Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

"very fine people"

The following sentence from this article is an outright lie:

"Trump made comments following a 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them as "very fine people"."

Trump clarified who he was referring to specifically during that interview stating:

"The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest"

He very clearly indicates he's specifically not referring to white supremacists, etc. This is not disputed by fact checking sources at PolitiFact and USA Today.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/

USA Today clarifies that he didn't state it outright directly, but on a follow up question (ruling it partly false because the quote they use skips follow up question and combines the statements).

You will probably try to justify leaving this lie about what Trump said in the article by claiming your wording enables it. "that were seen by critics", and you will have some excuse as to why "seen by critics" isn't just another way of saying "some say". But I would refer to the following paragraph which negates this argument:

"Trump's controversial statements have been condemned by many observers around the world, but excused by some of his supporters as a rejection of political correctness and by others because they harbor similar racist beliefs."

This sentence presents a certainty and bias that makes the previous paragraph a declarative "fact" according to this website. You use the weasel words "excused by some of his supporters" both "excused" and "some of" being prejudicial to the facts, that being if Trump literally did not make a racist statement, then clarifying it, like PolitiFact and USA Today did, is not "excusing" his "racism" it is correcting an incorrect assertion. The only other group this article claims support his statement are racists; this article claiming "they harbor similar racist beliefs". If Trump did not state the white supremacists were "very fine people" as is wrongly asserted here despite multiple fact checks and years of debate and clarification. Then the subsequent paragraph stating anyone who says otherwise is making an excuse or is racist themselves is also a lie and politically biased.

If the "very fine people" issue were in a "controversy" section, and there were any clarification at all that despite what Trump literally said, and despite fact checkers, that there were critics of his statement, however incorrect their assertions, that would be an honest presentation of facts. But this article doesn't do that. It takes the incorrect assessment of "some critics" and presents it as fact, and doesn't even attempt to clarify that fact checkers have ruled their assessment to be false. You have biased debunked claims presented as fact and then in the next paragraph claim only racists and apologists would argue against this lie. Now commence the great weaseling-out where you justify perpetuating this lie despite what I have written and what fact checkers have concluded J1DW (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

I suggest adding the times he disavows racism and white supremacy. 240F:CF:7F2:1:C0A2:EBDE:D215:C0F2 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ideally it would go into the section that discusses the controversy over Trump's unwillingness to disavow white supremacists. That topic is strangely missing from this page, which is odd given its relevance to this page. An alternative place for this information would be the "Defenses of Donald Trump" section. Some examples of Trump disavowing white supremacy and other hate groups can be found here:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0cMmBvqWc&feature=emb_logo - Video montage of 38 instances of Trump condemning white supremacists (and other hate groups)
• https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40929627 - opening statement
• https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-infrastructure/ - multiple hits: search for "condemn"

 Already done Third paragraph of the defences section unambiguously states that President Trump has denounced white supremacy, even including a quote. Melmann 00:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not see that in the defense section; to be fair it was easy to miss given the tone of the article. It is very one-sided. It has over 60 multi-paragraph sections condemning Trump's alleged racism and support of white supremacists (use of "condemn" is valid in this context; charges of racism are unequivocally a condemnation in the modern era, neutral tone does nothing to diffuse), while the "Defense" section is extremely light on details (relative to the rest of the page); it barely dedicates more than a sentence to each defense. It even includes additional condemnations (opening of paragraph 2; ref #392). These counterpoints should be given more attention and the defense section should be expanded. The current defense does not accurately represent the breadth of Trump's record. It comes across as over the course of 30 years he's offered a tepid response once or twice. This simply is not accurate. Additional references to his numerous condemnations of white supremacy are warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.184.115.194 (talk • contribs)

Have you actually looked at his decades-long record? George Wallace and KKK leaders also denied being racist. This article appears to balance his record against his occasional, perfunctory, often forced denials. O3000 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond; I was getting "your ip is blocked" errors for a while. In any case, yes, I did skim the accusations against him, and I can that tell someone (or many people) put a lot of effort and energy into making their case against him. Would that a fraction of that effort was put into the Defenses section. Even as someone who isn't a fan of DT my takeaway is that Wikipedia really has it out for him. Consider that, in 2016 this accused racist received ~3% more minority votes than Romney, and that in 2020 he received ~10% more than that. If his approval improved among minorities, it begs the question of who exactly is levying these charges. Now that the election's over and he's no longer a threat, perhaps the democrats who've locked this article can allow more objectivity. ref https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-vote-rising-among-blacks-hispanics-despite-conventional-wisdom-ncna1245787 2600:1700:56A0:1F80:544E:31C4:7937:18E8 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)simonjester

The facts haven't changed just because he's out of office. Nor has the fact that presenting them neutrally means including what has been included. As for Trump, doing better with minorities than Romney in voting, it's an interesting subject that doesn't have to do with Trump's views of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Medal of Freedom

I recently removed this material from the article. Citing undue and inappropriate. Gandydancer restored it stating It is neither undue nor inappropriate to document that Trump awarded a Medal of Freedom to a racist.[1] One probably should not be calling him a racist in an edit summary. Two yeah pretty undue to the topic of Trump's racial views in general. Three not really an example of his racial views at all. Should it remain in the article or it is more suited to Limbaugh's article? PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As you know, we look to reliable sources for our editing. Here is what ABC news says about this matter:

"In a night full of divisive moments, President Donald Trump's decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh -- a polarizing figure who has insisted it was unfair to blame white Americans for slavery, blamed gay marriage for the decline of Christianity, and attempted to slut-shame a woman seeking coverage for contraception -- stood out."

You may think that Trump's views on racism are not related to honoring Limbaugh with a Medal of Honor, the highest medal given out to civilians, but you are in the minority on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fairly certain I am actually in the majority here as far as RS are concerned. Yes some cover it with that angle in mind, but most do not. We go by the majority of RS coverage of a certain even, and the majority do not support your assertion here. In fact if you look up the long story of his racial views written by others you will find him awarding Limbaugh a metal does not make the cut for examples cited. Also given this is in a section with, at this point, 41 subsections it is becoming quite the coatrack. We should really only be sticking to the most notable examples, which this clearly is not. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the question can be approached in parts. Pack, do you believe that mainstream reporting and longtime presentation of Limabaugh is that he was a far-right who promoted and pandered to racist themes in the rise of his career? SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe that we should be giving 41 examples and that this is one of the most important? That is the actual issue at hand. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not WP:COATRACK when the content is on-topic and reflects due weight. Any off-topic coatrack stuff in particular we should consider removing? Yes, I of think that several of his Medal of Freedom and State of the Union bits became causes celebres worthy of WP articles. We can always discuss which ones and priorities. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying this should perhaps become a list article? PackMecEng (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• The sources, at least, treat it as an action as president that was relevant to Trump's racial views, which makes it worth mentioning briefly. From Vox: Limbaugh, recently diagnosed with late-stage lung cancer, has devoted his decades-long radio career to building an audience of millions of listeners with his brand of right-wing, xenophobic — and patently racist — populism that Trump borrowed on his rise to power. In other words, the fact that Trump honored Limbaugh isn't merely notable because of Limbaugh's appeals to racism, but because Trump's own rise to power was heavily modeled on this. In fact, we could probably expand the section into a more detailed discussion of the connection between Limbaugh and Trump, since numerous sources touch on it - eg. [2][3] (Limbaugh’s shtick on what he termed his EIB (Excellence in Broadcasting) Network may have been satire to millions, but countless others considered him to be a misogynistic, racist hatemonger who helped fuel the nation’s polarization into overdrive that paved the way for Trump’s 2016 election victory.), [4] When a Republican politician promoting racist and sexist policies could only use a dog whistle, Limbaugh provided a bull horn — he was, for example, an early progenitor of the racist birther conspiracy theory about Obama that Trump would later use to fuel his political career. There's significant sourcing that Limbaugh was a major predecessor to Trump's racial views and influential on his approach to racial issues. --Aquillion (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remove it. In fact I am going to remove it. It was recently added, apparently because of Limbaugh's death, but IMO it does not belong here. Simply put, Trump is not responsible for everything Limbaugh ever said. Nobody is responsible for everything a friend of theirs believes. As for the Medal of Freedom, Trump awarded it several questionable people (Devin Nunes?? Jim Jordan???), but that does not imply that he agrees with or endorses everything that person believes. And it certainly does not say anything about Trump's "racial views". If somebody wants to write a section on "influence of Rush Limbaugh" or "influences on Trump's racial views" or some such section as Aquillion suggests, that might belong here. In fact I think it would be good to provide some background on who influenced his ideas (starting with his father?). But the fact that Trump gave Limbaugh a prestigious award says nothing about his (Trump's) racial views. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Melanie, I can't follow your thinking here. Nunes and Jordan were not known as racists so I can't figure out why you bring them up here. If you are looking for a comparison, Joe Arpaio would be a better choice. Arpaio is very well known as both a racist, among other things such as refusing to investigate abuse, including sexual abuse, of women and children, especially if they were undocumented. On the other hand he, like Nunes and Jordan, supported Trump whole heartedly and worked on his campaign. So Trump pardoned him even before he was sentenced. So it seems to me that using your thinking that action was not racist either since after all, he may not have agreed with Arpaio's racist actions? Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My point is that even if he extended a pardon or an award to someone, that doesn't mean that he subscribed to everything that person says or thinks. If we honor George Washington, that doesn't mean that we approve of slaveholding. If we admire O. J. Simpson's football playing and agree that he belongs in the Hall of Fame, that doesn't mean we approve of everything he has done in his life. This attitude that "Trump honored Limbaugh, who was a racist, therefore Trump is a racist" does not stand up; it's pure guilt by association.

BTW if someone wants to create an article about Limbaugh's influence on Trump's racial views, here is a possible source: [5]. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

One difference however is that racist speech was viewed as central to Limbaugh's brand. Also, Trump used the State of the Union to highlight certain controversial figures. It's not like a quiet recognition. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not opposed to a section here that would analyze how Limbaugh's racial views and attitudes influenced Trump's, or encouraged Trump to follow where Limbaugh led in openly expressing controversial views. I am opposed to something that simply links Limbaugh's Medal of Freedom award to Trump's racial views. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC) BTW even more than racism, Limbaugh was notorious for his misogyny (Feminazi!) and anti-LBGTQ rhetoric (mocking people with AIDS). Does that mean that Trump is also a misogynist and for honoring Limbaugh? For that matter, Limbaugh was a drug addict; does that make Trump one? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would answer Yes to the misogyny and anti-LGBTQ components, which are ideologies Trump himself has promoted to his voters. No to personal habits, grooming, etc. since this article is about "views" SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also say yes to the misogyny and anti-LGBTQ components. Also, certainly important to mention, science considers drug addiction a chronic disease and not a moral failing. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been two days without further discussion. As it stands four editors believe that the material is appropriate while only two believe it should be removed. I am going to return the new material. Gandydancer (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

2601:441:4C00:59A0:A9CF:7904:5B11:DF51 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

instead of "and by others because they harbor similar racist beliefs" could you change it to "and by others because they harbor similar beliefs" to make it sound a tiny bit more neutral, thanks

That does not seem more neutral. Just less specific. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Then establish any citation of his "racial beliefs" that they supposedly "harbor". You're entirely biased POV. It's not "less specific", it's more accurate. The sentence as is, is an unsourced lie. J1DW (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bias

There is a heavy slant toward highlighting his "racially insensitive" statements and only a very light section on people defending him. This page is severely biased toward one view. 2600:8804:8B8F:9E00:94BF:B7AC:4699:EEB7 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence was twice changed by one editor with no talk page engagement. This was a violation of the 24-hour BRD restriction and the editor declined to self-revert, so I have restored the status quo. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased Language

Listen, as I’ve said on the Trump page, I don’t like a Trump at all, but language such as “excused”, “harbor the same racist beliefs”, and “extremist” are not neutral by any means. Whether or not Trump’s align with mine does not excuse the legitimate biased sentiments that are being said in this article. Aardwolf68 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerns such as this have been raised and rejected numerous times, because the article text is an accurate reflection of the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources on the subject. Please review the talk page archives for details. The consensus text is longstanding and should not be changed without a new consensus to substitute different well-sourced, NPOV language. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Add that Trump said that whites supremacists/nationalists should "absolutely" be condemned.

In the same press conference in which Trump uttered the infamous "many sides comment" he also responded to a question asking if white supremacists/nationalists should be commended, to which his response was "absolutely." Although it can be debated that his response may not have been serious, some on the left may argue that, while those on the right may defend his original comment. Regardless, the statement is relevant to the understanding of the more famous "many sides" comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foward123456 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think he was talking about the people who opposed the removal of the statue but were not racists.1 I don't like Trump, but I don't understand why people insist to mention this speech outside of the context to imply that he was expressing a positive view about white supremacists when he made it very clear, in the same speech, that he wasn't. Lucasdmca (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please review previous discussion in the talk page archives. There is little support for your view. SPECIFICO talk 05:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"There is little support for your view." This is a demonstrable lie. There is plenty of source material supporting the FACT (not view) that Trump condemned white supremacists and you're intentionally taking his statement out of context. You are being biased and deleting anyone that disagrees with your lies.

"and you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

"There were very fine people on both sides, & I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis and white supremacists because they should be condemned totally." The two statements were separate, the second part coming later, after further questioning from reporters. 

"“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”..."“KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”"..."“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”"

"THE FACTS: Trump is correct. On Monday, NBC News tweeted that Susan Bro, the mother of the counter-protester killed on Saturday, had thanked Trump for “denouncing those who promote violence and hatred.”

These are from Politifact, USA Today, Factcheck, and PBS. Where are your sources? Before you suppress the truth and delete this again, where's YOUR citation that Trump didn't condemn white supremacists? J1DW (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up before and included links to fact checkers of the time including Politifact that prove he was condemning white supremacists, but as you can see they deleted my comments here on the talk page and as flagrantly biased user "Specifico" says "There is little support for your view." i.e. he's a leftist and won't allow facts get in the way of trashing Trump. Even when there are multiple fact checking sources proving them wrong. They'll just delete this once again and go on lying. J1DW (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. You can make your points ("focus on content") without accusing people of censorship, and lying. Sometime people make a judgement call on what they consider disruptive editing, and it's not unusual to remove those comments, especially if they contain personal attacks, such as your most recent comment here. It's not productive or conducive to editing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've made my point here. There are many sources countering the information in this article. Numerous fact checking sites have shown this story is missing context. The site should be changed. I made this point months ago without any personal attacks, and it was all inexplicably scrubbed and apparently people are still gatekeeping this misinformation. Is there any recourse for this? J1DW (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears as though all but one user on this page has expressed support for adding that Trump said White Supremacists should "absolutely be condemned" along with his infamous "many sides comment." The fact that in the same speech he outright condemned white supremacy is a highly relevant piece of context that must be included. If no further dissents to this change are made I will edit the article to include this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foward123456 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you proposing to add to the page specifically? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing adding that Trump specifically denounced white nationalism and white supremacy in his 2017 comments on the unite the right rally. I reviewed all of the archived talk pages and found high levels of support for this idea. I believe that this is a fair inclusion of context to what he said. As you see above there is significant support for this in the current talk section for it, with only one dissent, and that dissent does not provide any reasoning (I just went through all of the archived talk pages). Would that be reasonable to include? Foward123456 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

counter to what user @SPECIFICO stated, I did not find that adding this context has "little support" and (you can review the archives if you wish to confirm this, and the current talk page expresses support for it. Foward123456 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Hurricane Maria

Why isn't the part mentioned, where a warehouse in Puerto Rico was broken into, and the warehouse was full of unused aid being kept by the Puerto Rican Government ? The blame needs to go more towards the corrupt Puerto Rican Government, and not Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:802:7F4B:B497:744E:66D7:AA36 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see Mr. Trump mentioned in that article. What is the connection to his "racial views?" SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This was from the Wikipedia article on the page "Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and others criticized the federal government and suggested that racism was partially to blame for the insufficient response." Aid was being sent to Puerto Rico by the Trump administration, but it was being kept hidden by the Puerto Rican Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:802:7F4B:B497:744E:66D7:AA36 (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022

Change "Donald Trump, a former president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have been viewed by scholars and the public as racist or white supremacist." to "Donald Trump, a former president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have been viewed by some scholars and members the public as racist or white supremacist." or something along those lines. I would like this change because, obviously, certain members of the public and scholars do think he's racist, and some don't. The way its currently phrased is very, broad, and even a little vague or misleading. 151.188.25.140 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done WP:WEASEL, not sufficiently uncontroversial to add without consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yoweri Museveni

He currently appears in the article twice, for a single set of comments that he made... AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-presidency section for this article?

Just wondering if there should be a post-presidency section for this article?
Trump's recent comments about Mitch McConnell's wife, Elaine Chow, who was born in Taiwan, come to mind.
Trump recently said: "He has a DEATH WISH. Must immediately seek help and advise [sic] from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!" And there are of course numerous reliable sources discussing the potential anti-Asian racism that is hinted at here. Thanks everyone. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And that he keeps calling black people racist on an almost daily basis. 68.198.151.24 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Missing context

Alot of the "racist" comments quoted in here are taken out of context and are not racist or hateful if you heard or read the whole speech. This needs a serious overhaul 76.73.249.94 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Context

Every quote is not in proper context. Even MSM has published these in their entirety. Also, trump only joined politics in 2014 ish. So I'm not sure how they enacted the restriction. Seems pretty underhanded to allow false or partial information about these quotes from much longer speeches to be input and then use that as a reason to yell racism. Journalism is reporting the truth no matter who likes it. There is no journalism here. This is propaganda from the left. 76.73.249.94 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You have not pointed to a single quote that you think is problematic. And, what does when he joined politics matter? Are you saying that people who lynched blacks for looking at a white woman were not racist because they were not politicians? And yes, "Journalism is reporting the truth no matter" whether or not you like it. You will need to explain this more clearly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

Trump didn't say that Mexican immigrants are bringing drugs or are rapists. In that case he was talking about gang members from MS13. That part should be deleted or atleast this fact should be specified. Emreinfelds (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Holy revisionist history, Batman! May I remind you of what Trump actually said? “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” He said "Mexico", not "MS-13". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

HOLY IGNORANT WIKI EDITOR Batman, you forgot the part after that statement "But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people." Quote Time https://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/ Greggrag (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Secondly dont use the Washington Post article as a source due to very heavy left wing bias and misinformation / quote mining for narrative purposes Greggrag (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

commiSSion

Correct: "commision" to "commission". 79.20.213.132 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Miner Editor (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. 😶 2600:6C58:7F:D1BA:89E6:DE50:9CD1:717 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)