512:. Notice at the top of this section, one person believed consensus was already achieved on 19 August. Just to make sure, the discussion was continued until 28 August. Eight other people weighed in giving reasons -- not votes, reasons -- supporting the removal. One gave a reason against, but that reason was responded to by two other people. Another eight days went by, and no counter-argument was given. That's as close as we get to consensus around here. Now other people are joining in, which is great, perhaps a new and better consensus will form. Consensus can change. But that's not the same thing as saying no consensus was established here, it was. --
707:::That is contentious editing. There was clearly a consensus on this page. Plenty of serious, intelligent people think it is not stupid. Without calling myself one of those people, I think it's a fine and appropriate edit. If you don't and they do, you have to respect process or you'll just cause an edit war. I think the revert and the dismissive proclamation are a bit of an insult to the people who took the time to do things right by earnestly discussing the matter. If you have been in poor health, I am sorry to hear and my best wishes for recuperation. Nevertheless, Wikipdedia has no pause button and things happened in your absence.
554:
been diffuse and messy but it has gone on for a few weeks, and the rationale has been that "obscure" is not a meaningful way to distinguish reliable from unreliable newspapers, particularly in the case of people of specialized interest, where a specialized paper may be the most germane source. For example, someone active in a small town (who we'll assume passes the notability requirement) may be covered best by the local small town newspaper. I had suggested we replace "obscure" with "highly partisan" but nobody picked up on that idea.
189:: "A proposal is any suggested guideline, policy or process for which the status of consensus is not yet clear, as long as discussion is ongoing. Amendments to a proposal should be discussed on its talk page (not on a new page) but it generally is acceptable to edit a proposal to improve it. Proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus. A proposal's status is not determined by counting votes. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, nor is a poll's numerical outcome tantamount to consensus."
1017:(a disambiguation page that is not pertinent in this instance), with a link to the Wikidictionary definition for "obscure", which is not at all enlightening pertaining to usage in "obscure newspapers" either. Despite all the assumptions being made (in comments above and below) about what "obscure newspapers" means (denotes) in this project page for BLP, there is no clear definition linked that everyday Knowledge editors (not administrators) can consult for guidance as to what this phrase actually means. --
1133:
31:
177:
forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first.": several editors (commenting earlier in several editing summaries and on this talk page) have stated that these changes do not have "consensus". Three people are not a "consensus"; consensus is built and takes place extended periods of time. The policy had consensus until it was changed in recent months and consensus has not yet occurred, as far as I can tell. --
372:. I agree with the discussion. As a second/side issue we should expand the prohibition on partisan websites to also include other partisan sources, e.g. newspapers, but we have to clarify what partisan means in this context. Not Fox News or NPR...but you wouldn't link to "people's communist voice daily" (hypothetical paper) for further information about a mogul like Warren Buffet, or a minor radical right newspaper for a link on Noam Chomsky.
108:
than three people). Nevertheless, Wikidemo went ahead and, over these objections, deleted the sentence, just as he and others had already deleted the phrase, all without consensus. This appears unwise to me. Pushing such changes in a policy page without actually having achieved a consensus for such changes is likely to lead nowhere, as the changes will be reversed in the future by those who have not yet realized that they were made; compare
842:, then editors cannot use them as sources of information about living persons in Knowledge space. In many cases, by definition, "partisan" (biased) websites are neither reliable nor verifiable sources of information about living persons (by definition, they are "biased" ("partisan"; partial to their causes or missions) and thus citing them without indicating clearly (defining) what that bias is violates
947:, we can hardly cite it in that article!); and some of the most reliable books on many scientific subjects are often not notable, in the sense that relatively few people have written about them. We can't demand that all our sources be notable in themselves. Fringe newspapers, in the sense that they cover extreme partisan views, do need to be excluded as sources, but because they are covered by
499:- We have already had a situation recently where an editor also ran his own obscure print publication, and was publishing stories to be used as sources in wikipedia to attack third parties. I think it is worth haggling over marginal cases, if it allows us to keep out obvious cases. I also don't agree with deciding core policies by straw poll. -
151:
clearly proposed, people can discuss it. It should not be put into the project page without prior extended discussion among a wide variety of editors (not just three who support it in the face of even greater numbers of opposition already expressed to it in multiple editing summaries and comments in the talk page, both here and in
984:"Non-notable sources" doesnt' capture it well enough. Non-reliable sources is the important point. If only obscure newspapers report something, we don't have a reliable source. It's all about verifiability. We don't consider rubbish in some tabloid or local paper to be verifiable just because it's been printed. --
679:
fine. But if I may, anyone who cares about how policy is made ought to ask how healthy it is when people ignore a discussion until consensus seems to be reached, then jump in to revert only after the change appears on the project page. Perhaps policy isn't best determined by vote, but nor is it decided by edict.
628:. If one means "unreliable" and/or "unverifiable" sources, then one needs to use the proper terms. If the newspaper deemed pejoratively to be "obscure" is actually an unreliable and/or unverifiable source, then it does not belong in Knowledge space, particularly not as sources of material about living persons. --
257:(1.4) (or scroll way up): "Add: External links should never be used to circumvent goals of the Biographies of Living People policy. Where external links are used to include information from self-published or dubious sources that would be inappropriate for a Knowledge article, they should be removed." --
150:
The proposed sentence, with its ellipses (... and ...), is not clear: what is the sentence or sentences that are being proposed? Who really knows? The whole proposal needs to be quoted in full in context, not out of context. It needs to be entirely clear, which I don't think it is. Then, after it is
107:
The reference to external links in the phrase "including as an external link" was removed. Then a sentence referring to external links that I had added was removed. Yet there were a number of people in this talk page who expressed concern about the removal of both the phrase and the sentence (more
678:
Let's not edit war over this. I objected and reversed Tony S's reversion because he simply called it "bloody ridiculous" -- which it is not. However, it does appear based on very recent comments by people who had not before participated in the discussion that there is no clear consensus. That is
553:
grounds. The question here isn't whether we allow unreliable information to be used for material about living people. The question is whether we impose a requirement on newspapers that is more stringent here than for articles in general. This is not a straw poll by any means. The discussion has
224:
There seem to be some typographical errors in crucial places in the "proposal" that
Wikidemo quoted (Wily...) and that he and another user are referring to. The language cannot have typographical errors. Please quote a corrected version of what you think the proposal is (in full). Thank you. (I
138:
As none of these three people are administrators, though I think that
Wikidemo has listed himself on the wrong project page list under "administrators", I wonder if administrative guidance as to how to proceed would be helpful here. Otherwise, one is engaging in continuing an edit war that started
764:
The whole sentence this phrase appears in seems to me problematic (as I explained earlier). "partisan websites" is subjective (subject to widely-varying interpretations depending on the point of view of an editor or other user); it is not defined (a link to some
Knowledge article defining what
689:
I called it a "bloody ridiculous edit" because it is one of the stupidest edtis to a policy I can remember. We shouldn't be removing "obscure newspapers", we should be strengthening the clause by including "tabloid newspapers", so that
Knowledge editors are not encouraged to record as fact the
439:. The idea here is not to dig up some small-town paper that wrote about John Doe getting a DUI on a slow news day. If a matter hasn't received widescale attention, we shouldn't be the first place to bring it to widescale attention, that's tabloid journalism and it's not what we should be doing.
176:
policies it seems to me and others who have already commented in earlier parts of this discussion. Re: "A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes
1103:
Earlier suggestion of "fringe" with the reference to "wackier" not helpful; such suggestions are just as potentially subjective as the word "obscure". These tend to be pejorative terms. One needs to provide neutral terms (like "unreliable" and "non-notable" which have clearly-defined
736:
Nevertheless, it appears to me that the sentence that phrase appears in--"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all."--is unwieldy, unclear (lack of definition of adverbs
197:; here edits are being made to the policy project page itself w/o first having put forth a proposal to Knowledge editors (not just readers of this page in the past few days) and without "advertising" it and "soliciting feedback etc." The way that changes are being made in
289:
For further information about how to proceed in making a proposal relating to
Knowledge's editing policies, please see "Category:Knowledge proposals" (can't post Wikified link here, but one can copy the words and use "search" in Knowledge to find the page). Thanks.
192:
There is a formal process for "advertising" a proposal and soliciting feedback etc. Proposals are a separate procedure; they don't just appear on talk pages, they are proposed for the entire
Knowledge community to consider and to discuss. One can edit the
146:
expressed their viewpoints about changes to this policy page (above) in opposition to the proposed changes; they simply have not repeated their objections to the continued attempts to change move forward with these proposals (by one to three people).
267:
As stated earlier, if there are to be such proposals, I still favor re-writing them using the active voice of verbs and the most concise language; I've also added some further references to
Knowledge policies in the following revised example:
818:?) when they provide any sources concerning "derogatory" statements about living persons. In providing any statements about or "points of view" on living persons, whether "derogatory" or positive or neutral, editors must always use both
695:
We can't all be watching this policy all of the time, so don't mistake my absence during the discussion for unhealthiness. If somebody thinks he has consensus and makes a stupid edit, of course I'll jump in and fix it. It's a wiki.
870:, which protects such living persons from editors' inserting or linking to potentially libellous statements or to slanderous material about them using unreliable and unverifiable sources. As I have stated earlier, in my reading of
854:. But if editors are defining various "points of view" on a living person who is also a "well-known public figure", then it seems to me that editors can cite "partisan websites" (those which are not "self-published") as sources,
102:
466:
We are talking about sources, not establishing the notability of the fact. Small town newspapers will likely not establish that a fact is encyclopedic, but it is a reliable source in the event that the fact is encyclopedic. --
1003:
of what is an "obscure newspaper" or an "obscure source" in
Knowledge. The term "obscure" seems subjective and does not have a clearly stated definition in Knowledge. If there were such a definition, one could link to it.
785:
In place of over-prescription using vague terminology and passive-voice constructions in syntax (sentence structure), the project page needs to define very clearly, using unambigious terms and active-voice constructions, how
383:
I have already stated my support of removing the phrase "or in obscure newspapers" in earlier sections of comments above; I also suggested an alternative to the sentence in which it currently appears. (Please scroll up.)
428:
324:
294:
261:
237:
131:, which it does, then you may need to go to a more formal presentation with some guidance from seasoned administrators. People should not be changing the policy statement on the project page back and forth without
445:
765:"partisan" means would be useful if the sentence remains in some form). Does the reference mean that "unreliable" and "unverifiable" "partisan websites" are not citable in biographies of living persons;
254:
951:, not because they are obscure. A small town newspaper will be obscure, but can be perfectly reliable, and a large town newspaper will probably not be obscure, no matter how partisan or extreme it is. --
718:
I'd support adding something like "or newspapers with poor reputations for reliability"; but that's not the same thing as widely read newspapers. Plenty of tabloid newspapers are not at all obscure. --
939:" generally means that sources have written about something. It doesn't mean relevant to the subject of the article, and has nothing to do with reliability. A lot of people have written about the
579:
566:
632:
123:--"consensus" is not a vote; three people (not all of whom participated in this recent discussion) are a miniscule number and that is not a rationale for changing a policy as crucial as
798:
in making statements about living persons that they insert elsewhere in
Knowledge (Knowledge space). When citing "derogatory" statements about living persons who are also "well-known
999:
already (or used to already) state that; "obscure" seems unnecessary. Some of the arguments against the phrase (including my original comments about it--scroll up) point to the
878:(the project page) also pertain to the use of external links throughout Knowledge space (including in the section called "External links"--scroll up to top of this talk page "
489:
459:
503:
471:
362:
304:...agree to remove the phrase "or in obscure newspapers"? It seems to me that there's a consensus on this page for that minor change, if not for all the proposed changes. ā
975:
700:
667:
536:
422:
988:
516:
351:
1116:
1098:
1021:
722:
399:
388:
205:
955:
376:
247:
1008:
920:
894:
558:
929:
336:
218:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1174:
1169:
94:
89:
84:
72:
67:
1161:
59:
782:, which is already linked in the project page. I think that over-prescription in this project page tends to lead to problems and that it has led to problems.
319:
965:
728:
271:
Editors should never use external links to circumvent the goals of this policy. Editors should remove on sight external links to information from
708:
680:
592:
in my discussions; it is core policy. I have been objecting to people's taking out "including as an external link" in SV's August 13 version of
555:
373:
244:
711:
683:
169:
1149:
775:"not be used at all" means must be "removed" or "deleted" on sight if already in Knowledge BLP or other articles or other Knowledge space.
435:
I would disagree to removing that change, especially in regards to negative or controversial information. The idea here is, and should be,
47:
17:
1026:
I don't think that "highly partisan" is any improvement upon "obscure" either, since what is or is not "highly partisan" is also "highly"
749:), and weak (using passive voice of verbs). The sentence in relation to "sources" ("Reliable sources") is ultimately unnecessary because
225:
haven't corrected all of my own typographical errors throughout most recent comments, just some; I got chided for doing so earlier. A
925:
What about "fringe newspapers"? That should cover a few of the wackier ones I would think. We definitely need something there though.
412:, a small town newspaper that won a Pulitzer for covering a state-wide story that larger papers stoppped covering after libel suits.
109:
584:
I do not know why this is here. I don't think that those who object to the phrase "or in obscure newspapers" are trying to "revoke
601:
908:
sends editors to the proper policy pertaining to all
Knowledge space. The phrase "material posted on Knowledge" clearly includes
850:, editors cannot cite "partisan websites" (those which are not "self-published") as sources about living persons, according to
846:. Unless Knowledge editors are defining various "points of view" on a living person who is also a "well-known public figure"--
1013:
Instead of a clear and non-subjective definition of "obscure newspapers" in Knowledge or WP, all one finds in Knowledge is
948:
662:
413:
314:
186:
135:
achieving consensus. They should just leave it the way it was for the longest period of time (that's "stability").
638:
NYScholar's point is a very good one. Obscurity is irrelevant to reliability and verifiability. As I said above,
1079:
1059:
1037:
843:
823:
867:
943:, it's highly notable, but not at all reliable (for example, it regularly writes about continued sightings of
255:
Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons#Focusing discussion. Proposed addition to external link language
152:
673:
640:
172:
and other related information to proposing changes to policies; these proposed changes do impinge on the
1140:
1091:
847:
803:
733:
I wonder if an alternative phrase for "or in obscure newspapers" might be "or in non-notable sources."
299:
38:
856:
as long as they introduce such a source with clear transitions indicating its biases ("point of view")
406:
I support this change because "obscure" is undefined and irrelevant to reliability. A good example is
344:
165:
437:
if you had to dig for it, it doesn't belong in the article, regardless of whether or not it is true
1071:
866:
in making any such statement about the living person. (For related policies and directions, see
568:
985:
697:
576:
996:
593:
113:
658:
419:
408:
310:
1109:
754:
8:
645:
509:
160:
127:. If you want to make a policy change by re-wording the policy in a way that relates to
120:
119:"To amend the page in reference to external links" requires a "consensus" over time--see
838:
already states. If so-called "partisan websites" and "obscure newspapers" are not both
280:
440:
359:
940:
936:
533:
508:
Both Slim and Crockspot: policy was not decided by straw poll, policy was decided by
653:
416:
305:
769:
already states that, and thus the mention here is redundant (as well as unclear).
968:
952:
901:
887:
861:
839:
819:
779:
766:
758:
719:
617:
513:
482:
456:
348:
214:
there was never any consensus to mention external links in any form on this page.
173:
128:
1148:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
624:, where this discussion began. "Obscure" is not clearly defined in relation to
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1113:
1095:
1018:
1005:
917:
891:
649:
629:
500:
468:
396:
385:
291:
258:
234:
202:
178:
1078:, which makes Knowledge liable to such charges legally and which also violate
1087:
1083:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1033:
944:
905:
875:
851:
835:
831:
799:
613:
276:
272:
230:
198:
164:
or extended support (beyond the proposers and one or two other people). See
124:
967:
We allude to the same issue in V. What are the objections to including it?
926:
913:
550:
530:
275:
inappropriate for a Knowledge article. (Such deletions are not subject to
1062:, subject to the additional provisions in the policy re: avoidance of the
886:
Concerning "partisan websites" which are "self-published", information in
648:; however, I have no doubt that it's a reliable source for information on
1105:
1041:
871:
827:
810:. That subsection already contains directions for editors' need to edit
787:
625:
589:
585:
546:
451:
But that would be no more or less true if that DUI were reported in the
1028:
201:
has apparently been putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. --
103:
Regarding the desire "to amend the page in reference to external links"
652:. "Obscure" is so poorly defined that it's just inviting arguments. ā
333:
215:
1086:, as currently stated. (Further guidance pertaining to "well known
1032:
and raises potential violations of neutrality. As already cited in
1075:
1014:
1067:
644:
might be considered "obscure" to people who've never been to
753:
cited in any Knowledge article are to be "non-notable" (non-
481:
to the removal. But we can't decide policy via straw polls.
170:
Knowledge:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?
1048:
are the core policies pertaining and cited in relation to
343:
Support removal. "obscure" has nothing to do with being a
600:
the phrase was removed by other editors in an edit war)--
395:
I support this change. Obscure can still be reliable. --
429:
Do not support the removal of "or in obscure newspapers"
325:
Support removal of the phrase "or in obscure newspapers"
112:, which I linked to above: a guideline that depends on
545:In the case you mention the material is invalid on
995:If "unreliable sources" is what is intended, then
110:WP:Reliable sources#Biographies of living persons
794:in writing biographies of living persons and to
741:--how does one know for sure --and adjectives (
1104:denotations/meanings in Knowledge core policy
874:(core policy), all references to "sources" in
229:to alter ("amend" or "emend") the language of
949:Knowledge:Reliable sources#Extremist sources
233:needs to have correct language, however.) --
18:Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons
690:sensationalist reports of the scandal rags.
772:"with caution" is not a clear directive.
868:WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown
757:), or or "unreliable" or "unverifiable"
253:For the proposal labeled as WilyD's see
158:These proposals do not seem to have any
912:"posted on Knowledge", which includes "
14:
1146:Do not edit the contents of this page.
935:Replying to a lot of points at once. "
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
964:I don't support the removal of this.
608:I think the taking out of the phrase
575:This is worth a heading, at least. --
332:I would tend to support it's removal.
1127:
1057:needs to be entirely consistent with
25:
879:
621:
529:to the removal, per Seraphimblade.
23:
24:
1210:
860:as long as there is no potential
358:Support removal as per the Mouse.
273:self-published or dubious sources
187:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines
1131:
1092:WP:BLP#Well known public figures
848:WP:BLP#Well known public figures
804:WP:BLP#Well known public figures
729:Alternative phrasing suggestions
596:( the sentence that I had added
29:
1080:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
1060:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
1038:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
844:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
824:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
820:reliable and verifiable sources
778:The sentence is redundant with
900:Featuring a prominent link to
166:Knowledge:Consensus#Exceptions
13:
1:
620:. Scroll up to top of page:
181:23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
153:Knowledge talk:External links
7:
1117:18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1099:18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1022:18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1009:18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
989:16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
976:15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
956:15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
930:05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
921:18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
895:18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
723:17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
712:18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
701:16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
684:16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
668:20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
641:The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead
633:18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
580:16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
559:16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
537:16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
517:17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
504:15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
490:15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
472:04:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
460:15:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
446:23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
423:18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
400:04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
389:00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
377:21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
363:20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
352:18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
337:08:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
320:07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
295:05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
262:23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
248:23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
238:23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
219:23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
206:23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
155:(only a "guideline" page).
10:
1215:
345:Knowledge:Reliable source
243:Oh, for heaven's sake!!!
142:A number of people have
1072:defamation of character
997:WP:BLP#Reliable sources
840:reliable and verifiable
594:WP:BLP#Reliable sources
588:"! I have been citing
114:WP:BLP#Reliable sources
285:
1144:of past discussions.
409:The Point Reyes Light
269:
42:of past discussions.
1110:Knowledge:Notability
890:already pertains. --
571:through a straw poll
455:, isn't that so? --
864:or slander involved
759:Knowledge:V#Sources
646:Fargo, North Dakota
510:Knowledge:Consensus
121:Knowledge:Consensus
116:(earlier version).
1001:lack of definition
612:the pertinence of
300:Can we at least...
185:FYI: Quoting from
1202:
1201:
1156:
1155:
1150:current talk page
974:
941:Weekly World News
937:Knowledge:Notable
666:
567:We cannot revoke
488:
444:
318:
281:WP:3RR#Exceptions
139:some months ago.
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1206:
1183:
1158:
1157:
1135:
1134:
1128:
973:
971:
822:in keeping with
656:
487:
485:
443:
308:
168:and its link to
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1179:
1132:
969:
880:#External links
862:Knowledge:Libel
808:what editors do
796:what editors do
792:what editors do
731:
676:
622:#External links
573:
483:
431:
370:Support removal
327:
302:
174:Knowledge:Libel
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1212:
1200:
1199:
1194:
1189:
1184:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1164:
1154:
1153:
1136:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1088:public figures
992:
991:
981:
980:
979:
978:
959:
958:
914:external links
898:
897:
800:public figures
730:
727:
726:
725:
704:
703:
692:
691:
675:
672:
671:
670:
650:Dennis Walaker
602:edit 150900091
572:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
540:
539:
522:
521:
520:
519:
493:
492:
475:
474:
463:
462:
453:New York Times
430:
427:
426:
425:
403:
402:
392:
391:
380:
379:
366:
365:
355:
354:
340:
339:
326:
323:
301:
298:
287:
286:
251:
250:
222:
221:
211:
210:
209:
208:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1211:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1130:
1129:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:of potential
1065:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:Verifiability
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
990:
987:
983:
982:
977:
972:
966:
963:
962:
961:
960:
957:
954:
950:
946:
945:Elvis Presley
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
928:
923:
922:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
896:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
863:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
783:
781:
776:
773:
770:
768:
762:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
734:
724:
721:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
702:
699:
694:
693:
688:
687:
686:
685:
682:
669:
664:
660:
655:
651:
647:
643:
642:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
582:
581:
578:
570:
569:Verifiability
560:
557:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
532:
528:
524:
523:
518:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
502:
498:
495:
494:
491:
486:
480:
477:
476:
473:
470:
465:
464:
461:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
442:
441:Seraphimblade
438:
433:
424:
421:
418:
415:
411:
410:
405:
404:
401:
398:
394:
393:
390:
387:
382:
381:
378:
375:
371:
368:
367:
364:
361:
360:Notmyrealname
357:
356:
353:
350:
346:
342:
341:
338:
335:
331:
330:
329:
322:
321:
316:
312:
307:
297:
296:
293:
284:
282:
278:
274:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
256:
249:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
220:
217:
213:
212:
207:
204:
200:
196:
191:
190:
188:
184:
183:
182:
180:
175:
171:
167:
163:
162:
156:
154:
148:
145:
140:
136:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
115:
111:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1180:
1145:
1139:
1063:
1056:
1027:
1000:
986:Tony Sidaway
924:
909:
899:
888:WP:V#Sources
859:
855:
815:
812:with caution
811:
807:
806:pertains to
795:
791:
784:
780:WP:V#Sources
777:
774:
771:
767:WP:V#Sources
763:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
732:
706:
705:
698:Tony Sidaway
677:
639:
618:WP:V#Sources
609:
605:
597:
583:
577:Tony Sidaway
574:
526:
496:
478:
452:
436:
434:
432:
407:
369:
328:
303:
288:
270:
252:
226:
223:
194:
159:
157:
149:
143:
141:
137:
132:
129:WP:V#Sources
118:
106:
78:
43:
37:
1138:This is an
790:applies to
654:Josiah Rowe
610:does weaken
417:Will Beback
306:Josiah Rowe
36:This is an
1197:ArchiveĀ 15
1192:ArchiveĀ 14
1187:ArchiveĀ 13
1181:ArchiveĀ 12
1175:ArchiveĀ 11
1170:ArchiveĀ 10
1064:appearance
1029:subjective
970:SlimVirgin
953:AnonEMouse
910:everything
751:no sources
720:AnonEMouse
674:Reversions
514:AnonEMouse
484:SlimVirgin
457:AnonEMouse
349:AnonEMouse
95:ArchiveĀ 15
90:ArchiveĀ 14
85:ArchiveĀ 13
79:ArchiveĀ 12
73:ArchiveĀ 11
68:ArchiveĀ 10
1162:ArchiveĀ 5
1114:NYScholar
1096:NYScholar
1019:NYScholar
1006:NYScholar
918:NYScholar
892:NYScholar
816:carefully
630:NYScholar
501:Crockspot
469:Ned Scott
397:Ned Scott
386:NYScholar
292:NYScholar
259:NYScholar
235:NYScholar
203:NYScholar
179:NYScholar
161:consensus
60:ArchiveĀ 5
1090:" is in
902:WP:LIBEL
755:relevant
743:partisan
709:Wikidemo
681:Wikidemo
663:contribs
556:Wikidemo
374:Wikidemo
315:contribs
245:Wikidemo
227:proposal
195:proposal
1141:archive
1108:); cf.
1094:.) --
1076:slander
1015:Obscure
927:Kaldari
747:obscure
606:because
531:ElinorD
144:already
39:archive
1084:WP:POV
1054:WP:BLP
1050:WP:BLP
1046:WP:NOR
1044:, and
1034:WP:BLP
906:WP:BLP
876:WP:BLP
852:WP:POV
836:WP:NOR
832:WP:POV
739:solely
614:WP:BLP
534:(talk)
527:object
497:Object
479:Object
279:; see
277:WP:3RR
231:WP:BLP
199:WP:BLP
125:WP:BLP
1112:. --
1068:libel
830:, as
598:after
551:WP:RS
133:first
16:<
1106:WP:V
1082:and
916:".--
882:").
872:WP:V
858:and
834:and
828:WP:V
826:and
814:(or
788:WP:V
659:talk
626:WP:V
590:WP:V
586:WP:V
549:and
547:WP:V
414:Ā·:Ā·
347:. --
334:Geni
311:talk
216:Geni
1052:.
904:on
802:",
616:to
604:--
420:Ā·:Ā·
1166:ā
1074:,
1070:,
1040:,
1036:,
1004:--
761:.
745:,
696:--
661:ā¢
525:I
384:--
313:ā¢
290:--
283:.)
64:ā
1152:.
737:(
665:)
657:(
317:)
309:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.