Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

George Washington whiskey

Why does the article state "George Washington, the president at the time, was one such large producer of whiskey.[3]"? To me, this implies that Washington was already producing whiskey at the time the tax began. In fact, the cited article states that Washington's farm did not begin producing whiskey until 1797, and the large distillery was not completed until 1798, 4 years after the whole incident. This is rather misleading, in my opinion. --Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to have been an attempt at original analysis by an editor unfamiliar with the details. Adherence to no original research is the best way to avoid such mistakes. Thanks for pointing it out the error. I'll remove the false statement. —Kevin Myers 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


See below. What was the name, Herman or Harmon? The article fails to mention that George Washington ran one of the largest whiskey still in the US at the time of the rebellion, and personally benefitted from the tax law.Pustelnik (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Herman. Adding what you're describing qualifies as original research without third-party references to cite the claim. Xihr (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Herman Husmband's death, there seems to be some conflict between this article and his eponymous article, which claims he died while on his way home after being released. neither page is citing and specific sources for him though so it's hard to be sure. anyone know? Puckrod (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't contain names or reference to any of the organizers of the rebellion.

Too true! I came here because I couldn't find an article on David Bradford. Guess I'll have to write it. . . . --Michael K. Smith 12:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As the author of a new book on the rebellion (and a still fumbling user of Wikipedia), I can add much info regarding the organizers of the rebellion, as well as other matters, and can do so concisely; I also have concerns about factual errors on this otherwise admirably clear and accurate page, and about some seemingly subtle (and clearly unintentional) failures of NPOV. But I need guidance. My book's POV is not meant to be N -- nonetheless, certain misstatements here, seemingly slight, have interested implications. Quick example: the tax was *not* intended by Hamilton to "pay down" the debt but to build and fund it, a key distinction for both Hamilton and the rebels, at the very heart of founding finance policy and of what the rebels objected to. There are a number of other issues like that. I did try editing the page a while ago and bailed, realizing I was simply not yet Wikipedia-savvy enough to do so effectively, and that my having a new book to promote muddies the waters. I'm perfectly certain, of course, that my book belongs in the refs, but I'm now keenly aware that my certainty is not all that would be required. So: Would it be helpful if I added to the talk page a few specific comments on factual issues? Any thoughts on this would be welcome -- I'm passionate about the topic's startling central importance to U.S. founding history and know that this page has an important place in clarifying that importance for general readers. -- William Hogeland Whogeland 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I also am a new user of Wikipedia and was considering getting my feet wet by editing this article based on a very recent reading of your book. It looks like I should go elsewhere since I imagine you can do a more expert job on analyzing your own book. The points that I found particularly interesting were (in no particular order)your treatment of this as part of a potentially larger secession movement in the west, the relationship of the movement to the revised Pennsylvania Constitution, the benefits to "Big Whiskey" as a result of the tax, the value and necessity of using whiskey as a unit of exchange, and the overall link of the tax to the plight of war veterans and the onging conflict between debtors and creditors. Tom 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I think we new users may need guidance in making edits based on info (and analysis) in a new source, especially when the source itself (me) might want to edit the page. (It might actually be more appropriate for you to edit the page than for me to do it.) Mainly I just want to make the thing more NPOV, not engage all the issues in my book; also I don't want anyone to see me as an overly interested vandalizer and take down what I do. The discussion page should be about the page under discussion, not about my book -- so my instinct is to wait and see whether somebody who started or is helping maintain this page wants to weigh in on. But I very much appreciate your pithy description of the main issues in my work! -- William Hogeland Whogeland
I've been on a few months, and I'm a bit addicted. Since March 5, I've logged about 13,000 edits. If you have any questions, please ask me. I've started WikiProject Pittsburgh so that editors with similar interests can get together to work on articles. --Chris Griswold () 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible ad

The suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion also had the unintended consequences of encouraging small whiskey producers and other settlers to relocate to the then-frontier lands of Kentucky and Tennessee, which were outside the sphere of Federal control for many years. In these frontier areas, they also found good corn-growing country and smooth, limestone-filtered water to make their whiskey. this sounds like an ad for bourbon. ReverendG 05:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like the facts and an interesting sidelight to me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Note A Different Perspective:

The Whiskey Rebellion can be considered a gesture of incompetence and inability on the part of the government, as many of the people who were responsible for the insurrection "disappeared" when the army of 15,000 appeared. The disappearance made it harder to [prosecute]] these "criminals" and eventually Washington's army gave up. Also, many votes were lost during this period to the Republicans, as in their quest for justice, the Federalist commanders alienated many supporters, who were later converted to the Republican cause. Russophile2 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Info

I'm finding some inaccurate information in the article. For example, the rebellion was not ONLY in Pennsylvania. Here is an account of the Rebellion by the semi-famous economist, historian, philosopher, and author Murry N. Rothbard. He cites two fairly credible sources, Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); and Steven R. Boyd, ed., The Whiskey Rebellion (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985)

Also, I don't think BWG was president in the 1700s (first chapter error) !

Merger proposed (Tom the Tinker)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to merge Tom the Tinker into Whiskey Rebellion. --B. Wolterding 08:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Tom the Tinker into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. Since the article on Tom the Tinker is completely unsourced, it might also be that parts of it need to be dropped in the merger since they are not verifiable. Please add your comments below.

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge. He's notable in the sense that he was the leader of a notable Whiskey Rebellion, but obviously from the article there is little relevant to say about him beyond his involvement in the Rebellion and thus warrants being merged with it. Xihr 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Whiskey, or Whisky

I believe that the official spelling of American Whisky is without the e.(Lucas(CA) 03:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

I've found whiskey is more common than whisky. lists the former as the priamry spelling, and the latter as a variant. I haven't done a survey of other dictionaries, but you'll probably find the weigh more toward the former than the latter. Xihr 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whisky is still the official spelling in the US (although the e is accpetable), The e is for the Irish spelling. Considering, that the Irish weren't as common in america back then, and that Scotsmen, and Ulster Scots were much more common, and were the predominant group on the Frotier, I would say that the most applicable spelling would be without the e (Lucas(CA) 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

There is no official spelling of any word in the US, or in any English speaking country. The English language has no official governing body in contrast to French and Spanish, for example. Moreover, the US doesn't have an official language. Potahto (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in comparison?

"The militia force of 12,950 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War." WIKI's own page on the American Revolutionary War states, "About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militiamen for the Revolutionary cause in the eight years of the war, but there were never more than 90,000 total men under arms at one time." These numbers are substantially higher than 12,950. (TruthBastion (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)) hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone has messed up while trying to paraphrase a common factoid about the Whiskey Rebellion. Scholars of the Rebellion sometimes mention that the federalized militia force used to suppress the Rebellion was larger than the army that Washington usually had with him during the Revolution. Who ever wrote the line in our article did not understand the details: Washington did not have the "entire army" with him during the Revolution, just the core of the Continental Army known as the Main Army. Thanks for pointing out the error. I'll fix the article. —Kevin Myers 22:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

War bonds an issue?

Was not the cheap purchasing of war bonds by the politically-connected a great issue here? Were not many farmers holding war bonds conned into selling them far less than their value because they were deemed worthless, only to have the government purchase them back at interest all to the delight of "Hamiltonian" speculators who then made a mint and brought on the Whiskey Tax to pay for it? I'm not an historian, but there is something here missing from this tale, I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this comment describes Shays Rebellion, not the Whiskey Rebellion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1patrickhenry1 (talkcontribs) 02:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, is correct that the origin of the whiskey tax was the desire of certain individuals to have Congress pass taxes that would be directly imposed throughout the states and earmarked for the funding the war bonds that were at the time in arrears, and which some investors had picked up for as little as 10 cents on the dollar. See, for example, Hogeland, William (3 July 2006) "Why the Whiskey Rebellion Is Worth Recalling Now" History News Network George Mason University. --Bejnar (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography and Further reading

Why are there two sections in the article: Bibliography and Further reading? What is the distinction? Should they be merged? --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Further. "Further reading" is a list of sources that should or could be consulted, but are not cited in the article. —Kevin Myers 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography and Further reading

Why are there two sections in the article: Bibliography and Further reading? What is the distinction? Should they be merged? --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Further. "Further reading" is a list of sources that should or could be consulted, but are not cited in the article. —Kevin Myers 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually the distinction at WP:Further did not apply here, until Kevin Myers cleaned it up. I am glad that Kevin Myers renamed the first section "Works cited" instead of "Bibliography". Nonetheless, the distinction still may be a grey one as some of the conclusions in the lead appear to derive from articles in Boyd (1985), although without citation. The article is much better for Kevin Myers' work. --Bejnar (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Your initial question made me realize that there was some cleanup to do there, and that "Works cited" is less ambiguous than "Bibliography". I haven't yet read Boyd's book; if there's anything in this article from that source, it probably comes indirectly from the subsequent books by Slaughter and Hogeland, which draw on Boyd. (Slaughter of course has an article in Boyd's book.) —Kevin Myers 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Morison quote

In early editions of his Growth of the American Republic, the historian Samuel Eliot Morison maintained that "Hamilton wished to enforce [the whiskey excise] more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." This is still a somewhat popular quote because it's so provocative. Sometimes it's even misattributed to Hamilton himself. But Morison frequently revised his work in consultation with other scholars, and by the 5th edition of the book in 1969, he had dropped the phrase while keeping all of the surrounding text (see 5th edition, 1:309-10). Which is good, since the claim does not seem to be accurate. I've therefore removed the quote from this article, just as Morison removed it from his work, as an outdated overstatement. —Kevin Myers 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton's and Rawle's Maniplation of the Court Process

To me, this article represents a radical improvement over the earlier one on the topic and is fair enough all the way, an impressive achievement in itself. When it comes to the controversy over the serving of the writs, however, I object to the description "William Hogeland portays ..." In my notes to The Whiskey Rebellion, I think I make a cogent argument regarding the overwhelming likelihood that Hamilton interfered in court process in order to spark a reaction to process serving. The argument may not convince everyone, but it is more than a portrayal. William Hogeland (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Hogeland argues" revision to the page.William Hogeland (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported cases

This following cases are among the reported court decisions concerning the prosecutions of the Whiskey Rebellion members:

  • United States v. Vigol, 28 F. Cas. 376 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)
  • United States v. Insurgents of Pennsylvania, 26 F. Cas. 499 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)
  • United States v. Mitchell, 26 F. Cas. 1277 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)
  • United States v. Stewart, 27 F. Cas. 1338 (C.C.D. Pa. 1795)

Savidan 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A Note on Washington's Review of the Militia

Hey everyone, I was thinking of modifying the paragraph under Militia Expedition to add notes from a commanding soldier, Jonathan Forman. I would like to change it to:

In October, Washington traveled west to review the progress of the military expedition. According to historian Joseph Ellis, this would be "the first and only time a sitting American president led troops in the field".<ref>Ellis, ''His Excellency, George Washington'', 225.</ref> Jonathan Forman, who led the Third Infantry Regiment of New Jersey troops against the Whiskey Rebellion,<ref>{{cite web|last=Manella|first=Angela|title=Jonathan Forman Papers Finding Aid|url=;cc=ascead;q1=jonathan%20forman;rgn=main;view=text;didno=US-PPiU-dar198201|publisher=Archive Service Center, University of Pittsburgh|accessdate=4 April 2013}}</ref> wrote about his encounter with Washington: "October 3d Marched early in the morning for Harrisburgh, where we arrived about 12 O'clock. About 1 O'Clock recd. information of the Presidents approach on which, I had the regiment paraded, timely for his reception, & considerably to my satisfaction. Being afterwards invited to his quarters he made enquiry into the circumstances of the man [an incident between a militia man and an old soldier mentioned earlier in the journal] & seemed satisfied with the information."<ref>{{cite web|last=Forman|first=Jonathan|title=Journal of Jonathan Forman, September 21, 1794 - October 25, 1794|url=|accessdate=4 April 2013}}</ref> Washington met with the western representatives in Bedford, Pennsylvania, on October 9 before going to Fort Cumberland in Maryland to review the southern wing of the army.<ref>Slaughter, 215–16.</ref> Convinced the federalized militia would meet little resistance, he placed the army under the command of the governor of Virginia, Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, a hero of the Revolutionary War. Washington returned to Philadelphia; Hamilton remained with the army as civilian adviser.<ref>Slaughter, 216.</ref>

Though I'm not sure if this encounter is noteworthy enough. Thoughts? Unearthly Stew (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no objections for a week, I'm going to make the change. Unearthly Stew (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Completely un-noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. What important information do you think this routine encounter between Washington and an obscure junior officer conveys to a reader seeking an overview of the Whiskey Rebellion? —Kevin Myers 02:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think having examples of how Washington interacted with the military makes it important enough, especially since it was the "first and only time a president led troops in the field." I think aggregating these types of encounters could lead to greater insight into Washington's role in the overall rebellion. Unearthly Stew (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Unearthly Stew -- it's a highly revealing episode about how important the rebellion was --it's a leadership event like none other in US history. Rjensen (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Philip Vigol/Wigal/Wigle?

The last paragraph of the Militia expedition says this man was arrested. It says his name was Philip Vigol at the time, but was later changed to Wigal. In the legacy section, a distillery named Wigle Whiskey is listed as being named after the man. Anyone have any historical knowledge of the man? A quick google search shows that all three versions are commonly used. The Wigle Whiskey website says it was named after a "Phillip Wigle", but as far as I can tell, the first name only has one "l", so not sure how definitive they are. I didn't change any of the spellings in the article, I just left as is, because I couldn't figure out which spelling(s) are accurate. Maybe some one else knows, or knows where to find out. Brinkley32 (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


I've added a neutrality tag to the "Western Grievances" section. I have an issue with three sentences in particular, at the end of the second paragraph: "Furthermore, why should they pay other people's debts? Some states had repaid their war debt. The Federalists were buying support from indebted states with their policy of assumption."

I assume these are arguments made by the protestors, but the wording seems to present the arguments as absolute fact. I'd be perfectly amenable to some slight tweaks, if indeed these sentences do summarize the protestors' arguments. Unfortunately, there is no citation, so I can't tell if we're dealing with a simple case of awkward wording, or if someone has added their personal feelings on the matter. Differing interpretations of the Whiskey Rebellion have some relevance to modern political debate, so I think we should be extra-careful in citing what could be a contentious article. Dpenn89 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, some states, like Pa. didn't put such a great effort into the Revolution either; preferring to sell their foodstuff to the British army and let Washington's men starve at Valley Forge. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as author of The Whiskey Rebellion--which does have a non-neutral pov!--I entirely agree that the section beginning "Furthermore, why should they pay ..." is confused and baseless, at least as ascribed to the people who became rebels. Whogeland (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Section Four of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States of America

There is no reference in the original article to the actual words of the Constitution of the United States. These words state that the United States government may send help against "domestic violence" "on application of the legislature" of the State concerned, or (if the State Legislature can not meet)on the application of the executive of the State concerned. Neither the State Legislature of Pennsylvania or the Governor of Pennsylvania had requested military aid from the United States government. Therefore the actions of President Washington were clearly unconstitutional - a violation of Section Four of Article Four of the Constitution of the United States. (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly unconstitutional"??; the rebels where breaking federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Grover Cleveland's military intervention in the Pullman Strike of 1894, although neither the Illinois legislature, nor governor Altgeld requested any help. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this article should take a position on constitutionality--probably not--I agree that the constitutional issues deserve a more fully developed discussion. The President did have the power, as specifically contemplated by the recently passed Militia Act, to raise states' militias to suppress insurrection. He was supposed to have the authorization of Congress, but if Congress was not in session, as was the case in the summer of 1794, he could act on his own, as Washington indeed did. (In my book I argue that Hamilton's timing on serving the writs, etc., was part of an effort to ensure that Congress would not be in session when insurrection broke out--but I wouldn't expect this article to get into that.) It is NPOV, however, to note that what Washington did not have was a legal suspension of habeas corpus, something he could have gotten, given the condition of insurrection, per the Constitution. Nevertheless, Washington didn't ask Congress to suspend habeas (as Lincoln would, years later), so the mass arrests, indefinite detentions without charge, etc., certainly do not seem to have any legal basis. Whogeland (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Western Grievances

The article states that the primary financial grievance was between the large distillers, who would have to pay 6 cents in tax, and smaller distillers, who would have to pay 9 cents. Per what, please? (Pint, fifth, quart, gallon, barrel.)

Also, to put that in perspective (since today that is a trifling amount), what did the average <pint, fifth, quart, gallon, barrel> cost? Was this an onerous tax? If the cost of a given quantity was 10 cents, then yes, since the tax would then effectively nearly double the cost of a small distiller's product. If the cost of a given quantity was a dollar, then no.

2600:1000:B10E:42B5:FEA:794:5B62:D4E0 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Frederick


Is there really an edit war going on over the number of casualties in the WR? Prof. Mc (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Why "Republicans"?

Does anyone know why the Democratic-Republicans are referred to as "Republicans"? It seems that referring to them by their proper name (Democratic-Republicans) would be both more accurate and less likely to suggest to others that this choice of words is ideologically motivated. Any thoughts before I edit this? Jmedlong (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Members of the party always call themselves Republicans. For example, Jefferson in his famous inaugural address in 1801 said we are all Republicans. In the late 19th century, however, political scientists started calling the party the Democratic-Republican Party, clearly distinguishing it from the Republican party that emerged in 1854. Today (2010) historians normally call the party the Republican Party, and its adherents Republicans. see the talk page at Democratic-Republican Party Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed and it's ridiculous that this reads as it does. In plain language, "Republican Party" refers to the contemporary GOP, whereas "Democratic-Republican Party" refers to the party of Jefferson. I understand that Jefferson et al may have referred to it as the "Republican Party," but Wikipedia is a medium where clear communication of factual information as relevant to the reader is more important than pedantic nonsense. Only people with no respect for NPOV would insist upon this article conflating the D-RP with today's RP. Changing. (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Jefferson and Madison founded a party they called the Republican Party. The modern GOP adopted the name in 1854 in honor of Jefferson. If you are mixing up Reagan with Madison you should not be reading this fairly advanced article. The text is clear enough: "The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton's Federalist Party, came to power in 1801." Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm shocked that your pedantry has gone so long without correction. The party is called the Democratic-Republican Party. You can even look at the party's article. Your PhD doesn't make you right; it just makes you embarrassed.
[josh] Please forgive: I'm an utter noob on Wikipedia and I may not even be putting this comment in the proper place. Perhaps incorporating the word "republic" would take the political edge off of things. Jefferson saying "we are all Republicans" has a different meaning to the common person today. While we cannot misquote him, what he meant in modern context is "we are all people who support a republic". Again thanks for your patience with a noob. (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Josh
No. he and everyone called his party the "Republican party" (the term Dem-Rep was rare). Today's GOP deliberately picked the same name in 1854 because it wanted to stress its Jeffersonian principles. Rjensen (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

Might I suggest this addition:

The rebellion is foreshadowed in Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton: An American Musical, when Thomas Jefferson tells Alexander Hamilton in a cabinet meeting, "Look, when Britain taxed our tea, we got frisky / Imagine what gon’ happen when you try to tax our whisky."[1]

  1. ^ Miranda, Lin-Manuel. "Cabinet Battle 1". Genius. Retrieved 1/13/2016.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Aaronwe77 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Once we get started with WP:TRIVIA sections for an article on something this significant, they can grow too huge to be useful. So, no. Montanabw(talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Alexander Hamilton was a Rothschild agent. His assignment was to re-enslave America to the European money syndicate through debt, as the European monarchies had been enslaved. The tax on whiskey paid the cut the syndicate took as "interest" on money it counterfeited and "lent" to the US govt. Tell the truth. (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

So pathetically slanted! Do you know nothing? Hamilton led the 12,000 troops to VIOLENTLY crush the Vets' uprising. Here's what a peach of a fellow agent Hamilton was: In 1795, banker tool Alexander Hamilton resigns in disgrace when it is discovered that he is sleeping with another man’s wife (Maria Reynolds Affair). . On July 11, 1804, Hamilton is killed in a duel with Thomas Jefferson’s Vice President, Aaron Burr, a political rival whom the arrogant Hamilton had insulted and defamed. (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)