Talk:AI bubble

NPOV

I have added the POV template to this article because it doesn't have any information about the speculation that there is no current AI bubble. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it was removed Arkoftwo4 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it because I wasn't sure if I was correct in adding it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Grammar fixed

I fixed some of the grammar on this article because there were many typos that would be considered hard to read by a person reading this Wikipedia article TheNewOne62 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

These aren't "typos", but... Anyways, unsure whether to accept the change from New Zealand English to American English, but ah hell, Wikipedia is a US-based establishment, isn't it? (Learn more please about English-language spelling reform and American and British English spelling differences if you can.) George Ho (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

No we don't do that for no reason. See MOS:RETAIN. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand you're from New Zealand, but using a small country's variety of the language on an article completely unrelated to it is a bit silly. American or British English is the most convenient for an encyclopedia. Staryu★ 00:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Market correction predictions

I didn't learn until now about the term "market correction" when I watched a CNBC interview with Cathie Wood, an Ark Invest CEO. Wood said there won't be an AI bubble but rather market (or stock) correction on AI investments. Others have said the same. (Source: CNBC article) George Ho (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth it could be both. We'll just have to see. It might be worth including if you want to add it in the Opposing Views section Catboy69 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Which English variety?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Keep NZ English. MOS:RETAIN allows switching the variety of English (even if there are no strong ties to a specific country) if there is consensus to do so, but no clear consensus has been demonstrated. -- Beland (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Shall the English variety be changed from New Zealand English to another? If so, American, British, or which other? George Ho (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to change it to British English because NZ English is most similar to British English and also because of MOS:RETAIN. ―Panamitsu (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

What? How does switching the variety count as MOS:RETAIN?  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  08:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't entirely "count" as MOS:RETAIN but because written New Zealand English and British English are almost identical, changing from New Zealand to British English would be much closer to following MOS:RETAIN than if we changed to American English. I guess I made my earlier comment confusing by adding the "also" which didn't make much sense. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Shall I add the RFC tag right away then, though I already notified just two WikiProjects about this thread? --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Gang, what are we doing here? MOS:RETAIN is one of the more clear cut rules we have and it is designed specifically to save us all from spending energy on discussions like this. The article was established with New Zealand English and the topic has no strong national ties, so New Zealand English it must remain. twotwos (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Certain users tried to swap from New Zealand English to American one (diff 1, diff 2), and one of users considers British and American more common "convenient" varieties than New Zealand (#Grammar fixed), so I started the discussion a month ago. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC); edited, 23:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I just want to say that despite my earlier comments, I never really wanted to change away from NZ English but it seemed that if the majority of people wanted to do so, it would make the most sense to change to British English. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marxism

Are "Marxist" interpretations necessary on a largely speculative article? Marxism doesn't even make an appearance on the Great Recession or Dot-com bubble pages, which are the pages/subjects most relevant to this one. It seems to be WP:Fringe, at least for now. Catboy69 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I've just now reverted Jonathonrobust's additions of Marxist stuff and then moved the references down to "Further reading" section. George Ho (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Article Seems a little outdated

Much of the article is framed as speculation, which would be valid for the time it was wrote, but now evidence towards the bubble has emerged and I think it should be updated.

While most ai-investing companies haven’t yet reported downturns, OpenAI (https://techstrong.ai/articles/openais-financial-crisis-a-1-4-trillion-gamble/) and Microsoft (https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/microsoft-ai-efforts-faceplanting) could act as good examples of such. ~2026-13038-54 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Let's not considered this actually happening yet. The one about OpenAI says this: The analyst rejects characterizations of an AI bubble, pointing to five key factors that suggest the technology’s growth trajectory remains in its early stages. The Futurism article doesn't mention "AI bubble". George Ho (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Sora

People have been talking about whether or not Sora shutting down means the AI bubble is bursting. Whatever you think, there are now some articles on this, so I think it's worth mentioning here. IdfbAn (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Added Mary McNamara's assertion that Sora's demise won't mean AI bubble or a domino effect... yet. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Motley Fool prediction in 'History' section

Regarding this revert: The argument seems to be that because it was in 2024, it belongs in the article.

Regardless of when it was published, it's just one of countless opinions on the topic, and citing a quote from a prolific columnist's own work is arbitrary. It's not even close to the first example of someone talking about an AI bubble. For example, with a perfunctory search I found a blog post from February 2023. (The blog post is interesting, but it's not a reliable source, it's to demonstrate the issue). Is there some reason this one Motley Fool columnist's quote is significant? Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I have just now shoved the Motley Fool piece down to the "Further reading" section. Seems that the editor wants it included totally. George Ho (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. The purpose of the "History" section in this article should be to provide all the relevant context about the genesis of the idea that an AI Bubble might be occurring. Otherwise the article incorrectly suggests that no one was foreseeing an AI Bubble and that the DeepSeek moment was the first time people questioned the market values of the AI companies. I'd be happy to include the blog post you found, since its author, Joshua Brown, does seem like a notable and respected commentator in this space. The fact that The Motley Fool wrote an entire article specifically about the AI Bubble in late 2024, mentioning it by name, and correctly timing the market correction in early 2025, makes it extremely relevant to how that term began to be used, and therefore it belongs chronologically before the 2025 paragraph, not as a suppressed dangling footnote. Please reconsider your objection to including it. ~2026-20098-04 (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your use of the Motley Fool piece was just too basic, IMO. As I see, the author wrote down reasons to support the theory. Why not summarize the reasons the author made? George Ho (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a great point, actually. Another source (USA Today) for the same article clarifies that the analyst is giving 4 distinct reasons for his assessment. I can create a summary of his reasons, so the paragraph would look like this instead:

At the end of 2024, Sean Williams writing for The Motley Fool published a prediction that "The Artificial Intelligence (AI) Bubble Will Burst in 2025." The four reasons he gave were: parabolic rallies have always historically come to an end, increasing the supply of GPUs would reduce Nvidia's profit margin, US government tariffs and export controls could reduce GPU sales, and the current price to sales ratio for AI stocks is larger than for other companies.

How does that look? ~2026-20098-04 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You're just copying section headers, aren't you? If you're unable to summarize his piece well, then... let's not use the piece but rather let another editor (who is not you) read it and figure out how to incorporate it. George Ho (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I tried to reduce the content of each section down into a short summary, which is the same process that Williams did when he wrote the section headers for his article. I did try to make sure that my summaries aligned with his wording though, as I didn't want to be accused of contributing original research. If you think you can come up with a better summary then you're welcome to suggest it here, and I'll give you my own constructive criticism, but right now it seems like you are creating your own policies and applying personal taste to what is a simple factual addition to this article. ~2026-20098-04 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me? This article was previously nominated for deletion; the result was "no consensus". More likely, moving portions into other articles might be slightly likely. With all the AI talk heating up, seems that trying to incorporate the Motley Fool into the content would, IMO, add more fuel to the fire, wouldn't it? Indeed, not just the Motley Fool, there should be other past predictions, right? George Ho (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

If a reliable, independent source mentions Williams's 2024 column or Brown's 2023 blog post, let's use that to provide context. Without that context, this is a subtle form of original research since we're picking sources based on convenience or our own opinions, instead of due weight or lasting significance. As I said, the blog post was after a perfunctory search, and as a blog post, it's not a reliable source. Explaining that people have identified this issue from the beginning would be a good thing, so hopefully we can do this without cherry picking and without original research. Grayfell (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I take your point about Brown's blog post not being an independent source, but his Wikipedia article makes clear that he is a qualified expert in this field, and it mentions his blog by name. Perhaps his post was just a fringe idea when it was first published, though, so I shouldn't consider it a key part of the history of this term. After all, he didn't publish it as the official position of Ritholtz Wealth Management, but just as personal opinion. In any case, I still think it is worth including it in the "Further reading" section, for people who want to understand the full evolution of the usage of this term, and so that the article doesn't implicitly give the wrong impression that concerns about an AI Bubble only began at the end of 2024.

As for the William's article, I don't think you can claim that USA Today, Yahoo Finance, and The Motley Fool have conflicts of interests. The Wikipedia:IS policy applies this standard: "The newspaper is not owned or controlled by the company. Therefore, it is an independent source". Removing valid sources to focus on one preferred narrative is just as much cherry picking as including irrelevant details, so I hope you want to avoid both of those extremes. ~2026-20098-04 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not about COI, this is about due weight, context, and neutrality. Williams's column was from a The Motley Fool, which is a financial advice site, and the discussion of the bubble was primarily a framing to give advice on Nvidia stock at that specific time. Without that context, this is cherry picking, and with that context, this is excessive.

The internet is an all-you-can-eat buffet of opinions. Or to put it another way, Wikipedia:Opinions are like arseholes. The way to demonstrate that this opinion is important enough to include as an example is via outside sources which describe it as an example.

You will not find much support among other editors for adding blog posts to 'further reading' sections, for a lot of different reasons. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the article was primarily (though not exclusively) about Nvidia's stock price, but that's also a major focus of the rest of the History section. It shouldn't be surprising that the biggest company in the world gets most of the attention for an article like this, and it's also not surprising that Williams focused on that stock when talking about the bubble that he was noticing.

You may also like to consider WP:RS, which says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". We have a professional analyst talking about an AI bubble, published on reputable news sites, at an important moment early in the history of the phenomenon, which was not even controversial, as you've noted the idea had already been around for a year by that time.

It feels like you're trying to censor history by preventing any mention of this term which pre-dates your personally preferred narrative that the bubble was only noticed in 2025. ~2026-20098-04 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Not to put to fine a point on it, but I have already considered WP:RS many times. I would like to explain that the bubble has been obvious almost since its beginning (I did mention the 2023 blog) but we need to cite and neutrally summarize reliable sources to do this. We can't just pick and choose unreliable sources like WP:FORBESCON, blogs, or Motley Fool columns. Any quote from an unreliable source is going to be arbitrary. This is my main objection. These quotes do not add enough info to justify thee space they occupy based on their weight and reliability.

The use of contemporaneous sources is a recurring issue with how Wikipedia deals with history. These examples are all primary sources for the author's opinions/predictions. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia focuses on summarizing WP:SECONDARY sources, so ideally, we need sources about this history.

Grayfell (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

MIT Media Lab study

The statement quoted in this Wikipedia sentence is seriously misleading: "In August 2025, a report by Nanda (Networked Agents and Decentralized AI), under Massachusetts Institute of Technology's MIT Media Lab stated "despite $30–40 billion in enterprise investment into GenAI, [...] 95% of organizations are getting zero return"."

When doing this statement about generative AI in general, they decided to focus exclusively on "Embedded or Task-Specific GenAI" and to completely ignore their own data on "General-Purpose LLMs", which is a more notable type of generative AI application and which gives much better results (see their figure page 6). This is easily verifiable from the MIT source and seems enough to deem the sentence unfit for Wikipedia, but there are many more issues as shown in this video: not dividing the proportion of successful implementations (5%) by the proportion of actual implementations (20%), in which case you get a 25% success rate rather than 5%; non-disclosed conflict of interest; study covered in the media before being publicly accessible even as a preprint... Alenoach (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence. Skyshiftertalk 01:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Alenoach (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on this, but the Youtube video you cited to challenge the now-removed info is self-published, so.... Well, FWIW, the organization that made the video has interesting info about itself. George Ho (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Historical context

@Grayfell, right now the History section starts with the release of DeepSeek causing NVidia's stock share to drop, which I don't think is early enough to provide historical context. 2025 may be the first time that the idea of a bubble was widely reported, but if there is a bubble, it encompasses the preceeding period of growth (i.e. the recent and ongoing AI boom).

We should assume that the reader knows nothing when they start reading, and I feel like starting the history by saying that NVidia's stock price dropped without saying first that NVidia's stock price was high would be confusing to such a reader. In my opinion, it's important to first say that the AI economy was growing, before saying that it might soon stop growing. Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to illustrate extensive history and all, but we just... wanna avoid misleading readers into assuming that this speculation (which this article topic has been considered) has existed long before the speculation itself has received coverage. BTW, I added into "Further reading" section the sources that you used, especially to avoid conflicting with one of core content policies. George Ho (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Further reading#Topical, none of those belong in the 'further reading' section, since none of them discuss the AI bubble. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Promoting WP:further reading as a "guideline" was attempted (archived discussion), but that didn't receive much support or traction there. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I get that you prefer preserving such links, but if they are not about the topic of the article, this is too subjective. Perhaps they would make more sense at other articles, such as AI boom, or perhaps not. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

One of the sources is already used for that article. Added the other two for its "Further reading" section, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

All of those sources I copied from other articles, so I wouldn't worry about preserving them. I think the ones that aren't on AI boom are on History of artificial intelligence. Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For future reference, this is about this edit.

I agree that the section starts out too abruptly, but the edit included a lot of WP:SYNTH. Even if it's accurate, or if it seems obvious, it's still WP:SYNTH. We need to use sources to make this connection for us. The first source in the current section at least mentions an "AI bubble", which none of the added sources did. (For convenience, here is a link to the NYT source).

From its title, this article is specific to the AI bubble, so while I agree that context is needed, there's a subtle harm in assuming that something is obvious based on unsourced assumptions. The way to address this is to focus on sources about the 'AI bubble'. The article's lack of focus is an ongoing problem with this topic, as I've mentioned here before, and Talk:AI boom#Scope of article and source issues, and Talk:History of artificial intelligence, and Talk:AI data center, and so on, and so on, and so on... Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I can understand your concern. Here's an alternative proposal, then, that uses sources specific to the AI bubble. What would you think about something like this being added to the start of the History section?

Starting in the 2010s, rapid advancements in technologies like deep learning and large language models led to a rapid increase in investment and hype around AI. This accelerated especially with the release of ChatGPT, a large language model published by OpenAI, in 2022. Nvidia, which manufactures GPUs, increased in stock value by more than a factor of 10 between 2022 and 2025. By 2024, this caused speculation that the AI boom was a stock market bubble similar to the dot-com bubble.

References

That's based on this letter I found in Philosophy & Technology, and the Reuters article currently cited in the lead. Justin Kunimune (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's a start. That source seems more useful, but there are problems. For one thing, that is a letter, not an article. It is basically an academic opinion piece (WP:RSOPINION). It also cites Wikipedia multiple times which makes it less useful for factual claims per WP:CIRC. I think it's usable, but it probably needs to be directly attributed to Luciano Floridi by name from Nov. 2024.

Additionally, the proposed wording is editorializing language. Here would be a proposed fix to that specific issue:

Starting in the 2010s, advancements in AI technology led to an increase in investment and hype around AI, especially with the release of ChatGPT, a large language model published by OpenAI in 2022.[1] Nvidia, which manufactures GPUs used by newer AI software, increased in stock value by more than a factor of 10 between 2022 and 2025.[2] By 2024, this caused speculation that the AI boom was a stock market bubble similar to the dot-com bubble.[1]

There are deeper problems, though.

L. Floridi (2024) is talking about an AI bubble, but where is that conveyed in this prose? The underlying problem is not just that we need to add sources which mention the phrase, we need to cite those sources to explain the connection.

For example, what, exactly, "caused speculation"? The rise in NVidia stock prices? Floridi doesn't directly mention "NVidia", so the source cannot be used for that. So who, exactly, is speculating about this? The answers aren't mysterious, but we still need to spell them out, and we need to use sources to do that.

The problem remains that just because something is clear to us, we still need to use reliable sources to make it clear to readers. These sources only indirectly support the proposed wording. That won't work. We need it to be direct. Grayfell (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

There are other sources we can use besides the Philos. Technol. letter (good catch on the circular sourcing; I didn't notice that), and I can certainly remove the assertion of causality from the last sentence. I'm not sure I understand the broader concern of your comment, though.

I don't think it's controversial to say that AI investments have been growing rapidly since the 2010s (or at least since 2022). And a bubble definitionally includes a period of growth, so I don't think it's controversial to say that that growth is relevant to speculations of an AI bubble. I'm not suggesting we say that that period of growth was or wasn't part of a bubble – I'm just saying we ought to establish that there was a period of growth, as historical context for the rest of the section. The lead already makes this connection by saying that the bubble is "amid the AI boom"; what I'm trying to do is define, or at least describe, "AI boom" in the History section.

Updated version that starts with 2022 (because the two new sources I found don't mention anything before ChatGPT):

In 2022, OpenAI released ChatGPT, a large language model. It quickly gained popularity, causing investors to greatly increase their investment in tech companies working on AI. Investors spent $1.6 trillion on AI between 2013 and 2024, and Nvidia, which manufactures GPUs used by newer AI software, increased in stock value by more than a factor of 10 between 2022 and 2025, By 2024, speculation arose that investment in AI was a stock market bubble similar to the dot-com bubble.

References

Justin Kunimune (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not controversial at all to say that AI investments have been growing, but this isn't the article on the AI boom, it's about the AI bubble. To avoid WP:SYNTH we need to include the context from these sources, instead of from our own understanding of the topic.

Phrases like "quickly gained popularity" and "greatly increase..." are too vague to be falsifiable. The cited Vox source is somewhat more specific: it says "about $1 trillion ... over the coming years". That's a very open-ended time period, right? This suggests we should look at that source more closely. The Vox article is specifically about a market downturn from August 2024, which is almost two years ago. To cite this, it would need that context, otherwise it's a subtle form of WP:OR if used for broad claims about long-term trends.

I'm going to be honest, I don't want to cite the Vox article because I think it's very badly written. (For example: No one spends a trillion dollars on something unless they really, really believe in it... there are so, so, so many problems with this framing it's hard to know where to start.) My personal dislike is not an excuse to remove it, obviously, but if we end up repeating that article's mistakes, it's going to be a wasted opportunity to improve the article.

The Wired article is more useful, and I've added it to that section as a start. It goes over different criteria for being a bubble, and explains how the AI industry currently meets those criteria. It cites an economist with relevant expertise in bubbles named Brent Goldfarb. The raw quantity of investments in isolation isn't really mentioned as one of those criteria. As that article points out, things like low interest rates, uncertainty, a lack of viable pure play investments in other industries, VC shenanigans, naive retail investors, and so on are what differentiates a bubble from other new industries.

As for the last proposed sentence, the Wired source points out that There were headlines about it as early as May 2023. (it links to an article from February 2023, but close enough). "Speculation arose" is true, but it's too vague. Anyone can speculate about anything, after all. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

>"The AI bubble is a """theorised""" stock market bubble"

? This isn't a theory. This is an active event about to unfold in real-time. Why is this loaded language here? ~2026-34185-55 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Unless time travel has recently been invented, it is impossible to tell if it is a bubble with 100% certainty, because it hasn't burst yet, and a bubble needs to burst to be a bubble. Panamitsu ✨ 10:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you seen the Korean and American stock exchanges compared to their past YoYs, not to mention the historic oil crisis exacerbating this? There is literally no way out of this except a bubble burst marked by a daily field of giant red candles, followed by a sharp, LONG pain that will be felt across the world for years to come. We are on the precipice of what may be one of if not the worst economic events in human history. Tens of MILLIONS globally are going to die from starvation, lack of medical care, and much, much more, all because of this bubble created around a wholly worthless pie-in-the-sky technology that does literally nothing for humanity except produce misinformation and accelerate inequality. ~2026-34185-55 (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:CRYSTAL. Panamitsu (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

We understand your opinion. However we can only publish factually verifiable information, not opinions that Wikipedia temporary accounts have about the future. Skyshiftertalk 12:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL? Econometrics is a field of objective study just like biology or chemistry. Opinions are subjective, and it's not an 'opinion' to state the objective, observable fact that the mindless AI frenzy is on its death knell, even though I know that may hurt the AI bro's feelings. Even Sam agrees that his tech is overvalued.

Bubbles are not measured by "whether they have popped or not." A bubble is an objective boom-and-bust episode with observable overvaluation, not simply a recession. Bubbles are guaranteed to eventually burst because they are mathematically limited by the finite pool of available buyers and capital. You two (not sincerely, I hope) claiming this is something we could potentially recover from without a devastating economic correction (aka a bubble pop) is WP:FRINGE. ~2026-34185-55 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that corroborate what you're saying? Skyshiftertalk 16:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-34185-55 and ~2026-37218-10: Can't tell whether you two are the same person. Indeed, both of you believe this topic to be an actual event and have attempted to reinsert the content now labeled possibly LLM-generated. George Ho (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

uh, id Say they're the same people, NOT gonna lie they speak in the exact same style and believe the same doomeristic claims ~2026-37557-04 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Completely remove "June 2026 decline" section then?

Now that the article is semi-protected, shall the "June 2026 decline" be completely removed then? I'm hesitant to consider it an indication that the bubble is "actually" happening. George Ho (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Addition of a Comma which was Reverted

@Grayfell I see you made an edit on July 3 which says "Undid 8 revisions from 1362189926 until 1362290581 The sources fail verification, and the writing is non-neutral. No consensus. Discuss on talk instead of edit warring". That does make sense because it is important to stop edit warring. However, you have also seemed to have included my minor edit as well, which was a simple and non-controversial grammatical correction (adding a single comma to a single sentence). I am assuming that you did this accidentally, so I will go ahead and add that comma back. If that is not the case, then feel free to revert that edit and then we can discuss it here. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell I scanned the article trying to find that paragraph. The paragraph seems to be gone entirely, so the talk page post is kind of moot, which means that you can safely ignore this talk page post if you want. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)