User talk:MishMich/Homosexuality

In order to keep the project documentation clean and easy to refer to, please refrain from commenting directly into the section. A section has been reserved for the discussion of topics pertaining to the project documentation itself. This is necessary so that we may achieve unity in our common goal.

Background
The current article titled Homosexuality is in dire need of revision. It is extremely disorganized, visually unappealing and redundant in its content. Furthermore it is also too lengthy and broad in content to be properly viewed and assimilated.

In the current state, the article is greater than 105KB in size which spans over 28 printed pages.

It is my opinion that an encyclopedic article should be:


 * Visually appealing: An article should incite the user to read past the introduction;
 * Brief and thorough: Homosexuality is a very vast subject which is covered in detail across multiple pages. The main topic page should cover several aspects without offering explicit details;
 * Offer extended content: Clear and proper linkage to other pages is essential;
 * Objective: The article should remain objective and offer a neutral point of view.

Visual appeal The current article is very beige in nature and the table of content is difficult to navigate. The current layout does not incite people to read through. They are greeted by a very hostile introduction with no graphic content within the first fold. They are then subjected to a very disorganized TOC with very specialized terminology and concepts. This is not suitable for a main article.

Brief and thorough The article is very lengthy and not very to-the-point. It often digresses into very abstract topics and philosophizes on obscure subjects.

Extended content While there are several other very good articles on specific aspects of homosexuality, it is difficult to know this from the current page layout. The new article should reflect the existing, specialized content available in the encyclopedia.

Objective It is obvious that this article has been the battlegrounds for many editions throughout the years. Some articles are presented from a very straight point of view, other parts are presented from a very queer point of view. This article is to be presented to everyone. Homosexuals, scholars, kids in school, grandmothers, uneducated people, blind people (there are braille output devices), ... people from all ages, walks of life, educational backgrounds and sexual orientations. It is not proper to present homosexuality with a diametral opposition like this.

Proposition
I propose that we (homosexuals, anti-homosexuals, scientists, humanitarians, young and old, etc.) rewrite this article to be part of a global encyclopedia. I think that we all care about Wikipedia and its well being as a reference, thus we should try to create an article suited for what is now known as the de facto reference on the internet.

This will require from each and everyone of you to leave your opinions regarding homosexuality out. This is not a game, as encyclopedic editors we must preserve everyone's right to form their own opinions. This requires leaving ours out. This is not going to be an easy task and it will be lengthy. However I believe that we are able to create a very good article that will be able to properly inform people.

Project Draft
I suggest the following work methodology:


 * Creation of new subtopic pages;
 * Merging of information into existing pages;
 * Formatting and summarizing modified pages to make them more user-presentable;
 * Addition of summaries and links in related articles;
 * Revision of content for Homosexuality, and created pages.

Currently the task at hand is creating a clean outline for the homosexuality page, in removing some strenuous information. I recommend keeping it very clean and encyclopedic, with a strong focus on offering summarized information on the following points:


 * The definition, without interpretation, of homosexuality (the word);
 * An overview of the physiological aspects of homosexuality (the biology);
 * An overview of the psychology of homosexuality (possible psychological causes);
 * An overview of homosexual behavior in animals.

This simple page should present a very clear and concise introduction to homosexuality. With the addition of one or two other subsections it would be possible to maintain clarity while offering complete information to readers wishing to acquire in-depth knowledge of homosexuality on a variety of facets: medical, social, societal, historical.

I think that somewhere along the way, the current page on Homosexuality lost focus and became a soapbox rather than an encyclopedic resource. In my opinion, the goal of an encyclopedic article is not to shape people's opinions but rather to allow them to make their own.

I would also like to group subsections used for cross-linkage under one (perhaps two) sections, perhaps to be titled "Perspectives on Homosexuality", this section should offer views from many different scholarly standpoints: medical, historical, psychological, social, sociological, etc. which all already have very detailed articles.

Child pages
Two child pages have spawned from Homosexuality. History of homosexuality and Homosexuality in society.

History of homosexuality
The title is self-explanatory, really. This section was originally part of Homosexuality in society, however MishMich saw fit to move the history section into its own page.

Homosexuality in society
This section is to hold social aspects of homosexuality which are not directly relevant to the phenomenon. Currently the page includes information about demographics, laws, military service, LGBT parenting, relationships, homophobia and the like.

It has been argued that the page is redundant to Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, however the previous article has more of a political nature than a sociological one.

Project status
Currently the project requires more contributors. Attention was brought to it on the main talk page and the work in progress has been moved to the sandbox.

What has been done

 * Child pages have been created and major move operations were performed.

What is being done
The organization of the article is currently undergoing revision so as to eliminate redundant sections and group the information into a more logical manner.

What there is to do
After the main reorganization has occurred:


 * Parse and edit the main article text to offer greater seamlessness;
 * Merge certain over-elaborated information into their main pages and remove the strenuous information;
 * Add summaries and improve the overall layout of child-pages;
 * Ensure that links to other article pages concerning homosexuality are well presented in a consistent manner in the main article and child pages;
 * Edit the main article and child pages for content;
 * Add, modify or maintain links to the revised Homosexuality article and child pages from the other pages throughout Wikipedia.

Changes already brought
The article has been restored for the main wikipedia entry. It is thus easily comparable with the revised version presented in the sandbox. Please feel free to present your views and opinions on what has already been done.

Pdorion (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions
Some people may wish to offer suggestions during the course of this project without involving themselves directly. This section should allow these people to voice their concerns and offer criticism and encouragement.


 * When I rewrite an article, I tend not to use any material from the present article. I don't like the present version of the article to influence what I put in the rewritten version. I delete all prose. If there are good sources, I keep the sources. If the sources are rubbish, delete them. I suggest doing that here. Delete the prose, keep the sources. If you plan to use sources that are not already included in the article, list them at the bottom where the References section would be. Let the sources determine the outline of the article and how much weight each section gets. General textbooks or books about human sexuality will be the best guides for general outlines. Sections about specific issues will need more specific sources.


 * Once I get closer to being ready to post the rewrite, then I go back to the present article and re-read it to see if I may have missed anything. Most of the time I see I haven't missed much. Lots of stuff in articles can be filed in the wtf? section. Occasionally I find something in the present version of an article that I neglected to cover, or that is unsourced and could be easily cited. --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot singlehandedly rewrite this entire article; not only is this task too large for a single person, it is also unethical. Depending on the level of involvement this project receives will dictate whether the article is only revised with only minor adjustments to content or entirely rewritten.  I do believe that the article needs to be rebuilt from a clean slate, though for the aforementioned reasons simple renovations might have to do. Pdorion (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure what to tell you. I see Mish just plopped a huge section, just copied and pasted it into the Lesbian article, which I rolled back immediately, then he copied and pasted material from the Lesbian article into this sandbox. Mish, if you're reading this, don't fucking do that. First, it took an incredible amount of work to get the Lesbian article in some kind of comprehensible form. To dump material from one article into another is a fairly good reason why the Homosexuality article sucks so bad. Secondly, it's cheap and lazy. Go read the sources and write something original. Don't copy paste material from one article to another.
 * This kind of move is indicative that the people who watch this article are motivated by crisis and response. There seems to be no long-term thought, no planning, no cohesive idea about what to make of this article. Just knee-jerk reactions that hobble this one and apparently damage others as well. What's it going to take to get a dozen editors to have a single goal of constructing an original well-written article that is excellently sourced? I don't get it. And quite frankly, I don't know how to change it.
 * There's a lot that needs to be changed about this article. The first it seems, is the attitude of fixing Wikipedia with duct tape and Band-aids. Create a foundation of the best sources you can find. Build on them and then constantly, constantly, constantly add to the article. Rebuild. Repeat. It will not end. Just work toward a single goal. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, 'fuck' is profane and uncivil - and referring to me as 'he' is totally out of order. If you don't want the stuff in lesbianism, then toss it out.  I did work on this material myself, and argued quite strongly for it to be retained - but in the light of the cull that is now going on, it now seems way too long for this article as it is developing; so I figured it would be best to put it there and see whether it was wanted.  Obviously not, from what you say - but that is not a reason for you to be abusive - I get a bit sick of the way you people get voted in as admins, and then feel you can suspend the rules you expect other people to work under, and just act abusively and use profanity.  You are the second admin to do this with me, and the next time it happens I am taking it to WP:ANI.  I don't have enough time to do more than what I did, and have no desire to get embedded in the lesbianism article: I am emigrating to the other side of the world in two months, and am trying to tail off my editing.  You have sniffed around this article for long enough the way it is, so don't get iffy with me just because I am trying to help do something about it.
 * And yeah, band-aids and duct-tape is crap, but unfortunately there are so many articles like this, and they are all magnets for people wanting to push POVs and use as soapboxes, it rarely gets beyond firefighting to prevent that for a lot of us. That applies both to people who are positive and negative about queer stuff - (this also happens in other areas, including computing & music).  The main difference with queer stuff is that the standards tend to have to be somewhat higher, because every statement will be challenged and argued with, and requiring to be conformed to Wiki sourcing standards - that is why so much gets long-winded, because it gets edit-warred over, and ends up a juggling act with different perspectives backed up by WP:RS.  A few of us try to make sure that articles like this are not all about how God says queer people are a bunch of wicked ungodly perverts, sorry if you find that effort pointless. Mish (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll take a break for six months again, and you and your admin chums can do some work stopping the fundamentalists 'improving' the LGBT studies articles before they start - how about that? Then I can come back and start to do some real constructive editing instead, which is actually what I came here for. Mish (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not acting as an admin, just a fucking editor. I'm acting as someone who took a month and a half to write an article, and who watches this nonsensical flurry of activity just bewildered by what it is you think you're accomplishing. To be honest, I have a significant problem with WP:LGBT because this is the way they operate. Rush to an article, put some tape on it, then vehemently defend the indefensible on a talk page. No thought about proper content or sources. Unfortunately, they're not the only project to do this. This is the way Wikipedia works as a whole. You just made 15 edits to the sandbox I'm guessing without even cracking a book. Your offense at my swearing is no match for how appalled I am at the hatchet job you did on the content in Lesbian.


 * Ok. Enough. I swear like a sailor and I have no patience anymore for some of the same shit that's been going on Wikipedia for years. I recognize this. But ok...there is a bigger picture here. Is this article going to get rewritten or not? If so, the editors who watch this article need to have a single goal in mind and work together towards it. Everyone needs to understand it's going to take a long time. The short version is 6 months. Libraries have to be consulted. Many books and articles have to be read. The sources will determine what goes where and how much weight each issue is given, not impulsive edits that look kinda good now. Rearranging anything at this point is laughably premature. This article is awful and everyone in WP:LGBT should be ashamed of it. Everyone on Wikipedia should be ashamed of it. A dozen or more editors working with their own agendas will only make it worse. Either a dedicated group of editors works to rewrite it, seriously, with the highest standards in mind, or there is simply no point in wasting time trying to improve something that will be taken apart by editors who have no idea what they're doing. So what are we doing here? Discuss the article here and my pisspoor personality on my talk page. I'm ok with that. ANI too. --Moni3 (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * TBH, I didn't do a literature review on aspects of this stuff to hear somebody chirp 'go to a library and read some books'. I have plenty of those in the next room - two out of six of my bookcases are full of this stuff.  The problem is, none of that stuff is relevant when somebody is blinkered and pushes for a single source to dominate the article (for some it is the Amicus, for others it is the Bible), or who wipes all the social section out because he's a scientist and doesn't see the relevance.  TBH, there doesn't need to be an article of any depth here - it is all said elsewhere in specific articles.  All that is needed is a series of sections pointing to the articles that deal with each sub-topic, and a thread of prose binding them all together.  There were plenty of sources, they have all been shifted out of the article, along with the text that went with them.  I agree that it would take months to re-write this properly - but why bother?  Homosexuality is a 6-lane pile-up.  Cut it to the bone, and let anybody who wants to push a POV go find a sub-article to soapbox on (if they can be bothered).  At least that way it will concentrate most of that kind of thing to one or two articles, and free everybody up from having to bother with one about an archaic medical term that is mainly of historic interest (oh yes, that got shunted out as well...).Mish (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you really believe this article can be skeletonized and the information shifted to subarticles? If so, maybe it would be better for you to let this article get rewritten and summarize what it says for the subarticles. It's quite clear that readers don't go to subarticles despite the fact that they may be better written, not only in articles involving homosexuality but all kinds of topics. Homosexuality gets on average 5,500+ hits a day. Homosexuality and psychology 160, Biology and sexual orientation 450, LGBT parenting 120, Societal attitudes toward homosexuality 160, and on and on. It makes no sense to remove information from this article if readers are coming here. They simply won't go elsewhere. If you don't know why it's worth it to bother and the post you made above isn't rhetoric, then...let someone rewrite this article and don't interfere. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Do you really believe this article can be skeletonized and the information shifted to subarticles?" No, and that is not what I was saying. What I was saying was that for almost every section in this article, THERE IS AN ARTICLE ALREADY.  No point re-inventing the wheel.  Why write and edit war over Conversion therapy here, when we already have a perfectly good article for edit warring over Sexual orientation change efforts?  Ditto for Homosexuality and religion, and so on.  When such articles already exist, then what we should be doing is presenting a brief summary of those articles - not composing (or editing) a section that may even contradict the content of the articles linked to.  That way, medical scientists will be able to edit articles that their expertise is more relevant to, and not have to concern themselves with social aspects of the topic - and social scientists will not have to concern themselves with the persistent attempts to present social issues in terms of sociobiological determinism, and excluding any actual real sociological perspectives that go beyond 'duh, its all in the genes, dude'... Mish (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a main article. There are dozens of specialized pages relating to homosexuality and it is my opinion that the present page could serve as an overview and as a portal to those other pages.  One should be able to form an opinion of homosexuality and be properly informed while only viewing a single page.  I do not believe that the 5,500+ people who view the Homosexuality page every day read through the entire article as-is, therefore those are 5,500 people daily who are not able to form a proper opinion of homosexuality.  In the very least this article is to be edited, in the very best this article is to be rewritten from scratch.  The objective is to treat homosexuality broadly because those 5,500 people are not all homosexuals doing soul searching, they are the general population and don't necessarily want to read about obscure topics.  This is an encyclopedic article, not myspace.com/homosexuals.  Pdorion (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the article is not to help people 'form an opinion'. It should simply provide information from WP:RS in a neutral and balanced way. Mish (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

HIV
In regards to the request for suggestions on the outline I wanted to suggest adding a section on HIV as it relates to Homosexuality. A Google search on Homosexual and HIV returns 9,530,000 hits (while, for comparison sake, a search on Homosexual and Parenting returns just 310,000 hits). Hoping To Help (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that homosexuality is often associated with HIV and demographically a larger proportion of the the homosexual population is infected, thus making homosexuals more "at risk". This does warrant attention however it is more of a social factor.  Mention should be made in the present article, perhaps along with public health and a more detailed brief should be presented in the Homosexuality in society page, linking to the main article on HIV.  Pdorion (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And one challenge with this article is to address the similarities and differences between male and female homosexuality on the various topics. While the male homosexual population has a much, much higher prevalence of HIV than the general population -- the female homosexual population has a much lower prevalence of HIV than the general population. And then there is how HIV/AIDS has affected the two populations socially and politically. Hoping To Help (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The connection with HIV is prinarily a western issue. In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV is a much more serious problem than in the west, and there it is primarily a heterosexual problem. Mish (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a more accurate characterization is that in Sub-Saharan Africa HIV is *additionally* a serious problem among heterosexuals. It is still a *more* serious problem among male homosexuals. As several reliable sources state, in some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa the HIV rate is 10 times greater for male homosexuals than in the general male population. Here is a link to the BBC quoting a peer reviewed medical journal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8158469.stm


 * This is an article about homosexuality and so the focus needs to be on what homosexuality is, how homosexuality is perceived, how things affect homosexuality, and how homosexuality affects the rest of the world, etc. The article on South Africa has three paragraphs on how HIV is impacting South Africa. It doesn't add "But HIV is really, really bad in India too..." That just sounds defensive, non-encyclopedic, and not relevant to an article on South Africa.


 * We can mention the HIV rate among heterosexuals in Sub-Saharan Africa -- but when we do we need to make the *explicit* connection for the reader of how this is relevant to the discussion of homosexuality. And do it in a way that doesn't come off as defensive. Hoping To Help (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess what I am getting at is more to do with the way it effects africa. Interestingly, in Africa, the figure is 1:10, where we state in the article it is 1:60.  In terms of the people affected, in the USA the gay male population is hit hardest.  However, in africa, a figure of 1:10 will mean that in terms of public health, the effect on societies as a whole will be greater in terms of heterosexual people, assuming that the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is greater than 10:1.  No research since Kinsey has shown homosexuality to be higher than 5% in the west, and if we are to believe the claims of african leaders, homosexuality is less prevalent than in the west.  So, the problem will be more serious amongst heterosexuals in africa, because there will be at least twice as many heterosexual people affected than gay people - and probably more.  This is very different to the USA, where very few heterosexual people are affected.  It is a digression really, but if you are saying that HIV is an issue specific to homosexuality, that needs to be qualified this applies in the west, while in other countries, the numbers of people who are gay and affected by HIV are lower than the numbers who are heterosexual. Mish (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're completely right. So in the South African article it makes sense to focus on discussing HIV in the heterosexual population. But the problem isn't "more serious among heterosexuals" -- it is more serious *among* homosexuals. But as you point out, since homosexuals are such a small percentage of the population they have a much smaller impact on the country. But homosexuals (and their rate if HIV infection) has a big impact on the homosexual community. And this article is on homosexuality.


 * I'm not saying that HIV is an issue that only affects homosexuals. I am saying that the HIV section of THIS article should *focus* on how HIV affects homosexuality. And right now the article comes across as defensive and non-encyclopedic in the way it includes so much general information about HIV (things that people can read about in the HIV article itself) and so little information that is specifically about how HIV impacts homosexuality.


 * I'm also saying that I know of no region of the world were HIV isn't *more* prevalent in the male homosexual population than in the male heterosexual population. But maybe I'm wrong. If there is documentation on large male homosexual communities that are unaffected by HIV we should definitely include that. And we can also include how the HIV prevalence rates differ by region and how that impacts homosexuality.


 * I think we mainly agree. I just think the current article would be improved by focusing on how HIV affects homosexuality -- and leaving other HIV related issues to other articles. Hoping To Help (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I'm wrong. It's the Men who have sex with men article that comes across as defensive by spending lots of space talking about HIV in general but not that much space discussing HIV issues that are particular to MSM.


 * This article on homosexuality takes a different tack of ignoring the elephant in the room and barely mentioning HIV. Currently, there is just one short paragraph that mentions HIV. And interestingly, 6 citations that are used in *other* paragraphs mention HIV in the citation itself -- but none of those other paragraphs mention HIV. Hoping To Help (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mish, I think you bring up a good area to be covered in the article. How in the West HIV/AIDS is generally *believed* to be mainly/exclusively a white male homosexual issue -- whereas, in Sub-Saharan Africa it is *believed* to mainly/exclusively be a black heterosexual issue. And then describe how this impacts the homosexual population. The BBC article above states that men in Sub-Saharan Africa think they can only get HIV from having sex with women and that having sex with men is safe. This belief along with homosexuality being illegal makes it hard for homosexuals to get support and education around HIV. Hoping To Help (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS section and proposed sub-sections
For all the reasons listed above I'd like to propose that HIV/AIDS be a top level section in this article. HIV/AIDS has had a huge impact on most homosexual communities over the past 30 years. While the current article only has two short sentences that mention HIV and none that mention AIDS. This makes many other sections of the article seem WP:UNDUE by comparison.

I'm not saying that HIV/AIDS doesn't impact non-homosexual communities and individuals -- it clearly does. I'm just saying that in addition to having impacts elsewhere HIV/AIDS has had a large affect on issues related to homosexuality.

I propose the following outline sections for the article. Each section would discuss issues as they relate to the way HIV/AIDS has impacted homosexuality -- not the issue in general:


 * 1) HIV/AIDS
 * Statistics
 * Causes (a discussion of the different theories of why HIV has a high prevalence in many/most male homosexual communities and a very low prevalence in female homosexual communities)
 * Politics/Community
 * Public Health

Hoping To Help (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The section appears to have changed somewhat from how it was a year ago.  I don't know when or why this was altered, as I was not active for several months, when this was changed.  The weight there seems about right.  However, the place to deal with health issues affecting lesbian and gay people belongs in an article about that.  Currently this is dealt with in several places: [LGBT health#Issues affecting gay men], [AIDS], [HIV], Men who have sex with men#HIV/AIDS]] and another article would be the best places to deal with this, not the main article on homosexuality.  Given the effect HIV/AIDS had on the gay male community, and the publicity about it, I'd have thought there was an argument for constructing a stand-alone article on the subject, and this could be linked to from other articles which touch on this.  There is a lot of disparate information, but it is spread around several articles at the moment.  Given the cull now in progress, to expand the coverage of one issue affecting gay men here would be WP:UNDUE. Mish (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that a standalone article on the subject of gay men and HIV would be a good idea. And given that the homosexuality article is being pared down we probably don't need the multiple sub-sections. But having in this article at least 2-3 solid paragraphs directly addressing gay males and HIV/AIDS makes sense. The old copy you link to still has hardly info on HIV/AIDS  -- even though it is an extremely long article. It only has two short sentences that mention HIV.  One of them is this:


 * Critics charge that political correctness has led to the association of sex between males and HIV being downplayed.


 * I think the above sentence is pointing out what has been going on in wikipedia articles in general. Hoping To Help (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a POV, which was included. The problem I guess is that there is an avoidance of any synthesis that seeks to link homosexuality with HIV - as in 'gay plague', for fairly good reasons.  It does not stand up to scrutiny when looking for WP:RS.  It is no more possible to associate HIV with being gay than it is with being African or of African descent (people who are over-represented in the pandemic).  This is different from sickle-cell anaemia, which is found predominantly among people of African descent.  So certainly, an article that focuses on how HIV was first identified within the gay community, how the media tried to portray this as having something intrinsic to do with homosexuality, but how it existed outside the gay community before it was identified, and how it is a global epedemic which happens to have hit the gay community hardest initially, and how it was the gay community that worked to re-direct research priorities in a way that would actually help gay men and others who would become affected.  That could be covered in its own article.  But I see no reason for giving it any special emphasis on this page.  The page to look at to demonstrate this would be African people, where you find no mention of sickle-cell disease - however, if you look at the page for Sickle-cell disease, it is quite clear that it is mostly people from Africa and places in proximity to it, and the descendants of people from Africa in countries like the USA who are affected.  There is every reason for saying something, but I am unclear that there needs to be any detail here, beyond a few short lines.  I guess a parallel would be Vaginosis - it is mentioned under Lesbianism, but not in any great detail.  I would not expect vaginosis to be dealt with in an article about homosexuality, nor methamphetamine - just because it is popular amongst some gay men - the topic is homosexuality, not gay men and gay sex (although for some strange reason there is a redirect for Gay sex to this page, presumably because nobody has written that yet - apart from a draft I began to construct in a sandbox).  If you follow the link to gay men, you end up at the Men who have sex with men page; that does seem a better place to locate stuff that does not affect the majority of people classified as homosexual - or the page on LGBT health issues. Mish (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)