Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions

Here [4] is the discussion that brought me to this talk page. The point I'm trying to make is, sites on the list of reliable sources don't always put out accurate information. More importantly, they may inject their opinions into the information they put out. However, from what I've been told, according to Wikipedia policy, anything that these sources say can be posted on Wikipedia as reliable information, regardless of how incorrect it may be (see the link I provided for an example of "reliable sources" spreading misinformation.) This is clearly a flaw in policy, as Wikipedia's mission is to provide fact-based information. I propose a change. Change the policy, so that only verifiable facts can be pulled from RS, and opinions/beliefs must be clearly indicated (i.e. instead of reading, "The sun is green" it would read, "Mainstream news sources claim that the sun is green") 104.148.178.88 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand Wikipedia. The only way this place is able to function at all is by putting authority in reliable sources rather than in what anonymous editors think. See also WP:Verifiability not truth. But yes, sources must be accurately summarized, and if something is opinion it can be only used for good reason, and with attribution. This guideline discusses that as do the various policies - see WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with above. It looks like your real dispute is with WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Too bad. Those are non-negotiable core policies of the Wikipedia project. Editors who fail to conform their edits to those policies don't remain editors for long. Reliable sources have more formal publication processes --- that's how they're distinguished from unreliable ones --- and as a result, they are often slow to correct themselves, even when they publish clearly incorrect information.

For example, I was irritated to realize after the fact that an article I had cited to had incorrectly stated that the balcony scenes at the operations center in the Westworld TV series were filmed at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood. (Other scenes in the operations center were filmed there, but not the balcony scenes.) Unfortunately, that was the only article available at the time that discussed where those particular scenes were filmed. And the fan Web sites that posted the correct information could not be cited under WP:RS. A few months later, I discovered an article published by the magazine of the local cinematographers' union that correctly indicated that the balcony scenes were filmed at the Skirball Cultural Center. At that time, I was able to add a citation to that article and thereby correct the Westworld article.

That lag behind reality that results from Wikipedia core policies can be intensely frustrating at times, but the test of time has shown that it is the only way to keep a user-edited encyclopedia from being overrun by pure fiction and misinformation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in the sense that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of Wikipedia's editing policy. But I can tell you, I've used Wikipedia as a source of information for many years, and I never thought I'd see one-sided opinions presented as reliable information. Wikipedia was always a neutral point-of-view, but recently I've seen a shift toward opinion-based writing, and editors are using these "reliable sources" as a way to justify the spread of misinformation. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coolcaesar; those are good things to know. Of course I figured the policy had a good meaning behind it, but I wanted to at least address the flaws I've been noticing. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with what you're saying is that it's wrong: Wikipedia doesn't treat all generally reliable sources as if they are 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Ideally, we will take multiple reliable sources which covered the same subject from the same perspective (by 'perspective', I mean for example: articles which endeavor to lay out all the facts and claims about Pizzagate; articles which endeavor to show the impact Pizzagate has had on the public or articles which endeavor to show the impact Pizzagate has had on the people involved) and only state as fact claims which they have all made, or at best, claims which the majority have made and the remainder not disagreed with. In the case of Pizzagate, all reliable sources written about it from the perspective of addressing the truthfulness of the accusations has concluded that they are untrue and have been debunked, so we report them as untrue and having been debunked.

In many situations, we take into account things like the political positions of the source, the date and time of the creation of the source, the level of investigative work put into the source, etc. Even with peer-reviewed scientific papers, we look at things like sample size, authorship, publication details, experiment structure, controls and many other aspects. We use what we can discern of those things to inform our judgement as to what parts of the source are reliable for what claims, and in what ways. There are a large number of academic papers published showing that, for example, acupuncture is 100% effective in treating every condition it was tested for, in 100% of patients, with an incredible difference from placebo in terms of effect size. But we don't report this as fact, even though "peer-reviewed, published scientific papers" are a group of sources we consider generally reliable. Why? Because these studies stem from locations in which bad science runs rampant. Because these studies are poorly structured, with small sample sizes. Because these structures disagree with more well-structured studies showing no difference between acupuncture and placebo.

We do not ever (well, I'm sure some editors do, but they shouldn't) declare a specific source, such as NPR to be reliable and then take everything they say as the gospel truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is ideal, but I have seen several cases of the exact opposite, particularly with anything in the current left-right political bickering. I've seen several cases of BLP/N posts where because a predominate number of RSes have opted to label a right-leaning person as "white supremacist" despite the person having declared otherwise or other contrary statements from others, that that leads editors to have WP say, factually, the person is a white supremacist. Editors frequency use RS policy as well ad WEIGHT and UNDUE to eliminate discussion of contrary viewpoints that may not be covered in RSes, or more often in cases its reasonable easy to see that the RSes are engaging in opinionated journalism and not objectively covering all reasonable viewpoints. If we were doing this right, we'd be able to have discussions that compare what RSes are saying to the situation at large, and figure out how to write about what the RSes say to stay within WP:V but without allowed the weight of their opinion to take over and violate NPOV (eg, the concepts of what is in WP:YESPOV). But editors frequently love to shut out that type of discussion, and go "if it is in RSes, it must be fact; if RSes don't mention it, it can't be true". This closed-mindedness leads to echo chamber formation and walled gardens for some of our articles. I know we can't go "but the truth is..." with unreliable sources, but we can at least avoid excessive coverage of a seemingly uncontested opinion and tempering statements from RSes that seem contentious as attributed claims rather than stating them as facts in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several cases of BLP/N posts where because a predominate number of RSes have opted to label a right-leaning person as "white supremacist" despite the person having declared otherwise "White supremacist" is a label that can be quite contentious. In common parlance, it is even often used as an insult. This example actually evinces my point: Normally, a person would be the absolute best, most reliable source for what their views are. But when there is strong evidence that they misrepresent what their views are when questioned about them, we go with the views that have the best evidence. The fact that a person can simultaneously understand that "white supremacist" is a bad thing, yet still hold white supremacists views might seem ridiculous until you consider that all people understand that "self-centered and arrogant" is a bad thing, yet many people have self-centered and arrogant views. Such people who deny their white supremacist views don't think of themselves as white supremacist, they generally think of themselves (and often refer to themselves) as 'race realists'. Of course, the problem is that the 'evidence' they cite to support their 'realist' views is generally false and strongly biased towards white people (a nebulous enough term as it is) being superior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that a person can deny they are a white supremacist, and at the same time the bulk of RS sources call them a white supremacist due to actions. That's completely acceptable and identifies a controversy. The problem that I've seen at BLP/N is that editors argue that because the bulk of RS sources call that person a white supremacist and none reflect on the counterclaims, then (by this argument) there is no controversy and we should call that person factually in WP's voice as one. That should not be happening if we are being neutral if we're simply trying to document a situation. We can fairly acknowledge a predominate number of sources call that person a supremacist as a attributed claim, per WP:YESPOV, and should include where the person has countered that label also as an attributed claim. This is part of documenting the controversy, which requires more care when the media itself engages in the controversy. (This would not be an issue for a truly objective media but that doesn't exist anymore). This is the types of problems that currently exist across the board because editors want to shut down discussion to anything that is not contained within RSes. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address more of the OP: I would suggest that the trend you have been seeing is not an artifact of Wikipedia changing it's methods, but of the public POV shifting towards one in which political polarization is broader and more common. Many of the things you see as opinion are not, actually opinions. One example of this is 'pseudoscience'. Numerous editors have opined that referring to something as pseudoscience is an opinion, and as such should be struck from WP. But 'pseudoscience' has a very clear definition. If a subject 1) pretends to be science, and 2) doesn't actually use the scientific method, then it's pseudoscience. Intelligent design is the ur-example of pseudoscience, because it takes creationism (a theological belief) and wraps it in the language and pretenses of science. It's not actually scientific (the fundamental postulate is unfalsifiable), but it clearly pretends to be.

Another thing worth pointing out is that WP itself IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. WP makes no claims about being reliable, and should not be used as a reference in any professional capacity. WP is intended as a compendium of human knowledge that can provide a quick look into any subject, and give you a place to begin learning about it. It's not intended to be the definitive arbitrator of facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia doesn't treat all generally reliable sources as if they are 100% accurate" From what I've gathered, even incorrect information from RS can be posted to Wikipedia as reliable information. My point is, that policy could only work if reliable sources were 100% accurate, which of course, they are not. I'm not saying you, or other editors, take everything from RS as fact. I'm saying Wikipedia policy is based around that idea. Which is undeniably true. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just explained how WP works with respect to that. We don't treat all generally reliable sources as if they were 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Nor does our policy permit it (I would like to point out that WP:IAR is a policy page, not a guideline). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your intelligent design example is irrelevant. I've seen clear-cut opinions that can be easily debunked posted on Wikipedia. You would be a liar to say that these opinions are not "actually opinions" 104.148.178.88 (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but you provide no examples so.... Who's the liar, again? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just explained that according to WP policy, incorrect information from RS can be posted. Therefore, the policy will only work to provide correct information if the sources are correct 100% of the time. Of course WP policy doesn't openly state that everything taken from RS is taken as 100% accurate, but it's implied through the policy. Do you understand?

There is an example at the top of my original post. To claim that Infowars is fake news is an opinion, no matter how you define fake news. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have "explained" nothing that I haven't specifically addressed. You claim that incorrect information from reliable sources can be free posted in the face my explanation that we do all we can to avoid this. Can it happen? Yes. But unreliable information can be posted from unreliable sources. Articles can have their entire contents replaced with "my lil brudda luvs big black dick". Just because something can happen doesn't mean that WP is okay with it happened. This is the reason we have editors, rather than simply having bots that aggregate RSes; for our editors to actually use their best judgement to weed out unreliable sources and inaccurate claims from reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean, but correct me if I'm wrong. The whole point of having a list of approved sources is so that Anonymous editors don't have the power to decide what is reliable and what isn't. But that power is exactly what they are given when they are allowed to decide which information from the sources is reliable or not. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of approved sources, and sources which are generally considered reliable can be rejected for certain usages. The basis for all of this is community consensus: if the majority of editors agree that a source is reliable for a claim, we will treat it as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That completely defeats the purpose of having sources at all, if Anonymous editors can simply decide which sources are reliable. The policy is clearly flawed if I'm seeing inaccurate information on Wikipedia pages. 104.148.178.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, we are not the Encyclopedia Britannica. We are Wikipedia, and we have staked our mission on the hypothesis that a large number of dedicated editors working together can prove to be just as accurate as a handful of paid experts being consulted by an encyclopedia staff. Also, we only have your own assertion that you have found inaccurate information. I could just as easily suggest that you have found accurate information which you are ideologically opposed to accepting as true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my post below, "The burden of proof does not rest on me to disprove something posted on Wikipedia. The editor made the claim that Infowars is fake news, and it's their burden to prove such a claim. They have not provided sufficient evidence that Infowars is fake news." 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof does not rest on me to disprove something posted on Wikipedia. When you disagree with reliable sources it absolutely does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that wp:ver & wp:RS overemphasize some reliable source metrics, and are missing others such as:

• competence / expertise with respect to the topic / statement that cited them
• objectivity with respect to the topic / statement that cited them

As a result, actually-reliable sources are often excluded, and sources that are un-reliable with respect to the topic at hand often considered "reliable sources" North8000 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS actually addresses both of these things explicitly. I'm not sure why you think we're missing those criteria. WP:SELFPUB explicitly states that acknowledged experts writing on a subject can be cited, regardless of how they're published. The issue of neutrality is addressed in WP:WPNOTRS, where secondary sources are defined as having characteristics of neutrality. WP:SECONDARY addresses this further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it is still very weak on the two points I listed. For example, the section on biased sources at first blush seems to say the opposite. It makes a valid point that biased sources can contain useful or reliable material, but in making only that point, it seems to say the opposite of "objectivity with respect to the topic / statement that cited them" North8000 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it is still very weak on the two points I listed. I think I agree with that much, however you missed my point about the bias: one of the major reasons we require secondary sources is to avoid bias. We don't let the subjects of BLPs edit their own articles (as a rule), for example. That being said, I can agree that we should spend more time comparing the expertise of different, nominally reliable sources, and taking the POV of sources into account when determining their reliability for a specific claim. For example, I find the Huffington Post to be generally reliable for political news, but I would read anything they said about right-wing politicians very closely and double check some claims before using them to support a claim about a right-wing politician. Other editors don't seem nearly as inclined to do so, though I wish there were a policy I could point to that says something like "Sources with a widely-recognized POV should be given less weight in discussions about their reliability for claims which fall under the purview of their POV than sources with no widely-recognized POV or sources whose widely-recognized POV does not encompass the claims in question." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that a part of the solution is structural.....i.e. "with respect to the item which is citing it". I think that this concept is generally included in your post, but I think that a good answer is at a more specific level...objectivity and competence on the exact statement which is citing it. For example, a biased source meeting the most prominent wp:rs criteria may have accurate, objective researched information on John Smith in one paragraph (and be a good rs for an article statement on that) and then in the next sentence say "John Smith is a XYZ" where "XYZ" is a negative very subjective term. My "more specific" idea would be that the source is not reliable as a reference for a "John Smith is a XYZ" statement in a WP article.North8000 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is obviously breaking some local speed limit in how fast it's going no where, and it may be best to start winding things down before someone gets a ticket. The chances of us changing RS guidelines to be more fair to Pizzagate or Infowars is somewhere between zero and no. I don't think anyone is going to try to assert that even the most reliable sources don't occasionally make mistakes. That is what being reliable means: you have demonstrated a systemic reputation for making comparatively little mistakes...not none at all.

If someone thinks we're being unfair to their pet theory or pet "news" outlet, too bad. We're not overhauling the project to keep a few precious snowflakes from melting. If they don't like it, Conservapedia is that way, and I'm sure they'll be more even handed with whole thing than the stuck-up godless liberals around these parts. TimothyJosephWood 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even watch Infowars. But as I've stated, I expect a neutral point-of-view when I come to Wikipedia. That is my only problem with the policy. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are people here having a good faith discussion for the good of Wikipedia who should not be receiving the accusations that Timothyjosephwood is making. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there's nothing stopping you and I (who seem to be having a reasonable discussion) from continuing in a new thread. The issue seems to be that the IP editor has what appears to be a very clear mistrust of mainstream media, and whose views align with those who tend to think Infowars is reliable (fake or not; it's completely unreliable) and that Pizzagate is true. Whether that is the case or whether it seems to be the case, the arguments being presented have been addressed reasonably, but those responses have -for the most part- been rejected in favor of repeating the initial claims. That's a hallmark of a discussion that's not going anywhere. Note: The text in red was added after I saw that the initial statement I made was inaccurate. I believe the red text makes it accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate those accusations. For the record, I don't think that Pizzagate is true, and I do trust mainstream media, but when the MSM makes an opinion, I don't believe it should be posted on Wikipedia as reliable information. Please try to portray my views in a fairer light. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bud, but this is a fairly transparent attempt to conflate as "mainstream news" with "reliable source," and the entire conversation could be summarized as: go and actually read our policy on WP:RS, before you start a conversation trying to change it, because literally every point that has been brought up is already addressed in the policy. TimothyJosephWood 17:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the example I provided, you'll see that the only "reliable sources" provided are mainstream news sites, and the information provided was inaccurate. The policy is flawed. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only evidence we have that the information is incorrect is your assertion. I might remind you that you, yourself have just criticized the ability of anonymous editors to accurately reflect reality. I would suggest that you should stop forgetting that you are one of these anonymous editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof does not rest on me to disprove something posted on Wikipedia. The editor made the claim that Infowars is fake news, and it's their burden to prove such a claim. They have not provided sufficient evidence that Infowars is fake news. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the only "reliable sources" provided are mainstream news sites ...and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not a bug; it's a feature. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're okay with misinformation being posted on Wikipedia, as long as it comes from the MSM? Good to know. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is grounded in the real world; if you live in a world where infowars is real news and the NYT is fake news, Wikipedia is not the place for you. This thread will be closed soon. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never made such claims. Please do not portray my arguments dishonestly. In the real world, news stations have their own opinions that don't belong on an objective encyclopedia. If you believe that it's okay for Wikipedia to have misinformation and one-sided claims, then we simply have different ideas for what Wikipedia is supposed to be. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, this should be closed, because it is a complete waste of time, in case I haven't made my opinion on that matter abundantly clear already. TimothyJosephWood 17:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not responded to my counter-argument, are you saying that I'm right? As I've stated, a reputation for accuracy does not guarantee accuracy, and we can see this when Infowars is labelled as fake news on a Wikipedia page. It's a claim with no support. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fairly well like your concerns have all been addressed already. That you fail to listen or comprehend does not constitute an obligation on anyone else's part to continue making the same points in response to the same objections. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Your counter-argument was addressed by me, explicitly and in detail in my very first comment in this thread. It's time for you to accept that this particular equine mode of transportation has been sufficiently physically chastised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to explain why it's okay to spread misinformation on Wikipedia, using WPRS as justification. If you can't address that simple point, it's clear you are just avoiding the discussion because you don't have a response. 104.148.178.88 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing guarantees accuracy. We know this. Unfortunately, the option of not using a "reputation" would be to have us here at wikipedia basically have to do an article-by-article RS review of every publication out there, including the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, etc etc etc. We don't have the time, people, or I think inclination for that. And we have found more than some cases when sources which generally meet RS do not in specific instances. What seems to me to be the bulk of the contention here, however, is not about those sources which meet RS in general, but those which don't or which might have WEIGHT problems in some articles, particularly in comparison to some sources which do generally more clearly meet RS standards. That situation, honestly, can arise a lot. The best thing I think we can hope for there is something like WP:EVENTUALISM, which is to say, eventually we will have some highly regarded reference work which in some way deals with these topics, and then we will have a clear precedent of exactly how to deal with it. And, yes, it may well be that at that time, or maybe even before it, certain individual sources will be found to be reliable or unreliable which today are considered otherwise. Until then, though, we can probably come closest to meeting the first of our five pillars as per WP:PILLAR by basically using the sources we think are either directly or indirectly used by other encyclopedia-type reference works or which, in general, say things similar to them. That's still a long way from being perfect, but no one ever said any encyclopedia was perfect either. Having said that, if you have clear evidence of specific misinformation being spread, and exactly why it is misinformation, I think most people would be willing to address that directly. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one thinks that any source is 100% reliable. No one denies that WP:IAR can be selectively used for the good of the project. So, are there any suggestions for the improvement of this guideline? Else I don't see the point of having reopened this discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't participate in it. Go find a discussion you think is worthwhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presently don't have time to document what I've come to find, but core to improving this is understanding that there are RSes that are fine for including facts to meet WP:V, there are a broader set of RSes that are fine for including opinions to meet NPOV but not V, and there's the whole set of sources that are necessary to understand a controversial topic before we should be engaging in what viewpoints to present per NPOV/UNDUE, particularly if it is an ongoing topic that lacks years of understanding of what is actually going on. In otherwords, RS presently right now can be used to block discussions of how to properly document a controversy if one requires that only information from V-meeting RSes be allowed to be discussed. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant summary. North8000 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that doing a logical cleanup and adding clarity to the "context matters" and "biased or opinionated sources" sections would do a lot of good. If they said with clarity and precision that it is knowlegability and objectivity with respect to the precise statement which is citing it. that would do a lot of good. . For example, let's say a major respected newspaper with political leanings hates John Smith. If John Smith got busted for streaking on 3/31/98, they would be an objective and reliable source a statement that such happened. If based on that they said John Smith is a pervert, they would not be objective or knowledgeable for making such an assessment, and would not be an RS for the statement "John Smith is a pervert". North8000 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arcive bottom