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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article is out of date on Sappho's sexuality to the extent that scholars are now generally agreed that the fragments are largely homoerotic (OCD4, s.v. Sappho; see also, BNP, s.v. Sappho). It is interesting that in this regard the article's sources drop off just as/before three of the four most important monographs dedicated in whole or in part to the subject were published:
Boehringer, Sandra. L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007.
Snyder, Jane McIntosh. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Williamson, Margaret. Sappho’s Immortal Daughters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
These are now standard references on their subjects. Antinoos69 ( talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The “Life” section begins with a reference to Monique Wittig’s “blank page”, and I’d like to suggest that reference needs to be reconsidered. This article basically says that there's very little known for certain about Sappho’s life, and it cites Wittig’s “blank page” to illustrate that. The source in the footnote is Diane Rayor in her 2014 book. But Diane Rayor doesn’t point to Wittig’s “blank page” as a good way to illustrate anything, Diane Rayor doesn’t agree with it’s use in the way Wikipedia is doing. She doesn’t cite the “blank page” approvingly: she cites it to criticize it — to disagree with it. She describes it and immediately points out that it’s not accurate: the situation is “not so dire”, she says. And Rayor, on the same topic and in the same sentence, uses sharp language, when she apparently criticizes Wittig by saying that those who don’t at least try to give some of the original context of Sappho’s poetry are “reneging on their duty”. If Rayor is not citing Wittig’s “blank page” as an illustration in the same way that Wikipedia is citing it, then what’s her reason for citing it? She says she cites it as a warning that people are going to disagree with her. So what disagreement is Rayor specifically referring to that might serve as a warning? Rayor has just expressed her disagreement with the “commonplace” citing of Wittig’s “blank page” — which would seem to include disagreeing with Wikipedia’s citing of it. I’m suggesting it’s not proper to cite an author and use her ideas in a way that she doesn’t agree with.
Second, there are those who don’t agree with Rayor’s interpretation of what Wittig means. Rayor’s interpretation is quite simple, but it needs to be pointed out that Wittig was a wildly inventive and experimental writer — her experiments include using typography and how things appear on the page to contain her complex and cryptic (her word) ideas. And by leaving a “blank page” she took a risk that it might annoy her critics, it might be ridiculed, or it might be interpreted in some disparaging way. Anything Wittig says or does is rarely if ever simplistic, which would seem to rule out Rayor’s interpretation from the start. It’s easy to imagine that few things would be more infuriating to Wittig than for someone to repackage her ideas in a simplistic and inaccurate form, and then criticize Wittig for the creativity of the translator.
Writing in 1997, and published in Namascar Shaktini’s 2005 book On Monique Wittig, Wittig discusses what the “blank page” meant to her when she was writing about Sappho. And nowhere in that does she suggest anything like the interpretation that's in this article.
I think the passage needs to be edited somehow, either to include alternate ideas, or maybe it’s not needed. Wittig seems to suggest that she may have put it in her book as an “effect”, and sometimes “effects” are spoiled when they’re described. In other words, you need to be there: You need to open the page and be surprised by the blankness. Gaustaag ( talk) 06:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Caeciliusinhorto:, I think we’re in a lot of agreement. As I pointed out, and as you seem to agree, Rayor cites Wittig for a particular purpose: As a warning, or as Rayor puts it a "cautionary reminder". However that "cautionary-reminder" use of the reference is not indicated in this article, and that is an omission that is misleading to the reader, who can’t be expected to know the true story. As Rayor says (and I think you and I can agree) the "cautionary reminder" includes the idea that little is known, and it includes the prediction that there will be a great deal of disagreement. The "disagreement" is omitted from the article, but it is an object of the "cautionary reminder", which Rayor gives as her reason for including the Wittig reference. However, based on your comment, I think we both agree that Rayor is not offering a "wholesale rejection of the blank page metaphor." Also Rayor critiques Wittig, when she suggests that Witting describes the situation as "dire" — Rayor does not agree. But the way the article is written, Rayor seems to be in perfect accord with Wittig, which is not true. Wittig also suggests that a classicist who does exactly as Wittig does is "reneging" on her duty. Harsh words. However the article seems to suggest that all is in accord, and that Rayor approves of Wittig’s idea. That’s not at all true. And I suggest that this article needs reflect the source more accurately. If that’s not possible, it’s too misleading — too much is omitted.
Secondly, Wittig’s own incredibly subtle and complex descriptions of the meaning of her "blank page" show that it is of major importance to Wittig — she mentions it often, and she connects it to her attempts to write on Sappho. It seems (to me anyway) almost sacred to her. It has to do with her creativity and her understanding. It is vastly different from Rayor’s simple interpretation. Plus, there are others that also don’t agree with Rayor's interpretation. Which is fine, but there needs to be some indication in the article of some of this.
[We also agree on your last point: Neither you or I have any interest what-so-ever in "spoilers" in the sense that you describe— I mean I haven’t given a thought to “whether or not we spoil Wittig's work” as you put it, by revealing a "plot twist" or anything of the kind. I can’t even imagine it. But you and I both don’t care about that, and I’m glad. My only concern is that if, as Wittig indicates, her blank page is there in part for a particular effect, a consideration of the effect may belong in the article, though describing it may (or may not) present difficulties to an editor.] Thanks. Gaustaag ( talk) 05:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd to last sentence in the lead section has some difficulties. For example, when it says “most of Sappho's poetry is lost, but it is still considered extraordinary” — it sounds as if her lost poetry is considered extraordinary, but perhaps not necessarily her surviving poetry. And the words “up until” suggest needlessly that there may be a stopping point. The idea that “most of Sappho's poetry is lost” is already stated once in this section, and the second time seems once too often. Also, “other writers” sounds way too vague, and the word “today” sounds funny in the expression: “Today most of Sappho's poetry is lost”. The word (today) might sound better in a newspaper, which has a journalistically specific dateline. I think the 2nd to last sentence could instead go like this:
“Sappho's poetry continues to be considered extraordinary and influential.” Gaustaag ( talk) 23:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Katolo, What's with all the fretting about offending me? I am the most insensitive thing I know on that score. Nothing ever bothers me, you dope. People sometimes complain about that. But I don't care. Anyone is welcome to test this and see if I'm kidding. I'm like a tree stump. However thanks for your edits on this, I think they sound fine and make some smidgeon of sense. Gaustaag ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel1418.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpfortlewisstudent.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this article needs more section divisions. Not a lot, but even 2 or 3 would help. For example the section that’s headed “Life” has some good paragraphs that are really not that specifically about her life, which I find not only unhelpful regarding the topic, but also they are distracting as a question of style. The “life” section has content regarding ancient sources, there is a paragraph devoted to the testimonia, and content about her appearance. This content can be very easily divided and given headings. Of course her appearance, and sources, do have something to do with her life, but so do her verse, and her sexuality, etc., and those topics get their own headings. So the experience of reading the “life” section feels a bit meandering as the section interrupts itself, to change topics, then it returns to the main thread (if it is the “main thread”) then it veers off a bit again. This gives the reader the feeling that there is not complete certainty regarding where things are going.
There is a bit of a “math puzzle” that begins the “life" section: It says that there are 3 main sources (and one of them is plural, so there are more than three): then in the next paragraph we read that there are 2 sources: her own poetry, and the “other” one is testimonia. The answer to how we went from 3 to 2, and if the 2 is actually the first 2 of the 3 may need a bit of backtracking and study and weighing of the slightly different descriptions. The section says that Sappho’s poetry “is a source for information about her life”, and then the section shifts ground (which is really a contradiction) and the section then says her poetry “might” be so. But maybe not.
Also the testimonia is unique to Sappho, and is so interesting and important, it deserves its own heading, it isn’t covered elsewhere, and it is worth expanding. The article doesn’t give a clear picture of what exactly it is. Gaustaag ( talk) 12:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the new "Biographical sources" section at the beginning of the article and I think that was a good idea. (In fact, I did something similar myself with the article Pythagoras a few months ago.) I have moved the vase painting back to the first section because having two main images is highly atypical of high-status articles and I think the vase painting fits perfectly well where it was before.
I also moved the information about her appearance back to the "Life" section because I think having a separate section just about her appearance is undue. It also seems vaguely sexist, because we would probably not have a whole "Appearance" section for an article about a male poet. Also, the new section was really short (only one paragraph) and I tend to dislike short sections. (Short subsections are fine in my opinion, but generally not short sections.) I understand what you mean about the "Life" section sort of meandering a bit, but I think that it does fit. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Kato, you’re equivocating. I respectfully don’t agree with your suggestion that the content regarding Sappho’s “appearance” should be manipulated regarding it’s “emphasis” by moving out of it’s own section and into another section. And I stand by how I think it seems, which is exactly as I stated above.
I think Sappho’s “appearance” is interesting for a number of reasons — and deserves to be expanded, but the content doesn’t fit well with the section about her life, which is different, in that the section is attempting to get at what “little is known about Sappho's life for certain”. That seems to be the unifying idea, and it’s stated in the first sentence.
I’m afraid you’re idea of “interpreting the policies of Wikipedia” is too vague for me to understand. What I do get from you, and you can correct me if I’m mistaken, is that you sometimes respect the policies, and sometimes don’t. Which seems unprincipled, so I won’t assume. Gaustaag ( talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
[comment deleted] Gaustaag ( talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I was mistaken, Kato, my comment was untrue and unfair. I apologize. I’ll try to delete it. Gaustaag ( talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, several short citations currently don't point to long cites: note 28: Burn 1968; note 49: DeJean 1989; note 91: Reynolds 2000; and note 93: Woodard 2008. Hope this helps. SarahSV (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The picture of Sappho on the vase should replace the very dubious sculpture in the lede. T8612 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to say that "by the medieval period, Sappho's works had been lost" and then in the next sentence "her works began to become accessible again in the sixteenth century, first in early printed editions of authors who had quoted her". Surely the authors who quoted her were themselves preserved in medieval manuscripts? Srnec ( talk) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
the Renaissance did not rectify this in any way... were these every, in any sense, lost?Yes. I've had a little bit more time to dig, and Margaret Williamson explicitly says that these manuscripts were rediscovered in the Renaissance. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 07:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
quite a number of the treatises and commentaries in which Sappho is quoted were among the manuscripts discovered by Renaissance collectorsCaeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This was not quite the end of Sappho. There were still texts by other authors containing excerpts from her poems ... The survival of even these texts was by no means assured ...In any case, the problem I have with the article text is that the "works" which were lost in the first sentence are not the same "works" that became accessible again in the Renaissance. The works that were lost (like Sappho 94) were not found in the Renaissance, rather relatively inaccessible quotations of her work became accessible through the printing press (with credit to Renaissance collectors). I have tweaked the wording in the article in a way which I think is still consistent with the citation. Let me know what you think. Srnec ( talk) 18:04, 29 February 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
The article is out of date on Sappho's sexuality to the extent that scholars are now generally agreed that the fragments are largely homoerotic (OCD4, s.v. Sappho; see also, BNP, s.v. Sappho). It is interesting that in this regard the article's sources drop off just as/before three of the four most important monographs dedicated in whole or in part to the subject were published:
Boehringer, Sandra. L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007.
Snyder, Jane McIntosh. Lesbian Desire in the Lyrics of Sappho. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
Williamson, Margaret. Sappho’s Immortal Daughters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
These are now standard references on their subjects. Antinoos69 ( talk) 22:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The “Life” section begins with a reference to Monique Wittig’s “blank page”, and I’d like to suggest that reference needs to be reconsidered. This article basically says that there's very little known for certain about Sappho’s life, and it cites Wittig’s “blank page” to illustrate that. The source in the footnote is Diane Rayor in her 2014 book. But Diane Rayor doesn’t point to Wittig’s “blank page” as a good way to illustrate anything, Diane Rayor doesn’t agree with it’s use in the way Wikipedia is doing. She doesn’t cite the “blank page” approvingly: she cites it to criticize it — to disagree with it. She describes it and immediately points out that it’s not accurate: the situation is “not so dire”, she says. And Rayor, on the same topic and in the same sentence, uses sharp language, when she apparently criticizes Wittig by saying that those who don’t at least try to give some of the original context of Sappho’s poetry are “reneging on their duty”. If Rayor is not citing Wittig’s “blank page” as an illustration in the same way that Wikipedia is citing it, then what’s her reason for citing it? She says she cites it as a warning that people are going to disagree with her. So what disagreement is Rayor specifically referring to that might serve as a warning? Rayor has just expressed her disagreement with the “commonplace” citing of Wittig’s “blank page” — which would seem to include disagreeing with Wikipedia’s citing of it. I’m suggesting it’s not proper to cite an author and use her ideas in a way that she doesn’t agree with.
Second, there are those who don’t agree with Rayor’s interpretation of what Wittig means. Rayor’s interpretation is quite simple, but it needs to be pointed out that Wittig was a wildly inventive and experimental writer — her experiments include using typography and how things appear on the page to contain her complex and cryptic (her word) ideas. And by leaving a “blank page” she took a risk that it might annoy her critics, it might be ridiculed, or it might be interpreted in some disparaging way. Anything Wittig says or does is rarely if ever simplistic, which would seem to rule out Rayor’s interpretation from the start. It’s easy to imagine that few things would be more infuriating to Wittig than for someone to repackage her ideas in a simplistic and inaccurate form, and then criticize Wittig for the creativity of the translator.
Writing in 1997, and published in Namascar Shaktini’s 2005 book On Monique Wittig, Wittig discusses what the “blank page” meant to her when she was writing about Sappho. And nowhere in that does she suggest anything like the interpretation that's in this article.
I think the passage needs to be edited somehow, either to include alternate ideas, or maybe it’s not needed. Wittig seems to suggest that she may have put it in her book as an “effect”, and sometimes “effects” are spoiled when they’re described. In other words, you need to be there: You need to open the page and be surprised by the blankness. Gaustaag ( talk) 06:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Caeciliusinhorto:, I think we’re in a lot of agreement. As I pointed out, and as you seem to agree, Rayor cites Wittig for a particular purpose: As a warning, or as Rayor puts it a "cautionary reminder". However that "cautionary-reminder" use of the reference is not indicated in this article, and that is an omission that is misleading to the reader, who can’t be expected to know the true story. As Rayor says (and I think you and I can agree) the "cautionary reminder" includes the idea that little is known, and it includes the prediction that there will be a great deal of disagreement. The "disagreement" is omitted from the article, but it is an object of the "cautionary reminder", which Rayor gives as her reason for including the Wittig reference. However, based on your comment, I think we both agree that Rayor is not offering a "wholesale rejection of the blank page metaphor." Also Rayor critiques Wittig, when she suggests that Witting describes the situation as "dire" — Rayor does not agree. But the way the article is written, Rayor seems to be in perfect accord with Wittig, which is not true. Wittig also suggests that a classicist who does exactly as Wittig does is "reneging" on her duty. Harsh words. However the article seems to suggest that all is in accord, and that Rayor approves of Wittig’s idea. That’s not at all true. And I suggest that this article needs reflect the source more accurately. If that’s not possible, it’s too misleading — too much is omitted.
Secondly, Wittig’s own incredibly subtle and complex descriptions of the meaning of her "blank page" show that it is of major importance to Wittig — she mentions it often, and she connects it to her attempts to write on Sappho. It seems (to me anyway) almost sacred to her. It has to do with her creativity and her understanding. It is vastly different from Rayor’s simple interpretation. Plus, there are others that also don’t agree with Rayor's interpretation. Which is fine, but there needs to be some indication in the article of some of this.
[We also agree on your last point: Neither you or I have any interest what-so-ever in "spoilers" in the sense that you describe— I mean I haven’t given a thought to “whether or not we spoil Wittig's work” as you put it, by revealing a "plot twist" or anything of the kind. I can’t even imagine it. But you and I both don’t care about that, and I’m glad. My only concern is that if, as Wittig indicates, her blank page is there in part for a particular effect, a consideration of the effect may belong in the article, though describing it may (or may not) present difficulties to an editor.] Thanks. Gaustaag ( talk) 05:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd to last sentence in the lead section has some difficulties. For example, when it says “most of Sappho's poetry is lost, but it is still considered extraordinary” — it sounds as if her lost poetry is considered extraordinary, but perhaps not necessarily her surviving poetry. And the words “up until” suggest needlessly that there may be a stopping point. The idea that “most of Sappho's poetry is lost” is already stated once in this section, and the second time seems once too often. Also, “other writers” sounds way too vague, and the word “today” sounds funny in the expression: “Today most of Sappho's poetry is lost”. The word (today) might sound better in a newspaper, which has a journalistically specific dateline. I think the 2nd to last sentence could instead go like this:
“Sappho's poetry continues to be considered extraordinary and influential.” Gaustaag ( talk) 23:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Katolo, What's with all the fretting about offending me? I am the most insensitive thing I know on that score. Nothing ever bothers me, you dope. People sometimes complain about that. But I don't care. Anyone is welcome to test this and see if I'm kidding. I'm like a tree stump. However thanks for your edits on this, I think they sound fine and make some smidgeon of sense. Gaustaag ( talk) 03:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel1418.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpfortlewisstudent.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this article needs more section divisions. Not a lot, but even 2 or 3 would help. For example the section that’s headed “Life” has some good paragraphs that are really not that specifically about her life, which I find not only unhelpful regarding the topic, but also they are distracting as a question of style. The “life” section has content regarding ancient sources, there is a paragraph devoted to the testimonia, and content about her appearance. This content can be very easily divided and given headings. Of course her appearance, and sources, do have something to do with her life, but so do her verse, and her sexuality, etc., and those topics get their own headings. So the experience of reading the “life” section feels a bit meandering as the section interrupts itself, to change topics, then it returns to the main thread (if it is the “main thread”) then it veers off a bit again. This gives the reader the feeling that there is not complete certainty regarding where things are going.
There is a bit of a “math puzzle” that begins the “life" section: It says that there are 3 main sources (and one of them is plural, so there are more than three): then in the next paragraph we read that there are 2 sources: her own poetry, and the “other” one is testimonia. The answer to how we went from 3 to 2, and if the 2 is actually the first 2 of the 3 may need a bit of backtracking and study and weighing of the slightly different descriptions. The section says that Sappho’s poetry “is a source for information about her life”, and then the section shifts ground (which is really a contradiction) and the section then says her poetry “might” be so. But maybe not.
Also the testimonia is unique to Sappho, and is so interesting and important, it deserves its own heading, it isn’t covered elsewhere, and it is worth expanding. The article doesn’t give a clear picture of what exactly it is. Gaustaag ( talk) 12:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the new "Biographical sources" section at the beginning of the article and I think that was a good idea. (In fact, I did something similar myself with the article Pythagoras a few months ago.) I have moved the vase painting back to the first section because having two main images is highly atypical of high-status articles and I think the vase painting fits perfectly well where it was before.
I also moved the information about her appearance back to the "Life" section because I think having a separate section just about her appearance is undue. It also seems vaguely sexist, because we would probably not have a whole "Appearance" section for an article about a male poet. Also, the new section was really short (only one paragraph) and I tend to dislike short sections. (Short subsections are fine in my opinion, but generally not short sections.) I understand what you mean about the "Life" section sort of meandering a bit, but I think that it does fit. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 21:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Kato, you’re equivocating. I respectfully don’t agree with your suggestion that the content regarding Sappho’s “appearance” should be manipulated regarding it’s “emphasis” by moving out of it’s own section and into another section. And I stand by how I think it seems, which is exactly as I stated above.
I think Sappho’s “appearance” is interesting for a number of reasons — and deserves to be expanded, but the content doesn’t fit well with the section about her life, which is different, in that the section is attempting to get at what “little is known about Sappho's life for certain”. That seems to be the unifying idea, and it’s stated in the first sentence.
I’m afraid you’re idea of “interpreting the policies of Wikipedia” is too vague for me to understand. What I do get from you, and you can correct me if I’m mistaken, is that you sometimes respect the policies, and sometimes don’t. Which seems unprincipled, so I won’t assume. Gaustaag ( talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
[comment deleted] Gaustaag ( talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I was mistaken, Kato, my comment was untrue and unfair. I apologize. I’ll try to delete it. Gaustaag ( talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, several short citations currently don't point to long cites: note 28: Burn 1968; note 49: DeJean 1989; note 91: Reynolds 2000; and note 93: Woodard 2008. Hope this helps. SarahSV (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The picture of Sappho on the vase should replace the very dubious sculpture in the lede. T8612 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to say that "by the medieval period, Sappho's works had been lost" and then in the next sentence "her works began to become accessible again in the sixteenth century, first in early printed editions of authors who had quoted her". Surely the authors who quoted her were themselves preserved in medieval manuscripts? Srnec ( talk) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
the Renaissance did not rectify this in any way... were these every, in any sense, lost?Yes. I've had a little bit more time to dig, and Margaret Williamson explicitly says that these manuscripts were rediscovered in the Renaissance. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 07:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
quite a number of the treatises and commentaries in which Sappho is quoted were among the manuscripts discovered by Renaissance collectorsCaeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This was not quite the end of Sappho. There were still texts by other authors containing excerpts from her poems ... The survival of even these texts was by no means assured ...In any case, the problem I have with the article text is that the "works" which were lost in the first sentence are not the same "works" that became accessible again in the Renaissance. The works that were lost (like Sappho 94) were not found in the Renaissance, rather relatively inaccessible quotations of her work became accessible through the printing press (with credit to Renaissance collectors). I have tweaked the wording in the article in a way which I think is still consistent with the citation. Let me know what you think. Srnec ( talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)