Talk:Masturbation

Kama Sutra quotation is highly questionable

"The ancient Indian Hindu text Kama Sutra explains in detail the best procedure to masturbate; 'Churn your instrument with a lion's pounce: sit with legs stretched out at right angles to one another, propping yourself up with two hands planted on the ground between in them, and rub it between your arms'."

The citation given for this quote does not directly quote the actual text of the kama sutra, but indirectly through another book. I brought up the actual Kama Sutra in gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27827/27827-h/27827-h.htm and simply using the search-in-page function of Firefox, "churn your instrument" yields no results within the text. now, this could just mean that the quote is from a different translation than the one on Gutenberg (gutenberg has the 1883 translation by British orientalist Sir Richard Francis Burton) However, while I have not thoroughly read the whole text from top to bottom I have skimmed over the whole thing, I think, pretty thoroughly; and found nothing of the sort. Someone needs to find a better citation that quotes this directly from a translation, or else remove the quotation as an apparent misquote. 70.198.131.190 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I dug through the article history to see if the quote or its source had been modified from when it was added, but it had not. (It was added with this edit in 2010, for what it's worth). "Churn" seems very likely to be translated as something else, but the whole thing may have been made up or confused with a different source or something. Honestly, it seems pretty silly to be relying on Alan Thicke for Kama Sutra quotes. What an odd sentence I just typed... Anyway, a replacement would be nice, but if we can't find one so be it. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the gutenberg link, I think I agree that it's likely apocryphal. It seems to have been repeated a lot, but it's low-reliability stuff that probably got it from Wikipedia. Regardless, it should have a better sources. It is also mentioned in History of masturbation, but I will remove it from there, as well. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

The article claims that masturbation lowers blood pressure. The source for this information does not support this, but rather claims that penile-vaginal intercourse lowers blood pressure, whereas masturbation increases blood pressure.

Please update the "general benefits" section with this information. Fazza faz (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The abstract doesn't specifically make the claim that masturbation increases blood pressure. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it's merely saying that those who masturbated had slightly higher systolic BP than those who engaged penile-vaginal sex. Someone who has access to the study might want to confirm all that. Regardless, the study is a minor one with a primary source, so it might be undue? Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Source 44 (http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/masturbate/) is unreliable, even stating within it that "Johanson did not offer any specific statistics for this claim — nor did she refer to videos of masturbating babies or other physical evidence — but her line of reasoning is this..."

Please remove this source. Danke :) Fazza faz (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The source is written in an informal style, but both times it's used in the article it's in conjunction with other sources to support general points about medical attitudes about masturbation. It seems perfectly adequate for supporting these broad statements. Sue Johanson is a recognized expert, and is one of several such experts cited in the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Compulsive masturbation

I'm not happy about this deletion of long-standing material from this section. No reason was given, although a hat-note link to Sexual addiction was added. The first paragraph removed was the one that made a clear statement that masturbation does not cause any form of mental disorder. This may seem an obvious statement, but I think a surprising number of English speakers worldwide may be happy to come here and see an well-sourced, unequivocal statement to that effect - despite whatever their aunt, mother or other adult may have told them in the past. I see nothing in the new hat-note-linked article that makes a similar point. The second paragraph removed made the point that there is still "discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to whether such a thing as sexual addiction really exists." Maybe this is what the other editor didn't like, but again the statement is well sourced. I shall reinstate the deletions of content per WP:BRD, and maybe @Seppi333: would like to come here and explain why they think this material has to go. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Read Sexual addiction#Biomolecular mechanisms. It applies to all forms of stimulating forms of sexual behavior. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I read that, and barely understood a word of it. Are you saying that because of something about ΔFosB being a very significant gene transcription factor, the whole medical profession now agrees that your aunty was right, and if you fiddle with that you will become a sex addict? I think we need clarity in an article such as this, not hypertechnical obfuscation. --Nigelj (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The way any addiction develops is through excessive engagement/experience of an addictive stimulus. In the case of addictive drugs, the dosage determines whether or not ΔFosB expression increases. In the case of addictive behaviors, it's the intensity and length of time that determines an increase in ΔFosB expression. The "long-term" level of its expression accumulates slowly, but persists for a long time (~2 months) (note that I oversimplified this sentence a little to avoid some overly technical details); there is a threshold level of ΔFosB gene expression above which a person loses the capacity to stop his/herself from seeking+experiencing the addictive stimulus - this is because ΔFosB directly regulates positive reinforcement, and therefore the severity of compulsive-drug use or compulsive engagement in rewarding behaviors. Consequently, an individual must experience an addictive stimulus, such as masturbating, in excess on a regular basis (e.g., daily/every other day) to actually develop an addiction.

This is all very hard to explain in simple terms for an addictive stimulus, so the only place this is really mentioned is at ΔFosB (it includes a graph illustrating how it accumulates over time) and 1 other drug article. Even if none of that made sense, in a nutshell, this is what it entails: masturbation is still a healthy behavior, but only up to a point, excessive masturbation is a very unhealthy behavior because, if done regularly, it will almost surely induce a sexual addiction. While a typical/population average level of masturbation is healthy and safe, the former assertion that it is universally healthy and safe is simply just not true. The same goes for the previous statement about sexual addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

These are very sweeping statements. I'm sure you know that we will need to see WP:MEDRS sources, and that with regard to WP:OR and WP:SYN, these will have to mention masturbation specifically alongside your reading of this biochemistry. --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page - I'm not going to cite myself, especially because what I said is literally where I said it was cited in my statement above: ΔFosB. My "reading" of "sexual activity" as inclusive of masturbation follows directly from what sexual activity, "sexual reward", and/or "sexual experience" refers to - these are blanket terms for a class of stimuli or a property of those stimuli, just like "psychostimulants" and "opiates" are a class of stimuli. If you want a single summary source, this dissertation covered the state of research in 2012: [1]. Since then, most of the more recent research has gone into the neuroepigenetic mechanisms in addiction and therapeutic potential of histone-modifying enzyme inhibitors for addiction in general. I don't feel like elaborating on this further though, so I'm just going to leave it at that; you don't have to like or even understand what I'm saying, but you will respect the conclusions of medical reviews. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that it is universally healthy and safe is simply just not true. However, it isn't universally recognized as addictive; it is a hot topic and the matter isn't settled yet as medical consensus. The question is when is masturbation excessive? This question is usually answered with: when it produces serious problems for the subject. There are quite rare cases wherein obsessive compulsive disorder manifests itself as compulsive masturbation. So, masturbating regularly isn't an addiction, there are many reasons why people masturbate instead of having sex even if they would prefer to have sex instead of masturbating. It's like someone only having money for buying donuts, eating donuts is not the reason why he/she avoids trendy restaurants, wherein one can have caviar and champagne. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Biochemical findings do not bijectively translate into medical diagnoses/cures. There a lot of medicines which work good in cell cultures but do not work well in humans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize this. HDAC1 inhibitors have shown a lot of promise for treating 3 distinct classes of addictive drugs in preclinical research and their mechanism of action in doing this is partly understood (e.g., increased G9a expression and the removal of ΔFosB at the c-fos promoter site), but their effects appear to be location-dependent, drug-specific, and time-dependent; there's a need for more research on this before it goes into clinical testing. That said, HDAC1 inhibitors have never been used in clinical trials for any addiction as far as I know. I haven't even bothered adding much content on drug-specific epigenetic alterations to articles because it's even more complicated than the core transcriptional mechanism, and most of these mechanisms differ for every addictive stimulus (see Talk:Amphetamine#Epigenetic mechanisms reviews for review; [2] - this is the 2nd paywalled ref in that list).
A notable finding in current research is that sexual addiction has a lot of mechanisms in common with amphetamine addiction, which suggests that treatments for amphetamine-like psychostimulants would have efficacy for treating sexual addiction as well. At present, there are no clinically effective treatments for psychostimulant addiction though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement was made above, "masturbating, in excess on a regular basis (e.g., daily/every other day) to actually develop an addiction." The only proof we have for this so far is a 297 page PhD thesis that does not seem to proscribe upper limits on how many times a week a person may masturbate. I will believe that there are WP:MEDRS sources that say that it is now known to be harmful for a healthy person to masturbate too often, when I see them. Meanwhile there were four citations in the material that was removed, Levine M. P., Troiden R. R. (1988), Giles J (2006), Briken, P.; Habermann, N.; Berner, W.; Hill, A. (2007), and "BBC Relationships: Addicted to sex" (2009). I wonder what happened to all that? Then there were the leaflets in 2009 issued by the National Health Service in Sheffield, the Spanish region of Extremadura's programme, palliative care programmes. Are you saying that all these health authorities were wrong not to set upper limits? All on the basis of a PhD thesis from Western Ontario? --Nigelj (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an extremely important point; due to historical and current prejudices against masturbation, we should apply a great deal of caution before including anything about detrimental effects and rigorously apply the rule of multiple reliable peer reviewed sources, not just one. If there is no consensus or conflicting sources then proportionality should be used with regard to the emphasis placed. Btljs (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol? Nigel, I provided that link for you to have as a reference for the state of research because it was comprehensive and specific to sexual addiction. I've never cited that source on wikipedia and I don't plan to because a dissertation is a primary source. My explanation above was merely for your education, not my intent to add text to the article; consequently, I don't have to give you a single source to back up my statements because this is a talk page, not an article. You've already been informed where you can find medical reviews which support my statement, so fetch them yourself if you want them.
All the article refs I removed aren't MEDRS-compliant for reasons I've already stated in my edit summary. If you decide to push this and revert me, we can bring this issue to the attention of WT:MED and you can learn how strictly WP:MEDRS is applied by medical editors. Otherwise, we can leave it as is and simply link to the article where this content is actually covered in the hatnote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would someone seek out medical reviews that support somebody else's thesis? Your assertion your burden of proof. Btljs (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2013 DSM-5 stated there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence in order to produce a diagnosis of sex addiction. So I wonder: what changed so fast in respect to medical consensus? Anyway, the agreement reached by Seppi333 and TheAnome can be consulted at [3]. I think that is the mandate for such changes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm here because two well-cited statements were [removed] from the article. I reinstated them while we discussed per WP:BRD, but Seppi333 edit-warred them back out. I refuse to be drawn into edit warring. The statements were, in brief, "There is no scientific evidence of a causative relationship between masturbation and any form of mental disorder" and "There is discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to whether such a thing as sexual addiction really exists." I have been given links to various Wikipedia pages, I have been given reading to do to "for my education", but I have not seen any usable citation that supports the removal or obfuscation of these two verifiable statements. While all this chat goes on, the article is in the 'wrong version'. It gets a great deal of traffic daily, and I want that fixed, please. --Nigelj (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that there isn't any contradiction between "there is biochemical evidence for it" and "there is no medical consensus whether it is real". Anyway, in humans the DeltaFosB hypothesis behind sex addiction is unfalsifiable, since research can only be done through autopsy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a verifiable WP:MEDRS link between masturbation and DeltaFosB, the reason for deletion is at best original synthesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To make a comparison with physics, bleeding edge research is that gravity could be a force which leaks from a parallel universe into our universe. Is it scientific consensus? No, since there is not a jot of evidence for it. Similarly, medicines which would cure addiction through neuroepigenetics are bleeding edge research, but are they medical consensus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the medical consensus has been revolutionized since 2013 in respect to sex addiction is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed the WP:MEDDATE issue, and indeed it would be an extraordinary claim to state that if DSM-5 were published just two years later, it would have completely changed its view upon sex addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tgeorgescu. That was a good edit, IMHO, which brings the section up to date. --Nigelj (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu: There's no reason your NAcc D1-type MSNs couldn't be biopsied while you're alive - you've apparently never heard of a brain biopsy before; even complete removal of that brain structure is survivable as it's not a vital brain structure. Unfalsifiable? lol. Learn some neuroscience before you try to act like you know anything about it.

Similarly, medicines which would cure addiction through neuroepigenetics are bleeding edge research, but are they medical consensus?
If you knew anything about pharmacology, you'd have replaced "medical consensus" with "established as effective and safe in human clinical trials". Medical consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the approval of a drug as a pharmaceutical. Absolutely nothing. A tiny FDA review panel decides that in the US; a similar governmental committee performs this function in most other 1st world countries. From there, it's up to a doctor and a patient. Methamphetamine has a stigma among the medical community and that's for good reason - there's almost no "medical consensus" for its use, yet it's approved for ADHD by the USFDA due to its efficacy and safety performance in clinical trials. Again, some background on pharmaceuticals might be useful knowledge to have before talking about it.

"there is biochemical evidence for it" - no, there's addiction biomarker evidence for it. Disease biomarkers are used in lab tests - they're real medical diagnostics. It's not the hand-wavy bullshit the DSM shovels every few years.
What do you think ΔFosB induction or its level of expression are measured for? What do you think that "overexpression" threshold represents? Do you know enough molecular biology to understand the questions I'm asking anyway? The "overexpression" threshold is the point where ΔFosB's expression flips the "molecular switch" for addiction. Asserting to the contrary that ΔFosB (over)expression is not a addiction biomarker is equivalent to asserting that the entire set of addiction models for all drugs and behaviors that have been researched is invalid due to its necessary and sufficient relationship to the induction of addiction plasticity.

FOSB lead 3rd paragraph + ΔFosB section 2nd paragraph. There's your refs.

The fact that you question the validity of something that you don't even understand despite it being validated and supported by dozens of medical researchers from a wide range of biomedical backgrounds is shocking. [4] - there isn't a single dissenting paper among those. There's just the peanut gallery: you.

I'm already annoyed enough by the fact that your preconceived biases cause you to show up ONLY on sex-related compulsion articles to spew your POV which you cite to a flawed diagnostic model that's constantly in flux from being redeveloped by a handful of individuals without any outside input (hence no "medical consensus") and which is not even based on real science. It would irk me less if you actually were active on other addiction articles, because at least then it might suggest you're promoting the DSM instead of some preconceived notions about sexual activity which you're promoting here. I hate intellectual dishonesty. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• In any event, after considering this issue for a few hours, I decided to remove the hatnote for 2 reasons: I'm not entirely sure that masturbation is a rewarding stimulus; even if it were, there's a qualitative difference between the nature of sexual intercourse and masturbation as reinforcers, so the assumption that the two disease states would be the same is potentially erroneous. There's actually no point in having content on sexual addiction on this page now, but I think its funny to make the DSM look stupid, so I gave the page WP:DUE WEIGHT.

I'm not even going to respond to the claims about WP:V WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - these article policies; WP:TPG - that's for talk pages. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I cordially ask you to have a look at WP:CIVIL before making any more hasty and frankly personal comments here? Can you also please stop hacking about at the article text, tagging, deleting and expounding. Why do we now have no less than four paragraphs in the article on your views on the integrity of the DSM? Please calm down and collaborate. --Nigelj (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually not feeling particularly irritated at the moment; this isn't my first and probably won't be my last interaction with Tg.
I frankly would've preferred the old version of the article text from Special:permalink/664270007 be used, but with the problematic references replaced/cited with newer medical reviews, provided these could be found. I was hoping this would be done instead; I don't really see why Tg added the DSM's sexual addiction entry, but if that is on this page, then the same references from the sexual addiction article need included to give the topic due weight. The reason medical statements are cited to reviews and not primary research and particularly not nonmedical sources is that it's the least likely type of medical citation to contain erroneous material or fringe theory. As noted above, I don't see the point in including any mention of sexual addiction here for reasons mentioned - it's like bringing up amphetamine addiction on the cocaine page; they're similar substances but the drugs aren't interchangeable in those addictions. I also couldn't find any neuroimaging studies which demonstrate that the reward system is activated by masturbation; without that property, I completely agree that compulsive masturbation isn't a form of addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that DSM were holy or infallible. However, APA is a major player in this discussion, and DSM expresses the consensus reached by APA. So, DSM-5 is notable opinion, although it is not the only opinion that matters. You see, from biomarkers evidence to a consensual diagnosis is a long way. Maybe 20 or 40 years later it will be your way, today it isn't. You have the right to criticize DSM through the lenses of other WP:MEDRS sources, but you cannot deny that the DSM is highly relevant. Besides, there is a difference between medicine X being approved for use and medicine X consensually being used for treating disease Y. There are medicines which are approved but do not enjoy medical consensus about their use, e.g. homeopathic medicines, abandoned or bleeding edge medicines. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

E.g., another notable opinion would be ICD-10 (2015), which includes hypersexuality as a diagnosis. About the quote over the quality of fever quote, this is simply the development degree (knowledge level) which psychiatry has nowadays. Psychiatry simply isn't so advanced as the NIH director would wish, because it is a very complicated and difficult matter, wherein clarity about underlying causes is often missing. I don't oppose seeking to address this problem, but we cannot simply jump to the scientific knowledge from the year 2200, humanity will simply have to wait till then in order to reach it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So, that quote could be interpreted as an explanation of the present-day knowledge level and should not be misconstrued as an attack upon the DSM. A much simpler point could be made by citing the fact that ICD-10 (2015) accepts the diagnosis of hypersexuality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Seppi333 While it is fine for you two to have this discussion here, can you at least allow the section on compulsion in the article to reflect what probably 99.9% of people expect/need to see? Viz: Is there such a thing? Is it dangerous? Is there a limit to what is healthy? If (as seems probable) there is no scientific medical consensus then by all means state the different positions but I really don't think that this section of this article is an appropriate place for a critique of medical diagnoses sources. Btljs (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to cite the ICD-10; but, like I said before, I don't think any of the text in the collapse tab below is actually relevant to the section anymore. If masturbation isn't an addictive (rewarding+reinforcing) stimulus, then sexual addiction probably shouldn't even be covered here. I don't actually know how the concept might be related to hypersexuality in medical reviews, but the lead sentence of hypersexuality describes a pathologically reinforced behavior – i.e., a compulsion – so that article has a more general/appropriate scope for the section than sexual addiction. The following content should probably just be cut/commented out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary section text

The DSM-5, an American diagnostic classification system, stated in 2013: 'Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders.' The director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health discussed the invalidity of the DSM-5's classification of mental disorders, writing: While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. The flawed and arbitrary nature of the DSM addiction classifications has also been criticized by medical researchers who actively study addiction pathophysiology. A 2014 systematic review on sexual addiction discussed this lack of available evidence, indicating that, "a lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". According to the same systematic review, sexual addiction is a diagnosable behavioral addiction with prevalence rates for it and related sexual disorders ranging from 3 to 6%. Other medical reviews that from 2011 and 2012 came to the same conclusion that compulsive sexual behavior constitutes an addiction. References

I admit that I lost interest in this discussion when the mudslinging began, and when it became difficult to follow who was arguing for or against what. Having a look now I see that User:Seppi333 said above, "I don't think any of the text in the collapse tab below is actually relevant to the section anymore." Yet I see that it is all still in the article (maybe I wasn't the only one to lose interest? ;-) Since I believe that it was Seppi who added it, I'm going WP:BOLDly to assume that I can remove it now. Is that OK? --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Replacement references

These are paywalled. I'm hosting these papers on an external site for a short time. If you want to replace the content that was deleted in this section, these are suitable references (current medical reviews) with which to expand it. They're the only 2 reviews on pubmed that are relevant to the topic and which are reasonably current.

• Review 1 -
• Review 2 -

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Review 1 says something about excessive masturbation (which we already knew that it is an accepted ICD-10 diagnosis), but it is very brief and does not get specific about defining it. It just says that exist some diagnostic guidelines, but that isn't anything extraordinary. Also, it does not say anything about sexual addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't what I think is useful - it's just what's available. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS deletions

I deleted all the inline-flagged MEDRS non-compliant citations that cited medical statements as well as one uncited medical statement from this page revision section: Special:permalink/667319430#Compulsive masturbation. I've requested input from WT:MED on the deletion of all these primary/nonmedical sources and the uncited medical statement. Some of the remaining sources are slightly outside the WP:MEDDATE range, but I left those alone.

• Special:permalink/667319430#Compulsive masturbation - inline flagged citations
• Special:diff/667319430/667344589 - deletion diff

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Photos, with and without device

I notice that there are images of a man and a woman masturbating manually. However, there is an image of a woman using a device, while there is no such image of a man using a device. I feel that we could balance this by adding an image of a man using an artificial vagina. Drewmike (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)