Talk:Mary Celeste/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citation style

The current revision has 144 footnotes, almost all of them of the form "<Begg/Fay/Hicks/Hastings>, p. <XX>." Yesterday (without discussion) I changed the style to look like this, merging the duplicated footnotes and using {{rp}} to indicate page numbers within those four books. This got the number of footnotes down from 144 to 42.

This morning my changes were reverted, on the grounds that WP:CITEVAR says "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."

Well, okay, can we reach a consensus here? I don't think the current style is working, for these reasons:

• It produces 102 "excess" citations, making the "Citations" section unnecessarily long;

• It makes it harder for the casual reader to observe that the article is sourced almost entirely from four books (59 citations of Begg, 37 of Fay, 23 of Hicks, 20 of Hastings). I mean, I'm not saying that a wider variety of sources is always "better," but I think it's a little sketchy to have such an impressively long "Citations" section when if you look close it's just repeating "Begg" over and over.

• Minor OCD points, such as that removing repetition makes it harder to misspell "Hicks" repeatedly as "Hick", and that it eliminates the habit of giving name=s to refs that are used only once.

So, I claim that there are plausible reasons to prefer {{rp}} style in this article. Thoughts? --Quuxplusone (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no benefit to changing the system used, and it’s down to personal preference only, which is no basis for any change at all. Many of the "reasons" given are straw men or of no sound basis.

• "It produces 102 "excess" citations, making the "Citations" section unnecessarily long". There is nothing "excess" about the citations, and while the section is moderately long, this is not a drawback for anyone – we're not trying to save space, after all.
• "It makes it harder for the casual reader to observe that the article is sourced almost entirely from four books". No it doesn't. It's incredibly clear where the article is sourced from.

• "I'm not saying that a wider variety of sources is always "better," but I think it's a little sketchy": this is spurious nonsense. It's an FA and was rigorously reviewed—twice—to ensure that the best sources were used to support the information. If you're trying to smear the article to get your own way, think again.

• "removing repetition makes it harder to misspell "Hicks"": utterly spurious. There was one occurrence of that, which I have corrected: that is all that needed to happen, not to use one minor spelling mistake as an excuse to change the citation format.

On the flip side, RP is a horrible format to view, given there is so much more within the text for the eye to stumble over. It detracts from a reading experience because the eye gets caught on the excess numbers used within the text: such detractions break concentration and weaken understanding. We don't need to "reach" a consensus here: there already is one - it was reinforced in the two community reviews the article has been through. You are trying to change the consensus to something inferior, which is never a good sign.

Please also note MOS:DATERET, which strongly advises against changing the date format, which was another part of the changes made here. – SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with WP:CITEVAR. Do not change the citation style in an established article just because you prefer a different citation style. I also dislike RP style. It makes articles harder to edit for most readers. I also agree with the other points mentioned by SchroCat. Plus, your date changes were *much worse* than writing out the month name, which makes the dates crystal clear on the edit screen. And the prose changes were also very poor, such as "one Captain R. Lucy". Obviously, an FA article has been reviewed by numerous experienced editors who agreed with the style choices, so it is simply rude and unconstructive to come along and make a major change to it without proposing it first on the Talk page. smh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Mary/Marie and fact/fiction - This must be sorted out.

I have to say that I firmly believe that the confusion of Mary and Marie should be cleared up in the lead.

It is absolutely established that more people think that this ship was called Marie Celeste than realise that it was called Mary Celeste. https://www.lexico.com/definition/mary_celeste That is largely, if not entirely, due to Arthur Conan Doyle. That being the case, anyone wanting to know more about what they believe to be a ship called Marie Celeste will search for it and arrive at an article on Mary Celeste. It seems likely that such a person will conclude that it is not the right page or that Wikipedia is mistaken. As it stands, it's not until about half-way down the article that the confusion about the names is revealed and explained. For how long can someone be expected to carry on reading an article that doesn't seem to be about what they want to know about ?

So should Wikipedia perpetuate assertions that are demonstrably wrong or correct them?

There are some parallels with, for example, the Landing at Suvla Bay and the Landing at ANZAC Cove. Eric Bogle, the author of And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda says that at the time he wrote the song (1971) there was a "deeply ingrained misconception" amongst Australians that all their troops had fought entirely at Suvla. (He also deliberately substituted "Suvla" for "Anzac" because it was "easier to incorporate the word 'Suvla' into the lyric," which confuses matters further.) Because of that, each of the Wiki articles alerts the reader at the very beginning to the existence of the other article, so that he/she will not spend time reading an article that doesn't appear to cover the topic they're looking for and will understand the difference. That's what should happen here.

Back to the Mary/Marie Celeste:

The author Richard A. Lovett wrote a story called The Unrung Bells of the Marie Celeste. This is what he told me:

"I didn't even know the real ship had been "Mary" until I looked it up during fact-checking. I found that a really interesting bit of trivia but I couldn't include it in the story without an explanation, and exposition like that stops a story in its tracks. The fact of the matter is that for my story, the spelling of the name was irrelevant and, frankly, a distraction. At a minimum I would have had to change the title, which, if you've read the story, was spot-on. I'd love to say I spent hours fretting about this, but it wasn't a difficult deacons. I don't know anyone who knows the ship as the "Mary" Celeste, so anyone who knew the allusion at all would have been thrown off by the title."

In other words, Bogle and Lovett both altered fact to fiction in order to accommodate readers' ignorance, and we have a self-perpetuating myth.

To offer a similar example: Frankenstein and Frankenstein's Creature. People habitually say "Frankenstein" to mean Viktor Frankenstein's monster. But here Wikipedia addresses the problem quite correctly, at the outset, by saying, "Frankenstein's monster or Frankenstein's creature, often erroneously referred to as simply "Frankenstein . . ."

To illustrate how widespread the problem is, some months ago I searched Wikipedia for "Marie Celeste" and found IIRC 35 examples of it being used incorrectly - either copied verbatim from misinformed sources or incorrectly transcribed from quite clearly correct sources. That is the depth of misunderstanding demonstrated and perpetuated by Wikipedia "editors." I've corrected them, which I think is Wikipedia's duty. The Messerschmitt Bf 109 is habitually called the ME109, and the Renault FT the FT17, but Wikipedia, quite correctly, points out and corrects the misnomer.

With all respect to Popcornfud, this argument misses the point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Celeste&type=revision&diff=931227132&oldid=930760904 "Unless this is particularly notable, I don't think we need to mention incorrect spellings in the lead sentence. Readers will presume the spelling used in the article and title is the correct spelling." It is particularly notable - it's the whole point. The argument isn't about spelling; it's about a real ship and an imaginary one which has replaced the real one in the public's mind.

This distinction must be made at the very outset, including whatever links and redirects it requires.

Secondly: references to Marie or Mary Celeste in music. There is, indeed, an album and album track called Mary Celeste by the unremarkable band Huron. There is also an album called Mary Celeste by Captain the Sky, one by Desert Dusk, one by Mandrake, one by Thunder and Lightning, and one by Aleksander Freberg. There are at least two bands called Mary Celeste, and umpteen album tracks. That's without counting the ones that are mistakenly called Marie Celeste.

I would therefore suggest that the Huron album doesn't merit the definite article.

Finally, Maria Celeste. I see no earthly reason for the redirect on the Maria Celeste page: For the ship, see Mary Celeste. There is no ship called Maria Celeste, and I don't think that throwing a Maria Celeste into the mix is going to do anything except add to the confusion.

En somme: I recommend we establish the Conan Doyle effect early in the lead, remove the link to Maria Celeste, and restore the indefinite article in the link to Huron.

On a lighter note, it's interesting to see that a site devoted to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – His Life, All His Works and More, a leading website bringing you the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle can't get the name of his notorious short story right: https://sirconandoyle.com/f-habakuk-jephsons-statement/2/

https://www.facebook.com/captainthesky/ for example.

Hengistmate (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear why you are challenging the iceberg theory as implausible?

"Hydrographical evidence suggests that an iceberg drifting so far south was improbable, and other ships would have seen it if there were one."

This is complete speculation and does not correspond to the truth. Icebergs can drifted as far east as the Azores Islands and such cases are documented.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/geology-and-oceanography/geology-and-oceanography/icebergs

De facto "Iceberg theory" is the most plausible explanation for the disappearance of Mary Celeste's crew. Seeing an iceberg in this area would definitely attract the attention of the crew. It is very likely that these people wanted to berth the ship near and set a foot on it. Such dangerous and stupid behavior can be expected even from modern sailors.

The events that followed were logical and clear. In these latitudes and longitudes icebergs are not stable as much of their underwater part is melted. Even the presence of one person can upset the fragile balance of this iceberg and make it start flipping. That would send everyone into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean both those who landed on the iceberg and those who observed from a nearby Mary Celeste. The ship will be completely empty in seconds because, as I said, it would make sense for everyone to gather on the deck to watch the others dock at the iceberg.

Very soon the same event would be repeated with these modern and "intelligent" researchers if, by pure chance, they had not towed their ship seconds before the flipping began. Everyone would be in the water, including the children. They would drown for minutes in the icy waters because they didn't even wear life jackets. And their ship would remain uninhabited drifting on the waters of the ocean exactly like Mary Celeste.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8759499/Heart-stopping-moment-iceberg-FLIPS-upside-hurl-explorers-freezing-Arctic-waters.html

Please remove this assertion against "Iceberg theory" from the main article page.

By the way, this theory of "flipping iceberg" was expressed by me years ago on your talk page, if my memory serves me right. It also explains the condition in which the ship was found. It is very interesting how logic does not prevail over the yellow and concocted theories of time. As far as I know on one side of the hull of Mary Celeste scratches were found (which can also be explained by contact with an flipping iceberg)but investigators considered them as insignificant for the investigation itself. Stupidity walks on people, not in time. Leave this theory to your talk page, at least people who love the truth to know exactly what happened to Mary Celeste. And those who like fairy tales to read your main page.

P.s. If this theory of mine for Mary Celeste had been spread at least by the yellow media, there would not have been such an incident with these Frenchmen which could end fatally for everyone. Insurance companies would warn everyone that such actions were unacceptable and vessels should not approach so close to icebergs. Mary Celeste accident could have been a very instructive story which by taking lives will save others in the future. But like I said, people love fairy tales more than the boring reality that explains everything with the stupidity of the crew. Read the Wikipedia main page carefully again - do you see anything more logical than "flipping iceberg" theory in text?! The logic is not worth anything anymore... Ask the moderators why they stubbornly refuse to mention the existence of such a theory - they even mentioned "a giant octopus or squid". To such an absurdity are brought main pages of Wikipedia that may soon be renamed Talepedia.

1. The Canadian brigantine Dei Gratia found her in a dishevelled but seaworthy condition under partial sail and with her lifeboat missing.

So called "Reefing" or as you call it "partial sail" used not only in strong winds but in accurate maneuvers at low speeds as one, for example, which would involve Mary Celeste approaching to the iceberg. This should be the first clue that they were probably maneuvering around something, rather than fighting a hurricane.

2. ...and conspiracy to carry out insurance or salvage fraud.

As I mentioned above insurance companies even nowadays they probably have no clause to warn vessel owners that they should not approach so close to icebergs. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen this French video in first place, as the owners will know that this will have consequences for them. And since insurers don't even have such a clause now, what about those in 1872? Simply put, insurers have tried to commit insurance fraud against the owner of Mary Celeste, as they themselves have tried to divert the investigation from a direction that would be unfavorable to them as "flipping iceberg", for example. And as we see 150 years later in main Wiki page insurers have managed to do this: No convincing evidence supported these theories, but unresolved suspicions led to a relatively low salvage award.

3.The sails were partly set and in a poor condition, some missing altogether, and much of the rigging was damaged with ropes hanging loosely over the sides.

This is exactly what you expect to happen to the boat's mast with the rigging system and sails if the ship is tossed abruptly like a toy by nearby flipping iceberg.

4. The main hatch cover was secure, but the fore and lazarette hatches were open, their covers beside them on the deck.

Here the situation is the same. Even this clue can lead you to the question "Why fore and lazarette hatches were open, but not the main hatch?" and this would immediately lead you to the idea of abruptly lifting the ship in a certain direction.

5. ...while the binnacle housing the ship's compass had shifted from its place and its glass cover was broken.

I don't think explanations are needed for this.

6. There was about 3.5 feet (1.1 m) of water in the hold, a significant but not alarming amount for a ship of this size.

This is exactly the amount of water you expect from a short-term event as "iceberg flipping" and the wave that flooded the deck during ship displacement.

7. He found personal items scattered about Briggs' cabin, including a sheathed sword under the bed, but most of the ship's papers were missing along with the captain's navigational instruments.

Captain's navigational instruments and MOST of the ship's papers were have been where they should be - on the deck with Captain himself who probably marked and maneuvered to the iceberg in question. It is not at all strange that they disappeared with him into the sea after iceberg flipping.

8. The ship's single lifeboat was a small yawl that had apparently been stowed across the main hatch, but it was missing...the evidence indicated an orderly departure from the ship by means of the missing lifeboat.

The question is "what evidence?". Most of you have no idea where this boat is. This model of Mary Celeste show it.

https://hu.pinterest.com/pin/529032287471091605/

This boat can be easily detached in flipping iceberg process and to deceive all that it was lowered purposefully. Moreover, if there were indications of violations in the boat's supporting structure the insurance company will be the first to try to cover it up. This is one of the most important fact which would disprove their deliberate rumor of insurance fraud. But as I said above, it is possible that this boat was launched to transport people to the iceberg too.

9. Austin noted cuts on each side of the bow, caused, he thought, by a sharp instrument...

You can watch the video with the French again. Ask yourself what would have happened if the iceberg had started to turn in the opposite direction while the ship's bow was resting on it? Probably Mary Celeste was touched the iceberg underwater part with which she pushed it in the opposite direction and started its flipping. Flipped Iceberg is what lifted the ship and made the cuts of the bow noted by Austin. Such cuts would have been observed on this French ship bow too if the incident had occurred seconds earlier. Would modern investigators interpret them correctly?! I doubt. They would consider them traces of a collision with an object probably.

10. They had cut the bows to simulate a collision, then fled in the yawl to suffer an unknown fate...

Here you can ask "What is the purpose of simulating a collision?" when the ship will be discovered whole?! Why didn't they just set it on fire if they wanted to erase their traces?!

Such questions were clearly not on the agenda when it was controlled by an insurance company which bribed various individuals to claim such nonsense.

As you can see, there is no point in continuing without contradicting the official statements based on Insurance Company interests. The Mary Celeste accident cause is almost obvious albeit a strange one (occurring once every 150 years) - Flipping Iceberg. And although the reason is clear and there is already a similar documented video case - the media will not take this direction. Why? Because this would cast doubt on the governing and investigative bodies of 150 years ago, which can be extrapolated to the current state of affairs. Even wiki moderators will soon be instructed to delete my comment on this talk page with the same purpose. Now we will wait and see how they will react to the most plausible explanation for Mary Celeste accident.

87.126.72.88 (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, do you have reliable sources backing up the changes you want to make? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Another question to User:87.126.72.88: You write "this theory [...] was expressed by me years ago on your talk page". Who are you addressing here? Obviously, there is no such thing as "the author" of this page. (A total of 1047 logged-in users plus 887 distinct IP users have contributed to the article or the talk page.) If the talk page you mention is the present one, your comment should be either here or in Talk:Mary Celeste/Archive 1 - but I believe it isn't. (Obviously misplaced, illegal or irrelevant comments may be deleted so they are found neither here nor there, but it is exceedingly rare that other comments are deleted.)--Nø (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Another Theory

While mindful of the NOR rule, I'm nonetheless curious as to what others may think of my own theory. I've not seen this possibility addressed anywhere at all, which makes it all the more interesting in light of the extrordinary coinicidence that seems to have gone unnoticed for 150 years! If anyone would care to comment on this, here, on my user page, or out at this link, I'd be grateful. Mystery of the Mary Celeste Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The Cargo

Wikipedia describes the cargo as 'denatured alcohol' this is uttter nonsense and there is no historic basis for the assertion. The purpose of denaturing alcohol was to make it exempt from excise duty as it would be no longer drinkable. However the cargo was being exported, so would not attract duty anyway. In any event it was being shipped to Italy to fortify wine, not to poison people or run model steam engines. Dave 3142 (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two sources for the statement about denatured alcohol. Hicks is available online; he is not 100% sure that it was denatured alcohol, but he thinks it is the most likely explanation. As he explains potable alcohol was taxed at the source, and besides that you seem to forget that anything that is exported is intended to be imported somewhere else, where it will be subject to duties. However, if you have a reliable source that makes the point you mention, you are welcome to add it to the article. Sjö (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hicks is an author with imagination and not a source. Its stated everywhere that the purpose of the alcohol was to fortify wine, so how could it be denatured?

The SG of the cargo is given as 0.815 corresponding to pure Ethanol (Charles Fay, Odyssey of an abandoned ship (1942) P72) and the cargo is described as being 'in excellent condition' when landed. Not poisoned.

HISTORY

"Alcohol had been subject to excise taxes as a beverage in the United States until 1906, when a process borrowed from Europe added “denaturants,” or substances that made grain-based (ethyl) alcohol taste or smell bad, to deter its use in drinks. The “denatured” alcohol could then be used, tax free, in manufacturing."

https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-prohibition-underworld/alcohol-as-medicine-and-poison/

Excise duty is applied to alcohol sold in the US for consumption there; not alcohol exported. It is not 'taxed at source' Any duty payable in Italy would be a matter for the importer. Dave 3142 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Paul Begg's "Mary Celeste: The Greatest Mystery of the Sea" quotes James Henry Winchester's testimony at Gibraltar (p194):

"I think that she was 15 to 20 days getting the cargo on board: there was a good deal of trouble getting it out of bond ... There is a draw back of 2 per gallon on the export of Alcohol from America."

So the alcohol was held in bond at New York. Duty would have been paid, then refunded on export ("draw back"). That seems to indicate that the alcohol was indeed potable, since denatured spirits presumably would not have been held in bond. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"There are two sources for the statement about denatured alcohol". The two sources can be searched (though not read entirely) on googlebooks. Hastings contains no mention of denatured alcohol. Hicks is clear that the precise nature of the cargo is unknown, and concludes that it probably consisted of "some sort of industrial alcohol". I suggest there's no strong argument for describing the cargo as "denatured alcohol" on the basis of those two sources. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Shipping denatured alcohol - even if it existed, which it did not until 1906 in the US - half way around the world, makes no economic sense. The stated purpose was to fortify wine. The SG corresponds to that of the highest grade ethanol that can be produced by distillation as again shipping water would be foolish. I have heard Hicks refer to the cargo as Methanol on a TV program. At the time Methanol was a scientific curiosity produced in small quantities and is highly toxic as if ingested the liver oxidises it to Formaldehyde... I edited the main page to say Alcohol and there really is no evidence it was anything else. Dave 3142 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Supporting my statement about the introduction of denatured alcohol in the US in 1906 see the report at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/1906dbfullar.pdf Dave 3142 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I agree with you, but I think a few points need clarification. "The stated purpose was to fortify wine." Stated by whom? The current article makes no mention of the intended use of the cargo, and various sources seem to disagree. I think your edit changing "denatured alcohol" to "alcohol" is correct, but perhaps we should add a footnote explaining that the exact nature of the cargo is disputed. Is "commercial alcohol" better? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's just describe it as alcohol, without specyfing the type. Sjö (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the purpose of the cargo is mentioned and referenced in Charles Fay's book which I don't have to hand today. He certainly describes it as Alcohol so I'd say its best to call it that.

The SG given is consistent with pure distilled ethanol/water which forms an azeotrope mixture. - although the chemical name was not in use until later. You cannot purify it further by distillation. There is no suggestion it was denatured before Hicks and as I mentioned the practice was not adopted in the US until 1906 long after the voyage.

Although the words describing it may have changed the physical properties of ethanol remain the same. Dave 3142 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Fay's book is available online here. I looked through it earlier and found no mention of the intended use of the cargo, but it's quite possible I missed something. I agree that it's likely the cargo was ethanol, and that the evidence is consistent with that. We have plenty of sources that describe the cargo as "alcohol", but I think that a modern reader is likely to find that description confusingly imprecise, hence my suggestion of a footnote. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think 'Alcohol' is widely understood. It might help to find a reference to the purpose of shipping the cargo to put it and the transaction into context. I don't know if there is a trade term to describe the specific product. And the term - like Ethanol may not have been in use at the time; I see the term 'rectified spirit' in use but that is even more confusing so lets stick to what we have. Dave 3142 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think 'Alcohol' is ambiguous, which is probably why some authors describe the cargo as "industrial alcohol", "crude alcohol", "raw alcohol", "commercial alcohol", etc. It would certainly be helpful to have a reference to the intended use of the cargo, but I haven't found one yet. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of those terms are used to describe the product, then or now, which - based on the SG at outturn was pure distilled ethanol 93% with water. In his book Fay simply calls it Alcohol. In researching the subject I've contacted a number of alcohol producers who decline to discuss the technical aspects of alcohol production and chemistry. The density of alcohol/water mixtures cannot be easily calculated and the available data is in the form of tables in pharmaceutical books and old chemistry papers. It was the subject of the doctoral thesis of Dmitri Mendeleev before he devised the periodic table which underpins modern chemistry. I would guess if you bought it today it would be described as 93% Ethanol with water and a list of trace impurities determined by gas chromatography. Interestingly absolute alcohol (100% ethanol) is made water free by adding benzene and distilling fractions. The process leaves it as trace contaminant and as benzene is carcinogenic, unsafe to drink. Of drinkable products Everclear 190 is (95% alcohol by volume) not a product to drink undiluted or in quantity. Dave 3142 (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Cargo was not petroleum

One writer of this article suggests that the Mary Celeste's log entries referring to explosions in the hold could be explained by her cargo of petroleum. But she was not carrying petroleum. That was the cargo of the ship that discovered her. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol is volatile and with the right fuel/air mixture, explosive. Dave 3142 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a mistake that in the 'Lifeboat' section the cargo is called petroleum. 24.192.39.151 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Who Again.

We've already addressed this matter twice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Celeste/Archive_1#Doctor_Who_and_Mary_Celeste,_October_14,_2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Celeste/Archive_1#Some_observations.

Source provided. Relevance: an entertaining and amusing story involving one of the best-known and best-regarded works of science fiction on the planet, coupled with one of the best-known mysteries. An interesting factoid that does nobody any harm. At least as relevant as the radio plays mentioned earlier.

Talking of which, I think that a distinction should be made between what purport to be attempts, plausible or otherwise, to explain the mystery and accounts that are clearly deliberate fiction. I'm not sure that the way they're distributed amongst the sections is currently quite right. Not sure that the reference to the Joyita belongs here, either. But I hope the above satisfies Nikkimaria. Hengistmate (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The source provided does not satisfy MOS:POPCULT: it demonstrates that the reference exists, but does not demonstrate that it is significant to this subject. If other references also do not meet that standard, the way to address that is by removing or improving them, not adding more examples lacking evidence of significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)