Talk:Moscone–Milk assassinations

1577:(which is the claim here). Sources indicate that it is much more complex than that. White, Milk, and Moscone were all linked by local government, and Milk and White's disagreements arose while serving on the board as supervisors. Likewise, the most frequently cited motivation for White's resignation was that he found the board to be politically corrupt, particularly after he thought Milk would vote against the Youth Campus, but Milk voted for it. He had resigned because of those frequent political disputes and interactions. When he reversed his resignation, lobbying from Milk and others prevented him from being reinstated by Moscone, and White confessed that his motivation was to kill them for lobbying against him. In fact, he had also planned to kill California Assembly Speaker and later S.F. mayor Willie Brown, and Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver, and claimed, "I was on a mission. I wanted four of them. Carol Ruth Silver, she was the biggest snake ... and Willie Brown, he was masterminding the whole thing." Could these be construed as purely personal revenge? I think it would be difficult to make that claim, considering that the political is tied up in nearly all of White's interactions with the two victims, and his premeditated plan to kill all four. From White's statements, his motivations involved the dispute over his political reappointment, rather than something purely personal (for example, if he had claimed that they were his friends and they betrayed him). At best, I would describe it as personal fallout and possibly mental health issues 1728:

non-personal using reliable sources, 2) to then demonstrate that the events that occurred in the Moscone-Milk killings were likewise apolitical using reliable sources, 3) to also demonstrate that the characterization of the killings in numerous reliable sources as assassinations are questionable (i.e. politically biased characterizations or erroneous) using reliable sources. The first task is an abstract argument using a stringent definition that has already been demonstrated not to be true (as shown by examples like Reagan and John Hinckley Jr., assassinations are not strictly defined by the impersonal and strictly political motivations of the killer). The second task is rendered moot by the invalidation of the first task (if assassinations are not strictly defined by the specified motivations of the killer, then it does not matter if the killings are proven to be apolitically motivated), though it seems one would be hard pressed to find an article that would characterize the events that resulted in the killing and the killings themselves as apolitical anyway. The third task is the most valid one to be achieved, and if it can be so achieved, would likely result in a section describing the contention about calling the killings "assassinations", per

1686:. Firstly, I don't think the count of how many other articles refer to the killings as assassinations should be a factor in this. If they were, however, this would be an argument for NOT using the word "assassination" based on Google search results, which indicates 5 times as many articles refer the killings without using the word "assassinate"/"assassinated"/"assassinations". Use of the word "assassination" is potentially political, and thereby is using Knowledge (XXG) to further political causes when in fact Knowledge (XXG) should be attempting to remain neutral and impartial. It is a word that should be used CAUTIOUSLY for this reason, and used only when CERTAIN and without dispute that it is the correct word to use. Given that 5 times as many articles omit the word, this is proof that the majority of the internet is not attributing this word to the killings. So perhaps we should ask why not. And Perhaps we should ask which reliable sources (if any) are choosing to use this word. -- 1875:, is that you must substantiate your claim that the accuracy and neutrality of referring to the event as "assassination" is in doubt. You say that you can "safely say" that the description is in doubt, but based on what? What indication do you have that doubt exists? So far, your only arguments about doubt are that the killings don't line up with your personal understanding of the definition of "assassination" (which has been disproven), that the characterization of the killings as assassinations have a political agenda (which you have yet to provide evidence for), and that articles referring to the events as killings are evidence that "assassination" is disputed (which is a, so far, baseless assignation of authorial intention). Your claim is that calling the killings an "assassination" is disputed, but you've offered no reliable indication that it is disputed. I am asking that you provide some, which is the most basic action under 1879:. It is not an issue of "Russel's teapot", because your claim is that "assassination" is a minority (i.e. disputed) characterization because other sources refer to it as a "killing". That would suggest that "killing" be an intentional word choice (i.e. that calling them assassinations is POV and that the language used is intended so as to be neutral and avoid POV). But one can say "JFK was killed" and be correct, and saying so is not an indication of a disputed viewpoint about his assassination. It does not suggest that calling it the "JFK assassination" is a matter of POV. It could just be a more generic way to describe the incident, with no concerns at all about neutrality. In a broader example, stating that JFK died is not necessarily an indication that claims he was murdered are disputed. In essence, you are assuming that a more generic description is 1912:, and if content is to be changed or challenged, it must be done using reliable sources to justify those changes. We, as editors, are not de facto authorities on content; the reliable sources are authorities on content, and Knowledge (XXG) should reflect that. If you have concerns about bias, that reliable sources are "uncertain" that the killings are considered assassinations, then provide reliable sources that demonstrate that bias is possible, that the issue is contentious, that it is in doubt. Simply claiming, as an editor, that content is in doubt is insufficient. Make the claim as an editor with reliable sources that demonstrate why. I'm not trying to roadblock you. I'm asking you to give me something reliable to go on as a fellow editor that isn't just your own doubt. 1724:, in which case, one would have to demonstrate reliable sources that counter such a characterization/analysis and call the use of the term into question. Those reliable sources using "assassination" must be countered with reliable sources. If not, it is the opinion of an editor (not a reliable source) against the use of the term by reliable sources. While your argument is that it is "potentially" political or erroneous is possible, it has also been demonstrated that the definition of "assassination" may indeed allow for its use in this case (and others) may therefore be entirely appropriate and lacking in bias in its use. Therefore, you would need to provide reliable sources that support such an argument. 1568:

be considered "political" (or at least reasonably so), but it would still be characterized as an assassination attempt. In essence, it seems that what defines an assassination is ambiguously determined either by the motivation of the killer or the nature of the target, but not just one or the other, and, mixed in there, as a matter of perspective. If one were to characterize White's motivations as strictly personal and private, there are definitions that would consider it assassination based on the fact that he chose to target Milk and Moscone, both well-known political figures.

1884:

understanding than the other, and therefore are not subject to WP:WEIGHT. I am unconcerned about 4/5ths of articles referring to the event as killings, because they do not suggest a different understanding of events than articles that refer to the event as assassinations. If 4/5ths of the articles disputed assassination or implied that "killing" is a more neutral term than "assassination" (thereby contending that assassination is a potentially biased term to apply here), then it

1145:, and removing the information about his supervisor being "gay" (while, I don't personally believe it's entirely relevant, Knowledge (XXG) administrators have seen no reason to remove the content) could be considered censorship. Unfortunately, we will never know what was in the mind of White, nor in the mind of any other serial killer. We can not assume motivation, nor can we assume relevance of homosexuality in the article. I am undoing your edits, 32: 669: 596: 364: 575: 270: 243: 280: 153: 74: 503: 485: 513: 787:

Additionally, all three of the images are copyrighted and do not have a fair use rationale to explain their reason for inclusion in the article. They also need sources for where the images were found. There are some single sentences that should either be incorporated into another paragraph or expanded on, as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. Many of these problems were mentioned in the

352: 212: 421: 400: 721:"White was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than of first degree murder. That verdict famously became vilified as being the result of "the Twinkie defense". It sparked rioting in San Francisco the so-called White Night Riots and ultimately led to the state of California abolishing the diminished capacity criminal defense." 1552:

the public interest"), while other definitions are more explicit that the motivation be "political". While not a RS, Knowledge (XXG)'s own definition includes "to avenge a grievance" as one possible motivation in a list of many that characterizes an assassination, such as the pursuit of fame, notoriety, or financial gain. James Fallows of

791:, and have not been addressed. Once you have corrected these issues, have an outside editor look it over for a copyedit and check the rest of the GA criteria. When this is completed, please consider nominating the article again at GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at 1777:

and yet don't seem to be following it. 1/5th is a signifant minority claiming it was an assassination, therefore this should be made clear in the article. The only reason we need to find Reliable Sources arguing against it being an assassination is if we want to include a section of why his death was

1715:

characterizing it as an assassination, which may not be the case. It would be your interpretation that this is the author's motivation when describing it. It would then be necessary to demonstrate that the sources describing them as "killings" are doing so specifically because they do not observe the

1595:

To make this move happen for the reasons stated, one would have to meaningfully demonstrated contrary sources that definitively tackle the issue of whether the shootings are assassinations or just a matter of personal disputes leading to murder. A good analysis may be out there, and would possibly be

1551:

discussing the various legal definitions of assassination, which includes definitions that are ambiguous about motivation, but specific to target ("killing of an internationally protected person", "killing of a public figure...by someone who kills in the belief that he is acting in his own private or

1517:

Looks pretty political to me. "Revenge for a perceived wrong" and assassination are hardly mutually exclusive, and in this case the perceived wrong was certainly political in nature. The term is used in reliable sources present in the article, as well as some of our other pages covering these events.

1499:– Incorrect use of the word assassination (which means politically motivated). These killings were done by one man acting on his own - as revenge for a perceived wrong. AFAIK, there is no evidence that there was political motivation. If there is, it needs to be provided to warrant the current naming. 1261:

Which brings me to this final point: I am quite sure that there will be other editors who will disagree with me, but perhaps less politely than ANowlin. Let me just say this: If you think that Milk's sexuality needs to be in the opening sentence simply because he was gay, I ask you to ask yourself

1171:

I'm sorry, but you appear to have completely misunderstood me. This isn't about censoring the fact that Milk was gay; that is central to his significance as a major figure in 20th century American history. If I wanted to censor that fact, I would have taken it out of the other dozen or so places it

1891:

Simultaneously, your "Chinese Whispers" argument also hinges on the notion that reliable sources are inaccurately using terminology or purposefully doing so in order to advance some political gain. That is a pretty large claim to make about articles and publications ranging from 1978 to present. But

1792:

There is also the Chinese Whispers effect that we need to be careful of. It may very well be that many of the articles online use the word "assassination" for the very same reason you are proposing Knowledge (XXG) uses it - i.e. that it's the word other people use. We as Knowledge (XXG) editors need

1772:

argument here, as it's going to be very difficult to prove, perhaps impossible, that uses of the word "killed" are due to people disagreeing with it being an "assassination". Also, we don't need to find any examples of arguments against it being an assassination to justify not using the word. You've

1727:

Given the number of reliable sources that refer to the killings as "assassinations", the burden of proof for editors making the proposed argument is 1) to definitively demonstrate that the definition of "assassination" is only to be used in exact situations where the motive is strictly political and

1175:

No, my point is this: The article—this article—is about the assassinations, not about Milk's sexual orientation. Let me make an analogy: If Harvey Milk had worn a maroon tie every day, if he had been known to have publicly stated that he just felt more natural wearing a maroon tie instead of navy

1899:

Considering how many reliable sources have been provided in this discussion (and how many are already included on the pages potentially affected by this discussion) and your continued call for us to find reliable sources demonstrating that assassination is an accurate description, I'm not sure what

1744:

the characterization of the killings as assassinations and tackles the proposed argument that such a characterization is politically biased.) Reliable sources are numerous that already characterize the killings as assassinations. The burden of proof on that end has been fulfilled by way of reliable

1567:

by John Hinckley Jr., whose motivations were merely his obsession with Jodi Foster and that killing Reagan would make him famous enough for her to notice him. Indeed, if someone attempted to assassinate the president because they thought he was a space alien or moved by insanity, the motive may not

1107:

to both the assassination and the trial, it is nonetheless (hard as it is for many to see, I suppose) not so relevant as to warrant inclusion in the first sentence of the article. We don't mention that Moscone was straight. Why not? Because what matters is that an angry man killed him. The same

1547:

The first is what defines assassination and distinguishes it from murder. The definition of assassination is not exclusively political motivation, though it is largely and casually associated with political motivation. The debate over what constitutes an "assassination" is reflected in the various

1002:

which contradicts the cited fact, you may follow Knowledge (XXG)'s rules in handling such things: Add (to the text or in a footnote) the contradictory information, cite the contradictory information, and note in the article (in the text or in a footnote) that neutral, reliable, third-party sources

1580:

from within the realm of political disagreement and, from White's perspective, the sabotaging of his personal aspirations (allegedly, he needed his supervisor position to support his family after his failed business attempts), combined with the reality that Milk and others lobbied against him for

1732:, but would be very unlikely to be of sufficient weight to result in a wholesale changing of the terminology across all articles. And again, those articles would not need to merely describe the events as "killings". They would need to specifically describe them as killings (or some other way) 1883:

to a more specific description, when that may not be the case. And as far as WP:WEIGHT goes, 600 articles referring to JFK being killed would not be contrary to 120 articles that refer to JFK being assassinated. The statements are not contrary to one another, nor do they purport a different

786:

and have quick-failed the article at this time. The article is currently undersourced, with most of the information presented lacking inline citations. I'd recommend going through the articles and adding sources for all statements that may be questioned over the verifiability by the reader.

1348:

Really? That is a loaded term that seems to try and turn this into a galvinising event after the fact, when in reality they were seemingly killed by an angry co-worker over labour relations...I'd strongly say this warrants renaming the article. When has an "assassin" ever been convicted of

1797:'s articles were widely used for their information, and then later found to be fictional, we should be wary of how words are used for political gain or to mislead, and when in doubt (which I think can safely be said to be the case here), be cautious, and use more generic words instead.-- 985:

It is Knowledge (XXG)'s obligation to report what sources say. If, for example, a source claims that Milk was killed "execution style," then that may be included in the article and cited properly. You, as an individual, cannot remove that information. If that information runs afoul of

1828:

In Rebroad's defense, I once started an AFD discussion fully expecting it to fail. My rationale was that people were talking about how the article should be deleted without doing anything to move the process formally forward. In short, I started an AFD which I then opposed.

1300:

Well, it has been nearly a week, and there seems to be no further argument against this point, so I shall go ahead and make the article read with the notation of Milk's orientation placed in the lead, but outside of the first sentence of this article on an assassination.

1720:, as you would be assuming the use of "killing" to have analytical meaning where it does not. There is no such ambiguity when an article refers to the killings as "assassinations". The only question in those cases is whether those sources are using the term 2094:

Recommended Edit: On November 18, news broke of the mass deaths of members of Peoples Temple in Jonestown. Prior to the group's move to Guyana, Peoples Temple had been based in San Francisco, so most of the dead were recent Bay Area residents, including

1125:

of the references to Milk's orientation; his assassination is undoubtedly one of the most tragically historic days ever for the gay community. But that doesn't mean you put Milk's orientation in front of White's actions. That's what I think, anyway.

1907:

As editors, it is not under our authority to decide whether reliable sources are wrong and change content based on our opinions. Our editorial opinions are not reliable sources. It is our responsibility to use reliable sources to support content per

1048:

Setting aside that fact that White had four people on his hit list, and only one was known to be gay, this seems like a bit of a stretch. Still, I imagine that, some people being the way they are, this logic is meaningless to them, and they really

1416:

I added sourced information about the firearm and bullets used in the shootings. That seems like basic information which should be included if known. But someone deleted "" on the grounds that it's apparently inflammatory to mention

788: 121: 917:

states that "White shot the mayor once in the arm, then three times in the head after Moscone had fallen on the floor" and describes Milk as having been "shot five times, including twice in the head at close range." By contrast,

377: 253: 1239:

to limit "full disclosure", as Milk's sexual orientation continues to be mentioned prominently in the article. My only point is that the article is supposed to open with the thesis of the article, and that thesis

1745:

sources. The claim being laid out here is that the use of the term "assassination" in reference to this event is politically biased and/or erroneous; the burden of proof is now needed to support such an argument.

1369:

qualifies this from that term? The fact that they were co-workers? Why would that make a difference? Indira Gandhi was killed by two men who worked directly for her. So that means it was not an assassination?

1364:

As a broad point, I'll agree that whether a specific killing qualifies as an "assassination" can certainly be a subjective call and the term itself can definitely be "loaded". But what specifically do you think

922:

reads, "White pulled his revolver and shot the mayor twice in the abdomen, then twice more in the head" and "White shot six times: three times in the chest, once in the back, and two times again in the head."

1395:

sources. And a simple check of contemporary newspaper articles will reveal that that was the term used all around the country right from the day it happened, not only "after the fact", as you are claiming.

760:"... ultimately led to the state of California abolishing the diminished capacity criminal defense." Again, which "it" is meant here? If it's the "Twinkie defense", that point is adequately sourced -- in 1194:

were the killings of San Francisco mayor George Moscone and maroon-tie loving Supervisor Harvey Milk, who were shot and killed in San Francisco City Hall by former Supervisor Dan White on November 27, 1978.

967:

I have made several changes to remove minor, but repeated, instances of POV. I ask future editors to bear in mind that it is Wikipedias job to report on the facts in the case---not to interpret the facts.

467: 1235:

the one who is avoiding such assumptions. It is those who say he did it out of homophobia who are making the unfounded assumptions. Nowhere in my edit am I making any assumptions. And my edit does

2170: 1208:

You say that's ridiculous, the color a tie wears is NOT a part of his identity in the way that his sexual orientation is. Well, yes, that's true. But the point is, the color of his tie is simply

102: 432:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 805:

It's unfortunate this article was submitted for GAC prematurely, but thanks for the review. I just started looking at this article, and I think I might work on it. I'll re-submit for GAC soon.

2258: 1600:, that would otherwise be a move to claim that reliable sources, publications, and political experts have been wrong to refer to it as an assassination for over 40 years. And even then, per 1604:, I can't see one source effectively changing the entire way that Knowledge (XXG) approaches all related pages to the topic, unless there were a significantly large number of those sources. 433: 1778:

NOT an assassination. I am not proposing this. I am merely proposing it be shown that the use of the word assassination for his death is a minority held use of the term - which it is. --

2233: 382: 1266:

of Mill (which unfortunately, the Knowledge (XXG) article basically ignores), and I won't have a heart attack over it. I will say this to you, ANowlin: Your willingness to maintain

746:

Secondly, while the mistaken belief that the defense had used a "Twinkie defense" certainly resulted in vilification, the verdict would almost certainly have been vilified anyways.

1384:, and his motive was even less political that were Dan White's. Nonetheless, Hinckley's shooting of Ronald Reagan is almost universally referred to as an attempted assassination. 994:, then you may have a case to remove the content. But that case must be made on the Talk page first, and consensus reached. (But note that Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines 428: 405: 2238: 1896:

reliable source. You cannot lay the claim that these reliable sources are contentiously inaccurate or politically biased without providing some contrary evidence of either.

1900:

it is that you consider to be a reliable source. The LA Times is a reliable source, as are San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The New York Times, UPI,

751:"It sparked rioting in San Francisco the so-called White Night Riots ..." Which "it" is meant here? The "Twinkie defense", or the verdict? It's pretty clear that the 1468: 2228: 2059:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.

1578: 1118:

Milk was gay. But they how do we explain the killing of Moscone, as well as the fact that he wanted to kill two other persons (neither of whom is known to be gay)?

891:

I was surprised to read the uncited description of Diane Feinstein as "one of White's allies" on the Board of Supervisors. What is the evidence for this assertion?

1623:

Per Luminum and BDD - there is more support for the use of the word assassination - and from more neutral point of view - than those arguably supporting a move. --

685: 2253: 1151:

as you have made a valid point, but, the article should remain in its original state (prior to your edit), in the interest of full disclosure and non-censorship.

795:. If you have any questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good work so far, but keep working at it. -- 457: 342: 1647: 850: 840: 2223: 1963: 332: 2268: 1420:

I don't get it - how is it inflammatory and who would be inflamed by this information? Unless there's a better explanation I'll restore the information.

1326: 541: 743:"as being the result of "the Twinkie defense"." Misleading. Firstly, the actual "Twinkie defense", as people understand the term, is an urban legend. 646: 2243: 1967: 1564: 1563:

and lists several events in history that are largely considered assassinations, despite their murky or entirely apolitical motivations, such as the

308: 2248: 2169:

Why is there no mention of the tape recorded statement that Milk made on November 18, 1978, to be played only after his death by assassination?

1645: 2278: 2134:

Did the defence claim that the "twinkie" was the cause of depression or just a symptom of it? The article makes both, contradictory, claims!

1740:

an assassination, but rather a personal dispute. (An even better article, given current analysis, would be a reliable source that specifically

636: 1088:. In retrospect, the conversation should have started here, and not on the latter's talk page. It is moved here to solicit additional input. 877: 58: 2213: 2208: 1651: 537: 527: 490: 53: 2218: 1350: 987: 969: 1329:

as it is categorised as a murder, though noted that White was convicted of "involuntary manslaughter" not murder according to the article

1452:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

1391:

sources. And in this case, there is no question that the killings of Moscone and Milk are commonly referred to as assassinations in such

2174: 1582: 612: 293: 248: 163: 1279: 1127: 1081: 1058: 1561: 1270:

is refreshing for one so new to Knowledge (XXG), ANowlin. I think you will go far here. For now, though, I recommend that you read

991: 49: 2100: 2038: 1302: 999: 140: 52:

at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be

1971: 1956: 1490: 1262:

if your stance is based on emotion or editorial logic. It won't surprise me if a majority overrules me, but I'm well versed in

927: 919: 2273: 1112:

Milk's orientation will come up in the article. But at the very beginning? That would only make sense if White was motivated

755:

sparked the riots; it's not at all clear whether the urban legend of the "Twinkie defense" had even gotten going at that point.

185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 1993: 223: 2263: 2078:"1978 – San Francisco mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk were assassinated by supervisor Dan White." 603: 580: 1590:

characterizes the shootings as assassinations (not that it necessarily needs to be anyway re:Reagan and John Hinckley Jr.).

1480: 1244:

be that these two public servants were killed by Dan White. Placing Milk's sexuality in that particular sentence violates

369: 2108: 1176:

blue or some other color, if this "maroonophilia" of his was a documented fact, would we start of the article with this:

2017: 1935: 1443: 1003:

disgree on the fact in question. It is not a contributor's role to judge which facts are correct and which are not. -

31: 2149:

I've fixed that. In October an editor changed the text of the lead so that it no longer accurately reflected events.

1025:

The article in its current form states at least twice that many consider this event to be charged with homophobia.

1978:

article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

43: 1548:

legal definitions of the term. As an example, George Washington University has an archived document from the Army

1588: 697: 1974:'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for 973: 1945: 1573:

The second issue is whether White's motivations were strictly motivated by personal revenge and not political

1453: 1387:

A better criterion in our context would be that Knowledge (XXG)'s usage should reflect the usage found in its

1354: 229: 2043: 1988: 2104: 995: 2139: 1283: 1131: 1062: 866: 828: 769: 1306: 729:"White was subsequently convicted of voluntary manslaughter, rather than of first degree murder." True. 611:

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

307:

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

1581:

political reasons. Even though it's not purely political, it is not purely personal either, and article

1030:

Milk is widely considered to be the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office,

152: 73: 1793:

to be better than this, and filter information we use to ensure it is accurate. In the same way that

1557: 896: 2097:

United States Congressman Leo Ryan, who was murdered in the incident while on an investigatory visit

1707:: Except you then risk misattributing the author's generic use of the term "killing" with an author 1644:

use "killing" instead of "assassination". I don't even see the local San Francisco media doing that.

211: 2193: 2178: 2158: 2143: 2123: 2068: 2063: 1921: 1863: 1838: 1823: 1806: 1787: 1754: 1695: 1678: 1661: 1632: 1613: 1534: 1519: 1508: 1483: 1429: 1405: 1358: 1338: 1310: 1287: 1162: 1135: 1066: 1012: 977: 956: 934: 900: 881: 816: 811: 799: 772: 2082:

Harvey Milk's homosexuality is unrelated to the assassination and should be removed from the entry

1774: 1729: 1601: 1220:

murdered because he wore maroon ties.) That's also why Muscone's heterosexuality is not relevant.

1845: 941: 703: 1585: 1271: 1245: 783: 17: 1769: 536:-related issues on Knowledge (XXG). For more information, or to get involved, please visit the 2189: 2154: 2135: 2119: 2032: 1917: 1872: 1834: 1819: 1802: 1783: 1765: 1750: 1691: 1657: 1628: 1609: 1504: 1476: 1334: 1158: 1008: 285: 1851: 1275: 1053:

believe that White's murder of Milk was an anti-gay act. Fine. But at least let's get some

836: 792: 1401: 1376:) convicted, that seems a rather inadequate criterion upon which to base the determination. 796: 699: 668: 1267: 832: 1425: 892: 873: 761: 1717: 1641: 1392: 1388: 1054: 843:

linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

2060: 1674: 807: 701: 2184:

Ratherr than asking why the article doesn't have something, why not propose a change?

1909: 1876: 1597: 1560:

where he argued that "the shooting of political figures are by definition 'political'"

595: 574: 2202: 1859: 1794: 1530: 1377: 839:

when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an

764:. Is it really appropriate here? If it's the verdict itself, where's the sourcing? 2185: 2150: 2115: 2012: 1913: 1830: 1815: 1798: 1779: 1746: 1687: 1653: 1624: 1605: 1500: 1473: 1330: 1252:

violated when Milk's sexuality appears a bit later. At least, that's how I see it.

1154: 1099:. I think I explained my edit clearly, but perhaps not. This article is about an 1085: 1004: 931: 518: 1814:: Doesn't it sort of go without saying that you approve of your own suggestion? -- 1549: 269: 242: 1397: 914: 910: 725:

Some of these claims are quite questionable. I will try to sort them out here:

1966:

to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for

1902:

Trials of the Century: An Encyclopedia of Popular Culture and the Law, Volume 1

502: 484: 1944:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

1421: 1263: 1142: 1041:

many felt that homophobia had been a motivating factor in the jury's decision

508: 359: 303: 298: 275: 1229:

ANowlin, you tell me that we shouldn't assume what was in White's mind. But

1670: 157: 1057:

backing up these statements. That shouldn't be too hard to do, should it?

1892:

if you want to make that argument, again, you're going to have to provide

1372:

As for the specific crime for which the person was (or in some cases, was

744: 2085:"supervisor Dan White" should be changed to "former supervisor Dan White" 1855: 1526: 351: 1649: 1103:. While Milk's sexual orientation is almost certainly relevant to the 988:

Knowledge (XXG) guidelines on indiscriminate collections of information

835:, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the 608: 533: 532:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all 420: 399: 1736:

so as to characterize the killings as apolitical in nature, i.e.

856:

That this article is linked to from the image description page.

2074:

Misleading and inaccurate "On This Day" entry on the main page

704: 662: 205: 853:

on the image's description page for the use in this article.

350: 156:

Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s

1998:

obituary of founder Roland Schembari (February 24, 2000)"

1970:

in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of

442:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

297:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2090:

Reference to Congressman Leo Ryan's death at Jonestown.

1495: 1418: 1172:

was in the article (to say nothing of his own article).

1096: 926:

Does anyone have a source for the version of events in

133: 114: 95: 1934:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1080:

Note: This is a friendly discussion started between

607:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 62:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

1716:killings to be assassinations. If not, it violates 1456:. No further edits should be made to this section. 734:"That verdict famously became vilified ..." True, 1948:. No further edits should be made to this section. 823:Image copyright problem with Image:Dan whitesf.jpg 2259:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles 2039:"Carol Ruth Silver: Freedom Rider 50 years later" 445:Template:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography 1032:leading some to consider his murder a hate crime 1596:able to support this move, but without one per 2234:Top-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles 876:. For assistance on the image use policy, see 782:I have reviewed this article according to the 768:I think this deserves careful examination. -- 862:The following images also have this problem: 8: 1964:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting 2018:"Mayor picks Arizona chief as S.F. top cop" 2239:San Francisco Bay Area task force articles 1442:The following is a closed discussion of a 1327:Category:1978 murders in the United States 569: 479: 394: 237: 67: 26: 878:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions 831:is used in this article under a claim of 1565:attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan 1525:, for example, calls him an assassin. -- 1121:Look, I'm more than willing to leave in 550:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject LGBT studies 429:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography 2229:C-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles 2171:2600:1702:1D00:9A80:B1A2:F223:3C12:BFB0 571: 481: 396: 239: 209: 2114:How is that relevant to this article? 1854:says you should add "as nominator". -- 317:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject California 2254:Mid-importance Crime-related articles 7: 1669:, per all arguements listed above.-- 1461:The result of the move request was: 1000:neutral, reliable third-party source 906:Discrepancy in number of shots fired 601:This article is within the scope of 426:This article is within the scope of 291:This article is within the scope of 2224:High-importance California articles 2089: 1542:There are two issues embedded here: 996:do not cover article content per se 228:It is of interest to the following 25: 2269:WikiProject LGBT studies articles 621:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Death 553:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies 378:San Francisco Bay Area task force 1039:Since Milk had been homosexual, 667: 594: 573: 511: 501: 483: 419: 398: 362: 278: 268: 241: 210: 151: 72: 30: 18:Talk:Moscone-Milk assassinations 2244:WikiProject California articles 1711:to use killing specifically to 872:This is an automated notice by 717:From the current lead section: 641:This article has been rated as 524:This article is of interest to 462:This article has been rated as 337:This article has been rated as 320:Template:WikiProject California 2249:C-Class Crime-related articles 2037:Sam Whiting (April 14, 2011). 48:nominee, but did not meet the 1: 2279:Low-importance Death articles 2069:05:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC) 1556:published a column after the 1406:00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 1359:22:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 1141:Knowledge (XXG) is not about 901:03:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 817:06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 615:and see a list of open tasks. 436:and see a list of open tasks. 375:This article is supported by 370:San Francisco Bay Area portal 311:and see a list of open tasks. 2214:Old requests for peer review 2209:Former good article nominees 2159:21:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC) 2144:17:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC) 2124:20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) 2109:17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC) 1640:. I need evidence that most 1430:18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 1325:Am changing to new category 1108:thing applies to Milk. Now 957:22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 935:17:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 837:requirements for such images 439:Crime and Criminal Biography 406:Crime and Criminal Biography 2219:C-Class California articles 2194:07:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 2179:06:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 1972:Moscone–Milk assassinations 1957:Moscone–Milk assassinations 1491:Moscone–Milk assassinations 1339:23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 1192:Moscone–Milk assassinations 1082:anon IP editor 98.82.22.169 928:Moscone–Milk assassinations 920:Moscone–Milk assassinations 800:21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 773:21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC) 713:Disputable cause and effect 195:Former good article nominee 38:Moscone–Milk assassinations 2295: 1435:Requested move 22 May 2015 1349:involuntary manslaughter? 1216:. (Unless, of course, he 647:project's importance scale 624:Template:WikiProject Death 468:project's importance scale 343:project's importance scale 122:Featured article candidate 56:. Editors may also seek a 1982:Reference named "sfgate": 1904:by Scott P. Johnson, etc. 1888:be an issue of WP:WEIGHT. 915:Harvey Milk#Assassination 793:Good article reassessment 640: 589: 496: 461: 414: 358: 336: 263: 236: 192: 150: 70: 66: 1962:I check pages listed in 1941:Please do not modify it. 1922:19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1864:13:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1839:13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1824:06:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1807:06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1788:06:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1755:02:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 1696:13:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 1679:04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 1662:02:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC) 1633:17:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC) 1614:19:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 1535:18:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 1509:06:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC) 1484:01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 1449:Please do not modify it. 1311:06:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1288:04:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1212:to the fact that he was 1163:02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1136:01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1067:01:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 1013:17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 978:17:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) 963:POV language and related 940:Added refs and clarity. 882:19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC) 528:WikiProject LGBT studies 2165:Tape recorded statement 2044:San Francisco Chronicle 1996:San Francisco Chronicle 1989:San Francisco Bay Times 1955:Orphaned references in 1871:: What I am proposing, 2274:C-Class Death articles 851:non-free use rationale 448:Crime-related articles 355: 294:WikiProject California 254:San Francisco Bay Area 218:This article is rated 2264:C-Class LGBT articles 1496:Moscone–Milk killings 1380:was not convicted of 867:Image:Harvey milk.jpg 829:Image:Dan whitesf.jpg 540:or contribute to the 354: 222:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 50:good article criteria 1558:2011 Tucson shooting 913:the New York Times, 141:Good article nominee 1968:orphaned references 1148:assuming good faith 1095:I don't understand 323:California articles 1768:, you are using a 1523:obituary for White 356: 224:content assessment 78:Article milestones 2033:Carol Ruth Silver 1873:User talk:Rebroad 1849: 1766:User talk:Luminum 1472: 1469:non-admin closure 1248:in a way that is 1161: 998:.) If you find a 710: 709: 691: 690: 661: 660: 657: 656: 653: 652: 604:WikiProject Death 568: 567: 564: 563: 478: 477: 474: 473: 393: 392: 389: 388: 286:California portal 204: 203: 200: 199: 186:November 27, 2020 182:November 27, 2014 178:November 27, 2012 174:November 27, 2010 170:November 27, 2009 16:(Redirected from 2286: 2066: 2055: 2053: 2051: 2028: 2026: 2025: 2008: 2006: 2005: 1943: 1843: 1770:Russell's_teapot 1642:reliable sources 1498: 1466: 1451: 1152: 1072:Opening sentence 953: 947: 849:That there is a 815: 778:GAN quick-failed 705: 682: 681: 671: 663: 629: 628: 625: 622: 619: 598: 591: 590: 585: 577: 570: 558: 557: 554: 551: 548: 521: 516: 515: 514: 505: 498: 497: 487: 480: 450: 449: 446: 443: 440: 423: 416: 415: 410: 402: 395: 372: 367: 366: 365: 325: 324: 321: 318: 315: 288: 283: 282: 281: 272: 265: 264: 259: 256: 245: 238: 221: 215: 214: 206: 193:Current status: 155: 136: 117: 98: 77: 76: 68: 34: 27: 21: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2199: 2198: 2167: 2132: 2092: 2076: 2064: 2049: 2047: 2036: 2023: 2021: 2016: 2003: 2001: 1992: 1960: 1952: 1939: 1494: 1447: 1437: 1414: 1346: 1323: 1074: 1023: 965: 951: 945: 908: 889: 825: 806: 789:last FAC review 780: 762:Twinkie defense 715: 706: 700: 676: 626: 623: 620: 617: 616: 583: 555: 552: 549: 546: 545: 517: 512: 510: 447: 444: 441: 438: 437: 408: 368: 363: 361: 339:High-importance 322: 319: 316: 313: 312: 284: 279: 277: 258:High‑importance 257: 251: 219: 134:October 7, 2007 132: 113: 96:January 2, 2007 94: 71: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2292: 2290: 2282: 2281: 2276: 2271: 2266: 2261: 2256: 2251: 2246: 2241: 2236: 2231: 2226: 2221: 2216: 2211: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2196: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2131: 2130:Contradiction? 2128: 2127: 2126: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2083: 2075: 2072: 2057: 2056: 2029: 2009: 1959: 1953: 1951: 1950: 1936:requested move 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1905: 1897: 1889: 1866: 1841: 1809: 1790: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1725: 1699: 1698: 1681: 1664: 1635: 1617: 1616: 1592: 1591: 1570: 1569: 1544: 1543: 1537: 1489: 1487: 1459: 1458: 1444:requested move 1438: 1436: 1433: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1385: 1370: 1351:142.167.76.147 1345: 1344:Assassination? 1342: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1166: 1165: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1073: 1070: 1046: 1045: 1036: 1022: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 970:94.220.247.191 964: 961: 960: 959: 907: 904: 888: 885: 870: 869: 860: 859: 858: 857: 854: 824: 821: 820: 819: 779: 776: 770:192.250.34.161 766: 765: 757: 756: 748: 747: 740: 739: 731: 730: 723: 722: 714: 711: 708: 707: 702: 698: 696: 693: 692: 689: 688: 678: 677: 672: 666: 659: 658: 655: 654: 651: 650: 643:Low-importance 639: 633: 632: 630: 627:Death articles 613:the discussion 599: 587: 586: 584:Low‑importance 578: 566: 565: 562: 561: 559: 523: 522: 506: 494: 493: 488: 476: 475: 472: 471: 464:Mid-importance 460: 454: 453: 451: 434:the discussion 424: 412: 411: 409:Mid‑importance 403: 391: 390: 387: 386: 383:Top-importance 374: 373: 357: 347: 346: 335: 329: 328: 326: 309:the discussion 290: 289: 273: 261: 260: 246: 234: 233: 227: 216: 202: 201: 198: 197: 190: 189: 164:On this day... 148: 147: 144: 137: 129: 128: 125: 118: 115:April 12, 2007 110: 109: 106: 99: 91: 90: 87: 84: 80: 79: 64: 63: 35: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2291: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2270: 2267: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2257: 2255: 2252: 2250: 2247: 2245: 2242: 2240: 2237: 2235: 2232: 2230: 2227: 2225: 2222: 2220: 2217: 2215: 2212: 2210: 2207: 2206: 2204: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2073: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2062: 2046: 2045: 2040: 2034: 2030: 2019: 2014: 2010: 1999: 1997: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1958: 1954: 1949: 1947: 1942: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1906: 1903: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1887: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1847: 1846:edit conflict 1842: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1810: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795:Stephen Glass 1791: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1776: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734:intentionally 1731: 1726: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1682: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1665: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1619: 1618: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1587:after article 1586: 1584:after article 1583: 1579: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1566: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1522: 1516: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1492: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1475: 1470: 1464: 1457: 1455: 1450: 1445: 1440: 1439: 1434: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1412:Inflammatory? 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1378:John Hinckley 1375: 1371: 1368: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1343: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1320: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1195: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1150: 1149: 1144: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1119: 1117: 1116: 1111: 1106: 1102: 1101:assassination 1098: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1069: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1044: 1042: 1037: 1035: 1033: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1020: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 975: 971: 962: 958: 955: 954: 948: 939: 938: 937: 936: 933: 929: 924: 921: 916: 912: 905: 903: 902: 898: 894: 886: 884: 883: 879: 875: 868: 865: 864: 863: 855: 852: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 842: 838: 834: 830: 822: 818: 813: 809: 804: 803: 802: 801: 798: 794: 790: 785: 777: 775: 774: 771: 763: 759: 758: 754: 750: 749: 745: 742: 741: 737: 733: 732: 728: 727: 726: 720: 719: 718: 712: 695: 694: 687: 684: 683: 680: 679: 675: 670: 665: 664: 648: 644: 638: 635: 634: 631: 614: 610: 606: 605: 600: 597: 593: 592: 588: 582: 579: 576: 572: 560: 556:LGBT articles 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 529: 520: 509: 507: 504: 500: 499: 495: 492: 489: 486: 482: 469: 465: 459: 456: 455: 452: 435: 431: 430: 425: 422: 418: 417: 413: 407: 404: 401: 397: 384: 381:(assessed as 380: 379: 371: 360: 353: 349: 348: 344: 340: 334: 331: 330: 327: 310: 306: 305: 300: 296: 295: 287: 276: 274: 271: 267: 266: 262: 255: 250: 247: 244: 240: 235: 231: 225: 217: 213: 208: 207: 196: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 165: 159: 154: 149: 145: 143: 142: 138: 135: 131: 130: 126: 124: 123: 119: 116: 112: 111: 107: 105: 104: 100: 97: 93: 92: 88: 85: 82: 81: 75: 69: 65: 61: 60: 55: 51: 47: 46: 45: 44:good articles 39: 36: 33: 29: 28: 19: 2168: 2136:Guinness2702 2133: 2096: 2093: 2077: 2058: 2048:. Retrieved 2042: 2022:. Retrieved 2020:. sfgate.com 2013:Charles Gain 2002:. Retrieved 2000:. sfgate.com 1995: 1981: 1980: 1975: 1961: 1940: 1933: 1901: 1893: 1885: 1880: 1868: 1811: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1721: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1683: 1666: 1637: 1620: 1574: 1554:The Atlantic 1553: 1539: 1520: 1514: 1488: 1462: 1460: 1448: 1441: 1415: 1381: 1373: 1366: 1347: 1324: 1280:98.82.22.169 1249: 1241: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1191: 1189: 1147: 1146: 1128:98.82.22.169 1122: 1120: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1104: 1100: 1094: 1086:User:Anowlin 1079: 1059:98.82.22.169 1050: 1047: 1040: 1038: 1031: 1029: 1024: 992:undue weight 966: 949: 943: 925: 909: 890: 871: 861: 826: 781: 767: 752: 735: 724: 716: 673: 642: 602: 547:LGBT studies 538:project page 526: 525: 519:LGBTQ portal 491:LGBT studies 463: 427: 376: 338: 302: 292: 230:WikiProjects 194: 161: 139: 127:Not promoted 120: 101: 59:reassessment 57: 42: 41: 37: 2101:71.34.10.60 1946:move review 1454:move review 1321:Murder or ? 1303:98.82.21.78 1021:Homophobia? 841:explanation 797:Nehrams2020 784:GA criteria 103:Peer review 54:renominated 2203:Categories 2024:2015-08-27 2004:2015-04-13 1268:good faith 1264:Chapter II 1210:irrelevant 1143:censorship 893:fishhead64 874:FairuseBot 827:The image 542:discussion 314:California 304:California 299:U.S. state 249:California 168:column on 146:Not listed 2061:AnomieBOT 1775:WP:WEIGHT 1730:WP:WEIGHT 1722:correctly 1709:intending 1602:WP:WEIGHT 1463:not moved 1110:of course 1097:this edit 887:Feinstein 808:Nishkid64 686:Archive 1 158:Main Page 2050:March 6, 1881:contrary 1521:LA Times 1382:anything 1272:WP:UNDUE 1246:WP:UNDUE 1214:murdered 1105:reaction 833:fair use 674:Archives 108:Reviewed 2186:DonIago 2151:DonIago 2116:DonIago 1914:Luminum 1869:Comment 1852:WP:RMCM 1831:DonIago 1816:Varnent 1812:Comment 1799:Rebroad 1780:Rebroad 1773:quoted 1747:Luminum 1742:refutes 1705:Comment 1688:Rebroad 1684:Approve 1654:Zzyzx11 1625:Varnent 1606:Luminum 1501:Rebroad 1474:Calidum 1331:Hugo999 1276:WP:LEAD 1237:nothing 1155:ANowlin 1115:because 1055:sources 1005:Tim1965 932:Rrburke 753:verdict 645:on the 466:on the 341:on the 220:C-class 160:in the 86:Process 1667:Oppose 1638:Oppose 1621:Oppose 1575:at all 1540:Oppose 1515:Oppose 1398:Mwelch 1242:should 911:Citing 226:scale. 184:, and 89:Result 40:was a 2031:From 2011:From 1987:From 1886:would 1850:Yes, 1718:WP:OR 1713:avoid 1518:This 1422:Rezin 1417:them. 1393:WP:RS 1389:WP:RS 618:Death 609:Death 581:Death 534:LGBTQ 2190:talk 2175:talk 2155:talk 2140:talk 2120:talk 2105:talk 2052:2015 1976:this 1918:talk 1910:WP:V 1894:some 1877:WP:V 1860:talk 1835:talk 1820:talk 1803:talk 1784:talk 1751:talk 1692:talk 1675:talk 1671:Dmol 1658:talk 1629:talk 1610:talk 1598:WP:V 1531:talk 1505:talk 1426:talk 1402:talk 1355:talk 1335:talk 1307:talk 1284:talk 1274:and 1190:The 1159:talk 1132:talk 1123:most 1084:and 1063:talk 1009:talk 974:talk 944:Banj 930:? -- 897:talk 880:. -- 812:talk 333:High 83:Date 1938:. 1856:BDD 1738:not 1527:BDD 1374:not 1367:dis 1250:not 1232:I'm 1218:was 990:or 942:-- 736:but 637:Low 458:Mid 301:of 2205:: 2192:) 2177:) 2157:) 2142:) 2122:) 2107:) 2099:. 2041:. 2035:: 2015:: 1991:: 1920:) 1862:) 1837:) 1822:) 1805:) 1786:) 1753:) 1694:) 1677:) 1660:) 1631:) 1612:) 1533:) 1507:) 1493:→ 1465:. 1446:. 1428:) 1404:) 1357:) 1337:) 1309:) 1286:) 1157:: 1153:-- 1134:) 1065:) 1051:do 1011:) 976:) 952:oi 899:) 738:-- 385:). 252:: 180:, 176:, 172:, 2188:( 2173:( 2153:( 2138:( 2118:( 2103:( 2065:⚡ 2054:. 2027:. 2007:. 1994:" 1916:( 1858:( 1848:) 1844:( 1833:( 1818:( 1801:( 1782:( 1749:( 1690:( 1673:( 1656:( 1627:( 1608:( 1529:( 1503:( 1481:C 1479:| 1477:T 1471:) 1467:( 1424:( 1400:( 1353:( 1333:( 1305:( 1282:( 1278:. 1130:( 1061:( 1043:. 1034:. 1007:( 972:( 950:b 946:e 895:( 814:) 810:( 649:. 544:. 470:. 345:. 232:: 188:. 166:" 162:" 20:)

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

Index