Talk:Daniel Dennett

message: From Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"; Little, Brown and Company 1991; ISBN: 0316180661; p. 433. 
:How could the brain be the seat of consciousness? This has usually been treated as a rhetorical question by philosophers, suggesting that an answer to it would be quite beyond human comprehension. A primary goal of this book has been to demolish that presumption. I have argued that you can imagine how all that complicated slew of activity  in the brain amounts to conscious experience. My argument is straightforward: I have shown you how to do it. It turns out that the way to imagine this is to think of the brain as a computer of sorts. The concepts of computer science provide the crutches of imagination we need if we are to stumble across the terra incognita {unknown land} between our phenomenology as we know it by "introspection" {observation or examination of one's own mental and emotional state, mental processes, etc.} and our brains as science reveals them to us. By thinking of our brains as information-processing systems we can gradually dispel the fog and pick our way across the great divide, discovering how it might be that our brains produce all the phenomena. There are many treacherous pitfalls to avoid—such inviting dead ends as the Central Meaner, {subjective} "filling in," and "qualia {intrinsic qualities; a gun can be either 'good' or 'bad'}", for instance—and no doubt there are still some residual confusions and outright errors in the sketch I have provided, but at least we can now see what a path would be like.  
Yesselman 22:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of posting this excerpt here? Jibal (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Computer of Sorts 

message: I removed the following text:
:Some have claimed that Dennett's philosophy possesses elements of Direct realism.  One line of evidence is Dennett's well-known opposition to Cartesian materialism, which is a form of Indirect realism.  In Consciousness Explained he considers a report of someone looking at the world and describes his idea of the relationship between conscious experience, mind and representation:
::It seemed to him, according to the text, as if his mind - his visual field - were filled with intricate details of gold-green buds and wiggling branches, but although this is how it seemed this was an illusion. No such "plenum" ever came into his mind; the plenum remained out in the world where it it didn't have to be represented, but could just be. When we marvel, in those moments of heightened self-consciousness, at the glorious richness of our conscious experience, the richness we marvel at is actually the richness of the world outside, in all its ravishing detail. It does not "enter" our conscious minds, but is simply available (Dennett 1991).
The problem is that nobody's actually claimed this, except for a Wikipedia original researcher named Loxley.  Loxley has shown himself to be hostile to Dennett and fairly clueless about Dennett's views, so his opinion is insufficient basis for the inclusion of this text, even if it weren't entirely OR.
Now, if we can find some citations of anyone the least bit relevant and important who thinks Dennett supports Direct Realism, then by all means restore the removed text. Alienus 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulled Direct Realism Section 

message: Not long ago, I emailed Dennett to ask him for guidance on this article.  In particular I asked:
:While it's easy to realize you find fault with Dualism and Cartesian Materialism, we have been struggling a bit to find a concise explaination of what view you ultimately subscribe to, regarding consciousness.  One contributor suggested you might be an adherent of direct realism-- is that true?
His reply, in full, was:
:Ah me, I find I just cannot, will not, rise to this bait!  I have so many quarrels with the ways philosophers try to insist upon framing these issues that I cannot volunteer any categorization of my own view in the terms that are current. I encourage you to quote me to just this effect--to cast doubt (at least a little bit!) on the terms that are now deemed illuminating. I think they are almost all misleading.
So, I guess we can make of this what we will.  I feel like Dennett can sometime be an "ink blot" which people can project their own views onto.   grumble.. Dennett's such a character.  He's so frustrating. LOL.
--Alecmconroy 07:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: )... have you looked at Don Ross, Andrew Brook, and David Thompson, (eds) "Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment" MIT Press (2000)? Don Ross describes the book as "A volume of essays that attempts to assess the extent to which Daniel Dennett's work on intentionality, consciousness and evolution "hangs together" as a coherent whole." Maybe it will help... Mikker ... 07:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: <partisan>Yeah, his being right frustrates a lot of people who are wrong.</partisan> Alienus 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ah, him, as he says.  Looks rather more to me like he's not prepared to take any stance here because he hasn't found one which works for him.  Given that our appreciation of 'mental' reality is our only indubitable touchstone with the world, and thus ultimately, our only solid criteria for assessing the viability of a persons thought as a whole, this is quite a glaring ommission on his part.  Save to say that this is a topic he prefers to remain discretely quiet about, preferring to deal with individual issues problem at a time rather than hazard a guess towards the big picture of what's actually going on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.38 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dennett was very clear here that he can best be categorized by quoting him to the effect that the categories used by philosophers aren't adequate. This not only does better than any categorization that is bound to be inaccurate, but provides information by this philosopher as to his view of philosophical categories. The only way I can see that as "frustrating" is if you think you have more insight into these matters than Dennett. The notion that he's not prepared to take a stance, or has glaringly omitted something about "the big picture" is absurd; Dennett's work as a whole provides a big picture. What you want is not a picture, but a label for the picture. If you're that desperate for a label, just call it Dennettism. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Email from Dennett

message: When formatting the following quote from the article:
:[Others] note that my "avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters" often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors
I noticed it is sourced to "Dennett, 1993", but there is no reference to a 1993 work by Dennett listed in the article.  Does anyone know where this quote came from?  -Seth Mahoney 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is omniscient.  Here Alienus 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks.  -Seth Mahoney 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Check the history: it was Hayford Peirce. Alienus 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote sourcing 

message: I removed the following text from the article:
:*Arts & Letters Daily - Art and culture blog run by The Council of Higher Education and edited by Dennett
I visited the site, and while it was interesting and did occasionally mention Dennett, I saw no hint that he edits it. Al 06:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. All the content actualy involving Dennett and not simply reviewing or mentioning his work are interviews on other site. --maru   (talk)  contribs 06:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The editor is named on the homepage as Denis Dutton. QED. --Dannyno 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aldaily.com editor? 

message: Sincerely i think the whole article should be given a major transformation. It seems like a small introduction, like those you´d find in a book´s back or as a brochure for a lecture. Petrus hispanus 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole Article 

message: He had a heart attack a couple months back.  See this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FranksValli (talk • contribs) 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart attack 

message: User:Otto-pilot is correct.  Dennett's birthplace is Boston, not Beirut. It took some digging, but I did find the correction that he refers to.  The link is here http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/Guardiancorrections.htm and it states "In our profile of Daniel Dennett (pages 20 to 23, Review, April 17), we said he was born in Beirut. In fact, he was born in Boston. His father died in 1947, not 1948. He married in 1962, not 1963. The seminar at which Stephen Jay Gould was rigorously questioned by Dennett's students was Dennett's seminar at Tufts, not Gould's at Harvard. Dennett wrote Darwin's Dangerous Idea before, not after, Gould called him a "Darwinian fundamentalist". Only one chapter in the book, not four, is devoted to taking issue with Gould. The list of Dennett's books omitted Elbow Room, 1984, and The Intentional Stance, 1987. The marble sculpture, recollected by a friend, that Dennett was working on in 1963 was not a mother and child. It was a man reading a book." Edhubbard 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: Breaking the Spell is mostly an endeavor to present a naturalistic history of religion. Dennett doesn't argue for atheism as such in any part of the book, and to the extent that he writes on the overall negative impact of religion, he doesn't surgically target the theistic aspect of it. Is he an atheist? Of course, but it has little to do with his professional work. The closest Big Idea that comes to it is his metaphysical naturalism—which does entail atheism—but isn't the focus of his naturalistic writings.
: Although Breaking the Spell is not a full frontal assault on religion in the same way that Dawkins' The God Delusion is, Dennett clearly means for his book to be taken as a starting point for an eventual elimination of religions as a set of untested, and unchallengable assumptions of truth in the absence of fact.  You might almost think of this as a reverse wedge strategy.  BTW, I do note that your opposition to the inclusion of this material has come a long way from your early comments that such statements were "potentially libellous" . Edhubbard 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the "third paragraph" bit is something of a red herring, since Dennett's lead is only one paragraph, while Dawkins' is three.  If it would make you feel better, perhaps we could make the lead into two paragraphs so that discussion of Dennett's atheism the second paragraph.  In any case, your citation of Dawkins actually makes the case for including it in the lead of Dennett's biography that much stronger.  Dennett is first and foremost a philosopher, but is also an active atheist in just the same way that Dawkins is first and foremost an ethologist and evolutionary theorist, but also a noted atheist.  Edhubbard 23:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennett's atheism and proponency of the brights movement 

message: It is on wikiquote. Now what is so distinguished about it, that it should appear, without any context, on an encyc. article? Do you know of a biography in wikipedia with a similar section? trespassers william 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, given that it's in wikiquote, the quote probably doesn't need to be duplicated here.  On the other hand, I do think that this quote gives something of the kernel of Dennett's thinking about the mind-body problem, and his ideas about syntactic engines that eventually mimic semantic performance.  The thing that would be best is if we can turn this into a proper paragraph of text, explaining some of Dennett's ideas, and use the quote as our source, instead of eliminating something that currently does add content, but probably not in the best format. Edhubbard 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Select quote 

message: Until recently my photo from flickr  was used on the article. I was glad for it, and didn't see a comment on the history page why it has been removed. Shouldn't it be back? David.orban 22:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. It is still there, but for some reason it wasn't showing when I looked. David.orban 23:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo on article 

message: A template for Dennett like Richard Dawkins one would be good to tie the Dennett articles together (his original concepts like greedy reductionism, his books etc. A pity we don't have articles on all his books, but we could just leave the ones without article out or make red links. Another possibility is a category (they are not mutually exclusive, of course). How about :Category:Daniel Dennett? I notice that Richard Dawkins has :Category:Books by Richard Dawkins instead with no :Category:Richard Dawkins - is this preferable? Richard001 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit:I've been bold and created the category (as you can probably see above). Should the 'books by' category be added as a subcat, or is the eponymous one enough? Richard001 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just created one based on the Dawkin's code. See template:Dennett. Richard001 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: When did Dennett coin the term 'free floating rationale'? Was it Darwin's Dangerous Idea, or an earlier work? Richard001 (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Free floating rationales

message: I am removing Russell as an influence and adding Darwin. The latter decision is, I hope, uncontenious. The former is tempered by the fact that, though Dennett can of course be said to have been influenced by Russell as have all philosophers within the analytic tradition and has almost certainly read his work, I don't see any particular reason to think that Russell has been influential upon Dan to such a degree as to include him in a list with Ryle, Quine, Wittgenstein and Darwin. A flick through the indexes of Ross, Brock & Thompson and Elton confirm that it is possible to write at length on Dennett without so much as a mention of Russell, Russell's mentions in Consciousness Explained are all anecdotal while he doesn't appear in Content and Consciousness at all. Brentano would be more worthy of a place on the list and a mention of Hofstadter whether in influenced or influenced by is sorely lacking. (This isn't some kind of anti-Russell trip; I just don't see any reason to consider him more of an influence than, say, Frege or Locke. If someone could point me to evidence to the contrary I'd be embarassed but grateful). DuncanCrowe (talk)   —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influenced By... Russell? 

message: Would be a nice addition to our media collection. I have been trying to find someone on YouTube who will release one, with little luck so far. I'll get something eventually though. I'll also have to look through his other books to see if I can't create a Commons cat similar to the one I did for Darwins Dangerous Idea. Richard001 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video/audio 

message: Abrhm, you should include his misrepresentation of Chomsky.  Just a suggestion: your call. CABlankenship (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennett & Evolution Debate 

message: criticisms?--Heyitspeter (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What, specifically, do you have in mind?  Edhubbard (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not a section be useful? 95.147.153.10 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: Does Oxford University confer PhD degrees?  My roommate from the University of Toronto got his DPhil there. Torontonian1 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic trivia 

message: I noted a change from his description as an atheist to a secularist and changed it back since he is much more prominent in the public consciousness as an atheist but on reviewing the talk page it suggests he has written more that evidences secularist convictions so I've changed the sentence to add both but it seems a bit redundant to me.67.79.10.114 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheist or Secularist 

message: Being unfamiliar with the topic, I found the article not very enlightening. There's too little explanation of Dennett's theories, too much pigeonholing (atheist, compatibilist, teleofunctionalist, verificationist, adaptionist, secularist, darwinist etc. etc.), and overall too much a focus on the person of Dennett and the debate around his views as opposed to his philosophy per se. The part on "Free Will" I find confusing. --Luuukas (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative Style 

message: Under the Career in academia heading, there is a subsection for free will. Yet there is no subsection for consciousness. Considering that four out of Dennett's eight books are on consciousness, it makes sense that there should be a section devoted to the topic. The Other philosophical views subsection could easily be renamed to "consciousness." I suggest that change be made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I will slaughter a goat in honor of these noble suggestions.PalindromeKitty (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-arranged the existing material so as to get a separate Philosophy of mind section. See below. (Peter Ells (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  There needs to be a section on consciousness 

message: How high are Dennett's ideas held in contemporary academic philosophy? I heard that a lot of what he argues is far from the mainstream.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.223.235 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennett is certainly one of the most important contemporary philosophers of mind. Some of his ideas are very contoversial (e.g. his Qualia-Eliminativism) others are mainstream (e.g. compatibilism on free will). However, no one would deny he is important for contemporary academic philosophy of mind. His work on evolutionary theory and especially religion is more directed at a general audience and not that important for academic philosophy of biology & philosophy of religion. However, I don't think that this belongs in the article. --David Ludwig (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennett is very important contemporary academic philosopher but I think that High relevance is overrating. There are much more important philosophers in the history of philosophy.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous other authors have published books such as "Dennett and his critics", "Dennett's philosophy", et cetera, etc. This sets him apart from most living philosophers, don't you think? Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: What I meant when I wrote that is are Dennett's solutions to various philosophical problems controversial? He can hold a mainstream positions on something, and yet arrive to it by a highly contentious and controversial argument. --Zlatno Pile (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite all the claims that he was some kind of brain box,do not his ideas seem a little dodgy? As such, how did his work become well known? 95.147.153.10 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance as a philosopher? 

message: It seems that the Joycean machine needs mentioning somewhere. It is one of the central concepts of Dennett's main focus, the name of his model for consciousness (or at least the mind). Apparently Dennett coined this based on James Joyce's stream of consciousness style of literature (see Consc. Expl. p.274). It is the virtual machine (p.228), it is the sequential/serial/von Neumann machine-esque thing implemented over the parallel brain. It is what allows there to anatomically be (as Dennett frequently credited to William James) no keystone/"center of gravity" cell nor inner hormunculus and cartesian theatre. It seems to be the thing that (harbours the memes which) loops back on itself to produce the self concept, by a process D.H. in I Am a Strange Loop considered analogous to how Godel's theorem's proof works, and to be an important component layer of the multiple drafts model. Any ideas whether it should exist as a separate article, or a subsection of dennett's article, or of the multiple drafts article? Cesiumfrog (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joycean machine 

message: much thanks ! 79.180.170.239 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he a Fatalist? 

message: According to Flanagan, Dennett said at a conference of naturalists in Stockbridge(?): "Well there really isn't free will, but we shouldn't tell everyone that". He has said on other occasions that telling people that free will is an illusion was dangerous. Not sure if a comment of Flanagan in a youtube video is an acceptable source. www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiXPGkRz7nI Ssscienccce (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is related to the previous section. DD is concerned that if laypeople stop believing in free will then they will become fatalists - which he is opposed to. Some eminent people, e.g. the cosmologist George Ellis, agree with the logic of the laypeople! (Peter Ells (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free will 

message: In the previous version of the DD page, everything (including his philosophical views) were put as a subsection of 'Early life and education'. I've corrected this by inserting 'Philosophical views' as a section-heading after the education info. Compare the 'Contents' boxes of the two versions to see the effect. (Peter Ells (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit - headings tidied up 

message: I've added a pointer to Intentional stance in the 'See also' section (Peter Ells (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentional stance 

message: I've re-arranged the material in the section Philosophical views.
I've created a new subsection (2.4) An account of religion and morality and have gathered relevant material there (even if it also has an evolutionary aspect).
After moving some material from the old grab-bag section (2.2) Other philosophical views to the evolution section, I renamed section (2.2) Philosophy of mind.
This should be fairly uncontroversial as no material was added or deleted. (I had to make minimal changes to one or two words in order to make the text flow sensibly.)
(Peter Ells (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 'Philosophical views' has been re-arranged 

message: I've added a paragraph on DD's Multiple drafts model within the Philosophy of mind subsection. I believe that because of the topic's importance, it is necessary to include it; but his model is hard to sum up in a few words, so others my want to rephrase or rewrite. (Peter Ells (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraph on Multiple drafts model 

message: Atheism is not a religion, therefore why do we present it as such? I don't think it's necessary to include this particular denotation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.138.219 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism under "Religion" 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: on Twitter Dennett account SAYS he is a scientist
I visit the home pages of scientists and mathematicians and poets and philosophers.
His page does not resemble the first. Which peer-reviewed science research result is credited to Dennett ?
99.245.191.116 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  cognitive science 

message: WHy have you added the above cat? Dennett's philosphical work is not in the philosophy of science. Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When I click [show] on the Philosophy of Science template bar, it expands and shows me several fields in which Dennett has worked and written.  Primarily, though, I just do searches here and see how PhilPapers categorizes his work.  Most of his work is in Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Cognitive Science, but there is plenty in Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Biology, etc.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see any. Can you give an example? EDIT: Wait I see philosophy of biology but not philosophy of science.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you are getting the hang of it.  There is a lot to look through, however.  Their "philosophy of science" is subcategorized here.  Trivia quiz: Can you count how many papers and articles of Dennett's were published in the Philosophy of Science journal (like this one)?  Extra credit for guessing how many were published in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (like this one), or in the Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science journal, or in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philospher of sicence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dennett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629104843/http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/06-07/Phil285/readings/true-believers.pdf to http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/06-07/Phil285/readings/true-believers.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone please tell me what the enyclopedic relevance of the profession of the father of Miriam Weizenbaum is in an article about Daniel Dennett (and not about Miriam Weizenbaum)?
Captain Basil (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enyclopedic relevance of the profession of the father of Miriam Weizenbaum 

message: >When Dennett was six years old he suffered a significant injury from being dropped on his head by his mother. This resulted in a severe traumatic subdural hematoma causing significantly lower functionality in the right brain hemisphere.[17]
>17. Dennett, Daniel (2002). Content and Consciousness - International Library of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis Ltd. ISBN 9780415104319.
I can find no reference to this purported incident in this book, or anywhere else for that matter. Looks fake to me. Can anyone confirm?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoHooComics (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence, which was introduced by an IP last October . Half an hour earlier, the IP had vandalized another article, see here, and been reverted immediately. So, the edit is suspicious and should only go back if someone verifies it and gives the page number. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain injury? 

message: I do not wish to overstating this, but - given that his father was a Government Agent - is it not possible that he might have worked for a Govt department? For have not the CIA used 'intellectuals', and others in the public eye, to push some of their more questionable/dodgy agendas? 95.147.153.10 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Government?