Talk:Henri Nouwen/Archive 1

gay writer

I know almost nothing about Henri Nouwen, but it seems strange to have him categorised as a gay writer, without any reference to him being gay in the body of the article.--Peacenik 06:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality

I am removing the Sexuallity section from this article because it is confusing. I left it when bearct and I were going back and forth as to how too make it relevant. But at the end of the day, It just is not a verifiable fact, though hints do exist, speculations that have come out about his sexuallity now that he has passed should not be included into a description of his life's work. It is just not relevant to the Article.

I am currently completing this article and hope to have it finished by the end of next week. My goal is to make it as factual and un-biased as possible. hence the removal of the Sexuallity article. User:zhensley 3:46, 27 Oct. 2006

I've reverted a major crop of copyvio from this article; the matter of his sexuality definitely needs expansion, but copying and pasting other people's copyrighted words verbatim is not the way to do it. And to whoever added the final parenthetical comment that "there is no evidence to make such a claim", I hate to break it to you, but he actually stated it right in at least one of his own books, IIRC. Bearcat 10:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To say Henri Nouwen is gay, or a gay writer because Ford says so, although Nouwen never once acknowledges himself as a gay writer. He mentions only his struggles, but struggle and admitting your gay are so different. For instance like someone saying they struggle with anger sometimes, is not by anymeans a rage aholic. I think it is highly unfair to write an informational article about a man of his stature, and say that he is Gay as an indissputable fact, without putting emphasis on his work. I mean Nouwen worked with the Mentally Handicapped for years. He helped reshape Christian leadership in this and the last decade with books like "in the name of Jesus", which is not once mentioned. My friend whether he was gay or not is not my issue, but I have read every and I mean every book by Nouwen and never does he say that he is gay. I have no problem being proved wrong, just prove me wrong and state the evidence. Otherwise please edit this article, because it is not factual. ty]] 3:10, 30 June 2006

Sexuality Removal

I want to make an appeal to have the "Sexuallity" section removed as it not actual fact. Plus shouldn't an article about a writer be more about what he wrote not what his personal strugles were? I personally would love it if Bearcat, if you could actually "break it to me". If Nouwen mentioned it in any of his books, my question is simple. What book? Show me where he said he was gay. I have been an avid Nouwen reader for the past 10 years, and have never read anything that backs your claim. Not saying it doesn't exsist, just show me. But till then there is no evidence. I'm working on compling actual, factual information on Nouwen to add to this article. I respect Wikipedia to much to have opinions presented as facts. User:zhensley 6:24pm, 20 July 2006

Let's review the facts one more time:

1. Ford was not the first source to note Nouwen's sexuality; only the most famous.
2. Ford's assertion was not based on random speculation, but on actual conversations with Nouwen and Nouwen's friends, and actual writing in Nouwen's actual personal journals.
3. Nouwen's sexuality is stated as fact in more than enough sources about him that the onus is on you to prove that those sources are wrong, not on me to second-guess and third-guess them. There isn't a single reference out there to Nouwen's sexuality which states that he wasn't gay. Most sources just don't even broach the subject of his sexuality at all; every source which does get into the subject asserts that he was gay.

As it is, the paragraph doesn't even make the disputed claim; it just says that the statement has been made in reference sources, which is true. As written, the statement is fully verifiable and appropriate to the article. Bearcat 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright I, for my own personal reference would like to know where Nouwen mentions his stuggles of his sexuality. My only contention about the article is that Noewen has never, and is not known as a homosexual, and his message, ministry, and life was centered on or about, or ever had to do with sexuallity. A factual article about his life where a fourth of it mentions questions about his sexuality doesn't seem appropriate. That's all. I'm just thinking if I wanted to find info about Nouwen, and found this article, I would get the idea that his lifes work had alot to do with sexuality, when it actually had nothing to do with it. So that's my appeal, let me know what you think

User:zhensley 2:08am, 21 July 2006

It was addressed in his private journals, known to most people who knew him personally, and revealed to the general public in a posthumous biography written by a person who read said journals and talked to said people. It doesn't have to be directly addressed in his own published writing to be relevant. Bearcat 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When siting an article about ones life work, and who he was. He struggled with homosexuallity, but was never gay. It was a weakness. Bearcat, I know you have a personal agenda in promoting Gay rights and such. But this is not the place. Nouwen was never Gay, he merely strugled with homosexual tendencies. If I struggle with thoughts of wanting to kill someone, write it in my journal, and confess it to a few close friends. I hope that when I'm dead and gone, It's not posted somewhere that I was a murderer. Please I'm trying to expand this article, and I wish to leave clips such as these out....thank you. User:zhensley 8:48am, 30 October 2006

As per Bearcat above, this material is of historical interest and important to those studying the life and struggles of the man. There is absolutely no valid rationale for removing the material from this article. Haiduc 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, what meaningful distinction do you see between "gay" and "struggled with homosexual tendencies"? Except for the fact that the latter phrasing is a wildly POV take on sexuality that has absolutely no place in a neutral and unbiased discussion, I mean. Oh, and your murder metaphor is also a weak analogy; you would have to take some actual action to be a "murderer", whereas "gay" is a state of being that is not tied to action or its absence. Bearcat 18:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon reversions

Anon editor, why do you continually remove the sexuality section from this article? It's both verifiable and documentable — what is your issue? And why have you ignored repeated requests to discuss the matter? Bearcat 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a rhetorical question if I ever saw one. =) -- Captain Disdain 22:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

(Hence the vprotect tag and the hidden note in the article asking the anonIP to read this page... :-) Bearcat 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon replies

To say "Nouwen frequently also wrote about his struggles to reconcile his faith with depression and homosexuality" is incorrect. In not one of his books did he try to reconcile his faith with his homosexuality. If you think he did, name the book? It is only in Michael Ford's book, is this issue mentioned. Sure, mention he struggled with his sexuality, I am not denying this, but this is not the major theme of his work.

The article places too much emphasis on his sexuality, but doesn't mention the themes in his work that had the most impact. It's strange that this article places a big emphasis on this when other resources such as that Henri Nouwen Society make no mention of this. Nouwen put his stamp on Christian spirituality by conveying his understanding of the belovedness of God, that we are the beloved sons and daughters of God. Books such as the Return of the Prodigal Son, Adam, Compassion, Life of the Beloved all emphasis this. Nouwen did believe what was most personal is most universal, and he always wrote from the heart eg The Inner Voice of Love. These books did reconcile his depression with his faith but not his sexuality. However, it would be true that some of his depression would have been caused by his struggle with his longing for intimacy and affection.

Nouwen himself never felt the need to make a worldwide pronouncement about his sexual orientation nor publicly debate how such an orientation would affect his writing. In light of that it the sexuality section of the article needs to be reviewed.

If you look at the last change that was made, the sexuality section was not entirely taken out. There were just a few minor adjustments.

Thank you for finally responding. I would note, however, that the appropriate response is to expand the article to discuss the themes of his writing in more depth, not to eliminate any reference whatsoever to his sexuality — that gave the appearance that you were simply trying to censor known facts about him, especially considering that until now you were removing it without explaining your reasoning at all.

In light of your comments, I've separated the themes and sexuality areas into two separate sections. I copied and pasted a bit of what you wrote here as a basic framework for the themes section, and would invite you to expand on the themes. I'd be happy to work with you to expand and improve the article, but the fact of his sexuality does need to be addressed in the article somehow, rather than simply dumped in the trash can. The aim of Wikipedia is to be as comprehensive as possible a summary of all verifiably encyclopedic information about a subject. Bearcat 18:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

I noticed that this article has been protected quite a long time despite User:Bearcat stating that the protection should be temporary. Do you feel it's been long enough? Or is there a reason I'm unaware of that the page is still protected? AmiDaniel (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I had previously unprotected it once the above dispute was resolved, but it appears not to have saved properly (and I failed to notice that, apparently.) I've unprotected it again. Bearcat 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworking

The last paragraph in the introduction section (mentioning the Hong Kong writer) needs to be reworked. The problems are mostly grammer and sentence structure. I don't feel enough of an authority to make changes on this one. Thanks...

Sexuality Fiasco

It is refreshing to read the Nouwen entry and find the LGBT link and gay references removed, not because of personal bias, but simply because the entry is now more correct.

Again: the entry is not more correct with that stuff removed. Ford did not make a random guess about Nouwen's sexuality; he revealed a known-to-some but incompletely-publicized fact that was explicitly stated in Nouwen's own personal writings and discussed with Nouwen's friends and colleagues. Bearcat 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dissapointing

It is extremely dissapointing that the wiki post of one of the most gentle, humble, loving, kind people ever to have lived involves a rather petty-seeming argument about his alleged sexual orientation. The gift he has given the world is around the area of grace, love and a deep acceptance of and by God and of and by the other. It is also dissapointing that there are several typos and grammatical errors, and still very little content that can give a reader a true sense of the tremendous peace and love Nouwen has given the world through his writing. As this article develops, can we focus all our efforts on spreading that gift just a little further rather than being caught up in arguments around less siginificant points? ~Cori.

Yeah Cori go for it....I personally don't have the time to make this article better. If you care, then go for it it's all your dog - zack

For what it's worth, the Themes subsection has a "this section is a stub, please expand it" template on it. If you don't think the article goes into enough depth on the themes of his writing, the appropriate response is to add your own knowledge to the article, not to come to the talk page and complain about what other people have or haven't already done. Bearcat 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Expand

Ok, I seriously think this article needs to be expanded. I can't do it, since i barely know anything about him, although I am currently doing a research on him. Please try to make it more informative

I've added some details regarding his work. This is my first time to do so, so I am not sure how far I should go. I personally think he has a lot of insights to share and would like to go into detail, but should I do that in a separate entry. Maybe one just for the book? - Hugihard Bold text

From Charles Wankel: I saw a citation was needed for Carroll, Jackson W. (8-23-2003). Pastors' Picks: What Preachers are Reading. Christian Century, 120(17), 31. This was for a survery referred to in the top section. Unfortunately I am new to Wikipedia and was not able to make it hyperreference so put it into the text. I also haven't understood how to turn on and off italics so I was reluctant to use them. I hope someone more technically adept will get this citation in properly. I examined the article in ProQuest Religion, which is not a publicly available source, so I did not put a link to the text of the article. However, Christian Century is very widely available in lots of databases at perhaps most libraries that offer such services.

Journal of sacred work

I reverted this link: Journal of Sacred Work because the blog doesn't seem to tell us anything at all about Henri Nouwen, let alone anything encyclopedic. But it has been added back. Could other editors take a look and see if they think it is a useful and encyclopedic addition? Thanks. --Siobhan Hansa 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This link is to an excellent journal of reflections sponsored by the Baptist Healing Hospital Trust. Although Nouwen is just one of the authors periodically featured, we would hope that you retain this link for people who are interested in both Nouwen and the entire reflective process. Thank you. Erie Chapman, President, Baptist Healing Trust.

Strange Article

I find that a very strange piece. Somewhere I read this was supposed to be an "Encyclopaedia". This term evokes certain expectations, e.g. the academic character of the whole project and its parts, because it has a long and venerable tradition, the French period that is unfortunately called "enlightenment" in English being the first to come to one's mind, when the brightest brains of the time joined their skills to promote knowledge and understanding...

Now what would one expect to read about a book author ? The first line is alright, but otherwise there are only scattered traces of biographical information, providing backgrounds to his books, of which just a few are mentioned at all ( and only their titels). Also the style is hardly academic, descriptive, matter-of-fact-as-far-as-one-can-research etc.. Parts read rather like a sermon, apparently reflecting the backgraound and interest of whoever wrote that. To include a picture is a nice idea, but from this one you do not get a clear impression of how he looked like (and at what time ?), esp. his face, which tells more than many words. "Quotes" may be alright; but here it is like caring first for some wall decorations before the walls have been erected. Imagine you do not know the person supposed to be described, maybe just heard the name, or had seen a book cover. What would you actually know after reading at WP ? What I do not understand is why people who have decided to contribute as writiers or editors, and thereby, I assume, show their interest in the topic, would create such a strange collection of bits, which rather turns away people than attracting them to the topic/author (and his works). -

Yesterday I came across his article at German WP, by way of a cross reference from another article to which I had been directed through a web search for some topic, and I remembered him as the author of a book I had read many years ago (on his experience in a Trappist monastery) - which is not mentioned at all here - . And that article (in a country where he had NOT lived, worked, lectured and published) was actually informative, although that quality it owed to the voluminous printed (catholic theol. non-English) Encyclopaedia where all the information was copied from (which raises copyright problems, even if the source of the help-yourself-to-other-humans'-efforts'-fruits-action is generously mentioned - but that is another issue...). So I thought that where he spent his life sources might be even MORE informative than that, and hence had a look at this article. Which proves to be rather a bad joke. A minimum-trace of information, some mediocre sermoning; and the "he-was-one-of-us"-fraction apparently hurried to include a passage on his innermost intimate something (claimed by someone whom nobody knows), which does not exactly belong to the topics of a biographical essay, or at most as a footnote, and carefully phrased (you could also have spared the awfully long period of time of a second or two of thought on the question how the person dealt with would have felt about such fact or fiction extracted from personal diaries being brought to public notice on - of all places- the most dignity-promoting place that the Internet is, instead of rushing to employ such "information" that you found for your purposes...); but that's not my major issue. Why write an "Encyclopaedia", and at the same time a something-which-may-be-anything-but-certainly-not-an-encyclopaedia; that is the issue. Acting like this does not make any sense. - And before you snap back why I do not contribute the missing to the article instead of leaving remarks of disgust on the discussion page, which nobody enjoys to read: Why should I ? Apart from the copyright issue mentioned, which appears to be a major problem with WP (a sort of built-in-problem): nothing attracts me to doing so, but my accumulated WP experience told me to abstain from and stop contributing. Just I voice my reaction, instead of swallowing it for the hundreth-and-third time. That is all. (And I do not beg for excuses for my style; those awwwefully long sentences must be sheer horror for "attention-span-challenged" Americans [not my coinage], I know that; but that is not my problem.)147.142.186.54 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

delight at uncovering the sex lives of others -- is this an inextricable part of who we are?

, I share bearcat's delight at speculating that Henri Nouwen might have been gay. On the other hand, as a human being, I am deeply disturbed by the delight I myself take at making these speculations. There are two questions underlying my discomfort: The first question is whether or not knowing Nouwen's sexuality gives us any relevant information above and beyond a morbid curiosity - the same kind of curiosity that makes us slow down on the highway to gawk at a fatal accident. The second question is whether or not it is appropriate and indeed respectful to make public this aspect of his life post-mortem, in light of the fact that he apparently did not want it to be made public during his life. Regarding the first question, I am tempted to suggest that Nouwen's sexuality is relevant to the extent that it in some sense may have played a part in defining who he was. On the other hand, my own life has been a constant struggle against people and institutions who have wanted to define me solely on the basis of this frighteningly base aspect of my existence. This painfully reductionist process sees the "gay man" but ignores the "man"; it has been a humiliating and dehumanizing process. My question to bearcat is a pragmatic one: given the enormous blessing that Nouwen's life and writings were to countless people, what really does information about his sexuality bring to the table? Does it complement his life or does it distract us from the vital questions that he addressed? My own view is that the questions he asked were on a plane of existence so far above the base animal plane on which our sexuality exists that these questions were effectively decoupled from and therefore had little to do with issues of sexuality. Is it fair to him to open this can of worms about his sexuality post-mortem, especially in light of the fact that he seemed to not want it to be an issue during his life? Despite the inner tendencies that I apparently share with bearcat, I must confess that I do not think that Nouwen's sexuality is sufficiently relevant to the main thrust of his life to warrant a section about it, and I in fact think that it might have unfortunate consequences that he would not want. I wish things were not this way, but I plead this case, I truly believe, on Nouwen's behalf - a man I revered and loved greatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgerrish (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the current paragraph on the question, which is brief and simple, and explains the documentable relevant information without giving it undue weight. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I take no delight in "speculation" of any sort, and frankly have very little actual interest in Henri Nouwen except insofar as my role as a Wikipedia administrator requires me to enforce Wikipedia's rules regarding the removal of properly sourced, duly encyclopedic information from, or the insertion of individual users' statements of personal opinion into, Wikipedia articles. Namely, neither of those things is permitted on Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to understand

(removed, as I did not post this here but it is signed with my name)

Please try to understand

First of all, I really don't care if Henri Nouwen was gay or not; it wouldn't bother me in the least if he were. You say this article was "discussed by many", but all the discussion I see on the discussion page is *against* including a section about his sexuality. Who were the "many" that agreed to it, and is this purported discussion documented anywhere? I was under the impression that the information in the Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a *general consensus* of readers familiar with the subject.--Vcharvieux (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a consensus of readers familiar with the subject, but a consensus regarding how the information is best used in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Many of the users who have visited the talk page to say that the paragraph should be removed are not familiar with Wikipedia policies, and are motivated by forces other than a desire for a complete, neutral, fully sourced article, which is the only motivation that matters. Our policies require that information be neutrally phrased, which the paragraph is. Our policies require that the information be verified by sources, which the paragraph is. Our policy requires that we do not censor information, which, in my opinion, we would be doing by removing the paragraph. Which specific policies do you think support removing the paragraph? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article does still need a great deal of work regarding Nouwen's career, of course. If every editor who came here to delete that specific paragraph also wrote a good, sourced paragraph about his work, this article would be a Featured Article by now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Virtually all of the discussion about it here is from single-issue editors who have ignored or disregarded actual Wikipedia policy. A consensus against such a section needs to come from established users who are familiar with Wikipedia policy around WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV (all of which the section meets as written), not one-off editors with an agenda. The only legitimate basis for removing the section would be if it were factually wrong, but (a) it isn't, and (b) that hasn't been the argument at all. The argument has been that the information should be left in the closet because it somehow diminishes him, which it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

99.9% of Nouwen's life was *not* about his sexuality and none of his work was about his sexuality, yet 25% of his biographical info here is about his sexuality; and 90% of readers express that the disproportionate emphasis on his sexuality is irrelevant and even disappointing, in gentle, thoughtful and civil responses. And I am the one with the agenda?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcharvieux (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The solution is not to delete this short paragraph, but to write more about the rest of his life. As I've said, if you have the knowledge and ability, you're welcome to take the project on. You haven't identified any Wikipedia policies that would support your position- that's really the only way to get an editing conflict on Wikipedia go to your way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in a previous iteration of this discussion, if you don't think the article goes into enough depth on other aspects of his life, the appropriate response is to add your own knowledge to the article, not to come to the talk page and complain about what other people have or haven't already done. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

cheers

hey bearcat, no hard feelings bro. i don't have any more time to invest in this friendly (i hope) dispute. i do feel strongly that we are *not* defined by our sexuality. i think the fact of sexuality's existence is an inextricable part of the human condition, and the fact of sexuality's existence helps to define the human condition. but it does not matter of what flavor that sexuality is. i truly believe that dwelling on its particular flavor is a trivial and distracting business, and we have been terribly victimized by it, and to propagate it further seems counter-productive to me. that's all. cheers! Pgerrish (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, we're not as far apart on that as it might seem. It's just that under Wikipedia policy, deleting the section or inserting personal commentary into it aren't the appropriate responses, that's all I'm saying. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur

I concur with much of what has been said above. Nouwen is such an incredibly influential writer in 20th century Christianity and this article makes it sound like sexuality and his struggles with it defined his career. This is simply erroneous I have read much of Nouwen's work and it is mostly joyous and deeply spiritual- how one can understand their personal relationship with God. I think this article greatly misunderstands Nouwen and his writings; or perhaps it is best put by saying the article misguides the reader as to who was the true Henri Nouwen and what his works were about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.72.14 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

People-first Language

I was trying to think of a way to rephrase "he went to share his life with mentally handicapped people at the L'Arche community" in the intro to remove the less than desirable word "handicapped." The L'Arche article uses "people who have developmental disabilities" but that makes the sentence an awkward mouthful. ...He went to share his life with people with developmental disabilities at L'Arche... sounds too wordy. Help -- I ain't no good at English! Joey1978 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

other religions

What's the source for saying that he had visions of hindu-gods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.22.146 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Technical comment

In the External Links section, the link "Henri Nousen on Rembrant's Italic textThe Return of the Prodigal SonItalic text points to a domain, www.bridges-across.org, that has expired. As such, the page in question does not come up.

--JMargulies (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Categories

As an additional comment to those made in my edit about the LGBT category removals - a similar category LGBT_Roman_Catholics was recently deleted, and the arguments put forth in that discussion can be applied here. Removing the categories is not an attempt to omit this aspect of Nouwen's life, it's meant to reflect how he publicly identified while he was alive, which follows the Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality guidelines. Dnllnd (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up to the anon editor that keeps adding the category back: There is no verifiable, published source in which Nouwen identifies as gay. Adding the category without including a reference goes against the above guidelines and, again, ascribes an identity to Nouwen that he did not claim for himself. -Dnllnd (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Liberation Theology

I did some research and I found that he did related himself to some Liberation Theologians, like Gustavo Gutiérrez, but I couldn't find any evidence that he was a follower of Liberation Theology. Nouwen relationship with Liberation Theology could be mencioned in the entry.Mistico (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henri Nouwen. 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/20150805025043/http://www.henrinouwen.org/About_Henri/His_Life/Gravesite.aspx to http://www.henrinouwen.org/About_Henri/His_Life/Gravesite.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925092429/http://www.henrinouwen.org/UserDir/Images/Resources/Articles/NewsClippings/Priest_inspired_Hillary_Clinton.gif to http://www.henrinouwen.org/UserDir/Images/Resources/Articles/NewsClippings/Priest_inspired_Hillary_Clinton.gif

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) 19:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)