971:
rule strength from 0.9 to 1.0. However if you have 9/10 (same as before) at start and then end up with 87/100 the rule "strenght" has gone down but its universality has gone up. The higher amount of thing to have been applied to means it more of a general patterns rather than anecdote. In the same sense that a 100% approval rating is likely to be a forged election result a finding that is only mostly universal is much more reliable than a exactly universal one if it of inductive "empirical" matter instead of definitional "deductive" matters (2+2=4 is sitll way more true than 2+2+x=5 even if x represents a value that might occasionally differ from 0).
519:
pleasing to imagine that Fowler and others might have persuaded many people to avoid this usage, so that its frequency might be falling. Meanwhile, an earlier discussant (see above) took the view that labelling something as "incorrect", especially when so commonly used, expressed a Point of View (POV) and was therefore inappropriate for
Knowledge. So while I am sure most (if not all) style guides would agree with Fowler, and I personally regard Fowler as an invaluable guide to correct English usage, I am content with an article that merely reports Fowler's view and does not try to assert a would-be-universal view. --
334:
your parking example interesting is the you phrased it as parking allowed on Sunday whereas the source which uses this has the parking prohibited on Sunday. In a common law tradition anything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed. Thus it would be reasonable to say that if parking is prohibited on Sunday it must be allowed on other days. It would not be reasonable to infer that because parking is allowed on Sunday it must be prohibited on the other days. This expression is far more subtle than it has been made out to be.
71:
53:
168:
147:
81:
694:
nothing about violence against men, so "parking on
Sundays is bad" entails nothing about parking on any other day. We would normally accept the inference here that parking is fine except on Sundays simply because it is a common convention that parking is ok unless explicitly prohibited. However, there is no comparable convention about violence, so the inference to "violence against men is not bad" is unwarranted.
483:" and "prove" is bogus, is immediately disproved by the existence of Engineering Test Facilities as Aberdeen Proving Ground and White Sands Proving Ground,both major proving grounds used for the test, proofing or proving of major USA military systems. The use is self-evident in the continuing use of these facilities to conduct engineering tests to prove or test the worthiness and readiness of engineering designs"
245:
22:
733:
not then the rule is disproved. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted: adherents of the original literal meaning maintain that an 'exception' here is not an extreme, unusual case, but merely any case that is not covered by the rule, and that 'proves' means 'demonstrates the existence of', not 'tests the validity of'."
654:
themselves, although obviously they wouldn't be able to defend themselves very well against a gun, a gang, or a sneak attack. In any case, "the exception that proves the rule" is only a rule of thumb; it has plenty of exceptions itself that don't prove its rule. That doesn't give us license to invent some nonsense about
1104:
whether it needs to be modified or rejected. I believe that his example was the belief of
Exploration Age Europeans that 'all swans are white.' In Australia, they found that there were black swans. So the rule that swans must be white (or at least the definition of swans as white birds) was in fact incorrect.
826:
The sentence isn't saying that the idiom is in a state of confusion, but rather that people confuse it frequently and thus, that it is confused (by people) frequently. That's how those kinds of constructions work. Animacy distinguishes one meaning from the other. It's fairly unambiguous to anyone who
732:
In this second of Fowler's meanings, it is claimed the word 'proves' means 'tests' and that 'the exception proves the rule' therefore means something like 'an unusual case can be used to test whether or not a rule is valid'. If the rule stands up to the unusual case then that reinforces its truth; if
482:
The discussion of this in the opening paragraph of the article is utter garbage. It's not incorrect, it's just confusingly written garbage that belongs here, not in the body of the article. "The explanation that "proves" really means "tests" is, however, considered bogus by some sources. To say "test
465:
I agree that this is the sense - 'the exception tests (even 'probes') the rule' - i.e. it is the presence of exceptions which tests whether it is really a rule. This can be linked to Karl Popper's idea of a scientific theory as needing to be falsifiable. It may seem a general rule, but the exceptions
333:
be a rule; with that information alone we cannot be sure of what it is. It's also important that the exception be seen as an exception, and that the supposed rule be unique and unambiguous. If it can be an exception to more that one conflicting rule it is no longer effective as a proof. What makes
287:
This means that the article has been copied to the
Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Knowledge's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary
1247:
I thinks it's important in the introduction to present the differing explanations of this phrase as neutrally as possible. Some people think that there are "correct" interpretations of words and phrases, others think in terms of etymology and the roots of words and phrase. However, I would suggest
745:
not at all. If this article wants to discuss the theory that it means this in Fowler or anywhere else, for that matter, it has specifically to attribute this theory to an actual person, and not just through a footnote. Moreover, this actual person needs to be notable, and it needs to be notable that
693:
There is a broader lesson to be learned from this. If the "parking prohibited on
Sundays" example in the introduction is good colloquial usage, then the phrase "the exception proves the rule" applies to situations where nothing at all is proved. Just as "violence against women is bad" itself entails
637:
The presence of a rule objecting to all violence against women does not imply the presence of a rule approving of all violence against men. Exceptio probat regulam would be satisfied in this case by the presence of a weaker rule disapproving of most violence against men. In general, an exception may
593:
Of course it isn't an article about Fowler. But since every other style guide acknowledges Fowler and/or copies/simplifies Fowler's account, Knowledge is merely reflecting the weight that countless other authorities have already accorded to Fowler. Unless you can find any source that is not clearly
970:
From considerations from before reading the article I have a conception that might or migth not fall within the "scientific sense". That is if before the correction you have 9/10 rule holdings to rule applications and you have 9/9 rule holdings to rule applications you have in effect "boosted" the
899:
Is the sense identified in the article as the 'loose rhetorical sense' actually the reinforcement of the idea that there exists a general rule (even if an imperfect rule; one having exceptions) by the realisation of how very unusual a case has to be for it to be an exception? If so, is there some
766:
edition number is 70098 so I am sure we can work back from there to find the exact saturday, I just only realised that I hadn't got the date on it, which is rather odd cos I tend to date everything anyway, I just suppose I assumed that it would be on the top of the heading and now find it is not.
765:
I found a verifiable citation by chance in the Times some time last month. It is in the leader on page two, rather stupidly I tore off withour realising that the date was not on the top of the page but it was on a
Saturday has a poppy on it so must be before Nov 14th one or two weeks at most, the
915:
The term "Loose rhetorical sense" comes from Fowler. I assume he wished to distinguish the first four senses in terms of different but legitimate purposes - legal, scientific, rhetoric and humour. I have no objection to anyone finding a better way of explaining this, but I suggest we also retain
653:
Actually, I think it is fair to assume that most persons who go on about "violence against women" are, in fact, relatively unconcerned about violence against men, however politically incorrect it may be to point this out. The possible presumption is that men are big and strong and able to defend
1103:
Paleontologist and pop science writer
Stephen Jay Gould defined this expression using the 'tests' meaning of 'proves.' As mentioned in this article, in this sense the expression means that when an exception to a rule is found, that exception can be used to test whether the rule really holds, or
559:
An editor has complained that "this article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source" - namely Fowler. I don't see a problem with this, given that many later style guides acknowledge Fowler as an influence, and I should be sorry to see this article made more cumbersome or less
513:
The article is good at explaining the logic behind this confusing phrase -- as with the "parking prohibited on Sunday" example (which would be strengthened by the "common law tradition" described above) -- but I think it would be improved by giving carefully designed examples of how this phrase
1220:
The opening refers to five ways, just as the source does. The description opening Uses in
English describes the spectrum from the original to the most objectionable, and that most objectionable use, from the source, would be the going beyond the jocular nonsense described in 1.4 to the serious
697:
The broader lesson is: the expression "the exception proves the rule" applies only in situations where it is already clear that the presented exception is really an exception to some operative rule. Since this means we need to know beforehand that there really is a rule to which the postulated
518:
Fowler certainly believed that the fifth usage (which he called "Serious
Nonsense" and regarded as incorrect) was the commonest, although he doesn't offer any evidence for this. I am not aware of any evidence that would support a choice between "frequently" and "almost always", and it would be
1131:
The modern German verb "pruefen" indeed means "test". It would be nice if that were the end of the matter. But unfortunately the Anglo-Saxon version "profian" doesn't mean that, unless the lexicographers have over-hastily assumed for it the meaning of the Latin "probare". But if the matter in
677:
Sorry to be both picky and slow in response, but I think TheScotch has missed the point of my comment. I agree that such persons may well be relatively unconcerned about violence against men. So we may infer the existence of some rule, but we cannot know precisely what rule. Thus even if the
509:
The article begins by saying that use of this expression is "frequently confused." But from what I've heard, "frequently" means "almost always." Typically, one person claims something, then someone aks "but what about this counter-example?" and the response is that the counter-example is "an
321:
It would be good in this case to avoid the POV terms "correct" and "incorrect" in reference to this expression. After all, the "incorrect" usage goes back to the 17th century, and has established itself in its own right. The reader who encounters the expression needs to be aware of both
1183:
This in a nutshell is the problem with taking “prove” to mean mean confirm or establish. “Prove” means test, and in this case, the white or albino crow tests the rule that all crows are black, and demonstrates that the rule is actually: “All crows are black except for albinos.”
1107:
Gould pointed to the mathematical 'proof.' A proof in mathematics is a step by step demonstration that something is true. So a 'proof' is a test of a claim. I suspect that many people got this definition of the expression from Gould like I did, though he's not mentioned here.
812:"frequently confused idiom" is really bad verbage. An idiom can't in and of itself be confused; it doesn't have a brain. skip that part and go directly to its meaning which also introduces the concept of confusion. Or cut frequently confused and go directly to the meaning.
1259:
The paper concerned gives an opinion but is not an authority. There are no authorities on language usage. That people do use the expression believing "prove" means "test" is incontrovertible and does not require sources. The various discussions in the talk page are proof(!)
710:
But this is a circular argument: the truth of (1) can only be established if (2) has already been established. The word "proves" seems to promise a demonstration of something less trivial than this, but the idiom is in fact totally vacuous and I avoid using it like the
950:
I would suggest that a less-political example be used instead of the Ted
Kennedy example. The conclusion that 'the statement about rich, white politicians is not a rule, it is merely a trend' detracts from an article that I otherwise found very useful and informative.
1199:
I think the theory is that an apparent exception tests the validity of the rule, and the rule either stands, falls, or is modified as a result. As the article indicates, there is not much evidence for this meaning, and it doesn't match how the phrase is
466:
will test it. Either it will be found that the exception disproves the rule, or that it is not a case which the rule prohibits, and therefore was misidentified. I guess someone needs to run of and find some sources, add to the article and attribute!
360:
are considered "POV". Is it POV to say 2+2=4 is correct and 2+3=4 is incorrect? There is not just one misinterpretation of the expression in question, and those misinterpretations that are incorrect are incorrect precisely because they clearly
1275:
I don't see any judgment made in the part of the lead you replaced, only statements of fact. So it is not clear to me what statement you're challenging. And you didn't just remove the reference to a paper, you removed all three cited.
1255:
It is better to avoid making any judgments in the introduction which is why I have reworded the ending as I have and removed the reference to a paper which is not helpful at that point. By all means, it can be referenced later.
616:
This is an odd end to the day, and a little off-topic really, but a good example. I was looking at a user page today, I forget why, and I noticed that she had a tag that said she objected to all violence against women.
398:? In any case, the expression in its original sense clearly means that the rule is to be inferred from the exception (or, conversely, that the exception implies the rule, which is another way of saying the same thing.)
1251:
I myself am etymologically minded and do use this phrase with the meaning that "prove" originally meant "test". I am not, though, saying that this is "correct". It is simply what appeals to me logically.
322:
possibilities. In no way should he assume that the more subtle older meaning is used. There are many more usages in English where a more modern change has been has been accepted in a much quicker time.
1114:
Bryan Garner comes down on the side of the Latin/legal usage in his fine book Gardner's Modern English Usage, but Gardner isn't perfect. He calls 'self-confessed' reduntant, when it certainly isn't.
1185:
218:
865:
is not the same as Knowledge's, and allows for non-figurative idioms. However, Fowler doesn't describe exception-proves-the-rule as an idiom either, so I can see no good reasn to keep this word.
1111:
It seems to me that both the legal principle and the Gouldian logical version are useful. Both could be used, with the context defining the particular meaning of the expression in that case.
974:
Is this a thing? Should I search whether it is a thing to avoid it be original research? Do those different subsesenses count as things important enough to explicicate as different?
510:
exception that proves the rule" which is claimed as support that their claim is correct, even though they are ignoring the counter-example, which they are not even trying to explain.
775:
Just adding for the record, it was very foolish of me not to realise the date wasn't on the top of the column, but I think that is certainly verifiable and may add to the article?
1221:
nonsense which should be 1.5. However, there is no 1.5 and the reader goes straight from an opening mentioning five ways to an article body that drifts off after just four ways.
769:
Anyway the leader says, in second column, "The phrase 'the exception that proves the rule' originally meant that diffiult cases tested the probity of a generally held axiom."
329:
in the Latin expression. In the scientific method there is a repeating cycle of hypotheses and proofs. As long as we are at the hypothesis stage we can only state that there
1151:
This page is for improving the article, not for chatting about the subject of the article. So, does this have any relevance for the article? If not, please go elsewhere. --
1382:
208:
1387:
1045:
1041:
1027:
560:
readable (or worse still, less informative) by the addition of further sources that merely copy or simplify Fowler's analysis. Repetition is not verification. --
1296:
This article is not well written, overly verbose/convoluted and relies too heavily on a single source. It is in severe need of editing and simplification.
184:
1377:
514:
should NOT be used, and why these uses are illogical and should be avoided. Craig Rusbult, craig@chem.wisc.edu (not registered as a wiki-contributor)
1367:
123:
267:
275:
931:
Thank you for this. I now understand more fully. I agree that it is desirable to retain Fowler's term and think your suggested form a good one.
175:
152:
975:
952:
846:
Is this phrase really an idiom? The Wiki entry for idiom speaks of 'figurative meaning'Â : are not the words in this phrase used literally?
129:
1339:
828:
712:
490:
1189:
1392:
1228:
813:
278:
1372:
1023:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
940:
909:
698:
exception really is an exception, the exception itself plays no role in demonstrating the existence of the rule. All we get is:
1013:
761:
Use in Times leading article, some time in November, I didn't realise I'd forgotton to note date but edition 70098, a Saturday
271:
997:
1362:
1301:
1088:
33:
638:
indicate that some rule exists, but you cannot always infer the exact content of the rule from the exception alone. --
450:
the rule". This was mentioned on a recent BBC Radio 4 programme (which I will reference as soon as I can locate it !)
498:
459:
801:
297:
94:
58:
1044:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
346:
It would be good in this case to avoid the POV terms 'correct' and 'incorrect' in reference to this expression."
936:
921:
905:
885:
870:
851:
683:
643:
599:
565:
524:
308:
293:
979:
956:
1343:
832:
716:
494:
1297:
1232:
1140:
1079:
1005:
817:
98:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
1265:
1121:
932:
901:
881:
847:
580:
542:
678:
exception were to prove the existence of SOME (indeterminate) rule, it couldn't prove any specific rule.
455:
1156:
1136:
1063:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1051:
575:
I do see a problem with it. It gives undue weight to Fowler's view. This isn't an article about Fowler.
325:
The other point is that "proves" is not equivalent to "implies" or even "infers". Let's not forget the
39:
1261:
1180:
Zeus: How does the existence of a white crow prove that all crows are black? It actually disproves it.
1117:
1004:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1224:
1125:
486:
880:
Thank you for this. I don't now know what to suggest on this matter and so will shut up for a time!
451:
21:
917:
866:
797:
751:
679:
667:
639:
627:
595:
561:
520:
417:
183:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
441:
can be taken to mean 'tests' rather than 'proves' in the modern sense - see etymology of 'proof'
335:
1048:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1064:
1327:
1205:
576:
538:
1014:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080405180021/http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html
1347:
1333:
1305:
1285:
1281:
1269:
1236:
1209:
1193:
1160:
1152:
1144:
1093:
983:
960:
925:
889:
874:
855:
836:
821:
755:
720:
687:
671:
647:
631:
603:
584:
569:
546:
528:
475:
421:
338:
311:
180:
1071:
1030:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
793:
747:
663:
623:
471:
413:
1070:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1356:
1017:
1316:
1201:
167:
146:
383:
The other point is that 'proves' is not equivalent to 'implies' or even 'infers'.
70:
52:
1277:
1037:
760:
537:
I am concerned that the article has basically been taken over by Fowler's view.
80:
244:
1036:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
792:
3) The passage quoted was stuck into the article obtrusively and illogically.
263:
256:
86:
76:
1248:
that is better to be empirical and simply note that different usages exist.
467:
252:
179:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
772:
The title for the leader is Court in the Act, discussing MP Phil Woolas.
296:
to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from
405:
This expression is far more subtle than it has been made out to be.
368:
interpretations. In particular, the notion that in this expression
862:
785:
2) The Times is not highly regarded for its writing, and Fowler's
1135:, then perhaps we can admit ambiguity in their interpretation.
1133:
620:
So, exceptio probat regulam, violence against men is OK then?
239:
99:
15:
916:
Fowler's term, perhaps in the form "Fowler calls this ...".
288:
if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
1008:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1177:
Atlas: Well, that’s the exception that proves the rule.
1001:
446:
The result is that the meaning can be: "the exceptions
1040:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
895:
What does the 'Loose rhetorical sense' really mean?
1018:http://alt-usage-english.org/exception_proves.html
894:
789:is filled with example errors from this newspaper.
128:This article has not yet received a rating on the
266:. Therefore the article can be found at either
1338:I read it as being concise and well-explained.
435:exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
1026:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
1216:five ways in which the phrase has been used
1222:
996:I have just modified one external link on
900:better way of describing and naming this?
484:
262:The article has content that is useful at
236:2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message
141:
47:
1383:Low-importance English Language articles
1186:2600:4040:5D38:1600:50D8:B705:D849:1062
352:Things have come to a pretty pass when
292:Removing this tag will usually trigger
143:
49:
19:
193:Knowledge:WikiProject English Language
1388:WikiProject English Language articles
827:isn't trying to be an obtuse pedant.
701:1) P is an exception to some rule R;
428:
196:Template:WikiProject English Language
7:
412:It's really not very subtle at all.
173:This article is within the scope of
92:This article is within the scope of
1174:Zeus: Look, there’s a white crow!
782:1) The Times is clearly wrong here.
102:and the subjects encompassed by it.
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
1378:C-Class English Language articles
1000:. Please take a moment to review
300:and should not be re-added there.
966:genuine different understanding?
737:Fowler mentions the theory that
243:
166:
145:
79:
69:
51:
20:
1368:Unknown-importance law articles
505:Illogical Mis-Use of the Phrase
213:This article has been rated as
1094:03:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
998:Exception that proves the rule
1:
1306:05:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
1237:19:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
1126:19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
961:02:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
926:09:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
910:02:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
875:08:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
856:01:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
837:18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
721:09:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
394:is logically the opposite of
187:and see a list of open tasks.
1334:00:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
1171:Atlas: All crows are black.
1161:13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
1145:12:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
1132:question is just Ine's laws
941:00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
890:00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
822:13:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
688:20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
570:11:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
476:08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
460:19:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
339:07:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
312:11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
176:WikiProject English Language
1210:17:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
1194:15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
984:09:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
529:20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
298:Category:Copy to Wiktionary
1409:
1057:(last update: 5 June 2024)
993:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
802:08:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
648:21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
632:03:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
604:10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
585:05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
547:05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
390:Does it occur to you that
376:is a complete fabrication.
130:project's importance scale
1393:Transwikied to Wiktionary
1286:10:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
1270:09:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
499:08:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
212:
199:English Language articles
161:
127:
108:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
64:
46:
1373:WikiProject Law articles
756:18:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
741:in the expression means
672:15:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
429:'Proves' meaning 'tests'
422:18:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
111:Template:WikiProject Law
1348:21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
989:External links modified
861:Fowler's definition of
707:2) Some rule R exists.
594:derived from Fowler. --
327:in casibus non exceptis
1098:
612:Violence against women
28:This article is rated
658:in this case meaning
1363:C-Class law articles
1038:regular verification
787:Modern English Usage
1028:After February 2018
309:CopyToWiktionaryBot
294:CopyToWiktionaryBot
251:This page has been
1298:I enjoy sandwiches
1082:InternetArchiveBot
1033:InternetArchiveBot
34:content assessment
1331:
1311:Any suggestions?
1239:
1227:comment added by
1058:
501:
489:comment added by
317:Misinterpretation
305:
304:
301:
289:
233:
232:
229:
228:
225:
224:
140:
139:
136:
135:
1400:
1325:
1320:
1167:proof means test
1092:
1083:
1056:
1055:
1034:
808:confused verbage
291:
283:
247:
240:
219:importance scale
201:
200:
197:
194:
191:
190:English Language
181:English language
170:
163:
162:
157:
153:English Language
149:
142:
116:
115:
112:
109:
106:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1353:
1352:
1318:
1314:
1294:
1245:
1218:
1169:
1101:
1099:So who's right?
1086:
1081:
1049:
1042:have permission
1032:
1006:this simple FaQ
991:
968:
948:
933:GeorgeMogMorris
902:GeorgeMogMorris
897:
882:GeorgeMogMorris
848:GeorgeMogMorris
844:
810:
763:
728:
708:
702:
614:
557:
507:
437:the meaning of
431:
319:
238:
198:
195:
192:
189:
188:
155:
113:
110:
107:
104:
103:
95:WikiProject Law
85:
78:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1406:
1404:
1396:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1370:
1365:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1336:
1312:
1293:
1292:Poorly written
1290:
1289:
1288:
1244:
1241:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1148:
1147:
1100:
1097:
1076:
1075:
1068:
1021:
1020:
1012:Added archive
990:
987:
976:84.249.106.127
967:
964:
953:76.241.123.147
947:
944:
929:
928:
918:RichardVeryard
896:
893:
878:
877:
867:RichardVeryard
843:
840:
809:
806:
805:
804:
790:
783:
778:
762:
759:
727:
724:
706:
700:
691:
690:
680:RichardVeryard
651:
650:
640:RichardVeryard
613:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
596:RichardVeryard
588:
587:
562:RichardVeryard
556:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
532:
531:
521:RichardVeryard
506:
503:
481:
479:
478:
430:
427:
426:
425:
424:
409:
408:
400:
399:
387:
386:
378:
377:
349:
348:
318:
315:
303:
302:
290:
282:
261:
248:
237:
234:
231:
230:
227:
226:
223:
222:
215:Low-importance
211:
205:
204:
202:
185:the discussion
171:
159:
158:
156:Low‑importance
150:
138:
137:
134:
133:
126:
120:
119:
117:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1405:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1358:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1340:91.181.209.21
1337:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1322:
1321:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1242:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:FangoFuficius
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1053:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1029:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
988:
986:
985:
981:
977:
972:
965:
963:
962:
958:
954:
946:Less politics
945:
943:
942:
938:
934:
927:
923:
919:
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
892:
891:
887:
883:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
841:
839:
838:
834:
830:
829:108.70.133.22
824:
823:
819:
815:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
784:
781:
780:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
758:
757:
753:
749:
746:he says this.
744:
740:
735:
734:
725:
723:
722:
718:
714:
713:80.42.223.155
705:
699:
695:
689:
685:
681:
676:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
649:
645:
641:
636:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
611:
605:
601:
597:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
572:
571:
567:
563:
555:Single Source
554:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
511:
504:
502:
500:
496:
492:
491:137.132.217.9
488:
477:
473:
469:
464:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
444:
442:
440:
436:
423:
419:
415:
411:
410:
406:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
384:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
359:
355:
351:
350:
347:
343:
342:
341:
340:
337:
336:Eclecticology
332:
328:
323:
316:
314:
313:
310:
299:
295:
286:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
260:
258:
254:
249:
246:
242:
241:
235:
220:
216:
210:
207:
206:
203:
186:
182:
178:
177:
172:
169:
165:
164:
160:
154:
151:
148:
144:
131:
125:
122:
121:
118:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1324:
1315:
1313:Duly signed,
1295:
1262:Pooh bear138
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1243:Introduction
1229:73.152.26.22
1223:— Preceding
1219:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1118:MarkinBoston
1116:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1080:
1077:
1052:source check
1031:
1025:
1022:
995:
992:
973:
969:
949:
930:
898:
879:
845:
825:
814:4.249.48.173
811:
786:
777:
774:
771:
768:
764:
742:
738:
736:
731:
729:
709:
703:
696:
692:
659:
655:
652:
622:
619:
615:
558:
512:
508:
485:— Preceding
480:
447:
445:
438:
434:
432:
404:
395:
391:
382:
373:
369:
365:
362:
357:
353:
345:
330:
326:
324:
320:
306:
284:
250:
214:
174:
114:law articles
93:
40:WikiProjects
1319:WaltClipper
1153:Hob Gadling
704:Therefore,
253:transwikied
100:legal field
1357:Categories
1089:Report bug
264:Wiktionary
257:Wiktionary
87:Law portal
1072:this tool
1065:this tool
794:TheScotch
748:TheScotch
664:TheScotch
624:SimonTrew
577:Brangifer
539:Brangifer
452:Mike0whit
414:TheScotch
358:incorrect
1225:unsigned
1078:Cheers.—
487:unsigned
1202:Trystan
1200:used.--
1002:my edit
711:plague.
392:implies
354:correct
217:on the
30:C-class
1278:Nardog
842:idiom?
739:proves
726:Tests?
656:proves
439:probat
396:infers
372:means
370:proves
279:logs 2
276:logs 1
36:scale.
863:Idiom
743:tests
730:Re: "
660:tests
403:Re: "
381:Re: "
374:tests
344:Re: "
285:Note:
1344:talk
1328:talk
1302:talk
1282:talk
1266:talk
1233:talk
1206:talk
1190:talk
1157:talk
1141:talk
1122:talk
980:talk
957:talk
937:talk
922:talk
906:talk
886:talk
871:talk
852:talk
833:talk
818:talk
798:talk
752:talk
717:talk
684:talk
668:talk
644:talk
628:talk
600:talk
581:talk
566:talk
543:talk
525:talk
495:talk
472:talk
468:Tsop
456:talk
448:test
418:talk
356:and
281:.)
272:here
268:here
1304:)
1046:RfC
1016:to
443:].
433:In
366:mis
363:are
331:may
270:or
255:to
209:Low
124:???
105:Law
59:Law
1359::
1346:)
1317:⛵
1284:)
1268:)
1235:)
1208:)
1192:)
1159:)
1143:)
1124:)
1059:.
1054:}}
1050:{{
982:)
959:)
939:)
924:)
908:)
888:)
873:)
854:)
835:)
820:)
800:)
754:)
719:)
686:)
670:)
662:.
646:)
630:)
602:)
583:)
568:)
545:)
527:)
497:)
474:)
458:)
420:)
407:":
307:--
1342:(
1330:)
1326:(
1323:-
1300:(
1280:(
1264:(
1231:(
1204:(
1188:(
1155:(
1139:(
1120:(
1091:)
1087:(
1074:.
1067:.
978:(
955:(
935:(
920:(
904:(
884:(
869:(
850:(
831:(
816:(
796:(
750:(
715:(
682:(
666:(
642:(
626:(
598:(
579:(
564:(
541:(
523:(
493:(
470:(
454:(
416:(
385:"
274:(
259:.
221:.
132:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
