Talk:Jeffrey Beall

Proposing split
I think Beall's List is notable enough to have its own article (and Jeffrey Beall does other things than just manage Beall's List). All the details and drama associated with Beall's List can then be moved to its own article. As it is I find it somewhat jarring to see statements on something named after Beall in an article about Beall, e.g. "medical researcher Roger Pierson of the University of Saskatchewan said, "To see Beall’s work disappear would be an absolute disaster"".

Beall's List currently redirects to Predatory open access publishing, which is intimately related but also a bigger topic than Beall's List. After all, even before Beall's List disappeared, there were undoubtedly many publishers who would satisfy Beall's criteria that are not included by Beall, simply because he did not have time to research them or is unaware of them. Banedon (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is certainly not so large that it has become unwieldy. Sentences like you mention ("John Doe declared "blablabla") are newspaper style and not encyclopedic and should be reworded. Beall's List should perhaps be redirected to the appropriate section here. --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't place my finger on it but there's something awkward about using an article on Beall as a proxy for an article on Beall's List. Take the section about Beall's website being removed. Should it be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia? I'd say yes, given how widely the blog was being followed. Should it be mentioned in this article? If Beall had something to say about its removal, maybe, but he refused comment. This doesn't slot cleanly into the Predatory OA article either. Seems to me that the only natural place to put it is in an article on the list itself. Banedon (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support split Beall's list has a life of its own. It has its own criticism, its own impact, and with its recent removal it has its own mystery and lore. It is a project and an idea that has led to conversations about publishing that are far bigger than Beall himself. It passes WP:N on its own and I think it would best be a free standing article which could be discussed independently of the biography of its originator or of the broader concept of Predatory open access publishing.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe just rename this article to Beall's list? Is Beall notable apart from this list? Is there any other published information about him that is NOT directly or indirectly related to the list? BorisG (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support split Sorry to arrive late to the conversation. I agree Beall's list is notable and support it as a separate article. The article for Predatory Publishing will certainly benefit from this change, as it can grow to address the ever evolving predatory practices. I agree with BorisG, Beall is not notable apart from the list and it's worth discussing this issue. Megs (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you say you support splitting into separate articles for person vs list, which exactly means that each is notable enough in its own right, but then say that the person is not notable enough to have its own article. Do you instead actually mean to merely refocus/rename this article to be about the list instead of the person? DMacks (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I most strongly disagree that Beall is not notable apart from the list. His list got the influence it now has because Beall was widely respected in his field (even though he only became widely known outside his field after he started list). The article contains multiple references to interviews, essays, etc in highly respected sources where Beall is interviewed or invite te write as a respected specialist. As I said above, the article is certainly not large enough to justify a split. --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

'''Support split to a list event page and subsequently recommend this page for deletion. The guidelines read:'''

We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event - Now that the list has been deleted, I will suggest we call it a single event that all coverage is related to

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. - ''Beall is a low-profile individual. Making a blog, being sued and issuing general opinions on a single topic does not make a personal notable - ideas about the list can be migrated to an event article with little to no mention about Beall.''

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented - ''Beall's role in being a critic on open access publishing was neither substantial or well documented. He temporarily populated a highly opinionated blog that was most notable for its controversial nature - not for a well documented or established involvement with creating this list - for all we know he simply copied and pasted a list of open access journals and publishers for attention.''

I will be creating a Wiki account and continuing to monitor this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.133 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No split When two notable topics (and the notion that either the man or the list is nonnotable is too laughable to even address) are this intimately connected, it's best to treat them in a single article until that becomes so big as to be unwieldy. And we're nowhere near that.  E Eng  03:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear E  Eng ,


 * Can you please site some wiki policy that supports this?


 * MakinaterJones (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't have to address each comment like it's a letter; just indent and sign, like everyone else. Here's what you're looking for: WP:NOPAGE.  E Eng  04:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * E Eng  are you going to continue to talk about me rather than the issues at hand? MakinaterJones (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You asked a question and I answered it.  E Eng  11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose a split per, and strongly oppose any agenda-driven attempt to delete Jeffrey Beall. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cullen328
 * Is your statement on what you "strongly oppose" a neutral point of view? MakinaterJones (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cullen328
 * Well I oppose them  EVEN MORE STRONGLY . So there.  E Eng  02:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to look like consensus thats - 5 people supporting the split? Then there is E  Eng  and Cullen328 who feel as if they MAKE THEIR FONT BIGGER about no split it will mean consensus ?

Can you both please cite some wiki policy that refutes the "single event" issue or possibly go beyond into anything besides just making big font on the discussion?

As for as agenda's go...whats the deal with E  Eng  and Randykitty and DavidEppstien systematically promoting this BLP? Possible COI? Because you are only 50% accurate Cullen328 - a true wiki editor would not like ANY agendas - not just ones that differ from their predisposed opinions.

Wiki is not a place for ANY agendas. Please get to the facts and policy on the issue.

MakinaterJones (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose split per EEng, Randykitty. The reasoning is sound; several intimately connected topics may be better off sharing an article rather than consist of a pair or more of articles that then have to be webbed together with lots of section links. Splits become desirable when the article gets too large, or when it becomes difficult to keep several topics apart while treating them within the same structure. That isn't the case here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, MakinaterJones, please dial it down with the accusations and verbal flailings. Historically that ain't working so well in RfCs. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Elmidae (talk),


 * Thank you for your time on this!


 * ...to the criticisms I left can I ask?
 * Do you reject the notion I am expressing above - that there should no be agendas on wiki?
 * I said this only in response to the fact that the editor says there shouldn't be an agenda that opposes their predisposed opinion and I find this extremely biased.
 * Can you explain why there is such LARGE FONT and what's its use in bringing clarity and consensus to the discussion?
 * I find it confusing and seems like a red hearing to double confirm with BIG LETTERS.''
 * I am afraid both of these comments are quite misleading and do not belong.


 * On point, you are 100% correct with your analysis but I feel that in the consensus above, editors make good points about the notability of the individual on the page when it is limited to a single event. Since things have changed drastically in regard to Bealls list in the last year, I believe that it has absolutely converted to a single event - have you taken this into consideration?
 * MakinaterJones (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (not that this "Letter to The Editor" format isn't charming, but it's a little disruptive visually. Could I ask you to please adopt the more matter-of-fact reply structure commonly observed?)
 * Beall has become notable through his well-publicized criticism of predatory publishing, of which the list was the main outcome. Both topics retain their notability (WP:NTEMP) and appear to be best treated as one combined unit, as stated above. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A test of which items in Beall's List are currently blue linked (and red linked) can be found on Talk:Beall%27s List. -- Oa01 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the split section template due to lack of consensus after more than a year. Biogeographist (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Counter criticism section
There are always deplorables who either have a vested interest in, or find it perversely "interesting," to defend the indefensible. Beall's list called out rubbish for what it was. Pretending that there was a baby in that soiled bathwater is either vile, or stupid, or both.137.205.101.55 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A misstatement of what Beall does and of the actual contents of the section
Portraying Beall's entire body of work as "Criticism of open access publishing" by using that as the heading of the main section in this article (section #2) is indeed a clear a misstatement of what Beall does and of the actual contents of the section with all its sub sections which are primarily concerned with predatory publishing, and with titles such as "Predatory meetings," "Beall's list and the Science sting," "Counter-criticism," "Website removal." We have seen attempts in this article before as well, usually from representatives of dubious publishers, to do exactly that to deflect from what Beall is actually known for, namely his criticism of predatory publishing practices. Even though he is critical of "open access" in general (it is not always clear what "open access" really means, due to the constant attempts to hijack the term from the "predatory publishing movement"), it is only the predatory publishers themselves who attempt to portray Beall's entire body of work on predatory publishing practices as part of a "crusade against open access" or something like that. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Movie critics are not people who object to movies, and criticism of open access publishing is not synonymous with opposition to all open access publishing. Criticism of open access publishing is what Beall did, both in self-description and actuality.  This has not changed in the last 20 months.  --JBL (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So the movie critics are known for their "criticism of movies"? --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course -- see for example our articles film criticism, literary criticism, the Film Criticism Journal, etc. Although because "film critic" is a common noun phrase, one would normally write that "Gene Siskel was a film critic" and it sounds natural, whereas "open access publishing critic" sounds strained.  --JBL (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What hasn't changed is the fact that Beall is not known for any general criticism of open access, but specifically for his criticism of predatory publishing practices and his list of predatory publishers, and the section in question also deals primarily with that. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your use of emphasis notwithstanding, all that is necessary is for you to read the section whose header you changed to see that you are mistaken. --JBL (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so, because I've already read it. The question is: Have you read it? The level 2 section heading covers all the level 3 sub sections as well. The vast majority of the content in that level 2 section with sub sections is related to Beall's list of predatory publishers and the response to it, not to general criticism of open access. This level 2 section covers Beall's entire body of work. "Criticism of open access publishing" does not adequately describe Beall's entire body of work for which he is publicly known (primarily Beall's list). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Retired?
Beall describes himself as retired e.g. on his Google Scholar profile (which has a verified ucdenver.edu e-mail address). --Bjerrebæk (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He is also not listed on the Auraria staff directory, although I do not know if he ever was. Of course, we should wait for a reliable source of some sort to confirm this. --JBL (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He was included in the staff directory as of 7 March this year, with the title "Copyright and Information Access Librarian" (as opposed to his previous title "Scholarly Communications Librarian"(as of last autumn) --Bjerrebæk (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, it's very likely true, then. --JBL (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Counter-criticism section
The current counter-criticism focuses on the people criticising Beall's work, the positions they hold and their publication forua rather than the actual nature of the criticisms. I propose restructuring this based on the nature of the criticisms. Note that URL-based refs are all new ones.


 * Some have criticised Beall's list as primarily tool to attack Open Access as a movement and a set of publishing models in contrast to traditional publishing models. A "broader critique (really an assault) of Gold OA and those who advocate it" that has "crossed the line" and that "Beall has a strongly anti-OA stance, was clearly partisan on specific issues, and antagonistic – often without being constructively critical – to publishers experimenting with new models of review."


 * Others have criticised the perceived sweeping scope of and lack of strong evidential basis for the list, with Beall "falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone" and using "sweeping generalizations with no supporting evidence" A study which attempted to duplicate portions of the list by having three independent librarians assess journals highlighted "the subjective nature of the Criteria by which Beall constructs his lists."


 * Percieved bias in the list has been criticised,  arguing that "imperfect English or a predominantly non-Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory" and that aspects of the list are "easy to characterise as racism, xenophobia or colonialism, depending upon the lens one uses."


 * Terminological issues have been raised with the term 'predatory publishing', particularly the word predatory: "[i]t's a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I'm not sure it's helpfully descriptive."

If there are more published papers backing up one of the criticisms, it's easy enough to add just a citation to the paper, without necessarily including the full details. Thoughts? Feel free to edit my version for anything but complete rewrites. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just added to the article. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Passive-voice party
I've reverted your edit. It is important that this section attribute the counter-criticisms to the persons who voiced them. When people are voicing opinions, it's best to indicate who is voicing those opinions—these are personal opinions, not an impersonal accounting of quantitative data. Using subject-less passive-voice grammatical constructions—such as "Beall's list has been criticised as...", "Other criticism has noted...", "Perceived bias in the list has been criticised..."—makes it sound as if a vague impersonal cloud of counter-criticism has rained down on Beall from the heavens, and immediately invites the question "criticised by whom?" Moreover, your edit inserted bare URLs instead of well-formed citations, when the previous version had all well-formed citations (see also WP:CITEVAR). If there are new counter-criticisms to add, they should be attributed to the persons who voiced them and referenced with well-formed citations, not bare URLs. Biogeographist (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have started looking at some of the new sources listed above (and in your reverted edit), and I see another issue, related to the issues that I have already mentioned. When people are voicing opinions, it is important to represent accurately the complexity of their opinions, and not cherry pick or misrepresent their arguments in order to support your own chosen narrative. The second source in the reference list above, Shea Swauger's "Open access, power, and privilege: a response to 'What I learned from predatory publishing'", is cited as support for the statement "Some have criticised Beall's list as primarily tool to attack Open Access", but I don't see where in his piece Swauger said that. On the contrary, in his nuanced discussion, Swauger wrote: "Beall's list was a useful resource, and his work calling attention to predatory publishing was a valuable contribution to research in almost every discipline, but a list was never a sustainable or ideal solution. Blacklists and whitelists share the same problem in that they attempt to externalize an evaluation process that is best internal, contextual, and iterative. It's unsurprising that researchers and librarians relied so heavily upon Beall's list, as it alleviated the burden of having to learn how to evaluate whether a publisher or journal was predatory." Swauger proceeded to say that Beall's list was trying to approach a problem that is better solved through the "inherently messy, dynamic, and important work of systematic information literacy instruction". He rejects some of the ideas in Beall's article "What I learned from predatory publishers", but nowhere does he criticize Beall's list "as primarily tool to attack Open Access" as your edit above claims he does.

Also, I wonder why you have cited Cameron Neylon's blog post, which is a self-published source, not generally acceptable on Wikipedia, especially in biographies of living persons.

I may have further comments as I continue to read the sources that you cited. Biogeographist (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Before we spend a great deal of time on specifics (which I fully agree we need to get into), do you agree that breaking the counter-criticism section up by the aspect of the list being criticised? Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A problem with "breaking the counter-criticism section up by the aspect of the list being criticised" as you suggested is that you may be imposing onto other people's writing your own categories that express your own POV, instead of accurately portraying the complexity of the critics' POVs.
 * Above we have already seen an example (namely your citation of Swauger's piece) of how easy it is to cherry pick or misrepresent critics' arguments in order to support your own chosen narrative. You seem to have misinterpreted Swauger's piece as support for the claim that "Some have criticised Beall's list as primarily tool to attack Open Access" when in fact Swauger's piece was a response to an essay by Beall, not to Beall's list, and the only time Swauger mentioned Beall's list he portrayed it positively: "Beall's list was a useful resource". (I think what Swauger actually said about Beall's list in that piece is interesting: that it was an attempt to solve a real problem, but it was not a sustainable solution.) If you were doing a systematic literature review and content analysis with explicit methodology then it might be possible to create categories that accurately reflect the literature rather than your own POV. But in the absence of such attempted rigor I suspect it is better to try to represent completely (or as completely as possible given space constraints and avoiding undue weight) the views of each critic instead of trying to fit them into a predetermined schema or narrative.
 * I just searched for "predatory" + "Beall's list" on Google Scholar and restricted the temporal scope to "since 2017", and the search results contain a number of recent sources that appear to be worth citing. Biogeographist (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the number of recent sources (and I agree there are many of them) I don't see how it possible to represent as completely as possible their views while avoiding undue weight). The section is already (to my eyes) too long and there appears to be no tailing off on the sources that are appearing. One possibility, of course, is to move the contentious content to a new page (maybe Predatory publishing) in which case undue weight ceases to be a significant problem.  Maybe we could get some more input on this from recent editors of the page: User:Joel B. Lewis User:Randykitty User:Bjerrebæk User:Everymorning User:Johnuniq User:TheLeaper User:Adpete and User:Trappist the monk to see whether we can find a way forward.   Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, when I mentioned other recent sources in my last sentence above, I did not intend to imply that they should be included in the "Counter-criticism" section of this article; indeed it looks as if many of the sources are not what this article calls counter-criticism. They are just more resources that can be cited in this article in general and/or in Predatory open access publishing. Biogeographist (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I imagine that among the many possible justifications for why Wikipedia guidelines emphasize that articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources is the fact that the body of primary sources on a topic is often so immense. Biogeographist (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't previously aware of Predatory open access publishing. Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Jeffrey Beall retired?
This article's lead says that Beall is employed in Denver, but a Google search reveals that several of his online accounts say that he is retired. His Facebook account says he is retired from March 17, 2018 to present; his Twitter account says "I am retired"; his Google Scholar account says "Retired"; his Wikipedia account says "I am retired and now based in southern Colorado". Biogeographist (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a section above about this. I don't think there's a question of whether it's true; however we also don't have a RS.  Probably, if someone made the change, no one would object.  --JBL (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm not sure how I missed that earlier section. It would be nice to have a RS. Biogeographist (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've updated the lead. Biogeographist (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Beall's List back in (or move content there)
I've recently updated three articles dealing with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)'s case against OMICS, precipitated partly by Beall's List. And found myself duplicating too much. So I had another look at these articles, and invite your opinions.

Too much of the content in the Beall's List article is duplicated in the Jeffrey Beall article. (Perhaps more of that content than necessary now also appears in the FTC article.) Consequently, I propose to either or
 * merge Beall's List (back) into Jeffrey Beall, which would not make the target article too large;
 * move much of the content of the (after the "Main article" template), into the Beall's List article — if not there already.

There was a lively discussion before the two articles were split. But surely we could (at least) substantially improve the split of the information content. But then, what would be left to say about Beall? What I'm unsure of is his notability, apart from that of his list. Perhaps some editor, with better information than I, has access to the reliable sources that would justify a separate article about the person and his career. yoyo (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to follow the procedure outlined on WP:Merging, and have done these steps so far:
 * start the discussion (this section)
 * notified a bunch of editors active here by pinging
 * tagged both source and target pages.


 * There remain these steps:
 * have the discussion
 * close the discussion with consensus, and
 * perform the merge.

yoyo (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the OMICS case is even mentioned in the FTC article (let alone has a whole section dedicated to it). Are we going to list each and every case the FTC ever handled?? In any case, thanks for bringing to my attention that the redirect of Beall's List has been transformed into an article (although I see that I actually edited the article... My poor memory...), by copying basically most of this article. I don't even see much in the List article that isn't already here, so a "merge" basically boils down to restoring the redirect. As for the previous discussion above, I don't really see much consensus supporting a split. Beall and his list really are very intertwined. Without the list, Beall likely wouldn't be notable and an article on him with only a link to the List would be very short indeed. So keeping the material together in one article seems to be the logical thing to do. --Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Still support split / oppose merge on this. Rationale is same as before: there's something awkward about using an article on Beall as a proxy for an article on Beall's List. Take the section about Beall's website being removed. Should it be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia? I'd say yes, given how widely the blog was being followed. Should it be mentioned in this article? If Beall had something to say about its removal, maybe, but he refused comment. This doesn't slot cleanly into the Predatory OA article either. Seems to me that the only natural place to put it is in an article on the list itself. Banedon (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm against the merge. The two are independently notable, although obviously intimately linked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge If there's too much duplication, trim the Beall article and summarize the salient points of this one there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge I have an essay on this kind of situation at Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge People need a list of the journals. Simple. Isn't it enough that he lost his post in the University when he started this work? If even Wikipedia will not provide space for this article, who will? -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't Beall still employed by the University of Colorado? Banedon (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. "Beall's list" is now a significant topic in the history of open access; and it has its successor lists. That means Beall's list is not to be identified with its author. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is some overlap between the two articles: much of the content in is the same as the content in . Whether this indicates that there is enough overlap between the subjects to merge, I am not certain. To me the similarity between the articles does raise the threat of content forking. If the articles are not merged, I would raise the question of whether the content in those criticism sections should be in either one article or the other, not in both. Biogeographist (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Counter-Criticism
Joseph Esposito wrote in The Scholarly Kitchen that he had been following some of Beall's work with "growing unease"[29] and that Beall's "broader critique (really an assault) of Gold OA and those who advocate it" had "crossed the line".[29]

That is not criticism, it's just disagreement. Criticism involves reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the source? Banedon (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just above, we quote an illogical claim that one sting paper getting rejected by 18% of a subset of Beall's list, proves that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five. A conclusion which obviously doesn't follow from the evidence. DFlhb (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Minimize duplication
Please check Talk:Beall%27s_List. fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)