Talk:Amanita muscaria/Archives/2023/June

FAR notice

It seems to me that a lot of sketchy information and outright pseudoscience has been added since this article was elevated to WP:FA 16 years ago. It's worth reviewing to remove possible bad content, or barring that, lower this article's grading. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner: Would you be interested in bringing this to WP:FAR? Sometimes listing articles there encourages others to address the concerns. Also, can you outline examples of pseudoscience that is present in the article, to help editors who are bad at biology know what needs to be reviewed? Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I could do that. I think it's not so much 'pseudo-science' as 'pseudo-history' and 'pseudo-ethnology' that's the problem here. Long sections making claims about this species role in world religions that are actually pretty thin on actual evidence. Also, claims about Amanita muscaria symbolism being the origin of Santa Claus myths, which are speculative at best. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner: Thanks for outlining the concerns above. Can I recommend that you bring this to FAR, since you are the one who brought up the concerns? This would allow you to more effectively outline the concerns in the review (as oppposed to someone like me, who is not great at reviewing biology articles). The instructions on how to bring an article to FAR are at WP:FAR and feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Casliber have you seen this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No I hadn't. Agreed probably needs a look over definitely. Some claims, although false are notable, so will need some rebuffing/contextualisation rather than removal. I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)