Talk:Fall of the Western Roman Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removing Rebenich in Rousseau

At this edit I removed a paragraph:

According to Philip Rousseau's Companion to Late Antiquity, "There has been an ongoing and steadily increasing reshuffling of diverse historiographical models concerning the end of Antiquity since 1949". Taking into account those dimensions linked to the disappearance of a political western Roman empire, the decline of specific regions, and adding views that recognize the creative aspects of the religious, artistic, and cultural dimensions of the period, has redefined Antiquity's periodization, its geographical area, its central themes, its time frame, and even its overall value as a field of study. As a result, "the perception of Late Antiquity has significantly changed: the period is no longer seen as an era of decline and crisis but as an epoch of metamorphosis in the Mediterranean region".

It strikes me as a verbose comment that means rather little and doesn't contribute to an article on the Fall; to the extent that it does mean anything useful, that semantic content is repeated in the following paragraphs which I have left. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, you have "alternate paradigms" as the section title, and mention "Late Antiquity" in the last sentence, but now have no explanation of what any of that might actually mean. That's a whole paragraph on Pirenne, who was not a major paradigm changer, with no mention of the modern changes that basically invented Late Antiquity as a period unto itself in the twentieth century. As it is now, it makes it look like there is no change, it's just a continuation from Pirenne, and that isn't true. I'm afraid Pazuzu is leading you astray again. :-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a rethink, thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And now you've replaced a relevant and meaningful sentence that actually listed what the section supposedly discussed with this: His other ideas on the Fall have been a foundation for less hostile, but voluminous later discourse, and for modern synthesis with the results of archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, and genetic science, using diverse historiographical models. a sentence crammed full of words that convey virtually no relevant meaning on the topic at all. Is this an apology for Gibbon? Well, it wasn't but it is now. I and Pazuzu are disgusted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't have that. I thought it was a rather neat way of outlining the brief account of the development of historiography that we need here. Evidently listening to the wrong demon. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Monkey business

At these edits I have re-written in particular the introductory sections on the time-span of the Fall, the paradigm of the Fall, the reasons for the Fall, and thus the vexatious business of what Gibbon actually said about Christianity ("the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire"). I can't see any good way of discussing the history of reasons for the Fall without mentioning Gibbon's formulation, but I hope that the revised version is at least, generally agreeable. I have also cut down some of the description of Julian's religious reforms, as not demonstrably relevant to the issue of power loss, the subject of this article. As always I await comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge Pazuzu and I are terrifically impressed with these changes, it all reads more clearly, the changes are pertinent and on topic, and even the inclusion of Gibbon fits well. I personally disagree with the removal of the information on Julian because I think what happened with him clearly indicates how much the empire had changed and how much power had been lost by the emperors quite directly, but Pazuzu says I shouldn't pout over niggling little issues. I will even let the inclusion of the monks as a drain on manpower pass without comment. Oh wait. I commented. Still, letting it go. It's good. It's all good. Pazuzu says well done, you made me happy, and you should always endeavor to make me happy.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Fall of Rome 476 was Justinian propaganda

Turns out the main source for claiming Rome fell in 476 was a work of propaganda written by a friend of Justinian to justify the invasion and conquest. People in Rome at the time didn't think it fell and attached no special importance to 476. Our article contains nothing of the post-476 history discussed in this article:

• Edward J. Watts (October 6, 2021). "Rome Didn't Fall When You Think It Did. Here's Why That Fabricated History Still Matters Today". Time. Retrieved October 6, 2021 – via Yahoo! News.

-- GreenC 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Sounds like a fringe theory to me, are there other authors supporting this view? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiEd

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChristopherNoell21 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherNoell21 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Barbarians?

Why use a pejorative to describe the invading forces? Kleuske (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's used by pretty much all the surviving sources, and in the context of Helleno-Roman historiography, simply refers to anyone who wasn't a part of Greek or Roman culture. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are quite lopsided (they're Roman, exclusively) and no matter *how* you twist it, in the 4th century it's well and truly a pejorative. The fact that 18th century sources refer to "savages" in Africa and elsewhere is no reason to copy that either. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Both the primary sources and the modern secondary sources use the word barbarian, in this time period and context, as a matter of routine. I have just turned my eyes to one of my book-shelves, and I see three examples of the word used in the titles of scholarly books; looking at the index of the Cambridge Ancient History vol XII, 193-337, there are multiple pages references for the term. Yes, there was a pejorative sense to it, stronger in current colloquial use, but it also has clear semantic content. I suppose we could find some circumlocution, a neologism such as "ethnic groups outside Helleno-Roman culture" would do, but I can't see why we would want to. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Try calling them by their names if at all possible? The word "barbarians" does not distinguish between Goths, Vandals, Huns, Saxons, Franks, etc. The current text makes no distinction and jumbles them all together under a, frankly, offensive word which is used with disturbing consistency. Working out who played what role and naming names may remedy said lopsidedness. And i'm willing to do the work and very much open for suggestions and/or collaboration. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother myself, but feel free. We do of course use individual tribal names where appropriate already. The word remains useful either when several different groups are being described, or when non-Romans are described as a collective. Who exactly is being offended by it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Me, for one. Kleuske (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are offended by the description of people who lived 1700 years before our time and lacked systems of writing, which is a hallmark of the western conception of civilization, as barbarians? Why does being offended over a word used to describe people who died millennia ago give you any authority? Are you a historian? Have you studied ancient history? Wannabe rockstar (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for any offence. Your comments do raise an interesting question about our use of words with both a) semantically-meaningful and b) pejorative content. I don't find any relevant policies or guidelines on this particular point. I've just been involved in a discussion at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine where I argued that the word "pseudoscience" was being used in a purely pejorative way, in conflict with its useful meaning, and should be removed as not helping the article. Here I feel that the word "barbarian" is or at least can be used, in accordance with the sources, to mean "people not part of Graeco-Roman culture". Additionally I feel that in this specific sense in the period covered by this article, the word is useful and no longer relevant to any current ethnic group; classic Graeco-Roman culture no longer exists as an ethnic identity. Anyway, I agree, there may be instances in this article where "barbarian" could be replaced by specific ethnonyms. In any case I look forward to your suggestions and to collaborating with you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly, I have to vote with Kleuske on this one. (Maybe its my German backround:-) Whenever I read how the "barbarian hordes swept through..." wherever they were sweeping, it makes me roll my eyes. As if the Romans weren't "barbaric", and their "hordes" didn't sweep through the lands they gathered into their empire. The word could be changed by: specifying individual groups; or perhaps by the general area? Or better yet, is there no scholar who addresses this already and proposes an alternative? I'm a sociologist, but I'll try to look. Peacedance (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have managed to change one instance to the name of a specific group. I will welcome any suitable alternative. I've yet to find one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Richard Keatinge on this one. Literary cleansing is a close cousin of ethnic cleansing; I disapprove of both. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you figure that using neutral language (or better yet, endonyms) to describe groups of people, rather than the pejorative term coined for them by their enemies, is a "close cousin" of wiping out entire groups of people? I am very curious about this analogy. Roseofjuly (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's really worth mentioning that the word Barbarian comes from the Greek word Βάρβαρος which came about because it seemed to them many foreigners sounded like they were saying "Bar bar bar, interestingly enough one may find this reminiscent of the Syriac/Aramaic definitive article, nevertheless, if you view it like this it's more of a descriptive adjective. What's more, while it is applause worthy to try and switch names to tribal, it also brings up the interesting concept that, the Romans named these people, and generally weren't too concerned about accuracy or anything like that, kind of like Barbaros revisited, they gave names to groups of people, and these names have stuck, but as previously mentioned since almost no written record survives of the, forgive me for lack of a better term, barbarians, it's quite hard to say with any real confidence what they actually called themselves. As an aside, interesting theory that Rome hastened her downfall by giving names to certain peoples and thus instilling a greater sense of unity. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:29, 04 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very wary of the motivations of people who want to PC-Sanitize history. When people read that the barbarians helped bring down the Roman Empire, they can easily draw a parallel with mass immigration bringing down the modern day Western world. Is it? Isn't it? is irrelevant and not our job to answer. History is history, and should be recorded accurately, and not "tweaked" to make it politically convenient today. Finalreminder

It's not "PC sanitizing history" to acknowledge that "barbarians" is a pejorative term. It was pejorative even in the Romans' time: the Greeks themselves wrote that the word was devised because all of the non-Greek languages sounded like gibberish to them; the root word means "to stammer" or to babble confusingly. The Romans explicitly used it for people they considered uncivilized. This information is not hidden - it can be easily found on this very wiki. Using the term "barbarians" here is like using the term "savages" to refer to Native Americans in an article about American colonial history. If we'd like to leave it this way, that's fine, but it's silly to pretend that the term is merely descriptive when it was intended to be derogatory by the very people who devised the term. It's not really that hard to find suitable replacements: For example, the first sentence with the word included ("Increasing pressure from invading barbarians outside Roman culture") could easily be rewritten "Increasing pressure from invading tribes outside Roman culture..." or "Increasing pressure from invading peoples..." There are several places where it can simply be omitted, such as the second usage ("Further barbarian groups crossed..." could just be "Further groups crossed...") and the third "In 476, the Germanic barbarian king..." could just be "In 476, the Germanic king...") Roseofjuly (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"they can easily draw a parallel with mass immigration bringing down the modern day Western world" That would be entirely misleading. The Migration Period is characterized by armed invasions of Roman areas, warfare between competing tribes, and several "barbarians" gaining the status of Foederati. No such thing is occurring in recent times. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change in "Underlying causes"

I would like to make a change to this paragraph: Edward Gibbon gave a classic, but now outdated and incomplete, formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline, as crippling the empire's ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the failure of military discipline. He also felt that "the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire..." This, with his incredulity of miracles and his cautious estimation of the actual number of Christian martyrs, was immediately attacked and continues to arouse opposition. His ideas on the Fall have been a foundation for later discourse, and for modern synthesis with the results of archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, and genetic science, using diverse historiographical models. Alexander Demandtenumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell. and more ideas have been produced since.

IMO, it doesn't really explain Gibbon's views. It doesn't give Gibbon enough credit. It focuses too much on "Christian" objection - as if religionists are the only ones who disagree with Gibbon - and religion the only cause of disagreement. This is both inappropriate and incorrect in view of current scholarship - and a bit "weasle-ly" - and in fact, this paragraph never actually says what current scholarship on Gibbon is. A more thorough discussion of Gibbon's views was removed and replaced with this weasel worded paragraph some time back, and this has been left to stand in its place.

Perhaps a compromise could improve the situation. I have placed the initial Christian response in a note, as it seems less significant than current scholarship. I have left out detail on his various views on monarchy and the value of war. I have focused on views of the fall, period.

In 1776, historian Edward Gibbon published his landmark work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It quickly became the standard view of the fall of empire, and remained so for over 200 years. Glen Bowersock describes Gibbon's "celebrated opinion, expressed at an early stage of his work" as stating that barbarism and Christianity were the primary causes of the end of the empire. Gibbon also gave great weight to internal decline from wealth and decadence, the empire's declining ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the failure of military discipline. According to Gibbon, the end took place with the removal of the man he referred to as "the helpless Augustulus" in 476.

Challenges began in the twentieth century with Arnaldo Momigliano who argued that Roman Empire did not end in 476. The emperor after Augustulus was German, but rulers from other parts of the Roman empire outside Italy were not new. As Bowersock states, "Hadrian had come from Spain, Severus from Africa, Elagabalus from Syria and Maximinus from the Balkans". The Ostrogoths considered themselves in line with Augustulus as a part of Roman Empire, the Eastern Empire went from "strength to strength", and no one of the time wrote of the empire as "fallen".

Gibbon's long history is an eloquent acknowledgment that Rome did not fall in the fifth or sixth centuries. It changed and multiplied itself. Its centers of power and administration moved. It may have been a chameleon, but it was certainly no phoenix, because there were no ashes. A clear and decisive end, such as that which the Turks inflicted on the Byzantine Empire, or the Bolsheviks on the Empire of the Czars, or the Allies on the Third Reich, never came to the Empire of Rome. Gibbon understood this, and that is why a work entitled The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire comes to an end in 1453, with the capture of Constantinople".

Gibbon's ideas are no longer accepted in totality, but they have been foundational to later discourse and the modern synthesis with archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, genetic science, and the many other new sources of history beyond the documentary sources that was all that was available to Gibbon. Alexander Demandt has enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell and more ideas have been produced since.

This is just one possibility, but whatever is decided, please, let's do improve what is currently there.

I like your text, but I'm not sure that it belongs in the section on Underlying causes. On your first paragraph above, the present text mentions Gibbon only as providing a foundational discourse, and in slight detail in so far as his ideas are still stimulating modern publication and annoyance. I suggest that's appropriate here - much as I love his prose, his ideas are indeed outdated and incomplete. I feel that we should leave out of this section those of his ideas that are still approximately current, and take our summary from a modern synthesis - we currently use Kyle Harper's work and that feels right to me. We do already link to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which interested readers may follow if they wish. On your second section, I really like your text and the quotation from Bowersock 1996, but I wonder if most of it can more appropriately be worked into the section presently entitled From 476: Last Emperor, rump states? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Richard, it's good to hear from you. I expected a response from you here and am glad of it. I agree that the present text mentions Gibbon as foundational. I also agree it is perfectly legitimate to do so, and to include Gibbon as the first to list causes of the fall. That's history, and whether his "causes" are currently accepted or not is not really an important point. I would simply list them, and leave it, given my way. Then I would go on and list others.

My complaint is that the current paragraph does not actually list Gibbon's five major causes. It does, however, discuss one 200 year old reaction, implying that religious reaction was the only critique Gibbon received. It mentions no other critiques, and there have been many. Why is this one there? Causes of the fall need to be discussed, but religious reaction to Gibbon's book isn't really part of that. How is it pertinent? Religious reaction was not foundational to Gibbon's claims, nor to acceptance of his views, and it forms no part of current scholarship on either him or his views. The paragraph is vague and non-specific and doesn't even discuss that lone reaction from a scholarly perspective. It comes across like a personal feeling. It's not encyclopedic. Surely you can see this is just not a good paragraph.

I suggest that contemporary scholarship about him is not based in annoyance. I suggest it's based in the expanded sources unavailable to him. Let's use that at any rate, and discuss different views of different causes - or let's not - but what is there now is half way in and half way out. It is not consistent with the quality of the rest of this article. It needs removing, or replacing with something, and if that is not my compromise, that's fine, but then it needs something more to the point. Let's discuss Gibbon's causes, or let's not, but this paragraph is neither one or the other. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, at this edit I have inserted a slightly-tweaked version of your second paragraph. I'll await comments before I do anything else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Aarrggh! I wish you hadn't. I have worked up another option for you that actually discusses Gibbon's causes. It needs some polishing, but I will bring it - here - for everyone to comment on before doing anything with it. Would you consider reverting yourself until we can all come to some kind of consensus agreement? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Your wish is my command... Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha! If only!! I appreciate the sentiment and the action. What I have now written in place of this is too long to post here I'm afraid. I am just inserting it, and if you or anyone else hates it, or any part of it, I have no objection to reverting any of it accordingly. We can edit by selective removal as you see fit. Thank you for your cooperation Richard. It's a pleasure to work with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge So look it over. I've been moving stuff around like crazy trying to get all causes in one place for readers to find easily. I am going to work on the red references next. What the heck happened here?! It was not this way when I left it a year ago! This was a beautiful tightly focused erudite little article! We must return it to its previous quality Richard. It's too important to leave a mess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I have curled up in a corner and tried hard to find a place where your recent changes would improve this encyclopedia. With all respect to you, Edward Gibbon, and whatever demon has been advising you of late, I feel strongly that they would be more suitable elsewhere, perhaps in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as a section on modern uses of Gibbon's ideas. This article should not be structured by outdated ideas, they should be mentioned only in passing, even if they are historiographically foundational. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear! I seem to regularly do that to you no matter what I write! What demon? Why your friend Pazuzu of course! Don't get discouraged with me dearheart, I am quite willing to accommodate you, but I do think Gibbon has a place historically and should be included. No one else has ever had as much influence, and his continues to be felt. Please note I refrained from any contemporary evaluation because it is off topic, but including him and his causes is right on target for this article and should be somewhere. Wait. Have we switched sides?!? I am arguing in favor of Gibbon and you want to exclude him! The world is rotating backwards!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned briefly here yes, included in detail elsewhere... in this article, he, and the details and afterlife of his ideas, are pretty much useless blather; they detract from focus and erudition. I do hope you will revert. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge I am going to have to start calling you Captain Picard if you keep making decisions assuming your own authority is sufficient to "make it so". You need to offer some kind of explanation for why this article would have a section on causes and then not actually discuss them, and why that would be a good thing, because I am not seeing it. When I was writing Biblical criticism, I included an entire section on its history, and I noted that some historical ideas look pretty whacked now. I felt no need to evaluate them or exclude them on that basis and did not do so. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to write and cite. We just present the information; evaluation is usually OR. If you can't come up with another reason beyond your personal evaluation of Gibbon's views as blather for excluding him, I would say that's not a valid reason Richard. I am willing to work with you, but not on the basis of OR.

The reasons for including Gibbon here in this particular article are multiple. First, Gibbon is historical. Second, his ideas remain foundational. Third what was in the article seriously needed replacing. Yes Gibbon's ideas are dated, and we don't agree with a lot of it anymore - for reasons that have nothing to do with religious bias, please note - which the first version implied was the sole basis for rejecting his views. So it needed replacing with something that actually reflects its title accurately and neutrally. It now has that. I don't get how that's not a good thing.

Fourth, it seems fair to say that one cannot make a "brief mention" of Gibbon's ideas without actually listing or explaining what his ideas were, and deem that encyclopedic. I seem to recall you saying that my referring to something in Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire and failing to explain it sufficiently, in a similar manner as here, was "a good way to mislead and confuse our readers". Do I misremember? I accepted your standard there - leave it out or explain it, but don't mention and leave readers hanging - and I made that change. Now this is my standard as well. What has changed so that the standard you applied to me does not apply here?

Last, any actual discussion of causes must include Gibbon, and that's my Captain Picard opinion. Gibbon was the first, it stood for 200 years, people still refer to him, people have built on his foundation, giant edifices of reasoning about what happened in Late Antiquity, all because of Gibbon. Our obsession with the Fall began in the 18th century with Gibbon. Not mentioning him would be worse than an article on the American Revolution without George Washington. I don't see how anyone can see it otherwise, least of all you, a fan. I'm confused Richard. What is going on?

I vote that we let our readers have the facts and sort out for themselves what is "blather" and what isn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a disagreement. The use you have made of Gibbon and Gibboniana is analogous to inserting an extended discussion of reviews of Bernard Bailyn's work in the article American Revolution. It is, simply, the wrong article. Your text could, and I hope will, be useful in Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But here, it has very little to offer (there are some felicitous bits which I hope to excise and rescue). Not only are Gibbon's specific ideas dated, so are his social paradigms and assumptions, and it's absolutely inappropriate to discuss him at length here. Again, please rethink. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we are, but why are we having this disagreement Richard? It is a fact that "Gibbon's ideas are dated, and so are his social paradigms and assumptions", but that does not - ever - exclude any scholar from his place in history. You know that. I know that you know that. So where is this coming from? On what basis is this the wrong article? Simply saying it doesn't explain what you mean by that. This article is on the Fall, and it has a section on causes, and Gibbon was the first to speculate on both of those things. That is irrefutable fact.

Your analogy - dearheart - if your article on the American Revolution had a section on causes, or mentioned ideology, then failing to include a summary of Bailyn's theories would in fact be wrong. And that is in spite of the fact that he has not had the kind of impact that Gibbon has, does not have the weight of a Gibbon, nor has his theory ever formed the hegemony of an entire field of study for 200 years. Gibbon is still being read, he is still studied, his theories - and his causes - are still used - 200 years later! Who else can claim that? He has both historical and contemporary pertinence to the topic of the section he is now in. The sources used are not reviews, they are exegesis. There is a difference.

I will attempt to cut it down as much as possible, but without a better reason than "he is outdated", I won't agree to cut him out entirely. Post a request for a third opinion, or an RFC, or whatever you feel led to do. If you can't explain to me why it is "absolutely inappropriate" to discuss him - and this is not a lengthy discussion of Gibbon - then perhaps you can explain it to someone else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Richard Keatinge look above here under Gibbon Redux, we had this same disagreement a year ago, and you were the one to resolve it by adding something on Gibbon back then. Someone else must and come along since then replacing your good edits with the garbage that was there in its place. I have shortened everything I wrote on Gibbon, removed it entirely in one place, and I do not like your last edit and don't accept your made-up reason - but I will let it stand. I will even go so far as to say that if you want to rewrite something - that accurately reflects Gibbon - and replace what I wrote with your own words, I won't even object to that. But he needs to be there. Put him back where he belongs, include the modern view somewhere, and I will trust you to do an honest and fair job. You're a good editor. Don't let Pazuzu stir up emotions that just get in the way of good sense. I will leave you to it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

References