Jump to content

User talk:Surtsicna/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Question

Why do you mean by "no such thing as "King Emeritus"? [1]--Asqueladd (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean that the term is alien to both the Constitution and monarchical tradition of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
1) [2] The authoritative source is above. 2) that's in any case how Juan Carlos and Sofía are overwelmingly referred to in sources whether you like it or not in the light of recent events, so I intend, with many sources if you wish, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, recover the information. Because this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or censoring.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I've no idea what you're on about; I have not expressed an opinion about the term. Juan Carlos is called "King Juan Carlos" on the monarchy's website, in common parlance, and in a majority of reliable sources. The term "king emeritus" is virtually unknown in English, getting only 106 hits on Google. Wikipedia should not promote the use of a title that is not official, traditional or common. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Sadly I do get an idea what are you on about. You are now erasing rey emérito (in the original Spanish). Should you still keep English-language readers from knowing how Juan Carlos (and his missus, too, btw) is adressed in a regular basis in Spain after 2014, as you are hellbent onto erasing it from every place of any article because you don't like it? I don't like dealing with bullshit, so this conversation would improve leap and bounds if you started by acknowledging "rey emérito" is an extremely common way to refer to this person in Spain (as myriad of sources attest, most probably the most common way to do it in a reflective sense). Then we can move on to look for a consensus (where to mention, how to mention, if the translation is worth it, et al...), but if you keep on engaging into denial and moving the posts... Sad. PS: And, btw, as you seem to have an interest in "comparative royal stuff" or whatnot, if anything "is alien to the monarchical tradition of Spain" [sic] is everything surrounding this man's abdication (in the other hand, now that you mention it, the notion of referring to someone as Rey Emérito is no more alien to the current Spanish Constitution than the notion of an additional King not being the Head of State).--Asqueladd (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
What I do not like is random people coming to my talk page to tell me what I like or dislike. Abdication is explicitly addressed in the Constitution (so not alien to it at all) and it is rather traditional. Since the final unification of Spain under one king, nine (out of twenty) monarchs have abdicated. In addition to these nine, Isabel II's husband was king without being head of state. So no, the notion of a king not being head of state is nothing new or unusual in Spain. And of course, none of these nine have been referred to as kings emeritus. I suppose there would be no harm in having a sentence in List of titles and honours of Juan Carlos I of Spain state that some media outlets refer to him as rey emérito despite his official title being "His Majesty King Juan Carlos I". What I am opposed to is using the term casually in the running text. Surtsicna (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok but..

...I agree of course he didn't reign as titular duke of Burgundy in burgundy! But he did reign as titular Duke of Burgundy elsewhere. I was the one to add the "titular" at the time also in the infobox because it only said Duke of Burgundy/Lord of the Netherlands. So i put what was in the lead in the infobox: that is to say, that to rule as Duke of Burgundy IN the Low Countries, then it's a titular title to reign (over the Low Countries). See why I made that correction. I shared the same concern you had, otherwise it seemed that he reigned over Burgundy proper rather than over the Burgundian low countries. I don't know if it's clear. Barjimoa (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Barjimoa! Thanks for your message. I see what you meant. It makes perfect sense to me. My concern is that casual readers (i.e. those without prior knowledge about early modern Netherlands) would not only fail to understand this but end up confused or misled. Sometimes I even wonder whether infoboxes do more good or harm in topics as complex as Charles V; I think a ridiculously large portion of edits of that article revolve around the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you know a lot...

...about nobility, royalty, titles, and such. Can you look at the article on Maria Theresa and also on her husband Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor? I was in a discussion with one user, a while ago, who told me that there were significant mistakes in it...but I am not sure and know little about that epoch. I did notice that there were some weird things in it. For example, it was often stressed that he (the husband) had only the title but the rule was only Maria Theresa's etc. This may be correct, i don't really know. I just hope they didn't make some weird points just for the sake of it, and the titles/dates are the correct ones. Barjimoa (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I should hope that the article about Maria Theresa is fine. I consulted several biographies when I rewrote it but that was a decade ago. Maintaining the quality is more difficult, however. I'll go through it again. Surtsicna (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Barjimoa (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for having a photograph to Jessye Norman's article, borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome, -Gerda Arendt! It's one of several hundred beautiful photographs provided by John Mathew Smith. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Pope Sylvester II

Thanks for all your work on Pope Sylvester II. Could you fix reference 13 when you have a moment? Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Done! I somehow missed that. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: John X

Hi Surtsicna,

Yes, I think the John X article may be almost ready for GA status. The only thing I think needs to be updated is the Lead/Intro, which is too short and does not summarize enough of the article's content. But apart from that, yes, please take it through the GA process when you think it's ready. Oatley2112 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Non-contemporary_depictions

If you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Images of popes

Hello. Whether the images of the popes that you have removed are truly "fanciful and misleading" I have no idea. But there is no rule on Wikipedia that prohibits the use of non-contemporary images if this is all we have of someoneone. Obviously, a contemporary image is preferred, but if we don't have it, it's best to leave it in place. See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE.

But what is your evidence exactly that these images are not accurate? I have not seen any. A painting not being included in an academic biography does not automatically make it “fanciful.” Many popes, including I think numerous popes whose images you have removed, do not have academic biographies written of them at all. Hence, this cannot be the only standard that one uses to determine whether an image belongs in an article. You said that you had no knowledge that the image which purported to show Eugene III's episcopal consecration was legitimate. It is included in this article and described as such. You removed an image of Eugene III’s death (without explanation, I might add) even though what seemed to me like a perfectly good source was included in the Commons description. You have removed numerous templates marking leads as too short. In some cases, you may have been correct that they weren’t needed, but in other cases it’s clear that the templates were correctly placed. For example, the lead section in the article on Eugene III speaks of little besides the Second Crusade. It was the most important but not the only notable event in his papacy.

I noticed that you removed “saint_title” from the infobox of Eugene because he is not a saint. That is used to identify where he is on the path to canonization. The fact that he has not been recognized as a saint is mad obvious by the fact that we call him “blessed.” The reader never sees the word saint.

I have seen numerous paintings of Urban II, and all of them depict him in beards.

If you wish, you can keep in place certain changes that you have made, but I urgently request that you undo these poorly considered and unhelpful changes. By the way, if you can make changes without an explanation or providing any justification for what you’re doing, I can undo those changes with no explanation beyond that which I gave for the first two articles. If we cannot find resolution by ourselves, I am prepared to seek outside intervention to assist in reaching a determination. Display name 99 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Display name 99. Thanks for your message. My evidence that these images are products of someone's imagination, i.e. fanciful and inaccurate, is that they were created seven or eight centuries after the popes died, and are based on no descriptions of the popes' appearance because no such descriptions survive. That in itself would not be an insurmountable obstacle, however, if the depictions were common in academic literature about the subject - but they are not. These romanticized portrayals may appear on blogs across the Internet but Wikipedia should aspire to higher standards. As MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says, images should have an "encyclopedic nature" and be "significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative".
We know that Urban II was not bearded because priests were forbidden from growing beards in the Middle Ages. Julius II was the first pope since antiquity to have a beard. This is not a trivial distinction. Again, this would not be a reason to exclude an image if it were commonly associated with the subject in academia.
As for the saint-title parameter, the reader does see the word saint. The infobox says his "Title as Saint" [sic] is "Blessed", which is of course wrong. He cannot have a title as saint if he is not a saint and no saint is called blessed, right? Surtsicna (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You have not provided a source for when you say that these images were created. I am still of the opinion that apocryphal images are better than none, although perhaps they should be marked as such.
On the subject of beards, I knew that priests were forbidden from growing beards but was not sure exactly when this rule was mandated. I found an article here which says that it was canonically required for Catholic clerics to be cleanshaven beginning in the 12 century. That would mean that Eugene III may or may not have been canonically permitted to grow a beard, while Urban II most definitely would have. Page 146 of this book that I have found here, "Habits and Men" by John Duran, says that the Councill of Limoges in 1031 stated that the wearing of a beard by the clergy was to be entirely optional. It would have been entirely up to Urban whether or not he wanted to have one.
I acquiesce to your statement on the use of the word saint. Indeed, you were correct that the reader does see that. Display name 99 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Display name 99, the information about the provenance of the images is found on the respective file pages. This depiction of Sylvester III, for example, is an anonymous work from c. 1850; this drawing of Gregory VI is from a 1911 book; etc. I really cannot agree that any image is better than no image. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE also refutes that; that is why I cannot upload my drawing of a man with sunglasses and a baseball hat and announce that we finally have an image of Ordgar. I do not think your understanding of the "hipster monks" article is entirely accurate; the 12th-century Canon law was merely a codification of a long-established practice. It does not mean that popes prior to the 12th century had beards. This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia may be clearer; in any case, it's a more reliable source. Long story short, it says that, from the time of Photius, Greek clergy reproached the Roman clergy for "systematically" cutting off their beards. Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
If you wanted to upload an image for the Ordgar article, you would not find an image of a man in sunglasses and a baseball cap. You could however find portrait drawn by an artist intended to depict Ordgar, showing a man wearing something like what Ordgar would have worn, even if it was created centuries later with no direct knowledge of what he looked like. Nobody knows what Jesus looked like, and yet we have no problem displaying images of Him.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article seems to show that any popes after 1119 could not have had beards. But we still have the council in 1031 declaring beards optional. It seems that we will not agree on this. Perhaps one of us could seek a third opinion or look for resolution at some other venue. What is at stake here is a broad question that could effect hundreds or even thousands of articles, that being whether imagined portraits are at all acceptable for use. Display name 99 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
An artist intending to depict someone does not make the depiction pertinent to an encyclopedia. The author of all those Saint Paul Outside the Walls portraits intended to depict various popes (and gave them all beards, for whatever reason) but his intention does not mean that the portraits should be indiscriminatorily pasted in all of Wikipedia's papal biographies. They do not appear in the standard works of reference such as The Oxford Dictionary of Popes or Enciclopedia dei Papi. Unsurprisingly, neither do the 19th century drawings. Now, of course imagined portraits of people are acceptable. A portrait that is found in reliable sources specializing in the subject is acceptable, just like any other content. But that does not mean any image. There is a reason why MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says that not all articles need images. Surtsicna (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I've requested dispute resolution to help resolve this and would appreciate if you would participate here. Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Since we are unable to reply to each other the dispute resolution page... Here is a book called "People of the First Crusade." It was published in 1997. If you go to page 25, you will see two images side by side both depicting a bearded Pope Urban II. Now that we have an image of Pope Urban II with a beard depicted in a modern academic work, can you please accept that the bearded portraits are not inaccurate and would make acceptable lead images for the article? Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
that’s put out by Arcade Publishing, which is not an academic press. And I support Surtsicna in removing these images. --Ealdgyth (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have often added "as imagined by [artist] in [year]" to the caption of a non-contemporary portrait when no other image of the person is available, especially then if the artist is notable. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That could be a reasonable solution (and certainly a compromise I'd be willing to accept) but it appears others will not agree to it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been watching Surtsicna's edits for a while and wondering where the debate would take place. I recently found the WP:DRN case. I had hoped we could have this discussion in public, such as on WT:CATHOLIC. I am not sure of the utility of no image vs. an inferior image. I do know that if Surtsicna intends to scour 250+ biographies this way, he will need to seek wider public consensus (RFC), rather than simply taking us one-at-a-time. Elizium23 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I am also not sure about the wisdom of arguing for forced "realism" vis-a-vis wearing beards. Moses is depicted with horns. Angels are depicted in human bodies with wings. The Virgin Mary depicts herself in many guises, such as an indigenous Mesoamerican. Pallium, dalmatic, tiara, beard - this is iconography, not photography. Elizium23 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The utility of no image vs. unencyclopaedic image is explained at WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. No consensus was ever sought to include these images, which make Wikipedia look like a random blog rather than like an encyclopaedia. The difference between Moses/angels/Mary and the popes is that the latter are indisputably historical people. Yet the lack of realism is not the chief concern. It is the fact that these depictions are not found in modern academic biographies or reference works, which makes them unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Historical? Okay, let's look at Saint Patrick, Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom. They're all sporting really fine beards. We've got omophoria and crosiers and mitres and all kinds of things. And I must take issue with your denial that Mary, the mother of Jesus is historical.
The requirement to be found in modern academic biographies or reference works is not found in WP:IMAGERELEVANCE, so I am not sure where you are drawing this extra onerous requirement, but it is not Wikipedia policy. Elizium23 (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that beards were invented in the 21st century. I am saying that medieval popes did not wear them. And that's not the point. WP:IMAGERELEVANCE says that images should have an "encyclopedic nature", be "significant", and "not primarily decorative". MOS:LEADIMAGE says that the lead image should "be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Obscure doodles obviously do not qualify. Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You belittle content as "doodles" and "poppycock" and to read your description, some 8-year-old child drew a series of Popes in crayon and Dad uploaded them here rather than post them on his refrigerator. I don't think that's what's going on. As you've quoted MOS:LEADIMAGE, they should be the "type" found in high-quality reference works. That does not mean the images themselves must be used by other reference works. Elizium23 (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Many of the images are quite poor and clearly not even attempts at being accurate. Just because they are available does not mean that an image is a good idea. For example File:25-St.Dionysius.jpg is just plain poor quality image. It's fuzzy, small, and from sometime around 1850 - it is actively misleading. File:Pope Dionysius Illustration.jpg is no better - it's obviously idealized and shows a blank coat of arms in the image, implying that coats of arms existed during Dionysius' time period (hint - they did not). We should do better than just slapping an image in because it's available. We're supposed to not be misleading our readers into thinking these are accurate representations of people. --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Pope Sergius II

Hello, I noticed your edit on this article, and I believe you may have made a mistake. In the phrase "Leo's pontificate saw the Arab raid against Rome as well as the city's redevelopment", it seems strange to refer to "Leo" in the lead on Pope Sergius II. Also, it looks like the Arab raid against Rome seems to have taken place during the pontificate of Sergius II, whereas the redevelopment happened during that of Leo IV. -- Kwakeroni (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out, Kwakeroni! That is an embarrassing blunder, but I suppose it was bound to happen as I was expanding dozens and dozens of lead sections of papal biographies that had that ugly "lead too short" tag. Per Pope Sergius II#Pontificate, there was already redevelopment in Sergius II's pontificate. Surtsicna (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

This is to let you know that there is a discussion about your misconduct at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Purging_misconduct --172.250.146.43 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Kulen Vakuf massacre

Hi,

I wrote and article about Kulen Vakuf massacre. What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Antidiskriminator. Thank you for your message. At a very quick first glance, it looks like a well-researched and well-sourced article. I'll go through it and make some (minor?) tweaks if needed and you can see whether you agree with my changes. Now, I am not sure about the merits of the infobox image. It does not seem to meet WP:LEADIMAGE criteria as it does not depict the subject itself. It depicts the settlement as it looks eight decades later. None of the objects visible in the picture look to me like they have stood there since 1941 or earlier, so I am not sure how informative it is. Would it be possible to find a photograph more relevant to the topic? Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, I sense there might be some problems with close paraphrasing. It is easy to get carried away when translating. One example is the first sentence in the Background section before this edit of mine, which seems to have been translated word for word. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Surtsicna for your nice words. Yes you are right about close paraphrasing. I thought it is not valid for translations, but I now see in this section that it is. You might be also right re WP:LEADIMAGE. In the absence of some image directly related to the event, I put this image to illustrate the ambient, where this event happened. It was shocking to see that such bad things could happen in such lovely town and place, regardless of the exact buildings. Maybe this contrast between beauty and evil blured my mind because after I finished editing this article I realized there is one major and quite obvious mistake with it. Yes the article is well researched and well sourced. I don't think there are major issue with following wikipedia policies. I think there is a mistake on major, conceptual level. To check if my perspective is right I deliberatelly asked several editors with whom I had numerous disputes in past (having different perspective than me), what they think about this article. I think you were the first to reply, but nobody else saw this problem I saw. Yet. Anyway, thanks for your input. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Albert II of Belgium

Remember @Helsing90:? He's back, messing around his fav topic again. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry GoodDay, Delphine Boël is not legally her daughter, the law prescript the filiation and not the biologie. Currently, king Albert II is only the genitor of Delphine Boel. The person who write the opposite is a liar and does a defamation, WP cannot modifies filiation or disregard adoptions. Otherwise, the English (Canadian, American or British) website that you used do not translate correctly the fact Press release :
  • «His Majesty King Albert II took note of the results of the DNA sample which he lent himself to at the request of the Brussels Court of Appeal. Scientific findings indicate that He is the genitor of Mrs. Delphine Boël.»
  • «The request for recognition of paternity must be debated at a hearing before the Brussels Court of Appeal. This hearing will be held on June 4.»
To be the «child of», it is the law that decides and not the DNA but you do not accept it! I am adopted, my parents are those who adopted me AND NOT those who gave birth to me.

--Helsing90 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You're the problem. You don't have consensus for what you're trying to do at the article & furthermore, your editing history suggests you're a WP:SPA. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry GoodDay,You are republican, against the monarchy, as we can see on your profile, your goal is to denigrate it by lying! Delphine Boël is not legally her daughter, the law prescript the filiation and not the biologie. Currently, king Albert II is only the genitor of Delphine Boel. The person who write the opposite is a liar and does a defamation, WP cannot modifies filiation or disregard adoptions. Otherwise, the English (Canadian, American or British) website that you used do not translate correctly the fact Press release :
  • «His Majesty King Albert II took note of the results of the DNA sample which he lent himself to at the request of the Brussels Court of Appeal. Scientific findings indicate that He is the genitor of Mrs. Delphine Boël.»
  • «The request for recognition of paternity must be debated at a hearing before the Brussels Court of Appeal. This hearing will be held on June 4.»
To be the «child of», it is the law that decides and not the DNA but you do not accept it! I am adopted, my parents are those who adopted me AND NOT those who gave birth to me. It is the Belgian law! --Helsing90 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no consensus to have, it's about the facts; you just don't speak french so you don't translate correctly. You mix "biological father" and "father", in Belgium it's very different. The earth is round, not flat, there is no consensus to have. --Helsing90 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Images of Poland's kings

I'd like to draw to your attention that Jan Matejko based the depictions of Polish kings on historical sources and analyses of some of the remains. I think that it is right to remove later depictions from the infoboxes, but I do not see why they should be removed from articles altogether. They could be placed in bodies of the pages. I believe you are not Polish (maybe I am wrong) and you may not know this, but Matejko's semi-fictional depictions served as an example for the images currently featured on Polish złoty money. They are accepted by historians as fictional, but with close semi-close resemblances and are present in history books. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Oliszydlowski. I agree that the Matejko images, ideally, should not be removed altogether. They should be included in sections such as Legacy, Historiography, Fictional portrayals, Representation in art, or such. I rarely found those, however. I think putting them wherever is wrong because images are supposed to have an obvious relevance to the section in which they appear. I hope there will one day be sections where it will make sense to include images with captions mentioning textbooks and modern numismatics. Surtsicna (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and the tomb effigies are wonderful. I searched for images of every Piast on the Commons but those eluded me. The categorization on the Commons is sometimes very helpful and sometimes much less so. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RedWarn

Greetings! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed for the fastest vandalism reverts in the west (yee-haw!). If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn page for installation instructions. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. Your feedback is much appreciated! JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Diana, the Princess of Wales

Hi, thank you for fixing the lede on Diana, Princess of Wales. It is much better. cookie monster (2020) 755 23:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you like it! WP:WAW has been very helpful. Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Władysław II Jagiełło

Why do you remove pictures from this article? Also the family tree is "inclompete" beacue it doesn't include all known family members Marcelus (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Marcelus. I explained each edit in an edit summary. I removed one image for being irrelevant to the section and another for being irrelevant and fanciful. Images should be relevant to the section in which they appear. Every family tree is incomplete. Marking that one as incomplete is thus unnecessary. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

Hi Surtsicna, you are invited to join a discussion regarding the lede sentence of the article Diana, Princess of Wales, on the talk page (here). Thank you, cookie monster (2020) 755 03:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Meghan's charity work images

Hello, dear.

  • “Minerva97, can you please explain why you think this is suitably licensed and not a copyright violation? I see no indication of that. And if it is, why not add the video itself?”
  1. The video is available on Vimeo under a license compatible with WikiCommons.
  2. The channel that posted the video seems to be the owner of it.
  3. I didn't add the video because I didn't want to.
  4. To date, no WikiCommons user has disputed the permanence of the images (you can do it yourself if you want).

Bye-bye. Minerva (talk to me) 00:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Minerva97. There is no need for the hostility. In the meantime I have found the license on the Vimeo page under "More". I will upload the video if I can remember how. The article could use a video more than another picture. Surtsicna (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, my native language is Portuguese and I didn't realize that I was hostile. Good luck with uploading the video. Bye-bye. Minerva (talk to me) 13:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
It's okay. Thank you for finding the media file. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Joan the Lame

The last Duke of Burgundy from the first Capetian House of Burgundy is Philip I, Duke of Burgundy (died 1361), great-nephew of Jeanne of Burgundy. John II of France inherited from his mother its rights on the Duchy of Burgundy.

On this succession, see (all in French, sorry) :

BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The thing is that the phrase I removed is not about that. The "male line of the dukes of Burgundy" can mean either the Capetian House of Burgundy, which survived Philip, or the line of male holders of the duchy, which also continued after Philip I's death. In either case the phrase is unnecessary and misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I understand the issue. Better ? BeatrixBelibaste (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, excellent! Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales

I left a message at the bottom of the Diana talkpage explaining my reasoning over the name in the lede sentence. Векочел (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Modern historian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Modern historian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Modern historian until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Family trees

Hi Surtsicna, I see your activities have extended to purging the family trees of various pages. What's the rationale for this? (I ask because I have found some quite useful in the past.) Are you planning to remove all of them and is this unilateral? GPinkerton (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GPinkerton. There has been a long discussion at Template talk:Ahnentafel. I am removing those ahnentafeln that have been tagged as unsourced for months or years. Since Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, an article should not present any genealogy not found in general biographies of the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: I see - that is a long discussion - what will that leave? Will there be some genealogical tables left with parents and grandparents or nothing at all? GPinkerton (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully it will leave genealogical tables akin to those that appear in scholarly biographies and with such biographies as sources. See Lady Jane Grey#Family tree for an example. Surtsicna (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

French name for Anne of Austria

Why shouldn't the French version of the name be included in the lead? Would you also delete the French name of Francis I of France? I removed the bold, so as not to imply that the French name is an alternative name. The footnote only mentions that the French name has been used in English, which is true. It is not intended to be a justification for an alternative name. Also, the article is the target of a redirect from the French name, so shouldn't it be included. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Robert.Allen. The French name is already there: Anne. In her country of origin, she is known as Ana. I am not sure that article is the place for translations of prepositions or names of countries, and a 1902 magazine does not really convince me. But I do not feel so strongly about it, to be honest. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I would like to add it back, but did not want to do that a second time it without your agreement. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Norwegian Geneology Removals

In your recent scanning of various biography articles you have been removing some genealogies from Norwegian monarchs pages. I might try to be a bit more careful when doing this. When talking about a period as early as say, Olaf I you are dealing with a historically contentious period where fact and legend begin to blend together. Calling his ansetory fictional is quite extreme here, and you should really try to be more careful about things like these, and the concerns of all of the various projects that you are stepping into and changing quite significantly. Most especially when dealing with periods like late Viking Age and early medieval Scandinavia, where the difference between leg and and fact can be quite a contentious subject. NDV135 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For helping to remove some of the, I don't know what to call it, "pretend royal fancruft?" here. I forced myself not to think about those kinds of articles for years after I tried to deal with it before but when I saw that thread at WP:NPOVN it brought it all back. However, I decided not to lead in the effort this time but to follow and only work in collaboration with others so I am very glad to see that we are on the same page at least to some extent. There are lots of others of these "(Deposed)Royal Family" templates. which as you so rightly say "attribute princely titles to people who probably do not use them....are impossible to verify" and so on. Like this one Template:Saxon Royal Family or this one Template:Hessian Grand Ducal Family. I guess you know about them? the more of them that are deleted the better as far as I'm concerned but I will only put them up for deletion if I know I have some support. And then God only knows how many articles there are like Andrea von Habsburg which as you so rightly say is "nothing more than a genealogical entry." Should I send you a list? but probably not necessary as you seem to know exactly what is going on in this area at WP.Smeat75 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for persevering. Removing royal fluff is very difficult. I found that out when I started to question the merit of having ahnentafeln in every biography. There is a lot of this fluff left but I have no doubt most of it will be cleared out soon. WP:BLP, if nothing else, is helpfully unflexible. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Clerodendrum bungei

On 25 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clerodendrum bungei, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite being known as the Mexican hydrangea, Clerodendrum bungei is neither from Mexico nor a species of hydrangea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clerodendrum bungei. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clerodendrum bungei), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing the current name of Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

I've just put a formal page move request at the bottom of this article's talk page. Back in 2018, you agreed with me that this title was too unwieldy and confusing, and there's been no discussion on the Talk Page since then. Your current thoughts (and preference between different alternate names) would be welcome. Thanks.

P.S. It just took me three or four tries to remember and enter the correct current name right now ("and Gotha" rather than "-Gotha") —— Shakescene (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
¶ Just for your information, I just posted a notice about this proposed change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Thanks for your own thoughts. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Another rum 'un

Archduke Joseph Árpád of Austria. Born after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian imperium, states that he was styles "His Imperial and Royal Highness" whic I find highly dubious since as far as I know this would have been illegal in Austria. Guy (help!) 09:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

He does not have much to do with Austria, Guy, having lived in Hungary all his life as far as I can tell. I would still do away with it, though. He does seem to be notable and even commonly referred to in Hungarian media as "József Árpád főherceg" (Archduke József Árpád). You would not perceive the notability by reading the article, though. Surtsicna (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

It's best not to address other editors in WP:Edit summaries. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's better yet not to start off communication with strangers by giving unsolicited advice. But I will assume the best of faith. Thanks. Surtsicna (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Surtsicna, and thank you for your edits in reverting and correcting the user Lionheart0317 in the article of Joan I of Navarre.

I don't know if you are aware of it, but the same user have been making the same edits on the List of Navarrese monarchs as well as the article of Joan I:s mother Blanche of Artois. I have reverted it and explained my revertions, but the user is insistant. He/she has not reverted the edits on Joan I (yet), but that does not matter so much if he/she is doing the same incorrect editing in the article of her mother. He/she does not appear to understand the difference between regent and monarch, and does not accept a correction.
I am sorry for posting this on your page, when I should be handling it myself. However, I have to be honest enough to acknowledge the fact that I am not eqipped to deal with users with the attitude shown in the edits, as I suffer from anxiety and communication which appears to be aggressive in my eyes is not something I can handle. As I noticed that you have noted the same problem here, and has shown interest in it, I thought I should at least give you this note, when it appears I cannot solve it myself. You do not have to do anything, of course, but it simply felt better for me to have tried to do something, even if I am not capable of doing more than this. Again - sorry for bothering you with something I should to myself, but I must acknowledge that I am simply not fit for conflicts. Thanks again for your work here, --Aciram (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Aciram. I'll do my best to explain what's wrong with the edits. Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--Aciram (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Surtisicna & @Aciram,

The Joan I of Navarre article is not in error. Additionally, I never stated that her mother was not a queen consort. The dates for Joan I's reign as queen of Navarre are currently shown as being from the date of her father's death to the date of her own death, although those dates vary according to the scholarly opinion in the field. For the sake argument and in spite of other scholarly opinion, they will be left as currently shown for Joan I of Navarre.

@Surtisicna,

Your insistence that titles such as prince of, princess of, or king of, were not used throughout the 13th century for royal members of family dynasties is in error. It is a historical fact that they were and can be confirmed with contemporaneous records. I surely can cite numerous, but that's not why I'm posting to your talk page. Such titles are also used for medieval royal families by biographers in the modern era. It is fallacious to say that such royal titles were not used in the high middle ages, when they obviously were. To further highlight the point, King Edward of England (d. 1307) was referred to as Prince Edward of England on scores of occasions in contemporary records of the 13th century. Moreover, I will gladly debate you in any forum on the merits of the historical accuracy of Douglas Richardson's books, specifically when it comes to Blanche of Artois and PRINCE Edmund of England, 1st Earl of Lancaster, 1st Earl of Leicester, and Earl of Derby. You might want to make a note that there was a 2nd and 3rd Earl of Lancaster which is why '1st' is used to denote Edmund's position since he was in fact the '1st' Earl of Lancaster, regardless of any of your snide comments about epithets or bynames, etc. Surely this posting to your talk page is neither aggressive nor 'with an attitude' (contrary to Aciram's assertion), but an attempt to point to the facts. I cite my contributions to articles with verifiable, reliable, and reputable sources. I reject any assertion you try and make to the contrary. You can search on Wikipedia and see this author cited in many Wikipedia articles. So I'm sorry to tell you, but your opinion is not shared by the vast majority of Wikipedia users. —Lionheart0317 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest to Lionheart to take their concerns to the relevant talk pages. I am going to assume a great deal of good faith and assume the IP that reverted Surtsicna was not Lionheart logged out to edit war.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid you are going to need even more good faith, Kansas Bear. See User_talk:Lionheart0317#Sock_puppetry. Surtsicna (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am sure that you would have cited sources stating that Edward and Edmund used the title "prince of England" if there were any to cite. Also kindly point me to the poll of Wikipedia users you conducted regarding this subject. Surtsicna (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Prince Pedro of the Two-Sicilies

Hello,

I see you have previously undid one of Javierdpeñad edits to Prince Pedro of the Two-Sicilies' page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Pedro,_Duke_of_Calabria).

Sadly, the above editor continues to make these unsubstantiated edits claiming that Prince Pedro is a "French prince." But he provides no evidence to support this. I have informed this editor that such edits violate the verifiabilty rule and NPOV.

This is already the third time I have reversed one of his edits, so I have added a section on Prince Pedro's Talk page for others to chime in.

Any help you may provide in this matter is greatly appreciated. CSBurksesq (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

Both autopsy reports say it was a homicide, hence Floyd didn't just die, he was killed. Naming the main article "Killing of..." instead of "Death of..." is fine by that rationale, because the article title itself doesn't specify who the person or persons are that allegedly killed him. However, autopsy reports only determine the manner of death, and not who caused the death. Per the autopsy report, "Manner of death classification is a statutory function of the medical examiner, as part of death certification for purposes of vital statistics and public health. Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process." In the criminal case, maybe it was the officer who knelt on his neck who killed him. Maybe it was the other two officers who compressed the back and body. Maybe it was all of them, or maybe it was none of them. That's for a court in Minnesota to decide, which may convict some, all, or none of them as the case may be. Until then, we must use "X died after Y knelt on his neck," not "X was killed by Y" or any other version that directly states in Wikipedia's voice that Y killed X. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, just like "killing" does not mean murder, being killed by someone does not imply culpability or intent. Homicide is, by definition, the killing of one person by another. It has been established that a homicide occurred and it has been established who killed whom. The court will decide whether the killing was justifiable. This has also been determined in the move discussion in which you participated. Surtsicna (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You say "it has been established who killed whom". What authority established that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, see Killing_of_George_Floyd#Autopsies. A homicide requires two parties, one of which causes the death and the other which is consequently dead. It is a bit distasteful to argue which is which in this case, methinks. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
There are literally tens of millions of people around the world who believe that Chauvin killed Floyd (you and I included). Regardless of whether the article says "X was killed by Y" or "X died after Y...", 99% of those people who happen to come here and read the article will still believe that when they're finished reading it. Eventually, a court will make a determination and then the article lead can be rephrased and updated. Until then, we owe a duty to Wikipedia to follow our policies. I understand that it feels distasteful in the here and now, but in the long run it validates our principles and makes the encyclopedia a higher quality product. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter what you and I believe, AzureCitizen. The medical examiners have concluded that Chauvin killed Floyd. The court will only determine whether that homicide was a murder. This was explained in the move discussion in which you participated, leading to the Death of George Floyd→Killing of George Floyd move. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Where did the medical examiner conclude that "Chauvin killed Floyd?" Please specifically point that out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times, cited in the section I linked, says, among other things: "A private autopsy commissioned by the family concluded that his death was a homicide, brought about by compression of his neck and back by Minneapolis police officers." I am getting a strong feeling that we are arguing semantics here and if that is the case, an RfC might be in order. Surtsicna (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Technically, that doesn't even specifically say it was Chauvin, it just says it was brought about by "Minneapolis police officers" (plural). Regardless, a private autopsy is not a legal finding by a judicial authority. Nor is the official autopsy, as the medical examiner makes explicitly clear in their disclaimer in the Floyd autopsy report about not using it to usurp the judicial process. Per WP:BLPCRIME, "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." Note that the policy is speaking of content that even suggests that the person committed a crime. Your desired wording of "X was killed by Y" goes far beyond suggesting; it's an outright statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Conversely, saying "X died after Y put his knee on his neck" comes close to suggesting Y committed a crime, but I think it's fine in this case. Also, please note that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources state the facts here along the lines of "X died after Y put his knee on his neck," and not "X was killed by Y putting his knee on his neck" (that's not a coincidence; they have the same journalistic ethics and legal issues to consider). Wikipedia follows what the majority of sources say and sets the ones on the fringe aside, especially when distilling everything down to a key statement of fact in an article's lead. Given the foregoing, what's your best argument as to why we should abandon those principles here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A homicide is not a crime. Murder is a crime. This discussion makes no sense if you cannot or will not comprehend the difference between the two terms. The New York Times, The Smithsonian Magazine, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc, are not fringe sources, and I am not convinced that a majority tiptoe around calling a spade a spade. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
There's significant stigmatization to saying person X killed person Y, even when sometimes the act of homicide is not a crime. This is a murder case and we make all the attendant facts clear in the article (autopsy says it was a homicide, murder charges have been filed etc.), so readers understand it in the criminal context when we directly say Chauvin (and Chauvin alone) killed Floyd in Wikipedia's voice. The principle behind BLPCRIME is for editor's to write conservatively. But setting that aside, let's look at those sources one by one:
  1. The New York Times is clearly labeled as an opinion piece at the top, followed with a byline article under the title as "Nicholas Kristof, opinion columnist." Even then, Kristof takes care to refer to a "video of George Floyd being killed by the police in Minneapolis." He doesn't say "Floyd was killed by Chauvin," or even a policeman, instead referring to the police in the abstract plural.
  2. The LA Times piece again phrases it in the abstract like the NYT opinion piece. Quote "...following the killing of George Floyd, a black man, by a white policeman (or policemen) in Minneapolis." The writer at least wrote "policeman", but then hedged his bets with "or policemen" to make it plural again. Having read the entire article, it's also readily apparent that this is an opinion piece. Robert Lloyd's byline says he is a television critic, and in the piece we find him referring to himself in the first person: "I don’t mean to accuse any particular person of doing a poor job," "Perhaps that’s why the response to current events I’ve found most affecting, thought-provoking and memorable is a video posted May 29 by late-night host Trevor Noah," etc. The piece then devolves into social commentary on television.
  3. The title of the Smithsonian piece calls it "The Killing of George Floyd" just like we do, but it doesn't specifically say Floyd was killed by Chauvin. Instead, it tiptoes around this by referring to the "killing of George Floyd," then in the next sentence it says that "Derek Chauvin knelt on the 46-year-old black man's neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds". Probably careful choice of words by freelance writer Nora McGreevy, but at least it's not an opinion piece like the first two.
  4. The Telegraph source is the best one in the bunch. It's not an opinion article, and it straight up says "George Floyd, a 46-year-old bouncer, was killed on Monday May 25 by Derek Chauvin, a police officer"; good find.
In my opinion, what's needed here are additional quality sources that characterize or speak of the killing of Floyd by Chauvin, specifically, and a showing that this is the norm of how it is being reported in the majority of secondary reliable sources, even if that majority is a bare one at 51%. I don't mean that the sources have to specifically repeat the rote words "Floyd was killed by Chauvin," just that they address it directly as they did in source #4 and not tip toe around it. The current text on the Killing of George Floyd article is a tip toe formulation, using words to the effect "Floyd died after Chauvin knelt on his neck." Before we go further in this thread, do you still contend that the majority of sources use the very direct "Floyd was killed by Chauvin," or would you agree that the majority of secondary reliable sources really use the tiptoe phrasing like we currently do? If the former (you feel that the majority of reliable sources do not tiptoe), please produce some more like source #4. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

Hello, Surtsicna...

I see that you removed the "See also" section that I included on Master Mountbatten-Windsor's page. In the edit summary, you said that your reason for doing so was that he wasn't identified as black by his parents and that neither of them identified themselves as such either. While I agree with this assessment in principle, I don't think that it takes into consideration the varied definitions of what it means to BE black.

If you had followed the link to its parent page, you'd have seen that it was a referenced section of the "Black British" page, one that focused on British nobles with identifiable black ancestry and black and mixed race individuals with recent noble British ancestry. You will admit that Master Mountbatten-Windsor would qualify for inclusion in both categories. Also, in the lead section of the article in question, the generally acceptable definition of a Black British person is given. A Black British person is a British citizen of either Black African or Black Afro-Caribbean descent or one of mixed ancestry that includes either of these two descents. Master Mountbatten-Windsor would qualify here as well.

I understand wanting to wait for the parents to take the lead on this matter, but a community is typically what decides whether a person belongs to it or not. In one of my tribes here in Africa for example, if a White Briton were initiated as a member and went through the ceremony of acculturation, that person would be as Ijaw as any other tribesman in good standing thereafter. That is our tribe's custom... What his parents have to say on the matter wouldn't affect it.

Anyway, I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, O.ominirabluejack. I'm afraid such reasoning would qualify as original research. Wikipedia is supposed to summarise what reliable sources say. I do not think reliable sources describe him as a Black British nobleman; and of course, neither do his parents. I also think the article should not focus on the infant's racial heritage and melanin abundance more than it already does; at some point, it becomes rather distasteful. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Surtsicna...

Well, would it also be "distasteful" to provide independent sources describing him as a Black British person, since that is what the Wikipedia page for the Black British itself qualifies him as?

Also, as for the "nobleman" qualifier, technically he isn't one... Yet. He is, however, an heir to a number of British noble titles. I suppose that you could say that he's a gentleman instead, but I see this as unnecessary quibbling... Especially since the gentry have a section on the page for the British nobility.

At any rate, Wikipedia policy should be consistent. If what you are saying is standard practice, then the Wikipedia page for Black Billionaires - for example - should be deleted.

P.S: It really shouldn't be.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Doubts

How is it not possible to call Aleksa Šantić a Serbian poet (in the lead), but it is okay to call Antun Augustinčić Croatian sculptor? I am just curious. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Augustinčić was born in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and died in the Socialist Republic of Croatia. He lived in Croatia, whereas Šantić did not live in Serbia. That said, I would prefer "Yugoslav sculptor" because his opus was not limited to just one part of the country. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sadko, for a number of Serb figures you seem fine with ethnicity or the identity Serbian in the lead despite the subject living in Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary. Yet for Croat figures you hold a different standard. See here [1] and here [2] . Here [3] the subject described as Serbian born in Serbia despite Vojvodina being in Austria-Hungary. Vasilije Mokranjac Would be deemed as Yugoslavian no? I am confused by these differences. I have brought this to your attention before only to be told I am practicing “WhatAboutArticleX”. How are you not doing this very thing? OyMosby (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Surtsicna I agree, he should be called Yugoslav. Kingdom of CS was an integral part of a much bigger empire, the same way the socialist Croatia was an integral part of Yu.
@OyMosby You clearly did not pay attention while hounding, otherwise you would not bring those diffs. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surtsicna/Archive_17&oldid=968398402"