810:] is not by her (or anyone associated with her as far as I know). This combined with more trivial mentions (two or three paragraphs) and at least one interview with a major media organ tells me she may be notable. Of course part of the problem is that much has been written about her in books about FC (which tend to be rather credulous) but which none the less still means that withing that community she is very notable, and somewhat notable outside it. Notable enough to be mentioned by name in at least one overview of the subject by a scientist.
1839:. I see no reasonable way to reasonably comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s various policies until we have sourcing sufficiently addressing the communication being attributed to Amy Sequenzia. It looks like at least fifteen policies, guidelines, and respected-essays have been cited above, and that's just the beginning of the mess. The article is intractable without more sourcing. Attempts to deal with the article have unavoidably been dragged into the territory of
52:. Consensus here is to delete. Note that the previous nomination did not run its course, it was closed as a speedy keep and the nominator, closer, and one of the two voters is presently blocked. As for the current nomination, by the numbers we lean in favor of deletion (9 to 6, although one delete voter is under a 2-week checkuser block). The main challenge here seems to be this: If we ignore the material related to facilitated communication, then we fail
1351:
intentionally 'putting words in her mouth', which again would need a source, given that most discussions of FC seem to be based on the premise that the 'facilitators' genuinely believe it works. Being wrong (even very wrong) about something is rather different than intended malice, which is what 'victimization' would seem to imply. Personally, I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as being relevant here, if the consensus is that general notability criteria are met.
406:
1719:, to alert readers (not all of whom are going to click on the link) to the status of Facilitated communication (just as we'd gloss any other little-known term, or add a geog context to a placename). She does appear to be notable and we owe it to our readers to have an article about her, but it needs to be more informative.
1862:
If Amy is not the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about the source of those words. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living
1851:
in this biography. The nominally "self statements" are supplied by someone else, and there is sufficient question of their authorship that they clearly fail our reliable sourcing standards. In regards to the other available sources, note that the
Reliability of any source is not absolute. Reliability
1350:
Can you point to a source that says that
Sequenzia has been 'victimized'? If one exists, it should almost certainly be cited in the article. If on the other hand, there isn't a source, your assertion that victimization has taken place would seem to be based on the assumption that the 'facilitator' is
1859:
If Amy is the author of the words attributed to her, I see no reasonable way to simultaneously comply with BLP and other policies until we have adequate sourcing about her communication. The attempts to indirectly attribute the words to her in a qualified manner are atrocious for a living biography.
1422:
which seems to consist entirely of content regarding otherwise non-notable individuals. Content which amply demonstrates that individuals were (via misplaced allegations via 'facilitation') victims of a credulous acceptance of the technique. If one is going to rule out content on 'victims' of FC, it
1382:
Actually, it is a source that says that FC has been called an abuse of human rights by someone else. But it wasn't what I asked for which was a source stating that
Sequenzia has been 'victimized'. We don't take general opinions about a topic as evidence for specifics. Particularly when making claims
1563:
In as much as I have an opinion on the merits of this article that isn't shaped by my more general opinion that an 'anyone can edit' encyclopaedia is a fundamentally flawed concept, I've reached much the same conclusion. Which is why I've not chosen to !Vote (not that opinions anonymous IPs tend to
1417:
for example, which consists almost entirely of content relating to her kidnapping and subsequent events. I think you might do better to stick to arguing the case about notability in the general sense, where policy is clearer. Your opinion on 'human rights abuse' and 'victimhood' will presumably be
1412:
I'm not sure how one can claim 'human rights abuse' without at least implying malice, but whatever. In general, decisions about permissible content are based on specific sources (and/or the lack of them), and not on what we 'think' or 'believe'. WP:AVOIDVICTIM clearly allows for some discretion in
1091:
I added some RS and she's in a chapter in a book about Autism that I was able to fully access. I don't know about the FC thing, but the scholars at Oxford seem OK with whatever type of communication she is using with her iPad and help from her care-giver. The book is recent, too, from 2018. Passes
1397:
There is no claim of malice against the facilitator. And we do sometimes take general statements to prove the specific. For instance, the pseudoscientific status of perpetual motion implies the pseudoscientific status of any proposed perpetual motion machine. Additionally, I am not aware of any
1526:
I agree that does not rule out an article on this subject. But it is relevant, and if we decide not to delete the article, we must write from this prospective. Actually, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping the article now that I see how it is progressing. I was worried that we
789:
You both say that the notability is "clear", but having looked at prior versions of the article and searched for sources myself, I am not sure how you reached that conclusion. If you wish I can present my analysis of existing sources. But to save us time, can you just point to some
60:
issue. If Amy truly has no agency in the statements that a "facilitator" is making on her behalf, then ascribing this technique to her is unfairly accusing her of advancing pseudoscience, and our article's "criticism" section is criticising the victim rather than the perpetrator.
1856:
if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case
1124:
The two posters above seem to be re-writing the article with the same sort of credulous minor coverage complained about above. One exception may be the the Bakan book. I'm not sure how to evaluate this book as a source of notability, but it certainly doesn't establish
1449:
to state that
Sequenzia herself is the writer of the writings attributed to her, since that is not an objectively assessable fact. In fact, she could be merely the sockpuppet of her facilitator, who is in the best case self-delusional and in the worst case a fraudster.
1188:
The question is not whether or not The
Guardian is a reliable source. The question is whether two short paragraphs in an article not actually about her establishes notability. Normally that would not be enough. Lots of people are mentioned by The Guardian
1418:
taken into account by whoever closes this discussion, but they may find it less than persuasive. And I have to say that I find something of a contradiction between the arguments you present here and the fact that you have created an article entitled
1596:
This isn't just a scientific story though. It is about real people. Some who can speak for themselves. Some who claim to speak for others. One who appears not be able to speak at all. Reducing it to nothing but 'science' would do it little service.
1852:
is always evaluated in terms of a specific work from that publisher and in terms of the specific information being cited, in relation to the current article. Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at
764:: It is clear that she is notable. I would love to have an article on her, but a brief google search did not return any reliable results. If anyone can find reliable sources (written from the view that FC is psudoscience) please post them here. —
1292:, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." --
1789:
These are exactly my thoughts, while the article exists questioning the veracity of achievements within it look like bad faith attacks on the subject rather than rightful rejection of the debunked method of facilitated communication.
742:
You don't you write an article based on sources that discus it, and there seems to be a few. The issue therefore if not notability but neutrality, and that is not (to my mind) a suitable excuse for AFD. Rather that is an excuse for a
857:
I believe that unreliable sources can be used to establish notability. If I am correct, she is certainly notable. However, I can not find any reliable sources on her, which is why I nominated this article for deletion.
1263:
The sourcing is a fair start, and Amy
Sequenzia is quite the notable subject. Also, all these attempts to dismiss this article due to facilitated communication not being viewed as scientific is, if you ask me, grossly
232:
1774:. The FC-induced writings are very likely to be inauthentic but structuring the article around debunking them can make it come across as an attack piece with the subject of the article caught in the crossfire.
1332:. Failing to properly acknowledge that the facilitator is putting words in her mouth would be victimizing her further. Also, the subject is not notable outside of the group of adherents to the pseudoscience of
483:. This article should not have been gutted before being nominated. It is wholly misleading. Also, although this page doesn't how it, the article was nominated for deletion before and the consensus was keep.--
1690:
I felt quite shocked and can see where the nominator is coming from. Sequenzia does seem to be notable, but the article underplays the status of her means of communication. Our wikipedia article describes
91:
1419:
1687:
1231:
1366:
836:
443:
829:
The this week article is by David M Perry, a supporter of facilitated communication who has written at least one other article defending facilitated communication as genuine. It is not.
1564:
get much notice anyway). There probably is the potential for a good encyclopaedic article on
Sequenzia, I'm just not entirely convinced that Knowledge (XXG) is capable of producing it...
1288:, "a fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and
460:
581:
185:
553:, but it's pretty tasteless to treat them as unbiased fact, especially in a BLP for an unfortunate person who can't share their side of the story through any real method.
1170:
According to
Wikiman, no source is reliable if he deems the source sympathetic to facilitated communication. How this editor has lasted here without being blocked for an
1008:
226:
86:
1028:
192:
117:
1129:
as WP:FRINGE requires,(Author is a musician not a medical professional), so, even if notable, its claims should really still be phrased as claims not facts.
132:
433:
The source quoted has failed to declare a conflict of interest, the author has co-authored pro facilitated communication material with
Douglas Biklen
673:
and I didn't find any reviews in mainstream publications that would contribute towards the subject's notability as an author. And as for BLP: given
674:
412:
The closer should consider what weight, if any, to give to an argument that was so disruptive that they would be unable to cast or reaffirm this
1398:
standards of evidence for victimhood. I believe that we can consider her a victim if we think she’s a victim, and I am arguing that we should. —
434:
1615:
Knowledge (XXG) cannot have an article about her. There is a limit upon what can be written inside
Knowledge (XXG) articles. And that limit is
1464:
Tgeorgescu, you should be aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. I suggest you keep the hyperbole down. And then read what I actually wrote.
1598:
1565:
1513:
1465:
1424:
1384:
1352:
1315:
1110:, so none of them are reliable. This page again describes her (inaccurately) as a writer and an activist, which is why we must delete it. —
1223:
382:
applies to this article. "The preponderance of peer-reviewed articles supports FC as a useful tool for developing communication skills." (
677:
the words she is known for, I am afraid that the article, were it to be retained, would either become a battleground for arguments over
1797:
840:
545:, was based entirely on overly-credulous sources treating a discredited pseudo-science as though it were real. I can understand (per
447:
112:
105:
17:
1760:
1542:
523:
158:
153:
1413:
this context, but it doesn't automatically rule out all articles on victims: even victims of actual crimes. We have an article on
1163:
1081:
995:
162:
1904:
1872:
1819:
1805:
1783:
1762:
1738:
1634:
1606:
1591:
1573:
1558:
1521:
1507:
1473:
1459:
1432:
1407:
1392:
1377:
1360:
1345:
1323:
1309:
1273:
1253:
1213:
1183:
1165:
1138:
1119:
1101:
1083:
1040:
1020:
997:
966:
917:
867:
844:
819:
803:
773:
752:
737:
719:
702:
633:
617:
596:
562:
527:
492:
472:
451:
425:
399:
364:
322:
280:
70:
657:
56:, but if we include it, we are ascribing statements/opinions/activism to Amy which may actually be fabrications, and that's a
693:
of an actual, living person and therefore I recommend deletion until much more extensive and balanced coverage is available.
145:
247:
126:
122:
214:
1196:(And beyond notability, does it illustrate scientific "acceptance" as required to uncritically report WP:FRINGE ideas as
1750:
1921:
1832:
40:
1902:
1714:
1706:
1698:
1692:
1683:
1677:
1333:
1329:
1107:
1097:
942:
678:
375:
298:
264:
542:
against being re-created from a more reality-based perspective. The article, before the current content dispute
1770:
asks us to pay particular attention to human dignity. This is such a challenging task here that I lean towards
1602:
1569:
1517:
1469:
1428:
1423:
should probably be done more consistently. Or at least, in a manner that looks a little less overtly partisan.
1388:
1356:
1319:
208:
1281:
655:. Till date I have found one reliable independent source that covers the subject substantially: Chapter 10 of
435:
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Contested_Words_Contested_Science.html?id=T4FtQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
1801:
468:
395:
1793:
1530:
832:
511:
439:
815:
748:
715:
590:
204:
1848:
984:
505:
1917:
1893:
1538:
1403:
1373:
1341:
1305:
1297:
1115:
863:
769:
629:
519:
276:
149:
36:
934:
290:
1630:
1587:
1554:
1503:
1455:
1161:
1093:
1079:
993:
733:
360:
318:
254:
1889:
1285:
648:
1209:
1134:
962:
913:
799:
698:
558:
240:
141:
76:
1885:
1612:
938:
686:
685:) be overly reliant on weak/unreliable-sources published by true-believers in FC (hence violating
379:
344:
294:
1779:
1695:
as "a scientifically discredited technique". At the very least the lead sentence needs to change
1622:
1549:
Damned if I do, damned if I don't, isn't it? We have to abort the article as mission impossible.
1036:
1016:
896:, and as a blog entry by a non-expert, it cannot be used as a source in a BLP; see the entry for
464:
391:
1495:
1491:
1438:
546:
413:
352:
348:
1234:
show how convinced many non-experts have initially been, in cases which were later overturned.
1674:: Reading this nomination, alerted to it by the list of deletion discussions on women, I saw "
1442:
811:
780:
744:
711:
603:
585:
508:. The previous consensus was built on the unreliable sources that I "gutted" from the article.
101:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1916:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1579:
1487:
1446:
978:
954:
340:
310:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1816:
1534:
1399:
1369:
1337:
1301:
1293:
1269:
1111:
1069:
859:
784:
765:
625:
515:
383:
272:
1881:
1853:
1844:
1767:
1483:
1052:
901:
882:
791:
652:
644:
336:
220:
57:
1868:
1626:
1583:
1550:
1499:
1451:
1179:
1156:
1074:
988:
729:
613:
488:
421:
356:
314:
1840:
974:
950:
946:
728:. So how do you write an article based upon sources that assume that channeling is real?
306:
302:
268:
1729:
1244:
1205:
1130:
958:
909:
875:
795:
694:
554:
66:
1479:
666:
332:
53:
1775:
1284:
applies here. Also, all of the mainstream media sources push a fringe positions. Per
1227:
1032:
1012:
662:
574:
665:, which was recently published by OUP and hasn't itself been properly reviewed yet.
1880:
Lacks independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are even from blogs. Fails
1672:
Keep but clarify the discredited/controversial status of her means of communication
1414:
1152:
1144:
1057:
1815:- This Article is poorly written, and the Subject has insufficient notoriety. -
1682:" and thought "What on earth? No way is that a sound argument". But on looking at
889:
179:
972:
390:
be cited before the page was blanked, there is no reason to delete this page. --
1265:
1864:
1837:
Articles that breach Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on biographies of living persons
1621:
At Knowledge (XXG) the burden of proof has never been upon those who say that
1175:
792:
reliable, independent sources that contain significant coverage of the subject
725:
609:
499:
484:
417:
1720:
1235:
62:
1174:
disruptive agenda is beyond me, but I'm not up to fighting that battle.--
1063:
1055:, having been name-checked in significant detail in publications such as
1829:
Insufficient sourcing at this time to write a policy-compliant article
624:
Thanks. I apologize. This is my first time trying to delete a page. --
1512:
In which case, I suggest you think again, before violating WP:BLP...
881:
No, unreliable sources cannot be used to establish notability under
675:
credible skepticism whether the subject is "genuinely communicating"
271:. If reliable sources cannot be found, this page must be deleted. --
1328:
The subject of the article has been victimized by the practice of
1230:
is an ethnomusicologist, not an expert in autism, and the cases
1420:
List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication
1073:. I expanded the article a bit and added a bunch of references.
888:
I assume the "one interview with a major media organ" refers to
670:
658:
Speaking for Ourselves: Conversations on Life, Music, and Autism
1912:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1625:'s claim to be in contact with an alien civilization is bogus.
1383:
of malice regarding specific people - i.e. the 'facilitator'.
794:
other than Bakan's writing that I found and discussed above?
710:
The rights and wrongs of FC aside it is clear she is notable.
1688:
List of abuse allegations made via facilitated communication
570:
The AfD page header was malformed (likely not created using
1365:
Here is a source that calls FC “an abuse of human rights”.
386:) Based on this, and the number of reliable sources that
1527:
wouldn’t have enough good sources to maintain WP:PARITY.
669:
Sequenzia and Elizabeth Grace edited was published by a
1222:
The author of the chapter in the OUP book is certainly
724:
That's not the point. The idea is that FC is a kind of
682:
543:
410:
175:
171:
167:
1618:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
582:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 16
239:
355:, it will have to be deleted as mission impossible.
92:
Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination)
253:
872:Thanks for the responses. Quick replies for now:
671:niche publisher of "weird books for weird people"
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1924:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1027:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1007:Note: This discussion has been included in the
459:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1578:Yup, maybe an encyclopedia which does not take
461:list of Disability-related deletion discussions
1713:"produced through the controversial method of
1445:), no doubt about that. It is a violation of
267:is a valid technique are not reliable. Fails
8:
1705:"produced through the discredited method of
1494:. There is no point abiding by two of those
1009:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
133:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
351:. If the article cannot abide by all these
1791:
1528:
1029:list of Women-related deletion discussions
1026:
1006:
878:does not qualify as "significant coverage"
830:
580:) and not transcluded (now transcluded at
509:
458:
437:
1226:about the facilitated communication, but
584:). I think it's now in working order. —
1498:while strongly violating the other two.
904:for links to 17 related RSN discussions.
1106:None of these sources are skeptical of
84:
1680:is a valid technique are not reliable.
1675:
1616:
892:. Note that that is on the now closed
837:2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B
504:The "gutting" was in compliance with
444:2A02:C7D:69D1:3200:19D1:833:BDD8:6A2B
409:This editor is now under a topic-ban.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1833:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion
1582:seriously would be a better choice.
549:) using those sources to establish
87:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia
83:
1742:expanded 07:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
24:
1151:s not a reliable source? Are you
689:). That's not what we want for a
1290:in a serious and reliable manner
404:
339:requires us to strongly violate
118:Introduction to deletion process
1:
1300:) 09:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)--
894:HuffPost Contributor platform
876:The one sentence on Sequenzia
374:It has yet to be proven that
1847:, and we can't even include
949:as unreliable. Till now, no
378:is a fringe theory and that
305:as unreliable. Till now, no
1854:Reliable Source Noticeboard
1437:We are indeed partisans of
108:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1941:
1905:01:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
1873:13:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
1820:01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
1806:12:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
1784:10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
1763:16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1739:07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1715:facilitated communication
1707:facilitated communication
1699:facilitated communication
1693:Facilitated communication
1684:facilitated communication
1678:facilitated communication
1635:23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1607:22:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1592:22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1574:22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1559:22:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1522:22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1508:22:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1474:22:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1460:21:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1433:21:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1408:20:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1393:20:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1378:18:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1361:16:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1346:09:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1334:facilitated communication
1330:facilitated communication
1324:07:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1310:05:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1274:04:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1254:07:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
1214:20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1184:20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1166:20:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1139:18:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1120:18:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1108:facilitated communication
1102:17:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1084:15:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
1041:18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
1021:18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
998:15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
967:22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
943:facilitated communication
918:23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
868:22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
845:07:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
820:22:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
804:22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
774:21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
753:22:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
738:21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
720:10:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
703:04:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
679:facilitated communication
634:02:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
618:02:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
597:00:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
563:00:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
528:02:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
493:00:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
473:00:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
452:08:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
426:13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
400:00:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
376:facilitated communication
365:22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
323:23:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
299:facilitated communication
281:20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
265:facilitated communication
71:01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
1914:Please do not modify it.
1611:If we'd have to violate
32:Please do not modify it.
808:Depends what you mean,
1676:Sources claiming that
263:Sources claiming that
82:AfDs for this article:
941:sources that endorse
898:HuffPost contributors
297:sources that endorse
106:Articles for deletion
1711:or, more neutrally,
1486:strongly clash with
1314:Please explain why.
1697:" produced through
1686:and in particular
1623:Gregorian Bivolaru
1841:Original Research
1808:
1796:comment added by
1743:
1546:
1533:comment added by
1443:medical consensus
1043:
1023:
985:argument to avoid
847:
835:comment added by
540:without prejudice
530:
514:comment added by
475:
454:
442:comment added by
123:Guide to deletion
113:How to contribute
1932:
1758:
1753:
1741:
1736:
1727:
1478:At this article
1251:
1242:
1150:
982:
788:
607:
593:
588:
579:
573:
503:
408:
407:
343:(more precisely
258:
257:
243:
195:
183:
165:
103:
34:
1940:
1939:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1922:deletion review
1754:
1751:
1749:-- Quite nice.
1730:
1721:
1245:
1236:
1148:
1094:Megalibrarygirl
778:
651:and especially
601:
591:
586:
577:
571:
497:
405:
200:
191:
156:
140:
137:
100:
97:
80:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1938:
1936:
1927:
1926:
1908:
1907:
1875:
1861:
1858:
1822:
1787:
1786:
1765:
1744:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1599:86.133.149.192
1566:86.133.149.192
1547:
1514:86.133.149.192
1466:86.133.149.192
1425:86.133.149.192
1385:86.133.149.192
1353:86.133.149.192
1316:86.133.149.192
1282:WP:AVOIDVICTIM
1276:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1194:
1186:
1122:
1086:
1045:
1044:
1024:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
907:
906:
905:
886:
879:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
705:
683:recent version
681:or (as in the
638:
637:
636:
621:
620:
565:
533:
532:
531:
477:
476:
431:
430:
429:
428:
369:
368:
367:
327:Ok, rephrase:
261:
260:
197:
136:
135:
130:
120:
115:
98:
96:
95:
94:
89:
81:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1937:
1925:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1910:
1909:
1906:
1903:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1855:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1766:
1764:
1761:
1759:
1757:
1748:
1745:
1740:
1737:
1735:
1734:
1728:
1726:
1725:
1718:
1716:
1710:
1708:
1702:
1700:
1694:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1679:
1673:
1670:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1614:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1250:
1249:
1243:
1241:
1240:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1187:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1160:
1159:
1154:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1065:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1004:
999:
996:
994:
992:
991:
986:
983:". That's an
980:
976:
973:Till now, no
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
933:According to
932:
929:
919:
915:
911:
908:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
880:
877:
874:
873:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
846:
842:
838:
834:
821:
817:
813:
809:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
786:
782:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
760:
754:
750:
746:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:Michael Bakan
660:
659:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
619:
615:
611:
605:
600:
599:
598:
594:
589:
583:
576:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
537:
534:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
507:
501:
496:
495:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:Anomalapropos
462:
457:
456:
455:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
392:Anomalapropos
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:According to
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
256:
252:
249:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
206:
203:
202:Find sources:
198:
194:
190:
187:
181:
177:
173:
169:
164:
160:
155:
151:
147:
143:
142:Amy Sequenzia
139:
138:
134:
131:
128:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
107:
102:
93:
90:
88:
85:
78:
77:Amy Sequenzia
75:
73:
72:
68:
64:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1913:
1911:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1877:
1836:
1828:
1824:
1817:Nolan Perry
1812:
1798:90.212.22.66
1792:— Preceding
1788:
1771:
1755:
1746:
1732:
1731:
1723:
1722:
1712:
1704:
1696:
1671:
1617:
1529:— Preceding
1415:Patty Hearst
1289:
1278:
1260:
1247:
1246:
1238:
1237:
1201:
1197:
1190:
1171:
1157:
1153:Nigel Farage
1145:The Guardian
1143:
1126:
1088:
1075:
1068:
1062:
1058:The Guardian
1056:
1048:
989:
930:
897:
893:
831:— Preceding
828:
812:Slatersteven
781:Slatersteven
761:
745:Slatersteven
712:Slatersteven
707:
690:
656:
640:
608:Thank you.--
604:PaleoNeonate
567:
550:
539:
535:
510:— Preceding
506:WP:GRAPEVINE
480:
438:— Preceding
432:
387:
371:
328:
286:
262:
250:
244:
236:
229:
223:
217:
211:
201:
188:
99:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1863:biography.
1535:Wikiman2718
1400:Wikiman2718
1370:Wikiman2718
1338:Wikiman2718
1302:Wikiman2718
1294:Wikiman2718
1261:Strong Keep
1200:instead of
1112:Wikiman2718
935:WP:LUNATICS
860:Wikiman2718
785:Wikiman2718
766:Wikiman2718
626:Wikiman2718
516:Wikiman2718
331:if obeying
291:WP:LUNATICS
273:Wikiman2718
227:free images
1897:Masum Reza
1890:WP:NAUTHOR
1627:Tgeorgescu
1584:Tgeorgescu
1551:Tgeorgescu
1500:Tgeorgescu
1452:Tgeorgescu
1286:WP:NFRINGE
1191:in passing
1158:Ritchie333
1127:acceptance
1076:Ritchie333
990:Ritchie333
977:have been
953:have been
730:Tgeorgescu
726:channeling
649:WP:NAUTHOR
551:notability
357:Tgeorgescu
315:Tgeorgescu
309:have been
1918:talk page
1886:WP:ANYBIO
1857:reliable.
1849:ABOUTSELF
1845:Synthesis
1835:lists #9
1613:WP:YESPOV
1224:convinced
1206:ApLundell
1131:ApLundell
987:at AfDs.
959:Ylevental
939:WP:FRINGE
910:Abecedare
796:Abecedare
743:re-write.
695:Abecedare
691:biography
687:WP:FRINGE
555:ApLundell
384:reference
380:WP:FRINGE
345:WP:YESPOV
295:WP:FRINGE
37:talk page
1920:or in a
1794:unsigned
1543:contribs
1531:unsigned
1496:WP:RULES
1492:WP:MEDRS
1439:WP:RS/AC
1172:admitted
1064:LA Times
1033:Thsmi002
1013:Thsmi002
833:unsigned
667:The book
547:WP:DESCF
524:contribs
512:unsigned
440:unsigned
353:WP:RULES
349:WP:MEDRS
186:View log
127:glossary
39:or in a
1580:WP:SPOV
1488:WP:NPOV
1447:WP:NPOV
1279:Comment
1264:unfair.
979:WP:CITE
955:WP:CITE
762:Comment
592:Neonate
568:Comment
481:Comment
416:today.
388:used to
341:WP:NPOV
311:WP:CITE
233:WP refs
221:scholar
159:protect
154:history
104:New to
1882:WP:GNG
1878:Delete
1825:Delete
1813:Delete
1776:Haukur
1772:delete
1768:WP:BLP
1484:WP:BLP
1266:TH1980
1202:claims
1053:WP:GNG
1051:Meets
931:Delete
902:WP:RSP
883:WP:GNG
653:WP:BLP
645:WP:GNG
641:Delete
538:, but
536:Delete
347:) and
337:WP:BLP
329:Delete
287:Delete
205:Google
163:delete
58:WP:BLP
50:delete
1865:Alsee
1176:Bbb23
1092:GNG.
1070:Slate
975:WP:RS
951:WP:RS
947:WP:RS
945:fail
610:Bbb23
587:Paleo
500:Bbb23
485:Bbb23
418:Alsee
414:!vote
307:WP:RS
303:WP:RS
301:fail
269:WP:RS
248:JSTOR
209:books
193:Stats
180:views
172:watch
168:links
16:<
1869:talk
1843:and
1802:talk
1780:talk
1747:Nice
1631:talk
1603:talk
1588:talk
1570:talk
1555:talk
1539:talk
1518:talk
1504:talk
1490:and
1482:and
1480:WP:N
1470:talk
1456:talk
1429:talk
1404:talk
1389:talk
1374:talk
1357:talk
1342:talk
1336:. --
1320:talk
1306:talk
1298:talk
1270:talk
1232:here
1210:talk
1198:fact
1180:talk
1135:talk
1116:talk
1098:talk
1089:Keep
1067:and
1049:Keep
1037:talk
1017:talk
963:talk
937:and
914:talk
890:this
864:talk
841:talk
816:talk
800:talk
783:and
770:talk
749:talk
734:talk
716:talk
708:Keep
699:talk
643:per
630:talk
614:talk
575:afd2
559:talk
520:talk
489:talk
469:talk
448:talk
422:talk
396:talk
372:Keep
361:talk
335:and
333:WP:N
319:talk
293:and
277:talk
241:FENS
215:news
176:logs
150:talk
146:edit
67:talk
63:ST47
54:WP:N
1756:WBG
1724:Pam
1703:to
1239:Pam
1204:?)
957:D.
900:at
661:by
313:D.
255:TWL
184:– (
1892:.
1888:,
1884:,
1871:)
1831:.
1827:-
1804:)
1782:)
1633:)
1605:)
1590:)
1572:)
1557:)
1545:)
1541:•
1520:)
1506:)
1472:)
1458:)
1431:)
1406:)
1391:)
1376:)
1359:)
1344:)
1322:)
1308:)
1272:)
1228:he
1212:)
1182:)
1155:?
1137:)
1118:)
1100:)
1061:,
1039:)
1031:.
1019:)
1011:.
965:)
916:)
866:)
843:)
818:)
802:)
772:)
751:)
736:)
718:)
701:)
647:,
632:)
616:)
595:–
578:}}
572:{{
561:)
526:)
522:•
491:)
471:)
463:.
450:)
424:)
398:)
363:)
321:)
279:)
235:)
178:|
174:|
170:|
166:|
161:|
157:|
152:|
148:|
69:)
1867:(
1800:(
1778:(
1752:∯
1733:D
1717:"
1709:"
1701:"
1629:(
1601:(
1586:(
1568:(
1553:(
1537:(
1516:(
1502:(
1468:(
1454:(
1441:(
1427:(
1402:(
1387:(
1372:(
1368:—
1355:(
1340:(
1318:(
1304:(
1296:(
1268:(
1248:D
1208:(
1193:.
1178:(
1149:'
1133:(
1114:(
1096:(
1035:(
1015:(
981:D
971:"
961:(
912:(
885:.
862:(
858:—
839:(
814:(
798:(
787::
779:@
768:(
747:(
732:(
714:(
697:(
628:(
612:(
606::
602:@
557:(
518:(
502::
498:@
487:(
467:(
446:(
420:(
394:(
359:(
317:(
275:(
259:)
251:·
245:·
237:·
230:·
224:·
218:·
212:·
207:(
199:(
196:)
189:·
182:)
144:(
129:)
125:(
65:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.