![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This article is extremely biased and we all know it. I've made some changes, but I expect they will be reverted in short order due to that same bias. TiggyTheTerrible ( talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Otherwise the POV tag is misplaced. Is it missing significant views that have been published in reliable sources? If so, please provide the sources. Is it misstating views in the existing sources? If so, please be specific as to where. etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
What makes something "reputably misogynist"? And "claimed" makes no sense, the ideologies claim to be far-right? The manosphere is a term used to describe a collection of predominantly web-based and reputably misogynist ideologies that claimed to be associated with the far-right and alt-right.
This lead sentence makes no sense. As for the rest of the edit, I thought we were clear that the TRP documentary can't be used? I'll take a look at the rest of it in detail shortly, I'm in the middle of something at work. And no, you should not quote Roosh directly unless it's used in a secondary source -- otherwise there's no reason to believe his opinions are relevant here.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.”( [2]), and there is no indication it meets requirements at WP:RS that it be
recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party. If you want to start a discussion at WP:RSN to try to achieve consensus on its use, be my guest, but until then it should not be used.
Otherwise he is only claimed to be onemakes me wonder if you've read our policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing and original research, because reliable sources "claiming" that Roosh is an MRA are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion about this source at RSN as I'm sure this is not the first time the source has been discussed and probably wont be the last: [3] Bacondrum ( talk) 23:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)The Manosphere is a collection of utterly vile and contempt worthy misogynistsNo, it's a random collection of entirely different movements - some of which are misogynist, and some of which are egalitarian but unpopular.
who campaign to protect their dominant position in societyPUAs, Incels, and MGTOW engage in no activism that I'm aware of - but I'll agree they can be misogynistic. MRAs certainly aren't misogynistic, or campaigning for their so-called dominance, or even right wing - they have a great number of female leaders and no stance on right or left wing issues. MRAs are often male rape victims who campaign for other male rape and domestic violence victims. Anti-feminists don't think feminism supports true equality, and they also include women - who feminists like to harass and stalk, by the way. Father's rights just want to see their kids (and the MRAs are trying to help them). The rest are far right groups, about which I agree with you.
by making galling claims about being victims of sexismYou are implying that one gender can't be the victim of sexism, which is itself a sexist statement. It's also wildly incorrect. [2]
women are paid 13.9% less than menYou should probably read the Harvard study explaining that that is due to the life choices of the women themselves [3].
one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partnerAnd men are killed at a similar rate by their partners [4]. It's just less well known about due to Gamma Bias. Women are actually far more likely to abuse men [5]. You are going to sit here and call MRAs misogynists when you are denying the lived experiences of abused men and saying they don't have any problems? "1 in 5 women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15" And the CDC 12 month stats show that males are victimised at an equal rate to females [6]. "85% of women have been sexually harassed" And your stats indicate that men also suffer a lot of sexual harassment. And that the male bar is fairly close to the female one. Why didn't you mention that? Did you know that female bosses also harass men? I run a support group, and you'd probably be amazed. Going to skip the rest of these for brevity, but I have plenty of other citations. Including ones that show that men are overlooked in studies like yours. [7] "These disgusting men should be ashamed of themselves" I'll assume you mean the far right men - not the male rape victims who can't get the police to take them seriously. Right? "I'm sure you can see the problem with publishing my opinion?" Of course. Your views are extremely one-sided and only tell part of the story. That's why I would be swooping in to add the citations I just gave you. "it rightfully doesn't present my negative view of the subject, nor your positive one" It doesn't present an even-handed neutral view either. Nor does it tell the truth. Nor does it cite anything providing a hard link between the alt right and the other groups. "there's a reason you can't find reliable sources that back your opinion" Because you are citing nothing but feminist opinion to talk about anti-feminists? TiggyTheTerrible ( talk) 16:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Return of Kings is distinct from men's rights forums such as PUAHate in that it promotes seduction techniques, known as "game", that those sites criticize.—do you have some objection to this sentence? As for the rest of your argument with Bacondrum, can y'all bring this back around to actual changes to this article and stop debating feminism here? It's off-topic, and unless your argument is actually relevant to a change you want made in this article, it should be saved for MRA forums or a blog or... anywhere else but Wikipedia. I certainly have no interest in reading about how me and my female colleagues systemically make less money than our male counterparts in the same field because we just... choose to earn less money. As for the continued discussion of TRP documentary, save it for RSN, which has now become an RfC. And please don't canvas anymore, if that was you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare: Ah. I think there's been some miscommunication. I didn't dismiss all of the sources - I simply focused on the one that seemed most relevant. My objection is in a general sense to that ideological Gender Studies paper as a source - though I'm pretty sure PUAHate is not a men's rights sub, as much as that is a moot point right now. Place is dead. Personally, I think that including Gender Studies papers is a bigger issue. You won't include the Daily Mail on here, but Gender Studies is okay? As I previously mentioned, those journals are prone to publishing Mein Kamph extracts. But apologies for my long-winded debate with @ Bacondrum:. He's welcome to join me somewhere else for a debate if he likes. You should read the Harvard study, though. You may not like it, but those are the facts as they lay them out - men and women simply have different roles and priorities in life. Men are still stuck in the provider role, and women are still stuck producing the next generation. That's why you can pay men and women the same flat hourly rate automatically, and women will still earn less. I will continue to talk about this article and point out that it is not WP:NPOV. TiggyTheTerrible ( talk)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
(Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Red Pill Movie)
Not in Wikivoice, no. Many of the papers you cite on the talk page are WP:PRIMARY sources that should be used with exteme caution, and some don't have any sort of objective statistical analysis, and so therefore their claims should be attributed and not in wikivoice. One paper you cite Who’s Afraid of ‘Toxic Masculinity’? describes itself as:"Part autoethnography, part critique, this essay details the author's personal experience with the far-right media world" which clearly makes it primary, and absolutely should not be used in wikivoice. Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men’s Rights Activist Websites claims to have analysed the posts using software, but provides no objective statistics or quotes as evidence of their claims, and therefore must be attributed. "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment" Does include objective data. "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere" and "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere" at least provide quotes. "Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator" appears to be a superficial analysis of a Markov Chain generator based on rape threats given by mysogynists on twitter, when a statistical analysis of the dataset the Markov chain was based on would have been more objective. Is there not much secondary literature about the Manosphere that can be cited? Much of the article borders on WP:SYNTH. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is used to back up the claim in the Manosphere article thatOne Return of Kings author harshly critiques the profeminist men’s movement, “The Good Men Project”, in that it “wants men to be blubbering manginas or outright homosexuals” From this hegemonic perspective, any connection with behaviors or attitudes related to “the pussification of American men” will lead to feminized, weak men who are passive and content to remain on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy
The opinion of a single author being attributed to the entire site is clearly an improper synthesis. The latter half of the sentence is also clearly an inappropriate WP:Close paraphrasing of the sentence from the article without quotation marks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Return of Kings is distinct from men's rights forums such as PUAHate in that it promotes seduction techniques, known as "game", that those sites criticize. RoK writers also criticize the profeminism men's movement and The Good Men Project, arguing that they lead to feminized, passive, weak men who are content to remain on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy
some don't have any sort of objective statistical analysis, and so therefore their claims should be attributed and not in wikivoiceled me to believe you were saying it was the lack of statistical analysis that meant the claims need to be attributed in-text. Was that not what you meant? As for the RoK mention, I agree, and will adjust that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia and Buidhe: I am planning to take a stab at overhauling this article today, and wanted to check in about some of the scholarly sources. Some of them, for example the Jones et. al. study, [1] perform analyses that would make them primary sources, but have quite robust summaries of the general topic of the manosphere that are based on quite a lot of other academic work. The Jones study has almost five pages of it before moving on to discuss their methodology. Can we rely on that portion of the article as we would a secondary source, while of course treating any conclusions drawn from their particular research as primary? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
References
There is a wing of the manosphere specifically targeted toward black men, some of whom refer to themselves by the label SYSBM (somewhat analogous to MGTOW): [10]. “Negro Manosphere”, “Slaying Evil” and “Free Speech Avenger” are several websites affiliated with this movement. 97.116.88.75 ( talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I've removed fathers' rights groups from the article and modified where mention is given to men's rights groups as "some men's rights groups" which is both more accurate and more NPOV. There are many advocates of fathers' and men's rights that are liberal. Perhaps the most prolific author of men's rights and men's issues literature is Warren Farrell, a liberal who was a feminist who served on the board of directors for NOW and ran for the democrats. This article is written by people who really don't seem to know what they're talking about, perhaps with an ideological feminist bias. It needs many corrections if not a whole new rewrite. Alialiac ( talk) 02:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The Manosphere is now home to several different groups, including pickup artists, the more radical 'Incels', father's groups, Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) and the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) group and each has important differences that need to be unpacked.It's really quite clear in supporting the assertion being made in this article.As for your claims that scholarship as a whole is biased in favor of feminism... I'm not sure what you're really arguing. That scholarly sources shouldn't be used on Wikipedia?Finally, to reply to your suggestion that "anti-feminism" be changed to "misogyny", again, have you read the sources that are being used? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RGW |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes, the lead for this article is quite biased. Men's and father's rights groups engage serious social issues; to generalize them together with "pick-up artistry" scammers, "incels" and the "alt-right" is a gross association fallacy. The grab-bag term "manosphere" is really absurd anyway, as if the entire masculine world is defined by its more dysfunctional aspects. Boxing them together makes it easier to apply the "hostile" and "misogynistic" labels. Ah yes, the "reliable sources". When dominant media together with academia are generally hostile towards assertions of masculinity, naturally the Wiki article will reflect the same bias. Not much can be done unless/until "sources" become less biased themselves. Assambrew ( talk) 05:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
|
How long is this page going to stay locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.144 ( talk) 06:21, 15 November 2020 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
This article is extremely biased and we all know it. I've made some changes, but I expect they will be reverted in short order due to that same bias. TiggyTheTerrible ( talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Otherwise the POV tag is misplaced. Is it missing significant views that have been published in reliable sources? If so, please provide the sources. Is it misstating views in the existing sources? If so, please be specific as to where. etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
What makes something "reputably misogynist"? And "claimed" makes no sense, the ideologies claim to be far-right? The manosphere is a term used to describe a collection of predominantly web-based and reputably misogynist ideologies that claimed to be associated with the far-right and alt-right.
This lead sentence makes no sense. As for the rest of the edit, I thought we were clear that the TRP documentary can't be used? I'll take a look at the rest of it in detail shortly, I'm in the middle of something at work. And no, you should not quote Roosh directly unless it's used in a secondary source -- otherwise there's no reason to believe his opinions are relevant here.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.”( [2]), and there is no indication it meets requirements at WP:RS that it be
recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party. If you want to start a discussion at WP:RSN to try to achieve consensus on its use, be my guest, but until then it should not be used.
Otherwise he is only claimed to be onemakes me wonder if you've read our policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing and original research, because reliable sources "claiming" that Roosh is an MRA are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a discussion about this source at RSN as I'm sure this is not the first time the source has been discussed and probably wont be the last: [3] Bacondrum ( talk) 23:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)The Manosphere is a collection of utterly vile and contempt worthy misogynistsNo, it's a random collection of entirely different movements - some of which are misogynist, and some of which are egalitarian but unpopular.
who campaign to protect their dominant position in societyPUAs, Incels, and MGTOW engage in no activism that I'm aware of - but I'll agree they can be misogynistic. MRAs certainly aren't misogynistic, or campaigning for their so-called dominance, or even right wing - they have a great number of female leaders and no stance on right or left wing issues. MRAs are often male rape victims who campaign for other male rape and domestic violence victims. Anti-feminists don't think feminism supports true equality, and they also include women - who feminists like to harass and stalk, by the way. Father's rights just want to see their kids (and the MRAs are trying to help them). The rest are far right groups, about which I agree with you.
by making galling claims about being victims of sexismYou are implying that one gender can't be the victim of sexism, which is itself a sexist statement. It's also wildly incorrect. [2]
women are paid 13.9% less than menYou should probably read the Harvard study explaining that that is due to the life choices of the women themselves [3].
one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partnerAnd men are killed at a similar rate by their partners [4]. It's just less well known about due to Gamma Bias. Women are actually far more likely to abuse men [5]. You are going to sit here and call MRAs misogynists when you are denying the lived experiences of abused men and saying they don't have any problems? "1 in 5 women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15" And the CDC 12 month stats show that males are victimised at an equal rate to females [6]. "85% of women have been sexually harassed" And your stats indicate that men also suffer a lot of sexual harassment. And that the male bar is fairly close to the female one. Why didn't you mention that? Did you know that female bosses also harass men? I run a support group, and you'd probably be amazed. Going to skip the rest of these for brevity, but I have plenty of other citations. Including ones that show that men are overlooked in studies like yours. [7] "These disgusting men should be ashamed of themselves" I'll assume you mean the far right men - not the male rape victims who can't get the police to take them seriously. Right? "I'm sure you can see the problem with publishing my opinion?" Of course. Your views are extremely one-sided and only tell part of the story. That's why I would be swooping in to add the citations I just gave you. "it rightfully doesn't present my negative view of the subject, nor your positive one" It doesn't present an even-handed neutral view either. Nor does it tell the truth. Nor does it cite anything providing a hard link between the alt right and the other groups. "there's a reason you can't find reliable sources that back your opinion" Because you are citing nothing but feminist opinion to talk about anti-feminists? TiggyTheTerrible ( talk) 16:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Return of Kings is distinct from men's rights forums such as PUAHate in that it promotes seduction techniques, known as "game", that those sites criticize.—do you have some objection to this sentence? As for the rest of your argument with Bacondrum, can y'all bring this back around to actual changes to this article and stop debating feminism here? It's off-topic, and unless your argument is actually relevant to a change you want made in this article, it should be saved for MRA forums or a blog or... anywhere else but Wikipedia. I certainly have no interest in reading about how me and my female colleagues systemically make less money than our male counterparts in the same field because we just... choose to earn less money. As for the continued discussion of TRP documentary, save it for RSN, which has now become an RfC. And please don't canvas anymore, if that was you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@ GorillaWarfare: Ah. I think there's been some miscommunication. I didn't dismiss all of the sources - I simply focused on the one that seemed most relevant. My objection is in a general sense to that ideological Gender Studies paper as a source - though I'm pretty sure PUAHate is not a men's rights sub, as much as that is a moot point right now. Place is dead. Personally, I think that including Gender Studies papers is a bigger issue. You won't include the Daily Mail on here, but Gender Studies is okay? As I previously mentioned, those journals are prone to publishing Mein Kamph extracts. But apologies for my long-winded debate with @ Bacondrum:. He's welcome to join me somewhere else for a debate if he likes. You should read the Harvard study, though. You may not like it, but those are the facts as they lay them out - men and women simply have different roles and priorities in life. Men are still stuck in the provider role, and women are still stuck producing the next generation. That's why you can pay men and women the same flat hourly rate automatically, and women will still earn less. I will continue to talk about this article and point out that it is not WP:NPOV. TiggyTheTerrible ( talk)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
(Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Red Pill Movie)
Not in Wikivoice, no. Many of the papers you cite on the talk page are WP:PRIMARY sources that should be used with exteme caution, and some don't have any sort of objective statistical analysis, and so therefore their claims should be attributed and not in wikivoice. One paper you cite Who’s Afraid of ‘Toxic Masculinity’? describes itself as:"Part autoethnography, part critique, this essay details the author's personal experience with the far-right media world" which clearly makes it primary, and absolutely should not be used in wikivoice. Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men’s Rights Activist Websites claims to have analysed the posts using software, but provides no objective statistics or quotes as evidence of their claims, and therefore must be attributed. "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment" Does include objective data. "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere" and "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere" at least provide quotes. "Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator" appears to be a superficial analysis of a Markov Chain generator based on rape threats given by mysogynists on twitter, when a statistical analysis of the dataset the Markov chain was based on would have been more objective. Is there not much secondary literature about the Manosphere that can be cited? Much of the article borders on WP:SYNTH. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This is used to back up the claim in the Manosphere article thatOne Return of Kings author harshly critiques the profeminist men’s movement, “The Good Men Project”, in that it “wants men to be blubbering manginas or outright homosexuals” From this hegemonic perspective, any connection with behaviors or attitudes related to “the pussification of American men” will lead to feminized, weak men who are passive and content to remain on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy
The opinion of a single author being attributed to the entire site is clearly an improper synthesis. The latter half of the sentence is also clearly an inappropriate WP:Close paraphrasing of the sentence from the article without quotation marks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Return of Kings is distinct from men's rights forums such as PUAHate in that it promotes seduction techniques, known as "game", that those sites criticize. RoK writers also criticize the profeminism men's movement and The Good Men Project, arguing that they lead to feminized, passive, weak men who are content to remain on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy
some don't have any sort of objective statistical analysis, and so therefore their claims should be attributed and not in wikivoiceled me to believe you were saying it was the lack of statistical analysis that meant the claims need to be attributed in-text. Was that not what you meant? As for the RoK mention, I agree, and will adjust that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia and Buidhe: I am planning to take a stab at overhauling this article today, and wanted to check in about some of the scholarly sources. Some of them, for example the Jones et. al. study, [1] perform analyses that would make them primary sources, but have quite robust summaries of the general topic of the manosphere that are based on quite a lot of other academic work. The Jones study has almost five pages of it before moving on to discuss their methodology. Can we rely on that portion of the article as we would a secondary source, while of course treating any conclusions drawn from their particular research as primary? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
References
There is a wing of the manosphere specifically targeted toward black men, some of whom refer to themselves by the label SYSBM (somewhat analogous to MGTOW): [10]. “Negro Manosphere”, “Slaying Evil” and “Free Speech Avenger” are several websites affiliated with this movement. 97.116.88.75 ( talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I've removed fathers' rights groups from the article and modified where mention is given to men's rights groups as "some men's rights groups" which is both more accurate and more NPOV. There are many advocates of fathers' and men's rights that are liberal. Perhaps the most prolific author of men's rights and men's issues literature is Warren Farrell, a liberal who was a feminist who served on the board of directors for NOW and ran for the democrats. This article is written by people who really don't seem to know what they're talking about, perhaps with an ideological feminist bias. It needs many corrections if not a whole new rewrite. Alialiac ( talk) 02:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The Manosphere is now home to several different groups, including pickup artists, the more radical 'Incels', father's groups, Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) and the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) group and each has important differences that need to be unpacked.It's really quite clear in supporting the assertion being made in this article.As for your claims that scholarship as a whole is biased in favor of feminism... I'm not sure what you're really arguing. That scholarly sources shouldn't be used on Wikipedia?Finally, to reply to your suggestion that "anti-feminism" be changed to "misogyny", again, have you read the sources that are being used? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RGW |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes, the lead for this article is quite biased. Men's and father's rights groups engage serious social issues; to generalize them together with "pick-up artistry" scammers, "incels" and the "alt-right" is a gross association fallacy. The grab-bag term "manosphere" is really absurd anyway, as if the entire masculine world is defined by its more dysfunctional aspects. Boxing them together makes it easier to apply the "hostile" and "misogynistic" labels. Ah yes, the "reliable sources". When dominant media together with academia are generally hostile towards assertions of masculinity, naturally the Wiki article will reflect the same bias. Not much can be done unless/until "sources" become less biased themselves. Assambrew ( talk) 05:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
|
How long is this page going to stay locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.144 ( talk) 06:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)