633:
615:
1193:
violent actions against LGBT people. She’s at a hearing by the federal government concerning extremist rhetoric that could undermine democracy. It’s a very bad look for her since it’s incredibly hypocritical for her to base her career on calling out something she was caught red handed doing. I believe not including that information is essentially running damage control for her by not referencing something that doesn’t look good for her and thus breaches the neutral stance
Knowledge articles ahould have.
769:
419:
398:
587:
815:
797:
429:
923:
896:
865:
523:
1029:, which is also home to the Cyberlaw Clinic. I am also doing a (paid) fellowship with the Harvard Library Innovation Lab, which is a part of the Law School, but to my knowledge Caraballo has nothing to do with the LIL. I've written this article solely because I've come across Caraballo's activism online, and I was not asked to write it nor am I writing it as a part of anything to do with the BKC or LIL.
499:
356:
707:
683:
2113:
sort of behavior. I do not think this is unreasonable to include in this section. Watch the congressional questioning of
Caraballo by Representative Mace, and it is obvious that at least some people believe so. Caraballo's remark at best seems like a crass, oblique reference to the attempt, at worst a direct approval of employing violence, enough so to make national headlines and warrant inclusion.
533:
304:
2370:
262:
318:
293:
1948:
article. Also, the issue is that there is no real debate, she did post that comment, but why is this important to include in the article. I guess my issue is more with wikipedias rules, but I don’t see how
Washington Times isn’t acceptable for this, but stuff like GO! or Them.com is considered a reliable and unbiased source.
717:
2112:
made only 14 days after the attempted murder of
Justice Kavanaugh, are on their own, taken simply at face value, are very clearly and oblique (if not direct) reference to the attempted attack on Kavanaugh. Hence the claims by some of Caraballo seeming to either tacitly or directly be encouraging that
1947:
Strongly disagree. There were multiple sources that did all that, but these were all deemed unreliable or questionable. All of them were right of center publications, while CNN, a left of center one, was the only one that was deemed to be allowed. I can understand if it was something like a
Breitbart
1412:
Or, maybe the part about her internet beef with fans of a sex trafficker should be deleted with the whole section. As it is now, this is a BLP that has an entire section devoted to how she got the specifics of a
Romanian criminal investigation wrong, and upset some incels. That looks like WP:UNDUE to
1408:
It seems odd that a lawyer's congressional testimony, which was reported by multiple national media outlets falls under WP:UNDUE, but an internet beef with andrew tate doesn't. Obviously, I think the paragraph about her tweets being discussed in congress should be included in "Social media presence".
2139:
The tweet was posted the day after the Dobbs decision, so no mind reading needed. As I noted above, I think the sourcing on the whole segment is too poor to justify inclusion, and I think the implied claim about the reasons behind the tweet is even less supported. If there ends up being consensus to
1673:
to mention this in
Caraballo's article in a small paragraph, within a relevant subsection, than it is for Donald Trump's to mention his prolific Twitter and social media use (like said article does). Furthermore, you have reverted the addition of this section no less than five times in the past five
2462:
on trans issues. Opening a similar can of worms on the Times is probably best kept as a matter for another day as overlapping the two proposals would probably cause substantial confusion. Nonetheless, I think that it may come to that sooner or later if they keep on like this. I was pondering on how
2050:
that had a much more responsible story about the hearing generally. It says what the hearing was about. It includes some of
Caraballo's testimony, along with context. And there's one sentence at the end about rep Mace blaming the left, without repeating all the personal attacks against Caraballo as
1770:
There is no reason to remove the info other than that it presents negative information on the person. This is an article about a left wing activist, which opens a can of worms, but outright removing all negative and pertinent information on her is blatant bias editing. If a persons entire career is
1351:
This woman’s career is monitoring extremist content online, she was at a hearing concerning extremist online content that could pose a threat to democracy. An elected official, who was targeted in a vandalism attack on her home, pointed out that
Alejandra has herself posted the same sort of content
1293:
There is no rule whatsoever that a source has to explicitly explain why the news they are reporting is noteworthy. It’s very clear why this is noteworthy as I’ve explained. You need to provide a solid reason as to why this shouldn’t be included in the article because it’s very clearly breaching the
1192:
I think it’s very significant. For the source question, there is a CNN video just linking to footage of that specific part of the hearing, so I think that’s totally valid as a source. And a big part of
Alejandras work is monitoring what she perceives is anti-LGBT rhetoric online which could lead to
1044:
Being someone who finds the views of the subject of this article horrendous, I think you did a great job adhering to neutrality. I will say that I find the activism section somewhat unfocused. Since when is activism on the same plane as purported expertise? Especially in such a controversial area,
1272:
Again, that is your personal opinion on why the information should be included, which is not useful. We need reliable, independent sources explaining how this is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia article about her, which as yet does not exist. The CNN source says nothing besides
1887:
have made it clear in arguments above that you want this section included because "It’s a very bad look for her" and your own personal opinions on its relevance, rather than any policy-based argument that it ought to be included based on its prominence in reliable sources discussing the subject.
2388:
I am requesting a correction of the portion dealing with the Cass Review criticism. The article currently claims that I said that 98% of studies were rejected, I did not. The BBC source cited does not mention my name. The Times UK article linked does not contradict my underlying claim that a
982:, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's
1319:: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
1592:
Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources ... contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary
1518:
CNN is not a printed medium, and the source is a news segment, so putting scarequotes around "article" does not help. It's not "a soundbite" (which would translate to "quote" in printed media, generally considered perfectly reasonable source, if published by a
2109:"The 6 justices who overturned Roe should never know peace again. It is our civic duty to accost them every time they are in public. They are pariahs. Since women don't have their rights, these justices should never have a peaceful moment in public again."
1786:
It only makes her look bad if you already disagree with her. IMO the quoted tweet shows she understands politics. Being targeted by a nutjob rep also makes it clear she's on the right side. If the article was about me, I'd be proud to have it on there.
1248:
Either way, CNN is listed as a valid source. One of the links is a CNN video of the hearing. It still stands to include this news in this page. It’s also very relevant since it exposes a clear degree of hypocrisy for her entire professional career.
2289:“ Romanian authorities needed proof that Andrew Tate was in the country so they reportedly used his social media posts. His ridiculous video yesterday featured a pizza from a Romanian pizza chain, Jerry's Pizza, confirming he was in the country.
998:; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the
1168:
My concern is the weight being given to a paragraph that is largely coming through deprecated or questionably reliable sources, and whose only reliable source consists of fifteen seconds of a journalist saying "this happened today".
1843:
It’s now blatantly clear that this isn’t about any sort of rules, but left wing activist who don’t want any negative info on her page and are simply looking for any excuse to remove it. Sativa_Inflorescence has revealed that hand.
1489:
again. Sourcing needs to be more careful with BLPs. The problem is the CNN "article" is barely even an article. There's no analysis or context, it's basically a soundbite. And it's already been discussed on this talk page. my bad.
2392:
Additionally, the Times UK has a significant history of bias towards trans people including doxing and deadnaming trans individuals such as Brianna Ghey and F1NN5TER. It should not be used as a trusted source on trans subjects.
1085:
challenged my removal of the paragraph about the Dec 13 House hearing. I went back and forth on it myself, but ultimately decided it's not significant enough to include. Most sourcing out there is either unusable or marginal
993:
pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included
2647:
153:
2467:
be acceptable for the matter to be covered very briefly provided that it was written in much more neutral and accurate terms but it is hardly essential that we cover this and I'm not going to trouble myself to do so.
2632:
1664:
Caraballo, the focus of this article, is an activist who often employs social media to agitate. Caraballo has a trend of using social media heavily and often generating controversy by doing so. It is absolutely not
1172:
It's worth noting that the edit summary ("This information is important and not including it borders on violating the neutrality stance of Knowledge by editing out any negative stories about her.") is erroneous:
1112:
2051:
in the more tabloid sources. I'm not saying this necessarily needs to be put in the article, just posting as an example of what the story looks like outside of hyperpartisain focus on a single exchange.
1448:
Nevermind. I should've looked at the talk page before posting, I see this has already been discussed. I still think the tate thing is obviously undue if a congressional hearing reported by CNN is undue.
1230:
It does not matter if you personally think it's significant, which is not sufficient reason for inclusion. We need evidence that reliable sources think it is significant, which—as yet—does not exist.
1046:
2592:
1637:
to the predominant views of reliable sources and avoid undue weight on views not reflected in reliable sources. It does not require us to parrot right-wing media in order to avoid charges of
2627:
1273:"this conversation happened", which doesn't explain how it is noteworthy in the context of Caraballo's life or career to the point that it should be included in an encyclopedia article (see
1025:
I don't consider myself to have a COI with Caraballo, who I have never met, but decided to submit this through AfC out of an abundance of caution since I am an (unpaid) affiliate with the
1346:“Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) called out Harvard Law instructor and LGTBQ rights activist Alejandra Caraballo at a House oversight hearing over some of her past tweets.” - from the CNN source.
934:
329:. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
1771:
based around monitoring extremist online content, and they get called out for posting extremist content by a public official, of course that is relevant and important information.
1294:
neutral standpoint by removing any negative news about this person. Articles should be objective, not an endorsement that removes any and all negative press in a very relevant way.
596:
509:
778:
693:
2597:
1010:
241:
147:
2637:
2562:
1050:
2231:
2436:
maintain their own lists of reliable sources but that might be a place to start a conversation on the potential issues the Times has when covering this subject area.
2389:
substantial portion of the studies were disregarded. My quote in the article states that explicitly after the article itself mentions that 43 studies were excluded.
1352:
she makes a career out of monitoring. It’s blatantly obvious why this is relevant, you have yet to provide a reason as to why it shouldn’t be included based on this.
2267:
2343:
authorities in a reply to the original tweet. However, this reply isn't mentioned in any of the independent sources we cite, so we can't infer anything from it. —
1669:
to mention this person's tweets when they are relevant to a congressional appearance they made, while also generating national headlines in doing so. It is not
2048:
2220:
1177:
requires we establish due weight for any statement based on its inclusion in reliable sources. If "this information is important", you need to establish how.
1124:
2612:
2552:
2520:
list and given the nature of the blog post by a "seasoned journalist" I think it seems reasonable to believe that the editor in question isn't coming from a
2433:
2025:
a reliable source, quoting Caraballo's tweet back at her and displaying a large printout of it. At best this is a source for what Mace said, not Caraballo. —
246:
1826:
It does not matter if you personally think it's significant ... We need evidence that reliable sources think it is significant, which—as yet—does not exist.
2652:
2607:
330:
325:
298:
229:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
44:
2602:
906:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic.
79:
1603:; the important thing is what published, reliable sources have written about it. I left the Andrew Tate pizza box rumor in because it had analysis from
2149:
2008:
1998:
1989:
A standard that is unmet for the congressional hearing info. I support removal, unless more reliable sources than a CNN video clip have covered this.
1716:
1375:
1106:
2299:
Exact tweet for anyone wondering. She presented information in this tweet that was false, so I don’t see the controversy in explicitly saying that.
1097:
source I could find reporting on it was a brief CNN segment that did not do much beyond stating that the conversation happened, without explaining
2642:
2483:
1971:. The other sources you mention are not used for anything controversial, just basic biographical info. There is a higher standard of sourcing for
1000:
876:
735:
561:
221:
2262:
is that Romanian authorities were monitoring his social media. That his arrest was due to a pizza box is certianly implied, but saying Caraballo
1101:
it was noteworthy beyond other questions that were presumably asked of her and other witnesses, which is ultimately why I decided to remove it.
933:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
2516:
and remove this given that the subject of the article above disputes it, the sources are (as mentioned by the person who added them not on the
2455:
85:
2657:
2577:
1409:
And I don't think "sustained coverage" is necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE, unless that's a WP:BLP thing I'm unaware of (definitely possible).
739:
481:
471:
2421:
2622:
2617:
2498:
by a seasoned journalist but I am including it here on the talk page simply because it provides a screenshot of Caraballo’s full tweet.
970:
2412:
does not mention Caraballo by name and is focused on Cass answering a question about a social media post (which might be Caraballo's),
1130:
2429:
822:
802:
743:
557:
547:
504:
190:
2463:
to fix the paragraph when Sariel Xilo sliced the Gordian Knot and removed it entirely. I think that was a good move. I also think it
2232:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11536161/Moment-Republican-Nancy-Mace-confronts-trans-activist-tweet-threatening-SCOTUS.html
1209:
I would also like to add that your listing of reliable and unreliable sources is heavily biased and question what this is based on.
2582:
2567:
2340:
2251:
2482:
Hi, I took a crack at troubling myself with this “gordian knot” with a new proposed edit. I agree that since we are dealing with a
734:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
168:
649:
1903:
Who has an issue about this inclusion other than you though? There are more of us that want it included rather than the latter.
135:
730:
688:
99:
30:
879:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic.
2587:
2056:
1796:
1748:
1596:
1542:
demands we also include stuff we do not like. We open Knowledge up to fair criticism of partisanship and hypocrisy otherwise.
1509:
1495:
1454:
1418:
980:
Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space
104:
20:
2221:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rep-nancy-mace-gets-fiery-exchange-activist-during-hearing-about-extremist-rhetoric
1118:
2572:
2557:
2503:
2145:
1994:
303:
74:
2171:
953:
930:
909:
903:
882:
872:
380:
273:
2413:
2304:
2140:
include the whole lot, I think it's important that we squarely attribute the loose temporal connection to Nancy Mace.
2082:
1953:
1908:
1849:
1776:
1361:
1299:
1254:
1214:
1198:
827:
640:
620:
65:
1526:
So we're at the "work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" (
129:
2118:
1687:
949:
185:
2529:
2052:
1792:
1744:
1559:
1505:
1491:
1450:
1414:
442:
403:
2440:
requires multiple high quality sources when including an allegation or incident so I've removed this paragraph.
2209:
2167:
199:
125:
2141:
2103:
1990:
1893:
1324:
1282:
1235:
1182:
1064:
1034:
2499:
1595:
The brief CNN clip contains no analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of this exchange. It is essentially a
2525:
2376:
2322:
2179:
1612:
446:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
230:
109:
175:
2300:
2129:
1949:
1904:
1845:
1807:
1772:
1698:
1642:
1357:
1310:
1295:
1267:
1250:
1210:
1194:
1082:
941:
632:
614:
1791:, as has been explained over and over again. You're just restoring a paragraph that makes her look cool.
952:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
2495:
2473:
2445:
2348:
2330:
2279:
2187:
2114:
2073:
2030:
1980:
1972:
1937:
1872:
1833:
1730:
1683:
1650:
1624:
1604:
1391:
279:
1374:
to establish consensus for inclusion. The only reliable, independent coverage is a brief video with a
1026:
240:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
261:
2437:
2175:
1889:
1821:
1379:
1320:
1278:
1231:
1178:
1060:
1030:
945:
161:
55:
24:
2394:
2011:, CNN itself does not reproduce or comment on the content of Caraballo's tweet, let alone call it
648:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1679:
244:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
204:
141:
70:
768:
2271:
1504:
Basically with a BLP you need consensus for inclusion of content, but not necessarily removal.
2398:
2125:
1694:
1675:
1577:
1476:
1439:
51:
2106:
I am creating this section so as not to start an edit war over this topic. Caraballo's Tweet:
2469:
2441:
2344:
2326:
2318:
2275:
2183:
2163:
2069:
2026:
1976:
1933:
1868:
1829:
1726:
1708:
1661:
1646:
1634:
1620:
1567:
1430:
1387:
722:
374:
201:
2486:
we need more than one reliable source so I've added BMJ to the Times. The Times is on the
1530:). So I'm looking for reasons based in sources, policy and common sense, since this use of
2314:
1670:
1666:
1608:
1535:
1383:
1382:
of this exchange by independent, reliable sources. Therefore I've removed the material as
1316:
237:
556:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
2491:
2521:
2513:
1968:
1964:
1860:
1616:
1587:
1539:
1468:
1371:
1174:
1094:
1087:
2546:
2517:
2487:
2425:
2417:
1919:
1740:
1711:
is not based on what you or I think is relevant, important, or controversial, but on
1600:
1548:
What a subject of an article said (or is told) at a congressional hearing is relevant
1531:
1527:
1486:
1274:
1224:
1090:). Most of these MREL sources have notes about being cautious in using them in BLPs.
987:
922:
895:
864:
2459:
1864:
1573:
1520:
1472:
1435:
538:
586:
418:
397:
2416:
seems to be using some very biased language against trans people & isn't on
2259:
1967:. If you have a question about a specific source, you can start a discussion at
1719:
itself does not quote or comment on Caraballo's tweet at all, let alone call it
1471:
demands we do not delete things we don't like. Agree on the Tate thing, though.
975:
814:
796:
428:
370:
706:
682:
522:
498:
203:
2533:
2507:
2477:
2449:
2402:
2352:
2334:
2308:
2283:
2191:
2153:
2133:
2077:
2060:
2034:
2018:
2002:
1984:
1963:
You can read about why these sources are considered reliable or unreliable at
1957:
1941:
1912:
1897:
1876:
1853:
1837:
1800:
1780:
1752:
1734:
1702:
1682:. I suggest you stop reverting this, and perhaps step away from this article.
1654:
1628:
1581:
1513:
1499:
1480:
1458:
1443:
1422:
1395:
1365:
1328:
1303:
1286:
1258:
1239:
1218:
1202:
1186:
1068:
1054:
1038:
712:
528:
434:
424:
355:
2210:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mB26uArS88&ab_channel=ForbesBreakingNews
1341:“'I carry a gun everywhere I go': GOP lawmaker grills activist over rhetoric”
2409:
2266:
this is POV and not supported by independent sources, which use words like
1599:. It doesn't matter whether Caraballo was speaking before Congress or at a
2170:
are generally not reliable sources for anything but their own statements.
1924:
1523:). The requirement of "analysis" or "context" for sources is new to me.
875:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
1812:
the reasons are explained above. No one has proposed that we remove
317:
292:
2317:
to label things as true or false in articles. Instead we summarize
1713:
significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources
1059:
Good point on the expertise—I've moved that sentence up a section.
742:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
645:
553:
552:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
1928:
has already raised very valid concerns about this material; see
2379:
by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
1725:. At best this is a source for what Mace said, not Caraballo. —
2648:
WikiProject Women in Red articles not associated with a meetup
2490:
list you provided; as a medical journal BMJ is not, but it is
2364:
962:
917:
890:
859:
447:
255:
236:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
213:
205:
15:
1556:
If none, on what grounds do you claim no consensus? (to both
2633:
Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
2178:
is deprecated outright. We would need reliable sources that
1619:
of disputed material to establish consensus for inclusion. —
767:
585:
354:
2182:
there's any connection to Kavanaugh to warrant inclusion. —
1789:
But the issue is sourcing on a biography of a living person
1045:
those should he treated as two completely separate topics.
1538:, which, in my opinion is not the way to go. I still hold
940:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
974:
guideline because it contains material about one or more
986:
expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by
2263:
2013:
1721:
365:
1223:
My listing of reliable and unreliable sources is from
160:
2047:
For the record, I found a Virginia local news station
1816:
about Caraballo. Whether you or I think something is
1467:. There's a reliable source (CNN) and video to boot.
820:
This article was created or improved as part of the
830:
regarding their contributions before making changes.
644:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
826:project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please
2593:C-Class WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles
2174:is unusable for exceptional claims like this, and
2628:C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
1973:surprising, contentious, and/or important claims
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2494:medical journals. FYI: I did not include this
2107:
2385:COI disclosure: I am the subject of the page.
1863:is in you to achieve consensus for inclusion.
996:if the person was notable while using the name
1611:comment is a red herring; Knowledge is not a
174:
8:
2434:Knowledge:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
2323:beyond the meaning of the sources themselves
339:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation
2598:WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles
2091:The following discussion has been closed.
2064:
791:
677:
609:
493:
392:
342:Template:WikiProject Articles for creation
323:This article was reviewed by member(s) of
287:
2158:Knowledge articles are not based on what
2638:Science and academia work group articles
2563:AfC submissions by date/03 December 2022
2202:
1380:analysis, interpretation, or evaluation
1047:2600:1012:B05C:B412:E938:818E:B111:1446
793:
679:
611:
495:
394:
289:
259:
2458:about whether the Telegraph remains a
2339:I see now that Caraballo claimed Tate
2159:
1825:
1817:
1814:all negative and pertinent information
1813:
1712:
1674:days, and seem to be both engaging in
1638:
1591:
1370:I'm afraid you have it backwards; the
1111:Marginally reliable or no consensus:
7:
2408:Just took a look at the 3 sources -
728:This article is within the scope of
638:This article is within the scope of
440:This article is within the scope of
2613:All WikiProject Women-related pages
2553:Biography articles of living people
2456:a discussion elsewhere on Knowledge
2038:edited 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1463:The discusssion before resulted in
779:the science and academia work group
450:and the subjects encompassed by it.
278:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2653:All WikiProject Women in Red pages
2608:C-Class WikiProject Women articles
2430:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies
1929:
1641:. Those with an axe to grind will
1617:onus is on those seeking inclusion
968:This article should adhere to the
877:living or recently deceased people
836:Knowledge:WikiProject Women in Red
570:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies
14:
2603:WikiProject LGBT studies articles
1739:Please familiarize yourself with
839:Template:WikiProject Women in Red
573:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies
326:WikiProject Articles for creation
2428:. It doesn't appear that either
2368:
1633:Also, NPOV demands that we give
921:
894:
863:
813:
795:
715:
705:
681:
631:
613:
531:
521:
497:
427:
417:
396:
316:
302:
291:
260:
219:This article must adhere to the
45:Click here to start a new topic.
752:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
544:This article is of interest to
476:This article has been rated as
369:on 3 December 2022 by reviewer
363:This article was accepted from
2643:WikiProject Biography articles
2534:12:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
2250:Just from reading Caraballo's
2121:) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1743:. The 3RR doesn't apply here.
1690:) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
755:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
2319:independent, reliable sources
2164:independent, reliable sources
1366:16:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
1329:16:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
1304:15:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
1287:15:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
1259:15:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
1240:23:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
1219:22:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
1203:22:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
1187:19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
1081:Beginning a discussion since
954:contentious topics procedures
776:This article is supported by
652:and see a list of open tasks.
594:This article is supported by
222:biographies of living persons
42:Put new text under old text.
2353:17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
2335:08:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
2309:15:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
2284:13:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
2192:18:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2154:17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2134:21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2078:09:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
2061:17:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2035:17:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
2003:16:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1985:06:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1958:18:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1942:13:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1913:13:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1898:16:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1877:13:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1854:12:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1838:04:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1801:03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1781:01:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1753:18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1735:18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1703:21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
1655:04:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
1629:02:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
1605:multiple independent sources
1069:16:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
1055:15:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
1039:06:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
740:contribute to the discussion
2658:Implemented requested edits
2578:Low-importance law articles
1582:21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1514:21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1500:21:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1481:21:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1459:20:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1444:20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1423:20:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
1396:05:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
658:Knowledge:WikiProject Women
234:must be removed immediately
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2674:
2623:C-Class biography articles
2618:WikiProject Women articles
2508:19:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1639:partisanship and hypocrisy
664:WikiProject Women articles
661:Template:WikiProject Women
597:the LGBT Person task force
482:project's importance scale
2294:This is absolutely epic.”
2166:say. US politicians like
1867:will not help you here. —
1715:. As I stated below, the
1545:So which do you dispute?
956:before editing this page.
808:
775:
700:
626:
593:
516:
475:
456:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
412:
362:
311:
286:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2583:WikiProject Law articles
2568:Accepted AfC submissions
2478:22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
2450:22:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
2403:21:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
2321:, taking care not to go
2094:Please do not modify it.
1820:is beside the point. As
1551:CNN is a reliable source
1376:snappy headline attached
1315:That's simply not true.
950:normal editorial process
548:WikiProject LGBT studies
459:Template:WikiProject Law
2017:. It's just a video of
1645:no matter what we do. —
1227:, which I linked above.
1141:Unreliable/deprecated:
937:as a contentious topic.
2111:
1818:relevant and important
1485:I suggest you look at
946:standards of behaviour
772:
590:
359:
268:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2588:C-Class LGBT articles
2492:one of the most cited
2172:WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER
2068:Blocked sockpuppet. —
1404:Social media presence
1004:, or, in the case of
842:Women in Red articles
771:
731:WikiProject Biography
589:
560:or contribute to the
358:
336:Articles for creation
333:for more information.
299:Articles for creation
100:Neutral point of view
2573:C-Class law articles
2558:C-Class AfC articles
2124:Blocked sockpuppet.
2053:Sativa Inflorescence
1793:Sativa Inflorescence
1745:Sativa Inflorescence
1693:Blocked sockpuppet.
1560:Sativa Inflorescence
1506:Sativa Inflorescence
1492:Sativa Inflorescence
1451:Sativa Inflorescence
1415:Sativa Inflorescence
1105:Generally reliable:
1027:Berkman Klein Center
942:purpose of Knowledge
694:Science and Academia
105:No original research
2500:Sir Godfrey Kneller
2454:There is currently
2160:some people believe
2142:Firefangledfeathers
2104:Firefangledfeathers
1991:Firefangledfeathers
1643:criticize Knowledge
1126:Washington Examiner
912:and edit carefully.
908:Please consult the
885:and edit carefully.
881:Please consult the
25:Alejandra Caraballo
2526:SparksSparksSparks
931:contentious topics
904:contentious topics
873:contentious topics
773:
758:biography articles
591:
360:
274:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
2383:
2382:
2301:Digital Herodotus
2264:"falsely claimed"
2243:
2242:
2136:
2086:
2083:non-admin closure
1950:Digital Herodotus
1905:Digital Herodotus
1846:Digital Herodotus
1808:Digital Herodotus
1773:Digital Herodotus
1705:
1607:to draw from.The
1358:Digital Herodotus
1311:Digital Herodotus
1296:Digital Herodotus
1268:Digital Herodotus
1251:Digital Herodotus
1211:Digital Herodotus
1195:Digital Herodotus
1114:RealClearPolitics
1083:Digital Herodotus
1018:
1017:
961:
960:
916:
915:
889:
888:
858:
857:
854:
853:
850:
849:
828:assume good faith
790:
789:
786:
785:
676:
675:
672:
671:
641:WikiProject Women
608:
607:
604:
603:
492:
491:
488:
487:
391:
390:
387:
386:
254:
253:
212:
211:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2665:
2372:
2371:
2365:
2234:
2229:
2223:
2218:
2212:
2207:
2180:explicitly state
2123:
2115:Ars Nova Cadenza
2096:
2080:
2065:
2039:
2016:
1927:
1920:not a head count
1865:Personal attacks
1811:
1724:
1692:
1684:Ars Nova Cadenza
1613:free speech zone
1571:
1563:
1534:boils down to a
1434:
1378:. I've found no
1314:
1271:
1132:Washington Times
1001:LGBT WikiProject
963:
925:
918:
898:
891:
867:
860:
844:
843:
840:
837:
834:
817:
810:
809:
799:
792:
760:
759:
756:
753:
750:
736:join the project
725:
723:Biography portal
720:
719:
718:
709:
702:
701:
696:
685:
678:
666:
665:
662:
659:
656:
635:
628:
627:
617:
610:
578:
577:
574:
571:
568:
541:
536:
535:
534:
525:
518:
517:
512:
501:
494:
464:
463:
460:
457:
454:
437:
432:
431:
421:
414:
413:
408:
400:
393:
368:
347:
346:
343:
340:
337:
320:
313:
312:
307:
306:
305:
295:
288:
271:
265:
264:
256:
242:this noticeboard
214:
206:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2673:
2672:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2543:
2542:
2460:Reliable Source
2369:
2363:
2252:pizza box tweet
2248:
2246:Pizza box rumor
2239:
2238:
2237:
2230:
2226:
2219:
2215:
2208:
2204:
2092:
2037:
2014:"controversial"
2012:
1930:§ House hearing
1923:
1805:
1722:"controversial"
1720:
1565:
1557:
1428:
1406:
1308:
1265:
1079:
1023:
1011:BLP noticeboard
1008:people, to the
971:gender identity
944:, any expected
841:
838:
835:
832:
831:
757:
754:
751:
748:
747:
721:
716:
714:
691:
663:
660:
657:
654:
653:
575:
572:
569:
566:
565:
537:
532:
530:
507:
461:
458:
455:
452:
451:
443:WikiProject Law
433:
426:
406:
364:
344:
341:
338:
335:
334:
301:
272:on Knowledge's
269:
208:
207:
202:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2671:
2669:
2661:
2660:
2655:
2650:
2645:
2640:
2635:
2630:
2625:
2620:
2615:
2610:
2605:
2600:
2595:
2590:
2585:
2580:
2575:
2570:
2565:
2560:
2555:
2545:
2544:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2452:
2381:
2380:
2373:
2362:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2337:
2315:analyze tweets
2296:
2295:
2291:
2290:
2257:
2247:
2244:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2235:
2224:
2213:
2201:
2200:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2156:
2098:
2097:
2088:
2087:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2024:
1945:
1944:
1925:GorillaWarfare
1901:
1900:
1890:GorillaWarfare
1880:
1879:
1841:
1840:
1822:GorillaWarfare
1803:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1737:
1631:
1609:heckler's veto
1597:primary source
1554:
1553:
1552:
1549:
1543:
1536:heckler's veto
1524:
1502:
1446:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1372:onus is on you
1355:
1353:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1321:GorillaWarfare
1291:
1279:GorillaWarfare
1263:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1232:GorillaWarfare
1228:
1207:
1205:
1179:GorillaWarfare
1166:
1165:
1155:Post Millenial
1139:
1138:
1137:
1109:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1061:GorillaWarfare
1031:GorillaWarfare
1022:
1019:
1016:
1015:
966:
959:
958:
926:
914:
913:
899:
887:
886:
868:
856:
855:
852:
851:
848:
847:
845:
818:
806:
805:
800:
788:
787:
784:
783:
774:
764:
763:
761:
727:
726:
710:
698:
697:
686:
674:
673:
670:
669:
667:
650:the discussion
636:
624:
623:
618:
606:
605:
602:
601:
592:
582:
581:
579:
543:
542:
526:
514:
513:
502:
490:
489:
486:
485:
478:Low-importance
474:
468:
467:
465:
439:
438:
422:
410:
409:
407:Low‑importance
401:
389:
388:
385:
384:
361:
351:
350:
348:
321:
309:
308:
296:
284:
283:
277:
266:
252:
251:
247:this help page
231:poorly sourced
217:
210:
209:
200:
198:
197:
194:
193:
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:
2670:
2659:
2656:
2654:
2651:
2649:
2646:
2644:
2641:
2639:
2636:
2634:
2631:
2629:
2626:
2624:
2621:
2619:
2616:
2614:
2611:
2609:
2606:
2604:
2601:
2599:
2596:
2594:
2591:
2589:
2586:
2584:
2581:
2579:
2576:
2574:
2571:
2569:
2566:
2564:
2561:
2559:
2556:
2554:
2551:
2550:
2548:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2466:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2390:
2386:
2378:
2374:
2367:
2366:
2360:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2297:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2255:
2253:
2245:
2233:
2228:
2225:
2222:
2217:
2214:
2211:
2206:
2203:
2199:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2138:
2137:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2122:
2120:
2116:
2110:
2105:
2100:
2099:
2095:
2090:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2049:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2022:
2020:
2015:
2010:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1918:Consensus is
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1824:pointed out,
1823:
1819:
1815:
1809:
1804:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1706:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1691:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:Kaffeeklatsch
1598:
1594:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1569:
1561:
1555:
1550:
1547:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1410:
1403:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1312:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1269:
1264:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1206:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1170:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:New York Post
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1089:
1084:
1077:House hearing
1076:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1020:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1003:
1002:
997:
992:
991:
985:
981:
977:
973:
972:
967:
965:
964:
957:
955:
951:
947:
943:
938:
936:
932:
927:
924:
920:
919:
911:
907:
905:
900:
897:
893:
892:
884:
880:
878:
874:
869:
866:
862:
861:
846:
829:
825:
824:
819:
816:
812:
811:
807:
804:
801:
798:
794:
781:
780:
770:
766:
765:
762:
745:
744:documentation
741:
737:
733:
732:
724:
713:
711:
708:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
687:
684:
680:
668:
651:
647:
643:
642:
637:
634:
630:
629:
625:
622:
619:
616:
612:
599:
598:
588:
584:
583:
580:
576:LGBT articles
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
540:
529:
527:
524:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
503:
500:
496:
483:
479:
473:
470:
469:
466:
449:
445:
444:
436:
430:
425:
423:
420:
416:
415:
411:
405:
402:
399:
395:
382:
379:
376:
372:
367:
357:
353:
352:
349:
332:
328:
327:
322:
319:
315:
314:
310:
300:
297:
294:
290:
285:
281:
275:
267:
263:
258:
257:
249:
248:
243:
239:
235:
232:
228:
224:
223:
218:
216:
215:
196:
195:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
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:
2512:Going to be
2464:
2438:WP:BLPPUBLIC
2391:
2387:
2384:
2377:edit request
2341:"tipped off"
2258:claim about
2249:
2227:
2216:
2205:
2197:
2176:WP:DAILYMAIL
2126:Sideswipe9th
2108:
2101:
2093:
2046:
1946:
1902:
1885:you yourself
1884:
1842:
1788:
1769:
1695:Sideswipe9th
1659:
1465:no consensus
1464:
1411:
1407:
1171:
1167:
1163:Daily Caller
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1131:
1125:
1119:
1113:
1098:
1092:
1080:
1024:
1009:
1005:
999:
995:
989:
983:
979:
969:
939:
928:
901:
870:
833:Women in Red
823:Women in Red
821:
803:Women in Red
777:
729:
639:
595:
567:LGBT studies
558:project page
546:
545:
539:LGBTQ portal
505:LGBT studies
477:
462:law articles
441:
377:
345:AfC articles
331:project page
324:
280:WikiProjects
245:
233:
226:
220:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2470:DanielRigal
2442:Sariel Xilo
2361:Cass Review
2345:Sangdeboeuf
2327:Sangdeboeuf
2276:Sangdeboeuf
2272:"suggested"
2268:"theorized"
2260:Andrew Tate
2254:, the only
2184:Sangdeboeuf
2162:, but what
2070:Sangdeboeuf
2027:Sangdeboeuf
2009:in the clip
1977:Sangdeboeuf
1934:Sangdeboeuf
1892:(she/her •
1869:Sangdeboeuf
1830:Sangdeboeuf
1727:Sangdeboeuf
1680:WP:BLUDGEON
1662:Sangdeboeuf
1647:Sangdeboeuf
1621:Sangdeboeuf
1568:Sangdeboeuf
1431:Sangdeboeuf
1388:Sangdeboeuf
1323:(she/her •
1281:(she/her •
1234:(she/her •
1181:(she/her •
1063:(she/her •
1033:(she/her •
976:trans women
448:legal field
148:free images
31:not a forum
2547:Categories
2198:References
2168:Nancy Mace
2019:Nancy Mace
1717:CNN source
1709:Due weight
1676:WP:EDITWAR
1635:due weight
1159:Daily Wire
1147:Daily Mail
1021:Disclosure
935:designated
910:procedures
883:procedures
562:discussion
435:Law portal
366:this draft
2422:The Times
2313:We don't
2021:, who is
1093:The only
988:singular
948:, or any
749:Biography
689:Biography
238:libellous
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2496:substack
2274:, etc. —
2256:explicit
2150:contribs
2007:Indeed,
1999:contribs
1932:above. —
1671:WP:UNDUE
1667:WP:UNDUE
1593:sources.
1384:WP:UNDUE
1317:WP:IINFO
1143:Fox News
1120:Newsweek
381:contribs
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2522:WP:NPOV
2514:WP:BOLD
2395:Esqueer
1969:WP:RS/N
1965:WP:RS/P
1861:WP:ONUS
1588:WP:PSTS
1574:Kleuske
1540:WP:NPOV
1473:Kleuske
1469:WP:NPOV
1436:Kleuske
1175:WP:NPOV
1095:WP:GREL
1088:WP:MREL
480:on the
270:C-class
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
2518:WP:RSP
2488:WP:RSP
2484:WP:BLP
2426:WP:RSP
2424:is on
2418:WP:RSP
2414:Spiked
1741:WP:BLP
1615:. The
1532:WP:BLP
1528:WP:CON
1487:WP:BLP
1275:WP:10Y
1225:WP:RSP
1145:(Ă—3),
1006:living
984:latest
510:Person
371:BD2412
276:scale.
126:Google
2465:might
2375:This
1521:WP:RS
655:Women
646:women
621:Women
554:LGBTQ
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2530:talk
2504:talk
2474:talk
2446:talk
2399:talk
2349:talk
2331:talk
2305:talk
2280:talk
2188:talk
2146:talk
2130:talk
2119:talk
2074:talk
2057:talk
2031:talk
1995:talk
1981:talk
1954:talk
1938:talk
1909:talk
1894:talk
1883:DH,
1873:talk
1859:The
1850:talk
1834:talk
1797:talk
1777:talk
1749:talk
1731:talk
1699:talk
1688:talk
1678:and
1651:talk
1625:talk
1586:Per
1578:talk
1564:and
1510:talk
1496:talk
1477:talk
1455:talk
1440:talk
1419:talk
1413:me.
1392:talk
1362:talk
1325:talk
1300:talk
1283:talk
1255:talk
1236:talk
1215:talk
1199:talk
1183:talk
1065:talk
1051:talk
1035:talk
990:they
929:The
902:The
871:The
738:and
375:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
2432:or
2410:BBC
2325:. —
2023:not
1975:. —
1572:).
1386:. —
1277:).
1107:CNN
1099:why
472:Low
453:Law
404:Law
227:BLP
176:TWL
2549::
2532:)
2506:)
2476:)
2448:)
2420:,
2401:)
2351:)
2333:)
2307:)
2282:)
2270:,
2190:)
2152:)
2148:/
2132:)
2076:)
2059:)
2033:)
2001:)
1997:/
1983:)
1956:)
1940:)
1922:.
1911:)
1896:)
1875:)
1852:)
1836:)
1799:)
1779:)
1751:)
1733:)
1701:)
1653:)
1627:)
1590::
1580:)
1512:)
1498:)
1479:)
1457:)
1442:)
1421:)
1394:)
1364:)
1327:)
1302:)
1285:)
1257:)
1238:)
1217:)
1201:)
1185:)
1161:,
1157:,
1153:,
1149:,
1129:,
1123:,
1117:,
1067:)
1053:)
1037:)
978:.
692::
508::
383:).
156:)
54:;
2528:(
2524:.
2502:(
2472:(
2444:(
2397:(
2347:(
2329:(
2303:(
2278:(
2186:(
2144:(
2128:(
2117:(
2102:@
2085:)
2081:(
2072:(
2055:(
2029:(
1993:(
1979:(
1952:(
1936:(
1907:(
1871:(
1848:(
1832:(
1828:—
1810::
1806:@
1795:(
1775:(
1747:(
1729:(
1697:(
1686:(
1660:@
1649:(
1623:(
1576:(
1570::
1566:@
1562::
1558:@
1508:(
1494:(
1475:(
1453:(
1438:(
1433::
1429:@
1417:(
1390:(
1360:(
1313::
1309:@
1298:(
1270::
1266:@
1253:(
1213:(
1197:(
1086:(
1049:(
1014:.
782:.
746:.
600:.
564:.
484:.
378:·
373:(
282::
250:.
225:(
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.