Talk:Southern Baptist Convention/Archive 2

Info box
Why has the info box categories been changed? Ltwin (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cooperative Program merger proposal
The Cooperative Program article has been an unsourced stub for years. This is not a seperate entity from the SBC (or even a subdivision or auxillary of the SBC) like, for example, the North American Mission Board. Rather it is a single, though important, program of the SBC. It would seem to me, then, that the program is best discussed within the SBC article per WP:NNC and WP:WEIGHT. I propose merging what text can be sourced into the SBC article and redirecting Cooperative Program to the SBC article section dealing with the Cooperative Program, or to the SBC page generally if the discussion of the Cooperative Program is scattered throughout the SBC article as it is now. Novaseminary (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * agree Ltwin (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there was no dissent, I completed the merge (though the section still needs work). Novaseminary (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split members list
The list of member is always going to be incomplete and subjective. It is also tangential to the discussion of the SBC itself. If individuals are notable in a way related to the SBC, they should or already are mentioned in the main body of the article. If notable people are notable for entirely different reasons, I see no reason to list them on an article covering the SBC. To avoid or minimize all of these issues, I propose splitting the member list into its own article with a wikilink from the main article to replace or go alongside the exisiting less specific link to the List of Baptists (which, of course, covers Baptists with or without any affiliation with an SBC church). This could then complement the existing Category:Southern Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have split this section out of this main article and moved it into its own list article, List of Southern Baptist Convention affiliated people, with a link to this new list in the see also section of the main article. Novaseminary (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section missing
This section is missing from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.23.86 (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because criticisms are to be integrated into the article, not blocked off into a separate section. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not always the case. At anyrate, this article seems to be a whitewash devoid of any critisism whatsoever. It even has Jimmy Carter speaking on behalf of SBC but no mention of his very public disassociation with them.


 * It does not seem legitimate to justify the current article as NPOV in the context of SBC's policy of subjugating one group of people as inferior over another group (in this case women). Other articles for subject matters pertaining to organizations that claim superiority (whether it be genetic or via divine influence), do not have such positive sounding articles. Nor should they. Jeff Carr (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

State conventions
I split the list of state conventions into its own list article at List of state and other conventions associated with the Southern Baptist Convention because the list was quite long and the article is already probably too long. I think this is supported by WP:LIST and WP:STANDALONE. Novaseminary (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Tags
I'm removing the two tags at the top of the article. The citations tag is not needed as much of the article is sourced, and there are "citation needed" notes in the places that need citations. The cleanup tag doesn't make since to me. I don't see any areas of the article that are particularly messy and I don't see any comments on the talk page addressing this. Ltwin (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SBC 1968 survey
The SBC 1968 survey mentioned must have a cite. The source given had no info on the survey or the SBC; it was about the American Baptist Convention.Parkwells (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Civil Rights Movement
This article should have a section on the '50s and '60s opposition to the civil rights movement within the Southern Baptist church. (One possible source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_34/ai_94160905/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.83.220 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I want more examples of the institutional racism that SBC was part of for years! The Church of Slavery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.11.200 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SBC was certainly a mixed bag. Leaders like Foy Valentine were outspoken in opposition to racial discrimination, but you also had a convention opposed to legal action to make it so.
 * "Southern Baptists Reject Move To Back Negroes' Legal Rights", NYTimes May 22, 1964
 * "We need to abolish racial discrimination in our country and our churches not because of a clause in the Constitution or because of the Communist challenge, nor yet because we need the votes of the watching world. We need to conquer race prejudice because it is a sin against almighty God and a rejection of the precious blood of Jesus Christ, his only begotten son." -- Foy Valentine in Time Nov 26, 1965 73.167.119.100 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Colonial Era - April 2011
There is no such thing as a "colonial era" for the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC did not exist until the mid-1800s. The current presentation of a "colonial era" is in need of improvement due to its clear regional bias and insufficient attention to the most important historical antecedents, both institutional and individual.
 * That's personal POV not upheld by historians or the SBC itself--they discuss the colonial origins because the SBC did not appear out of nowehere--it was a new alliance formed by older churches because of their historic positions. see Robert A. Baker, The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607-1972 (Nashville, 1974), or look at David S. Dockery, Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal (2008) pp 105ff; Jerry Sutton & James T. Draper, Jr. A Matter of Conviction: A History of Southern Baptist Engagement (2008) pp 55ff; W. Wiley Richards, Winds of doctrines: the origin and development of Southern Baptist theology (1991) etc Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not personal POV. That is a literate interpretation of history.  The Colonial history of the United States ended in 1776.  Period.  The SBC obviously has colonial era antecedents.  Those antecedents were Baptist starting with John Clarke and others at the First Baptist Church in America - yes, in the North first and foremost and others in the South.  None of those antecedents - institutional or individual - used the name of "Southern Baptist Convention" or "Southern Baptist".
 * it's personal POV because it is not based on a reliable source. I cited four RS that study the colonial era. Most useful is the one published by the SBC, Robert A. Baker, The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607-1972 (Nashville, 1974). Notice the dates. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Declaration of Independence is a reliable legal and historical source. Date = July 4, 1776.  There is also a plethora of reliable source publications confirming the date of American independence as July 4, 1776.  Events prior to July 4, 1776 in the American context are colonial era.  Events following that date in the American context are post-colonial.
 * Many churches that comprise the SBC were founded and developed their identity and values during the colonial era, which is what the article says. Indeed the southern Baptists were especially proud of and insistent on the critical importance of their pre-1845 history. The USA did not appear out of nowhere in 1776, it had a colonial history too. Rjensen (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be clearer that the convention was not formed yet during that period. Maybe call it historical background. 66.157.27.69 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Images
These edits were reverted as failing Images. It seems to me that they are fine, and fit the article well. Images don't have to strictly depict the subject of the article. (Obviously, there can be no picture of the "Southern Baptist Convention", just as there can be no picture of the "United States".) No - pictures, need to be relevant. But a picture of worship at Saddleback, a major SBC church? It seems relevant to me. Both in terms of Saddleback, and in terms of what a baptist worship center might look like. Is there anyone else who objects to this apart from User:Novaseminary? StAnselm (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If there were such a thing as a ”typical” SBC building or photo of a typical SBC worship service (and that was supported by an RS), then fine. (I don't think there is.) Or if a particular building or what have you is associated with the SBC, then fine (also sourced, of course). But I do not think that including a photo of one particular, certainly not representative, service and one church that was large in the 50s is substantially enough about the SBC (the subject of this article) to justify inclusion here; maybe in article about those particular churches it would be fine. The purpose of photos (per WP:IMAGE] is not to make the article look pretty, but to explain the subject in a way that words alone could not. Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the opinion presented at Wikipedia talk:Images applies here - "It is perfectly typical and acceptable for any article about an organization or type of organization to include images like this. Since we can't include an image of every single building associated with this church organization, we use basic editorial judgment to pick one or more." StAnselm (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with the pictures in and of themselves. Maybe we should have a balance between megachurches and more average sized churches. Also, it may be nice to include "historical" Southern baptist churches as well. Older churches especially will tend to have notable architectural merit in addition to any influence the congregation itself has had in Southern Baptist history. Ltwin (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ltwin's approach seems reasonable to me. I've never been against all photos, just indiscriminate insertion of photos (or ELs or See alsos or Further readings). I agree with what is but one Ed's opinion at the IMAGE discussion, that we use editorial judgment. But that implies one can articulate why their judgment leads one to favor inclusion (along the lines of what Ltwin proposed above). StAnselm still has yet to say why these photos in particular belong. Since this was not even started here but at another article where I initially removed the unexplained insertion of photos by an ed who had been inserting POV into the article (whether on purpose or not is another question), I propose both StAnselm and I stand down on this issue and leave it to others for now. Novaseminary (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So... what was wrong with the pictures? StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The pictures of First Baptist Church (Augusta, Georgia) and First Baptist Church (Charleston, South Carolina) are good. But the consensus here is that there was nothing wrong with the other ones. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Only three editors have weighed in. The only rough consensus is that the sorts of photos I added are ok (not to speak for Ltwin, but I tried to go the route Ltwin suggested). As a compromise, I added them. I thought you cared more about the general priciple that some photos of buildings are ok in a denominational article rather than any particular photos. Or is it something else? Novaseminary (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree, it doesn't mean there isn't consensus. I have added it back in. StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not act like children. There is no reason to violate WP:3RR. Why not send it to RfC or at least let the discussion mature here? At least we have narrowed it to one photo. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With two editors, a third opinion is more appropriate than WP:RFC. But you've ignored the third opinion proffered here., as well as ignoring the comments at the centralised in-principle discussion. Maybe that's not quite fair - you've conceded that photos of churches in denominational articles are OK. Well, let me say it again: there is nothing wrong with the Saddleback photo. StAnselm (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the Bellevue Baptist Church, but User:Novaseminary still disagrees with its inclusion. Where do we go from here? NS is the only editor who doesn't like it, despite the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Obviously, we don't want dozens of images in the article, but for its size (60kb), four is hardly too many. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We can discuss it specifically in the section I created immediately below this one. Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Bellevue Baptist Church
With this edit St Anselm added (again) this photo of Bellevue Baptist Church. I don't think it belongs in the article. It is not particularly representative, doesn't illustrate anything discussed in the article, and there are already other photos of churches actually mentioned in the article. I'm going to remove it again. Novaseminary (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done with this edit. St Anselm, rather than getting blocked again, why not send it to RfC. As noted (and per the iamges I added), I am not opposed to all church images on denominational articles, but I think there should be some particular reason to include it. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And as noted with this comment, the editor that commented to StAnselm's general inquiry at the MOS talk noted that one or two images of churches should do it. Novaseminary (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the picture of Bellevue Baptist Church be included in the article? 02:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, for the reasons I gave prior to the RfC immediately above the RfC tag, and it is not a good photo, to boot. Novaseminary (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is a need for more images in this article - it would only be the fourth in a 60k article. The picture is clearly relevant as it is of a Southern Baptist Church. StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you not sign your RfC, and then remove you signature after I inserted it? Anyway, why this photo. There are many churches that have played significant roles in the history of this denomination (and are mentioned in the article). I think the current two photos are enough, and others should only be added if the church played some role in the story the article is telling. Novaseminary (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article could certainly use a few more images. -- 202.124.73.174 (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes: There may be an ownership issue with this article; the image in question seems to be a welcome variation from the other pictures of older churches. From a layout perspective, the images may work better alternated between right and left instead of all down the right side of the page.--Miniapolis (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment: If the text description can be verified by an independent reliable source, maybe. Personally, I myself don't think that being one of the larger churches in the 1950s is necessarily enough reason for inclusion of the picture. "One of the larger" churches doesn't really indicate how many of those "larger" churches there were. Maybe several hundred? If it was a number of roughly that size, then the reason for its inclusion is weakened. Also, the qualifier "in the 1950s" points specifically to bygone days. Is it a smaller church now, or, perhaps, no longer included in the "larger" churches today? Is it, perhaps, not even Southern Baptist anymore? Personally, I think the nature of the photo, being a long shot to show most of the front of the building, doesn't really do anything to make me more sympathetic. I would guess my final opinion might be that the picture is not necessarily of a significant enough church of the SBC, until and unless its inclusion is more thoroughly supported by independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no, but only because there are better pictures: see at Commons, and take your pick. I'll say this: the pictures in the article look like the could fit in the Episcopal Church (United States) article for crying out loud (except for the Charlestown Massachusetts one). How about a pic or two of clapboard churches from the Baptist heartland, which is typical of where most Baptists worship? Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, Herostratus. For example, this interior photo of First Baptist Church (Columbia, South Carolina), the site where a state convention voted to secede from the Union. Ltwin (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the RfC was posted, I've added several more photos to the article. The general ”this article needs photos” comments above have been adressed, at least in part. One other thing to note is that this article is about a particular organization with which churches affiliate (and some churches affiliate with more than one association, or change their affiliation over time). The article is not about Baptist churches in the South or Baptist churches more generally, or even conservative, fundamentalist, moderate, or any other subdivision of Baptist churches. Any photos should fairly illustrate some aspect of the subject organization - the Southern Baptist Convention. And to loosely echo John Carter's comment above, the photos should illustrate the RS-supported text, not get around WP:V or serve as a visual version of OR. Novaseminary (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC Comment: No, I cannot see any valid reason to include the Photo of Bellevue Baptist Church in the article; agreed, it is not a good photo of a church ~ a photo of lawn and roads, maybe. The article has sufficient appropriate images as it stands.Whiteguru (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Does seem to matter to me I don't recognize the building from the picture so I do not think it is a problem in the article. Now that there are multiple pictures, does this still need to be the subject of an RFC? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes As User:StAnselm stated, this image would be a great addition to an article which remains wanting in images. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the photo itself has far, far too much negative space to be anywhere near attractive, and even cropped down that would probably look worse. Even if the article needs photos, that's no reason we should use an inferior one, and even settling for such I fear that the addition of such an aesthetically unpleasing image would detract from the overall article. Recon Etc (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Article on SBC and Race
Can anyone kindly recommend an encyclopedic article on the role of race in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention? I came here looking for information but this doesn't seem to be the place for it. I was wondering if someone could direct me to some other website that might be a better resource. Many thanks. FFick (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please return to this article. I have added/clarified content to show the participation of slaves and free blacks from the rise of Baptists in the South in the colonial period, their establishing black congregations, and the ways in which Baptist preaching and practices changed in the nineteenth century, to make it more clear. Also, note that blacks left the SBC en masse after the Civil War to establish their own congregations, associations and conventions free of white control.Parkwells (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Name change
Southern baptist convention. Voted last week to change There name to Great Commision Baptist Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.205.78 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No they did not. They voted to create a new descriptor that individual churches could use if they wanted to. The name is still Southern Baptist Convention. Ltwin (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bible Version(s) used
Do Southern Baptists have a specific preference for a certain version of Bible translation? Currently the article says noting about that. --BjKa (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Southern Baptists include all kinds of persons. The last I knew there were liberal (modernist) southern baptists (modernists).  [Hint:  When the news media calls some religious group "moderate," translate that to "rank unbeliever."]  The SBC has been a really wide tent.  I doubt that there is any consensus on best translation in this group. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Not, speciffically, but the HCSB was paid for and published by the convention. Georgewashingtonshorse (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV
I changed "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church." All do not agree that the RCC is the Catholic Church. Many would say that everyone who trusts Christ as Savior & has been baptized into the one Body of Christ is the Catholic (universal) Church. Kindly refrain from edit warring over this. Someone reverted my edit. Also I changed "protestant" to "non-Roman Catholic" since some (possibly the majority of) baptists object to being called protestants. It is offensive to baptists to call them protestants, and it appears historically that they are not protestants. (EnochBethany (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC))
 * Get good refs and discuss here before making major changes to articles please. --HighKing (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, you are failing to make the distinction between catholic and Catholic. It may indeed be that the body of Christ is the catholic Church, but "Catholic Church", capitalized, is a proper noun, refering to a specific organization, not a general body of believers.
 * Second of all, wikipedia is not censored. Basically, this means that wikipedia could not care less if some people are offended.  It is not supposed to impact our decision making when it comes to how to edit or present an article.
 * And third, while an increasing amount of baptists are not being taught the history of their faith anymore, and thus fail to be taught that they are, indeed, protestants, that does not prove that they are not protestants. Even if not a single baptist on earth believed they were a protestant, we are not supposed to care.  We deal with reliable sources.Farsight001 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Chrislam - Does SBC support Rick Warren in this?
Subject: Chrislam (Combining Christianity with Moslem worship service)

Does the SBC support Rick Warren and The Purpose Driven Church? If so, why?

Does the SBC support Rick Warren in his promotion that says "doctrine is no longer necessary"

Does the SBC support Rick Warren's promotion that the Moslem's and the Christians worship the same God? If so, what Scripture supports this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruraptureready2 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

New church start
I am on the mission of starting a new church here where I live, and would like to know who and what department I would contact for financial assistance in securing a building for worship, please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choirboy2014 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * For starters, you could try contacting the Southern Baptist Convention's official website. This is an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has no connection to the Southern Baptist Convention what so ever. Ltwin (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for input: "Historic Baptist" teaching on Spirit baptism
Could editors knowledgeable about historical Baptist teachings on the baptism with the Holy Spirit please contribute to the relevant section of that article. An editor recently created this section but its sources seem to be drawn primarily from Landmark Baptist points of view. It would be great if we could have information from good, reliable sources representing the full range of non-charismatic Baptist churches for this section. Ltwin (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Southern Baptist Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120425053025/http://www.baptists4ethics.com/BB_PDFS/BB_apr30_2008.pdf to http://www.baptists4ethics.com/BB_PDFS/BB_apr30_2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100828103024/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-relSBC_07met.ART.West.Edition1.467b548.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-relSBC_07met.ART.West.Edition1.467b548.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wording of Disagreement over Slavery
I feel the statement at the top of the page:

The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from its having been founded and rooted in the Southern United States, following a split from northern Baptists over the issue of slavery; the specific issue was whether slave owners could serve as missionaries.

sensationalizes the issue. It reads to me almost as though the first part of this sentence exists to shed an overly-negative (and misleading) light on the church. "Slavery," in general, and "whether slave owners could serve as missionaries" are two distinct issues. I would propose changing this sentence to:

The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from its having been founded and rooted in the Southern United States, following a split from northern Baptists over the issue of whether slave owners could serve as missionaries.

I believe that would more correctly reflect history in terms of substance and tone.

Doorzki (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Southern Baptist Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061025102901/http://www.sbc.net:80/aboutus/pssanctity.asp to http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssanctity.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Evolving position on abortion
Okay I added a historical note in this regard where the subject was mentioned within the article. It was removed without comment. I've restored the info but have moved it to section re. conservative/moderate historical shift. Probably makes more sense there. Is perfectly sourced and the topic (abortion) is perhaps what SBC is best known for by general public & thus significant. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:B43D:3FE:C3A4:16BC (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who reverted it, but I did leave a comment in this edit summary: "Reverted good faith edit. The 1971 resolution is outdated, having been replaced by more staunchly pro-life pronouncements in the 1980s and '90s." The resolution reflects an historical position, but one that is outdated and should not be presented as the current consensus of the SBC. I'm fine with the resolution being discussed in the history section. Ltwin (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Southern Baptist Convention. 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/20070808071006/http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/faculty/morris/docmorrislee-baptist.pdf to http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/faculty/morris/docmorrislee-baptist.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)