Jump to content

Related changes

Enter a page name to see changes on pages linked to or from that page. (To see members of a category, enter Category:Name of category). Changes to pages on your Watchlist are shown in bold with a green bullet. See more at Help:Related changes.

Recent changes optionsShow last 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 changes in last 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 30 days
Hide registered users | Hide unregistered users | Hide my edits | Show bots | Hide minor edits | Show page categorization | Show Wikidata | Hide probably good edits
Show new changes starting from 06:01, 27 June 2025
 
Page name:
List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change
Temporarily watched page

27 June 2025

26 June 2025

25 June 2025

24 June 2025

21 June 2025

20 June 2025

  • diffhist Violence 23:45 −13 Parthinax talk contribs (removed "or property". There is no reasonable basis to suggest that damage to property and damage to human beings should be considered equivalent. Legal precedent explicitly distinguishes here between damage to property versus damage to humans. We should not be equivocating between "property" and human life.)
  • diffhist m The Economist 10:52 +1 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (minor grammar)
  • diffhist The Economist 10:51 +327 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (added hatnote for misuse of citation & explanatory comment for future editors. I keep finding misused sources in this article, so the problem may extend further, I haven't checked everything.) Tag: Visual edit: Switched
  • diffhist The Economist 10:36 −29 Tomatoswoop talk contribs ("depth" as a reason for brand associations also not in source. (Is the economist known for more depth articles than other news & current affairs mags? the new yorker, new republic, newsweek, Harpers, the spectator, prospect, national review, etc.?) Is this whole article like this? Someone's opinion and vibes with sources added alongside to give it the appearance of factuality?) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 10:21 −851 Tomatoswoop talk contribs (yet again, claims not in source, seems to be a persistent problem with this article. (Incidentally, on this particular claim, there are sources already in the article that claim exactly the opposite). Rather than weigh in with a claim to the opposite wrt bias/objectivity, it seems better not to make a statement about it in the lede at all, it's obviously contested at the *least* though.) Tag: Visual edit
  • diffhist The Economist 06:22 +934 AnomieBOT talk contribs (Rescuing orphaned refs ("isnewspaper" from rev 1296453716; "Iber-2019" from rev 1296453716))