Talk:Climate change and gender

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nabaan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Livg21. Peer reviewers: Etaolive2256, Earthslug.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For future editors

Hello all! Because I started this page as an assignment for a class, I have not had time to expand it as much as I would like. If anyone is interested in this topic and/or improving this page, I suggest looking at the intersections of climate change and gender with nutrition and healthcare. Those are two subjects that the users below suggested I address and that I agree are very important, but that I did not read as in-depth about. Let me know if I can be of any help! Weatherby551 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What school / university assigned you to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.37.10 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review #1

Weatherby551, your article is fantastic! It's clearly organized (including the Case Studies section) and the subject matter is very current. I just have a few pieces of advice:

• Expand the lead section. You could put a few sentences about how the effects vary due to different levels of access to resources. You could also discuss some of the policy solutions without getting into too much detail.
• I noticed that in a lot of places you make claims without a warrant besides the link to the source (e.g. "Women and children in developed and developing countries are at higher risk of sexual abuse during and after natural disasters than before," "As climate change progresses, access to and salinization of water sources is becoming a problem in Bangladesh," etc.). I would add an explanation, like they're at higher risk of sexual abuse because the destruction triggers a breakdown of law & order.
  • I'd suggest putting more concrete facts & figures detailing the marginalization of women (the article just talks about "economic and social rights" and "social standing") to warrant those statements.
  • How does climate change cause natural disasters and flooding? You don't need a ton of detail, but you want some explanation in case the reader doesn't know much about climate change.
  • How does climate change impact agriculture/reduce yields? Desertification, flooding washes away soil, etc.?
• Does women's lack of access to healthcare and proper nutrition make them weaker/more vulnerable to things like hyerthermia and heat stroke? Are any tropical diseases that women are more vulnerable to becoming more prevalent because of climate change? The impacts you have are great, but healthcare/nutrition was the first thing that popped into my head when I read your article title.
• The diction and tone of the article are neutral. The only suggestion I would make would be to acknowledge that climate change is controversial outside the scientific community in either the Background section or the Climate change policy section.
• For images, look on Wikimedia Commons for pictures of women in the Bangladeshi floods, rural South Africa, or a region that's undergoing desertification (the Sahel). You could put a picture of a climate change policy summit in the Climate change policy section. I strongly recommend you put a photo in the lead section too.

Overall, great work! This is an extremely important subject and you've given readers a lot of information about it. I can't wait to read your final article! Nadhika99 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - I added the course banner to your talk page. If you added the article to any WikiProjects, you might want to put those banners on your talk page also. Nadhika99 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Response

Nadhika, thank you for your detailed comments! These are really helpful. I agree that the lead section could be longer and more in-depth. I do think I need to support the statements in the article in more detail and make more explicit connections between different ideas; I will use the strategies you suggested to do that, explaining the causal relationship between climate change and weather patterns/natural disasters, between malnutrition and disease, etc.

In terms of images, I have already worked on adding some to my article in response to the peer workshops and have run into a bit of trouble. I spent some time looking around in the Wikimedia Commons and had a difficult time finding images that I felt directly related to my article. I inserted one already (as you can see) and I had uploaded a photo that I thought was under the correct Creative Commons license on Flickr, but later learned that I was wrong. I will try to find some of the images and figures you suggested, but I am limited by what already exists in the Wikimedia Commons/what other sources I am able to use on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help! Weatherby551 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for adding the banner! I had planned on doing that before I turned in this next assignment, so you just made my life a little easier. Weatherby551 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

• Firstly, I would recommend adding citation(s) in the leading paragraph, and I also agree that it could be expanded upon.

• Very well written, but I also agree that more figures and statistics could be used to demonstrate the significance of the issue.

• In the section on policy suggestions, you mention "scholars," and "organizations" but its really vague. It would be beneficial to add specific names to these, so the reader can associate these ideas with someone/something, and it will add credibility.
  • Also you mention the UNDP, but do not define this, or link it to any other wikipedia articles, so anyone who does not already know what the UNDP is might be confused.

• I really liked the case studies section because it showed specific examples of how the interaction of climate change and gender plays out within a certain context, and it helped to demonstrate your overall point.

• In general, the article is well-written and does a good job remaining neutral, while explaining the issue in depth. All of the sections do a good job explaining the relevancy of the issue. I would recommend adding a visual representation that could connect the idea of gender with climate change.

ChloeCBlaskiewicz (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)ChloeCBlaskiewicz

Response

Hi Chloe,

Thanks for your comments! I actually thought that leaving out citations for the very broad statements lead sections are usually comprised of was a Wikipedia convention, but I will certainly look into that and add citations wherever possible. I agree that I am too vague in the policy section. I plan on revising to mention specific organizations and people. (Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to define UNDP--I didn't notice that!) As I told Nadhika above, I have had some difficulties finding relevant illustrations that I feel add to the article in the Wikimedia Commons, but I will do my best.

Thanks again for the help! Weatherby551 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Review comments

Here are some comments; I hope these are useful.

• The convention is to have no space between a reference tag and the preceding word or punctuation, and no space between consecutive reference tags. I asked someone else to fix this, since there are tools to do this automatically, and it's been fixed now, but I thought I'd mention it so you're aware of it.
• The lead should be a bit longer than it currently is. The lead is an introduction to and summary of the whole article, so it should touch on all the main points, and the longer the article, the longer the lead. I think you have enough material here to justify at least two paragraphs, each at least twice the length of the current single paragraph. Incidentally, I saw the discussion above about whether to cite the lead; leads aren't immune to the rule about requiring a citation for anything likely to be challenged, but it's quite rare to see citations for anything except very controversial facts in leads, because the details are provided (and cited) in the body of the article. Since climate change does attract controversy, someone might eventually challenge something in the lead and force a citation to be added. Till then, I wouldn't bother, though there's no harm in adding them if you feel like it.
• The main improvement that I think the article needs now is copyediting. At the start of the article there are some sentences that are a bit obscurely written. Some examples:
  • "The causes and effects of climate change are directly impacting global ecosystems": the causes aren't impacting the ecosystems, just the effects -- or at least the causes only have an impact via the effects. And isn't this just a long way of saying "Climate change is affecting global ecosystems"?
  • "These climatic changes have unequal effects on different populations based on their vulnerability": Here, I'm not sure that the meaning is precise. Vulnerability isn't the only thing that governs the size of the effect of climate change; there are probably populations in the US that are not vulnerable that will benefit from improved agricultural yields, per the map included in the article. Surely you're referring only to negative effects? Would it be more accurate to say something like "These climatic changes will cause the most harm to the most vulnerable populations"?
  • "The vulnerability of an individual or group is their ability to cope with and adapt to climate change and is directly linked to access to resources." I don't think I understand this. Are you saying that women are more vulnerable than others in two ways: they are vulnerable in general because of reduced decision-making, reduced access to resources, and all the other ways in which women are not treated as the equals of men, but in addition to this there are specific vulnerabilities to some of the changes that climate change brings, such as the increased risk of natural disasters and consequent increased likelihood of sexual abuse? Or are you saying that vulnerability, for the purposes of this article, is defined solely by the ability to cope with climate change? I would have thought the first was the intended meaning, but I don't think this sentence says that.
• The map indicates that some areas of the world (looks like mostly the developed countries) can expect improved agricultural yields if global warming continues as expected. Does this lead to positive predictions for women in those areas? Are there any areas where the impact of global warming is expected to be beneficial for women?
• The article mentions a "2005 Poverty Reduction Strategy" paper, but doesn't explain what it is.
• There are several places where I think many readers would benefit from a touch more explanation than you currently have. For example, "The UNDP mandates mainstreaming gender in all adaptation measures" -- most readers are going to wonder what on earth it would mean to "mainstream gender". I think a parenthetical example is likely to be enough. Similarly, "Women are essential components of a response to climate change" is a generality; what does that actually mean in practice in these policy planning discussions?
• You have a lot of short paragraphs. I think this is because you have a paragraph break where you have a change of topic of some kind. Too many short paragraphs makes for a choppy reading experience, though. Can you find a way to assemble some of the material into longer paragraphs but looking to see what unifying statement or theme there is among the material? For example, the two sentences I quoted above, "The UNDP mandates mainstreaming gender ..." and "Women are essential components of ..." seem quite closely related; could you reformulate the flow in that section to bring that material into a single paragraph?
• Similarly, I think short sections aren't desirable. I'd suggest getting rid of the "Global responses to climate change" subheading; let that material simply follow the first paragraph in that section. I'd also suggest merging the "mitigation" and "adaptation" sections under a single "Mitigation and adaptation efforts"

I'll add more comments later if I have time. Interesting article; thanks for asking me to review it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Response

Hello Mike! Thank you so much for your helpful comments. I attempted to address them all with my recent edits, but if you find that I still have some of these problems or you think of more things I could do to improve, let me know. Thanks again for your hard work! Your advice definitely made this article better. Weatherby551 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Effect on the ratio of men to women

This recently-publicized info seems like something that could be mentioned in this article: [1]. Cheers, -sche (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision

Hello, I just finished editing a major revision of the article. I left almost every bit of the previous version intact but restrucutred the entire text and added some material. Here is an overview of the changes

• Generally: Added some sources
• Enhancement of the lead section, with special attention given to power relations.
• As suggested by Nadhika I added some references (even though I couldn't find good souces for all points - there are still some missing references!)
• I changed the headline from "Impacts on gender" to "Gender differentiated vulnerability to climate change impacts", since climate change, as discussed in this chapter, does not impact gender as a category but rather has gendered impacts on people.
• I added a new sub chapter "Increased inequalities through climate change" since cc does not only have differentiated impacts but can also reinforce existing inequalities
• I revisioned the adaptation/mitigation chapter and deleted the part saying "Local adaptive processes can decrease in effectiveness over time, especially due to the effects of climate change. Globally, organizations focused on climate change invest more funding in mitigative efforts than in adaptive efforts." since it is not connected to gender.
• I added a part about gender differentiated capacities to adapt
• I specified the "Policy recommendation" part, adding that the policy process does not only have gender differentiated effects but also that the decision-making processes are not gender balanced in themselves.
• I added a section about perception of and contribution to climate change
• I added a section about gender in climate science
• I moved the case studies to the end of the article
• I added some references and external links

I hope you agree with most of my changes, feedback is of course welcome!

Theo-bromin (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer review 3

Many of the gender-change hyperlinks now direct to a "page not found" screen.

Conflict of logic between ""Due to their social standing, women in developing countries are not generally taught survival skills like swimming or climbing, meaning they are more likely to die in a natural disaster.", and the Bangladesh case study in which they are the ones teaching these skills.

In the Bangladesh case study, how does males migrating into the cities, which often contain infrastructure improvements to mitigate disaster damage, alter the death rate in comparison to rural areas? Between genders in a similar environment, urban vs rural, how do the per capita death rates during disasters compare?

"Climate change often results in an increase of out-migration of men. This leaves women with an increased work-load at home, resulting in a feminization of responsibilities." Wouldn't this imply that there is also a masculinization of the males duties? Namely to wander further afield in order to find an income for his family?

• Reply by Theo-bromin (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC) : Very good point! Do you have any source for that? I would edit the entry accordingly.

"CARE’s research shows that, when women are in control of the family income, it is more likely to be spent on human development." Vs male dominated investment in what exactly?

• Reply by Theo-bromin (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) : The cited article doesn't specify that. If you think that this is an important information you could find a source and add the it to the paragraph.

"Contribution to climate change is correlated to gender.[29] A study on car use in Sweden for example found that men are more likely to use the car more, for longer distances and alone compared to women, thereby exhausting more CO2 than women." What is the incidence of single income households though? How many of those are male supplied incomes? If a male is the main income earner and the female stays at home with the children, would it not generate such a pattern?

• Reply by Theo-bromin (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) : Yes, that is the point. If family structures were less patriarcal the patterns would indeed look different.

"concern over climate change has higher impact on Climate friendly consumption in women compared to men." Is this possibly related to differences in male and female shopping practices, or a sociological artifact?

• Reply by Theo-bromin (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC) : As the cited article does not specify the reasons for the differences, another study would be necessary to find that out.

that the 2°C aim, which is a reoccurring topic in the climate change debate, is not, as often assumed, a safe goal for all people on the planet. Rather it will ensure the stability of a patriarchal capitalism and subsequently the continuity of power for those who are powerful today." Isn't this the currently accepted temperature rise that is expected to push the environment into a cycle that we can't control? Ie the release of clathrates, acidification of the ocean and the dieback of most of the worlds coral reefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.138 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reply by Theo-bromin (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC): The paragraph you are refering to summarises perspectives within the scholarly debate on climate change. The issre therefore is not whether these perspectives are "right" or "wrong", but rather if they exist or not. Actually, I am inclined to agree with Seager. The problem is that it is hard to define the point at which we are going to be "out of control". A 2°C rise in temperature will already mean significant impacts on many people on this planet, many (if not most) of them women. To accept these damages as "still ok" is not a purely scientific but also and mainly a political decission. Seager argues that this decision is informed by patriachal structure that define a "break down" of the system at a point at which many marginalised groups already suffer tremendously, but which will not destroy the current "order of things" - i.e. the partriarchy.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Climate change and gender. 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/20140326164057/http://www.gender-climate.org/Content/Docs/Publications/30_UNDP_GEF_MDGi2.pdf to http://www.gender-climate.org/Content/Docs/Publications/30_UNDP_GEF_MDGi2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106111318/http://www.gender-climate.org/Content/Docs/Publications/UNDP_Policy-Brief-Overview-of-linkages-between-gender-and-climate-change.pdf to http://www.gender-climate.org/Content/Docs/Publications/UNDP_Policy-Brief-Overview-of-linkages-between-gender-and-climate-change.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.url.pdf/

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) 12:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:Self reference

BobKilcoyne, regarding this, this and this, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ... clearly states, "Mentioning that the article is being read on Wikipedia, or referring to Wikipedia policy or technicalities of using Wikipedia, should be avoided where possible."

It is not at all necessary to have the lead of this article begin with "This article looks at [so and so]." And per WP:Lead sentence, the lead sentence should define what the topic is about. Stating "This article looks at the relationships between climate change and gender." is not only unnecessary, it is stating the obvious. With this edit, I used the wording you used for the second sentence for the first sentence. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you stating that you don't think a self-reference is an issue in this case because WP:Self reference also states, "This means that while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to 'Wikipedia' or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. 'this website').", and your text didn't use the word Wikipedia? If so, it's still the case that the "This article looks at [so and so]." wording is unnecessary and redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for your note. My main concern is that the opening words regarding the gender-differential effects of climate change understate the issue and the scope of the article. There are also gender-based differences in awareness of climate change, causation, and response to climate change (as in the third line of the introduction). I've made an amendment to clarify this, but I do actually think this could best be addressed by an opening statement that "this article covers …" - BobKilcoyne (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your latest take, because we should not be bolding terms that don't redirect here. We bold titles, yes. See MOS:BOLDTITLE. I also reverted because this lead doesn't need five paragraphs. If you want to break it up into four paragraphs, feel free. But I don't understand your objection to the way the current the lead sentence is formatted. There is no need to separate "climate change" and "gender" like that. Since this talk page is on my watchlist, I ask that you don't ping me to it when replying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As for "Gender-based differences have also been identified in relation to awareness, causation and response to climate change", I don't see why that shouldn't come after "This results not from biological differences due to one's sex, but from the social construction of gender roles and relations, which affect the accepted behaviors of men and women." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

The writing and selection of sources creates a bias throughout the whole article, and seems to be attempting to blame men for climate change without taking into account the action of women, and does not adequately cover the negative effects men face compared to women. I will be updating the article over the next few days, and have put in a tag to alert readers to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 07:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:Neutral, we go by what the literature states with WP:Due weight. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Also see what Template:POV states. I removed your POV tag. We do not try to balance things out like you did here. That falls under WP:False balance.

Looking at your contributions, I see that you have already been warned about this type of editing by Sangdeboeuf.

Doug Weller, can I get your help on this? It's clear that this editor does not understand our WP:Neutral policy, and is set to be disruptive at this article as well. And I just don't want to exhaust my time myself on combating their edits. I'm more so inclined to report the editor at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

When I post a warning on a user's talk page, I normally keep their talk page on my watchlist. There was no need to ping me here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I addressed the editor here, not on their talk page. And I was under no obligation to address the editor on their talk page, and that includes just to mention/ping you. But fine. In the future, I will just state "editor" instead of mentioning or using your username. And if I start a WP:ANI thread on this editor, I will not mention you at all...directly or indirectly. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Better section headings?

Let's try to improve the section headings. They are currently not very good, i.e. not standard. With standard headings I mean things like Background, Types, Approaches, Opportunities, Challenges, History, Society and culture (whichever ones fit for this type of article). EMsmile (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be good to move in the direction of shorter/simpler section headings, though I don't think any could really be considered "standard".--Pharos (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Moved content to India and Bangladesh articles

I have moved the content of the India and Bangladesh examples to the climate change country articles and left an excerpt here. I think it fits better that way. I was also going to move the South Africa content but I don't like how there are 4 paragraphs using just the one citation over and over. I think this needs to be very much compressed as it's an over reliance on a single source. Comments? EMsmile (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Few suggestion

Thank you that you care about Climate change and how it affects people. Climate change and its effect on genders is a severe issue. I chose this article because I am interested in how climate change affects different genders, not focusing on individual gender identity. The article is well written, enjoyable, and easy to read, but it lacks defining some issues. I have some suggestions:

- I think elaborating the article based on the non-binary female/ male system is crucial. Even though It mentioned in the lead section that analyzing the issue based on the binary system is incorrect, It didn't include other gender identities.

There is some of this covered at Climate change and gender#Gender inclusivity in climate change, but more could be defined and contextualized in a clear section. So far, the coverage focuses on discrimination related to disaster recovery resources.--Pharos (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

- Some of the links are missing; "other variables such as age, caste, marital status, and ethnicity" in the lead section, or " Rio Declaration on Environment and Development" in the content or last paragraph of the article.

- I was expecting to see all of the issues mentioned in the lead in content, but there weren't any details about the last paragraph (for example, how gender intersects with other factors).

- Some of the links in the references don't work, for example, references number 40 and 31.

- I think the references are not enough; articles rely on one reference that might not be enough in some points. ( for example, when it talked about case studies and when it says that women intend to donate their food during food scarcity)

-The article focuses on women and how they are more vulnerable to climate change effects; it is probably right, but since the article's topic is about "gender" and not "women," it is better to include all gender identities.

- The article's concentration is about developing countries and not how all genders worldwide may suffer from climate change.

- I think maybe combining the " Gender-blind mitigation policy" and " Gender-blind adaptation policy" is a better idea.

I think this makes sense, along with giving context for gender-blind vs. gender-sensitive policies.--Pharos (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Nabaan (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sylvia.Noralez (article contribs).

Urban/rural and occupation

I think a somewhat missing area might be urban/rural factors as they intersect with gender and migration and occupation.--Pharos (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Ways Gender Equality can Help us Fight climate Change"

@Consolata Ndunda. I've removed the section you recently added. It read too much like advocacy in my opinion. A few other comments

• Headings should be written in sentence case (so no capitals in the middle)
• Headings should not have wikilinks
• You can make a numbered list in wikitext with the # symbol.
• When linking to another article, make sure people will be able to guess where they're headed. You linked climate solutions to Climate Solutions Caucus, a caucus that isn't really relevant outside of the US, and certainly does not encompass all climate solutions.

Don't be discouraged! It's normal that edits don't stick on the first go. Please take the above in consideration and try to make a (possibly smaller) update to the article! Femke (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Femke Thank you for the information Consolata Ndunda (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Consolata Ndunda: make sure to also read your own user talk page as a few of us have written there recently but I am not sure if you've seen that. EMsmile (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In the sction of ==Gender-blind mitigation policy==

I didn't see any mentioning of the so-called gender-blind narrative in this section, can anybody help enlighten me? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)