Talk:Acton Institute

message: :"Acton states that religious liberty, "virtuous behavior," an invigorous commitment to property rights, and entrepreneurial initiative as the keys to a culturally and economically prosperous world."
Frankly, the above quote from the article is simply incomprehensible. There *has* to be a better way to phrase the underlying message that sentence is trying to convey. --Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for not responding sooner.  The distinction that the article must make is between Christianity generally and conservative Christianity.  Describing the worldview as merely "Christian" is too broad, as "Christian" can denote the Christian right, Christian left, or a number of other worldviews that are somewhat incompatible with one another.  Perhaps associating Acton with the Christian right is inaccurate.  How about "traditional Christian worldview"?  I think it's much more precise. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I certainly see your point about trying to be more accurate.  I see that you tried "traditional Christian" at an earlier point, and that this characterization was edited out by someone else.  I have two concerns.  One is that I don't see any documentation (links, etc.) that would support the more precise characterization.  The other concern was the link within Wikipedia to the "Christan right" article, which I think was really not relevant.  How about leaving the characterization "Christian worldview," but linking to "Conservative Christianity," which is not exactly on target either for the Acton Institute, but not as far off as "Christian right"?  Otherwise, we could do more research into the philosophy of the organization.  But as a think tank, I doubt that they want to nail down their worldview too tightly in advance.TheDean 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your well-reasoned response. I believe the source supports your conclusion, thus, I do as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have updated the text of the article accordingly.TheDean 16:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In the absence of documentation, I suspect that what is really happening has to do with critics of the Acton Institute who don't like their libertarian outlook.  Most non-libertarians do believe (think, feel) that libertarians are too capitalistic.  If there is a critique of the Acton Institute and its overall contribution that is based in personalism, or based in Catholic social thought, or based in something other than the standard objections to libertarianism, that would be worth noting in the article (with documentation).  The general objections some people have to libertarianism should be discussed elsewhere.  If no relevant documentation shows up either on the page or here in the discussion, I will delete the paragraph that claims some Catholics object to the capitalistic tendencies of the Acton Institute.TheDean 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So deleted.TheDean 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have changed the lead to reflect the reliable sources, with alternately describe the Acton Institute as "conservative" or "libertarian." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideology

message: # WP:ELOFFICIAL does not give a blanket exception to WP:NONENGEL, only an exception when it "may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables—per the guideline on non-English-language sites."
#Whilst WP:ELOFFICIAL gives an exception to WP:ELNO, it explicitly states that "[m]ore than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." It is hard to see how the addition of Twitter, Facebook and Youtube links provides the reader with "unique content" beyond the website & blog.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: In response to this edit summary which states: "Removed notability tags, Acton Institute itself is a valid source for this article."
WP:Notability states that a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please note that the "Acton Institute itself" is not independent!
WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Please note that the "Acton Institute itself" is a primary source on the Acton Institute.  backs this up by stating that "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article."
The removal of the notability and primarysources tags was therefore wholly inappropriate, as was the reinclusion of excessive primary-sourced material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give references to where Wikipedia states this is excessive. Vilepickle (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V, WP:PSTS & WP:Notability all emphasise the importance and priority of independent/secondary/third-party sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: At the end of the day, these policies clearly establish that Wikipedia articles are meant to be (mainly) what reliable third party sources say about a topic (not mainly what a topic says about itself). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: (i) What was removed were templates, not "material". (ii) They were not inaccurate as (a) the article does not meet WP:Notability, as there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" & (b) the article is almost entirely cited to primary sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why remove "templates" if they are not inaccurate?  I don't quite understand your logic there. Regardless, as DickClarkMises stated and as I believe you're trying to demonstrate with your heavy-handed edits is the article can use significant work.  With that we can all agree.  Why not contribute to the creation of the article rather than destroying "template" content that needs to be elaborated on? Vilepickle (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Our estimation of an article subject's notability shouldn't be based on the sources in the current version of the article. That is more a measurement of the current article's quality/thoroughness. I would agree that this article could be greatly improved and that additional independent sources ought to be incorporated. I don't think there is really any question that there are lots of such independent sources available, though. A quick Google News search excluding acton.org results yielded quite a few sources. Adequate independent sources are available to establish notability, and the acton.org sources are useful for filling out the article with non-controversial organization information. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DickClarkMises: what you are doing is what would be described, in a legal setting, as "assuming facts not in evidence". Yes, there really is a question of whether "there are lots of such independent sources available" giving any depth of coverage on the topic of the Acton Institute. The Google News hits tend to be highly tangential, being on the topic of things like what the Pope has(n't) said about Global Warming, and the Pope's latest encyclical, rather than on the topic of the Institute itself. Third party discussion/analysis of the Institute is almost entirely lacking. You are erroneously conflating WP:GOOGLEHITS with WP:Notability. On the topic of "filling out", there is a consistent presumption throughout Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the use of self-description (and relatedly, primary or self-published sources) will be in the minority not, as is the case in this article, in the overwhelming majority. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: I still don't see you contributing to this Wikipedia page.  Are you planning on adding to it or do you plan to stalk it and nitpick about revision notes?  If I didn't know any better I'd say you had something against this organization. Vilepickle (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that I added the ONLY material involving non-trivial coverage by a third-party source in this entire article, I will ignore your ill-mannered and ignorant comment. As far as the article currently stands, it might as well just be a soft-redirect to Acton's own website -- because it does little more than parrot that site. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering you removed entire sections of the article I don't think my comment is unwarranted.  Instead of trashing the page so someone would later have to rebuild content you removed you could have just tagged it so those sections which have primary source information only could be expanded with third party source material as well.  What you removed is information very appropriate to be listed here, once there is sufficient third party information to complement it of course.  My comment still stands, if you feel passionate about it I don't see why you wouldn't work to fill in the page with third party sources so it's more balanced.  This talk page is getting stuffy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.194.4 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text:  Vilepickle (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Considering I removed self-description-based-puffery, self-description-based-puffery and more self-description-based-puffery, your comment is completely unwarranted! The article is trash, and taking a chainsaw to it is completely warranted. You have simply reinserted the trash. If the information were noteworthy, a third party would have commented upon it -- all appearances are that they haven't therefore the information isn't noteworthy. Instead of whining on and on about the supposed importance of this blurb-based-cruft, why don't you do what I did and find some REAL third party sources with SUBSTANTIVE material on the topic? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability & primary sources 

message: *Given that the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) lists the Acton Institute in their US Top 50, it is reasonable to suspect that they may have published something on the topic. Here is a list of their publications. I've checked out the most promising title, Think Tanks and Policy Making in the U.S.: Academics, Advisors and Advocates, via Google Books & Amazon search, but without success, but some of the other titles might yield something. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *If Acton is among the top think tanks in the Country acc. to the TTCSP, it seems improbable that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Let's remember the nature of think tanks like this one--to produce policy research, publish it, and then influence the making of public policy. Since Acton itself publishes its policy research, there's not going to be 3rd party sourcing for it. The 3rd party verification of Acton's influence will come precisely from media coverage of issues Acton is trying to influence, won't it? It seems a misinterpretation of WP:NOTE to decide Acton isn't notable because the influence it exerts draws focus to specific policies and not the institution itself. Soonersfan168 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *The point of Wikipedia's WP:Notability guideline isn't 'notability' in some generalised sense, but in the specific sense of is there enough reliable and independent information to write a decent (and specifically, policy-compliant) article about the topic. A super-top-secret conspiracy could run the entire government, but if no reliable and independent source discussed it, Wikipedia would be unable to write an article that wasn't utterly hopelessly hearsay & unfounded speculation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Point taken--I'm kind of a Wikipedia neophyte. I will continue to search for acceptable 3rd party sources! Soonersfan168 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Will look for a copy of this Soonersfan168 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential third-party publications 

message: I have not been able to find any source for the quotations attributed to Randall Balmer outside of this article and blogs which appear to be simply repeating our text. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balmer quotes 

message: According to MOS:HONORIFIC "As with regular titles, honorific titles should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that." Therefore in the info box, Sirico should be listed as "Rev."Soonersfan168 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper." It expands on this with "An example of "discussion in the article proper" would be listing the official, spoken, and posthumous styles for a pope within an infobox. (See for example, Pope John Paul II)." I.e. the honorific can be discussed in a list of correct ways to address the Pope, in an infobox about the Pope, in an article about the Pope. It is not' suggesting that that honorifics can be used anywhere else. So if you want to include a discussion on how to address Sirico in Robert A. Sirico, you are welcome to do so -- but it is not appropriate to do so here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not correct to say that MOS:HONORIFIC "is not' suggesting that that honorifics can be used anywhere else," since above, it says "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included." The question would be, is this particular man rarely referred to as "Robert Sirico," and it seems that the answer to that is yes: a quick google search reveals that about 90% of references to him include Fr. or Rev., and whenever his name appears in print journalism, the "Rev." is included. As much as Mother Teresa's identity is wrapped up in her being a nun, or Father Damien's is wrapped up in his being a priest, Rev. Robert Sirico's is linked to his priesthood. His name "is rarely found without" the honorific.Soonersfan168 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not correct to state that Sirico's "honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it" -- he is also commonly referred to using an alternate honorific "Fr. Robert Sirico", as you yourself admit, and not-infrequently with no honorific at all. The point is not whether his identity "is wrapped up in his being a priest", but whether it is wrapped up in the honorific itself -- most would not recognise Jozef De Veuster as Father Damien, would not recognise Agnes Bojaxhiu as Mother Teresa, but would certainly recognise Robert Sirico as Father/Reverend Robert Sirico. Baring this inapplicable exclusion, honorifics may only be "discussed", not simply "included in the text inline". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, a handful of references to "Robert Sirico" do not constitute "not infrequent" references--that is a relative term which you have attempted to apply by reference to an absolute number. Second, the point of allowing honorifics is to ensure recognition of a person's name. Your citations of Jozef De Veuster and Agnes Bojaxhiu have of course no bearing on this discussion--those people changed their names entirely. A case more closely analogous to the one we are discussing, and one that may therefore cast some light on our dispute, is that of "Father Coughlin." An integral part of Father Charles Coughlin's public persona was his priesthood--it was so central, in fact, that his name is not easily recognizable without the honorific attached. Rev. Robert Sirico's case is the same--his notability since his ordination is due entirely to his contribution to public discourse as a Roman Catholic priest. He brings Catholic social teach and thought to bear on otherwise secular issues. That is why, except for the examples you cited earlier, which we have dealt with in the first sentence of this paragraph, he is addressed as Rev. or Fr. To call him either "The Reverend Robert Sirico" or "Father Robert Sirico" is to accomplish the same thing--to give recognizace to his name. Farther Coughlin happens to be referred to almost always as "Father," not "Reverend." That both terms are used with reference to Robert A. Sirico does not diminish their association with his name. Soonersfan168 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "Robert Sirico" to any other iteration, and I think it is more in keeping with Wikipedia style. DickClarkMises (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: (i) So how many do I need to cite to demonstrate non-infrequency? (ii) You were the one who brought up Mother Teresa & Father Damien -- so you can hardly object to me distinguishing Sirico from them. (iii) I am not particularly familiar with Coughlin, but from his article it would appear that he is known from his radio broadcasts, that ubiquitously identified him as "Father Coughlin", without any Christian name attached, such that few would recognise him as "Charles Coughlin" (and even so the article only uses "Father Coughlin" once -- for an illustration caption, except in a direct quote). This does not appear to be the case with Sirico, who is very frequently identified using his Christian name, so can easily be recognised with either an alternate honorific, or none at all. (iv) You have completely failed to distinguish Sirico from thousands of articles on religious figures who likewise are notable for their contributions to public discourse as representatives of their religions, but who per MOS:HONORIFIC, do not get given their honorific unless that honorific is under explicit discussion. (v) "That both terms are used with reference to Robert A. Sirico" clearly demonstrates  that no specific honorific is needed to identify him, and thus that the normal convention of MOS:HONORIFIC, of omitting the honorific, can be applied without creating confusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote we ask for a WP:3? Soonersfan168 (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That all makes sense--I'll make the edit. Soonersfan168 (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirico honorific 

message: Calvin Beisner may at one time have been connected with Acton, but he is not to be found on the staff page of the website--there are in fact no "adjunct scholars" listed at all. The sentence of the source (Thy Kingdom Come) that identifies him as such seems too be erroneous in other ways too. It refers to Acton as "neoconservative," which, according to WP:Neoconservatism, is not an accurate use of the term. The above conversations on this talk page wouldn't lead anyone to think Acton was neoconservative, whatever it may actually be. If there aren't any objections, I'll remove him from the Policy Section, since that sentence seems to be a mischaracterization. Soonersfan168 (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I've deleted it. Soonersfan168 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvin Beisner 

message: I'm not going to ask for its immediate removal, but a 1992 Capital Research Center report is both a rather old, and rather partisan, source. Replacement with something more recent & more neutral, when possible, would be preferable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it certainly would. But that's what I have so far. The other sources for funding information are equally partisan, it ought to be noted. Soonersfan168 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're required to submit a Form 990, so that information should be a matter of public record somewhere (unfortunately it's been a while since I've had to track such information down, so I've forgotten the best places to look for it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copies of 990s are available from www2.guidestar.org, with free registration. EIN # for Acton is 382926822. I'm currently look through the 2009 form. I'd forgotten how verbose and uninteresting they are. ... And it seems it contains only information on what Acton spends, not on who it receives it from (which will presumably be on its donors 990s, assuming they have them). :( HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh gosh, probably not worth it! Soonersfan168 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source on funding 

message: I have substantially improved this section of the article, and included one thing sourced to Acton itself. The change from a few weeks ago is dramatic--now the only things refering to Acton's site are the mission statement and the board. Thus it seems perfectly within the bounds of WP:SPS to source the blog information to Acton while I look for alternate sourcing. Soonersfan168 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!!! There may be a misconception that self-published sources are prohibited. In general they are considered reliable sources when they speak about themselves per WP:SELFPUB. If you want to include content from Acton itself, e.g. from their website, go ahead and add it. Note the caveat that primary sources should not dominate an article--but in this case there is ample 3rd party coverage to offset using Acton. – Lionel (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lionel! Soonersfan168 (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  research & publications section 

message: There's not really any 3rd party sourcing for the 4 Acton affiliates--they're small operations in foreign countries--one doesn't even have a website (it's in Zambia). Maybe we could fold them into the Notable Individuals associated with Acton and make it sort of an Associated People and Organizations section? Soonersfan168 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The expand tag isn't necessarily for the affiliates. The section should be expanded with info about their operations in general. E.g. do they have a legal arm, or a PAC, background on the executive staff, etc. Check out similar sections in more developed articles for idea.– Lionel (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acton Affiliates 

message: The fact that an organization has a newsletter and blog is rarely sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. At a bare minimum we would need reliable independent secondary sourcing demonstrating notability. We don't, so these bullets should be removed from the "Research and publications" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter and blog 

message: I have added a POV tag in good faith. The article reads as too pro-subject, too much promotion of trivia, soapboxing, some of the language is too affectionate. Please do not remove the tag until these issues are resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I have added a COI tag in good faith because the article has a pro-subject slant (see discussion above) in part because of paid COI editing by , who, according to his own Twitter page, is the web coordinator for the Acton Institute. (This is not outing because Vilepickle has already voluntarily outed himself.) Please do not remove the tag until the POV issues are resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this tag is added in good faith but should be noted on the talk page.  Your accompanied POV tag is also highly debatable and is pure opinion based on your own POV and edit history.  I am removing these tags from the front article, you can put them on the talk page all you want until another party agrees with your assessment.  I'd argue that your recent edits are borderline WP:Vandalism due to deletions and undue sourcing requirements on valid blog and newsletter publications that would not require second or third party sourcing.  Yes, I am employed at the Acton Institute and do monitor this page for trolls such as yourself. --Vilepickle (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the disclosure. Tags should not be removed until the issues are resolved. I added these tags in good faith, and if you wish to have them removed you must either fix the problems or establish a consensus that the tags are invalid. (Calling me a vandal and a troll isn't a good start; please assume good faith, be civil, and explain why you think the tags are erroneous.) On top of that, as a paid COI editor you shouldn't be removing any tags, especially the COI tag. Please add them back, or I will take this issue to the appropriate noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As for why these tags seem inappropriate: I am not the sole editor of this page, for one.  If you take a look at this talk page there is clear conflict among editors in the past on similar content that has been added and modified in the last few days.  Among those includes funding information from Exxon by the 2005 sourced Motherjones website, publications being notable (or not notable), and overly strict third party sourcing requirements.  Those with negative views of Acton have been editing this page in order to add or remove content that conveniently suit their special interests while hiding behind Wikipedia guidelines (as they should, and I encourage).  Facts like funding are important to know, but Acton is funded by much more than just an oil company.  Other public funders should be added by an editor (perhaps even myself), but drive-by additions meant to affect public perception in a negative way should be discouraged on Wikipedia.  I'd like to see some specific examples of overly POV language from the page instead of your opinion, as well, so it can be fixed instead of branding the page with the tag.  I also think a COI tag is important, but keep it on the talk page like it is currently.  I did not contribute most of the content to this page and COI is not appropriate for the content on the main page.  See my explanation about trolling: a COI tag is going to invalidate the article for those seeking a neutral piece on Acton (which the article is, largely).  If you'd still like to take the article and issue at hand to a noticeboard, be my guest. --Vilepickle (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

text: So we have a dispute, which is exactly what the tags suggest. Put them back and I will engage. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Acton Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622152201/http://www.effectivestewardship.com:80/stephen-j-grabill to http://www.effectivestewardship.com/stephen-j-grabill
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acton Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318011132/http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp to http://www.spn.org/directory/organizations.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.clpress.com/news/2011/11/15/christian%E2%80%99s-library-press-launches-new-kuyper-book
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.effectivestewardship.com/stephen-j-grabill
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Formal notice has been received from user:Ascendingrisingharmonising to merge The Call of the Entrepreneur into Acton Institute. Please discuss the proposal below.
Proposer's rationale: There seems to be a lack of independent reliable sources for The Call of the Entrepreneur suggesting it is not notable enough for its own page, but would be fine as a section on the Acton Institute page. Felix QW (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a merge is fine. No objections here. Marquardtika (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  there have been no objections to your merge request, so I think it's safe to make the merge. Do you want to do it yourself, or would like a hand? Marquardtika (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger