Talk:Nez Perce

The section on the Nez Perce language should have its own article. Besides, it already has a stub marker on it. Thus, I will move it. Any comments? --ROY YOЯ 1 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Untitled

On second thought, this should probably be done after the article grows a bit larger. --ROY YOЯ 1 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

Well, an anonymous simply blanked the entire language section. I recovered it and made a new article Nez Percé language out of it, now linked to from this page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of the tribal name

The correct spelling of this Tribe is without the accent. I have tried discussing this with several editors and they have changed every one of the titles and occurrences of the tribal name.

A name is a name. You may use the accent to describe the French term for the origin of the tribal name, but the tribe itself spells it with the Americanized name. Robbie Giles 22:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree...the U.S. Government doesn't spell it that way and the tribal members do not want the name accented.--MONGO 13:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Nez Perce is originally a French term.It is irrelevant whether or not U.S. Gov. documents ignore the correct spelling, historical accuracy should be maintained. Within the tribal organization, spelling varies also, depending on the author. As an Enrolled Nez Perce Tribal member, I believe strongly in historical preservation. Thoughout the ages our traditional Nimiipuu descriptive names for geographical sites have sadly been Americanized and now there are many of which the accurate traditional names are no longer remembered. VBybee1

Accordingly, I'm reverting the section change I made.Dogru144 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Phonetic Pronounciation

It would be nice to have a phonetic spelling of the name. Is it correct to say it as Nee Paw?

This self-designation is a common practice of aboriginal peoples the world over?

The Nez Perce's name for themselves is Ni-Mii-Puu (pronounced nee-mee-poo), which means simply "the People." This self-designation is a common practice of aboriginal peoples the world over.

This statement evidences lack of perspective In fact, I think the statement shows ethnocentricity, or lack of perspective, when stating that aboriginal peoples call themselves simply "The People."

Other languages (which are not dubbed aboriginal) have a word meaning something like people. I do not think the statement in bold is appropriate because in languages that are not "aboriginal," you still can notice the use of words such as "Human beings," "Humankind," etc, to refer to People. I call myself people or human in my own language (In Spanish, you say "Persona, Gente, Humano, Ser Humano, etc"), and when speaking in English, I would like to be consider a "person". The statement above could apply in my case, although I do not belong to a so-called aboriginal people.

I hope we can come up with a better solution, or with information that could be more helpful.

Moving name stuff to end

Because the most important thing about the tribe may not be the controversy about spelling its name, I moved that part out of the introduction to a section near the end. Unfortunately the images now seem to be clumsily organized around the list of communities. Hmmm. What to do? rewinn 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Derogatory?

The term Nez Percé is noted on the List of ethnic slurs. Is this because of the term itself used by the French explorers, or the perceived misspelling due to the accent? Is this term really perceived by this group of Native Americans as an ethnic slur? Applejuicefool 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question, why is Nez Perce' noted as an ethnic slur? Being an enrolled Nez Perce' tribal member, I believe that I can reliably state that "no" we do not consider this term as an ethnic slur. Lately, we have been having it voiced by our Circle of Elders, that we should change our tribal name to Nimiipuu..officially. VBybee1

Hi, guys. Robbie Giles alerted me to this discussion, as I was the one who added Nez Perce to the list of ethnic slurs, as I did with a lot of other names for indiginous peoples mentioned by James W. Loewen on pages 99 - 102 of his book Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong. Loewen's position is that many such names are derogatory, and although he does not claim that ones based specifically on physical appearance like Nez Percé are derogatory per se, he does mention it in the same area of the book with ones that are. Aside from the fact that using a name for a group other than the one they have chosen for themselves could be construed as negative, one can speculate that Loewen feels it is a form of the same type of cultural imperialism he asserts is practiced when locations with Native American names are replaced with European American ones, as with Denali/Mount McKinley, which is the very first location he mentions in the book. I didn't add sources as vigorously back then as I do now, so I've gone and corrected that oversight. Thanks. Nightscream 06:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Loewen does not cite a source for his one sentence on the Nez Perce. I'm skeptical that information from his text, and the citation belong in the article. JStripes 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Loewen is the source. We do not in turn have to verify his. We need to cite sources. Not the sources of sources. WP's policy is attribution, not verifiability. Nightscream 07:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and pronunciation in intro

Referencing this discussion, would it make sense to add a sentence to the intro so that it goes something like this?:

The Nez Perce (pronounced /nɛz pɝs/) are a tribe of Native Americans who inhabited the Pacific Northwest region of the United States at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The Nez Perce's name for themselves is Ni-Mii-Puu (pronounced nee-mee-poo), which means simply "the People." (The name is also spelled inaccurately as Nez Percé (pronounced /ne pɛrˈse/ as in French). See: Name and language.)

It's kind of a clunky solution--better suggestions are welcome. Or does the explanation in the name and language section suffice? Also, the sentence: "'Nez Perce' is the spelling of the tribe's name preferred by the overwhelming majority of the tribe's members and historians; however, many older works use the French spelling 'Nez Percé,' with the diacritic." needs a citation. I'm not disputing it, but when somebody claims an "overwhelming majority" of people agree about something, it really needs to be backed up with a source. Katr67 21:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What about this? "Nez Perce is the spelling of the tribe's name used by the tribal government and contemporary historians; however, many older works use the French spelling Nez Percé, with the diacritic." The sources can be from the Handbook of North American Indians (v.12) and the official tribal site. I will copy the Nez Perce article from the handbook today for a specific reference. I will find a scholarly source that uses the diacritic as well. One of the US Gov docs may be applicable (such as Lewis & Clark reports to Congress.) --Robbie Giles 13:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Giles is correct to mention the Handbook of North American Indians (v.12), as each article in this series addresses nomenclature. There is also a useful note at the end of the introduction to Yellow Wolf: His Own Story by L.V. McWhorter, where the author explains why he omits the accent mark (except in quotation). Perhaps there is something in the McWhorter Collection at Washington State University that supports McWhorter's complaint that "the absurdly useless accent on the final e of Perce" is used by too many writers.--JStripes 06:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources using the diacritic, unfortunately, are easily located. Every text published by the University of Oklahoma Press, except the Sacred Encouunters catalog (a WSU production in which I had a part) uses the accent mark. An editor at UOP referenced Robert Ruby and John Brown as "authorities" in the matter, but deferred to Jacqueline Peterson and published their only book that does it correctly.--JStripes 07:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I changed the intro a bit, as it made it sound like the Nez Perce only existed during Lewis & Clark's time. What I wanted to add was that they had lived there X amount of years before L & C showed up. Can anybody add that figure and a source? Thanks! Katr67 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a time period of 10,000 years. I tried, rather unsuccessfully, to add a reference. The number of the footnote shows, but the Notes section and citation of the footnote is not visible. I even changed the References section to Bibliography in case that was interfering.Can some kind soul find my error? --Robbie Giles 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried, only to make it worse. So I restored what you've done.--JStripes 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well duh! Put in the Notes section and it works. What directions? a very humble --Robbie Giles 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad y'all figured it out. :) Thanks for the quick response to my request! Katr67 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

10,000 years, forsooth! You might as well say that Nez Perce are Africans, because their ancestors 100,000 years ago came from Africa. SOMEBODY was living in the Pacific Northwest 10,000 years ago, but they would have been ancestors of the Aztecs and Iroquois and every other people ever found in the Americas. Andaman Islanders can be shown to have lived in the same place for the last 10,000 years, and maybe some peoples in the interior of Papua New Guinea, but those are cases of extreme geographical isolation.Shrikeangel (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Name was accident...

The name Nez Perce was actually an accident. Apparently a french explorer saw a Native American in the fields and saw a nose ring. Therefore the area around there was known (back then) to be inhabited by "Nez Perce", and the name stuck I guess. Are any mods open to changing this once I find proof? - --Fruzion 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Found it... my little brother's textbook :)

Brummett, Edgar, Hackett, Jewsbury, Taylor, Bailkey, Lewis, Wallbank et al. Civilization Past and Present (Volume I: to 1650), 11th edition. Addison, Wesley, and Longman, publications. 2006

There aren't any mods here--if you can cite your sources properly you're welcome to add this information yourself (though you should leave the other theories in place). I'm rather skeptical about the accuracy of textbooks, personally, can you find addtional sources for this theory? Katr67 03:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, both this account and that in the current article are demonstrably false. In William Clark's journal of the Expedition to the Pacific, he delves rather pointedly into this matter of ascribing pierced noses to a people who did no such thing. First the Niimíipu themselves can't explain it; they tell Clark that their neighbours have just always called them that. (Note: the Niimíipu's neighbours were calling them "pierced noses", in their own languages, long before white people showed up. The "French" [that is, Canadians] only translated an existing term into their own language.)

Sometime later Clark interviews a downstream neighbour of the Niimíipu, asking him why his people call their unpierced neighbours "pierced noses". The man explains that it comes from sign language, in which the term for the Niimíipu has always been to pinch the septum with thumb and forefinger, resulting coincidentally in a sign that looks as if the signer has a ring in his nose. At this point Clark exults a bit, certain he's about to solve the mystery. He asks the informant why that's the sign for the Niimíipu... whereupon the man says, "No-one knows."

So the ultimate mystery remains (why that apparently un-piercing-related sign designated the Niimíipu), but we know how they got stuck with the nickname.

I'd look the passage up and add it to the article with reference, but unfortunately I haven't got time. Someone else, perhaps? It's free to see in any unabridged edition of the journals of Lewis and Clark. Laodah 19:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Question re: population

The side chart at the top says the Nez Perce population is 2,000, but the text says 17,000 people live on the reservation. Can anyone reconcile the population figures?Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to check right now, but this article gets a lot of vandalism. Could it be because of that? Katr67 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 figure from the US govt. is about 3,499 (there are 12 "foreign-born" that are unclear to me) Nez Perce. I don't know about the reservation. Kdammers (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They are descended from the first humans to come to the Americas, more than 10,000 years ago.[1]

This isn't proven or even, frankly, very likely. The reference doesn't show it to be true. It's just a claim. 76.28.103.69 (talk)Will in New Haven03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

From a logical standpoint, the statement that "They are descended from the first humans to come to the Americas, more than 10,000 years ago" actually does sound likely. How else did they come into being? Now, the objection that the statement "They are descended from the first humans to come to the Americas, more than 10,000 years ago" may be completely meaningless is accurate, as current anthropological literature states we all came from Africa.

Or..., is your objection to the "10,000 year" figure? If so, then there will be a conflict between science and religion. Svyatoslav (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Numerous sites and artifacts in the Americas are carbon dated far earlier than 10,000 years. Even Clovis sites are 13,000 years old. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

history

added legend of their origins and first contact. any problems? KiNgFrOmHeLl (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

articles name

Per WP:NCP and WP:NCLANG, we don't generally promote either a people or their language over the other as primary topic. (For example, there are [were] links to "the Nez Perce word X", which should not link to an article on the people, but to the language.) Peoples generally go at "X people" or "Xs". In this case, however, "tribe" might be more appropriate. Is it generally accepted that the Nez Perce are a tribe of the Sahaptin people? That's my impression, and what we say at Sahaptin people. — kwami (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Sgt. Jeff Jackson

[[:File:US-Army-Sgt. Jeff Jackson-Nez Perce.jpg|thumb|US Army Sgt. Jeff Jackson, great-great-grandson of
Nez Perce warrior Yellow Wolf]] I'm going to remove this photograph of Sgt. Jeff Jackson, identified in the caption as a "great-great-grandson of Nez Perce warrior Yellow Wolf", from the article. Aside from the fact that no verifiable source is cited to support that identification, Sgt. Jackson is not listed in this article among the Notable Nez Perce, nor is he sufficiently notable to have his own Wikipedia article. Having his photograph in this article therefore is no more justifiable than having a photograph of a non-notable great-great-grandson of Martin Van Buren in the article on Dutch Americans; it adds nothing of value to this article.

Being descended from a notable person doesn't by itself make a person notable. If, on the other hand, Sgt. Jeff Jackson has accomplished something that would merit his addition to the list of Notable Nez Perce and the creation of a separate WP article about him, with sufficiently reliable and verifiable sources to establish his notability, by all means let that be done. Then—and only then—it would be entirely appropriate to restore his photograph to this article, with a link to the article about him for those who want further information.--Jim10701 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yupik peoples which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No evidence supplied to support the nominator's contention that the people are the primary topic of the 16 items listed at Nez Perce (disambiguation). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Nez Perce people → Nez Perce
• Nez Perce → Nez Perce (disambiguation)

– target is to large dab page where all items have the name of the people as their origin by direct association. moved to "Nez Perce (tribe)" on Sep 7 2007 by Mike Cline, in the course of creating Nez Perce (disambiguation) which was moved to "Nez Perce" by Kwami on Oct 18 2010 despite obvious PRIMARYTOPIC of the people. Skookum1 (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - any move that moves such a large list of target articles out to Foo (disambiguation) is a bad idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • none of them are standalone names, and all are named after the people, directly or indirectly.Skookum1 (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions over whether every ethnicity in the world should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "These should be discussed at a centralized location." LOL that's funny I already tried that and got criticized for mis-procedure. Your pet guideline was never discussed at a central location nor even brought up with other affected/conflicting guidelines nor any relevant wikiprojects. And as for "There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't" that's fine to say about a discussion that you presided over on an isolated guideline talkpage that you didn't invite anyone but your friends into..... WP:ETHNICGROUPS is clear on the variability of "X", "Xs", or "X people" and says nothing being people mandatorily added as you rewrote your guideline to promote/enact. It says quite the opposite; the CRITERIA page also says that prior consensus should be respected, and those who crafted it an attempt to contact them towards building a new consensus done; and calls for consistency within related topics which "we" long ago had devised the use of "FOO" and often "PREFERRED ENDONYM" (for Canada especially, where such terms are common English now and your pet terms are obsolete and in disuse and often of clearly racist origin e.g. Slavey people). The crafters of the ethnicities and tribes naming convention (which your guideline violates) clearly respected our collective decisions/consensus from long ago re both standalone names without "people/tribe/nation/peoples" unless absolutely necessary and also re the use of endonyms where available; but when I brought it up in the RMs of last year you insulted and baited me and still lost. Now you want a centralized discussion when you made no such effort yourself and were in fact dismissive about any such effort. Pfft. NCLANG fans like to pretend WP:OWNership on this issue, especially yourself as its author but that's a crock. The way to "address this issue properly" is to examine all of these, but bulk of them needless directs from then-long-standing titles moved by yourself, one by one as I was instructed/advised re the bulk RMs; as case-by-case decisions are needed. You want a centralized discussion, but never held one yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no-one would criticize you for discussing this rationally. But this multitude of move requests is disruptive. They should all be closed without prejudice. — kwami (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

unCIVIL and BAITing as always huh? I'm tired of copy-pasting replies to your repetitive irrational defenses of your moves; anyone who cares can read my reply to your same post on Tlingit people. You want a centralized discussion huh? Yeah, we'll see about that; the premature WP:BATHWATER non-admin closure of the bulk RMs is gonna be at MoveReview; they should get relisted, especially the redirects-to-current-title ones I have done one-by-one as recommended by someone on those RMs per procedural opposition re the bulk RM who said they should have been filed separately. YOU were the one who was disruptive by doing a "multitude" of undiscussed moves - far more than I have yet filed RMs for. "no one would accuse you of being irrational" is a rank NPA, but I'm used to that from you from last years' RMs. Your "repetitive irrational defenses" of your undiscussed moves, so clear on last year's RMs, is the issue here, not my efforts to correct those back their original didn't-need-changing forms....hell, you just changed titles and didn't even fix ledes as you're supposed to when moving pages; or is that another guideline you prefer to ignore because it doesn't suit your "prejudices"Skookum1 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. There needs to be a demonstrated primary topic. Direct association is not a determining factor for a primary topic. If the basic object is to the current title, then the correct name would be Nez Perce (people). Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nez Perce/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A visually attractive page, but, when it comes down to written content, little more than a stub. Needs through expansion. --Aaron Walden (10 March 06) Has been very significantly expanded; now is fairly long and detailed, with a number of sources, and a reasonable number of inline citations --Miskwito 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Book about the surveying & dividing of the reservation

Contemporary diary about the surveying & dividing of the reservation written by the ethnologist Alice C. Fletcher: Dividing the Reservation: Alice C. Fletcher's Nez Perce Allotment Diaries and Letters, 1889-1892 edited by Nicole Tonkovich, 2016, Washington State University Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"...at least 11,500 years" not supported by sources

Neither the Ames and Marshall article nor the Brittannica article make a claim like this. The closest thing in Ames and Marshall I can find is their claim through pages 38-40 that the Nimipu phase on the southern Columbia Plateau marks the appearance of "essentially historic Nez Perce," and the Nimipu phase (when horses were introduced) begins only in 1720 A.D. by their reckoning. They say there were people of some sort there over 10,000 years ago, but whether it would be appropriate to call them Nez Perce is another matter, and I'm not surprised they don't make a claim like that. Their article describes a lot of changes over time in both the environment of the southern Columbia Plateau and the apparent lifestyles of the people living there, and since most of that was happening in a prehistoric context it's very hard to say with that degree of confidence how those people saw themselves at any given point, what languages they were speaking, etc.

I'm reluctant to just remove that figure right away since it seems like claims of that sort in this article have a long history and I'm nervous about ruffling feathers. That said, I do think it's irresponsible even aside from the lack of supporting evidence, because it encourages the erroneous-but-common belief in mainstream U.S. society that the cultural landscape of what is now the U.S. was basically static until Europeans arrived. See for example this article about Aaron Carapella's "Tribal Nations Maps" of some years ago:

Carapella said that his map would show Native Nations and where they were located pre-contact with Europeans. Sounds good, right? But--I'm asking you to look and think critically about that goal. Right now there are over 200 federally recognized nations in the US (not counting Alaska). There were a lot more, pre-contact. How, I wondered, was Carapella going to show the locations of those 200+ federally recognized nations in the hundreds and thousands of years prior to contact, or "at contact"?

A map could never reasonably sum up millenia of cultural activity over a vast area even if we knew about all of it in great detail, but for whatever reason Carapella and the many people who enthusiastically bought his maps didn't seem to realize this, even though they meant well. Claiming that any modern ethnic group has somehow existed in a continuous, recognizable form for 11,500 years is simularly dubious, and in this context it has the same effect of promoting a harmfully reductive perspective on the lives of people in what is now the U.S. pre-contact—someone reading this article could easily be lead to imagine that the ancestors of the modern Nez Perce never moved around, had an unchanging language, and had the same diet and settlement patterns from the time they came across the Bering land bridge until they encountered Europeans. If we instead stick to the dynamicism the archaelogical record actually shows, we'll both hew closer to the sources and encourage a more realistic perspective.

My instinct would be to change the first sentence to e.g., "The Nez Percé…are an Indigenous people of the Plateau who live on the Columbia River Plateau in the Pacific Northwest region." This is something we can say with confidence. Their written history seems too complex to sum up to me in a short phrase, and what the lives of the prehistoric Nez Perce or their hypothetical predecessors were like is an even more complex topic (and one about which we can only supportably say so much). Mesocarp (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Putting is the accent mark is completely wrong. 174.31.5.70 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Columbia River tribes generally claim that they (their direct ancestors) have been in the regions they inhabited when Europeans arrived for 10,000 years or longer. This is true of the Wasco, Wishram, Umatilla, and Nez Perce, among others. Tribes further north on the Colville reservation also make this claim, and the claim is supported by comparison of their DNA to that extracted from Kennewick Man.

Archaeology and DNA support that peoples in the region had been living that long with cultural practices very similar to those recorded by outside observers in the nineteenth century.

Your assertion about the “historic Nez Perce” existing only after the arrival of the horse is deployed in a manner that reflects misreading of the cited article. Of course, there are better sources to offer in support of the claim. I’ll add them when I have time and am logged in.

Yes, there was extensive mobility among many Native peoples. But there are also many groups that maintained their existence in a relatively small area for many centuries, or even millenia.

James Stripes 174.31.5.70 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've modified the claim to bring it into accord with the cited article. JStripes (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Enemies and Allies section is messy

This section is called enemies and allies, but is actually just a list of neighbors which doesn't seem to describe the relationships between these groups - it should probably be renamed. There is also way too much parenthetical here, making it very difficult to read; including the traditional names is good, but the translations are unnecessary and not relevant for this section. There are also several different transliterations of traditional names included in parenthesis, which is more detail than is needed here; one transliteration should be chosen in order to reduce the signal to noise ratio. 198.160.139.1 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree.I recently used it for a project, and it was impossible to read 216.20.155.106 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)