Talk:LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory

Berkeley study

Why is there no mention to the 2010 Berkeley study, "Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)", published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with nearly 700 citations, which is the source of this conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.125.157 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that says this is relevant to the idea there is a conspiracy to turn men gay? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Alex Jones bases his theories relating to homosexual frogs on that specific study, which is why it's relevant to the topic. The study, headed by UC Berkeley professor of biology and integrative biology, Tyrone Hayes, finds that frogs exposed to Atrazine were 7x more likely to exhibit homosexual behaviors than the control group. They also found that 10% of the exposed frogs became fully demasculinized, or as Professor Tyrone Hayes calls it, "feminized," meaning the demasculinized frogs were able to reproduce like genetic females while still having the genetic coding (Y chromosome) of a male. While it is often argued that frogs are not humans, it's important to note that frogs have remarkably similar reproductive and endocrine systems to humans, producing estrogens and androgens just like humans do. Conducting studies on humans and intentionally dosing them with pesticides is both unethical and illegal, which is why scientists use animal models like Xenopus Laevis instead. The European Union and China have already banned the pesticide Atrazine, while the United States' EPA has not. EstrogenicEducation (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

While few reliable sources talk about a "conspiracy" to turn men "gay", I can provide reliable sources that concern the "feminization" of modern-day man, which might be what you meant.

-Reproductive epidemiologist Dr. Shanna Swan, author of the book "Countdown" finds in the study titled, "Temporal trends in sperm count: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of samples collected globally in the 20th and 21st centuries," that sperm count has decreased by around 1.16% every year since 1973, and that it is declining by 2.64% for every year after 2000. They found that over less than 50 years, sperm count had more than halved. While the study itself does not implicate Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, Dr. Shanna Swan's book goes in-depth into phthalates (a plasticizer used commonly in plastics to make them bendy and durable), hinting that phthalates, along with other Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals that mimic estrogens, are behind the decline. Dr. Shanna Swan hypothesizes that if the issue is not solved, humanity will be facing worldwide infertility by 2045.

-Dr. Anthony Jay, author of the book Estrogeneration, speculates on YouTube that Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, such as Atrazine, are behind the widespread male feminization (Are Chemicals Causing Transgender Urges or Male Feminization? ♀♂ Ep29) and behind the increasing rates of Intersex and Disorders of Sexual Development (Gender DYSPHORIA from PLASTIC - Phthalates are EVERYWHERE and lower testosterone). Both of those videos include multiple academic papers that he references and explains.

-The president of the EWG (Environmental Working Group), Ken Cook, hints that the EPA does not do enough to protect the citizens of the US or that the EPA is too lenient towards corporations, possibly turning a blind eye towards the chemicals, noting that, of the over 62000 chemicals the EPA's Toxic Substance Control Act has reviewed, only 5 were banned (that was in 2011, now there are around 83000 chemicals that have been reviewed, and only 9 banned). The presentation where EWG president, Ken Cook states this is on YouTube, titled: "10 Americans" by Environmental Working Group

-In a TEDx, Tyrone Hayes claims that Syngenta, the company that owns the product Atrazine, was reading his emails and trying to discredit him because he claimed that their chemical caused reproductive problems and should be banned. However, I don't know if that counts as a conspiracy because his statements were later proven to be true in a lawsuit against Syngenta, where their company files were disclosed. The TEDx where he talks about this is on YouTube, titled: Endocrine disruption, environmental justice, and the ivory tower | Tyrone Hayes | TEDxBerkeley

There are many more influential figures, but there are just some of the big names that I recall off the top of my head. EstrogenicEducation (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Very Serious Issues with the Whole Article

Hi, I’ve deleted a bunch of stuff for concision; also stuff related to RFK jr and also image of Alex Jones.

I ask you please discuss and gain consensus before reverting. I have removed references to RFK jr., bc he is a living person WP:BLP and by virtue of being involved in politics post 1990s, also “a contentious topic,” WP:CTOP both of which cause substantially stricter application of Wikipedia rules and guidelines to “attach.” Also arguably a medical topic and thus WP:MEDRS would apply. Much of this is not sourced to even WP:RS.

Additionally, I have not surveyed the sources on this topic, so I don’t really know, but it strikes me that it’s quite plausible that much of the text may not observe WP:NPOV and proper sourcing, as outlined above.

The whole article needs to be reviewed with this in mind. Also needs to be edited for syntax, grammar, cohesion, concision.

I strongly feel this article should be removed and throughly re-edited per above before you submit it for consideration for article publishing here. Thanks for your consideration.

I can tell you have thought about this issue and you solidly believe you are doing a good act, what must be done to “put the truth out there.” I relate to that a lot. Cheers. JustinReilly (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Being alive does not mean we canot say what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above, tbh. Except I think this entire article could be compressed into two brief paragraphs, one describing the conspiracy theory and its origins, maybe with a couple of brief quotes, and one providing debunks linked to RS. Leave the meme out completely. Long, detailed takedowns like this article frankly give oxygen to the conspiracy theories they're trying to fight. There's a predictable cycle to these sorts of topics: Some right-wing community comes up with something so extreme and ridiculous it can't be ignored; some well-meaning but hotheaded liberal posts a point-by-point debunk including links to the NYT and all the latest social-justice terms of art; the Trumpists laugh and laugh that they got someone to take so many hours out of their day, and they start over. WP doesn't need to be part of this feedback loop. A summary, a few reliable dismissals, and that's enough. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I just removed more unsourced material [1]. Reliable sources are required for these assertions on Wikipedia and especially for any extraordinary claims. Also, I agree with WeirdNAnnoyed - this entire article could be compressed into two brief paragraphs, one describing the conspiracy theory and its origins, maybe with a couple of brief quotes, and one providing debunks linked to RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The theory and origins seem to be covered at Tyrone Hayes#Atrazine research (which is where "gay frogs" used to redirect to). GnocchiFan (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Tag

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq I placed the following Multiple Issues Tag at the top of the article that you’ve reverted a couple of times- “bad formatting” was all you said. My previous edit note was: “The formatting is not good. I’m sorry. But I can not figure out how to fix it. If u can fix it then would really appreciate it if you could. If not, I really don’t think it’s so bad that it needs to be undone- formatting is only visible when note is opened so not an eyesore on the article. Thank you!”

The wikitext of the tag is below. I really tried to fix the formatting but I am not good with technical stuff like this and was completely frustrated and had to give up. Can you pls either fix the formatting or let me put it back. You put a disruptive editing warning on my page and someone else brought an arbitration enforcement request even though there was no prior arbitration. The tag needs to be there because this article is a complete trainwreck stream of conciousness rant that needs to be completely redone. Thanks.

Note: I don’t know why the below text is invisible. Click The edit icon to see it.

JustinReilly (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen your note. You are free to tag this article with issues while it's enough to leave your comments here. You can also draftify it or start a deletion discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have tagged it with {{Cleanup rewrite}} now. The editors who are willing to cleanup this article may find your comments here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Various Liberal Democrat incidents - worth mentioning, or too trivial?

Seeing this article made me remember that there was some news coverage back in 2015 about Tim Farron after a tweet from his account (he was hacked, apparently) seemed to endorse this conspiracy theory specifically in relation to frogs, as part of broader reporting of his views on LGBT+ issues - see e.g. this from the Independent [2]. Two years later, in response to questioning about Farron's views during an election campaign, one of his party's candidates went on to outright endorse the theory and also received news coverage over it ([3]) Would either of these be worth mentioning here alongside the Jones and Kennedy incidents, or are they too minor / trivial (as Farron himself didn't endorse the theory, and the candidate who actually did is otherwise non-notable and didn't get even remotely near being elected)? TrueAnonyman (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the addition is welcome, considering the current article only cites two examples of notable people endorsing the theory. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 08:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Given he was hacked, no. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think these are too trivial: Tim Farron's account was hacked and even though his views on LGBTQ rights were (disproportionately, imho) criticised, he never made any public statement about gay fish or frogs or anything relating to this conspiracy theory.

The candidate is non-notable and shouldn't be included either. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Article cut down

I took a chainsaw to this article, but retained most of the references. The previous version was better than it was a month or so ago, but in my opinion it still had the following flaws: 1) The level of coverage of this WP:FRINGE topic was out of line with WP:DUE on both sides; I think it only needed to summarize the conspiracy theory and point the reader to reliable refutations; and 2) The article gave this ridiculous theory an air of legitimacy by diving deep into all the reasons it is wrong. As I said above, WP should not be a part of the alt-right hysteria cycle. Somewhere, a troll on 8chan was laughing himself to pieces that something he thought up in thirty seconds was immortalized for all time on Wikipedia, complete with a copy of his stupid meme for all to see (memes in my opinion have no place on WP at all, except for a few niche cases). Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for internet bullies. Admins, I hope this greatly shortened version of the article is acceptable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I missed this chainsawing, and I'd favor restoring the body content. It's been a few weeks, so I'm not sure if I'm pushing against some silent consensus. Are there other editors that support/oppose restoring the content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory, or fringe hypothesis? Potential delete page?

I am not wondering about the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' in the title. A conspiracy theory is defined on Wikipedia as an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.

While Alex Jones' claim (~they're putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay~) is certainly a conspiracy theory... would it not be an incorrect title given people like RFK are not necessarily claiming that endocrine disruptors were intentionally used by anyone to turn people LGBT? It seems RFK's claim is more about pollution in general. That is more of a fringe hypothesis, similar to how the 'vaccines and autism' claim is not a conspiracy theory, but a fringe hypothesis. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Or.. delete? I am now wondering if this article is a candidate for deletion given the WP:DUE guidelines and the comment from @WeirdNAnnoyed: are a few articles from news outlets on Alex Jones and RFK's comments really enough notability for an entire Wikipedia article? We already have wikipedia articles on hormones and orientation, and a separate article on causes of gender incongruence. There is also not much coverage in secondary academic sources of this hypothesis, so it seems undue. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory comes into play when one needs an explanation for the fact that one's far-out ideas are not accepted by the scientific community: it is not because there is no good evidence but because the scientists are conspiring to hide the truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Issue is, Kennedy did not say there was a coverup. He stated his fringe idea was "controversial". This article leans heavily on Kennedy's statements.

Also, from the 2010 review "Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation": "Recent data show that environmental compounds during early development may interfere with sexual differentiation of the human brain. Plastic softeners, that is, phthalate esters, are pervasive environmental chemicals with anti-androgenic effects. Exposure to these compounds is accompanied by reduced masculine play in boys (Swan et al. 2010). Higher prenatal polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) levels were related with less masculine play in boys, while higher prenatal dioxin levels were associated with more feminized play in boys as well as in girls (Vreugdenhil et al. 2002). The effect of such environmental endocrine disruptors on sexual differentiation of brain sys­ tems should be further studied in future."

Research is ongoing, there is pending long-term follow up study in the works at the moment. That probably makes it a controversial hypothesis. Clarification: to be clear, I am referring to prenatal hormonal exposure. There is no evidence that circulating hormones, e.g. via 'chemicals in the water', effecting the brain in this way. If we are going to keep this article, it would be necessary to differentiate between prenatal and postnatal endocrine disruptor exposure. We can probably consider 'chemicals in the water' a nonsensical claim, while prenatal endocrine exposure a controversial hypothesis without much research. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy is an anti-vaxxer who has connections to the Russian government, and he has consistently opposed modern science, promoted conspiracy theories, and criticized western society, western science, and western liberal democratic values for much of his life. I think it's pretty safe to say he is a conspiracy theorist and his views are conspiratorial. 76.146.132.153 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist doesn't make every hypothesis he happens to promote a conspiracy theory. Also, I reverted your edits for misrepresenting sources. Nothing about "minor" effects in the texts. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: I appreciate your careful attention to the literature on this topic, and your edits. However, as for whether or not it can be called a conspiracy theory, I think you might be splitting hairs. Kennedy may not have claimed there is a grand plot, or a cover-up, but he's clearly talking about the same topic and going after the same audience as Jones. And Jones seems to be the one who originated the idea in the popular consciousness, where it was clearly framed as a conspiracy. I think the article is reasonable in saying the theory was "revived" by Kennedy without claiming Kennedy bought into the conspiratorial stuff, which would not be accurate.

As for deleting the article, I would love to, along with 60% of Wikipedia to be honest. But I spend a lot of time over at AfD and believe me, the consensus is if anything has a more-than-passing mention in a reliable source, it stays on WP. I don't like this; I think WP:GNG is too low of a bar, and I don't like how American progressives' need to pillory every passing right-wing talking point in the media guarantees those talking points will be immortalized on WP. But that's my opinion and I'm not the boss. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the cites that anyone is asserting an overt conspiracy, so yes removing "conspiracy" from the title is warranted. I'd also say remove "LGBT" for something more appropriate, since there is no overt assertion in this article that chemicals are turnin' the damn frogs lesbian or bisexual. :-)

Also, scientific cites about the effect of chemicals on the brain should go in the chemicals' articles, e.g. in sections about concerns re: impact of exposure on fetal sexual development. More importantly, it violates WP:SYNTH for a Wikipedia editor to introduce these scientific cites themselves as a disproof of the fringe theory: we should be citing an RS who does this for us.

Frankly, I am completely on board with AfDing this, since "two crazy guys said something" does not make for an article. There are ways to go about this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"Subsequent research" inaccurate

The article contains the statement: "Subsequent research failed to reproduce these results" and references a 2008 study.

The prior references a 2010 study.

Hence the qualifier "subsequent" is inaccurate.

Maybe a reference to it being unclear, or unsettled is more appropriate? 174.92.42.37 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have changed it to "other studies failed to replicate these results" to fix this issue. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Going to affirm your concern. Study in 2010 is more modern, and recent study. Therefore its evidence and methods were not available in 2008 when the claim "it's not reproducible". Just change it. 88.193.155.198 (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

PP

Please note IP's keep on with undiscussed deletions and PP may be asked for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Title says conspiracy theory but was RFK Jr promoting the conspiracy theory?

Wikipedia defines a conspiracy theory as "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."

In this article it says Alex Jones says the US government is waging war against the population, intentionally "making people gay".

It then continues saying RFK Jr revived this idea. Did RFK Jr ever claim the US government is making people gay on purpose? If not, he should not be mentioned here, because the *conspiracy* would be the US government doing this *on purpose*. If people were becoming gay unintentionally due to atrazine, that is not a conspiracy, but maybe pseudoscience. 95.70.175.172 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I’ve kinda made this point before. Unintentional endocrine disruption theoretically effecting traits doesn’t really suggest ‘conspiracy theory’ to me, but others have argued otherwise. I guess it depends on how the reliable sources frame it. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Did RFK Jr ever claim the government was making people gay on purpose? No, and our article doesn't say he did, only that he said atrazine may be linked to gender dysphoria. I added a slight clarification to the text. I think we are still fully reasonable in claiming that he "revived" the idea of such a link (even if his view doesn't exactly match Jones's). If you read his statements in Reference 1, he's been using it as a talking point for campaign purposes, even if he hides it behind "I'm just saying we need more studies" weasel-speak. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, RFK is not promoting "conspiracy theories". This subject is proven by peer reviewed scientific research, and regulations are being put in place by the US, EU, and likely other nations ( I have not confirmed anywhere besides US & EU ) restricting the use of the chemical mentioned in this article, as well as other chemicals such as BPA which are proven to have the effects called "conspiracy theories" by this article.

This article is heavily biased, and problematic. It is proof of activism, misinformation, and censorship on the Wikipedia platform.

This article should have its title corrected, its information updated with current information instead of containing mostly decade-old negative info ... or it should be deleted outright.

I am of the opinion that pure brazen censorship is preferable to activists publishing propagandistic misinformation as fact. Kyanwan (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Chilling effect of censorship & biased activism on this article. Censoring new findings, new regulations, new research

As a longtime Wikipedia user ( Over 20 years ; account for 15 years ), I am dismayed by the quality of this platform and the brazen activism & bias of users. If this platform is truly a source for objective truthful information, truth should be allowed to be published.

Censorship degrades the quality and authority of the wikipedia platform. If this censorship of knowledge continues because some people have an irrational fear of knowledge - shut this entire site down. It's worthless. Wikipedia is intended as a platform for the dissemination of truthful knowledge, not a platform for activism.

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/endocrine-disrupting-pesticide-atrazine-be-banned-hawaii-five-us-territories-prohibited-conifers-roadsides-2020-09-23/

This is but 1 example of new research in this field, and the clear activism of this article & negative connotation of calling any opposing views "conspiracy theories". The "conspiracy theory" slur is exactly that. A highly biased label which is applied to dissenting views. Views which have since been proven as true. Yet here we are in 2024 still denying the truth of research which has piled up over the years. Government bans that have been put in place based on that same research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor#Environmental_and_human_body_cleanup

Even elsewhere on Wikipedia, not a single mention of the gender disruption/behavior modification effects of these chemicals even though there are dozens of scientific studies out there, government bans on chemicals, new restrictions on these chemicals due to new scientific findings. Scientifically proven, yet censored & denied. Why? Is this appropriate for a platform that people around the world use for learning? Withholding the truth can only be called one thing: misinformation.

In addition, this article only mentions 1 chemical & ignores other chemicals which are peer-reviewed research proven to have impact on biological sexuality.

https://www.gmp-compliance.org/gmp-news/new-eu-regulation-lowers-bpa-limit

The evidence is piling up and coming to light, yet this article references material that's nearly a decade old. This is a disservice to humanity to censor based on activism - especially when the entities responsible for the governance of civilized society are beginning to say: "You know, there's a problem."

I reiterate.

Continuing this brazen unrestricted activism on the wikipedia platform is a disservice to humanity. Because we simply do not like a truth does not make it untrue.

Seriously, this article should be deleted. It's packed with outdated information. Join the rest of the Wikipedia in censoring knowledge to satisfy the biases of extremely vocal activists. I won't be surprised if I'm banned myself for supporting the free dissemination of accurate & truthful knowledge.

Kyanwan (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Provide the sources that back your claim (see also wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not here to update or try to compete with agendas.

You're quoting "original research" and "soapbox" - yet this entire site is the soapbox of people with agendas. It's morphed into a biased cesspool. Kyanwan (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, and you have been around long enough to know we aren't (or rather shouldn't) be in the business of righting great wrongs here. If you have issues with other pages being biased, raise them there – don't force your opinion based on original research onto other articles for the sake of "balance". GnocchiFan (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That is what this talk page is for, it is to discuss changes to the article, not as a wp:soapbox or wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please try to be less dramatic (see WP:MASTODONS and WP:THETRUTH). This article is about the conspiracy theory that most LGBT people were only "turned gay" or "turned trans" due to mass poisoning from endocrine disrupting chemicals, a bizarre and impossible claim with no evidence.

That conspiracy theory is based on, but otherwise completely distinct from actual scientific claims that certain herbicides could be harmful to humans in certain quantities or should be regulated. The former is in service of an anti-LGBT political agenda, framing LGBT identities as biologically unnatural. The latter stems from the actual desire to protect humans, animals, and the environment. They are best covered on separate articles, although it's important that this article gives a useful summary of them. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"The former is in service of an anti-LGBT political agenda" - Do you have proof of that, or do you have a vested interest in hiding research? Your agenda is showing on your signature. Kyanwan (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Your agenda is showing on your signature." Please stop this nonsense, you are bordering on personal attacks with comments like this, especially when replying to someone who was quite reasonable and nuanced responding to your melodramatic comment here. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am member of a shadowy cabal censoring brave indepdendent truthtellers, but that's neither here nor there. Per the Axios source currently used on the article:

"It's just people have seized upon that and turned it into a conspiracy theory to use as ammunition as part of this war against the LGBTQ community," said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism.

Equality Florida press secretary Brandon Wolf told Axios the gender-chemical rhetoric is part of a "cocktail of hysteria" that has aided in passing anti-LGBTQ laws.

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"not a single mention of the gender disruption/behavior modification effects of these chemicals even though there are dozens of scientific studies out there, government bans on chemicals, new restrictions on these chemicals due to new scientific findings" – none of the government bans on certain chemicals claim that these have an effect on sexual orientation or gender identity. Why don't you provide a single WP:RS to support your argument. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And pelae read wp:v, the source has to explicitly make the link, you can't infer one. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

MOve

Why has this not been moved to LGBTQ chemicals conspiracy theory? Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see any need to move articles when none of the sources refer to "LGBTQ", nor queer. Zenomonoz (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)