Talk:Neoliberalism

"Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and their advocates."

Is this a fair line in the summary? The definition sources http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12116-009-9040-5 which has the line in abstract: "We show that neoliberalism has undergone a striking transformation, from a positive label coined by the German Freiberg School to denote a moderate renovation of classical liberalism, to a normatively negative term associated with radical economic reforms in Pinochet’s Chile."

I feel this isn't the same as "general condemnation".

09:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Passerby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.182.61 (talk)

"mostly used as" is different from "is". So if you disagree you do prove the point that not everyone sees this term as "general condemnation". However you most likely know that a majority has a negative understanding of Neoliberalism today. --Kharon (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this was stressed, since in my experience the word is entirely used by critics, I have not seen a single free-market advocate describe himself as a "neoliberal". J1812 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is generally used by critics, which makes the article not neutral, because people with positive things to say use different language. Spumuq (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Public Realtions" (to point this out diplomatically) was always a big part of Neoliberalism. The sweettalking and spindoctoring is one major aspect of Neoliberalism. Very likely simply because it was and is payed for very well aka so many "Institutes" exist, funded by big Industry or Superrich, that offer an "fitting PR"-service. You are very wellcome to propose some examples for inclusion - to make the article "neutral". --Kharon (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

«funded by big Industry or Superrich», this sounds like a conspiracy theory. Spumuq (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So unless you want to provide evidence for "conspiracy theory" i propose you only add opinions of "people with positive things to say" about Neoliberalism that are without doubt not «funded by big Industry or Superrich». --Kharon (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This sentence now reads: "Today the term neoliberalism is mostly used pejoratively as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies, such as privatization, fiscal austerity, and deregulation." I replaced "open markets" w/ "fiscal austerity" because neither of the two references given cite "open markets" as characteristics of neoliberalism, while both cite fiscal austerity or expanded language e.g. "reduced public expenditure on social services, etc". Additionally we can't say neoliberalism is a pejorative if it refers to open markets; that's like saying motherhood is a pejorative. Fashoom (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good solution, thanks Fashoom.--PanchoS (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I second that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Smearing academic sources as "leftists" w/o evidence to undermine content

Recent additions by 24.141.7.227 and restored by User:Spumuq seek to smear academic sources as "leftists" in a clear attempt to marginalize what is being said. Here is the original:

The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen as the roots of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.

Here is the 24.141.7.227 version (with no WP:RS cited):

The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen by leftists as the root of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 claimed to be one of the ultimate results.

This is clearly WP:undue POV. I attempted to prevent a possible edit war by converting "leftists" to "some academics," but nevertheless it was reverted again to the 24.141.7.227 version by User:Spumuq, which he ironically said was "editorialising" in his edit summary. This is clearly nonsense, as the editorializing is being done by those besmirching academic sources they don't agree with as "leftist" without a shred of evidence to back it up. As such I'm reverting to this version which adheres to WP:NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is actually mainstream opinion today. Hardly anyone still belives in Hayek's idea(l) of "natural self regulating"-markets. --Kharon (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would even say it is common sense and, by itself, descriptive rather than pejorative. --PanchoS (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions by 5.55.22.136

The recent additions from this IP address are very similar to those from nearly identical IP addresses, such as 5.55.53.225, 5.55.152.48, 5.55.144.51 5.55.50.175. The last time this happened the article had to be protected. I'm reverting.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing regarding Neoliberalism as pejorative

I have reverted recent attempts at inserting even more materials into the lede that pushes this point of view. The Imperialism article serves as a good example for this one. Like Neoliberalism, Imperialism is largely used with a negative connotation, but this is mentioned ONCE in the last paragraph of the lede, not sprinkled throughout, which would violate NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It belongs in the opening--as Griffin himself explicitly agreed on 20 March 2015 (see above). POV means that major views are left out--which is NOT the case here. All the sources say it is usually used by its enemies in a negative fashion and rarely or never by friends of the policies. So there is No POV issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is already in the opening; it is POV pushing to mention it again and again. It is also referenced in the Terminology section. Thus, proper weight is already given to the notion that some scholars see it strictly as a pejorative. And no, not ALL sources proclaim "it is usually used by its enemies"!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a neutrality tag for now and will revert when I can. You obviously know you are giving undue weight to this idea, as you moved the last paragraph of the lede which discusses neoliberalism as a pejorative to the beginning of the next section so you could squeeze "Neoliberalism[1] is a term used primarily by the enemies of..." into the first sentence of the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

«will revert when I can», are you promising to edit war? Spumuq (talq) 14:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all you can contribute to this discussion? This in and of itself tells me you know you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. And it is quite disingenuous considering your past behavior on this very article regarding edit warring, even restoring edits by anonymous IP's which eventually resulted in the article being protected last year. The lede as it exists now is blatantly POV. And yes, at the very least I will restore the inline POV tags you arbitrarily removed when the time allows to reflect this. Prior to Rjensen's recent edits, the lede mentioned that neoliberalism is often used as a pejorative, but refrained from using such language as "a term used primarily by the enemies of...." This is the reason I linked to the Imperialism article, which addresses the use of Imperialism as a pejorative in a way which adheres to NPOV, much like this article did until now. In addition, more POV-pushing was added by RJensen when he supplanted this (When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile) with this (When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s by opponents of Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile), which will also require a POV tag.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My humble suggestion:

• The very first sentence should introduce the reader into the fact that the usage and definition has changed over time. There is no time-independent definition!
• The following passage may start with todays usage since this is the most recent one ;-)
• The last passages should deal with the beginning and the reason for shifting. There should not be a doubling of the description of todays usage in the last passages - Bis repetita non placent -

I feel - at least hope - that there could be a consensus to start with a warning that there is no time-independend definition. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. Spumuq (talq) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>I can live with this version but must insist on two things:

• The Oxford quote is redundant (as the first sentence tells the reader it is a critics term) and constitutes undue eight in my opinion, considering it is the first paragraph of the lede. I'm not advocating for its removal, but incorporating it into a citation and adding it with the others. This would resolve these issues.
• Restoring the long standing and NPOV sentence ("When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile" - italics mine) in place of the current version which is blatant POV.

With this, perhaps we can move closer to a consensus. I'm going to make the necessary changes per WP:BRD and see what happens...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That´s fine for me. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. =)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is already mentioned that the term is mostly used pejoratively. What is seen here is an obvious exercise of POV pushing. If neoliberals would like to avoid giving their policies a specific title or like to cloak their policies under a certain name, that is not Wikipedia's concern. Zozs (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The definition "Neoliberalism is the resurgence of ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s" is false. Neoliberalism already exists since the 1930s when the term was coined by Alexander Rüstow. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly false. The very first sentence in the introduction of The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States, which was just published months ago (Dec 2014) says: "Neoliberalism represents a reassertion of the liberal political economic beliefs of the 19th century in the contemporary era." This is pretty close to what was said in the lede of this article until yesterday. If this is false, then someone should immediately inform the literally scores of scholars who contributed to this tome, along with Routledge (an academic publisher) who published it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States definition is correct for todays notion of Neoliberalism. But I think we should not ignore that the original idea of Neoliberalism was a renovation away from laissez-fare liberalism (hence the "neo"). I´m aware that the original notion is not exactly widely known in the US. But until the 1970s the old notion of Neoliberalism and social market economy were an export model, until Pinochets economists totally wrecked the idea with their radicalism of a laissez-faire Neoliberalism without the neo.

All the academic sources that intensively followed the history of Neoliberalism wrote that there was either a transition from a moderate to a radical liberalism or a break from the early reformation tradition.

Neoliberalism was quite successfull as social market economy. The Pinochet version of the 1970s totally did not work but then again the moderate Neoliberalism in Chile in the 1980s and 1990s was quite successfull - because it was different from the 1970s, but on the other hand it was not totally different -

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." because "It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it." Karl Marx and Henry Kissinger. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be ignored - not at all. Just challenging the notion that the particular sentence in question is false. But this is a moot point now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: In the 1950s und 60s Germany and the USA developed very similar although the official economic policy in Germany was Neoliberalism and in the USA keynesian economics. In fact the economic policy itself was very similar in both countries despite different labels. We should not overemphasize labels. The road to success is buried under details. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede now says "Since the 1980s it is a term used primarily by scholars and critics in reference to the resurgence of ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy." I have added "by scholars" given that the term is primarily found in academic works, judging by the myriad academic citations and academic works referenced in the bibliography. It is even referenced in the sources, in particular the Boas/Morse source, which refers to neoliberalism as an "academic catchphrase" in the first sentence of the abstract (quote: "It In recent years, neoliberalism has become an academic catchphrase."). I believe the first sentence of the lede (excluding the preceding disclaimer) now finally adheres to NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Huffington Post blog article

This edit reverted the addition of a concise, albeit critical presentation, of several typical policies promoted by neoliberals.
The author is Sean D. Illing a freelance writer based in Baton Rouge, LA. He teaches political theory at Louisiana State University.
The piece is The Earth is Too Big to Fail.
As an official blog on a mainstream news media, I assume it meets RS, and the author is an academic working in the relevant field.
Opinions on the reliability of the source? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you attribute the statement to the blog's author, I don't see any problem with it being included (see: WP:NEWSBLOG).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I forgot to attribute that, only adding quotation marks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still a Huffington Post blog, that is not reliable Spumuq (talq) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong. Why not try reading the link provided above: WP:NEWSBLOG.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong. Why not try reading the reliable sources noticeboard. Spumuq (talq) 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions of this sort would benefit from posting to the reliable sources noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Relilability of scholarly book (Routledge) paraphrasing Chomsky

The following text, which is from a secondary scholarly source by academics paraphrasing Noam Chomsky, has been reverted for illegitimate reasons, as far as I can tell, so posting this for input.

According to Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi and Nikolaos Karagiannis, citing Noam Chomsky

"Neoliberalism is actually closer to corporatism than any other philosophy in that, in its abandonment of the traditional regulatory function of the state and embracing of corporate goals and objectives, it cedes sovereignty over how its economy and society and are organized to a global cabal of corporate elite (Chomsky, 1998)."

The authors of the chapter the quote is taken from are:

• Nikolaos Karagiannis Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics and Finance, School of Business and Economics, Winston-Salem State University, USA
• Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi Professor of Economics and Chair, Department of Economics and Finance, Winston-Salem State University, USA, and the editor-in-chief of the American Review of Political Economy

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The question would seem to be whether others also agree the "illegitimate reasons" were a good reason for removal. You might get better response if you say what the reasons were, or if you can't tell, direct a request for clarification to the reverting editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the edit summaries for the reverts and the thread on RJensen's UT page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

terms like "global cabal of corporate elite" are unadulterated conspiracy theory. Rjensen

(talk) 07:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Try again? There's obviously a major push for economic globalization, corporations obviously have elites at the top. That leaves "Cabal", meaning secret faction in pursuit of the groups own interests. The big corps obviously do that too, or do you claim everything the corps do is publicizied and open for general scrutiny? The text is certainly from an RS. You obviously do not like the text. That's fine, and maybe the text isn't appropriate, but personal dislike does not decide that question. Can you articulate a policy based reason for reverting? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one could even point to undue influence with government through secret proceeding, such as the TPP negotiations. Those have largely been tailored by Wall St., big agribusiness, and other transnational corporations seeking to advance their own interests, not the public interest, if you as Elizabeth Warren, for example. Those agreements are being criticized precisely for subverting the interests of nation states to those of corporations.

It is obviously not a conspiracy theory, as corporations are private entities whose actions are not open to the public, and to say that they don't collaborate--and even collude--is simply a verifiable non-truth. The existence of Chambers of Commerce proves that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The existence of Chambers of Commerce proves, that this is not a conspiracy theory? This does not make sense, it is a conspiracy theory. Spumuq (talq) 10:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you revert warring against CONSENSUS on the basis of a claim of WP:FRINGE?

You are accusing academics of promoting a conspiracy theory regarding a readily ascertainable aspect of reality, which is a ludicrous assertion. The Chamber of Commerce in Japan, for example, is in favor of the TPP, whereas most civil society organizations in Japan are against it, as is the agricultural collective, for example. Chambers of Commerce are private bodies aimed at promoting the business interests of their members,a dnthey engage in lobbying.

Enough said on that diversion. Your last edit deleted two passages for which there is a consensus here that they are reliably sourced. If you want to assert FRINGE, then open a thread at WP:FRINGE/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What CONSENSUS? Spumuq (talq) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, what consensus? 3RR has been broken with no meaningful debate on the talk page so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly conspiracy theory. The US Chamber of Commerce is also relentless in lobbying on behalf of big business, especially since the 1970s (see: Powell Memorandum). And the academic source cited was published by Routledge in 2013, which certainly qualifies as WP:RS. My only issue is that the section should not just be a single quote from Chomsky; it should be expanded given the great material in the source provided. I must say that looking over the history of this article and the other discussions above, I'm hardly surprised by who the two reverting editors are.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I likely agree with the part about including this quote in an expanded section. The source is certainly RS, whether people like/dislike its contents. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: There is consensus regarding the Huffington Post piece, for starters. Only one editor has questioned the reliability of the piece, and refused to take to the RS/N, because he knows he would meet with the same response there as he has here: WP:NEWSBLOG, and the author is an academic who is an expert in the relevant field.

Next, your comment in reply to Rjensen above seemed to clearly reject his unsustainable assertion regarding a "conspiracy theory", which is plainly ludicrous in light of the sourcing and content, putting you in the "include" group with two others, on a policy-based rationale, which the "delete" editors do not have, and have refused to take their claims of FRINGE to the notice board.

@C.J. Griffin: While I agree that there should be more from the excellent book cited, there is only the single quote about "corporatism". Meanwhile, criticism of an ideological relationship between neoliberalism and corporatism is a criticism that was missing from the article, so it is clearly DUE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A solution would be to build the sub-section on corporatism using multiple scholarly sources. Perhaps one reason there is only one quote in that book linking "corporatism" and neoliberalism is because, according to some sources, "corporatism" (depending on the definition) and neoliberalism are not the same thing. Looking at this table from the book Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach, neoliberalism comes across as something far worse than "corporatism" insofar as generating economic inequality and promoting mass incarceration of marginalized populations. So building a sub-section on corporatism in this article will have to take this into account as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The concept of corporatism is old and generally used to characterize a more medieval mode of societal configuration where society is composed of various interests groups called "corporations" (e.g., guilds) that share common interests and exist as organs of the state, more or less.

Chomsky is using the term in a nuanced manner with reference to the modern context, reflecting the fact that under neoliberalism, transnational corporations (incorporated legal persons that are businesses) are the only interest group that has any clout, and that they are now subverting the sovereignty of the nation states in which they originated, destroying economies, etc. The following book (pp. 70-81) describes the scenario to some extent:Struggle and the Prospects for World Government. This book examines the issue of free trade with respect to NAFTA Big Business, The State, and Free Trade: Constructing Coalitions in Mexico.

There are studies that examine labor unions, for example, as a form of "corporation" in a corporatist system that have influence on a par with business corporations, but Chomsky is describing the scenario where labor unions do not have that status, and corporations are subverting the nation state, which is relevant with respect to the TPP at present, as free trade is a neoliberal goal, while all of the labor unions in the USA are up in arms against the TPP.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to Ubikwit's misrepresentation of my explicit prior remark, I am not yet persuaded the revert in question should by restored. Rather, I think we should follow BRD and attempt, futile as it may be with this editor, to have a constructive look at all the pro/con arguments, emphasis on constructive. Only then will I be sufficiently informed to decide what I think. The biting does nothing to inform and would be better left at home. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment explicitly speaks for itself, I did not "misrepresent" you. You refuted the claims of a conspiracy theory, etc., being made by a deletee editor. What did I misrepresent?

We have been discussing the edits and reverts, but this is not a "pro/con" issue outside of the relevant policies.

The last revert by team FRINGE reverted both the HP text and the Chomsky-related text, yet the editor refuses to defend their false claims by opening notice board threads.

Why don't you help them do that? Or do I have to do everything around here myself?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually when another editor says you misrepresented their position the smart, dialogue-fostering thing to do is to apologize. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you for the making the comment at issue, so it is har to AGF regarding your accusation that I misrepresented you. Are you trying to make a point?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mentions of Noam Chomsky on political topics are generally a red flag for POV problems. The content here is no exception. Sadly, it's pretty much the same kind of political rhetoric that has already taken over most of the article. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki rules don't automatically reject Chomsky's view. He's an academic, the sources is RS, and Chomsky does criticize neoliberalism in that manner. Where we get into POV is when we try to jam his naked words into articles all by themselves to make our own WP:POINT. This material could certainly be part of an NPOV discussion of the range of views. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are pointing to the guideline WP:POINT, I suggest you read it again, because I don't think you understand it.

Wikipedia also has a policy called WP:BIASED that you might want to read. And another called WP:YESPOV.

If you find more views, I encourage you to include them in accordance with WEIGHT; however, note that I've heard no legitimate grounds for attempts to dismiss the source in question.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The bold edit that inserted this material into this article is from (an academic) book that explicitly describes the book's content as "heterodox", that is a fancy way of saying unorthodox or fringe. That is why I initially reverted the material three or so days ago. Nothing in this discussion has altered the book editor's plain description of the content of their text. Thus the weight arguments advanced by the bold editor above are spurious. The insertion of fringe material should be avoided, as should inappropriate casting of aspersions on the imagined reasons for other editor's basic edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That is another POV pushing assertion not based on a reliable source.

Heterodoxy is not WP:FRINGE.

If you insist on invoking FRINGE as a reason for reverting, you should start a thread at WP:FRINGE/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated attacks and insults upon multiple editors explain to me why you are apparently being banned by from all political pages. I find your attacks appalling and am withdrawing from this discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that would appear to be you're only face-saving course of "inaction", should you refuse to open a thread at the relevant notice board regarding the unsubstantiated claim of FRINGE...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• The following text was added from another source (given above, Struggle and the Prospects for World Government), along with the Chomsky citing text, and then the Chomsky text reverted again, based on the false claim that it is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it bears noting that the material is under the Criticisms section of the article.

  Mark Arthur has written that the influence of neoliberalism has given rise to an "anti-corporatist" movement that "is articulated around the need to re-claim the power that corporations and global institutions have stripped governments of...". He indicates that Adam Smith's "rules for mindful markets", and their elaboration by David Korten, have served as a basis for the anti-corporate movement, "following government's failure to restrain corporations from hurting or disturbing the happiness of the neighbor [Smith]".

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

References for this thread

References