1245:" Like above - its not in dispute she wrote the article or what she had to do to research it. That is what journos have to do for a story. Its standard practice." I just want to make it clear that you're saying it's standard practice for a journalist to break the law to get a story? You don't find it in the slightest bit notable that a journalist did exactly the same thing that Pete Townshend did despite the fact that he was arrested and charged? Looking for and watching child pornography is not 'standard practice'.
237:
752:"On the 25th of May 2013 The Daily Mail published a piece written by Amanda Platell entitled "My journey into the hell that is internet child porn". As part of her research Platell accessed illegal sites containing various examples of child abuse. Platell describes a 24 minute video which she watched in which a "sweet-looking girl in her early teens" is abducted and raped "in every possible position, all captured in close-up".
181:
227:
209:
119:
95:
64:
901:
although I do think that using the word 'admitted' is prejudicial, and perhaps it should say 'claimed to have watched' rather than 'admitted to having watched'. Nevertheless, the word 'admitted' is used in a number of reports on the issue, including "Daily Mail
Journalist Amanda Platell Admits Viewing Child Porn For Article, Faces Possible Police Investigation" at the Huffington Post
1261:
the point. Other reliable sources have not seen fit to comment on it, so it doesnt go in. Personally I wouldnt class the huffington post as unreliable, but lots of people on wikipedia do. Especially when it comes to BLPs. You may want to take that one to the
Reliable sources noticeboard and see if it passes there. I have no objection to including it as long as it passes.
129:
1344:
1287:
Furthermore, it has been over a week since the article was published and there has been not a single other piece of reliable reporting on the issue. The
Huffington Post has not followed up on their original claims, they have presented no evidence of any official investigation, no evidence of criminal
1133:
I haven't edited
Knowledge for a while, so it's sad to see that editors are still abusing rules and processes to censor articles. The fact that she was briefly investigated by the police for viewing child porn, for the purposes of an article, is sourced everywhere. It was a well known story. My only
857:
You are reading into things that are not there. Admitted? Well yes she does admit to watching Child pornography for research purposes and I would argue that The Daily Mail's disclaimer at the end highlights the fact that accessing these websites is illegal. Anyway the edit above can be inserted when
1219:
The 'crack down on transgender crime' piece has not been sourced to any third party coverage, it was a piece she wrote which may not have been properly research, but there are no sources (unlike the Hugh Grant story) commenting or raising this as an issue. 'Amanda
Platell writes story on issue' with
665:
The Piece was written by Amanda
Platell. No where in the article does she say she "viewed only long enough to realize it was actually CP" In fact she describes in quite some detail the kidnapping and rape of a teenage girl. It's pretty clear that she, by her own admission sought out the material for
861:
You know that's more than a little hypocrisy and irony in criticizing an article for apparently insinuating wrong doing, while at the same time filing false reports against an editor you're having a disagreement with, then covering it up by removing a sentence calling you out on this from your talk
1260:
Well its a bit naive to think journos dont break the law for a story. If they can get away with it, they will and (attempt to) hide behind freedom of the press. Granted its *amazingly* stupid to do it with something like that. In the UK we are very strict about that sort of thing. But thats beside
835:
Notably, the use of the word "admitted" implies some sort of criminal guilt or wrongdoing on her part, of which has not even been accused, much less convicted. Furthermore, omitting the context of her actions - an investigatory intent to document the ease of access to pedophilic material which she
991:
I have explained to you what I believe is required by our content policies. The mere fact of its publication is not necessarily encyclopedic - Platell has no doubt written many hundreds of articles, the vast majority of which are not mentioned here in any way. Mentioning one and only one of those
948:
other reliable sources mentioning this as an issue. An anonymously-written blog post on
Huffington Post is, quite simply, not anywhere near reliable enough nor significant enough to justify the inclusion of material which may be construed in a significantly derogatory manner. Come back when this
900:
It clearly isn't every day that a journalist writes a story where they claim to have broken such a serious law and cultural taboo - that in itself satisfies any question of notability. The passage removed from the wiki article seemed to be to be a fair and reasonable reflection of the situation,
516:
Then one might write a paragraph discussing the fact that she wrote an article critical of ISPs for failing to block child pornography, etc. and as part of her research, was able to easily find child pornography on the
Internet - which she viewed only long enough to realize it was actually child
443:
The Daily Mail article repeatedly being inserted under the heading "Child
Pornography" is a piece written by Platell describing how easy it is to find child pornography on the Internet, and calling for Internet providers to institute greater restrictions on its availability and for increased law
693:
Oh, The Mail have added the following to the end of the piece written by Amanda "The Daily Mail, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, is reporting these websites to the police. Readers must not access these websites as it is against the law." Another clear admission to
520:
If you think this particular story is encyclopedic (which probably requires that it have been reported on by more than a single source) I would invite you to draft a well-sourced and appropriately-toned rewrite of the section and gain consensus that it is appropriately placed in the article.
1275:
Usually I view the HuffPo as reliable, but the particular post in question is unbylined and hence entirely anonymous. That's not something we generally accept for a reliable source - not bylining something is a sign that someone editorially isn't really willing to stand behind it. Compare
1345:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t6tC1UnZtOwC&pg=RA1-PA32&lpg=RA1-PA32&dq=amanda+platell+william+hague&source=bl&ots=5SYAXTzvuS&sig=ERppPmtbIqbGvIyIixTpmZAwnKE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LHIaU6DYMsqVhQf5q4DoAw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
1229:
So to recap - articles can be included if there is coverage of them by other reliable sources. If there is not, its business as usual and so would be removed/disqualified by any number of policies. The BLP policy certainly applies to anything that would be seen as controversial.
319:
which carries
Platell's regular column. As this amounts to censorship, most of the changes are uncommented and they are by an unregistered user, I feel they should be reverted. If the editor making the changes would like to sign in and comment, that would also be welcome.
1048:
There exists no editorial consensus for the inclusion of any material related to the Daily Mail article in question, given the lack of any reliable sources discussing it. And no, an anonymously-written, unbylined blog post on Huffington Post is not a reliable source.
517:
pornography. One wouldn't write a misrepresentative section entitled "Child Pornography" that had the clear and unacceptable intent of sounding like she endorsed it, participated in it, viewed it for prurient purposes or anything remotely resembling that formulation.
1157:
nor Platell. And if you looked at their contributions, you'd see that they mainly edit articles about things like national parks in the USA, and sports cars in the USA. This information could be useful in correcting assumptions you appear to be making about them.
349:, but the reference to Platell being an "immigrant" obviously breaks NPOV, so I have changed it. The hypocrisy is still clear though, if one wishes to see it, and the introduction will now help users from outside the UK when they stumble over this article.
1086:
You seem to be the only person who has a problem with it...and WTF are you on about with "Steward Hazell"?? I never said the Huff post article was written by him...whoever he is. Since You keep going on about this being "unsourced" here is the article.
975:
I'm STILL waiting for you to explain to me why Amanda's own words are not a reliable source. It's been DAYS and you still trot out the same nonsense regarding the Huff post (who are also reporting on Amanda's very own words) instead of addressing my
1223:
The child porn issue. Like above - its not in dispute she wrote the article or what she had to do to research it. That is what journos have to do for a story. Its standard practice. There are no sources supporting that it has notability as a
1113:
Your belief is noted. I believe, however, that your belief is wrong. What we need is an independent reliable source which makes whatever point it is that you're trying to make about the piece written by Platell and published by the
1178:
How should this be determined? I would start by how wide the coverage from 3rd party sources is regarding any of her articles. If an article draws huge and detailed attention, then it should be discussed her with sources included.
1387:
1220:
primary source for that, followed by a primary source backing up the claim she got info wrong smacks of synthesis & OR to me. I have taken that out pending reliable sourcing to support that story was notable.
1288:
or civil wrongdoing, heck, no evidence that anyone else cares. At this point, the Huffington Post article appears to be nothing more than an attempt to manufacture controversy where there was none to be found.
839:
It would be like writing "On 6 June 1944 American troops invaded France and killed 9,000 defending soldiers." Factually true, yet totally out of context and implies something wholly different than the truth.
741:
Please point out to me why the subject of this entry writing about her own research into the world of child porn, where she graphically details the abduction and rape of a young girl is not reliable sourcing.
1382:
903:], quite a reasonable description of events and possibly of use as a reference. It clearly is a serious situation and it seems odd that it would not be seen as relevant to an article on the subject.
1088:
1033:) 19:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I also removed the other material about trangenders since that didn't seem to be that notable as well. Should the material about Hugh Grant hatchet job go as well? --
972:
You are again ignoring the fact that the person who wrote The Daily Mail piece is Amanda Platell. I'm still waiting for you to explain how her own fucking words are not a reliable source.
424:
Online, I checked the veracity of the story formerly contained in the article. I found it completely wanting: Platell has not written about it and no other reference could be located.
190:
105:
745:
This isn't some 3rd party claiming she did it; it's from the horses mouth so to speak, and confirmed by the Editor of The Daily Mail with their disclaimer at the end of the article.
1392:
666:
the purpose of highlighting the lack of ISP control for research purposes, even though this is still breaking the law. Nothing about the removed line is factually incorrect.
43:
1211:
As a journo she writes many articles. Many many articles. There should be coverage of her work in 3rd party sources for it to merit inclusion. So taking the examples above -
1008:. Until and unless an editorial consensus is developed that the content in question is encyclopedic and in keeping with fundamental policies, it is likely to stay out.
1091:
Note that the tagline says Amanda Platell? And that the article is on the daily mail website? I believe this is sufficient evidence for the inclusion on the article.
1407:
283:
481:
Where in the article did she say anything about looking up on child porn? I haven't the time to look up on it as the article is blocked on my workplace's network.
1089:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2330640/My-journey-hell-internet-child-porn-We-asked-AMANDA-PLATELL-view-websites-twisted-mind-little-Tias-killer.html
726:
to describe the situation as it was. If she is actually arrested and formally accused of a crime, then some contextualized mention of it would be appropriate.
1372:
48:
553:, that material stays out of this article until an editorial consensus is reached that it is encyclopedic, appropriately-represented and properly weighted.
289:
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
1281:
836:
accuses Internet providers of not doing enough to prevent - unacceptably takes facts out of context and implies something wholly different than the truth.
448:
can such an article be used to create the inference that she is at all linked with child pornography. That is a complete twisting of the facts and an
1412:
1402:
1397:
147:
23:
786:
That is not the same text that you reverted into the article earlier. What you have proposed here is a reasonable starting point for discussion.
1377:
804:"On 24th May 2013 The Daily Mail published an article in which Platell admitted to having watched child pornography for research purposes."
616:
failure. I'd suggest that one important criteria for inclusion would be third party coverage. Has anyone else covered Platell's activities? —
259:
1277:
883:
Why is this even in the article? Was this that notable? It seems like undue weight for one article, especially given she is a journalist. --
632:
820:
774:
710:
682:
151:
832:
It is entirely misrepresentative and out-of-context with the source material, and thus not in compliance with Knowledge content policies.
1347:
1311:
1246:
869:
758:
Also nice that you're abusing Knowledge's report system by accusing me of Sockpuppetry. You're not exactly engaging in good faith here.
399:
Generally, that section should be rewritten. I've added the primary sources for the second article, but the tone needs to be dealt with.
155:
992:
articles in a manner that is completely out of context and supported by no external reliable sources is prohibited by, among others,
146:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1216:
The Hugh Grant 'hatchet job' was reported elsewhere, as well as mentioned in the Leveson enquiry. Clearly this is a notable story.
1098:
250:
214:
382:"Is unmarried and without children" that's a bit bitchy for encyclopedia, especially as she has written about being childless.--
535:
No, I think "research purposes" sums it up pretty succinctly. If you want to expand on that go ahead, within reason of course!
491:
142:
100:
924:
demands that when we write about living people, we do so using only the most reputable of sources and with a keen eye toward
330:
I've reinstated these edits, cited a source (more still needed) and generally tidied up the article, adding an infobox, in
1293:
1076:
1054:
1013:
958:
845:
791:
731:
653:
600:
558:
526:
457:
75:
1063:
And no, the blog post was not written by "Stuart Hazell" - showing a complete failure to actually analyze the source.
755:
I have not claimed she was arrested. Nothing I have written is factually incorrect according to Amanda's own writing.
1153:, it says they work for the U.S. federal government, which one would imagine doesn't have much to do with either the
855:
I honestly don't know what the hell you're trying to prove with your rather childish exaggeration at the end there.
567:
I am sorry that it causes you offence, but it is a good addition to the article and it meets all those criteria.
364:
and placed warnings on the user's page. If continues, I'll protect the page from anonymous edits for a spell. --
1310:
How come there's no section on what she did when working for William Hague? Surely she did some notable stuff?
1289:
1150:
1072:
1050:
1030:
1009:
981:
954:
841:
816:
787:
770:
727:
706:
678:
649:
596:
554:
522:
453:
595:
policy about due weight and proper representation of sources. The section you are inserting is none of those.
1250:
940:
source which has been cited as "reporting" on this issue is a short, unbylined, Huffington Post blog post. A
873:
1351:
1315:
1266:
1235:
32:
63:
1330:
1163:
1123:
429:
387:
1026:
977:
812:
766:
702:
674:
633:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/25/daily-mail-journalist-admits-viewing-child-porn_n_3335486.html
1184:
1118:. Not us (or you) looking at the piece itself and saying "it says XYZ, and XYZ is worthy of mention". --
1038:
888:
81:
1102:
1094:
908:
865:
808:
762:
698:
670:
621:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
1135:
1139:
258:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1262:
1231:
404:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
1326:
1159:
1119:
425:
383:
350:
321:
242:
1180:
1034:
884:
639:
572:
540:
507:
472:
365:
335:
134:
1134:
question is, who does ":NorthBySouthBaranof" work for? The Daily Mail or Platell herself?
997:
925:
904:
723:
617:
502:"One video I watched ... It starts with a sweet-looking girl in her early teens," etc etc
39:
648:
So we have a piece written in a tabloid and covered by a blog. That's pretty thin gruel.
929:
482:
315:, the unsigned editor currently making major changes to this article originates in the
180:
1366:
1064:
993:
921:
743:
I'm still waiting and have asked you several times to do so but you refuse to engage.
613:
592:
550:
449:
400:
1005:
933:
1001:
941:
917:
635:
568:
536:
503:
468:
312:
360:
An anonymous user on the NTL ISP domain keeps adding POV edits. I've reverted
118:
94:
1023:
You didn't answer my question. You just spurted out the same tired line again.
316:
255:
232:
226:
208:
124:
950:
612:
I've semi-protected the article given the enormous potential for massive
1355:
1334:
1319:
1297:
1270:
1254:
1239:
1188:
1167:
1143:
1127:
1106:
1080:
1058:
1042:
1017:
985:
962:
912:
892:
877:
849:
824:
795:
778:
735:
714:
686:
657:
643:
625:
604:
576:
562:
544:
530:
511:
497:
476:
461:
433:
408:
391:
368:
353:
338:
324:
154:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
1174:
Which of her articles rise to the level of inclusion in her bio?
920:
requires reliable external sources to support all material, and
1388:
Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
1325:
We could assume so. Have you been able to find any sources? --
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
1071:, and obviously did not write anything for Huffington Post.
179:
801:
Then tell me what is factually incorrect about this edit:
1383:
Stub-Class biography (politics and government) articles
361:
331:
631:
Yes, besides the original Daily Mail article, we have
467:
No, she pretty clearly says she looked up child porn.
311:
According to the current edition (31 August 2007) of
254:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
444:enforcement scrutiny of child pornographers. Under
749:PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS IS MISREPRESENTITIVE
288:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1343:How about the chapter here on 'Project Hague'?
1193:Which of her article(s) should be included?:
8:
1393:Politics and government work group articles
307:Private Eye story on this Knowledge article
203:
89:
61:
922:the Biographies of Living Persons policy
205:
91:
1408:Unknown-importance Journalism articles
191:the politics and government work group
953:and we'll have something to discuss.
7:
722:It is clearly misrepresentative and
551:biographies of living persons policy
248:This article is within the scope of
140:This article is within the scope of
1373:Biography articles of living people
80:It is of interest to the following
14:
1284:today - which is clearly bylined.
1149:Well, if you bothered to look at
1200:Crack down on transgender crime:
268:Knowledge:WikiProject Journalism
235:
225:
207:
127:
117:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
1413:WikiProject Journalism articles
271:Template:WikiProject Journalism
164:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
1403:Stub-Class Journalism articles
1398:WikiProject Biography articles
450:unacceptable misrepresentation
345:I have no connection with the
167:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
1378:Stub-Class biography articles
694:accessing illegal material.
593:biographies of living persons
369:06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
354:16:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
262:and see a list of open tasks.
188:This article is supported by
24:biographies of living persons
409:16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
152:contribute to the discussion
1263:Only in death does duty end
1232:Only in death does duty end
1168:23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
1144:17:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
392:17:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
339:21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
325:18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
36:must be removed immediately
1429:
434:17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
290:project's importance scale
1356:01:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
1335:19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
1320:18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
287:
220:
187:
112:
88:
1298:08:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
1271:07:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
1255:19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
1240:07:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
1189:13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
1128:21:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
1107:14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
1081:18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
1059:18:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
1043:13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
1018:09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
986:08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
963:15:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
918:Our verifiability policy
913:13:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
893:13:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
878:01:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
858:the article is unlocked.
850:20:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
825:19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
796:17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
779:17:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
736:15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
715:13:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
687:12:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
658:15:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
644:11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
626:10:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
605:08:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
577:09:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
563:09:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
545:09:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
531:08:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
512:08:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
498:08:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
477:08:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
462:07:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
934:misrepresenting sources
591:I suggest you read our
106:Politics and Government
1306:Spin for William Hague
251:WikiProject Journalism
184:
70:This article is rated
1197:Hugh Grant hatch job:
183:
143:WikiProject Biography
1069:an admitted murderer
1290:NorthBySouthBaranof
1203:Child porn viewing:
1073:NorthBySouthBaranof
1051:NorthBySouthBaranof
1010:NorthBySouthBaranof
955:NorthBySouthBaranof
842:NorthBySouthBaranof
788:NorthBySouthBaranof
728:NorthBySouthBaranof
650:NorthBySouthBaranof
597:NorthBySouthBaranof
555:NorthBySouthBaranof
523:NorthBySouthBaranof
454:NorthBySouthBaranof
274:Journalism articles
439:Daily Mail article
185:
170:biography articles
76:content assessment
1097:comment added by
868:comment added by
828:
811:comment added by
782:
765:comment added by
718:
701:comment added by
690:
673:comment added by
304:
303:
300:
299:
296:
295:
243:Journalism portal
202:
201:
198:
197:
56:
55:
1420:
1109:
880:
827:
805:
781:
759:
717:
695:
689:
667:
494:
487:
446:no circumstances
276:
275:
272:
269:
266:
245:
240:
239:
238:
229:
222:
221:
211:
204:
172:
171:
168:
165:
162:
148:join the project
137:
135:Biography portal
132:
131:
130:
121:
114:
113:
108:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1363:
1362:
1308:
1176:
1092:
863:
806:
760:
696:
668:
496:
492:
483:
441:
422:
420:Malawian orphan
380:
309:
273:
270:
267:
264:
263:
241:
236:
234:
169:
166:
163:
160:
159:
133:
128:
126:
103:
74:on Knowledge's
71:
12:
11:
5:
1426:
1424:
1416:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1338:
1337:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1285:
1243:
1242:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1151:their userpage
1131:
1130:
1084:
1083:
1061:
1027:Cabbage1233456
1021:
1020:
978:Cabbage1233456
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
856:
853:
852:
837:
833:
813:Cabbage1233456
799:
798:
767:Cabbage1233456
746:
744:
742:
739:
738:
703:Cabbage1233456
675:Cabbage1233456
663:
662:
661:
660:
610:
609:
608:
607:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
518:
490:
452:of the truth.
440:
437:
421:
418:
416:
414:
413:
412:
411:
379:
378:Marital status
376:
374:
372:
371:
362:multiple times
357:
356:
342:
341:
308:
305:
302:
301:
298:
297:
294:
293:
286:
280:
279:
277:
260:the discussion
247:
246:
230:
218:
217:
212:
200:
199:
196:
195:
186:
176:
175:
173:
139:
138:
122:
110:
109:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1425:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1368:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:82.28.223.138
1346:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1312:82.28.223.138
1305:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:89.165.224.57
1241:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1090:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:Stuart Hazell
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
990:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
973:
964:
960:
956:
952:
947:
944:search finds
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
881:
879:
875:
871:
870:89.165.224.57
867:
859:
851:
847:
843:
838:
834:
831:
830:
829:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
802:
797:
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
756:
753:
750:
747:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
659:
655:
651:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
519:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
488:
486:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
438:
436:
435:
431:
427:
419:
417:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
377:
375:
370:
367:
363:
359:
358:
355:
352:
348:
344:
343:
340:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
323:
318:
314:
306:
291:
285:
282:
281:
278:
261:
257:
253:
252:
244:
233:
231:
228:
224:
223:
219:
216:
213:
210:
206:
193:
192:
182:
178:
177:
174:
157:
156:documentation
153:
149:
145:
144:
136:
125:
123:
120:
116:
115:
111:
107:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
1327:Demiurge1000
1309:
1244:
1206:
1192:
1177:
1160:Demiurge1000
1154:
1132:
1120:Demiurge1000
1115:
1093:— Preceding
1085:
1068:
1025:
1022:
974:
971:
945:
937:
926:undue weight
882:
864:— Preceding
860:
854:
807:— Preceding
803:
800:
761:— Preceding
757:
754:
751:
748:
740:
724:undue weight
697:— Preceding
692:
669:— Preceding
664:
611:
484:
445:
442:
426:Philip Cross
423:
415:
384:Pandaplodder
381:
373:
351:Philip Cross
346:
322:LiberalViews
310:
249:
189:
141:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
1181:Malerooster
1035:Malerooster
942:Google News
885:Malerooster
366:Oscarthecat
336:Oscarthecat
313:Private Eye
1367:Categories
1155:Daily Mail
1116:Daily Mail
1099:86.4.160.7
930:neutrality
905:Bonusballs
618:Tom Morris
493:ship's log
317:Daily Mail
265:Journalism
256:journalism
215:Journalism
72:Stub-class
1282:this post
1280:to, say,
1278:that post
1136:Cjmooney9
976:question.
951:The Times
485:hmssolent
332:this edit
161:Biography
101:Biography
40:libellous
1224:subject.
1095:unsigned
998:WP:UNDUE
938:The only
866:unsigned
821:contribs
809:unsigned
775:contribs
763:unsigned
711:contribs
699:unsigned
683:contribs
671:unsigned
549:Per the
401:Hrcolyer
862:page.
994:WP:BLP
949:makes
636:Faulty
614:WP:BLP
569:Faulty
537:Faulty
504:Faulty
469:Faulty
78:scale.
1006:WP:RS
1352:talk
1331:talk
1316:talk
1294:talk
1267:talk
1251:talk
1236:talk
1185:talk
1164:talk
1140:talk
1124:talk
1103:talk
1077:talk
1055:talk
1039:talk
1031:talk
1014:talk
1004:and
1002:WP:V
982:talk
959:talk
946:zero
932:and
909:talk
889:talk
874:talk
846:talk
817:talk
792:talk
771:talk
732:talk
707:talk
679:talk
654:talk
640:talk
622:talk
601:talk
573:talk
559:talk
541:talk
527:talk
508:talk
473:talk
458:talk
430:talk
405:talk
388:talk
347:Mail
334:. --
150:and
1067:is
284:???
29:BLP
1369::
1354:)
1333:)
1318:)
1296:)
1269:)
1253:)
1238:)
1187:)
1179:--
1166:)
1158:--
1142:)
1126:)
1105:)
1079:)
1057:)
1041:)
1016:)
1000:,
996:,
984:)
961:)
936:.
928:,
911:)
891:)
876:)
848:)
823:)
819:•
794:)
777:)
773:•
734:)
713:)
709:•
685:)
681:•
656:)
642:)
624:)
603:)
575:)
561:)
543:)
529:)
510:)
489:\
475:)
460:)
432:)
407:)
390:)
104::
1350:(
1329:(
1314:(
1292:(
1265:(
1249:(
1234:(
1183:(
1162:(
1138:(
1122:(
1101:(
1075:(
1053:(
1037:(
1029:(
1012:(
980:(
957:(
907:(
887:(
872:(
844:(
815:(
790:(
769:(
730:(
705:(
677:(
652:(
638:(
620:(
599:(
571:(
557:(
539:(
525:(
506:(
471:(
456:(
428:(
403:(
386:(
292:.
194:.
158:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
