in any or all instances psychiatry adheres to the '''so-called 'scientific method'.'''"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
However, the designation of psychatry ''always'' being ], and not just some parts of it, with the associated implications of established efficacy in healing real diseases, ''at Misplaced Pages'', is a ] issue, not just a matter of determining the common usage on the street. The part of FiachraByrne's comment quoted above raises issues being glossed over by other editors at those multiple talk pages, where it is declared to be "common knowledge" that psychiatry is for the most part evidence and science based, that its designated categories (eg., ] and ]) are real, that the DSM designation of their being "disorders" estabishes with MEDRS that they are, and that they are lifetime, and questioning this violated WP:COMMONSENSE, and is WP:BATTLE because it is unquestionable, even with MEDRS and RS saying otherwise, all because ] (DSM), the self-proclaimed "bible" for practitioners, is always unque3stionably MEDRS. Furthermore, RS and MEDRS content is being totally deleted from any WP:MOS (lede) "controversy" paragraph as being UNDUE, by simply citing the declarations in DSM, even when contradicted by other MEDRS sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
The same ] standards should be applied to psychiatry as to ] articles. ] (TCM) is also one of the oldest "medical" practices. There is rigorous enforcement by ] hawks (of which I am one) that assertions re TCM being healing "]", as defined in that article and by MEDRS standards. The only allowable edits are that TCM practitioners "claim" to heal. TCM uses supernatural ] objects ("]" flow blockage causing qi, not the heart, to propel the blood inadequately), and outright false statements about anatomies, developed without the "cutting" of the "tom" in "anatomy" (Greek "tom" means "cut", as in "a-tom" – meaning not further able to be cut, as atoms were thought to be), has also historically been designated "medicine". MEDRS has different standards than accepted common usage, and for good reasons well argued in setting up the policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
* Should the ], ], ], and related articles be held to a lower ] standard than ] and its related articles, as to its designation as a healing "medicine", with implications to claims of efficacy and intent of all areas of its practice (e.g., forensic psychiatry, or psychiatry practiced under the color of being "medicine" at Guantanamo), when there are substantial MEDRS sourced content that at, least part of psychiatry, is not based on science at all, and other parts are not intended to heal anything? |
|
|
|
|
|
* Should ] be continued to be unquestioned as MEDRS, and citec as "common knowledge" which, if questioned with MEDRS or RS, is claimed to be WP:BATTLE and violate WP:COMMON SENSE, as was DSM IV, especially in light of comments such as that of ], chair of the DSM-IV Task Force - ''"DSM 5 will accept diagnoses that achieve reliabilities as unbelievably low as 0.2-0.4 (barely beating the level of chance agreement two monkeys could achieve throwing darts at a diagnostic board"''. |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion is here. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Periyar E. V. Ramasamy == |
|
|
|
|
|
], an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. ] ] 12:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is Psychiatry integrative medicine? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is ] integrative medicine? |
|
|
|
|
|
Discover Magazie just named this story as "Top 100 Science Stories of 2012" - |
|
|
From that story - |
|
|
::''"...the most recent attack comes from within the DSM-5’s ranks. Roel Verheul and John Livesley, a psychologist and psychiatrist who were members of the DSM-5 work group for for personality disorders, found that the group ignored their '''warnings about its methods and recommendations'''. In protest, they resigned, explaining why in an email to Psychology Today. Their disapproval stems from two primary problems with the proposed classification system: its '''confusing complexity, and its refusal to incorporate scientific evidence.''''' |
|
|
That is the very definition of ] in the Misplaced Pages article on the topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
The resigning docs are quoted as saying - |
|
|
::''"The proposal displays a truly '''stunning disregard for evidence'''. Important aspects of the proposal '''lack any reasonable evidential support of reliability and validity'''. For example, there is little evidence to justify which disorders to retain and which to eliminate. Even more concerning is the fact that a major component of proposal is '''inconsistent with extensive evidence'''…This creates the untenable situation of the Work Group advancing a taxonomic model that it has acknowledged in a published article to be inconsistent with the evidence."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Part of psychiatry is clearly evidence based and is science. But the field integrates this with pseudoscience and worse (forensic psychiatry and its associated fraud). Per the WP arricle, ] "integrates" evidence based medicine with the other stuff. Does ] apply here, or must there be a secondary source calling the spade a spade? ] (]) 23:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::The short answer is that yes you need good quality secondary sources to make these points and you need a sufficient number by medical/scientific academic publishers to establish weight. What constitutes a sufficient number is particularly poorly defined in the relevant ]. In all likelihood there isn't a sufficient number of sources which meet the inclusion guidelines for medical articles to support the contention that psychiatry or aspects of it - say, specific taxonomic categories - are pseudo-scientific constructs. Moreover, if the medico-scientific "community" or a majority thereof do arrive at the consensus position that a given psychiatric category is without evidential support in all probability that category is doomed in any case and will be replaced by another. |
|
|
::The other point is that with posts such as the above you're going to be accused of treating wikipedia as a forum for your views. That you regard psychiatry, or aspects of it, in this way is of course legitimate. Lots of people, here and elsewhere, entertain a variety of criticisms about psychiatric knowledge and practices. But that's irrelevant here. For an encyclopaedic article you need to represent the majority perspective from the most reliable and authoritative sources. As psychiatry is still the dominant discipline in terms of the production of knowledge about mental illnesses/disorders the preeminent psychiatric publications are, for Misplaced Pages, the most reliable and authoritative sources. Therefore, this encyclopaedia will largely, but not exclusively, represent the mainstream views within the discipline regardless of whether those perspectives correspond to the "truth" or not. ] (]) 01:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: And I suppose we define "mainsteam" as whatever DSM-whatever says it is, today? You know, DSM is a lot like what Bismarck said about laws and sausages-- if you want to retain any respect for them you shouldn't watch them being made. The same is true also of Misplaced Pages articles, and (yes) and medical and scientific concensus. Which is why we wait awhile for these things to happen in science, and try to avoid recentism like those speedy neutrinos that slowed right down again when the loose cable was wiggled back in. Which suggests you really should NOT pay any attention to a DSM until after it's 30 years old. Or more. <p> You know, once upon a time, the dominant mode of American psychiatry was Freudian psychoanalysis? I kid you not. You know, that had neurotics and psychotics and people with character disorders? And the neuroses were due to people with unresolved subconscious conflicts? It was all very interesting and it was all in DSM I and II. But then in 1980 DSM III came out and "poof" the neurotics and neuroses all disappeared. Like over night. Very much like the disease of gayness going away in 1974. Which had been a lot of fun for the Freudians with the penis envy and the anal fixation, let me tell you. But anyway, the neurotics all disappeared in 1980 and presumably the entire Freudian subconscious conflict, along with them. Or, at least, I think it did. I dream about all this stuff, sometimes, but when I wake up, it's all gone.... ]]]] 02:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Lol - sorry I missed this reply at the time SBHarris; I liked the comments very much on your dreams ... Yes, I'm aware of these points and once upon a time wasn't so long ago - American psychiatrists had to receive psychoanalytical training up until 1989. I have lots of opinions on psychiatry and even a little research but what you can do on Misplaced Pages is quite another thing. ] (]) 01:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@Fiachra - Yup, appearance of FORUM applies. I need to be more careful, or I will end up wasting alot of time on reverts to my edits based on forming an opinion of me, not my edits. I actually do not have views that I am aware of to be desiring a FORUM for, but I hoped instead to get thinkers with backgrounds outside of medicine involved in editing the psychiatry articles, by posting here. Re "sufficient number", I am going over the WEIGHT article to suggest improvements. There is also an academic legal community commenting on use of psychiatry in the courts, to base questioning "truth" on. I found it odd that every psychiatrist I engage with comments the same, that diagnoses like "bipolar" are "junk science" categories so easy to diagnose that it insures payment under an insurance billing code, and a critique that attorneys and insurance industries are hijacking the profession for money, and leaving the science in the dust, yet there is none of this universal self-criticism in the Wiki articles. ] (]) 20:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC at VPP on reform of FTN and FRINGE == |
|
== Proposed deletion of ] == |
|
|
:] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== How to add an article to this WikiProject? == |
|
This category has been proposed for deletion, and the result will be that ] may be categorized under ], rather than ]. The category was created to make a distinction between theories that govern the formation of religious beliefs which are limited by scholarly, academic, empirical, skeptical philosophical methodology and reason; and religious belief. Please look into this matter.] (]) 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a new article ] which seems to be right in your wheelhouse. I have looked through the content here, and I can't see how to add this article for the WikiProject. Can somebody please tell me how to add it? ] (]) 11:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this article fits this Wikiproject, if someone more experienced agrees please add your banner to the talk page. Thank you. ] (]) 20:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
:I think (It's been awhile since I did it) just add the tag to the talk page of the article. ] (]) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== It's time to tackle the list of books about skepticism == |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Misplaced Pages notable. I suggest that people take it in turns to cut this list by about 3/4's - if the book does not have a Misplaced Pages article, then it needs to go. Double check that there is no article before you remove it from this list, as they might not have been hyperlinked in this list. ] Good luck! ] (]) 07:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
This article could use a thorough review by anyone interested. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''] </span> 09:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:In a first step, I automatically replaced the italic titles by wikilinks. Now we can easily tell the redlinked ones apart from the bluelinked ones. --] (]) 07:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It has been reverted by someone who does not get it, but it does not matter. You can see in the old revsion which books have an article about them and which do not, which was the point. --] (]) 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@]: I because first, you removed the italic markup from book titles. Book titles should always be italicized (see ]). Second, you created redlinks by linking the book titles with no Misplaced Pages articles. Redlinks shouldn't be used unless an article is likely to be created (see ]). —]] 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As I said, my edit has fulfilled its goal even if you do not understand it. The revert does not matter. It's fine. --] (]) 15:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::great idea Hob. ] (]) 16:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
Hey, gang - I've started working on this project. As I understand it, I'll be removing books from the list in question that do not have their Misplaced Pages pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page? The first one I came across goes to an image file. I will go ahead and edit the links to go to the relevant page. ] (]) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure what you mean by the "Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page?" Only books that have Misplaced Pages articles should remain on this list. Everything else should go. If people write new articles for books, then they can add them to the list. I'm expecting when this is done there will be a quarter of the list left. It's been added to for so long without following the rules. ] (]) 18:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== ] advertised for a "spiritual healer", but they must be "qualified". == |
|
|
|
::I don't really understand this. I have a number of books that are very clearly reliable sources on psuedoarchaeology which don't have their own articles. Great sources, but not on the list. Eg see ]. I'm sure I have others whose authors don't have their own articles. ] ] 14:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The list should contain only books that have Misplaced Pages articles, notable on their own. It does not mean that a book can't be a reliable source, but we need to pair this down otherwise it just becomes a list of every book on the subject of scientific skepticism and I see inclusion of pure science creeping in. We don't want this to become another list like a UFO "notable" events, who decides what is notable. Many of these books being removed, I have in my own library and find them useful but they probably shouldn't be on the list. I would love to see our community buckle down and write articles for the books that are notable enough to pass the strict standards of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] Why not also include those whose authors have articles. Note that my concern is the lack of books on pseudoarchaeology.. ] ] 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's just opening a can of worms, anything by the author? You can still use the book as a reliable source if it does not have a Misplaced Pages article, that won't change. This list is just for books that are notable on their own. If you have a book that you know has the citations that we can build a Misplaced Pages article for, please let me know, I'm happy to write the article. ] (]) 19:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::''Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past'' by Jeb Card has four reviews in the Misplaced Pages library plus this which in the past has been considered a reliable source. |
|
|
::::::''Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public'' has one in the Library plus , |
|
|
::::::''Fantastic Archaeology'' by ] - 10 reviews in the Library. ] ] 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
] advertised for a "spiritual healer", but they must be "qualified". This if a ''fact'' from an ''opinion'' piece by the former Director of the ], Fellow of the ], Honorary Fellow of ]. Does anyone have any RS on how "qualified to spiritually heal" is defined by University College London Hospital and other evidence based university medical hospitals? ] (]) 01:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to the article ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8#Conspiracism}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Traditional Chinese Medicine is no longer ] accordding to Misplaced Pages == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
The ] article had the sentence that it is an ] removed, as well as all sentences about it being based on a supernatural energy, Chinese Astrology, Chinese Numerology, etc. Reading the lede, one might even conclude that it might be based on science. Whatver chain of admin decisions and caving in to "truth by consensus" to avoid edit warring and having a "community", as having priority over creating good articles as the strict ultimate end, it resulted in this whitewash, and it ''certainly'' did ''not'' "improve Misplaced Pages". ] (]) 01:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to ], the concept from which it sprung. It's all about negative and positive energy and most of the people selling "orgonites" are happy to make all sorts of medical claims, as well as physical, psychological, social and spiritual. It is linked, at least in the commercial aspect, to just about everything from reiki to chakras, from auras to EMF to 5G, from frequencies to crystals to phases of the moon. It maybe that there is not enough RS for an article, but if there is I think it might be very useful for some readers. All the best: ''] ]''<small> 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC).</small><br /> |
This is a big project, but over the years people have been adding books to this list that are NOT Misplaced Pages notable. I suggest that people take it in turns to cut this list by about 3/4's - if the book does not have a Misplaced Pages article, then it needs to go. Double check that there is no article before you remove it from this list, as they might not have been hyperlinked in this list. List of books about skepticism Good luck! Sgerbic (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey, gang - I've started working on this project. As I understand it, I'll be removing books from the list in question that do not have their Misplaced Pages pages. One immediate question I have is the following: Should the links from the notable titles remaining in the list not go to the Misplaced Pages page? The first one I came across goes to an image file. I will go ahead and edit the links to go to the relevant page. Drobertpowell (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be a flourishing pseudoscience. Currently the page is a redirect to orgone, the concept from which it sprung. It's all about negative and positive energy and most of the people selling "orgonites" are happy to make all sorts of medical claims, as well as physical, psychological, social and spiritual. It is linked, at least in the commercial aspect, to just about everything from reiki to chakras, from auras to EMF to 5G, from frequencies to crystals to phases of the moon. It maybe that there is not enough RS for an article, but if there is I think it might be very useful for some readers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC).
The redirect Conspiracism to the article Conspiracy theory#Conspiracism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 8 § Conspiracism until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.24 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)