Talk:Chris Kempling

Article changes

1. Re-word "concern" to "disdain"

The use disdain is used in place of concern because Mr. Kempling's words clearly evince a strongly negative reaction to homosexuality. He regards it as "perverse" and "immoral". That is hardly "concern", but clearly "disdain".

2. APA statement on conversion therapy

The article does not provide any balance on the issue of conversion therapy. Kempling contends that "the success rate for those who seek help is high". If we let this quote remain, then the reader assumes that Kempling's statement is true. It is necessary to provide a competing opinion to ensure neutrality.

3. Calgary Herald article info.

The Calgary Herald does not describe his essay this way, but rather one of its columnists does. Furthermore, it is necessary to provide the context in which this was stated. The columnist clearly shares Kempling's views and has a political bias; necessary to display that this assessment is not coming from a neutral party. The quotes from the article are necessary to provide context.Mft1 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've asked you before in other article talk pages where you stalk me, please put your new comments at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Kempling has stated he has gay friends, etc. Disdain is putting words in his mouth and is just unnecessary. I doubt you have even read the original letters. You are right we don't discuss the pros and cons of conversion therapy because this is not the place to debate it. People can click on the link and read all they want about it. There can be no compromise allowing the addition of biases against a living person in Wikipedia per policy, and furthermore the edits do not add anything useful. Deet (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to work towards making Wikipedia better as per its policies. I am not "stalking" you. Please refer to the following explanations for the edits that I have just made:

"There is an an active debate about whether or not conversion therapy is effective or harmful. The majority of major U.S. mental health organizations do not advocate conversion therapy."

I have replaced the previous statement of the APA with a brief synopsis of the conversion therapy debate. Readers should be provided at least minimal context.

"The parties involved felt Kempling was created a hostile and discriminatory environment for gay and lesbian students at his school."

This was the complaint put forward by those who objected to Kempling's behavior. There are no grounds to remove it. Kempling's position is stated in this article, so should the position of the other parties involved.

There is no evidence available that there is any appeal pending to the UNHCR. It is necessary to articulate the editorial position of the columnist to understand the comments. There is no need to remove them.Mft1 (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think that inevitably the way forward when there are disagreements like this is to isolate the issues to a few at a time. I have tried to remove the 'concern' vs. 'disdain' issue by a different formulation. Bucketsofg 21:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• On the question of the value of conversion therapy, it seems to me that we want to avoid turning this page into an argument about its value. That debate belongs at the conversion therapy article. So Mft1's sentence "There is an an active debate about whether or not conversion therapy is effective or harmful. The majority of major U.S. mental health organizations do not advocate conversion therapy" is too much. But there should be some signal that this is controversial. It would be better, I think to change the sentence leading into the quote to something like "Kempling, an advocate of conversion therapy (controversial among mental health professionals), wrote…". (People who want to know about the controversy can then go read the conversion therapy article.) Tell me what you think. Bucketsofg 22:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I've tweaked the skewing of facts in the calgary herald article. the article is saying that tribunals/commissions "shut people up" (hardly a rare opinion in canadian editorials btw, so what exactly is the point of mentioning this?), not gays. the original author of the sentence was skewing the facts. Otherwise, fine by me and thx. Deet (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The question is whether this is an article or an editorial. If it is the latter, then we have to be careful not merely to replicate the editorialization. Bucketsofg 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New section headings

Reading through the article, I found it rather difficult to keep the various legal processes separate, so I've split it up into sections. In particular, I think this format makes it much clearer that the letters to the Observer, initial suspension and appeal to the courts were distinct from the CBC interview, letter of reprimand, and BCHRT complaint.

I think the article does a fair job at tackling a difficult topic. The 2008 citation needs to be replaced with a more objective description of the citation, preferably one that isn't straight out of Kempling's own mouth. The Rights debate section could either be trimmed, or supplemented with additional points of view from other commentators.--Trystan (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and integrated the "Rights Debate" section with the court case section. Upon reading it through again, the description of the court case seemed very bare without the arguments made on both sides. A description of the actual findings of the court seems warranted, rather than just stating that they rejected his appeal; I'll have a look at this later. The same holds true for the findings of the Human Rights Tribunal.--Trystan (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded on the court case and HRT sections to include summaries of their findings.--Trystan (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "Academics fear speaking freely in Canada"

I'm not clear on what the relevance of the August 23 National Post article is. It doesn't mention Kempling, and states that the academics are concerned over potential legal restrictions on freedom of speech. There is certainly a clear connection to the human rights tribunal cases mentioned, but what's the connection to this one? No legal action was ever taken against Kempling for his views, and the cited article doesn't deal with professional codes of conduct.--Trystan (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair points, although it shows that the world is noticing that something has changed here. Revise or remove as you see fit. Deet (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement category

Although I'm not going to remove it without prior discussion, I think the ex-gay movement category is dubious. It seems to me that someone should only be placed in that category if they are, or at least were, actively involved in the ex-gay movement - simply expressing a favourable opinion about it is not enough. Skoojal (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the connection with the category is tenuous.--Trystan (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment on your edit summary: "expressing a favourable view of the ex-gay movement does not make someone part of the ex-gay movement", Kempling is part of the ex-gay movement and phrases his activism as part of the broader movement.[1] However, as this information isn't currently part of the article, it doesn't make sense to include it in the category. I leave it to other editors to decide whether it warrants inclusion or not, and if so, in what way.--Trystan (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just put him in the Category:Conversion therapy? It happens to be a sub cat of ex-gay movement. He is clearly active in conversion therapy. Deet (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Description of conversion therapy as controversial

I do think that the line about conversion therapy being controversial which you removed is important, however. While we don't want to get into the substantive controversy in this article, I think it's necessary to know that conversion therapy is controversial to understand why advocating it might motivate (whether or not one feels it was warranted) disciplinary action against a school counsellor.--Trystan (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My view is that discussion of conversion therapy being controversial belongs in the article - which is linked, so people can easily find out more about it. It is off-topic here, and looks like editorializing. I will remove the ex-gay movement category if there are no objections soon. Skoojal (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't off-topic. Kempling's advertisements for and discussion of the therapy were the sole justification for the letter of reprimand.

We have two full sentences quoted directly from Kempling which make conversion therapy sound like the polio vaccine; a note that his view is controversial within his profession gives the reader a bit of balance. Without such a note, we are going to great lengths to elucidate Kempling's POV, while deliberately obscuring the motivation behind the school district's actions so as to make them seem nonsensical.--Trystan (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting that readers should be treated as though they were completely ignorant. Most people know perfectly well that conversion therapy is controversial. If they don't know about the controversy, there is little or no reason why they would bother to read this article anyway. There is therefore no reason why the controversy should be mentioned here - this is an article about Kempling, not about conversion therapy. In my view, the school district actions were nonsensical, but the article doesn't suggest anything about whether they were or weren't. Skoojal (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the goal is to assume as little as possible about the reader and, especially, to avoid assuming what "most people know." Wikipedia readers come from all across the world with vastly different backgrounds. Encyclopedia articles should be written for a general audience, which often means stating things explicitly that would seem obvious to people very familiar with the subject. We definitely should not be presuming the reader's motivation for reading this article.

This article is indeed about Kempling, or more specifically, it is about his conflict with the school district. Why would we present Kemplings views in his own words, and then leave the school district's side deliberately murky? Does that imbalanced presentation not inherently favour one side over the other?--Trystan (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also ask you to consider the above debate under 'Article Changes', which has several editors discussing the issue and arriving at the formulation which you removed.--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to present the school-board's side, then you can do it without adding information that belongs in the article on conversion therapy, not here. Skoojal (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus expressed in the above discussion is that it is important contextual information. In the absence of evidence that this consensus has changed, I'm reverting your edit.--Trystan (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your consensus is wrong (assuming there is one; I see little evidence of this, since only a small number of people have commented). That aside about conversion therapy is a gratuitous piece of information. It doesn't provide real context, and it isn't integrated into the article in any useful way. It is also very bad writing. I may open a request for comment on this. Skoojal (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The difference in context between a counsellor disciplined for advertising a form of counselling and a counsellor disciplined for offering a highly controversial form of counselling seems obvious to me. This isn't a very high-traffic article, perhaps giving other editors some time to weigh in on this issue would be helpful.--Trystan (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that Kempling was disciplined for expressing his views, it is obvious that they are controversial. The aside about the controversialness of conversion therapy isn't needed. Skoojal (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reword lede section

The article reads, 'Christopher S. M. Kempling, Psy.D. is an educator and counsellor in British Columbia, Canada, whose suspension for expressing socially conservative opinions critical of homosexuality became the centre of a controversy concerning freedom of speech versus the neutrality and non-discriminatory atmosphere of the public school system.'

I propose that this be changed to, 'Christopher S. M. Kempling, Psy.D. is an educator and counsellor in British Columbia, Canada, whose suspension for expressing socially conservative opinions critical of homosexuality became the centre of a controversy concerning freedom of speech versus the pro-homosexual atmosphere of the public school system.' That would be much more accurate - it's clear that the 'atmosphere' of the public school system is not 'non-discriminatory', since it discriminated against Kempling. Skoojal (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've made a different change. Skoojal (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In arguments described in the court decisions, Kempling was framing the debate as a freedom of speech issue. The school district was arguing that their duty is to "ensur[e] a tolerant and discrimination-free environment." We're not here to pass judgement on the court ruling or condemn the school district's actions as discriminatory, we're here to write an article which conveys the facts and both sides' arguments as neutrally as possible.

In any case, I would propose expanding the lead to summarize more of the article. If we're more specific in describing the court's findings, it sidesteps the difficulty of trying to frame the debate in a generalized way:

Christopher S. M. Kempling, Psy.D. is an educator and counsellor in British Columbia, Canada, whose was suspended by the Quesnel School District for expressing socially conservative opinions critical of homosexuality. Kempling launched a legal challenge against the suspension, alleging that his right to freedom of speech had been violated. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled against him, finding that limitations on his freedom of speech were justified by the school district's duty to maintain a tolerant and discrimination-free environment. Kempling also filed a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the disciplinary action taken against him infringed his freedom of religion; this complaint was dismissed on similar grounds.

--Trystan (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The BCCA in effect admitted that the controversy was about freedom of speech. I think the lede section sums things up nicely, and I'm not sure why you think it needs to be rewritten. Skoojal (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."

The current lead gives no indication of any legal challenges, yet the majority of the article - and of the sources it is based on - are focused on them. They are what provide notability to the subject and therefore warrant brief summarization in the lead.

I don't read the BCCA decision as "admitting" that the controversy was about freedom of speech; I'm not sure what you mean by that. As with most Canadian Charter jurisprudence, the judgement deals with determining whether a right has been breached, and if so, whether that violation was justified by the existence of a competing right or government objective. If the only issue were whether Kempling's freedom of speech were violated with no analysis under Section 1, then there wouldn't have been any controversy and Kempling would have won. We can't misrepresent the judgement, or the underlying social debate, by leaving half of it out. We can't characterize the debate as one side characterizes it, and exclude the other side's view.--Trystan (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I have formatted and reviewed all of the citations. There are a few places where, contrary to WP:RS, we still use editorials as a source for something other than the opinions of the authors, specifically:

• 10b: the Calgary Herald editorial used as the source for facts regarding the 2005 suspension. This was previously cited to a letter by Kempling himself. Neither source meets WP:RS, but I haven't been able to find an improvement so far.
• 13: Kempling's letter used to characterize the actions of two MPs. I don't know that any reliable source is out there to be found to verify this statement.

The "2008 citation" section is also problematic as I have noted above, but according to Kempling, his four day hearing was scheduled for late September, so it's likely new sources will emerge shortly to rewrite it completely.--Trystan (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult because only 2 newspapers in all of Canada actually report on religious freedom in the country (the National Post and the Calgary Herald). So unless one of those writes a proper article, we must compromise a bit. At this point we have no reason to believe any of the information in the article is in dispute or that Kempling has been anything but factual in any communcation. Deet (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the basic facts conveyed are correct, but presenting them solely filtered through Kempling or the Calgary Herald editorial board's opinions is problematic. Did Siksay and Toews' letters actually refer to "intimidating a witness of Parliament," or is that just Kempling's favourable characterisation of them? What exactly were the grounds for the 2005 suspension and 2008 citation, especially the latter? The onus is on us as editors to provide a reliable third-party source for the claims in the article, rather than on a party doubting the factualness of Kempling's communications. Kempling's description may indeed be accurate, but the WP:V policy indicates that it is verifiability, not truth, that is the standard to be met for the inclusion of material. Material that can't be properly supported is removed, rather than provided with compromised sources.

That being said, I'll leave the sentences as is. Once the hearing has been reported on, we will have additional sources to work with. After that material has been added, I'd like to try a Good Article nomination, and we'll get outside feedback then if the above citations are of significant concern.--Trystan (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. Deet (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC). I would point out, however, that your only "external link" basically allows the BCCT to restate its case without rebuttal. Deet (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really conceive of the external link section as conveying any more prestige to the document than any other cited documents, I just included it because it was relevant. I've converted it to a footnote for the paragraph on the disciplinary action it records.--Trystan (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Kempling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Christine (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Having made no significant contributions to the article, I will evaluate this article using GA criteria. I have a feeling that the subject matter is the reason it's languished so long at GAN, so it is my hope that I can be fair and objective during this review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose) :

For the most part, the prose is okay, but it should be improved. Before I pass this criteria, I think that it needs a copyedit. There are several tense agreement errors throughout the article; for example: He also cited various studies that he interprets as showing harm caused by what he described as the "homosexual lifestyle". "Interprets" needs to agree with the past tense usages of the rest of the sentence, i.e., He also cited various studies that he interpreted as supporting the harm caused by what he called "the homosexual lifestyle". That's not even right, but it's an improvement. I've never thought that a review is a place to suggest prose improvements, so I won't go through the prose, line by line, like other reviewers do. That's what a good copyedit is for!

b (MoS) : I think the lead needs to summarize more of the body of the article, perhaps by citing some of the arguments for and against this case.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): There are a couple of broken links: #14, #15 (which doesn't load correctly and is illegible).

b (citations to reliable sources): Ref #3 is from a blog, and that's not always acceptable. However, I think that for GAs, there can be some latitude, and this particular source actually contains a letter written by Kempling describing some of the events. For that reason, I think it should stay. From this article's talk page, I see that there has been some discussion about the use of editorials. Ref #2 is an obvious editorial, and I would characterize #3 the same. Both are from reputable sources. Of course, if you take this article any further to FAC, you'll have to justify using them, but for now, in this GA review, they pass. I'll also assume good faith regarding the talk page's assertion that religious matters don't get covered in the Canadian press.

c (OR): I really like the use of primary sources here: the court and BCCT's decisions. Is there any way to include Kempling's original letter, the first one that got him in so much trouble? Perhaps it's in one of the offline sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage

a (major aspects): This article is missing some key elements to Kempler's story. For example, it may be a good idea to add a "Background" section, something I suspect you'll need it you bring it to FAC. How is homosexuality perceived in Canada? What is some of the historical background of the BCCT's decision to prevent Kempling's actions? I take issue with one sentence: There is an active debate about whether conversion therapy is effective or harmful. You need to explain that statement. What is conversion therapy, and what's behind the controversy surrounding it? One lone sentence with a link isn't enough. What's Kempler's background; why does he hold his particular beliefs? After reading this article, I have a great many questions, and a good article should answer all my potential questions. This one does not, at least not yet. To that end, there's no information about Kempling after 2006. What's happened to the guy since? Remember, this is a bio, not an article about the cases, although much of the content will include them, of course.

b (focused): This is one of the strengths of this article. See below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias: A controversial and sensitive topic is covered well, with no axes to grind or agendas to keep. That's really hard to do. Be warned, though: other reviewers, especially if you take it to FAC, will disagree, mostly because of their agendas. At the same time, though, you don't present the other side, other than the original decisions. Are they any editorials from reliable sources written by Kempler's opposition? Has any members of the BCCT written anything about the reasons for their decisions against him?

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.: Surprisingly stable article, taking the subject matter into consideration.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. No images. I suspect that there are no free images of Kempling, but if there were, you should include one. (Perhaps if you write him, he'll provide one?) I don't think that every article on WP should have images, but there should be at least an attempt to include them. Perhaps you can include a map of Kempling's hometown. I'm not sure that any other image would be appropriate for this article.

Overall:

Pass/Fail: For now, it's a fail. However, if you addressed some of the issues above, I can change it. I'll keep the nomination open for a while to give you the chance to deal with them. Overall, however, a nice first attempt that presents a balanced view of events, something you should be commended for.

For clarity sake, I'm removing the confusing part about this article failing its GAN. What I meant was that I'm not going to pass it until the above issues are addressed, as per convention. Christine (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks and no concerns have been addressed, so it should probably be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one to nominate it, but I agree that it should be failed at this point. I would like to thank you for the detailed feedback; I've been away and haven't had the time to edit act on it, but it will provide good direction for improving the article in the future. On reflection, without a broader base of active editors, it probably isn't a good GA candidate.--Trystan (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of the fail. It's my hope that you work on improving this article. Don't let the fact that you're alone in improving it stop you; for most of my five GA, I worked on my own. It means more work for you, but the point is the improvement of articles on WP, and it's worth it. Christine (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

activism section

AS a newcomer to the article the activism section looks flawed to me: a catch-bag of stuff that doesn't quite belong.

• That he was invited to speak to a Focus on the Family delegation strikes me as insufficiently important to include, and the detail that he said that Canadian officials had not been invited to that meeting even more so. (As a person of note, he is presumably invited to speak to all kinds of organizations who will invite who they like.) Also, the description of Focus on the Family as an 'accredited NGO' of the UN sounds to me like an attempt to 'guild the lily'.
• That he had been invited as a witness to a parliamentary hearing may or may not be worthy of inclusion -- but if the only evidence for the new 'investigation' and the intervention of Siksay and Toews is a speech that Kempling made in a partisan setting, I don't think we've reached the bar of reliability.
• Kempling's statement that he would appeal to the UN may be worth including, but a direct quote from his press release seems otiose.

I suggest deleting the first two and moving the third to a single line ('Kempling has stated that he will appeal to the UN') elsewhere. 138.73.172.55 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Kempling. 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/20080910045820/http://www.psych.org:80/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx to http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chris Kempling. 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/20101020040434/http://bccla.org/pressreleases/03kempling.html to http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/03kempling.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bcct.ca/documents/FormsandPublications/ProfConduct/DisciplineDecisions/jan06_cjm_kempling.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151130020349/http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Kempling_v_School_District_No_28_%28Quesnel%29_and_Curr_%28No_2%29_2005_BCHRT_514.pdf to http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Kempling_v_School_District_No_28_%28Quesnel%29_and_Curr_%28No_2%29_2005_BCHRT_514.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614142648/http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=31088 to http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=31088
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201150136/http://www.chp.ca/en/communiques/01-27-2006.html to http://www.chp.ca/en/communiques/01-27-2006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)