Talk:Kingston University/Archive 2

971:

properly sourced, that is sufficient. In this case, the BBC Newsnight source is more than adequate, as is the supplementary source of the Report on Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism, which would not have referenced the BBC Newsnight programme, unless it considered it a reliable source, albeit one that is controversial, rather than entirely agreed upon by all members of society (i.e. Hizb ut Tahrir members might not agree that their organisation is anti-semitic). I must further add that by having a number of members convicted of criminal offences and by having been banned by a variety of governments (i.e. Germany, Denmark, etc), that would suffice to qualify the organisation as 'criminal' in nature -- to be a member in these countries is to commit a criminal offence, therefore, members are not likely to openly admit to membership. The reasons for this banning is precisely because the organisation advocates anti-semitic positions, including violence towards Jews. The highly respected Indian think tank,

3393:(Coming from ANI) I would have to agree with Hoary and others here that based on the evidence thus far, this looks like a relatively insignificant controversy affecting the university that doesn't belong in the article. Incidentally, people have already made some good points about the parliament thing, but another point is that unless there is something unusual about the UK parliament, and I don't think there is, mention in parliament isn't that big a deal. MPs say things in parliament all the time about a large variety of topics. It's their job. Unless what they said merited coverage in RSS it's largely irrelevant when it comes to determining significance. Even if you haven't been to parliament (I have) or watched coverage of parliamentary proceedings (ditto), this should be obvious from reading coverage that a lot of the stuff said in parliament is not really that interesting or significant. 2088:, which provides a forum for requesters and responders to FOI requests. A controversy does not have to have received note in MSM, but simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known. Clearly, hiring a professor with a record of serious sexual misconduct with teenage girls to teach teenage students at a large university would be considered a "controversial" decision on the part of Kingston University or any university for that matter. The source showing the "Professor"'s name contains specific information relating to his being among the doctors struck off of the register of accepted BUPA consultants (there is obviously a reason he was struck off), a fact that supports the controversial nature of his appointment as "visiting professor." 389:

Knowledge article or editor to make this synthesis, and neither should a Knowledge article depend for such a synthesis on a personal or fringe website, or even some newspaper notorious for its tut-tutting over dubious stories of alleged wrongdoing in education. Yet as long as WP articles on universities write up trivia such as mottoes and mascots, putative controversy shouldn't be excluded merely because it has no direct bearing on education proper. (After all the controversies surrounding cover-ups by the Roman Catholic church of sex abuse by its employees don't self-evidently have a direct bearing on the core work of the church, but they are thought to be

1013:, you don't seem to get it. There have been a number of examples of reliable sourcing of coverage on Hizb ut Tahrir's anti-semitic activity and on its activity at Kingston University. There have. On this basis it is a controversy worthy of inclusion. I'm not prepared to argue this further with you, as you clearly have such biases against identifying Hizb ut Tahrir as anti-semitic, and against considering its presence on university campuses as noteworthy, that no amount of reliable sourcing will be able to convince you. I submit that other editors will support a different view. 1203:- - The article swings from two polar extremes one where the main body of the article has been written like a perspectus of the university there is an excessive amount of unsourced, statements; biased language and marketing weazel words and the controversies section that has been influenced by someone with a clear grevance. But considerabally less attention has been paid to the main body of the article than the controvercies section which leads me to question is there any potential conflict of interest between the other article editors as well as from Dbasemanger69 1599:

finding the reasons for inclusion of content about the incidence of Antisemitic groups or individuals to be a compelling basis for retaining this section, albeit with some relabeling possibly in order. The citations are very much mainstream and reliable press sources, and those that are viewed by some editors as more controversial sources, are nonetheless notable. For example, the Westminster Journal reference is, upon examination linked to an internet security expert and journalist with his own WP entry,

1603:, which suggests both reliability and notability. The other topics in the 'Issues' section seem entirely appropriate and consistent with what is seen as notable with respect to other UK universities. It would seem that some editors have an axe to grind in wanting to protect at all costs the positive image of Kingston University, whereas, it would be better to have the article reflect a more even-handed view of this institution's positive and negative attributes. 330:, just to a section which by it's very nature is going to be negative. WP is not a place to list every little detail of the University and to risk unbalancing the whole article, it is no coincidence that main stream media tend to report more on stories that reflect negatively on organisations than they do on items that reflect positivity. The reasoning behind my suggestion was to try and find a way to decide what should go here (if anything) - for example 31: 814:

inconsistant and have a pretty fluid definition of reliable source. First you argue that there is insufficent evidence to judge anti-semetism and then when they appear on the NUS no platform list; negating any requirement for the article to prove anti-semetism you change that argument to say the BBC is not a reliable source. If the BBC, parlamentary reports or wikipedia itself does not constitute a reliable source; What would, in your eyes.

872:

platform' list im not using to suggest that Hizib is 'anti semitic' but that their appearance on a university campus contrary to a 'no platform' policy that the universities student union is party to through their NUS affiliation is in itself controvercial. Hizib ut tahir could be replaced with Barney the Dinosaur and if Barney the Dinosaur was on an NUS No Platform list his appearance on a university would still be controvercial.

1465:

extremist groups? Please declare any conflicts of interest. Now, you've chosen to engage in an edit war when an editor tries to move the article forward. Your efforts have amounted to Vandalism in the sense that you have unreasonably blocked the proper development of the article. This is why I have now submitted a request for protection of the article till this dispute can be resolved by proper administrative authority.

190: 2930:

be set high, yes it was covered in the local paper, yes a MP mentioned it in parliamentary proceedings, buy only to make his point in a debate unrelated to either Scott or the university and most of his information appears to be sourced from Fredrics in an unprompted e-mail, and given parliamentary protection he does not need to check the facts before he says anything.

4461:. There are two different issues: Should the 'tuition fee increase' section be removed, and should we discuss the issue in the history section? In my opinion, there is little doubt that the section is a breach of NPOV (basically concocting a 'controversy' by synthesis) and should be deleted, but I see no reason why this needs to go into the 'history' section, per 1964: 3940: 1687: 3224:. The report did not "highlight" anything. That is the view of the WP editor who added it. The out-of-context quoted phrase about the complainant not having acquired sufficient "good will" was used in the sense of the complainant not having previously used the name in commerce or received significant financial gain from the name itself. 531:, however, I would submit that there has not been much, if any, coverage of these subjects that could be described as 'favourable' to Kingston University's position. Obviously, I would totally support including any quotes by University officials to rebut the now widely accepted as proven allegations in order to meet the requirements for 1094:

and with a judicial finding of 'underhand' behavior by its management in its industrial relations, it seems to me that such matters are quite important to the university's history, one which only began as such in 1992. On this basis I think that we can come to a consensus whereby this section can be restored in some form.

2435:)'s edit history in the context of his/her objections to this edit. Most of this user's edits concern a university, a law firms and large corporations, suggesting the possibility that this person tends to act on behalf of the reputations and other interests of such organizations rather than as an impartial contributor. 565:"Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus - "turned in an opposite direction," from contra - "against" - and vertere - to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against."" 4654:. We need to stick to those and ensure that league table positions and all other indicators are given in a standard style without commentary. If someone wants to take on the donkey work of going through all the UK university articles adding the information about the new undergraduate fees, that would be great. 4103:? Hike or Increase or something else or both? If something else, use that. If both, and you can't agree, flip a coin, or use something else. If none of the above, flip a coin and pick something else. But don't edit war. Simple yes? Lesson over. How about "Tuition Fee Changes"? Very neutral, yes? -- 3635:

But that's not the statement being made, the statement indicates that their move was in-line with a third of their competitors within the sector - this places the move within a sector wide context, without it, an unfamiliar reader might think that they simply one day decided to do it out of the blue.

995:

equate to a controversy. WP is not a place to list EVERY news report on every organisation, so you need to show that it was a notable event reported by a number of sources and to call it a controversy it must be shown others have called it one or that by the amount of coverage it is clear it is one.

900:

Well if you agree that the NUS is not a reliable source, how can you infer anything from a list they produce. The list as I understand it is one born out of the NUS as a political organisation and nothing more. However that is moot as you have ignored my point - to call it a 'controversy' you need to

4974:

I added that as a show of good faith. I am not perfect, And I do have biases, but they aren't reflected in my edits because my edits were based on sources. Can those who have removed information say the same? Is there a source that says this information is incorrect, out of context, does not reflect

4528:

controversial, but (i) if it is then nobody has shown good evidence of this (unless, of course, "controversy" merely means "more or less embarrassing stuff"), and (ii) there shouldn't even be a "controversies" section. The fee increase is of some importance and worth a mention. There's nothing about

2971:

Not only is none of these a policy, none is even a guideline. (Three are essays, and one is part of an essay.) ¶ So much for the "wikilawyering". Googling reveals that Howard Fredrics does not like Peter Scott or Kingston University. Either his dislike of Kingston University or the tussle with Scott

2929:

Nomoskedasticity sums just as well as I could. But I would like to add that this is an encyclopaedia least we forget, not an arena to either promote or discredit anyone or anything. The bar for adding anything that is designed to show the subject of an article in a negative way (such as this) has to

2345:

The University funded the entire set of cases, to the tune of some £500,000 of public money on behalf of the University's chief executive. A reading of the speech by David Burrowes, MP clearly demonstrates involvement of the University itself in this matter. Calling a matter that reaches the floor

1392:

I have no conflict of interest. Your accusation is entirely unfounded and will, therefore, be disregarded. Knowledge is not the place to list many, many, sources, as you would have me do. The multiple reliable sources I have provided are more than adequate by any reasonable editor's standard. As I

590:

The reason for it's removal is not as simple as you make out. If you have a read of some of the other comments, you will see that as well as there is no evidence that Kingston University either new about or supported it, there is no indication that other than Newsnight anyone else reported the story

464:

On the basis of the way in which other universities are treated, which appears to have formed a model of how the Kingston University page developed, I think that the content of the controversies section in this article should be restored in its entirety to the status of my edit i.e. with the various

459:

I have reviewed a number of university wikipedia entries and have found that there are quite a few with controversy sections not at all dissimilar from the one found in the present entry. The type of controversies, e.g. involving personnel, workplace stress, academic misconduct, race relations, are

4004:

other UK universities it's raising its fees to £9000. The university isn't keen on it. Obviously the students aren't either, although note that the Student Union rep's quote was taken out of context. He actually said "It's not a fair level of fees, but that's not the university’s fault". This whole

2815:

You keep talking about news coverage as if it were the only source imaginable. The fact that this particular case was debated in the house of commons, makes it clearly relevant. Anyways, notability isn't the standard here, it's reliable sources. Certainly a representative of the people can speak to

2739:

David Burrows makes a good point as well when he remarks on how easily someone could gain control of this particular institution and further his own ends, to the detriment of taxpayers. That's why they call it a controversy, because people don't know who or what to blame and everyone involved winds

2537:

You have already been told that if you have actual evidence of such things, you must bring them up in the appropriate place - not just keep repeating them here. If you persist in making such assertions here, I will ask that appropriate action be taken - this is likely to result in you being blocked

2508:

Unsubstantiated assertions about editors, based on nothing other than you feeling 'troubled', are not 'fair' full stop. Given your chosen username, it is entirely reasonable to assume a conflict of interest on your part. I suggest that you stick to the subject of this talk page - how our article on

1598:

I have reviewed the recent history of this section, and it seems that there is a rather vitriolic exchange of views taking place among editors, with personal attacks launched from various directions. In looking at the substance of the disagreement, however, I would tend to come down on the side of

1147:

Im not even arguing that Hizib ut tahir is anti-semetic anymore, I can accept without proper knowlege on the subject that that maybe a rather subjective opinion, What I am saying is much simpler. Kingston Students Union in its agreements with the NUS, Agreed to not give a platform to Hizib ut tahir

1093:

As far as the Employment Tribunal spending, clearly, the issue of public spending continues to be noteworthy, and with Kingston University having spent the most of any UK university in the past three years, with a most unusual dispute with a single employee taking up approximately 3/4 of the money,

1048:

Ok, now that we've beaten to death this subject of Hizb ut Tahrir and its presence and activity on the campus, as well as through a university-hired consultant, who was hired AFTER the BBC Newsnight debacle, thereby suggesting that Kingston University didn't learn from its prior mistakes, I suggest

871:

I Wasn't calling the NUS a reliable source; far from it, I was saying that Hizibs appearance at an NUS affiliated institution contrary to the NUS's no platform policy is in itself a controversy. Thus negating any need to prove 'anti-semetic' attitudes on coming from Hizib. Their apperance on a 'no

850:

one and so you can't use them to 'prove' anything. I have not changed my argument, it still remains, that no one has ever called this a 'controversy', the BBC may have reported it but there is no evidence to say they or anyone else called it a 'controversy'. The Parliamentary report, just mentioned

813:

But by virtue of it appearing on a current affairs program such as Newsnight it is by definition a 'controversy' they dont dont show non events on the news, The BBC is a reliable source and their appearance on the university campus is a violation of the NUS's no platform policy, Your being woefully

4628:

article does not adequately support the idea that this was controversial at Kingston and has also made an error one way or another. It mentions it as allegedly being one of the 5 universities in the bottom 10 that are raising fees to the maximum, but then lists the bottom 10 and Kingston is not on

4618:

There's is no problem with putting the fee rise in the History section. Normally, histories of insitutions go from the beginning to the present. The History section is currently very poor – 2 short sentences – and needs expansion anyway. The fact that something caused a controversy on Knowledge is

4213:

Good points. Primary questions might be, what has the university done differently in response? What have students done differently in response? What has the community done differently in response? Much like the Taco Bell lawsuit recently about beef content, very little actually came of it, but

2555:

The user has a history of being the largest editor of two prominent media law firms and of two UK universities. This suggests a possible undeclared COI. Why is he/she suddenly so interested in preventing editing of Kingston University's entry? And if editors believe it's acceptable to bring up

2330:

The quantity of text that Lorifredrics is trying to add certainly strikes me as grossly excessive for what seems to have been a pretty trivial incident and only indirectly connected to the university, albeit a senior member of staff. No more than a single sentence on this is reasonable in my view,

777:

According to the same report quoted above Hizib Ut Tahir is listed under the NUS no platform policy so would therefore be considered a controversy for them to be present at an NUS affiliated university. I dont think the BBC would have a particular axe to grind with the reporting of the presence of

673:

thoes editors raised this and others have reviewed it. Can you povide links to other sources claiming that the actions of Hizb ut Tahrir at this Uni were called a 'Controversy' or was it just Newsnight - and did they use that word ? You mention below Also any links to any UK reports to any Hizb ut

4593:"'Oppose'" too recent for history, and should be in Controversies section, as this is a controversial subject, based on the general tenor of debate both here and in the public sphere. I would add that it is controversial because Kingston's graduate employment rate is in the bottom ten, as per a 2019:

I'm puzzled by the coat of arms. I don't see this image on the University's website. It was added to commons by someone who claims to license it as his/her "own work". Is this for real? Does anyone recognize this image? I wouldn't be surprised if it is straight out of Harry Potter. Amusing,

994:

The pair (?) of you do not get this - who other than the BBC ran with the story ? - the whole NUS thing is just a red herring. Simply put at this time nothing has been provided to show that this item is either notable or a controversy. A news item on any news report or in any publication does not

979:

also refers to the opinion of the then Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, who points out that their Bangladeshi sister organisation calls for the mobilisation of armed forces to get rid of the Jewish entity, and the article itself refers to the fact that Hizb ut Tahrir is banned in German for

970:

on this one for the reasons he cites. WP's controversy policy does NOT mandate that a topic is specifically referred to by that term. Any subject involving matters of religion or politics that deals with matters of opinion can be considered to be a controversy. As long as the subject itself is

3636:

By that logic, the fact that they are amongst the top worst universities for employment should not be included because of mention of other universities. However, that paints this organisation in a negative light, so on the current pattern of your edits, I guess you are ok with including that? --

2647:

Lori, you've shown no substantial evidence of a COI between Rangoon11 and Knowledge. All "evidence" you have provided has been circumstantial at best. I do however, see a clear conflict of interest between you and anything on WP regarding your husband which is further proven by your attacks on

388:

article; at the same time, I think that significant controversies should be written up. The "controversies" written up in this article do indeed seem minor. Of course, it could be said that although individually they are indeed minor they add up to something significant. However, it is not for a

300:

has entire sections on "Athletics", "Athletic facilities", "Motto and song", "Nickname, symbol, and mascot" and suchlike, stuff that doesn't seem to me to "directly effect the education offered" (other perhaps than by reducing the time jocks can spend participating in that education). So perhaps

4005:

bit is like the "dog bites man" story. Incidentally, "hike" isn't derogatory or POV, but it's unencyclopedic style. This is (or at least is supposed to be) an encyclopedia not a badly written newspaper. I've made other copyedits to that effect, apparently the last before the article was locked.

2733:

does not indicate that a subject is more prominent than another. In this case, it means that the subject is simply more complicated than others to explain. Second, it is not simply the fact that it involves the vice chancellor, but that his actions impacted the reputation of the university in a

1832:

Its a weight thing. I would say that it is not now a current or notable issue. Times Higher Education is a reliable source, but this is not exactly one of the most important stories it has ever carried. Deech's ruling is a primary source. Were we to cover this item then we must use both the THE

1617:

It is nice some even handed-ness has been brought back to the page. My opinion was that there seemed to be some kind personal vendetta against Kingston University from certain editors with the massive controversy section. My last check at the University of East Anglia page had no mention of the

1084:

Thirdly, the matters of the National Student Survey and External Examiner fraud is not a short term or insignificant problem. In fact, for example, this issue of the Survey has found quite recent mainstream press coverage more than two years after it first emerged, as a result of new published

613:

Furthermore it is claimed by you; that only issues related to Kingstons provision of education are in the public interest and therefore should only be covered by Knowledge. I would argue that the provision of the environment to work and study for students and potential students is in the public

505:

Have done. But in this case, the preponderance of similar articles include similar controversies sections. Unless you're prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, then I respectfully submit that this comparison bears consideration. It seems strange to me that there has been so much

1464:

Every effort has been made by at least two different editors to respond positively to meet your demands for further sourcing and proof of notability and accuracy. Each time, you expand your requirements. What is your axe to grind against mainstream press reports that are critical of Islamic

1306:

Would adding such a story about Hizib's presence on campus fall under your definition of a minor Criticism or controversy? I have an idea on how the controversy section could be reworked if I drafted it here and then it could be approved by another editor to check that there is no COI's?

650:

Knowledge article, there is an interesting reference to the activities of Hizb ut Tahrir on the Kingston University campus sourced in the Report of the Parliamentary All-Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. It seems that this would constitute compliance with Knowledge's multiple sourcing

3029:, the policy indicates that the points of view about the subject would be in question, not the subject itself. There are no points of view discussed in the contribution, simply facts about the controversy. Whether anyone believes the university is involved or not is not commented on. 4485:

moving from "Controversies" to "History". Would also support leaving this non-event out completely (see my latest comment in the section above). And definitely oppose pointing out that it's among the bottom 10 in graduate employment if the only source for this completely contradicts

4429:

seems rather flawed since it says they are in the bottom 10 but then includes a list of the bottom 10 which doesn't list them.... Do we have a better source? BTW is the 47/123 thing accurate? While trying to find another source for the bottom ten/maximum fees thing I came across

1923:{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(90d) | archive = Talk:Kingston University/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 70K | archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 2 }} 755:

You say that "Hizb ut Tahrir has been convicted of criminal acts" - all I see is that some people in Denmark who are also members of Hizb ut Tahrir have been convicted. Is there any evidence that the reps of Hizb ut Tahrir at Kingston Uni have been convicted of anything ?

2083:

Article in the Times is referenced and quoted extensively in other source provided from the FOI request site. Kingston University and the GMC have acknowledged the veracity of the information contained in this section via a source that is well established and reliable -

3267:

Fine I concede. These are mostly very good points. Some of them are incorrect assumptions. As an example, notability does not in fact apply to information within an article, as someone alluded to. And no, mainstream press is not a prerequisite for weight. Sorry to say,

268:

I think the bit about the locks being changed and water being turned off should be removed as it is not clear as to what happened and why it happened. But I think that the rest should probably stay as it goes to show actions of the University towards it's students.

4722:. According to Kingston University's website the £9000 fee is only for "Single honours studio-based art and design courses and MPharm in Pharmacy". Foundation courses range from £3000 to £6000 while all other courses are £8500. Information found on this page: 2063:

As I see it, Lorifredrics is merely dumping material that might possibly lead to a controversy under a title labeling it a controversy. Well, let's see the controversy. If there's a controversy (and not merely in blogs and so forth, but in newspapers or the

4034:

none of the bold edits made to this point amounted in removal of this magnitude. Though we were in a spirited discussion on talk (there were disputes about where the information should go, title of section etc.) there wasn't consensus to remove that much.

1325:

Yes it would, as dispite requests for more sources, it seems only one source ran the story, and therefore one would have to say that it was minor. As for your idea for how to rework the section, that is indeed the correct way forward i.e for anyone with a

4262:

There is no evidence that there is a significant 'controversy' specifically regarding Kingston University and the tuition fees issue. The section has clearly been added as yet another attempt to slant the article. It should be removed in its entirety.

617:

We have to be careful from two elements here; that the Kingston University Article doesnt become an outlet for people to air their unsourced grievances in relation to the university, but also so it doesnt become a marketing outlet for the university.

295:

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, a contrary one would hold that one of universities' main purposes (and possibly their main purpose) is to socialize and to provide opportunities for socializing. Certainly a FA on a university such as

3378:

The first briefly discusses Fredrics/Scott as part of a very different discussion; the second has one short sentence about the matter; the third may or may not say something but you have to pay money in order to find out. I'm not much whelmed. --

4854:

The only way to avoid academic boosterism is to ensure that info is given in the same format for all UK unis. Just state the fee level. Just state the employment figures for all, or leave out. The employment figures aren't very informative IMHO.

4619:

not the same as it causing a controversy in the real world. The increases in maximum UK university fees are definitely controversial as a general issue, but their implementation in a particular university does not constitute a controversy about

4786:

Information I intend to add is supported by sources, and contains information only gathered by sources. It is relevant to the encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and no concrete reason has been given for it's removal. Ask yourself this:

3609:

The edits you are trying to make are not relevant to the topic, the fact that other universities are doing this too is irrelevant. You wouldn't put "Kenny rogers is a singer, just like michael jackson is a singer" on Kenny's article would you?

4083:

Actually I think it's pretty clear that we did - the support seems to be for removing the tution fee section entirely and replacing it with the single line suggested above. If anyone besides BETA disagrees with my analysis, let me know below.

1493:

My requirements are simple, show that the "Extremist Groups on Campus" issue is notable, if you read back you will notice not only Hoary and I have made that point. Your contention that my edits are Vandalism, shows that you do not understand

4623:

university, unless reliable sources can be found to support this, e.g. student uprisings, mass staff-resignations, etc. So far there has been no evidence that this is the case with Kingston or any of the other 46 universities. Note that the

3555:

it's put its prices up to the same level as one third of the the other UK universities, Two local MPs had a meeting the the University and gave a quote and the Student Union President also gave a quote all of which only makes a local

2131:

The small matter of recursion aside: No. There may be "no smoke without fire", but there's no controversy without smoke. So where's the smoke? If there isn't any and you feel the need to generate some, then please do so on some other

2480:

I've most certainly not ignored the discussion, as is plain from my comments. Their background is, nevertheless, quite relevant to the discussion. Indeed other editors have repeatedly commented about my background. Fair is fair.

2254:

Obviously, I disagree, as this matter has appeared in many news publications, and most recently has been raised by a member of Parliament. I'd say that anything that is part of Hansard is sufficiently noteworthy. It appears that

1171:

I have declared any potential conflict of interest on this discussion page and on my profile, I used to edit on an matt_world account but I forgot the password and it was done on an E-mail address I know longer had access to.

4674:

As it current stands, I would say that the general consensus seems to be remove the Tuition fee section entirely - the question of if any content should replace it in another section is a seperate question and not settled yet.

4401:

that information is too recent in time to put in the history section, also, It should be pointed out that it isn't just that they raised their fees, but that KU was among the worst (in terms of employment) to raise their fees.

3217:. It was not "promptly dismissed". The former lecturer was convicted of the charge. The case was overturned and a year later he was acquitted at a retrial, although the conviction on a charge of public order offence was upheld. 1049:

we come to a consensus view that restores these issues to the article, since they are all properly sourced, they are clearly relevant to the educational experience/lifestyle at the university, and are definitely controversial.

2996:

indicates that this really is a controversy that is linked to the university. The way in which they dealt with it may have been by pretending it was about using his name, but it really originates with the university proper.

4061:

Please note that we did not decide to remove the tuition fee section. we only decided to move the line about 47 of 123 to the history section. there is no mention above of removing the section under controversy. Thank you.

488: 160:

I think it's very likely that the Amazon bio comes from the publisher and that the publisher is correct. This is feeble sourcing indeed, but I suppose it's OK in the short term as long as the articles make it explicit. --

571:

Further more in the section that I contributed to this controversy section it tried its best to be balanced and fair, including Kingstons statement from what happened when they where found to be operating on the campus.

3652:

Your statement makes it look like some sort of peer pressure from other universities, they made their own decision based on their internal situation, and if you think it's peer pressure, then find some evidence of this.

1089:

that single out Kingston University, along with several UK universities for having engaged in such irregularities. I can't see how we could not build a consensus for including such a widely publicized series of events.

736:

Hizb ut Tahrir has been convicted of criminal acts involving anti-semitism in Denmark and elsewhere. As further evidence of the legitimacy of this assertion, I refer you to the following article appearing in the Times

1782: 933:

The appearance on newsnight shows that it did cause a controversy, they do not report people walking their dog on Newsnight because walking ones dog is not a controvercial act only news-worthy events appear on the

1077:, thereby indicating that the subjects are sufficiently important and noteworthy. Clearly when a staff member commits a widely publicized suicide specifically because of workplace stress, as was the case with 1728:

The University first expelled Greeff for alleged health and safety breaches, then allegedly turned off water in his residence hall and twice changed the locks leading to his room.(same ref) On 11 October 2005

4194:

Reading the discussion, I agree the section should be moved and pared down. It sounds like it's (not surprisingly) not something unique to this university and it doesn't seem that significant. This reeks of

506:

vitriolic focus on the Kingston University controversies section, with no attempt to delete any of the similar sections about other universities. This suggests to me a NPOV bias on the part of some editors.

3353:

In relation to additional sources justifying further edits, demonstrating notability of events/cases/issues, and demanding inclusion of these events/cases/issues the following links may be of interest -

4529:"history" that excludes "contemporary history". If this is limited to one sentence there's no danger of "recentism". Nil Einne suggests that it may not be entirely accurate; it can be amended later. -- 2848:

I'm not questioning the MP's right to speak in the House. But just what do you mean by the word "controversy"? (And do you have any idea of the number of matters that are brought up in Parliament?) --

1255:

Now the article has been unprotected it would be appropriate for none of us involved in the dispute to make further edits to the controvercies section until some sort of conscensus has been achieved.

2972:

over a domain name or both conceivably tell(s) us something significant about Kingston University. And maybe there is a "controversy" worth the name. But we haven't been given evidence for either. --

213:

Now that the page is semi-protected for a week, it gives us a chance to reach a consensus as to what should be included in this section. I will start the ball rolling with the proposal that I made to

2302:

has an overly strong view in opposition to anything remotely negative being published about Kingston University, no matter how noteworthy. I suggest that this be resolved by more reasonable people.

3947:- The idea of protecting for a short while for edit warring, is not so you immediately throw in an editprotected template, but that you all take the week's break to discuss here and come up with a 3689:

It says nothing of the sort, it's simply a statement of fact - they took decision X, in the content of the sector, YY number of universities also took this decision. Says nothing about motives. --

4962:

BETA: "I believe that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk". This is not an advocacy site, it is an encyclopedia - your best move now would be to stop editing the article completely.

1446:

accusations, and these are unsupported and unproven, as well as transparently lacking in NPOV. The coverage in multiple major mainstream press sources is adequate to ensure that the entries are

4236:

While not an admin, I have deactivated the template as my reading is consensus is not yet sufficiently clear (at the very least on what edit is required) to edit over protection. Note that per

2734:

negative way, hence the controversy. To the point where a member of parliament was aware of it, and let's face it, politicians are fairly miopic, it would take a lot for him to take note of it.

1393:

have stated previously, you, on the other hand, would not be satisfied no matter how many reliable sources were listed, so I shall not attempt to do so, even though I have them at hand.

3764:

Well I think the raise of tutiton fees should be mentioned but not in that section and certainly not in the slanted lacking in context way that BETA wants to present it - anyone else? --

3778:"In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum" in the history section would do it for me. 1851:. There could be issues regarding the issuing of the injunction given how quickly it was lifted, and a student being expelled and wining a subsequent appeal again does not to me seem 204: 4650:. Let's not waste a second more time on the current campaign against Kingston. It's essential that we have consistency across university articles. There are structure guidelines on 4433:

which says 46/67 universities which plan to charge all students the maximum and 49/67 who intend to charge at least some students/courses the maximum. I came across further sources

4160:

However, the question is not just whether a lot of universities are doing it, but is it actually a 'controversy'? If so, then the stuff 99 or 200 other people do is irrelevant. --

710:"A 2003 BBC Newsnight documentary exposed their activity at Kingston University and they have also been active at UCE Birmingham and Queen Mary, University of London amongst others 366:

Bear in mind, for our purposes, for something to be controversial, it's not enough that something has simply happened, it has to be reported on by multiple media sources and noted

665:

The reason for the attention on this page, and for me adding it to my watch list, is that it was clear to other editors that one or more editiors were editing the section against

217:. I do not think it is appropriate to list anything in this section that does not directly effect the education offered as that is the primary purpose for a University after all. 3141:(not scanned documents - RS is published), attempts to portray it as more notable (i.e. actually noticed!) than it is, including it in the KU article constitutes undue weight. 1167:- - Before, you go around intimating that i'm a sock puppet with the line 'The pair (?)' , I suggest you read the wikipedia's policy on Sockpuppetary and assume good faith 426:

Zap the section that vaguely talks of activity by an allegedly antisemitic group, and the resulting content would I think be acceptable, though it ought to be moved around. --

293:

I do not think it is appropriate to list anything in this section that does not directly effect the education offered as that is the primary purpose for a University after all.

3093:

Lastly, The question of The MPs remarks in commons. If the information he was given, was in fact false, this would still constitute a controversy because of the potential for

2574: 342:". But back to my point, it is clear that this section has been crafted by a number of IP editors (that may be one in the same actual editor) at least one, if not all, have a 2060:(which might be relevant to the doctor in question, but whose placement is odd at best) and the other is a PDF that merely lists the doctor's name for unspecified reasons. 3137:, not on the psychic powers of contributors. The only coverage this supposed 'controversy' has had is apparently an article in the Surrey Comet. Unless you can find other 2911:

Sign your posts, perhaps? In any event: the edit has been rejected on the grounds that it is insufficiently important to warrant inclusion on the university's page (thus

1725:

In 2004, the Kingston-upon-Thames County Court issued an injunction barring Kingston University from continuing to harass a disabled postgraduate student, Francois Greeff.

1148:(as well as other organisations, such as the BNP) Hizib ut tahir was found to be operating within Kingston Students Union Islamic society that in itself is controvercial. 4440:

suggests Kingston is one of the ones who wants to charge some but not all students/courses the maximum (although the average looks like it will be close to the maximum).

1847:

I Agree it is a weight issue, given the lack of coverage outside the Times Higher Education, I would have to agree that it is not, and does not appear to have ever been,

1776: 4594: 4487: 4427: 2665: 1086: 1027:

If that is the case, please list the "examples of reliable sourcing of coverage on Hizb ut Tahrir's anti-semitic activity and on its activity at Kingston University."

975:

specifically refers to the reasons for this banning when it states that Hizb ut Tahrir has been banned because of its anti-semitic propaganda. A recent article in the

2569: 1069:

Secondly, I think we should come to a consensus that the issue of workplace stress/bullying are significant. There are separate Knowledge entries on the subjects of

610:

claims that the group and individuals related to the groups where prosecuted for "Hate Crimes" in Denmark and in Germany the group is banned from being anti-semetic.

3862:

And maybe hike has a derogatory connotation where you're from, but in most English speaking places it simply means a significant increase in a short period of time.

2391:

I've screened the aforementioned contribution, and corrected it for proper inclusion, and as I have no conflict of interest here, that should no longer be a factor.

606:

I have highlighted that in my above question that controversy doesnt require Intent Yet your claiming it does? According to the wikipedia article on Hizib Ut Tahir

2043: 1810: 237:- Again, not notable, every company of this size has personnel issues, no evidence that this effects the university any more than any other similar size university. 3564:

all of this takes over 7% of the page. I can see reasons for keeping the "featured in the bottom 10 institutions in terms of employment" bit; but the fees bit is

2559: 1737:

for Higher Education, ruled that Greeff had been wrongfully expelled.(ref : Office for the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, Case Number OIA/01547/05)

1749:

and that is not reported. Thirdly there appears to be some doubt surrounding how and why the water was turned off and why his locks were changed. Finally a quick

4543:

Very strong oppose any form of censorship, please remember than the First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech and any removal goes against that that right.

2373:

Note that we should not have a section "Controversies" anyway, per WP:Uni style. This information should be incorporated into Academic profile or Academic life.

491:. Citing other examples of poor editing does not mean the editing on this article should be poor; it simply means other articles need to be cleared up as well. 2564: 924:

The NUS has a 'No Platform' policy meaning that there is a list of organisations banned from appearing with the student union or at a student union function.

5086: 2523:

With due respect, AndyTheGrump, my assertions are based on a review of the editors previous edits for possible COI. That review is what I find troubling.--

2122:

So a controversy simply has to be a subject that would create what simply has to be a subject that would create what simply has to be a subject etc etc etc.

1450:, however you have not specified which of the entries you object to. Is it the entire section on Issues, the section on Extremist Groups on Campus or what? 134:, which means that either the entry is wrong or else there's evidence to support the claim. I don't know if that's enough, but here is another reference. 2630: 2120:

A controversy does not have to have received note in MSM, but simply has to be a subject that would create a controversy were it to become widely known.

930:

Hizib ut Tahir was found to be operating within KUSU's islamic society contrary to the 'no platform' policy that KUSU is a party to and has signed up to.

4783:

I believe that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk, I believe that the actions of all here are not solely driven by concern for this article

4436: 1356:

on Hizb ut Tahrir and other radical Islamic activity, I have restored and expanded this section. I trust this will resolve this issue once and for all.

4876:

Likes long walks on the beach, sunsets, and the number "five." Turn-offs include smokers, fake people, and women who pronounce "sword" as "suh-WARD."

3222:" highlighted the fact that Scott had not accumulated sufficient goodwill under the name, "Sir Peter Scott" to qualify for an unregistered trademark" 2202: 2776:

This incident ultimately resulted in some minor negative publicity for the University when cited as an example by Member of Parliament David Burrows.

1993:

I removed Carme Chacon from the list because she studied a postgraduate course in Kingston University (Canada), not the one in Kingston upon Thames

4287:

Agree likewise. It's silly to have that section in that subheading. Again, where is the "controversy"? Maybe there should just be a section called

1097:

Absent a consensus on any of these matters, I suggest we move to some form of mediation or arbitration in line with Knowledge's policy for doing so

4697:

I was thinking would it not be a good idea just to have a filed on the infobox and list what the fees are for each university in a constant way ?

555:

Why has this section of the article been removed? Codfl1997 claims that it is because it shows no evidence of intent on behalf of the university;

214: 4291:. We could add one to every article about a university. I'm sure there are lots of "bad things" to be gleaned from local newspapers for aspiring 4873:

Thinks this "motive poll" is an utterly useless smokescreen from one editor trying to obfuscate consensus, and so is just playing it for laughs.

2790: 1887:

I have removed this section, though happy for it to be replaced if it can be shown to have been notable and is reworded in a more balanced way.

4975:

the consensus of all newspapers etc. Show me a reliable source that backs up your collective opinions. Because the burden should balance out.

614:

interest. Im an former student, although atheist and I would certainly be interested in knowing if Hizib Ut Tahir had operated on the campus.

5008:

You are asking us to find a newspaper article with the headline "No controversy at Kingston University"? Yes, there must be lots of these...

2538:

from editing. Article talk pages are not a forum for maligning other contributors, and Knowledge has policy requirements regarding their use.

1734: 1625: 1128:

Thank you, Dbasemgr69. But let's make any decision reflect the educated opinions of people whose editing histories are longer and wider than

793:

Sorry, you can not come to that conculsion, if the WP article is to call it a controversy, others must have called it so before. So with out

4332:

In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum.

3976:

In April 2011, Kingston University joined 47 of 123 other English universities in raising its fees to the maximum allowable ₤9000 per annum.

2575:

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=University+College+London&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=--

2915:); it is already present on Peter Scott's page, where it belongs. So let's drop the bit about "no explanation" (you just overlooked it). 2000: 340:

One thing it raises for this project is whether we think it is ever appropriate for a university article to have a "Controversies" section

2614:

having edited 3714 different pages. Cherry picking four of those articles makes no case at all, and even if it did, this isn't the place.

2466:

on them. Merely saying you're "troubled" by their edits doesn't allow you to ignore the discussion, or impugn their contributions here.

2273: 1274: 1219: 954: 888: 830: 634: 100: 84:

Surely while Charles Ingram is a novelist; he is more noted for his conviction in attempting to defraud who wants to be a Millionaire?

2497: 2451: 2362: 2318: 2196: 2104: 2039: 1618:

controversial climate change report so why there was a vendetta website against the University's Vice-chancellor is anyone's guess..

536: 390: 71: 59: 3240: 842:

Sorry, but again you are wrong, something being reported does not may it a 'controversy'. You are correct that the BBC is normaly a

2570:

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=Warwick+University&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=

1176:

You should then declare on your User page that account name so that others can see the link, I am assuming good faith, however two

112:

So the article on him suggests. Neither that article nor this one gives any evidence for the claim that he studied at Kingston. --

4295:. And we must definitely add it to the 46 other universities who raised their fees to £9000. Just joking of course, but really... 2331:

and even that is borderline. The COI issue is of course also a problem, particularly for something like this which is contentious.

4978:

If those who want to add have to keep their opinions out of the equation, shouldn't the same apply to those who wish to subtract?

4966: 3097:

to believe in the information, and the fact that the MP himself believed it was veracitous enough to use it in a commons debate.

2612: 1481: 1409: 4723: 2694:

I do not think that consensus exists for the section on the domain name exists for it inclusion, it is covered at Scott's page.

2560:

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=clifford+chance&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=

1855:

especially given the lack of any coverage of that. Obviously I am prepared to reconsider if someone can show coverage else ware.

4426:'Among' is perhaps a key point, since according to the source, 5 of the bottom 10 were 'among'. More significantly the source 2056:

adds two new "sources" to what Itsmejudith and I had previously deleted. One is an unspecified article in a 1998 issue of the

1797: 591:

or that it was reported as a controversy. Also there is doubt as to the "Anti-Semetic" vs "Anti-Israel" status of the group.

138:. Presumably, the Amazon bio is correct, and probably relates to what appears in the book jacket or the publisher's release. 3213:

The owner of the website was not a lecturer at Kingston at the time of the case, having lost his job two years earlier. (2)

1764: 1742:

Four issues with this, firstly it is not clear that Kingston Uni was in court when the injunction was granted and therefore

741:.Clearly this is but one of literally hundreds of articles documenting the anti-semitic views and acts of this organisation. 4434: 4431: 1353: 4730: 2565:

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=DLA+Piper&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&begin=&end=

712: 5098: 5035: 3493:

Two issues, first "Tuition Fee Hike" seams somewhat POV and secondly not sure that this is worthy of encyclopaedic note.

2556:

assertions about me in this section, then there is no reason for me not to raise similar concerns (read: not assertions).

706: 4708: 4352: 4185: 4153: 3990: 3845: 3789: 3743: 3583: 3523: 3504: 3466: 2941: 2740:

up "wearing it" in the end. Whether or not it is logically relevant to the university itself, it is undeniable that the

2705: 2267: 460:

frequently documented using similar sources. For example, the entry for Wolverhampton University is a good case study.

408:

Again very valid points, particular the one about the Roman Catholic church, which probably fatally wounds my proposed

135: 4237: 3185: 1747: 1726: 1528:

domain. I consider that I've shown that the Extremist Groups on Campus issue is notable, as have other editors (e.g.

851:

the Newsnight report, and did not call it a 'controversy'. If you wish to list this as a 'controversy' please provide

1378:) you should refrain from editing the article and instead propose changes on the talk page for others to view first. 2462:

Please comment on edits, not editors. If you have a problem with an editor's contributions, feel free to open up an

527:

I have no problem with editing down the section on National Student Survey and External Examiner in accordance with

4790:

Is this information that I would not want to know if my son or daughter were planning on attending this university?

2920: 2220: 2025: 1914: 1730: 484: 38: 1758: 4438: 3361: 2774:

It's deniable. ¶ For one thing, was there even a controversy of any note? The passage you're keen to add reads:

4988: 4931: 4774: 4410: 4070: 4043: 3910: 3870: 3806: 3661: 3618: 3434: 3291: 3205:

Apart from the undue weight and manufactured "controversy", the material added was factually wrong in at least

3105: 3037: 3005: 2898: 2824: 2754: 2399: 2208: 1629: 47: 17: 4726: 2004: 1869:

Following the expiry of the the protection - any objections to removal of this then on the grounds of lack of

3595:

It is however a sector wide issue so I moved it to the history section so it can see in the right context. --

4906: 4680: 4369: 4241: 4129: 4089: 3890: 3825: 3769: 3694: 3641: 3600: 3479: 3061:

I find it hard to understand what you're saying, but it seems to assume that there was a "controversy". The

1754: 1315: 1270: 1215: 950: 884: 826: 783: 630: 580: 375: 96: 3066: 5013: 4953: 4885: 4819: 4801: 4634: 4602: 4580: 4548: 4493: 4470: 4300: 4268: 4010: 3545: 3369: 3344: 3249: 3229: 3146: 2718: 2638: 2581: 2546: 2528: 2514: 2493: 2447: 2358: 2314: 2190: 2100: 1647: 540: 1746:

not have had a chance to defend itself at that time. Secondly the injunction was lifted a soon after see

1520:

I stand corrected on the use of the term "Vandalism" -- what you have done falls more correctly into the

1081:, there is a noteworthy problem at the institution that warrants devoting a section of an article to it. 4842: 4659: 4558: 3929: 2916: 2378: 2021: 1838: 1703: 1608: 1335: 980:

anti-semitic activity. This is clearly highly notable, highly significant and definitely controversial.

4544: 1804: 465:

issues of workplace stress, employment tribunal cases, legal expenses and anti-semitism, etc. restored.

4244:

and the edit (full) protected template is only used when there is consensus on what edit is required.

3355: 5112: 5049: 4963: 4864: 4831: 4736: 4510: 3309: 3173: 2619: 2485: 2471: 2439: 2350: 2306: 2291: 2092: 1996: 1621: 1541: 1477: 1469: 1405: 1397: 1361: 1262: 1207: 1102: 1018: 985: 942: 876: 818: 746: 656: 622: 512: 471: 143: 88: 4948:. I suggest we ignore this bit of nonsense, and carry on discussing the issue in the normal manner. 1370:

Sorry but that does not resolve it, one extra ref does not make this "issue" notable. As you have a

738: 4981: 4924: 4767: 4462: 4445: 4403: 4387: 4249: 4204: 4196: 4063: 4036: 3903: 3863: 3799: 3654: 3611: 3427: 3398: 3358: 3284: 3218: 3098: 3030: 2998: 2891: 2817: 2747: 2432: 2392: 2336: 1972: 1929: 1888: 1874: 1856: 1818: 1790: 1715: 1659: 1563: 1507: 1495: 1429: 1379: 1339: 1291: 1236: 1189: 1153: 1113: 1078: 1054: 1028: 1010: 996: 902: 856: 798: 757: 723: 675: 592: 441: 413: 350: 277: 265: 251: 245: 234: 228: 131: 2049:

Any "controversy" worth the name will generate newspaper articles, etc. None has been proffered.

4902: 4676: 4365: 4125: 4085: 3886: 3821: 3765: 3719: 3690: 3637: 3596: 3475: 3277:

could have saved all this kerfuffle if someone hadn't made a low blow about conflict of interest.

2966: 2887: 2346:

of Parliament "trivial" in an extended speech and questions to a Minister is inverse hyperbole.

2279: 1976: 1933: 1892: 1878: 1860: 1822: 1567: 1555: 1529: 1511: 1433: 1383: 1343: 1311: 1295: 1266: 1240: 1211: 1193: 1157: 1117: 1074: 1058: 1032: 1000: 967: 946: 906: 880: 860: 822: 802: 779: 761: 727: 679: 626: 596: 576: 445: 417: 371: 354: 317: 281: 92: 1694:

That template is there for information- people will likely want to know why they can;t edit it.

1258:

I think the controvercies section should be more broadly named criticism's and controvercies..

972: 384:

Yes, Cameron Scott, you are right. ¶ Going back a bit: I don't like "controversies" sections in

4031:, It's unwarranted, and it makes for a very unencyclopedic feel to the section. As you can see 1286:

I have no issue with chnageing it's name, except that, if it was used as a way of adding minor

5123: 5116: 5060: 5053: 5009: 4949: 4881: 4815: 4797: 4630: 4598: 4576: 4489: 4466: 4296: 4264: 4006: 3559:

it "featured in the bottom 10 institutions in terms of employment" sourced to national papers.

3539: 3533: 3365: 3340: 3245: 3225: 3142: 2714: 2634: 2577: 2542: 2524: 2510: 2489: 2443: 2354: 2310: 2185: 2152:

for your Knowledge editing services. This evidence will shortly be released in a public forum.

2096: 976: 297: 4724:

http://www.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate/money-matters/fees-for-courses-starting-in-2012/#fees

3281:

Use your words, with real reasons next time, instead of attacking other well meaning editors.

2772:

it is undeniable that the controversy affected the university's reputation in a negative way.

1770: 4838: 4703: 4655: 4347: 4180: 4148: 3985: 3840: 3784: 3738: 3578: 3565: 3518: 3499: 3461: 2962: 2936: 2883: 2700: 2374: 2261: 2244: 1834: 1695: 1604: 1070: 331: 5017: 4995: 4969: 4957: 4938: 4910: 4889: 4868: 4846: 4823: 4740: 4710: 4684: 4663: 4638: 4606: 4584: 4570: 4552: 4538: 4514: 4497: 4474: 4449: 4417: 4391: 4373: 4354: 4304: 4272: 4253: 4223: 4208: 4187: 4169: 4155: 4133: 4124:

is fine by me but still think the whole thing should be moved upto the "history" section --

4112: 4093: 4077: 4050: 4014: 3992: 3963: 3917: 3894: 3877: 3847: 3829: 3813: 3791: 3773: 3745: 3728:

section aimed at trying to show the university in a bad light and should be removed unless

3698: 3668: 3645: 3625: 3604: 3585: 3547: 3525: 3506: 3483: 3468: 3441: 3402: 3388: 3373: 3348: 3330: 3313: 3298: 3253: 3233: 3150: 3112: 3078: 3044: 3012: 2981: 2943: 2924: 2905: 2857: 2831: 2802: 2761: 2722: 2707: 2678: 2658: 2642: 2623: 2585: 2550: 2532: 2518: 2501: 2475: 2455: 2406: 2382: 2366: 2340: 2248: 2171: 2108: 2077: 2029: 2008: 1980: 1952: 1937: 1920:

Unless any one objects, I am planning to set up MiszaBot to archive this page as follows :

1896: 1882: 1864: 1842: 1826: 1708: 1678: 1633: 1612: 1592: 1571: 1545: 1515: 1485: 1437: 1413: 1387: 1365: 1347: 1319: 1299: 1278: 1244: 1223: 1197: 1161: 1141: 1121: 1106: 1062: 1036: 1022: 1004: 989: 958: 910: 892: 864: 834: 806: 787: 765: 750: 731: 683: 660: 638: 600: 584: 544: 516: 500: 475: 449: 435: 421: 402: 379: 358: 310: 285: 170: 147: 121: 104: 5108: 5045: 4894:

Wife of former Kingston Senior Lecturer, who helped to usher in Peter Scott's golden years

4860: 4566: 4534: 4506: 4219: 4165: 4139: 4108: 3725: 3569: 3474:

And the recent discussion at AN/I makes it very clear that consensus has *not* changed. --

3384: 3326: 3305: 3181: 3074: 3026: 2991: 2977: 2912: 2853: 2798: 2669: 2649: 2615: 2467: 2167: 2073: 1948: 1588: 1537: 1473: 1401: 1357: 1137: 1098: 1014: 981: 742: 652: 532: 528: 507: 496: 466: 431: 398: 306: 258: 166: 139: 117: 1913:

This page is now over the 100 k mark and it is now recommended that it is archived - see

3972:

As per above, please remove the section "Tuition fee increase:" and add under history :

4441: 4383: 4245: 4200: 3953: 3394: 2994:("and are damaging to the reputation of both the university and the named individuals") 2954: 2875: 2332: 1521: 1503: 666: 412:. So given that, how would you like to see the Controversies Section on this article ? 343: 200: 127: 3820:

Yes, that's good, straight to the point and also places it within a sector context. --

3238:

Incidentally, the case was not covered by the the mainstream press but was covered by

2648:

others who oppose your edits. I strongly suggest finding another area of WP to edit.

2235:

is trying to add a section about Dr. Fredrics that is not of encyclopaedic note and I

535:. Would anyone have a problem with my drafting an edited version for all to consider? 4945: 4651: 3448: 2958: 2879: 2608: 2463: 2232: 1926:

which will move threads older than 90 days to the archive, leaving atleast 2 behind.

1559: 1533: 1525: 1499: 1443: 1421: 1420:

Sorry, it is not only my accusation, but that of another editors, that you do have a

1371: 1331: 1327: 1287: 1232: 1185: 1181: 1177: 797:

showing others think it is a controversy it should not be called one by a WP article.

670: 346: 257:

Should stay, however I think that thy should be edited down a bit in accordance with

231:- Not notable, no evidence that Kingston University either new about or supported it. 647: 5103: 5040: 3729: 3304:

What "low blow" and "flimsy case" of COI are you talking about? The confirmed one?

3138: 2780: 1667: 852: 843: 794: 4897:

Posts facts and only facts, irrespective of whether or not they embarrass someone

2666:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kingston_University_and_WP:COI_SPA

1168: 272:

The section on the domain name (which I have removed) should likewise not return.

4240:

an admin is generally required to protect the current version even if that's the

5099:"Tuition fees 2012: what are the universities charging? | News | guardian.co.uk" 5036:"Tuition fees 2012: what are the universities charging? | News | guardian.co.uk" 4698: 4342: 4292: 4175: 4143: 3980: 3835: 3779: 3733: 3573: 3513: 3494: 3456: 2990:

The fact that the university itself considers this damaging to their reputation

2931: 2695: 2256: 2240: 1870: 1852: 1848: 1447: 1425: 846:

and I never said that it was not. I would on the other hand say that the NUS is

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3215:"a subsequent criminal charge for harassment... was promptly dismissed as well" 4851:

Works in a UK uni. Has met at least one person with a Kingston uni connection.

4562: 4530: 4215: 4161: 4104: 4028: 3380: 3322: 3177: 3166: 3070: 2973: 2849: 2816:

the people's belief that the university is part of a conflict in this matter.

2794: 2541:

Now, do you have anything you wish to discuss with regard to article content?

2163: 2069: 1944: 1584: 1133: 1053:

No, I see nothing here to change the consensus view that is should be removed

492: 461: 427: 394: 302: 162: 113: 5119: 5056: 3362:

http://www.managingip.com/Search-Results.html?Home=true&Keywords=fredrics

1428:

and besides there was consensus to remove it and no consensus to put it back.

5126: 5063: 4138:

Agree, a whole section on what 1 in 3 other UK Universities are doing seems

1971:- will add {{archive box | auto=yes }} once the bot does the first archive. 322:

That is a valid point, and I may not have made my self totality clear, I am

3423:

So, it looks like the consensus is shifting to including the contribution.

778:

Hizib on the campus. and should be considered a neutral, reliable source--

2713:

I'm inclined to agree - it is only marginally relevant to the University.

1180:

accounts that turn up just after it becomes clear that an IP editor has a

2729:

First, in reference to Rangoon's concerns, It should be pointed out that

2607:(OD) As I told you earlier, if you have a problem with an editor open an 1721:

This section currently reads (only change - converted ref's into links):

1330:

to propose a change on the Talk Page and let an other editor without any

130:

refers to his having attended Kingston Polytechnic (the original name of

4000:

I'd tend to agree with that. I fail to see the "controversy" here. Like

2890:, what are we doing wrong, and how do we get back to proper discussion? 2419:

Off-topic assertions about an editor - of no relevence to this talk page

2042:-- a name that perhaps not coincidentally resembles that of the wife of 568:

So I dont see why the Anti-Semetic group on campus section was removed;

3969:

Since it was protected while I was making the change agreed to above :

3885:

I'm from the UK - Hike is not as NPOV as "increase" or even "raise". --

3275:

No more additions unless and until more sources are found. However, we

562:

there is no evidence that intent is required to cause the controversy;

2778:

But the only news coverage cited is an article in the local newspaper

3211:"The website, which is owned by a senior lecturer at the University" 2162:

would have made the prospect even more mysterious and thrilling. --

2149:

There is now evidence that has been gathered of payments made to you

695: 608:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Hizb_ut-Tahrir#The_anti-semitism_controversy

3356:

http://www.manhattanchronicles.com/The-Dead-Sea-Scrolls-Scandal.php

2664:

My opinion doesn't appear to matter at this point. A topic ban at

1600: 674:

Tahrir anti-semitism would also be helpful to un-involved editors.

4325:

Remove the section "Tuition fee increase:" and add under history :

2791:

Yes We Can-Can: Kingston orchestra to inspire in tonight's concert

1809:

check finds nothing on this other than the two T.H.E articles and

2770:

Whether Burrows' point is a good one is by the way. You say that

4199:

to me, I doubt in 20 years it will be of any real significance.

4142:, the single line in the history section covers it about right. 3359:

http://www.latinfinance.com/DailyBriefArchivePrint.aspx?ID=71778

3129:, evidence for this will be available - your opinion about what 2786: 2085: 607: 3279:

It's a pretty flimsy case of it. You should not do that again.

2633:

for this editor, so hopefully this will address my concerns. --

1251:

Dont edit controversies section until dispute has been resolved

1152:

But you may feel that, but you need to show others do as well.

3951:

of how the page should be edited when the protection expires.

703: 184: 25: 1655:

Please make the protection notice less obtrusive by changing

4214:

for a short time, Taco Bell discounted a few food items. --

1442:

Sorry, but you and Hoary have been the only editors to make

921:

Kingston University Student Union is affiliated with the NUS

559: 1536:, but just because you have a suspicion doesn't make it so. 3209:

three places and would need to be changed if restored (1)

4099:

Edit Warring is unnecessary. First, what do the sources

3133:

have happened is utterly irrelevant: we base articles on

917:

I will break down the argument into more simple language

855:

that refer to it as a 'controversy' is what I am saying.

694:

It would have been helpful to have posted a link to that

3065:

deals with British university affairs in some depth. It

4032: 3452: 3424: 3336: 3318: 2297: 2285: 2226: 2214: 2159: 2142: 2053: 1580: 1375: 1129: 901:

demonstrate others are calling that, and not just you.

370:

controversies. The HR stuff should go to start with. --

335: 1789: 4027:

Can an admin please undo the vandalism edit made by

326:

saying that same principle should be applied to the

2046:-- is keen to add a section about a "controversy". 1169:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

4524:as above. It's very likely that this fee increase 3900: 291:Codf1977, you say of the "controversies" section: 220:So with that in mind I think the following should 2743:controversy affected the university's reputation 1716:Issues/Injunction to stop harassment of student 205:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965 3530:I think that it's important enough to include. 3069:of there ever having been any controversy. -- 1532:). I realize you thin there is evidence for a 195:Please be aware this section of the talk page 4174:No sources have been forthcoming that it is. 1803: 1424:- There is nothing to show that the event is 489:Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond 8: 3732:other than the one local paper call it one. 2789:is the paper. As I write, its top story is " 558:Under wikipedia's definition of controversy 440:Obviously happy with that and will remove. 2414: 5082: 5080: 4752: 1334:to make it (you may wish to make use of 722:so that does not add much to the debate. 266:Injunction to stop harassment of student 5027: 3512:Only source for this is a Local paper. 3165:Is "veracitous" the British answer to " 2141:Exciting news! Lorifredrics has kindly 2035:another controversy (or, it seems, not) 698:- what it says on the top of Page 39 is 551:Removal of Anti-Semetic Group on Campus 336:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Universities 215:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Universities 2068:or similar) then let's look at it. -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2611:. Rangoon11's edit counter shows him 2509:Kingston University can be improved. 1735:Office of the Independent Adjudicator 1502:I think the evidence is there as per 7: 1833:reports, not just the earlier one. 246:National Student Survey exaggeration 1352:Having located additional reliable 1188:way - you must admit it looks odd. 560:http://en.wikipedia.org/Controversy 4918:Has irrationally fear of badgers. 3724:I repeat, the whole section is an 3419:Third person has joined the fight. 1583:'s the request for protection. -- 739:The wrong voice for Muslim Britain 224:be listed and should be removed : 24: 3447:Finding it hard to take that new 3241:Times Higher Education Supplement 2793:". Very, very small potatoes. -- 301:you're overly demanding here. -- 4289:Bad things about this university 3938: 1962: 1685: 188: 80:Charles Ingram, novellist really 29: 2160:mention of "reputation manager" 483:I cordially invite you to read 4575:ROFL... Not that one again... 3135:evidence from reliable sources 3025:In answer to the cited policy 927:Hizib ut Tahir is on that list 1: 4557:Your premises are wrong. See 4505:as above. Not a controversy. 2086:http://www.whatdotheyknow.com 1554:shown that it is, and as for 648:Universities and Antisemitism 252:External examiner controversy 4465:and as giving undue weight. 3426:, this may get interesting. 3244:, a specialist publication. 229:Anti Semitic Group on Campus 4238:Knowledge:Protection policy 2180:Legal Controversies section 136:Charles Ingram's Deep Siege 5154: 2231:is a user with a very big 1915:Help:Archiving a talk page 1666:{{Pp-dispute|small=yes}} 1558:, he (as he admits) has a 1506:to conclude there is one. 1184:and has been editing in a 5018:23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4996:22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4970:18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4958:14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4939:14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4911:13:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4890:06:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4869:20:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4847:18:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4824:15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4741:11:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 4711:07:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4685:12:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4664:07:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4639:12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4607:06:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4585:02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4571:02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4553:02:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 4539:23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4515:20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4498:15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4475:14:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4450:14:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4418:14:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4392:14:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4374:14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4355:14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4305:14:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4273:14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4254:14:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4224:14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4209:14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4188:14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4170:14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4156:14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4134:14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4113:14:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4094:14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4078:13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4051:14:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 4015:13:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3993:13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3964:23:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3918:13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3899:Please See definition #2 3895:13:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3878:13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3848:13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3830:13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3814:13:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3792:13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3774:13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3746:13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3699:13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3669:13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3646:13:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3626:13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3605:12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3586:12:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3552:So lets get this right : 3548:12:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3526:12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3507:12:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3484:11:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3469:03:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3451:edits to seriously given 3442:03:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3403:14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3389:12:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3374:04:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 3349:06:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 3331:22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3314:20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3299:20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3254:17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3234:17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3151:13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3113:13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3079:14:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3045:13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 3013:13:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2982:12:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2953:Considering the policies 2944:12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2925:12:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2906:12:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2874:Considering the policies 2858:12:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2832:11:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2803:01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 2762:23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 2723:22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 2708:22:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 2679:18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2659:18:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2643:05:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2624:04:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2586:04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2551:00:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2533:23:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2519:16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2502:15:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2476:02:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2456:02:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2407:22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC) 2383:19:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC) 2367:01:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2341:01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2249:00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 2172:03:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) 2109:03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC) 2078:15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) 2009:08:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 1705:Penny for your thoughts? 973:South Asia Analysis Group 4915:Sexually aroused by NPOV 3834:Well I will do it then. 2030:11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 1981:16:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1953:16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1938:14:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1909:Archiving this Talk page 1897:10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 1883:16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC) 1865:10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 1843:10:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 1827:15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 1709:18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1679:18:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1634:16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 1613:03:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 1593:23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1572:14:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1546:13:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1516:03:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1486:03:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1438:02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1414:02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 1388:23:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 1366:16:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 1348:07:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 1320:12:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1300:04:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1279:00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1245:04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1224:00:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1198:04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1162:04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1142:23:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1122:04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1107:23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1063:04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1037:04:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 1023:23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 1005:22:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 990:22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 959:21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 911:11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 893:11:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 865:03:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 835:23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 807:22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 788:14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 766:22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 751:00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 732:13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 684:13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 661:03:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 646:I would add that in the 639:19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 601:09:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 545:19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 517:02:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 501:01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 476:01:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 462:Wolverhampton University 171:01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC) 148:18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 122:15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 105:14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 18:Talk:Kingston University 2431:Also, I'm troubled by ( 585:22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 450:21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 436:23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 422:11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 403:11:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 380:10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 359:10:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 311:10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 286:22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 3270:that one made me laugh 2321:) 00:32, July 14, 2011 199:have been effected by 5087:Comet, July 10th 2011 4559:Knowledge:Free speech 3572:in its current form. 3188:) 14:08, 17 July 2011 2785:Oh, redlinked. Well, 2631:COI Noticeboard entry 1336:Template:Request edit 1079:Prof Diana Winstanley 181:Controversies Section 42:of past discussions. 4762:Mitigating Factors 4759:Aggravating Factors 4727:Pandabearcollective 3489:Tuition Fee Section 2870:Threaded discussion 2746:in a negative way. 2609:request for comment 2464:request for comment 966:I fully agree with 487:or more succintly: 485:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 347:conflict of intrest 132:Kingston University 4122:Tution fee changes 3798:Actually, me too! 1817:Recommendations ? 1075:Workplace Bullying 393:all the same.) -- 4922: 4921: 4832:La donna è mobile 4597:in the Telegraph. 3723: 3190: 3176:comment added by 2691: 2690: 2668:seem inevitable. 2505: 2488:comment added by 2459: 2442:comment added by 2370: 2353:comment added by 2323: 2309:comment added by 2184:It is clear that 2112: 2095:comment added by 2054:latest readdition 1999:comment added by 1733:, acting for the 1624:comment added by 1489: 1472:comment added by 1417: 1400:comment added by 1282: 1265:comment added by 1227: 1210:comment added by 962: 945:comment added by 896: 879:comment added by 838: 821:comment added by 717: 716: 642: 625:comment added by 321: 298:Dartmouth College 276:Comments please. 210: 209: 126:The WP entry for 108: 91:comment added by 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5145: 5138: 5137: 5135: 5133: 5095: 5089: 5084: 5075: 5074: 5072: 5070: 5032: 4992: 4985: 4935: 4928: 4810:To err is human 4778: 4771: 4753: 4744: 4706: 4701: 4414: 4407: 4350: 4345: 4317:Lets start again 4242:WP:Wrong version 4183: 4178: 4151: 4146: 4074: 4067: 4047: 4040: 3988: 3983: 3960: 3958: 3946: 3942: 3941: 3933: 3914: 3907: 3874: 3867: 3843: 3838: 3810: 3803: 3787: 3782: 3741: 3736: 3730:reliable sources 3717: 3665: 3658: 3622: 3615: 3581: 3576: 3544: 3542: 3536: 3521: 3516: 3502: 3497: 3464: 3459: 3438: 3431: 3295: 3288: 3189: 3170: 3109: 3102: 3041: 3034: 3009: 3002: 2939: 2934: 2917:Nomoskedasticity 2902: 2895: 2828: 2821: 2758: 2751: 2703: 2698: 2675: 2674: 2655: 2654: 2504: 2482: 2458: 2436: 2415: 2403: 2396: 2369: 2347: 2322: 2303: 2301: 2274:deleted contribs 2230: 2203:deleted contribs 2111: 2089: 2022:Nomoskedasticity 2011: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1808: 1807: 1793: 1706: 1700: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1664: 1658: 1652: 1646: 1636: 1601:Dominic Whiteman 1488: 1466: 1416: 1394: 1281: 1259: 1226: 1204: 1071:workplace stress 961: 939: 895: 873: 853:reliable sources 837: 815: 795:reliable sources 704: 641: 619: 520: 479: 315: 235:Workplace stress 192: 191: 185: 107: 85: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5153: 5152: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5131: 5129: 5097: 5096: 5092: 5085: 5078: 5068: 5066: 5034: 5033: 5029: 4990: 4983: 4933: 4926: 4776: 4769: 4751: 4734: 4704: 4699: 4412: 4405: 4348: 4343: 4319: 4181: 4176: 4149: 4144: 4072: 4065: 4045: 4038: 3986: 3981: 3956: 3954: 3939: 3937: 3927: 3925: 3912: 3905: 3902:at wiktionary. 3872: 3865: 3841: 3836: 3808: 3801: 3785: 3780: 3739: 3734: 3663: 3656: 3620: 3613: 3579: 3574: 3540: 3534: 3531: 3519: 3514: 3500: 3495: 3491: 3462: 3457: 3436: 3429: 3421: 3293: 3286: 3171: 3125:Nope. If it is 3107: 3100: 3039: 3032: 3007: 3000: 2937: 2932: 2900: 2893: 2872: 2826: 2819: 2756: 2749: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2672: 2670: 2652: 2650: 2483: 2437: 2420: 2401: 2394: 2348: 2304: 2259: 2239:it's addition. 2188: 2182: 2090: 2044:Howard Fredrics 2037: 2017: 1994: 1991: 1963: 1961: 1924: 1911: 1811:Howard Fredrics 1750: 1739: 1719: 1704: 1696: 1686: 1684: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1662: 1656: 1650: 1644: 1642: 1626:188.222.163.138 1619: 1467: 1395: 1322: 1260: 1253: 1205: 940: 874: 844:reliable source 816: 620: 553: 510: 469: 189: 183: 86: 82: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5151: 5149: 5140: 5139: 5090: 5076: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4964:Black Kite (t) 4960: 4920: 4919: 4916: 4913: 4899: 4898: 4895: 4892: 4878: 4877: 4874: 4871: 4857: 4856: 4852: 4849: 4835: 4834: 4829: 4826: 4812: 4811: 4808: 4805: 4794: 4793: 4784: 4781: 4764: 4763: 4760: 4757: 4750: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4739:comment added 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4667: 4666: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4610: 4609: 4595:recent article 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4541: 4518: 4517: 4500: 4478: 4477: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4421: 4420: 4395: 4394: 4377: 4376: 4358: 4357: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4327: 4326: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4257: 4256: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4116: 4115: 4081: 4080: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 3978: 3977: 3967: 3966: 3924: 3923:Edit Protected 3921: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3557: 3490: 3487: 3472: 3471: 3420: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3321:, perhaps? -- 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 2985: 2984: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2871: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2765: 2764: 2736: 2735: 2726: 2725: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2629:I've opened a 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2572: 2567: 2562: 2557: 2539: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2325: 2324: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2158:Although some 2156: 2155: 2154: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2114: 2113: 2036: 2033: 2016: 2015:"Coat of arms" 2013: 2001:212.183.221.44 1990: 1989:Notable alumni 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1956: 1955: 1943:Go for it. -- 1922: 1910: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1873:of the issue. 1816: 1741: 1723: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1641: 1638: 1596: 1595: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1309: 1305: 1303: 1302: 1252: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1201: 1200: 1165: 1164: 1145: 1144: 1125: 1124: 1112:Feel free to. 1068: 1066: 1065: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 936: 935: 931: 928: 925: 922: 916: 914: 913: 870: 868: 867: 812: 810: 809: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 715: 714: 711: 708: 702: 701: 700: 699: 689: 688: 687: 686: 604: 603: 552: 549: 548: 547: 524: 523: 522: 521: 515:comment added 474:comment added 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 364: 363: 362: 361: 275: 255: 254: 249: 239: 238: 232: 212: 208: 207: 193: 182: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 153: 152: 151: 150: 128:Charles Ingram 81: 78: 75: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5150: 5128: 5125: 5121: 5118: 5114: 5110: 5106: 5105: 5100: 5094: 5091: 5088: 5083: 5081: 5077: 5065: 5062: 5058: 5055: 5051: 5047: 5043: 5042: 5037: 5031: 5028: 5019: 5015: 5011: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 4997: 4994: 4993: 4987: 4986: 4980: 4979: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4968: 4965: 4961: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4937: 4936: 4930: 4929: 4917: 4914: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4903:Cameron Scott 4901: 4900: 4896: 4893: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4880: 4879: 4875: 4872: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4859: 4858: 4853: 4850: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4837: 4836: 4833: 4830: 4827: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4814: 4813: 4809: 4807:A known Grump 4806: 4803: 4799: 4796: 4795: 4792: 4791: 4785: 4782: 4780: 4779: 4773: 4772: 4766: 4765: 4761: 4758: 4755: 4754: 4748: 4742: 4738: 4732: 4728: 4725: 4721: 4718: 4717: 4712: 4709: 4707: 4702: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4677:Cameron Scott 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4646: 4645: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4627: 4622: 4617: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4527: 4523: 4520: 4519: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4501: 4499: 4495: 4491: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4479: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4457: 4456: 4451: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4437: 4435: 4432: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4419: 4416: 4415: 4409: 4408: 4400: 4397: 4396: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4366:Cameron Scott 4363: 4360: 4359: 4356: 4353: 4351: 4346: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4316: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4193: 4189: 4186: 4184: 4179: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4154: 4152: 4147: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4126:Cameron Scott 4123: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4086:Cameron Scott 4079: 4076: 4075: 4069: 4068: 4060: 4059: 4052: 4049: 4048: 4042: 4041: 4033: 4030: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4003: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3991: 3989: 3984: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3965: 3962: 3961: 3950: 3945: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3931: 3922: 3920: 3919: 3916: 3915: 3909: 3908: 3901: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3887:Cameron Scott 3879: 3876: 3875: 3869: 3868: 3861: 3849: 3846: 3844: 3839: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822:Cameron Scott 3819: 3815: 3812: 3811: 3805: 3804: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3790: 3788: 3783: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3766:Cameron Scott 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3747: 3744: 3742: 3737: 3731: 3727: 3721: 3720:edit conflict 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3691:Cameron Scott 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3670: 3667: 3666: 3660: 3659: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3638:Cameron Scott 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3624: 3623: 3617: 3616: 3607: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3597:Cameron Scott 3587: 3584: 3582: 3577: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3558: 3554: 3553: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3538: 3537: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3524: 3522: 3517: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3498: 3488: 3486: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3476:Cameron Scott 3470: 3467: 3465: 3460: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3440: 3439: 3433: 3432: 3425: 3418: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3357: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3290: 3289: 3282: 3278: 3273: 3271: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3127:a controversy 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3114: 3111: 3110: 3104: 3103: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067:shows no sign 3064: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3046: 3043: 3042: 3036: 3035: 3028: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3014: 3011: 3010: 3004: 3003: 2995: 2992: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2935: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2903: 2897: 2896: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2869: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2823: 2822: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2782: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2759: 2753: 2752: 2745: 2744: 2738: 2737: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2706: 2704: 2699: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2610: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2576: 2573: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2563: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2417: 2416: 2408: 2405: 2404: 2398: 2397: 2390: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2228: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2204: 2201: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2187: 2179: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2144: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2121: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2087: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2061: 2059: 2055: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2041: 2034: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2014: 2012: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1988: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1969: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1921: 1918: 1916: 1908: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1814: 1812: 1806: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1769: 1766: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1753: 1752:Find sources: 1748: 1745: 1738: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1722: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1701: 1699: 1692: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1661: 1653: 1649: 1648:Editprotected 1639: 1637: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556:Mattyjroberts 1553: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530:Mattyjroberts 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498:. As for any 1497: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312:Mattyjroberts 1308: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267:Mattyjroberts 1264: 1256: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1212:Mattyjroberts 1209: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1170: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1082: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 978: 974: 969: 968:Mattyjroberts 965: 964: 963: 960: 956: 952: 948: 947:Mattyjroberts 944: 932: 929: 926: 923: 920: 919: 918: 912: 908: 904: 899: 898: 897: 894: 890: 886: 882: 881:Mattyjroberts 878: 866: 862: 858: 854: 849: 845: 841: 840: 839: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823:Mattyjroberts 820: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 780:Mattyjroberts 767: 763: 759: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 740: 735: 734: 733: 729: 725: 721: 720: 719: 718: 709: 705: 697: 693: 692: 691: 690: 685: 681: 677: 672: 668: 664: 663: 662: 658: 654: 649: 645: 644: 643: 640: 636: 632: 628: 627:Mattyjroberts 624: 615: 611: 609: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 577:Mattyjroberts 573: 569: 566: 563: 561: 556: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 525: 518: 514: 509: 504: 503: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 481: 480: 477: 473: 468: 463: 451: 447: 443: 439: 438: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 406: 405: 404: 400: 396: 392: 387: 382: 381: 377: 373: 372:Cameron Scott 369: 360: 356: 352: 348: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 328:whole article 325: 319: 318:edit conflict 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 299: 294: 290: 289: 288: 287: 283: 279: 273: 270: 267: 262: 260: 253: 250: 247: 244: 243: 242: 236: 233: 230: 227: 226: 225: 223: 218: 216: 206: 203:- please see 202: 201:sock puppetry 198: 194: 187: 186: 180: 172: 168: 164: 159: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 124: 123: 119: 115: 111: 110: 109: 106: 102: 98: 94: 93:Mattyjroberts 90: 79: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5130:. Retrieved 5104:The Guardian 5102: 5093: 5067:. Retrieved 5041:The Guardian 5039: 5030: 5010:AndyTheGrump 4989: 4982: 4977: 4976: 4950:AndyTheGrump 4944:So much for 4932: 4925: 4923: 4882:Lorifredrics 4816:Voceditenore 4798:AndyTheGrump 4789: 4788: 4775: 4768: 4749:Motive poll: 4719: 4647: 4631:Voceditenore 4625: 4620: 4615: 4599:Lorifredrics 4577:AndyTheGrump 4545:KingsonRules 4525: 4521: 4502: 4490:Voceditenore 4482: 4467:AndyTheGrump 4463:WP:RECENTISM 4458: 4411: 4404: 4398: 4380: 4361: 4339: 4320: 4297:Voceditenore 4293:Jimmy Olsens 4288: 4265:AndyTheGrump 4197:WP:Recentism 4121: 4100: 4082: 4071: 4064: 4044: 4037: 4007:Voceditenore 4001: 3979: 3971: 3968: 3952: 3948: 3943: 3930:Edit protect 3926: 3911: 3904: 3898: 3884: 3871: 3864: 3807: 3800: 3662: 3655: 3619: 3612: 3608: 3594: 3532: 3492: 3473: 3435: 3428: 3422: 3366:Lorifredrics 3341:Voceditenore 3292: 3285: 3280: 3276: 3274: 3269: 3266: 3246:Voceditenore 3239: 3226:Voceditenore 3221: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3172:— Preceding 3143:AndyTheGrump 3134: 3130: 3126: 3106: 3099: 3094: 3062: 3038: 3031: 3006: 2999: 2993: 2952: 2899: 2892: 2873: 2825: 2818: 2781:Surrey Comet 2779: 2775: 2771: 2755: 2748: 2742: 2741: 2730: 2715:AndyTheGrump 2693: 2677: 2657: 2635:Lorifredrics 2606: 2578:Lorifredrics 2543:AndyTheGrump 2525:Lorifredrics 2511:AndyTheGrump 2490:Lorifredrics 2484:— Preceding 2444:Lorifredrics 2438:— Preceding 2400: 2393: 2355:Lorifredrics 2349:— Preceding 2311:Lorifredrics 2305:— Preceding 2294: 2288: 2282: 2276: 2270: 2264: 2236: 2223: 2217: 2211: 2205: 2199: 2193: 2186:Lorifredrics 2183: 2151: 2148: 2119: 2097:Lorifredrics 2091:— Preceding 2065: 2062: 2057: 2051: 2048: 2040:Lorifredrics 2038: 2018: 1992: 1967: 1928: 1925: 1919: 1912: 1815: 1800: 1794: 1786: 1779: 1773: 1767: 1761: 1751: 1743: 1740: 1724: 1720: 1697: 1690: 1654: 1643: 1616: 1597: 1551: 1496:WP:Vandalism 1463: 1304: 1257: 1254: 1202: 1166: 1146: 1096: 1092: 1083: 1067: 1047: 937: 915: 869: 847: 811: 776: 616: 612: 605: 574: 570: 567: 564: 557: 554: 537:67.84.177.67 458: 409: 391:encyclopedic 385: 383: 367: 365: 339: 327: 323: 292: 274: 271: 264:That leaves 263: 256: 240: 221: 219: 211: 196: 83: 65: 43: 37: 4839:Itsmejudith 4828:Loves opera 4735:—Preceding 4656:Itsmejudith 4481:Definitely 2967:WP:BRDWRONG 2888:WP:BRDWRONG 2375:Itsmejudith 1995:—Preceding 1835:Itsmejudith 1777:free images 1698:HJ Mitchell 1620:—Preceding 1605:Catface1965 1468:—Preceding 1396:—Preceding 1261:—Preceding 1206:—Preceding 941:—Preceding 875:—Preceding 817:—Preceding 621:—Preceding 511:—Preceding 470:—Preceding 334:writing at 332:Itsmejudith 87:—Preceding 36:This is an 4861:Dayewalker 4756:Individual 4507:Dayewalker 4321:Propose : 4029:User:Avanu 3306:Dayewalker 2616:Dayewalker 2468:Dayewalker 2292:block user 2286:filter log 2221:block user 2215:filter log 2020:perhaps. 1871:notability 1731:Ruth Deech 1660:Pp-dispute 1538:Dbasemgr69 1474:Dbasemgr69 1402:Dbasemgr69 1358:Dbasemgr69 1290:stories . 1099:Dbasemgr69 1015:Dbasemgr69 982:Dbasemgr69 743:Dbasemgr69 653:Dbasemgr69 508:Dbasemgr69 467:Dbasemgr69 140:Dbasemgr69 5120:0261-3077 5057:0261-3077 4626:Telegraph 4442:Nil Einne 4384:Nil Einne 4246:Nil Einne 4201:Nil Einne 3949:consensus 3566:WP:RECENT 3395:Nil Einne 2963:WP:REVEXP 2884:WP:REVEXP 2333:Rangoon11 2298:block log 2227:block log 1813:website. 1550:You have 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5127:60623878 5064:60623878 4140:WP:UNDUE 3944:Not done 3726:WP:UNDUE 3570:WP:UNDUE 3337:this one 3319:This one 3186:contribs 3174:unsigned 3063:Guardian 3027:WP:UNDUE 2913:WP:UNDUE 2498:contribs 2486:unsigned 2452:contribs 2440:unsigned 2363:contribs 2351:unsigned 2319:contribs 2307:unsigned 2268:contribs 2197:contribs 2143:divulged 2132:website. 2105:contribs 2093:unsigned 1997:unsigned 1973:Codf1977 1930:Codf1977 1889:Codf1977 1875:Codf1977 1857:Codf1977 1819:Codf1977 1691:Not done 1622:unsigned 1564:Codf1977 1508:Codf1977 1482:contribs 1470:unsigned 1430:Codf1977 1426:notiable 1410:contribs 1398:unsigned 1380:Codf1977 1340:Codf1977 1292:Codf1977 1275:contribs 1263:unsigned 1237:Codf1977 1220:contribs 1208:unsigned 1190:Codf1977 1154:Codf1977 1114:Codf1977 1087:findings 1055:Codf1977 1029:Codf1977 1011:Codf1977 997:Codf1977 955:contribs 943:unsigned 903:Codf1977 889:contribs 877:unsigned 857:Codf1977 831:contribs 819:unsigned 799:Codf1977 758:Codf1977 724:Codf1977 676:Codf1977 635:contribs 623:unsigned 593:Codf1977 533:WP:UNDUE 529:WP:UNDUE 442:Codf1977 414:Codf1977 351:Codf1977 278:Codf1977 259:WP:UNDUE 241:I think 101:contribs 89:unsigned 5132:19 July 5069:19 July 4737:undated 4720:Comment 4648:Support 4616:Comment 4522:Support 4503:Support 4486:itself. 4483:Support 4459:Comment 4381:Support 4362:Support 4340:Support 2955:WP:DRNC 2876:WP:DRNC 2731:lengthy 1853:notable 1849:notable 1783:WP refs 1771:scholar 1522:WP:TEND 1504:WP:DUCK 1448:notable 1354:sources 667:WP:NPOV 651:policy. 513:undated 472:undated 39:archive 5109:London 5046:London 4946:WP:AGF 4652:WP:UNI 4399:Oppose 3959:jones 3556:paper. 3541:george 3535:Teapot 3455:edit. 3220:. (3) 3167:truthy 3095:others 2959:WP:BRD 2880:WP:BRD 2673:Yeller 2653:Yeller 2257:Mtking 2241:Mtking 2237:Oppose 2233:WP:COI 1755:Google 1665:-: --> 1560:WP:COI 1534:WP:COI 1526:WP:DIS 1500:WP:COI 1444:WP:COI 1422:WP:COI 1372:WP:COI 1332:WP:COI 1328:WP:COI 1288:WP:POV 1235:here. 1233:WP:COI 1186:WP:POV 1182:WP:COI 1178:WP:SPA 696:report 671:WP:COI 338:said " 4563:Hoary 4561:. -- 4531:Hoary 4216:Avanu 4162:Avanu 4105:Avanu 3381:Hoary 3323:Hoary 3178:Hoary 3139:WP:RS 3131:would 3071:Hoary 2974:Hoary 2969:,.... 2850:Hoary 2795:Hoary 2164:Hoary 2145:that 2070:Hoary 2058:Times 1945:Hoary 1798:JSTOR 1759:books 1585:Hoary 1562:here. 1374:(see 1134:Hoary 1132:. -- 1130:yours 977:Times 493:Woody 428:Hoary 395:Hoary 344:clear 303:Hoary 163:Hoary 114:Hoary 16:< 5134:2011 5124:OCLC 5117:ISSN 5071:2011 5061:OCLC 5054:ISSN 5014:talk 4954:talk 4907:talk 4886:talk 4865:talk 4843:talk 4820:talk 4802:talk 4731:talk 4705:king 4681:talk 4660:talk 4635:talk 4629:it. 4621:that 4603:talk 4581:talk 4567:talk 4549:talk 4535:talk 4511:talk 4494:talk 4471:talk 4446:talk 4388:talk 4370:talk 4349:king 4301:talk 4269:talk 4250:talk 4220:talk 4205:talk 4182:king 4166:talk 4150:king 4130:talk 4109:talk 4090:talk 4011:talk 3987:king 3891:talk 3842:king 3826:talk 3786:king 3770:talk 3740:king 3695:talk 3642:talk 3601:talk 3580:king 3568:and 3520:king 3501:king 3480:talk 3463:king 3453:this 3399:talk 3385:talk 3370:talk 3345:talk 3327:talk 3310:talk 3283::o) 3250:talk 3230:talk 3182:talk 3147:talk 3075:talk 2978:talk 2938:king 2921:talk 2854:talk 2799:talk 2787:here 2719:talk 2702:king 2639:talk 2620:talk 2582:talk 2547:talk 2529:talk 2515:talk 2494:talk 2472:talk 2448:talk 2433:talk 2379:talk 2359:talk 2337:talk 2315:talk 2280:logs 2262:talk 2245:talk 2209:logs 2191:talk 2168:talk 2101:talk 2074:talk 2066:THES 2052:The 2026:talk 2005:talk 1977:talk 1968:Done 1949:talk 1934:talk 1893:talk 1879:talk 1861:talk 1839:talk 1823:talk 1791:FENS 1765:news 1630:talk 1609:talk 1589:talk 1581:Here 1568:talk 1542:talk 1512:talk 1478:talk 1434:talk 1406:talk 1384:talk 1376:here 1362:talk 1344:talk 1316:talk 1296:talk 1271:talk 1241:talk 1216:talk 1194:talk 1158:talk 1138:talk 1118:talk 1103:talk 1073:and 1059:talk 1033:talk 1019:talk 1009:No, 1001:talk 986:talk 951:talk 934:news 907:talk 885:talk 861:talk 827:talk 803:talk 784:talk 762:talk 747:talk 728:talk 680:talk 669:and 657:talk 631:talk 597:talk 581:talk 541:talk 497:talk 446:talk 432:talk 418:talk 410:line 399:talk 376:talk 355:talk 307:talk 282:talk 167:talk 144:talk 118:talk 97:talk 5113:GMG 5050:GMG 4967:(c) 4733:) 4101:SAY 3955:Ron 3449:SPA 3335:Or 3207:two 3169:"? 1805:TWL 1744:may 1671:noh 1669:Fei 1552:not 1524:or 1338:). 1231:No 938:. 848:NOT 386:any 324:not 248:and 222:not 197:may 5122:. 5115:. 5111:: 5107:. 5101:. 5079:^ 5059:. 5052:. 5048:: 5044:. 5038:. 5016:) 4991:TA 4984:BE 4956:) 4934:TA 4927:BE 4909:) 4888:) 4867:) 4845:) 4822:) 4777:TA 4770:BE 4700:Mt 4683:) 4675:-- 4662:) 4637:) 4605:) 4583:) 4569:) 4551:) 4537:) 4526:is 4513:) 4496:) 4473:) 4448:) 4413:TA 4406:BE 4390:) 4372:) 4364:-- 4344:Mt 4303:) 4271:) 4252:) 4222:) 4207:) 4177:Mt 4168:) 4145:Mt 4132:) 4111:) 4092:) 4084:-- 4073:TA 4066:BE 4046:TA 4039:BE 4013:) 4002:47 3982:Mt 3932:}} 3928:{{ 3913:TA 3906:BE 3893:) 3873:TA 3866:BE 3837:Mt 3828:) 3809:TA 3802:BE 3781:Mt 3772:) 3735:Mt 3697:) 3664:TA 3657:BE 3644:) 3621:TA 3614:BE 3603:) 3575:Mt 3515:Mt 3496:Mt 3482:) 3458:Mt 3437:TA 3430:BE 3401:) 3387:) 3372:) 3364:-- 3347:) 3339:? 3329:) 3312:) 3294:TA 3287:BE 3272:. 3252:) 3232:) 3184:• 3149:) 3108:TA 3101:BE 3077:) 3040:TA 3033:BE 3008:TA 3001:BE 2980:) 2965:, 2961:, 2957:, 2933:Mt 2923:) 2901:TA 2894:BE 2886:, 2882:, 2878:, 2856:) 2827:TA 2820:BE 2801:) 2757:TA 2750:BE 2721:) 2697:Mt 2671:Ol 2651:Ol 2641:) 2622:) 2584:) 2549:) 2531:) 2517:) 2500:) 2496:• 2474:) 2454:) 2450:• 2402:TA 2395:BE 2381:) 2365:) 2361:• 2339:) 2317:• 2247:) 2170:) 2107:) 2103:• 2076:) 2028:) 2007:) 1979:) 1951:) 1936:) 1917:. 1895:) 1881:) 1863:) 1841:) 1825:) 1785:) 1702:| 1663:}} 1657:{{ 1651:}} 1645:{{ 1640:EP 1632:) 1611:) 1591:) 1570:) 1544:) 1514:) 1484:) 1480:• 1436:) 1412:) 1408:• 1386:) 1364:) 1346:) 1318:) 1310:-- 1298:) 1277:) 1273:• 1243:) 1222:) 1218:• 1196:) 1160:) 1140:) 1120:) 1105:) 1061:) 1035:) 1021:) 1003:) 988:) 957:) 953:• 909:) 891:) 887:• 863:) 833:) 829:• 805:) 786:) 764:) 749:) 730:) 713:” 707:“ 682:) 659:) 637:) 633:• 599:) 583:) 575:-- 543:) 499:) 448:) 434:) 420:) 401:) 378:) 368:as 357:) 349:. 309:) 284:) 261:. 169:) 146:) 120:) 103:) 99:• 5136:. 5073:. 5012:( 4952:( 4905:( 4884:( 4863:( 4841:( 4818:( 4804:) 4800:( 4743:. 4729:( 4679:( 4658:( 4633:( 4601:( 4579:( 4565:( 4547:( 4533:( 4509:( 4492:( 4469:( 4444:( 4386:( 4368:( 4299:( 4267:( 4248:( 4218:( 4203:( 4164:( 4128:( 4107:( 4088:( 4009:( 3957:h 3889:( 3824:( 3768:( 3722:) 3718:( 3693:( 3640:( 3599:( 3478:( 3397:( 3383:( 3368:( 3343:( 3325:( 3308:( 3248:( 3228:( 3180:( 3145:( 3073:( 2976:( 2919:( 2852:( 2797:( 2783:. 2717:( 2637:( 2618:( 2580:( 2545:( 2527:( 2513:( 2492:( 2470:( 2446:( 2377:( 2357:( 2335:( 2313:( 2300:) 2295:· 2289:· 2283:· 2277:· 2271:· 2265:· 2260:( 2243:( 2229:) 2224:· 2218:· 2212:· 2206:· 2200:· 2194:· 2189:( 2166:( 2099:( 2072:( 2024:( 2003:( 1975:( 1947:( 1932:( 1891:( 1877:( 1859:( 1837:( 1821:( 1801:· 1795:· 1787:· 1780:· 1774:· 1768:· 1762:· 1757:( 1674:a 1628:( 1607:( 1587:( 1566:( 1540:( 1510:( 1476:( 1432:( 1404:( 1382:( 1360:( 1342:( 1314:( 1294:( 1269:( 1239:( 1214:( 1192:( 1156:( 1136:( 1116:( 1101:( 1057:( 1031:( 1017:( 999:( 984:( 949:( 905:( 883:( 859:( 825:( 801:( 782:( 760:( 745:( 726:( 678:( 655:( 629:( 595:( 579:( 539:( 519:. 495:( 478:. 444:( 430:( 416:( 397:( 374:( 353:( 320:) 316:( 305:( 280:( 165:( 142:( 116:( 95:( 50:.

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

Index