Talk:Zheng Manuo

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Emmanuel Zheng Manuo was the first Chinese student in Europe and the first Chinese Jesuit priest? Source: First Chinese student in Europe: see this paper and this paper. There are also several book chapters on this. First Chinese Jesuit priest: the following article's title conveys this point. The entire article is devoted to this person.

• • ALT1: ... that in 1645, a French priest took the 12-year-old Emmanuel Zheng Manuo out of China on a trip to Europe? Source: "Père de Rhodes set sail from Macao for Europe on 20 December 1645. His purpose was to interest the Holy See in the Annamite regions, which were experiencing significant growth in the faith thanks to the efforts of the Jesuits from the Japan Province. During his account of the Macao-Rome trip, the intrepid traveler mentions that he brought along a Chinese lad whom he personally baptized in Macao. With evident affection, he refers to the young boy as "mon petit Chinois," but does not provide any further name." (pp. 7-8) Zheng was born on 25 May 1633 (see p. 6), which would make him 12 at the time of departure.

• • ALT2: ... that the first Chinese student in Europe, Emmanuel Zheng Manuo, studied at the Roman College, the University of Bologna, and the University of Coimbra? Source: See the section titled "Studies in Europe", pp. 11-20, from this source.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher J. Boes
  • Comment: whew.

Created by TheLonelyPather (talk). Self-nominated at 22:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Emmanuel Zheng Ma'nuo; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Hey, TheLonelyPather! Glad to see you have continued your hard work expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Chinese Catholicism–I have been a fan of your work on Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou for some time. For this article, I'm going to admit that I do not know a lick of Chinese (though the extremely excellent Uriel1022 does, so I welcome their comment if they feel they can contribute). However, I am extremely confident that I can AGF in this instance, especially when considering your record. With your QPQ done, everything else looks in order: citations are present, hooks are sourced and intensely fascinating (you didn't even get to mention that he was once captured by pirates!), there's no nom'd image. Due to the multiple languages involved, I have to discount any Earwig rating and just AGF (the 11.5% hit rate right now appears to be only false positives). The original hook is outstanding and my preference. And, TheLonelyPather, I have to agree: whew is right. Great work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Dear Pbritti: Thank you so much for your kind words, and I am very flattered to have a fan on Wikipedia (guess the *lonely* pather isn't that lonely, eh?). I appreciate you for giving good faith to my citations, but I also welcome everyone who is proficient in the Chinese language (perhaps Uriel1022?) to check the article.

The Francis A. Rouleau article, which is cited for the hooks, is in English. I filtered out quite some of its content and opinions to ensure NPOV, but I encourage you to read it for your leisure. Again, many thanks and cheers, --TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• @TheLonelyPather: I had actually rather hoped to read the Rouleau article, but my access to ProQuest is impaired at present (Wikipedia Library has its ups and downs in terms of stability). Given the extensive volume of supplementary material, I was confident that my inability to access one source would be an inappropriate impediment to this nom's approval. When my ProQuest access quits being finicky, I'll give the Rouleau article a read. Some of my best friends are Jesuit priests, so your deference to NPOV is appreciated in light of how some of these dearly beloved friends are capable of certain...embellishments. Let me know if you ever need access to a print volume on Jesuit history not online, as a few of these friends are currently devoted to historic research. I highly recommend Uriel1022's work if you're unfamiliar. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know about this technical issue. Please try this link: [1] It is the same text, but in txt form (without any formatting). This should be easily accessible. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

For a passing closer, please note that I have utilized the above-linked txt version and verified the vast majority of the article's content. It's a fun read with some original observations that it's very proud of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Chinese source check okay. TheLonelyPather, you are a treasure for Wikipedia's Chinese Christian section. I also highly recommend the works by Pbritti, a great contributor of many of the excellent Book of Common Prayer articles. - Uriel1022 (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

References

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emmanuel Zheng Manuo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Planning to review this by the end of the week. —Kusma (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Content review

I love the topic of the Jesuit mission to China. I don't know nearly enough about it and am happy for the opportunity to look at it again through one particular biography. I can read enough Chinese to do a rough check of the sources, but may ask for further help and translations. I will go through the article in section by section order and will make comments on everything I see; some of these may go beyond the GA criteria, on which I will comment separately. I'll do the lead section last, once I have an idea what the article says. —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Naming: so did he receive a Christian name first? Overall, there is a lot of detail in this section, although Sequeira vs Siqueira is just a minor variation and rather normal for the 17th century. Does 方豪, who seems to talk at length about other people called Manoel, call 瑪諾 his "saint name transliteration" (聖名譯音) or am I misreading the character? For the Chinese name, I am surprised by the different names given (維信 vs. 惟信) but after searching Google Books, both seem indeed quite common. Weird.
  • Rouleau has 維 on p. 1 and 惟 on p. 49, very confusing. Have you seen the rubbing of the tombstone to decide what is correct?
    • @Kusma: The tombstone says "惟". However, the tombstone can also be incorrect, as it messed up his age. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Ok, I see. (I had only seen the transcription in Rouleau) I would use traditional Chinese for 維信, though. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

        Done, changed to traditional. TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• The different romanizations do not seem to be very special (just standard older Romanizations like Wade-Giles); I would suggest to put them into a box like {{Infobox Chinese}} or similar instead of putting so much prose emphasis. But you can do that as you like.

More later! —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kusma!

• Naming: You are right that Fang Hao put "saint name transliteration" (聖名譯音). My guess is that since Zheng was born into a Catholic family in Macau, he received his baptismal name first, and his Chinese name was based on his baptismal name. Hence the order of the "Naming" section has western languages before the Chinese language. Unfortunately Rouleau, as a Westerner, didn't put much emphasis on Zheng's Chinese name.
• Different Romanizations: my sources don't tell me what Romanization system they are using :(( but yes, {{Infobox Chinese}} would be a good option.

Ready when you are! --TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it will be a little longer. My back wants me to reduce my computer time. Will continue as soon as I can. —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Recovered enough to continue reading this. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, since you are interested in the Jesuit missions in China, and I take that you are a German speaker, I hope you have heard of Johann Adam Schall von Bell, arguably one of the most important German Jesuits who arrived in China. I hope to work on him when I have time in the future–his article is in a dismal state right now. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Name does ring a bell (haha), but very faintly, and I have forgotten almost everything I used to know about the period. I did read Jonathan Spence's book about Matteo Ricci at some point, and a Jesuit friend sent me a few related offprints when he heard I liked China, but that was twenty years ago :( —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Early life: for the reader who does not know the 17th century names, it can be difficult to understand that Tonkin/Cochinchina and Annam all refer to modern-day Vietnam.
• Journey from Macau to Rome: better to spell out 12 as "twelve years old". Or "12 years old"; both are acceptable by MOS:NUMERAL.
• Turks is a disambiguation page, please link directly to the correct target or remove the link.
• Studies in Rome: The novitiate of Sant'Andrea is probably linked to Sant'Andrea al Quirinale? [2]
• For year ranges see MOS:YEARRANGE; in short: do not write "from 1653 to 54", but "from 1653 to 1654".
• Perhaps worth giving a short explanation of the word "regency"?
• "the center of Renaissance" do we need this stated here?
• "Zheng commenced his teaching in 1660." isn't that the end of his teaching instead of the beginning?
• Studies at Bologna and Coimbra: this seems to be Rouleau p. 17, not p. 15 (it is the 15th page of the PDF, which is not page 15).
• "Zheng delayed a year of his studies to travel to Portugal." I don't quite understand what that means. Do you mean he postponed some of his necessary studies, spending the time to travel?
• "A 1665 catalogue": Not sure whether just saying "catalogue" sounds too much like a sales catalogue; it seems to have been a register of all Jesuits in a specific province?
• "Rouleau suggested that Zheng was likely to become ordained in 1663, after his second year of studying theology. He claimed that it is "more than probable" that Zheng had become a priest by the end of 1664." simplify: "According to Rouleau, Zheng was likely ordained in 1663, in his second year of theology, and very likely had become a priest by the end of 1664. According to Dunne, Zheng was ordained in 1664."
• Travels and mission: "boarded the ship" which ship?
• "They left as a part of the fleet [..] The fleet departed on 13 April 1666" combine these two sentences.
• Maybe explain that Goa was in modern-day India?
• Mission in India: "contrary to Zheng's wishes to enter China." shouldn't it be "to return to China"?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Got them. Will fix this week. I am getting busy this week... -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Early life: Yes, that's true. My personal philosophy is to use wikilinks for these situations–if the reader is curious, they will hover their cursor over the word and get more information. However, your point is valid. How can I further make it clear that Tonkin and Cochinchina belong to modern-day Vietnam? I am using these two terms because Rouleau used them.
• Journey from Macau to Rome: done.
• Turks is a disambiguation page: done.
• Studies in Rome: I highly suspect Sant'Andrea al Quirinale is the place. However, its Wikipedia page links to the church, not the novitiate school. I don't want to confuse the readers...

  Yes, makes sense. From the Italian Wikipedia, I am sure that the novitiate is linked to the place, but the construction dates of the church don't make sense in our context. Better not to make the link. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• For year ranges see MOS:YEARRANGE; in short: do not write "from 1653 to 54": done.

TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps worth giving a short explanation of the word "regency"? done.
• "the center of Renaissance" do we need this stated here? This is not from me, but from the book. The point is that a Chinese man is teaching Western stuff. I would love to use quotation marks, but the book is in Chinese, and I am not sure if I need to use them.

  I think that a Chinese man is teaching Classics is already clear without specifying this. —Kusma (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Understood! Removed. The Renaissance started 100+ years before Zheng anyways... TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Zheng commenced his teaching in 1660." isn't that the end of his teaching instead of the beginning? done, reworded.
• Studies at Bologna and Coimbra: this seems to be Rouleau p. 17, not p. 15 (it is the 15th page of the PDF, which is not page 15). done.
• "Zheng delayed a year of his studies to travel to Portugal." I don't quite understand what that means. Do you mean he postponed some of his necessary studies, spending the time to travel? Yes, reworded.
• "A 1665 catalogue": done, reworded "catalogue" to "registry".
• "Rouleau suggested that Zheng was likely to become ordained in 1663...": done.
• Travels and mission: "boarded the ship" which ship? done, reworded.
• "They left as a part of the fleet [..] The fleet departed on 13 April 1666" combine these two sentences. done.
• Maybe explain that Goa was in modern-day India: Maybe? Not so sure.
• Mission in India: "contrary to Zheng's wishes to enter China." shouldn't it be "to return to China"? done.

Ready when you are! TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extra note: this article will be on DYK on 19 July. I suggest that both of us abstain from the article when it is on DYK, since there will be a lot of people looking at it & editing it. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I signed off on the final step for DYK approval :) Happy to wait until tomorrow to continue reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No big changes throughout 19 July. Ready to proceed. TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Mission in India: it would be helpful to clarify in the da Gama quote that Gregorio Lopez and Manuel de Siqueira are Luo and Zheng. For example, you could say "Last year ... a Religious of St. Dominic, named Fr. Gregorio Lopez [Luo] and Chinese by race, had come over from Manila to Canton ... From there, he visited his and our christianities with great success ..." Note I removed the brackets around the ellipsis ... per MOS:ELLIPSIS/MOS:PAREN.
  • Done, added "[Luo]". I am keeping the square brackets around the ellipsis to show that they are not from the original text (see MOS:ELLIPSIS, "With square brackets").
• Studies in Macau: what are "Catholic descendants"?
  • Descendants of Catholics in Malacca. Malacca used to be a Portugese colony, before it was taken by the Dutch, who practiced Reformed Christianity. I removed the word "descendants" (not so important here) and added some context. Done.
    • Better.
• Support for native clergy in China: It is a bit unclear why you have a See Also to the Chinese Rites controversy here; you'd need to explain a bit how this is connected
  • Done. Yeah, basically the Chinese Rites controversy centers around whether to accept Chinese culture / tradition in Catholic clergy ranks. I put some more information.
    • Makes more sense now. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Stopping here for now, hoping to continue tomorrow. Will also need to answer a few of your responses. —Kusma (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! @Kusma: Ready to proceed. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I had a fairly bad week at work, so my wiki-time was quite limited, but I'll try to get through the rest faster now. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Mission in China: please don't mix Canton and Guangdong, unless you mean different places and write "Canton" for Guangzhou. I would suggest to go for pinyin if you can.
  • Done, swapped "Canton" for "Guangzhou".
    • I think the "governor of Canton" should be the "governor of Guangdong", though, unless he was someone other than the provincial governor. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  You are right. Rouleau uses "Kwangtung viceroy" (p. 42). Changed. TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• "Zheng's health might have been affected by tuberculosis" this isn't an obvious reason for going to Southern China without the extra information that Rouleau gives that the long journey to the North might have been too much. Later we see him sent to the North because of the tuberculosis, so we need some explanation for not going North earlier.
  • Done, gave a bit more context. I think the main reason that Zheng was later sent to the North is not about his tuberculosis. It is because he was chosen, due to his dual identities of clergy and Chinese, and he had to go.
  • Fixed the later mention about his reasons to go to Beijing. There is a subtle difference between "going to the north and travel around China" and "going to Beijing for the drier air". I hope I made this clear in my prose.
• "the waterway" I would explain "the waterway they were traveling on" or similar; the only "the waterway" with definite article I can think of is the canal.
  • Done, explained. It is likely that the Grand Canal froze over, but putting that would amount to OR. I think a footnote is sufficient.
• Do try to replace some "Zheng" by "he" or "him" where it is unambiguous.
  • Done.
• "Zheng reached Beijing alone in 1672. Gabriel de Magalhães met Zheng and confirmed that the latter had tuberculosis. Zheng was expected to live one more year. A 1672 report by Adrien Grelon mentioned that he lived "incognito"." That sounds as if Magalhaes diagnosed him and someone told him he would not live more than a year; from Rouleau p. 45, I can only see that Magalhaes is the person who transmitted this information, not the person making the diagnosis. Rouleau's "one more year" is also not written as a prognosis, but looking backwards already knowing when Zheng died. The Grelon report says he lived "like incognito". This is expanded upon in Rouleau p. 47, where there is a discussion what that "incognito" would mean in practice.
  • Thanks for the insight. A close reading of Rouleau proves that you are right. I added Rouleau's interpretation of the "incognito" state. The reason I didn't initially included this part (p. 47) is because Rouleau's language is a bit POV alarming. Upon your suggestion, I filtered out Rouleau's admiration and put a simplified interpretation on thie article page.

More in a bit! —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Death and legacy: I am not sure the commentary about his early death is really useful here; for most notable people dead at 40 we would expect someone to say they died early. You could try to combine some of the paragraphs.
  • Done, removed the commentaries and combined two paragraphs.
• Tombstone: The tombstone does not say he died on 11 April, it says he died on the eleventh day of the fourth (lunar) month of the Chinese calendar, which is not usually called "April". That actually appears to be 26 May 1673 of the Gregorian calendar [3], which is the date given in the Latin inscription in Rouleau p. 49. That happens to be 16 May 1673 of the Julian calendar; was Fang converting to Julian calendar for some reason? The Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582, and Portuguese or Jesuits would have certainly been using it (unlike Americans or people from various Protestant countries, who would say he died on 16 May 1673).
  • Done, used "the eleventh day of the fourth month" instead. I re-read the passage and apparently I made a mistake. Fang did convert it to Gregorian and confirmed that it was 26 May. He said that another priest, Yuan Guowei, converted it to 16 May, and he found that to be mistaken. Thanks for catching this bit!

I'll have more comments on lead and on the GA criteria tomorrow(ish), and hope to get to the source review soon. —Kusma (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Lead section: Short, but does the trick except for one important omission: please mention that he was ordained. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Done, mentioned ordination. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments on GA criteria

• Well-written: I guess the prose could be more polished, but (a) I am not a native English speaker myself so it can be difficult for me to judge and (b) it is clear and concise enough for the GA criteria. The MOS points that need to be complied with are OK. There are a few points in my lengthy comments above that should still be addressed.
• Verifiabiity/original research/copyvio: Cites well-formatted reliable sources, does not violate copyright, almost no original research. There is one exception though: the article title. I could not find any other place that uses the name "Emanuel Zheng Manuo". It reads like Hongkong newspaper style and reminds me of names like Tony Leung Chiu-wai. As none of the sources use this, I would suggest to go for "Zheng Manuo" instead, which seems fairly common in recent Western sources.
• While we are on the topic of names, you should create redirects for all of the name variants you mention.
• Broadness: Seems fine.
• Neutrality or stability: no concerns
• Images: Would be better to use "upright" for portrait format images. For perfection, you'd need ALT tags (but for GA these are not needed)
  • File:Derhodes.jpg lacks source/author information, I'll ignore the lack of a US tag seeing how old it is
  • File:Collegio Romano della Compagnia di Giesu fondato da Papa Gregorio XIII by Alessandro Specchi (1699).png, File:The plan of Goa by Jan Jansson, 1657 detail.jpg again, copyright tags could be better, but they will be clearly PD
  • File:Luo Wenzao (Gregory Lopez).jpg fine
  • File:AMH-6030-NA Bird's eye view of the city of Macao.jpg a US tag would be nice, and it is not really a "map" so the caption could be improved. This is one of the less informative images here, hard to see much except at a high zoom level
    • Done, caption improved.
  • File:大三巴牌坊.jpg ok, but the modern ruins are not that relevant to Zheng
    • I think the modern ruins are the remains of the place where he once studied. Unfortunately I didn't find a drawing of St. Paul's College, so I chose to use the ruins. I get your point and I just removed the image.
  • File:Prospero Intorcetta.jpg is very dark and could do with a US tag
  • File:北京利玛窦和外国传教士墓地2023.5 (1).jpg: ok.
• Overall we are nearly there I think. I await your comments on the article title. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Kusma,

  Thanks for the painstaking review. I will be going to bed soon but let me put down some thoughts for the article title. The article title is, in my opinion, a personal compromise between his Western name (Emmanuel, seen in primary sources) and his Chinese name (seen in secondary sources in simplified Chinese). I think it is allowed to name Chinese Catholic priests in the form of baptismal name + Family name + given name . Please see

  • Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei
  • Joseph Fan Zhongliang
  • Nicholas Kao Se Tseien

  You are right that the title doesn't appear in any other place. I guess by Wiki rules this means it's not the best title. I am happy and open to amend it to "Zheng Manuo" (gives a nice symmetry with Luo Wenzao, my personal co-favorite). TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kusma: Feel free to move this article to Zheng Manuo. You have my support, and this article isn't mine anyways (by WP:OWN). I believe I have replied to all your suggestions. I am going to bed now. Thank you so much for your review. TheLonelyPather (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kusma: on second thought I suggest that we refrain from moving the article immediately. I am not sure if moving the article would mess up ChristieBot. I have asked this at the teahouse (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Moving_article_during_GA_review). Anyways, we can certainly move the article after you complete the GA review. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Mike Christie himself encouraged me not to move it until the review is passed, as per the Teahouse question. TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the page move can wait until after we are done here and am happy that you agree. I see you haven't done anything about the image copyright tags, but I didn't really request that. Anyway, I did find a publication of the de Rhodes image that would be enough to prove it is {{PD-1996}} (and if you haven't seen it, here is de Rhodes' account of leaving Zheng in Armenia: [4]; you may need to make a free account to "borrow" the book). But it doesn't say who painted the image (which appears early in the book). The sourcing information on the Commons page is pretty poor and poorly presented, but I can verify the image was published early and there is a claim of a source for the colour version in the upload history. You would need to add much better sourcing information and proper US copyright tags to all images if you want this to pass FA at some point.

  Overall, there is more polishing to be done but the article does meet the GA criteria. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Source checks and comments

• Unused references: Chen 2014, Tan 2002, Xiao 2005
• A large number of Chinese-language sources, but Rouleau seems to be the main source.

Source checks on Special:Permanentlink/1166792728:

• 16 ok
• 35 ok, although this is Rouleau's guess. I think you attribute a little too often in case of some uncontroversial facts, but here you have speculation and do not attribute it.
  • Fixed, attributed it to Rouleau.
• 36 ok
• 37 looks fine
• 49 ok
• 80 ok, although this is also in Rouleau of course. Ideal would be to check Rouleau's source. J.-M. Planchet (1946), Le Cimetière et les oeuvres catholigues de Chala 1610-1927, Beijing: Imprimerie des Lazaristes, p. 146
  • I tried hard to find this book, but I don't have it. As for the inscription, Rouleau has it and Leeb has it. I should also mention that Lin et al. has it (the rubbing). I am citing Leeb because Leeb transcribed the Latin text.

Spot checks clear. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.