Talk:Timothy Noah - Knowledge (XXG)

2438:

i.e. "absurd," yet you fail to say why you think its absurd. The reasons you do give don’t hold up very well. Lets see, you make the point the Iraq War has only been going on for 4 years. This is not relevant, since time itself is only one factor, and does not define an events importance on the political and social landscape, but the other point is that it’s still ongoing. Take 9/11. Does it matter less because it occurred in an instant one morning on 9/11, defined even by the date 9/11? Of course not. This shows that it’s your argument that is absurd. We are still facing the ramifications of this event, which has repercussions throughout the world. The War is part of the "war on terror," and tied in to the 9/11 event, since it was used to justify this illegal war. The world before has never seen the outpouring of the millions in the streets of the capitols of the world before as it has seen with the Iraq War. But you say its not a defining issue? It certainly is for the political leadership not only in the US but the rest of the world, if you follow the news. Noah's position is not notable only because Noah is not really notable. But if we are to accept him as a writer and journalist who is notable enough for an article then his position on the War is also notable, because it is a central issue that defines ones stance within the world we live today. The fact that he changed his mind gives the reader essential information on his ability to think clearly and his ability to correct himself.

2530:

different category. As a protest event, it was the largest protest in history, only comparable to some of the protests against the Vietnam War. Still, this is besides the point. You say I betray my political agenda. This is a straw man arugment. First of all, I am not attempting to conceal political views so nothing is being "betrayed," However, this is not the agenda, and not the issue. My political views not withstanding (and yours which are pretty clear also), does not matter. My only agenda is to argue that inclusion of Noah's stances on this historic dividing line political question merit inclusion. And, if my phrases like "illegal" war are partisan, thats fine, but that doesn't make it any less true or factual a statment, It was against international law. This is basic, but also besides the point since this is not an issue that needs to be presented in the article. The only issue is that Noah's view, and then his reversal, be mentioned. Any figure notable enough to have his own article, and who writes on politics, soicety, culture, and who expresses a stance on this issue, must not have this information suppressed. To exclude it on grounds that its political is absurd, esp. when we consider that everything is poitical, esp. a desire to exclude an articulated stance of such an important political question that shapes our current world political reality.

2271:

preposterous, to start cataloguing his opinions on numerous events, major or otherwise. Unless they significantly, and notably, and provocatively relate to his own status or person as a writer - or have impacted public opinion, government policy, intellectual trends, etc - there is no point at all in detailing the information. An encyclopaedia should aim for a proportionate depth, and relevant breadth, in all its entries; the only difference between an online and an offline one should really be that the former doesn't require the often damaging omissions or brevity of the latter, not that it can offer a thoughtless, automatic, totalistic chronicling of everything to do with anything. This is why Knowledge (XXG) entries on Presidents are not as long as whole books written on Presidents. See? - I also believe the Knowledge (XXG) reference in the entry, now that Noah has written again on it, and now this continued squabble has arisen, has become too much a matter of tedious self-referentialism, and on reflection offers little or nothing substantial (trivia or otherwise) to the piece for all the crap that's been thrown about because of it. Can we delete it please? -- Best, CAWP (

700:

front page today - complete with the ridiculous cartoon of an mean old wiki-fascist-cop giving the oppressed, mournful Noah his marching orders (and the headline "Whacked by Knowledge (XXG)" as if Knowledge (XXG) was run by triggerhappy gangsters). And this is not dramatically misinformed? Neither Noah nor the Slate web team seem to have bothered to check the accuracy of his claims since the piece was published several days ago - he has merely added an update claiming that a Knowledge (XXG) sysop gave him a "stay of execution" after reading his article - again this is an inaccurate version of events. Noah has been quite snooty and presumptuous about "Knowledge (XXG) sysops" but apparently has yet to bother to find out how the afd process actually works (he still thinks its down to a discussion amongst admins for instance). I would be able to take Noah's accusations about so-called cliques more seriously if he actually bothered to get his basic facts right about Knowledge (XXG)

3137:

have caused on these talk pages. Anyway, I don't see the harm in refering to this bruhaha in the article. Every Knowledge (XXG) article is an ongoing project, and I think more information is better than less. He's a journalist; he writes articles about things for a living. It doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to me that you'd want to include information on those articles in the entry. Sure, it might be a little weird mentioning one or two of his pieces and not, you know, the hundreds of others he's probably written. But maybe someday someone will come along and add some more, and other will do the same. Like he said, it's not like Knowledge (XXG) lacks the space to include these little tidbits. More information! Information wants to be free! (And, apparently, anthropomorphized)

2540:

more than embarrassing. It isn't political to say it is irrelevant; for its relevance is being justified purely on the basis of it being relevant TO EVERY LIVING PERSON. Isn't this insane? It's certainly not a universal principle being applied universally. Sorry Jersyko, but it's silly to say otherwise. I leave it up to the people with the authority, but I think Knowledge (XXG) looks stupid with this entry as it is. - I don't wish to argue about the Iraq war. I am not interested, qua Knowledge (XXG) contributor, whether it is right or wrong, legal or illegal, etc, etc. Noah's stance couldn't be less relevant to his entry, however, and no can or has yet proven otherwise. The only way to justify it is to have a similar section for, as I said, EVERY LIVING PERSON.

2347:

articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues or highlighting ones we subjectively think are "the issue of the day". Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and whether the Iraq War or the all his major issue oped columns (which are generally brief columns, not detailed papers) are summarized, this comes across as boosterish undue weight/ WP:SOAPBOX promotional content. Hence the balance tag I've added. Noah is a moderately well-known columnist, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he is influential enough to be treated as if he is some remarkable political thinker of the moment .

2405:-- I sense grotty politics in the increasingly desperate and silly attempt to include the Iraq War section. The "major defining political question of our time"? Who thinks like that? Who writes like that? Stop being absurd. The Iraq War, whether you disagree with it or not, has only been going for 4 years. "Our time" is, I trust, slightly larger or longer than that. So get rid of it. He wasn't jousting with a straw man; you are. PRRFan said earlier that Knowledge (XXG) isn't paper, and suggested that articles like this should essentially contain "summaries" of what they think on "major issues". And that's an absurdity. 2473:-- I'm afraid you really give your political agenda away when you use partisan phrases like "this illegal war", and claim "The world before has never seen the outpouring of the millions in the streets of the capitols of the world before as it has seen with the Iraq War". That should be enough to condemn your position: political agendas should NOT come into encyclopaedia contributions. Of course, the fact that these opinions of yours are also false is pretty bad too (the world has regularly seen millions in the streets of capitals: VE Day, VJ Day, heck, every New Year's Eve. What's your point?). 1553:- it is not notable what Noah thinks about Knowledge (XXG). Let me ask, if you were writing a short biography article about Noah anywhere else besides Knowledge (XXG), would you include Noah's opinions about Knowledge (XXG)? Of course not, he is a pundent who issues opinions on everything every day. Knowledge (XXG) articles are copy-left meaning they can be re-produced in print form, on CD's, copied into other works, etc.. we are not writing articles for Knowledge (XXG), that is why we have a self referential rule, these are generic articles. 855:

acclaimed journalists and broadcasters are ignored because they are not public figures, apparently. Is this to suggest that there needs to be a separate Wiki for these people? I think while syops may b**ch about some fleeting details in the (Noah's) article that show a disregard for minutiae of the admin/enforcement process, they can't ignore some of the issues it raises. This article needs to stay, and I wouldn't be opposed to including the slate article as a source (or at least slate as an external link.)

869:(Noah's cleaning lady example, or me for that matter -- not yet anyway), but certainly important journalists, Pulitzer Prize winners, etc. ought to be here. I'm pretty much a newly-minted Knowledge (XXG) editor, though I've used it to look stuff up for a long time. Seems to me that one reason it has the kinds of gaps Noah refers to -- such as a Pulitzer Prize winner -- is because editors are interested in what they're interested in. They tend to put their efforts into what fascinates them. 1422:

that was recently pulled from AfD to the disappointment of those who wanted it gone. That Noah's article appears to have been saved in part by that same piece in Slate can't have endeared Noah - or his Slate piece - to the people who wanted to scrub the entire article in the first place. If I were being uncharitable, I might conclude that some people saw the inclusion of the section on Noah's piece as an insult to them and how they do things on Knowledge (XXG), and responded accordingly.

1595:

issue 2) It really doesnt matter what he says, that is not why it is not included in the article - aks yourself why I personally went through the trouble to link to the Slate article with a footnote in the article, and at the top of this talk page, and in the Knowledge (XXG) in the News article - I went out of my way to spread the Slate article all over Knowledge (XXG). Your theory is just wrong and frankly you seem to be taking this very personally, I wonder what your connection is. --

1680:

recall the articles he posted about his wife. I have read the undue weight link that was provided to myself by Jersyko. My question is - if I was to summarise a large portion of Noah's work such that his entry was expanded and the wikipedia article was restricted to a few lines, would this satisfy you? If not, why? (please provide a detailed explanation or, to be perfectly honest, I will think it is because you now have an emotional interest in ensuring it is not present).

2961:, & had been reflecting how AfD nominations can sometimes prompt article improvement, and also on questions of "what makes someone notable for Knowledge (XXG)." If anyone does take the time to do real research on Noah to improve this article (I'm sure for example that one could locate his birth date in one of the "Who's Who" volumes, for instance), & includes a section on this little tempest in a teapot, his appearance on NPR might also be mentioned. -- 586: 2577:

this section. And if it's political to say the Iraq War isn't significant enough, and political to say it is important enough - why on earth is that a rationale for ignoring the argument it should be excluded, and not a rationale for ignoring the argument it should be included? It is a WP:SOAPBOX violation, and you know it. You clearly hate the war. Fine. But it's seedy and obnoxious to impose your views as de facto Knowledge (XXG) policy.

326: 576: 558: 203: 536: 474: 449: 418: 460: 276: 2369:

positions on important issues (and I think we can agree that the Iraq War is a biggie). Knowledge (XXG) is, after all, not paper. In any case, I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that the inclusion of the two Iraq War sentences boosts/gives undue weight to/promotes Noah? Anti-war sentiment? I can't see how it does either.

678:. I think its reasonably justified for someone to tag the article as having notability issues - or even submit to afd and have it out there (at least that would actually give some belated grounding for, to put it politely, Noah's complaining yet dramatically misinformed article about his supposed "eviction" from wikipedia) 2732:, & use some common sense? If it appears that he anonymously editted his own bio to add the fact he lives in Takoma Park, & there is no reason to suspect his word (e.g., it gives him some kind of self-promotion), why not simply accept that he knows where he lives & accept the edit as reasonably plausible? -- 484: 1698:. So long as the notability bit is carefully worded to avoid self-reference and does not take up an inordinate amount of the article, I'm fine with including it at some point. However, I'm a bit wary of including it at all at this point given that the article discusses very few of Noah's other articles, signifying 2309:-- More notable than where he lives? Yes. But an encyclopaedia is a reference work: essential facts like that must be included. I'm sure the year in which Reagan was born isn't notable - as in of especial importance - but it is an elementary fact and therefore has to be there. What's your point? It makes no sense. 1384:

This is a broad subject with broad implications for how we continue to reinforce social codes long after technology has made those social codes unnecessary. If Noah keeps writing on this subject - and I have a feeling he'll get at least one more piece out of this - he could go somewhere very interesting with this.

2313:

Hitchens - central and prominent in the public debates over the war - it of course would be perfectly correct to include it. But not Noah. Just leave the entry as it is: modest, covering the essential facts, well-referenced and accurate: exactly the proportionate length for such a mildly important figure.

845:

receiving fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It wasn't until she wrote her Knowledge (XXG) piece that she became sufficiently notable to be written up in Knowledge (XXG)."? This was in the article he wrote about his "eviction" from Knowledge (XXG).

2576:

For crying out loud. Make your mind up. You know I meant every living person who has an article. And you also know that the vast majority of writers on politics, society or culture who have entries in Knowledge (XXG), do not have an Iraq War entry. It looks ridiculous, and overly politicized, to have

2539:

Oh gosh. Very tedious, often meaningless and circular, almost complete nonsense from beginning to end. I don't care enough. But I believe it obvious to any impartial person - regardless of your views on the war - that Giovanni and his ilk, and the inclusion of the Iraq War section, is frankly nothing

2408:

Debate in good faith, or go away. Justify the Iraq War section as anything other than a politicised attempt to colour the war in a certain way - central, defining, key to understanding this whole era, worthy of mention in all possible entries, even if particular people (like Noah) have unexceptional,

1808:

But wait, what about when Colbert had that segment where he told people to edit the African elephant entry? That made it in. I can see the arguments of the people who want to exclude it, but on the other hand, doing so seems to be trying to ignore an issue that has already come up. What I'm trying to

1594:

Your making Noah's opinion about Knowledge (XXG) into some kind of "statement" that Noah is "mocking" Knowledge (XXG) and therefore people who want to delete it are biased - which is wrong on a number of accounts: 1) Noah is not mocking Knowledge (XXG) he is making an honest attempt to understand the

1421:

As far as good faith goes, the subtext of this entire debate is that this isn't merely an article about Noah, nor is it a section about Noah's article being up for deletion. It's a section in which Noah mocks Knowledge (XXG)'s standards and those who set them as pompous - and it appears in an article

880:

Another problem: A lot of attention has been paid in this discussion on making sure we can source where Noah lives, when he was born -- better take those "facts" out until we can verify them with real sources. But what we've failed to note is hat unsourced "facts" are endemic in Knowledge (XXG). Not

3136:

Banner headlines aside, he's not really MAD at Knowledge (XXG). If you actually read the article, his criticism of the notability policy is reasonable even if his own article hadn't been a victim of it. If anything, I detect a tone of bemusement in his writing at all of the infighting his articles

2390:

Noah is not notable enough to have his own article entry, I think. However, if he is to have one, then this issue of the War is one that should not be excluded, esp. given his 180 degree turn around, like a lot of others. This fact is notable, and so is the question of where one stands on this major

2368:

You're jousting with a straw man. No one is even remotely suggesting "turning articles about journalists into summaries of every piece they've written on major issues." If Noah is notable as a pundit, then it is entirely appropriate to include a few lines in a short bio describing one or more of his

2156:

violation. I'm sure he's written many more-or-less informed articles on numerous serious and non-serious subjects - unclear why this was singled out for inclusion. He is not a specialist political commentator on the Iraq War nor has his journalistic identity been characterized by his position on the

1783:

He wrote one short article. One. He is not known as a Knowledge (XXG) commentator, he is not widely quoted as one, it is not something he normally covers. If that changes and he becomes a Knowledge (XXG) pundent and starts publishing more articles about Knowledge (XXG) than it becomes notable enough

1623:

The typical text about his "Eviction" piece for slate takes about a third of this article. Timothy Noah has been writing 100s of columns for many journals for many years, how we can justify giving this one column such undue precedence is beyond me. Timothy Noah is notable, a single column in Slate

1383:

because it wasn't purely self-referential. As I pointed out before, Noah's Slate piece isn't just about this article or its potential deletion; it's a broader argument about Knowledge (XXG)'s standards and how they're ultimately rooted in the need to maintain status and reinforce social hierarchies.

844:

Is there any validity to the following claim by Noah: "I note with interest that Stacy Schiff, author of the excellent New Yorker article cited above, failed to impress Knowledge (XXG)'s arbiters of notability by winning the Pulitzer Prize in biography, writing several other well-regarded books, and

773:

Actually, even worse, Bwithh, he's apparently talked to a sysop and given a corrected version of events, but the incorrect one is still the banner headline at Slate. FlashSheridan, the process that leads to what? Putting a banner on a page suggesting the notability of the subject has not been made

711:

The article's really not about the afd process. It's about the notability guidelines. And the cartoon was funny and accurately reflected the thesis of the article. But I don't see what any of this has to do with the article. As to notability, I'm going to venture the guess that any regular columnist

3167:

journalist's articles on Knowledge (XXG) that discuss their most significant story on a weekly basis over their entire career? Many journalists would end up with discussion of more than a thousand of their stories, which would swamp their article unless the rest of it was greatly expanded. I just

2985:

Journalist manipulates Knowledge (XXG) and causes controversy and gets name in press. Story at 11. What the journalist is missing is the Real Story, that notability is the single biggest issue on the Internet, where anyone and everyone has equal voice, what is "notable" is a question worth billions

2901:

I think by now the relevance of a small bio on Timothy Noah is beyond debate: he is a public figure and his omission from Knowledge (XXG) would now be seen as picque, considering the attention he's brought to the selection process here. One of the virtues of Knowledge (XXG) as an information source

2167:

Isn't Noah's stance on the Iraq war notable for the same reason any other pundit's stance on the Iraq war is notable - because the Iraq war is one of the major defining political issues of the current decade? A Knowledge (XXG) user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on

1912:

I am impressed this article went from normal, to AfD, to speedy keep, to journalist responds in the press, all in the same day. I'd say to Mr Noah, notability is at the heart of Knowledge (XXG), it is why people use it, to filter out the ocean of data available on the internet - otherwise everyones

699:

Please assume good faith. I too am a daily reader of Slate and other publications but don't make the facile proposal that every journalist I read on a regular basis has a claim to encyclopedic notability. I note that Noah's baseless Slate article on wikipedia is now the banner headline on the Slate

3107:

If the Encyclopedia Britannica decided they needed an article on Timothy Noah, would they say "Gee, what do people who need to look up Timothy Noah need to know? Oh -- he criticized Knowledge (XXG) once!"? No, they wouldn't -- and therefore, neither should we. Knowledge (XXG) should not cover a

2476:

I'm sorry, but unless there's a better argument for the Iraq War section in this article than saying it's important to and for everyone, I think it has to go. It's self-evidently immature and pathetic (to how many other people has this policy of Giovanni's been applied? Is it going to be Knowledge

2905:

Nonetheless I can't help but wonder if the date of birth listed here--February 11, 1967--is inaccurate. His late wife was born in 1958, and while it's not impossible that she was 9 years older than he, it would be unusual. Similarly, the Wasghington Monthly bio referenced in the article indicates

2483:

P.S. I never said duration was the test of an issue defining our time, but that our time is surely longer than four years. And, heck, given the fact that opponents of the War like you believe the US can pull out immediately with little objectionable or significant effect, I would suggest that you

2437:

Your comments lack arguments. You think its silly, I don't. You think its desperate, I don't. What is your argument? Grotty politics? As if there is something called clean politics? Politics is always going to be offensive for some but that is no reason to bury it. You make lots of proclamations,

2312:

It's dumb to use such a confusing argument as the basis for including this completely irrelevant section. Noah's switch did NOT have an effect on public opinion. Not a bit. His views on the Iraq War are one of any number of average, unexceptional, insignificant facts. For someone like Christopher

1702:

in my view and granting undue weight to the notability subsection (as opposed to the Iraq subsection, which is undoubtedly an issue of great importance to pundits over the last several years and should likely be discussed in any such article). Ideally, the article would be expanded exponentially

3112:

Knowledge (XXG). Are John Siegenthaler, Sr.'s well-publicized criticisms of Knowledge (XXG) notable enough that any source covering him would regard them as integral to the article? Yes, absolutely. Is the fact that Timothy Noah is upset at Knowledge (XXG) this week similarly notable? No. --

2346:

That grandiose statement from above and the idea that his response to Powell's UN speech was some kind of landmark event in the American public sphere comes across as absurd puffery - can the commentator prove this? I doubt that even Timothy Noah himself would claim this. We shouldn't be turning

2270:

The trouble is, Noah isn't interesting enough - or prominent enough - to require descriptions of his views on individual issues. He hasn't played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War, nor on anything else. He is significant enough to have a small entry; but it's total overkill, and rather

2193:

Yes. If Noah is notable as a pundit, so are his views on the big issues. An anonymous editor removed the Iraq War section, writing in the Edit Summary essentially: "Why this subject and no others?" The answer, of course, is that other subjects might well be included. Knowledge (XXG)'s not paper.

2113:

I'm tempted to protect the article to stop the continued edit warring, but I'm hesitant to do so given the potentially bad face it presents to new users (which is why articles on the main page aren't protected while there). In any event, if the edit warring continues, I will be more amenable to

2050:

violation, so I'd say closer wasn't assuming good faith. I also see a bunch of arguments on the page which basically are either hand waving or "he might not meet our standards, but I don't care so I'm gonna say keep anyway." Not exactly sure where any of that meets criteria outlined for a speedy

1679:

Stbalbach, on reading the above it appears to me that you are also taking this personally. I am not familiar enough with wikipedia to argue from experience. However, I do know that I signed up in order to ensure that Timothy Noah's views were expressed on this forum. I read Slate daily and can

996:

The only rationale that I can think for leaving it in is because the article is specifically about the wikipedia entry itself. Since there has been a published work about this article, shouldn't that be mentioned on the page? But I agree that it does seem to give off an impression of bias. Are

874:

Another issue may be the dependence on the Internet itself as a source of information: has anyone thought to look Noah up in Who's Who? -- maybe his birthday & place of residence are there! When it comes right down to it, some of the best information on many topics is found in books, in the

3208:

So why not link to it from his own page? Basically more information is better. Ideally, an encyclopedia would give you access to everything you could possibly want to know about any given subject. Why impede that vison by constantly using a "real" encyclopedia as a frame of reference for what's

2557:

Noah is a writer, a journalist who helps to create public opinion. He is a political commentator. Any major event that is a defining, MAJOR, political issue of our times, and one in which SUCH a writer writes about (not every living individual!), should not be failed to be mentioned. As another

2278:

The section in response to the question of Noah's suitability for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). His forceful agreement with Powell's speech to the UN, and his subsequent withdrawal of that agreement are the most notable, or at least most noted, aspect of his career. This sequence of articles is

1193:. Noah basically said that Wikipedians spend hours and hours deleting factual, interesting material in order to make themselves feel big. I can understand how leaving that in an article that was only recently spared from deletion would be merely adding insult to injury for the deletion zealots. 1866:

I've closed the AfD on Timothy Noah, as it would only serve as troll magnetry. He's notable enough, and enough crap has been stirred up about this article, that it better serves the project to attempt to improve the article via discussions on the talk page than running it through AfD. If you

2529:

Wrong, the coordinated outpouring of anti-war protest in more than 600 different cities across the globe was unprecedented in world history. Over 10 million and then 30 million people protested on a single day. Even the millennium parties doesn't match that, besides that falls in a completely

854:

I think that the article he wrote brings up a lot of good points about notability standards and some of the paradoxes that operate therewith. For example, I've always considered Knowledge (XXG) to be a treasure trove of knowledge about porn stars, profesional wrestling and Star Trek. And yet,

2707:

The question isn't whether he edited Knowledge (XXG), but whether he lives in Takoma Park. We'd have to twist ourselves into a self-referencing pretzel and violate original research rules in order to tie the article to a specific set of edits and then use that as a source. Under a strict

2859:

According to the top banner headline for Noah's article on Slate.com, he's personally at "War with Knowledge (XXG)" and the war is "Raging On". According to the article headline for the same article, he's been "Rescued by Knowledge (XXG)". Defcon 5!! Man Overboard!!!! Outstanding.

1125:

The section isn't self-referential, and Noah's piece isn't strictly about his own Knowledge (XXG) article. It's about Knowledge (XXG)'s broader policies on notability and how they're rooted not in necessity but in the need to maintain certain social codes. As Noah himself notes,

1287:, I think it's clear that it doesn't meet the criteria. While Noah's criticisms may be valid, this isn't an issue of people deleting things based on their whim, this is an issue of following the established guidelines. That's all we have to go on in cases like this. 2906:

that he was working as an editor there in the mid-80s: when he was 15 years old?! Finally, I recall in an article on Slate a year or so ago that he claimed to have gone to high school with mega-corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was born in 1958. Is "1967" a typo?!

1184:

I find it ironic that you're the one asking "why is this one being given special attention?" when you're the one going out of your way to delete this section, and doing so not on the basis that it's inaccurate information, but on the basis that it's just information

2566:. Including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed dramatically over time - is not a WP:SOAPBOX violation but essential on the writers views and thinking. Thus, its appropriate and expected by reasonable standards. 687:

Aww, you're just PO-ed because he nailed on the head the biggest problem with online cliquery, which, though full of good and knowledgeable people, Knowledge (XXG) certainly has. No comment on whether Noah's "notable" or not, all I know is I read his column every

1019:

noteworthy enough to include here is that it's about Knowledge (XXG). (If Noah had written a column about the Encyclopedia Britannica's editorial policies, would we even be considering it for inclusion?) I think his article may be worth including as a reference

2099:. There has been almost virtually no discussion going on between those people reverting one another - not even any attempt to communicate through a meaningful edit summary such as "please refer to talk". This is not how we should be resolving article disputes. 2510:

One can just as easily argue that it is a "political" decision to cut the subsection from the article. Regardless, such accusations aren't going to help us decide whether or not to include it. Finally, please sign your talk page posts with this: ~~~~. ·

660:

Someone posted a notability tag and did not explain reasons in talk. That is bogus, any issues should have been explained in talk before tagging. Noah is a senior journalist at one of the major online magazines. That makes him notable by most definitions.

673:

The tagger should have explained the reasons in talk but I would not describe this oversight as "bogus", particularly as a simple flagging is a restrained action. I don't see any indication in the bio or the explanation above that solidly shows Noah is

1014:

does not significantly represent Noah's overall work as a journalist. This does not mean that there's anything wrong with his article per se, just that it's not a particularly typical or noteworthy example of his writings. The only reason that it even

3045:

I'll expand down here on something I said above: if Noah is notable, it's not for where he grew up or where he lives; it's for what he writes. Therefore, his positions on notable issues such as the Iraq War are useful to have in a WP article.

1053:

it? It's true that this article could certainly stand to be fleshed out quite a bit more, dealing with Noah's more frequently-covered topics, but the bottom line is that Noah's WP item is interesting, there's no reason to leave it out, and

2244:

I agree with the above. I would submit Noah's comments on the Iraq war are "celebrated" given a) his notoriety as a journalist for one of the most well known (and well read) online magazines; and, b) the dramatic change in his views over

1087:

might be relevant; is the blurb on the notability article being included because it is representative of his work as a journalist and warrants mention in an encyclopedia article on Noah or is it being included because it very recent (see

2157:

Iraq War. If there are articles or books which are representative of landmark, watershed and/or celebrated work by Noah, and can be shown to be so, these are more appropriate for the article than summaries of random short op-ed articles

341: 739:

Noah’s alleged snootiness is besides the point, and your mentioning it makes it hard to maintain the assumption of good faith. He’s obviously notable and the tag was obviously incorrect; the process that lead to it probably needs

977:

Noah has written lots and lots of Chatterbox articles; the only reason to view this as more interesting than any other is that it mentions Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) itself making that distinction would sound my bias alarm.

908:

It seems to me that the part that I have reinstalled several times deserves to remain: wikipedia needs to be a self-conscious endeavor, and thus it is noteworthy that Noah's recent article reflects on the notability criterion.

2956:

Timothy Noah was on National Public Radio this morning discussing this article (& his articles of course) -- which led me to this talk page. Interesting timing for me, because I had just been reviewing the latest in an

875:

library, that you have to physically go look at and take notes from. Look around & you'll find some of the best articles on Knowledge (XXG) are written by people who took the time to go to the library & do that work.

3240:

I don't know if this is an important enough episode in his career to deserve a mention in this article, but it's definitely crazy to write more about it than about his opinion on Iraq or about his "biography" in

1762:

about the countless historical errors related to Brazilian history, places and notable personalities. It is a mix of sadness and confusion that now I see Knowledge (XXG)'s sysop trying to remove an article that

806:

Can't this question of notability be resolved by finding and citing a couple of links about Timothy Noah? In his "eviction" essay he claims that there are none, but wouldn't something like this NPR story count

166: 2558:

editor said, a Knowledge (XXG) user looking up Timothy Noah would be interested to know his position on the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like

1128:

my aim was not to reinstate myself but rather to argue against Knowledge (XXG)'s "notability" standard itself and to use it as a newfangled illustration of our society's love affair with invidious distinction.

2290:

Regardless, because there's a discussion on point on this talk page, please discuss here instead of merely removing the Iraq paragraph (consensus seems to be in favor of inclusion right now, in any event). ·

2552:

What you say applies to what you wrote, not me. To make clear the obvious new straw-man you are setting up, its not "every living person,"-- that is not the standard that I have expressed. I clearly said,

1482: 815:). I'm guessing there are other interviews with Timothy (about the book) out there. Wouldn't they count as well? Lastly, here's a published essay whose subject is a criticism of one of Noah's articles ( 964:. Minutes after doing so, its deletion was provisionally halted. Noah's article pondered why in an infinite (cyber) space, Knowledge (XXG) would police the question of whether someone is notable enough." 296: 2708:

interpretation, we need a secondary source that specifically states he lives in Takoma Park. If he mentions it in a future article, that'd be perfect, but for now we're short a reference for that.

1143:

Noah has written 100s of articles and said many things, why is this one being given special attention? It doesn't belong in the article because we have rules against that kind of thing, please read

1473:

It wouldn't be the first time a Slate article about Knowledge (XXG) lent notability to subject, and then we wrote about it in Knowledge (XXG) -- we saw that sort of self-referential effect on the

1058:- editors don't have serious space constraints that prevent them from leaving stuff like this in. Which is, ironically, the very point Noah makes in the article people are trying to delete. 2818:

If it's not verifiable by a secondary source, it has no business being included in a tertiary source, no matter how important it is - and I doubt Noah's place of residence is that crucial.

2114:

protecting the article (regardless of the content of the revision) until the discussion is completed on this talk page. That said, we would all be wise to discuss, not edit, for now. ·

2152:

Removed this section as I don't see why (and the article made no effort to indicate) why Noah's published opinions on the Iraq War are encyclopedically notable, and this was a possible

1083:

than notability. The additions relating to the notability Slate article are more related to this Knowledge (XXG) article than Noah or his work as a journalist. I also think that

397: 3041:

The article is write-protected now, but in my opinion this Iraq War section is irrelevant to his biography and gives undue weight to something which is really not that important.

2135:

Agreed. I would have seen the locking of the page as an attempt by wikipedia to suppress criticism. As it is, seeing my edits deleted prompted me to sign up and find this page.

2279:

certainly more notable than the fact that he lives in the Takoma Park neighborhood. His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War."

3374: 2623:

Blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks and incivility. Surely you understand that one cannot describe someone's arguments as "continued, obdurate ignorance" civilly. ·

1967:

Either way, I can't see how anyone can say the AfD was closed properly... but I'm not going to do anything 'till this cools off. I don't want Noah whining about us again.

3127:. I don't really have an opinion about whether the Iraq War stories should be mentioned, but his Knowledge (XXG) stories are clearly much less important than those. -- 1338:. Occasionally these things are notable enough to be included, but in this case it is not. If you really still object then follow the conflict resolution guidelines. -- 3312: 3308: 3294: 3156: 1809:

say is, shouldn't someone looking at the article be aware that there was this issue that was made public, which sparked a discussion about notability standards, etc.?

160: 923:

It's been said before and I'll repeat it: if this biography were anywhere besides Knowledge (XXG), we wouldn't even be discussing whether to include these articles.

3404: 890:

In short, some of the failings we've got here are do to the mixed nature of Knowledge (XXG) culture... maybe just to the nature of volunteerism. We're not getting

632: 2215:, but because this is undoubtedly the biggest issue to be dealt with by American political pundits over the last several years, surely it warrants some mention. · 402: 306: 919:

That's an absolute non-sequitur. Knowledge (XXG)'s almost ridiculously self-conscious; the question is whether Noah's articles about Knowledge (XXG) are notable

2958: 2176:. I also fail to see how including a section on Noah's views on the war - which he wrote about at length, and which changed fairly dramatically over time - is a 638: 3389: 2455:. Justifications have been presented, whether you accept them as convincing arguments or not is entirely another matter. Regardless, be more civil, please. · 92: 2613:

Civil? In what way? Verbally? Fine. But there are other forms of civility, and I would suggest that continued, obdurate ignorance is itself an act of malice.

3379: 828:

Then just add that to the article or raise it in afd. It's no big deal tagging articles with notability or references tags or taking them to afd. I think it

385:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2909: 2797: 2789: 502: 377: 337: 1330:

encyclopedia article, not just Knowledge (XXG)) than you really have no case. Attacking me and other Wikipedians by suggesting we are not operating in

3409: 3399: 2029:

Whether or not the article was insightful doesn't really matter, the question is whether this entry meets Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for inclusion

3000:

Why is the section about the Iraq War in this article? It does not seem very fitting or notable to Timothy Noah, unless I am missing the context.

608: 98: 3394: 3384: 506: 3069: 2749:

Well, we don't know for certain that it was Noah who made the edits, first of all. Second, the information remains in the article, just with

2555:"Any figure notable enough to have his own article, and who writes on politics, society, culture, and who expresses a stance on this issue..." 1885: 57: 43: 3163:

call for excessive detail to be trimmed, especially when Knowledge (XXG) would otherwise be overrun with references to itself. Are there

2793: 881:

necessarily because they aren't factual -- but because the editors who placed them there failed to source them. While assessing bios for

501:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3056: 2800:, meaning that since the number of children and his neighborhood of residence is not relevant to his notability, it should be deleted. 2685:

This appears to be within Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, but is there any mechanism to supply these contributions as the needed citations?

599: 563: 3216: 2502: 2427: 510: 882: 497: 454: 112: 3290:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2331: 2477:(XXG) policy that every living person who has an entry must also have a section on their stance on the Iraq War? Are you serious?) 117: 33: 2595:

as you did in your last comment, I will block you from editing. If this argument is to continue, it is going to be more civil. ·

1927:

Actually, it went from normal, to journalist responding, to AfD, to speedy keep. The article wasn't nominated for deletion until

1334:

and have some sort of intentional bias only shines a bad light in your direction - what's your bias? The rules are clear on this

894:

to learn how to do a proper footnote or reference, after all. Those who do it right do it because what's the point of doing it

87: 3057:^ Timothy Noah's comments in "The Fray," Slate's online discussion forum, regarding his place of residence. Accessed 2/27/2007. 3015: 429: 360: 333: 1900: 1824: 1233: 78: 2986:

of dollars (see Google search ranking). But I don't think Noah has the vision and is instead wrapped up in the minutia. --

1759: 1326:

Fumoses if your unable to say why Noah's opinion about Knowledge (XXG) is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia article (

181: 2921: 2902:

is the ability to find out information about people whose biographical details are otherwise unavailable or hard to find.

1147:. You need to justify why this article deserves special attention to be noted, much less have its own entire section. -- 257: 356: 148: 3355: 2484:

implicitly recognise how it has and will have little significance outside of its duration (however long that will be).

2261:

18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Glad to see someone call out the arbitrary, even childish nature of the deletion process

832:

a big deal when people (not you) try to browbeat others from refraining from this kind of important oversight action.

282: 3169: 2075: 1495: 3191: 3152: 211: 386: 122: 3311:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3209:

appropriate? Real encyclopedias suffer length limitations that will eventually contribute to their extinction.

1841: 348: 340:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been 2875: 2682:

documenting other aspects of his career and his residence in the Takoma Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C.

435: 417: 142: 1772: 3346: 3280: 3272: 3220: 2656:-- Nah, still looks dumb. Very unserious; and I suspect it wouldn't survive any competent and senior editor. 3212: 3003: 2490: 2415: 2319: 1812: 1331: 3268: 2498: 2423: 2168:

the subject, just as they'd be interested in the war stances of similar-level political commentators like

2068: 1488: 2614: 1699: 1089: 359:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

352: 138: 68: 3330:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3318: 3114: 2801: 2327: 1189:

It seems pretty clear that this topic strikes a nerve here, especially looking over at the talk page on

885:, I've come across numerous articles, even top-notch articles, that fail to properly source their facts. 607:

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

3271:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3138: 2578: 2543: 2494: 2419: 2246: 2136: 2021: 1725: 1681: 812: 83: 3061:

The access-date is not correctly given. It should be given on the Wiki-format (so I can see it on the

2657: 2323: 662: 1950:, and then the first edit on the 24th was a link to his Slate article. It was then actually AfD'd by 1029: 396:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 3007: 2177: 2153: 275: 188: 3011: 2823: 2104: 1888:. Its similar to the pornograhic actor guideline but with guidelines specifically for journalists. 1884:

I'm working on a guideline proposal that could help to avoid problems like this altogether. Its at

1816: 1659:. Obviously, my preference is to expand the article, but not if doing so violates undue weight. · 1474: 910: 846: 174: 2913: 2645: 2480:

It's just a rubbish little way of weedling some political material into an otherwise fine entry.

2181: 2030: 1981: 1795: 1794:

Huh, keeps coming back. Oh well, I'm unwatching this page. Whoever is left once this is no longer

1740: 1643: 1427: 1194: 1133: 1059: 2842: 2715: 1938: 1896: 1874: 1851: 1820: 930: 856: 781: 743: 713: 689: 400:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 3315:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2588: 2452: 2047: 1994: 816: 393: 3331: 2972: 808: 248: 3029: 2939: 2917: 2884: 2765: 2629: 2601: 2517: 2461: 2297: 2221: 2120: 2007: 1709: 1665: 1098: 984: 820: 591: 64: 2212: 1695: 1656: 1084: 3246: 2563: 2173: 1968: 489: 3338: 3101: 2729: 2592: 2344:

His opinions on the war have in fact "played a major role in public opinion re: Iraq War."

1998: 1990: 1954:

around 5pm. Since then it has become a real battle ground over a number of content issues.

1691: 1380: 1335: 1284: 1144: 1080: 1055: 2933:

Good points. I removed the birth date, as we didn't have a source for it in any event. ·

2567: 2531: 2439: 2392: 811:)? Or here's a CNN article about the "Washington Zoo" book in which Noah is interviewed ( 154: 3190:

The information isn't being removed from Knowledge (XXG) altogether, it's being moved to

3151:

The information isn't being removed from Knowledge (XXG) altogether, it's being moved to

2095:

Please don't edit war. Reverting should always be a last resort, and if you must revert,

2062: 3297:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2987: 2819: 2686: 2280: 2100: 1959: 1951: 1918: 1833: 1799: 1785: 1596: 1339: 1245: 1148: 3337:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3304: 1237: 1190: 1011: 3368: 3173: 3128: 3079: 2837: 2753: 2710: 2698: 2052: 1933: 1889: 1869: 1846: 1625: 925: 776: 459: 325: 3264: 3024: 2934: 2879: 2871: 2760: 2733: 2624: 2596: 2512: 2456: 2292: 2216: 2115: 2002: 1955: 1724:

That seems to be a good compromise to me. Stblabach - are you of a similar opinion?

1704: 1660: 1093: 1025: 979: 244: 232: 220: 37: 2065:

news mention, whether he was notable before doesn't matter -- he's notable now.

898:

you do it right. But not all Wikipedians, unfortunately, take that attitude. --

3242: 3047: 2861: 2559: 2370: 2348: 2272: 2195: 2169: 2158: 1288: 998: 968: 949: 833: 701: 679: 774:

clear? That sort of tag isn't at all a big deal. Noah just made it into one.

473: 448: 3303:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3108:

subject's interactions with or feelings about Knowledge (XXG) just because we

2976: 2962: 1844:, as it was an extremely notable example of that, but it isn't anyplace else. 899: 604: 581: 575: 557: 535: 479: 202: 3023:

There is a discussion on point just a few paragraphs up on this talk page. ·

2864: 1130: 3088: 3066: 2695: 1283:

I initially thought that the reference should be included, but upon reading

285:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 3168:

don't see that level of detail as encyclopedic (though I suppose there are

3281:

https://www.webcitation.org/5zaOym6OE?url=http://www.slate.com/id/117517/

3062: 1837: 1690:

I would love to see the article expanded. The two relevant policies are

2211:

Agreed that this is worth including. Obviously, it should not be given

819:). Taken together, isn't that enough to meet the notability standard? 2878:." They're not subtle, but I imagine they get more clicks that way. · 2835:

Tim provided a reference for where he lives; it's now in the article.

865:

Yes, the issues he raises are legitimate. I doubt the need to include

336:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about

2020:

David Fuchs - personally, I thought his article was quite insightful.

3360: 3250: 3224: 3176: 3141: 3131: 3117: 3091: 3082: 3050: 3035: 2990: 2979: 2965: 2945: 2925: 2890: 2846: 2826: 2804: 2771: 2736: 2719: 2701: 2689: 2660: 2648: 2635: 2617: 2607: 2581: 2570: 2546: 2534: 2523: 2467: 2442: 2395: 2373: 2351: 2303: 2283: 2249: 2227: 2198: 2184: 2161: 2139: 2126: 2107: 2085: 2055: 2033: 2024: 2013: 1984: 1971: 1962: 1942: 1921: 1906: 1878: 1855: 1802: 1788: 1775: 1743: 1728: 1715: 1684: 1671: 1646: 1628: 1599: 1505: 1483:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cyrus Farivar (4th nomination)

1430: 1342: 1291: 1248: 1197: 1151: 1136: 1104: 1062: 1032: 1001: 989: 971: 934: 913: 902: 859: 849: 836: 823: 813:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/05/10/williams.noah/index.html

785: 746: 716: 712:

on a major U.S. news publication deserves a Knowledge (XXG) entry.--

704: 692: 682: 665: 2671: 1914: 1867:

disagree with the close and wish to discuss it, drop me a message.

1767:

right, but 'not notable'. Sure, Playmate of the Month biography is

1478: 962: 961:

concerning the impending termination of this Knowledge (XXG) entry

509:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 3284: 957: 236: 224: 1913:

wife, kids and pet would have an article on Knowledge (XXG). See

1755: 952: 411: 392:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

369: 320: 270: 197: 28: 15: 2001:

against other editors under any circumstances. Thank you. ·

817:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14968

809:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5034363

543:

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

534: 1836:

article, either of the articles on Stephen Colbert, or the

3275:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2673:, Noah himself has made several changes to this article. 2409:

boring positions - which is plainly absurd - or it'll go.

1024:— perhaps on the notability policy page? — but not on the 347:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

1976:

Oh boo hoo, you didn't get to delete something! And it's

3076: 2975:

in 2007 press citations box at the top of the page. --

2680: 2677: 1948: 967:

I think it's interesting enough to leave in. Thoughts?

1947:

Your right. It was flagged as non-notable on Feb 18th

1634:

This is an argument for expanding the Noah article to

173: 1958:

is making the best edits and holding it together. --

1232:

Stbalbach is right. If we split to an article called

2046:

I don't really understand this close. I don't see a

603:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3307:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3065:-format, not MM/DD/YYYY). Can an admin. update it? 187: 2959:AfD discussion on an article I have an interest in 637:This article has not yet received a rating on the 2679:documenting his position at Slate and this series 1379:That section of the Noah article did not violate 2788:I think this issue is more easily solved by the 46:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1754:A recently article in my local weekly magazine 3293:This message was posted before February 2018. 3375:Knowledge (XXG) pages referenced by the press 2798:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons 1784:to mention. How is that for a compromise? -- 1624:magazine is not, it really is that simple. -- 997:there any guidelines on something like this? 8: 1917:to see how quickly they are rolling in. -- 1703:over time to cover many of Noah's views. · 1049:information rather than err on the side of 415: 3263:I have just modified one external link on 1551:argument about Knowledge (XXG)'s standards 1131:http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2/ 552: 443: 2696:http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/?GT1=9129 212:mentioned by multiple media organizations 2391:defining political question of our time. 1886:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (journalists) 1692:WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects 1381:WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects 1336:WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects 1285:WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects 1145:WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects 1081:WP:ASR#Articles are about their subjects 1234:Timothy Noah's views on Knowledge (XXG) 1045:I don't get it. Why err on the side of 554: 445: 3405:Unknown-importance Journalism articles 1642:information which is already present. 617:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Journalism 519:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography 7: 3390:Biography articles needing attention 3155:, where it's far more appropriate. 2097:please use a meaningful edit summary 1832:Made it into what? It's not in the 1092:) and relates to Knowledge (XXG)? · 597:This article is within the scope of 495:This article is within the scope of 3380:Biography articles of living people 3194:, where it's far more appropriate. 2587:That's enough. If you make another 1012:Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy 434:It is of interest to the following 256:Stephen Harrison (March 26, 2019). 36:for discussing improvements to the 2694:Might want to add this reference: 338:living or recently deceased people 249:"Knowledge (XXG) and 'Notability'" 14: 3267:. Please take a moment to review 3124: 2874:-esque headline from yesterday: " 63:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 584: 574: 556: 482: 472: 458: 447: 416: 375:This article must adhere to the 324: 274: 201: 58:Click here to start a new topic. 3410:WikiProject Journalism articles 3400:Start-Class Journalism articles 3285:http://www.slate.com/id/117517/ 1739:That sounds pretty reasonable. 620:Template:WikiProject Journalism 281:This article was nominated for 3395:WikiProject Biography articles 3385:Start-Class biography articles 3192:Knowledge (XXG):Press coverage 3153:Knowledge (XXG):Press coverage 2670:According to the Slate article 522:Template:WikiProject Biography 225:"Evicted From Knowledge (XXG)" 1: 3083:15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 3070:07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 3036:19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2991:15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2980:18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2966:18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2946:15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2926:14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2891:14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2865:13:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2847:03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2827:11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2805:10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2772:03:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2737:03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2720:21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2702:21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2690:20:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2676:Apparently those are this one 2649:16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2636:15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2618:15:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2608:15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2582:14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2571:02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2547:02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2535:01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2524:00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2468:20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2443:21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2396:19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2374:15:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2352:13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2304:02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2284:02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 2250:15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2228:15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2199:14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2185:12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2162:11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2140:15:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2127:15:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2108:09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2086:21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2056:10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2034:16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2025:15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 2014:20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1985:19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1972:18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1963:15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1943:04:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1922:03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1907:00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1879:23:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 1856:22:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1803:18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1789:16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1776:16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1744:17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1729:16:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1716:15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1685:15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1672:15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1647:12:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1629:10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1600:13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1506:01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 1431:13:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1343:21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1292:19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1249:19:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1240:, because there would not be 1198:19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1152:18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1137:18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1105:18:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1063:18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1033:04:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1002:01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 990:21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 972:21:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 945:This was removed on Feb. 24: 935:06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 914:04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 903:19:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 860:02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 850:00:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 837:11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 824:14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 786:17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 747:17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 705:11:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 693:13:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 683:12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 666:12:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 611:and see a list of open tasks. 378:biographies of living persons 361:contentious topics procedures 55:Put new text under old text. 3159:and general article balance 3123:I totally 100% agree, as do 1842:Criticism of Knowledge (XXG) 1840:article. I believe it's in 1242:multiple independant sources 1056:Knowledge (XXG) is not paper 955:, Noah wrote an article for 507:contribute to the discussion 237:"Rescued by Knowledge (XXG)" 3361:21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 3251:00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 2061:Makes no difference. With 1931:Mr. Noah said it had been. 1798:, please clean this up. -- 1426:I were being uncharitable. 390:must be removed immediately 3426: 3324:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3260:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3177:20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 3142:20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 3092:11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 2876:Whacked by Knowledge (XXG) 639:project's importance scale 349:purpose of Knowledge (XXG) 3225:19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC) 3132:04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 3118:04:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 3051:05:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 2661:01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC) 1636:include more information, 1090:Knowledge (XXG):Recentism 1079:This has more to do with 717:11:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 636: 569: 542: 467: 442: 363:before editing this page. 93:Be welcoming to newcomers 22:Skip to table of contents 3157:Countering systemic bias 2794:Knowledge (XXG)'s policy 2591:comment or make another 676:encyclopedically notable 357:normal editorial process 251:. National Public Radio. 21: 3256:External links modified 1771:important to the world. 1244:covering the topic. -- 344:as a contentious topic. 3087:Thanks a lot, regards 2971:I added a link to the 2854: 1657:an argument to exclude 1477:article and the whole 600:WikiProject Journalism 539: 424:This article is rated 353:standards of behaviour 258:"The Notability Blues" 210:This article has been 88:avoid personal attacks 3006:comment was added by 2912:comment was added by 2493:comment was added by 2418:comment was added by 2322:comment was added by 1815:comment was added by 1187:you don't want there. 1010:Noah's article about 538: 498:WikiProject Biography 428:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 247:(February 27, 2007). 235:(February 26, 2007). 223:(February 24, 2007). 113:Neutral point of view 3305:regular verification 3125:several people above 2897:Accurate Birth Date? 2051:keep, but whatever. 1085:WP:NPOV#Undue weight 293:nomination withdrawn 118:No original research 3295:After February 2018 2666:References Question 1638:not an argument to 623:Journalism articles 3349:InternetArchiveBot 3300:InternetArchiveBot 2487:So can we cut it? 1997:, and do not make 1773:Saturnonostropicos 1481:thing. See also, 1028:article itself. -- 540: 525:biography articles 430:content assessment 334:contentious topics 305:, 2007-02-24, see 295:, 2007-03-23, see 99:dispute resolution 60: 3325: 3215:comment added by 3019: 2929: 2845: 2792:principle within 2718: 2506: 2431: 2335: 2081: 2071:MortonDevonshire 1991:assume good faith 1941: 1899: 1877: 1854: 1828: 1501: 1491:MortonDevonshire 988: 933: 921:to his biography. 784: 653: 652: 649: 648: 645: 644: 592:Journalism portal 551: 550: 547: 546: 410: 409: 368: 367: 319: 318: 315: 314: 269: 268: 196: 195: 79:Assume good faith 56: 27: 26: 3417: 3359: 3350: 3323: 3322: 3301: 3227: 3115:Antaeus Feldspar 3001: 2996:Iraq War section 2907: 2841: 2758: 2752: 2730:ignore all rules 2714: 2564:Matthew Yglesias 2488: 2413: 2317: 2174:Matthew Yglesias 2148:Iraq war section 2084: 2080: 2078: 2072: 2066: 1999:personal attacks 1980:that's whining? 1937: 1895: 1892: 1873: 1850: 1810: 1504: 1500: 1498: 1492: 1486: 982: 929: 780: 625: 624: 621: 618: 615: 594: 589: 588: 587: 578: 571: 570: 560: 553: 527: 526: 523: 520: 517: 503:join the project 492: 490:Biography portal 487: 486: 485: 476: 469: 468: 463: 462: 461: 451: 444: 427: 421: 420: 412: 398:this noticeboard 370: 328: 321: 287: 286: 278: 271: 261: 252: 240: 228: 205: 198: 192: 191: 177: 108:Article policies 29: 16: 3425: 3424: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3365: 3364: 3353: 3348: 3316: 3309:have permission 3299: 3273:this simple FaQ 3258: 3238: 3236:Knowledge (XXG) 3210: 3170:counterexamples 3105: 3100:Please respect 3059: 3002:—The preceding 2998: 2954: 2908:—The preceding 2899: 2857: 2790:"favor privacy" 2756: 2750: 2668: 2593:personal attack 2489:—The preceding 2414:—The preceding 2318:—The preceding 2267:Re: the above. 2150: 2093: 2082: 2076: 2070: 2067: 1890: 1864: 1811:—The preceding 1502: 1496: 1490: 1487: 1030:Sheldon Rampton 943: 658: 622: 619: 616: 613: 612: 590: 585: 583: 524: 521: 518: 515: 514: 488: 483: 481: 457: 425: 351:, any expected 265: 264: 255: 243: 231: 219: 215: 134: 129: 128: 127: 104: 74: 12: 11: 5: 3423: 3421: 3413: 3412: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3392: 3387: 3382: 3377: 3367: 3366: 3343: 3342: 3335: 3288: 3287: 3279:Added archive 3257: 3254: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3146: 3145: 3134: 3104: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3058: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3039: 3038: 2997: 2994: 2983: 2982: 2953: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2856: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2830: 2829: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2723: 2722: 2667: 2664: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2639: 2638: 2615:Chris111222333 2611: 2610: 2574: 2573: 2527: 2526: 2471: 2470: 2451:Please remain 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2307: 2306: 2287: 2286: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2188: 2187: 2149: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2130: 2129: 2092: 2089: 2059: 2058: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2018: 2017: 2016: 1952:User:Kendrick7 1910: 1909: 1863: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1834:Colbert Report 1806: 1805: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1719: 1718: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1650: 1649: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1236:it would fail 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1022:somewhere else 1005: 1004: 993: 992: 942: 939: 938: 937: 906: 905: 887: 886: 877: 876: 871: 870: 842: 841: 840: 839: 803: 802: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 741: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 709: 708: 707: 657: 656:Notability tag 654: 651: 650: 647: 646: 643: 642: 635: 629: 628: 626: 609:the discussion 596: 595: 579: 567: 566: 561: 549: 548: 545: 544: 541: 531: 530: 528: 494: 493: 477: 465: 464: 452: 440: 439: 433: 422: 408: 407: 403:this help page 387:poorly sourced 373: 366: 365: 329: 317: 316: 313: 312: 311: 310: 300: 279: 267: 266: 263: 262: 253: 241: 229: 216: 209: 208: 206: 194: 193: 131: 130: 126: 125: 120: 115: 106: 105: 103: 102: 95: 90: 81: 75: 73: 72: 61: 52: 51: 48: 47: 41: 25: 24: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3422: 3411: 3408: 3406: 3403: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3363: 3362: 3357: 3352: 3351: 3340: 3336: 3333: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3320: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3296: 3291: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3261: 3255: 3253: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3235: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3195: 3193: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3178: 3175: 3171: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3140: 3135: 3133: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3116: 3111: 3103: 3099: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3068: 3064: 3052: 3049: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3028: 3027: 3026:j e r s y k o 3022: 3021: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 2995: 2993: 2992: 2989: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2960: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2936:j e r s y k o 2932: 2931: 2930: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2903: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2882: 2881:j e r s y k o 2877: 2873: 2870:Don't forget 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2839: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2806: 2803: 2802:66.167.49.179 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762:j e r s y k o 2755: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2683: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2672: 2665: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2650: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2626:j e r s y k o 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2616: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598:j e r s y k o 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2572: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2515: 2514:j e r s y k o 2509: 2508: 2507: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2485: 2481: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458:j e r s y k o 2454: 2450: 2449: 2444: 2441: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2410: 2406: 2397: 2394: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2375: 2372: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2353: 2350: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2314: 2310: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2294:j e r s y k o 2289: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2273: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2251: 2248: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218:j e r s y k o 2214: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2200: 2197: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2155: 2147: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117:j e r s y k o 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2090: 2088: 2087: 2079: 2074: 2073: 2064: 2057: 2054: 2049: 2045: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004:j e r s y k o 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1898: 1893: 1887: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1871: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1757: 1756:Carta Capital 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706:j e r s y k o 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1673: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662:j e r s y k o 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1601: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1507: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1475:Cyrus Farivar 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1332:WP:Good faith 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095:j e r s y k o 1091: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1003: 1000: 995: 994: 991: 986: 981: 976: 975: 974: 973: 970: 965: 963: 960: 959: 954: 951: 946: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 922: 918: 917: 916: 915: 912: 904: 901: 897: 893: 889: 888: 884: 879: 878: 873: 872: 868: 864: 863: 862: 861: 858: 857:Xwoodandwater 852: 851: 848: 838: 835: 831: 827: 826: 825: 822: 818: 814: 810: 805: 804: 801: 800: 787: 783: 779: 778: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 748: 745: 744:FlashSheridan 742: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 718: 715: 714:Ben Applegate 710: 706: 703: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 691: 690:Ben Applegate 686: 685: 684: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 664: 655: 640: 634: 631: 630: 627: 610: 606: 602: 601: 593: 582: 580: 577: 573: 572: 568: 565: 562: 559: 555: 537: 533: 532: 529: 512: 511:documentation 508: 504: 500: 499: 491: 480: 478: 475: 471: 470: 466: 456: 453: 450: 446: 441: 437: 431: 423: 419: 414: 413: 405: 404: 399: 395: 391: 388: 384: 380: 379: 374: 372: 371: 364: 362: 358: 354: 350: 345: 343: 339: 335: 330: 327: 323: 322: 308: 304: 301: 298: 294: 291: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 277: 273: 272: 259: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 218: 217: 213: 207: 204: 200: 199: 190: 186: 183: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 137: 136:Find sources: 133: 132: 124: 123:Verifiability 121: 119: 116: 114: 111: 110: 109: 100: 96: 94: 91: 89: 85: 82: 80: 77: 76: 70: 66: 65:Learn to edit 62: 59: 54: 53: 50: 49: 45: 39: 35: 31: 30: 23: 20: 18: 17: 3347: 3344: 3319:source check 3298: 3292: 3289: 3265:Timothy Noah 3262: 3259: 3239: 3217:61.22.82.185 3211:— Preceding 3189: 3164: 3160: 3139:66.51.222.19 3109: 3106: 3075:How's that? 3060: 3040: 3030: 3025: 2999: 2984: 2955: 2940: 2935: 2904: 2900: 2885: 2880: 2872:The Sopranos 2858: 2836: 2766: 2761: 2709: 2693: 2684: 2675: 2669: 2655: 2630: 2625: 2612: 2602: 2597: 2579:163.1.230.21 2575: 2554: 2544:163.1.230.21 2542: 2538: 2528: 2518: 2513: 2495:163.1.230.21 2486: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2472: 2462: 2457: 2420:163.1.230.21 2411: 2407: 2404: 2343: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2298: 2293: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2247:PhilistineWA 2222: 2217: 2213:undue weight 2151: 2137:PhilistineWA 2121: 2116: 2096: 2094: 2091:Edit warring 2069: 2060: 2022:PhilistineWA 2008: 2003: 1977: 1956:User:Jersyko 1932: 1928: 1911: 1901: 1894: 1868: 1865: 1845: 1807: 1782: 1768: 1764: 1726:PhilistineWA 1710: 1705: 1696:undue weight 1682:PhilistineWA 1678: 1666: 1661: 1639: 1635: 1622: 1550: 1489: 1479:Wookiefetish 1423: 1327: 1241: 1186: 1127: 1099: 1094: 1050: 1046: 1026:Timothy Noah 1021: 1016: 966: 956: 947: 944: 941:Deleted text 924: 920: 907: 895: 891: 883:WP Biography 866: 853: 843: 829: 775: 675: 659: 598: 496: 436:WikiProjects 401: 389: 382: 376: 346: 331: 302: 292: 245:Timothy Noah 233:Timothy Noah 221:Timothy Noah 184: 178: 170: 163: 157: 151: 145: 135: 107: 38:Timothy Noah 32:This is the 2952:Noah on NPR 2855:It's WAR!!! 2658:163.1.230.3 2644:Amen (LOL) 2560:Mickey Kaus 2324:163.1.230.9 2180:violation. 2170:Mickey Kaus 1969:Dåvid Fuchs 950:February 24 740:rethinking. 663:66.31.39.76 426:Start-class 303:speedy keep 161:free images 44:not a forum 3369:Categories 3356:Report bug 2843:JDiscourse 2716:JDiscourse 2568:Giovanni33 2532:Giovanni33 2440:Giovanni33 2393:Giovanni33 2178:WP:SOAPBOX 2154:WP:SOAPBOX 1939:JDiscourse 1875:JDiscourse 1862:Closed AfD 1852:JDiscourse 1758:I read an 1191:notability 931:JDiscourse 782:JDiscourse 614:Journalism 605:journalism 564:Journalism 342:designated 307:discussion 297:discussion 3339:this tool 3332:this tool 3008:Milkyface 2988:Stbalbach 2973:NPR story 2820:Johnleemk 2101:Johnleemk 1993:, remain 1960:Stbalbach 1919:Stbalbach 1800:Kendrick7 1796:WP:RECENT 1786:Stbalbach 1769:much more 1700:recentism 1597:Stbalbach 1340:Stbalbach 1246:Kendrick7 1149:Stbalbach 1051:including 1047:excluding 516:Biography 455:Biography 394:libellous 355:, or any 101:if needed 84:Be polite 34:talk page 3345:Cheers.— 3241:general. 3213:unsigned 3174:Interiot 3129:Interiot 3080:Interiot 3063:ISO 8601 3016:contribs 3004:unsigned 2922:contribs 2910:unsigned 2838:JDoorjam 2759:tags. · 2728:Why not 2711:JDoorjam 2699:Harvardy 2503:contribs 2491:unsigned 2428:contribs 2416:unsigned 2332:contribs 2320:unsigned 2053:GassyGuy 2048:WP:POINT 1934:JDoorjam 1915:Newpages 1891:Mr.Z-man 1870:JDoorjam 1847:JDoorjam 1838:elephant 1825:contribs 1817:Baligant 1813:unsigned 1626:Xorkl000 926:JDoorjam 911:Frodeman 867:everyone 847:Jlujan69 821:Vandelay 777:JDoorjam 283:deletion 260:. Slate. 239:. Slate. 227:. Slate. 69:get help 42:This is 40:article. 3269:my edit 2914:Zarafan 2734:llywrch 2646:Dougieb 2589:uncivil 2182:Fumoses 2031:Maracle 1989:Please 1982:Fumoses 1760:article 1741:Fumoses 1644:Fumoses 1640:exclude 1428:Fumoses 1195:Fumoses 1134:Fumoses 1060:Fumoses 980:EldKatt 688:week.-- 167:WP refs 155:scholar 3243:Prezbo 3172:). -- 3102:WP:ASR 3048:PRRfan 2862:Bwithh 2412:CAWP. 2371:PRRfan 2349:Bwithh 2316:cawp. 2196:PRRfan 2159:Bwithh 1655:It is 1289:MrBleu 999:MrBleu 969:PRRfan 896:unless 834:Bwithh 702:Bwithh 680:Bwithh 432:scale. 139:Google 2977:Yksin 2963:Yksin 2453:civil 2245:time. 1995:civil 1929:after 1017:seems 958:Slate 900:Yksin 182:JSTOR 143:books 97:Seek 3247:talk 3221:talk 3089:Nsaa 3067:Nsaa 3031:talk 3012:talk 2941:talk 2918:talk 2886:talk 2824:Talk 2796:for 2767:talk 2754:fact 2631:talk 2603:talk 2562:and 2519:talk 2499:talk 2463:talk 2424:talk 2328:talk 2299:talk 2264:--- 2223:talk 2172:and 2122:talk 2105:Talk 2063:this 2009:talk 1978:Noah 1897:talk 1821:talk 1711:talk 1694:and 1667:talk 1238:WP:N 1100:talk 985:Talk 953:2007 948:"On 892:paid 505:and 332:The 175:FENS 149:news 86:and 3313:RfC 3283:to 3165:any 3161:can 3110:are 2687:Ray 2281:Ray 2077:Yo 1497:Yo 1485:. 1328:any 633:??? 383:BLP 189:TWL 3371:: 3326:. 3321:}} 3317:{{ 3249:) 3223:) 3144:K. 3078:-- 3034:· 3018:). 3014:• 2944:· 2924:) 2920:• 2889:· 2822:| 2770:· 2757:}} 2751:{{ 2634:· 2606:· 2522:· 2505:). 2501:• 2466:· 2430:). 2426:• 2334:). 2330:• 2302:· 2274:) 2226:· 2125:· 2103:| 2083:· 2012:· 1827:). 1823:• 1765:is 1714:· 1670:· 1503:· 1424:If 1103:· 830:is 661:-- 169:) 67:; 3358:) 3354:( 3341:. 3334:. 3245:( 3219:( 3010:( 2928:. 2916:( 2807:. 2497:( 2422:( 2326:( 1902:¢ 1819:( 987:) 983:( 807:( 641:. 513:. 438:: 406:. 381:( 309:. 299:. 214:: 185:· 179:· 171:· 164:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 141:( 71:.

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

Index