Talk:Dead cat strategy

381: 360: 284: 266: 294: 1543:

referenced in high-quality academic sources that are clearly discussing the topic, since that sets a clear (and high) bar for inclusion that avoids an indiscriminate or synth-y list while still allowing us to mention the most important examples (ie. ones that are key to understanding the topic or are part of how its academic understanding evolved, as opposed to "some talking head accused someone else of this once.") --

391: 235: 1838:, thrown with the full expectation that political and press opponents will seize on it. The thrower anticipates having to weather some temporary bad publicity from it, but has weighed that up against the damage of whatever those opponents would be talking about otherwise. I don't think Clinton's missile strikes were made in that spirit, to draw opprobrium for their own sake from Republicans. 206: 190: 524:? One is a quote of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar describing a statement of Johnson's in a given context as "throwing dead cat", the other is a milder and somewhat weaselly "seen by some" which echoes the Irish Independent's "some critics believe" but could instead be attributed to Matt Potter of the Washington Post whose entire article is about Johnson's dead cats. 1377:

that some unnamed journalists (we don't know who) are wrongly describing as dead cats - possibly she picked the three silliest examples she'd seen recently. It's a fine source for Charlotte Lydia Riley's opinion of the strategy, and it would be good to get some of that into the article, but it's a bad source for deciding which examples to use here. --

1720:

hand, press articles that use the words "dead cat" but can't be reliably sourced as to have actually met the article's definition in point of fact shouldn't be included, unless the attacks themselves are so successful they deserve a separate section on unproven or false attacks related to the term. —

1637:

I would prefer a history section over an "example list." I would note that it would not be possible to abide by NPOV without the historical examples covered in WP:RS so my answer is I guess both yes and no... Yes this article should "include examples of politicians being publicly accused of employing

1175:

How it is original research (or as you say further above, synthesis) to quote an example of usage and frame it as such? Is it that Sarwar may have meant something else by "dead cat" and we're wrong to draw the connection to this article? I agree that the article shouldn't say something objective like

736:

We have a source quoting Anas Sarwar saying " knew exactly what he was doing by throwing that dead cat strategy around the Jimmy Savile trial." Is DeFacto's concern that - in the absence of an aside from the press source explaining to the reader what a "dead cat strategy" is - Sarwar might have meant

567:

It also makes it clear that (with my emphasis): "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about

1376:

The Prospect article is titled "Dear journalists: please stop calling everything a “dead cat”" and links to three press articles which don't use the term "dead cat", and which the writer doesn't think are dead cats. The point being made is that the writer considers them examples of the kind of thing

1214:

Which may actually be Lynton Crosby again, since the dead-catter there is Scott Morrison, who I think Crosby was advising at the time. Even so, though, the phrase is being used by someone else, and it's not given enough context to tell us whether "dead cat" is established Australian political slang.

953:

As far as I can find out, the Johnson EU example is the first time the term was used in the British press. Why wouldn't we include it in that context? I'm against a list of random examples as I state above, but the origin of the term is valid encyclopaedic content. There is no contradiction in that.

1719:

one, you're back to the problem being addressed here.) Reliably sourced use of a strategy that meets the article's sourced definition should qualify. This goes back at least as far as the Greeks and Romans, even if they weren't using Australian slang. It probably predates civilization. On the other

1088:

suggests that the article really does need to give some political context, rather than being a pure metaphor about throwing a cat at a dinner party, framed only in the vague "Let us suppose you are losing an argument" context that Johnson's Telegraph piece uses. It's harder for an unfamiliar reader

641:

None of those sources (and it should be all of them if they're cited) was giving an authoritative description of what a "dead cat strategy" is, and giving these cases as examples. The synthesis is the cobbling together of bits and pieces from different sources to invent a scenario, and then drawing

1145:

as "undue and OR". I don't understand what you're waiting for, do you want a journalist to write a "top five dead cat strategy examples" article for you, to reassure you that your Knowledge colleagues haven't selected biased or trivial instances? Can the article contain no examples until that day?

904:

Clearly, there will be a scarcity of cases where anyone admits that they are using the strategy, and a preponderance of accusations. Including the accusations doesn't seem undue to me, as they are widespread. Clearly identifying them as accusations is important. "Examples of use of the term", etc.

1304:

I only see one example there, and it's rather oblique, Sam Delaney repeating the dead cat dinner party explanation and then saying "and that is exactly what happened" about the outcome of Fallon's speech, which reads more like a thoughtful comparison than Delaney committing to describing it as an

1125:

We need to find sources giving an in-depth analysis of 'dead cat' strategy and, if it provides examples, use them. We should not be choosing our own selection without a sourced basis for the selection. We need to attribute them as opinion too, and not assert the opinions that they are examples of

599:

For the first, all I see are misrepresentations and allegations from opposition MPs which, given their job is to embarrass and criticise the government, carry little weight and cannot be relied on to be authoritative, being strung together to arrive at a conclusion (that this is an "example") not

1702:

of using the strategy shouldn't be laundry listed at all. The article currently suffers from too many anti-Tory media articles on Boris treated as though they were scholarly works discussing the practice. If press attacks are legitimate and can be reliably sourced, they deserve entry without any

1450:—was made early in the discussion, and nobody objected to it (though nobody explicitly supported that specific suggestion, either). In combination with the argument that examples would be helpful in illustrating the concept to allow readers to understand the topic better, I find that there is a 1542:

in several ways (unclear selection criteria can give undue weight to certain aspects, and it can become an argument about the nature of the topic based on what gets included.) I would say that we should avoid an indiscriminate list; the only examples that should be mentioned are ones that are

1327:

article, which is actually about 'deadcatting', and how the term became popular in journalism as pejorative, gives the examples of James Cleverley over a Sky interview, Jacob Rees Mogg over Grenfell victims, the PM on 'onanism'. As they are presented in this context, they are appropriate

1034:

is a source describing and discussing the dead cat strategy as it relates to Johnson, and giving several examples (the article also mentions Trump, but gives no specific example); if that seems too anti-Johnson to quote alone, we have his comment about the EU debt crisis. Knowledge can

1737:

could be included (besides an RS discussing a hypothetical or historical case): if something meaningfully connects Johnson himself, as the popularizer of the term, to an illustrative use of the term in practice, then it might be worth including. After a cursory search I only found

900:

Please note my strikethrough of a previous comment. I was making my point badly while misunderstanding DeFacto. There is a difference between there being clearly supported cases of the accusation being made, and saying in wikipedia's voice that the strategy was actually used by an

626:

What *exactly* is synthesised. What isn't reliable about the Independent, Washington Post, Guardian, or the BBC? The examples are of USAGE, not whether it's been fairly applied. All instances of it's usage are going to be critical, obviously. Also, please do not edit war.

595:

says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". For each example, we need to see at least one (and preferably more) reliable authoritative source about the dead cat strategy, describing it as prime

756:

of one. We need an authoritative source on the dead cat strategy to assert it as an example, and then we can cite that. If Sarwar said Johnson was a hard left politician, would we use that as reliable support for giving Johnson as an example of a hard left politician? --

1351:, examples need to be supported by sources in context of the subject of the Wiki article, and not as items from recent news on a different subject which just happen to use the subject of the Wiki article in passing, and pejoratively, when describing the other subject. 1501:

Otherwise we can just cherry-pick our own favourite examples from the numerous examples of journalists using the term each time they need to attack a politician, with no apparent connection to the topic of this article other than the use of the term. --

1759:

a small number of clear examples to illustrate what the "throwing a dead cat on the dining room table" metaphor actually translates to in politics. The current usage section of "may be used to avoid responsibility or the repercussions of misconduct

929:

the source where Boris Johnson accuses the EU of throwing a dead cat, after objecting to its use as an example above. Can we get a response to having an "Examples of use of the term" section to include the multiple sources where other people use it

997:

For the examples, I'm okay with an attributed RS list from a source describing and discussing the strategy and illustrating it with examples, but I'm totally against an OR/SYNTH list of examples cherry-picked by Wiki editors. --

1674:

laundry list now that American politics is being treated as bloodsport. Yes, the most important examples should be sourced and worked into the body of the article or a History section. Yes, it would also be helpful to have a

1335:

article, again specifically about 'deadcatting' and Lynton Crosby's ideas, gives the example of how the Tory chances of winning the 2015 election were turned around following Michael Fallon's attack on Ed Milliband's Trident

1140:

We have strong sources for Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar using the term to describe Boris Johnson's Jimmy Savile remark, and this was written up as "Sarwar characterised Johnson's statement as" in the article, but you

564:, BLP is very explicit about what it covers: "Material about living persons added to any Knowledge page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". 1811:? "Wag the dog" was originally military but is now broader "deliberate distraction for political ends". "Dead cat" was originally Boris but now broader "deliberate distraction for political ends". In what areas are they 1206:

Hard to tell whether Johnson is being flippant when describing it as part of "the rich and fruity vocabulary of Australian political analysis", but there may be some earlier usage of the metaphor in Australian politics;

1056:

I think that WP article is more an opinion/attack piece on Johnson rather than a technical piece about the 'dead cat' strategy, and anything from it probably belongs in Johnson's article, if anywhere, but not here. --

153: 779:, though - isn't that what the section is documenting? The other two paragraphs (where Boris Johnson accuses the EU of throwing a dead cat, and CNN and the BBC accuse Trump) would have the same problem otherwise. -- 1179:

This discussion feels like it's starting to go in circles, and would probably benefit from a clear RFC on whether an article about a pejorative political term can include non-dictionary examples. I'll put one up.

1679:

laundry list somewhere on the internet. Knowledge used to be a place for "List of..." articles but it seems to be out of favor these days. Maybe it could be hosted on a blog or political wikia somewhere. —

1160:

If it isn't being described as an example in an article specifically about what deadcatting is, rather than in an article focussing on criticising Johnson, then it is surely OR and undue to include it. --

975:

Are you against a non-random curated list of examples of usage, titled as "examples of usage"? As has been said, there don't seem to be many sourced examples out there (maybe just the four that were there

1454:

in favour of including examples with this specific level of sourcing. Given the lack of thorough discussion on this point, this may need to be discussed further if objections are raised at a later point.

1570:

just cherry-pick our own favourite examples from the numerous examples of journalists using the term each time they need to attack a politician, with no apparent connection to the topic of this article

972:

Given that he says "we must borrow from the rich and fruity vocabulary of Australian political analysis" in that article, Johnson did not coin the phrase himself and we shouldn't imply that he did.

1742:

which partially quotes anonymous MPs accusing Johnson of using a "dead cat". What I'd rather see however is a source with a fully quoted exchange involving the term, including Johnson's response.

796:

I didn't see the other two being added, so hadn't read them. But having read them I'd say neither of those are verifiable as examples of the strategy either, so I'd support their removal too. --

491: 1470:

Should this article about a pejorative political strategy include examples of politicians being publicly accused of employing it, sourced to press articles where those statements were made? --

1092:

Do you feel that an article giving three sourced examples (one of Johnson being accused of using a dead cat strategy, one of Trump, one of Johnson using it to attack the EU) would work here,

994:

As I read it, the friend described the strategy with the analogy, and Johnson then used the short-hand 'dead cat' to refer to it. Many sources refer back to Johnson's use when describing it.

1089:

to understand the concept without a real world example, and it would seem needlessly artificial to concoct one about a fictional politician when real-world examples are on the record.

1086:

Sometimes the deadcat strategy is used, not only to distract when an argument is being lost (as above), but to avoid responsibility when evidence arises of harmful actions or misdeeds

1589:- I don't know why we wouldn't include several examples. I understand the "cherry-picking" concern, but we can avoid that by focusing on the most notable examples. I know this is an 874:

So would renaming the section to something like "Usage of the term" resolve this, if there were only four reliably sourced examples in the press, and we included all four of them? --

1800:

After the end of the #Origin section, the rest of the article should deal with actual examples of such behavior in practice. Such examples of behavior do not require the use of the

1655:

per Aquillon. With articles like this we need to distinguish between sources that are actually about the dead cat strategy and sources that merely happen to use the expression. --

1211:

quotes an anonymous member of the Liberal shadow cabinet saying "'What are we going to do about concerns about the number of Muslims?' He put it on the table like a dead cat."

938:? Reframing this article as a strategy that Johnson learned about from his campaign manager and was then able to catch his political opponents using is enormously misleading. -- 1841:

I'm not sure what "or important" is doing in the lead here. A politician breaking an important, positive story to distract from something else doesn't seem like a dead cat. --

980:), and it seems reasonable to me to include all four of them to show that the phrase has been around a while, is still in use, and has also been used in the United States. -- 568:

living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be

147: 1496:, and they should only be from references specifically discussing the 'dead cat' strategy, rather than from references about an alleged specific political use of the term. 1739: 1271:

Perhaps if we are to give examples, we should concentrate on successful distractions characterised as 'dead cat' - there are some mentioned in this 2015 article on the

1276: 824:

How would we choose which usage example to include - by prevalence across all reliable sources? Or are there so few usage examples that we could include them all?

603:

For the second, all I see are stories being spun (OR) and misrepresentations of the plan, followed by the, as you say, weaselly, allegations and personal opinions.

1638:

it, sourced to press articles where those statements were made" but in the history section not as a dedicated list and not as some sort of exhaustive directory.

656:

Examples show usage, not definition. The examples given are clearly supported by their sources. Again, without generalising, what EXACTLY is being synthesised? (

846:

I think there are few enough sourced usage examples that we could include them all. In what way would including some examples of usage break WP:NOTTEXTBOOK? --

1446:) are stronger than the arguments to the contrary.The argument that it would be appropriate to include examples with a higher level of sourcing—specifically 1053:

Yes, I'm not espousing OR, but that was what I thought it was saying. We need a clearer source to be sure. I wonder if it's got into any RS dictionaries yet.

1230:

You'd think if it was in widespread use anywhere before Johnson started using it in his Telegraph article, it would be easy to find sources covering it. --

721:

If we label it as an example then we must be able to prove that it is an example. For very specific details of my argument see my posts in this thread. --

1768:" is needlessly opaque and doesn't help the reader understand the concept. I agree that an example list coat rack of all passing mentions would be bad. -- 1039:

on an article without having to wait (perhaps forever) for a journalist to write one perfect, neutral list article that we can then copy line for line. --

1804:"dead cat" but they must involve proof (usually confession or legitimate historical concensus) that the action was a deliberate attempt at distraction. 79: 1885: 447: 437: 44: 1870: 336: 1647: 1890: 1880: 793:

The article is called 'Dead cat strategy', and the section in question is "Examples". The obvious meaning is examples of dead cat strategies.

85: 342: 476: 413: 495: 642:

the conclusion, that that none of the individul sources makes, that the homemade scenario is an example of a "dead cat strategy". --

1875: 1865: 1518:

Summoned by a bot. I agree with the comments above and don't think the article should include examples of politicians employing it.

546:- this isn't a biography, and it's all sourced anyway. I have re-introduced it as the reasoning for removal is clearly spurious. ( 168: 1439: 1427: 99: 30: 135: 1431: 1405: 404: 365: 104: 20: 1126:'dead cat' strategy as actual incidents of 'dead cat' strategy, especially as it is generally used as a derogatory term. -- 1619:

the cherrypicking would occur. The way to avoid it would be to let everything in. That, of course, has its own problems. —

1306: 935: 1787:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1293: 1031: 670:

Examples need to be described as examples in sources that describe the strategy and provide these as examples of it. Read

74: 1111:

The lack of coverage in article of a wider treatment and the widespread reporting of the article subject is ridiculous. (

527:

The descriptions of the events being distracted from could use a polish, but I'm not sure I see the original research. --

1208: 246: 1024:"As you read it" would be original research, and seems to be wrong: Johnson literally writes in that source that he is 1643: 752:

It may be Sarwar's opinion that it is a dead cat strategy, but that isn't enough to assert it as a fact that it is an

65: 129: 1176:"Boris Johnson used a dead cat strategy in February 2022 when...", but it never said that, it was quoting Sarwar. 307: 271: 1807:

Having said that, in what ways does the behavior described here differ from that already covered by the article

490:

The examples for United States hold obvious bias. Neither is incorrect, but more should be included at least.

234: 125: 1560:- the discussion above illustrates the perils of an "example list" - that there is an inherent likelihood of 1255: 480: 311:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 109: 1846: 1773: 1660: 1639: 1475: 1382: 1314: 1220: 1185: 1151: 1101: 1044: 1036: 985: 943: 879: 851: 815: 784: 742: 532: 175: 827: 252: 1698:. I had gotten distracted by the discussion in some of the later posters. G-d no, politically-launched 1820: 1721: 1680: 1620: 1590: 1525: 1460: 1456: 1443: 1281: 472: 189: 216: 1747: 1548: 1435: 161: 55: 1503: 1355: 1285: 1258: 1231: 1162: 1127: 1093: 1058: 999: 955: 922: 861: 833: 797: 758: 722: 675: 643: 611: 577: 511: 412:

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

1577: 860:

I don't, I thought I'd removed that mistake before publishing. Sorry, I've struck it out now. --

70: 141: 1842: 1769: 1656: 1534:. My usual answer for "example lists" like these is that they have a huge risk of introducing 1507: 1471: 1426:

with the level of sourcing described. The arguments made in favour of this position, based on

1378: 1359: 1310: 1297: 1289: 1266: 1262: 1235: 1216: 1181: 1166: 1147: 1131: 1097: 1062: 1040: 1003: 981: 959: 939: 875: 865: 847: 837: 811: 801: 780: 762: 738: 726: 679: 647: 615: 581: 528: 51: 24: 1602: 1594: 1565: 1539: 1519: 1117: 911: 712: 671: 662: 633: 552: 396: 1743: 1544: 1032:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/04/15/boris-johnson-dead-cat-party-zelensky

390: 380: 359: 1859: 1573: 1493: 1354:

The refs I gave are just a couple of sources providing suitably sourced examples. --

1348: 1340: 702: 607: 574:

Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing

543: 1766:(click the footnote link and read the article to find out which party, when and how) 810:

So would renaming the section to something like "Usage of the term" resolve this? --

1572:. The 'dead-cat' analogy is itself an example of a deflection/redirection strategy. 1561: 1535: 1489: 1344: 592: 517: 701:

Your inability to specifically point out *details* you disagree with is straining

283: 265: 212: 1670:

Include(asterisk) with the others above. No, there shouldn't be a poorly curated

1808: 1793: 1598: 293: 1309:, where we get a list of examples of what Porter considers to be dead cats. -- 1815:

different? That needs to be clearly explained in the phrasing of the leads of

1709:

Examples should not required sourced use of 'dead cat' related to the behavior

1112: 906: 707: 657: 628: 561: 547: 386: 299: 289: 1850: 1828: 1777: 1751: 1729: 1688: 1664: 1628: 1606: 1581: 1552: 1511: 1479: 1464: 1386: 1363: 1318: 1239: 1224: 1189: 1170: 1155: 1135: 1120: 1105: 1066: 1048: 1007: 989: 963: 947: 914: 883: 869: 855: 841: 819: 805: 788: 766: 746: 730: 715: 683: 665: 651: 636: 619: 585: 555: 536: 499: 484: 699:

Is being in a section specifically called "Examples" somehow misleading?

409: 211:

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on

1448:

high-quality academic sources that are clearly discussing the topic

312: 228: 200: 184: 15: 1819:

articles or they should be combined and handled together. —

1307:

Matt Porter's Washington Post article about Boris Johnson

610:, stuff like this needs robust and reliable sourcing. -- 1834:

My reading would be that a dead cat is always something

1275:

website about the unexpected Tory election win in 2015:

1488:, I think the selection of examples should comply with 1142: 1081: 977: 926: 521: 936:

the deleted source entirely about his deployment of it

160: 1404:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

408:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1414:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1250:Here's an interesting article about the term from 341:This article has not yet received a rating on the 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1762:(wink wink Boris Johnson headline in footnote) 1305:intentional dead cat. This seems a rung below 826:No, I think exmples of use would fall foul of 1615:Selecting which examples are more notable is 1417:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 174: 8: 1715:a "dead cat" is the important criterion for 1703:regard to the press attacks apart from the 775:They're examples of the phrase's published 232: 1764:, has been used to win previous elections 470: 354: 260: 1084:a whole cloth example section beginning 469:any idea on the origin of this phrase? 542:The reason given in the edit notes was 356: 262: 1569: 1447: 1085: 905:should be enough to make this clear. ( 492:2601:191:8500:50E9:DCCD:2885:C2D4:BDCF 7: 1254:in the run-up to the 2019 election: 572:and without waiting for discussion. 402:This article is within the scope of 305:This article is within the scope of 315:and the subjects encompassed by it. 251:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 14: 1886:Low-importance politics articles 1783:The discussion above is closed. 1245: 389: 379: 358: 292: 282: 264: 233: 204: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1871:Unknown-importance law articles 520:are you concerned about in the 442:This article has been rated as 422:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics 1: 1891:WikiProject Politics articles 1881:Start-Class politics articles 425:Template:WikiProject Politics 416:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 1246:More on 'dead cat' strategy 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 1907: 1422:Consensus is in favour of 1298:22:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 1267:22:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 1240:14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 1225:12:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 1136:21:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 1121:17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 1106:17:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC) 1067:14:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 1049:14:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 1008:13:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 990:11:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 964:11:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 948:11:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 915:12:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC) 884:08:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC) 870:20:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 856:20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 842:20:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 820:20:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 806:19:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 789:19:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 767:19:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 747:19:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 731:19:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 716:19:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 684:19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 666:18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 652:18:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 637:18:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 620:18:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 586:18:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 556:18:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 537:17:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 505:Original research examples 448:project's importance scale 343:project's importance scale 1778:11:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC) 1465:19:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC) 1202:Earlier Australian usage? 1028:from Australian politics. 934:Boris Johnson, including 485:01:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 441: 374: 340: 321:Knowledge:WikiProject Law 277: 259: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1876:WikiProject Law articles 1866:Start-Class law articles 1851:15:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 1829:17:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC) 1785:Please do not modify it. 1752:18:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC) 1730:16:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC) 1689:16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC) 1629:16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC) 1440:WP:Neutral point of view 1428:WP:Core content policies 1411:Please do not modify it. 1026:borrowing the vocabulary 737:something else by it? -- 500:20:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 324:Template:WikiProject Law 1665:11:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC) 1648:16:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC) 1607:12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 1582:09:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 1553:03:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC) 1512:11:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1480:09:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1432:WP:No original research 1387:11:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1364:11:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1319:07:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1190:09:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1171:09:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1156:06:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC) 1593:argument, but look at 1424:not including examples 600:stated in any of them. 241:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 674:for more details. -- 100:Neutral point of view 1735:One possible example 1080:The fact that an IP 405:WikiProject Politics 105:No original research 1406:request for comment 570:removed immediately 247:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 1284:comment added by 1252:Prospect Magazine 1209:this 2011 article 487: 475:comment added by 462: 461: 458: 457: 454: 453: 428:politics articles 353: 352: 349: 348: 227: 226: 223: 222: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 25:Dead cat strategy 1898: 1826: 1825: 1727: 1726: 1686: 1685: 1640:Horse Eye's Back 1626: 1625: 1595:October surprise 1413: 1300: 522:removed examples 515: 430: 429: 426: 423: 420: 399: 394: 393: 383: 376: 375: 370: 362: 355: 329: 328: 325: 322: 319: 302: 297: 296: 286: 279: 278: 268: 261: 244: 238: 237: 229: 208: 207: 201: 197:Daily page views 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1856: 1855: 1823: 1821: 1798: 1789: 1788: 1724: 1722: 1683: 1681: 1623: 1621: 1467: 1442:(in particular 1434:(in particular 1409: 1399: 1397:RfC on examples 1339:To comply with 1279: 1248: 1204: 1037:WP:ACHIEVE NPOV 509: 507: 467: 427: 424: 421: 418: 417: 397:Politics portal 395: 388: 368: 326: 323: 320: 317: 316: 308:WikiProject Law 298: 291: 245:on Knowledge's 242: 205: 199: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 1904: 1902: 1894: 1893: 1888: 1883: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1839: 1797: 1792:Merge to/from 1790: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1754: 1732: 1693: 1692: 1667: 1650: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1610: 1609: 1584: 1555: 1529: 1515: 1514: 1498: 1497: 1468: 1452:weak consensus 1421: 1420: 1419: 1400: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1352: 1337: 1329: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1177: 1123: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1054: 1029: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 995: 973: 967: 966: 920: 919: 918: 917: 902: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 828:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK 794: 770: 769: 734: 733: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 604: 601: 597: 590: 589: 588: 565: 506: 503: 466: 463: 460: 459: 456: 455: 452: 451: 444:Low-importance 440: 434: 433: 431: 414:the discussion 401: 400: 384: 372: 371: 369:Low‑importance 363: 351: 350: 347: 346: 339: 333: 332: 330: 304: 303: 287: 275: 274: 269: 257: 256: 250: 239: 225: 224: 221: 220: 209: 195: 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: 1903: 1892: 1889: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1874: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1863: 1861: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1803: 1795: 1791: 1786: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1736: 1733: 1731: 1728: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1707:of the case. 1706: 1701: 1697: 1691: 1690: 1687: 1678: 1673: 1668: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1635: 1630: 1627: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1591:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1588: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1556: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1517: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444:WP:Due weight 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1407: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1277: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1212: 1210: 1201: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1178: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1144: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1122: 1118: 1116: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1055: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1009: 1005: 1001: 996: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 979: 974: 971: 970: 969: 968: 965: 961: 957: 952: 951: 950: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 928: 924: 916: 912: 910: 909: 903: 899: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 867: 863: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 831: 829: 823: 822: 821: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 795: 792: 791: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 764: 760: 755: 751: 750: 749: 748: 744: 740: 732: 728: 724: 720: 719: 718: 717: 713: 711: 710: 705: 704: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 667: 663: 661: 660: 655: 654: 653: 649: 645: 640: 639: 638: 634: 632: 631: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 602: 598: 594: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 566: 563: 559: 558: 557: 553: 551: 550: 545: 541: 540: 539: 538: 534: 530: 525: 523: 519: 513: 504: 502: 501: 497: 493: 488: 486: 482: 478: 477:87.75.100.200 474: 464: 449: 445: 439: 436: 435: 432: 415: 411: 407: 406: 398: 392: 387: 385: 382: 378: 377: 373: 367: 364: 361: 357: 344: 338: 335: 334: 331: 314: 310: 309: 301: 295: 290: 288: 285: 281: 280: 276: 273: 270: 267: 263: 258: 254: 248: 240: 236: 231: 230: 218: 217:MediaWiki.org 214: 210: 203: 202: 198: 194: 191: 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: 1843:Lord Belbury 1835: 1816: 1812: 1806: 1801: 1799: 1784: 1770:Lord Belbury 1765: 1761: 1756: 1734: 1716: 1713:being called 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1695: 1676: 1671: 1669: 1657:RaiderAspect 1652: 1616: 1586: 1557: 1531: 1520: 1485: 1472:Lord Belbury 1469: 1451: 1436:WP:Synthesis 1423: 1416: 1410: 1403: 1379:Lord Belbury 1332: 1324: 1311:Lord Belbury 1280:— Preceding 1272: 1270: 1251: 1249: 1217:Lord Belbury 1213: 1205: 1182:Lord Belbury 1148:Lord Belbury 1143:deleted that 1113: 1098:Lord Belbury 1094:User:DeFacto 1091: 1079: 1041:Lord Belbury 1025: 982:Lord Belbury 940:Lord Belbury 931: 923:User:DeFacto 921: 907: 876:Lord Belbury 848:Lord Belbury 825: 812:Lord Belbury 781:Lord Belbury 776: 753: 739:Lord Belbury 735: 708: 700: 698: 658: 629: 573: 569: 548: 529:Lord Belbury 526: 508: 489: 471:— Preceding 468: 443: 403: 327:law articles 306: 253:WikiProjects 196: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1809:Wag the dog 1794:Wag the dog 1740:one article 1700:accusations 1694:Apologies. 1082:today added 901:individual. 313:legal field 243:Start-class 213:Phabricator 148:free images 31:not a forum 1860:Categories 1521:Comatmebro 1457:TompaDompa 978:originally 927:added back 300:Law portal 1744:SamuelRiv 1545:Aquillion 1328:examples. 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 1836:negative 1822:Llywelyn 1723:Llywelyn 1682:Llywelyn 1677:complete 1622:Llywelyn 1574:Pincrete 1566:WP:SYNTH 1540:WP:SYNTH 1333:Guardian 1325:Prospect 1294:contribs 1282:unsigned 1273:Guardian 925:has now 672:WP:SYNTH 596:example. 473:unsigned 465:Untitled 419:Politics 410:politics 366:Politics 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 1757:Include 1696:Exclude 1672:partial 1653:Exclude 1587:Include 1532:Exclude 1504:DeFacto 1356:DeFacto 1336:policy. 1286:DeFacto 1259:DeFacto 1232:DeFacto 1163:DeFacto 1128:DeFacto 1059:DeFacto 1000:DeFacto 956:DeFacto 862:DeFacto 834:DeFacto 798:DeFacto 759:DeFacto 754:example 723:DeFacto 676:DeFacto 644:DeFacto 612:DeFacto 578:DeFacto 512:DeFacto 446:on the 215:and on 154:WP refs 142:scholar 1711:. (If 1599:NickCT 1568:as we 1494:WP:DUE 1438:) and 1349:WP:DUE 1341:WP:VER 703:WP:AGF 608:WP:BLP 576:". -- 544:WP:BLP 249:scale. 126:Google 1717:being 1705:facts 1617:where 1562:WP:OR 1536:WP:OR 1490:WP:OR 1430:like 1345:WP:OR 1257:. -- 1114:Hohum 932:about 908:Hohum 777:usage 709:Hohum 659:Hohum 630:Hohum 593:WP:OR 562:Hohum 549:Hohum 518:WP:OR 516:What 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 1847:talk 1817:both 1802:term 1774:talk 1748:talk 1661:talk 1644:talk 1603:talk 1578:talk 1564:and 1558:Omit 1549:talk 1526:talk 1508:talk 1492:and 1476:talk 1461:talk 1383:talk 1360:talk 1347:and 1331:The 1323:The 1315:talk 1290:talk 1263:talk 1236:talk 1221:talk 1186:talk 1167:talk 1152:talk 1132:talk 1102:talk 1096:? -- 1063:talk 1045:talk 1004:talk 986:talk 960:talk 944:talk 880:talk 866:talk 852:talk 838:talk 816:talk 802:talk 785:talk 763:talk 743:talk 727:talk 680:talk 648:talk 616:talk 606:Per 582:talk 533:talk 496:talk 481:talk 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1813:any 1510:). 1362:). 1265:). 1238:). 1169:). 1134:). 1065:). 1006:). 962:). 954:-- 868:). 840:). 832:-- 804:). 765:). 729:). 706:. ( 682:). 650:). 618:). 584:). 438:Low 337:??? 318:Law 272:Law 176:TWL 1862:: 1849:) 1824:II 1776:) 1750:) 1725:II 1684:II 1663:) 1646:) 1624:II 1605:) 1597:. 1580:) 1551:) 1538:/ 1486:No 1478:) 1463:) 1408:. 1385:) 1343:, 1317:) 1296:) 1292:• 1223:) 1215:-- 1188:) 1180:-- 1154:) 1146:-- 1119:) 1104:) 1047:) 988:) 946:) 913:) 882:) 854:) 818:) 787:) 745:) 714:) 664:) 635:) 554:) 535:) 498:) 483:) 156:) 54:; 1845:( 1796:? 1772:( 1746:( 1659:( 1642:( 1601:( 1576:( 1547:( 1528:) 1524:( 1506:( 1474:( 1459:( 1381:( 1358:( 1313:( 1288:( 1278:. 1261:( 1234:( 1219:( 1184:( 1165:( 1150:( 1130:( 1100:( 1061:( 1043:( 1002:( 984:( 958:( 942:( 878:( 864:( 850:( 836:( 830:. 814:( 800:( 783:( 761:( 741:( 725:( 678:( 646:( 627:( 614:( 580:( 560:@ 531:( 514:: 510:@ 494:( 479:( 450:. 345:. 255:: 219:. 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

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

Index