441:"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Knowledge (XXG) article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Knowledge (XXG) article taking a position on their truth."
204:
183:
214:
113:
95:
64:
1272:
can be useful for the verifiability of material in an article. Footnoted quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, compliant to copyright (including fair use where applicable), of use or interest to the reader, and not used as an evasion of other guidance (most notably: content policy).
123:
1474:
WRT your second paragraph -- I would like to ask you to re-read what i carefully wrote and to address the arguments and given questions. For me it looks like you once again are ignoring the arguments and questions. Please have a look at it again and provide counter arguments. You want me to repeat or
1271:
The decision on whether to use quotes in footnotes is primarily a decision of style and may vary from article to article. Some citation templates include parameters for quotes, and quoted text can also be added inside a footnote either preceding of following a template-produced citation. Quoting text
317:
It we trim the report, because it is retracted, we short-change readers who read re-reports of the NY Times story, and turn to the wikipedia for a balanced coverage of it. Intelligent readers are entitled to know of the initial report, how widely it was repeated, and its eventual retraction, so they
675:
Practically every newspaper article, that addresses the possibility that former captives might be detained, or be given some kind of parole, or asylum, within the USA, that allows readers comments, has had multiple readers repeat the more extreme figures of how many former captives have "returned to
552:
I was very disappointed by your choice not to give this suggestion a serious meaningful reply when I first suggested it a week ago. And I am sure you can understand how confused I am now to read that you think the coverage of this material should include reporting of the ombudsman's disavowal, when
1404:
with another POV that aren't being reflected in this article, please share those references here. If you don't have the time, or interest, or ability to add those other references others will do it for you. As to the second sentence of this paragraph, this is clearly an instance where you misread
1381:
WRT your first paragraph above -- please re-read the recommendation of the guideline. I think the meaning of the recommendation is clear -- when you have a concern over the appropriateness of a quote, in a reference, you are supposed to raise your concern on the talk page. You are not supposed to
1141:
Subject is not recognizable and inappropriate to use in the infobox. Your personal "cloth" theory argument is not very compelling and pure original research. I am strongly against re-inclusion unless you come up with a compelling argument. I urge you to stop adding such images to biographies. A lot
1081:
The ref you have added now is helpful but the section still needs to be changed to reflect the sources and the title needs to be changed and the part that relies on the NYT's source needs to be changed according to the discussion we had about it on the other talk page. No problem to agree to remove
775:
in it's current form. Potentially defamatory information about living persons should be treated with special care. I have always done my best to explain. Yes my first explanations clearly do not show the quality of an editor who is on
Knowledge (XXG) for many years. I apologies when that has caused
711:
You have acted to suppress the neutral coverage of these claims, on the grounds that total suppression protects those who face the suspicion. I don't accept that censoring the wikipedia's neutral coverage of this topic protects those who face the suspicion, when the non-neutral story has been very
509:
The NYTimes listed over a dozen former captives who were suspected of terrorist or enemy activity. So all of these individuals share half a dozen things in common. One approach to addressing the half dozen or so things they have in common is to repeat them on each of the captives' pages. Another
857:
A collection of allegations may be acceptable and useful in a biography of a well-known public figure like O. J. Simpson. But it can be very harmful to people who are relatively unknown. That's why many countries have laws to protect these individuals. By restricting the publication of allegations
657:
With regard to the relevance of the claims -- the Bush administration kept leaking claims that a mounting number of former captives had "returned to the battlefield"; "returned to terrorism"; "returned to supporting terrorism" -- and variations thereof. And apologists and admirers seized on these
1332:
that includes the selection of quotes in the citation. The sentence you quote here is not the quote that was included in the citation. That was a biased quote that left out that this is only a single sided allegation and therefor out of context. In case the reference goes 404 this out of context
1399:
WRT your second paragraph -- the meaning of some passages in this paragraph are unclear to me. But, as I have noted before, I remain concerned that you have misinterpret this policy. You have stated in the past that we can't carry material that could be interpreted as reflecting negatively on
789:
I do not see that this material is relevant to the notability of the subject and it is possible harmful to his reputation, therefore it should not be included. That's why ask you above: Do you think that the 'misreported' claims are relevant to Isa Khan's notability? And if so why Please let us
575:
Yes, it could be rewritten in a more neutral way, i think you or somebody else could achieve this. But it is troublesome and against policies in it's current form, it should be removed and not simply reverted back without changes. What had happen repeatably. The policies are very clear that the
869:
The article had less than 1 visitor a day over the last months. So it's easy to imagine that most of them are privately connected. Like the teacher of his children or an employer who wants to hire him. There is no public interest at all that would justify the inclusion of this section.
1241:"On May 27 2009 the Defense Intelligence Agency published a fact sheet entitled "Former Guantanamo Detainee Terrorism Trends" that named Isa Khan as being suspected of having "reengaged in terrorism". According to the document he was suspected of an "association with Tehrik-i-Taliban".
1119:. Granted, this very low resolution crop of an image that was published in a much larger image would not be useful as a passport photo or a mugshot. But it shows Isa Khan in western garb -- not the traditional garb of traditional Pashtuns, or the traditional Pakistani garb.
1547:. She is recognizable the subject of this biography not. Could you please name a reason why we need this image where the subject is not recognizable? There have been a lot of these kind of images that have been discussed and deleted after discussion at BLP noticeboard.
1496:
WRT your third paragraph -- i am concerned that you do not provide any prove or valid counter arguments. I interpreting our policies in the correct way. As per above please do provide specific policy based counter-arguments to the arguments i have provided.
784:"biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability."
1122:
That his family had an image of him in western garb suggests he was not, or was not always a died-in-the-wool jihadist. So, in this particular case, an image of such low resolution that it could not serve as a passport phot is still useful and helpful.
1382:
simply remove quotes you disagree should be used. As to seeking consensus -- I would really welcome you making an effort to reach consensus in this and other discussions. In this particular case you seem not to have read what I wrote carefully.
1333:
quote is all what is left and the text that you quote here could be changed. You should also take in consideration that not all people read the whole article and often scroll down fast and find this biased quote at the end of the article.
846:
The new added
Material is based on a single source and can not be cited and included in the article until it has been published in multiple, highly reliable sources. As well it can not be included because it is not relevant to Isa Khan's
1346:
The only reason for inclusion i see in your explanations is that the biased quote should verify the cited text in case the reference goes 404? That would obviously not work and not a good idea. On the other hand we have the violation of
1019:
The discussion you linked to says the tag is authorized for tag placers who think the section's references are insufficient. I suggest the references the section has are sufficient and the tag is inappropriate and should be removed.
749:
documents are primary sources. While the OARDEC transcripts are primary sources, the "Summary of
Evidence" memos are documents that analyze, synthesize and interpret other sources. The are canonical instances of secondary sources.
304:. And it was very widely repeated, re-reported, and mis-reported. The New York Times ombudsman did eat crow, and retract the initial story. But, as per usual, the retraction did not get nearly as much play as the original report.
1314:
Why did you extra emphasis the last sentence? Sounds normal for me the issue has come up and it is under discussion now here on the talk page. Let's keep the discussion simple and clean and work towards consensus what i always
1005:
A request for an explanation for one of the tags that tells readers to look to the talk page for an explanation is not "edit warring". Could you please be more careful about how you use that term? You routinely use it
307:
I think, with the widespread re-reporting of the report, the criticism the NY Times received, and its retraction, the report itself merits coverage. I think this section should be restored, with the addition of a
1046:
I use the tern "edit warring" when it is appropriate and it was appropriate here. That i use the term often in connection with you? - You might change your behavior regarding this then i do not need to use it so
454:
Another concern: The NYT "misreported" the material that is in the section. It is troublesome to use it without making this very clear and only to use the misreported part without mentioning the content of the
1452:
WRT your first paragraph -- my edit and edit summary are in line with common editing practice. And the discussion about the content issue has been started. I would really welcome you making an effort to reach
743:"Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."
693:
Our intelligent readers want to give these claims a critical examination, and they want to turn to the wikipedia for the neutral, balanced, referenced coverage of these claims, so they can reach an informed
602:
I still believe it would be the best to put it into the article of the NYT's. Why putting it here where it could be damaging to Isa Khan? It would be better to be on the save site and just leave it out.
1235:-- please review the sentence before and after the citation. I would be very curious for your explanation as to how you think our readers could be confused that this was just one side of the story.
366:"You say: "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" Your source for that is the NYT article. Have a look at it. It has been edited and does not verify this anymore. WP:BOP WP:GRAPEVINE"
632:
I think you should have discussed your concerns first, I think plunging in, and making controversial changes, which, no offense, you haven't really explained very well, has been a mistake;
850:
For the
Material in the first part, nothing has changed. The 'misreported' claims in the NYT's is not relevant to Isa Khan's notability. And should not be included in the article under
449:
That means the section needs multiple, highly reliable sources. What is not the case in it's current form. Secondly, that the DoD simply "suspect" him is not relevant to his notability.
771:← The material in it's current form should not be on the page because it is possibly harmful to the subject of the article it clearly does not meet the requierment for inclusion under
43:
1184:
Out of context quote at the end of the article that leaves out that this is only an allegation of one party, that could be misinterpreted specially if the reference would go 404.
1400:
individuals covered here. Material that could be interpreted as reflecting negatively must be properly referenced. This article is properly referenced. If you think there are
1351:
that applies the the whole article including the citations and the chosen quotes in the citations. The bottom line, why including the quote as there are obviously problems with
1169:. References can remain useful when a key phrase is recorded in the quote field. If the exciser does not offer a compelling argument for this excision I plan to restore it.
402:
The article says: "Pentagon claim he had "returned to the fight" This is not unambiguously supported by the NYT's sources or any other source. It should be removed under
1673:
1669:
1655:
48:
1126:
I will give the image exciser a reasonable period to respond. If they do not offer a truly compelling argument for removing this image I plan to restore it.
490:"It is troublesome to use it without making this very clear and only to use the misreported part without mentioning the content of the appended Editors' Note."
1735:
312:
270:
31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
1521:
I support the inclusion of the image, although the quotes and "reasons" are probably best left on talk pages and not on the file/article obviously. But
1275:
Where there is disagreement on the use of quotations in footnotes on a particular article, consensus should be sought on the talk page for that article.
1142:
of similar images that you have added to
Biographies of Guantanamo captives have been removed recently for violation of our policies. Please stop this.
141:
23:
862:
has been developed to protect these individuals and to keep
Knowledge (XXG) out of trouble. The section in it's current form is clearly a violation of
1755:
260:
952:
I am going to wait a reasonable period of time, and if no meaningful, specific, policy based explanation for this tag is offered, I will remove it.
1745:
1740:
776:
confusion. Everything is a process. Let's come back to the relevant issue. I think there is only one point left that needs to be discussed. From:
145:
399:. I have removed the information here because the cited source does not unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.
1760:
1750:
1219:
What exactly do you think would be a "misrepresentation" in this particular instance? Could you please explain why you describe this quote as
236:
1112:
140:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
933:
I belive this means the tag placer should have started a new section explaining the tag placement. Yes, I realize that the tag placer
735:"...the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
149:
136:
100:
1651:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1607:
1580:
839:
I appreciate your work i also want to make
Knowledge (XXG) better. But adding another allegation that should not be included under
738:
227:
188:
1576:
730:
1592:
75:
939:
finds the official assertions of the DIA not credible. But wikitags are supposed to be used in a manner that complies with
1635:
468:. Because it clearly says that such material should be removed and not re-inserted until controversies have been solved.
354:. We can't be concerned when material does not seem credible to us, when that material is verifiable from authoritative
1716:
970:
The discussion about the disputed section is here on the talk page and i have linked to the other relevant discussion
806:
737:
You have added primary source tags to a bunch of articles. In doing so you seem to have overlooked this passage from
456:
983:
Please further discuss the issue or respect consensus and do not threaten or start an edit war over a tag. Cheers
32:
919:
1672:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
589:
My second question? Do you think that the 'misreported' claims are relevant to Isa Khan's notability? If so why?
81:
63:
576:
material should be taken down and not re-inserted before controversies are solved. Do you disagree with that?
1707:
1615:
1253:
465:
407:
1691:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1679:
235:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1614:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
971:
893:
42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
1571:
1569:
1427:
1297:
1174:
1131:
1025:
957:
826:
755:
558:
385:
329:
46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
1721:
1676:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1556:
1537:
1506:
1431:
1364:
1301:
1193:
1178:
1151:
1135:
1091:
1029:
992:
961:
905:
879:
830:
799:
759:
658:
leaks, accepted them at face value, without any critical examination, and trumpeted them loudly.
612:
562:
477:
423:
389:
333:
39:
1692:
1422:
WRT your third paragraph -- as per above I am concerned you are misinterpreting our policies.
373:
1352:
1348:
1329:
1203:
940:
510:
approach is to have a brief introduction to the topic of the May "one in seven" claim, and a
1573:
816:
128:
1699:
944:
863:
859:
851:
840:
777:
772:
434:
411:
403:
396:
351:
301:
1588:
1552:
1502:
1360:
1189:
1147:
1087:
988:
901:
875:
795:
608:
473:
419:
219:
1401:
1207:
821:. That is remarkable, worth covering, and suppressing this is a disservice to readers.
355:
1658:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1623:
1534:
1698:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1665:
1636:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090304175010/http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
1202:
You write this as if we not only required our wikipedia articles to be written from a
1729:
1629:
1544:
1530:
1423:
1293:
1170:
1127:
1021:
953:
822:
751:
554:
381:
325:
514:
1355:
and there is not much of a benefit from inclusion of the quote in the citation?
321:
I am afraid removing coverage of the report erodes the wikipedia's credibility.
1645:
203:
182:
112:
94:
1664:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1639:
1584:
1548:
1498:
1356:
1185:
1143:
1083:
1064:
The tag was applied appropriately and i was linked to the relevant discussion.
984:
897:
871:
791:
604:
469:
415:
209:
118:
739:
Knowledge (XXG):No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
1166:
947:. Our personal conclusions should play no role in our placement of tags.
232:
892:
In addition to the discussion above, now another discussion takes place
313:
May 2009 report one in seven former captives actively support terrorism
1529:
image - so long as it does not defame the subject. A shitty image of
746:
553:
I thought I already addressed that, and you ignored my suggestion.
148:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
1568:
For the sake of consistency and following these three discussions
520:
pointing to an article that goes into as much detail as you like:
496:
Sorry, I believe I already addressed this, in detail, above, and
635:
I don't agree with your interpretation of the policies you cite;
1533:
shouldn't be used if we have a better one, but until we do....
1210:
to be written from a neutral point of view as well. We don't.
745:
There are some wikipedia contributors who assert that all the
350:
First, I believe the good faith contributor has misunderstood
57:
38:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
15:
974:
Where the issue is under discussion. You very well know this.
1292:
Please note the extra emphasis I put on the last sentence.
1618:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1161:
a relevant quote from a reference, with the edit summary
729:
I am concerned about your interpretation of notability.
371:
However one of the NYTimes article said, and still says:
1611:
1158:
1109:
912:
497:
344:
293:
1113:
File:Photo of
Guantanamo captive Issa Khan in 2002.jpg
927:"Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page."
809:
Isa Khan has been characterized as being suspected of
638:
I disagree and think the original wording was neutral;
843:
has not solved our problem with the first allegation.
1624:
http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/musharraf062003-ltr.htm
925:
tag was added. That tag, when instantiated, reads:
374:
Khan, Isa -- Sept. 17, 2004 -- Pakistan -- Suspected
231:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1668:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1328:You are wrong we have to balance the article under
1630:http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=11552
731:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)#Basic criteria
300:didn't find the May report credible. But it is
1254:Knowledge (XXG):Footnotes#Style recommendations
1238:
858:that could be harmful to a private indivitual.
781:
541:the Seton Hall study published about the claim.
526:Cheney's use of the NYT reporting of the claim;
487:
438:
363:
1654:This message was posted before February 2018.
1543:I do not see any comparison with the image of
896:as a few more articles have the same problem.
395:That's wrong. There is no misunderstanding of
888:"Pentagon claim he had..." (Disputed-section)
8:
1646:http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/7
629:No, I disagree with you, on several points.
1640:http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/
1117:"not helpful - subject is not recognizable"
538:the NYT ombudsman's disavowal of the claim;
61:
177:
89:
1606:I have just modified 4 external links on
1265:
1231:As to whether our readers won't know it
179:
91:
486:You have written, here and elsewhere:
158:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography
7:
1475:rephrase my arguments and questions?
1233:"is only an allegation of one party"
245:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pakistan
225:This article is within the scope of
134:This article is within the scope of
1736:Biography articles of living people
80:It is of interest to the following
1082:the tag after this has been done.
532:how widely repeated the claim was;
318:can reach their own conclusion.
14:
1610:. Please take a moment to review
1608:Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23)
1581:Isa Khan (Guantanamo detainee 23)
361:Second, the edit summary claims:
1756:Low-importance Pakistan articles
1577:Isa Khan (Guantanamo captive 23)
212:
202:
181:
121:
111:
93:
62:
21:This article must adhere to the
1644:Corrected formatting/usage for
1628:Corrected formatting/usage for
1622:Corrected formatting/usage for
265:This article has been rated as
1746:WikiProject Biography articles
1741:Start-Class biography articles
1575:the page should be moved from
535:how widely misreported it was;
161:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
1761:WikiProject Pakistan articles
1751:Start-Class Pakistan articles
529:early criticism of the claim;
248:Template:WikiProject Pakistan
239:and see a list of open tasks.
24:biographies of living persons
292:I am going to disagree with
146:contribute to the discussion
993:00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
962:00:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
807:Defense Intelligence Agency
36:must be removed immediately
1777:
1722:02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
1685:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1603:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1594:04:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
1557:19:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1538:19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1507:03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1432:02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1365:00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1302:22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1194:18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1179:15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1152:18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1136:15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1092:00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1030:14:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
310:
294:this well-intentioned edit
271:project's importance scale
906:08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
880:06:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
831:02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
811:"reengaging in terrorism"
800:00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
760:20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
613:17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
563:16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
478:04:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
424:04:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
390:02:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
334:17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
264:
197:
106:
88:
813:, because he was had an
1599:External links modified
1115:with the edit summary:
790:discuss this question.
457:appended Editors' Note)
1244:
866:and should be removed.
787:
493:
464:Finally, I have cited
444:
369:
70:This article is rated
1525:image is better than
1353:neutral point of view
1349:neutral point of view
1330:neutral point of view
1204:neutral point of view
347:for several reasons.
311:Further information:
137:WikiProject Biography
74:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1666:regular verification
1157:Another contributor
1108:Another contributor
228:WikiProject Pakistan
1656:After February 2018
1206:, but expected our
431:Further explanation
1710:InternetArchiveBot
1661:InternetArchiveBot
815:"Association with
498:on User talk:Iqinn
164:biography articles
76:content assessment
1686:
1283:
1282:
1221:"out of context".
1165:. References go
805:According to the
285:
284:
281:
280:
277:
276:
251:Pakistan articles
176:
175:
172:
171:
56:
55:
1768:
1720:
1711:
1684:
1683:
1662:
1266:
924:
920:Disputed-section
918:
817:Tehrik-i-Taliban
712:widely repeated.
519:
513:
253:
252:
249:
246:
243:
222:
217:
216:
215:
206:
199:
198:
193:
185:
178:
166:
165:
162:
159:
156:
142:join the project
131:
129:Biography portal
126:
125:
124:
115:
108:
107:
97:
90:
73:
67:
66:
58:
44:this noticeboard
16:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1726:
1725:
1714:
1709:
1677:
1670:have permission
1660:
1616:this simple FaQ
1601:
1593:_Detainee": -->
1566:
1563:Captive --: -->
1106:
1006:inappropriately
922:
916:
890:
517:
511:
341:
315:
290:
250:
247:
244:
241:
240:
220:Pakistan portal
218:
213:
211:
191:
163:
160:
157:
154:
153:
127:
122:
120:
71:
12:
11:
5:
1774:
1772:
1764:
1763:
1758:
1753:
1748:
1743:
1738:
1728:
1727:
1704:
1703:
1696:
1649:
1648:
1642:
1634:Added archive
1632:
1626:
1600:
1597:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1520:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1236:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1197:
1196:
1155:
1154:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
998:
997:
996:
995:
978:
977:
976:
975:
965:
964:
949:
948:
930:
929:
889:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
867:
855:
848:
844:
834:
833:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
636:
633:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
568:
567:
566:
565:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
536:
533:
530:
527:
524:
504:
503:
502:
501:
494:
481:
480:
461:
460:
451:
450:
446:
445:
427:
426:
400:
340:
337:
289:
286:
283:
282:
279:
278:
275:
274:
267:Low-importance
263:
257:
256:
254:
237:the discussion
224:
223:
207:
195:
194:
192:Low‑importance
186:
174:
173:
170:
169:
167:
133:
132:
116:
104:
103:
98:
86:
85:
79:
68:
54:
53:
49:this help page
33:poorly sourced
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1773:
1762:
1759:
1757:
1754:
1752:
1749:
1747:
1744:
1742:
1739:
1737:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1724:
1723:
1718:
1713:
1712:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1681:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1657:
1652:
1647:
1643:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1631:
1627:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1598:
1596:
1595:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1572:
1570:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:Lindsay Lohan
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1531:Lindsay Lohan
1528:
1524:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1405:what I wrote.
1403:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1277:
1276:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1103:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
979:
973:
969:
968:
967:
966:
963:
959:
955:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
932:
931:
928:
921:
914:
910:
909:
908:
907:
903:
899:
895:
887:
881:
877:
873:
868:
865:
861:
856:
853:
849:
845:
842:
838:
837:
836:
835:
832:
828:
824:
820:
818:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
786:
785:
780:
779:
774:
761:
757:
753:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
637:
634:
631:
630:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
614:
610:
606:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
564:
560:
556:
551:
550:
549:
548:
540:
537:
534:
531:
528:
525:
523:of the claim,
522:
521:
516:
508:
507:
506:
505:
499:
495:
492:
491:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
458:
453:
452:
448:
447:
443:
442:
436:
432:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
375:
368:
367:
362:
359:
357:
353:
348:
346:
345:this excision
338:
336:
335:
331:
327:
322:
319:
314:
309:
305:
303:
299:
295:
287:
272:
268:
262:
259:
258:
255:
238:
234:
230:
229:
221:
210:
208:
205:
201:
200:
196:
190:
187:
184:
180:
168:
151:
150:documentation
147:
143:
139:
138:
130:
119:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
102:
99:
96:
92:
87:
83:
77:
69:
65:
60:
59:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
34:
30:
26:
25:
20:
18:
17:
1708:
1705:
1680:source check
1659:
1653:
1650:
1605:
1602:
1567:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1274:
1273:
1240:
1239:
1232:
1220:
1163:"not useful"
1162:
1156:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1107:
1104:recent edits
935:
934:
926:
891:
814:
810:
788:
783:
782:
770:
742:
734:
489:
488:
466:WP:GRAPEVINE
440:
439:
430:
408:WP:GRAPEVINE
379:
372:
370:
365:
364:
360:
349:
342:
323:
320:
316:
306:
297:
291:
266:
226:
135:
82:WikiProjects
47:
35:
28:
22:
847:notability.
694:conclusion.
676:terrorism".
343:I reverted
339:explanation
288:question...
72:Start-class
1730:Categories
1717:Report bug
1453:consensus.
936:personally
302:verifiable
298:personally
1700:this tool
1693:this tool
1535:Sherurcij
913:this edit
380:Cheers!
324:Cheers!
155:Biography
101:Biography
40:libellous
1706:Cheers.—
1564:Detainee
1424:Geo Swan
1294:Geo Swan
1171:Geo Swan
1128:Geo Swan
1022:Geo Swan
954:Geo Swan
823:Geo Swan
752:Geo Swan
555:Geo Swan
382:Geo Swan
326:Geo Swan
242:Pakistan
233:Pakistan
189:Pakistan
1612:my edit
1159:removed
1110:removed
941:WP:NPOV
269:on the
1047:often.
945:WP:VER
864:WP:NPF
860:WP:NPF
852:WP:NPF
841:WP:NPF
778:WP:NPF
773:WP:NPF
747:OARDEC
733:says:
435:WP:NPF
433:(from
412:WP:NPF
404:WP:BOP
397:WP:VER
352:WP:VER
78:scale.
1585:IQinn
1549:IQinn
1499:IQinn
1402:WP:RS
1357:IQinn
1256:says:
1208:WP:RS
1186:IQinn
1144:IQinn
1084:IQinn
985:IQinn
898:Iqinn
872:Iqinn
792:Iqinn
605:Iqinn
470:Iqinn
416:Iqinn
356:WP:RS
1589:talk
1553:talk
1503:talk
1428:talk
1361:talk
1298:talk
1190:talk
1175:talk
1148:talk
1132:talk
1088:talk
1026:talk
989:talk
972:here
958:talk
902:talk
894:here
876:talk
827:talk
796:talk
756:talk
609:talk
559:talk
474:talk
420:talk
386:talk
330:talk
296:. I
144:and
1674:RfC
1638:to
1579:to
1523:any
1315:do.
1167:404
911:In
515:see
437:):
261:Low
29:BLP
1732::
1687:.
1682:}}
1678:{{
1591:)
1583:.
1555:)
1527:no
1505:)
1430:)
1363:)
1300:)
1192:)
1177:)
1150:)
1134:)
1090:)
1028:)
991:)
960:)
943:,
923:}}
917:{{
915:a
904:)
878:)
829:)
798:)
758:)
741::
611:)
561:)
518:}}
512:{{
476:)
422:)
414:.
410:,
406:,
388:)
358:.
332:)
1719:)
1715:(
1702:.
1695:.
1587:(
1551:(
1501:(
1426:(
1359:(
1296:(
1188:(
1173:(
1146:(
1130:(
1086:(
1024:(
987:(
956:(
900:(
874:(
854:.
825:(
819:"
794:(
754:(
607:(
557:(
500:.
472:(
459:.
418:(
384:(
376:.
328:(
273:.
152:.
84::
52:.
27:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
