![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I propose the removal of articles from highly-controversial clickbaiting company BuzzFeed. This new source is highly unreliable (as found to be by the Pew Research Center) and non-encyclopedic with little to non editorial oversight, that acts more like a glorified blog than a reliable news source. Thank you. Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 15:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)That's right. Rosie Gray is a well known reporter. I could for instance show you her being interviewed on CNN's Reliable Sources program but it would be a copyvio link, so I won't. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The Buzzfeed article isn't exactly a high caliber of journalism, and - more importantly - it ultimately amounts to nothing more than just poisoning the well. What exactly are the prominent figures in the alt-right who are white supremacists? Troianii ( talk) 11:10, 22 April 2016 (U
I strongly support the removal of Buzzfeed as a source. The journalistic integrity of Buzzfeed and many new media websites that are in the form of content aggregation websites does not fall into the category of secondary sources but more as special interest blogs or single purpose blogs (to take and aggregate information pertaining to what the target audience wants to see comfortably within their world view - using extensive ad campaigns Buzzfeed and other media outlets (incl. Facebook, ironically enough) tailor information to what their audience wants to hear not what is the news)). It is not an encyclopedic resource, nor is it in any way a primary or secondary source on this subject. If you cited The Daily Stormer on the subject of say the Southern Poverty Law Centre you would have a comparative of ideologies and pseudo-journalistic blog sources butting heads. The difference being Daily Stormer users are braindead dimwits lampooning neo nazi's whereas Buzzfeed is braindead dimwits lampooning journalists. The level of expertise involved in most bulk-publishing journalism outlets is as low as 'having an opinion' and thus doesn't have journalistic integrity. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 00:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed clearly gives platform to very serious journalism. 24.103.114.235 ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't productive. If you literally have no other comment than just stating that everyone is wrong, then go rant on twitter. If you have an actual serious comment, then state it without sounding like a stereotype. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
19:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
It makes my head spin to see such an absurd set of sources (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post; are you mad?). It's comparable to citing Fox News's interpretation of the merits of a hypothetical Clinton Administration the day before the election. Tagging the Alternative-Right as a sexist, anti-immigrant, white supremacist, far-right, hate ideology, and every other Tumblr buzzword used to demonize non-contemporary progressives is positively loathsome. Even the most elementary observation would reveal that the "alt-right" is a classical liberal ideology that wishes to re-brand the left-right politics as authoritarian-libertarian. This is why you see so many centralist and syndicalists in this "far right" group. Indeed one needs to look no further than self-proclaimed socialist Sargon of Akkad and his networks to see how this ideology is not based on the traditional left-right dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|
The wording of this statement in the lead comes across as awkward to me: "The membership of the alt-right is demographically younger than mainstream conservatism." "Membership" is a problematic term as it implies the movement is deliberately and coherently organized, like the Tea Party. This does not appear to be the case here, even more so considering the wide disparity of views, such as The Daily Stormer, which calls itself the most popular alt-right website, but which many, if not most people calling themselves or labeled by others as "alt-right" would dispute or vehemently disagree that it is such. I've noticed the discussion above concerning Rosie Gray, of whom I have no knowledge, but certainly The Daily Beast is far from a reliable source to be using to make statements of fact regarding the alleged or perceived demographics and so-called "membership" of what is a very loose, very decentralized and unwieldly network of bloggers and such who are not part of any coherent organization with actual leaders and so forth. In other words, a source like the Beast doesn't offer any real evidence that can actually be verified. It is pure opinion. I understand this is one of those subjects which divides people into absolute for or against, but come on, I think most here are mature enough to keep their biases and personal views in check just enough to present facts rather than conjecture, which is the bread and butter of blogs like The Daily Beast. It would be more appropriate to state that the Beast believes this or that, since we're dealing in conjecture rather than verifiable facts -- and as any academic will state, not even enough time has passed time to form any solid facts as to the demographics and nature of the so-called "alt-right" -- but this talk of membership and demographics as fact, without even any proper context or background as to where this perception or data is coming from is totally wrong, even more so considering that it is right there in the lead. I won't bother editing this part because I feel it would be futile to do so, but I hope those editing regularly here can take a step back and really consider my objection. Laval ( talk) 00:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The reality is that the movement is moving offline. When I first attended an Alt Right meet up, I didn’t expect “idiots” or “thugs,” but I would not have been surprised to find a bunch of socially awkward program-coders. But while there were quite a few people who worked in IT (though they weren’t socially awkward), most worked in politics, law, finance and other high status professions, many with degrees from elite institutions. The Beltway Right would be troubled to know several had positions within Conservatism Inc. or the Republican Party.
On average, they were better looking and in much better physical shape than the stereotypically fat and/or weak conservative functionaries (and, pace the pasty Kirchick, pictured above, this observation is not driven by latent homosexuality). Their age ranged from the early 20s to late 30s, and the majority of those over 30 were married (including NPI’s Richard Spencer, married with a baby daughter).
Why was this analysis removed? It's a political commentary and a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.201 ( talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It's in the lead but nowhere is it mentioned in the body. I've always thought it was purely an American phenomena. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
As discussed in detail at the MFD, I don't see how this 2008 speech and these two blog pieces [3] [4] have any connection other than it uses the words "alt right". There is no policy connections I can tell and no one linking them to the current Buzzfeed/Weekly Standard/Newsday definition of the term. I think it's pure WP:OR to claim that this version originated from that. Say it originated with Trump if you will but there's no source connecting Trump to Buchanan and Paul (who are wildly different conservatives). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we just stay on the topic of the 2008/2009 pieces? There is zero justification for a "etymology" header which implies that it is the actual origin of the current usage, when there is literally no source that states that it is and absolutely nothing connects them. Tying it together with the Buzzfeed or Spencer I consider pure WP:OR and at best you can say those were other separate irrelevant meanings to the terms that don't matter. Separately, is Taki's Magazine an actual reliable source about anything? It seems like a blog post. Note that according to the Taki's Magazine wikipedia page, the same Richard B. Spencer was the editor there before creating Alternative Right. You're tying together a 2008 HL Meinken speech to two blog posts who's executive editor left to create another website titled Alternative Right and and then five years later Rosie Gray says that the 2010 website creator is somewhat the source of the term merged with Donald Trump in a piece where people later basically point to Gray as having found the connection. The amount of nonsensical strings put together to avoid just admitting that this whole routine was created in December 2015 is ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
There is zero justification for a "etymology" header which implies that it is the actual origin of the current usage, when there is literally no source that states that it is and absolutely nothing connects them.I think you might want to re-read the section. There's no OR there. The WP:SYNTH that you seem to be referring to isn't stated or even implied by the section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The word " etymology" refers to the study of the word.No, Etymology is the study of the history of words. There is an important distinction there. The etymology of the word "faggot", for example is not limited to its meaning of a stick, nor to it's use as an insult, but encompasses the entirety of its meanings over time. Now, as an encyclopedia, we don't need to give history of the term 'alt-right' as it pertains to relative direction, or in the sense of variances of humans rights for individuals in the justice system or military, or in any other non-political use of the term. But when the term is used to describe a political movement, then that's germane. Even if the movement has changed over time, or died out and replaced by a different movement using the same name.
I see don't see that Taki Magazine is a reliable source and while Gottfried is the only name I can tell of some note, it's not like this was some academic paper or something, it's literally a blog post by him and other blog posts from the same website citing itself.The etymology section only concerns itself with the use of the word, not the precise meaning. There's literally no such thing as a non-reliable source to establish that a phrase was used (except for forgeries, obviously). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
{od} We do need some evidence that they are talking about the same thing though. That's why we are supposed to be looking for secondary sources since we're not political science experts on whether these people saying "alt right" are talking about the same thing. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a public service announcement to everyone that they are brigading heavily, and do not have good intentions in mind. Right now there's a post with 60 upvotes on the Trump subreddit titled "Any Wikipedia editor centipedes willing to uncuck the Alt-Right entry?" /pol/ (4chan's neo-nazi board) has also been linking here multiple times as well: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/71074235/#71077121 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/73335171/#73335171 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/72918855/#72921694
This behavior has to be against rules. Ryuudou ( talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add that the alt right supports fascism. As MjolnirPants as extensively shown, there's obvious reliable sources to support that claim. 107.77.228.230 ( talk)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Discussions are on-going. Please wait until consensus or compromise is reached.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
22:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we add [5] as the official website? It's stated right on the site. I
Is the Darlene Powers article [6] a reliable source at all about the alt right? First, it feels more like an opinion piece than an actual article. Second, the entire discussion is about the Trump campaign, citing another opinion piece, and notes that "anti-Semites have flocked to Trump" and then mentions the #AltRight hashtag ("banner"?). Is citing a hashtag really a reliable source about what the members of the group think? The only other source was the New Yorker piece which didn't even mention the antisemitism. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition to Trump (I've seen arguments both for and against Trump from AltRighters, I agree overall with the existing entry), ought Hungarian PM Viktor Orban to be added to the lost of AltRight-liked politicians? I've heard Orban admired by the movement far more than Trump. I have sources below. Thanks very much! CharlesFrontroyal ( talk)
![]() |
|
Following up from the discussion at Talk:Alt-right#Origins, is it appropriate to include notes 8 and 9 here citing two posts at Taki's Magazine for the etymology of the word on the two posts themselves?
According to this Daily Beast piece, the quote from the co-director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism (which is probably a much more reliable sources than most of the sources here), the alt right is "basically a term that white supremacists use who see themselves as part of a new movement...." So should the introduction reflect that this is a neologism by white supremacists rather than outright calling it a new movement? Even the main buzzfeed citation citation states that this is a term coined by a white supremacist group leader. There is a distinction between "white supremacists call this a movement" and "it is actually a movement". -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm Asian and consider myself alt right. Am I, according to you, a "white supremacist"? This article is already an utter cesspool full of tumblr buzzwords, with the "criticism" section as long as the rest of the article combined (isn't it absurd to have so much criticism when the article has failed to even make it clear what exactly is the phenomenon being criticized?), without you drawing biased claims from biased media (note I didn't say biased left leaning media, many right leaning media are also biased in this case) that seeks to oversimplify and thus discredit this phenomenon. Ingebot ( talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This entire article is untrue.
206.210.81.114 ( talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I propose the removal of articles from highly-controversial clickbaiting company BuzzFeed. This new source is highly unreliable (as found to be by the Pew Research Center) and non-encyclopedic with little to non editorial oversight, that acts more like a glorified blog than a reliable news source. Thank you. Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 15:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict)That's right. Rosie Gray is a well known reporter. I could for instance show you her being interviewed on CNN's Reliable Sources program but it would be a copyvio link, so I won't. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The Buzzfeed article isn't exactly a high caliber of journalism, and - more importantly - it ultimately amounts to nothing more than just poisoning the well. What exactly are the prominent figures in the alt-right who are white supremacists? Troianii ( talk) 11:10, 22 April 2016 (U
I strongly support the removal of Buzzfeed as a source. The journalistic integrity of Buzzfeed and many new media websites that are in the form of content aggregation websites does not fall into the category of secondary sources but more as special interest blogs or single purpose blogs (to take and aggregate information pertaining to what the target audience wants to see comfortably within their world view - using extensive ad campaigns Buzzfeed and other media outlets (incl. Facebook, ironically enough) tailor information to what their audience wants to hear not what is the news)). It is not an encyclopedic resource, nor is it in any way a primary or secondary source on this subject. If you cited The Daily Stormer on the subject of say the Southern Poverty Law Centre you would have a comparative of ideologies and pseudo-journalistic blog sources butting heads. The difference being Daily Stormer users are braindead dimwits lampooning neo nazi's whereas Buzzfeed is braindead dimwits lampooning journalists. The level of expertise involved in most bulk-publishing journalism outlets is as low as 'having an opinion' and thus doesn't have journalistic integrity. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 00:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Buzzfeed clearly gives platform to very serious journalism. 24.103.114.235 ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't productive. If you literally have no other comment than just stating that everyone is wrong, then go rant on twitter. If you have an actual serious comment, then state it without sounding like a stereotype. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
19:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
|
---|
It makes my head spin to see such an absurd set of sources (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post; are you mad?). It's comparable to citing Fox News's interpretation of the merits of a hypothetical Clinton Administration the day before the election. Tagging the Alternative-Right as a sexist, anti-immigrant, white supremacist, far-right, hate ideology, and every other Tumblr buzzword used to demonize non-contemporary progressives is positively loathsome. Even the most elementary observation would reveal that the "alt-right" is a classical liberal ideology that wishes to re-brand the left-right politics as authoritarian-libertarian. This is why you see so many centralist and syndicalists in this "far right" group. Indeed one needs to look no further than self-proclaimed socialist Sargon of Akkad and his networks to see how this ideology is not based on the traditional left-right dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|
The wording of this statement in the lead comes across as awkward to me: "The membership of the alt-right is demographically younger than mainstream conservatism." "Membership" is a problematic term as it implies the movement is deliberately and coherently organized, like the Tea Party. This does not appear to be the case here, even more so considering the wide disparity of views, such as The Daily Stormer, which calls itself the most popular alt-right website, but which many, if not most people calling themselves or labeled by others as "alt-right" would dispute or vehemently disagree that it is such. I've noticed the discussion above concerning Rosie Gray, of whom I have no knowledge, but certainly The Daily Beast is far from a reliable source to be using to make statements of fact regarding the alleged or perceived demographics and so-called "membership" of what is a very loose, very decentralized and unwieldly network of bloggers and such who are not part of any coherent organization with actual leaders and so forth. In other words, a source like the Beast doesn't offer any real evidence that can actually be verified. It is pure opinion. I understand this is one of those subjects which divides people into absolute for or against, but come on, I think most here are mature enough to keep their biases and personal views in check just enough to present facts rather than conjecture, which is the bread and butter of blogs like The Daily Beast. It would be more appropriate to state that the Beast believes this or that, since we're dealing in conjecture rather than verifiable facts -- and as any academic will state, not even enough time has passed time to form any solid facts as to the demographics and nature of the so-called "alt-right" -- but this talk of membership and demographics as fact, without even any proper context or background as to where this perception or data is coming from is totally wrong, even more so considering that it is right there in the lead. I won't bother editing this part because I feel it would be futile to do so, but I hope those editing regularly here can take a step back and really consider my objection. Laval ( talk) 00:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The reality is that the movement is moving offline. When I first attended an Alt Right meet up, I didn’t expect “idiots” or “thugs,” but I would not have been surprised to find a bunch of socially awkward program-coders. But while there were quite a few people who worked in IT (though they weren’t socially awkward), most worked in politics, law, finance and other high status professions, many with degrees from elite institutions. The Beltway Right would be troubled to know several had positions within Conservatism Inc. or the Republican Party.
On average, they were better looking and in much better physical shape than the stereotypically fat and/or weak conservative functionaries (and, pace the pasty Kirchick, pictured above, this observation is not driven by latent homosexuality). Their age ranged from the early 20s to late 30s, and the majority of those over 30 were married (including NPI’s Richard Spencer, married with a baby daughter).
Why was this analysis removed? It's a political commentary and a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.59.201 ( talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It's in the lead but nowhere is it mentioned in the body. I've always thought it was purely an American phenomena. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
As discussed in detail at the MFD, I don't see how this 2008 speech and these two blog pieces [3] [4] have any connection other than it uses the words "alt right". There is no policy connections I can tell and no one linking them to the current Buzzfeed/Weekly Standard/Newsday definition of the term. I think it's pure WP:OR to claim that this version originated from that. Say it originated with Trump if you will but there's no source connecting Trump to Buchanan and Paul (who are wildly different conservatives). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we just stay on the topic of the 2008/2009 pieces? There is zero justification for a "etymology" header which implies that it is the actual origin of the current usage, when there is literally no source that states that it is and absolutely nothing connects them. Tying it together with the Buzzfeed or Spencer I consider pure WP:OR and at best you can say those were other separate irrelevant meanings to the terms that don't matter. Separately, is Taki's Magazine an actual reliable source about anything? It seems like a blog post. Note that according to the Taki's Magazine wikipedia page, the same Richard B. Spencer was the editor there before creating Alternative Right. You're tying together a 2008 HL Meinken speech to two blog posts who's executive editor left to create another website titled Alternative Right and and then five years later Rosie Gray says that the 2010 website creator is somewhat the source of the term merged with Donald Trump in a piece where people later basically point to Gray as having found the connection. The amount of nonsensical strings put together to avoid just admitting that this whole routine was created in December 2015 is ridiculous. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
There is zero justification for a "etymology" header which implies that it is the actual origin of the current usage, when there is literally no source that states that it is and absolutely nothing connects them.I think you might want to re-read the section. There's no OR there. The WP:SYNTH that you seem to be referring to isn't stated or even implied by the section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The word " etymology" refers to the study of the word.No, Etymology is the study of the history of words. There is an important distinction there. The etymology of the word "faggot", for example is not limited to its meaning of a stick, nor to it's use as an insult, but encompasses the entirety of its meanings over time. Now, as an encyclopedia, we don't need to give history of the term 'alt-right' as it pertains to relative direction, or in the sense of variances of humans rights for individuals in the justice system or military, or in any other non-political use of the term. But when the term is used to describe a political movement, then that's germane. Even if the movement has changed over time, or died out and replaced by a different movement using the same name.
I see don't see that Taki Magazine is a reliable source and while Gottfried is the only name I can tell of some note, it's not like this was some academic paper or something, it's literally a blog post by him and other blog posts from the same website citing itself.The etymology section only concerns itself with the use of the word, not the precise meaning. There's literally no such thing as a non-reliable source to establish that a phrase was used (except for forgeries, obviously). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
{od} We do need some evidence that they are talking about the same thing though. That's why we are supposed to be looking for secondary sources since we're not political science experts on whether these people saying "alt right" are talking about the same thing. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a public service announcement to everyone that they are brigading heavily, and do not have good intentions in mind. Right now there's a post with 60 upvotes on the Trump subreddit titled "Any Wikipedia editor centipedes willing to uncuck the Alt-Right entry?" /pol/ (4chan's neo-nazi board) has also been linking here multiple times as well: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/71074235/#71077121 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/73335171/#73335171 https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/72918855/#72921694
This behavior has to be against rules. Ryuudou ( talk) 19:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add that the alt right supports fascism. As MjolnirPants as extensively shown, there's obvious reliable sources to support that claim. 107.77.228.230 ( talk)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Discussions are on-going. Please wait until consensus or compromise is reached.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
22:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we add [5] as the official website? It's stated right on the site. I
Is the Darlene Powers article [6] a reliable source at all about the alt right? First, it feels more like an opinion piece than an actual article. Second, the entire discussion is about the Trump campaign, citing another opinion piece, and notes that "anti-Semites have flocked to Trump" and then mentions the #AltRight hashtag ("banner"?). Is citing a hashtag really a reliable source about what the members of the group think? The only other source was the New Yorker piece which didn't even mention the antisemitism. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition to Trump (I've seen arguments both for and against Trump from AltRighters, I agree overall with the existing entry), ought Hungarian PM Viktor Orban to be added to the lost of AltRight-liked politicians? I've heard Orban admired by the movement far more than Trump. I have sources below. Thanks very much! CharlesFrontroyal ( talk)
![]() |
|
Following up from the discussion at Talk:Alt-right#Origins, is it appropriate to include notes 8 and 9 here citing two posts at Taki's Magazine for the etymology of the word on the two posts themselves?
According to this Daily Beast piece, the quote from the co-director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism (which is probably a much more reliable sources than most of the sources here), the alt right is "basically a term that white supremacists use who see themselves as part of a new movement...." So should the introduction reflect that this is a neologism by white supremacists rather than outright calling it a new movement? Even the main buzzfeed citation citation states that this is a term coined by a white supremacist group leader. There is a distinction between "white supremacists call this a movement" and "it is actually a movement". -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm Asian and consider myself alt right. Am I, according to you, a "white supremacist"? This article is already an utter cesspool full of tumblr buzzwords, with the "criticism" section as long as the rest of the article combined (isn't it absurd to have so much criticism when the article has failed to even make it clear what exactly is the phenomenon being criticized?), without you drawing biased claims from biased media (note I didn't say biased left leaning media, many right leaning media are also biased in this case) that seeks to oversimplify and thus discredit this phenomenon. Ingebot ( talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alt-right has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This entire article is untrue.
206.210.81.114 ( talk) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)