Talk:Joseph Nicolosi

Additional sources for the article

There are at least two reliable sources to be hopefully integrated in the article:

1. an interview of Dr. Nicolosi to the Zenit News Agency (here)
2. a short biography published on the Catholic Social Science Review - Philosophy Center (here) ,mentioning a presentation held by Dr Nicolosi at the John Paul Institute for Marriage and the Family at the Vatican.

His PhD thesis/dissertation at the California School of Professional Psichology isn't included on his bibliography on Worldcat and it can't be easily find on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.68.43 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Added information

Beth Timken, in regard to the information that you added here, I would suggest, if you believe the information warrants inclusion in the article at all, that you place it in a new section. It does not belong in a section titled "Biography" because it is not about Nicolosi's biography at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Massive removal of content

FreeKnowledgeCreator, you just responded to Beth Timken's addition / reordering in this article (which added 817 bytes) by removing 6,307 bytes of long-standing text. Would you please explain your actions? Policy on fringe topics like conversion therapy mandates that the mainstream view be presented. EdChem (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above. It belongs in a different section, not a section titled "Biography", since it isn't about Nicolosi's life. Anyone should feel free to start a new section and put the information there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is JzG restoring it eight months ago, this is not new text. You have removed something like 8 times as much text as Beth Timken added. If you know full well that it belongs in the article, removing it is deliberate misconduct. Feel free to put it back, immediately, and then re-structure the article if you feel it is needed, or I will revert you per BRD and suggest you discuss your proposals. Your removal is not justified under policy. EdChem (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to be hysterical, rude, or insulting ("deliberate misconduct"). I will put it in a different section. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making the edit that you should have in the first place. EdChem (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of media appearances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My edit was removed by @Freeknowledgecreator: because apparently media appearances do not warrant it's own section. However as noted here on the talk page, the user has routinely removed other users edits to the Nicolosi's biography, and instructed users to create additional sections. Hence, a media appearances section seems completely appropriate. I also acted on the fact that there are other Nicolosi media appearances, such as this interview on the BBC and other mainstream networks, which were notable discussions in the media (edit: I meant to say here that other appearances could be added to the section later). I think a feature in a prominent Stephen Fry documentary is a notable media appearance. I am not sure why a careful edit, with a clear citation including timestamps should be removed. Then I have to come to the talk page and put my case forward as to avoid an edit war. This seems much more like personal interpretation on part of the user without any real wikipedia rule being cited. I notice freeknowledgecreator has done several of these reversals, and while sometimes appropriate, there is absolutely no criteria provided for which edits are being removed. Thank you --Sxologist (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said when I removed it, "I see no reason why a single media appearance is of such great importance that it merits an entire section of the article". I still don't. Plenty of people notable enough to have articles written about them do media appearances. Should articles about notable people have separate sections for each and every media appearance that they do? Most people would say no. What is so special about one particular media appearance by one particular person (Nicolosi) that it deserves a whole section of an article? And why go into minute detail about who said exactly what during that media appearance? There's no encyclopedic justification for it. The relevant rule is WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Personally I would simply have added a "see also" link to Stephen Fry: Out There and left it at that. You appear to be confused when you say, "I also acted on the fact that there are other Nicolosi media appearances, such as this interview on the BBC and other mainstream networks, which were notable discussions in the media at the time"; "notable" in Wikipedia terms means that a topic merits a dedicated article. See WP:NOTE. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of notable and sometimes controversial figures is included on most wikipedia articles. Should we go and remove all the media coverage and documentary coverage of the Westboro Baptist Church from their wikipedia page? Should we take off the fact that Louis Theroux did a documentary about them? Fry's segment of the documentary was specifically about reparative therapy and Joseph Nicolosi. The quote can certainly be reduced in size, for example, the quote about teenagers might be considered long. However, in the wider context of this article and the APA's condemnation of reparative therapy with teenagers brought into therapy by their parents, and are not technically consenting, I think it deserves a mention. I also made no such mention of 'notability' in Wikipedia terms, I simply said "notable", which in the context of this article would rely more on due weight. Fry does not hold a minority view, and he wasn't particularly confrontational in the interview either. Considering Nicolosi's prominence in the reparative therapy 'community' and the media, this article is extremely brief. --Sxologist (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not media coverage of someone, but a media appearance by that person. It's not the same thing. There is normally no reason why a media appearance that someone does should be mentioned in an article about that person unless that appearance is of outstanding importance. The shortness of the article is unsurprising and unlikely to change, given that there is very little about Nicolosi that actually deserves mention in an article. What is there about Nicolosi to report other than his support for conversion therapy? The shortness of the article is not an excuse for cramming it full of unencyclopedic trivia such as the precise details of who said what during a single media appearance: that's exactly the kind of material that fails the test of WP:PROPORTION. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, your interpretation of what is 'outstanding importance' seems odd considering Stephen Fry's prominence. Could you link me the wikipedia rule that all quotes/appearances must be about something or from a 'source' of outstanding importance? (EDIT: it appears you removed the words 'outstanding importance' from your response). WP:PROPORTION quite clearly says multiple views on a topic should be covered, but those with a very minority view or making an extraordinary claim should be left out. That doesn't seem enough to justify deleting this section. This is the coverage of Nicolosi in a mainstream and prominent documentary, and largely deals with direct quotes. --Sxologist (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The relevant rule is WP:PROPORTION, as already noted. What it states is, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It does not say that "multiple views on a topic should be covered, but those with a very minority view or making an extraordinary claim should be left out". You are simply confused. Maybe you are confusing WP:PROPORTION with WP:FALSEBALANCE, a different section of the overall WP:NPOV policy. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You do realise there was nothing stopping you from adding media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi? If anything, Nicolosi holds the minority viewpoint and thus inclusion of other opinions on him and his work is justified. Regardless, my edit was quite clearly not dealing with the consensus on the pros/cons of the work carried out by Nicolosi, so what point are you trying to make? I have already said we can cut down the quote. The edits is of a prominent feature in a Stephen Fry documentary is worthy of mention. Given you were warned by @EdChem: for a disruptive edit for previously removing large swathes of text on the Joseph Nicolosi article, I have trouble simply accepting your argument. I am going to wait for another editor to chime in as there is no conclusion being reached here. Edit: you also asked why Nicolosi’s article shouldn’t be as brief as it is? For starters, this article "has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale." Of course it needs work. Further, Nicolosi is considered one of the godfathers of a highly controversial practice, and his work also highly influenced the work of therapists around the world today. He has a lot more coverage, (and views) that are covered in media, books and academia than this article covers. There are longer Wiki articles covering largely unnoticed psychologists. Sxologist (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? What gave you the idea that I would want to add "media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi"? Do you assume that I support Nicolosi's views simply because I'm a Christian? That seems incredibly presumptuous, and your assumption is, in any case, wrong. I do not recall ever having expressed any opinion of Nicolosi's work on Wikipedia, and I certainly have no interest in adding material that would portray it in a flattering light. I believe in writing articles in accord with WP:NPOV. The problem with your addition, in my view, is that it goes into greatly excessive detail about a relatively minor subject; whether it portrays Nicolosi in a positive or a negative light is neither here nor there.

As for "what point are you trying to make": the point, which should have been obvious, was that you appear to be confused about what WP:PROPORTION actually states. You stated above that it, "quite clearly says multiple views on a topic should be covered, but those with a very minority view or making an extraordinary claim should be left out". It doesn't. You are simply wrong about that. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE that explains that minority views should be excluded, not WP:PROPORTION, which deals with an entirely different issue. Your rude comment above simply looks like a refusal on your part to admit that you are mistaken about what WP:PROPORTION is actually concerned with. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I made no assumptions about your beliefs, and your faith is news to me (and irrelevant). I was deferring until additional editors could provide answers, but you've assumed some kind of religious attack which warrants a response. You said that adding mention of an interview with Nicolosi is undue weight, and I said that it could easily be remedied by adding a contrary POV. But, arguing that Nicolosi's appearance in a rather notable interview he gave is somehow undue weight or bias that appears to miss the whole point of the policy. You also keep referring to my earlier misread of the WP:PROPORTION policy. I kindly remind you that you said sources must have "outstanding importance", so while I may be guilty of a mistaken misread, you also had your own interpretations (an entirely made up rule?). If I misread one area of one policy, that doesn't make you correct. I note you were warned for removing content previously, and, you also said this article should stay the same size/scope despite the fact that it has a "Start-Class" on the quality scale. For those reasons, I will wait for other editors perspective. I'm not going to quibble over this any more. --Sxologist (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You commented, "You do realise there was nothing stopping you from adding media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi?" The question assumes I would want to add "media coverage which argued the case for Nicolosi". You are wrong. I don't. Baseless accusations are not civil. An overly detailed discussion of a single minor media appearance is excessive detail, per WP:PROPORTION, and "adding a contrary POV" would simply worsen the problem further, rather than making excessive detail from a single interview somehow appropriate. The rest of your comment is just as mistaken. I did not say that "sources must have "outstanding importance"; I stated that, "There is normally no reason why a media appearance that someone does should be mentioned in an article about that person unless that appearance is of outstanding importance", which is completely different. You attribute to me the view that, the "article should stay the same size/scope". Nope. I simply noted that there is little to report about Nicolosi's life or work, so anyone who wants to expand the article responsibly is going to find it very difficult. The absence of significant discussions of Nicolosi's life doesn't justify stuffing the article full of trivia from one interview. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's slight presumption. I said that as a perceived solution to undue weight, but upon reading the policy that wouldn't be suitable. Secondly, its a start-class article which quite clearly states that it is an article that it "Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more." On this topic, you stated that it shouldn't be expanded because "there is very little about Nicolosi that actually deserves mention in an article". Really? According to who exactly? Nicolosi is perhaps the most notable conversion therapist, and subsequently received the most coverage in media and academic journals and critiques. Further, he was also publicly accused of plagiarism by Elizabeth Moberly in both academic journals and in letters to the editor of major newspapers. Consider the amount of controversy that gets included on the Exodus International wiki including of the group and it's leaders. Should we go and delete all of those because of undue weight and proportion? Finally, I also stated that my edit could be cut down, for example, by simply shortening it to "Nicolosi stated that 60% of his patients were teenagers", however the whole quote in question quite clearly provided an insight into his beliefs. The fact you think the mentioning of a Stephen Fry documentary as an irrelevant detail is your own interpretation. Given your previous warning, you clearly have an interest in keeping this article as narrow as possible, in contrast with the start-class designation. Sxologist (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I never stated that the article should not be expanded. I already explained that to you clearly. I also did not say that "mentioning of a Stephen Fry documentary" is "an irrelevant detail" (it is clearly excessive detail, but that is different from it being irrelevant, as if it were not about the article's topic). Ignoring what I actually say and attributing to me views that I do not hold is not constructive. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

At least we are now both guilty of presuming the others views. My apologies there. Sxologist (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, Apart from the atrocious sourcing and the quote-mining, we have the issue of WP:UNDUE. The criteria here are referenced in WP:PROFRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:IINFO, WP:RS. I agree with Freeknowledgecreator's removal. You need third-party sources that discuss the interview to demonstrate its significance and the takeaways that independent reviewers drew from it, not some random editor's personal observations. Guy (help!) 09:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I did indicate that the edit I made could be adjusted, however it was removed on the presumption that it should not be included altogether, not because of an issue with the citation. It can easily be cited back to a New York Times article which states he claimed 60% of his patients were teenagers. Further, did I really quote mine? It wasn't out of context, it was in the context of their interview. Sxologist (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. That requires independent sourcing. We're not talking here about the claim that X% of his patients were teenagers, we're talking about "media appearances". Guy (help!) 09:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I am only arguing for it's inclusion in general, quote or without quote? The NYT article merely confirmed the interview occurred. And why exactly would we need the the takeaways from independent reviewers? This isn't the page about the documentary and it's reception. I included it because it was about Joseph Nicolosi and his views. --Sxologist (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, because WP:NOR. We don't get to be the arbiters of what should be drawn from any primary source. Guy (help!) 10:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. My broader question is asking if it is acceptable to even include one or two sentences stating that he appeared in an interview in a Stephen Fry documentary, with a secondary source like BBC or NYTimes. No quotes. And where should this fit? Sxologist (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, BBC is not a secondary source (Fry works for the BBC and they broadcast the interview). I have no opinion either way on whether a single sentence mention based on the NYT source would be apporopriate. Guy (help!) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Just adding he had been interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, Larry King and Stephen Fry. --Sxologist (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Factual misinformation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article currently states the following:

"From 2013, protests were raised in Spain over the sale of three of Nicolosi's books: I Want to Stop Being Gay, How to Prevent Homosexuality and Gender Confusion in Childhood."

The quoted statement contains a serious factual error. It is cited to an article in The Guardian, which can be seen here, but the article in question is at best misleading. Nicolosi never wrote books with the titles mentioned. A careful internet search would show that they do not exist. There are no records in libraries or bibliographies of them ever having existed, and they cannot be ordered for sale anywhere. As the "Publications" section states, Nicolosi's four books are Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Healing Homosexuality, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, and Shame and Attachment Loss. I will remove the factual error from the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe those are English translations of the titles his books were released under in Spanish: see here where he lists Cómo prevenir la homosexualidad and Quiero Dejar De Ser Homosexual and here for the GBooks listing of La confusión de género en la infancia. Cheers, gnu57 04:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That is possibly correct. But even if it is correct, it is misleading for the author of that article in The Guardian to give those titles (I Want to Stop Being Gay, How to Prevent Homosexuality and Gender Confusion in Childhood) as if Nicolosi actually wrote books in English with those titles, which he did not. The other possibility is that the author of the Guardian article is simply wrong in his facts. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The titles are those under which the books were sold in Spain, and the titles under which the sordid tomes were banished from the shelves. There is no possibility of being misled. If Nicolosi chose to give his essays in English less provocative or more anodyne titles than the Spanish editions, that is his concern. The titles cited in the Guardian are accurate, and it is not editors' place to quibble with them and unilaterally remove the information. GPinkerton (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • The books were obviously sold in Spain under Spanish titles. "I Want to Stop Being Gay, How to Prevent Homosexuality and Gender Confusion in Childhood" are English titles. Including them in the article is misleading in that it implies that Nicolosi actually wrote English-language books with those titles. There is no reason for the article to give a Guardian author's English translations of the titles that Nicolosi's books were released under in Spanish - we should simply give the actual, Spanish-language titles. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        • There is absolutely no point in adding untranslated Spanish titles to Wikipedia when we have the Spanish titles and the translations of the titles already reported by unimpeachable sources. What would be the benefit to the reader of removing the translations? GPinkerton (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
          • The benefit is that we do not misinform the reader by suggesting that Nicolosi actually wrote English-language books with the titles mentioned ("I Want to Stop Being Gay", etc). For the purposes of this article, it is enough to note that there were protests in Spain against the sale of some of Nicolosi's books. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
            • There is no danger of that, although I don't think it's misinformed. Nicolosi wrote the books, the titles reflect the content. He obviously chose his English titles poorly. The books Nicolosi wrote needs to be mentioned. I can't think why you object to that ... GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
              • It obviously is entirely possible that the reader will be misinformed to think that Nicolosi actually wrote a book in English called I Want to Stop Being Gay. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
                • It is possible, but if they read the Wikipedia article as written here, their confusion will be be allayed, since this wording is unambiguous. He wrote the books. Whether he chose their Spanish titles is not mentioned either in this article or in the article cited. You can not say otherwise, I presume. GPinkerton (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge with Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Since there is consensus for this proposal, I've redirected the article here (diff [1]). Any blocked sock content that is deemed worthy of publication can be added to this article as you see fit. buidhe 01:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality was created by a recently banned sock-puppet and the book, the discredited ideas of one man, is longer than the man's article. What remains notable should go under one article. GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I don't disagree, but I think this should probably be the target as it wasn't his only book. Guy (help!) 20:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG That's what I'm proposing! Merge the book(s) into the man. GPinkerton (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is that book even notable? Any reason to not just AfD it, without a redirect? Doesn't look like it qualifies for a G5 speedy, unlike some of User:Skoojal's other creations. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nfitz, It is notable, primarily because Amazon banned it. But is it independently notable? I'd say not. Guy (help!) 09:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

* Support merging the two articles. Although I abhor the book's content and the damage I've seen the theory and its implementation cause to so many men, those are my personal thoughts & feelings. Looking at this issue objectively as possible, I must conclude that the book is notable enough that we should cover it in the article about the author. ¶ Kudos to the Wikipedians who investigated the issue and determined that FreeKnowledgeCreator (what a name!) is/was a socky.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support merging the book into the man. No need for WP:FORKs when relating fringe theories. And to all here: Freeknowledgecreator/Skoojal worked on various articles related to homosexuality, especially books about homosexuality. I just discovered and read the ANI on him which details some of his subtle POV pushing/WP:SEALIONing. This fits well with my experience; he was always overly sympathetic to poorly sourced material which implied that sexual orientation was controlled by social influences. Definitely keep an eye out for NPOV in articles he's substantially edited. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, that sounds about right. But based on this edit by one of his old sockpuppets, he claims to have been victim of reparative therapy and that he has a vendetta against the freudian theories. Perhaps he holds some deep seated sympathy towards such theories and has relapsed in his belief about it, or he merely wanted to pretend he hated freudian theories to add a false sense of credibility to edits. Another one of his sockpuppets was titled 'Born Gay' which to me sounds like someone putting on a mask so they won't be questioned... given his editing history and all. --Sxologist (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, I cannot recall any gay person I know who has ever called themselves "a homosexual". Only rarely have I heard them say "I am homosexual". It is very sad reading - but Wikipedia is not therapy. Guy (help!) 21:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG based on the ANI on him, he once wrote: “for the record, I do not now, and nor have I ever, believed that I was 'born gay' - my actual views on that topic are about the exact opposite of what my user name would suggest". The intent of the sock was to present a "new, more politically correct guise (calling myself "Born Gay", and so forth), [so that] no one would be smart enough to realize who I was," clearly an intent to deceive and to advance an agenda. Sxologist (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - or even simply redirect. Nfitz (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translations... oh dear

I think someone needs to add translation notices to the foreign versions of this article. For example, the Arabic article appears to be a promotional page of Nicolosi linking to translated NARTH pages and says nothing of the mainstream view of reparative therapy. Sxologist (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

First sentence of article

The first sentence of this article is:

Joseph Nicolosi (January 24, 1947 – March 8, 2017) was an American clinical psychologist who advocated and practised "reparative therapy", a form of the pseudoscientific treatment of conversion therapy that he claimed could help people overcome or mitigate their homosexual desires and replace them with heterosexual ones.

I had edited the sentence to read:

Joseph Nicolosi (January 24, 1947 – March 8, 2017) was an American clinical psychologist who advocated and practised "reparative therapy", a form of conversion therapy that he claimed could help people overcome or mitigate their homosexual desires and replace them with heterosexual ones.

Nfitz made a good faith removal of my edit (diff), stating, "not sure why is trying to remove same text that banned sockpuppets tried to remove". Two points: (1) I edited the sentence for this reason, as I stated in my edit note: "grammar/usage - clarity of expression". This part of the sentence: "a form of the pseudoscientific treatment of conversion therapy" is (a) duplicative and unnecessary, since the last sentence of the first paragraph emphasizes the pseudoscientific nature of conversion therapies, including "reparative therapy" (as does the wikilinked conversion therapy article); and (b) the sentence is not clear and concise. To avoid back-and-forth edits, I will leave the sentence as is, although I encourage another editor to edit it to make it more clear and concise. ¶ Along with other editors, I had many discussions with FreeKnowledgeCreator (the sockpuppet) about his attempts to sanitize Nicolosi's book (Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality) and present it as acceptable theory. I have no interest whatsoever in minimizing the harmful nature of conversion therapies.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you Mark, I will give it a look when I have some time but grammatically speaking, you are correct. Sxologist (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I seek attention about this changes by User:Sxologist. 116.58.201.111 (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)