Talk:Liberal elite

"New Class Discourse" NEEDS footnotes/references

I couldn't find a significant U.S. literature using this concept (by name), although Australians and some Europeans are all over it. I think that the definition's reference to "New Class" attempts to provide a theoretical basis to this term which either does not exist, or has not yet been identified. The text accompanying the "New Class" section is so robust (right or wrong) that it requires a citation! If no citation can be provided, the section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badilejo (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Disorganized comments

I've never heard anyone in Ireland say "smoked salmon liberal", though i have heard "smoked salmon socialist", maybe that should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.178 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC) --195.93.21.10 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)This is an AWESOME article -- many thanks to the person who intially wrote it. (though I just made a few touch-ups!)

Wiktionary definition?

I think this article right here is a sign of the stranglehold the liberal elite has on wiki, obviously

"Wealthy media-Jews"? Isn't that kind of really anti-Semitic?

This article seems inherently biased in favour of the idea that a liberal elite does not exist.--195.93.21.10 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Many liberals argue [that a liberal elite does not exist]...In reality, however, many wealthy counties, such as those found in the San Francisco Bay area, are characterized by both material affluence as well as political liberalism." - The second sentence strikes me as argumentative, which basically states that the liberals mentioned in the first sentence are wrong. In this case, the bias seems to suggest that a liberal elite does in fact exist. The example of San Francisco is not backed up with a citation and is very specific (exception to the rule?). It could be true, but I don't buy it the way its presented here.

/not backed up with a citation.

"In general, the connotations of liberal elite..." This sentence makes no sense. I will remove unless someone can rewrite.

--81.170.97.252 00:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I get it now I've had a look at the history. It was a game of "liberal elitist" vs "anti-intellectual". The trouble is the edits just reduced it to meaningless babble. I think everything it was trying to say is elsewhere in the article, apart from the original point, and that looks like it needs a proper working through anyway, what do others think?

--81.170.97.252 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'The phrase "liberal elite" should not be confused with the term "elite"' But it is though. It is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regnerps (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Who failed the Poor, Middle class?

The fear of a diabolical "liberal elite" is a media tactic used by the right to scare voters in the "red states" in favor of Republican politics. The thing is the worst party known for inability to help the middle class is the Republicans, not the Democrats. When Clinton was in office back in the 1990s, economic buying power and income growth soared in ways not seen since the early 1960s. Traditional support of blue-collar workers and lower income Americans has been loyal to the Democrats, then it's changed or not like it was 30 to 50 years ago, when Johnson announced his "great society" plans to combat poverty in ways similar to F.D.R. and his "new deal" in the 1930s. --Mike D 26 07:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, liberal elites are the biggest phonies. The good times of the 1990's were due to reforms put in place by the Republican Congress, among other things. If "liberal elites" weren't so busy congratulating yourselves you'd realize that. --71.232.157.145 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, parallel situation to Reagan and Carter. 128.148.42.147 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Better a society be ruled by people who are both high-class and care about the lower classes, even if they don't fully care, than a society ruled by people who disdain the poor and admit it too.---- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And yet, better that people should be free than under the shackles of a well-meaning but incompetent state. --Paul

I Agree, those with the highest IQ have voted Democrat more and more since 1980, I can't figure out why this has happened. Buddha24 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"A well-meaning but incompetent state." Yes, because the "freedom" of classical economics worked SO much better back in the Gilded Age, when the Invisible Hand was providing for everyone. Ahhhh...

"The good times of the 1990's were due to reforms put in place by the Republican Congress." So why did the budget start tanking in the 2000s, soon after Clinton left office? Congress was still conservative until 2006. Might Bill Clinton be one of the "other things" you carefully glossed over?

"People who disdain the poor and admit it too." That would be the people who walk into an inner city, discover the existence of people ten times worse off than they are and start lecturing them for having an "entitlement mentality." In other words, Republicans. You think the self-proclaimed average Joes railing against big government are "the poor?" When was the last time Harlem or Southeast DC went Republican? 76.106.145.195 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the talk page is for discussions on improving the associated article. Use your user pages to debate the merits of the subject... Thanks, ComputerGeezer (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Better a society be ruled by people who are both high-class and care about the lower classes, even if they don't fully care, than a society ruled by people who disdain the poor and admit it too."

Not a bad way to think. Gladiator said it best; "I don't pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people". 216.15.41.45 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violation

This association can be applied to suggest that someone is unpatriotic, and disdainful of American life and culture. is this really suitable? AxiomShell 14:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe so: it states that the label may be applied to someone in order to evoke those qualities. It does not opine on the validity of said qualities. -- paul

Proposed merge

I propose the merger here of champagne socialist (UK term), chardonnay socialist (Australian term), limousine liberal (US term) and gauche caviar (French term). Not to mention the other synonyms that haven't been created as separate articles yet.--Pharos 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Than again, "liberal elite" has a slightly different connotation than these other terms, so perhaps we should rig up Lifestyle hypocrisy in politics, which could cover both alleged economic hypocrisy on the left and alleged moral hypocrisy on the right (e.g. the Mark Foley scandal).--Pharos 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How is a high-priced lifestyle "economic hypocrisy"? If one politically aims to help the working class, do they have to emulate them in all forms? I'm not even going to comment on "moral hypocrisy" since morals are irrefutably relative anyway...---- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not at all saying that this is a valid idea, but it's something that's out there — the idea of "economic hypocrisy" is the whole basis of limousine liberal and related terms.--Pharos 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat wary of this; remember that 'liberal' means rather different things in all four of these countries. --RaiderAspect 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger and believe that the article is flawed on the following grounds: champagne socialist or limousine liberal are, we can all agree, terms which apply specifically to the lifestyles of certain wealthy people of a left-leaning persuasion, but I have always thought of the term "Liberal Elite" as referring more to the mindset of such people. I believe that the purpose of characterizing someone as a member of the "Liberal Elite" is designed to evoke a feeling that the labeled person believes that the "common folk" cannot take care of themselves and need to be treated like children. --Paul, not a registered user (yet)

OPPOSE MERGE - 'Liberal elite' is a primarily American term that relates to the American definition of the term 'liberal'. 'Champagne socialist' has connotations of hypocrisy that are absent in the term 'liberal elite'. Besides, in most of the world Liberals and Socialists are entirely different things, rather than being lumped together as they are in the USA. Mon Vier 15:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose merge. These terms (most of them anyway) refer to entirely different political systems in different countries. Also, limousine liberal is significantly older than the more recent liberal elite. And they don't even refer to the same thing. A limousine liberal claims to care about/be working for the common man and then they indulge in luxuries that are above the means of such people. The liberal elite so despised by the right media in America can be anything from a lowly professor to a wealthy liberal politician, so I see these terms as being quite different. But there is some overlap in usage and meaning, so how about making a category to tie them all together and make one easily accessible from another? maybe "Disparaging terms for leftists" or something along those lines?--Hraefen ^Talk 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I currently propose that those terms which are similar, be added together in the same article -thus merge. However, it also seems that the different terms are also different to each other, and these different flvaors that should also be expressed. A merging together helps bring all the information together and consolidates it, thus make it easier to compare. However, I agree with the previous writer that "liberal elite" does not seem to have connotations of hypocrisy the other terms do. --Starscreaming Crackerjack 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose They're different concepts with different etymologies.--User At Work 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You can be in the liberal elite without being a champagne socialist etc.

I really don't see the point of this kind of article. The term was created as ammunition (name-calling in place of logic) for the sole purpose of maligning progressive thought. To coin such a phrase one must enjoy partisan squabbling; to attempt to legitimize the term by incorporating it in Wikipedia is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. --S May 02:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is actually a legitimate criticism of the hypocrisy of some socialists who for example would criticise people who send children to private schools while doing the same themselves (e.g. the Guardianistas). It's also a somewhat confusing phrase, so I think it should feature in the same way as dog-whistle politics does.

Intro

I've made changes to the intro to correct a couple of obvious errors and better summarise the article (a) Professional was capitalized for no reason (b) There was an unsourced and wrong claim about the phrase "liberal elite" originating in C19 Europe, which I removed. Note that the US meaning of liberal is radically different from that of C19 Europe, which alone is sufficient to make the claim nonsense (c) As the article says, the term elite largely refers to cultural signifiers of various kinds, and not to income. If other editors disagree, please discuss. But reverting a good faith edit as vandalism is a violation of WP:AGF.JQ (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In Canada, the Liberal Party is one of the three major parties. You might mention them and that they represent a centrist party between the right leaning Conservative Party and the left leaning NDP (New Democratic Party). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gessoart (talk • contribs) 06:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Please remember to keep the article encyclopedic and professional, do not put your own opinions in the article, thanks. Buddha24 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi mergers to this article (Discussion closed - No changes being made)

I have preposed merging the following articles to the LIBERAL ELITE article.

• Hollywood Left
• Champagne socialist
• East Coast liberal
• Gauche caviar
• Limousine liberal
• San Francisco values
• Chardonnay socialist
• Massachusetts liberal
• Chattering classes

Firstly, they all say much of the same thing and secondly if they were all brought together it would give a worldwide viewpoint into "Liberal elitism" instead of having a US bias. I will copy this message on all the other article talk pages. All discussions should be done on the LIBERAL ELITE talk page so that all discussions are kept together. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge as nom - Firstly, they all say much of the same thing and secondly if they were all brought together it would give a worldwide viewpoint into "Liberal elitism" instead of having a US bias. I will copy this message on all the other article talk pages. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support merge. While they may have different etymologies, they are for the most part all talking about the same thing. Individual wording aside, I don't think that the differences between them are enough to warrant separate articles, although they are more than enough to support a merge and move their content to the most neutral title and include the more POV versions of it here, along with any relevant criticism. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merge for Chattering classes, support merge for others (but under a different title than Liberal elite) Chattering classes and liberal elite are not necessarily synonymous, as the former is often used to refer to elites generally. And whereas the nominator's desire to have a less U.S.-centric main article is much appreciated, and is a very good objective, "liberal elite" is itself a very American term (outside the States, the term generally has a different meaning, even in Canada), so to the extent that articles with a more Global perspective are merged into it, we would need a new title. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Each term is placed within its own cultural framework and historic context and needs an explanation of its origin and usage. Start an article which over arches all the concepts and refer out to them if you like. I suggest Right wing anti-liberal rhetoric . Lumos3 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge These are all stubs and given they're all roughly about the same subject, there's no reason they couldn't be merged. Some should probably be deleted as neologisms, though. Jtrainor (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing elitist about supporting equal rights and a compassionate justice system, so Massachusetts liberal doesn't fit under this title. The same goes for the anti-Americanism and secularism which typify San Francisco values. No opinion on the others. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternatively they could become an article listing anti-liberal terminology. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's plausible with the sources as they stand, but still it's rather POV. That is, liberals in Massachusetts, such as myself, aren't insulted by the phrase, and are largely, in my opinion, blissfully unaware that right wingers in the rest of the nation regard us with fear and trembling. The term isn't on par with, say, "moonbat", with is clearly an epithet. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree im some respects, but its save to say that all the terms above are used by the right to label the left in a bad light. The fact that you personally arent offended doesn't matter. What matters is that the right use the names as descriptions. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • But the terms aren't interchangeable. The right isn't going to accuse Ted Kennedy of having San Francisco values or Nancy Pelosi of being a Massachusetts liberal. The terms have specific independent meanings, even while sharing a negative connotation in right-wing circles, so I don't see the sense in a merge. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Are the individual terms notable or expansive enough to warrent or need their own page, couple that will the fact that they have very similar issues and content? There really just isn't the need. If you oppose the inclusion of certain ones thats fine but you seem to be giving a blanket oppose to all of them? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I can see the the sense in merging all the rest as they all follow the same liberal/elitist paradigm. If we had an article on the history of liberalism in Massachusetts, which I'm sure I could source all the way back to the abolitionist movement, that would be where I would up merge that particular article if there was some pressing need. Likewise, San Francisco values, while only going back to the 1960s AFAIK, are really a liberal/socialist paradigm, and just seems like the other odd duck on your list. Per WP:NOTPAPER though, there's really no need to merge short and tangentially related articles into longer articles just for the sake of having longer articles, but, again, I agree most of the rest are really the same thing. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
              • So to clarify, you would be opposed to merging Massachusetts liberal and San Fransisco liberal, but the others are ok to merge? I respect our ideas, you clearly know the history of this stuff. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Well, Skeet might have a point about the chattering classes that that's just elites generally, But sure, I'd merge the rest here. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Again its a term used by the right, its directed at progressives but probably is a little more discreet about it. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I would suggest it's used by the right and left. The first recorded use was by Frank Johnson (journalist), a conservative who applied the term inclusively to include himself as well.[1] -- Kendrick7^talk 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I noticed this on the noticeboards, and after evaluating this, I think it'd be highly inappropriate to merge these articles. They are related but they're not synonyms. The presence of multiple articles that neutrally describe common terms does not evince an anti-liberal POV by their mere existence. It's possible, not even really that difficult, to neutrally describe terms about ways that political perspectives are characterized, even when the term itself is sometimes or always considered an epithet. It's generally a mistake to conflate liberalism in different countries--it's often tricky to do it within different regions of the same country, although at least in that case there's usually a common political organization--and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of systemic bias to say that an article about French liberals and an article about Australasian liberals need to be merged because of world view concerns. I find that as coherent as merging all the articles about presidents of different countries into one article about all presidents. Precisely zero of these terms are interchangeable--it's clumsy and infelicitous to pound them together. It muddies, rather than clarifies; in that sense it is anti-encyclopedic. I am similarly strongly opposed to a merger of characterizations of conservatism that, while sharing the corresponding similarity as these, have distinct meanings and connotations, often make different criticisms of an ideology, or even apply to completely distinct political systems. --JayHenry (t) 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayHank (talk • contribs)
  • Can I remind you, we dont even has an article on "conservative elite" it redirects to "elite". However for liberals theres like a dozen stubs. There just isn't a need for it, they can all easily go on one article. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's irrelevant. The corollaries of these terms aren't going to be "limousine conservative", "Hollywood conservative", etc. because those aren't common terms in reverse. That's something of a false dichotomy. Of course Wikipedia has articles on pseudo-derogatory terms for other political stripes, such as "crypto-fascist", or "theocons", not to mention things like What's the Matter with Kansas? which isn't a neologism but certainly states the case against the other guys. Balance is more complicated than saying we have an article on "X liberal" but not "X conservative". The issue is are these articles, by themselves, neutral and verifiable and distinct topics. Even if you dislike the terms, the answer is yes. --JayHenry (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposition, as presented, is too crude in seeking conflate concepts which are not the same. Liberal elite suggests that the group has power while champagne socialist suggests that the group has wealth, while liberal and socialist are complex political labels which cannot be simply merged together. Anyway, other similar phrases for consideration include: Radical chic, Bleeding heart, Whigs, Loony left and more. You need to assemble a full list before attemtping to rationalise them. Me, I'm more inclined to create articles for some that have been missed... Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: None of them mean exactly the same thing or are used in exactly the same way. I'm going to repeat my suggestion from the last round of merge talks: how about making a category to tie them all together and make one easily accessible from one another? maybe "Disparaging terms for leftists" or something along those lines? Why is this not an acceptable solution?--Hraefen ^Talk 02:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Blanket" Merge: It would be inappropriate to simply pile all these terms together. But I suspect several of these terms are not deserving of individual encyclopedic entries. As with "trustafarian" I believe they can be supported by links to their Wiktionary entries. ComputerGeezer (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. A number of these terms refer to different kinds of people in different cultures. Merging would result both in too much detail being lost and in the different terms becoming confused. Man with two legs (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

merger discussion reopened

• The merger discussion has been reopened by User Realist2 - despite the consensus not to merge in the subsection immediately above. Realist2 : has posted the following message to those articles but not here:

  I have preposed sic merging the following articles to the LIBERAL ELITE article.
  * Hollywood Left
  * Champagne socialist
  * East Coast liberal
  * Gauche caviar
  * Limousine liberal
  * San Francisco values
  * Chardonnay socialist
  * Massachusetts liberal
  * Chattering classes
  Firstly, they all say much of the same thing and secondly if they were all brought together it would give a worldwide viewpoint instead into "Liberal elitism" instead of having a US bias. I will copy this message on all the other article talk pages. All discussions should be done on the LIBERAL ELITE talk page so that all discussions are kept together. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 05:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  In my view Liberal elite would not be the appropriate merger target. Limousine liberal and Champagne socialist are similar - but Limousine liberal has a longer and separate provenance. I think Liberal elite should stand as a separate article and be cleaned up. Limousine liberal should stand as a separate article. Champagne socialist should accept mergers from Gauche caviar, chardonnay socialist, and chattering classes as all being British or European terms that are similar. We can also include the German, Swedish, Netherlands terms in there. They all seem to have developed in to the late 80s and are related - which is distinct from the Limousine liberal term which was coined earlier.--Matilda ^talk 23:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strike while the irony's hot.

The ability to recognize irony is something you learn in Freshman English. When you remove the reference to irony, are you claiming that the people who use the term "liberal elite" really are saying that liberals are "the best".

Also, you still have not offered even one reference to the use of the phrase by someone who is not a conservative. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Apparently a section on Ireland is needed, see Dublin 4. --Dpr (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

UK section removal

neither ref makes any mention of a liberal elite. The identification of New Labour or Peter Mandelson as 'liberal' is ridiculous, nor is it made by the article cited. the other is a quote by Tom Paulin, where he says that people who call him antisemitic are 'hampstead liberal zionists'.

the rest of the section is just a WP:coatrack for some editor's gripes about 'liberals' (i.e. people who aren't of the right). In other words, what is sourced is irrelevant, what is relevant is unsourced. BillMasen (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

New section

Liberal elitists arent just liberal professors, media, Hollywood, etc but there are many think tanks and groups that are referred to as liberal elitists, as well as prominent conspiracy theories such as the NWO, global government, population control, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.102.239 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liberal elite. 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/20150922013120/http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/deadline-2014-convergence-catastrophes-and-what-bnp-needs-do-nick-griffin to http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/deadline-2014-convergence-catastrophes-and-what-bnp-needs-do-nick-griffin
• Added archive https://archive.is/20150413202804/http://swedishsurveyor.com/2014/12/09/why-do-swedes-accept-mass-immigration-from-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/ to http://swedishsurveyor.com/2014/12/09/why-do-swedes-accept-mass-immigration-from-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/

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) 19:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Urban Elite"

Heard that one used a lot here in Ontario, is it the exact same concept?

With love,

( SailingOn (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC) )

Not quite the same. The "liberal elite" are people who graduated from Harvard or Yale or some other top school. The accusation is that such people do not understand what ordinary Americans want. The "urban elite" overlaps the first group, but is much larger. They live in big cities, and the accusation is that such people do not understand what "real" Americans, want. I imagine you can swap "Americans" for "Canadians" without any serious change. The problem in the US is that educated people, and city people, seldom vote Republican. Is there a parallel in Canada? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The economic situation of rural areas of the United States, and Canada effectively mirror each other. Much of it has been in a state of permanent recession with few jobs available, and shrinking populations. The economic base which exists is radically different from the economic base which exists in urban areas, ergo the political views found are often quite different. I was mostly coming off of the fact that it is called the "metropolitan elite" in the UK(as stated in the beginning of the article). Politically I find Canada isn't as polarised as the United States. Although most rural areas are certainly more conservative than urban areas, they tend to switch who they vote for more often. I live in a deeply conservative county which voted Liberal in the past(although it usually votes conservative). This political divide seems to have started sometime in the 1960's. In this map(the bigger the district, the more "rural" it is to get a sense of the divide in Canada: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Canada_Election_2015_Results_Map.svg

( SailingOn (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC) )