View source for Talk:Happy Science

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Happy Science/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=2
| minthreadstoarchive=2
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=Mid|religion=y}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}}
}}
{{Archives |auto=long |search=no |title=[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]] ([[{{#titleparts:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|1}}]]) |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 }}

== Request for clarification regarding the “cult” description in the lead and the use of academic sources ==

Hello everyone, and thank you for your time.

In the previous discussion, several policy-based points I raised were not addressed before the thread was closed. To avoid misunderstandings, I would like to restate the issue concisely and request clarification.

I want to emphasize that I am not disputing whether some media have described Happy Science as a “cult.”
Rather, my question is about policy compliance, specifically relating to WP:RS and WP:UNDUE.

1. WP:RS prioritizes peer-reviewed academic sources as the highest-quality sources

According to WP:RS, peer-reviewed academic journals are at the top of the reliability hierarchy, above newspapers and general media.
This also affects WP:UNDUE, since higher-quality sources are generally given greater weight.

Given this, there is a clear policy question:

Academic sources consistently classify Happy Science as a new religious movement (NRM).
Only some general media sources use the term “cult.”

Therefore, the academic sources—being higher in the WP:RS hierarchy—should carry greater weight in determining due weight in the article, including the lead.

This is not an argument about personal preference, but a direct interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

2. Request for clarification
My policy question remains:

**Which WP:RS-compliant secondary sources, strong enough to outweigh the academic literature, justify placing

“Happy Science has been described as a cult.”
in the lead section?**

To date, no one has provided a policy-based explanation addressing:

Which peer-reviewed academic sources describe HS as a cult
Why a minority wording from general media should be placed in the lead
Why this does not violate WP:UNDUE

This is the specific issue I am hoping to clarify.

3. Next steps

If there are high-quality secondary sources meeting WP:RS and WP:UNDUE that justify the current lead wording, I would be grateful if someone could provide them so that the rationale is clear.

If necessary, I am open to starting an RfC to gather broader community input and to ensure that consensus is based on clear application of policy.

Thank you for your time and understanding. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 00:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
:'''Multiple discussions in the archives have explained this.''' You are [[WP:SEALIONING]]. Please address the question on your user talk page. At this point, I also ask you to explain your connection to HS. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 10:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
::I would like to respond briefly and clearly, based strictly on Wikipedia policies.
::First, I am not SEALIONING. I have raised specific concerns about:
::the application of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and
::the balance between academic classifications (NRM) and journalistic descriptions (“cult”).
::These are legitimate content questions, not repeated bad-faith demands.
::If you feel my previous explanations were long, I am happy to keep replies short and fully policy-focused from now on.
::Second, regarding your request for me to “explain my connection to HS”:
::I have no personal or organizational connection to Happy Science.
::I am participating solely as a volunteer editor trying to ensure that article wording complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies.
::It is inappropriate and against WP:OUTING and WP:AGF to imply personal affiliation without evidence.
::Third, while you state that “multiple discussions” have resolved this issue,
::I have not seen a clear policy-based explanation that addresses the specific NPOV concern I raised.
::Simply referring to the archives does not resolve a current content dispute, especially given that interpretations evolve and new editors may participate.
::I welcome a constructive, policy-grounded discussion focused solely on:
::whether the current wording reflects due weight (WP:UNDUE), and
::how both academic and journalistic sources should be balanced.
::I kindly ask that we keep future comments focused on content, not contributors [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 04:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Would you please respond to the question asked on your user talk page? Thank you. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 11:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes it does reflect due weight based on the coverage we have in reliable sources. We don't "balance" like that, especially when they don't actually disagree... Saying its a NRM is not saying it isn't a cult. We don't appear to have a situation where journalists and academics disagree, we seem to ahve a situation where they use different words to descibe the same thing. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 06:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
::::{{yo|Horse Eye}} Yes, and not even that – in the journalistic sources, the term "cult" is not always used by journalists but by people (including academics) who are cited in the sources, and many of the same sources also identify it as an NRM. As you say, thete is no contradiction there. As for the academic sources, there the term "sect" tends to be used rather than "cult". I don't see any need to add "sect" to the lead, though. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 11:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC) 
:Please note that the only use of cult in wikivoice currently in the article is "doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo" which I will be trimming momentarily. As for the attributed opinion it seems due, I'm not sure how you can have an intro that doesn't note that many consider it a cult. That would be leaving out a significant point of view. Perhaps you misunderstand how the relevent policies and guidelines apply here? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 06:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments. I would like to explain why the current sentence may not be appropriate for the lead, based on relevant Wikipedia policies.
::1. The label “cult” is a contentious term (WP:LABEL).
::Wikipedia requires special caution when using potentially controversial labels. Such terms should only appear when they are clearly supported by high-quality, authoritative sources and when they represent a major, well-established characteristic of the topic. In this case, the sources that use the term do not appear to constitute a broad academic or governmental consensus.
::2. The lead should summarize only the major, well-established points (WP:LEAD).
::Information such as “has been described as a cult” is the type of claim that generally belongs in the body with careful attribution, not in the lead. Including it in the lead gives undue prominence to one interpretation of the group.
::3. “New religious movement” and “cult” are not interchangeable terms.
::Describing it as an NRM is an academic classification, whereas “cult” is a socially and sometimes legally charged label. Placing them side-by-side in the lead suggests equivalence and can mislead readers.
::4. The level and quality of sourcing may not justify lead inclusion (WP:RS / WP:UNDUE).
::If the “cult” description is supported mainly by a limited number of journalists or non-academic sources, this does not meet the threshold needed for the lead. Lead content must reflect mainstream, authoritative secondary sources.
::5. The current sentence lacks clear attribution (WP:ATTRIBUTE).
::“Has been described as a cult” does not indicate who is using the term, in what context, or how widespread that view is. Controversial labels require explicit attribution to specific sources.
::For these reasons, placing “Happy Science has been described as a cult” in the lead may not comply with Wikipedia’s neutrality and weight policies. A more appropriate approach may be to include such views in the body with clear attribution, unless a strong and broad consensus from high-quality sources can be demonstrated.
::I hope this clarifies my concerns, and I welcome further constructive discussion. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 09:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
:::If there are no further comments, I would like to propose a small adjustment for clarity and balance.
:::The current sentence “Happy Science has been described as a cult” appears to rely on a limited set of sources. Major academic publications generally classify the group as a new religious movement (NRM) rather than a cult, and the article already reflects this. This may give disproportionate weight to a minority characterization.
:::Of course, I am not opposing the inclusion of any well-sourced viewpoints; my only aim is to ensure appropriate weight in accordance with policy.
:::Therefore, I would suggest the following options:
:::Option A:
:::Temporarily defer inclusion of the sentence unless stronger and more representative sourcing can be provided.
:::Option B:
:::Rephrase it with proper attribution and context, e.g.:
:::“Some journalists have described Happy Science as a cult, while academic sources generally classify it as a new religious movement.”
:::Either approach would maintain neutrality and avoid undue weight.
:::I’d appreciate any feedback [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 10:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Absolutely not. Either alternative would constitute whitewashing, and the second one would be actively misleading the readers. Please drop the stick. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 10:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for your response. I understand your concern about balance.
::::My intention is not to mislead or whitewash, but to ensure that the lead sentence reflects appropriate weight consistent with Wikipedia policy (WP:LABEL, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV).
::::I am only suggesting these wording options as proposals to discuss, not as final edits. I welcome any policy-based feedback or additional sources you believe are relevant. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 10:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Given that you now understand that the impact of your suggested changes would be to mislead and whitewash do you retract them? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::I can't believe this is still going around in circles. Reminds me of December 2018 in this talk page Archives. I've already invited @[[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] to go create a RfC, which you have not actioned. Please stop {{strikethrough|mindlessly}} repeating yourself and going around in circles. You are indeed WP:SEALIONING. You keep on asking what policy is being used. These experienced editors have spent a lot of time repeating themselves, you've been told multiple times that reliable sources have been used to describe that some people call Happy Science a cult. This is the policy. If you state something, you provide a reliable source. Calling it a "new religious movement" is not a common phrase often used. The word cult is more widely used, and has been sourced.
:::::Your only contribution to Wikipedia so far has been to comment on this article and its talk page.
:::::So please, respectfully, stop going around in circles and either accept what these experienced editors are telling you, or if you decide not to accept this, please open a [[WP:RFC]] and avoid going around in circles again. [[User:Equine-man|Equine-man]] ([[User talk:Equine-man|talk]]) 16:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::You have raised several points, but I would like to clarify a few misunderstandings and keep the discussion focused on the substance.
::::::First, I am not rejecting reliable sources, nor am I requesting “whitewashing”. I have repeatedly asked a narrow and concrete question:
::::::Why is the sentence “Happy Science has been described as a cult” necessary, if the article itself does not state that the organisation is a cult?
::::::So far, no one has addressed this specific question directly.
::::::I am not “going in circles”; I am simply asking for a direct explanation of the necessity of that sentence.
::::::Second, I do not believe it is appropriate to label my questions as “mindless repetition”, “sealioning”, “whitewashing”, or personal comments about my editing history. These do not address content, and I would prefer to keep our discussion focused on policy and sources.
::::::I am fully willing to follow Wikipedia policies, including RS and NPOV.
::::::If there is a specific policy-based reason why this sentence must remain, I am happy to hear it and consider it.
::::::If the consensus is that an RFC is needed, I am open to that option.
::::::But before opening an RFC, I would appreciate a direct, policy-based explanation for the necessity of the sentence.
::::::Thank you [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 22:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}OK, let's pretend you have not already ben told this many times: The lead should summarise the information in the article. That is the explanation.

Why do you refuse to respond to the clear and direct question on your user talk page? --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 08:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

:I’m sorry – I overlooked your earlier question. I’ve now responded to it. 
:Thank you for your patience. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 09:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
::Looking again at the sources we have, I think there is a clear asymmetry that matters for how we apply WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD and WP:LABEL.
::On the one hand, recent peer‑reviewed and scholarly work (Havenstein & Schäfer 2024; Baffelli 2017, 2020; Nova Religio 25:2; CDAMM 2025; and other academic studies on Happy Science) consistently treats Happy Science as a Japanese “new religious movement” / “new religion”, or as a “neo‑Buddhist universalist religious movement”. These sources analyse its doctrine, organization, and politics within the established academic NRM framework, and they do not use “cult” as a technical analytical label.
::On the other hand, explicit “cult” language appears mainly in journalistic and popular media such as VICE, some newspaper features, and quoted perceptions in outlets like The Japan Times. In these sources, “cult” is used rhetorically or in reported speech (“for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult”), often in sensational or critical pieces about COVID‑19 cures or political extremism, rather than as a carefully defined scholarly category.
::Per WP:RS, peer‑reviewed academic publications and high‑quality scholarly overviews are normally at the top of the reliability hierarchy for questions of classification and terminology, whereas newspapers and magazines – while still RS – are typically lower in that hierarchy. Given that the academic NRM framing is broad, consistent, and recent, and that “cult” usage is more limited and tied to journalistic rhetoric, I think the lead should primarily reflect the academic classification.
::In practice, this could mean either:
::* keeping “new religious movement” as the main descriptor in the lead and handling “cult” language with careful attribution and context in the body only; or
::* if the community feels that “cult” must appear in the lead, using explicitly attributed wording that distinguishes between academic classification (NRM / new religion) and journalistic or popular descriptions (“has been described as a cult by [types of sources]”), so that we do not imply that “cult” is the dominant or scholarly classification.
::My concern is not to downplay criticism, but to apply WP:LABEL and WP:UNDUE consistently, so that contentious labels appear in the lead only when they reflect a broad, clearly central characterization in the highest‑quality secondary sources. In this case, the pattern of sources seems to support “new religious movement” as the primary, policy‑aligned lead label, with any “cult” descriptions handled in a more nuanced and clearly attributed way.
::I will not repeat these points further; I just wanted to clarify my reasoning once, based on the current sources. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 09:51, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
:::LABEL does not apoly to "cult" as that is never used in wikivoice. UNDUE would be violated by removing the very well-sourced statement that the org is characterised as a cult by multiple people (and, as discussed above, not primarily by journalists). NRM is not really an "academic classification" but a neutral descriptor, and it is the label used by Wikipedia to describe Happy Science. In other words, no policy or guideline is violated by the current phrasing, and an RfC would be a waste of volunteer time.  Since you use an AI to translate for you, I assume your misunderstandings stem from that – AIs are notoriously crappy at understanding what is going on. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 12:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I would like to clarify one policy point in a respectful manner, because it seems to be central to our disagreement.
::::Your view that WP:LABEL does not apply to the word “cult” may not be fully accurate.
::::Within Wikipedia discussions, “cult” is widely considered a highly contentious and value-laden term, and such terms are precisely what the LABEL guideline was created to address.
::::Even when the label is attributed to reliable sources, its prominence in the article can still raise concerns under both LABEL and UNDUE.
::::This is the specific policy aspect I am referring to, and I believe it is important to distinguish it clearly.
::::Thank you for your understanding. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 09:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Its not overly prominent and is used in proportion to the coverage of RS. There really isn't a way to remove it entirely from the lead on those grounds, it is clearly due. Are you happy now?  [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::If I may, I would like to ask one clarification.
::::::How is the well-known ambiguity of the term “cult” — specifically the fact that it is 
::::::not a standardized academic category and that its meaning varies significantly across 
::::::cultural and scholarly contexts — reflected in the current wording of the lead?
::::::To be clear, I am not questioning the reliable sources themselves.  
::::::I am only trying to understand how Wikipedia’s neutrality requirements (NPOV and DUE) 
::::::address this lack of a unified definition when the term appears in sources. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 09:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} That has been explained many times. I am convinced that it is the AI tool you are using to communicate that translates incorrectly, causing you to misunderstand. There is nothing we can do about that. Please drop the stick before somebody reports you for disruptive behaviour. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 16:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

[[Cult]] is linked and the ambiguity is well addressed on that page. There is no reason to repeat everything on each wikipedia page. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for your reply. I would like to clarify one point politely.
:My concern is not caused by a misunderstanding or by any translation issue. I fully understand the explanation that has been given about the use of “cult” and its relation to the linked page. My question is simply about how the ambiguity between different terms is handled in the lead, and whether the current balance truly reflects the range of reliable sources.
:I am not disputing the policy or insisting on removing anything; I only hope to understand the reasoning more precisely. Could you please explain how you determined that the present wording represents the most neutral and proportionate approach?
:Thank you for your patience [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 04:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
::I also want to apologise if my explanations have been unclear and have taken up your time. That was never my intention, and I appreciate your patience in responding. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 04:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
:::It's been a while, everyone, but have you all answered my question? [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 01:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

== Question about the necessity of the Nietzsche hatnote ==
{{llmtop}}
After reviewing [[WP:HATNOTE]], I’m not convinced that the current hatnote linking to Nietzsche’s The Gay Science meets the guideline’s threshold. Hatnotes are intended for cases where there is a realistic likelihood that readers will arrive at the wrong article. However, available data from Google Trends and pageview analytics does not appear to indicate that such confusion occurs in practice. Those data suggest that readers looking for The Gay Science overwhelmingly reach that article directly, while alternative translations such as The Joyous Science receive extremely little traffic. Given that the likelihood of confusion appears to be so low, I’m concerned that the presence of the hatnote may actually risk giving readers the impression that there is a meaningful relationship between Happy Science and Nietzsche’s book, when in fact there is none. In that sense, the hatnote may not only be unnecessary, but potentially misleading. I’m also concerned that relying primarily on similarity of wording as justification would be difficult to apply consistently. Many articles containing the word “science” could, in theory, be linked to The Gay Science, but this does not appear to reflect normal hatnote usage per [[WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE]]. Given that Happy Science is not a commonly established English title for Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, it seems unlikely that a typical reader would expect to find Nietzsche’s book here. For these reasons, I’m inclined to think that the hatnote may be unnecessary. [[User:ABONEDA|ABONEDA]] ([[User talk:ABONEDA|talk]]) 12:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
{{llmbottom}}

== RfC: Lead wording regarding "cult" description ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1780938068}}
{{anchor|rfc_397C985}}
Should the sentence "Happy Science has been described as a cult" remain in the lead section of the article, or should it be relocated to the body with additional context to comply with WP:LEAD, WP:RS, and WP:LABEL? [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 16:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
=== Statement of Rationale ===
I am initiating this RfC to seek a community consensus on the appropriate weight and placement of contentious labels in the lead section.

* Source Hierarchy (WP:RS): There is a clear divergence between source types. High-quality, peer-reviewed academic literature (e.g., Havenstein & Schäfer 2024, Baffelli 2017/2020) consistently classifies the group as a "new religious movement" (NRM). Journalistic sources often use the "cult" label, but usually as a descriptive or rhetorical term rather than a formal classification. Per WP:RS, academic consensus on terminology should be given primary weight.
* Neutrality and Labeling (WP:LABEL / WP:UNDUE): "Cult" is a highly contentious label. While the article correctly attributes it, its placement in the lead grants it equal prominence to the primary academic classification. According to WP:LABEL, value-laden terms require caution. Including such a label in the lead—the most prominent part of the article—may create an imbalance that does not reflect the highest-quality secondary sources.
* The Role of the Lead (WP:LEAD): The lead should summarize the most established facts. I propose that the "cult" description is more appropriately handled in the article body. This allows for a neutral lead grounded in scholarly classification, while the body provides the necessary space to attribute the "cult" label to specific media outlets and contexts without violating WP:NPOV.

I welcome feedback from uninvolved editors on how to best balance these policies. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 16:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

*(Summoned by bot.) <s>This RFC is not well-formed, and I expect it to be summarily closed.</s> Reading failure. I will comment that the sentence in question appears to me perfectly defensible. [[User:Regulov|Regulov]] ([[User talk:Regulov|talk]]) 18:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
*{{sbb}} I'm not entirely sure what you expect to achieve with this RfC. You've repeatedly [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoned the process]] as can be seen both on the current talk page and the archive, starting five sections on it about not calling this organization a cult. Four of these were not necessary, because you received an answer the first time you said anything; the page does not describe it as a cult. There's no reason to assume the article should not say that it is described as a cult, because sources do describe it as one. Wikipedia is not saying it is one, only that the sources given say that. Additionally, it does seem your more recent content is LLM-generated—or at the bare minimum you incorporate unchecked LLM-generated text into your posts—which isn't acceptable for talk page discussions like this. Even assuming you don't use LLM-generated text, this RfC is entirely unnecessary. I would recommend to just close it yourself and back away from the discussion as everyone else has tried to tell you to do months ago when you last brought it up. [[User:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#663399; text-shadow:3px 3px 5px #dda0dd">SmittenGalaxy</span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold">&#124;</span> [[User_talk:SmittenGalaxy|<span style="font-style:italic; color:#000080">talk!</span>]] 18:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
*I think the description can stay in the lead. Although it would be ideal to also cover it in the body of the article, there are enough reliable sources to support its placement in the lead. [[User:23impartial|23impartial]] ([[User talk:23impartial|talk]]) 22:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
*The statement seems fine to me too. FWIW I think it's reasonably well known that [[new religious movement]] is the academic term / euphemism for a cult. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 23:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
*:Thank you all for your prompt responses. [[User:Disrupt-curb|Disrupt-curb]] ([[User talk:Disrupt-curb|talk]]) 09:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)