![]() | 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 |
There are two issues with the opening sentence: should it mention that the Alliance currently has charitable status, and should it mention that the Alliance is a controversial group?
MOS:BEGIN states that The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view
, while
MOS:FIRST enjoins, Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.
So what is the main thing the Alliance is notable for, and what is the appropriate, NPOV language to use to communicate that to our readers?
Newimpartial (
talk)
22:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subjectis it that you feel does not apply here - assuming, that is, that charitable status is even a notable fact in this instance (yes, it is reliably sourced, but not nearly as prominent in the RS as the controversial nature of the group).
basic factabout the Alliance that should be mentioned in the first sentence, but noting that it is controversial is not
basicand should not; do you have any evidence to support this (rather remarkable) assertion?
controversialmodifies
group, not
charityin my proposal. All of my edits to the first sentence aim to arrive more nearly at a policy-compliant, WP:NPOV first sentence. No sense of
rightor entitlement is implied. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
charity and advocacy groupin the first sentence creates POV problems IMO because it is devoid of the required context. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Not all reliably sourced facts are to be included in the first sentence, per policy. And I don't think "controversial" tilts anything; I think it follows the balance of the RS material on the Alliance. But clearly other voices need to be heard here. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
controversialin the sense in which
all political organisations are controversial, then I question what universe of discourse you are basic thar judgment on. Bizarro World, maybe? Sure, there are other organizations with similarly controversial mandates, but I suspect that most of these articles have "controversial" or equivalent language in their first sentences.
basic fact? I haven't done the survey, but I doubt very much that the term features in the first sentence of all articles for UK advocacy groups with charitable status. (Nobody is proposing that this fact be excluded from the article, or even from the lead, just from the first sentence.) Newimpartial ( talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.As WP:LEAD further specifies,
the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Placing decontextualized, contested assertions about the article's subject in the first sentence of the lead seem to me to violate this policy in a rather obvious way; no WP:OR is required. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
True, but you are appealing to a "one right way" of handling this situation, which AFAICT is unsupported outside the confined of your own mind. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll chuck in my 2p worth here. I don't object to the intro saying that they are a registered charity, because they are, for the time being at least. (My thoughts on how that happened are... very much for another forum.) I also feel that there is limited value in explicitly saying that they are "controversial". It's certainly not inaccurate, and I don't object to its inclusion, but anybody reading the intro will get that impression anyway. I think that it is more worthwhile to say what the controversies are than to merely apply "controversial" as a label, but I don't see it as a POV problem to use the word. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Here's my opinion. The legal definition of "charity" is different from the common one. It is legally classified as a charity, yes, but in reality, the common meaning of the term is a group that primarily helps others. The LGB Alliance's actions are primarily related to taking away the rights of trans people, so this seems demonstrably false. Calling it a "charity" in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing that classification to the legal system would imply the common meaning of the term and is thus non-neutral. If enough reliable sources call it a "charity" in their own voice (as opposed to saying it is legally classified as one) then I might change my mind. PBZE ( talk) 23:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a controversial British charity and advocacy group founded in 2019into the lead given that both their actions and their charity registration are controversial as reflected in both the "Charitable status" and "Media coverage and criticism" sections would solve this? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
defines what the subject is- this is an exceptional, not a typical case, and resources recognize it as such. E.g., if the Alliance loses charitable status early next year, will that affect its operations in any way? I doubt it.
"The examples [in MOS:WEASEL] are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution."The article body clearly demonstrates the controversial nature of the organisation and its registration as a charity, and as MOS:WEASEL plainly supports use of words like this when supported by reliable sources, it should be allowed. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
"[labels] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Reliable sources widely describe the LGB Alliance as controversial. They also describe its charity registration as controversial. These sources are already in the body text. Where reliable sources do describe the subject in that manner we are to use in-text attribution. This objection to WP:LABEL nor MOS:WEASEL is not valid. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
As you alluded to, that sentence you quoted then ends with, in which case use in-text attribution.
. An opening sentence of the form "X is a controversial Y" does not contain
WP:In-text attribution.
Crossroads
-talk-
21:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
unencyclopedic opinionated writing. That just isn't the case, and many article lead sections, including The Birth of a Nation, the Stanford prison experiment and Blurred Lines all feature "controversial" - without attribution - somewhere in the article lead, among many, many others.
"Autism Speaks Inc. (AS) is a controversial autism advocacy organization and the largest autism research organization in the United States."And possibly to address MOS:LABEL the end of the sentence has three in-line citations. I believe this one page addresses all of the concerns raised? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
collapsed discussion on collapsing
|
---|
|
In the UK, when an organisation has charity status, that has particular implications for how the organisation conducts its affairs in terms of organisational structure, finances and legal obligations. For example, it needs to be governed by a board of trustees who are volunteers and usually unpaid. It must not be party political. All its assets must be used to further its stated charitable causes, which need to be outlined to the Charity Commission and then reported on yearly. It also will benefit from certain financial privileges e.g. exemptions from certain taxes. These differences in how a charitable organisation conducts itself compared to one without such status, are why it is part of defining it and should therefore be part of the first sentence in the article. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 08:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, a NPOV tag shouldn't be removed while discussions are active unless there is a consensus they have been resolved - obviously it can't be removed for "no consensus" reasons; if we did that it would never apply at all, since its very existence implies a dispute and therefore a lack of consensus. Clearly this dispute is still ongoing and has failed to reach a consensus yet. Anyway, my take is still what I described above, but if we remain at an impasse I would suggest surveying coverage of the source to see how it is generally described - specifically whether it is widely described as a charity, and whether it is widely described as controversial - and then proceeding to RFCs on both "charitable organization" and "controversial" if that doesn't resolve the issue. (Separate RFCs, I would think, since the two issues are really separate, though similar - though tying them together to an extent while investigating how sources generally use the terms keeps us honest because I think it's reasonably clear that at a bare minimum we can't use a less common descriptor in the lead while leaving out a more common one.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
And I wonder if you could elaborate on what basis the Alliance's charitable status is a basic fact? I haven't done the survey, but I doubt very much that the term features in the first sentence of all articles for UK advocacy groups with charitable status.The first sentence of the article on Stonewall (charity) is:
Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom.Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
So, I don't believe there is a problem with referring to them as a 'charity' in the lead sentence. See for instance Institute of Economic Affairs which is another UK charity that gets a lot of criticism for being a right-wing lobby organisation disguised as a charity; we have it there. The dispute is very adequately covered in the lead and the article. I would prefer to stick to the simple and straightforward 'charity' rather than 'registered charity' or some longer version, but that's just for clarity. I would be happy to include "controversial" as it's one of the defining features of the organisation and is in all kinds of sources. The Land ( talk) 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
"a NPOV tag shouldn't be removed while discussions are active unless there is a consensus they have been resolved". We still have outstanding consensus issues surrounding the lead that should be resolved before removal of that tag again. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a salient difference between a charity that is occasionally embroiled in controversy, and an activist group with charitable status that never engages in anything except controversial advocacy. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
the tag should be removed. Is that your updated version of Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam, maybe? Newimpartial ( talk) 13:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Sideswipe9th re ‘controversial’: You have, yourself, helpfully pointed out that the BBC, the Times, and the Guardian have not called the LGB Alliance ‘controversial’. So – the 3 most serious and reliable British news sources do not call the LGBA ‘controversial’. That’s a good argument against Wikipedia referring to the LGBA as ‘controversial’. Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
LGB Alliance was formed two years ago by a group unhappy at the pro-trans rights positions taken by Stonewall, the LGBT+ charity. The alliance campaigns for rights “based on sexual orientation not gender identity” and denies it is transphobic.Not only do they not imply that the group is uncontroversial: in the story's lead, The Guardian refers to the Alliance as
an activist group accused of anti-trans campaigningand never describes it as a "charity". I don't see how you could cite the Guardian against describing the Alliance as "contoversial" or for describing it simply as a charity, at least not based on the article I found. [2] Newimpartial ( talk) 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
mainstream mediatreatment of the Alliance. The Guardian does not use the same language as The Times and The Telegraph, and in the case of the BBC we have Ofcom's statement about how their relationship with the group was not OK. The Independent et al. take still different approaches. If you have read the Guardian story I linked, and still think the Guardian is not treating the Alliance as controversial (their lead is,
an activist group accused of anti-trans campaigning, and they never refer to it a
charityin their reporting) then I wonder if a minimum level of media literacy ought to be required when editing controversial topics. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the salient point in whether to describe them as a "charity" is what we mean by that term. If, for example, we say that Die Basis is a "political party", that could be interpreted two different ways 1) that they are legally classified as a political party by the relevant authorities in their respective jurisdiction (which would then, however, raise the question of what to call parties who were deemed to "not have party status" in authoritarian systems) and 2) it can mean that by the value judgement of "the man in the Clapham junction bus" or some such, the word that comes to mind describing them is "political party". Now, while I think there is no argument as to the truth of 1) in both cases, I think there can be legitimate debate as to the truth of 2) in both cases. Legally speaking "Die Basis" may be classified as a political party, but the average man (or woman) on the Berlin subway might be more prone to calling them "a bunch of lunatics" or "a scam to get money just like 'Querdenken' was" or even "an attempt to undermine the constitutional order". However, while 1) is to a pretty large extent based in objective, testable fact, 2) is to a large extent not. The question then is, whether "what type of thing is this" in the sense of 1) belongs in the lede even if there is considerable controversy due to the way it could "color" 2) Hobbitschuster ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
An interesting article by The New Statesman covers the LGB Alliance, Stonewall, the LGBT+ Conservatives and the broader Tory position on trans rights in some detail. Worth a mention here and maybe at a couple of other articles. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGB Alliance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LGB Alliance was founded by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson only. This should be reflected in the page and others mentioned removed. [1] 146.198.148.63 ( talk) 13:01, 15 November 2021 (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 |
There are two issues with the opening sentence: should it mention that the Alliance currently has charitable status, and should it mention that the Alliance is a controversial group?
MOS:BEGIN states that The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view
, while
MOS:FIRST enjoins, Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject.
So what is the main thing the Alliance is notable for, and what is the appropriate, NPOV language to use to communicate that to our readers?
Newimpartial (
talk)
22:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subjectis it that you feel does not apply here - assuming, that is, that charitable status is even a notable fact in this instance (yes, it is reliably sourced, but not nearly as prominent in the RS as the controversial nature of the group).
basic factabout the Alliance that should be mentioned in the first sentence, but noting that it is controversial is not
basicand should not; do you have any evidence to support this (rather remarkable) assertion?
controversialmodifies
group, not
charityin my proposal. All of my edits to the first sentence aim to arrive more nearly at a policy-compliant, WP:NPOV first sentence. No sense of
rightor entitlement is implied. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
charity and advocacy groupin the first sentence creates POV problems IMO because it is devoid of the required context. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Not all reliably sourced facts are to be included in the first sentence, per policy. And I don't think "controversial" tilts anything; I think it follows the balance of the RS material on the Alliance. But clearly other voices need to be heard here. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
controversialin the sense in which
all political organisations are controversial, then I question what universe of discourse you are basic thar judgment on. Bizarro World, maybe? Sure, there are other organizations with similarly controversial mandates, but I suspect that most of these articles have "controversial" or equivalent language in their first sentences.
basic fact? I haven't done the survey, but I doubt very much that the term features in the first sentence of all articles for UK advocacy groups with charitable status. (Nobody is proposing that this fact be excluded from the article, or even from the lead, just from the first sentence.) Newimpartial ( talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.As WP:LEAD further specifies,
the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Placing decontextualized, contested assertions about the article's subject in the first sentence of the lead seem to me to violate this policy in a rather obvious way; no WP:OR is required. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
True, but you are appealing to a "one right way" of handling this situation, which AFAICT is unsupported outside the confined of your own mind. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll chuck in my 2p worth here. I don't object to the intro saying that they are a registered charity, because they are, for the time being at least. (My thoughts on how that happened are... very much for another forum.) I also feel that there is limited value in explicitly saying that they are "controversial". It's certainly not inaccurate, and I don't object to its inclusion, but anybody reading the intro will get that impression anyway. I think that it is more worthwhile to say what the controversies are than to merely apply "controversial" as a label, but I don't see it as a POV problem to use the word. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Here's my opinion. The legal definition of "charity" is different from the common one. It is legally classified as a charity, yes, but in reality, the common meaning of the term is a group that primarily helps others. The LGB Alliance's actions are primarily related to taking away the rights of trans people, so this seems demonstrably false. Calling it a "charity" in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing that classification to the legal system would imply the common meaning of the term and is thus non-neutral. If enough reliable sources call it a "charity" in their own voice (as opposed to saying it is legally classified as one) then I might change my mind. PBZE ( talk) 23:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The LGB Alliance is a controversial British charity and advocacy group founded in 2019into the lead given that both their actions and their charity registration are controversial as reflected in both the "Charitable status" and "Media coverage and criticism" sections would solve this? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 02:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
defines what the subject is- this is an exceptional, not a typical case, and resources recognize it as such. E.g., if the Alliance loses charitable status early next year, will that affect its operations in any way? I doubt it.
"The examples [in MOS:WEASEL] are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution."The article body clearly demonstrates the controversial nature of the organisation and its registration as a charity, and as MOS:WEASEL plainly supports use of words like this when supported by reliable sources, it should be allowed. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
"[labels] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Reliable sources widely describe the LGB Alliance as controversial. They also describe its charity registration as controversial. These sources are already in the body text. Where reliable sources do describe the subject in that manner we are to use in-text attribution. This objection to WP:LABEL nor MOS:WEASEL is not valid. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
As you alluded to, that sentence you quoted then ends with, in which case use in-text attribution.
. An opening sentence of the form "X is a controversial Y" does not contain
WP:In-text attribution.
Crossroads
-talk-
21:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
unencyclopedic opinionated writing. That just isn't the case, and many article lead sections, including The Birth of a Nation, the Stanford prison experiment and Blurred Lines all feature "controversial" - without attribution - somewhere in the article lead, among many, many others.
"Autism Speaks Inc. (AS) is a controversial autism advocacy organization and the largest autism research organization in the United States."And possibly to address MOS:LABEL the end of the sentence has three in-line citations. I believe this one page addresses all of the concerns raised? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
collapsed discussion on collapsing
|
---|
|
In the UK, when an organisation has charity status, that has particular implications for how the organisation conducts its affairs in terms of organisational structure, finances and legal obligations. For example, it needs to be governed by a board of trustees who are volunteers and usually unpaid. It must not be party political. All its assets must be used to further its stated charitable causes, which need to be outlined to the Charity Commission and then reported on yearly. It also will benefit from certain financial privileges e.g. exemptions from certain taxes. These differences in how a charitable organisation conducts itself compared to one without such status, are why it is part of defining it and should therefore be part of the first sentence in the article. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 08:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, a NPOV tag shouldn't be removed while discussions are active unless there is a consensus they have been resolved - obviously it can't be removed for "no consensus" reasons; if we did that it would never apply at all, since its very existence implies a dispute and therefore a lack of consensus. Clearly this dispute is still ongoing and has failed to reach a consensus yet. Anyway, my take is still what I described above, but if we remain at an impasse I would suggest surveying coverage of the source to see how it is generally described - specifically whether it is widely described as a charity, and whether it is widely described as controversial - and then proceeding to RFCs on both "charitable organization" and "controversial" if that doesn't resolve the issue. (Separate RFCs, I would think, since the two issues are really separate, though similar - though tying them together to an extent while investigating how sources generally use the terms keeps us honest because I think it's reasonably clear that at a bare minimum we can't use a less common descriptor in the lead while leaving out a more common one.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
And I wonder if you could elaborate on what basis the Alliance's charitable status is a basic fact? I haven't done the survey, but I doubt very much that the term features in the first sentence of all articles for UK advocacy groups with charitable status.The first sentence of the article on Stonewall (charity) is:
Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom.Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
So, I don't believe there is a problem with referring to them as a 'charity' in the lead sentence. See for instance Institute of Economic Affairs which is another UK charity that gets a lot of criticism for being a right-wing lobby organisation disguised as a charity; we have it there. The dispute is very adequately covered in the lead and the article. I would prefer to stick to the simple and straightforward 'charity' rather than 'registered charity' or some longer version, but that's just for clarity. I would be happy to include "controversial" as it's one of the defining features of the organisation and is in all kinds of sources. The Land ( talk) 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
"a NPOV tag shouldn't be removed while discussions are active unless there is a consensus they have been resolved". We still have outstanding consensus issues surrounding the lead that should be resolved before removal of that tag again. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a salient difference between a charity that is occasionally embroiled in controversy, and an activist group with charitable status that never engages in anything except controversial advocacy. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
the tag should be removed. Is that your updated version of Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam, maybe? Newimpartial ( talk) 13:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Sideswipe9th re ‘controversial’: You have, yourself, helpfully pointed out that the BBC, the Times, and the Guardian have not called the LGB Alliance ‘controversial’. So – the 3 most serious and reliable British news sources do not call the LGBA ‘controversial’. That’s a good argument against Wikipedia referring to the LGBA as ‘controversial’. Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
LGB Alliance was formed two years ago by a group unhappy at the pro-trans rights positions taken by Stonewall, the LGBT+ charity. The alliance campaigns for rights “based on sexual orientation not gender identity” and denies it is transphobic.Not only do they not imply that the group is uncontroversial: in the story's lead, The Guardian refers to the Alliance as
an activist group accused of anti-trans campaigningand never describes it as a "charity". I don't see how you could cite the Guardian against describing the Alliance as "contoversial" or for describing it simply as a charity, at least not based on the article I found. [2] Newimpartial ( talk) 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
mainstream mediatreatment of the Alliance. The Guardian does not use the same language as The Times and The Telegraph, and in the case of the BBC we have Ofcom's statement about how their relationship with the group was not OK. The Independent et al. take still different approaches. If you have read the Guardian story I linked, and still think the Guardian is not treating the Alliance as controversial (their lead is,
an activist group accused of anti-trans campaigning, and they never refer to it a
charityin their reporting) then I wonder if a minimum level of media literacy ought to be required when editing controversial topics. Newimpartial ( talk) 12:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the salient point in whether to describe them as a "charity" is what we mean by that term. If, for example, we say that Die Basis is a "political party", that could be interpreted two different ways 1) that they are legally classified as a political party by the relevant authorities in their respective jurisdiction (which would then, however, raise the question of what to call parties who were deemed to "not have party status" in authoritarian systems) and 2) it can mean that by the value judgement of "the man in the Clapham junction bus" or some such, the word that comes to mind describing them is "political party". Now, while I think there is no argument as to the truth of 1) in both cases, I think there can be legitimate debate as to the truth of 2) in both cases. Legally speaking "Die Basis" may be classified as a political party, but the average man (or woman) on the Berlin subway might be more prone to calling them "a bunch of lunatics" or "a scam to get money just like 'Querdenken' was" or even "an attempt to undermine the constitutional order". However, while 1) is to a pretty large extent based in objective, testable fact, 2) is to a large extent not. The question then is, whether "what type of thing is this" in the sense of 1) belongs in the lede even if there is considerable controversy due to the way it could "color" 2) Hobbitschuster ( talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
An interesting article by The New Statesman covers the LGB Alliance, Stonewall, the LGBT+ Conservatives and the broader Tory position on trans rights in some detail. Worth a mention here and maybe at a couple of other articles. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
LGB Alliance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LGB Alliance was founded by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson only. This should be reflected in the page and others mentioned removed. [1] 146.198.148.63 ( talk) 13:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)