Talk:Mass and Cass

Overly detailed tag
Upon reviewing the article, I'm not sure where there's excessive detail. @Innisfree987, could you please clarify why you added the tag? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * When I tagged it, the entry was almost 50% longer than it is now—I began trimming it which another editor continued and I have not yet had a moment to read through the resulting draft. If you have and think it’s suitable, I don’t object to untagging. I can raise concerns here if necessary when I have time to look through it again. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Innisfree987 Thanks for the quick response. I'll untag for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I just removed the section neighborhood services. It was looking like a homeless services provider directory which goes against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Let me know what you think Graywalls (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it’s relevant that a place defined by addiction and homelessness would have a section about the places in that neighborhood that treat those issues, considering said services are part of why there’s a buildup of people there. Also I’d appreciate if we could have this conversation in good faith and not with unending suspicion towards me and accusations I’m a nonprofit plant because this topic is of interest to me. Elttaruuu (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , The homeless services provider directory that I removed here have no place being in this article. If this article was about an attraction, it would be reasonable to say businesses have established to cater to tourists. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or a resource guide. So, building a list of restaurants or shops tailored to tourists visiting the attraction would be equally inappropriate. Inclusion of names of organizations and services offered is ABSOLUTELY undue and it is as if the purpose is to be a resource guide, which goes afoul of WP:NOTAGUIDE. Graywalls (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Stigmatizing terminology
I think that this page should not use the term addict unless quoting someone who uses said term in the page. The subject of Mass and Cass is covered widely in the media every other month. It is irresponsible to use stigmatizing language towards a group of people that are already so disenfranchised. It is also inaccurate language because many of them are trying to recover from drug use and many of them will. Making their diagnosis their identity is not less of a euphemism, it does real harm in the perception of traumatized and stigmatized disabled people. Elttaruuu (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/stigma-of-addiction Elttaruuu (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://nida.nih.gov/nidamed-medical-health-professionals/health-professions-education/words-matter-terms-to-use-avoid-when-talking-about-addiction Elttaruuu (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/revising-the-language-of-addiction/ Elttaruuu (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Graywalls (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Also just want to state I do a lot of reading on homelessness and addiction (pretty obvious by the content I create) and I have not once read or heard the term “substance addicts” used. Elttaruuu (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuinely, how is that less of a euphemism than a term in the DSM 5? Elttaruuu (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited reference literally uses the term “those who are suffering from substance use and mental health issues” Elttaruuu (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are not my wording anyways. I just noted the reasoning that was provided for rephrasing that was personal values based. Let's give it a few days and see if the editor who phrased it this way to respond. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we give it a few days for language that has studies about the harm it does and not keep the SUD language or the quote from the cited article and then, if the person responds in a few days with valid reasoning, change it back? I know this doesn’t seem pressing because it’s about Wikipedia policy but thousands of people are reading this article every day because it is a topic currently heavily covered in the news Elttaruuu (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elttaruuu, I am going to try to read through and understand what’s at issue here but for starters please note you can check page views: yesterday this page had 503 views. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On my end it says “8,629” in the last 30 days. And 503 in one day is significant still, no? Elttaruuu (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also as you've done a good deal of pruning on this article to see if you've got any input. The disputed change in question is here where an editor changed it not because of concerns about information being transferred accurately, but because they didn't like the wording for what appears to be of personal values and appealing to practices in other sources. It was edited back to origional, then they changed it back to their version, and it was reverted back again. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I started the conversation on the talk page—-one where you mainly dismissed what I had to say. I did not partake in edit warring, despite you making several edits and reverts without chatting about it. And yes, I have feelings and values on the subject. I am a human editor. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum and seems to me to care about not casting people in a negative or harmful light if it can be helped. I also provided sources which so far have been unacknowledged and dislike wording that is confusing and irrelevant, as is the case here. I’d appreciate you not trying to act like I’m edit warring when I posted to talk page before you even made your last revert. Elttaruuu (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ElttaruuuI feel the wording that was introduced by Xcia0069 here is fair summarization. You changed it to something, I felt the original version was more to the point. As we don't agree, I invited other editor to put in their view. Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was reactive because I felt like you were trying to pin an edit warring claim on me to another party when I have been attempting to engage productively about this. I also feel like you tend to dismiss and not acknowledge my reasoning whenever I present it on here. Elttaruuu (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pings @Graywalls. I mostly think ’s changes are an improvement and regarding the specific point of contention, I think it makes sense to specify that the presence of drug users is a pivotal issue. I would prefer to use whatever terms are used in sources about Mass and Cass. Inserting the preferred word choice from studies that make no mention of this article’s topic is not something we currently have consensus for on WP. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is used in the source directly following the sentence (Boston 25 News and then when you click the link you have to click ‘read more’ on the site) is “those who are suffering from substance use and mental health issues”. Could we say “people suffering from substance use and mental health issues” or “individuals suffering from substance use and mental health issues”, instead of “substance addicts”? Elttaruuu (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you re-instated your version. I restored back the version of the disputed section before either of us have touched. Are you trying to look at things from a dispassionate neutral point of view or do you edit with advocacy/biased view? I agree "substance addicts" sounds a bit odd, so perhaps this could just be worded "addicts"? Do you have any input on how this should be phrased ? Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither article cited uses the word "addicts". Addict is not a dispassionate neutral point of view. And yeah, I am passionate about the things I edit on here or otherwise I'd have no motivation to contribute. I don't get the obsession with using a term that's not even cited in either source. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , said they're going to read more thoroughly Special:Diff/1169126242 here, but I don't feel as you've given them sufficient time to do the review. The version I've restored is as-found, before you or I made the edit in the part of section in dispute.  Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elttaruuu, please remove your personal attack. It’s disruptive and can lead to a block. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

3PO ???
I've been notified that @Elttaruuu brought this to 3PO. First of all, the discussion is not quite done, and the discussion already involve three people, so this would be for RfC, not 3PO; if discussion doesn't resolve the disagreement; however I do not feel that Elttaruu has been allowing reasonable time for others to respond. Graywalls (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you so pressed I want more people to engage in this conversation? Seems like innisfree987 indirectly agrees with my point of view in saying “ I would prefer to use whatever terms are used in sources about Mass and Cass”. Addicts is nowhere in the sources provided in that section. I don’t understand why it’s only edit warring when I edit and why your edit, as a person brand new to editing this page, is the one that stays up while we work this out? Elttaruuu (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't really given them a reasonable time to respond. They specifically said they're going to read into this. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I interpreted that as before they read this and commented (which they now have) they wanted me to know how to access page views. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It hasn't even been a full 24 hours after you started this section. Their comment Inserting the preferred word choice from studies that make no mention of this article’s topic is not something we currently have consensus for on WP sounds to me of disagreement to your justification. Restoring the status-quo before you or I touched the disputed section, then giving a little more time seems like the sound approach. Graywalls (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well my initial reasoning probably wasn’t all that valid in terms of Wikipedia standards, regardless of how much I still believe and stand by it. However, using terminology that actually exists and is in the sources is valid reasoning for wanting to use the language I’ve suggested. So just because you don’t want it a certain way because you don’t care about stigma does not mean that my point is entirely invalid or unreasonable. Again, feels like a good time for some outside moderation from those not closely involved in this. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Other editors (chosen based on participation in this article's editing) Innisfree987, or Xcia0069 should be given more time to actually respond. To say outside moderation is needed before even a full day has elapsed since the disagreement started is unreasonable. Graywalls (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The dispute in question is "Following the migration of homeless and substance addicts to Mass and Cass, businesses in the year reported vandalism and difficulty hiring and retaining employees as they fear for their safety." Graywalls (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a third opinion as such, but I happened to notice that there (I removed the request, as there are more than two editors involved in the discussion), so I guess this is just, well, a regular old opinion. I think the edit that changed it to ...homeless people and people with substance use disorders to Mass and Cass... is overly wordy and unwieldy, less clear, and using "people" twice in a row like that is quite awkward. "Addicts" is accurate, and I don't think it's pejorative; it's a descriptive term. I do agree that "substance addicts" is an odd phrasing of it, so just "addicts" is probably better. That makes the issue clear, without any talking around it or euphemisms. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

traffic accident blotter
I have removed traffic incident log, which detailed details such as name, housing status, race, age, date and time of pedestrian incidents. While we have a policy that everything must be verifiable, verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE, I question the encyclopedic value of such minute details. This section looked like the police incident section of local community newspapers that publishes things like so and so, age, of so and so block was cited for DWI. Of course, those papers are intended to cover the happenings of the city, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should remain off unless consensus says otherwise. If a 10 year old Kia sedan with 150,000 miles backed into a public works vehicle and caused damage in an area that happens to fall within the neighborhood and this fact is published in a credible local paper, Wikipedia's sourcing standard wouldn't cast doubt that this incident occurred, but this occurrence is not suitable for inclusion just about anywhere on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Content bloating
In fact, it appears that things that do not directly relate to Mass and Cass started to appear shortly around this revision with the addition of things about long island and information about organizations in the homelessness services industry. Perhaps that's a good foundation to rewind back to and add things back in piece by piece. Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Request
@Graywalls could you help me with something? Would you say that the haunting of hill house reference in popular culture is original research? I added it when I was very new to wiki and added a lot of the other stuff you’ve since taken out of the article. I feel like at this point I understand OR enough not to add it to any other articles but not really enough to accurately remove it? Thank you for your help. Elttaruuu (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not sure. That's not why I removed it. Even if it was directly said, it would be trivia. Unverifiable contents are definitely not allowed, but this doesn't mean all verifiable contents are appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Misery after misery
Since it’s been removed and added a few times I thought I’d start a conversation about this quote. @Slugger O'Toole @Graywalls what are your thoughts? I’m still forming an opinion I think Elttaruuu (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't feel terribly strongly about the "misery after misery" line and wouldn't have commented here excepted that I was tagged. That said, having now gone back and checked the source and see that the quotation was from a man living at Mass and Cass, I would be more inclined to include it. For those not able to get past the paywall, the full paragraph is:
 * "“It’s complete misery,” says one man who is addicted to opioids. “Misery after misery.”"
 * That is pretty powerful stuff.
 * Also, regarding your two other reverts:
 * 1) If a city councilor is getting mugged there, particularly in the section that talks about a rise in violence and the mayor's response to it, I think that warrants inclusion even if she didn't want it to be made public. If we considered the thoughts of the people we wrote about when writing about difficult topics, everything here would be rainbows and puppies.
 * 2) Before this area was called Mass and Cass, it was Methodone Mile. It has been a troubled area since long before Long Island closed, including when The Town was released. I don't remember the exact scene when this is discussed, but the timeline works.
 * So, in summary, I would include all three. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think if you wanted to include the city counsel line, it should say her phone was stolen. Mugged feels like POV pushing since it’s nonspecific and no violence happened to her other than getting her phone stolen.
 * Could you find a source that says methadone mile around 2010? I think it’d be worth adding back in if you can. Elttaruuu (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From The Boston Globe's 2016 feature Life and Loss on Methadone Mile: "But these streets were paved with suffering long before today’s drug epidemic earned much notice. And in the wake of the closing of the Long Island Shelter, the chronically homeless mingle with a new generation caught in addiction’s grip, parading this most confounding of problems out before an audience at a busy Boston intersection." And "These streets were paved with suffering and struggle decades before the bridge to Long Island came down."
 * In any case, The Town content is cited, so I think we should AGF and include it unless someone watches the film and says it doesn't appear.
 * As for Anderson, the sources say mugged, so I would be inclined to say mugged as well. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like cited ≠ a good source. Also, that article is from 2016 and the movie is from 2010. I believe 2016 is after Long Island was closed. “These streets” is not specifically M/C and thus, it’s original research Elttaruuu (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read the source, you will see that "these streets" are referring to Mass and Cass. And, while 2016 is later than 2010, see the quote above about how "These streets were paved with suffering and struggle decades before the bridge to Long Island came down." The release of The Town clearly falls within the timeline. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On "misery after misery", my take on this is absolutely omit. Definitely sensationalism rather than encyclopedic. I also don't see equal weight of space given to the voice of businesses, community members and the police. So, that makes it NPOV also, so one alternative is to find all those and add those. Preferable would be to omit things like voices of random people reporters interviewed and not add any of that. Generally, exact quotation of things said by people the media spoke to is lending undue weight to random voice. Perhaps, see if could comment too. The user who felt the stabbing in Round House Hotel was undue and applied WP:NOTNEWS. Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

, pinging for input as you've commented here not too long ago. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

alleged phone robbery NPOV/OR
, This incident is probably still under investigation and it is a contentious one. It is likely the press said "reportedly" as they had their own doubt about the story. It is based on she said, he said, she said, he said... You've been editing here for a long time. We are not supposed to take an allegation from a source, put our twist and present it as a fact. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Again wouldn't comment except I was pinged, but I think you are mistaken. The Boston Globe, the source I used, does not say it is still under investigation or was disputed. They interviewed Anderson on the record. They got a copy of the police report and quote from it. They spoke to a city spokesman who confirmed it happened. We should not be casting MOS:DOUBT where none exists by saying it "reportedly" happened. No one is saying it didn't. How is this taking an allegation and presenting it as fact?
 * That aside, I don't think the particular prose you used is an improvement either. Why do we need to say Boston.com reported it when it is already there in the citation? Why do we give the date (August 26th) at the beginning and the day (Saturday) at the end of the same sentence? Why do we need to say it happened "the area known as Mass. and Cass?" Isn't the entire article about "the area known as Mass. and Cass?" Why are we using "Mass." with a period instead of "Mass" without one as we do everywhere else?
 * I am not going to edit war over this, but I contend my formulation was better. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We could also simply omit it. This is verging into WP:NOTNEWS material. Graywalls (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not include every instance of violence, but when a mayor proposes measures to counteract a rise in violence, and then a city councilor is mugged when she goes to do research before she votes on the mayor's proposal, I think that is notable enough to include. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at other sources, but looks like she was taking photos with it. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * From another independent source City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson  reportedly had her phone briefly stolen and returned with police assistance during a walkthrough of the Mass and Cass area Saturday evening. (Matt Stone/Boston Herald) (highlighting mine). Our task as Wikipedia editors is to convey what's reported in reliable sources as accurately as possible without editorial distortion of our own. Unless the sources say it happened specifically because the person who made a victim's report is a councilor, it's an editorial bias to emphasize importance here because of who the reported victim is.  Graywalls (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , since you have been editing on that part, I would appreciate your comment on this before editing on that particular matter further. If the sources expresses doubt and says "reportedly", we don't put it in as fact, because the way in which you're inserting it is distorted and editorialized. You said If this is going to stay, and I don't see a consensus to remove it. I am not seeing a consensus to include it which the user wishing to include it need to establish. We're not going to go for a nicer reading flow at the expense of accurate reproduction of information presented in the source and the latter takes priority. Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, but, as I explained above, the source I used does not use "reportedly." Even your source says "Three sources confirmed to the Herald that Fernandes Anderson was the victim who’s name was redacted in the police report." A city spokesman confirmed it. Anderson's tweet confirmed it. Can you please explain to me where you are finding doubt? What is distorted? What is inaccurate? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Distorted and inaccurate meaning the statement given in article doesn't precisely match what's said in reliable sources. Given you have a source that asserts it as a fact, and there are other reliable sources that report it as allegation, we can report two versions no matter how clunky the result ends up sounding. Another option is to wait a while until the dust settles down and additional details are available beyond the initial news phase. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources say it is just an allegation? Even the Herald source that you added is reporting it as a fact. --
 * In an effort to move this forward, I am proposing the following language. We can workshop it here before moving it to main. Please note I am adding a second source that also reports it as a fact, without using "reportedly."
 * On August 26, 2023, City Councillor Tania Fernandes Anderson was robbed when she visited the area before voting on Wu's proposal. Within moments of getting out of her car, and while standing close to a police cruiser, a man rushed her and stole her phone.

--Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Graywalls that we should be cautious with the weight we give this subject, as it could tip quickly into an undue amount. I think plainly stating her phone was stolen is fine, I think terms like “robbed” and “mugged” are sensationalism Elttaruuu (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I don't think this goes into a huge level of detail. How about this:
 * On August 26, 2023, City Councillor Tania Fernandes Anderson visited the area before voting on Wu's proposal. Within moments of getting out of her car, and while standing close to a police cruiser, a man rushed her and stole her phone. Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We do have procedures for that sort of thing in WP:V. We can give two versions, such as A and B sources report she had been robbed, C and D report she allegedly had her phone stolen regardless of how bad it flow and terrible it sounds. If we were to include this matter, it may be more suitable for the Tania Fernandes Anderson. I think we should post a request on Wikiprojects Boston and Massachusetts to get more input. To answer your question which source says allegedly, I gave you the exact quote, and URL to Boston Herald. Did you not look? Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did look, and the Herald is not reporting it as if there is any doubt it happened. See the quotation above, or "The phone was snatched from the councilor’s hands while she was taking pictures around 112 Southampton Street..." I just am not seeing anywhere where anyone is casting doubt on whether or not this happened. Perhaps I am just dense. Could you spell it out for me? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyways, there's a NEW coverage. https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/08/31/bodycam-footage-shows-boston-police-quickly-helped-city-councilor-robbed-on-the-mile-video/ I suggest we wait at least a few more days and not jump the gun to try to push in a still developing story. See WP:NOTNEWS. It is not declared a fact the instant victim makes a report and confirms in their own word they were a victim. The press a few days ago was correct to say "reportedly". I disagree with putting things into encyclopedia based on she said this, she said that. Graywalls (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the latest coverage from Aug 31, the phone was returned, Anderson said. The man apologized to her, Anderson said and she was familiar with the perpetrator, Anderson said. And Anderson did not want to file a report. If the consensus is to include it, I think the more appropriate place is on page on her unless additional news coverage come up in context of Mass & Cass. Graywalls (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, there is NO ONE casting doubt on this. There is NO she said this, he said that. EVERYONE confirms that it happened. The police say it. The city says it. The victim says it. And, if you believe Anderson's tweets, the perpetrator says it happened. You seem to be the only person suggesting this never happened. And it was always known from the first reports that the phone was returned to her. That's not new. Again, in the interest of moving this forward, how about this language:
 * On August 26, 2023, City Councillor Tania Fernandes Anderson visited the area before voting on Wu's proposal. Within moments of getting out of her car, and while standing close to a police cruiser, a man rushed her and stole her phone.
 * What do you think? If you don't like it, would you kindly propose something else? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it's a good fit for this article. I have put in a request for input to Wikiprojects Boston and WP Cities. Graywalls (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Tania Fernandes Anderson cell phone incident
When Boston city councillor Tania Fernandes Anderson was visiting Mass and Cass, Anderson reported her phone was snatched out of her hand. https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/08/31/bodycam-footage-shows-boston-police-quickly-helped-city-councilor-robbed-on-the-mile-video/

What do you all suggest we do?
 * 1) Don't include
 * 2) Inlucde in significant details
 * 3) Include a sentence or so
 * 4) Include it in a different article instead.

Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Include in Tania Fernandes Anderson Elttaruuu (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elttaruuu there's a lot of WP:NOTNEWS removal needed in this article anyways. I would appreciate your comment in the section below though, about excessive details on certain aspects and perspectives that you've inserted. Graywalls (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed, slanted coverage, POV pushing
, I am not sure you realize this but the disproportionate coverage and lopsided presentation makes it look like social justice movement or activism type meant to push certain agenda than to neutral descriptive encyclopedic view. For example, referencing the letter "Committee for Public Counsel Services Letter to Sheriff Tompkins" (PDF), or selectively emphasizing certain things. Why are the names of opinion holders mentioned, but not of the absconders? I am wondering if it is unconscious bias or you are aware of the non-neutral presentation. Graywalls (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)