1085:
elsewhere, and had articles merged, on the basis that some figures with UK titles have no reason to have
Knowledge articles (i.e. WP:notability). When I came across this one, it seemed like the only reason the subject should have her own article is that, well, enough said. There are better sources, btw, which are not contested at Knowledge, but I think it's best to do as you suggest and let it lie unless there are new developments. Even then, I'm moving on to more useful things. The focus should be on the quality of the article and I 'might' have forgotten that for a moment. Thanks again, @
501:
483:
555:
285:
264:
1014:, re: your edit. There's no question of potential libel - the article refers to something and the cited Knowledge explains what that something is. That said, I agree that the latter is probably unnecessary. Do you have a view on whether the alleged affair should be mentioned in the article? I'm struck by how un-WP:notable the subject is beyond her relationship with Prince William and his wife. All the best,
1317:. Your SCMP source overtly says at the beginning "While there is no concrete evidence to suggest the future king of England did the supposed deed", L'Officiel speaks of "Unconfirmed rumors", Cosmo says "(very likely false) rumors about an alleged affair with Prince William", the Shefinds article just repeats gossip from online sources. All of this is clearly unsubstantiated gossip and therefore violates
455:
393:
369:
996:
pointed out the harm their parents' affairs did to them. I have not seen this in a non-deprecated source, but if true it is certainly notable. My view is that that should not be mentioned here unless a non-deprecated source is available. The story of the affair, complete with is another thing. I think it might be correct to report reports of the affair but might not quite be right to refer to ?
233:
295:
1295:
mention of the allegation makes
Knowledge look biased - there are literally tens of thousands of reports on this including the biggest news outlets in the world. That alone justifies mention (tho in keeping with policy, only of the fact allegations have been made, without comment on their veracity and including the denial of them from royal sources)
1282:”Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
403:
1610:. While tabloids call her by her maiden name, she is otherwise referred, both officially and in non-tabloid papers, as the Marchioness of Cholmondely or Lady Cholmondely and so on. For example, Diana is usually called Princess Di or Lady Di or Diana Spencer but her official title and the title of her article is
995:
an example of a non-deprecated source in respect of this story. . Interestingly, the fight between
Princes Harry and William publicised in the media this week is said by some sources to have followed Harry's intervention on the matter of Prince William's alleged affair; he is reported by some to have
1519:
1) Replacing "Bill Smith, 5th Lord Smith" with "The 5th Lord Smith" and a pothole link is needless - all it does is obscure the personal names of people relevant to the narrative. It's an old-fashioned style, and entirely out of keeping with encyclopedic writing. 2) The source provided for the claim
820:
adds "Marchioness of
Cholmondeley". I doubt the tabloids calling her by a name that has not been her name since 24 June 2009 has anything to do with that being her common name (was she really well known before her marriage?) and more some them being uninformed on the proper way to refer to a peeress
1451:
I've changed my view and now think mentioning rumours of an affair in the article would be justifiable, given the extent of recent media coverage. Perhaps something minor in the
Personal Life section along the lines of, 'Hanbury has denied having an affair with William, the Prince of Wales, saying
1294:
I had an edit written earlier that was removed that adhered to the policy and guidelines, and I tried to persuade that user of the argument and they said so argue it in Talk; hence I’m here. I propose the article edit from earlier today is restored because at this point the article NOT having any
947:
A number of non-deprecated sources have reported that Rose
Hanbury may have been in a romatic relationship with Prince William in 2019. This might legitimately be included in this article. From a global perspective, this may be the most notable thing about this subject. Any thoughts, Wikipedians?
1484:
is concerned, I'd point out that the policy also says, "Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an
1084:
Yes. I've read your suggestions and I think you're right. I do, quite seriously and genuinely, thank you for the education. I haven't been editing long and am enjoying it very much. I think I've allowed my instincts to overcome my knowledge of editing here on this occasion, though. I've edited
1335:
If the addition to the article were a statement about the allegations, yes, it would violate the policy. But the addition isn’t commenting on the veracity of the claims - merely pointing out that 50+ major news organisations have reported on them. You seem to be hung up on the nature of the
1275:
It’s now been reported to be linked to the
Princess of Wales’ absence from public life (following surgery), there are suddenly biographical articles in the non-tabloid press on Rose Hanbury that hint towards her involvement, and outright statements in non-British press that mean whether the
1237:
1178:"would have" is a rather literal referring. Various Romance languages, including Spanish, use the conditional to indicate information that hasn't been confirmed, so the translation here would be something like "is rumoured to have been unfaithful" or "has reportedly been unfaithful".
1238:
https://www.msn.com/es-es/entretenimiento/other/ni-cena-rom%C3%A1ntica-ni-censura-la-incre%C3%ADble-historia-de-las-dos-fake-news-sobre-rose-hanbury-y-el-pr%C3%ADncipe-guillemo/ar-AA17XBhU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cf9a439d1632435998a45dcaf4092767&ei=360
1056:, I suppose my view is the alleged affair shouldn't be mentioned in the article yet, mostly due to the lack of reliable sources so far and the extra caution needed for biographies of living people. I'd say we're best guided by
1213:
My assessment is that we cannot included it based on this source, as it notes it is quoting
British tabloids. We need to find the actual source and assess that, I assume something unreliable. But I cannot say I am certain.
1336:
allegations. That’s irrelevant. It’s the fact the media (reputable, non-tabloid media) have reported about it that is relevent. The media allegations are the subject of the addition, not her potential adultery…
153:
1489:
is concerned, I'd argue that the criteria for inclusion have been met: there are reliable sources to the fact that
Hanbury has issued a denial, and this would be relevant to a disinterested article about her.
671:
guides us towards the name she is commonly known by. The wives of hereditary peers tend to be less famous than
Hanbury and she seems to be very well known as "Rose Hanbury" more than what is proposed above.
789:
Google trends, global analysis of the past 12 months supports my assertion that "Rose Hanbury" is overwhelmingly more used than "Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley" or "Rose Cholmondeley"
1060:, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.". Cheers,
886:
What does that even mean? Is there some judge in England that will be demanding what we call this article? lol. "Summon CT55555 with haste, he undid that redirect against English common law!"
1684:
says "generally" use that form for wives of peers, but if there's a common unambiguous maiden name, use that. So, use the maiden and common name per the relevant naming convention and the
2093:
1681:
1288:
It is now widely alleged in numerous news reports, including from publications that are included in Knowledge’s reputable sources list, that they had or are having an affair.
212:
2088:
1106:
2073:
790:
341:
147:
2108:
2011:
1574:
565:
1753:
Her situation cannot be compared to that of Catherine or Meghan. We do have reliable secondary sources calling those two women by their actual titles: Catherine
967:
norms. But I'm not sure. When you say "non-deprecated" is that synonymous with "reliable", or is it in the middle of depreciated, non-depreciated, and reliable?
2068:
2113:
2063:
988:
217:
1461:
200:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
464:
379:
79:
1520:
about Caroline Longman does not mention Rose Hanbury anywhere, which means that the sentence that keeps being added is at the very least a violation of
1919:
per nom. Can't see why the article would be under a name she hasn't used for fifteen years. She wasn't especially well-known before her marriage. --
1970:
1846:
1646:
351:
2103:
2083:
1824:
Two of those articles call her "Rose Hanbury, Marchioness of Cholmondeley"; again not the name the nominator is suggesting this page be moved to.
421:
192:
1427:
It takes 5 seconds to check the edit history on the page to see that, yes, the entire talk section was published to the main article on accident.
1291:
The veracity of the allegations isn’t relevant - the newsworthiness of the mass of reports IS, and isn’t gossip, in accordance with WP:BLPGOSSIP
1887:
the sources who still use her maiden name are often unreliable ones peddling gossip about her. Reliable ones use her married name and title.
1807:
85:
1785:, etc. Do we have sources referring to the subject of this article as "Marchioness of Cholmondeley" in the headlines or on a regular basis?
2098:
2007:
425:
44:
1485:
interest." At this point, I'd say many readers who come to the article are highly likely to have an interest in this facet. And as far as
1559:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
600:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
2118:
1337:
1296:
1196:
1179:
2078:
1958:
1276:
allegations are true or not, the newsworthy nature of the significant press coverage of them means the allegations should be included;
1107:
https://www.elespanol.com/corazon/casas-reales/20230221/guillermo-rose-hanbury-historia-infidelidad-prolongada-tiempo/742925834_0.html
429:
317:
1453:
791:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Rose%20Hanbury,Rose%20Cholmondeley,%20Marchioness%20of%20Cholmondeley,Rose%20Cholmondeley
420:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1029:
1762:
782:
569:
517:
1994:
703:
416:
374:
99:
30:
1758:
840:
778:
104:
20:
168:
2050:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
992:
938:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
308:
269:
74:
135:
1966:
1782:
1754:
1642:
1615:
1125:
context"; ... My personal inclination, for what it's worth, is to be cautious about including it in the main article --
244:
1465:
508:
488:
65:
1799:
706:, the specific naming convention of NCBRITPEER takes precedence over the general policy of preferring common names.
1550:
1513:
1430:
1109:- (so perhaps there are also similar articles in other European countries? - adding to the one from the American
591:
561:
1437:
1400:
1735:
1693:
1685:
1627:
1611:
1469:
1803:
1378:
1326:
649:
states "Articles on the wives of hereditary peers are generally headed {First name} {Married name}, {Title}".
232:
129:
1369:
states "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." Hanbury is not notable
1341:
1300:
1200:
1183:
1962:
1638:
1532:
1161:
have been unfaithful"; ... I have not seen the relevant reports in those British tabloids, incidentally. --
201:
109:
1433:
1396:
1665:
1586:
626:
500:
482:
1374:
1322:
919:
per WP:NCBRITPEER. ("Rose Hanbury" should redirect to "Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley".)
125:
1854:
1815:
1560:
1192:
1094:
1019:
1001:
953:
877:
836:
774:
761:
601:
250:
1850:
1811:
1509:
1924:
1864:
1707:
1607:
963:
I saw this already, but was nervous to include because it seems tabloid and I maybe not aligned with
924:
828:
744:
736:
732:
679:
675:
668:
646:
618:
614:
211:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
1413:
I don't understand your question. This talk section and the article itself are two separate things.
175:
1990:
1731:
1689:
1623:
1486:
1481:
1457:
1366:
1362:
1314:
1057:
873:
832:
770:
757:
654:
604:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
161:
55:
1563:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1151:
aseguraron que el futuro Rey habrĂa sido infiel a su esposa con la modelo, Rose Hanbury ..." : -->
516:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
316:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1810:. Even if most articles say Rose Hanbury, they then called her the Marchioness of Cholmondeley.
1528:
1495:
1477:
1418:
1075:
1065:
215:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
70:
1867:. What's going on in other pages does not necessarily have an impact on any particular article.
1614:. The current Princess of Wales is commonly called Kate Middleton but her article is title in "
1030:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/pegging-prince-william-rumor-sex-act-1392678/
854:
name here is that preferred under the Knowledge article naming policy. Your opinion that it is
2015:
1658:
1579:
1224:
1041:
977:
896:
863:
851:
802:
711:
692:
622:
51:
1431:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rose_Hanbury&direction=prev&oldid=1213327976
1272:
Adding on I think the ongoing nature of the allegations mean it should now be in the article.
1892:
1090:
1053:
1015:
997:
949:
408:
1849:
is referred to her title and she just got married last month. Same should happen to Rose.
821:
of the realm, something that is not at all aided by her Knowledge article being titled the
2036:
1945:
1920:
1728:
1703:
1245:
1166:
1130:
920:
740:
208:
141:
1778:
756:
per nom. Reliable sources seem to use Cholmondeley while the tabloids call her Hanbury.
1986:
650:
300:
1770:
1373:
of these rumors therefore the above quoted policies take precedence over google hits.
2057:
1903:
1869:
1826:
1787:
1725:
1619:
1521:
1491:
1473:
1414:
1318:
1086:
1071:
1061:
1011:
964:
1452:
through lawyers that such rumours were "completely false".' Citations could include
1285:
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.”
1105:
Reports about that "alleged affair" do keep cropping up in the Spanish Press - e.g.
1597:
1215:
1032:
968:
887:
859:
793:
707:
683:
636:
284:
263:
24:
1888:
1774:
1766:
392:
368:
2032:
1941:
1241:
1175:
1162:
1126:
398:
290:
1516:
and others who have retracted them, but I feel it's worth spelling out why:
454:
1313:
By your own admission the articles "hint towards her involvement" which is
1113:
referenced above) ... Of course the key question here is: "Do we regard
313:
621:
are in collision here, and editors assign different weights to them.
2040:
2020:
1998:
1974:
1949:
1928:
1909:
1896:
1875:
1858:
1832:
1819:
1793:
1739:
1711:
1697:
1682:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#British nobility
1670:
1591:
1536:
1499:
1441:
1422:
1404:
1382:
1345:
1330:
1304:
1249:
1229:
1204:
1187:
1170:
1134:
1098:
1079:
1046:
1023:
1005:
982:
957:
928:
901:
881:
867:
844:
807:
765:
748:
715:
697:
658:
630:
428:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
513:
729:
Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names
549:
226:
207:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
184:
15:
453:
1153:
However, the Spanish verb structure used there, i.e. "...
1395:
Why is this whole talk section published on the article?
1070:
My view has changed. See comment below of 18 April 2024.
1938:
1602:
641:
560:
On 15 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be
160:
512:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
312:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1802:who calls her Marchioness of Cholmondeley, same as
1028:A relevant link in the context of the libel claim:
1985:Appears to be common name per search for sources.
1236:Suggesting that the 'story' is just "fake news":
1702:But she is better known by her married name. --
943:Alleged romantic association with Prince William
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2094:Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
1480:) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) --- And as far as
872:It is not my opinion it is English common law.
1603:Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley
642:Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley
566:Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley
1512:keeps re-adding the same edits. I agree with
174:
8:
731:clearly would also apply to their wives, so
230:
2031:. Use common and concise name per policy.
1937:What made you change your mind from oppose
1901:Providing some examples would be helpful.
1549:The following is a closed discussion of a
826:
590:The following is a closed discussion of a
477:
363:
258:
1365:clearly states "Avoid repeating gossip."
2089:Start-Class biography (royalty) articles
1847:Olivia Grosvenor, Duchess of Westminster
2074:Low-importance England-related articles
2014:have been notified of this discussion.
812:Looking at the quality of the sources,
479:
365:
260:
2109:Start-Class WikiProject Women articles
1961:has been notified of this discussion.
816:uses "Rose Cholmondeley" and at least
728:
7:
2069:Start-Class England-related articles
1568:The result of the move request was:
609:The result of the move request was:
506:This article is within the scope of
414:This article is within the scope of
306:This article is within the scope of
2114:All WikiProject Women-related pages
2064:Biography articles of living people
249:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
2046:The discussion above is closed.
2012:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility
934:The discussion above is closed.
553:
499:
481:
465:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility
401:
391:
367:
293:
283:
262:
231:
190:This article must adhere to the
45:Click here to start a new topic.
583:Requested move 15 December 2022
438:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography
346:This article has been rated as
2104:WikiProject Biography articles
2084:Start-Class biography articles
1195:*a rather literal translation
441:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
1505:Repeated reinsertion of edits
1454:this Business Insider article
1250:07:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
1230:20:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
1171:19:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
1157:sido infiel" actually means "
1135:19:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
1068:) 15:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
929:02:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
902:05:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
882:04:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
868:23:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
845:21:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
808:19:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
766:18:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
749:14:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
716:23:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
698:23:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
659:22:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
631:12:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
520:and see a list of open tasks.
462:This article is supported by
326:Knowledge:WikiProject England
320:and see a list of open tasks.
193:biographies of living persons
42:Put new text under old text.
1630:) 18:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
1616:Catherine, Princess of Wales
991:a good reference point. And
735:does not here conflict with
426:contribute to the discussion
329:Template:WikiProject England
2099:Royalty work group articles
1649:) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
1592:14:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1542:Requested move 15 July 2024
1099:17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
1047:14:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
1024:14:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
1006:14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
983:13:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
958:12:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
526:Knowledge:WikiProject Women
205:must be removed immediately
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2135:
2119:WikiProject Women articles
2041:18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
2021:16:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
1950:19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
1671:15:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
1500:03:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
1442:12:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
1423:05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
1405:10:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
1383:14:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
1346:00:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
1331:17:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1305:16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1205:18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
1188:18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
1145:The Daily Mail, The Mirror
1080:16:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
532:WikiProject Women articles
529:Template:WikiProject Women
352:project's importance scale
2079:WikiProject England pages
1999:21:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
1975:20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
1929:13:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1910:00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1902:
1897:23:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
1876:23:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1868:
1859:18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1833:23:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1825:
1820:18:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1794:16:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
1786:
1740:12:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1712:13:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1698:09:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
1514:User:Willthacheerleader18
494:
461:
386:
345:
278:
257:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2048:Please do not modify it.
1686:Knowledge:Article titles
1612:Diana, Princess of Wales
1556:Please do not modify it.
1537:09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
936:Please do not modify it.
597:Please do not modify it.
332:England-related articles
1724:No, she isn't: compare
458:
239:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2008:WikiProject Biography
783:few or no other edits
704:article naming policy
457:
417:WikiProject Biography
100:Neutral point of view
1089:, and all the best,
814:Architectural Digest
785:outside this topic.
380:Royalty and Nobility
105:No original research
1959:WikiProject England
987:Yes, exactly that.
309:WikiProject England
1963:ModernDayTrilobite
1808:Town & Country
1639:ModernDayTrilobite
1456:and one or two of
818:Town & Country
459:
444:biography articles
245:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
2023:
1977:
1673:
1650:
1578:
1575:non-admin closure
1279:Per WP:BLPGOSSIP:
1228:
1139:That^ article in
1045:
981:
900:
858:notwithstanding.
847:
831:comment added by
806:
786:
696:
678:is a convention,
580:
579:
548:
547:
544:
543:
540:
539:
509:WikiProject Women
476:
475:
472:
471:
362:
361:
358:
357:
225:
224:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2126:
2018:
2005:
1956:
1908:
1906:
1874:
1872:
1831:
1829:
1792:
1790:
1668:
1662:
1651:
1631:
1605:
1589:
1583:
1572:
1558:
1527:So please stop.
1510:User:Unfriendnow
1434:SkysingerGregala
1397:SkysingerGregala
1222:
1220:
1039:
1037:
975:
973:
894:
892:
800:
798:
768:
690:
688:
644:
599:
568:. The result of
557:
556:
550:
534:
533:
530:
527:
524:
503:
496:
495:
485:
478:
446:
445:
442:
439:
436:
422:join the project
411:
409:Biography portal
406:
405:
404:
395:
388:
387:
382:
371:
364:
334:
333:
330:
327:
324:
303:
298:
297:
296:
287:
280:
279:
274:
266:
259:
242:
236:
235:
227:
213:this noticeboard
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2134:
2133:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2016:
1904:
1870:
1827:
1804:Harper's Bazaar
1788:
1666:
1660:
1601:
1587:
1581:
1554:
1544:
1507:
1216:
1119:reliable source
1033:
969:
945:
940:
939:
888:
794:
684:
640:
595:
585:
554:
531:
528:
525:
522:
521:
443:
440:
437:
434:
433:
407:
402:
400:
377:
331:
328:
325:
322:
321:
299:
294:
292:
272:
243:on Knowledge's
240:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2132:
2130:
2122:
2121:
2116:
2111:
2106:
2101:
2096:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2066:
2056:
2055:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2025:
2024:
2002:
2001:
1979:
1978:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1932:
1931:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1773:, etc; Meghan
1755:New York Times
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1732:Celia Homeford
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1690:Celia Homeford
1624:Omnis Scientia
1595:
1566:
1565:
1551:requested move
1545:
1543:
1540:
1506:
1503:
1458:Harpers Bazaar
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1428:
1408:
1407:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1375:ThaddeusSholto
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1323:ThaddeusSholto
1308:
1307:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1193:@105.232.57.24
1049:
944:
941:
933:
932:
931:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
751:
721:
720:
719:
718:
672:
634:
607:
606:
592:requested move
586:
584:
581:
578:
577:
570:the discussion
558:
546:
545:
542:
541:
538:
537:
535:
518:the discussion
504:
492:
491:
486:
474:
473:
470:
469:
460:
450:
449:
447:
413:
412:
396:
384:
383:
372:
360:
359:
356:
355:
348:Low-importance
344:
338:
337:
335:
318:the discussion
305:
304:
301:England portal
288:
276:
275:
273:Low‑importance
267:
255:
254:
248:
237:
223:
222:
218:this help page
202:poorly sourced
188:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2131:
2120:
2117:
2115:
2112:
2110:
2107:
2105:
2102:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2067:
2065:
2062:
2061:
2059:
2049:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2019:
2013:
2009:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1882:
1877:
1873:
1866:
1865:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1862:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1841:
1834:
1830:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1791:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1763:The Telegraph
1760:
1756:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1672:
1669:
1664:
1663:
1657:
1656:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1637:
1636:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1620:Meghan Markle
1618:". Same with
1617:
1613:
1609:
1608:WP:NCBRITPEER
1604:
1599:
1594:
1593:
1590:
1585:
1584:
1576:
1571:
1570:no consensus.
1564:
1562:
1557:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1541:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:GenevieveDEon
1525:
1523:
1517:
1515:
1511:
1504:
1502:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:86.146.159.55
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:86.146.159.55
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1219:
1212:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:105.232.57.24
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:105.232.57.24
1177:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1048:
1043:
1038:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
979:
974:
972:
966:
962:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
942:
937:
930:
926:
922:
918:
915:
903:
898:
893:
891:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
848:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
824:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
804:
799:
797:
792:
788:
787:
784:
780:
776:
772:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:WP:COMMONNAME
734:
733:WP:NCBRITPEER
730:
726:
723:
722:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
694:
689:
687:
682:is a policy.
681:
680:WP:COMMONNAME
677:
676:WP:NCBRITPEER
673:
670:
669:WP:COMMONNAME
666:
663:
662:
661:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:WP:NCBRITPEER
643:
638:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:WP:NCBRITPEER
616:
615:WP:COMMONNAME
612:
605:
603:
598:
593:
588:
587:
582:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
552:
551:
536:
519:
515:
511:
510:
505:
502:
498:
497:
493:
490:
487:
484:
480:
467:
466:
456:
452:
451:
448:
431:
430:documentation
427:
423:
419:
418:
410:
399:
397:
394:
390:
389:
385:
381:
376:
373:
370:
366:
353:
349:
343:
340:
339:
336:
319:
315:
311:
310:
302:
291:
289:
286:
282:
281:
277:
271:
268:
265:
261:
256:
252:
246:
238:
234:
229:
228:
220:
219:
214:
210:
206:
203:
199:
195:
194:
189:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2047:
2028:
1982:
1940:to support?
1916:
1884:
1843:
1798:Yes we have
1771:The Guardian
1750:
1677:
1659:
1654:
1653:
1634:
1633:
1598:Rose Hanbury
1596:
1580:
1569:
1567:
1555:
1548:
1526:
1518:
1508:
1487:WP:BLPGOSSIP
1482:WP:NOTGOSSIP
1466:Marie Claire
1450:
1370:
1367:WP:NOTGOSSIP
1363:WP:BLPGOSSIP
1315:WP:BLPGOSSIP
1217:
1158:
1154:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1058:WP:BLPGOSSIP
1051:
1034:
970:
946:
935:
916:
889:
855:
827:— Preceding
822:
817:
813:
795:
753:
724:
685:
664:
637:Rose Hanbury
635:
623:No such user
611:No consensus
610:
608:
596:
589:
574:no consensus
573:
507:
463:
415:
347:
307:
251:WikiProjects
216:
204:
197:
191:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
25:Rose Hanbury
19:This is the
1851:Unfriendnow
1812:Unfriendnow
1561:move review
1462:Vanity Fair
1143:adds that "
1111:Daily Beast
1091:Emmentalist
1054:Emmentalist
1016:Emmentalist
998:Emmentalist
950:Emmentalist
781:) has made
602:move review
241:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
2058:Categories
1921:Necrothesp
1704:Necrothesp
1655:Relisting.
1635:Relisting.
1141:EL ESPAĂ‘OL
1115:EL ESPAĂ‘OL
921:Abbyjjjj96
823:wrong name
741:Necrothesp
702:Under the
674:And while
1987:Hameltion
1123:Knowledge
651:Richiepip
435:Biography
375:Biography
209:libellous
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1995:contribs
1971:contribs
1905:Keivan.f
1871:Keivan.f
1828:Keivan.f
1789:Keivan.f
1688:policy.
1647:contribs
1492:Meticulo
1474:Meticulo
1415:Meticulo
1087:Meticulo
1072:Meticulo
1062:Meticulo
1012:Meticulo
874:Fifireid
841:contribs
833:Fifireid
829:unsigned
779:contribs
771:Fifireid
758:Fifireid
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
2017:ASUKITE
1917:Support
1885:Support
1751:Comment
1371:because
1218:CT55555
1149:The Sun
1121:in the
1035:CT55555
971:CT55555
917:Support
890:CT55555
860:Andrewa
852:correct
796:CT55555
754:Support
708:Andrewa
686:CT55555
350:on the
323:England
314:England
270:England
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
2029:Oppose
2006:Note:
1983:Oppose
1957:Note:
1889:Walco1
1844:Agree:
1806:, and
1800:Tatler
1678:Oppose
1606:– Per
1522:WP:SYN
1319:WP:BLP
1176:@DLMcN
1155:habrĂa
993:here's
989:Here's
965:WP:BLP
725:Oppose
665:Oppose
247:scale.
126:Google
2033:DrKay
1942:DrKay
1863:Read
1661:Waqar
1582:Waqar
1242:DLMcN
1163:DLMcN
1159:would
1152:: -->
1127:DLMcN
1117:as a
1052:Hi, @
1010:Hi, @
856:wrong
739:. --
562:moved
523:Women
514:women
489:Women
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2037:talk
2010:and
1991:talk
1967:talk
1946:talk
1925:talk
1893:talk
1855:talk
1816:talk
1736:talk
1727:and
1708:talk
1694:talk
1643:talk
1628:talk
1533:talk
1496:talk
1478:talk
1470:Elle
1438:talk
1419:talk
1401:talk
1379:talk
1342:talk
1327:talk
1301:talk
1246:talk
1225:talk
1201:talk
1184:talk
1167:talk
1131:talk
1095:talk
1076:talk
1066:talk
1042:talk
1020:talk
1002:talk
978:talk
954:talk
925:talk
897:talk
878:talk
864:talk
850:The
837:talk
803:talk
775:talk
762:talk
745:talk
712:talk
693:talk
655:talk
627:talk
617:and
572:was
424:and
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1783:CNN
1779:CBS
1775:BBC
1767:BBC
1759:CNN
1468:or
825:.
564:to
342:Low
198:BLP
176:TWL
2060::
2039:)
1997:)
1993:|
1973:)
1969:•
1948:)
1927:)
1895:)
1857:)
1818:)
1781:,
1777:,
1769:,
1765:,
1761:,
1757:,
1738:)
1730:.
1710:)
1696:)
1680:.
1667:đź’¬
1652:—
1645:•
1632:—
1622:.
1600:→
1588:đź’¬
1553:.
1535:)
1524:.
1498:)
1472:.
1464:,
1460:,
1440:)
1421:)
1403:)
1381:)
1344:)
1329:)
1321:.
1303:)
1248:)
1240:--
1203:)
1186:)
1169:)
1147:o
1133:)
1097:)
1078:)
1022:)
1004:)
956:)
927:)
880:)
866:)
843:)
839:•
777:•
769:—
764:)
747:)
727:.
714:)
667:.
657:)
645:–
639:→
629:)
613:.
594:.
378::
156:)
54:;
2035:(
1989:(
1965:(
1944:(
1923:(
1891:(
1853:(
1814:(
1734:(
1706:(
1692:(
1641:(
1626:(
1577:)
1573:(
1531:(
1494:(
1476:(
1436:(
1417:(
1399:(
1377:(
1340:(
1325:(
1299:(
1244:(
1227:)
1223:(
1199:(
1182:(
1165:(
1129:(
1093:(
1074:(
1064:(
1044:)
1040:(
1018:(
1000:(
980:)
976:(
952:(
923:(
899:)
895:(
876:(
862:(
835:(
805:)
801:(
773:(
760:(
743:(
710:(
695:)
691:(
653:(
625:(
576:.
468:.
432:.
354:.
253::
221:.
196:(
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
