Talk:Andrea Mitchell - Knowledge (XXG)

2217:

another oft smeared republican, GHWB. was this analogy necessary. why isn't this a howard dean "ahhhh" moment? don't many a failing politician have a memorable falling out? but denying our right to report laughter even happened. just because it was retracted the next day unapologetically, or because one of the "neutral" sources did not make light of it in their recounting of events... you're saying it didn't happen? or though you know it did occur from the videos, you either won't acknowledge, or you decide it's non notable because one site failed to include it in their blurb summary of what took place? so... Romney's speech was worth Andrea pointing out as a classic gaffe at the time, but now that the facts are in, you become wary of us trying to interpret Andrea Mitchell's actual words and laughter for their desired effect? if so, you are inconsistent in your logic. this is what she did... mistake or deliberate, it did occur on (unedited) tape so own it. yes, I called it ironic because she wants to hold Rommey accountable for supposedly recorded words that were quoted severely out of context, yet her recorded words are suddenly excused now, even though they achieved their desired effect.

2772:

Mitchell called this Romney's "supermarket scanner moment" and laughs at Romney's projected stumbling over technology and uses the metaphor to compare to GHWB. Romney was not talking about supermarkets nor scanners, but that does not matter to Mitchell, who herself appears more out of touch with reality than her made-up version of Romney. The clip was verifiably edited (see multiple sources) and in doing so they projected an entirely different message than the original speech. How could this happen to a viable and resourceful news organization unless by intention? Many failed politicians can have memorable downfalls. She uses GHWB as her perfect example. (Republicans look dumb on camera. She didn't say it, but inferred.) Now, next time media quotes someone out of context and gets caught doing so, it will be compared to Andrea Mitchell's Report. Perhaps that's not the reputation she wants, but she deserves it and must own it. She is not noticed for much else lately, so it is fitting that her own self inflicted controversies be included as part of her bio.

2829:". Mostly, it discusses whether or not Romney's optometrist story holds water. That said, it directly says, "...they leapt to condemn MSNBC’s completely reasonable editing of the clip, even as they ignored the glaring lie Romney told in the longer clip." This is not a discussion of whether or not it was "deliberately" taken out of context (the other editor's "not taken out of context deliberately"). This is clearly arguing that it was not taken out of context at all: "it was not taken out of context" is pretty damned straight forward way of saying, "was not taken out of context" (as in my version that says "was not taken out of context"). The remaining portion, "despite all of the evidence to the opposite", is simple soap-boxing, not supported by any of the sources. We could just as easily say "Conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of making Romney appear out of touch by deliberately distorting his comments, despite all of the evidence to the contrary." - 2612:), she is liable for her mistake. I like to hold people accountable for their words. this section is staying. it would be no different from fox news making up false claims and their reputation getting called out on it all the time, or a talk show making up statistics. I get so mad when I see these obvious misrepresentation of fact. you do not need to give her a free pass just because she wears her agenda on her sleeve which attracts more negative attention than you would like, or because she even ran a retraction. she got caught! of course she did a retraction. it's called damage control. and the more damage control you singularly do on her wikipedia page, the more you make it look like a cover up. That's why I said I don't know who she is otherwise. it is the only thing marking her relevance right now. Maybe I have to get out of the house more like you said so that I can expose myself to more ( 3161:"the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently)" Your parenthetical ending to my suggestion has no basis whatsoever. I'm genuinely open to an alternate and appropriate characterization, but you've offered none - merely complete blanking of the section. Her actions have received international attention, and are noteworthy. "Garnered attention" would probably be a generous characterization. The first identified source states, "There were cries of dismay on the internet last night, when an MSNBC anchor cut off congresswoman Jane Harman..." In that sentence, Mitchell is acting party. "Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do..." I don't think they intended any sarcasm there. Nope, I'm sure of they didn't. 1140:) which, quite pointedly, did NOT in ANY way connect this to Mitchell, the subject of this article. "The MSNBC clip feeds into the narrative, beloved by some on the left, that Romney is a 1950′s throwback. After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine. In fact, what Romney found so “amazing” was the discord between private sector innovation and public sector bureaucracy." That's about all it had to say about Michell: She laughed at a clip which, as presented, made Romney look out of touch (seemingly amazed at the "touchtone keypad" touchscreens at Wawa. In fact, the source explained that her laughter was "understandable". 2891:

she would be the one to take Romney to task, give perpetuance to if not invent a new supermarket gaffe outright, then even allude to GHWB for apparent similarities. In that context, her analogy must have to identify Romney's speech as having been taken out of context as well, however, this is markedly inconsistent with her being the one taking Romney out of context (whether deliberately or otherwise, you and I may disagree). If she thinks there are parallels between Romney and GHWB's supermarket moments, and she defends GHWB, but laughs at Romney, then apparently she'll argue whichever side of the same point if it's convenient. It is no wonder that you say I shouldn't try to pin down her motive, she is really mixed up.

1609:

led to believe" anything. Mitchell took responsibility for her own broadcast the following day and stood behind it, she didn't say the show aired in her name mislead her. Bozell's comments were broadcast on Fox news and his verbatim words are sourced in the ref from Fox, not Newsmax. Newsmax was given only as a source for the video, a primary source which Fox and Huffpost also provide. Likewise for politico. It is a redundant source supporting soopermexican's credit for revealing the scandal. The Washington Post says the same thing. Given your distaste for these unnecessary sources I will remove them. The are unnecessary as supoprts for the text as it stands.

924: 903: 2361:) and your unsourced claims regarding intent and what you feel the absence of evidence is evidence of are all moot points. We do not have reliable sources saying "She must appologize!" We do not have reliable sources saying that it was deliberately misleading. We do not have reliable sources saying that absence of evidence is evidence that she is the evil spawn of Satan intent on destroying all that is right and good with the world (a.k.a. Romney). What we have is a section that started out as a 712: 681: 2620:). i certainly don't want to be that guy that edits a wikipedia page 25 times in one day just to make myself feel like I'm the only one who's right around here. wiki is supposed to be a neutral consensus, and you are running it like it's your own. that is not what it is intended for. let's report the whole truth, and not give her or msnbc the benefit of the doubt. this is a repeat offense for both parties, and if you think it wasn't deliberate, then you are giving her way too much leeway. 3278:, who's already been blocked once for BLP violations, has repeatedly added a subsection to the "Controversies" section dealing with leaked private emails between Mitchell and Colin Powell. None of the cited sources report any actual controversy regarding the matter, and none substantively criticize Mitchell's comments or link them to any improper behaviour. This is just a crude attempt to smear a journalist Redtobelieve apparently has a low opinion of, and clearly violates 855: 350: 613: 592: 867: 815: 413: 508: 487: 722: 518: 827: 403: 382: 288: 264: 233: 2574:

fact check all of the news that fits into that show? Really? "...this section...is apparently her claim to fame."? Yeah, I'm sure. That's why we have so many independent reliable sources about her that predate this "controversy" that barely involves her. "If she weren't so controversial, I wouldn't know who she is." You might need to get out of the house more. -

3083:(emphasis mine). Throughout the piece: "... a news channel interrupts...", "...MSNBC interrupted...", "...so they could...", it's all MSNBC until the snark comes out: "...anchor Andrea Mitchell said without a hint of irony, casually chipping away at the dignity of news reporting with a pick axe moulded from the sharp, shattered discards of our national soul." 1507:: "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" You have to read between the lines here... actually, you have to get loaded up on scotch, get in a creative mood and read something else entirely. That's the only time Mitchell is mentioned. Still, it cited for her "misrepresenting", which it does not say she did. 1240:"dishonestly" played it? What planet did that take place on? Yes, she was on the show the video was played on. And she did it for what reason? It's amazing how you've gotten into her mind and read her motives. Her lead it was deliberately misleading? My, but you do have a creative streak. I know you doubt it will completely go away, but that's a moot point. - 2553:

intentions, or her employer did. either way, she shouldn't be reporting on the news because she has a responsibility and she doesn't fact check. This isn't her first controversy, either. You want to delete this section, but it is apparently her claim to fame. If she weren't so controversial, I might not know who she is.

298: 1221:

presentation of the material was done to make Romney look out of touch with the average person and her comments leading into the presentation make this clear. Mitchell has not appologized for the deliberately misleading lead-in into the presentation. I doubt that this is going to completley go away.

3236:

This issue was briefly mentioned in various blogs on one day, most of which did not attach any supposed controversy to Mitchell. This leaves us with one blog making sarcastic comments tying it to her. That is not a meaningful event in Mitchell's career. If that coverage is sufficient, we have a whole

3107:

The sources so far put this in MSNBC's lap. Those who see this as a "controversy" about Mitchell apparently think Mitchell controls MSNBC, expecting her to weigh the orders from the network coming through on her earpiece against her assessment of the situation, based on the detailed information given

2747:

The claim: "The edited clip was made to appear as though Romney was amazed by fairly standard technology at a local Wawa convenience store." Fact: Changing this from "The edited clip made it appear..." inserts the idea that this was the intent of those who edited the clip. None of the sources support

2410:

That's a great idea! I'll have to get the rest of the anti-Romney cabal together for a good old fashioned history editing party. After all, we can't let the record reflect that Michell aired a clip and understandably laughed at it. I'll head on down to the WaWas and use the touchtone keypads to order

1130:

No question the scandal exists? Sure, the newsbusters blog calls it a scandal. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, that is not a reliable source and one blog calling something a scandal is meaningless. Now let's look at the rest of those

2890:

I do not watch msnbc, but I recently came across more video research indicating that Mitchell had, as recently as February, defended GHWB's supermarket scanner moment to Chris Matthews, as though he had merely been subjected to misconceptions that followed him unfairly! I find it strange, then, that

2867:

I do not claim to know Mitchell's intent. We do not weigh evidence and determine intent. My logical, scientific interpretation is that we should represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Your guesses as

2786:

Your "interpretation of (her) intent" is just great, but has no place in this article. We do not have any way of knowing what she intended and your interpretation is simply not relevant. You've decided that it MUST be either deliberate or careless. That you can think of no other explanation is moot.

2216:

you remove Mitchell's alleged laughter -by the dubious claim that it doesn't even exist in her report or isn't worth noting- then you are removing her laughter from the context of Romney's being ridiculed (which was quite apparently the solely desired effect of the clip). she even made reference to

1151:

get to "Mitchell came under criticism and ridicule for presenting a flagrantly dishonest edit of comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him." We have several charges here: "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell, "a flagrantly dishonest edit" (somehow involving

1143:

Next, we have a copyright violation at youtube. As repeatedly discussed with various user names trying to foist "scandals" reported at newsbusters, Knowledge (XXG) does not knowingly link to copyright violations and the content of a news report does not demonstrate that there was a controversy about

2573:

of the sources say anything of the sort. In fact, we know the clip came from another show entirely. "...she...had malicious intentions..."? This is an unsourced, libelous claim. "...she shouldn't be reporting the news because she doesn't fact check."? This one is hilarious! You expect ONE PERSON to

2032:

You did not address my first two sentences regarding you previous comment, they are factual statements backed up by the sources and not my opinion. Only the last sentence is my opinion, but c'mon, are you really defending her actions here? I've not seen anyone in the media defend what she did, at

1608:

Your sarcastic emotional tone and suggestion I abuse drugs is not well taken and it won't look good if this goes to administration. "Misrepresent" and "invent" are verbatim from the sources. The current wording is perfectly neutral and verifiable--we agree no verifiable source says she "had been

1550:

is also cited as a source for the name of the blog. Politico, BTW, says only one thing about Mitchell (the topic of this article), "After the clip cut, Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza broke out into laughter — which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that

3025:

for interrupting and breaking away from an interview with former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), speaking on the topic of NSA spying, to report the breaking news of a Justin Bieber court hearing on charges related to a possible drunk drag racing incident." (emphasis mine) No, in the source cited

2131:

I don't know what you are on about. The reference is added to support the fact that the supposed gaffe was invented by the editing--not the fact that she laughed at the gaffe, which is evident from the primary source of the video and requires no separate source. Given the rewording by Canoe1967 I

1991:

AM did not address the controversy, or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong. She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment. I am actually quite suprised that AM has not yet done a Mea Culpa on this

1514:

article? It's also used for the rest of the sentence right after "misrepresenting", supposedly in support of what she supposedly misrepresented: "comments made by Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania and then mocking him for the invented gaffe." All of that from "On her show today Andrea

1160:

that mentions or alludes to Mitchell: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Now, do we have "criticism and ridicule" of Mitchell? No, we have criticism of NBC. Do we have "a flagrantly dishonest edit"

2507:

SummerPhd, Believe what you want to about your sacred Mitchell. No apology was made by her that I know of, so it is impossible for you to assume whether she deliberately manipulated the clip or if she was just that negligent in reporting the news. Either way, if she's not sorry she did it, she's

1358:

That she has been criticized is not a contentious claim about her. No one denies she has been, not evene her when she issued her correction the following night. Calling her a liar directly might be, but saying that others have criticized her when they have criticized her is simple fact. If you

1313:

Some of the he above comments are quite emotional. You cannot remove an entire section by complaining that youtube is not a reliable source for a video which is open for all to see. (We also cannot assume that the material was posted without permission, but in any case the fact that Beck mocked

2852:

You are making up some claims that Mitchell's intention was never to mock or laugh at Romney, depsite recorded evidence to the opposite. I missed her point, then. What was it? Not to make a mockery? You tell me what her objectives are, I'd love to hear your logical scientific interpretation.

2905:

Your opinion of Mitchell remains moot. The comparison between the two seems to be based on 1) commonplace technology 2) seemingly being unfamiliar to a presidential candidate. That's it. Nothing more. This is not about Mitchell's opinion of Romney or Bush. It's about two situations that seem to

3184:

is a "controversy". I didn't offer a "different characterization" because something using five blog sources, all of them on the same day, do not show a significant aspect of her career for a biography. I didn't offer a "different characterization" because 4 of those 5 sources don't support the

2771:

What is your logical interpretation of what the intent was of those who edited the clip? Whether intended deliberately or delivered carelessly or some combination of the two may be dubious to you but it must be one or the other. Mitchell makes clear enough what her own intentions are. Andrea

2692:

I did not redact all of your claims. I redacted your unsourced contentious claims regarding a living person. "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be

1737:

The consensus opposes the view that this section should be deleted, or, barring that, references to the reason for the controversy be deleted in favor of just mentioning that Mitchell aired a show. I have restored the verbatim "misreprent" and "invent" so that readers will know why there is a

3336:

Hullaballoo states on one of his reversals that she thinks Trump is awful just like many people - but the email and the other comments were about overtly leading viewers to her desired outlook - PUNDIT - 1st with an email to Powell about endorsing Clinton, or ways the RNC can use the rules to

2552:

You don't see the irony? Andrea Mitchell wanted to point out someone's gaffe. The bigger gaffe is one which was manufactured by her, and her employer. You've never heard of guilt by association? You're giving her a free pass for some reason, but it is clear to me that she either had malicious

1220:

Whether or not this should be included is open for debate, however there are some aspects that are factual and have been reported. Mitchell dishonestly played an edited video in order to make Romney's "suprise" regarding Wawa similar to that against GHWB's "shopping scanner" incident. Her

1262:

So you are saying that she is completely innocent of anything on her show, that she is little more than a paid prop to read a teleprompter? I didn't get into her mind, there are many sources that point out her dishonest reporting. I am a little suprised that you would defend this kind of

2947:

It seems the old one was deleted from commons. I went through flickr and this was the best I could find. I did crop it to make it fit the infobox better. The flickr user had cropped it before that from a larger image. Feel free to overwrite the file in commons if anyone finds a better

2033:

most it has been ignored, but all that have commented on it have come to the same conclusion. AM aired a deceptively edited video designed to make Romney look out of touch or like an imbecile, and she did not appologize or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong in the least.

3052:): "So, Mitchell did what any sane person in her position would do and interrupted Congresswoman Harman in the middle of her sentence so that she could throw coverage to Miami, where Justin Bieber was in front of a judge to face his charges, including resisting arrest." 1711:

to add to this or claim that the sources I've cited do not say what I am claiming, I am more than willing to listen. If you post further claims without specifically citing the sources for each portion of your claim, I will simply reply that your addition is uncited. -

2342:

Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. If she really had nothing to do with it then why has she yet to appologize or even acknowledge that it was misleading and done with the intent to make Romney look like an inbecile? Her non-action speaks quite loudly.

2441:

with regards to AM comments? Are supposedly neutral reporters supposed to bust into laughter when presented with something that they think makes the subject look like a moron? I'll remember to look for those reports of Obama's gaffes by AM in the future.

2677:, but nevertheless is true. when you cited the Biographies of Living Persons, are you referring to the neutral point of view? please be specific... i have read the whole policy and do not understand which details you are correctly adhering to that I am not. 2567:(edit conflict)I see that you think there is irony. What is truly ironic is the way you are creating facts to support your claim that Mitchell is being somehow dishonest. "Mitchell wanted..."? How do you know what she wanted? "...manufactured by her..."? 3337:

overturn the Republican Primary voters, we can guess that she only wrote to Powell and was not making these same comments to everyone she knew - then with the 'gaffe' issue I just found - all leads to Clinton declaring that Mitchell is her kind of woman

1114:

I have added some sources for the criticism and ridicule Mitchell has come under for the incident. There is no question it exists. That some sources may not be reliable for some material hardly impeaches words verifiable in print and video.

1938:

There is no consensus for your changes or interpretation. Your calls for discussion after having deleted the section wholesale seem inconsistent. In any case, you have read mine and Arzel's comments above. I remind you the show is called

1314:

Mitchell is indisputable.) If editors have problems with the wording, they should feel free to work on it. But wholesale repeated deletions for different excuses each time is edit warring and I intend to report the behavior if it repeats.

1193:

Please note that the use of a newsbusters blogging "Controversy!" aimed at NBC with claims that the existence of video of a news report supports that the report was "controversial" has been repeatedly discussed elsewhere. See, for example

1992:

since the deception is clear and she has yet to even note that what she did was wrong. But then I suppose since Romney is a Republican there is little outcry from most of the media to even note just how blatently biased her report was.

3037:, the editor is "open to a different characterization" (so long as it lays this at Mitchell's feet, apparently). The new sources include the Huffington Post coverage (above) that detracts from the claim it is cited to support. 1521:

is now used to source, "The clip". Again, all it says about Mitchell (the topic of this article) is "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday

2270:

for "she mocked presidential candidate Mitt Romney" does not say she mocked anyone. The only thing Mitchell does in the source is "(suppose) that the comments could be Romney’s 'supermarket scanner moment.'" Discuss. -

2107:

thing this particular source says about Mitchell is, "On her show today Andrea Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" There is nothing remotely related to what the source is cited for. -

153: 2982:

Chief Foreign Correspondent is out in the field - he is their lead overseas correspondent, working from wherever the news is. Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent analyzes foreign affairs, usually from home base.

2058:

did anything wrong. Claim: I did not address "She said that the RNC noted that Romney had more to say about the visit so she aired a few more seconds of the visit without any comment." Fact: What's to address? -

1830:

was widely criticized. The first three sources clearly single out MSNBC, NOT Mitchell. Of the numerous sources presented in the contentious history of this claimed controversy, that last source, Fox News, is the

3543: 364: 1161:(somehow involving Mitchell)? No, we have "manipulated video" that she OHMYGOD! "played". Do we have her "mocking" Romney? No, the closest we have is in the Politico source where she "broke out into laughter -- 1468:

Briefly Addresses Controversy". This, remember, is in support of the claim that the controversy was about Mitchell... somehow. "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell briefly addressed a controversy on Tuesday about the way

3323:

So here we can start to document a 4th source that document Mitchell is straying from a journalist towards a pundit or worse...calling a prepared speach that was used on a previous day to Jewish supporters a

840: 691: 3179:

offered lay this at the network's feet. Thus, in trying to tie this "controversy" to Mitchell you pulled it away from her. Yeah, I get it. Some editors dislike this, that or the other journalist. To them,

3221:

Also, just as I don't intend to lay it at her feet, I don't dislike this journalist. Editing this article will go better if you wouldn't keep ascribing non-existent bad faith motives to me. Thanks! :)

1039:

Andrea Mitchell, a 1963 graduate of New Rochelle (NY) High School was an accomplished second alto who performed as a soloist with the NRHS 'A' Choir, and was a member of Double Octet and All State Choir.

1165:". I'd give this a little bit of time for the current user name using newsbusters to respond before yanking this, but it is currently a contentious claim regarding a living person. I am removing it, per 2010:

believe "what she did was wrong", the "deception is clear", liberal bias in the media, etc. are all moot points with no relation whatsoever to what we should or should not include in this article. -

3538: 1965:

did somehow applies to her because of the name of the show. Please discuss this in the two "Dubious" sections above. Additionally, please explain what you feel this section gets wrong or omits,

1499:: "...one of its highest-profile news anchors played manipulated video that made Mitt Romney appear out of touch with everyday voters..." Wow! Such naked aggression! The venom! She "played" it! 3593: 2154:

idea of her attacking him, it is not in the source. As you have not responded to the other two "dubious" tags (detailed above), should we assume you agree with the analysis presented there? -

653: 1487:

showed..." OHMYGOD! THERE IT IS! THE SMOKING GUN! SHE @#$ %ING "SHOWED" THE CLIP! Really? How, um, presenter-ish of her. "The pushback was swift, as conservatives and media writers accused

3608: 752: 359: 274: 3308:

3rd not a controversy and partial Copyip - well this may be valid point but it would call for an edit not a removal - he removed a 3rd but claimed an exemption for the 3 time edit rule

629: 3100:(emphasis mine) Going deep undercover: "...an MSNBC anchor cut off..." (not exactly "sources close to Kissinger" here...), "...host Andrea Mitchell said..." (demoted from "anchor"?). 212: 3633: 885: 769: 3618: 3588: 845: 3548: 620: 597: 1738:

scandal. I changed "for misrepresenting" (fact) to "as having misrepresented" (criticism). I have fixed the Wawa piping. The last two sentences are abrupt and need work.

3638: 1277:

You are reading into what I said. I did not say what you think I said. I said that you are reading into what the sources said. They do not say what you think they say. -

663: 147: 3497:

What’s happening to restore our postal service. We have counted on prompt service all our lives and have been disappointed that the Trump slow do has not been restored.

1689:

Again, with sourcing for everything, and limiting ourselves to material about Mitchell (the subject of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire

3439: 3435: 3421: 3098: 2396:

That is quite Orwellian logic you are spinning here. I suppose by next week it would have not even happened on her show and by the week after that not even on MSNBC.

2307:

later played the full clip. Much of the discussion here defending strongly worded edits (ironically taking words from sources out of context) has hinged on claims that

974: 805: 574: 3623: 1642:

you to take this to whatever board you would like. I'd suggest either the BLP board or the reliable sources board. Hell, knock yourself out and go for an admin board.

1336:.) The video does not make a reasonable claim of copyright permission. In fact, it makes no claim at all. So, we're supposed to assume it is a copyright violation. - 2267: 1891: 1818: 1690: 1563: 1537: 1432: 217: 3653: 3628: 3603: 3578: 1655:"Misrepresents Romney Speech". This article is not about MSNBC. Saying Mitchell "misrepresented" anything in an unsourced contentious claim about a living person. 964: 795: 564: 3066:(emphasis mine) The closest to a "controversy" involving Mitchell here is "...announced Andrea Mitchell, the MSNBC news anchor, interrupting the congresswoman." 2508:

probably sorry that she got caught. Let's stop protecting her with assumptions that she "allegedly" didn't know what she was doing. It's only her job to know!

759: 469: 3613: 1544:, saying which blog first reported this. Still nothing about Mitchell, though. Credit where credit is due: this source actually says what it is cited as saying. 3329: 880: 695: 79: 2365:

poorly sourced attack on Mitchell for is now seems to be barely related to her in any way. She aired a clip from another show and "broke out into laughter --

1562:

In summary, from the sources above, after limiting the discussion to Mitchell (the topic of this article), we have, "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire

1554: 3528: 3663: 3643: 3583: 3563: 459: 200:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 1624:

I have removed the politico and newsmax sources as redundant, added the date of the incident and clarified the allusion to the GHWB super market scanner.

940: 764: 540: 2231:

You repeated refer to the "desired effect". None of the sources discuss Mitchell's intentions or desires. That you feel her motives are obvious is moot.

2300:"Mitchell...broke out into laughter -- which is understandable, given that they both had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." 316: 192: 3081: 2787:

Your ideas of her "projection", what matters to her, "inferred" (ironically, you inferred that she implied it), what she "deserves", etc. are all your

3297:

Well Hullaballoo who has been treated like dirt by administrators sing 2006 for some unknown reason object to the Mitchell update for several reasons:

2967:

Andrea Mitchell is NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent. Richard Engel is NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent. Is there a difference? Does anyone know?

1547: 3342: 3568: 435: 85: 3648: 3598: 3573: 3553: 1157: 44: 1839:, specifically and directly exonerated Mitchell. After I pointed this out, that source was removed. In a fair and balanced kinda way. Discuss. - 320: 1903: 1824: 1820: 1702: 1575: 1518: 1496: 1440: 931: 908: 735: 686: 531: 492: 3506: 3305:

2nd only Fox New which has Snarky Bias reports, only one news source not controversy - well I added a 3rd RS Daily Mail - additional RS check

1515:

Mitchell dubbed the incident Romney's 'super market scanner moment.'" Amazing. Before gulping down the scotch, fire up a few bowls, i guess.

3558: 30: 1707:

Should you choose to ignore this suggestion, I will replace your section with it. If you would like to specifically cite reliable sources

315:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3658: 3533: 2298:

It now turns out that Mitchell had virtually nothing to do with the clip. She played it, apparently unaware that it was out of context (

1757:

The claim: "After a June 18, 2012 segment on her show Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell came under criticism as having misrepresented...

1905:" There still have not been any comments on this suggestion. Does it misrepresent any of the sources? Which ones and how? Is there any 426: 387: 3185:

content you were adding. This isn't about how to "characterize" it. This is about the material simply not belonging in the article. -

2522:

You believe she deliberately manipulated a clip, gave it to the earlier show, then used it on her show? Wow, that's one busy woman! -

1385:. The section contained numerous contentious claims about a living person which were not cited to reliable sources. Discussion of the 747: 324: 2906:

indicate a candidate is out of touch with John and Jane Smith. Your interpretation here is similar to the "controversy" discussed in

311: 269: 99: 3282:. In addition, all but the closing sentence is essentially cut-and-pasted from a Fox News page, making this text a copyvio as well. 3207:"This is about the material simply not belonging in the article." Oh... that's what this is about. Do you care to offer a reason? 2968: 1328:

I cannot remove an entire section of poorly sourced material making a contentious claim about a living person? Quite the contrary.

1076: 104: 20: 2821:

The claim: "Others said Romney was not taken out of context deliberately, despite all of the evidence to the opposite." Fact: The

1947:

her second-day clarification implies she takes full responsibility for her actions. Please update us when you find such a source.

2457: 2372: 2301: 1760:" Fact: The source does NOT say Mitchell misrepresented anything, nor does it say that anyone made that claim. The source says, " 1674: 1137: 743:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

2596:

No, I don't expect Mitchell to be at every single stump speech or to digest all its material correctly all the time. But since (

74: 3287: 3014:

Interrupt An NSA Discussion With Breaking Bieber News: We would LOVE to know what was going on in Andrea Mitchell's head when

2826: 2103:" Fact: The source cited does not say Mitchell "laughed at him". In fact, the source cited doesn't even mention laughter. The 244: 168: 3330:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2016/09/14/trump-campaign-chief-calls-out-andrea-mitchell-excusing-hillarys

3019: 2913:

In any case, you have not defended the claim that "despite all of the evidence to the opposite" is sourced or sourceable. -

2822: 2305: 2048: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1822: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1525: 1453: 135: 65: 999:

Not much info on her career, just incidents. The background info isn'r enough. Please improve this article. thanks. -Alan

539:-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 3391: 3482: 2179:

I have fixed Canoe1967's edit inserting MSNBC since it implied MSNBC had laughed at Romeny, not Mitchell and her guest.

2098: 1758: 1646: 1502: 1835:

source that clearly states Mitchell was criticized. All of the rest clearly hang this on MSNBC. The Politico source,

1686:

Newsbusters, as repeatedly discussed on numerous talk pages and the reliable sources noticeboard, is not usable here.

1415:

I have added the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Huffington Post and New York magazine as sources to the article.

1677:, which you have now strangely decided to remove, directly says, "Mitchell and MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza ... 1359:

think liberal papers like the WaPo, Atlantic, HuffPo and NYMagazine don't reflect a balanced set of sources you can

3283: 625: 3373: 3343:

http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/clinton-to-andrea-mitchell-you-re-my-kind-of-woman-760418371559

923: 902: 201: 109: 1099: 1084: 129: 3438:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3510: 3302:

1st not RS - well it has been on DCLeaks for several months, but I did not add till Fox News Reports - RS Check

3010:

cited only the Huffington Post coverage which quite clearly laid the "blame" on the network: "Andrea Mitchell

1493:..." but they, um, forgot to accuse Mitchell? Then on to the second bit, that you haven't seen fit to mention. 250: 3473: 3365: 872: 125: 2663:

Please don't redact all my claims. All I said was, in theory, that I might not want to "expose myself to

1364: 55: 3457:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3445: 2972: 1195: 1061: 939:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

936: 628:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

434:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3364:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3275: 175: 70: 3021:(emphasis mine). The text added to the article, however, was directed at Mitchell: "In January, 2014, 3412: 1095: 1080: 727: 523: 211:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 2892: 2854: 2773: 2678: 2621: 2554: 2509: 2218: 232: 3250: 3198: 3152: 3121: 2953: 2926: 2896: 2881: 2858: 2842: 2804: 2777: 2761: 2718: 2682: 2654: 2625: 2587: 2558: 2535: 2513: 2492: 2424: 2387: 2332: 2284: 2248: 2222: 2207: 2167: 2121: 2072: 2023: 1982: 1928: 1875: 1852: 1802: 1779: 1725: 1590: 1402: 1349: 1290: 1253: 1211: 1182: 161: 2825:

says, "Others defended the edit, saying it was not taken out of context." That sentence links to "

1475:

had edited a clip of Mitt Romney." Yes, it's all so clear now... "The network came under fire for

3385: 3227: 3212: 3166: 215:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 3442:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1094:

I did find sources but I didn't see the quote of what she originally said so it was left out. --

711: 680: 208: 3458: 3271:

Phony claim of "controversy" VS Actual Claim of Documented "BIAS" - somehow not a 'controversy'

349: 832: 418: 51: 3136:

had her receiving "fierce criticism" and another IP edit warring and making a personal attack

141: 2184: 2137: 1952: 1743: 1629: 1614: 1420: 1372: 1319: 1120: 1057: 303: 3465: 3279: 2788: 2698: 2672: 2666: 2636: 2615: 2607: 2599: 1382: 1333: 1329: 1166: 3357: 3284:

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.

2907: 2447: 2401: 2348: 2311:

was or did this, that or the other thing. It now turns out the video did not originate on

2038: 1997: 1268: 1226: 1003: 612: 591: 24: 1789:

As there has been no response, I've fixed this to match what the sources actually say. -

1030:

What relevance is it to put it in the infobox? It's not there for other TV journalists.

2047:

They are not "factual". Claim: "AM did not address the controversy". Fact: Yes, she did.

1899:

Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store,

1698:

Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store,

1571:

Mitchell, who had been led to believe Romney was wowed a machine at a convenience store,

854: 814: 3424:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3238: 3186: 3140: 3109: 2991: 2949: 2914: 2869: 2830: 2792: 2749: 2706: 2642: 2575: 2523: 2480: 2412: 2375: 2357:

Your refusal to believe what a reliable source reports (that it did not originate with

2320: 2272: 2236: 2195: 2155: 2109: 2060: 2011: 1970: 1916: 1863: 1840: 1790: 1767: 1713: 1578: 1390: 1337: 1278: 1241: 1199: 1170: 1011: 3464:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3431: 3392:

http://nrhs.nred.org/site_res_view_folder.aspx?id=f48013ee-45f7-4e7b-a618-7cdecf8ecaac

3133:

Correction: I now see earlier unsourced versions. An unsourced IP addition to the lede

3018:

to cut off a discussion about the NSA for breaking news about Justin Bieber's arrest."

2232: 1450:

thing the article says about Mitchell (remember her? she's the topic of this article).

507: 486: 3522: 3223: 3208: 3162: 1896:

in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters.

1695:

in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters.

1568:

in such a way that it appeared that Mitt Romney is not in touch with everyday voters.

1031: 740: 536: 2050:

Claim: "or even acknowledge that she did anything wrong." Fact: Reliable sources do

826: 2100:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/msnbc-misquotes-romney-invents-wawa-gaffe.html

1673:"agree that no verifiable source says she 'had been led to believe' anything". The 2194:

I've fixed your "fix" as the source does not say that anyone laughed at anyone. -

2910:. She says, "People think X" and it gets twisted into "Andrea Mitchell thinks X". 2371:, given (she) had been led to believe that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." 3064: 2476: 2180: 2133: 1948: 1739: 1625: 1610: 1551:

Romney was wowed by a simple machine." Curiously, you neglected to mention that.

1416: 1368: 1315: 1116: 1049: 3374:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001021/http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680

2705:, applies to articles as well as "talk" pages and is not open to discussion. - 2304:), laughed and, in response to accusations by "conservatives and media writers" 287: 263: 3430:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3316: 3026:

she did not have a choice, was not criticized and there was no "controversy".

2443: 2397: 2344: 2034: 1993: 1264: 1222: 862: 822: 717: 513: 431: 408: 402: 381: 293: 2985: 739:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 2868:

to what her objectives are and weighing of the evidence are immaterial. -

2459:

Interesting fact: That source was originally tortured into supporting the

1481:

comments..." Hmm, they forgot all about Mitchell's treachery... "The clip

3044:

Next up is a snarky blog post from philly.com (whose owner also controls

1152:

Mitchell, the topic of this article) and "mocking him" (Romney). Here is

1053: 3514: 3487: 3291: 3254: 3231: 3216: 3202: 3170: 3156: 3125: 2995: 2976: 2957: 2930: 2900: 2885: 2862: 2846: 2808: 2781: 2765: 2722: 2686: 2658: 2629: 2591: 2562: 2539: 2517: 2496: 2451: 2428: 2405: 2391: 2352: 2336: 2288: 2252: 2226: 2211: 2188: 2171: 2141: 2125: 2076: 2042: 2027: 2001: 1986: 1956: 1932: 1879: 1856: 1806: 1783: 1747: 1729: 1633: 1618: 1594: 1424: 1406: 1376: 1353: 1323: 1294: 1272: 1257: 1230: 1215: 1186: 1124: 1103: 1088: 1079:. I am removing it and it can be restored when or if it gets sourced. -- 1065: 1034: 1014: 1006: 3377: 3237:

lot of similarly sourcable bits and pieces to add to this article. -

2604:), and since she is getting paid to interpret speeches, and decides ( 1446:

opens with the follow up you've failed to note. In fact, that's the

2827:

Inconvenient Untruth: Mitt Romney’s ‘Wawas’ Story Was A Big Fat Lie

323:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 1915:

missing? What and which sources present the material? Comments? -

2097:

The claim: "(Mitchell) laugh(ed) at him for the invented gaffe.

3059:

RT.com (I don't know who this is) is next with "Unbebiebable!

1766:

Misrepresents Romney Speech, Invents Wawa ‘Gaffe’". Discuss.-

226: 207:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

184: 15: 3097:

congresswoman during NSA interview for important Bieber news"

1890:

I have suggested: ""MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell came under fire

1332:(BLP violations are, in fact, the only specific exception to 3397:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2475:" that source was removed as "redundant" by your associate, 2463:. When I pointed out that the source said her reaction was " 853: 813: 348: 3080:

a Congresswoman to Break News About Justin Bieber’s Arrest"

2639:. Your repeated unsourced contentious claims are a problem. 3544:

Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles

3368:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3175:

You seem to have forgotten that four of the five sources

3063:

Congresswoman during NSA LIVE to report... Justin Bieber"

1557:, as repeatedly discussed, is a blog. It is not a source. 3361: 3137: 3134: 3034: 3007: 2817:

Dubious - "despite all of the evidence to the opposite"

2695:

removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

2460: 2411:

up some meatball subs with pickles. It'll be great! -

1961:

Your new claim seems to say that what sources say the

1534:

did, rather than Mitchell (the topic of this article).

638:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject University of Pennsylvania

160: 2435:

On an unrelated question, why do you repeatedly say

1826:

Fact: Four sources are given, clearly implying that

935:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 624:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 535:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 430:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3539:

C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles

3434:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 174: 3594:Low-importance University of Pennsylvania articles 1902:briefly address the controversy the following day. 1701:briefly address the controversy the following day. 1574:briefly address the controversy the following day. 3313:here is a Fox New breakdown by Tucker and Sanchez 2461:outrageous BLP violation that was originally here 2146:The source does not say or show that she laughed 1367:. But you certainly cannot delete the material. 1136:First up, we have the Politico blog (now broken, 1002:can anyone document when she had her face lifts? 3609:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance 2093:Dubious - laughing at him for the invented gaffe 1837:one of the first ones ever cited in this section 1019:Is she a republican - her husband certainly is? 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1862:As there had been no response, I fixed this. - 1147:Finally, we have Fox News. Let's see how close 641:Template:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 3420:This message was posted before February 2018. 2150:. While having her laugh "at Romney" supports 1886:Suggested section content, still not discussed 2456:I do not say it. The reliable source says it. 1943:and unless you find a reliable source saying 1658:The same goes for "invents". The source says 8: 3634:Low-importance District of Columbia articles 3139:adding a brief mention of it to the lede. - 1437:: "MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell are under fire" 3619:Low-importance American television articles 3589:C-Class University of Pennsylvania articles 3317:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2h95cIH_8 2791:. They do not belong in an excyclopedia. - 1683:that Romney was wowed by a simple machine." 1429:Great! Let's take a look at those sources: 3549:Arts and entertainment work group articles 3505:Why doesn’t nato put sanctions on Belarus 3356:I have just modified one external link on 897: 675: 586: 481: 376: 258: 3639:WikiProject District of Columbia articles 1817:The claim: "Mitchell came under criticism 1526:The same huffingtonpost.com article again 949:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Women writers 780:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 549:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject New York City 3624:American television task force articles 2908:Andrea_Mitchell#Iowa_Caucus_controversy 899: 677: 588: 483: 378: 260: 230: 2669:violation)" I did not have to pretend 621:WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 444:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Journalism 3654:Mid-importance Women writers articles 3629:C-Class District of Columbia articles 3604:Low-importance United States articles 3579:Low-importance New York City articles 3409:to let others know (documentation at 360:the arts and entertainment work group 333:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 3614:C-Class American television articles 3378:http://www.jwi.org/page.aspx?pid=680 1077:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 929:This article is within the scope of 733:This article is within the scope of 618:This article is within the scope of 529:This article is within the scope of 424:This article is within the scope of 309:This article is within the scope of 3529:Biography articles of living people 644:University of Pennsylvania articles 249:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3664:WikiProject Women writers articles 3644:WikiProject United States articles 3584:WikiProject New York City articles 3564:Mid-importance Journalism articles 3093:gives us "Justin Bieber arrested: 1893:for a video the network had edited 1692:for a video the network had edited 1565:for a video the network had edited 1330:We're supposed to do exactly that. 952:Template:WikiProject Women writers 783:Template:WikiProject United States 552:Template:WikiProject New York City 14: 3360:. Please take a moment to review 1071:Controversy during Obama Campaign 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 922: 901: 881:WikiProject District of Columbia 865: 825: 720: 710: 679: 611: 590: 516: 506: 485: 411: 401: 380: 296: 286: 262: 231: 190:This article must adhere to the 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3569:WikiProject Journalism articles 2317:Way Too Early with Willie Geist 1263:misreprensentation of events. 969:This article has been rated as 800:This article has been rated as 658:This article has been rated as 569:This article has been rated as 464:This article has been rated as 447:Template:WikiProject Journalism 3649:C-Class Women writers articles 3599:C-Class United States articles 3574:C-Class New York City articles 3554:WikiProject Biography articles 3292:02:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 2977:11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 2743:Dubious - "was made to appear" 1066:16:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC) 1007:19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 841:American television task force 336:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 3108:to her on the spot, right? - 2637:biographies of living persons 1015:18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 943:and see a list of open tasks. 878:This article is supported by 838:This article is supported by 632:and see a list of open tasks. 543:and see a list of open tasks. 438:and see a list of open tasks. 357:This article is supported by 193:biographies of living persons 42:Put new text under old text. 3488:23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC) 3255:05:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3232:05:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3217:05:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3203:04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3171:02:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3157:22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 3126:22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 3002:Switch to Beiber controversy 2996:19:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 2635:Please review our policy on 1389:material continues below. - 1104:17:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 1089:17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 321:contribute to the discussion 3559:C-Class Journalism articles 3023:Mitchell received criticism 2132:have removed the dubiouses. 1144:the content of that report. 1035:04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC) 1022:Who was her first husband? 205:must be removed immediately 3680: 3659:WikiProject Women articles 3534:C-Class biography articles 3451:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3353:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3270: 1969:for each issue. Thanks! - 1056:Washington Bureau chief? 975:project's importance scale 806:project's importance scale 664:project's importance scale 635:University of Pennsylvania 626:University of Pennsylvania 598:University of Pennsylvania 575:project's importance scale 470:project's importance scale 3515:18:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 2958:20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC) 2886:00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 2863:13:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2847:12:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2809:00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 2782:14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2766:12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2723:12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2687:05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2659:04:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2630:03:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2592:03:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2563:03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2540:20:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2518:19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2497:14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2452:14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2429:14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2406:14:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2392:14:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2353:04:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2337:03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2294:Entire section is dubious 2289:02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2253:12:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2227:05:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2212:02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2189:19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 2172:19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 2142:19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 2126:03:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 2077:14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2043:14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2028:13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2002:04:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 1987:02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 1957:01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 1933:00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 1880:02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 1857:00:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 1813:Dubious - under criticism 1807:02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 1784:00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 1748:15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1730:03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1634:02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1619:02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1595:01:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1425:21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1407:01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1377:00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1354:00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1324:20:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1295:01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 1273:13:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1258:00:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1231:20:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1216:19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1187:19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1138:here's a replacement link 1125:18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1048:Did she succeed the late 968: 932:WikiProject Women writers 917: 861: 821: 799: 736:WikiProject United States 705: 657: 606: 568: 532:WikiProject New York City 501: 463: 396: 356: 281: 257: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3076:'s blog gives us "Watch 2931:17:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 2901:16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 1753:Dubious - misrepresented 1528:, still discussing what 1462:Romney Edit Draws Fire; 741:United States of America 3349:External links modified 2438:which is understandable 2368:which is understandable 2359:Andrea Mitchell Reports 2315:. It came from MSNBC's 2313:Andrea Mitchell Reports 1945:she said she was misled 1941:Andrea Mitchell Reports 1709:speaking about Mitchell 1680:had been led to believe 1163:which is understandable 873:Washington, D.C. portal 2748:this idea. Discuss. - 2469:" given what she had " 1519:The same Fox News cite 1075:This seems to violate 955:Women writers articles 858: 818: 786:United States articles 555:New York City articles 427:WikiProject Journalism 353: 275:Arts and Entertainment 239:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3008:first version of this 2233:Stick to the sources. 857: 817: 352: 312:WikiProject Biography 243:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 3432:regular verification 1196:Talk:Kelly O'Donnell 728:United States portal 696:District of Columbia 524:New York City portal 105:No original research 3422:After February 2018 3401:parameter below to 2472:been led to believe 754:Articles Requested! 450:Journalism articles 3476:InternetArchiveBot 3427:InternetArchiveBot 2988: 1454:huffingtonpost.com 1363:the claims as per 859: 819: 354: 339:biography articles 245:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3501:Belarus: question 3452: 3276:User:Redtobelieve 2994: 2984: 2303: 1478:the way it edited 1456:: The headline? " 1044:Washington Bureau 989: 988: 985: 984: 981: 980: 896: 895: 892: 891: 833:Television portal 674: 673: 670: 669: 585: 584: 581: 580: 480: 479: 476: 475: 419:Journalism portal 375: 374: 371: 370: 225: 224: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3671: 3486: 3477: 3450: 3449: 3428: 3416: 3389: 3247: 3244: 3241: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3149: 3146: 3143: 3118: 3115: 3112: 3095:MSNBC interrupts 2990: 2923: 2920: 2917: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2839: 2836: 2833: 2801: 2798: 2795: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2584: 2581: 2578: 2532: 2529: 2526: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2421: 2418: 2415: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2299: 2281: 2278: 2275: 2268:The source given 2263:Dubious - mocked 2245: 2242: 2239: 2204: 2201: 2198: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2069: 2066: 2063: 2020: 2017: 2014: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1907:reliably sourced 1872: 1869: 1866: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1587: 1584: 1581: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1179: 1176: 1173: 957: 956: 953: 950: 947: 926: 919: 918: 913: 905: 898: 875: 870: 869: 868: 835: 830: 829: 788: 787: 784: 781: 778: 730: 725: 724: 723: 714: 707: 706: 701: 698: 683: 676: 646: 645: 642: 639: 636: 615: 608: 607: 602: 594: 587: 557: 556: 553: 550: 547: 526: 521: 520: 519: 510: 503: 502: 497: 489: 482: 452: 451: 448: 445: 442: 421: 416: 415: 414: 405: 398: 397: 392: 384: 377: 341: 340: 337: 334: 331: 317:join the project 306: 304:Biography portal 301: 300: 299: 290: 283: 282: 277: 266: 259: 242: 236: 235: 227: 213:this noticeboard 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3519: 3518: 3507:174.252.130.104 3503: 3495: 3480: 3475: 3443: 3436:have permission 3426: 3410: 3383: 3366:this simple FaQ 3358:Andrea Mitchell 3351: 3273: 3245: 3242: 3239: 3193: 3190: 3187: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3116: 3113: 3110: 3091:The Independent 3078:MSNBC Interrupt 3004: 2965: 2945: 2921: 2918: 2915: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2837: 2834: 2831: 2819: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2745: 2713: 2710: 2707: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2582: 2579: 2576: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2382: 2379: 2376: 2327: 2324: 2321: 2296: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2265: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2095: 2067: 2064: 2061: 2018: 2015: 2012: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1888: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1815: 1797: 1794: 1791: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1755: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1675:Politico source 1585: 1582: 1579: 1540:Washington Post 1465:Andrea Mitchell 1434:Washington Post 1397: 1394: 1391: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1285: 1282: 1279: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1112: 1096:Brian Halvorsen 1081:Brian Halvorsen 1073: 1046: 1028: 997: 954: 951: 948: 945: 944: 911: 871: 866: 864: 831: 824: 785: 782: 779: 776: 775: 774: 760:Become a Member 726: 721: 719: 699: 689: 643: 640: 637: 634: 633: 600: 554: 551: 548: 545: 544: 522: 517: 515: 495: 449: 446: 443: 440: 439: 417: 412: 410: 390: 338: 335: 332: 329: 328: 302: 297: 295: 272: 240: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 25:Andrea Mitchell 12: 11: 5: 3677: 3675: 3667: 3666: 3661: 3656: 3651: 3646: 3641: 3636: 3631: 3626: 3621: 3616: 3611: 3606: 3601: 3596: 3591: 3586: 3581: 3576: 3571: 3566: 3561: 3556: 3551: 3546: 3541: 3536: 3531: 3521: 3520: 3502: 3499: 3494: 3493:Postal service 3491: 3470: 3469: 3462: 3395: 3394: 3380: 3372:Added archive 3350: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3339: 3338: 3333: 3332: 3326: 3325: 3320: 3319: 3314: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3131: 3105: 3104: 3088: 3087: 3071: 3070: 3057: 3056: 3042: 3041: 3031: 3030: 3016:she was forced 3003: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2964: 2961: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2911: 2818: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2466:understandable 2433: 2432: 2431: 2295: 2292: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 1967:citing sources 1912:about Mitchell 1887: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1754: 1751: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1705: 1687: 1684: 1665: 1656: 1649:does say that 1643: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555:newsbuster.org 1552: 1545: 1535: 1523: 1516: 1510:Yeah, um that 1508: 1500: 1494: 1451: 1438: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1190: 1189: 1145: 1141: 1133: 1132: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1072: 1069: 1045: 1042: 1027: 1024: 996: 993: 991: 987: 986: 983: 982: 979: 978: 971:Mid-importance 967: 961: 960: 958: 941:the discussion 927: 915: 914: 912:Mid‑importance 906: 894: 893: 890: 889: 886:Low-importance 877: 876: 860: 850: 849: 846:Low-importance 837: 836: 820: 810: 809: 802:Low-importance 798: 792: 791: 789: 773: 772: 767: 762: 757: 750: 748:Template Usage 744: 732: 731: 715: 703: 702: 700:Low‑importance 684: 672: 671: 668: 667: 660:Low-importance 656: 650: 649: 647: 630:the discussion 616: 604: 603: 601:Low‑importance 595: 583: 582: 579: 578: 571:Low-importance 567: 561: 560: 558: 541:the discussion 528: 527: 511: 499: 498: 496:Low‑importance 490: 478: 477: 474: 473: 466:Mid-importance 462: 456: 455: 453: 436:the discussion 423: 422: 406: 394: 393: 391:Mid‑importance 385: 373: 372: 369: 368: 365:Low-importance 355: 345: 344: 342: 308: 307: 291: 279: 278: 267: 255: 254: 248: 237: 223: 222: 218:this help page 202:poorly sourced 188: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3676: 3665: 3662: 3660: 3657: 3655: 3652: 3650: 3647: 3645: 3642: 3640: 3637: 3635: 3632: 3630: 3627: 3625: 3622: 3620: 3617: 3615: 3612: 3610: 3607: 3605: 3602: 3600: 3597: 3595: 3592: 3590: 3587: 3585: 3582: 3580: 3577: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3562: 3560: 3557: 3555: 3552: 3550: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3540: 3537: 3535: 3532: 3530: 3527: 3526: 3524: 3517: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3500: 3498: 3492: 3490: 3489: 3484: 3479: 3478: 3467: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3447: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3423: 3418: 3414: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3393: 3387: 3381: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3354: 3348: 3344: 3341: 3340: 3335: 3334: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3322: 3321: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3307: 3304: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3183: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3138: 3135: 3132: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3099: 3096: 3092: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3065: 3062: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3051: 3047: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3036: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2987: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2962: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2942: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2912: 2909: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2828: 2824: 2816: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2790: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2742: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2674: 2670: 2668: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2640: 2638: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2617: 2611: 2609: 2603: 2601: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2479:/"μηδείς". - 2478: 2474: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2462: 2458: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2373: 2370: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2293: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2269: 2262: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2092: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1825: 1823: 1821: 1819: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1765: 1764: 1759: 1752: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1710: 1706: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1682: 1681: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1664:not Mitchell. 1663: 1662: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1648: 1644: 1641: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1564: 1561: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1486: 1485: 1480: 1479: 1474: 1473: 1467: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1070: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1025: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1000: 994: 992: 976: 972: 966: 963: 962: 959: 946:Women writers 942: 938: 937:women writers 934: 933: 928: 925: 921: 920: 916: 910: 909:Women writers 907: 904: 900: 887: 884:(assessed as 883: 882: 874: 863: 856: 852: 851: 847: 844:(assessed as 843: 842: 834: 828: 823: 816: 812: 811: 807: 803: 797: 794: 793: 790: 777:United States 771: 768: 766: 763: 761: 758: 756: 755: 751: 749: 746: 745: 742: 738: 737: 729: 718: 716: 713: 709: 708: 704: 697: 693: 688: 687:United States 685: 682: 678: 665: 661: 655: 652: 651: 648: 631: 627: 623: 622: 617: 614: 610: 609: 605: 599: 596: 593: 589: 576: 572: 566: 563: 562: 559: 546:New York City 542: 538: 537:New York City 534: 533: 525: 514: 512: 509: 505: 504: 500: 494: 493:New York City 491: 488: 484: 471: 467: 461: 458: 457: 454: 437: 433: 429: 428: 420: 409: 407: 404: 400: 399: 395: 389: 386: 383: 379: 366: 363:(assessed as 362: 361: 351: 347: 346: 343: 326: 325:documentation 322: 318: 314: 313: 305: 294: 292: 289: 285: 284: 280: 276: 271: 268: 265: 261: 256: 252: 246: 238: 234: 229: 228: 220: 219: 214: 210: 206: 203: 199: 195: 194: 189: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3504: 3496: 3474: 3471: 3446:source check 3425: 3419: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3396: 3355: 3352: 3274: 3181: 3176: 3106: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3077: 3073: 3072: 3060: 3058: 3049: 3045: 3043: 3032: 3022: 3015: 3011: 3005: 2966: 2946: 2823:source cited 2820: 2746: 2702: 2694: 2676: 2664: 2634: 2613: 2605: 2597: 2569: 2568: 2471: 2470: 2465: 2464: 2437: 2436: 2367: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2297: 2266: 2178: 2151: 2147: 2104: 2099: 2096: 2055: 2051: 2007: 1966: 1962: 1944: 1940: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1889: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1816: 1762: 1761: 1756: 1736: 1708: 1679: 1678: 1669: 1668: 1660: 1659: 1651: 1650: 1639: 1607: 1539: 1530: 1529: 1511: 1503: 1489: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1471: 1470: 1464: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1447: 1442:The Atlantic 1441: 1433: 1386: 1365:WP:ATTRIBUTE 1360: 1236: 1235: 1198:. Thanks. - 1162: 1153: 1148: 1113: 1110:wawa scandal 1074: 1047: 1038: 1029: 1021: 1018: 1010: 1001: 998: 990: 970: 930: 879: 839: 801: 765:Project Talk 753: 734: 659: 619: 570: 530: 465: 425: 358: 310: 251:WikiProjects 216: 204: 197: 191: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3413:Sourcecheck 3035:new version 2969:74.69.8.195 1542:blog, again 1522:voters...". 1158:that source 1058:WAVY 10 Fan 1050:Tim Russert 148:free images 31:not a forum 3523:Categories 3483:Report bug 3182:everything 3061:MSNBC cuts 3050:Daily News 2675:violation) 2671:(redacted 2665:(redacted 1667:No, we do 1154:everything 1004:Kingturtle 692:Television 441:Journalism 432:journalism 388:Journalism 3466:this tool 3459:this tool 3386:dead link 2950:Canoe1967 2943:New image 2618:violation 2614:redacted 2610:violation 2606:redacted 2602:violation 2598:redacted 2309:Mistchell 2148:at Romney 2054:say that 1909:material 1640:encourage 1538:The same 1361:attribute 1012:Sean7phil 330:Biography 270:Biography 209:libellous 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 3472:Cheers.— 3224:John2510 3209:John2510 3163:John2510 3046:The Inqy 3033:For the 2789:opinions 2701:This is 1828:Mitchell 1548:Politico 1531:the show 1512:New York 1504:New York 1497:Fox News 1484:Mitchell 1472:her show 1131:sources: 1054:NBC News 1032:Dogru144 1026:Religion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3399:checked 3390:tag to 3362:my edit 3324:'gaffe; 1963:network 1645:Yes, a 973:on the 804:on the 662:on the 573:on the 468:on the 241:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3407:failed 3382:Added 3280:WP:BLP 3012:Had To 2948:one.-- 2703:policy 2699:WP:BLP 2673:WP:BLP 2667:WP:BLP 2616:WP:BLP 2608:WP:BLP 2600:WP:BLP 2477:Medeis 2181:μηδείς 2134:μηδείς 1949:μηδείς 1740:μηδείς 1647:source 1626:μηδείς 1611:μηδείς 1417:μηδείς 1387:actual 1383:WP:BLP 1369:μηδείς 1334:WP:3RR 1316:μηδείς 1167:WP:BLP 1117:μηδείς 995:Header 770:Alerts 247:scale. 126:Google 2963:title 2893:hykos 2855:hykos 2774:hykos 2679:hykos 2622:hykos 2555:hykos 2510:hykos 2444:Arzel 2398:Arzel 2345:Arzel 2219:hykos 2035:Arzel 2006:That 1994:Arzel 1763:MSNBC 1661:MSNBC 1652:MSNBC 1490:MSNBC 1459:MSNBC 1265:Arzel 1223:Arzel 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3511:talk 3403:true 3288:talk 3251:talk 3228:talk 3213:talk 3199:talk 3167:talk 3153:talk 3122:talk 3074:Time 3048:and 3006:The 2992:talk 2986:Tvoz 2973:talk 2954:talk 2927:talk 2897:talk 2882:talk 2859:talk 2843:talk 2805:talk 2778:talk 2762:talk 2719:talk 2683:talk 2655:talk 2626:talk 2588:talk 2570:None 2559:talk 2536:talk 2514:talk 2493:talk 2448:talk 2425:talk 2402:talk 2388:talk 2363:very 2349:talk 2333:talk 2319:. - 2285:talk 2249:talk 2223:talk 2208:talk 2185:talk 2168:talk 2152:your 2138:talk 2122:talk 2105:only 2073:talk 2039:talk 2024:talk 1998:talk 1983:talk 1953:talk 1929:talk 1876:talk 1853:talk 1833:only 1803:talk 1780:talk 1744:talk 1726:talk 1630:talk 1615:talk 1591:talk 1577:" - 1448:only 1444:Wire 1421:talk 1403:talk 1381:See 1373:talk 1350:talk 1320:talk 1291:talk 1269:talk 1254:talk 1227:talk 1212:talk 1183:talk 1169:. - 1149:they 1121:talk 1100:talk 1085:talk 1062:talk 319:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3440:RfC 3417:). 3405:or 3376:to 3246:PhD 3243:mer 3240:Sum 3194:PhD 3191:mer 3188:Sum 3177:you 3148:PhD 3145:mer 3142:Sum 3117:PhD 3114:mer 3111:Sum 2922:PhD 2919:mer 2916:Sum 2877:PhD 2874:mer 2871:Sum 2838:PhD 2835:mer 2832:Sum 2800:PhD 2797:mer 2794:Sum 2757:PhD 2754:mer 2751:Sum 2714:PhD 2711:mer 2708:Sum 2650:PhD 2647:mer 2644:Sum 2583:PhD 2580:mer 2577:Sum 2531:PhD 2528:mer 2525:Sum 2488:PhD 2485:mer 2482:Sum 2420:PhD 2417:mer 2414:Sum 2383:PhD 2380:mer 2377:Sum 2328:PhD 2325:mer 2322:Sum 2280:PhD 2277:mer 2274:Sum 2244:PhD 2241:mer 2238:Sum 2203:PhD 2200:mer 2197:Sum 2163:PhD 2160:mer 2157:Sum 2117:PhD 2114:mer 2111:Sum 2068:PhD 2065:mer 2062:Sum 2056:she 2052:not 2019:PhD 2016:mer 2013:Sum 2008:you 1978:PhD 1975:mer 1972:Sum 1924:PhD 1921:mer 1918:Sum 1871:PhD 1868:mer 1865:Sum 1848:PhD 1845:mer 1842:Sum 1798:PhD 1795:mer 1792:Sum 1775:PhD 1772:mer 1769:Sum 1721:PhD 1718:mer 1715:Sum 1670:NOT 1586:PhD 1583:mer 1580:Sum 1398:PhD 1395:mer 1392:Sum 1345:PhD 1342:mer 1339:Sum 1286:PhD 1283:mer 1280:Sum 1249:PhD 1246:mer 1243:Sum 1237:She 1207:PhD 1204:mer 1201:Sum 1178:PhD 1175:mer 1172:Sum 1156:in 1052:as 965:Mid 796:Low 654:Low 565:Low 460:Mid 198:BLP 176:TWL 3525:: 3513:) 3453:. 3448:}} 3444:{{ 3415:}} 3411:{{ 3388:}} 3384:{{ 3290:) 3253:) 3230:) 3215:) 3201:) 3169:) 3155:) 3124:) 2975:) 2956:) 2929:) 2899:) 2884:) 2861:) 2845:) 2807:) 2780:) 2764:) 2721:) 2697:" 2685:) 2657:) 2641:- 2628:) 2590:) 2561:) 2538:) 2516:) 2495:) 2450:) 2427:) 2404:) 2390:) 2374:- 2351:) 2335:) 2287:) 2251:) 2235:- 2225:) 2210:) 2187:) 2170:) 2140:) 2124:) 2075:) 2041:) 2026:) 2000:) 1985:) 1955:) 1931:) 1878:) 1855:) 1805:) 1782:) 1746:) 1728:) 1638:I 1632:) 1617:) 1593:) 1423:) 1405:) 1375:) 1352:) 1322:) 1293:) 1271:) 1256:) 1229:) 1214:) 1185:) 1123:) 1102:) 1087:) 1064:) 888:). 848:). 694:/ 690:: 367:). 273:: 156:) 54:; 3509:( 3485:) 3481:( 3468:. 3461:. 3286:( 3249:( 3226:( 3211:( 3197:( 3165:( 3151:( 3120:( 2989:/ 2971:( 2952:( 2925:( 2895:( 2880:( 2857:( 2841:( 2803:( 2776:( 2760:( 2717:( 2681:( 2653:( 2624:( 2586:( 2557:( 2534:( 2512:( 2491:( 2446:( 2423:( 2400:( 2386:( 2347:( 2331:( 2283:( 2247:( 2221:( 2206:( 2183:( 2166:( 2136:( 2120:( 2071:( 2037:( 2022:( 1996:( 1981:( 1951:( 1927:( 1874:( 1851:( 1801:( 1778:( 1742:( 1724:( 1704:" 1628:( 1613:( 1589:( 1419:( 1401:( 1371:( 1348:( 1318:( 1289:( 1267:( 1252:( 1225:( 1210:( 1181:( 1119:( 1098:( 1083:( 1060:( 977:. 808:. 666:. 577:. 472:. 327:. 253:: 221:. 196:( 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index