Talk:Kalki

Large quantity of info removed, page protected

I am copying this over from Talk:Jimmy Wales, where it was posted by the IP editor. I'm copying the whole thing, even though it contains hyperbole and fairly silly personal comments (mostly because I don't want to edit the comments, and I suspect Ivanvector can tolerate a little of it), but I really, really encourage the IP editor to discuss more calmly, otherwise human nature will lead almost everyone to say "Meh". Or, if the personal attacks continue, will lead me to block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Begin copied material:

people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanvector feel they are gods! REALLY! Source or no source when these people are given power they decide what can be said and what may not regardless of the source or not. KALKI page is full of source less rubbish but he has the power to let it roll so it rolls, credibility is the key but when these people control wiki what credibility is there in the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure what this is about, but I tried to reply on my talk page. IP is upset I semiprotected an article where they were repeatedly removing large blocks of text without explaining why, and they still haven't explained why any of that text should be removed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you are not sure you should take time to read the page that you decide to take control off!

When you say: they were repeatedly removing large blocks of text without explaining why

what is this? "A citation, also called a reference, uniquely identifies a source of information missing, not a vandelism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The information I removed is the info without source / citation! what are you doing reverting to baseless info page?

Unlock the page, provide source and citation or revert to my edit which has only removed baseless information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

End copied material.

There's also some more at my talk page, it should be obvious which section refers to this. And no, I'm not going to lift protection so that this IP can delete most of the article again without explaining why it's such an emergency that every bit of unsourced material needs to be removed from this article immediately and without discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2017

In the "Padma" section, there is some content that I originally added and someone has changed it to incorrect information according to the reference material that is available online as a PDF. It definitely says "Lord Shiva", not "Lord Vishnu" said this to Padma. http://om-aditya.ru/userfiles/ufiles/purany/sri_kalki_purana.pdf

Change: Lord Vishnu said to Padmavati that you will receive me Lord Narayana as your husband. Anyone (human, demigod, demon, etc.) who desires a conjugal relationship with you will immediately be transformed into a woman, regardless of age. This curse is not applicable to Lord Hari, who is your only husband.

To: Lord Shiva said to Padmavati that you will receive Lord Narayana as your husband. Anyone, whether they be demigods, demons, Nāgas, Gandharvas, Cāraṇas [celestial singers], or anyone else, who desires a conjugal relationship with you will immediately be transformed into a woman, regardless of age. This curse is not applicable to Lord Hari, who is your only husband. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kalki. 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/20120222065203/http://vedabase.net/sb/3/11/19/en1 to http://vedabase.net/sb/3/11/19/en1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807181513/http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=1136&english=t&id=110473 to http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=1136&english=t&id=110473

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

Reminders:

1. Please do not add content of any kind without an independent, reliable source; your own certainty that something is true is insufficient.
2. Do not add material worded in a non-neutral way. But do not remove sourced material just because you don't like it, or disagree with how it is worded. Improve it.
3. It is not permissible to reinterpret sources to mean what you want them to mean, or to combine statements from different sources to reach a novel conclusion not explicitly stated in any of those sources. This is what we call original research, and it is prohibited.
4. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. It is not a personal blog or a Hindu temple's website. Use an encyclopedic tone, and avoid presenting doctrine as fact. Encyclopedias explain who believes what; they doesn't assert one group's beliefs against those of others.

This is all, and happy editing. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well put SMcCandlish. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditsWiki (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sources: Google scholar, jstor-1, jstor-2

+1 to SMcCandlish. I have removed all unsourced OR, blog-like essay, and (strange) self-interpretation of primary sources. I have added summaries from scholarly publications. There is more in the newly cited sources, as well as the links above. Content based on WP:RS would be welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New edits

@Ms Sarah Welch: I really don't think we can depend on one author who believes that the concept was likely borrowed "in some measures". I am merging some content to a new section named origins instead. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not one author. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Where does Alf Hiltebeitel said "The Kalki mythology in the Puranas may have been affected by ideas from West Asia."? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

And scholars use the word "differs" when describing the concepts of Purana.[1][2] Raymond3023 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Harivamsa differs from the Markandeya Purana, states Doniger. Those are two different texts. Relevant here are three types of inconsistencies: within versions of the same text, chapters of the same text and between the texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we agree that there is only one reliable source who believes that concept was borrowed "in some measures" not even wholly, Hiltebeitel finds Mitchiner's studies on this to be misleading though.[3][4] That's why I had proposed this all under "origins", including the mention on Mahabharatha, Purana. We can also add a caveat that Hiltebeitel disagrees with Mitchiner. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hiltebeitel disagrees on some points, not all. He praises Mitchiner elsewhere. We do mention Hiltebeitel's related comments about Kalki in the Mahabharata. Actually, it is Gonzales-Reimann 2002 publication I was referring to, where they present Mitchiner style argument, that Kalki story is a late adaptation from a non-Indian source, etc. If I recall correctly, Alf Hiltebeitel mentions them in one of his footnotes as well. So, no Mitchiner is not alone on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read them, Hiltebeitel was highly critical of Mitchiner, that's why there should be no dependability on Mitchiner, I also agree with merging all that content to ===Origins=== also read WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Anmolbhat (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gonzales-Reimann 2002 makes no such mention of Kalki. All those religions that Mitchiner mentioned actually came in interaction with Hindus in medieval times. That's really late compared to Mahabharatha (4th century BCE) or Vishnu Purana (4th century). Such theories are best removed or minimized. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL as pointed, I have removed both claims. Mitchiner doesn't even say directly, "in respect of the views", "some measure", that's far from overall concept. Second removal was about Native American' Kukulkan. There are no multiple mainstream sources for supporting either information. Sometimes you can find enough reliable sources for exceptional claims such as Christ was borrowed from Krishna, but the claim has to be highly mainstream. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of explaining all this, let me strengthen the article over the next few days. You are asking for more sources, than just Mitchiner! I am so delighted! I hope, from now on, you both and others will apply the wikipedia content policies to this article as diligently as you are now. See SMcCandlish's comments above, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana are not each one consistent text. There are many versions... in and outside the Indian subcontinent! They were interpolated, extrapolated and sections were rewritten, for centuries. The difficulty is we don't know (probably can't know) which one is original. So we must treat all of them with equal respect, equal importance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV (please leave this header in)

Raymond3023: The reliability and inconsistency of the Puranas needs to be summarized for NPOV, because they are the main source of the divergent Kalki mythologies. Please explain why you removed it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

None of those sources mention Kalki. It is obvious that none of the texts from that old period are unchanged, including any non-Hindu texts but that doesn't have to be mentioned here since they don't mention Kalki. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This part may be obvious to you, but not obvious to those new to this field. Further, there is more. There exist inconsistent versions of the same myths in the "several texts all of which are titled the same XYZ Purana" (there are so many of them). This needs to be clarified for NPOV. Yes, we are only talking about Puranas which do cover Kalki, along with zillion others thing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources have to point it out when they are discussing Kalki, otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we should do no OR:Synthesis. FWIW, I just began working on it and was planning to add much more. If you want to revise and improve it, you are most welcome. I will hold off, to avoid edit conflicts and come back in a few days or weeks, see where we are. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the section since it is manageable to talk under one heading. I will be looking more as well what can be restored. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It makes it confusing! Please don't remove it. Two different discussions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Doniger etc

• The Hindus: An Alternative History is not to be used here or anywhere. Has been criticized by both sides. For example Michael Witzel had called this work "unreliable" and "idiosyncratic", while Aditi Banerjee had said on this book that it is full of mistranslations, errors.[5] And in fact after criticism highlighted by Fowler on a talk page,[6] there was removal of Doniger as source from few articles. While Albrecht Friedrich Weber is totally a colonial source. In those days, historians considered Judaism, Christianity, Islam borrowing everything from Hinduism and even Kaaba being a former Hindu temple. I have just found a dozen of sources saying that those religions borrowed the future savior concept from Hindus.[7][8] But still, that shouldn't be mentioned, because there is no evidence.[9] Also tagged the commentaries of Dimmitt, Cornelia; van Buitenen, they are just repetitions. Capitals00 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not relying on Weber. We are merely stating that he was one of the first to propose Kalki may be a borrowed idea, which is relevant. You removed too much. There are numerous scholars stating this. I am okay with removing THAAH. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00: On THAAH, it is strange that you cited it just yesterday! I reviewed the source, added some more. Now you are complaining about it. Please explain. If it was an inadvertent error of your part, that is fine. Further, please explain all your deletions and tags. Else this comes across as POV pushing and disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason to describe the concept as borrowed, when there are enough sources that mention it as influencing others and the opinions are not mainstream. We need to state only what is non-controversial. There is rebuttal for the controversial claims but why we should even give weight to fringe theories? Raymond3023 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Because those sources are not WP:RS nor they represent the mainstream view. From hours of studies, what I have found is that there are a couple of hypothesis about Kalki. There are multiple sources for supporting Kalki has vedic roots and is borrowed from Rudra. Rabiprasad Mishra writes that Rudra's association with destruction of the creation and the elimination of its crisis is similar to the concept of Kalki. Then there are those like Alexandra van der Geer who says that Kalki's concept may have been completely taken from local warrior-heroes. Then there is Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi who said that Kalki has the features of an historical event, disguised as prophesy, he places Kalki after Pushyamitra Suriga and puts the dating of Kalki to first century BCE, this view was also shared by few others. So my point is that there are many theories, that are in fact far less controversial than what you are mentioning, but they shouldn't be mentioned either unless they are mainstream. Capitals00 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Raymond3023: Do you have any sources to justify your allegation it is fringe? It is mainstream scholarship! Six scholars and different publications... makes it not fringe at all. You have been making wrong allegations without sources, and what they actually state for too long (see above, Gonzales-Reimann does discuss Kalkin, you are wrong). Please start by citing your sources, that will help avoid what comes across as forum-y pretensions and opinions. CapitalsOO: why are they not RS? Ignore THAAH for now. Rest is all by professors, well known and cited in Indology, it is peer-reviewed scholarship. On your allegation, "just found a dozen of sources saying that those religions borrowed the future savior concept from Hindus", you cite self-published sources such as iUniverse... you must be joking! particularly, after that comment on THAAH questioning whether it is a WP:RS. Let us collaborate properly to help improve this article, please. If you indeed found peer-reviewed scholarly publication that states something different, I would welcome you adding the additional summary for NPOV. But right now, you are just deleting and being disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

But that would mean that we can point to Schlegel, Lassen, Schliemann, and Blavatsky separately who have made claims contrary to yours. Do you really want to use those sources that fail WP:HISTRS? The article would be full of fringe theories and attract others. What I have removed qualified exceptional claims. I haven't removed undue content but only tagged it. Capitals00 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00: You are evading my questions and my concerns with your iUniverse etc sources. Could you identify the sources with page number and try a more constructive approach please. I will make another effort to help you. Let us discuss what you tagged or deleted. Consider the following RS, for example. Please explain your concerns:

• Cornelia Dimmitt, a professor of Theology at Georgetown University; co-authored with J. A. B. van Buitenen, the much-cited recently published Classical Hindu Mythology, deleted or tagged source has been published by Temple University Press
• John Brockington, a professor of Sanskrit, a lead at the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies, numerous publications, Oxford University, published by Brill Academic
• etc

Let us take one at a time. Please explain why you believe that these scholars and their Kalkin-related scholarship is not WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't used iUniverse on article but the passage that I was referring was correct.

Cornelia Dimmitt is not unreliable but that whole paragraph is undue and repetition, that's why I tagged it because it doesn't bring anything new and has been already said on other paragraphs. Brockington's claims about that particular part aren't so mainstream. Because he says that concept was inspired by Buddhist Maitreya but we know that its opposite,[10] and he points Zoroastrian' future savior without mentioning that it is considered to have been borrowed from Chinese Mythology,[11] and sharing similarities with Vedic deities. You can see I didn't removed Arvind Sharma for a reason, because his views seemed alright. Capitals00 (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00: Remember, just two days ago, the concern was: is this view from a single source? is it an exceptional claim? See 1, edit summary of 2 etc. The only way to address that concern is to provide additional scholarly sources, and that is what WP:EXCEPTIONAL states,

Quote: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.

So, out of respect for your concerns, I provided multiple high-quality sources. I am delighted that you are admitting that "Cornelia Dimmitt is not unreliable" and that "whole paragraph is repetition" etc. This means that at least you now accept that there are multiple sources and Dimmitt/Brockington/etc are RS that we can summarize. Your new concern seems to be that Dimmitt sourced content is "repetitive" and therefore undue, is that it? Any other concerns with Dimmitt source? Let us focus on one source at a time, so we can collaborate and reach a consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The information is still just not fit for inclusion. Because most of the sources that I have read in last few hours, which is apparent from the research I have posted above.. I couldn't find even a few sources that would be making those exceptional claims. Sources suggest that some Christian missionaries had simply misconceived and believed that Kalki was borrowed from Christianity.[12] That's why it is better to just leave them out since there are contrary claims as well i.e. other religions borrowing concept from Hindus. I am not sure about Dimmitt that really because I have no access to that source and it is unavailable. Although the information that you have currently added to Dimmitt is repetitive, that's why I had tagged it as undue. Capitals00 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You keep bringing these non-peer reviewed questionable sources, don't mention the page number, and keep alleging "the numerous sources I have read" without mentioning specific RS and page numbers. This is not helpful. Please reread my comments, explain what is your concern is with Dimmitt. Once you find an RS with page number that states something that challenges Dimmitt, then as I already said, I would welcome a summary of such peer-reviewed scholarly source(s) for NPOV. Wikipedia content policies require us to not "leave out" different or some scholarly sides, they suggest we summarize them to the best of our abilities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well they do qualify as WP:RS and proves what I was saying, I can't name all sources that I have read, but you can read Britannica article and [13][14] for a general idea that how scholars describe them, and [15] describes how Kalki differs from other concepts. Capitals00 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to ignore what "you can't name nor will provide your sources". We can't analyze them, nor do they prove or disprove anything since we can't verify what you did not specify, and "trust me" arguments are not constructive. You just provided these four sources, which let us assume are the relevant sources and provided in good faith and to the best of your competence. Let me quote these, since we may be headed to the DRN / ANI / ARB process (which I hope we can avoid through discussion and collaboration). Your four sources are:

• Source 1, James L. Christian: This is page 597, published by Cengage. It mentions Messaih, Maitreya, etc. The relevant lines, "In Hinduism, a messaih named Kalki will make his appearance (...)". These lines do not contradict any of the Dimmitt etc scholarly views you have tagged/removed, or state anything that this article does not summarize.
• Source 2, Robert Ellwood: This is page 122, published by Bloomsbury. It mentions Aesir, Christian knights, etc. The relevant lines, "In Hinduism, at the end of the Kaliyuga (...)",. These lines do not contradict any of the Dimmitt etc scholarly views you have tagged/removed, or state anything that this article does not summarize.
• Source 3, Winfried Corduan: This is page 187, published by Wipf. It mentions Zoroaster, etc. The relevant lines starting with, "As I explained above, Hinduism has devised a cyclical theory of time (...)". Again, nothing there contradicts any of the Dimmitt etc scholarly views you have tagged/removed, or state what this article already does not summarize.
• Source 4, Britannica: starts with "Kalkin, also called Kalki, final avatar (incarnation) of (...)". Once again, nothing there contradicts any of the Dimmitt etc scholarly views you have tagged/removed, or state something what this article already does not summarize.

None of these explain your actions or tags. Would you please specifically identify what is in any of these four sources [a] that contradict Dimmitt/Brockington/etc scholarship, or [b] what you want to add to this article for NPOV? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction is that those sources provided by Capitals00 don't mention the fringe theories about the origins on Kalki, and we shouldn't either. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

How is that a contradiction? Silence is not a contradiction. Silence does not mean a confirmation, nor does it mean a denial. Those sources are not alleging to be a complete coverage either, nor refuting or calling anything fringe. Please don't (mis)interpret what the source is stating and not stating. Right now, your "fringe allegations" despite multiple RS, and tenuous comments are coming across as vague nonsense and WP:TE, sorry. You may want to reread what our NPOV policy states, the "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias" part. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Repetition?

Capitals00: You allege above the following para is an undue repetition:

• Quote: The contemporary era "clear and tidy" systematization of Kalki and the remaining nine avatars of Vishnu, states Cornelia Dimmitt, is a recent phenomenon.[21][undue weight? – discuss] It is not so in any of the Maha-Puranas. They mention Kalki but barely once or twice. This scant coverage of Kalki is in contrast to the legends of Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha and Krishna, all of which are repeatedly and extensively described. Most have "no significant stories of Kalki at all", states Dimmitt, which likely was because just like the concept of the Buddha as a Vishnu avatar, the concept of Kalki was "somewhat in flux" when the major Puranas were being compiled.[21][undue weight? – discuss]

Please identify / quote which para or sentence(s) this is repeating? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems repetition of the first two paragraphs because it is reading as it is putting the concept during early centuries like above two. Kalki is described in Matsya, Varaha, Vishnu, Bhagavata and they are one of the mahapurana, so it is not clear what is being meant from "They mention Kalki but barely once or twice", other sentences like "is a recent phenomenon" is also dubious because one would question "how recent?", then "no significant stories of Kalki at all", but then which one has significant stories and how significant they are? There are such confusions with the paragraph. Capitals00 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: So your objection is with the "how recent" etc. How about the following alternate:

• The contemporary era "clear and tidy" systematization of Kalki and the remaining nine avatars of Vishnu, states Cornelia Dimmitt, is not found in any of the Maha-Puranas.[21] The coverage of Kalki in these Hindu texts is scant, in contrast to the legends of Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Vamana, Narasimha and Krishna, all of which are repeatedly and extensively described. According to Dimmitt, this was likely because just like the concept of the Buddha as a Vishnu avatar, the concept of Kalki was "somewhat in flux" when the major Puranas were being compiled.[21]

If this has issues, I am open to quoting Dimmitt exact, or to alternate suggestions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can remove the repetitive parts and merge the 3rd paragraph (Dimmitt) with either 2nd(Hiltebeitel) or 4th paragraph (Mitchiner) because right now they are really similar to 2nd and 4th paragraph, and those paragraphs are more detailed. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Raymond3023: They are not really repetitive. 2nd para is summarizing Kalki's development in Mahabharata. 3rd para is comparing eschatology and Kalki in Mahabharata and the Puranas (there are 18 major-Puranas, and many more minor-Puranas in that genre). 4th para is comparing and summarizing eschatology and Kalki in Yuga purana versus the other Puranas. If you don't know the difference between these texts, or their significance, I can't help you, nor is this talk page meant to do so. Further, just like you two days ago, were wondering "is this one author's opinion" (see above), wikipedia readers may wonder the same thing. We need the summary from multiple scholarly sources to properly explain Kalki concept/character development in their Indian texts. These paras will stay, for all these reasons (we can take it through DRN/ANI/ARB; since you are relatively new, please do note that wikipedia is not a democracy, you can't majority vote to suspend our core content policies such as verifiability, NPOV, etc). Also note, fwiw, everything is well supported with RS, including the "no significant stories of Kalki at all" part which bothered Capitals00 (it is a direct quote extract from Dimmitt). Yet, in the spirit of collaboration and respect for Capitals00, I am willing to reword phrases that help reach consensus, while respecting our WP:V and WP:NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)