Wikipedia talk:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat/Archive 1

Great work
Great work here - although I fear this will devolve into an oft cited and never read classic essay (kind of like WP:TE) A couple points. Like I raised on the workshop page these some of these arguments are fallacious only in relevant context. Another minor counterpoint - sometimes these fallacies are done not out of malice, but ignorance. Finally the lead is a little wordy.

That all having been said, solid work - an essay that is well on its way to adding to the discourse, instead of just the noise.--Tznkai (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree here: great work though the lead is LONGGGGGG. I added Civil_POV_pushing as it is along similar lines and gives good pointers as well.  NJGW (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes: do they help or hinder?
I put the quotes in as a way to leaven the heavy text with vaguely relevant, mostly amusing, vignettes. I went for wit before relevance, so they don't always match the text well.

Does anybody find them annoying? If so, please remove or replace the ones that annoy you (all of them if they annoy you that much). --TS 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some could be a little more relevant, but an improvement i think Peter Damian (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof
And behold, here we have yet another example. We are trying to get Arbcom to opine on this one. Can all reasonable people support us, please. Peter Damian (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Pot, please meet Kettle.
I agree. It is a very well written article. The only problem is that nearly all of the examples could be used in reverse just as easily. You could practically go through and replace "flat earth" with "consensus theory on global warming" and all of the examples still work for the most part. Same for the advice on how to recognize the fringe theorists. So, by that account, using your advice the "consensus theory of global warming" must be fringe science. Go figure.

One easy example comes immediately to mind from the current Cold Fusion debate and the topic ban of User:Pcarbonn:


 * [Rothwell]'s arguments against the [prevailing Cold Fusion POV] so resemble the arguments of editor [Pcarbonn] that [he] must be their sockpuppet.

I can try to dig up some more example diffs to illustrate my point if that would help you out. Let me know if you want them. --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my essay, WP:SAUCE, is relevant. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that one, thanks. I whole heartedly agree that it is a fair and neutral assessment of the situation.  --GoRight (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't understand the relevance of WP:SAUCE at all. See my comments below on 'symmetry'.  You are saying apparently that (for example) mathematicians are the geese, and (for example) would be refuters of Cantor's theorem are the ganders? How is that?  Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Against the 'symmetry thesis' above that nearly all the arguments could be used 'in reverse'. No, hardly at all, as follows:


 * Argument 1. Personalisation claims all sorts of victims, I argee
 * Argument 2. Poor sourcing.  No, mainstream and consensus science can always be sourced, when the subject is mainstream and consensus science, so no symmetry there.
 * Argument 3. Balance.  Again, this has the desired asymmetry.  Mainstream consensus science should always be given a greater weight than the fringe.
 * Argument 4. Conspiracy.  I have never heard an advocate of established scientific views argue that there was a conspiracy against this view.
 * Argument 5. Reversed burden of proof.  Once again there is a nice asymmetry.  The burden of those arguing against the view established by reliable sources is to prove otherewise.
 * Argument 6. Gaming.  Agree there is more of a symmetry here - both sides tend to game.
 * Argument 7. Amenability.  Back to a nice asymmetry again.  Proponents of views that have been established by the scientific never would need to claim the view is not amenable to the scientific method.  Argument 7 is the mainstay of the crank, and one of the easiest ways of identifying one.
 * Argument 8 . Special pleading.  This is not really symmetrical. To be sure, many advocates of 'established' science like to bully through their expertise.  But they shouldn't.  Any view which is clear and can be established by RS, can be established by any clear-headed and logically-minded non-expert.
 * Argument 9. Claiming that a fringe view is 'controversial' in order to suggest it is scientifically respectable is another stock argument of the crank.  No symmetry at all there.
 * Argument 10. Claiming that a patently false theory is true because some of  it is established by RS is another thing that only crackpots do.  It is simply not necessary for established views.

Peter Damian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Resources


quotes a list of 16 telling signs, reprinted from Victor Herbert's:

See also his journal paper of the same title:




 * The National Council Against Health Fraud website provides some excellent resources. The site is managed by Stephen Barrett. The position papers are well worth reading.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Title tweak proposal
As is brutally obvious, just about anything can be claimed on WP, otherwise the essay would never have been written. I'd suggest the word "cannot" is misleading (at best) and propose the alternatives "should not" or "must not".LeadSongDog come howl  16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but think you are missing an important subtlety. The full operative description of this page is closer to "Why some editors do claim Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is flat".  This is really a metaclaim that this page is portraying with not a small dose of rhetorical irony.  With that, I think your concern is not actionable, as well intentioned as it is.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slap me with a trout.LeadSongDog come howl  16:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements
Congratulations on a great essay, but I have a few concerns. I hope to later return with a better explanation, but meanwhile here are some points that might be worked on:
 * The essay was sometimes confusing (I lost track of whether I was reading the "good" or the "bad" argument).
 * I need more time to think about the statements that Wikipedia would have reported that the sun revolves around the earth at the time of Galileo. While undoubtedly true, some of the wording may lead to the conclusion that WP reports statements from authority as truth (I suspect that WP should not say "X is a sin", but should instead say "the Pope declared that X is a sin (ref)"). The real problem is that current WP policies (e.g. peer-reviewed reliable sources) are totally incompatible with the scenario of WP existing at the time of Galileo.
 * The article is unnecessarily confrontational in a couple of places.
 * There should be a section near the beginning which explains (politely) why it is that there are so many supporters of fringe theories (so good editors don't take it too personally). Here are some random (very incomplete) thoughts on that: There are many more ways to be wrong than right. Science is hard; speculation is easy. It's more entertaining to be controversial. Belonging to a small club with a particular belief can be fulfilling. --Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Conspiracy section, I don't understand "(Mastcell)" and "abyss &c" (omit "&c"?). --Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad I ran across this. It explains pretty well the way I always understood wikipedia to work. I actually believe that some of the things that would be considered 'fringe theories' are true and may someday be considered/proven so. However I understand that they are not the consensus and therefore do not belong in wikipedias main articles. I just wish others would look here before arguing that they should not be omitted. 70.179.142.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Civil POV Pusher Howto
The title of the article is wrong. It has nothing to do with Pseudoscience vs Mainstream Science. It's basically just a how-to guide on how to be a Civil POV Pusher. How many pseudoscientific articles are there that are in such a bad state they fail to even describe their topic, instead just explaining how the advocates are all loonies! I've been dealing with some alternative medicine topic recently and the orthodox doctors went so far driving out all the "fringe advocates" and sympathisants that the article just failed to explain what the topic is about in the first place! -- EineEiPih (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is poor advice for a neutral editor
This essay presupposes an us-vs-them mentality that a neutral editor would view with skepticism. Here are ten examples of what "they" do. Here is how "we neutral minded" editors can recognize what "they" do. Here is how "we neutral minded" editors ought to reply to "them." What is missing from this essay is any sense that, in the Wikipedia community, they are always a part of us, together with us, building an encyclopedia with us. I think most community-minded editors would have a negative reaction to this essay.

I think only one method works for a passionate editor to exclude non-notable or fringe ideas from articles. It's a three-step process. First step: improve the article elsewhere. If an article is fantastic elsewhere then the inherent crumminess of the fringe ideas should stick out like a sore thumb to editors who are rational and knowledgeable. Second step: increase the number and the diversity of knowledgeable editors involved. If you do that, you'll find that most of them will be rational and some are sure to see the sore thumb. Third step: wait for someone else to notice, discuss, and correct the problem independently from you with no prodding from you and with no awareness and no mention of this essay.

The problem with this essay is that most Wikipedia editors are turned off by statements like: "Humour them", "Stick to your guns", "The burden is theirs", and so on. I see this as the rhetoric of a group with an axe to grind. Even though I think this axe-grinding is less annoying than a fringe-advocate's axe-grinding, I'd still prefer less axe-grinding overall. The noise of axes grinding can be an entertaining sideshow, but when I see it going on in a talk page, it's a signal that there's some goofy edit-war going on. There's a fair chance that any improvements I make to the article in that environment will be misinterpreted by one side or the other and reverted, so why should I waste my time with the article itself? I've learned my lesson before. When the anti-pseudoscience crowd here starts fighting with a minority/fringe theory crowd, and they're both citing policy statements and essay links, that's my cue to either enjoy the show or focus on a different article because both sides are too focused on each other to recognize any attempt I might make to produce an improved encyclopedia article.

How to reply to fringe theories? Step one: Improve the article elsewhere. Step two: Increase the size of the community (which this essay will not do). Step three: Wait for an editor you've never heard of to address the problem. Nothing more. Nothing less. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think an 'us and them' mentality is very good: improves a sense of solidarity against the enemy and Battle of Britain spirit and all those good things. If it were really true that editors from the fringe could be improved and if it were easy to turn them from their evil and irritating ways, and turn them into useful and productive editors, then fine and OK.  The reality is that they are very counter-productive and are destroying Wikipedia.  They are a common enemy, to the barricades comrades, never has so much been owed by so many &c &c.  Peter Damian (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also you are missing the point that the essay is not moaning. It is meant to provide a tool-kit, indeed an armoury of weapons that will prove dangerous or fatal to our common adversary. Best means of defence is attack.  You see where I am coming from. Peter Damian (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a battleground. We have successfully rehabilitated editors whose initial approach, conditioned by blogs and forums, was combative.  I think User:Flying Jazz has a point, though his critique of this piece goes too far. --TS 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia IS a battleground. What suggests to you that it isn't?  And this talk of 'rehabilitation' is a bit North Korean in my view. Peter Damian (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't condone that sentiment. --TS 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither can I; I've always been against the mindset where everything is turned into "us vs. them", with demands for punitive, draconian treatment of those on the "wrong side". (But, ironically, speaking out and opposing such sentiments will itself lead to drama and fighting.)  I don't really understand why Damian, in particular, takes such a position given that he's been on the receiving end of punitive blocks and bans by some of the self-appointed defenders of the wiki. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? My critique of this essay never mentioned rehabilitation, improving other editors, or accused anyone of moaning. I think if you involve a sufficiently large community of knowledgeable editors and be patient, then the individual points of dispute in an article should, eventually, be resolved against the fringe. I think if you portray an article as the latest battleground against people who are destroying Wikipedia, then editors who might agree with you about specific edits but do not share your fervor are likely to see you as part of the problem. I agree that fervent fringe advocates on Wikipedia are very often irritating and counter-productive, and they rarely change. My position is that the use of this essay is a sign that their fervent opponents share these traits. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, here! Well said.  --GoRight (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You stole the words right out of my mouth, GoRight. I think Peter Damian was being sarcastic, by the way. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps you are right about Peter Damian. I didn't really catch that on the first reading.  --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He was trying to be funny. Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I copy-edited large portions of the finished essay and can agree that the "us vs. them" perspective is one of its flaws, to the point where a casual reader might view the advice as an assault on WP:AGF. However my interpretation (and perhaps the essay should be made clearer on this point) is that the "them" in this equation is not the run-of-the-mill passionate yet misinformed Wikipedia contributor -- but instead a very, very small minority whose only contribution to the encyclopedia will be (potentially) to heighten the profile of a particular fringe concept. One extremely dedicated WP:SPA of this type can keep an article with "a sufficiently large community of knowledgeable editors" spinning in polite but disruptive circles for months and even years on end. It is to the management of these folks that I see Peter's "tool kit" applies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was going to raise this as being a poster child for WP:ABF so I agree with your "assault on WP:AGF" point. But then you sort of lost me because the rest of your comment seems to likewise fall into the WP:ABF bin, IMHO.  --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll try restating it: I think 'assuming good faith' has its limits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a very, very small minority who act this way. I just don't understand the belief that any "tool kit" can provide "management" for the situation. My experience has been that an article or talk page with an extremely dedicated fringe theorist and dozens of reasonable editors does not spin into disruptive circles for months and years on end. Mr. Fringy's wacky contributions are reverted calmly and repeatedly by rational people until either Mr. Fringy gets bored and leaves or the rational people lodge a complaint, and that's that. There's no yin to Mr. Fringy's yang. There's no Jerry Falwell to Mr. Fringy's Larry Flynt. There's no Capulet to Mr. Fringy's Montague. However, when there's an article or talk page with one extremely dedicated fringe theorist and one extremely dedicated anti-fringe combatant, that's when the articles spin in disruptive circles for months or years on end with endless citations about this policy or that essay and endless tangential discussions about minutia that have nothing at all to do with the article itself together with endless metaphors comparing the situation to alchemy or Galileo or homeopathy or claims that the Earth is flat. So yeah, Mr. Fringy is a pain in the butt and I don't like dealing with him, but I think my steps will make him go away more quickly than yours. Your steps give Mr. Fringy a Mr. Anti-Fringy to play with and cause a truly royal ruckus. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, it takes two to tango. Though I have observed that Mr. Fringy's performance is seldom as straightforward as described above (arrive, act wacky, get reverted, [rinse/repeat] leave). Like fine wine, it has many delicate subtleties. Also, it's often not the Anti-Fringe Warrior who jumps into the boxing ring with Fringy, it's one or more of the "dozens of reasonable editors" who has slowly gotten sucked into the spin cycle. Anyhow, the advice in the essay isn't mine. I came upon it and tried to smooth over some of the rough edges. That said, if this essay were to die an WP:MFD death I personally wouldn't lose any sleep over it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the 'us and them' was part of the sense of humour of the article. Humour often communicates a point.  However, the point was to provide a list of logical fallacies that fringe editors often use, with a list (still incomplete) of logical replies.  If you think that point has been lost, or that it's not a good point in the first place, please say. Peter Damian (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I was inspired to try FlyingJazz suggested approach to dealing with a fringy type. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if this article talked with a tone suggesting that everyone should pay attention to their own biases, it would have the right attitude, but no one(who doesn't already agree before reading) will agree with it. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Galileo and OR
"Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'".

Would it? Surely only if Galileo was a Wikipedia editor, and added the info to the article himself. I'm sure his view would be rejected due to it being a fringe theory, but not as original research, right? Dreaded Walrus t c 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would not be rejected as a fringe theory either -- it might be reported as a fringe theory by a biased editor, but that would not be according to policy. In fact Galileo's view was the scientifically validated one of the time, supported by the work of Copernicus, Brahe, and Kepler. This piece misrepresents both history and WP policy. -- 98.108.206.28 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the scenario probably assumes that Pope Urban VIII controls mainstream academia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy?
In section 2.4 “Conspiracy”, it basically discusses fringe theorists' claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress them, and admits that there was a conspiracy against Galileo. This is essentially suppression of dissent (SOD), a practice which I naturally very much oppose; as a strong supporter of freedom of speech, including academic freedom, and of the idea that dogmatism is unscientific. However, Bill Beaty challenges the notion that SOD amounts to conspiracy; see “COMPLAINTS OF INTELLECTUAL SUPPRESSION ARE NOT "CONSPIRACY THEORIES." 2004 W. Beaty”. He says that the labeling of such a complaint as conspiracy theory is a straw man, and that most such complaints are real. Beaty's website links to a site by Prof. Brian Martin of University of Wollongong,, linking to many articles about SOD. Under subsection “Health” of said site, Martin links to “Caught in the vaccination wars: Brian Martin” where he writes:


 * The Australian Vaccination Network (AVN) has come under sustained attack by supporters of vaccination. I defended the AVN's right to free speech and in turn was subject to attack.

Again, I sympathize with Martin because I strongly support free speech. He discusses SOD and explains that it is common because the scientific community can't admit that it was wrong all along, because that would harm their reputation. Is that a true conspiracy?

Eric Lerner has his own theory about SOD. I am familiar with him because I have read his book, The Big Bang Never Happened, so the phrases “Eric Lerner”, “plasma cosmology”, and “The Big Bang Never Happened” are closely linked in my mind. On “The Big Bang Never Happened: Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang”, he writes:


 * The Big Bang survives not because of its scientific merits, but overwhelmingly because it is a state-supported theory. Funds for astronomical research and time on astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various governmental bodies, such as NSF and NASA in the United States. It is no secret that today, no one who pursues research that questions the Big Bang, who develops alternatives to the Big Bang, or, for the most part, who even investigates evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, will receive funding. The review committees that allocate these funds are controlled tightly by advocates of the Big Bang theory who refuse to fund anything that calls their work into question.


 * As a result, with very few exceptions, those who want to make a career in cosmology are constrained to work within the Big Bang framework--to do otherwise is to risk being cut off from funding, and, if a junior researcher, from tenure.

(Comparison to Galileo.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pardon me if this is slightly irrelevant, but here is some very good evidence of SOD. Dental amalgam controversy section 3.3.1 “Health effects”#“Various positions on the subject”#“American Dental Association (ADA)” overwhelmingly describes the ADA's insistence that amalgam is safe and its SOD on that matter, even going so far as to delicense dentists who say otherwise; Hal Huggins may have been a victim. Reminds me of what they did to Semmelweis, who IMO suffered much more than Galileo.


 * To clarify: my core position is that SOD is common in science and that its status as true conspiracy is disputed.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bad Astronomy" is a fact-checker?!?
I once visited Bad Astronomy, and I got the impression that it was a Creationist site dedicated to casting doubt on the age of the universe.

166.203.124.95 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Collin237
 * I don't know, but I'd be reluctant to change this page, based on Phil Plait. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Bad Astonomy" is in no way a creationist site.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Very much the opposite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.255.65 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How Wikipedia Tackles Fringe Nonsense (from Neurologica)
This article discusses the problem of fringe beliefs on Wikipedia in an interesting way and even references this very article in its first paragraph. Comments? RobP (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Novella probably should have explained that what he linked to was an essay that described advice for how to apply one of the encyclopedia's core policies. This would have avoided the possibility of his readers confusing a mere essay for actual policy. E.g. he quotes a paragraph that I (an editor) largely wrote, but represents it as an opinion of the encyclopedia as a whole: "Wikipedia admits, however, that its filters are not currently adequate". - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have an account on the Blog and could post that info as a comment. But it would be WAY better if it came directly from you, the author. You could also correct any other misconceptions Steve presented as fact. Want to make an account and post that info? RobP (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The comments section on that blog is full of trolls, and unfortunately, I've had my share of off-wiki stalkers, so I politely decline. However, feel free to pass the info on to Novella should you wish to. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just checked back through the article history. It seems I overstated my responsibility for the paragraph in question. The original opinion was written by Peter Damian, and I only polished it a bit ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Comment is awaiting moderation, but here is an excerpt:

Dr. Novella:

As one can see in the screen shot at the top of your article, the Wiki article you referenced, "Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat", has a warning which says:

"This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

It struck me that you had interpreted this article far too broadly, but to be sure, I started a discussion on the Wikipedia Talk page of that Wiki article to get feedback from the involved editors. As it turns out, a person claiming to be the primary writer of that very article gave me this feedback to pass along to you:

"Novella probably should have explained that what he linked to was an essay that described advice for how to apply one of the encyclopedia's core policies. This would have avoided the possibility of his readers confusing a mere essay for actual policy. E.g. he quotes a paragraph that I (an editor) largely wrote, but represents it as an opinion of the encyclopedia as a whole: 'Wikipedia admits, however, that its filters are not currently adequate' "

BTW, this is the article that I believe you should have read and referenced on this particular topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories RobP (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * While credit should go to Tony Sidaway for the concept and Peter Damien the bulk of the essay, many other editors contributed to the final product. And I think we're all happy with the result: if you search Twitter for the essay title, you find lots of compliments, like this one from Ezra Klein. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A question
Is there something like this, but for climate change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.28.9 (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that, in spirit, this page isn't uniquely about flat earth, but rather about any view that goes against sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

How Wikipedia fights for facts by redefining the truth
This amazing essay is one of the most intelligent attempts at addressing a fundamental question in Wikipedia I am proud to say it also informed this feature, published by Israel's Haaretz newspaper in both English and Hebrew this past week.

The story attempts to show how editors try to defend factual content in an encyclopedia where the definition of what constitutes a fact is also set by the community and is intended for readers with little to no personal experience or understanding of Wikipedia. The main claim in the article is that this is achieved by striving for verification of facts and not absolute truth.

The story attempts to show and debate Wikipedia and its polices implicit position on the question of truth, and, unlike most reports of this style, does not attribute independent agency to Wikipedia, instead addressing how different parts of the community involved in this efforts view it, vis a vis essays like this one.

Would love to hear what you think. Omer Benjakob (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)