Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Maybe this is the wrong noticeboard, but what is TRIZ? The lead is very promo-y and this article cites lots and lots of self-published stuff. Zanahary ( talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY sources assembled to showcase selected memos and documents discussing details of a classified system used to look for UFOs [1]. I could be mistaken, but unless WP:SECONDARY sources have commented on this, such a lavishly detailed assembly is WP:OR. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
On Lara Logan material language was added that looks like trying to soften reporting of fringe material like "Despite some media fuss around the original" and "Fauci's unquestioning support for the experimental vaccine" despite not being in the sources (and also took part of reference name for no reason) 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:2973:401E:A175:B587 ( talk) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon doesn't appear to have any references about the topic of linguistics and the Book of Mormon. I considered removing pieces, but I'm not sure if any of it belongs, and whether the book of mormon is a topic in linguistics at all. Thoughts? 2600:1700:F990:C190:43BD:7A77:E1FF:CC65 ( talk) 02:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
However, as Whitmer was never directly involved in the translation and Harris was involved for only a brief period of time, Mormon apologists consider it unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.; casting doubt on Whitmer's recollection of the dictation process is a subtle 'dog whistle' for lay skepticism of the academic consensus that Smith looked at a seer stone—a folk magical practice in early-nineteenth-century New England—for a significant amount of his dictation of the Book of Mormon.)Speaking as someone who has read interesting and academically valid scholarship about the Book of Mormon in the history of the 19th century, in religious studies, and in literary studies, published by university presses like Princeton and Oxford and in peer-reviewed journals—what's being cited and summarized in the current version of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon isn't that.
whether the book of mormon is a topic in linguistics at all: I'm not really sure. There's certainly academic observations about its language—intertextuality with the King James Bible and the use of nonstandard English in the first edition, for instance—but I don't know whether that rises to being linguistics. There's the matter of hemispheric interpretations of the Book of Mormon, popular in the Latter Day Saint movement well into the twentieth century, not making sense alongside the reality of Native American language diversity. But that's also not so much a linguistic study of the Book of Mormon as much as an observation about how something known through linguistics renders implausible the historicity of the Book of Mormon under hemispheric premises. Personally, the whole trifecta of archaeology and the Book of Mormon, genetics and the Book of Mormon, and linguistics and the Book of Mormon seem to me like unproductive forks that tend to encourage editors to get into the weeds of restating apologetics and counter-apologetics, rather than concisely summarizing academic interpretations. I'm not sure what an improved version of the article would look like. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The relationship between linguistics and the Book of Mormon is two-fold.This is as bad as those grad-student-y LGBT articles. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
as bad as those grad-student-y LGBT articles: I'm pretty unimpressed with this linguistics and the Book of Mormon article too (see my criticism of it above), but I don't really see what that has to do with making a swipe at either editors who are graduate students or at LGBT studies articles on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect, but cannot confirm, that this article derives from Richard Packham's( [2]) article. [3] Decent enough article as far as internet pubs go, but hardly the basis needed for writing an entire article on Wikipedia, in my opinion. jps ( talk) 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Nations and IQ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm currently in a content dispute with an IP over this article which falls under the race and intelligence topic area. For the time being, I'd like to know whether others agree with this editor's revert here. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
probably of doubtful validity in many if not most casesis adequately summarized by
essentially meaningless. In my view the former doesn't contain any more nuance than the latter, just more beating around the bush.
there is a fundamental problem in trying to use Western IQ tests across diverse cultural settings. But the 2001 source, which says the same thing, has the virtue of having been co-authored by two extremely prominent subject-matter experts, Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko. Their perspective deserves to be presented in the lead, alongside the likes of Lynn and Vanhanen. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, here is the statement from the article body:
In a 2001 review article, Robert J. Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko, and Donald Bundy argued that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading", and that IQ comparisons between nations may be meaningfully applied "only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world." They argue that "scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases."
And here is the disputed summary of this material in the lead:
Other psychologists such as Robert J. Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko have cautioned that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading" and that comparisons which extend beyond the industrialized West are essentially meaningless.
Generalrelative ( talk) 05:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Other psychologists such as Robert J. Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko have cautioned that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading" and that IQ's predictive power might extend "only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world."
despite the magnitude of the predictive power of IQ apparent from the findings presented later, this index might extend itself meaningfully only throughout its own kingdom –– that is, only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world.
scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases.
virtually meaninglessfrom Williams and Barnett refers narrowly to Lynn and Vanhanen's dataset. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Multiple chemical sensitivity seems to have a lot of issues with in-universe citations and people abusing sourcing standards. I can try to clean it up a bit but it's taking a lot of willpower not to add "See also: ICPMS" [ just kidding Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Should this article have a ps contentious topics alert? Doug Weller talk 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This was a redirect to Tariq Nasheed but an article has been created by User:Fba-warrior, Doug Weller talk 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think these should be used for articles describing events where we have no evidence they ever occurred. For instance Phoenician Ship Expedition and the Genesis flood narrative, Doug Weller talk 09:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Flynn effect ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More race and intelligence shenanigans here. Brand-new account and IP tag-teaming to include decidedly WP:PROFRINGE content sourced to J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen: [7] [8] [9]. Experienced editors are invited to take a look. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Various fringe and unreliable content that fails WP:MEDRS has been added to the Hypnotherapy article in the "Uses" section. I have trimmed some of it down but there is still work to do here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
[14] "agronomist and scientist" - does that make sense? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko ( Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко; Ukrainian: Трохи́м Дени́сович Лисе́нко, romanized: Trokhym Denysovych Lysenko, IPA: [troˈxɪm deˈnɪsowɪtʃ lɪˈsɛnko]; 29 September [ O.S. 17 September] 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a key figure in the Soviet science establishment, commonly described as "[a]n ill-educated agronomist with huge ambitions, [...] [who] failed to become a real scientist, but greatly succeeded in exposing of the “bourgeois enemies of the people.” [1] [2] He was a strong, ideologically motivated proponent of Lamarckism, and rejected Mendelian genetics such as Darwinism overall in favour of his own idiosyncratic, pseudoscientific ideas later termed Lysenkoism [3] [4] [5] (this being a set of ideas now widely held to have been responsible for much of the Holodomor). [6]
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
Biohistorian15 ( talk) 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I wanted you to take a look at this article, which I believe is problematic in many way as it romanticises a legendary folklore as history. As TrangaBellam ( talk · contribs) is aware, unfortunately a lot of India-related articles on Wikipedia are a victim of this. I would like to see this being dealt with, as majority of the information is not from reliable sources at all. It seems to be a way of presenting legends in the guise of a reliable historical article, and this is very clear to see for those who are familiar with the romanticisation of historical conflicts in India. Muydivertido ( talk) 14:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [15] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
A new user has just created this article Macrobiotics and is removing sourced content from Macrobiotic diet. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is about Talk:Genealogy of Jesus#Set something straight. Why does it pertain to WP:FTN? Because the guru of a WP:FRINGE cult should not be WP:CITED inside the article about a mainstream idea. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Steiner’s Christology was, however, quite heterodox, and hardly compatible with official church doctrine.22 Among the eccentricities of Steiner’s esoteric Christianity was the notion of two different Jesuses being involved in the incarnation process – the “Nathanic” and “Solomonic” Jesus – born to separate pairs of parents that were both named Mary and Joseph, and belonging to two different lines of descent from David.23 The association of Christ with the “light-bringer” Lucifer was undoubtedly another controversial point, accompanied by a reinvention of Satan in terms of the Zoroastrian divine antagonist, Ahriman. Breaking with the official dogma of existing churches did not matter, however, for in the early 1920s Steiner’s movement established its own church, the “Christian Society” (Christengemeinschaft), with new sacraments, new liturgies, and new ecclesiastical arrangements.24
— Asprem, PhD thesis, p. 507
This is the quote from Asprem. Source: [17]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
See also Johnson, Marshall D. (2002). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-57910-274-6. Retrieved 26 June 2024. The text is available at Google Books.
First published as Johnson, Marshall D. (1969). Black, Matthew (ed.). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-521-07317-2. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It is clear to me that both WP:RS explicitly deride Steiner's claim of the two Jesus kids. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Motion is relative, and it was just about Galileo's opinions, so the Church was right. See also Conservapedia. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I've gotten into a bit of a disagreement about whether Mormon apologetics are WP:DUE in this article, and would appreciate additional eyes to let me know if I'm out of line. 68.170.73.15 ( talk) 19:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Fringe theories noticeboard - dealing with all sorts of pseudoscience | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Articles for deletion
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Maybe this is the wrong noticeboard, but what is TRIZ? The lead is very promo-y and this article cites lots and lots of self-published stuff. Zanahary ( talk) 06:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY sources assembled to showcase selected memos and documents discussing details of a classified system used to look for UFOs [1]. I could be mistaken, but unless WP:SECONDARY sources have commented on this, such a lavishly detailed assembly is WP:OR. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
On Lara Logan material language was added that looks like trying to soften reporting of fringe material like "Despite some media fuss around the original" and "Fauci's unquestioning support for the experimental vaccine" despite not being in the sources (and also took part of reference name for no reason) 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:2973:401E:A175:B587 ( talk) 02:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon doesn't appear to have any references about the topic of linguistics and the Book of Mormon. I considered removing pieces, but I'm not sure if any of it belongs, and whether the book of mormon is a topic in linguistics at all. Thoughts? 2600:1700:F990:C190:43BD:7A77:E1FF:CC65 ( talk) 02:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
However, as Whitmer was never directly involved in the translation and Harris was involved for only a brief period of time, Mormon apologists consider it unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.; casting doubt on Whitmer's recollection of the dictation process is a subtle 'dog whistle' for lay skepticism of the academic consensus that Smith looked at a seer stone—a folk magical practice in early-nineteenth-century New England—for a significant amount of his dictation of the Book of Mormon.)Speaking as someone who has read interesting and academically valid scholarship about the Book of Mormon in the history of the 19th century, in religious studies, and in literary studies, published by university presses like Princeton and Oxford and in peer-reviewed journals—what's being cited and summarized in the current version of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon isn't that.
whether the book of mormon is a topic in linguistics at all: I'm not really sure. There's certainly academic observations about its language—intertextuality with the King James Bible and the use of nonstandard English in the first edition, for instance—but I don't know whether that rises to being linguistics. There's the matter of hemispheric interpretations of the Book of Mormon, popular in the Latter Day Saint movement well into the twentieth century, not making sense alongside the reality of Native American language diversity. But that's also not so much a linguistic study of the Book of Mormon as much as an observation about how something known through linguistics renders implausible the historicity of the Book of Mormon under hemispheric premises. Personally, the whole trifecta of archaeology and the Book of Mormon, genetics and the Book of Mormon, and linguistics and the Book of Mormon seem to me like unproductive forks that tend to encourage editors to get into the weeds of restating apologetics and counter-apologetics, rather than concisely summarizing academic interpretations. I'm not sure what an improved version of the article would look like. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The relationship between linguistics and the Book of Mormon is two-fold.This is as bad as those grad-student-y LGBT articles. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
as bad as those grad-student-y LGBT articles: I'm pretty unimpressed with this linguistics and the Book of Mormon article too (see my criticism of it above), but I don't really see what that has to do with making a swipe at either editors who are graduate students or at LGBT studies articles on Wikipedia. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I suspect, but cannot confirm, that this article derives from Richard Packham's( [2]) article. [3] Decent enough article as far as internet pubs go, but hardly the basis needed for writing an entire article on Wikipedia, in my opinion. jps ( talk) 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Nations and IQ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm currently in a content dispute with an IP over this article which falls under the race and intelligence topic area. For the time being, I'd like to know whether others agree with this editor's revert here. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
probably of doubtful validity in many if not most casesis adequately summarized by
essentially meaningless. In my view the former doesn't contain any more nuance than the latter, just more beating around the bush.
there is a fundamental problem in trying to use Western IQ tests across diverse cultural settings. But the 2001 source, which says the same thing, has the virtue of having been co-authored by two extremely prominent subject-matter experts, Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko. Their perspective deserves to be presented in the lead, alongside the likes of Lynn and Vanhanen. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, here is the statement from the article body:
In a 2001 review article, Robert J. Sternberg, Elena Grigorenko, and Donald Bundy argued that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading", and that IQ comparisons between nations may be meaningfully applied "only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world." They argue that "scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases."
And here is the disputed summary of this material in the lead:
Other psychologists such as Robert J. Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko have cautioned that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading" and that comparisons which extend beyond the industrialized West are essentially meaningless.
Generalrelative ( talk) 05:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Other psychologists such as Robert J. Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko have cautioned that IQ comparisons between rich and poor nations can be "dangerously misleading" and that IQ's predictive power might extend "only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world."
despite the magnitude of the predictive power of IQ apparent from the findings presented later, this index might extend itself meaningfully only throughout its own kingdom –– that is, only through selected segments of the Western part of the industrialized world.
scores from tests used in cultures or subcultures other than those for which the tests were specifically created are suspect, and probably of doubtful validity in many if not most cases.
virtually meaninglessfrom Williams and Barnett refers narrowly to Lynn and Vanhanen's dataset. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Multiple chemical sensitivity seems to have a lot of issues with in-universe citations and people abusing sourcing standards. I can try to clean it up a bit but it's taking a lot of willpower not to add "See also: ICPMS" [ just kidding Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Should this article have a ps contentious topics alert? Doug Weller talk 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This was a redirect to Tariq Nasheed but an article has been created by User:Fba-warrior, Doug Weller talk 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think these should be used for articles describing events where we have no evidence they ever occurred. For instance Phoenician Ship Expedition and the Genesis flood narrative, Doug Weller talk 09:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Flynn effect ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More race and intelligence shenanigans here. Brand-new account and IP tag-teaming to include decidedly WP:PROFRINGE content sourced to J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen: [7] [8] [9]. Experienced editors are invited to take a look. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Various fringe and unreliable content that fails WP:MEDRS has been added to the Hypnotherapy article in the "Uses" section. I have trimmed some of it down but there is still work to do here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
[14] "agronomist and scientist" - does that make sense? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko ( Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко; Ukrainian: Трохи́м Дени́сович Лисе́нко, romanized: Trokhym Denysovych Lysenko, IPA: [troˈxɪm deˈnɪsowɪtʃ lɪˈsɛnko]; 29 September [ O.S. 17 September] 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a key figure in the Soviet science establishment, commonly described as "[a]n ill-educated agronomist with huge ambitions, [...] [who] failed to become a real scientist, but greatly succeeded in exposing of the “bourgeois enemies of the people.” [1] [2] He was a strong, ideologically motivated proponent of Lamarckism, and rejected Mendelian genetics such as Darwinism overall in favour of his own idiosyncratic, pseudoscientific ideas later termed Lysenkoism [3] [4] [5] (this being a set of ideas now widely held to have been responsible for much of the Holodomor). [6]
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
link)
Biohistorian15 ( talk) 08:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I wanted you to take a look at this article, which I believe is problematic in many way as it romanticises a legendary folklore as history. As TrangaBellam ( talk · contribs) is aware, unfortunately a lot of India-related articles on Wikipedia are a victim of this. I would like to see this being dealt with, as majority of the information is not from reliable sources at all. It seems to be a way of presenting legends in the guise of a reliable historical article, and this is very clear to see for those who are familiar with the romanticisation of historical conflicts in India. Muydivertido ( talk) 14:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Editors more familiar with the subject might want to evaluate Evolution of human intelligence#Social exchange theory. Currently [15] it includes mention of one of Satoshi Kanazawa theories followed by how others have found no evidence to support it. (Something similar but in more detail is mentioned at G factor (psychometrics)#Other correlates where it seems to much more belong.) There is other R&I stuff which frankly seems out of place to me. Nil Einne ( talk) 09:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
A new user has just created this article Macrobiotics and is removing sourced content from Macrobiotic diet. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is about Talk:Genealogy of Jesus#Set something straight. Why does it pertain to WP:FTN? Because the guru of a WP:FRINGE cult should not be WP:CITED inside the article about a mainstream idea. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Steiner’s Christology was, however, quite heterodox, and hardly compatible with official church doctrine.22 Among the eccentricities of Steiner’s esoteric Christianity was the notion of two different Jesuses being involved in the incarnation process – the “Nathanic” and “Solomonic” Jesus – born to separate pairs of parents that were both named Mary and Joseph, and belonging to two different lines of descent from David.23 The association of Christ with the “light-bringer” Lucifer was undoubtedly another controversial point, accompanied by a reinvention of Satan in terms of the Zoroastrian divine antagonist, Ahriman. Breaking with the official dogma of existing churches did not matter, however, for in the early 1920s Steiner’s movement established its own church, the “Christian Society” (Christengemeinschaft), with new sacraments, new liturgies, and new ecclesiastical arrangements.24
— Asprem, PhD thesis, p. 507
This is the quote from Asprem. Source: [17]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
See also Johnson, Marshall D. (2002). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Wipf & Stock Publishers. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-57910-274-6. Retrieved 26 June 2024. The text is available at Google Books.
First published as Johnson, Marshall D. (1969). Black, Matthew (ed.). The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 144. ISBN 978-0-521-07317-2. tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
It is clear to me that both WP:RS explicitly deride Steiner's claim of the two Jesus kids. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Motion is relative, and it was just about Galileo's opinions, so the Church was right. See also Conservapedia. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I've gotten into a bit of a disagreement about whether Mormon apologetics are WP:DUE in this article, and would appreciate additional eyes to let me know if I'm out of line. 68.170.73.15 ( talk) 19:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)