Talk:Shelley Moore Capito/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I would argue that this artile should be moved to Shelley Moore Capito, as that is the name she chooses to go by and that is what the press calls her. Youngamerican 14:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Since there had been no objection, I moved the article from Shelley Capito to Shelley Moore Capito, as she has kept her maiden name as a middle name and is known by the latter in the media and Congress. Youngamerican 13:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate, written from a partisan point of view, and out of date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SamC (talk • contribs) 11 November 2006.

Of course it's inaccurate. It was mostly written by a guy who does 20,000 edits a year... what kind of quality do you expect. My question is what exactly is her "father's legacy?" Convicted felon? Jasendorf (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle name

The article for Holly Robinson Peete includes her middle name in the intro. Why not for SMC? Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems unnecessarily convoluted to me, and potentially confusing to readers. Is there any indication that it's her legal name? Her birthname is already included in the article in the infopane on the right.CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

She consistently goes by Shelley Moore Capito. Adding the middle name would probably just cause confusion. Bitmapped (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But WP:BIRTHNAME states: "the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known (including middle names, if known, or middle initials)." Which is followed in the Holly Robinson Peete article as linked before. And the Hillary Rodham Clinton article uses her middle name in intro. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The West Virginia Encyclopedia also uses SMC's middle name in intro: http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/940 Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But WP:BIRTHNAME also states: "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname."CFredkin (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing explicitly forbids using the middle name in the intro, hence the Peete and Clinton articles leading with inclusions of middle names and husbands' names. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing explicitly requires it either. As stated above, "Shelly Moore Capito" is her most commonly used name. This appears to be the default usage based on the guideline provided.CFredkin (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The article title should reflect the most common name, not the intro to the article. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The second part of your previous statement does not appear in the guidelines provided.CFredkin (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad - I should've cited WP:COMMONNAME to back my prev statement. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't support your point either.CFredkin (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My impression is that normal Wikipedia practice is thus: most common name for the article title; full name including middle names etc. if known to begin the article. Many readers who are used to using Wikipedia would expect to find the middle name in that position, and if none is given would assume that she doesn't have one. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That is right. The lede should always start with the subject's full name. At the moment the article is stating that at some point the middle name 'Wellons' has ceased to be part of the subject's name. I suspect CFredkin may be misinterpreting the words "referred to"; they do not mean in the opening sentence, but in the subsequent article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for the exclusion of her middle name. My point is that married women who take their husband's name do so via a legal name change. And my impression is that most women who take their husband's name keep their maiden name as their new middle name, and drop their birth middle name, as part of the legal name change. So legally Capito's middle name is likely "Moore".CFredkin (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your impression is completely and totally wrong. You will certainly have to provide a citation for that claim. Resolute 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

So, regardless of how you feel about my impression, how would you characterize the status of "Moore" in her name? It certainly looks like a middle name to me.

Honestly, equivalent to being part of a hyphenated last name without the hyphen. But even if you want to argue it somehow becomes a "middle name", there is no reason why a person cannot have multiple middle names. Resolute 23:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone having 2 last names that aren't hyphenated. Having multiple middle names is definitely possible, but also uncommon.CFredkin (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What about David Campbell Bannerman? There are many others. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we can rule out "Moore" as a last name.CFredkin (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My point is that it's likely not going to be possible to definitively confirm what her actual legal name is. (I think that's true for most married women.) My take is that explains why the most applicable citation I've seen referenced so far (WP:BIRTHNAME) says that the most commonly used name should be used for women.CFredkin (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Again - the common name applies for article title not introduction. And as I've pointed out the West Va. Encyclopedia uses "Shelley Wellons Moore Capito", so there is another source using her middle name with her married. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You've provided no citations that support your first point. And even if you had, we've already established that "Moore" is a middle name for her. And as stated above, having multiple middle names is very uncommon in the US. There are literally hundreds of sources that give her full name as "Shelley Moore Capito". So far you've provided one that includes "Wellons" as a middle name for her.CFredkin (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just because there are hundreds of sources referring to her without "Wellons", doesn't mean they don't think "Wellons" is part of her full name, they're just not referring to her in a context in which they would want to use her middle name (less-used forename). Wikipedia also wouldn't use Wellons in any practically other context. But in this particular place, at the start of the article, Wikipedia's practice (and that of other encyclopedias) is to include all forenames that we know about. In this case, we do know about "Wellons" (assuming the encyclopedia cited is a reliable source), so it does belong there. We certainly can't omit it based on somebody's "impression" that women generally do this or that when they change their names at marriage - that would be starting to look like original research. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Moore" is Capito's middle name. It's not a first name. It's not a last name. It's a middle name. So, if "Wellons" is indeed a middle name for her, why would hundreds of sources include one middle name for her but not the other? The reality is that hundreds of sources support the notion that "Shelley Moore Capito" is her full name. On the other hand, you've provided one source that supports the notion that "Wellons" is a middle name for her.CFredkin (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(Facepalm) For the 100th time, "Moore" is her maiden name. So what if Congressional roll calls use just "Capito"? That doesn't mean "Moore" is a middle name! When Hillary Rodham Clinton served in Congress all the roll calls used "Clinton" - doesn't mean "Rodham" is a middle name! Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense.CFredkin (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me, and to everyone else probably. Forget about the term "middle name" if it confuses you - just think forenames and surnames. Shelley and Wellons are forenames, Moore and Capito are surnames or parts of surnames. A change of surname wouldn't be expected to result in any change of forenames. And routine references in text to this or any other person would be expected to use the full surname, but only the commonly used forename. W. P. Uzer (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds great, except "Moore" isn't a surname in this case. This has already been established above.CFredkin (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As has been noted, "Moore" is her maiden name. But the argument about this is also irrelevant as this serves only to distract from your attempt to pretend that her middle name up and vanished into thin air one day. Resolute 17:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Moore" is in fact her maiden name, and that is indeed irrelevant. When she took her husband's surname as her surname, she did that via a legal name change. Consequently we have no idea if "Wellons" is still a middle name for her. However the preponderance of evidence (as stated above) is that it is not.CFredkin (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To recap my arguments for why "Wellons" is no longer a legal middle name for her:

1. Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore".

2. Capito took her husband's surname (Capito) when she married, which entails a legal name change. This calls into question whether "Wellons" is still her middle name.

3. Her most commonly used full name today is "Shelley Moore Capito".

4. The House lists members by their surnames, and includes multiple surnames where they exist (see Shea-Porter).

5. The House lists Capito as "Capito". Therefore "Capito" is her one and only surname.

6. Therefore, "Moore" is a middle name; and, if "Wellons" still exists in her legal name, it must be as a middle name.

7. The overwhelming majority of sources reference "Moore", but not "Wellons". (See 3 above)

8. It is not reasonable to assume that literally hundreds of reliable sources would include one middle name, but not another.

Even if you don't buy all the logic above, items 1-3 above are irrefutable and so far only one reliable source has been provided that includes "Wellons" in her full name. However, the source is no more reliable than the hundreds of sources that reference her full name without "Wellons".CFredkin (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As has already been explained, the fact that certain sources omit certain parts of her name is not evidence that those parts do not exist - it's perfectly normal for any person that most references to him/her (including most references in Wikipedia) will involve some kind of truncation of his/her full name. We have, apparently, a source for "Wellons" as part of her full name, and no source that implies that it isn't (except by the convoluted logic set out above, which is the kind of original research that we are not supposed to do), so for now, the our statement of her full name should include "Wellons". If we really want to know for sure what her current legal name is, I suppose the easiest way to find out would be to write and ask her. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Daughter of Arch Moore

I thought indicating that SMC's father is former WV Gov. Arch A. Moore, Jr. would be info relevant to the lede. Why not? Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it was reverted by accident, I've restored it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wellons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?CFredkin (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• No "Moore" became her legal middle name when she married and took her husband's surname. The fact that hundreds of sources give her full name as "Shelley Moore Capito" outweighs a single source which includes both "Wellons" and "Moore" as middle names for her.CFredkin (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the fact that she uses "Shelley Moore Capito" as her name in public does not stand as de facto evidence that her middle name up and vanished one day. Unless you show reliable source evidence that Wellons is no longer part of her legal name, your assertion is nothing more than original research/guessing, and certainly is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Resolute 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Up and vanished" = legal name change at marriage.CFredkin (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me sources that confirm she legally removed her middle name when she got married. Resolute 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

She legally changed her name and made "Moore" a middle name. The sources that include "Moore", but not "Wellons" vastly outweigh the one that I've seen which includes it.CFredkin (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) First, show me the source that definitively proves that telepathy is not possible, and I'll show you the source that proves that "Wellons" is no longer Capito's middle name.CFredkin (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please show me sources that state that "She legally changed her name and made "Moore" a middle name". Please show me sources that state she dropped "Wellons" from her legal name. And please, do not waste my time further by responding with your own interpretations. I want sources that explicitly support the claims you are making. Resolute 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Show me a source that proves "Moore" is currently a surname for her. Can you find any sources that refer to her as "Moore Capito"?CFredkin (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC) I've already provided a definitive source that refers to her by surname as "Capito".CFredkin (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC) And please stop wasting my time with repeated assertions that hundreds of reliable sources are choosing to exclude a 2nd middle name when they refer to her as "Shelly Moore Capito".CFredkin (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lashing out in bad faith is not an effective way to make your case. Also, your proposed change, your burden of proof. Trying to shift that burden is the surest sign someone is talking out of their behind. So, until you demonstrate the validity of your claim with sources that explicitly say what you are claiming, I am left with no choice but to disregard your argument per WP:SYNTH and to oppose your proposal. Resolute 20:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The bad faith and lashing out in this discussion has not been on my side of the table:

• Shortly after this dispute was initiated, this thread was initiated with a biased opening and not mentioned here.
• The edit comment for this edit states that I'm the only editor opposing this change, which is factually inaccurate and misleading.
• This and this edit could reasonably be described respectively as insulting and patronizing. (I don't see any admonishments from you for them.)

So, please spare me your sanctimony.CFredkin (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This argument has been answered time and time again in the thread next but one above. The "hundreds" of sources are not claiming to give her "full name" in the sense of the name that a WP article would conventionally begin with. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's "a form of original research/guessing", to say that hundreds of sources which reference her full name, including her middle name "Moore", are leaving out another middle name.CFredkin (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said this before, but wouldn't the openings of articles Hillary Rodham Clinton and Holly Robinson Peete be precedents as "yes"? Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how best to put this but this really does look analogous to Hilary Rodham Clinton to me. Taking the maiden name as a second middle name rather than double barreling is reasonably common. Being known by three of the 4 names is also reasonably common. I would support including Wellons in the opening of the article. There may only be half a dozen sources that use it but that's very common with middle names. SPACKlick (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Have emailed the congresswoman to see what her thoughts are. SPACKlick (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No response as yet SPACKlick (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think if there is hundreds of sources that do not have "Wellons" in her name after marriage, that sources would be needed to show that it was indeed kept. In the absence of being able to see the marriage certificate, if an overwhelming number sources refer to her by the same name you have to take that with quite a bit of weight to what her name actually is. AlanS^talk 09:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources not including a less used middle name is not evidence that it doesn't exist, the correct question is are there any sources providing evidence that Wellons is still a middle name? If it is, it should be used in the lede, if not then it shouldn't as it would be original research.

The only sources I can find that are not apparantly sourced to wikipedia are Virginia encyclopedia, Document about her father, West virginia Blue So an encyclopedia created by the West Virginia Humanities council, a document from a fraternity awards ceremony and a blog. So are these reliable and do they meet verifiability policy?

The blog is not reliable. The Fraternity awards document is a better source but I'd be uncomforatble using it on a living person's article. The encyclopedia however seems to meet all the relevant criteria. SPACKlick (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Shelley Moore Capito

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shelley Moore Capito's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "General election results":

• From United States House of Representatives elections in West Virginia, 2012: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electioninfo/index.aspx
• From United States House of Representatives elections in West Virginia, 2014: "Election Statistics, 1920 to Present | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives". History.house.gov. Retrieved 2016-12-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shelley Moore Capito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011021849/http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/assets/pdf/gte_lucasdeutchman.pdf to http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/assets/pdf/gte_lucasdeutchman.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516195706/http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3009a07fd299494da45ce8ec0fabb7d3/WV-WVa-Primary-2nd-District-GOP/ to http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3009a07fd299494da45ce8ec0fabb7d3/WV-WVa-Primary-2nd-District-GOP/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

It looks like a significant amount of the promotional language has been removed since this tag was added. I plan to go through and remove the remaining instances of non-neutral content, like “defeat” and instances where she’s described as “one of”, to finish cleaning up the page. I’m curious what other editors opinions are on the lists of committee assignments that are currently unsourced - should they remain on the page in their current format? Quorum816 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A few editors have been steadily working to improve the quality and content, including by giving feedback to one another. I agree with Quorum816 that the neutrality tag can be removed as the problem has been in process of correction. Hope other editors agree too.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of non-RS

This is not a secondary reliable source[1]. It's a link to a website that lists all votes made by members of Congress. It in no way meets WP:DUE and the source, because it's not a RS, lacks context to explain what the bill is actually about. In this case, it's BS legislation for a made-up problem, which will only make it harder for medical professionals and parents to cease treatment of newborns who are beyond rescue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on the legislation; I also think that you could, and I would support you including a reference to that point of view (maybe saying, "although this the legitimacy of this issue is debated"). The context provided in the Congressional record indicates that this was voted on, by her, in 2019 and 2020 and she has made it a central part of her campaign. Again, I agree with you on the legislation being unnecessary and potentially a hindrance. In fact, this bill was already passed by unanimous consent in the Senate in 2002 and signed by Pres. Bush. However, it is still a major political issue as this bill continues to be a part of national debate and a key part of platforms. I do not believe it is our purpose to say "Capito, your position is a made-up problem so we are not going to include it when it's a major part of your platform." Also, she calls herself pro-choice, but for balance's sake I think it's important to show major parts of her record that are aligned with the anti-abortion or pro-life (whichever label you prefer) movement. That is my opinion.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The use of a RS would explain the nuances on the subject and why this legislation is nonsense that feeds into the deranged POV that "pro-abortion" doctors around the country are murdering infants. Simply adding a line saying she "opposes murdering infants" and sourcing it to a non-RS is not acceptable. We are not here to run propaganda for political candidates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The wikipedia article does not read "murdering infants." Some may have that opinion, but that can be synthesized and appropriately expressed here by noting that this is an anti-abortion movement position. This is an issue that Capito has made into a major part of her campaign message. This article is about her positions. I would support you if you want to add that the phrasing and need of said bill is controversial and not scientifically supported. Also the "pro-abortion rights" is not my preference. I myself describe myself as 'pro-choice.' However, the wiki standards I looked up on this said we should be using "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion movement" instead of pro-choice or pro-life (unless they are direct quotes or the names of an organization) because of a POV issue with the latter labels. Would you be willing to add in the text that the subject is controversial and not supported by a scientific consensus? I will support you in that.SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I will point out that the Congressional record is literally neutral as it does not give a bias; it presents the bill, the language, and the results including how a Senator voted and how often. It definitely is WP:DUE and RS in my opinion. And, while I agree with you about the bill itself, that is my opinion, an opinion we both share. But, to adhere to WP:DUE, we cannot say things like "made-up problem" or "Political propaganda" to describe a candidate's positions. It may very well be propaganda but it is the candidate's position, and we can say "this is the candidate's position." That does not mean we endorse it; and, again, if you add that it is controversial and not necessarily scientifically based position, I'd support it.SeminarianJohn (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope you can contribute and discuss more here in both good faith and with respectful choice in words. No response was made to even try to re-word in a collaborative way. I did not make any changes for the very reason that you should edit, re-word, and then find a way to accurately express what the politician believes and conveys in her own platform(s) in a balanced way. While you and I may be opposed to the legislation in question, that is not our place to decide that their view is 'wrong.' I have added some of the language I floated earlier, adding that it is seen as unnecessary and controversial by many and adding more RS for that. I only ask that we please do that and try that first instead of just deleting everything. You did not even try and we were in conversation when you decided to just remove the entirety of the contribution again. I can point to several efforts to be collaborative and that is still how I see this going forward. Instead of deleting everything in that sentence without even talking about it I ask that we please talk here. Since at least March 18 I have been diligent on this page in applying Wikipedia:DR. Can we try that out? Thanks.SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion movement

One thing I noticed from other articles, and read about to clarify, is that pro-abortion rights is preferred and anti-abortion movement is preferred instead of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" because of the partisan connotations of the latter terms. Could other editors also work on the wording to see if we can format that better? I have started but don't want to "go alone" as it were.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If any other editors get a chance to weigh in, I am asking for feedback and contributions related to Senator Capito's record. While she describes herself as pro-abortion rights, a label she has not yet verbally/officially reversed though she votes with her party most of the time on it, she has some positions that are strongly associated with the more hardline anti-abortion positions including her support for the controversial Born Alive Act. The Born Alive Act, if it sounds familair it should, is very similar to a 2002 bill that was passed unanimously in the Senate and signed by President Bush; that 2002 Act re-iterated what was and is already federal and state law, namely that all infants born have to receive medical care. Senator Capito, despite this and despite her own pro-abortion rights choice in self-identity, supports the Born Alive Act which would require that medical care be provided to all born infants including those born after an alleged 'failed' abortion. This has been a major and contentious issue in US politics, raised by President Trump multiple times and which is now a part of Senator Capito's reelection platform and agenda. Another editor and myself have been in discussion about how/or if to include it. I ask very sincerely that this editor please refrain from just deleting any description in its entirety (as has happened twice) and that this editor, and all editors who can, please instead try and find a way we agree to phrase and parse this in a way that is balanced (e.g. let's not call her position grotesquely misleading in our edit descriptions please as that is very biased however much I agree with that editor on the bill). For those reading, I am trying really hard to work with any editor on this and have made several efforts to ask that repeated wholesale deletion be avoided. The page should reflect the Senator's positions and it is no small part of her position on abortion that she simultaneously identifies as pro-abortion rights while also supporting bills seen as both unnecessary and is being very anti-abortion in intent.SeminarianJohn (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)