1352:. So it seems to me the question that needs to be decided here is whether or not this blog can be considered reliable with respect to faithfully reproducing the contents of that web page in the specified .pdf file. I'm not going to get involved in that discussion beyond saying that while we have no reasons to suspect the .pdf is inaccurate, we also have no reason to suspect that the blog author is an "...established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (I think, considering the nature of this article, the second caveat there could be safely ignored). Since WP lives on consensus, I think it's time to settle down and decide which of those two hypothesis (the .pdf is altered or faked; or that the blogger is an expert on the subject) you guys want to go on.
1492:. So assuming these tenets were true and that Biblical patriarchy is a notable and even somewhat current topic, one would certainly think that someone could find a reliable source somewhere that says what these people believe, otherwise how would anyone know what they believe? How would they find any new members of the movement? I don't care about the blogger notability, though that alone could remove the content, but I care very much that this is actually someone's beliefs and if so why are there no reliable sources if it is allegedly notable? I googled Biblical patriarchy myself. You are definitely riding the edge on
340:
1448:
editor, willing to stay out of the substance, but to try to nudge the conversation in constructive directions is great. Dismissing the value that might bring is folly. Indeed, dismissiveness is precisely the problem. Disagreement is natural. Piling accusations of NOTHERE and IDONTLIKEIT on top of comments like "You thought wrong" and "Did you read what I wrote?" is unhelpful. It, like the announcement that there is no disagreement, suggest some sort of exclusive access to the one true answer.
313:
350:
443:
229:
208:
177:
239:
102:
455:
21:
49:
1378:
would anyone know what they believe? How would they find any new members of the movement? I don't care about the blogger notability, though that alone could remove the content, but I care very much that this is actually someone's beliefs and if so why are there no reliable sources if it is allegedly notable?
1420:
Did you read what I wrote? "while I don't think any caveat on
Knowledge (XXG) can be ignored, it is not of primary importance to me." and "I care very much that this is actually someone's beliefs and if so why are there no reliable sources if it is allegedly notable?" Talking about an issue that no
1244:
was copied from here, not the other way round. It was I who summarised what I thought were the interesting and significant bits of the "Tenets" and added them to this article, and then I created the BP article using them as an example. There is a
Christian Reconstruction influence of Vision Forum (as
929:
After more information becomes known to sources there is nothing that keeps us from portraying the complete story of all known facts in the lead, in fact it is encouraged. Any other complaints? We both know this is factually correct and it is line with what reliable sources say. What is it exactly
1447:
Mostly, what I see here, is editors who, in good faith, view some matters differently from one another and are struggling here to apply policies, guidelines, pillars and the like that, like most complex human endeavors, admit of more than one result. In such a case, the assistance of an experienced
1214:
I get that, but, in my view, the
Biblical patriarchy article errs when it treats Vision Forum's version of Biblical patriarchy as coterminous with the original Christian Reconstruction concept. HuffPo gets that right. At some point, the Biblical patriarchy. wiki-article will need some changes. But
857:
It is sourced, I moved the source already in the article. Now unless you are claiming that the affair and the sexual abuse are two different incidents and I don't think that is correct from the sources, but it could be, but if you want the article to say that you will have to source that it was two
1600:
Beyond whether we can use the PDF, my concern would be that if their views are not covered or described anywhere else at all, are those views really notable enough for an entire section? It seems odd to me that no other sources at all would so much as summarize them. And absent any other coverage
1397:
is one of our policies, and it exists to address situations (like this, maybe) where the normal rules can make things more difficult. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case here, but it's worth considering if maybe this subject is one where demanding any expert who blogs about this be published
1372:
Thank you. I am not here to push a certain POV, the blog author is probably going to fail on the second caveat and while I don't think any caveat on
Knowledge (XXG) can be ignored, it is not of primary importance to me. What is important is the original document from some reliable source AND that
1181:
I disagree. Our article about biblical patriarchy is not Vision Forum's version of the concept. They seem to be similar, but there are differences in phrasing and in emphasis. It's better to accurately reflect their actual philosophy on the topic than to refer to our article on the topic. They're
1377:
because the exact same material shows up on other pages. So assuming these tenets were true and that
Biblical patriarchy was a notable and even somewhat current topic, one would certainly think that someone could find a reliable source somewhere that says what these people believe, otherwise how
1313:
In the language of our
Huffington Post source: "Phillips has promoted a view of the world infused with the Christian Reconstruction developed by Rousas John Rushdoony, though even some of Rushdoony’s followers (including some at Rushdoony’s own Chalcedon foundation) have distanced themselves from
681:. You're alledging that the article "accuses" the organization of being sexist, when it doesn't. It simply states that their detractor has accused them of that, which it has. (ex. "Shawn Hannity said global warming is not real" isn't the same as saying "Global warming is not real" for a fact).--
837:
say this is the reason VF closed. It's talking about the same event - Phillips admitted to "marital infidelity" but not sexual abuse. It was the former that VF gave as the reason for closure. (That is, it closed due to what
Phillips did, not due to the allegations of what he did.) If we want a
1496:
there is very, very little information other than the two
Knowledge (XXG) articles that you added the information to. Christian patriarchy has many more sources, biblical patriarchy seems to be your invention. Prove me wrong, go get some sources or just change the article name to Christian
963:
It is in the first sentence if the article. "Last fall home school leader and
Biblical Patriarch Doug Phillips made a public confession of an inappropriate relationship with a young woman, leading to his resignation, the closing of his organizations and much behind-the-scenes jockeying."
1605:
is accurate - was the list there core to their beliefs, or was it just a summary an intern threw together? How important was this list of tenets? Does the version the PDF contains reflect what it always was, or did they update it over time? And so on. In general I'd try and find a
1053:
Perhaps the change that could be make is to change "Doug
Phillips' marital infidelity" to "Doug Phillips' admission of marital infidelity" or "Doug Phillips' confession to marital infidelity". After all, it closed precisely when he publicly admitted the "inappropriate relationship".
540:
Technically, the name has been changed from "Vision Forum" to "Vision Forum" Ministries, which transition was completed in 2009. It was rather confusing for the time that the ministry held two official names, but the current official name is "Vision Forum Ministries."
1398:
in the field (Which field, though? Theology? Biblical patriarchy? The Vision Forum?) is really the best way to proceed. Again, I have no opinion on the outcome of this discussion, I'm just hoping an outside voice can help keep it in a productive shape. :)
1625:
891:
You are running in circles, sexual abuse is a form of an extramarital affair, but I have a new source that you are requesting that ties both together. Serious waste of time, but okay I can see why you could argue that it is unknown if not sourced.
1289:
In my view, the reference that leads to the .pdf of the Wayback Machine archived copy of the original tenets page ought not to have been reverted. While the .pdf is posted on a blog, it's an image of the Wayback Machine's archived copy, which IS a
1338:
is something else and may well be a problem. This source was to a web page that has since been removed with no available archived version or archive.org. Unless and until we can find a reliable archived version, we have to assume that it no longer
1560:
1129:
cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."
139:
817:
I am not sure why there is an issue with having "sexually abused nanny" in the lead when it is sourced and seems to be the same issue as the extramarital affair, are you claiming they are separate incidents?
64:
1392:
I still don't intend to get drawn into the discussion, but I did want to respond to one thing. You said ""...I don't think any caveat on Knowledge (XXG) can be ignored...", and I think this is incorrect.
1840:
1348:
careful about using them, and we need to limit their use as much as possible, but the blanket statement that we can't use anything hosted in a blog is in direct opposition to what is stated at
380:
1167:
article, I don't see why it needs to be here at all, the article states that they advocate Biblical patriarchy, if people want to read more then they can go to that article surely?
397:
1344:
That being said, there seems to be an archived version at the blog site. I'm not sure who it was who said that we can never use blogs, but you're wrong. We can. We need to be
944:
No, it's not factually correct. It's a bit rich asking for a compromise when you have not provided a single source suggesting the closure was a result of the allegations.
1421:
one thinks is an issue is how to make the discussion unproductive. I don't care much about the blog, if this is notable, why are there no other sources on the tenets of
1753:
1749:
1735:
555:
It may be of help to note that there are two separate entities, Vision Forum Inc., and Vision Forum Ministries. It is Vision Forum Ministries that runs Jonathan Park.
433:
1469:
how is it OR? If you were to attend VF conferences, for example, and describe what you heard, that might be OR, but quoting from a published document certainly isn't.
133:
295:
1083:. Even though it is hosted at a blog site, I can verify that it is a faithful duplicate of the original page. Thus, I think we can add the citation to the article.
31:
1835:
1034:
When contentious material is removed from an article, it should not be re-inserted until a consensus to do so has been established on the talk page. Please read
423:
1661:
I would support that edit. There really should be many more sources listing these tenants if one were to assume they are notable. A paraphrase should be fine.
387:
1820:
285:
522:
Is the correct name for this organisation 'Vision Forum' or 'Vision Forum Ministries'? The article states the former, all the ELs appear to state the latter.
1860:
1830:
1080:
392:
1825:
1815:
261:
1103:
You thought wrong, we can't use blogs and your verification means nothing, especially after recent reliability issues. We only use reliable sources.
1295:
1516:
1721:
1488:
What is important is this is the original document from some reliable source AND that it actually is encyclopedic material about the beliefs of
1850:
473:
363:
318:
252:
213:
1149:
I deleted because it was no longer sourced at all. It is better than to have a dead link and citation needed than to post blog nonsense.
906:
The source you added is fine, but once again - it says it was the confession of the "inappropriate relationship" that led to VF's closure,
1079:
I think was the editor who originally added the Tenets (when it was still a live web page). It is now a deadlink, but it is available at
83:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
1855:
1845:
1647:
Well, can we just use one of those as a source instead, and paraphrase them based on that rather than quoting them whole-cloth here? --
375:
618:
1731:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1001:
on this subject. it is clearly in the source. Good luck getting an RfC to agree with your nonsense definition of not in source.
371:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
1512:
188:
1634:
1577:
1525:
1475:
1263:
1136:
1089:
1060:
984:
950:
916:
878:
844:
468:
323:
1628:
indicates that the Tenets is an important document for describing VF and understanding biblical patriarchy more generally.
1334:
I came here from RS/N. I just wanted to point out that while a source not available online is not a problem, a source that
154:
560:
1216:
121:
1796:
60:
27:
1254:
529:
739:
It sounds like the term used should be removed until proper reliable sourcing can be found to back it up to ward off
700:
654:
1249:) but Phillips went in a different direction. BP should indeed be distinguished from CR - in fact, our article on
1752:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1564:
790:
766:
630:
564:
556:
550:
535:
194:
176:
115:
1722:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090219030311/http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2007/spring_2007.pdf
1787:
1699:
1205:
1172:
1715:
506:
1511:
No, "Christian patriarchy" and "biblical patriarchy" are essentially used interchangeably, as can be seen
1407:
1361:
1607:
673:
Yes it should. It isn't debatable that the Midwest Christian group alleges that Vision Forum's views are
111:
1771:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1759:
1453:
1323:
1303:
1224:
1187:
1043:
546:
260:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1698:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1725:
1539:
355:
998:
161:
76:
20:
1662:
1652:
1615:
1543:
1498:
1489:
1464:
1434:
1426:
1422:
1379:
1374:
1250:
1241:
1197:
1164:
1150:
1104:
1002:
965:
931:
893:
859:
819:
783:
759:
623:
244:
147:
1542:
movement and only mention biblical patriarchy. Neither mentions a Biblical Patriarchy movement.
677:, so the link is just fine, and is a useful read for anyone interested in the subject matter. See
1709:
1666:
1638:
1581:
1547:
1529:
1502:
1479:
1438:
1383:
1267:
1201:
1168:
1154:
1140:
1118:
1108:
1093:
1064:
1006:
988:
969:
954:
935:
920:
897:
882:
863:
848:
823:
730:
712:
686:
664:
598:
1756:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
339:
312:
1772:
1556:
1400:
1354:
574:
Shouldn't there be made any mention as to who started/runs Vision Forum, like Doug Phillips?
1449:
1319:
1299:
1220:
1183:
1039:
748:
579:
542:
500:
1779:
1394:
1349:
1122:
1035:
781:
to that revision. If anyone disagrees with my change, I'm more than willing to discuss it.
678:
127:
1568:
1493:
1430:
1291:
740:
1738:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1648:
1611:
1778:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1745:
858:
incidents. I will certainly apologize and revert my change if it was two incidents.
838:
deeper/further/different reason as to why it closed, it needs to be reliably sourced.
593:
article, and I put his name in the opening paragraph, but we could do with more info.
1809:
1629:
1572:
1520:
1470:
1258:
1131:
1084:
1055:
979:
945:
911:
873:
839:
726:
708:
682:
660:
594:
368:
1691:
872:
Where does the source say that that VF was closed due to the alleged sexual abuse?
460:
257:
80:
1433:
unless they have some more extensive sources and if they do, there is no issue.
744:
575:
496:
442:
1744:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
590:
525:
450:
345:
234:
228:
207:
1624:
In answer to your first question, I think the answer is undoubtedly "yes". A
1215:
in the meantime, I think we should be guided on the Vision Forum article by
647:
It should go back to an earlier revision that didn't have the word "sexist".
238:
367:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
930:
you object to? You don't have much to stand on so suggest a compromise.
495:
I believe that Vision Forum Inc is the one that maintains Jonathan Park.
1716:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx
674:
1801:
1670:
1656:
1642:
1619:
1601:
at all, I don't feel we can take it as a given that the PDF or even
1585:
1551:
1533:
1506:
1483:
1457:
1442:
1413:
1387:
1367:
1327:
1307:
1271:
1228:
1209:
1191:
1176:
1158:
1144:
1112:
1097:
1068:
1047:
1010:
992:
973:
958:
939:
924:
901:
886:
867:
852:
827:
796:
772:
752:
734:
716:
690:
668:
636:
602:
583:
510:
1726:
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2007/spring_2007.pdf
613:
Unless other sources can be added, the section should remain like
170:
96:
43:
15:
1294:. I've posted a thread to the reliable sources noticeboard
441:
1610:
source describing their views, and rely on that instead. --
1702:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1373:
it actually is encyclopedic material about the beliefs of
978:
Exactly. Nothing there about allegations of sexual abuse.
517:
1695:
778:
722:
614:
88:
84:
55:
1425:? since an editor here made the edits and created the
1038:
and then stop re-inserting this contentious material.
146:
1563:. In any case, it would be better to discuss this at
1841:
Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
617:. The word "sexist" is debatable, as it may violate
256:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1748:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
160:
1734:This message was posted before February 2018.
910:the allegations of abuse (which came later).
8:
1559:calls it the "Biblical Patriarchy movement"
695:No - I'm saying the accusation of sexism is
589:Yes, there should be. He's mentioned in the
1200:it is absolutely identical! word for word.
518:'Vision Forum' vs 'Vision Forum Ministries'
174:
1690:I have just modified one external link on
307:
202:
408:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
1245:Julie Ingersoll argues in her 2015 book
270:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Christianity
30:on 24 January 2010 (UTC). The result of
777:By all three of us supporting it, I've
725:revision of the paragraph in question.
309:
204:
1836:Low-importance United States articles
1163:The whole section is copied from the
619:Knowledge (XXG):Let the reader decide
7:
1821:Low-importance Christianity articles
757:I also endorse StAnselm's proposal.
361:This article is within the scope of
250:This article is within the scope of
193:It is of interest to the following
1861:WikiProject United States articles
1831:Start-Class United States articles
1240:Just to clarify, the content from
411:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
1826:WikiProject Christianity articles
1816:Start-Class Christianity articles
1694:. Please take a moment to review
649:Since the word isn't used in the
273:Template:WikiProject Christianity
453:
348:
338:
311:
237:
227:
206:
175:
100:
47:
19:
1298:, seeking additional opinions.
721:Which is to say, we should use
707:debatable that they allege it.
679:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored
428:This article has been rated as
290:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
621:(an essay, but still useful).
1:
1851:Low-importance Texas articles
659:, it shouldn't be used here.
603:07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
584:01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
466:This article is supported by
264:and see a list of open tasks.
1196:If you check the content of
797:18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
773:18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
753:16:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
735:06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
717:06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
691:05:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
669:04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
637:04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
565:02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
551:18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
536:08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
511:22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
1316:which are even more extreme
1255:Christian Reconstructionism
1877:
1856:WikiProject Texas articles
1846:Start-Class Texas articles
1802:03:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
1765:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1687:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1671:21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
1657:15:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
1643:00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
1620:23:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1586:00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1552:23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1538:Both articles call it the
1534:18:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1507:15:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1484:01:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1458:22:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
1443:19:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
1414:19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
1388:19:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1368:17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1328:16:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1308:16:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1272:19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1229:16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1210:16:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1192:16:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1177:16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1159:21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
1145:21:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
1113:21:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
1098:21:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
1069:19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1048:21:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
1011:14:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
993:02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
974:02:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
959:01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
940:23:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
925:22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
902:22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
887:22:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
868:22:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
853:22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
833:The source you added does
828:22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
701:Midwest Christian Outreach
655:Midwest Christian Outreach
434:project's importance scale
296:project's importance scale
1233:but far more importantly
449:
427:
364:WikiProject United States
333:
289:
222:
201:
87:; for its talk page, see
1565:Talk:Biblical patriarchy
1314:Phillips and his views,
369:United States of America
253:WikiProject Christianity
1683:External links modified
1247:Building God's Kingdom
570:Doug Phillips, anyone?
446:
414:United States articles
183:This article is rated
1409:Tell me all about it.
1363:Tell me all about it.
1117:OK, fine. I restored
509:comment was added at
445:
276:Christianity articles
187:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1746:regular verification
1603:the original website
1540:Christian Patriarchy
1429:page, it seems like
356:United States portal
75:. Its contents were
71:with a consensus to
1736:After February 2018
1626:Google Books search
1490:Biblical patriarchy
1427:Biblical patriarchy
1423:Biblical patriarchy
1375:Biblical patriarchy
1251:Biblical patriarchy
1242:Biblical patriarchy
1217:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1198:Biblical patriarchy
1165:Biblical patriarchy
557:Northern Book Lover
382:Articles Requested!
245:Christianity portal
1790:InternetArchiveBot
1741:InternetArchiveBot
1119:User:Theroadislong
447:
189:content assessment
59:was nominated for
1766:
1567:, possibly via a
1557:Rachel Held Evans
1410:
1364:
1253:does not mention
488:
487:
484:
483:
480:
479:
469:WikiProject Texas
306:
305:
302:
301:
169:
168:
95:
94:
42:
41:
1868:
1800:
1791:
1764:
1763:
1742:
1713:
1468:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1336:no longer exists
1235:
1234:
1121:'s version. Per
793:
786:
769:
762:
651:original article
633:
626:
534:
514:
491:Vision Forum Inc
463:
458:
457:
456:
416:
415:
412:
409:
406:
358:
353:
352:
351:
342:
335:
334:
329:
326:
315:
308:
278:
277:
274:
271:
268:
247:
242:
241:
231:
224:
223:
218:
210:
203:
186:
180:
179:
171:
165:
164:
150:
104:
103:
97:
69:06 November 2009
51:
50:
44:
23:
16:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1806:
1805:
1794:
1789:
1757:
1750:have permission
1740:
1707:
1700:this simple FaQ
1685:
1462:
1401:
1399:
1355:
1353:
1182:not identical.
1077:
815:
791:
784:
767:
760:
703:article. So it
631:
624:
611:
572:
532:
523:
520:
504:
493:
459:
454:
452:
413:
410:
407:
404:
403:
402:
388:Become a Member
354:
349:
347:
327:
321:
275:
272:
269:
266:
265:
243:
236:
216:
184:
107:
101:
48:
12:
11:
5:
1874:
1872:
1864:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1848:
1843:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1808:
1807:
1784:
1783:
1776:
1729:
1728:
1720:Added archive
1718:
1684:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1536:
1460:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1341:
1340:
1331:
1330:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
814:
813:Nanny Incident
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
785:American Eagle
761:American Eagle
719:
625:American Eagle
610:
607:
606:
605:
571:
568:
528:
519:
516:
492:
489:
486:
485:
482:
481:
478:
477:
474:Low-importance
465:
464:
448:
438:
437:
430:Low-importance
426:
420:
419:
417:
401:
400:
395:
390:
385:
378:
376:Template Usage
372:
360:
359:
343:
331:
330:
328:Low‑importance
316:
304:
303:
300:
299:
292:Low-importance
288:
282:
281:
279:
262:the discussion
249:
248:
232:
220:
219:
217:Low‑importance
211:
199:
198:
192:
181:
167:
166:
105:
93:
92:
67:was closed on
65:The discussion
52:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1873:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1854:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1844:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1819:
1817:
1814:
1813:
1811:
1804:
1803:
1798:
1793:
1792:
1781:
1777:
1774:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1761:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1737:
1732:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1717:
1711:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1688:
1682:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1599:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1576:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1466:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1404:
1396:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1365:
1360:
1358:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1239:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:Theroadislong
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:Theroadislong
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1128:
1127:Do not delete
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
990:
986:
983:
982:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
962:
961:
960:
956:
952:
949:
948:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
915:
914:
909:
905:
904:
903:
899:
895:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
877:
876:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
843:
842:
836:
832:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
812:
798:
794:
788:
787:
780:
779:reverted back
776:
775:
774:
770:
764:
763:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
634:
628:
627:
620:
616:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
569:
567:
566:
562:
558:
553:
552:
548:
544:
538:
537:
533:
531:
527:
515:
512:
508:
502:
498:
490:
475:
472:(assessed as
471:
470:
462:
451:
444:
440:
439:
435:
431:
425:
422:
421:
418:
405:United States
399:
396:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
383:
379:
377:
374:
373:
370:
366:
365:
357:
346:
344:
341:
337:
336:
332:
325:
320:
319:United States
317:
314:
310:
297:
293:
287:
284:
283:
280:
263:
259:
255:
254:
246:
240:
235:
233:
230:
226:
225:
221:
215:
212:
209:
205:
200:
196:
190:
182:
178:
173:
172:
163:
159:
156:
153:
149:
145:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
126:
123:
120:
117:
113:
110:
109:Find sources:
106:
99:
98:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
57:
56:Jonathan Park
53:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1788:
1785:
1760:source check
1739:
1733:
1730:
1692:Vision Forum
1689:
1686:
1630:
1608:WP:SECONDARY
1602:
1573:
1521:
1497:Patriarchy.
1471:
1403:MjolnirPants
1402:
1357:MjolnirPants
1356:
1345:
1335:
1315:
1288:
1259:
1246:
1132:
1126:
1085:
1078:
1056:
1033:
980:
946:
912:
907:
874:
840:
834:
816:
782:
758:
704:
696:
653:
650:
646:
642:
622:
612:
573:
554:
539:
524:
521:
494:
467:
461:Texas portal
429:
393:Project Talk
381:
362:
291:
267:Christianity
258:Christianity
251:
214:Christianity
195:WikiProjects
157:
151:
143:
136:
130:
124:
118:
108:
81:Vision Forum
72:
68:
54:
35:
1450:David in DC
1320:David in DC
1300:David in DC
1221:David in DC
1184:David in DC
1040:David in DC
543:E. Novachek
505:—Preceding
185:Start-class
134:free images
85:its history
1810:Categories
1797:Report bug
999:WP:NOTHERE
643:Absolutely
591:Quiverfull
1780:this tool
1773:this tool
1710:dead link
1649:Aquillion
1612:Aquillion
1346:extremely
1081:this page
1786:Cheers.—
1663:Lipsquid
1544:Lipsquid
1499:Lipsquid
1465:Lipsquid
1435:Lipsquid
1380:Lipsquid
1257:at all.
1151:Lipsquid
1105:Lipsquid
1003:Lipsquid
997:You are
966:Lipsquid
932:Lipsquid
894:Lipsquid
860:Lipsquid
820:Lipsquid
727:StAnselm
709:StAnselm
683:SuaveArt
661:StAnselm
609:"Sexist"
595:StAnselm
61:deletion
28:deletion
1714:tag to
1696:my edit
1339:exists.
699:in the
657:article
507:undated
432:on the
294:on the
140:WP refs
128:scholar
1706:Added
1635:Anselm
1578:Anselm
1526:Anselm
1476:Anselm
1395:WP:IAR
1350:WP:SPS
1264:Anselm
1137:Anselm
1123:WP:ROT
1090:Anselm
1075:Tenets
1061:Anselm
1036:WP:BRD
985:Anselm
951:Anselm
917:Anselm
879:Anselm
845:Anselm
745:Invmog
675:sexist
576:Invmog
497:Jehorn
398:Alerts
191:scale.
112:Google
77:merged
1569:WP:RM
1494:WP:OR
1431:WP:OR
1318:." .
1292:WP:RS
530:Stalk
526:Hrafn
324:Texas
155:JSTOR
116:books
79:into
73:merge
1667:talk
1653:talk
1639:talk
1616:talk
1582:talk
1561:here
1548:talk
1530:talk
1517:here
1515:and
1513:here
1503:talk
1480:talk
1454:talk
1439:talk
1384:talk
1324:talk
1304:talk
1296:here
1268:talk
1225:talk
1206:talk
1188:talk
1173:talk
1155:talk
1141:talk
1109:talk
1094:talk
1065:talk
1044:talk
1007:talk
989:talk
970:talk
955:talk
936:talk
921:talk
898:talk
883:talk
864:talk
849:talk
824:talk
792:talk
768:talk
749:talk
731:talk
723:this
713:talk
687:talk
665:talk
632:talk
615:this
599:talk
580:talk
561:talk
547:talk
501:talk
148:FENS
122:news
89:here
36:keep
34:was
1754:RfC
1724:to
1125:, "
908:not
835:not
697:not
503:)
424:Low
286:Low
162:TWL
63:.
1812::
1767:.
1762:}}
1758:{{
1712:}}
1708:{{
1669:)
1655:)
1641:)
1631:St
1618:)
1584:)
1574:St
1571:.
1550:)
1532:)
1522:St
1519:.
1505:)
1482:)
1472:St
1456:)
1441:)
1386:)
1326:)
1306:)
1270:)
1260:St
1227:)
1219:.
1208:)
1190:)
1175:)
1157:)
1143:)
1133:St
1111:)
1096:)
1086:St
1067:)
1057:St
1046:)
1009:)
991:)
981:St
972:)
957:)
947:St
938:)
923:)
913:St
900:)
885:)
875:St
866:)
851:)
841:St
826:)
795:)
771:)
751:)
743:.
741:OR
733:)
715:)
705:is
689:)
667:)
645:.
635:)
601:)
582:)
563:)
549:)
476:).
322::
142:)
1799:)
1795:(
1782:.
1775:.
1665:(
1651:(
1637:(
1614:(
1580:(
1546:(
1528:(
1501:(
1478:(
1467::
1463:@
1452:(
1437:(
1382:(
1322:(
1302:(
1266:(
1223:(
1204:(
1186:(
1171:(
1153:(
1139:(
1107:(
1092:(
1063:(
1042:(
1005:(
987:(
968:(
953:(
934:(
919:(
896:(
881:(
862:(
847:(
822:(
789:(
765:(
747:(
729:(
711:(
685:(
663:(
629:(
597:(
578:(
559:(
545:(
513:.
499:(
436:.
298:.
197::
158:·
152:·
144:·
137:·
131:·
125:·
119:·
114:(
91:.
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
