495:
attacks ....", I'm not sure what you are implying, but that could be read as suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks, which would be an extremely inappropriate mischaracterization. What the opponents of this article are against is a list along the lines of "The leader of
Afghanistan condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Albania condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Algeria condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Andorra condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. ... The leader of Zambia condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims. The leader of Zimbabwe condemned the attack and expressed condolences for the victims." --
583:
things back into articles which are already to long is not helpful and doesn't work, sure you can say "all the worlds leaders were very upset and expressed condolences for the victims" but that does not give the depth of knowledge that can be shown in a separate article. In the instances where these articles have been deleted, the knowledge has been effectively lost, along with any chance of meaningful expansion. Additionally I have realised that a "Reactions to..." article can actually be expanded beyond a list. It has happened, there are some already, therefore this should be treated as more of a stub framework than a representation of a finished dead-end article of insufficient quality for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
794:(a long enough article in itself! A reaction we should note), and international condemnations a bit out of the norm (more than usual outpouring of sympathy, some degree of Muslim nation ambivalence due to cartoons of Mohammed etc.). However in the grand scheme of things - there it was one in a chain - and didn't lead to any significant development (yes - France heightened security yes again. Yes - there was also an attack on cartoon drawing in Texas (however there were also attacks prior to Hebdo)). We already have quite a long and comprehensive reaction section in the main article.
52:. The arguments here were between the policy on not being an indiscriminate collection of information and our guidelines for spinning off separate articles and continuing coverage for notability. While the arguments for deletion were policy based, a consensus did not emerge in this conversation that the list was an indiscriminate collection of information, and a consensus did emerge that it is currently viewed as a valid spinoff article that has received continued coverage.
275:. A scrupulously referenced (117 inline cites), well-researched and detailed accounting of international reactions which is not easily obtainable anywhere else and aids those studying differences in how world entities view specific phenomena of this nature. If there is contention that such lists of reactions should not exist, then this should have been a mass nomination of all entries at
591:
people can make an informed decision without me having to type it all in here, it even links to many other AfD's, I am aware that precedent is not binding, but given that the nominator and other editors seek to influence the outcome of this AfD with a misstatement on the way past AfD's have resulted it is only fair to direct editors to a more neutral standpoint.
213:, the purpose for this page has run out awhile ago. Certainly, it has already served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page while the event was regularly in the news. And with certainty, I can say the incident is without a doubt notable but remember we are not discussing the shooting itself; anything associated with it is not
283:. If, on the other hand, the contention is that the other events are more notable than this event or that the structures of the other "Reaction" articles are more adroitly formed than the structure of this article, then we should be made aware of any deficiencies, so that needed improvements may be made.
300:. This article doesn't clearly aid those studying "differences" in how countries react to such incidents. I admit that I haven't read the reactions of all 84 countries and territories listed here, but all the ones I read either condemned the attack, expressed condolences for the victims, or both. (Even
1095:
This seems to be a fad to nominate for deletion expressions of the milk of human kindness. The nominator states in the nomination that the page, "has...served its purpose of keeping unimportant reactions off the main page", which is a statement that there are both unimportant and important reactions
1071:
has lasting notability (and definitely will be discussed in the future in conjunction with the attack and in relation to other shows of sympathy to other attacks) - the boiler plate condemnations of random foreign ministers/word leaders really do not seem to be covered more than month after the event
759:
Can we cool off on the 9/11 comparisons? For one, we are not discussing the incident itself and secondly it is a tad distasteful. This shooting was obviously terrible but 9/11 is on a whole other spectrum. Saying this incident is "just below" 9/11 -- remember 3,000 killed and over 6,000 wounded -- is
590:
every time I express my opinion, I can see people have already discussed the guidelines in this discussion, and in many other similar discussions and piling on and parroting is pointless, this is not a vote. It is far more effective in this case to point people to an essay with plenty of information,
578:
It was the BBC news channel, I can't remember which day, but it was recent, and they were talking about peoples reactions to the
Charlie Hebdo event, they had some people on talking about it, they said about how tragic it was and talked about the victims families and such. This influences my personal
563:
Metropolitan90's first comment, which mistakes the nature of my comment, asks by implication if my original comment is "suggesting that the opponents of this article are against condemnation of terrorist attacks", to which I can only say that although I did not write it to that effect (obviously!), I
599:
when considering what these guidelines are actually for. I have pointed out why I think what I think, expressed some possibly useful points, and that is plenty, there are others here actively arguing precedent and policy, claiming 'quote farms' violate this and that, without any obvious grounding in
981:
still getting continued coverage and having lasting impact, and you could be sure that if there was a terror attack in Greece, the Greek response to this
Charlie Hebdo incident would be back in the news. It is worth noting a certain amount of cleanup could be relevant to this article, I don't think
574:
The issue of all the
African leaders using the same statement is a matter for article cleanup, you know as well as I do that there was massive and varied response both at the time and subsequently from many people, organisations, police forces, and leaders, much of which has not been expanded on to
911:
I've seen it but strongly disagree. One article is for the popular response, the other for the formal response. Both are legitimate spinouts. As I pointed out below both have been proposed for deletion with little support. A simplified look at the more complex relations between the three articles:
724:
shooting were unprecedented, and probably the most significant since the
September 11 attacks. The reactions from newspapers, artists, cartoonists, world leaders, and the public was significant and highly historically notable. The reactions, which included the march in Paris, received significant,
494:
is an essay, and it lists more than 6 of these articles that have been deleted (not all of which had their titles start with "International"). That essay does not specifically endorse keeping or deleting such articles. And when you say "I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist
594:
The so called policies (they are actually guidelines) are neither defined nor binding, and are written in a way which can mean almost anything, so editors are literally split down the middle on the meaning of even the most basic concepts. What actually matters is common sense and building a good
582:
To answer gracefulslick, I was at first supportive of the general idea, on the premise nothing was being lost as it was unnecessary to have an extra article when the content was in the main one etc etc, all very convincing arguments. However I have come to the opinion that trying to merge these
916:
was immediately perceived to be an important massacre (and a crossroads for the freedom of press, arts, and speech) brought wide popular reactions, strengthening again the importance of the
Charlie Hebdo attack. As it came to be seen as such a major event the formal response gained in enduring
1066:
To be fair - that nom was made on the day of the attack itself before it was clear the slogan would be as notable as it has become - and was closed as a snow keep after it became clear (it actually had some editor support on 7 Jan, but in the following days it was all keep). However, whereas
356:
304:, whose condemnation appears to have been less than whole-hearted.) Regarding the idea that lists of reactions like this should not exist, I have tended to support deletion of such articles, although such articles do have their supporters and some of them have been kept at AfD. See
455:- well referenced/sourced article. Extensive reactions. One could claim that they are merely quotes, I say important reactions to an important historic event. The quotes are not routine but responses from world leaders and prominent politicians about an historic incident.
346:
472:
this was actually on the news recently. Almost every article beginning with "International reactions to..." has now been to AfD, and hundreds (ok at least 50) have been kept, with only half a dozen deleted, I think that speaks for itself really. you may want to see
166:
889:
can you consider
Knowledgekid's !vote for a redirect? The target containd actual notable reactions, not just routine grief statements repeated a dozen times and easily summarized in a brief paragraph. It certainly would address the issue of
976:
sources in countries that are less connected to the incident. But the reactions in
Germany, the US, Russia, Britain, Canada, Australia, Syria, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, etc etc
351:
305:
92:
87:
96:
309:
79:
160:
720:
While it may be true there has been a proliferation of these articles, with many created perhaps unnecessarily, that is not a valid reason to delete this article. International reactions to the
83:
526:
like this one. Care to explain why this one is suddenly different? Your rationale didn't apply an actual policy-based argument so it's hard to decipher why you have changed your stance.
841:
where in my nom statement did you see me mention 9/11; how can you consider it my main reason for deletion? All I asked was for editors to not get carried away with such a comparison.
339:
materials – the reactions themselves, which are routine and do not stand out in any way. No encyclopedic relevance. Similar articles have been deleted in the recent past, such as:
126:
301:
75:
67:
119:
438:
covers this amply. As may be seen in the article history, the reaction article is mainly a collection of news clippings from around the shooting - and then minor gnoming.
397:
1108:. The remedy for those who don't want to read, "France...offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers", is:
181:
148:
703:. Point where I slightly agree with criticism: the structure of the article was sub-optimal. Hence I have started improvements. Others are welcome to help out!
253:
234:
1162:
1138:
1121:
1081:
1057:
1036:
1015:
990:
963:
926:
903:
879:
850:
829:
803:
769:
751:
734:
712:
689:
666:
648:
608:
535:
514:
502:
485:
464:
447:
423:
406:
390:
372:
319:
292:
264:
245:
226:
61:
983:
601:
478:
414:
954:
of international reactions to
Charlie Hebdo specifically? Are the Cambodian, Georgian, Greek, Brazilian, or Mauritian referred to by any recent sources?
982:
most the responses from Africa are relevant, and there aren’t enough US and
European responses, nor as much as I would like to see written about them.
142:
519:
138:
579:
opinion as to the enduring relevance of recording what was said, this encyclopedia is after all supposed to be the sum of all relevant knowledge.
783:
507:
Also, when you say "this was actually on the news recently", can you provide context as to what "this" is and how it appeared on the news? --
188:
626:
It's a well-sourced article. Anything related to the attack and published by reliable sources can be taken into to the article. Considering
564:
am not too worried if you take it that way, since that is possibly relevant (especially so if thats what you thought after reading it).
568:
491:
474:
1150:- we are not a newspaper and we do not record every world leader's utterances, especially if they are nothing out of the ordinary.
154:
747:
276:
17:
1072:- these are all collapsed in subsequent coverage to "condemned by almost all world leaders", with notable exceptions noted.
820:, for deletion? If the main reason for deletion is that it isn't 9/11 wouldn't that be weak argumentation? Maybe withdraw?
867:
631:
951:
743:
630:, we can not take these reactions into the main article and hence we need to keep this one. Btw, it's better to avoid
209:
several quotes is in no way encyclopedic. Considering the parent article sufficiently summarizes what this lists says
1011:
899:
846:
765:
531:
222:
1181:
1117:
1101:
571:
as well." equates to thinking it was policy. Its main relevance is the amount of related information it includes.
40:
477:
as well. I suppose some people don't like people condemning terrorist attacks, but I think these are important.
1097:
1032:
891:
685:
662:
511:
499:
316:
202:
288:
1006:
page of a notable event, where the main page would be too large if the information was all included there.
863:
813:
730:
435:
386:
57:
1177:
1007:
908:
895:
859:
842:
787:
761:
742:
per AusLondonder. It's a well-sourced article and this event comes just below 9/11 and hence is notable.
527:
419:
402:
368:
218:
36:
1096:
in this article. To the extent that there is anything indiscriminate, this is something handled under
1113:
913:
1028:
681:
658:
508:
496:
377:
The fact other articles have separately been found to not warrant inclusion is not grounds for why
357:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2011 Norway attacks (3rd nomination)
313:
214:
198:
174:
284:
280:
1077:
1003:
959:
947:
817:
799:
726:
700:
567:
The essay was linked as a neutral source of information, I don't see how "you may want to see
443:
382:
336:
258:
239:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1176:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
347:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Lahore suicide bombing (2nd nomination)
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1053:
922:
875:
825:
708:
627:
460:
364:
1068:
1045:
1024:
791:
677:
587:
332:
206:
1153:
1146:
Quote farm of routine condolences. Notability is beside the point, this is a matter of
1133:
635:
1147:
1105:
779:
680:. The event led to one major notable reaction that were not just grief statements. -
328:
1073:
955:
795:
596:
439:
113:
1027:
is a notable reaction while the generic expected expressions of grief are not. -
1049:
918:
886:
871:
838:
821:
816:
is so important, then why nominate its international reactions article, a valid
704:
456:
862:
Point taken. I think it is best to judge each massacre by its own impacts. The
1130:
352:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the Las Vegas concert shooting
306:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings
778:
I second this comment. 9/11 had a massive body count and triggered the
595:
encyclopedia, and I would highly recommend everyone to always think of
310:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2017 Barcelona attack
699:– major event, well sourced, ample other such articles, legitimate
1170:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1048:
was also nominated for deletion. Folks will nominate anything!
522:
you yourself have !voted to delete "Reactions to..." articles
197:
Another list of condolences and condemnation. As with other
434:. Indiscriminate quote farm of boiler plate condemnations.
657:- This one was a major event that is well sourced here. -
312:(no consensus, 26 August 2017) for two recent examples. --
542:
Incoming wall of text. to answer the questions put to me.
790:. Charlie Hebdo was a significant terror attack, led to
109:
105:
101:
173:
76:
International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting
68:
International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting
600:
reality or even the common understanding of policy.
868:
Charlie Hebdo attacks: five ways France has changed
201:that have been nominated and deleted, I argue that
1129:well sourced enough, notable event for spin off.
586:I have realised it is not necessary to cite some
203:is not an indiscriminate directory of information
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1184:). No further edits should be made to this page.
398:list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
413:Note: This debate has been included in the
396:Note: This debate has been included in the
252:Note: This debate has been included in the
233:Note: This debate has been included in the
1104:, and a rather ordinary editing problem of
254:list of Events-related deletion discussions
235:list of France-related deletion discussions
415:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
412:
395:
251:
232:
1023:- There might be a good point here that
329:indiscriminate collection of information
784:United States invasion of Afghanistan
725:in-depth coverage on a global basis.
7:
381:article does not warrant inclusion.
866:had major impacts, see for example
575:its full potential in this article.
520:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver
24:
308:(deleted, 28 September 2017) and
436:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Reactions
277:Category:International reactions
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1163:09:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
1139:01:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
1122:15:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
62:18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
1082:07:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
1058:04:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
1037:18:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
1016:14:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
991:15:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
972:Not to an obvious extent in
964:14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
927:00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
904:04:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
880:02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
851:17:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
830:14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
804:09:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
770:08:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
752:06:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
735:22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
713:21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
690:18:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
672:I am changing my opinion to
667:20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
649:17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
609:20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
536:17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
515:17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
503:17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
486:16:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
465:11:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
448:06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
424:05:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
407:05:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
391:22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
373:01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
320:22:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
293:21:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
265:20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
246:20:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
227:19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
569:WP:Reactions to... articles
492:WP:Reactions to... articles
475:WP:Reactions to... articles
1201:
917:importance just as well.
1173:Please do not modify it.
279:or, to go even further,
32:Please do not modify it.
1110:Don't read the article.
864:Charlie Hebdo massacre
814:Charlie Hebdo massacre
744:Pharaoh of the Wizards
788:2003 invasion of Iraq
786:, and quite arguably
760:a gross exaggeration.
952:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
914:Charlie Hebdo attack
946:- is anyone seeing
634:-type arguments. --
1102:WP:Deletion policy
331:and does not meet
281:Category:Reactions
1161:
1136:
1098:WP:Editing policy
892:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
426:
409:
291:
267:
248:
1192:
1175:
1160:
1158:
1151:
1134:
1008:PohranicniStraze
988:
909:TheGracefulSlick
896:TheGracefulSlick
860:TheGracefulSlick
843:TheGracefulSlick
762:TheGracefulSlick
646:
645:
642:
639:
606:
528:TheGracefulSlick
483:
422:
405:
289:(talk)(contribs)
287:
263:
244:
219:TheGracefulSlick
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1182:deletion review
1171:
1154:
1152:
1135:(distænt write)
1114:Unscintillating
1069:Je suis Charlie
1046:Je suis Charlie
1025:Je suis Charlie
1002:- Well-sourced
984:
792:Je suis Charlie
678:Je suis Charlie
643:
640:
637:
636:
602:
479:
418:
401:
257:
238:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1198:
1196:
1187:
1186:
1166:
1165:
1141:
1124:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1061:
1060:
1040:
1039:
1029:Knowledgekid87
1018:
996:
995:
994:
993:
967:
966:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
912:the fact that
883:
882:
854:
853:
833:
832:
807:
806:
773:
772:
754:
737:
715:
694:
693:
692:
682:Knowledgekid87
659:Knowledgekid87
651:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
592:
584:
580:
576:
572:
565:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
509:Metropolitan90
505:
497:Metropolitan90
467:
450:
428:
427:
410:
393:
375:
362:
361:
360:
354:
349:
341:
340:
335:. Consists of
322:
314:Metropolitan90
295:
285:—Roman Spinner
269:
268:
249:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1197:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1159:
1157:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
992:
989:
987:
980:
975:
971:
970:
969:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
942:
941:
928:
924:
920:
915:
910:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
888:
885:
884:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
836:
835:
834:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
808:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:War on Terror
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
758:
755:
753:
749:
745:
741:
738:
736:
732:
728:
723:
722:Charlie Hebdo
719:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
650:
647:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
610:
607:
605:
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:
517:
516:
513:
510:
506:
504:
501:
498:
493:
489:
488:
487:
484:
482:
476:
471:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
425:
421:
420:North America
416:
411:
408:
404:
403:North America
399:
394:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
374:
370:
366:
363:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
266:
262:
261:
255:
250:
247:
243:
242:
236:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:over and over
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1172:
1169:
1155:
1143:
1126:
1109:
1100:, not under
1092:
1020:
999:
985:
978:
973:
943:
756:
739:
727:AusLondonder
721:
717:
696:
673:
654:
653:
623:
603:
523:
480:
469:
452:
431:
383:AusLondonder
378:
324:
297:
272:
260:CAPTAIN RAJU
259:
241:CAPTAIN RAJU
240:
210:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
54:TonyBallioni
49:
47:
31:
28:
632:other stuff
365:K.e.coffman
199:quote farms
161:free images
1156:Sandstein
1004:WP:SPINOFF
948:WP:LASTING
818:WP:SPINOFF
701:WP:SPINOFF
337:WP:PRIMARY
215:inherently
1178:talk page
986:Dysklyver
628:WP:TOOBIG
604:Dysklyver
481:Dysklyver
359:and more.
217:notable.
37:talk page
1180:or in a
944:Question
812:If this
674:Redirect
588:WP:THING
333:WP:LISTN
207:synthing
120:View log
39:or in a
1144:Delete.
1074:Icewhiz
1021:Comment
974:English
956:Icewhiz
796:Icewhiz
757:Comment
644:hossein
524:exactly
440:Icewhiz
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1148:WP:NOT
1106:WP:DUE
1050:gidonb
919:gidonb
887:Gidonb
872:gidonb
839:Gidonb
822:gidonb
705:gidonb
512:(talk)
500:(talk)
490:Well,
457:BabbaQ
432:Delete
325:Delete
317:(talk)
298:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
597:WP:5P
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1131:L3X1
1127:keep
1118:talk
1093:Keep
1078:talk
1054:talk
1033:talk
1012:talk
1000:Keep
960:talk
950:and
923:talk
900:talk
876:talk
847:talk
826:talk
800:talk
766:talk
748:talk
740:Keep
731:talk
718:Keep
709:talk
697:Keep
686:talk
663:talk
655:Keep
624:Keep
532:talk
470:Keep
461:talk
453:Keep
444:talk
387:talk
379:this
369:talk
302:Iran
273:Keep
223:talk
205:and
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
1112:.
979:are
676:to
189:TWL
118:– (
1120:)
1080:)
1056:)
1035:)
1014:)
962:)
925:)
902:)
878:)
870:.
849:)
828:)
802:)
782:,
768:)
750:)
733:)
711:)
688:)
665:)
534:)
463:)
446:)
417:.
400:.
389:)
371:)
327:–
256:.
237:.
225:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1116:(
1076:(
1052:(
1031:(
1010:(
958:(
921:(
898:(
894:.
874:(
845:(
824:(
798:(
764:(
746:(
729:(
707:(
684:(
661:(
641:h
638:M
530:(
459:(
442:(
385:(
367:(
221:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.