Talk:Rankism/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

NPOV reminder

An excerpt of relevant statements from WP:NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. [...] That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion." The "no rankism" graphic violates Wikipedia's basic NPOV policy because it states a value or opinion. If you look at the articles on racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., you don't find any analogous graphics or statements. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Position Statement on Graphic

Though I don't think it's a violation of NPOV (it recapitulates spirit of the article), I'm not attached to the rankism graphic at all. I just put it there to practice placing a graphic. What I do have an issue with is WikiStalking by Rhobite and MarkSweep, whose only interest in messing with this article is to harass me in furtherance of their agenda with a different article. I will regard any tags they place on this article as an extension of that harassment. From all disinterested parties, I welcome suggestions for replacing the graphic. I'm sure there are many better choices. --Pansophia 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

An image of the word "rankism" crossed out does violate NPOV. It (the image) does not illustrate rankism at all, but rather (appears to state) that rankism is automatically negative, or that this article is anti-rankism. — TheKMantalk 05:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This image clearly serves no purpose other than conveying the message "rankism is bad", which is a value or opinion. The article does not currently state an opinion on rankism, and readers are free, as they should be, to draw their own conclusions and form their own opinions. Since you're not attached to this graphic, why do you keep reinserting it? It's a rather blatant violation of the NPOV policy, per the relevant passage cited above. Inserting an image you're "not attached to" is pushing the boundaries of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Since at least one other editor has pointed out that rankism is posited as an inherently negative concept, there is clearly no agreement on the appropriateness of the implied value-statement of the image. You have already submitted it for deletion, so please stop vandalizing this article. If you want to harass me over the Kaiser Permanente dispute, do it on the Kaiser Permanente page. --Pansophia 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism? MarkSweep's contributions to this article have been quite superb, and that POV image has no place on the page at all. It's just like putting an image with the word "Bush" crossed out in at the top of the George W. Bush article. I also clarified my earlier comments, since Pansophia may have misunderstood what I stated. — TheKMantalk 06:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the last edits are good, too. But I think he made a flurry of good edits to cover up the original purpose of WikiStalking to influence the outcome of an editorial debate on another page. --Pansophia 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As you said yourself (very top of this talk page): "The new author is new to Wikipedia and would welcome comments to improve the article and advice on keeping it within Wikipedia guidelines." Consider my comments here and above the sort of advice you asked for. The NPOV policy page explicitly mentions the case of "stealing is wrong" as the kind of value or opinion which has no place on Wikipedia, which deals first and foremost in facts. It doesn't require any mental gymnastics to go from "stealing is wrong" to "rankism is wrong" and to conclude that both are opinions, widely shared perhaps, but opinions nonetheless, and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia per our policy of fact-based neutrality. For what it's worth, I didn't nominate the rankism graphic for deletion, which you could have easily verified, but I agree with the nominator that it is of little encyclopedic value. You could at least try to assume a teensy bit of good faith regarding my intent to improve this article. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, because you and Rhobite came here as a set, I got you two confused. He's the one who nominated the image for deletion. I understand what you're saying about POV, and as mentioned above, I'm not particularly attached to keeping that graphic. However, considering your behavior toward me in the context of the Kaiser Permanente article, it is inappropriate for you to come here to mess with this article - particularly in association with another Kaiser Permanente player Rhobite. And frankly, I suspect you brought KMan here, too. Undoubtedly it never occurs to you that other people could just as easily follow you around and mess with your stuff. --Pansophia 06:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, Mark didn't bring me here, your 3RR violation report did (just for the record). — TheKMantalk 13:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for going through the trouble to point that out. Since you seem to have no involvement in the Kaiser Permanente thing, I apologize for jumping to a conclusion. --Pansophia 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The image implies that Wikipedia opposes rankism. Even if it was universally accepted that rankism is bad, the image would be inappropriate. However I can think of several cases where subordinate relationships are necessary, such as the military. Rhobite 20:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rankism isn't anarchism or anti-organization. It describes the concept of *abusing* rank to do things your rank doesn't authorize you do - generally taking advantage of the "halo" of rank to advance your personal agenda. This is why I think the image aptly describes the spirit of the concept. However, as mentioned above, I have no objection to removing the article. My objection is to taking an argument from the Kaiser Permanente article here - constituting WikiStalking and WikiPoint as well as an attempt to circumvent the Talk page process and generally denying my good faith as an editor through suppression. I believe the problem was aptly summarized when FCYTravis reverted an edit I made in your favor, restoring a crappy article apparently just because he saw my name on it. As I see it, you guys have been gaming the system - and you've only been guarding your deletes, not adding substantially to the Kaiser article. --Pansophia 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Who brought up the Kaiser Permanente article? You're the only person talking about it. I have a right to edit any article here, and I decided to remove the image from this one because I thought it was opinionated. Thank you for not replacing it. Rhobite 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I brought up the KP article because you and MarkSweep followed me in tandem from there. Of course you have the "right" to do many things, but there's a difference between following the rules to promote the good of a collaborative endeavor and exploiting the rules and "working the system" to score your edit on a different article.--Pansophia 02:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

MarkSweep

MarkSweep, again I ask you to stop the harassment. The links are going to different places with different content that happen to temporarily be on the same server. There are other places to prove yourself a master of wargaming. --Pansophia 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The two URLS are identical: what magic pixie dust enables them to be "two different places"? --Calton | Talk 07:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There are currently two web sites on the same server (and under the same root domain name). One is solely static, and the other features a blog. Both offer different contents. From what I know (and I'm not the webmaster), there's not yet a target date for converting the content from the old site to the new one. I would appreciate it if you stop using derisive terms like "pixie dust" (or "ranting") when addressing me. This adds to my impression of harassment. --Pansophia 08:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay - thanks to you highlighting the word "identical" here on the Talk page, I checked and saw part of the url was missing. If MarkSweep had explained that this was his issue or even responded to my complaint here on the Talk page, a lot of trouble might have been saved. We'll see if he keeps reverting. --Pansophia 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
And the harassment continues. Why am I not surprised. --Pansophia 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

Breaking ranks looks ratehr advertish to me. Midgley 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rankism is an important concept, taught in a number of college courses. A nonprofit organization was recently formed to address social problems related to rankism. I will add more here as I get the information.
I'm once more removing your spurious tag because you're only intent is to wreak more havoc in the wake of being caught spoofing Invisible Anon's screenname. --Pansophia 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Rossami's tag. From the afd decision. Midgley 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And note that the whole point of that episode was that he doesn't have and didn't have a screen name. Midgley 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
That afd took place without the input of the person who created the article, and it was still a split decision. I then agreed to look after the article, which was why it was unmerged. There is no excuse for you trolling under someone elses screenname. --Pansophia 04:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said on your user page, please read Poisoning the well. Repeated reminders of something unconnected a user did in the past, and has been reprimanded for, have no relevance to the current discussion. Tearlach 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete/merge/redirect discussion

On 17 Jan 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rankism for a record of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 03:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The decision at that time was to merge and redirect to discrimination witht eh option to break it back out at a future time if the main article became too bulky. I think there is merit in this as a section of that article, but it does not need to stand aalone, nor, given there is no link at all from Discrimination to here, was it a good arrangement for the reader. I suggest (again, the tag having been simply removed by User:Pansophia) that this article is merged to the main one, whcih will benefit from the keenness of the authors here on their subject. Midgley 12:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, Midgley, the decision clearly states keep, in spite of the admin's own misgivings. Either you didn't read the decision of the AFD discussion, or you are misrepresenting its outcome. --Leifern 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Rankism : "merge and redirect this article to Discrimination#Definition. When the concept of rankism is much more widely discussed, I believe it may become appropriate to break this back out to a separate article. In the meantime, I believe that future readers will be better served if rankism is discussed in context with the other, more established forms of discrimination. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] " It is unclear to me any circumstance under which what Leifern states could be true. I note that no quote and no link was provided. This is becoming boringly consistent of Leifern. Midgley 23:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What it actually says, Midgley, is this: "The result of the debate was ambiguous. 5 users voted keep. 5 users voted to delete. One person voted "merge and delete" which must be interpreted as keep despite the plain wording of their vote. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article (in some form) defaults to keep." That is the circumstance under which it is true. Please stop your tedious ad hominem attacks. --Leifern 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That statement is significantly dishonest. It presents the first paragraph of a reasoned argument and decision as though it is the whole decision. The decision is at the end, the paragraph I quoted. It is completely impossible that Leifern could not know this, if he has read the page in question, but just in case, here is what the page actually says:-

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. 5 users voted keep. 5 users voted to delete. One person voted "merge and delete" which must be interpreted as keep despite the plain wording of their vote. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the article (in some form) defaults to keep.

Looking further into this discussion, I note that the second edit to this article added a great deal of content which I strongly suspect of being an unsourced excerpt from the book. That would constitute a copyright violation. The contributor was an anonymous editor who only made the one edit to the page and has not returned to Wikipedia since.

After stripping out the suspected copyvio material, this article is left with a definition of what even the keep voters admitted was a neologism. I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to merge and redirect this article to Discrimination#Definition. When the concept of rankism is much more widely discussed, I believe it may become appropriate to break this back out to a separate article. In the meantime, I believe that future readers will be better served if rankism is discussed in context with the other, more established forms of discrimination. Rossami (talk) 03:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) [edit] Rankism

Coined in 2003, and with only 3800 hits on google (with this article being 6th - not a good sign), not a big -ism in the grand scheme of things. I don't deny that this concept exists, but its a superset of all discrimination -isms, all of which exist in much more and much better defined terms. So, to sum that up, it's a non-notable neologism. hfool/Roast me 04:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 

   * Keep. Has plenty of potential. Dr Zen 05:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep. Maybe merge into chain of command or something about pulling rank. --JuntungWu 05:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Merge and delete. Hierarchy or Chain of command might have a place for it. Khanartist 09:16, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
   * Weak delete - too close to neologism, even with cite - David Gerard 23:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Delete, borderline notable, neologism. Megan1967 00:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Merge into discrimination. Not established enough to be encylopaedic on its own. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Delete. Neologism. Martg76 05:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Delete. Xezbeth 17:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep. as a simple short and rememberable word of this (imho big) problem i think it has its need and use Ebricca 10:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   * Keep. I don't see where this can be comfortably merged. Also, it doesn't fool the reader into thinking the term is more significant than it really is. The subject of the article, "negative discrimination predicated on rank difference between individuals", is a legitimate encyclopedia topic. Just because the title is a neologism doesn't mean the subject isn't worthy. dbenbenn | talk 04:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page

Midgley, the relevant change is this one: [1] in which the admin notes that the default is "keep" absent a consensus. He then states that he's exercising his discretion as an editor (not an admin) to merge and redirect. This obviously didn't stick, and his determination as an admin stands. Again, please refrain from ad hominem attacks. --Leifern 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"In some form" is a significant and relevant modifier. And I don't see an ad hominem attack in my comments - an ad hominem would be to say that a statement that the decision was to keep cannot be relied upon since it is made by Lefiern in response to a comment I have made, and lLeifern is unbalanced on matters relating to me. Which is of course not something I would say other than as a demonstration for those who are unclear on what ad hominem, or ad personem arguments are. I have asked the user in question to comment on his decision, since he seems likely to know the answer. I suspect the simplest interpretation is the most reliable. Midgley 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You accuse me twice of being dishonest, you accuse me of something that is "boringly consistent." You also say that I am unbalanced on matters relating to me. According to Wikipedia itself an ad hominem attack is "replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself." --Leifern 00:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Tag was removed because you're the person going around spoofing user names just to make trouble. If anyone else is thinking of weighing in on this subject, I ask they look into Midgley's history first. --Pansophia 19:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems a wholly inadequate explanation, since I was not involved in the afd, and the tag was removed before I looked at the article. In fact it seems much more like an uncivil remark than an explanation. Midgley 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's adequate to ask that the person who got caught vandalizing under someone else's screenname to refrain from retaliating here.--Pansophia 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On 19 Nov 2005, new attempt at article. The new author is new to Wikipedia and would welcome comments to improve the article and advice on keeping it within Wikipedia guidelines. --Pansophia 03:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rankism

This is a very useful concept that should be considered as a cause of discrimination instead of a subsidiary effect of it. --Pansophia 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Variety" is how I'd put it, and the cause is presumably human frailty. Is it better regarded as a type of bullying, and is bullying usefully distinguished from improper discrimination? Midgley 08:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You just made my point: Bully has its own Wikipedia entry. It hasn't been subsumed under discrimination. ----Pansophia 19:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)71.132.226.251 19:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making any sort of point, there is merit in this material, I'm not unconvinced that the breakingranks website could not be shown to fall within WP:EL but I'd appreciate you ceasing the personal attacks which you use instead of discussion. Midgley 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If you were here in good faith, we could have a discussion. However, you're here because I was asked to weigh on the vandalism you committed under someone else's screenname. --Pansophia 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction, as obvious as it is, might well be described as the difference between black and white discrimination versus a hierarchical spectrum of authority. The problem with the merge tag, beyond Pansophia's understandable conclusions about the motivation behind it, is that this article is geared toward academic, cognitive, philosophical, and political aspects of pulling rank and manipulating authority, seemingly oriented to the behavior of individuals, a far cry from the broader societal and stakeholder inferences associated with discrimination. These are not subtle distinctions. Ombudsman 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The only argument at the locus to which the merge tag directs discussion is that rankism is _not_ a form of discrimination. Interesting that in the article here and its commentary it is stressed that it _is_ a form. Now there is a comment about the article, unlike rather a lot recently. Midgley 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuller's definition, the one used at the Breaking ranks blog - "abuse, discrimination, or exploitation" based on rank differences - is definitely not limited to discrimination; it also covers many behaviours more classifiable as bullying. It's a superset, akin to Rummel's coining of democide to generalise various forms of demographic-based murder. I've edited the description to reflect that; that done, I don't seen any reason to merge. Tearlach 11:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Upon further reading and reflection, I agree with Tearlach - this is not merely a subset of discrimination; in fact I'll completely reverse myself and claim that it is something completely different. "Discrimination" is treating someone different based on certain (irrelevant) characteristics; rankism describes abuse of power and position by people who have it against those who don't. It may include discrimination, but includes bullying, intimidation, etc., as well. --Leifern 11:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This begins to make sense. Someone will still have to explain who outranks a homosexual, but we appear to have an article and a consensus. After reading and reflection. Midgley 12:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination page links to 24 things. They all get their own page, including rankism.

The discrimination artical has links at the end to 24 types of discrimination. I don't see why all of those things should have their own page, and not rankism. I'd vote to let it keep its own page. Dream Focus 03:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the article

As the word "Rankism" was created in 2003, one critical element of an article on it is to demonstrate and lay out it's existing notability and wide use. Examples of the use of the concept by independent and/or otherwise famous and well-known sources is very important. Has this term be accepted by any of the national psychological organizations? How often is the book where it was coined cited by other researchers? How active is the Foundation devoted to it? What is the Foundation's annual income/expenses? All of these would be excellent facts to include in the article. I look forward to reading the additions. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. It's more of a social term than a psychological one. Could you give me some more examples of what I could use for notability? Should I list some news articles that have used the term in the bibliography? There is a foundation in the works, too - should I try to find out the incorporation date? I would also welcome help with this, since I don't want to be the only one making positive contributions to the article. --Pansophia 20:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The news articles are good; quotes would be nice too; I'll see if I can dig them up. What do you mean by "social term"? It would probably be good to clarify that in the article. The date of incorporation would be useful, and the suggestions I made about the income/expenses of the foundation and it's activity would also be good. The main point is to demonstrate that this is different than any of the thousands of other neologisms made up by published authors; to demonstrate that this one has caught on. What would be critical is for the news sources to use the term wishout mentioning the book - that would suggest that the term had entered common currency. Otherwise, this page should just redirect to an article on the book, which would have to demonstrate it's notability by sales figures, quotations in popular or relevant academic publications, etc. It seems like the book may meet those guidelines(although I'm not sure, of course), but I'm not sure that the term itself does. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you mean about mentioning the book (in fact, I don't think I even put it there - did MarkSweep do that?). I'm definitely queasy about mentioning it in the references - though I should point out that an electronic copy was distributed for free for quite a while (I have to check, but I think it was a few years) on the Internet, and it's pretty easy to get a free copy of the book now through BookCrossing and such. The book is only there to support the idea, not the idea to support the book. The word is also older than 2003 - that's just the publishing date of the book that helped the word spread. By the way - what did you think of just referring people to a bibliography page instead of slaving over the Wikipedia templates? Or the question about how to refer to syllabi? (I see you answered that elsewhere).
I'm not sure what you're looking for in regard to clarifying "social terms". Wouldn't you regard terms such as sexism, racism, and other -isms as "social" rather than "psychological"? It seems self-evident to me that rankism relates to social hierarchy. I personally find it a really useful concept. I'd be grateful for help with how to bring that out within Wikipedia standards. --Pansophia 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ps. One more thing - is an unpublished Ph.D. an academic reference? --Pansophia 04:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
No. It isn't a reference of any sort until it is published in some way. If a thesis is on file in a university library I'd say it had been published - 5 copies bound and on shelves sounds like publication albeit a small distribution. Encouraging the PhD to publish his thesis on the Web would be good, then others could refer to it. Midgley 12:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph on "The Dignitarian Movement" does not cite its sources, or explain what this movement is, or why its opinion is relevant. Suggest deletion.71.218.236.43 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for changes

Here's my rationale for my changes. I'm a new author so hope I haven't made a lot of faux pas. I've been working with Phoebe, an editor, but haven't heard from her recently so just decided to go for it.

1) Orig article has a couple of lines stating that rankism was not social discrimination (excerpt below).

Note this definition does not mean that rankism is a form of social discrimination since it does not make a distinction between: - rank assigned on the basis of class or category and - rank assigned on the basis of individual merit

I deleted this section on social discrimination. It looks like at one time the discrimination article in Wikipedia contained this definition: "To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit." The discrimination article has since been rewritten. I believe this section stating that rankism is not a form of social discrimination is confusing now, since the current discrimination page doesn't talk at all about this. I personally spent hours looking for a definition of social discrimination without much luck.

2) Original article says "The term rankism first appeared in print in the Oberlin Alumni Magazine for fall of 1997 in an article by Fuller."

I was surprised that there was no citation for this so I tried to verify it. There's no record of this in the on-line Oberlin Mag archives. I sent an email to the Oberlin Alumni Magazine and they couldn't find it either.

3) Original stated (Fuller has written that) "society facilitates the rankist liberty to insult when whole groups are stereotyped as weak and vulnerable" I believe that Fuller would agree with this but the footnote didn't give a page number and I couldn't find anything that expressed this thought exactly. I re-wrote this in my version.

4) The original article referred to 'dignitarian movement', which seemed to me to just come out of the blue here. I added a small 'connection' between rankism and the dignitarian movement.

5) I know you're not supposed to change the citation scheme, but I couldn't really understand the footnotes in the original. They didn't seem to reference anything specific. I changed it.

6) I was unsure whether to add the subheadings. Once I added "Further Reading" I ended up with a little contents box without much in it. So I added a couple of subheadings so the contents box wouldn't look ridiculous.

7) Reading the previous discussion page, there was a suggestion to add some info on whether the term is 'catching on'. I added a couple of places where it's been used. Those sites still reference Fuller as being the originator of the term. I also put a reference to the journal of the American Association of University Professors (Academe) which used the term without any reference to Fuller.

Bluebiz (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Rankism is "abusive, discriminatory, or exploitative behavior towards people because of their rank in a particular hierarchy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.12.99 (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rankism. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Rankism/Archive_1"