Talk:16th Street Baptist Church bombing

Untitled

4 girls died in the bombing. It was a horrible tragedy.

On 1963-11-18 John Coltrane recorded "Alabama," a composition made in response to the bombing.

Chambliss

Given that double jeopardy assures you can't be tried for a crime of which you've already been acquitted, how did they manage to convict Chambliss of the murders in 1977 when he had already been acquitted? Angr/talk 16:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the State of Alabama dropped the case because the FBI was witholding evidence in 1971. --Dystopos 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, he wasn't acquitted previously, and the article should be edited accordingly. Angr/talk 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Several references (well, several online accounts) mention an acquittal by an "all-white" jury. I am poking around to try to substantiate whether the initial charges went before a jury. Any help with finding authoritative sources would be welcome. In the meantime I'm being paid to do something else. --Dystopos 19:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case, but it would not be double jeopardy if one set of charges was in State court, and the other in Federal court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C08C:A6F0:219:E3FF:FE04:C392 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

names

why do the names of each the four girls need a link if the link redirects to the same page you link from? Im taking the links out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyler Thibeaux (talk • contribs).

• OH NO U AINT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.47.173.66 (talk • contribs).

ku klux klan

Did the kkk release any sort of statement after the attacks or did they just lay low and try to stay away from the aftermath of the incident? Dermo69

• Investigations into the string of bombings in Birmingham remained "unsolved" except for Chambliss' 1977 conviction. He was described, at the time, as a "former Klan member," and denied any involvement in the bombing. You can get more context here. --Dystopos 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There were many KKK groups - no major organization took responsibility.--Parkwells (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Collins remains

• Information concerning the whereabouts of Addie Mae Collins body. in 1998, family members were horrified that when they were moving her body to another cemetery, her body was not in the grave. To this day no one knows where her body is. Can anyone confirm this?

66.118.236.226 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I vaguely remember this being reported. The Birmingham News' archives to 1993 are searchable through Newsbank (link). --Dystopos 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

References

We really need some footnoting here WP:CITE. Some of these comments, although quite believable really need to be sourced through a note. The Bull Conner quotes especially. JodyB 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Remembrences

This section has grown into a WP:TRIVIA section, which doesn't really add anything to the article. Some of the works mentioned, such as Joan Baez' and John Coltrane's pieces could be considered more important than others, like the mention in a Drive-By Truckers' song. But still, per the suggestion of the guideline on trivia sections, I'd like to move the important ones into the article text and drop the others. Not sure when I'll get to it, so here's a chance to chime in before I get too bold. --Dystopos 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I made an infobox out of information in the text. -Flubeca^Talk 16:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate

This just proves that hate can eat people away until they are stupid and cluelessly cruel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilan linh (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Rest their sweet souls

I did a project on these girls. One of these girls(denise) is my age. I can't imagine the pain and greif these parents went through. These girls died because of their skin color. That is not a good reason for someone to kill another being. Especially children. They were just begining to become younge ladies. These girls had bright futures ahead of them.can you imagine what they would be doing to do if they didn't die? I just can't get over this tragedy. Especialy because im related to one of the girls(denise). I wish I could have had the chance to meet her........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MzELMO (talk • contribs) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

only 3 Clergymen?

"More than 8,000 mourners, including 3 clergymen of all races, attended the service. No city officials attended."

Only 3 of the more than 8,000 mourners were clergy? Hmmm... something about that sentence doesn't sound right. I was going to check, but the reference just leads to a website listing a bunch of other websites. Can someone checks this out and perhaps find a direct source? Thanks. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• It appears to have been changed from "800" by a vandal. (diff) --Dystopos (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The bombing deaths of four girls

The year of 1963 in birmingham the racial turmoil in the deep south during the civil right. :Through the spring there were marches and demonstrations to end legal segregation.

The movement achievements in settlement with the local business class were overshadowed. By bombing and murder by the Ku klux klan most notoriously in the death of four girl in the bombing of the sixteenth street baptist church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.150.130 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The bombing deaths of four girls of JERRILL WOODY

The year of 1963 in birmingham the racial turmoil in the deep south during the civil right. :Through the spring there were marches and demonstrations to end legal segregation.

The movement achievements in settlement with the local business class were overshadowed. By bombing and murder by the Ku klux klan most notoriously in the death of four girl in the bombing of the sixteenth street baptist church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.150.130 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"See Also" section

The link to "Naverly Church Bombing" should be taken out, what does a bombing of a church in sri lanka have to do with the African American civil rights movement? should we just include every article about a church bombing in the "see also" section as well, and heck why not every attack on a mosque or synagogue or hindu temple? 99.231.211.103 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

John Wesley Hall

Was his name ever in the article along with Cagle? They were arrested in connection to the bombing. One was a paid informant who got involved with the crime. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest had a recreated news report in it about Hall's arrest and I was trying to verify the dates and details. I found this:

In the meantime, agents had recruited John Wesley Hall, who was arrested with Chambliss and Cagle. Hall had failed a polygraph test concerning the church bombing and the test indicated that he knew more than he was telling. But it was not enough for an indictment. Another paid FBI informant had deeply infiltrated the Klan, and the Bureau relied on his information despite suspicions that their own informant may have been involved in the church bombing. "He twice failed lie detector tests in which he denied participating in the group's bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church," writes Curt Gentry in J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and His Secrets. The months dragged on. Still, there were no arrests. However, the FBI's suspicions settled on a local Klan group called the Eastview 13 Klavern.

Alatari (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

victims section removed

looking through previous revisions reveals this article is a target for vandals. i restored the lead paragraph from a previous revision, but it seems the list of victims has been removed. does anyone know if there is a reason for this? imo, the section should be restored, along with the "findagrave" templates ([1]). Badmachine (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chambliss tried or not tried in '68?

This article says Chambliss was found not guilty of murder for the bombing in 1968. Then he was re-tried for the same crime in 1977 (which raises questions of double jeopardy). In contrast, the page for Robert Edward Chambliss says that there was no trial in 68 (which would resolve the question). - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no source on the information, and it contradicts another article, I dropped it. I just found a source for federal charges, so I bet there is room to improvement here. --Brandizzi (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Girls' ages

The girls' ages were not correct and I updated them with a source. Another user then reverted my good faith edit because they feel that "history is better than reporting." That's nonsensical. Their ages and real histories matter. Documentation of the facts of the past comprises history. So does contesting them, but with other documentation--and in this case, I have never seen any suggestion that their reported birth years were wrong.2602:306:3774:E8C0:F971:F876:BD5C:B128 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)js

Contemporary reporting of any event is more likely to contain errors, as the UPI article did concerning the girls' ages. They were 11 and 14. See here, here, or here for examples. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Addie Mae Collins was born April 18, 1949. Carole Robertson was born April 24, 1949. Cynthia Wesley was born April 30, 1949. Denise McNair was born November 17, 1951. --Dystopos (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Project

Great work lately on the article. One historical item missing concerns the fact that both James Bevel and Diane Nash said that this bombing, and the deaths of the four teens, moved them to create what became known as the Alabama Project for Voting Rights, which they then worked on (along with James Orange and others) from the day of the bombing to the final steps of the Selma to Montgomery march. Bevel said that when he heard of the bombing at the church in which he had organized, trained, and led the students in their Birmingham Children's Crusade, that he at first wanted to kill the murderers. He then took that same energy and turned it into a solution - an extended plan for voting rights for all of-age citizens so that elected officials would be responsive and responsible to and for all of their constituents. Along this timeline Bevel eventually headed up SCLC's Selma Voting Rights Movement and initiated and directed the Selma to Montgomery marches, legacies of the death and destruction involved in the murderous actions at the 16th Street Baptist Church. Randy Kryn 12:20 14 March, 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into finding trustworthy references for this in the next few days. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair winds and smooth sailing on your search. Randy Kryn 3:30 17 March, 2015 (UTC)

I've added the Bevel/Nash info. you requested. Thought it apt to be within the aftermath section. Hope that it meets approval. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole article, which you've worked on tirelessly for awhile, should meet with much approval. Maybe a feature nomination is in order. Nice job. And yes, Bevel and Nash came up with the Alabama Project immediately after hearing about the bombing which occurred at the church in which he had trained and then directed the students who participated in the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade. At first Bevel wanted to resign from SCLC, find the murderers, and kill them. He then turned this negative hate-energy and extreme reaction into thinking about what he could do to focus the overall hatred and despair that the bombing brought to himself, Nash, to other movement participants and to the nation, and figured that if the black citizens in the South had full voting rights - as Dr. King called for in 1957 - then the elected officials would be much more likely to stop future rollouts of hatred. Taking the massive emotions of the moment and creating something from them which would benefit all mankind, Bevel's subsequent work in Alabama, which culminated in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, was a direct result of this horrendous act. Randy Kryn 21:37 26 March, 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism category

Page 104 of this online source states "as such many of these attacks are rightfully considered acts of terrorism".--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say this bombing was one of them. Just "racially motivated" and "outrageous". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Both Encyclopædia Britannica and Time magazine describe the bombing as terrorism. I think InedibleHulk's haste to remove the word/category is inappropriate and well, overly hasty. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I agree, and had just begun searching for further references to clarify this when I read your reply. Thanks and kudos. Hope the reference is reinserted. I won't do so myself (much as I'd like to) for fear of edit warring developing. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

One man's hastiness is the other man's promptness. At the time, one source didn't verify the claim, and one didn't seem to exist. Then the other existed, and didn't verify the claim. Better to not have unverified stuff than to wait for verification. Now that you have two reputable sources, the problem's solved. No need for the old two.

From my side, Kieronoldham's edits seemed hasty, and prompted by the Charleston hubbub. Could've been better to find the sources first, but all's well that ends well. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It was an attack by - what we would now euphemistically call - a violent non-state actor against a civilian target - a church - which killed civilians. That seems like a textbook definition of terrorism to me.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. An obvious instance of violence against innocent people in order to intimidate a group. --Dystopos (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Why the wordiness?

First, I was supposed to check my talk page. Now this one. What's the point of all this, User:Kieronoldham? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus governs. If people agree with you rather than me (or others) then that's fine and I'll abide by it. Feel free to list changes and their merits. To list one which you seem to have issue with (which I briefly covered on your talk page) is the usage of the word "stated" which you'd prefer to supersede with "said". In reference to either Cherry's motioning to the prosecutors, or the words spoken to Maull, or, ultimately, the closing argument of Cochran, or the findings of the report (as in focus in the reply in question):

A report in of that nature is a compilation of findings. It is a statement of what professional individuals say are their findings. As for structure, to take one example only: Cochran said many things throughout the trial: in his profession, he states/says many things in his closing argument to the jury. In the sentence in question, there are many things outlined which he said to the jury, before he "also added" the info. in question in that closing argument.

To me, those words would be stated, given context, rather than "said".

I'm not being pedantic, and certainly hope nobody accuses me of WP:OWN. My concern - in addition to the above - emanates from the fact that you seem to be working on several articles of this nature at once and as such may not devote as much time to articles.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You already said that first bit on my talk page. It (partially) explains the one bit about reports, but doesn't even try to explain the rest.

"Stated that" is always wordier than "said". That one's simple.

"In her later recollections of the bombing, Collins would recall that..." is wordy, vague and redundant. What else do people do in recollections? Same goes for "had stated his belief that, in order to stop racial integration, he believed that". Thanks for refixing that one.

I can go for piping "dress sash", I guess, but "had observed" is just way too long for "saw". There are plenty of other purely empty words, like "to be", some of which you'd reverted before this one. I'd like to just fix them without a fight, if possible.

I work on multiple articles every day. If anything, it makes me better at grammar, not worse. Try not to conflate this simple thing with the more complicated "terrorism" scuffle we had. Two entirely different matters, just the same article. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a point I should have further clarified yesterday, which formed the basis of reverts: I noted several major edits you were continually making on at least two articles literally minutes apart (and these are the ones I have on my watchlist), which led me to believe you were alternating between several articles in rapid succession. This was causing friction with one or more editors on other articles - some of whom were rebuffed - and I began to question both your mood at the point of editing (headstrong?) and, more importantly, the time you were taking to contemplate the edits you made. Some you made were obv. for the better; others are a matter of governing opinion. One or two you mentioned could/should be rectified. It is the issues prv. mentioned, plus what I shall further clarify below, which is for talk page consensus in my opinion. You were right that silence on an article is not consent, but this article has no shortage of authors/watchers and yes, I've been corrected on here in the past and prv. expansive edits I have made have been improved.

Indeed, "stated that" is more wordier than "said", but it is the context of the speech in which the words are spoken (before a court of law in an argument, for example) which affirms whether what an individual has said is what he/she is offering as a statement to be assessed/scrutinized etc. The report in 1965 is a statement of findings compiled (and for analysis and scrutiny). Personally, that is an example of what I feel should remain as "stated" as opposed to "said", too, as are Cantrell's words re: Chambliss, and Cobbs stating, under oath in a court of law, what Chambliss had confided to her. What an individual says in daily life situations without fear of those words being analyzed, on a casual basis, is what is "said". What he/she speaks to an official, a jury, or what in context is analyzed (the voice recordings contested and counter-contested by opposing, arguing counsels at the trial) is would better read as being a statement i.e. Blanton never "stated" he had planned the bomb. Personally I stand firm on this one. If MalikShabazz or any other editor with this page on his/her watchlist agrees with you on this issue rather than me then, as stated, that is fine as consensus governs.

Wallace's words need to be taken into context rather than expanded upon. I would have thought the example sentence keeps things to a minimum, avoiding unnecessary, extensive detail, while ensuring things were in context? Addie "had observed" the four victims maybe is a little too in depth, although she was the last person to see four historically significant individuals alive. Maybe "saw" or, better yet, "had seen", would suffice with this one? Can't fathom arguments emanating there.

As for Cross's statement of recollection, the text immediately alternates between the tragic events of the day to a survivor's recollections almost 40 years later (that is where the "chronological" statement emanated from). To me, the choice of words perfectly clarifies that he recollected ("would recollect") them before a court of law, much later, when justice was finally served. The structure of the article as a whole steers the reader through these events and how social attitudes of the era eroded and equal rights finally allowed Cross, in a different era, to finally state his recollections before the courts almost 40 years later. It reads perfectly to me, given context.

Regards, and I apologize if I sounded abrasive yesterday.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I have thick skin. I'm not following your "stated that" logic, but appreciate that you gave it some thought. I think "later" and/or "2001" gives all the chronological context we need, and "would anything" can almost always be replaced with the past tense, losing words, but no meaning. It's all in the reader's past.

"Saw" beats "had seen", for the same reason. No change in meaning, just five fewer bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080526074834/http://www.al.com:80/specialreport/?bombing/97-spares.html to http://www.al.com/specialreport/?bombing/97-spares.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of Dennis Robertson to main article?

This sentence appears under the "funeral"section: At the time of the funerals, two of those critically injured in the bombing were still hospitalized, as was a 16-year-old white teenager named Dennis Robertson, who had been hit on the head with a brick thrown by a black youth as Robertson cycled home from his job.[47][55]

It's unclear what relevance that has to the church bombing. There were undoubtedly numerous people hospitalized at the time of the funerals. What does this one have to do with the story? Emmieleigh (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Emmieleigh I think, if you actually read the references supporting the text, (the Time one especially), you'll read why Dennis Robertson's at the time potentially fatal injury was a major motivation as to why Farley and Sims shot Virgil Ware to death. Maybe a little more clarification would suffice?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unless we have a published source that states that connection, then it's original research. In any case, it's not relevant to this article. If such a source is found, it would be cited, perhaps, in a Shooting of Virgil Ware entry. --Dystopos (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Unless we have a published source that states that connection?" Did you read/verify the content of my previous reply, Dystopos? If not, then I can only assume you are attempting a surreptitious desire to divert away from the content because you would rather see it removed. To reinsert the aforementioned TIME link (now here in the talk) hearkening to those two youths' mindset (and to a degree motivation) at the time of the shooting, given Robertson's grave injury, it's here. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The overall article includes repeated content referring to Ware and Robinson in addition to the actual bombing (basically the whole day's events reactions and counter-reactions and the inspiration and legacy left to all). Maybe blending the content to a degree into the text, using that reference, would be more appropriate though? Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it make more sense to use the TIME article, "The Legacy of Virgil Ware", as a source for an article about Virgil Ware's murder, rather than this article about the church bombing? Padgett & Sikora describe Ware's death as "an obscure, salt-in-the-wound footnote to the Sixteenth Street Church bombing." Dennis Robertson's injury, itself a footnote relating to the immediate motives of Ware's killers, is even less relevant. Maybe there's a way to make it fit, but the language I removed from the article did not fit. --Dystopos (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've inserted a little more on the general outbreak of violence in the downtown area, and cited the TIME article as a reference for those reading up on that detail. There are probably better (more contemporary or authoritative) references, perhaps Sikora's book, but I don't have any in front of me. --Dystopos (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Aye, well morphed chronologically and contextually into the article. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Funeral section

"At the time of the funerals, two of those critically injured in the bombing were still hospitalized, as was a 16-year-old white teenager named Dennis Robertson, who had been hit on the head with a brick thrown by a black youth as Robertson cycled home from his job" - I can understand why two people are mentioned due to their relation to the bombing (even if there are no names, and it doesn't really seem to belong in the FUNERAL section), but why is another person who wasn't injured in the bombing mentioned here? Seems very whataboutism to me, and an attempt to derail the article. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, I see no sense in including Robertson in this article. --Dystopos (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 16th Street Baptist Church bombing

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 16th Street Baptist Church bombing's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FBI":

• From Terrorism in the United States: "FBI 100 First Strike: Global Terror in America". FBI.gov. Archived from the original on September 3, 2011. Retrieved 2011-09-08.
• From List of lynching victims in the United States: Newton, M. (2005). The FBI and the KKK: A Critical History. p. 151. ISBN 9781476605104. Retrieved January 6, 2016.
• From Southern Poverty Law Center: Michael (2012), p. 32.
• From Federal Bureau of Investigation: "Quick Facts". Federal Bureau of Investigation. Archived from the original on December 6, 2014. Retrieved December 17, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Literature Across Cultures I Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MThomas45512 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ashemmasmith, KevinT99, Thealexjr100, Helyeah27, Vsaciolo, Jessmanners, Whole.lotta.vibez.

— Assignment last updated by Whole.lotta.vibez (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ISBN that leads nowhere...

In the non-fiction books section there's an entry for "The Past on Trial: The Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bombing, Civil Rights Memory, and the Remaking of Birmingham." After a lot of googling, I discovered that the ISBN leads nowhere, and that the title refers to a dissertation.

To cut down on confusion, maybe this entry could be rewritten or moved to make it a little more clear that it isn't a book. I'm not sure of the protocol for that. Oliananyx (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Folkloree, Smartcookie713, Barterworthy, SparklyDuck (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FishLoaf, Hippie2012, Terrapin2022, Greenturtle57, Chesemucher.

— Assignment last updated by Worm Insurrection (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

~~~~Just wondering, how come this article has a medium importance on the Civil Rights Movement Project? I'm just curious on what I can maybe do to help FridayNightravin (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Caption

The caption under the photo of the church states that "The steps beneath which the bomb was planted can be seen in the foreground." But the image depicts the front facade of the church, and the text of the article clearly states that the bomb was planted at the rear of the building. 70.57.131.76 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Rectified. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)