214:
193:
615:
opposing view, no pro- arguments taken from
Congressional records or court cases to baland the con- arguments, etc.), but it is deliberately written to evoke a certain value judgement in the reader, with off-topic details of worst-case exaggerated hypothetical cases. After all of that, the article ends with "One way or another, this is an abuse." (Plenty of other statements are borderline POV though written as if to pretend that they are not, such as "This renders all state statutes of limitations meaningless.")
329:
224:
113:
92:
123:
877:'s Google search, stated above) that "the Bradley amendment" most commonly refers to this particular law, the name is appropriate. In other words, given the cultural consensus, the majority of people looking for info on "the Bradley amendment" will be looking for this one. Given that, I would almost argue that even if we do see articles on other Bradley amendments, that this should be the default topic, with a disambiguation link preface. -
61:
32:
764:*Delete. If there was enough substance in the article to make me interested about it, I'd certainly "feel free to do a better job," and it sure as hell wouldn't take me "years of research." I can't even tell what Act this was an amendment to, though perhaps I missed something as my eyes crossed while trying to read through the poor formatting. There is nothing worth salvaging here.
1021:
53% in 1999). Some believe that the process can never collect the full amount because a high proportion of obligors are unable to make the required payments. According to Ford
Foundation Project Officer Ronald B. Mincy, between 16 percent and 33 percent of obligors are "turnip dads" (obligors earning less than $ 130 a week). According to one study (
1153:, I believe), not to his testimony. To be honest, I would not have expected anything qualifying as encyclopedic sourcing in congressional testimony - the session is just too time-limited. Any sources backing up the testimony would be in supplemental filings if the congressional audience allowed it at all.
979:
I'm not disputing your assertion. I just don't understand it. How does the fact that "cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity" create bias or perception of bias in the HHS statistics? If there is bias and if that bias is relevant to the topic of this article, then we must explain
939:
In a recent edit, this text was added challenging the HHS statistics on arrearages. Unfortunately, I can't figure out the intended meaning of the edit in the context of the article. Maybe I'm just getting confused by the grammar. I'm pulling the comment to the Talk page until we can figure it out.
621:
Nor is NPOV best achieved by a battle of contrarian examples (which I could easily give you from my own family's experiences) being waged in the edit history of an article. An encyclopedia is the summarization and culmination of facts and considerations, not a battleground for opinion or even debate.
494:
A contents section could be added if someone wanted to add yet another
Bradley admentment. This page is about how uncaring the U.S. Congress bureaucracy has become. A bureaucracy that won't even allow a state, much less a judge, to consider individual cases. It is of particular concern to all males,
1029:
I find the theme of the paragraph in the third sentence. To paraphrase, "A says the
Bradley Amendment is good because so much child support is unpaid and A implies that it's unpaid by choice. B says that A's analysis is flawed because a big chunk can never be paid - a problem the Bradley Amendment
741:
page is the result of years of research using all the facilities at my disposal here at the
Univeristy of Washington, including many technical magazines on the topic and full-text search engines like Lexis-Nexis.COM . Feel free to do a better job... if you can. By the way, what is it that makes so
655:
But show real-live examples, as vague notions of so-called noncustodial parents is damn near incomprehensible. If, as seems likely, no one is interested in doing that, and if, as also seem evident, you don't trust me to do the cleaning... Then remember this: People will remain ignorant
1020:
According to Sherri Z. Heller, Ed.D, Commissioner of U.S. Office of Child
Support Enforcement, the child support system collects "about 58% of current support due." The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child support cases had arrearages owed in 2003 (a figure up from
513:
or ideologues. That's a tall order for Clean Up. Let it go there with an amendment in its discussion saying that it ought to come back here, with prejudice, if it is unimproved in a month. Before anyone says it, I do have a reason for putting a time limit on it: the persistence of a rant on our
1133:
Just reviewed McLeod's "testimony." He provides no evidence of these claims, names no names. Yet the existence of these cases is being cited as "notorious" cases of unintended consequences. In fact, McLeod isn't even saying that he has specific examples; he just make vague reference to "endless
614:
It is not sufficient to couch your own personal opinions in wording such as "some people say" or "it is believed by some". You cannot possibly claim NPOV for this article, because not only does it slant the treatment of the subject very narrowly towards your own opinions (there is nothing from any
374:
Has anyone looked into the how much political support if any
Bradley garnered from this bill? Has he commented on special cases - coma cases, etc? Has he ever been extremely poor? In other words, is he able to empathize with the plight of a poor father whose wife decided she perhaps could do
472:
Real law. Real social problem that has been independently discussed. Unwikified and POV first draft, but that's cause for Clean-up, not deletion. Keep. Might need renaming because essentially every amendment proposed by
Senator Bradley gets called the "Bradley Amendment".
1084:
The "Controversies" heading lists several "notorious" cases of unintended consequences to the law. If these cases are so "notorious," then why are no sources cited? Without specific sources, there's no way to tell if these examples are real or apocryphal.
1003:
Automatic_Final_Judgements prevent men from reentering the visible economy for fear of losing everything in a seizure. Even when the past-due debt is 40 years old. Even when the obligee has long since become a former_mother.
954:
However, the above statistics may be misleading because child support cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity. Closed or not, the
Bradley Amendment makes all arrearages final judgements, greatly simplifying
1030:
does not and can not address." If HHS's statistic had included closed cases, are you arguing that the 68% statistic would be higher or lower? In that case, how would the theme of this paragraph be any different?
1134:
stories." If the story are endless, why can't he cite even one. I say, unless these cases can be substantiated, let's delete the "controversies" heading and keep McLeod's testimony as just that--his testimony. (
527:: I think we'd be leaving a rant too long, and we're just going to have an edit war with one or another person. Better to have a hole, IMO, than to give the world the wrong impression of our goals or practices.
996:
By some estimates, including U.S. census data, a million or more men have left the official work force in the last 30 years or so, disappearing into the so_called invisible economy, a.k.a. the informal economy.
1047:
The numbers above omit closed cases. Typically, cases are closed after four years of inactivity. Open or closed, past-due child support is still automatically a final judgement, thus non expiring and easy to
893:
NPOV, reasonably well written (probably above the
Knowledge average) and is quite comprehensible. The unsalvagable original did not even make clear what the problem was. As to its name, it could be renamed as
599:
I think the page that I created does at least a fair job of explaining a very important U.S. law. One that is much discussed by the U.S. government itself, state and local. Feel free to do better yourself.
1367:
822:
I have now completely rewritten the article. Please judge it on its current merits. It's not perfect yet but no Knowledge article ever is. The facts are all supportable. (I have no idea why
1381:
1255:
902:
or something like that to avoid confusion with any other Bradley Amendment. But that could wait until such time, if ever, that another article on another Bradley Amendement is written.
358:
1079:
866:
Changing vote to keeping rewrite—kudos to Rossami for making this a real article. I still wonder whether or not there is a better name for the article, however—it seems imprecise.
1399:
1395:
1273:
1269:
826:
could not find it in findlaw.com. Title 42 is pretty easy to find and the sub-paragraph citations were correct.) I don't think the current tone is any more POV than the cited
775:
The 1986 U.S. law nicknamed " The Bradley Amendment ", ( 42 U.S.C. 666 ( a ) ( 4 ) ) affects millions of Americans, and I explained why using an example. And you claim it has
17:
1486:
1139:
1123:
1090:
569:
The Knowledge claims to be an "encyclopedia" -- and it uses a form of Open Source Knowledge to do so...yet, here you are, the Pharasees of truth, trying to censure it.
606:
I welcome you all to also add your own examples, if you have them. The more the better. And no, I don't care if your examples are radically different than mine. --
1094:
895:
899:
969:
If you reject my wording or dispute my assertions, please feel free discuss it here and/or do a better job, keeping in mind the vital nature of this information. --
1368:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120402170303/http://open.salon.com/blog/scottcobb/2010/12/09/death_penalty_opponents_speak_out_-_clarence_brandley_on_houston_local2
1181:
1135:
1119:
1086:
628:
I don't think there is anything much at all salvagable in the current article. There is too much to strip away and nothing readily available to replace it with.
1016:
Maybe I'm just being particularly dense today but I still don't understand the relevance of your proposed addition. The paragraph in question currently reads:
307:
254:
721:
Delete - if the author put half the effort into trying to make a real article out of this that he's putting into arguing to keep it, we wouldn't be here. --
381:
1371:
1070:
1000:
So there are men and women who are effected by Automatic_Final_Judgements even though the state has closed their cases and HHS' statistics ignore them.
271:
1211:
618:
It is clear, if only from that last statement, that the purpose of creating this article on the subject was for you to push an agenda, which is POV.
963:
Automatically making past-due child-support a Final_Judgement is how the Bradley_Amendment facilitates collection. Collection is it's raison d'etre.
42:
684:
This law effects all Americans, not just me. It also effects people in other countries, as we live in a very global society. The law is not being
1481:
806:
From what I can see, most Google hits for "Bradley Amendment" seem to point to deadbeat dad advocacy sites. It does not appear in findlaw.com
297:
1162:
1143:
1127:
1109:
175:
1491:
1476:
851:
789:
261:
1447:
1357:
1321:
987:
1221:
1377:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1073:
841:
in Findlaw.com (Title 42 section 666(a)(9)(c)), but not the phrase "Bradley Amendment". I misspoke myself. I shall try to atone.
795:
I cleaned up the text somewhat (removed leading whitespaces, etc), but the POV rant remains. Article, as is, seems unsalvagable.
266:
1056:
1011:
973:
249:
566:
Jeff is exposing not only the Amendment, but its deleterious affect on Men. And why not? He "knows" through experience.
384:
1466:
1037:
947:
245:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
165:
509:
Rossami is right that clean up is appropriate, if clean up can do it. We need a lawyer or a contemporary historian, and
237:
198:
1372:
http://open.salon.com/blog/scottcobb/2010/12/09/death_penalty_opponents_speak_out_-_clarence_brandley_on_houston_local2
1061:
644:
This article is so POV and confused that it might be a parody intended to mock those opposed to the Bradley Amendment.
557:
If you think that you can write some kind of antiseptic "truth" in this Knowledge -- I think you are sorely mistaken.
1471:
1461:
1326:
966:
I don't know why I didn't make this clearer before, but it's obvious that I'm not the only one confused by all this.
1343:
1203:
1212:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040824190209/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/106cong/9-23-99/9-23smit.htm
1186:
934:
1398:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1272:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1172:
I've done some work on this section and now all the examples should have several properly formatted citations.
603:
I provided an example, the only one I know about. Examples are not evil POVs, they are the best teaching tool.
341:"The Bradley Amendment: Prohibition Against Retroactive Modification of Child Support Arrearages (no. RS20642)"
669:
People are already ignorant of thousands of laws. This is not a vehicle to push your own agenda, even just to
390:
140:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
1442:
1351:
1316:
1215:
581:
We're not trying to censure, NOR censor anything. We just want an article that makes some sort of sense.
72:
692:. I created the page, people were repulsed by my example, so I hand it over to you guys. If you want to
980:
it clearly enough to be understandable to any future reader/editor. I still can't make the connection.
857:
WADR I don't see the POV. There's opinion, but it's both balanced and attributed (not stated as fact). -
1417:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1291:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
960:
HHS statistics are Very deceptive, because cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity.
1342:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1202:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1358:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120105174524/http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archivestory.php?id=131380
742:
many people seek to purpetuate such inorance about this vital topic ? It's a total mystery to me. --
369:
136:
97:
38:
1222:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004819/http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/108h/90270.pdf
1433:
1307:
1022:
749:
Rossami's rewrite, while rough, is an attempt at a real article and not a rant. Keep rewrite. --
488:
I prefer the term Bradley Amendment because that is how it is referred to in technical articles:
60:
1402:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1276:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
677:
are most concerned about. That's the point. This is an encylopedia, not a pamphleteering forum.
622:
No, an encyclopedia should stand back from the battle and then report on how the dust settles.
1418:
1292:
1066:
Whats happened to the repeal effort since 2004? theres no current information? Or did it fail?
534:
Rossami's rewrite and efforts and helping the article along have convinced me to say we should
1405:
1361:
1279:
1069:
I'm guessing feminist groups are fighting hard behind the scenes to keep that from happening?
78:
1425:
1299:
1246:
1177:
928:
229:
1225:
1025:) 38% of non-custodial parents not paying child-support said they lacked the money to pay.
560:
I know Jeff. I know that his life has been severely affected by the Bradley Amendment.
31:
8:
1384:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1258:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1424:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1298:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
696:, as you say, then I think that'd be a good idea. If you don't... well, all the more
340:
1335:
1195:
1158:
1105:
1034:
984:
944:
874:
842:
823:
814:
807:
800:
554:
All *knowledge* is subjective. The winners write the histories as it was once said.
425:
754:
726:
498:
Boy, this needs MAJOR work! At least cleanup, at best, delete it and start over.
464:
447:
432:
1100:
It's already cited in the section above. See the comments attributed to McLeod.
1339:
1199:
1173:
924:
910:
878:
858:
678:
631:
585:
502:
417:
404:
334:
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
213:
192:
1053:
1008:
970:
780:
743:
713:
660:
607:
514:
space is unlike the persistence of a stub. It leaves us prejudicial and POV.
481:
1390:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1264:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
909:
IMO it is OK for disambiguation to wait until there are ambiguous articles. -
830:
article or the other najor newspaper articles I found while researching this.
399:
Aug 25 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was to keep following reqrites. Discussion:
328:
1455:
396:
242:
779:? Ok, you win... I give up. WikiPedia is off my list of favorite sites. --
378:
I think that answers to these kinds of questions would improve the article.
1154:
1101:
1031:
981:
941:
867:
831:
765:
474:
409:
241:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
1391:
1265:
903:
750:
722:
645:
539:
528:
515:
461:
458:
444:
429:
1352:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/106cong/9-23-99/9-23smit.htm
1216:
http://WaysAndMeans.House.GOV/legacy/humres/106cong/9-23-99/9-23smit.htm
1118:
Some independent verification would be a good idea, don't you think? (
582:
499:
128:
850:
Now keep. It still has POV problems, but it's now clearly keepworthy.
576:
375:
better and whose job was outsourced to India or Mexico, for example?
112:
91:
122:
625:
It should strive not to take sides, as your article plainly has.
443:; this is always going to be contentious in this incarnation.—
1023:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/new/csr9701.htm#9701c%7C
1231:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
424:
It could be worth having an article on this. Has it been on
1149:
When the content was added, it was attributed to his book (
1362:
http://ww2.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/archivestory.php?id=131380
1346:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1206:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
323:
141:
1226:
http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/108h/90270.pdf
873:
Considering the cultural consensus (as determined by
1487:
Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
733:
You imagine that I put in too little effort, do you
219:
118:
1394:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1268:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
491:The 1986 U.S. law nicknamed the Bradley Amendment.
403:Nothing much but POV, and very whiny POV at that.
1453:
1080:Lack of Citations under "Controversies" heading.
993:HHS' statistics omitted closed cases, agreed ?
596:" an article that makes some sort of sense " ?
480:I am the author of the Bradley Amendment page,
412:pulled it off. I rescind nomination to VFD and
1380:This message was posted before February 2018.
1254:This message was posted before February 2018.
18:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Bradley Amendment
700:will prevail. How would that benefit you,
58:
1334:I have just modified 3 external links on
1194:I have just modified 2 external links on
14:
1454:
1151:The Multiple Scandals of Child Support
339:Weimer, Douglas Reid (July 27, 2000).
338:
1482:Low-importance United States articles
1243:to let others know (documentation at
235:This article is within the scope of
134:This article is within the scope of
54:
26:
282:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
144:and the subjects encompassed by it.
77:It is of interest to the following
41:on 21 February 2021. The result of
24:
1492:WikiProject United States articles
1477:Start-Class United States articles
577:http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo
391:Votes for deletion archived debate
285:Template:WikiProject United States
25:
1503:
1338:. Please take a moment to review
1198:. Please take a moment to review
940:Any help would be appreciated.
347:. Congressional Research Services
327:
222:
212:
191:
121:
111:
90:
59:
30:
1350:Corrected formatting/usage for
302:This article has been rated as
170:This article has been rated as
37:This article was nominated for
1074:19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
1043:Ok, I made it like this then:
13:
1:
495:especially those in the U.S.
1322:04:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
1163:02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
1144:00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
1128:00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
1110:16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
1095:05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
457:. Much better now. Good job.
7:
1467:Low-importance law articles
484:23:03, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) .
10:
1508:
1411:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1331:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1285:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1191:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1182:01:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
1062:Still under repeal effort?
716:23:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
688:as you claim, it is being
681:17:17, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
663:05:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
634:19:50, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
610:09:47, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
588:07:29, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
505:23:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
435:19:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
308:project's importance scale
176:project's importance scale
1448:12:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
931:23:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
889:now. The current article
803:13:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
783:08:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
746:04:38, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
673:promote the one law that
572:For shame...for shame...
563:Is that not knowledge?
518:23:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
450:13:17, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
420:05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
301:
238:WikiProject United States
207:
169:
150:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
106:
85:
1472:WikiProject Law articles
1462:Start-Class law articles
1057:15:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
906:16:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
896:Bradley Amendment (1986)
881:17:23, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
870:13:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
861:05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
854:02:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
834:01:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
810:13:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
792:13:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
768:07:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
729:02:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
648:20:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
542:04:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
531:12:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
477:22:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
467:10:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
385:10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
243:United States of America
153:Template:WikiProject Law
1327:External links modified
1187:External links modified
1038:22:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
1012:17:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
988:13:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
974:19:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
948:03:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
935:Challenge to statistics
920:End archived discussion
900:Bradley Amendment, 1986
845:17:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
817:17:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
757:01:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1027:
288:United States articles
67:This article is rated
1018:
1392:regular verification
1266:regular verification
592:You, Rick K., want:
230:United States portal
1382:After February 2018
1256:After February 2018
1235:parameter below to
813:keep as rewritten.
511:no divorced fathers
416:in its new form. -
414:change vote to Keep
256:Articles Requested!
1436:InternetArchiveBot
1387:InternetArchiveBot
1310:InternetArchiveBot
1261:InternetArchiveBot
451:
407:
395:Article listed on
345:EveryCRSReport.com
73:content assessment
1412:
1336:Bradley Amendment
1286:
1196:Bradley Amendment
1161:
1108:
739:Bradley Amendment
522:Changing vote to
438:
402:
370:Political capital
367:
366:
357:(alternate URLs:
322:
321:
318:
317:
314:
313:
186:
185:
182:
181:
53:
52:
16:(Redirected from
1499:
1446:
1437:
1410:
1409:
1388:
1320:
1311:
1284:
1283:
1262:
1250:
1157:
1136:Captain Bathrobe
1120:Captain Bathrobe
1104:
1087:Captain Bathrobe
828:Washington Times
777:little substance
356:
354:
352:
331:
324:
290:
289:
286:
283:
280:
232:
227:
226:
225:
216:
209:
208:
203:
195:
188:
187:
158:
157:
154:
151:
148:
131:
126:
125:
115:
108:
107:
102:
94:
87:
86:
70:
64:
63:
55:
34:
27:
21:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1452:
1451:
1440:
1435:
1403:
1396:have permission
1386:
1344:this simple FaQ
1329:
1314:
1309:
1277:
1270:have permission
1260:
1244:
1204:this simple FaQ
1189:
1082:
1064:
937:
657:
597:
526:
492:
393:
372:
350:
348:
287:
284:
281:
278:
277:
276:
262:Become a Member
228:
223:
221:
201:
155:
152:
149:
146:
145:
137:WikiProject Law
127:
120:
100:
71:on Knowledge's
68:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1505:
1495:
1494:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1474:
1469:
1464:
1430:
1429:
1422:
1375:
1374:
1366:Added archive
1364:
1356:Added archive
1354:
1328:
1325:
1304:
1303:
1296:
1229:
1228:
1220:Added archive
1218:
1210:Added archive
1188:
1185:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1131:
1113:
1112:
1081:
1078:
1063:
1060:
1050:
1049:
1042:
991:
990:
958:
957:
956:
936:
933:
916:
915:
914:
913:
884:
883:
882:
864:
863:
862:
848:
847:
846:
820:
819:
818:
811:
793:
786:
785:
784:
761:
760:
759:
758:
747:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
654:
653:
652:
649:
613:
595:
594:
593:
546:
545:
544:
543:
532:
521:
490:
486:
485:
478:
470:
469:
468:
452:
408:
392:
389:
382:24.206.125.213
371:
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
335:
332:
320:
319:
316:
315:
312:
311:
304:Low-importance
300:
294:
293:
291:
275:
274:
269:
264:
259:
252:
250:Template Usage
246:
234:
233:
217:
205:
204:
202:Low‑importance
196:
184:
183:
180:
179:
172:Low-importance
168:
162:
161:
159:
133:
132:
116:
104:
103:
101:Low‑importance
95:
83:
82:
76:
65:
51:
50:
43:the discussion
35:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1504:
1493:
1490:
1488:
1485:
1483:
1480:
1478:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1465:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1457:
1450:
1449:
1444:
1439:
1438:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1407:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1324:
1323:
1318:
1313:
1312:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1281:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1257:
1252:
1248:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1067:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1026:
1024:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1005:
1001:
998:
994:
989:
986:
983:
978:
977:
976:
975:
972:
967:
964:
961:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
946:
943:
932:
930:
926:
922:
921:
912:
908:
907:
905:
901:
897:
892:
888:
885:
880:
876:
872:
871:
869:
865:
860:
856:
855:
853:
849:
844:
840:
836:
835:
833:
829:
825:
821:
816:
812:
809:
805:
804:
802:
798:
794:
791:
787:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
767:
756:
752:
748:
745:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
728:
724:
719:
718:
717:
715:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
662:
656:of this law.
650:
647:
643:
641:
637:
636:
635:
633:
629:
626:
623:
619:
616:
611:
609:
604:
601:
591:
590:
589:
587:
584:
579:
578:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
552:
549:
541:
537:
533:
530:
525:
520:
519:
517:
512:
508:
507:
506:
504:
501:
496:
489:
483:
479:
476:
471:
466:
463:
459:
456:
453:
449:
446:
442:
437:
436:
434:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
419:
415:
411:
406:
400:
398:
388:
386:
383:
379:
376:
359:
346:
342:
337:
336:
333:
330:
326:
325:
309:
305:
299:
296:
295:
292:
279:United States
273:
270:
268:
265:
263:
260:
258:
257:
253:
251:
248:
247:
244:
240:
239:
231:
220:
218:
215:
211:
210:
206:
200:
199:United States
197:
194:
190:
189:
177:
173:
167:
164:
163:
160:
143:
139:
138:
130:
124:
119:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
99:
96:
93:
89:
88:
84:
80:
74:
66:
62:
57:
56:
48:
44:
40:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1434:
1431:
1406:source check
1385:
1379:
1376:
1333:
1330:
1308:
1305:
1280:source check
1259:
1253:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1230:
1193:
1190:
1171:
1150:
1083:
1071:216.52.163.1
1068:
1065:
1051:
1041:
1028:
1019:
1015:
1006:
1002:
999:
995:
992:
968:
965:
962:
959:
955:collections.
938:
919:
918:
917:
890:
886:
875:Dukeofomnium
843:Dukeofomnium
838:
837:I found the
827:
824:Dukeofomnium
815:Dukeofomnium
808:Dukeofomnium
801:Dukeofomnium
796:
776:
763:
762:
738:
734:
720:
711:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
674:
670:
658:
639:
638:
630:
627:
624:
620:
617:
612:
605:
602:
598:
580:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
547:
535:
523:
510:
497:
493:
487:
454:
440:
413:
401:
394:
380:
377:
373:
349:. Retrieved
344:
303:
267:Project Talk
255:
236:
171:
156:law articles
135:
79:WikiProjects
46:
1247:Sourcecheck
694:clean it up
671:selectively
575:john bailo
142:legal field
69:Start-class
1456:Categories
1443:Report bug
1317:Report bug
1174:Wingman4l7
911:KeithTyler
879:KeithTyler
859:KeithTyler
679:KeithTyler
632:KeithTyler
418:KeithTyler
405:KeithTyler
129:Law portal
1426:this tool
1419:this tool
1300:this tool
1293:this tool
1054:Jeff Relf
1009:Jeff Relf
971:Jeff Relf
925:Graham ☺
781:Jeff relf
744:Jeff relf
714:Jeff relf
698:ignorance
690:explained
661:Jeff relf
651:Clean up.
608:Jeff relf
482:Jeff relf
387:BMIKESCI
1432:Cheers.—
1306:Cheers.—
1048:collect.
788:Delete.
737:? This
686:promoted
351:March 5,
39:deletion
1340:my edit
1233:checked
1200:my edit
1155:Rossami
1102:Rossami
1032:Rossami
982:Rossami
942:Rossami
868:Postdlf
832:Rossami
766:Postdlf
475:Rossami
426:cleanup
410:Rossami
306:on the
174:on the
1241:failed
1159:(talk)
1106:(talk)
1035:(talk)
985:(talk)
945:(talk)
904:Jallan
797:Delete
751:Cyrius
735:Cyrius
723:Cyrius
646:Jallan
640:Delete
540:Geogre
529:Geogre
524:delete
516:Geogre
441:delete
397:WP:VFD
272:Alerts
75:scale.
1076:LUID
891:seems
702:Keith
551:Hah.
548:____
439:Vote
1237:true
1178:talk
1140:talk
1124:talk
1091:talk
929:Talk
887:Keep
852:Ambi
790:Ambi
583:Rick
538:it.
536:keep
500:Rick
462:Rory
455:Keep
445:Rory
430:Rory
353:2021
47:keep
45:was
1400:RfC
1370:to
1360:to
1274:RfC
1251:).
1239:or
1224:to
1214:to
923:--
898:or
839:law
675:you
298:Low
166:Low
147:Law
98:Law
1458::
1413:.
1408:}}
1404:{{
1287:.
1282:}}
1278:{{
1249:}}
1245:{{
1180:)
1146:)
1142:)
1126:)
1093:)
1052:--
1007:--
927:|
712:--
659:--
428:?—
360:.)
343:.
1445:)
1441:(
1428:.
1421:.
1319:)
1315:(
1302:.
1295:.
1176:(
1138:(
1130:)
1122:(
1089:(
799:.
755:✎
753:|
727:✎
725:|
704:?
642:.
586:K
503:K
465:☺
460:—
448:☺
433:☺
355:.
310:.
178:.
81::
49:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
