Talk:Racialism/Archive 5

message: Two weeks is long enough. First edit war I see and it goes back in the can. --Golbez 22:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks much, I tried hard to take your suggestions into account. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: User:Bcrowell was good enough as to advise us to expand on the scientific aspect of the article, specifically regarding anthropological history. I think he's right. He specifically suggested :
"Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, ... in comparison with the opposing points of view expressed in Steven Pinker's books and Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture."
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anthropology, 

message: GURPS Cthulhupunk is a roleplaying game from the 90's. Lovecraft died in the 30's. The author of Cthulhupunk, in a side note, describes what racism and racialism are. The gamebook describing Cthulhu mythos, references to Lovecraft are mandatory and this note about racialism is written in order to better respect Lovecraft's Cthulhu's universe. From memory, text starts with something like
“Lovecraft was a racist, not a bigot. In our time, this is hard to make a difference, but it was not always like that”. Here, racist actually refers to racialism, as it is made clear in the rest of the text.
I'm not a native English speaker, so if you have a hard time understanding what I'm talking about, please reply. Reply to David Latapie 01:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A sidenote from a roleplaying game rulebook is not authoritative enough to merit reference in an encyclopedia article on a topic unrelated to the game itself. A citation from a biography of H.P. Lovecraft would be better, but then again Lovecraft's views on race are not particularly noteworthy beyond his fan base, and don't really merit inclusion in this article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovecraft 

message: Lapaz recently changed the instances of "race" to "ethnic groups". Now whether or not one believes the term "race" has any scientific usage (there is a vigorous debate about this still), using it to describe "racialist" thinking is entirely adequate. Racialists do not believe in differences in ethnic groups, they believe in differences between races. If one wants to say that race is a contested concept, that's fine, but a separate issue. --Fastfission 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Race" and "Ethnic groups" 

message: This article could be improved by listing some agreed-upon examples of measurable differences between races in modern world. 
* Supposed black-white IQ gap in USA
* as a concrete example of this gap, average GRE scores of white / black / asian students ( IQs are highly correlated with GRE scores )
* Racial composition of NBA ( only around 20% of players are white )
* Olympic medal statistics ( do you know that the last time a non-black male athlete won an Olympic medal for 100 m sprint was in 1980? )
* etc. --Itinerant1 07:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these statistics have nothing to do with the concept of Racialism, Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations.  These events and ideas, such as the IQ test, the NBA, the Olympics, or Baroque music; do not stipulate racialism; it is coincidental that the statistics are the way they are.  It could be viewed as racialism of the general population to associate NBA with people of African American heritage, but there is no racialism of the NBA because the NBA hires on the criteria of performance ability.  Also, citing the general population would be difficult.  But the fact is that these events and ideas do not advocate racialism in themselves, but the general population does.
Btw, race and color I agree are different.  Race identifies the area that a person's heritage comes from, thus identifing the limited gene pool (isolated populations caused by natural geography) that suggests the possible inheritable traits for them.  Color is just a feature of that limited gene pool.  It is a fallacy then to suggest that color indicates race which indicates ability.  Though genetics does influence ability; and race does influence genetics to a certain extent, color is only a subset of genetics thus can't be used to identify someone's latent ability. Xlegiofalco 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual basis 

message: List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics. 
This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.
This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated. 
Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?
This list cover a period of about 50 years since independence (1957).
List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):
(1)	Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays
(2)	99% of Petronas directors are malays
(3)	3% of Petronas employees are Chinese
(4)	99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays
(5)	100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status
(6)	0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies
(7)	5% of all new intake for government army, nurses, polices, is non-malays
(8)	2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960
(9)	2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%
(10)	7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960
(11)	95% of government contracts are given to malays
(12)	100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Approved Permits, Taxi Permits, etc
(13)	80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers
(14)	100 big companies set up, managed and owned by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. MISC, UMBC, UTC, etc
(15)	At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses
(16)	2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given
(17)	0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)
(18)	8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period
(19)	48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(20)	144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000 
(21)	2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000
(22)	2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%
(23)	While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible
(24)	10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays
(25)	5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004
(26)	Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years
(27)	0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"
(28)	128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired e.g. Medicine (in 2004)
(29)	10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays
(30)	50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003
(31)	25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957
(32)	7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957
(33)	2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago
(34)	0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas 
(35)	3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status
(36)	600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenship compare with the Chinese and Indians
(37)	5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is poor or rich
(38)	2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget
(39)	50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names
(40)	1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort
(41)	0 churches/temples were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built
(42)	3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No churches, no temples are required to be built in housing estates
(43)	1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004
(44)	1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45)	0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins
(46)	30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less
(47)	10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969
(48)	20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(49)	100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s
(50)	Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960
(51)	0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s
(52)	20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(53)	50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record
(54)	20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays
(55)	12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum
There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism. 
Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated. 
Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination. 
If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.
Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.
We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.185.198 (talk) 16:38, July 11, 2007
:Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to debate issues. This issue would better be mentioned in the articles on affirmative action, Malaysia, Malays. --zenohockey 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malaysia

message: it is extremely silly and un-WP:ENC to present authors' portraits next to quotes. Don't do that please. --dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not know, but in English, a "mugshot" is typically used to describe a police photograph, and the Appiah photograph is far from that.  Regarding your opinion, which you are the only one voicing, it's not particularly important to me so I won't revert, but linking to one of the most over-used terms of "unencyclopedic" did little to add any weight to your opinion.  --David Shankbone 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appiah mugshot

message: Went to see if there was a Wikipedia article on racialization and was redirected to Racialism.  Why?  This article doesn't mention any of the scholarship on racialization, a major contemporary theory of the development and implementation of racial categories that would seem to warrant its own article.  If it doesn't warrant its own article, I'm not sure this is the right place for the term to redirect.Soulful scholar (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is it, and it is as much as it deserves. I too came to find out what "racialism" is. Apparently it's just the negation of the negation of race as an effective phenomenon. The negation of the dismissal of race as  merely epiphenomenal, a social construct and nothing more. Except this stuff never comes clean just like that and around that core there's the typical set of bad actors and malefactors real and imagined. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racialization 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The  source list has been updated some more since I last posted here, and will gain some more sources this year, so I encourage editors to use the sources to fix the problem with the article mentioned in the tag that went up today. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article could be much improved with more sources. 

message: Is not this phrase in the article an error?
"has been demonstrated by a rigorous and comprehensive scientific process"/
It does not seem to fit with the sentence to which it is appended.
--Skb8721 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in sentence?

message: Cut from article:
* In the modern English language, "racism" is a broad category encompassing many separate claims or impulses, such as chauvinism, identity politics, institutional racism, etc., and it is often used as a pejorative epithet that many would want to avoid for various reasons. When the term "racialism" is used, this is more commonly people describing themselves, or attempting a more value-neutral terminology which is assumed to be more appropriate for (scientifically) objective communication or analysis. Self-described racialists often wish to avoid many of the popular associations of "racism" that are considered pejorative, or involve extremism or illegal activities, such as: hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.
Great attempt, but completely unsourced. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Encyclopædia Britannica, Oxford Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster Dictionary all define "racism" and "racialism" as the same. These are one of the most cited and trusted sources available. Do we really need a separate article for racialism? FonsScientiae (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than scientific racists self-identifying and such, I've never seen the term used in modern discourse. So, no.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that those sources are "most trusted", we don't rely on dictionaries and the EB has been shown to be of comparable reliability to wikipedia (I think the racism article is ok since it is written by Audrey Smedley who is an expert). However, I think that whenever racialism is used it is used in opposition to racism, as a kind of belief in race without being an evil racist kind of thing. So while objectively I think the two concepts are quite similar and overlapping, they have different usage. I think we can find sources that show that difference in usage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some searches on the net and found at least one source that defines racialism as different from from racism . Even this source says that the common usage for racialism is as the synonym of racism, and the majority of other reliable sources define so. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that "common name is determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" and in this case this is the synonym of racism. Imo at least a disambiguation page would be necessary for the term. FonsScientiae (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here C. Loring Brace makes a difference between Racialism as the belief in biologically defined races and racism as behavior motivated by that belief.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another similar distinction being made (The Ordinary Concept of Race. Michael O. Hardimon The Journal of Philosophy , Vol. 100, No. 9 (Sep., 2003), pp. 437-455.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Different sources define racialism differently. I propose that we make a disambiguation page. FonsScientiae (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism = Racialism ? 

message: Words are, by definition, definite, so how can there be two meanings? I see an agenda here.  
65.214.33.188 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, like this is the only word in English with multiple definitions.  How daft can you be? 50.193.171.69 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this really what is known as racial essentialism? That the Negroid, Caucasoid, Sinoid, etc. genotypes are unique and distinct unto themselves. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: What are these 2013 world view issues? If none then tag has to go.--Inayity (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Worldview issues

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

message: The purpose of the term racialism was for real, non naacp scientists who publish their results directly in the media, to refer to empirically measured differences between races (like the frequency of dark skin, sun burn and thus skin cancer, or average IQ scores), which like any categorization that has any correlation with any factor - has great utility, to have a name for such categorization without being compared to people running around with bedsheets on their head.
So who replaced the real page with this logically inconsistent NAACP propagandized bs?  Censorship of science and truth is not the path to anything, including social justice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.149.219 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalization?

message: I see that there are several registered and several I.P. watchers of this article who have been going back and forth in editing the statement of what the article is about at the very beginning of the article. One thing I note is a continually effort to quote-mine sources that by Wikipedia's reckoning are primary sources for the most part. It seems to me that if this article's topic is an important, notable topic, it must be treated in reliable secondary sources and those are the sources to use for further article edits. I'll keep digging for sources that specifically mention "racialism" as topic, and I invite anyone else who knows of any to suggest those here. There are other related articles on Wikipedia that may have a place for some of the factual statements that have been put into article text here recently, as long as those statements are properly sourced to reliable, secondary sources that actually relate to the topic of those articles. Best wishes to all of you for a happy new year. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to say the least. I started watching this article recently, mostly as a mnemonic device so I wouldn't forget the word before I looked it up.  After reading your comment I did look it up. It would appear that no two dictionaries have the same definition. The word itself appears to be one of those neologisms used as a shibboleth by various and sundry people. It would not look to be well defined enough to ever produce a consensus and I suspect that in the end it will fail the notability test. I'm going to stop watching it at this point, since it is merely an embellishment like "annoted" to mean "noted" or "orientated" to mean "oriented". Trilobitealive (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits back and forth to lead paragraph

message: This 1 August 2013 edit added a section which was to evolve into this one. The section had a different name and different content.
This 23 October 2014 edit changed the name of this section to its present one, leaving the content unchanged.
By this 23 October 2014 edit, the content had evolved a bit and a citation of a YouTube video as a supporting source had appeared. The edit added a second paragraph, citing a different YouTube video in support.
By this 28 December 2014 edit, the citations of YouTube videos as supporting sources had disappeared and an  tag had appeared. The edit removed the initial paragraph (by then somwewhat evolved from the content with which the section had begun), leaving the section containing just the content which had been added earlier as a second paragraph.
This 2 February 2015 edit removed mention of "affirmative action", and caught my eye.
I don't now anything about the topic. Could some regular editors of the article please take a look at this? It looks to me as if this section ought to be either supported or removed. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Racialism as national policy'' section

message: Look at this edit edit. How is it I bring a 100% argument which has not be refuted and he/she STILL comes and reverts me? What does that tell you about this editor. They say we should not discuss the editor. But when it starts to be a problem to the quality of article(s) plural, where mis-stating policy as seen above with regard to WP:TAGGING and the obvious WP:NORUSH is blatant, then we might have to show why this article looks the way it does after their fun on it. So the rules mean nothing? Reverting even when wrong? Making policy bend to your agenda? look at the article now.--Inayity (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have article sections that start like Grisso wrote in the magazine Africans Unbound that: BIG QUOTE. Block Quotes. WOW. Good work. Two sections are like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia fails when we have to deal with this personality 

message: The human species is divided into races - no-one with any sense would deny this. Racialism is the belief that there are unalterable differences between races and that some racial groups are superior to others. 131.111.200.74 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No that would be racism. Racialism is the belief that races exist. That belief can be right or wrong as determined by the scientific method. AlwaysUnite (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense definition 

message: As repugnant as they are, they exist and the sacatra page also exists and needs work. For one thing, it's an orphan. It doesn't appear to be one caste in a national caste system because this word was used in various countries. It's not well-defined inasmuch as there are several definitions, I believe. I'm not sure it's a good idea to create a list of names that have been made for various (presumed) racial categories. What could be done? SewerCat (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What To Do With Terms Like 'Sacatra'? 

message: I can't find the source for this. I see a "See also: racism" but nowhere on the actual dictionary definition (either in printed edition or online) does it say racialism is synonymous with racism.
This needs to be rectified to reflect the page better. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is stupid, "see also" is the way that Merriam Webster gives synonyms. And it literally gives the same definition of racism and racialism. You are wasting our time with this kind of lame POV pushing strategies. Step up your game.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the worlds job to live up to your expectations. Now go do something productive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "racialism synonymous with racism" 

message: "That racism required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings." This premise, apparently being attributed, needs to be rendered as a sentence. Lewis Goudy (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Du Bois 

message: The lead has this with a citation request against it: "In 1903, W. E. B. Du Bois said that racialism is the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories, the races."
Du Bois published "The Souls of Black Folk" in 1903 but I cannot find anything like this quote in there. Indeed I cannot find any quote like the above from Du Bois that does not source Wikipedia. We are essentially putting wrong information out there. I am going to make a bold edit and change this to something that does summarise Du Bois' view of Racialism with a source. Yet it will inevitably subtly shift what we say in the lead. I am not committed to my edit, and will be happy for someone to  change it if they can find something better, but any summary of Du Bois' view must be sourced to somewhere. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead unsourced