Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284

1533:

manufacture having produced X number of a given model. The fact clearly came from a press release and in the article was sourced to The Daily Caller (I think). Recently that bit was removed, not just tagged as CN but removed. It's not a huge thing as the production numbers of a specific model shotgun aren't earth shattering. However, for someone looking at the article that might have been an interesting fact. Even if we were OK sourcing the fact to the mfr's statements, DUE shouldn't be established based on their statement alone. Initially that wasn't a problem because The Daily Caller's reporting of the fact addressed DUE. I know some will argue that if it was important someone else would also report it. But that's not always true. When dealing with articles that get a lot of press it certainly is true. However, one of the great things about Knowledge is the huge number of articles on lesser topics where sourcing is going to be more limited. Even if The Daily Caller isn't overly reliable, if they get a lot of readers that suggests the content is probably, generally something of interest. Why would I assume something reported in an esoteric academic book is more DUE than something reported by a source with a large readership? I'm not claiming the academic source is less accurate, just that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss coverage in a deprecated source as irrelevant for establishing WEIGHT. I feel the way we need to handle claims in deprecated sources is treat them with great suspicion. But if those editors think their national database of readers will care, I would assume it has every bit as much weight as say a reliable local paper with very limited readership. Sorry this is a bit long an rambling but again this is a concern of mine with regards to how we seem to be on a deprecation kick and editors are often not applying some level of common sense as to what might make for a better article. TLDR/ if the claim isn't controversial and the topic is one that will generally have limited coverage (special interest, small scope topic, etc) then removal of a deprecated source needs both justification and the removing editor should show that they tried to replace the source rather than erase the fact.

6104:

otherwise-paywalled paper, clearly not uploaded there by any author, provided for free download by semanticscholar even though it's still a paywalled paper. I think it's reasonably likely that semanticscholar obtained a license from the publisher to index the papers, extremely unlikely that it obtained a license to redistribute the papers open-access, and somewhat likely that it decided to go ahead and redistribute the papers that it obtained anyway despite not having permission. Alternatively maybe they intended to index but not redistribute and their software has a bug. But guesswork is guesswork. We need clear evidence that the publishers allow redistribution in order to avoid linking to pirate copies of papers, and we don't have that evidence in this case. We shouldn't default to assuming without evidence that anything we find on the net is free for the taking, just like we shouldn't assume that any object we find lying on the street is free for us to take and walk away with; that's pirate thinking. The evidence doesn't have to be anything as formal as an explicit statement of permission from a publisher, separately for each link: a link that appears to be the original publisher, a site controlled by an author of the paper, or an institutional repository of the author, can all be reasonably safely assumed to be legitimate. We can't just assume legitimacy for sites like citeseerx that pick up pdfs from anywhere, but citeseerx allows us to check in individual cases where they got the file from and whether that looks like the publisher or author. For semanticscholar, we don't even have that, we just have a bare pdf, and that's not good enough. —

10697:

sometimes it can be more complex. For instance, until a few years ago, Saudi Arabia supported some groups of official clerics, who controlled the information ministry and the religious police. Then they ran a media campaign against them preparatory to transferring control of the ministry and stripping the religious police of most of their powers; the media were criticizing part of the government with support of a more powerful faction. Until a few years ago the Muslim Brotherhood were officially praised and members were appointed to official roles; the media followed suit. Now they are declared a terrorist organization, and condemned in the news. Relations to Qatar; once an ally to be praised, it can now be death to support them, or, sometimes, fail to oppose them actively enough. Yemen and Canada have also suffered abrupt reversals of esteem. Women driving was opposed, then supported (with the government explicitly honouring some activists in a public-opinion campaign), then it was announced that it would be permitted and and the activists who had called for it were arrested, so that activism to win concessions from the government would not be encouraged (this was in 2018; many are still in jail). Tourism was illegal in Saudi Arabia until recently, pilgrimage tours excepted; now the government is promoting it.

10121:

it, but that's it. I originally asked this question when the AfD was going on because it didn't seem 100% clear cut like the people in the AfD where making it and I wanted clarification in case it came up again in the future, not just by me. Which 100% isn't a big fat sin like its been made out to be by Walter Gorlitz and a few others. Neither is having a different opinion then the status status quo about it as Walter Gorlitz needlessly badgered me for. Nor, does asking the question mean I'm not satisfied with the outcome of anything. Ultimately, I could really care less either way if one article gets deleted or not. Let alone if Michelin stars establish notability on their own or not. Going by the many varied opinions here though its clearly not cut and dry thing. Which is why I asked in the first place. Not to try and usurp the will of the people, or any dumb nonsense like that. Again, I could really care less. I was just asking. --

5738:(sociologist, with expertise in Middle East and North Africa) by Deutsche Welle? I translate some parts: "One of the controversial aspects of this poll survey is its timing, conducted right after the protests when the people were overly afraid of freely expressing themselves ... It is naturally not logical to trust the data obtained on sensitive political issues under such circumstances ... But more problems appear when the questions are not well-created and there are fundamental problems in the design ... For instance, it is a survey containing 100 questions, which obviously makes the interviewees so tired during a phone call that there would be a comprehensive loss in the reliability of the results ... The quality of the data collected is questionable from a technical point of view." 758:, and given the insignificance of the cited statement, replacing the cite with a citation-needed tag was still defensible and reasonable (even just removing the cited text entirely would have been acceptable, since it's not a vital part of the article) - unless they're making an absolutely huge volume of similar edits, which you don't seem to be alleging, I don't think anyone should get in trouble for replacing a poor source with a CN tag now and then; it's a situation where we want to encourage editors to err on the side of caution. Note that the vast majority of David Gerard's removals of sources under those RFCs are uncontroversial improvements, eg. other sources already exist. Fourth, if someone objected, the appropriate thing to do would have been 6765:

and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south Asia and credited as having sung the first-ever South Asian pop song‚ Ko-Ko-Ko-reena.In 1954‚ Rushdi recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers. He recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu‚ English‚ Punjabi‚ Bengali‚ Sindhi and Gujarati languages.He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack on April 11 1983 at the age of 48‚ after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films.In 2003‚ 20 years after his death‚

7940:. I am thinking about nominating this for an FAC sometime in the far future (as I would ideally like to reach out to various editors for their opinion as I have never done a biography on the FAC level), but I was wondering if an obituary could be used as a source, particularly for a featured article? According to the FAC criteria, articles should have "high-quality reliable sources". Since the obituary was published in a reliable source, I would think it is appropriate for use, but again, I have never really worked on a lot of biographies so I am uncertain. Apologies in advance if this question about obituaries has been asked before. Thank you in advance! 8228:, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In any case, while I do not think it appropriate to use this source for statements of fact, it might still be a useful source if the author were himself important in this discussion. However, this individual has no history (that I can find) outside of the opinion section in this particular local newspaper, so including his comments even with attribution doesn't appear worthwhile. 9625:

useless. We want a tiniest bit of effort to show there's more about the subject even if the sources to support that don't meet the GNG. For example, a restaurant with a Michelin star may have some local area articles about it or the owner/chef/etc. that could be added but per NORG/AUD, those local sources add nothing to notability. But together with the Michelin star, you should have more than 2 sentences to write about the restaurant, and because it meets this proposed new SNG criteria, will be in no immediate danger of deletion. That could apply across the board, but that would need discussion beyond this topic. Key is that we

3618:(Unindenting) Almost all sites are marketing content sites (or blogs), but some are more marketing-infested than others. A possible objective criteria for rating amounts of advertising could be the number of sites supplying JavaScript, and the number of tracker sites involved, as these can be counted with NoScript and EFF Privacy Badger add-ons. The following results were seen for an arbitrary selection of site home pages, both on and off the RSPS list. By this objective measure, several sites on RSPS put heavier emphasis on advertising than a site like Liliputing, which was called "Advert-infested clickbait." 3517:

named "reliable" sources get included most, if wiki editors take interest and also support them. Back to the topic at hand, I cannot believe we're wasting so much time discussing a source for a non-contentious fact - Hyundai Palisade has lane centering tech. A duck duck go news search for "Hyundai Palisade lane centering" gives plenty of sources, and the three I looked at all had syndicated advertising. So, there is little difference, and this is really just to mediate a ... contest between editors. The real question there is whether to include 1 or 2 sources for each factoid, as seen at the

2098:"In her book, Colleen Elizabeth Kelly cited the Shorenstein Center report to say that Sanders and Clinton got a share of news coverage similar to their eventual primary results, until Clinton pulled ahead in the primary. Kelly writes that Sanders was both right and wrong to complain about media bias. Right, because the media was too little interested in the Democratic primary to give him the coverage he needed early, and wrong, because, on average, Sanders's coverage, though initially scant, was more often positive than any other candidate's coverage prior to voting." 3762:

elements (such as the ads). Most concerns regarding reliability are also based on the content of cited sources – the material that ad blockers are not able to hide. While independent publications live and die by the quality of their content, Cars.com sells cars, and its content is just a promotional device for its car listings. Cars.com's business as a classified ad site benefits the most when it publishes content that convinces the reader to buy cars on its site. Cars.com has no business incentive to write articles that do anything else, and that's what separates

9817:, but it misses the point. We should not be encouraging the creation of Knowledge articles based on awards won. We should be basing Knowledge articles on reliable, independent source text. If, as you say, every Michelin starred restaurant has copious source text from which we could research to write a quality Knowledge article, then the fact of having a Michelin star is inconsequential and needn't even enter into this discussion. Because we don't write articles using Michelin stars. We write articles using reliable source texts. -- 5682:"Unsurprisingly, the organizations and people behind the poll have distinct ties with the regime’s institutions and its lobbies abroad. Ebrahim Mohseni, the CISSM “researcher” who designed the poll, is also the director of University of Tehran Center for Public Opinion Research, an IRGC-backed institution with a track record of promoting the views of the regime and the Revolutionary Guards ... Mohseni also works closely with the National Iranian American Council, a well-known lobby of the Iranian regime" 10406: 9997: 7097: 2984: 35: 8453:, Thanks for the ping. It is sad to see that the hindu failed to respond to the mails. I hope the email used was the right one. I will also suggest including N Ram, in the mail chain. He is on twitter. I regularly refer Hindu for the current topics, and I fing their reporting very factual. Regarding the article, since we have a conflict and we did not get a clarity from Hindu, I would suggest to disregard The Hindu article (a news source) in favour of the scholarly secondary source. 9852:, this is why every single SNG needs to be rewritten or deleted. GNG defines the sources necessary to meet RS and NOT, but SNGs are often written to support creation of directory-style completeness. They should be framed as an indication of the kind of person likely to have sources, or as an additional bar to inclusion, but too often they are written, framed and interpreted as a back door to allow articles on subjects that have no sources outside of directories and results lists. 7043: 5880: 4051: 3024: 7391:‘Film Art’. He was the youngest film producer in the industry at that time. Most of his produced films were either Golden Jubilee or Silver Jubilee. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he produced films like Insaan badalta hai (1961) (his first film as producer), Armaan (1966), Ehsaan (1967), Naseeb apna apna (1970) and Mastana mahi (Punjabi film of 1971). However, after Mastana Mahi he produced no film except Hero which was produced in the 1980s and was released after his death. 7038: 5875: 4046: 3019: 2697:(rather than reliable, per David Gerard). Lists such as those are biased by definition, and while they'd hardly be any magazine editor's finest hour, they are part of the publication's content and, by implication, subject to the same editorial oversight given to less controversial pieces. If by saying they originate "solely from one viewpoint" you mean they are the opinions of a sole contributor, that would be different – who is the contributor? are they an established 6330: 4684: 7825:

political subject can hardly be treated as equally reliable sources, especially if that statement raised WP:REDFLAG. Definitely newspapers, including newspapers of record, do not meet RS criteria listed in WP:REDFLAG. These two examples are just extreme sides of a continuous spectrum. IMO, a policy and guidelines should explain that, except some obvious cases, no universal rules defining reliability of newspaper publications can be proposed.--

5437:

the monopoly Iran Poll has over the Western media when it comes to Iran, which demonstrates a troubling lack of critical assessment toward a polling institution supported by the regime in Tehran, which by its very essence cannot be neutral". Based on other polls by the same group, it is "claimed that Iranians believe the IRI is democratic while simultaneously claiming that Iranians do not want democratic forms of expression."

10712:

media said about X. I would not use them to establish notability, any more than I would a press release. I'm not sure what other topics they'd be reliable for. Maybe I'd take them as a source on the location of Saudi cities, for instance, unless it becomes politically advantageous to claim they are further south or whatever (but not their size; they often seem to inflate statistics). Can you think of a better example?

9531:

expert, but I find it difficult to believe that a restaurant that has been awarded even just one Michelin star has not also been subject to multiple reviews in RS. I'm not calling for a mass creation of millions of foodie microstubs, I just think that restaurants of that caliber are guaranteed to have been written about more than, say, a footballer who played a couple of games for Aston Villa in the 1980s.

6054:. I am seeking to follow copyright laws and uphold them here on Knowledge, but my recent reverts seem to have conflicting arguments as to whether they should have been done or not, so I want to clarify this issue here before I take any action with either inserting more links to Semantic Scholar PDFs or reverting the reverts to my edits by citing the results of this clarification. Thank you. --- 653:"They were formed by the then secretary of the FA, N.L. “Parr” Jackson, as the England team were suffering, failing to beat Scotland — and the idea was that this group of top players would play together regularly and improve as a team. They would play no competitive matches, only friendlies. And within seven years, they were hammering Scotland with nine Corinthian FCs in their starting line-up." 8500: 338:

Sun citations I would remove, but some are okay. A primary statement with a primary source, I wouldn't argue or remove that. But David has done just that regarding The Sun RfC in play. I think he should review over some of his actions and stay away from making any more similar edits. Knowledge shouldn't burn resources it can use. That to me is like Nazi's burning books, ideological stupidity.

4793:

Punjab police Mahaul Theek Hai (1999) was his first directorial venture for a full-length feature film in his native Punjabi language. It was well received amongst audience for its simple and honest humour. He played the role of Jolly Good Singh, a guard, in the movie Fanaa. He played a comical college principal in Koi Mere Dil Se Poochhe. He also starred in the comedy Punjabi film Jijaji.

10785:, I think this is part of a broader discussion. The problem is not specific to Saudi Arabia (though there are obviously specific reasons for editors to be particularly aware of Saudi COIs at the moment, which is why I posted here). The media in North Korea, for instance, are not independent sources for statements that serve the North Korean government. I am continuing this discussion at 5357:) says that bloggers get some oversight after they write but Guy didn't point to what Dean Burnett exactly said. If it was not referring to official Guardian policies, or if it was about regular bloggers rather than bloggers like Mr Nuccitelli, then it is not relevant, the evidence that I pointed to remains, that Mr Nuccitelli's blog lacked editorial oversight that regular bloggers got. 4760:

police Mahaul Theek Hai (1999) was his first directorial venture for a full-length feature film in his native Punjabi language. It was well received amongst audience for its simple and honest humour. He played the role of Jolly Good Singh, a guard, in the movie Fanaa. He played a comical college principal in Koi Mere Dil Se Poochhe. He also starred in the comedy Punjabi film Jijaji.

227: 7881:

English Knowledge policies. One exception could be the subclass "newspaper of public record", for instance in certain countries the public administrations are forced to publish a number of official acts (such as tenders) on certain newspapers, so it could be useful for the editors to know that they can look for certain "official" information on this or that newspaper's archive.

361:

a narrative sense. This is pretty much the only instance when they can be relied upon (and to be clear, 'relied' in this case is assuming that they don't fudge their own polls and declare conflicts of interest such as when boxing promoters promote their own boxing events in their own columns, and tie it to betting sponsored by the paper itself through their own betting company).

222: 9973:. It is a marker, rather than definitive proof. However – and here I will point out that I've written more of that particular notability guideline that most editors, and that Michelin stars have been discussed repeatedly on its talk page – I have never yet seen an example of a Michelin-starred restaurant that did not meet the notability criteria when editors did a proper 5731: 5657: 6120:

many similar examples. But I didn't get any information about how the mistake happened, how many other articles are affected, or whether the removal is of that article only or of a broader class of similar mistakes. My contact at SS is checking whether this is a one-off mistake or broader misclassification but I don't have an answer to that yet. —

6701: 8598:, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have seen many cases of blatant copy-pastings from all major Indian newspapers. In fact, the level of accuracy of Indian/Pakistani news media is inversely proportional to the popularity of this project. Unfortunately, for the last decade or so, this project has become their de facto reference site. - 123:

removed regarding The Sun's sports articles and some other topic wiki articles. Citations should be weighed on what they contain, not from who it is written. I strongly suggest more common sense and another review and I would go so far as to say I think David should be topic banned from removing citations relating to this conversation.

10671:"Subjects of interest to the Saudi government" vary. People and policies win and lose government favour rapidly and unpredictably. The Saudi government changes the URLs of many webpages frequently, so it's often hard to go back and find out what they said a few months ago. Older media articles are also often only available through the 11155:

inevitably slip through. Some of their decisions can be questioned, but there is no perfect list. Only the Scribe article by Tucker Max and the Dennis Prager opinion piece outright call them biased or wrong, and those are frankly just very unreliable sources. I don't think I'd use either of them for any factual claims about anything.

5633: 8719:

as it is recognized, and are not afraid to criticize themselves for past actions, or to open up to reporters from other media, to criticize them. If The Hindu would respond openly and critically to DBigXray's missive, ideally in the pages of the newspaper itself, that would go a long way to mitigating the damage to their reputation.

353:

created a request for an RfC entirely loaded on the idea that David deserves to be topic banned and that he is (somehow) misinterpreting a very clear original RFC that The Sun is a shit newspaper of little reliability for any purpose beyond basic facts in sport, and even then there will be infinitely superior sources that we can use.

4715: 671:"Football back then was known as Association Football and Charles Wreford-Brown was talking to a fellow Oxford University student, who asked him whether he fancied “a game of rugger” — which was an abbreviation of the word ‘rugby’. Wreford-Brown replied that he would rather player ‘soccer’, shortening the word ‘Association’." 4544:, Spintendo made a checklist to show the qualifying sources but he suggested to ask an editor who is more experienced in notability requirements which is why I came here. My doubt is that he deems Fortune and Darkreading articles as not secondary because they are based on CEO Avetisov interview, I disagree because 1951:

Tucker Carlson, and Jim Hoft (who runs the far-right conspiracy website Gateway Pundit)." It's also described as a "news media watchdog" but it obviously is watching from somewhere over on the right. It's not a reliable source for anything factual and that IMHO would include a statement on credibility of anything.

7741:

subjects (e.g. minor historical facts about some small town or local school). In contrast, even a top rank newspaper article is hardly a good source in an article about EPR paradox, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, or the Holocaust. I already proposed to modify the policy to make it clear that non-marginal newspapers

5651: 6180:

years ago that are unavailable from many years ago would be to make a fair use claim. That could be difficult given that the links are to entire papers rather than portions of them, but a countervailing argument would be if there is no other practicable way to access the work even for a fee. Someone such as

2680:- this is not a "reliability" question at all, because we're talking about an attributed opinion piece, not a factual claim. Is Blender sufficiently notable as a source of critical opinions to note its reviews, and even its "worst/best" lists? Sure. Does it have problems that mean we shouldn't do that? No - 9652:. It annoys me everytime I see someone say, "We don't care what an article subject has to say about themselves" because, really, sometimes a business' or person's own website or an interview with them or whatever really is the best source for a specific piece of content, however they don't contribute to 10858:

Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities

10729:

The thing is, to know if Saudi media are an independent source on X, you have to understand all of the relevant current positions of the government, and that requires independent sources, who probably have better coverage. Any formal rule will need to take this into account. RfC phrasing suggestions?

10187:

I started to remove some, will continue as time permits. In some cases books are authored by school teachers for a young audience, in other cases no particular information about the author is available. The book descriptions and reviews on Google Books often also reveal their creationist teaching.

10120:

I'm not sure how I was't satisfied with the outcome of the article being kept. I haven't said crap about it since that was outcome, disputed it, or even commented here since the original three comments that said Michelin stars could be used alone to established notability. I do have my own opinion on

9056:

As long as we keep in mind that the Michelin star only grants presumed notability, one that can be challenged if one tries to find additional secondary sources where it would be expected to find them and cannot come up with any. As others have said, getting at least one star is near certain that the

9037:

Did you read what we wrote? I did not write it meets our notability criteria (which was not the question you asked) I said it makes the subject notable (which is the question you asked). Cullen328 elaborated by making it clear that "it is virtually certain that the restaurant will receive significant

8718:

Also agree that it should be case-by-case. Another thing to keep in mind, is that all large media companies are fallible and will have the occasional sourcing scandal, such as the NY Times and Washington Post. The key thing here, is what their reaction is: they stomp on such material heavily as soon

7576:

is a newspaper of record for India is very useful (eg. tidying up from edit warring over "controversy" sections in Indic BLPs – happens often). However, our WP:RS/P doesn't have the full global set of NORs? It would be great to have the NOR article brought up to GA (even FList) standard (e.g. every

7353:

Film Art. He was the youngest film producer in the industry at that time. Most of his produced films were either Golden Jubilee or Silver Jubilee. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he produced films like Insaan badalta hai (1961) (his first film as producer), Armaan (1966), Ehsaan (1967), Naseeb apna

5516:

Most academic sources are usually regarded as more reliable than most news sources because academic sources such as university presses and mainstream journals have robust editorial oversight and reputations for correcting mistakes and withdrawing discredited works. Just as some newpapers are regarded

5422:

Note:"In the past few years, the Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) at Maryland University has produced reports on polling surveys that have become popular among academics, the media and politicians in the West. The reports are mostly published under the name of Dr. Ebrahim Mohseni. In

4796:

Bhatti appeared in SAB TV's Comedy ka King Kaun as a judge with actress Divya Dutta. In his latest stint, Bhatti and his wife Savita competed in a popular Star Plus show Nach Baliye which went on air in October 2008. The couple put their best foot forward to entertain the audiences with their dancing

4763:

3712:

FWIW, From Duck Duck Go news search, there are several alternative sources for the topic. Page scores are shown below. These compare with 18, 19 for the cars.com source page. By this measure, the cars.com source page is less "advert-infested clickbait" than the RSPS-listed Forbes alternative, as well

3291:

Consistency has its place, but cars.com does not actually sell the products, if I understand correctly. They connect buyers with sellers, like Ebay etc. Also, it's much easier for people to find other sources to cross check info' about cars. Maybe the absence of auto-related publications on WP:RSN is

2169:

That said... the question that needs to be asked should not be whether the book is reliable, but whether the book should be highlighted in the way it is... by being mentioned in text. THAT is not a reliability issue, but one of DUE vs UNDUE weight. Are Kelly’s findings important enough to single out

1740:

You would probably believe how defensive Sun defenders get - including the one who edit-warred back in controversial BLP claims that were sourced to literally a dead link, and loudly asserted that The Sun was a top-notch source for the subject because it was about sport therefore was wrong to remove.

1483:

5-6 years ago, we collectively as editors didn't question Daily MAil, the Sun, etc, and likely used these sources without question. With the wave of fake news and other misinformation in the wake of the 2016 global politics , we became much more cognizant of issues with these works, and over the last

766:

seems like an abuse of process. You're arguing that David Gerard's replacement of a low-quality source with a citation-needed tag is so damaging to the article that it requires sanctions, while you yourself apparently didn't consider it worth the ten seconds it would take to insert a superior source

9691:

also enough to build any article out of either. The value of independent sourcing is verification, vetting, editorial control, and evaluation of what details are and are not worth writing about anyways. Self-published material is useful for adding the sort of banal trivia like how many employees a

9550:

Yes, we would never allow mass creation of restaurant stubs using automatic or semi-automated tools that use a digital version of Michelin to fill in the details: such mass creation in the past is why we have 10,000s of stubby athlete articles. We want editors to create these and add some additional

9437:

The only thing that determines notability is the existence of a substantial quantity of reliable, independent source material. It may be that a Michelin star indicates there is a good likelihood of such material existing, but if it in fact doesn't, the restaurant in question is not notable. There is

8223:

To summarize my comments from the linked discussion, I believe that this source is not strong enough for a BLP due to its editorial context and authorship. The publisher is a local newspaper from Longmont, Colorado, and I have found no reviews of the source in general; I'd probably trust it for most

7893:

using this for anything. Most of these are reliable sources for most topics, but these newspapers tend to reflect the views that are prominent and/or popular in their own countries (such as portraying their own country in a positive light). Not the gold standard when we should be aiming for a global

7324: 7143:

is a bit more about their writers, though it doesn't say much. But note the context, again; it seems like the unspoken reality of Askmen is that its pieces are often written by advertisers, without any disclaimer indicating this. These things make me think that it's probably not a good source - it

6764:

Ahmed Rushdi was a versatile playback singer who worked in film music and was an important contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film music.Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south Asia. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent

6515:

So what about its editorial oversight? Actually, this is the general problem with the newspapers from the Indian subcontinent. They don't care about accuracy, and their articles can be good, bad, or ugly. And it's up to us to sort out their mess. BTW, I looked at a couple of Pakistani articles today

6119:

Update: Semantic Scholar says that the case I found of a paywalled pdf that they listed was a "mistake" and that it has been removed. (I didn't actually ask for it to be removed, but unsurprisingly that was the result of the query.) Given how easy it was for me to find it I suspect there are or were

5771:

I saw that, I just don't know much about those other sources because I don't speak German or Persian, though they appear to be just more popular news sources of similar quality. And VOA of course, which I think is always questionable. Perhaps you should let some other people reply, as the purpose of

4792:

Bhatti's subsequently acted and directed the popular TV series Ulta Pulta and Nonsense Private Limited for the Doordarshan television network. What attracted audience to his shows was his gift of inducing humour to highlight everyday issues of the middle class in India. Jaspal Bhatti's satire on the

4759:

3239:

states, "Cars.com’s Editorial department is your source for automotive news and reviews. In line with Cars.com’s long-standing ethics policy, editors and reviewers don’t accept gifts or free trips from automakers. The Editorial department is independent of Cars.com’s advertising, sales and sponsored

1643:

and that sections conclusion "Hence, I will urge all editors to exercise due restrain and use common sense; whilst dealing with removals. For an example, please harvest some efforts to source a cited-info to a reliable source, prior to removal of a DM cite." So no it does not say do not remove them,

813:

Disagree. When dealing with something that uses an inappropriate source, which route you take (remove source and leave fact tag, remove cited material entirely, add better source tag) is a judgment call based on a number of factors, such as how bad the source is, how likely you think it is that the

360:

The Sun is reliable (tenuously) for its own opinions. It's writers are reliable (tenuously) for their own opinions. We can say things like "in an article for The Sun X described Y as one of the greatest living players" or "a poll by The Sun in 2015 listed X as the greatest Premier League Manager" in

11154:

Most of the sources you've presented are fairly measured in their criticism, saying essentially that it's very difficult to count every book sold, and each list has to make their own judgement calls with imperfect data. The NYT tries to catch books that are being pushed through bulk sales, but some

11040:

As far as I can tell, those articles that are about the NY Times list are mostly about how a few publishers have gotten books onto the list (and most of them are about the same book) by secretly buying a bunch of copies of their own books. If the only way to manipulate the NY Times best-seller list

10696:

Obviously it has an interest in portraying the Saudi government as capable, and Saudi Arabia as a thriving country in which nearly everything is going very well (and as an appealing tourist destination). I read a headline a couple says ago which said ~"Saudi Arabia excels in human rights". However,

10507:

The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet

9762:

or a professor who gets some minor local award, but that of winning an Olympic gold or a Nobel Prize. And that goes for one star, let alone two or three. It is absolutely inconceivable that any restaurant could gain this accolade without having attracted significant coverage in independent reliable

9530:

I think the point of presumed notability is that it is exceedingly unlikely that there won't be coverage. In the case that initiated this thread, for example, Cullen328 was easily (I assume - certainly quickly) able to find a reliably published book giving the subject in-depth treatment. I'm not an

9390:

that gives guidance for specific types of organization, where this single restaurant criteria can easily fit. No need for a separate guideline. But we probably want to make sure the editors that have crafted NORG are aware of this; NORG has to play a fine line between "notable" and "promotional" so

9239:

I would say that a Michelin star counts towards notability, but is not, on its own, enough to establish notability. I very much agree that a star means that other sources are extremely likely... and so WP:BEFORE is in play (and must be addressed by those wishing to delete in any AFD nomination). A

8619:

Indeed, and it's only their laziness that makes it so easy to spot. What you say about the project is true far beyond Indian newspapers, and I've seen articles in various topic areas clearly leaning heavily on WP content as a crutch, but paraphrasing or summarizing just enough, that you can't quite

8244:

Longmont Times-Call appears to be a typically-reliable local paper. As Jlevi notes, this is also clearly an editorial and thus the statement must be "attributed to that editor or author", not as a fact. As for whether engineer Carl Brady is worth citing or not, I'll leave that to the editors on the

7880:

for the countries I know, either the term has little meaning, or there's enough controversy about the meaning that the list is impossibly difficult to compile and unusable in practice. I doubt there's currently any useful guidance to be gained from this classification, from the point of view of the

6730:

In 1954, he recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers. Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages. He suffered from poor health during the latter part of

4317:

About the more controversial Sri Lankan claim, I don't know. I neutralized the whole POV paragraph shortly after it was written; a good half of the sources (let's say, the "Western ones", not in my intentions to be racist or whatsoever) that allegedly supported the hypothesis later turned out to be

2720:

lists carry a qualification or two. In contrast to retrospective appraisals of books, films and classical or jazz music, imo, pop/rock criticism quite deliberately seeks to shoot down a previous generation's idea of what is "best" or "worst", so – again, almost by definition – there is a heavy bias

1569:

I'm not saying that the sort of actions you are taking are not within the policies you cite. I'm also not speaking to any examples involving The Sun in particular. I'm suggesting that what we have is a situation that makes for a lesser article in the end. Think of it as complying with the WP:IAR

822:

means that we can't demand that, and can't sanction people for reasonable judgement calls made when patrolling sources - maintaining a high quality of sourcing is central to our mission. This section, though, is demanding sanctions, which means that the person who filed it is saying they think that

753:

way of dealing with it when a statement is uncontroversial and easily-sourced elsewhere is to find a better source - regardless of how we feel about the rest, plainly the Sun is at least a low-quality source and replacing it with a better one that cites the same statement is always an improvement.

337:

Technically, you could say I can have a lot of conflict of interest relating to over 100+ articles on wikipedia. But calling every person that has ever done work for a newspaper liars? Even a cartoonist? I find offence in that, I also find it strange that some, not the majority, the majority of The

311:

Attempting to attack another user because your favourite uncle / cousin / relatives article was published in, and may be employed by, one of the least reliable tabloids in the UK for basic fact checking is lacking any rational foundation. To go as far as suggesting a topic ban in light of their own

10711:

I'm trying to think of topics on which the Saudi government would probably be a reliable source. Generally, I'd take them as reliable sources on themselves; indications of the positions of the government, sources for self-fulfilling statements like official appointments, and sources for what Saudi

9624:

This actually suggests a reasonable thing to add to our notability guidelines (or process), when dealing with subject-specific guidelines. We don't want editors creating articles that are basically one or two sentences that show how the SNG is met, and that's it. Stub articles created this way are

9016:

I don't think any single source automatically proves notability. Since by definition notability is about "broad coverage" in reliable "sources", but that's just me. I know guidelines are malleable for people that want to make them that way. Ultimately, I'm perfectly fine with Michelin stars making

8849:

The journalist thought that the "4-star tournament" was just some excessive detail, thereby discarding that bit, although that was the main point, as no Indian female had won a tournament of that grading before. Anyway, they ended up making it more silly as 2006 was the inaugural tournament of the

7841:

The proposal is not to automatically merge the NOR list into WP:RS/P (I don’t know if they are all correct), but to take out the NOR candidates that are clearly valid and referenced (E.g. The Hindu), and add them. Per my starting comment, it would be great If someone (maybe me later), would bring

6203:

start adding links to Semantic Scholar pdfs automatically. I undid a few but I'm confident there are a lot more like that that I didn't find. The edits are difficult to find in its history because of an unrelated bug causing the bot to emit long and uninformative edit summaries. Does it need to be

6069:

I hope this is the right place for this request for clarification to be posted, as I know it involves more an issue of reliability related to copyright than reliability alone. If it should be posted or pinged in another spot for discussion, please let me know and I am happy to do it there as well.

5436:

special medical team". "A significant amount of effort has been dedicated to presenting the polling surveys as a product of Maryland University. However, these are produced by Iran Poll. Iran Poll conducts research freely in Iran, which no other organization is allowed to do. ... this also reveals

5074:

The word "blog" doesn't mean anything for reliability outside that it means typically one person wrote the content, and likely in a format that is more personable than hands-off/impartial. Whether a blog becomes reliable is then whether there is an editorial review of that blog before it is posted

3905:

I don't think Cars.com has any great depth in the articles I've read but I've also never found any great flaws. I would treat them as a lower level reliable source. Perfectly fine for basic, statements of fact, descriptions of automotive systems etc. I would be concern about using them for more

3881:

Blacklisting whole sites for having "wrong" editorial positions makes life much easier for editors who are "right," but I think it's a mistake, and is being used to suppress and bias information in general at wikipedia. Not because of facts, but because of conclusions and opinions reached from the

2921:

as based on a magazine with editorial oversight, certainly for staff reviews, the review in question seems to be by a staff member as it does not term it a contributor. There is no evidence of poor editorial oversight, also the page regarding the public seems to be a recruitment page " to join the

2496:

I do not believe Blender magazine is a reliable source of information, as the magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" and "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs...Ever" lists are incredibly biased and comes solely from one viewpoint. It is not even factual as others claim. In addition, the supposed criteria of the

2420:

Hello everyone. Indian media keeps on carelessly giving estimations of various Indian caste, communities, etc. on regular basis, although there hasn't been a census for those details since 1931. Are those non-scholarly estimations preferred over scholarly estimations from the experts of the field?

2145:

Is there a debate/disagreement on whether or a particular source meets the requirements of a wp:RS? This relates (only) to satisfying wp:ver and (unfortunately) does not include a non-bias requirement or consideration. IMHO there can still be editor discussions on other matters where bias of the

2050:

page, which is full of borderline RS, op-eds and low-quality content (content that the same editor has on multiple occasions edit-warred back into the article), which should make this particular source very valuable. Can I please get confirmation that this peer-reviewed publication by a recognized

2045:

at Penn State and wrote a peer-reviewed book about the 2016 election. The book specifically includes content that evaluates whether there was media bias against Sanders in the 2016 election, with the author concluding that there was media bias in one sense but not in another. Additionally, this is

1950:

Our article on it says "AIM, which opposes the scientific consensus on climate change, has criticized media reporting on climate change. The organization gives out the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award. Past recipients include Marc Morano (who runs the climate change denial website ClimateDepot,

1872:

In 2018 during a dispute regarding fact checking of the Daily Caller by Google and partner Climate Feedback, Brian McNicoll of Accuracy in Media called climatefeedback.org "a highly partisan climate site," "which has had many of its facts challenged," and the Daily Caller said "Climate Feedback is

1515:

I don't buy the "didn't question the Daily Mail and The Sun", there would have been dozens of results for this search originally. And if actively undertaking removal where it is the only source it's just courtesy to make a search to see if the information in question is already out there otherwise

122:

has removed a citation from the newspaper and place a cn tag in it's place. I see nothing wrong with the Sun article. If another article can't be found the citation should remain and maybe tagged. I've never seen an admin with such bad judgement across over this area. There has been a lot of links

11175:

So, in short, yes, I think we should assume that any meaningful level of fraud would be identified in RS, until the big expose that says otherwise. But it's unsatisfactory. What I find particularly annoying is the way bestseller lists are asserted as some kind of proxy for quality. Jeffrey Archer

9098:

here. Michelin as a single source cannot establish notability because we require multiple sources. However, a Michelin star is an extremely powerful indicator that additional reliable sources almost certainly exist. Maybe somebody can point to an example where that is not true, but I doubt it. In

6840:

music." Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south asia and was a natural baritone, yet could sing high tenor notes with ease. Born in Hyderabad Deccan, he migrated to Pakistan and became a leading singer in the Pakistan film industry. He is considered to be one of the

2960:

thanks both for your views. I'll say now that if nobody else feels strongly enough to comment, I'll interpret that as consensus that the source is reliable (two against one, and I'm only 'a bit concerned', rather than strongly convinced that it's unreliable) and act accordingly. Views from others

2071:

This is not an NPOV presentation of the discussion. The discussion is about whether the book should be used to add more sentences saying exactly the same thing as has been previously said on the page, rather than looking for something unique in the book that could make the wikipedia entry better

1069:

The general consensus of the RfC—and of the editors who keep complaining about your edits—is that it is not a problem for information that is not controversial. I appreciate that you're finding sources now, but it's not necessary to have a search-and-destroy mentality at this point. I'm sorry you

767:

that would clearly resolve the issue. That's not a reasonable position to take; editors are supposed to take reasonable steps to resolve an issue themselves first, and "find a mutually-agreeable source to replace one that is, at least, definitely low-quality" is obviously the first step here. --

356:

Using emotive words like "accusing", "liars" and "Nazi" is not only flagrantly misrepresenting the issue, but is then putting icing on the cake with Godwins Law. No, not all sources are equal. Yes we already throw away a lot of unreliable sources. No we do not using primary sources other than for

152:

I see you're not claiming there's a reliable source stating that particular claim - is there one? I looked and couldn't find a non-deprecated statement of it. It appears to be a contrived-to-sound-interesting statistic of the sort that The Sun (and the Mail) often print, but when I go to research

10592:

Does this need an RfC? I genuinely don't know, I haven't spent much time here. Agreed on the need for specificity. I think that "media produced inside Saudi Arabia, under Saudi media law" and "anything on a .sa domain" are clearly-defined categories, and would avoid having to re-RfC for each new

9151:

If a Michelin star means that there *should* be additional non-primary reliable sources elsewhere, then we don't really need to say that the Michelin star by itself is enough to prove notability since there should be additional sources elsewhere. At most, we should really just say "double check

8993:

If a restaurant receives a Michelin Star, it is virtually certain that the restaurant will receive significant coverage in many other reliable sources. The best of those sources should be added as references in the article and so your time as an editor would be better spent improving the article

8703:

And, yes, we cannot rule out Indian/Pakistani news media, as a huge number of our articles are solely sourced to them, especially those of the present-day sportspersons, entertainers, and politicians. So, the case-by-case consideration seems like the only alternative. Having said that, scholarly

8659:

I don't believe we should rule out national newspapers from India and Pakistan for a few examples of mirroring as this would be institutional bias. Where there is mirroring that obviously rules out the source for that particular article but the use of Knowledge is prevalent in all media , in the

6580:

He sang his first song in the Indian film Ibrat in 1951 and got recognition. His family moved to Pakistan and settled in Karachi in 1954, where he began participating in variety shows, music programs, and children's programs on radio. In 1954, he recorded his first non-film song, "Bunder Road se

6179:

I was asked to comment here. I'm not familiar with that particular website, but based on what I've read, one would need to check the status of an individual article to ascertain its copyright and license status and hence whether linking to it is appropriate. The other possibility for papers from

4782:

Jaspal Bhatti was born on 3 March 1955 at Amritsar in a Rajput Sikh family. He graduated from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh in Punjab, as an electrical engineer. He was famous for his street plays like his Nonsense Club during his college days. Most of these plays were spoofs ridiculing

4749:

3853:

critical sometimes, and I saw no particular bias in their reviews, based on comparison with my experiences (for one particular model they were correctly critical of). They don't seem any different than most other car publications in the need or desire to push car sales. If you could point to any

3848:

called Liliputing "Advert-infested clickbait" (seen if you followed the link given, and text-searched), which seems like a concise way of summarizing concern over interest in accurate content versus conflicted interest in ads and affiliate referral or sales income. If cars.com reviews were never

3516:

Unfortunately for Knowledge with current methods/rules, determining if a site is "reliable" or has a "strong reputation" for accuracy becomes a popularity contest, without objective grading of sites. Those (who want to be in Knowledge) with the best PR departments and connections with previously

3439:

Re: "The difference is that the main product of traditional automotive publications is the content itself. Magazine subscribers directly pay for the content." Really? An examination of assumptions may be useful - maybe look at a couple paper publications still in print, and see how many ads they

3116:

Seems many websites make most of their money from advertising. Your arguments suggest excluding advertising websites which are some of the largest and commonly referenced. Youtube comes to mind and all news sites. Should we exclude CNN because their content serves as content marking for ads?

10499:

The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the

7955:

A long form obit story like this (comparable to what the NYtimes may give), is reasonable. We want to avoid the short form obit common to most papers for the everyday average person as sources as those typically aren't written by the newspaper, but submitted by friends/family. A long form shows

5581:

itself. Yes, there are other cases of criticism: In a questionable telephone poll it was found that "Iranians were happy with the way authorities had handled the protests, with roughly two-thirds saying police handled the protests very or somewhat well, and a slightly smaller about (64 percent)

4207:

which is still used in the article. And of course as the entire section on Punt's possible location elsewhere was deleted, Meeks again as well as sources used in the section on Sri Lanka which I don't really know about. I'm mainly concerned about the Egyptologists in any case. This is I believe

3867:

If one lets them, display ads would be "perfectly" targeted to each reader's interests and needs, and would guide them to the "right" choices and purchases... I don't use an ad blocker because it seems wrong to block first party ads when looking at a site, unless they use "excessive" bandwidth.

3761:

use a dynamic bidding model that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for journalists to predict the ads that will be shown alongside their writing. Display ads also change constantly. Citations in Knowledge articles refer to the content of the cited websites, and not the extraneous site

10465:

Thanks for the comments. That article was only one example where these sources are used, however. I still welcome help from other editors to click on those "insource" links and remove them when appropriate. And of course other comments, but so far noone contested that they can be considered

8938:

rating, especially if its the only source, make the restaurant notable? I know the notability guidelines say top 100 and similar lists are not reliable sources, but I'm not sure if Michelin ratings would fit into that or not. The star rating system doesn't seem to give a detailed review of the

8483:

I don't know how it is with emails to big media companies these days, but I suspect that they are filtered by bot, and/or humans (more rearely), and simply considered less important. If anyone saw fit to write a letter (20th-century style, you know: paper, envelope, stamp, signature, all that

7773:

as a useful concept in Knowledge's guidance. I checked the two Belgian newspapers in the page's list, which have the same reference (a 15-year old BBC news page): the reference does not justify inclusion of these newspapers in the list (neither are called "of record" in the reference, so their

2104:). I've brought this to the RS noticeboard, because mentally I'm fed up with trying alone to engage with you in discussion while you edit-war, violate Knowledge policy, argue over the most uncontroversial content, and cast aspersions (most recently, insulting me as "unemployed or underemployed" 1532:

I share a similar, general concern to Walter. I don't specifically have an opinion on The Sun but I think people have gone a bit crazy with deprecation and removal. One example I can think of was a fact about a shotgun (production numbers I think). It was a non-controversial claim about the

352:

There's nothing "technically" about it. You are related to the person in question whose article you have perceived as being slighted. In response to this you have asked for a topic ban for an experienced editor. You haven't asked for him to review his edits, or consider your opinion - you have

315:

Any number of alternatives can be found (see above) making the presence of The Sun for the uncontroversial claim basically moot. Unless they had personally done the investigation and brought the information to light, however in this case they likely just read another published source likes the

9170:

That's partially true, but I do feel it's useful to have red-line notability guidelines for clear things like this, and a Michelin star is a pretty good one to go by. We have comparable notable-award rules in other notability guidelines, so I don't see why the Michelin star wouldn't qualify.

9074:

Piling on here - a Michelin star is the top award a restaurant can get - there is no higher accolade (well, except two and three stars, obviously). For such a restaurant not to be covered in other sources following receipt of a star seems improbable - it should certainly be taken as a sign of

7740:

By saying that, I object to any blanket approval/disapproval of any type of mass-media. Any non-marginal newspaper can and should be considered a reliable/nonreliable source, depending on the context: even a local newspaper can be uses as a source for some non-controversial and low importance

364:

I cannot defend The Sun at any level, for pretty much anything. There are better sources available for pretty much any subject matter that they have reported on. Not because they are universally liars, not because they don't occasionally get scoops or do real journalism, but because their bad

7824:

See my above comment. I see no problem to stipulate that newspapers of records are reliable for some concrete types of statements. Thus, newly adopted laws published in such a newspaper must be considered a reliable publication. However, op-ed materials about some controversial historical or

7226: 5627: 5323:

also applies, although when this is needed it could also be an indication that the topic lacks notability and so has little critical coverage. There's also the issue that in science, scientists tend to do their work more than educate about it, so criticism may come from a psychologist about

6103:

My opinion is that they may or may not violate copyright, that we have no way of telling, and that because we can't tell we shouldn't link to them. My experience to back this up is that I tried searching for my own papers there and the second one I tried was clearly the publisher copy of an

9686:

to create an article. Content is the most important thing, and lacking independently-sourced content is something we don't want. And what an entity says about itself is marginally useful for banal, basic things like statistics and simple facts (dates, names, etc.) however that content is

5078:

It has been established the Forbes Contributor blogs are posted without any check by the paid Forbes staff. This makes these blogs self-published and thus not reliable. Guardian's blogs have been show to be processed by editors before they are published, and thus can be presumed reliable.

2939:. It's an established, well respected magazine. There's a world of difference between publishing content submitted by the public and having a page on their site inviting people to apply to work for them as contributors. Exclaim! doesn't allow the public to post articles on their website. -- 5539:). I'd tend to trust the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and these seemingly experienced and qualified researchers over Fair Observer when it comes to analyzing the trustworthiness of political polls. Is there any other significant criticism of this polling organization? 1159:

This seems to indicate you have no policy or guideline backing for your opinions. Which is fine, but does nothing to counter the basis in policy, guidelines incorporated by reference into that policy, and the strong consensus of a general RFC, of my actions. So your objection seems to be

11316:

as poorly formatted RFC - This is not a content discussion as it is not linked to any actual content - no example of where this is an actual issue for Wiki have been mentioned. Instead it is a forum discussion about the NYT best seller list being "bad" in some vague fashion. Therefore

9501:

has it exactly right. Unless there is coverage, what are we even going to write? A significant award or something like it increases the likelihood that sources may exist or will eventually emerge, but if it becomes clear that such sources do not exist, an article cannot be sustained.

5704:

Well that's something. But again, those have the same problems as the Fair Observer piece. The criticism you've posted is all from popular news sources. Is there any criticism coming from experts in the field of political research and polling? On the face of it, Washington Examiner,

4205: 3451:"Despite the industry’s struggles, magazines remain an important platform for many advertisers. Consumer magazine advertising spending will reach an estimated 15.6 billion U.S. dollars in 2019, placing it in a similar bracket to ad spending for the radio and newspaper industries." 3260:

While my position in the CoinDesk RfC was different than the result of the RfC, I think all sources should be treated with a consistent set of standards. Cars.com is less credible than CoinDesk, in my view, as they sell the products they write about on the same website. The phrase

4831:

brought these here at my suggestion, partly to gain broader feedback, and partly simply to have this discussion recorded and searchably archived here. My feeling is that any source which has a pattern of mirroring WP content is ipso facto not reliable; if for no other reason than

605:

Precedent, We leave it in once when it is correct and the next time that will be used as an example of why it should be used alone. That is why it has been depreciated, the constant arguments about including some random bit of title tattle or out right lie. Its easier just to say

9121:

effort is likely to require more than just searching the Internet. Personally, were I creating such an article, and the only source I had was from Michelin, I'd simply hold off until I could find at least one other secondary source (meeting the various notability guidelines does

4070:

said he would come up with some information showing the author to be an expert sufficient to at least allow attributed use, though most of the links are decorative ("External Links" not sources). Is it valid as a source, rather than an external link (which is a separate matter)?

357:

basic facts because you can't trust primary sources to be objective about anything else - and that is where The Sun has historically had issues: it presents itself as its own primary source, with its own opinions liberally mixed in depending on whoever the editor is at that time.

11117:, interesting question. I'd say not, as there is sufficient documentation of the few cases of fraud that we can discuss it from RS in each case, but I would certainly not use the NYT list as a source for "best-selling author" (a phrase I think we should kill with fire anyway). 3348:. On the other hand, Cars.com is first and foremost a site that aims to sell products to its users. It doesn't matter whether they hold any of the inventory themselves; they are primarily a classified ads site, and the blog is a secondary part of the site that exists solely to 2163:

In this situation, the book is being cited as a PRIMARY source for “In her book, Kelly says XYZ”. The fact being verified is that Kelly did indeed say XYZ. Used in this way, it is reliable (a book is, in fact, the single MOST reliable source for a statement about that book’s

10768:, do you want to start a RfC for this? All of the Saudi newspapers are controlled by the Saudi regime either directly or indirectly since there is absolutely no freedom of speech let alone freedom of journalism in Saudi Barbaria whatsoever unlike many other "Muslim" states.-- 5427:

helped Mohseni and Professor Mohammad Marandi to establish the University of Tehran Centre for Public Opinion Research (UTCPOR). Marandi — who studied in America and understands the mentality of Western media, politicians and writers — leads UTCPOR, which is monitored by the

10145:

Are books published by New Leaf Publishing (or New Leaf Publishing Group) considered self-published? I didn't find much information about it, although it appears to be focused on religion. Can books published through it on seemingly other topics be used as sources like at

8939:

restaurant receiving the rating. So I think that should disqualify it automatically, but even if there was details I don't think it would be a reliable source on its own or even with other better sources backing it up. I ask because I requested an article for the restaurant

5397: 6823: 191:

I'll emphasise again - if you can find an RS for this particular claim - and it's a great claim - that'd be awesome! It's possible I just haven't the right book to hand, or my personal Google filter bubble has led me astray, or something. But it's well outside the level of

11298:

I agree with the others here saying it should not deprecated. In some ways I think that would fall under "original research" -- despite a few flaws and ways of gaming it, the NYT bestseller is still considered the gold standard of measuring book success by reputable RS's.

9456:

it has been long established that WP does allow for the presumption of notability for a limited set of cases (those defined through the subject-specific guidelines) that allow for a creation of a standalone article as to put it to the wisdom of the crowds to help expand,

2055:

page, and more participation on the talk page, where so so so much time goes into trying to settle pointless matters such as whether peer-reviewed studies can be added to the article (and it's primarily one editor who is editing in a way that necessitates these pointless

312:

COI suggests that they themselves perhaps should be the ones looking at their own bias when it comes to The Sun, and in particular any material published by their relative if they are unable to see that criticism of the paper is not the same as criticism of an individual.

1439:

Not really annoyed. I saw the discussion above and recognize that not everyone is onside with deprecated equalling unusable and "remove on-sight". We should not have a search-and-destroy mentality. It is not blacklisted. So yes, stepping back would not be inappropriate.

10491:

I ask editors to please be wary of some sources on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects. This has been raised here before, at

6550: 3373: 1591:)? Finally, I see one section addressing your behaviour: "There has been a feeling among the opposing side that this can lead to a draconian purge of Sun references from WP without due discretion and that the newbies will bear the brunt of any over-zealous enforcement. 5301:(2) Isn't taking an isolated comment, from a long blog article with lots of details about a study, considered cherry picking or undue weight? Especially when the "highly respected and influential resource" comment is not also found in other, more reliable sources? -- 2886:). I don't have a strong view either way on this, music not being my area of expertise, and I will withdraw the AfD nomination if there is consensus that the website is indeed reliable for this purpose. (Bother - forgot to sign. Re-pinging the users mentioned above - 622: 5883:. Attempts to find out anything about it are stymied right now due to a database connection error on the site, which is hardly a good sign. Archives don't show any of the indicia of reliability. Is this a usable source? It looks, on the face of it, to be a mashup of 682: 8357:

Information from public registries may be useable to source some basic facts, but the site in question certainly doesn´t confer any notability to the article subject. Indiscriminate collection of informations is not the kind of reliable sources we are looking for.

4398:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of

2742:, has editorial oversight. These sort of lists are published in most magazines on popular culture and it's a question of due weight whether they are mentioned in articles - personally I believe they should only be mentioned if the work concerned tops the list, imv 8271:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Knowledge article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

7451:

I'm not going to respond to each of the substantially identical posts, so consider this note to apply to the the several above this from the same OP: This appears to be an issue for people copying Knowledge without attribution, not on judging source reliability.

4840:

may also come into play. RSN seems like the right venue to air this, whether or not the source's other reporting is reliable, as a pattern of mirroring would make any article suspect, until the sources could be established. Viewers seeking information about the

10523:). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. 6723:

He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south asia and credited as having sung the "first-ever South asian" pop song,

5408: 590:

A more optimistic view would be "maybe the Sun isn't 100% garbage, maybe only 80%". So why not leave both references? Clearly it is fine in many cases. There is no such thing as a perfectly reliable source. This whole deprecation thing has been a huge debacle.

10150:(unless I'm mistaken, this book attempts to cover UFOs using Biblical interpretations)? Lastly, I'm not sure if this is a correct association, but I've seen reference to "Master Books" in the description of one book published under it, would this really be 712:

per other reliable sources: The ship was informed en route. The players knew about the outbreak of war mid-journey. 4 Naval reservists were dropped off in Pernambuco where a British Naval vessel was already in place, the rest sailed on then returned from

2877:

contributions from the public. I'd like to open this out to the wider community to see whether we are comfortable with reviews on their website being used to support notability for albums and/or musicians - my concern is that it may be a form of curated

1741:

Quite a lot of the people objecting recently to my Sun removals are objecting, and sometimes revert-warring, over "cites" that don't work at all. Editors who aggressively defend The Sun are, IME, loud roughly in proportion to their misunderstanding of

9271:, individual cases may merit their own special consideration, but the bar for demonstrating lack of significant coverage in an AFD must be higher for these entities than for other run-of-the-mill restaurants. In particular, to nominate something like 849:

Considering The Sun has put out a newspaper every day since they started, that's a lot of content, I don't understand why people are surprised that The Sun has been used as a citation considering the huge volume of information you can cite from them.

11139:

gives a reasonably accurate (but not accessible to most Knowledge editors) record of cash register sales of books in bookstores and give widely different answers than the NYT on most books, that would seem to argue against making such an assumption.

6168:

Thanks to David Eppstein we now have even stronger indicators that the website operates well within the bounds of legality in USA. It's not some pirate website but a trustworthy repository and it can be linked just like any doi.org or publisher URL.

1395:

Assuming the source had been in the article well before the Sun was marked as deprecated, and the claim itself seems not overtly controversial (which " It was founded in 1983 inside a warehouse as Hills Christian Life Centre by former window cleaner

869:

a significant volume of information that can be cited to them; the fact that they have printed a large amount of text is meaningless when the fact-checking and accuracy behind that text was inadequate in a way that fails to pass the standards set by

814:

material can eventually be reliably sourced, and the statement being cited; none of those options are particularly bad and all are generally reasonable actions to take. Finding the hypothetical ideal source is the best outcome, but the importance of

11229:, I think the prominence makes it a bigger target for fraud as well, so a bit of both. Nobody would give a damn if someone made the Podunk Leader's best seller list, so there's no incentive to do it and no incentive to cover gaming if it happened. 7802:) in Belgium. Further, the reputations of these newspapers (as well those mentioned in the BBC article as those I additionally mentioned) varied over time. So no, "Newspaper of record" is useless as concept in Knowledge's guidance, and Knowledge's 4548:

defines secondary source as a source that gives information about a primary source, which could be an interview. Also, he left this source out of his checklist . Does HYPR have significant coverage in multiple secondary sources? Thanks everyone!.

4262:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." 2497:

former list of "all songs had to have been hits at one point" leaves actually bad songs unnoticed and the "no novelty songs" rule is a lie as "Cotton Eye Joe" by Rednex is listed in the former. Therefore, all uses of it as a source must be wiped.

1458:

Given it takes about 10 seconds to find an alternative source for the information, it should really be replaced at the same time as it is deprecated. But I also have to ask, how the heck did The Sun end up being the source used in the first case?

9315:

policy (though is rooted in policy), but definitely, we're not going to IAR the allowance for a standalone article for a restaurant without some evidence of notability per WP:NOT#PROMO. Of which the Michelin star is definitely "some evidence".

5318:

Not commenting about "Grauniad", but when dealing with non-ideal sources, the context and author also matter, of course. We should prevent accumulating the opinions of non-experts (even if attributed), or of non-notable people. In some cases

6876:

industry. He sang over 800 songs for 583 films till his death in 1983. Ahmed Rushdi , a master of all moods was adept at singing all styles, be it happy, comedy, tragedy, qawwali, lullaby, and patriotic, pop, revolutionary or folk numbers. He

5564:

Apart from that specific survey which is a joint CISSM-IranPoll work as repeatedly mentioned in the PDF above, a simple search shows that the two institutes are extensively interconnected and have published tens of joint surveys. For instance

679: 676: 8585:

used to have very high standards till around 15 years ago. It is still among the best Indian newspapers. But I have seen multiple cases like the above one from it. Having said that, other Indian/Pakistani newspapers are even more careless in

8133: 9361:

has found a book that discusses this particular restaurant in depth, but there seems to be general agreement here that the existence of a restaurant that has been awarded a Michelin star, but has never been written about in RS, is unlikely.

3401: 620:

The problem with The Sun is that it isn't 'fine' in many cases, and its writing is not only open to interpretation but subject to persistent misinformation as a result of its incredibly low quality. Given probably most of the content of the

8321:

The link you provided does not meet any of those criteria. Please do not try to create an article for this entity until you have identified multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the firm. -

9017:

something notable on its own if that's what the consensus is. That's why I asked. At the end of the day I'm not going to disregard other people's opinions on what counts or doesn't as a usable source, like some other people tend to do. --

7003:

That would make them a clear case of copyvio as they (or that non-existent agent) never gave attribution to the relevant WP articles. I guess you know that the content of this project cannot be copied without giving proper attribution. -

5630:. Funny is, at the same time (after 2017–18 protests) IranPoll in collaboration with CISSM published a poll survey which concluded that <4.9% of the Iranian public opinion favored a change in the regime, which was heavily criticized: 9152:

because it's probably out there somewhere," but addressing "what do we do if the only source on the restaurant is Michelin" with "well there just has to be sources somewhere" is responding to a hypothetical with further hypotheticals.

1022:

The RFC includes the string "controversial" once, and that's in the course of noting that almost anything worth including in an article that's cited to the Sun can be replaced by a reliable source. Where are you getting your claim that

6045:

tool, specifically if those PDFs do or do not violate copyright. In this way, this request for clarification is less about reliability, and more about if we can link to them without copyright infringement. I understand this topic was

2100:

You have on multiple occasions stated that this is a partisan source and have disputed that she's a recognized expert (your last comment literally suggested that she was not a recognized expert because this was "apparently her first"

11275:

The only useful thing to put in a Knowledge article is about the book appearing on the NYT Bestseller list. The list itself is a perfectly and self-evidently reliable source for the books that appear on it. Whether or not articles

10648:

Sorry, it took me a moment to understand your comment. I was thinking that general policy, deprecating non-independent sources, seems to apply here; the only problem is that it may not be immediately obvious to an editor that, say,

10593:

publication. Media published abroad, with anonymous correspondents in KSA, exist and can be quite independent. Complete Saudi ownership of overseas media could in theory occur without Saudi control, but I don't know of an instance.

7280:

Rushdi recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages and found unprecedented success as a playback artist from the mid 1950s to early

6988:

Because the probable press release has been copied from Knowledge, for all we know it could be the same person who wrote the press release who previously wrote the content on Knowledge such as his agent, marketing agency etc, imv

5324:

fallacies, etc... So other than a little more oversight, this particular source would be from an "environmental scientist and risk assessor" according to the profile information (I personally don't know more about the author). —

9335:

Yes - apart from anything else there will be sufficient RS coverage in the Michelin Guide itself to meet GNG, plus there is bound to be other coverage in reviews. I wonder how many people commenting here have actually seen a red

6932:, do you think they would care about byline while copy-pasting such a POV mess? BTW, can you find any older version of this content anywhere else on the net? This query is also regarding your similar comments to other mirrors. - 1594:"Hence, I will urge all editors to exercise due restrain and use common sense; whilst dealing with removals. For an example, please harvest some efforts to source a cited-info to a reliable source, prior to removal of a DM cite." 9461:

that we can delete such articles if it is clear through a thorough search of appropriate references that sourcing is just not going to come in the future. A Michelin Star test is a perfect example of how this model should work.

7492:

to renew the consensus on Uproxx's reliability - that is, what the site is generally reliable for and what it is generally unreliable for, whether or not it counts towards notability, and whether or not it is worth a mention at

11172:, the same criticism has always been applied to record charts and movie takings. Fraud happens. Mostly, though, fraud doesn't happen because the publisher has a vested interest in being trusted and looks out for these things. 3258:"Since being acquired by DCG in January 2016, CoinDesk has operated independently from the parent company. We work in separate offices and maintain strict policies on editorial independence and transparency, described below." 7248:

recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages and found unprecedented success as a playback artist from the mid-1950s to early

5432:. He frequently appears on mainstream media, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, among others, but one thing that these media organizations either do not know or fail to mention is that he is the son of Dr. Marandi, the head of 1212:

You may not see anything wrong with the article - and indeed there may be nothing wrong with it - but RS generally treat the source as problematic, and so should we. Put differently: per policy, RS' judgment overrides ours.

8620:

prove it. This is becoming a more and more serious problem, and the solution isn't obvious, but good reporters on reliable media will have their own on-the-ground sources. The problem is trying to evaluate which are which.

8173: 10300:

seems like one of the better quality books, but still included flawed claims like scientific foreknowledge in Genesis. Better sources are fortunately easily found on the topic though, that are not disguised propaganda.

7857:(@Britishfinance - Just a quick aside. You might want to amend your comments, and not use an abbreviation “NOR” for “Newspaper of record” (or perhaps use a different abbreviation) ... the issue is that the abbreviation “ 6886:

Since 1976, Ahmed Rushdi was a heart patient and his doctors advised him to abstain from singing but Rushdi refused by saying that music was his life. When he had a second heart attack in 1981, he was composing a musical

6851:

3031:. No editorial policy that I can see. I'm not sure what credentials the staff have. They seem to be employed in the industry in various roles, but is that enough? Just curious. This is spawned by the insistence to use it 1404:." seems to be, without touching a Google search), then it is reasonable to keep the deprecated source , tagging it as such, while a replacement source can be located. That said, a quick google search brings up, at least 5114:

Right, they still have editorial oversight but they are written as opinions, so any claims or the like should be treated with attribution, but should not be considered wholly unreliable as with Forbes Contributor blogs.

8773:

in 2006, thereby becoming the first Indian female to win a 4-star tournament. She also remains the sole Indian to win that tournament. The relevant news articles were published by all major Indian newspapers, including

8634:

The journalists of the developed nations are taught from their early life regarding plagiarism and copyrights, which makes it harder to catch them. But the reverse is true regarding the ones from the subcontinent. :) -

8170: 5297:

A couple clarifications please: (1) Trying not to cast aspersions, but isn't using a term like "Grauniad" an example of using "derogatory, and insulting terms," or is this considered OK when directed outside Knowledge?

4229:

Meeks is definitely an RS. My understanding is that an Arabian location for Punt, which he does advocate, is a minority but not fringe position. I have his essay on Punt's location (I reviewed the book that contains it

8943:

be deleted due to lack of notability, but two people said the restaurant having a Michelin star rating was enough to keep the article. Although, the article lacks any other reliable sources. Let alone broad coverage.

4266:"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." 10512:, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook. 9366:

is a redlink - how about we create an SNG, with a single criterion - Any restaurant that has ever been awarded one or more Michelin stars is presumed to have been covered by reliable sources and is presumed notable.

8387: 6718:

was a versatile Pakistani playback singer who worked in film music and was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south

7745:

be reliable, depending on a context, and to explain that relevant guidelines and WP:REDFLAG should be consulted to make a final decision in each concrete case. I suggest to renew this discussion and implement these

5927:

A primary source may be used on Knowledge only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized

5548: 5532:

In the report itself, University of Maryland definitely takes ownership of that poll and makes certain claims about its methodology. The authors are listed as not only Ebrahim Mohseni, but also Nancy Gallagher (bio

4177: 6389:

Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments including a silver medal at the

8929: 5472: 4268:

This has little to do with fringe, which is hardly supported by reliable sources at all. In the old version of the article, the minority positions have less weight into the article itself, just as it should be.

9224:

Not sure, at the the end of the day the Michelin stars are not an "award" they are a rating system in a travel guide (which has been subject to some criticism). So I err on the side of no not really a sign of

864:

It sounds to me like you're essentially trying to re-litigate the depreciation RFC with this comment. The whole point of depreciation is that they publish false or misleading material and, therefore, there is

5416: 4499: 1370:

So, your solution is simply to leave an unsourced BLP claim in the article? You could tag that source as unreliable (for now), attempt to find a better source, or request replacement on the article talk page.

1337:

yep - little blue numbers that go to a deprecated source deceive the reader into thinking the claim is sourced, and that the source is better than no source - and deprecated sources are worse than no source -

1965:

Right. Quoting AIM saying that Climate Feedback is unreliable would be like quoting a creationist saying that modern biology is unreliable, or quoting a holcaust denier saying that historians are unreliable.

1279:

I see you ignored the addition I made in the Why Knowledge Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News section above. Take a look and respond there instead as you're misrepresenting the point.

10291:

Yes the quality of the books vary, with some promoting pseudoscience and evolution-denial and others only including Biblical reading encouragements and emphasizing that some scientists were Christian, etc.

9692:

company has, the brand names of their products, the date a person got married, what high school they went to, etc. None of that is particularly stuff that we can base the bulk of an article on, however. --

3356:

blogs are completely different from the objectives of publications that sell their content as their actual product: content marketing is functionally equivalent to advertising, and is not the product itself.

874:. If you disagree with that, then your problem is not with David Gerard or the way he went about removing this source, but with a basic unwillingness to accept the outcome of the RFC that depreciated it. -- 9408:

I'd support the addition of this as an SNG. It may be out of scope for this discussion, but there are perhaps other top-tier restaurant recognitions that would be appropriate to include (I'm no expert, but

3397: 9262:

this is effectively saying that, similar to a player playing professionally or a professor receiving a prestigious acadmeic award, the receipt of a Michelin star makes the presumption that the topic meets

7995:

Long form obits in respected newspapers are excellent sources IMO. They give a good reality check on what's considered the most important facets of a life, and are a good guide to what can go in the lead.

5412: 4223: 3391:

should be avoided for information related to credit cards, because its core business consists of selling credit cards to its readers. Product review sites that are funded by commissions, including various

8197: 5453: 3339:

The difference is that the main product of traditional automotive publications is the content itself. Magazine subscribers directly pay for the content. Online readers fund the publication's website with

10653:

isn't independent. You are talking about an explicit "do-not-use" rule. While one could define categories of media, one could not produce a definitive list of media outlets (new ones keep coming out) or

5992: 5021: 5481:

Academic sources are more reliable than mainstream media. This poll was published in a highly reliable academic institution. Can't be unreliable. The reasons above are absolutely absurd and laughable.--

4234:). But I've never seen Egyptologists suggest Sri Lanka, and none of the sources for the deleted Sri Lanka section are Egyptological aside from the Shaw and Nicholson book, which only mentions Sri Lanka 3621:

These include ArsTechnica, CNN, Forbes, USA Today, and Verge. Based on this, it appears cars.com, while certainly another "advert-infested clickbait" site, is being unfairly criticized in this regard.

706:"In 1914, Corinthian FC decided returned to Brazil but, as soon as they landed, received word about the outbreak of World War I and decided to immediately return home — dodging torpedoes along the way." 8953: 7861:” already has an established usage on Knowledge (it stands for “No original research”, one of our core policies). Not a big deal, but I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what you are talking about.) 2873:

suggested it as an RS - nobody responded either way, so it was added to the list. Exclaim! is a printed magazine, with staff and an editorial board, and all the hallmarks of an RS; however, they also

10252:

I suppose if Gary Bates is and all the rest were of nepotistic relation to the publisher family, SELFPUB may apply but I doubt that is the case. Dr. Jason Lisle is apparently a Ph.D. in astrophysics,

7842:

the NOR article to GA-Flist status (ie where the examples were all clearly WP:RS/Ps), bowever, there are quite A lot of this list that could be easily merged into the WP:RS/P list without much fuss?

7599:

here, just because this would seem to overlap considerably with some work they've been doing on establishing lists of reliable sources for different regions, so their view would probably be useful.

4212: 9799:

Yeah, no one wants to book a spot at your table if you secure a playing spot in an ELF League Two squad, win an Olympic Gold Medal or a Nobel Prize, but your phone rings if you get a single star.

2012: 1828: 1228: 10451:

If you do that, this discussion of whether Master Books/New Leaf might be obviated. If the detail is unnecessary, a book from the perspective of a believer giving the deets becomes unnecessary.--

6134:

The answer to how this happened was "we crawl the web for open access PDFs" and that individual pdfs can be taken down on request. To me that means they cannot be regarded as free from piracy. —

5310: 5068: 3815:

are considered generally unreliable. I suspect that Forbes.com contributors would be deprecated if Forbes.com didn't make it so difficult to identify contributor articles through their URLs. —

8660:

western hemisphere as well, not by the better journalists but by the worst lazy journalists who may just make a better job of paraphrasing it. Therefore, a case by case approach is needed imv

1425:

Obviously it's not just me being wound up the wrong way, seems David is has annoyed Walter now, I still think he needs to step away from screwing around with citations from The Sun for a bit.

1289: 5444:

Comment: Examples of absolutely questionable poll surveys conducted by the mentioned institutes as well as their suspicious connections to Iranian officials could be found in the link above.

2186:

Agree with Blueboar's assessment. The book is being used as a source for an attributed opinion, presumably expert opinion. That establishes WP:V from a WP:RS. It doesn't address WEIGHT.

1267: 3714: 3444:

is longer than I expected, but still a small percentage of magazines. Some excerpts (including newspapers) supporting my point: "It was clear that the traditional newspaper business model,

2065: 3292:

because most people have much better understanding of cars than bitcoin, and don't usually have disputes about things like MPG, top speed, or other facts that can be independently checked.

9034:

You came here of your own free will. You asked a question. You received a unanimous opinion from the first three editors who responded. Now you're going to lecture us on how we're wrong?

4738: 1658:

One interesting issue with The Sun is that they changed their website layout a few years ago - so there's a vast number of Sun references that were dead links, any URL with /sol/ in it.

1587:

reads What does "actively discouraged" mean to you David? Does it mean waste everyone's time removing and finding new references? Do you see editors who actively oppose that stance now (

1142:. I don't mind fixing bare refs when you add them. I agree that RSes are better than deprecated sources, but also think replacing them should only be happening when they're blacklisted. 9590:

to be notable enough for a Knowledge article to be about it. However there is ONE and ONLY ONE set of criteria which decides if a particular topic is suitable for an article. That is

6632:

for films and quickly gained popularity. He lent his voice to many hit films like "Bara Aadmi" (1956), "Wah Rey Zamaney" (1957), "Raat Ke Rahi" (1957), "Yeh Dunya" (1958) and many more.

3720: 1944: 1662:

Only some of this content was ported over to the new site - but I'm certainly not going to lift a finger to find a replacement Sun link to insert, and in any case doing so would fail

196:, so you'll excuse me if I'm deeply reluctant to trust interesting and eye-catching claims from a source that has been formally deprecated for repeated falsification of information - 11198:

This could (it may still be the case) said about records charts, in fact I suspect any chart. So I would say, no no chart should be RS. But I do not think the NYT can be singled out.

2386:

where reliable football sources are listed but any of the links there would be acceptable. In view of this Ive left a question about it at the WikiProject Football talkpage, regards

2157: 625:

was leached liberally from Rob Cavallini's Play Up Corinth and the Corinthians own homepage at the time it's amazing how badly it has been mangled. To quote the article in question:

253: 9606:

text of an article is "Such and such a restaurant received Michelin stars" and there's literally nothing else we can use to expand the article, we should not write that article. --

7054:

We have around 800 articles using this as a source. According to the article it's an aggregator. A lot of the references are to listicles, often of attractive women. It's owned by

6721:

and was a natural baritone, yet could sing high tenor notes with ease. Born in Hyderabad Deccan, he migrated to Pakistan and became a leading singer in the Pakistan film industry.

2822:. Just in case I want this "on record" in the RS/N archives—the talk page would be deleted with the article—the issue could pop-up again for the other articles referencing CFMDC. – 1405: 8822: 8128: 7625:

refers purely to the role of that newspaper inside that society, which would mean that we still need a vetting discussion for newspapers listed there: we probably shouldn't treat

6363:

Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments

3708:

There seems to be a glitch in NoScript counts; manual counts from the pull-down are higher, sometimes by large amounts, compared with the "mouse over" summary score, not sure why.

7354:

apna (1970) and Mastana mahi (Punjabi film of 1971). However, after Mastana Mahi he produced no film except Hero which was produced in the 1980s and was released after his death.

7131:

page, which says several alarming things that give me the impression that they do not distinguish between advertising and other content. Adweek has a lot to say about them, too:

3087: 10943: 8052:

Q2: What is the process for requesting that those sites ( and any others potentially) are on the banned list so that editors are warned/stopped from adding them as a reference?

6593:

for films and quickly gained popularity. He lent his voice to many hit films like Bara Aadmi (1956), Wah Rey Zamaney (1957), Raat Ke Rahi (1957), Yeh Dunya (1958) and many more.

5917:, which of course does not inherently make it reliable, with a large dose of FANSITE. Most of the writers involved were in direct contact with the league and it was featured on 4171: 2483: 2461: 11034: 9479:

Yes, and in areas like sports, those "presumptions" have had the effect in practice of filling the encyclopedia with garbage. I am therefore against any new such. Find sources

9126:

require a standalone article to be created, only that it gives the allowance.). And this is highly specific to Michelin. We would not, for example, use Zagat because they rate

7815: 4992: 4970: 1460: 937:

Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. The

6267: 5854: 4414: 8959:

Yes, it is the definition of making a restaurant notable. A single star rating from them can make it impossible to make reservation. Google "what does a michelin star mean"?

7851: 7834: 6143: 6129: 5438: 5345:; the decision whether he was an "non-expert" or an "environmental scientist" (at the time he wrote) has to be subjective. More about "The Grauniad" -- apparently it is just 4500:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190610120345/https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/mlb-ballhawk-zack-hample-gets-roasted-on-twitter-after-complaining-about-clayton-kershaw-062117

3440:

have. While traditional subscribers do pay, advertising has almost always been a major revenue source for most publications, with some exceptions, like Consumer Reports. The

3386: 6113: 4367: 4235: 9808: 7613: 6297: 5921:, the main league website, after the first season. Essentially, it seems it was utilized by the league to write press releases (and maybe it was volunteer based). By 2019, 5366: 4613: 4595: 4581: 2135: 2116: 2084: 1638: 1624: 1304: 1173: 1151: 1126: 1097: 1079: 1064: 1010: 993: 615: 600: 9545: 8399: 6213: 4056: 3377: 3126: 1991: 1801: 1615:

You will have seen that I frequently do indeed seek out replacements, as seems appropriate with due editorial consideration! So I assume you're completely satisfied now -

11266: 11164: 11107: 11050: 10395: 10204: 10182: 9986: 9907: 9794: 8758: 8352: 6193: 5521: 5504: 3535:

If sources without blatant conflicts of interest make the same claims, then those sources should be cited and not the content marketing blog. To take an extreme example,

3295:

Not sure how we missed the list of 18 people on the editorial staff (about page, people, editorial), and if you click each person, it gives info on their backgrounds. --

3107: 3003: 1758: 1653: 1365: 1347: 1189: 205: 5971: 4927: 3433: 2931: 2791: 897: 836: 800: 9844: 9830: 9753: 9511: 9047: 8968: 8224:

statements. However, the article in question appears in an opinion column, and the publisher does not have a well-defined editorial policy on these opinion columns. By

7670: 7549: 7528: 6961: 6173: 6047: 5839: 5490: 2689: 2666: 2650: 2585: 1975: 1610: 1478: 732: 585: 11308: 11221: 11207: 10500:

government on specific occasions, and so on. People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in

9594:. Very simply put: unless we have enough source text to use to support a reasonable-length Knowledge article, we should not write articles. Michelin stars may be an 9448: 8099: 5015: 2751: 2467: 2409: 2395: 2373: 2359: 2323: 2211: 1960: 10478: 10460: 10334: 10313: 10282: 9772: 9430: 9381: 9234: 9180: 9117:

And that is an important point , since Michelin is global, this means other sources may be in foreign languages, in print form only in that country, etc. so a proper

9089: 8892: 7755: 7652: 7488:

discussion about this, and even then the discussion's implications were not sufficiently broad (they were talking video games, not politics). So I ask people here at

6952:

I dont think it would be from anything any older as it looks like a press release put out on the event of his death by his agent or marketing agency or suchlike, imv

6454: 6436: 6063: 4247: 4132:

Just checking this is a reliable source? Going by our article—and the heavyweight commentators it notes as writing for the mag—it should be, and it's also indexed on

3832: 3162:

could be biased by advertising, I found no accusations of that, and the reviews are sometimes critical. On the other hand, most are written by one author, Brian Wong.

2770: 2305: 2280: 1579: 1564: 1525: 1318: 1222: 264: 248: 11135:

Should we assume that in every case of someone buying their way on to the NYT best seller list there will be a reliable source that documents it? If, as is claimed,

9161: 8752: 8728: 8713: 8698: 8669: 7444: 7013: 6998: 6983: 6941: 6920: 6802: 6680: 6502: 6472: 5820: 5795: 5781: 5766: 5714: 5695: 5148: 4874: 4604:

listed as a paid contributor to the article. I suggest that this is an excellent time to step back and not concern yourself further with the article in any manner -

4041: 4008: 1449: 1420: 10961: 9493: 9474: 9217: 4943: 4558: 4327: 4300: 3970: 3188: 2975: 2948: 2523: 2170:

for mention, and if so HOW should that mention be worded. This is not the venue to discuss those questions, but those are the questions that need to be addressed.

1380: 1332: 1214: 938: 565: 523: 275:

If a factual claim appears in one source and only one source, and that source is not considered generally reliable, then the factual claim must be taken as suspect

11293: 10130: 10115: 9705: 9677: 9563: 9403: 9112: 9026: 9011: 8367: 7536:

it has a full staff, accepts corrections and there is no evidence presented that it is unreliable for media articles and reviews and nothing in its Knowledge page

7198: 6905: 6163: 5169: 5055: 5052: 4641: 4117: 3810: 3560: 3334: 2999: 2827: 2195: 2179: 1510: 396: 186: 147: 10094: 9731: 9619: 9249: 8988: 8921: 8874: 8644: 8629: 8607: 8567: 8549: 8512: 8471: 8445: 8254: 7885: 7699: 7469: 6756: 6525: 5336: 4858: 4775: 4459: 4278: 3929: 11087:

Fail to get enough pre-orders. It seems that a book that starts slow and builds popularity isn't allowed on the list no matter how high the sales eventually get.

10798: 10777: 10760: 10610: 10587: 10050:", but it is an open question who should provide this evidence, or how quickly. So you can't conscript the "keep" voters to be the ones to provide that evidence. 9881: 9363: 9349: 9284: 7719:

a supreme state organ. It is definitely a reliable source for, e.g. information about Brezhnev's or Stalin's deaths. However, it is easy to give an example when

7202: 7120: 7090: 6022: 6008: 5983: 5669: 3991: 2866: 1464: 509: 465: 438: 11330: 10886: 9142: 7912: 6414: 6079: 5267: 4156: 3891: 3783: 3594: 3554: 3530: 3511: 3490:

display ads). My argument is that lower levels of trust should be assigned to publications for which the line between journalism and promotion is more blurred.

3469: 3304: 3286: 3226: 2730: 2077: 883: 859: 776: 11067:

make the list when you should -- which calls into question all of the lower-selling books that make the list simply because better-selling books were left out.

10955: 9641: 9069: 8859: 5289: 4818: 1542: 1496: 374: 347: 325: 297: 11242: 11189: 11149: 11130: 8085: 7485: 7435:

It looks more like the use of a press release to me given that only one of these articles has a byline and that one possibly used the same press release, imv

7181: 7157: 6348: 5963: 5939: 5229: 5097: 4345: 4029: 3915: 9865: 9306: 7984: 7968: 7345:

Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the third highest honour and civilian award by the State of Pakistan, given in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science.

5059:

Should similar blog sources be treated oppositely like this? Should they be used or not for this article, and if so, should they be attributed similarly? --

4702: 4162:

Sounds from our article that it should be a source of notable opinions, at least - what was its track record for facts like? And, what prompts you to ask? -

781:

SOFIXIT also applies to David Gerard fixing the source rather than simply removing it and tagging it. At the very least, he could leave the source and add a

10493: 7384:

Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the third highest honor and civilian award by the State of Pakistan, given in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science.

6097: 1855: 1434: 1309:

Then remove that claim altogether. In my humble POV, garbage source is always better than CN tag, so one knows from where some (dis)information comes from.

8462: 8237: 8216: 8027: 8009: 6493: 5127: 5109: 5091: 1778:, and there are in some cases thousands of them, and people who will bitch and moan when they are removed even when used as sources for contentious items. 1462: 11280:

report a book's status on the NYT Bestseller List is a different question, but the presence or not on the list is reliably sourced to the list itself. --

11090:

Make your sales through traditional bookstores. If you sell 100X higher than the books on the list but do it through Bible Bookstores, no listing for you.

9328: 7586: 6843:

He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south asia and credited as having sung the "first-ever South asian" pop song, "Ko-Ko-Ko-reena.

6050:, yet I am raising this again as a result of a number of my edits, where I inserted links to these PDFs, being reverted, specifically as discussed on the 5676: 5583: 3249: 1791: 1466: 10746: 10631: 10601:

I have not come across. It is based in Dubai, which might come under "beholden"; my (again limited) experience is that these are sometimes a bit better.

10570: 9912:

No, but that is not what I was contradicting, I was contradicting the idea that this is some universally accepted badge of excellence like a Nobel prize.

8743:

is actually a common problem in many Indian newspapers. In this particular case, I think it is better to use the secondary source instead of The Hindu.--

5818:

A discussion which includes the assessment of the reliability of the SPLC as a source of reference for Knowledge article lead paragraphs is taking place

5391: 5207: 4950: 3952: 3757:, which blocks ads and trackers in my web browser. Display ads are sufficiently pervasive that they are not considered conflicts of interest, and online 2549: 10557:, in principle I agree but this needs a carefully worded RfC identifying specific sources and the areas for which they should be considered unreliable. 9551:

sources - maybe not enough to satisfy the GNG, but enough to show that Michelin isn't the only mention, so that mass creation should not be possible. --

9197:

where it says receiving a major award makes something notable, this would apply here as a Michelin star is the highest award a restaurant can receive.

9099:

this particular case, I was able to find an English language book published by a university press that discusses this restaurant. I do not speak Dutch.

6787: 4098: 1017:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

953:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

10004: 9932: 8375: 8326: 8285: 8179: 6381: 4383: 4357: 101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 10160: 6619:

In 1954, he recorded his first non-film song, "Bunder Road se Keemari", written by Mehdi Zaheer for the popular Radio Pakistan show Bachchon Ki Duniya

4931: 4809:

I have seen many more mirrors from Indian and Pakistani newspapers, but I never kept record of them. Anyway, I will report them here in the future. -

4624:

Useful rule of thumb: if a "news" story is based on a press release, it is not independent, not reliable, and doesn't support notability. It's called

2631:- it was a professional print magazine with editorial oversight, policies, and professional journalists. There’s a consensus for it being reliable at 716:

Did they really dodge torpedo's? The best sourcing I can find is that at one point they had to change direction to avoid contact with a German vessel.

9744:

of notability (one less so, but still a good chance), but there should be no automatic notability indifferent to the broader question of sourcing. —

4976: 4661: 2442: 10548: 9629:

protect WP from mass creation of stubby articles based on one criteria, but just need to make that clear at the right policy and guideline pages. --

7870: 4886: 3543: 3077: 455:

Are you not able to use one of the English language sources? I don't read Portuguese and google translates a bit funny! Makes it a little unhelpful.

279:. If a better source can be found, then it should be used in the deprecated source's place. There should be nothing controversial about any of this 164:

any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.

10016:

The status quo article may not give much beyond Michelin star status, and perhaps this does not demonstrate "significant coverage" as demanded by

8105: 7058:

but I can't see any discussion of its editorial oversight. A lot of the content is declared as paid sponsored content, much of the rest looks like

6883:

He is also considered the first regular pop singer of South Asia and credited as having sung the first ever pop song of South Asia 'Ko-Ko-Ko-reena.

5196: 5186: 5136: 4541: 2073: 9722:

would if need be suffice. Actually this is a far better source than most others that will be available (newspaper/magazine reviews and features).

7715:

should be considered a newspaper of record, despite the fact that officially it is just a party newspaper. In Soviet society, Communist party was

6665: 6614:

moved to Pakistan and settled in Karachi in 1954, where he began participating in variety shows, music programs, and children's programs on radio.

3798: 11006: 10351: 8913: 8851: 8705: 8690: 8636: 8614: 8599: 8578: 8478: 8456: 8419: 8405: 8391: 8063: 7421: 7406: 7005: 6975: 6933: 6897: 6779: 6657: 6517: 6487: 6477: 6446: 6406: 6340: 6334: 4828: 4810: 4694: 4231: 2514:

Looks like OK magazine to me. Are there any reliable sources disputing its reliability? Even one viewpoint may be due - with proper attribution.

2475: 2434: 2254: 1180:

Was it the general consensus of the RFC. I seem to recall it was more or less its pretty crap for all but stuff we can get form elsewhere anyway.

943:

the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article

10367: 9189:

I would have to say yes. A Michelin star is the gold standard of a restaurant and confirms it is a noteworthy one. I think we can equate it to

7508: 7312: 6314: 6237: 5201: 4786:

In the 1990s, he pioneered the home-made comedy on Indian Hindi TV channel Doordarshan. He also was famous for his career in acting and comedy.

4753:

In the 1990s, he pioneered the home-made comedy on Indian Hindi TV channel Doordarshan. He also was famous for his career in acting and comedy.

4688: 2426: 959:

Thus: removing links to the Sun is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not

10849: 10530:. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... 10359: 10166: 7481: 6032: 4568:, and that's a Forbes contributor blog and not a magazine article. It's also a blockchain-related article, so you should probably take heed of 4084: 3454:"Typically, the higher the circulation figures, the more advertising costs, but you may decide it’s worth it due to high circulation figures." 3046: 2842: 749:

severe of a problem it is and therefore how pressing it is to do something. (This one was, granted, probably not pressing.) Second, yes, the

11257:

is perfectly usable as official evidence that a record was a hit in the UK. But, of course, we still need the RSes for a standalone article -

10997: 10375: 7429: 4523: 2037:

insists that the book has a partisan POV and disputes whether it's been authored by a recognized expert: Colleen Elizabeth Kelley's 2018 book

1253:, and has edit-warred it back in - even acknowledging that the deprecated source is the only source for the claim - and said "Take it to RSN". 10140: 8204: 7412:

PS: I found these & the previously mentioned mirrors from Pakistani newspapers by just having a cursory look at two Pak articles, namely

6051: 5668:"The Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) polls are promoted and publicized by pro-Tehran groups in Washington" 4194: 3479: 2912: 1117:. But if you can quote the actual words from the RFC that you think support your claims, as I have done to support my claims, please do so - 166:

Is this a score from a match, or similar facts from a match? It doesn't look like one to me. Or is it a claim contrived to sound interesting?

8739:

I consider The Hindu to be quite reliable in general, possibly the most out of all Indian media. However, occasional slip ups are possible.

8484:

stuff...) and address it to one of the top editors on the masthead, I'm guessing that would gather a better response. Typed/stamped letter

8288:, where it states, "The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met: 5100:: "Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight." -- 4800:

The cartoonist, humorist, actor and filmmaker is focusing on acting as he is getting numerous offers from Bollywood producers as a comedian.

4767:

The cartoonist, humorist, actor and filmmaker is focusing on acting as he is getting numerous offers from Bollywood producers as a comedian.

3494:

is a real dilemma for media outlets; Knowledge needs to adapt appropriately, but at the same time, it's not Knowledge's problem to solve. —

2508: 132: 114:

I do find it rather concerning that perfectly good citations can be utterly destroyed due to poor RfC judgement. Why an out-right ban? This

7956:

research by the newspaper itself, and then you just consider the reliability of the newspaper (of which the Seattle Times is just fine). --

4371: 3939:

and unnecessary anyway I think. Most of its content appears to be either random opinion, PR / sales, or well documented in better sources.

8554:

DBigXray, Apparently, you're not the only one whose email they don't reply to. See bold entry "Metadata" in section "Further information"

7924: 5951: 4482: 4291:

I'm also of the opinion that the biblical suggestions belong, their sources seem ok. As I said, I don't know about the Sri Lanka sources.

2831: 2621: 685:

and there are many more, it's one of the most oft repeated stories. Most sources are kind enough to state that it is just a story however.

10192:

for a particular topic if relevant and the author notable or expert in the field, with no better source available, with attribution)... —

8883:

MMmm a case of post editing sourcing? I think a warning may be in order. This however tells me its not really a problem with the sources.

7212: 7033: 6891:

On the night of April 11, 1983, he had a third heart attack. He was immediately taken to the hospital but pronounced dead by the doctors.

6856:

On the night of April 11, 1983, he had a third heart attack. He was immediately taken to the hospital but pronounced dead by the doctors.

5870: 4898: 4530: 1570:

policy. I'm arguing that we should probably reconsider actions taken when a source is deprecated and not be as dogmatic about removal.

662:

What was significant about Corinthian FC beating Scotland? Answer = they did so with only 9 of their own players in the starting line-up.

7137:

though the editors aren’t really interested in product pitches, a lot of the site’s health, sexual and divorce content come from PR pros

5607: 4438:), but letters to the editor are not fact-checked and do not count as actual reporting. Since the author is not notable, his opinion is 9602:

to exist, so that it would be worth it to start searching for said text, but Michelin stars by themselves are not source text. If the

9275:

for deletion one must be extremely sure that it's somehow escaped the notice of all reliable sources except for the Michelin guide. —

8998:. I am unaware of any Michelin starred restaurant that is ignored by other reliable sources, although perhaps I could be proven wrong. 7949: 7484:, it is claimed that Uproxx "is not a reliable or notability-making source" without stating any evidence at all. So far we've only had 6808: 6152:

I consider this too broad a limitation. If you link through them, you should check that what they are linking to is apparently free.

6084:

This should never be part of a bot-automated process, as each link requires checking. It should be removed from the OAbot source list.

387:] its does not matter. The Sun cannot be trusted for statements of fact. It is a by word for shoddy Journalism and dishonest reporting. 8973:

I agree with Walter Görlitz. Michelin stars are a type of award that automatically prove notability. The same goes for a reference in

5900: 5574: 3854:

factual errors or pushing particular cars or models that indicate a conflict of interest, that would be good (and a focus on content).

3619: 2471: 2105: 2102: 1679:

In my now-considerable experience of the sort of claims The Sun is actually used to cite on Knowledge, such links generally warrant a

1516:(which, given The Sun rarely goes beyond basic internet searching for info, usually cribbing from other newspaper print, it will be). 10924: 6743:, the "star of excellence," an honour given for distinguished merit in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science. 5049: 5037: 4363: 4144: 3734: 3014: 2803: 1030:

The RFC - a strong general consensus - says the Sun is "actively discouraged". That doesn't mention "controversial" as a requirement.

7363: 6731:

his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films.

4572:. I see the article is already marked as likely being paid spam, so being very harsh with its sourcing is absolutely appropriate - 8049:

So Q1: Should all references be removed? Before I embark on removing all 15, I'd like some confirmation these are bad references.

5683: 7075: 6651:

In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence."

6576:

In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence,"

5398:

Polls published by Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Iran Poll

4214:- note the focus on the Horn of Africa. But I'll pursue that elsewhere if we can get agreement on the Egyptologists here. Thanks. 924: 921:

On Knowledge, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

9898:

contradicts the statement that Michelin-starred restaurants invariably get significant conerage in independent reliable sources.

7318: 5566: 5378:, the "Grauniad" spelling has a venerable history, it is a running joke in Private Eye, and Guardian readers like me embrace it. 4256:

I fully agree with both of you. There is a substantial difference from minority to fringe position. I'll quote two passages from

2713: 2094: 9716:

They will be there, but as pointed out above, the long entry any starred restaurant will have in the rigorously independent red

7453: 5276:

They have broad latitude but there is definitely oversight - it's largely post-publication not pre-publication, but it's there.

2635:. We don’t deem entire publications unusable just because someone disagrees with some of its entries on a list they wrote on an 1891: 1733:

The Daily Mail is much the same, with an extra line in unusually-contrived sports statistics, which in science would be called "

177:. I submit that this isn't a good reason for Knowledge to let clearly questionable claims cited to deprecated sources through - 10905: 7271: 7220: 5813: 5461: 5002:, I have no idea why the link can't simply be retargeted, especially since there's more than one RfC, but people seem adamant. 3702:# hit or exceed 17 AND 18 limits (arbitrary from liliputing score, which had other problems, e.g. lack of editorial oversight). 3404:), are treated the same way. The Cars.com blog and other content marketing sites are generally unreliable because they have an 3236: 21: 10979: 10245:

is the caveat that applies, even if the publisher only or primarily published works by this Institute. I think the problem is

9950:

is an independent, reliable source, but it's still just one source. You need at least two sources, and you still need enough

9648:

I think there is a distinction to be made between sources that demonstrate notability (a Michelin star), and reliable sources

8865:

I’m noticing a pattern... the WP material is uploaded shortly before publication in The Hindu... could it be the same author?

11093:

Fail to get press in the media sources centered around New York City or that the coastal media elite read and take seriously.

8555: 6319: 5675:"It was a questionable choice, to telephone people who live inside Iran, under a dictatorship that controls communications." 4529: 3449: 2382:

Hi, in their favour they do have a corrections page but I haven't found an about us page there yet. They are not included at

723:

In short; badly written school project level mix of information cribbed from a number of sources on the internet mixed with.

10786: 8188:

What is their "reputation for checking the facts," "meaningful editorial oversight," or "apparent conflict of interest"? --

8162: 4016:

for the citation shown. Information matches what can be found elsewhere and seems to corroborate what that source says. --

1109:, please do - because I'm really pretty sure its conclusion absolutely doesn't, and says - without qualification other than 9835:

I've been saying that for years, but there are multiple notability criteria, and their proponents, that disagree with you.

9240:

star means we should hesitate before deleting. It makes it more difficult to delete, but does not mean an automatic keep.

7621:, thanks for the ping. I think that leveraging this information could be useful. I'm a little concerned that it seems like 5705:

Iranian-Americans.com, or Irannewsupdate.com are far less trustworthy of organizations than the team publishing the polls.

4673: 3722:(Page score: 23, 15). The other current source for the topic scored "only" 13, 9, which is good compared with most others. 2862: 2565: 2383: 2024:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1840:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8124: 8117: 4988: 4939: 4783:

corruption in society. Before venturing into television, he was a cartoonist for the The Tribune newspaper in Chandigarh.

4750:

corruption in society. Before venturing into television, he was a cartoonist for the The Tribune newspaper in Chandigarh.

3717: 3577:, and better sources are available. A source doesn't need a public relations department to avoid conflicts of interest. — 2221:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1987:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8106: 5599: 2039:

A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump

1484:

1-2 years have deprecated them. It just takes time to humanly check each use for a replacement or alternate solution. --

1258:

So here we are. I'd think it was obvious that we can't use a deprecated source for straight-up BLP material. Opinions? -

138:

Concur. There was nothing wrong with the article. More common sense (and another review if necessary) are needed here. --

10297: 6276:

The question is, what would you want to cite from eBaum's World anyway. In the past I have wanted to cite material from

3029:

a leading digital marketplace and solutions provider for the automotive industry that connects car shoppers with sellers

2425:

population to be 30 million in South Asia (in 2010). On the other hand, we have an article from a newspaper – which has

10365:

Balfour Books (not to be confused with the bookstore I think, so far I've seen Jewish/Zionism related ones under this)

9582:

a binary proposition dependent on meeting simple "yes-no" criteria. Some things can give an indication that something

8905: 7194: 7112: 5930:

But that is just my two cents as I have been digging for any non-primary sources and RS sources trying to clean it up.

2995: 2823: 2709: 2555: 2500: 762:- just find a better source yourself, that's what the CN tag is for. Fifth, based on that, dragging David Gerard here 696: 6974:

How can these be press releases when we already had the same content way before publishing of any of these mirrors? -

5603: 3145: 302:

Separate response to the request for the RFC and smear on the editor. I would suggest that a Conflict of Interest per

9872:

Or we just start applying the statement "does not guarantee inclusion". Notability is rather more then being noticed.

8344: 8072:, I vote nuke both. Anything significant will have an alternate source, and there are very few so the impact is low. 4909: 4903: 4412: 2593: 2459: 2010: 1826: 514:

There are four or five sources I provided above (including the Folha one), anyone can add them at their own leisure.

10412: 1695:

citing quirky and eye-catching information that can't be verified anywhere else, probably because The Sun made it up

11212:

Good point. It is quite likely that the NYT is talked about not because it is worse but because it is prominent. --

10426:, p. 89, states "Not only are these UFO religions’ gods now only extraterrestrial or interdimensional beings,... ". 8386:

had copied misinformation from WP, and they never responded to multiple emails from an experienced WP editor – see

7186: 4339: 3455: 2601: 2597: 2052: 2047: 2030: 823:

this was an extremely serious problem - at which point the fact that they failed to put in that work for something

421:

for the same fact, and the source appears to be a reliable Brazilian broadsheet newspaper with high circulation. —

169:

You seem very keen to defend the Sun - a source which was deprecated in an RFC, meaning that every usage must, per

10534: 10486: 10151: 8900:, the content copied by the journalist was uploaded at least one year prior to their published article, e.g. see 6686: 6394:

is the recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri.

5614: 5570: 5517:

as unreliable sources, being an "academic source" does not automatically confer status as a "reliable source". -

545: 418: 174: 10970: 8436:, not previously involved afaict, but who has his finger on the pulse of related topics, and may be interested. 8120: 6854:

in the voice of singer Mujeeb Aalam. His last non film song was "Aaney walo suno" which was a duet with Mehnaz.

4999: 4984: 4935: 3920:

Not an RS for facts, as it sells stuff. Maybe an RS for what they think but not sure why they would be relevant.

3416:, since content marketers tend to cover as many related topics as possible to drive more traffic to the site. — 2922:

team" rather than requiring contributions so its questionable if there is any usergenerated content at all, imv

1256: 1254: 981:

of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

745:

My opinion: First, the Sun shouldn't generally be used, although of course the nature of the statement affects

10527: 6445:

I have read just a handful of articles of this newspaper. So I can't say much regarding its overall quality. -

5250:

should have mentioned the author's name (Dana Nuccitelli), but the edit was otherwise compliant with policy. —

3999:

There is nothing controversial being stated. In the given example matches what dozens of other sources state.

3325:

I don't see this as any more of a conflict than just about every automotive publication running ads for cars.

3033: 1915: 292: 10249:, that it is willing to publish ideas as legitimate even though they stray from academic mainstream consensus. 10188:

My impression is that these are not reliable for anything other than about the author's opinions (that may be

10578:, agree. Add to the list, Al-Arabiya and CNN Arabic, they are all propaganda machines for the Saudi regime.-- 9951: 8785: 6263: 4191: 4151: 3483: 3412:

that is not counterbalanced by a strong reputation. Reviews on the site should also not be used to determine

1102:

Thank you! Unfortunately, neither Citation Bot nor Refill2 are working for me. I filed a bug with the former.

692:"Between 1883 and 1890, 52 of the 88 caps awarded in matches against Scotland went to Corinthian FC players." 627:"The club were formed in 1882 in a restaurant by St. Paul’s Cathedral, which was since destroyed in the war." 10988: 10871: 10020:. However, status quo isn't basis for judgment, rather, the potential of what the article could become is ( 8781: 8770: 7906: 6865: 5618: 5587: 5275:, Dean Burnett has spoken about the level of control that the Grauniad exerts on its blog contributors: --> 4402: 4125: 4045: 2449: 2415: 2000: 1816: 1048:(guideline with strong consensus) and the Sun RFC (strong consensus). You're failing to refute this at all. 115: 4865:

We need to keep note of the journalist concerned, here it is credited to an unnamed HT Correspondent, imv

4050: 3550:(https://www.infowars.com/u-s-virgin-islands-sue-epstein-estate-claims-trafficked-children-as-young-as-12) 1218: 576:

Which all takes us back to "if better sources exist use them". We do not need the SUN for anything useful.

10597:

is a Saudi-controlled domestic outlet, and in my limited experience not at all reliable on these topics;

10432: 10147: 7555: 5832: 5299: 4980: 4035: 3487: 2701:? I'd say the "only hits" and "no novelty songs" criteria you mention should definitely be outlined when 2448:

Nah. I would be even wary of scholarly sources w/o getting clarity on how they arrived at their figures.

2430: 1584: 159: 11041:

is to buy lots of copies of the book, then that list is still doing exactly what it claims to be doing.

10078: 9936: 9840: 9804: 9043: 8964: 7975:

Thank you for the response! That makes perfect sense to me. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day.

5660:(translation of the head: "Maryland university survey, hazy and in a "security atmosphere=فضای امنیتی"). 4094: 3042: 2759:

as there is editorial oversight + it has a reputation for fact-checking. Why is this even a discussion?

1634: 1606: 1445: 1285: 1147: 1093: 1075: 1006: 893: 796: 10271: 8388:

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_68#The_Hindu_copying_misinformation_from_WP

7811: 3376:. Also, CoinDesk is not the only example of a source that was criticized for its conflict of interest. 2112: 2061: 930: 51: 42: 17: 2080:

I opened for discussion of the challenged material. The haste to multiply venues is interesting. 🌿

11160: 11046: 10158:

redirects? These books are currently found as sources or in "further reading" for various articles (

8408:, Thank you for mentioning this, and adding the archive link. Paging previously involved discussants 8260: 7127:

It doesn't seem to have an about page, or a staff page, or anything of that nature. All it has is a

6602: 6535: 6516:

and ended up finding around half a dozen mirrors from Pak newspapers. I will post them here today. -

5777: 5710: 5544: 5213: 4209: 4004: 3966: 3122: 1725:

Sun-only-sourced inflammatory stories about ethnic minorities, which should generally just be removed

232: 8901: 8789: 5654:(translation of the head: "How Maryland university had been able to conduct a poll survey in Iran"), 5534: 3457: 3148:

shows they allow differing opinions, with 3 reviewers sometimes agreeing, but sometimes disagreeing.

2810:

the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre (CFMDC) as source. I saw no immediate problems based on

7847: 7582: 6845:" In 1954, he recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers. Rushdi 6259: 6209: 6139: 6125: 6109: 5918: 5429: 5362: 5144: 4591: 4586:

Yes but it is not actually an interview, the author is just talking about something Avetisov said.

4554: 4430: 4137: 4113: 1547:

Your proposed requirement for a given action on removal of a reference to The Sun is incorrect per

596: 9289:

I would challenge you to find a Michelin-starred restaurant that has no other sources. In the end

9130:(good or bad), and just getting a 5-star Zagat review means little towards additional sourcing. -- 8046:

But my bigger issue is, they are directly linking to a donate now page for specific candidates.

7877: 6671:

There is no byline for this article so it could be a press release or sourced from elsewhere, imv

6219: 5156:, it's simply thatribution is wrong. It should be attributed to Dana Nuccitelli not The Grauniad. 5135:: it's been shown that that particular Guardian blog was done without full editorial control, see 2807: 888:

It sounds to me like you are confusing blacklisting and deprecation. Feel free to prove me wrong.

365:

journalism and bad scoops have earned them a reputation that makes them fundamentally unreliable.

9391:

getting their opinion would help. (I will ping them to this convo as to keep it in one place). --

8323: 8035: 6481: 5925:. They are mostly used on the routine statements made by the league, which seems to fit PRIMARY: 5866: 5518: 5500: 5495:

Why are the reasons above "absurd and laughable"? Seems pretty valid to me. Please do explain. --

4201: 3330: 2787: 2096:– she's using existing data and evaluating its implications for media bias in the 2016 election: 8912:

and often copy-paste from them carelessly. It's been going like this for over one decade now. -

8043:

As these are campaign pages, I don't feel they should be used a reliable source to begin with.

5922: 5670:

How an Iranian misinformation campaign has been adopted and promoted by the Obama administration

5537: 5191: 1001:

Also, as they are not blacklisted sources, there's no urgency to remove the existing instances.

984:

I hope this adequately answers your well-meaning defenses of The Sun in recent edit summaries -

11304: 11262: 11203: 10508:

operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country (

10472: 10389: 10328: 10307: 10198: 10176: 10055:

And BTW, the Michelin Guide itself isn't used as source at all. Of the 5 citations, 4 are from

9982: 9970: 9903: 9877: 9790: 9768: 9540: 9376: 9230: 9084: 9057:

establishment had or will get more coverage, but we have an out in case that never happens. --

8888: 8837:

Asian Satellite Badminton tournament (India Chapter) twice, becoming the first player to do so.

8805:

Asian Satellite Badminton tournament (India Chapter) twice, becoming the first player to do so.

8250: 8095: 7830: 7751: 7608: 7267: 7213: 7116: 7104: 7086: 6430: 6018: 5979: 5850: 5827: 5330: 5260: 5247: 4966: 4609: 4577: 4452: 4167: 3925: 3825: 3776: 3587: 3504: 3426: 3279: 3219: 3100: 3060: 2991: 2970: 2907: 2685: 2662: 2645: 2614: 2578: 2504: 2314:

You need to give more details about the site and what it is being used for in referencing, imv

2225: 2207: 1937: 1865: 1754: 1649: 1620: 1560: 1506: 1397: 1361: 1343: 1328: 1300: 1263: 1250: 1185: 1169: 1122: 1060: 989: 785: 704:

And then lets go for some sensationalising to boot (ignoring more terrible grammar this time):

634:

What was destroyed in the war? Multiple choice = The restaurant? The cathedral? The club? 1882?

611: 581: 558: 541: 533: 502: 431: 404: 392: 201: 182: 143: 109: 11074:, ways to not be listed as a best seller when your book sells more that the ones on the list: 10343: 10253: 10082: 9836: 9800: 9039: 8960: 7661:

Question... could Pravda be considered the “Newspaper of Record” for Soviet Union era Russia?

7577:

entry updated, validated and sourced), and which would automatically be included as WP:RS/Ps?

6762:

The 29th death anniversary of versatile playback singer Ahmed Rushdi is being observed today.

5234:

have not been shown to have the same issues as Forbes.com contributors, they are handled with

3548:

published "U.S. Virgin Islands Sue Epstein Estate, Claims Trafficked Children as Young As 11"

3038: 1630: 1602: 1441: 1281: 1236: 1143: 1089: 1071: 1002: 889: 792: 482:. If you can identify an English-language source for this claim that is similarly reliable as 11063:

the only way that the NYT list can have incorrect answers. There are also a bunch of ways to

10944:"Instagram influencers partied at a Saudi music festival — but no one mentioned human rights" 10773: 10756: 10583: 9157: 8748: 8665: 8433: 8348: 8302: 8278: 7807: 7545: 7525: 7505: 7440: 7402: 7308: 7037: 6994: 6957: 6916: 6818: 6809: 6798: 6676: 6468: 6189: 5946:

Also, I believe I saw a couple of articles on there in my sifting through sources written by

5874: 5606:, and even any simple contact with ordinary activists would be considered a criminal offense 5486: 5468: 5042: 4870: 4846: 4519: 4297: 4220: 3987: 3491: 2927: 2747: 2568:, and the fact that it publishes "worst songs" lists is inadequate to justify its removal. — 2429:– estimating them to be 82.5 million in 2012 in India alone. Anyway please provide inputs at 2405: 2391: 2369: 2319: 2153: 2122: 2108: 2057: 2051:

expert is a RS and should be included? Also, this is a plea for help to get more eyes on the

2042: 1971: 1957: 1676:

is literally not changing anything, just stopping us pretending to have a cite when we don't.

1161: 11253:

notability, i.e. that enough people cared for the thing in question to chart. And a link to

10296:

contained evolution-denial despite being a decent introductory maths book (pp. 4, 98, 147),

8275:

I just wanted to as if the below link would be considered as a reliable source for the firm

7784:(which no longer exists: thus currently circulation zero). The BBC article does not mention 7042: 5879: 998:

No, it does not, because many of the facts are not controversial and that was the consensus.

11156: 11042: 10733: 10501: 9210: 7780: 7475: 6310: 6233: 5773: 5725: 5706: 5639: 5623: 5591: 5559: 5540: 5346: 4734: 4425: 4126: 4000: 3962: 3364: 3206: 3118: 3018: 2850: 2768: 2352: 2298: 2273: 2247: 1135: 10925:"Saudi Arabia ramped up multi-million foreign influence operation after Khashoggi's death" 9958:

on the restaurant. (You can't base an article on non-independent sources and comply with

7231: 7140: 6841:

most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs.

5036:

attributed, sourced material from a Forbes blog because it is considered "self-published."

4470:

Hello all, just wanted to know if this was a reliable source: The article in question is

3023: 975:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

408: 212: 8: 11217: 11145: 11103: 11030: 10233: 10108: 9925: 9758:

A Michelin Star isn't the equivalent of a sportsperson making a couple of appearances in

9746: 9507: 9176: 9105: 9004: 8313: 8284:

The criteria for determining notability of organizations such as law firms is set out at

8146: 8134: 8113: 8059: 7843: 7803: 7786: 7770: 7592: 7578: 7567: 7556: 7153: 6610:

He sang his first song in the Indian film "Ibrat" in 1951 and got recognition. His family

6484:

and post this on the talk page of the concerned article whenever you find such examples.

6205: 6181: 6135: 6121: 6105: 5959: 5947: 5935: 5772:

this noticeboard is to bring more editors into a discussion. And please stop pinging me.

5742: 5358: 5239: 5153: 5140: 4916: 4912: 4894: 4587: 4569: 4550: 4545: 4540:

Hello everyone, I have been discussion the removal of HYPR notability maintenance tag on

4243: 4109: 4067: 4062:

Last time there was no obvious agreement on whether this self-published site counts as a

3723: 3518: 3341: 2782:

and tends to be biased. Just because you don't like the list doesn't make it unreliable.

2534: 1588: 1139: 1110: 879: 832: 772: 592: 9924:

Why is this question here? (Really? We're asking about notability at RSN? Why not at

6911:

This one has a byline "from our staff reporter" so seems to be guilty of mirroring, imv

6581:

Keemari", written by Mehdi Zaheer for the popular Radio Pakistan show Bachchon Ki Duniya

3741:

That's an interesting analysis, but I think it misses my point. I did not call Cars.com

3482:, I do expect publishers to seek other sources of revenue than traditional advertising ( 2721:

and editors are not likely to include works that leave their readers thinking too hard.

1698:

tabloid gossip about BLP material, which will usually warrant straight-up removal under

1585:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_254#RfC:_The_Sun

1134:

They've both been broken for me as well. I've seen several bug entries. I've been using

217: 11286: 10456: 10278: 10218: 10211: 10126: 10090: 9823: 9698: 9612: 9498: 9488: 9443: 9272: 9245: 9022: 8984: 8949: 8940: 8917: 8870: 8855: 8788:. And it remained as such for a long time. Here is the quote from the WP article as of 8740: 8724: 8709: 8694: 8640: 8625: 8603: 8563: 8545: 8519: 8508: 8441: 8429: 8395: 7866: 7666: 7462: 7425: 7009: 6979: 6937: 6901: 6783: 6661: 6521: 6450: 6421: 6410: 6344: 5860: 5598:

was conducted in a country where contact with foreign media had long been criminalized

5496: 5433: 5342: 5235: 4854: 4837: 4814: 4698: 4465: 4022: 3911: 3326: 2819: 2783: 2560: 2479: 2438: 2336: 2191: 2175: 2127: 1575: 1538: 1521: 1474: 1353: 1085: 915:

WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of

728: 519: 370: 321: 303: 289: 260: 244: 10423: 5642:(translation of the head: "Another controversial poll survey about Iranian protests"), 1468: 1070:

think I'm failing to refute your points, but you are not reading consensus correctly.

644:

What is the correct formulation of "English" grammar "was since destroyed in the war"?

11300: 11258: 11199: 10865: 10467: 10384: 10323: 10302: 10263: 10255: 10242: 10193: 10171: 10074: 10038: 9978: 9899: 9895: 9873: 9786: 9764: 9727: 9532: 9368: 9345: 9280: 9226: 9076: 8884: 8246: 8225: 8091: 7936: 7826: 7747: 7618: 7600: 7303:

This one has no byline so it could be a press release or sourced from elsewhere, imv

7082: 6425: 6280:

because it is generally well put together information, but it isn't regarded as RS.--

6200: 6075: 6059: 6014: 5988: 5975: 5914: 5884: 5846: 5845:

This is a question about sourcing, not lead sections, and so should surely be here -

5735: 5325: 4962: 4958: 4824: 4605: 4573: 4478: 4435: 4393: 4323: 4274: 4163: 3921: 3763: 3552:, which appears to be reasonably accurate and corroborated by reliable sources, e.g. 3353: 3064: 2962: 2899: 2895: 2870: 2681: 2677: 2658: 2640: 2632: 2231: 2203: 1909: 1846: 1802: 1750: 1719: 1645: 1616: 1556: 1502: 1357: 1339: 1324: 1296: 1274: 1259: 1181: 1165: 1118: 1056: 985: 759: 607: 577: 388: 197: 178: 139: 119: 10998:

Behind the Scam: What Does It Take to Be a ‘Best-Selling Author’? $ 3 and 5 Minutes.

10515:

The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see

10046:

It is true this footnote continues: "it does not exempt the article from" providing

11136: 10782: 10769: 10752: 10579: 10443: 10246: 10021: 9974: 9673: 9259: 9194: 9153: 9118: 8744: 8682: 8661: 8363: 8293: 8023: 7980: 7945: 7918: 7901: 7541: 7522: 7502: 7436: 7398: 7304: 7108: 6990: 6953: 6929: 6912: 6794: 6793:

There is no byline so this could be a press release or sourced from elsewhere, imv

6733:

Besides popular music, Rushdi also helped popularize the ghazals of Naseer Turabi.

6672: 6545: 6536: 6464: 6401: 6375:

Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri.

6320: 6185: 5511: 5482: 5464: 5424: 5354: 5320: 5243: 5022: 4954: 4866: 4833: 4515: 4379: 4353: 4292: 4215: 3983: 3083: 3009: 2957: 2944: 2923: 2891: 2858: 2836: 2743: 2739: 2538: 2519: 2401: 2387: 2365: 2330: 2315: 1967: 1952: 1861: 1850: 1806: 1663: 1598: 1376: 1323:

The problem is they may not be aware it is a garbage source so may take it as fact.

1314: 1052: 970: 948: 484: 471: 413: 170: 153:

them - and I do go to research them - I can't even verify the basic factual claims.

11015: 7540:

to ring alarm bells but probably use with caution for anything controversial, imv

7518: 7397:

This one has no byline so could be a press release or sourced from elsewhere, imv

5636:(translation of the head: "Maryland university, or a branch of Islamic republic"), 3452: 1408:, thought probably not the best source given its talking about criminal issues. -- 637:

Who formed the club in a restaurant? = Answer = "they were formed in a restaurant

239:

There will be dozens of similar books and almanacs making the rather basic claim.

11326: 11318: 10672: 10516: 10509: 10415:

on "interdimensional" + "UFO" gives only 10 results, of which 4 are articles in "

10319: 10293: 10229: 10225: 9637: 9559: 9470: 9399: 9324: 9255: 9200: 9138: 9065: 8233: 8212: 7964: 6480:, Indeed as {u|Atlantic306}} says it is important to note the author. Please use 6306: 6229: 5404: 5272: 5253: 5123: 5087: 5030: 4880: 4710: 4674: 4565: 4533: 4445: 4439: 3818: 3769: 3580: 3497: 3475: 3419: 3349: 3272: 3212: 3093: 2760: 2607: 2571: 2491: 2342: 2288: 2263: 2237: 2132: 2081: 2034: 1930: 1492: 1430: 1416: 1230: 855: 551: 537: 495: 461: 450: 424: 343: 128: 10887:"How is MBS's consolidation of power affecting Saudi clerics in the opposition?" 10850:"The High Cost of Change: Repression Under Saudi Crown Prince Tarnishes Reforms" 10520: 7521:

weren't brought up in the first discussion, so I wonder if it changes anything.

7135:

says they do have editors (which I couldn't find on their site), but notes that

7132: 6874:

has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema

6847:

has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema

5341:

More about the author: Mr Nuccitelli has a BA in astrophysics and MS in physics

3201:, which means that Cars.com gives its readers a way to opt-out of some types of 2400:

The feedback from WikiProject Football is that it is not a reliable source, imv

1999:

Obviously a reliable source. Issues of weight et al can be discussed elsewhere.

50:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

11226: 11213: 11169: 11141: 11114: 11099: 11077:

Be something the people running the folks running the list don't like, such as

11026: 11007:

This Book That Scammed Its Way Onto the Times Bestseller List Is Real, Real Bad

10828: 10794: 10742: 10606: 10544: 10103: 10070: 10047: 10034: 9959: 9955: 9759: 9718: 9666: 9503: 9387: 9358: 9172: 9100: 8999: 8415: 8340: 8336: 8193: 8156: 8069: 8055: 7563: 7489: 7190: 7162: 7149: 7027: 6277: 6225: 5955: 5931: 5791: 5762: 5691: 5449: 5306: 5105: 5064: 4890: 4239: 3887: 3730: 3526: 3465: 3381: 3300: 3245: 3184: 2846: 2815: 2726: 2716:

over the last year (most of it archived), so I'm interested to hear that these

1401: 1051:

Re-adding links to The Sun without an incredibly good reason is a violation of

1033:

None of that mentions "urgency", but it doesn't have to - you're throwing in a

875: 828: 768: 5648:(translation of the head: "Why the recent "IranPoll" survey is not reliable"), 5185:

contributor pieces undergo minimal editorial oversight, as established by the

3155:

including "Avoid car listings that are too good to be true" with more details.

2033:

page, the following book has been removed from the article because the editor

11281: 11237: 11184: 11125: 10626: 10565: 10452: 10274: 10189: 10122: 10099: 10086: 10065: 10030: 10017: 10008: 9931:

Did anyone read enough of the relevant notability guideline to discover that

9860: 9849: 9818: 9693: 9607: 9423: 9410: 9301: 9290: 9268: 9264: 9241: 9190: 9018: 8995: 8980: 8945: 8935: 8897: 8866: 8720: 8621: 8595: 8559: 8541: 8504: 8450: 8437: 8425: 8151: 8080: 8004: 7882: 7862: 7858: 7806:

article is badly written, so rather misguiding than helpful in the matter. --

7692: 7675: 7662: 7645: 7596: 7494: 7457: 7176: 7070: 6255: 6247: 6170: 6159: 6092: 6003: 5895: 5754: 5386: 5284: 5164: 5010: 4953:

is free. Do you think you'll use it? If so, just make it and use it. (I made

4920: 4850: 4742: 4636: 4257: 4079: 4017: 3982:

for basic facts, no evidence of unreliabilty of the factual information, imv

3947: 3907: 3754: 3441: 3359: 3345: 2883: 2879: 2797: 2543: 2421:

Coming to the point, on one hand, we have a scholarly source which estimates

2187: 2171: 1786: 1699: 1571: 1534: 1517: 1470: 724: 529: 515: 366: 332: 317: 284: 256: 240: 10435:

does not deserve its own article but can be reduced to a briefer note under

5220:

due to the site's poor reputation for fact-checking its contributors. Since

4714:

mirroring nearly 80% of its article's content from WP's unsourced content –

3254: 3159: 10436: 10416: 10405: 10155: 9996: 9723: 9591: 9415: 9341: 9276: 8975: 8766: 8308: 8138: 7931: 7775: 7417: 7413: 7096: 6283: 6071: 6055: 6037:

I am opening this request to seek clarification about linking to PDFs from

5222: 5217: 4842: 4474: 4319: 4270: 4187: 4179: 4063: 3753:. Regarding advertising, I rarely see any display ads online because I use 3750: 3574: 3407: 3266: 3068: 2983: 2698: 1746: 1548: 1045: 905: 815: 755: 475: 9969:

is presumptive notability. We use that language because we treat it as a

9592:

significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic

6773:

a street in Gulshan-e-Iqbal‚ Karachi‚ was also named as Ahmed Rushdi Road.

6228:

can be cited as a reliable source as a reference on a Knowledge article?--

4737:(the sole sourced line of the following content was actually supported by 3165:

Anecdotal, but... For cars I'm familiar with, their reviews were accurate.

1084:

As for my "fixes" of your additions, you recognize I'm only expanding the

8411: 8359: 8019: 7976: 7941: 7896: 4471: 4389: 4375: 4349: 4198: 4197:

for me to go through them all, but two obvious examples are Dimitri Meeks

3758: 3413: 3202: 3169: 2953: 2940: 2887: 2874: 2854: 2515: 1742: 1706: 1683: 1670: 1552: 1372: 1310: 1243: 1041: 1040:

Removing Sun links, one at a time by hand, as I'm doing, is supported by

1034: 916: 871: 819: 223:

book page 39, would need checking to ensure it isn't cloning wiki article

10446:

religion or occult belief needs not be discussed in detail in Knowledge.

10221: 10214: 8930:

RFC on Michelin stars as a reliable source for notability of restaurants

8833:

became the under-19 national champion and created history by winning the

8801:

became the under-19 national champion and created history by winning the

8496:

Typed/stamped letter (20th c). I'll mail you a stamp, if you need one.

7251:... He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and 7081:

Not very, on its best days it would be yellow-rated - tabloid quality -

6424:

is indeed a problem that can make this source unusable for Knowledge. —

6254:

for controversial claims about living people. I suggest that you review

4926:

My question is, would it be controversial/not worth the bother to add a

4057:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270 § Gatehouse Gazetteer

3152: 11322: 10598: 10594: 9630: 9552: 9463: 9392: 9317: 9131: 9095: 9058: 8229: 8208: 8185: 7957: 7166: 7145: 7059: 7055: 6752: 6696: 6687: 6549:

newspaper mirroring around 60% of its content from WP (Copyvio report:

5586:. It is noteworthy that 1500+ people were killed and 7000+ arrested in 5182: 5132: 5116: 5080: 4625: 3804: 3480:

As print publications die off and more Internet users adopt ad blockers

2125:

of her short monograph that one can see without buying the book. I see

1775: 1689:

at best, or removal of the claim. References to The Sun are generally:

1485: 1426: 1409: 851: 457: 339: 124: 7796:, usually considered high quality newspapers (Dutch-language concept: 6881:

industry and considered as one of the greatest singers of South Asia.

5645: 5594:

in a small town in southern Iran. Other than that, remember that this

4105: 1715:

early-life BLP claims that can't be verified in an RS - same treatment

1356:

which partially relies on this, the idea if its sourced it must be OK.

10906:"Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Crackdown on Dissent, Rights Groups Say" 10790: 10765: 10738: 10650: 10615: 10602: 10575: 10554: 10540: 8383: 8376: 8189: 8116:

for specific sources is useful in the RSP-list, like in this version

7792: 7684: 7572: 7570:(NOR) list (or reconcile them). I do AIV work, and knowing that say 5787: 5758: 5687: 5677:

Questionable Telephone Poll conducted Inside Iran by Maryland’s CISSM

5445: 5375: 5302: 5139:. I'm not advocating reverting but hope the record is kept straight. 5101: 5060: 3883: 3726: 3522: 3461: 3296: 3241: 3198: 3180: 2722: 2474:. :) I guess it needs to be moved back without leaving a redirect. - 1734: 492:), no policies or guidelines prevent that source from being cited. — 10859:

to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar

8904:. In fact, the vandalised version copied by them was available from 6623:

the song was a hit and became the steppingstone for Rushdi's future.

6585:

the song was a hit and became the steppingstone for Rushdi's future.

6568:

health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack

5954:). So perhaps he would know more about what kind of site it is/was. 4979:

would be even shorter, and about as readable. But I see now we have

3176: 11231: 11178: 11119: 10620: 10559: 10060: 10029:

The "keep" voters guessing this was further improvable to meet the

9854: 9295: 8685:, you have made valid points. The worst are the ones who just pick 8074: 7998: 7930:

Hello everyone! I have used the above obituary as a source for the

7329: 7170: 7064: 6829: 6745:

A street in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, also named Ahmed Rushdi Road.

6707: 6556: 6355: 6154: 6086: 6038: 5997: 5908: 5889: 5380: 5350: 5278: 5158: 5004: 4630: 4511: 4073: 3941: 3845: 3537: 3072: 3056: 1780: 1157:

I'll let you find the words and read what others have written here.

1131:

I'll let you find the words and read what others have written here.

11254: 10971:

R.N.C. Spent Nearly $ 100,000 on Copies of Donald Trump Jr.’s Book

8335:

on enwiki articles, and would assume "good enough" based on that.

7128: 6630:

opened new doors for Rushdi as he got offers for playback singing

5745:, Iranian-Americans.com, and Irannewsupdate.com, I also mentioned 2537:, not objective factual reporting. They are perfectly usable with 2533:. Critical reviews of music are inherently biased because they're 1107:

that it is not a problem for information that is not controversial

1105:

If you can quote the words in the RFC that you think support that

1025:

many of the facts are not controversial and that was the consensus

11016:

How To Get On The NY Times & Every Other Bestseller Book List

9941:

as an example of a reliable source that counts towards notability

8850:

Philippines Open, and no other Indian has ever won that event. -

6838:

was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film

5622:

70% of Iranians are not satisfied with their country's situation

1722:, often failed, about pop stars, TV stars or soap operas - remove 910:

Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published sources

10856:. 350 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10118-3299 USA. 4 November 2019. 10618:, yes, per my comment above. We don't deprecate without an RfC. 8908:. In short, they check the latest version of WP articles to get 6879:

was an important contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film

6420:

Is this the only article where this is known to have happened?

6335:

Knowledge talk:Mirrors and forks § Mint (newspaper) mirroring WP

5051:

which was acknowledged as true (blog source) in an apology here,

3369: 1892:"These Sites Have Been Hit the Hardest By Google's Fact-Checker" 764:

without making even a token effort to find a better source first

8137:

and attributed opinion columns, particularly by Carl Brady, at

7537: 7048: 6700:

mirroring nearly whole of its article from WP (Copyvio report:

6405:

that they even forgot to complete the sentence after "2016". -

5923:

it had actually replaced the "News" tab on the league's website

5575:

More than two-thirds of Iranians support Iran’s missile program

5098:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Guardian_blogs

4689:

Knowledge talk:Mirrors and forks § Hindustan Times mirroring WP

3868:

Blocking JavaScript and trackers does block most ads though. :)

3790: 2674:

Sufficiently noteworthy source for attributed opinions on music

10466:

generally unreliable (often tainted with false propaganda). —

9943:? Even an unstarred inclusion counts for notability purposes. 7165:, yeah, that's pretty much my impression. No journalism, just 5757:. Other cases could possibly be found upon further searching. 3195:"Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising" 3028: 2657:

Reliable with attribution, it is after all only their opinion.

2339:

page as a reference for his eligibility to play for Dominica.

2202:

Also agree, its an RS, all other issues are for another venue.

2041:(Lexington Books). The author is an an Associate Professor of 10980:

New York Times Best-Seller List: Biased Or Just Plain Bogus?

6716:, SI, PP (Urdu: احمد رشدی‎; April 24, 1934 – April 11, 1983) 6642:

during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack

6184:

might be able to comment more knowledgeably on these issues.

5684:

Iran is using fake polls to discredit the nationwide protests

4368:

Reactions to the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike

4133: 697:

The likely original source is BBC from a blog for local clubs

10373:

Attic Books (not to be confused with the bookstore I think)

10102:, yes, that is the book that I mentioned at the AfD debate. 5578: 4090:

On the Gatehouse Gazetteer's position as a reliable source:

3358:

While having an editorial team means that Cars.com is not a

10732:

if it's Saudi-controlled, don't use it for anything except

10346:

mentions some are for homeschooling and lists as imprints:

10033:, based on Michelin stars has now been legitimized (as per 8018:

Thank you for the response! I just wanted to double-check.

5048:

un-attributed, sourced material from a "The Guardian" blog,

173:(which is policy) be justified. This appears to be because 9038:

coverage in many other reliable sources" which meets GNG.

8775: 8279:

https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/BURGEON-LAW-LLP/AAE-9171

8166:

I found no previous RSN discussions. Maybe it's "stellar"?

3235:

Re: Editorial policy: They have an "Editor in Chief," and

1728:

football scores, which are almost universally replaceable.

923:

The words "reliable source" link further down the page to

10494:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews

10298:

Exploring the world of physics (related talk page thread)

10232:, both published by "Master Books" as an imprint of the " 7337:

In November 2010, 27 years after his death, the Pakistani

7144:

approach is slightly more sophisticated than traditional

5746: 4344:

HI, I want to know are this journal confiable for wiki ?

3393: 3138:. Clearly they have an interest in selling cars; however, 2422: 11084:

Fail to be published by a big New York publishing house.

8203:

Note: the specific article that began the discussion is

7682:

was just the Communist Party's polemical organ, whereas

7420:. So the situation of Pak newspapers seem even worse. - 3362:, that alone does not make it reliable. For comparison, 2882:

along the lines of Forbes Contributors (as described at

8161:

Some recent discussion focused on one particular quote.

8040:

14 articles link directly to actblue and 1 to Winred.

6822:

mirroring half of its article from WP (Copyvio report:

6250:

guideline? No, it doesn't. So no, it cannot. This goes

5750: 4932:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail

2994:

with edit summary "more than 500 incoming wikilinks". –

2861:

who have expressed views there.) Exclaim! is listed at

7297:

contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film music.

7240:

contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music.

6463:

We need to keep note of the journalist concerned, imv

3961:

That is not what I'm seeing. Do you have an example?

3071:, the Cars.com blog is, at best, on the same level of 2841:

I'm posting this in relation to the currently ongoing

9656:. For a restaurant, the Michelin star contributes to 8807:

In 2006, Saina appeared on the global scene when she

5617:

employees were arrested for a survey conducted after

4178:

Are these apparently reputable Egyptologists used at

3803:

are considered generally reliable, while articles by

1501:

Not helped by the "why bother" attitude some display.

827:

say is so vital clearly undermines their argument. --

11176:

writes bestsellers, but they are unmitigated dreck.

10989:

The convoluted world of best-seller lists, explained

10942:

Thebault, Reis; Mettler, Katie (December 24, 2019).

10829:"Saudi Arabia report: Princes, Clerics, and Censors" 9682:

Right, but having indicators of notability does not

6042: 3172:

and say they adhere to "self-regulatory principles."

1992:

Is a peer-reviewed book by a recognized expert a RS?

10266:deleted in the article is Gary Bates, who believes 5025:

and similar blog sources being treated differently?

3063:website. They also operate a blog, which serves as 2865:as a reliable source for musical topics, following 2029:In one of our many non-fun discussions over at the 659:

Who was hammering Scotland? Answer = Corinthians FC

9933:Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies) 8343:(=here) archive search only finds your question. – 8286:Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies) 7454:Knowledge:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process 6305:Thanks everyone - I just wished to clarify that -- 5567:Majority of Iranians now want to quit nuclear deal 4889:about whether mlb.com is a reliable source. Best, 2554:has various "worst songs" lists that are cited in 2072:rather than just longer. Providing a link to the 2046:one of very few peer-reviewed publications on the 1555:and the Sun deprecation RFC - see section above - 474:. Reliable non-English sources are preferred over 228:second book page 184, same check as above required 10069:is cited in the nl.wiki. I am not seeing where " 9740:Two/three stars is going to be a pretty reliable 8533:Kasturi Building, Anna Salai, 859-860, Mount Road 7774:current inclusion in the list is pure and simple 6739:Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him 6246:- Does that site meet any of the criteria in the 5582:saying they used an appropriate amount of force" 4771:And this is copy-pasted version published by the 2541:when published by reliable sources. For example, 540:article, and used Parrish and Nauright's book to 10526:How did I come across this? I decided to rescue 8704:sources should always be preferred over them. - 6572:five thousand film songs for 583 released films. 6570:at the age of 48, after recording approximately 5216:show consensus that Forbes.com contributors are 3476:make more money from ads than from subscriptions 1873:not usually regarded as objective," like Snopes. 1644:it says make efforts to replace then if you can. 629:I ask you a few simple questions based on this: 10941: 4564:They're right about interviews for purposes of 4434:is reliable like most regional newspapers (per 3448:, was no longer going to garner much revenue." 10956:Should the NYT best seller list be deprecated? 7387:Murad produced eleven films under his father’s 7349:Murad produced eleven films under his father's 6591:Rushdi was offered songs as a playback singer 4186:There are too many sources being deleted from 2812:used as source on more than 30 enwiki articles 1629:You have been doing so recently, yes. Thanks. 1019:I don't see the word "controversial" in there. 791:with a reason of the source being deprecated. 409:"No Bom Retiro, em 1910, Começa Esta História" 175:you have a family member who works for The Sun 10787:Knowledge talk:Verifiability#Freedom of press 10689:Examples of Saudi government position changes 10003:Yup. This not a legit RSN, but reopening the 8268:As you rejected my Draft:Burgeon Law stating 7295:on April 11 1983. He was considered as a key 4428:written by a reader, not a staff member. The 3789:One more thing: please note that articles by 10878: 9357:This conversation is probably moot now that 8157:https://www.timescall.com/author/carl-brady/ 5419:) in a bunch of other Iran-related articles. 5353:said that Dean Burnett (who appears to be a 4662:"Should Symantec Investors Worry About HYPR" 4372:2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike 3209:. It doesn't refer to the blog's content. — 2853:at Exclaim! to support notability. (Pinging 1601:the rule of CONSENSUS or shall I w.r.t. RS? 417:. This is the article that was cited in the 10322:(I found it recommended on a talk page). — 7797: 5786:Ah, sure! Thanks for participating anyway. 3478:, and my wording should have been clearer. 3067:for the classified ad listings. Due to the 2234:be a RS for association football articles? 1660:The claims are literally unsourced already. 10224:etc. and two Creationist books turned up: 9031:Let me see if I understand this correctly. 8178:Endorsed Clinton in 2016; Romney in 2012. 8152:https://www.timescall.com/opinion/columns/ 7456:covers what to do in those situations. -- 5054:and strikethrough of personal attack here. 2466:Thanks, WBG. On a different note, you had 1239:insists The Sun is a better source than a 1229:Using The Sun for biographical details in 10922: 10161:insource search for "new leaf publishing" 8818:And here is the quote from an article of 7359:And here is the relevant quotes from the 5571:85% of Iranians critical of US government 4364:Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 3352:to the classified ads. The objectives of 1849:a reliable source for the credibility of 283:, except among undisclosed paid editors. 10210:Search on "New Leaf Publishing" yielded 9293:is rooted in policy so is not optional. 8107:WT:RSP#WP:SHORTCUTS for specific sources 6646:5,000 film songs for 583 released films. 6628:The success of "Bunder Road se Keemari", 6589:the success of "Bunder Road se Keemari", 6256:the Biographies of Living Persons policy 5604:Iran bans contact with foreign media (c) 4915:redirects to the well-known RFC, unlike 3446:which relied heavily upon advertisements 2712:. There was no end of discussion at the 1889: 8112:Discussion if including shortcuts like 7376:27 years after his death, the Pakistani 7293:died of a heart attack at the age of 48 7253:died of a heart attack at the age of 48 5741:Besides, It wasn't just Fair Observer, 4949:Strikes me as a bit long to be useful. 2431:Talk:Jat people#Jat population in India 1249:for a claim on BLP material concerning 1027:from? That's not in the RFC conclusion. 14: 10897: 10844: 10842: 6399:So careless was the copy-paste by the 6033:Semantic Scholar clarification request 5096:That doesn't seem to quite match with 4514:so is FanSided a reliable source? imv 4108:, being treated as a reliable source. 4104:The author's work on castles has been 3713:as two other non-listed alternatives. 3569:article an acceptable citation, since 977:. So the burden of proof for addition 470:Non-English sources are allowed under 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 10931:. The Center for Responsive Politics. 10528:an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair 10141:New Leaf Publishing Group (publisher) 10059:(a hospitality magazine according to 9311:A side note: Notability is decidedly 8841:became the second Indian woman to win 8809:became the second Indian woman to win 8172:including at least 5 opinion columns 6598:Here is the relevant quotes from the 5824:. Please feel free to participate. 5577:, etc. Other cases could be found on 3749:, which is a criterion listed in the 2146:source can be discussed and relevant. 10826: 10751:I would vote support for your RfC.-- 10344:Christian Writers' Market Guide 2009 8497: 8432:) 21:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC) And 6367:including a silver medal at the 2016 5242:, which permit them to be used with 4885:Editors here may be interested in a 4733:This is our unsourced version as of 2863:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 2566:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 2384:Knowledge:WikiProject Football/Links 2020:The following discussion is closed. 1836:The following discussion is closed. 478:English-language sources, including 29: 10903: 10839: 10835:. Committee to Protect Journalists. 9267:to be very likely indeed. Like any 8424:in case they wish to add anything. 8245:relevant talk page to determine. -- 7328:These are the relevant quotes from 5214:10 previous noticeboard discussions 4204:'s Cambridge University Press book. 4093:The website is used as a source in 3849:critical, then I'd agree, but they 3626:NoScript, EFF Privacy Badger, site: 2121:FWIW: here is the only page of the 27: 10923:Massoglia, Anna (2 October 2019). 10884: 10820: 10294:Exploring the world of mathematics 10167:insource search for "master books" 10024:), which rule Adamant1 disregards. 9937:explicitly names inclusion in the 9894:Neither of the sources offered by 8780:, and the info was added at WP in 7232:WP's version as of 23 October 2014 6737:In 2003, 20 years after his death, 4510:It's a reprint of an article from 2710:List of music considered the worst 2556:List of music considered the worst 28: 11342: 10270:UFO visitors are actually demons. 9956:be able to write a decent article 8994:rather than trying to delete it, 7330:WP's version of 23 September 2019 4659: 2594:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Albums 1860:? The following was added to the 973:- which is policy - also states: 925:#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source 10904:Yee, Vivian (26 November 2019). 10404: 10073:has found a book" (according to 9995: 8498: 8379:mirroring misinformation from WP 7266:Here is the relevant quote from 7148:but shares the same problems. -- 7095: 7041: 7036: 6830:WP's version as of 27 march 2011 6750:And this is the full article of 6328: 5878: 5873: 5590:, including around 100 who were 4682: 4542:Talk:HYPR_Corp#Reply_15-JAN-2020 4238:and not in the context of Punt. 4049: 4044: 3705:@ hit or exceed 17 OR 18 limits. 3474:Yes, print publications tend to 3265:is a key factor quoted from the 3022: 3017: 2982: 2602:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Songs 2598:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Music 2364:Thanks, I'll have a look later, 2217:The discussion above is closed. 2053:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 2048:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 2031:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders 1983:The discussion above is closed. 33: 10962:Can bestseller lists be bought? 10152:Institute for Creation Research 9660:but you need other sources for 9254:Yes, per The C of E. Just like 6708:WP's version as of 8 April 2012 6555:These are relevant quotes from 6013:ok,not disappointed any more - 5615:Iranian Students Polling Agency 5075:for fact-checking and the like. 3747:"apparent conflict of interest" 3374:poorly received due to its bias 3263:"apparent conflict of interest" 2847:a new article about an 80s band 2778:. Music criticism is always an 2093:This is the content in question 1352:There is even a tactic called 754:Third, given the importance of 546:Sport Club Corinthians Paulista 542:replace a "citation needed" tag 419:Sport Club Corinthians Paulista 10935: 10916: 9442:substitute or proxy for that. 5814:RFC on SPLC in lead paragraphs 5343:according to his linkedin page 4845:are unlikely to head first to 4653: 4493: 3751:policy on questionable sources 3745:; I said that Cars.com has an 3267:policy on questionable sources 2131:cited twice on that page. 🌿 1890:McNicoll, Brian (2018-01-10). 1883: 651:Onto the next few paragraphs: 13: 1: 10442:Every single concept in some 10007:which ended in "keep", which 9952:Knowledge:Independent sources 9935:(which includes restaurants) 9419:as another candidate above). 8769:won the inaugural edition of 7934:article. It was published in 7876:Judging from the examples at 7688:was the newspaper of record. 7289:songs for 583 released films. 7261:songs for 583 released films. 5970:Mostly I'm disappointed that 5950:on the Canadian league (like 3699:* Not currently on RSPS list. 3565:. But, that doesn't make the 3408:apparent conflict of interest 3069:apparent conflict of interest 11331:08:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 11309:14:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 11294:16:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 11267:21:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11249:Many charts are evidence of 11243:10:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 11222:21:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11208:13:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11190:10:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11165:01:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11150:01:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11131:23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 11108:01:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 11051:23:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 11035:22:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 10799:04:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 10778:16:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 10761:13:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 10747:17:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 10632:10:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 10611:05:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 10588:00:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 10571:23:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 10549:19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 10479:03:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 10461:21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 10396:01:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 10335:16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 10314:03:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 10283:00:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 10205:05:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 10183:11:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 10131:02:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 10116:02:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 10095:02:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 9987:17:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 9908:20:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9882:12:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 9866:10:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 9845:18:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9831:18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9809:18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9795:18:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9773:17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9754:15:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9732:15:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9706:16:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9678:14:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9642:15:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9620:14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9564:14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9546:14:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9512:02:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9494:02:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9475:02:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9449:02:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9431:02:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9404:01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 9382:16:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9350:15:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9329:15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9307:15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9285:15:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9250:14:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9235:14:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9218:07:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9181:15:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9162:07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9143:06:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9113:06:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9090:06:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9070:06:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9048:06:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9027:06:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 9012:05:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 8989:05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 8969:05:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 8954:04:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 8922:18:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 8902:this revision of August 2014 8893:12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 8875:23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 8860:20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 8753:01:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 8729:22:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8714:22:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8699:22:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8670:22:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8645:22:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8630:22:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8608:22:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8568:23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8550:22:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8513:22:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8472:22:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8446:21:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8400:21:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 8368:16:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 8353:00:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 8339:has no "zaubacorp", and the 8327:14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 8255:14:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 8238:01:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 8217:13:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 8198:19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 8129:14:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 8100:14:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 8086:23:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 8064:21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 8028:22:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 8010:09:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 7985:20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 7969:20:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 7950:20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 7913:21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 7886:14:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 7878:Newspaper of record#Examples 7871:19:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7852:18:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7835:01:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 7816:18:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7756:01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 7700:17:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7671:17:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7653:17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7614:16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7587:11:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7550:20:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 7529:02:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 7509:02:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 7470:16:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 7445:19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 7430:18:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 7407:19:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 7364:article dated 2 October 2019 7313:19:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 7203:22:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 7182:23:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 7158:11:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 7121:06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 7091:19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7076:17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7014:19:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6999:19:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6984:19:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6962:19:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6942:19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6921:18:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6906:18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6803:18:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6788:18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6681:18:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6666:18:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6557:WP's version of 8 April 2012 6526:18:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6503:17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6473:23:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 6455:17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6437:13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 6415:20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 6349:20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 6315:08:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6298:08:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6268:07:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6248:Identifying reliable sources 6238:07:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 6214:20:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 6194:15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 6174:07:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 6164:05:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 6144:00:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 6130:23:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 6114:17:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 6098:16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 6080:15:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 6064:14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 6023:12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 6009:11:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 5984:11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 5964:03:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 5940:03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 5901:23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC) 5855:22:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5840:22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5796:16:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5782:16:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5767:15:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5715:13:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5696:09:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5549:20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5522:19:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5505:18:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5491:12:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5473:12:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5454:09:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5392:16:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5367:16:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 5337:23:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5311:15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5290:09:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5268:20:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5170:19:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5149:19:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5128:19:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5110:19:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5092:19:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5069:19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 5016:16:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 4993:20:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4971:14:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4944:10:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4899:02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 4875:23:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4859:21:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4819:20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4703:20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4642:09:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4614:06:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4596:00:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 4582:23:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 4559:22:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 4524:18:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 4483:05:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 4460:02:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 4415:16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 4384:13:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 4358:13:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 4328:21:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4301:20:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4279:20:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4248:20:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4224:19:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4172:19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4157:17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4118:14:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 4106:cited by others in the field 4085:13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 4030:18:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 4009:19:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3992:19:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3971:04:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 3953:13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3930:12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3916:14:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3892:13:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 3833:01:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 3784:01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 3735:15:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 3688:19, 14 xda-developers.com *@ 3595:07:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 3531:12:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3512:07:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3470:04:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 3460:may be worth a look too. -- 3458:Decline_of_newspapers#Crisis 3434:23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3335:13:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3305:12:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3287:10:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3250:10:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3227:10:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3189:09:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3153:reasonable anti-fraud advice 3127:04:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 3108:08:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3047:08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 3004:04:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 2976:20:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2949:19:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2932:19:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2913:19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2832:03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 2792:01:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 2771:03:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2752:18:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2731:14:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2690:13:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2667:12:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2651:11:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2622:09:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2586:09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2524:06:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2509:20:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 2484:20:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2468:draftified grandpa's article 2462:16:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2443:20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2410:18:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 2396:18:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2374:16:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2360:16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2324:16:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2306:16:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2281:19:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2255:15:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 2212:10:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 2196:20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2180:19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2158:17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2136:19:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2117:17:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2085:17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2066:17:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 2013:16:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 1976:14:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 1961:13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 1945:11:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 1829:16:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC) 1792:21:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1759:18:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 1654:10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 1639:20:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1625:20:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1611:20:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1580:19:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1565:18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1543:21:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1526:19:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1511:19:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1497:19:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1479:19:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1450:19:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1435:19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1421:18:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1381:20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1366:18:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1348:18:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1333:17:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1319:17:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1305:17:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1290:18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1268:17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 1223:11:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 1190:10:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 1174:20:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1152:20:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1127:19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1098:19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1080:19:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1065:19:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 1011:18:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 994:18:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 951:- which is policy - states: 898:16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 884:09:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 860:10:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 837:09:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 801:22:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 777:22:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 733:14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 699:unclear who Mr Cracknell is. 690:Lets try some fact checking 616:13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 601:12:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 586:12:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 566:23:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 524:14:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 510:14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 466:14:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 439:12:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 397:10:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 375:10:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 348:09:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 326:07:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 298:07:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 265:07:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 249:07:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 206:07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 187:06:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 148:03:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 133:00:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7: 10789:. I invite anyone to join. 10433:Interdimensional hypothesis 10148:Interdimensional hypothesis 9604:entire, total, and complete 8934:Does a restaurant having a 8536:Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600002 7339:President Asif Ali Zardari 7107:reference in a GA2 pending 6866:article dated 12 April 2011 6861:And here is the quote from 6384:(dated 25 September 2019): 5462:Here is a pdf of the survey 4981:Knowledge:Citing Daily Mail 4136:. Any views? All the best! 3743:"Advert-infested clickbait" 2708:s lists are cited at, say, 1712:if it looks uncontroversial 1692:redundant to existing cites 1088:that you're adding, right? 939:deprecation RFC for the Sun 316:Football Guide or similar. 10: 11347: 10424:Sentes & Palmer (2000) 8090:Concur. Eliminate both. -- 7519:These editorial guidelines 6757:published on 11 April 2012 6543:Here is an example of the 6380:And here's a quote from a 6358:(dated 2 September 2019): 6326: 6224:I'm curious as to whether 5913:I believe it is closer to 5665:Other cases of criticism: 5621:which estimated that : --> 5192:Columbia Journalism Review 4680: 4208:really a POV problem, see 1914:: CS1 maint: url-status ( 963:- but it is almost always 931:Knowledge:Reliable sources 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 10984:Investor's Business Daily 9965:One or more stars in the 9094:I am happy to agree with 8581:, thanks for your input. 7778:). The BBC article lists 7637:on the same plane as die 6767:Ahmed Rushdi was awarded 6354:Here's a quote from WP's 5865:The most-cited source in 4961:'cos it saved typing.) - 4904:WP:DAILYMAIL alt redirect 3682:16, 7 washingtonpost.com 3667:17, 18 liliputing.com *# 3643:7, 4 climatefeedback.org 3492:The decline of journalism 3255:CoinDesk claims the same. 3240:content departments." -- 2818:identified the source as 2564:is listed as reliable on 10870:: CS1 maint: location ( 10504:, tortured, or killed. 10005:AFD on 't Brouwerskolkje 9598:that the source text is 8784:. But an anonymous user 8331:FWIW I found 70 uses of 7361:The News International's 7272:article of 11 April 2015 6603:article of 11 April 2012 6258:before editing further. 5887:and WP:PHWOOOOOOAAAAR!. 5619:2017–18 Iranian protests 5588:2019–20 Iranian protests 5430:Iranian Foreign Ministry 5355:regular Guardian blogger 4431:Las Vegas Review-Journal 4340:Las Vegas Review-Journal 4042:gatehouse-gazetteer.info 3640:2, 0 caranddriver.com * 3631:32, 17 arstechnica.com # 3237:the introduction article 2219:Please do not modify it. 2022:Please do not modify it. 1985:Please do not modify it. 1838:Please do not modify it. 385:Whilst this may be true 194:sports score lines et-al 10487:Saudi sourcing problems 7374:after a long period of 6638:he suffered from health 6482:Template:Backwards copy 6371:is the recipient of the 6048:discussed recently here 5991:, see also the deleted 5867:Legends Football League 5536:) and Clay Ramsay (bio 4843:reliability of a source 4827:(et al.), Alert editor 3906:controversial claims. 3766:from actual content. — 3555:The Wall Street Journal 3175:Lastly, Jenni seems to 3082:, which was considered 2470:, which has now become 927:, which is headed with 10496:, but that was 2007. 10011:wasn't satisfied with. 9971:Rebuttable presumption 8847: 8816: 7925:Leah Labelle Vladowski 7798: 7595:, I'm quickly pinging 7394: 7357: 7300: 7268:The News International 7264: 7238:... was "an important 7214:The News International 7193:, I'm very paranoid. – 7105:Seinfeld: A XXX Parody 6894: 6859: 6776: 6748: 6654: 6644:having recorded about 6596: 6397: 6378: 5248:Special:Diff/936739627 5137:the WP:BLPN discussion 4802: 4769: 4708:Here is an example of 3670:9, 4 motortrend.com * 3664:2, 1 theintercept.com 3634:15, 11 theatlantic.com 3160:their "expert" reviews 3061:classified advertising 2738:as per discussions at 1875: 1866:Special:Diff/936305491 1251:Brian Houston (pastor) 281:basic Knowledge policy 10966:The Los Angeles Times 10730:As an informal rule; 9075:presumed notability. 8906:November 2014 onwards 8844:the Philippines Open. 8826: 8813:the Philippines Open. 8811:a 4-star tournament, 8794: 8786:vandalised it in 2014 8759:Another example from 8689:from this project. - 8169:Used in ~70 sources. 7368: 7334: 7276: 7236: 6870: 6834: 6816:Here's an example of 6810:The Nation (Pakistan) 6760: 6711: 6694:Here's an example of 6607: 6561: 6386: 6360: 5403:Used and disputed in 4780: 4747: 3719:(Page score: 25, 18) 3716:(Page score: 31, 15) 3676:31, 27 usatoday.com # 3442:advertising-free list 3360:self-published source 2043:Communication studies 1870: 1597:So would you like to 1113:- that its use it is 929:Further information: 306:is in play for Govvy. 46:of past discussions. 10502:solitary confinement 10318:And others are like 8823:dated 27 August 2015 8294:significant coverage 7562:Shouldn't we update 6365:on the BWF circuit, 6052:OABOT Talk page here 5434:Ayatollah Khamenei’s 5407:article. Also used ( 5218:generally unreliable 4426:letter to the editor 4127:Fortnight (magazine) 3661:11, 9 fortune.com * 3655:18, 2 edmunds.com * 3370:has an editoral team 3207:targeted advertising 3158:While it's possible 3146:an article like this 3084:generally unreliable 2802:Related to a recent 2416:Population estimates 1115:actively discouraged 641:St Paul's Cathedral" 11011:Electric Literature 10521:Jeff Bezos#Politics 10234:New Leaf Publishing 9386:There is a area at 9205:God Save the Queen! 8147:Longmont Times-Call 8135:Longmont Times-Call 7804:Newspaper of record 7787:Gazet van Antwerpen 7771:Newspaper of record 7723:, and even NYT are 7623:newspaper of record 7568:Newspaper of record 7557:Newspaper of record 7259:five thousand film 6769:the Sitara-e-Imtiaz 6741:the Sitara-e-Imtiaz 6260:NorthBySouthBaranof 5743:Washington Examiner 5244:in-text attribution 4919:which takes you to 4600:I see that you are 4036:Gatehouse Gazetteer 3658:23, 12 forbes.com @ 3652:8, 4 economist.com 3519:Talk:Lane_centering 3170:a policy on adverts 2539:in-text attribution 2347:God Save the Queen! 2335:To be used for the 2293:God Save the Queen! 2268:God Save the Queen! 2242:God Save the Queen! 1666:. Replacing with a 1140:Help:Citation tools 919:, which is policy: 623:article in question 534:added Rowley's book 11255:officialcharts.com 10975:The New York Times 10910:The New York Times 10854:Human Rights Watch 10269: 10063:). A piece in the 9921:So many thoughts: 8741:Circular reporting 8121:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 7255:, after recording 5972:WP:PHWOOOOOOAAAAR! 5000:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 4985:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 4936:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 4928:WP:DAILYMAIL (RSP) 4908:Current consensus 4797:and comic skills. 4776:on 25 October 2012 4764:and comic skills. 3685:43, 44 wired.com # 3679:19, 11 verge.com @ 3673:15, 11 nytimes.com 3637:22, 21 cars.com *# 3396:comparison sites ( 3136:Reliable for facts 3034:as a bare ref here 2961:would be welcome. 2427:mirrored WP before 2337:Tyreece John-Jules 2128:Blue Nation Review 2023: 1839: 1805:on credibility of 1295:Not an RS for BLP. 213:Folha de Sao Paulo 11241: 11188: 11129: 10702: 10701: 10630: 10569: 10539: 10376:(insource search) 10368:(insource search) 10360:(insource search) 10352:(insource search) 10267: 9896:User:Slatersteven 9864: 9676: 9586:be notable or is 9492: 9447: 9305: 9273:'t Brouwerskolkje 8941:'t Brouwerskolkje 8523: 8314:secondary sources 8261:Draft:Burgeon Law 8084: 8008: 7937:The Seattle Times 7727:reliable sources. 7372:in November 2010, 7180: 7074: 6369:Olympics ... She 6201:User:Citation bot 6096: 6007: 5899: 5390: 5288: 5265: 5187:Poynter Institute 5168: 5014: 4806: 4805: 4640: 4457: 4362:In this articles 4095:quite a few books 4083: 3951: 3830: 3781: 3764:content marketing 3592: 3509: 3431: 3354:content marketing 3284: 3224: 3105: 3065:content marketing 2869:discussion where 2849:, and the use of 2619: 2583: 2074:repetitive matter 2021: 1942: 1896:Accuracy in Media 1847:Accuracy in Media 1837: 1803:Accuracy in Media 1790: 1138:. More listed at 675:Our survey says: 563: 507: 436: 295: 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current main page 11338: 11284: 11235: 11182: 11137:Nielsen BookScan 11123: 10948: 10947: 10939: 10933: 10932: 10929:OpenSecrets News 10920: 10914: 10913: 10901: 10895: 10894: 10885:Ismail, Raihan. 10882: 10876: 10875: 10869: 10861: 10846: 10837: 10836: 10827:Campagna, Joel. 10824: 10685: 10684: 10624: 10563: 10535:New Pages Patrol 10533:(crossposted to 10531: 10475: 10470: 10408: 10392: 10387: 10378: 10370: 10362: 10354: 10331: 10326: 10310: 10305: 10257:, but I digress. 10241:Don't think the 10201: 10196: 10179: 10174: 10169: 10163: 10113: 10111:Let's discuss it 10037:footnote 2 that 9999: 9977:-style search. 9858: 9821: 9751: 9749: 9696: 9672: 9669: 9634: 9610: 9556: 9538: 9535: 9491: 9483:, start article 9467: 9446: 9396: 9374: 9371: 9321: 9299: 9216: 9213: 9206: 9203: 9135: 9110: 9108:Let's discuss it 9082: 9079: 9062: 9009: 9007:Let's discuss it 8845: 8842: 8838: 8834: 8830: 8814: 8810: 8806: 8802: 8798: 8771:Philippines Open 8618: 8539:+91-44-2857 6300 8517: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8495: 8491: 8488:Email (21st c.) 8487: 8482: 8469: 8466: 8460: 8434:Fylindfotberserk 8423: 8078: 8002: 7961: 7911: 7808:Francis Schonken 7801: 7606: 7603: 7460: 7392: 7388: 7385: 7381: 7377: 7373: 7355: 7350: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7323:Copyvio report: 7298: 7294: 7290: 7286: 7282: 7262: 7258: 7254: 7250: 7245: 7241: 7225:Copyvio report: 7174: 7099: 7068: 7062:. Is this a RS? 7045: 7040: 6892: 6888: 6884: 6880: 6875: 6857: 6853: 6848: 6844: 6839: 6774: 6770: 6766: 6746: 6742: 6738: 6732: 6725: 6724:"Ko-Ko-Ko-reena. 6720: 6715: 6652: 6647: 6643: 6639: 6633: 6629: 6624: 6620: 6615: 6611: 6594: 6590: 6586: 6582: 6577: 6573: 6569: 6565: 6564:He suffered from 6500: 6497: 6491: 6433: 6428: 6395: 6391: 6376: 6372: 6368: 6364: 6351: 6332: 6331: 6321:Mint (newspaper) 6293: 6291: 6290: 6090: 6039:Semantic Scholar 6001: 5974:doesn't exist - 5912: 5893: 5882: 5877: 5837: 5835: 5830: 5823: 5729: 5563: 5515: 5425:Mojtaba Khamenei 5384: 5333: 5328: 5282: 5263: 5259: 5256: 5233: 5211: 5162: 5120: 5084: 5043:Snooganssnoogans 5023:Climate Feedback 5008: 4789:Subsequent work 4756:Subsequent work 4722: 4721: 4705: 4686: 4685: 4666: 4665: 4657: 4634: 4502: 4497: 4455: 4451: 4448: 4410: 4405: 4318:critical of it. 4295: 4218: 4154: 4149: 4142: 4077: 4053: 4048: 4020: 3945: 3828: 3824: 3821: 3814: 3802: 3779: 3775: 3772: 3744: 3691:14, 6 zdnet.com 3649:28, 21 cnn.com # 3590: 3586: 3583: 3564: 3551: 3547: 3507: 3503: 3500: 3429: 3425: 3422: 3390: 3380:determined that 3282: 3278: 3275: 3222: 3218: 3215: 3177:give good advice 3103: 3099: 3096: 3081: 3036: 3027:bills itself as 3026: 3021: 2986: 2968: 2965: 2905: 2902: 2707: 2648: 2643: 2624: 2617: 2613: 2610: 2581: 2577: 2574: 2553: 2472:grandson's draft 2457: 2452: 2358: 2355: 2348: 2345: 2334: 2304: 2301: 2294: 2291: 2279: 2276: 2269: 2266: 2253: 2250: 2243: 2240: 2109:Snooganssnoogans 2058:Snooganssnoogans 2008: 2003: 1955: 1940: 1936: 1933: 1920: 1919: 1913: 1905: 1903: 1902: 1887: 1862:Climate Feedback 1859: 1851:Climate Feedback 1824: 1819: 1807:Climate Feedback 1784: 1711: 1705: 1688: 1682: 1675: 1669: 1489: 1413: 1278: 1248: 1242: 1015:The policy says 790: 784: 561: 557: 554: 505: 501: 498: 488:(which excludes 485:Folha de S.Paulo 456: 454: 434: 430: 427: 414:Folha de S.Paulo 405:added a citation 336: 288: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 11346: 11345: 11341: 11340: 11339: 11337: 11336: 11335: 11282: 11157:Red Rock Canyon 11043:Red Rock Canyon 10958: 10953: 10952: 10951: 10940: 10936: 10921: 10917: 10902: 10898: 10891:Washington Post 10883: 10879: 10863: 10862: 10848: 10847: 10840: 10825: 10821: 10698: 10690: 10673:Wayback Machine 10517:Jamal Khashoggi 10510:Asharq Al-Awsat 10489: 10473: 10468: 10390: 10385: 10374: 10366: 10358: 10350: 10349:New Leaf Press 10329: 10324: 10308: 10303: 10199: 10194: 10177: 10172: 10165: 10159: 10143: 10109: 9819: 9747: 9745: 9694: 9674:problem solving 9667: 9632: 9608: 9554: 9543: 9536: 9533: 9465: 9422: 9394: 9379: 9372: 9369: 9319: 9211: 9204: 9201: 9198: 9133: 9106: 9087: 9080: 9077: 9060: 9005: 8932: 8843: 8840: 8836: 8832: 8828: 8812: 8808: 8804: 8800: 8796: 8764: 8612: 8499: 8493: 8489: 8485: 8476: 8464: 8458: 8455: 8409: 8381: 8263: 8143: 8110: 8038: 8036:Actblue /Winred 7959: 7921: 7895: 7799:kwaliteitskrant 7691: 7644: 7611: 7604: 7601: 7560: 7478: 7458: 7390: 7386: 7383: 7379: 7375: 7371: 7352: 7348: 7344: 7340: 7336: 7321: 7296: 7292: 7288: 7284: 7279: 7260: 7256: 7252: 7247: 7243: 7239: 7223: 7218: 7030: 6890: 6885: 6882: 6878: 6873: 6855: 6850: 6846: 6842: 6837: 6814: 6772: 6768: 6763: 6744: 6740: 6736: 6729: 6722: 6717: 6713: 6692: 6650: 6645: 6641: 6637: 6631: 6627: 6622: 6618: 6613: 6609: 6592: 6588: 6584: 6579: 6575: 6571: 6567: 6563: 6541: 6495: 6489: 6486: 6431: 6426: 6393: 6388: 6374: 6370: 6366: 6362: 6352: 6339: 6337: 6329: 6325: 6288: 6286: 6284: 6222: 6035: 5906: 5863: 5833: 5828: 5826: 5819: 5816: 5774:Red Rock Canyon 5726:Red Rock Canyon 5723: 5707:Red Rock Canyon 5579:IranPoll's site 5560:Red Rock Canyon 5557: 5541:Red Rock Canyon 5509: 5405:Qasem Soleimani 5400: 5331: 5326: 5261: 5254: 5227: 5212:. Editors from 5205: 5118: 5082: 5027: 4906: 4883: 4807: 4773:Hindustan Times 4727: 4726:Mirroring by HT 4711:Hindustan Times 4706: 4693: 4691: 4683: 4679: 4675:Hindustan Times 4671: 4670: 4669: 4658: 4654: 4538: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4498: 4494: 4468: 4453: 4446: 4406: 4403: 4342: 4293: 4216: 4184: 4152: 4145: 4138: 4130: 4038: 4018: 4001:Daniel.Cardenas 3963:Daniel.Cardenas 3826: 3819: 3808: 3796: 3777: 3770: 3742: 3588: 3581: 3558: 3549: 3541: 3505: 3498: 3427: 3420: 3384: 3350:channel traffic 3280: 3273: 3220: 3213: 3119:Daniel.Cardenas 3101: 3094: 3075: 3032: 3012: 2973: 2966: 2963: 2910: 2903: 2900: 2839: 2800: 2714:talk page there 2705: 2646: 2641: 2625: 2615: 2608: 2591: 2579: 2572: 2547: 2494: 2453: 2450: 2418: 2353: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2328: 2299: 2292: 2289: 2286: 2274: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2248: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2026: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2004: 2001: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1953: 1938: 1931: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1907: 1906: 1900: 1898: 1888: 1884: 1853: 1842: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1820: 1817: 1810: 1709: 1703: 1686: 1680: 1673: 1667: 1487: 1411: 1272: 1246: 1240: 1234: 1231:Hillsong Church 1215:François Robere 788: 782: 559: 552: 538:Corinthian F.C. 503: 496: 448: 447: 432: 425: 330: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 11344: 11334: 11333: 11311: 11296: 11272: 11271: 11270: 11269: 11247: 11246: 11245: 11196: 11195: 11194: 11193: 11192: 11173: 11167: 11112: 11111: 11110: 11096: 11095: 11094: 11091: 11088: 11085: 11082: 11068: 11023: 11022: 11013: 11004: 10995: 10986: 10977: 10968: 10957: 10954: 10950: 10949: 10934: 10915: 10896: 10877: 10838: 10818: 10817: 10813: 10812: 10811: 10810: 10809: 10808: 10807: 10806: 10805: 10804: 10803: 10802: 10801: 10763: 10720: 10719: 10718: 10717: 10716: 10715: 10714: 10713: 10700: 10699: 10695: 10692: 10691: 10688: 10683: 10682: 10681: 10680: 10679: 10678: 10677: 10676: 10662: 10661: 10660: 10659: 10658: 10657: 10656: 10655: 10639: 10638: 10637: 10636: 10635: 10634: 10573: 10488: 10485: 10484: 10483: 10482: 10481: 10448: 10447: 10440: 10428: 10427: 10420: 10401: 10400: 10399: 10398: 10380: 10379: 10371: 10363: 10355: 10340: 10339: 10338: 10337: 10316: 10286: 10285: 10259: 10258: 10250: 10238: 10237: 10226:de Young et al 10142: 10139: 10138: 10137: 10136: 10135: 10134: 10133: 10052: 10051: 10043: 10042: 10026: 10025: 10013: 10012: 9992: 9991: 9990: 9989: 9963: 9944: 9939:Michelin Guide 9929: 9919: 9918: 9917: 9916: 9915: 9914: 9913: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9889: 9888: 9887: 9886: 9885: 9884: 9847: 9837:Walter Görlitz 9801:Walter Görlitz 9776: 9775: 9760:EFL League Two 9756: 9748:Rhododendrites 9737: 9736: 9735: 9734: 9719:Michelin Guide 9711: 9710: 9709: 9708: 9646: 9645: 9644: 9578:Notability is 9575: 9574: 9573: 9572: 9571: 9570: 9569: 9568: 9567: 9566: 9541: 9521: 9520: 9519: 9518: 9517: 9516: 9515: 9514: 9435: 9434: 9433: 9420: 9406: 9377: 9364:WP:NRESTAURANT 9352: 9338:Michelin Guide 9333: 9332: 9331: 9287: 9252: 9237: 9221: 9220: 9186: 9185: 9184: 9183: 9165: 9164: 9148: 9147: 9146: 9145: 9092: 9085: 9072: 9054: 9053: 9052: 9051: 9050: 9040:Walter Görlitz 9035: 9032: 8991: 8971: 8961:Walter Görlitz 8931: 8928: 8927: 8926: 8925: 8924: 8895: 8878: 8877: 8790:16 August 2015 8763: 8757: 8756: 8755: 8736: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8731: 8716: 8701: 8675: 8674: 8673: 8672: 8654: 8653: 8652: 8651: 8650: 8649: 8648: 8647: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8587: 8586:fact-checking. 8576: 8575: 8574: 8573: 8572: 8571: 8570: 8540: 8537: 8534: 8531: 8528: 8527: 8526:Suresh Nambath 8524: 8380: 8374: 8373: 8372: 8371: 8370: 8329: 8318: 8317: 8311: 8306: 8300: 8297: 8290: 8289: 8262: 8259: 8258: 8257: 8241: 8240: 8220: 8219: 8183: 8182: 8176: 8167: 8164: 8159: 8154: 8149: 8142: 8132: 8109: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8088: 8037: 8034: 8033: 8032: 8031: 8030: 8013: 8012: 7992: 7991: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7987: 7928: 7927: 7920: 7917: 7916: 7915: 7888: 7855: 7854: 7844:Britishfinance 7839: 7838: 7837: 7819: 7818: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7759: 7758: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7728: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7689: 7658: 7657: 7656: 7655: 7642: 7635:People's Daily 7609: 7593:Britishfinance 7579:Britishfinance 7559: 7554: 7553: 7552: 7531: 7477: 7474: 7473: 7472: 7448: 7447: 7410: 7409: 7320: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7222: 7219: 7217: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7205: 7124: 7123: 7093: 7052: 7051: 7046: 7029: 7026: 7025: 7024: 7023: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7016: 6967: 6966: 6965: 6964: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6944: 6924: 6923: 6813: 6807: 6806: 6805: 6691: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6636:Unfortuantely 6540: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6531: 6530: 6529: 6528: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6505: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6440: 6439: 6382:Mint's article 6373:sports honour 6327: 6324: 6318: 6303: 6302: 6301: 6300: 6278:Know Your Meme 6271: 6270: 6221: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6206:David Eppstein 6182:Moonriddengirl 6177: 6176: 6166: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6146: 6136:David Eppstein 6122:David Eppstein 6106:David Eppstein 6101: 6100: 6082: 6034: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6026: 6025: 5967: 5966: 5948:mark Staffieri 5943: 5942: 5862: 5859: 5858: 5857: 5815: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5739: 5736:Hosein Ghazian 5732:this interview 5730:Have you seen 5718: 5717: 5699: 5698: 5680: 5673: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5655: 5649: 5643: 5637: 5611: 5596:telephone poll 5584:Irannewsupdate 5552: 5551: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5507: 5476: 5475: 5457: 5456: 5442: 5420: 5399: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5359:Peter Gulutzan 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5246:. The text in 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5154:Peter Gulutzan 5141:Peter Gulutzan 5076: 5026: 5020: 5019: 5018: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4959:WP:RSP#The_Sun 4905: 4902: 4882: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4862: 4861: 4804: 4803: 4729: 4728: 4725: 4720: 4716:copyvio report 4681: 4678: 4672: 4668: 4667: 4660:Cohan, Peter. 4651: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4588:Kriptocurrency 4551:Kriptocurrency 4537: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4504: 4503: 4491: 4490: 4486: 4467: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4418: 4417: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4251: 4250: 4183: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4129: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4110:Richard Nevell 4102: 4068:Richard Nevell 4060: 4059: 4054: 4037: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4011: 3994: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3956: 3955: 3933: 3932: 3918: 3901: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3710: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3697: 3693: 3692: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3668: 3665: 3662: 3659: 3656: 3653: 3650: 3647: 3646:9, 4 cnet.com 3644: 3641: 3638: 3635: 3632: 3629: 3627: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3573:as a whole is 3521:talk page. -- 3382:The Points Guy 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3293: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3173: 3166: 3163: 3156: 3149: 3140: 3139: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3111: 3110: 3039:Walter Görlitz 3011: 3008: 3007: 3006: 2990:Usage example 2980: 2979: 2978: 2971: 2934: 2908: 2843:AfD discussion 2838: 2835: 2816:another editor 2799: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2773: 2754: 2733: 2692: 2670: 2669: 2654: 2653: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2535:opinion pieces 2527: 2526: 2493: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2398: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2285:Stil waiting. 2260:Any thoughts? 2232:Playmakerstats 2227: 2226:Playmakerstats 2224: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2199: 2198: 2183: 2182: 2166: 2165: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2088: 2087: 2056:discussions). 2027: 2018: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1993: 1990: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1922: 1921: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1843: 1834: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1809: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1738: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1716: 1713: 1696: 1693: 1677: 1641: 1631:Walter Görlitz 1603:Walter Görlitz 1595: 1592: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1442:Walter Görlitz 1402:Bobbie Houston 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1307: 1282:Walter Görlitz 1237:Walter Görlitz 1233: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1162:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1144:Walter Görlitz 1132: 1103: 1090:Walter Görlitz 1082: 1072:Walter Görlitz 1049: 1038: 1031: 1028: 1020: 1003:Walter Görlitz 999: 982: 979:or restoration 968: 957: 956: 955: 946: 935: 913: 890:Walter Görlitz 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 806: 805: 804: 803: 793:Walter Görlitz 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 714: 702: 701: 700: 688: 687: 686: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 660: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 642: 635: 618: 593:Pelirojopajaro 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 442: 441: 400: 399: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 362: 358: 354: 313: 308: 307: 300: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 251: 237: 236: 235: 230: 225: 220: 215: 167: 155: 154: 150: 111: 110:RfC on The Sun 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 11343: 11332: 11328: 11324: 11320: 11315: 11312: 11310: 11306: 11302: 11297: 11295: 11292: 11291: 11290: 11285: 11279: 11274: 11273: 11268: 11264: 11260: 11256: 11252: 11248: 11244: 11239: 11234: 11233: 11228: 11225: 11224: 11223: 11219: 11215: 11211: 11210: 11209: 11205: 11201: 11197: 11191: 11186: 11181: 11180: 11174: 11171: 11168: 11166: 11162: 11158: 11153: 11152: 11151: 11147: 11143: 11138: 11134: 11133: 11132: 11127: 11122: 11121: 11116: 11113: 11109: 11105: 11101: 11097: 11092: 11089: 11086: 11083: 11080: 11076: 11075: 11073: 11070:According to 11069: 11066: 11062: 11058: 11055:According to 11054: 11053: 11052: 11048: 11044: 11039: 11038: 11037: 11036: 11032: 11028: 11021: 11017: 11014: 11012: 11008: 11005: 11003: 10999: 10996: 10994: 10990: 10987: 10985: 10981: 10978: 10976: 10972: 10969: 10967: 10963: 10960: 10959: 10945: 10938: 10930: 10926: 10919: 10911: 10907: 10900: 10892: 10888: 10881: 10873: 10867: 10860: 10855: 10851: 10845: 10843: 10834: 10830: 10823: 10819: 10816: 10800: 10796: 10792: 10788: 10784: 10781: 10780: 10779: 10775: 10771: 10770:SharʿabSalam▼ 10767: 10764: 10762: 10758: 10754: 10753:SharʿabSalam▼ 10750: 10749: 10748: 10744: 10740: 10736: 10735: 10734:WP:SELFSOURCE 10728: 10727: 10726: 10725: 10724: 10723: 10722: 10721: 10710: 10709: 10708: 10707: 10706: 10705: 10704: 10703: 10694: 10693: 10687: 10686: 10674: 10670: 10669: 10668: 10667: 10666: 10665: 10664: 10663: 10652: 10647: 10646: 10645: 10644: 10643: 10642: 10641: 10640: 10633: 10628: 10623: 10622: 10617: 10614: 10613: 10612: 10608: 10604: 10600: 10596: 10591: 10590: 10589: 10585: 10581: 10580:SharʿabSalam▼ 10577: 10574: 10572: 10567: 10562: 10561: 10556: 10553: 10552: 10551: 10550: 10546: 10542: 10538: 10536: 10529: 10524: 10522: 10518: 10513: 10511: 10505: 10503: 10497: 10495: 10480: 10476: 10471: 10464: 10463: 10462: 10458: 10454: 10450: 10449: 10445: 10441: 10438: 10434: 10430: 10429: 10425: 10422:For example, 10421: 10418: 10414: 10411: 10407: 10403: 10402: 10397: 10393: 10388: 10382: 10381: 10377: 10372: 10369: 10364: 10361: 10357:Master Books 10356: 10353: 10348: 10347: 10345: 10342: 10341: 10336: 10332: 10327: 10321: 10317: 10315: 10311: 10306: 10299: 10295: 10290: 10289: 10288: 10287: 10284: 10280: 10276: 10272: 10265: 10261: 10260: 10256: 10254: 10251: 10248: 10244: 10240: 10239: 10235: 10231: 10227: 10223: 10220: 10216: 10213: 10209: 10208: 10207: 10206: 10202: 10197: 10191: 10185: 10184: 10180: 10175: 10170:). Thanks, — 10168: 10162: 10157: 10153: 10149: 10132: 10128: 10124: 10119: 10118: 10117: 10114: 10112: 10107: 10106: 10101: 10098: 10097: 10096: 10092: 10088: 10084: 10080: 10076: 10072: 10068: 10067: 10066:de Volkskrant 10062: 10058: 10057:Misset Horeca 10054: 10053: 10049: 10045: 10044: 10040: 10036: 10032: 10028: 10027: 10023: 10019: 10015: 10014: 10010: 10006: 10002: 9998: 9994: 9993: 9988: 9984: 9980: 9976: 9972: 9968: 9964: 9961: 9957: 9953: 9949: 9945: 9942: 9940: 9934: 9930: 9927: 9923: 9922: 9920: 9911: 9910: 9909: 9905: 9901: 9897: 9893: 9883: 9879: 9875: 9871: 9870: 9869: 9868: 9867: 9862: 9857: 9856: 9851: 9848: 9846: 9842: 9838: 9834: 9833: 9832: 9829: 9828: 9827: 9822: 9816: 9812: 9811: 9810: 9806: 9802: 9798: 9797: 9796: 9792: 9788: 9784: 9782: 9780: 9779: 9778: 9777: 9774: 9770: 9766: 9761: 9757: 9755: 9750: 9743: 9739: 9738: 9733: 9729: 9725: 9721: 9720: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9707: 9704: 9703: 9702: 9697: 9690: 9685: 9681: 9680: 9679: 9675: 9671: 9670: 9663: 9659: 9655: 9651: 9647: 9643: 9639: 9635: 9628: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9618: 9617: 9616: 9611: 9605: 9601: 9597: 9593: 9589: 9585: 9581: 9577: 9576: 9565: 9561: 9557: 9549: 9548: 9547: 9544: 9539: 9529: 9528: 9527: 9526: 9525: 9524: 9523: 9522: 9513: 9509: 9505: 9500: 9499:Seraphimblade 9497: 9496: 9495: 9490: 9489:Seraphimblade 9486: 9482: 9478: 9477: 9476: 9472: 9468: 9460: 9455: 9452: 9451: 9450: 9445: 9444:Seraphimblade 9441: 9436: 9432: 9429: 9428: 9427: 9418: 9417: 9412: 9407: 9405: 9401: 9397: 9389: 9385: 9384: 9383: 9380: 9375: 9365: 9360: 9356: 9353: 9351: 9347: 9343: 9339: 9334: 9330: 9326: 9322: 9314: 9310: 9309: 9308: 9303: 9298: 9297: 9292: 9288: 9286: 9282: 9278: 9274: 9270: 9266: 9261: 9257: 9253: 9251: 9247: 9243: 9238: 9236: 9232: 9228: 9223: 9222: 9219: 9214: 9208: 9207: 9196: 9192: 9188: 9187: 9182: 9178: 9174: 9169: 9168: 9167: 9166: 9163: 9159: 9155: 9150: 9149: 9144: 9140: 9136: 9129: 9125: 9120: 9116: 9115: 9114: 9111: 9109: 9104: 9103: 9097: 9093: 9091: 9088: 9083: 9073: 9071: 9067: 9063: 9055: 9049: 9045: 9041: 9036: 9033: 9030: 9029: 9028: 9024: 9020: 9015: 9014: 9013: 9010: 9008: 9003: 9002: 8997: 8992: 8990: 8986: 8982: 8978: 8977: 8972: 8970: 8966: 8962: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8955: 8951: 8947: 8942: 8937: 8936:Michelin star 8923: 8919: 8915: 8911: 8907: 8903: 8899: 8896: 8894: 8890: 8886: 8882: 8881: 8880: 8879: 8876: 8872: 8868: 8864: 8863: 8862: 8861: 8857: 8853: 8846: 8825: 8824: 8821: 8815: 8793: 8791: 8787: 8783: 8779: 8778: 8772: 8768: 8762: 8754: 8750: 8746: 8742: 8738: 8737: 8730: 8726: 8722: 8717: 8715: 8711: 8707: 8702: 8700: 8696: 8692: 8688: 8684: 8681: 8680: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8671: 8667: 8663: 8658: 8657: 8656: 8655: 8646: 8642: 8638: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8627: 8623: 8616: 8611: 8610: 8609: 8605: 8601: 8597: 8594: 8593: 8592: 8591: 8584: 8580: 8577: 8569: 8565: 8561: 8557: 8553: 8552: 8551: 8547: 8543: 8538: 8535: 8532: 8529: 8525: 8521: 8520:edit conflict 8516: 8515: 8514: 8510: 8506: 8480: 8475: 8474: 8473: 8470: 8468: 8461: 8452: 8449: 8448: 8447: 8443: 8439: 8435: 8431: 8427: 8421: 8417: 8413: 8407: 8404: 8403: 8402: 8401: 8397: 8393: 8389: 8385: 8378: 8369: 8365: 8361: 8356: 8355: 8354: 8350: 8346: 8342: 8338: 8334: 8330: 8328: 8325: 8324:Donald Albury 8320: 8319: 8315: 8312: 8310: 8307: 8304: 8301: 8298: 8295: 8292: 8291: 8287: 8283: 8282: 8281: 8280: 8276: 8273: 8269: 8266: 8256: 8252: 8248: 8243: 8242: 8239: 8235: 8231: 8227: 8222: 8221: 8218: 8214: 8210: 8206: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8199: 8195: 8191: 8187: 8180: 8177: 8174: 8171: 8168: 8165: 8163: 8160: 8158: 8155: 8153: 8150: 8148: 8145: 8144: 8140: 8136: 8131: 8130: 8126: 8122: 8118: 8115: 8108: 8101: 8097: 8093: 8089: 8087: 8082: 8077: 8076: 8071: 8068: 8067: 8066: 8065: 8061: 8057: 8053: 8050: 8047: 8044: 8041: 8029: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8014: 8011: 8006: 8001: 8000: 7994: 7993: 7986: 7982: 7978: 7974: 7973: 7972: 7971: 7970: 7966: 7962: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7947: 7943: 7939: 7938: 7933: 7926: 7923: 7922: 7914: 7910: 7909: 7905: 7904: 7900: 7899: 7894:perspective. 7892: 7889: 7887: 7884: 7879: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7868: 7864: 7860: 7853: 7849: 7845: 7840: 7836: 7832: 7828: 7823: 7822: 7821: 7820: 7817: 7813: 7809: 7805: 7800: 7795: 7794: 7789: 7788: 7783: 7782: 7777: 7772: 7768: 7765: 7764: 7757: 7753: 7749: 7744: 7739: 7738: 7737: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7726: 7722: 7718: 7714: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7706: 7701: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7687: 7686: 7681: 7677: 7674: 7673: 7672: 7668: 7664: 7660: 7659: 7654: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7640: 7636: 7632: 7628: 7624: 7620: 7617: 7616: 7615: 7612: 7607: 7598: 7594: 7591: 7590: 7589: 7588: 7584: 7580: 7575: 7574: 7569: 7565: 7558: 7551: 7547: 7543: 7539: 7535: 7532: 7530: 7527: 7524: 7520: 7516: 7513: 7512: 7511: 7510: 7507: 7504: 7500: 7496: 7491: 7487: 7483: 7471: 7468: 7467: 7466: 7461: 7455: 7450: 7449: 7446: 7442: 7438: 7434: 7433: 7432: 7431: 7427: 7423: 7419: 7415: 7408: 7404: 7400: 7396: 7395: 7393: 7367: 7365: 7362: 7356: 7333: 7331: 7326: 7325: 7319:Second mirror 7314: 7310: 7306: 7302: 7301: 7299: 7285:approximately 7275: 7273: 7269: 7263: 7257:approximately 7235: 7233: 7228: 7227: 7215: 7204: 7200: 7196: 7192: 7188: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7178: 7173: 7172: 7168: 7164: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7155: 7151: 7147: 7142: 7138: 7134: 7130: 7126: 7125: 7122: 7118: 7114: 7110: 7106: 7102: 7098: 7094: 7092: 7088: 7084: 7080: 7079: 7078: 7077: 7072: 7067: 7066: 7061: 7057: 7050: 7047: 7044: 7039: 7035: 7032: 7031: 7015: 7011: 7007: 7002: 7001: 7000: 6996: 6992: 6987: 6986: 6985: 6981: 6977: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6963: 6959: 6955: 6951: 6950: 6949: 6948: 6943: 6939: 6935: 6931: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6925: 6922: 6918: 6914: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6903: 6899: 6893: 6869: 6867: 6864: 6858: 6833: 6831: 6826: 6824: 6821: 6820: 6811: 6804: 6800: 6796: 6792: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6785: 6781: 6775: 6759: 6758: 6755: 6754: 6747: 6734: 6727: 6710: 6709: 6704: 6702: 6699: 6698: 6689: 6682: 6678: 6674: 6670: 6669: 6668: 6667: 6663: 6659: 6653: 6648: 6634: 6625: 6616: 6606: 6604: 6601: 6595: 6560: 6558: 6553: 6551: 6548: 6547: 6538: 6527: 6523: 6519: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6504: 6501: 6499: 6492: 6483: 6479: 6476: 6475: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6461: 6456: 6452: 6448: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6441: 6438: 6434: 6429: 6423: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6404: 6403: 6396: 6385: 6383: 6377: 6359: 6357: 6350: 6346: 6342: 6336: 6322: 6317: 6316: 6312: 6308: 6299: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6279: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6269: 6265: 6261: 6257: 6253: 6249: 6245: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6235: 6231: 6227: 6226:eBaum's World 6220:eBaum's World 6215: 6211: 6207: 6202: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6191: 6187: 6183: 6175: 6172: 6167: 6165: 6161: 6157: 6156: 6151: 6150: 6145: 6141: 6137: 6133: 6132: 6131: 6127: 6123: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6111: 6107: 6099: 6094: 6089: 6088: 6083: 6081: 6077: 6073: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6065: 6061: 6057: 6053: 6049: 6044: 6040: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6005: 6000: 5999: 5994: 5990: 5987: 5986: 5985: 5981: 5977: 5973: 5969: 5968: 5965: 5961: 5957: 5953: 5949: 5945: 5944: 5941: 5937: 5933: 5929: 5924: 5920: 5916: 5910: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5897: 5892: 5891: 5886: 5881: 5876: 5872: 5868: 5856: 5852: 5848: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5838: 5836: 5831: 5822: 5797: 5793: 5789: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5770: 5769: 5768: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5755:Radio Zamaneh 5752: 5748: 5744: 5740: 5737: 5733: 5727: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5697: 5693: 5689: 5685: 5681: 5678: 5674: 5671: 5667: 5666: 5664: 5659: 5656: 5653: 5650: 5647: 5644: 5641: 5638: 5635: 5632: 5631: 5629: 5625: 5620: 5616: 5613:In one case, 5612: 5609: 5605: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5585: 5580: 5576: 5572: 5568: 5561: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5553: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5535: 5531: 5530: 5523: 5520: 5519:Donald Albury 5513: 5508: 5506: 5502: 5498: 5497:HistoryofIran 5494: 5493: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5483:SharʿabSalam▼ 5480: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5474: 5470: 5466: 5463: 5459: 5458: 5455: 5451: 5447: 5443: 5440: 5439:Fair Observer 5435: 5431: 5426: 5421: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5406: 5402: 5401: 5393: 5388: 5383: 5382: 5377: 5374: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5334: 5329: 5322: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5300: 5291: 5286: 5281: 5280: 5274: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5266: 5264: 5258: 5257: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5231: 5225: 5224: 5219: 5215: 5209: 5204: 5203: 5202:BuzzFeed News 5198: 5194: 5193: 5188: 5184: 5181: 5171: 5166: 5161: 5160: 5155: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5138: 5134: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5089: 5085: 5077: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5057: 5056: 5053: 5050: 5047: 5044: 5041:Here we have 5039: 5038: 5035: 5032: 5029:Here we have 5024: 5017: 5012: 5007: 5006: 5001: 4998: 4994: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4924: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4901: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4863: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4839: 4835: 4830: 4826: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4801: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4787: 4784: 4779: 4777: 4774: 4768: 4765: 4761: 4757: 4754: 4751: 4746: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4731: 4730: 4724: 4723: 4719: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4690: 4676: 4663: 4656: 4652: 4649: 4643: 4638: 4633: 4632: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4615: 4611: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4547: 4543: 4535: 4532: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4508: 4501: 4496: 4492: 4489: 4485: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4473: 4461: 4458: 4456: 4450: 4449: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4432: 4427: 4423: 4420: 4419: 4416: 4413: 4411: 4409: 4400: 4395: 4391: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4360: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4346:reviewjournal 4329: 4325: 4321: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4302: 4299: 4296: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4280: 4276: 4272: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4222: 4219: 4213: 4210: 4206: 4203: 4199: 4196: 4192: 4189: 4181: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4155: 4150: 4148: 4143: 4141: 4135: 4128: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4091: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4081: 4076: 4075: 4069: 4065: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4047: 4043: 4040: 4039: 4031: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4021: 4015: 4012: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3995: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3954: 3949: 3944: 3943: 3938: 3935: 3934: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3852: 3847: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3834: 3831: 3829: 3823: 3822: 3812: 3807:contributors 3806: 3800: 3795: 3793: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3782: 3780: 3774: 3773: 3765: 3760: 3756: 3755:uBlock Origin 3752: 3748: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3715: 3707: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3669: 3666: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3651: 3648: 3645: 3642: 3639: 3636: 3633: 3630: 3628: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3620: 3596: 3593: 3591: 3585: 3584: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3562: 3557: 3556: 3545: 3540: 3539: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3502: 3501: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3447: 3443: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3430: 3424: 3423: 3415: 3411: 3409: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3388: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3366: 3361: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3327:Toasted Meter 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3283: 3277: 3276: 3268: 3264: 3259: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3217: 3216: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3137: 3134: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3109: 3106: 3104: 3098: 3097: 3089: 3085: 3079: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3035: 3030: 3025: 3020: 3016: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2974: 2969: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2935: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2920: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2911: 2906: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784:Bluesatellite 2781: 2777: 2774: 2772: 2769: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2758: 2755: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2672: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655: 2652: 2649: 2644: 2638: 2637:opinion piece 2634: 2630: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2618: 2612: 2611: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2576: 2575: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2557: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2544:Rolling Stone 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2528: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2456: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2356: 2350: 2349: 2338: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2307: 2302: 2296: 2295: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2271: 2270: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2251: 2245: 2244: 2233: 2220: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2168: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2150: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2078:TP discussion 2075: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2025: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2007: 1986: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1943: 1941: 1935: 1934: 1917: 1911: 1897: 1893: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1874: 1869: 1867: 1863: 1857: 1852: 1848: 1841: 1830: 1827: 1825: 1823: 1808: 1804: 1793: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1777: 1774: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1739: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1708: 1701: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1690: 1685: 1678: 1672: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1590: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1467: 1465: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1407: 1403: 1400:and his wife 1399: 1398:Brian Houston 1394: 1393: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1276: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1255: 1252: 1245: 1238: 1232: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1211: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 997: 996: 995: 991: 987: 983: 980: 976: 972: 969: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 947: 944: 940: 936: 933: 932: 926: 922: 918: 914: 911: 907: 904: 903: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 873: 868: 863: 862: 861: 857: 853: 848: 847: 846: 845: 838: 834: 830: 826: 821: 817: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 802: 798: 794: 787: 786:better source 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 765: 761: 757: 752: 748: 744: 743: 734: 730: 726: 722: 715: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 703: 698: 695: 694: 693: 689: 684: 681: 678: 674: 673: 672: 668: 661: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 650: 643: 640: 636: 633: 632: 631: 630: 628: 624: 619: 617: 613: 609: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 575: 567: 564: 562: 556: 555: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 526: 525: 521: 517: 513: 512: 511: 508: 506: 500: 499: 491: 487: 486: 481: 477: 473: 469: 468: 467: 463: 459: 452: 446: 445: 444: 443: 440: 437: 435: 429: 428: 420: 416: 415: 410: 406: 402: 401: 398: 394: 390: 386: 384: 383: 376: 372: 368: 363: 359: 355: 351: 350: 349: 345: 341: 334: 329: 328: 327: 323: 319: 314: 310: 309: 305: 301: 299: 294: 291: 286: 282: 278: 274: 273: 266: 262: 258: 255: 252: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 231: 229: 226: 224: 221: 219: 216: 214: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 203: 199: 195: 190: 189: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 165: 161: 157: 156: 151: 149: 145: 141: 137: 136: 135: 134: 130: 126: 121: 117: 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 11313: 11301:MaximumIdeas 11288: 11287: 11277: 11259:David Gerard 11250: 11230: 11200:Slatersteven 11177: 11118: 11079:The Exorcist 11078: 11071: 11064: 11060: 11056: 11024: 11019: 11010: 11001: 10992: 10983: 10974: 10965: 10937: 10928: 10918: 10909: 10899: 10890: 10880: 10857: 10853: 10832: 10822: 10814: 10783:SharʿabSalam 10731: 10619: 10558: 10532: 10525: 10514: 10506: 10498: 10490: 10437:UFO Religion 10417:Nova Religio 10413:jstor search 10409: 10264:PaleoNeonate 10186: 10156:Master Books 10144: 10110: 10104: 10079:JSTOR search 10075:Girth Summit 10064: 10056: 10039:WhatamIdoing 10000: 9979:WhatamIdoing 9966: 9947: 9938: 9900:Phil Bridger 9874:Slatersteven 9853: 9825: 9824: 9814: 9787:Slatersteven 9765:Phil Bridger 9741: 9717: 9700: 9699: 9688: 9683: 9665: 9661: 9657: 9653: 9649: 9626: 9614: 9613: 9603: 9599: 9595: 9587: 9583: 9579: 9484: 9480: 9458: 9453: 9439: 9425: 9424: 9416:Gault Millau 9414: 9354: 9337: 9312: 9294: 9227:Slatersteven 9202:The C of E 9199: 9127: 9123: 9107: 9101: 9006: 9000: 8976:Gault Millau 8974: 8933: 8909: 8885:Slatersteven 8848: 8827: 8819: 8817: 8803:prestigious 8795: 8776: 8767:Saina Nehwal 8765: 8760: 8686: 8582: 8454: 8382: 8332: 8277: 8274: 8270: 8267: 8264: 8247:MaximumIdeas 8184: 8139:Judith Curry 8114:WP:BREITBART 8111: 8092:MaximumIdeas 8073: 8054: 8051: 8048: 8045: 8042: 8039: 7997: 7935: 7932:Leah LaBelle 7929: 7907: 7902: 7897: 7890: 7856: 7827:Paul Siebert 7791: 7785: 7779: 7766: 7748:Paul Siebert 7742: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7712: 7694: 7693: 7683: 7679: 7647: 7646: 7638: 7634: 7631:Rodong Sinmu 7630: 7626: 7622: 7619:Girth Summit 7571: 7561: 7533: 7514: 7498: 7479: 7476:Uproxx again 7464: 7463: 7418:Waheed Murad 7414:Ahmed Rushdi 7411: 7389:established 7369: 7360: 7358: 7335: 7327: 7322: 7283:He recorded 7277: 7265: 7237: 7229: 7224: 7221:First mirror 7216:mirroring WP 7195:84.46.52.225 7169: 7136: 7113:84.46.53.160 7109:#Filmography 7100: 7083:David Gerard 7063: 7053: 6895: 6871: 6863:The Nation's 6862: 6860: 6835: 6827: 6817: 6815: 6812:mirroring WP 6777: 6761: 6751: 6749: 6735: 6728: 6714:Ahmed Rushdi 6712: 6705: 6695: 6693: 6690:mirroring WP 6655: 6649: 6635: 6626: 6617: 6608: 6599: 6597: 6562: 6554: 6544: 6542: 6539:mirroring WP 6485: 6400: 6398: 6387: 6379: 6361: 6356:P. V. Sindhu 6353: 6323:mirroring WP 6304: 6282: 6281: 6251: 6244:Not a chance 6243: 6223: 6199:Today I saw 6178: 6153: 6102: 6085: 6041:through the 6036: 6015:David Gerard 5996: 5989:David Gerard 5976:David Gerard 5926: 5888: 5864: 5847:David Gerard 5825: 5817: 5595: 5379: 5296: 5277: 5252: 5251: 5240:WP:RSOPINION 5223:The Guardian 5221: 5200: 5190: 5157: 5058: 5045: 5040: 5033: 5028: 5003: 4963:David Gerard 4957:pointing to 4925: 4917:WP:BREITBART 4913:WP:DAILYMAIL 4907: 4884: 4825:Slatersteven 4808: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4788: 4785: 4781: 4772: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4755: 4752: 4748: 4735:14 July 2012 4732: 4709: 4707: 4677:mirroring WP 4655: 4647: 4629: 4606:David Gerard 4601: 4574:David Gerard 4570:WP:GS/Crypto 4546:WP:secondary 4539: 4495: 4487: 4469: 4444: 4443: 4429: 4424:. This is a 4421: 4407: 4397: 4374:for example 4361: 4343: 4265: 4261: 4188:Land of Punt 4185: 4180:Land of Punt 4164:David Gerard 4146: 4139: 4131: 4072: 4061: 4024: 4023: 4013: 3996: 3979: 3940: 3936: 3922:Slatersteven 3900: 3850: 3817: 3816: 3791: 3768: 3767: 3759:ad exchanges 3746: 3740: 3711: 3617: 3579: 3578: 3575:questionable 3570: 3566: 3553: 3536: 3496: 3495: 3445: 3418: 3417: 3405: 3363: 3357: 3271: 3270: 3262: 3257: 3211: 3210: 3194: 3135: 3092: 3091: 3052: 3013: 2996:84.46.53.192 2987: 2936: 2918: 2896:Andrzejbanas 2871:Andrzejbanas 2840: 2824:84.46.53.192 2811: 2801: 2779: 2775: 2763: 2761: 2756: 2735: 2717: 2702: 2699:music critic 2694: 2682:David Gerard 2673: 2659:Slatersteven 2642:Sergecross73 2636: 2628: 2606: 2605: 2570: 2569: 2559: 2542: 2530: 2501:73.123.30.85 2499: 2495: 2454: 2433:. Thanks. - 2419: 2344:The C of E 2341: 2290:The C of E 2287: 2265:The C of E 2262: 2239:The C of E 2236: 2229: 2218: 2204:Slatersteven 2148: 2147: 2144: 2126: 2123:bibliography 2097: 2038: 2028: 2019: 2005: 1984: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1899:. Retrieved 1895: 1885: 1877: 1871: 1844: 1835: 1821: 1779: 1751:David Gerard 1659: 1646:Slatersteven 1617:David Gerard 1589:WP:CONSENSUS 1557:David Gerard 1503:Slatersteven 1358:Slatersteven 1340:David Gerard 1325:Slatersteven 1297:Slatersteven 1275:David Gerard 1271: 1260:David Gerard 1235: 1182:Slatersteven 1166:David Gerard 1156: 1119:David Gerard 1114: 1111:WP:ABOUTSELF 1106: 1057:David Gerard 1024: 1016: 986:David Gerard 978: 974: 964: 960: 952: 942: 928: 920: 909: 866: 824: 763: 750: 746: 705: 691: 683:"apocryphal" 680:"apocryphal" 677:"apocryphal" 670: 669:Next claim: 652: 638: 626: 608:Slatersteven 578:Slatersteven 550: 549: 494: 493: 489: 483: 479: 476:questionable 423: 422: 412: 389:Slatersteven 280: 276: 198:David Gerard 193: 179:David Gerard 163: 140:MaximumIdeas 120:David Gerard 113: 82: 47: 41: 11251:prima facie 10262:The source 9650:for content 9225:notability. 9154:Ian.thomson 8835:celebrated 8782:2006 itself 8745:DreamLinker 8683:Atlantic306 8662:Atlantic306 8345:84.46.53.84 8303:independent 7542:Atlantic306 7437:Atlantic306 7399:Atlantic306 7380:awarded him 7378:government 7341:awarded him 7305:Atlantic306 7291:... Rushdi 6991:Atlantic306 6954:Atlantic306 6930:Atlantic306 6913:Atlantic306 6795:Atlantic306 6673:Atlantic306 6612:eventually 6465:Atlantic306 6422:WP:CIRCULAR 6333:Moved from 6186:Newyorkbrad 5512:SharabSalam 5465:Selfstudier 5236:WP:NEWSBLOG 5197:The Outline 4867:Atlantic306 4838:WP:CIRCULAR 4741:unreliable 4687:Moved from 4516:Atlantic306 4472:Zack Hample 4294:Doug Weller 4217:Doug Weller 4200:as well as 4195:User:Dalhoa 3984:Atlantic306 2958:Atlantic306 2924:Atlantic306 2892:Atlantic306 2859:Atlantic306 2851:this review 2820:WP:BROCHURE 2744:Atlantic306 2402:Atlantic306 2388:Atlantic306 2366:Atlantic306 2331:Atlantic306 2316:Atlantic306 2076:and to the 1968:Hob Gadling 1954:Doug Weller 1864:article in 1354:wp:overcite 1086:WP:BAREURLS 1035:red herring 304:WP:INVOLVED 102:Archive 290 94:Archive 286 89:Archive 285 83:Archive 284 77:Archive 283 72:Archive 282 64:Archive 280 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 10815:References 10599:CNN Arabic 10595:Al-Arabiya 10243:WP:SELFPUB 10154:'s, where 10081:points to 9781:Not quite 9658:notability 9654:notability 9413:mentioned 9128:everything 8226:WP:NEWSORG 7746:changes.-- 7167:churnalism 7146:churnalism 7060:churnalism 7056:Ziff-Davis 7034:askmen.com 6819:The Nation 6753:Dunya News 6697:Dunya News 6688:Dunya News 6587:... After 6307:Bartallen2 6230:Bartallen2 6204:blocked? — 5928:knowledge. 5915:WP:PRIMARY 5885:WP:FANSITE 5871:lfl360.com 5861:LFL360.com 5347:a nickname 5273:Newslinger 5255:Newslinger 5183:Forbes.com 5031:Newslinger 4951:WP:MAILRSP 4887:discussion 4648:References 4626:churnalism 4536:discussion 4488:References 4466:Fox Sports 4447:Newslinger 4436:WP:NEWSORG 4422:Unreliable 4394:WP:NEWSORG 3937:Unreliable 3882:facts. -- 3820:Newslinger 3805:Forbes.com 3771:Newslinger 3582:Newslinger 3499:Newslinger 3421:Newslinger 3414:notability 3378:A 2019 RfC 3372:, but was 3365:The Canary 3274:Newslinger 3214:Newslinger 3168:They give 3151:They gave 3095:Newslinger 3088:a 2019 RfC 3053:Unreliable 2678:WP:RSMUSIC 2633:WP:RSMUSIC 2609:Newslinger 2592:Notified: 2573:Newslinger 2164:contents). 2133:SashiRolls 2082:SashiRolls 2035:SashiRolls 1932:Newslinger 1901:2020-01-17 1878:References 1720:WP:CRYSTAL 1044:(policy), 760:WP:SOFIXIT 553:Newslinger 497:Newslinger 451:Newslinger 426:Newslinger 11321:applies. 11227:Guy Macon 11214:Guy Macon 11170:Guy Macon 11142:Guy Macon 11115:Guy Macon 11100:Guy Macon 11027:Guy Macon 10651:Arab News 10444:WP:FRINGE 10247:WP:FRINGE 10083:this book 10077:), but a 10071:Cullen328 10022:WP:NEXIST 9975:WP:BEFORE 9815:may be so 9763:sources. 9742:indicator 9668:ONUnicorn 9596:indicator 9542:(blether) 9504:Vexations 9378:(blether) 9359:Cullen328 9260:WP:NFOOTY 9195:WP:ANYBIO 9173:Aquillion 9119:WP:BEFORE 9086:(blether) 8839:She also 8820:The Hindu 8777:The Hindu 8761:The Hindu 8583:The Hindu 8530:The Hindu 8492:Telegram 8416:Abecedare 8384:The Hindu 8377:The Hindu 8333:zaubacorp 8070:Slywriter 8056:Slywriter 7793:De Morgen 7685:Izvestiya 7627:Izvestiya 7610:(blether) 7573:The Hindu 7566:with the 7191:Aquillion 7163:Aquillion 7150:Aquillion 7129:media kit 6392:. Sindhu 5993:WP:HOTTIE 5956:Yosemiter 5932:Yosemiter 5919:LFLUS.com 5592:massacred 5460:Comment: 5417:Iran Poll 5321:WP:PARITY 5230:RSP entry 5208:RSP entry 5046:restoring 4983:already. 4955:WP:THESUN 4891:Barkeep49 4847:WT:MIRROR 4834:WP:WINARS 4664:. Forbes. 4531:HYPR Corp 4240:A. Parrot 3811:RSP entry 3799:RSP entry 3561:RSP entry 3544:RSP entry 3484:newspaper 3402:example 2 3398:example 1 3387:RSP entry 3199:AdChoices 3197:refer to 3078:RSP entry 2972:(blether) 2909:(blether) 2808:discussed 2740:WP:Albums 2550:RSP entry 2149:North8000 1856:RSP entry 1735:p-hacking 1664:WP:BURDEN 1599:WP:IGNORE 1053:WP:BURDEN 971:WP:BURDEN 961:mandatory 949:WP:BURDEN 876:Aquillion 829:Aquillion 769:Aquillion 472:WP:NONENG 285:Hijiri 88 171:WP:BURDEN 11319:WP:FORUM 11002:Observer 10866:cite web 10453:Kiyoweap 10439:article. 10410:Comment: 10320:this one 10275:Kiyoweap 10222:44114464 10215:27784051 10123:Adamant1 10100:Kiyoweap 10087:Kiyoweap 10061:Horecava 10048:evidence 10009:Adamant1 10001:Comment: 9850:Jayron32 9684:force us 9426:Rosguill 9421:signed, 9411:De728631 9355:Proposal 9256:WP:NPROF 9242:Blueboar 9019:Adamant1 8996:Adamant1 8981:De728631 8946:Adamant1 8914:NitinMlk 8898:Blueboar 8867:Blueboar 8852:NitinMlk 8829:In 2006, 8797:In 2006, 8721:Mathglot 8706:NitinMlk 8691:NitinMlk 8637:NitinMlk 8622:Mathglot 8615:NitinMlk 8600:NitinMlk 8596:Mathglot 8579:DBigXray 8560:Mathglot 8542:Mathglot 8505:Mathglot 8479:DBigXray 8451:Mathglot 8438:Mathglot 8426:Mathglot 8420:DBigXray 8406:NitinMlk 8392:NitinMlk 8309:reliable 8299:multiple 7919:Obituary 7863:Blueboar 7781:Het Volk 7717:de facto 7695:Rosguill 7690:signed, 7676:Blueboar 7663:Blueboar 7648:Rosguill 7643:signed, 7597:Rosguill 7534:Reliable 7482:this AFD 7480:Over at 7422:NitinMlk 7351:company 7230:This is 7103:Example 7101:Comment: 7006:NitinMlk 6976:NitinMlk 6934:NitinMlk 6898:NitinMlk 6828:This is 6780:NitinMlk 6706:This is 6658:NitinMlk 6518:NitinMlk 6478:NitinMlk 6447:NitinMlk 6407:NitinMlk 6341:NitinMlk 5952:this one 5034:removing 4977:WP:DMRSP 4911:is that 4851:Mathglot 4829:NitinMlk 4811:NitinMlk 4695:NitinMlk 4566:WP:NCORP 4534:WP:NCORP 4512:FanSided 4202:Ian Shaw 4099:articles 4014:Reliable 3997:Reliable 3980:Reliable 3908:Springee 3571:InfoWars 3567:InfoWars 3538:InfoWars 3342:ad views 3073:CoinDesk 3057:Cars.com 3015:Cars.com 3010:cars.com 2988:Comment: 2937:Reliable 2919:Reliable 2837:Exclaim! 2806:editors 2776:Reliable 2736:Reliable 2639:either. 2629:Reliable 2476:NitinMlk 2435:NitinMlk 2188:Springee 2172:Blueboar 1910:cite web 1572:Springee 1535:Springee 1518:Koncorde 1471:Koncorde 725:Koncorde 530:Koncorde 528:Thanks, 516:Koncorde 367:Koncorde 333:Koncorde 318:Koncorde 257:Koncorde 241:Koncorde 20:‎ | 10833:cpj.org 10654:topics. 10474:Neonate 10391:Neonate 10330:Neonate 10309:Neonate 10236:Group". 10200:Neonate 10178:Neonate 10041:cited). 10035:WP:CORP 9960:WP:NPOV 9926:WT:CORP 9724:Johnbod 9662:content 9388:WP:NORG 9342:Johnbod 9277:Amakuru 8831:Nehwal 8418:, and 8341:WP:RS/N 8337:WP:RS/P 8265:Hello, 7678:, IIRC 7564:WP:RS/P 7499:neutral 7497:. I am 7490:WP:RS/N 7187:Updated 6640:issues 6432:Neonate 6072:FULBERT 6056:FULBERT 5332:Neonate 4975:Point. 4881:MLB.com 4320:Khruner 4271:Khruner 4182:fringe? 3488:digital 3205:-based 2804:BLP AFD 2780:opinion 2718:Blender 2703:Blender 2561:Blender 2492:Blender 1702:, or a 965:correct 536:to the 532:! I've 490:The Sun 480:The Sun 277:at best 254:Reuters 43:archive 11283:Jayron 11278:should 11072:scribe 11057:Scribe 11020:Scribe 10228:, and 10190:WP:DUE 10105:Cullen 10031:WP:GNG 10018:WP:GNG 9820:Jayron 9695:Jayron 9689:rarely 9609:Jayron 9600:likely 9588:likely 9537:Summit 9373:Summit 9291:WP:GNG 9269:WP:SNG 9265:WP:GNG 9191:WP:NFO 9102:Cullen 9081:Summit 9001:Cullen 8799:Saina 8412:Sitush 8360:Pavlor 8020:Aoba47 7977:Aoba47 7942:Aoba47 7891:Oppose 7769:using 7767:Oppose 7721:Pravda 7713:Pravda 7680:Pravda 7605:Summit 7538:Uproxx 7515:Update 7495:WP:RSP 7459:Jayron 7281:1980s. 7278:Ahmed 7249:1980s. 7244:Rushdi 7242:" ... 7049:AskMen 7028:AskMen 6849:. ... 6771:while 6600:Dawn's 6252:double 5834:(talk) 5753:, and 5423:2009, 5413:CISSM2 5409:CISSM1 5226:blogs 5199:, and 4921:WP:RSP 4396:(vide 4392:, see 4390:DRIS92 4376:DRIS92 4350:DRIS92 4258:WP:DUE 4019:Jayron 3792:Forbes 3696:Notes: 3346:clicks 3203:cookie 3179:. -- 2992:(diff) 2967:Summit 2954:Michig 2941:Michig 2904:Summit 2888:Michig 2875:accept 2855:Michig 2814:, but 2757:Usable 2695:Usable 2676:, per 2647:msg me 2531:Usable 2516:Pavlor 2230:Would 1700:WP:BLP 1373:Pavlor 1311:Pavlor 1136:WebRef 941:says: 908:says: 902:Sure! 162:says: 11323:FOARP 11314:Close 11238:help! 11185:help! 11126:help! 10627:help! 10566:help! 10469:Paleo 10386:Paleo 10325:Paleo 10304:Paleo 10268:alien 10230:Lisle 10219:JSTOR 10212:JSTOR 10195:Paleo 10173:Paleo 9967:Guide 9948:Guide 9861:help! 9813:That 9584:might 9534:Girth 9485:after 9481:first 9370:Girth 9302:help! 9096:Masem 9078:Girth 8910:facts 8687:facts 8230:Jlevi 8209:Jlevi 8207:one. 8081:help! 8005:help! 7776:WP:OR 7602:Girth 7382:with 7287:5000 7177:help! 7071:help! 6887:album 6852:album 6566:poor 6427:Paleo 6160:talk 6093:help! 6043:OABOT 6004:help! 5896:help! 5734:with 5387:help! 5327:Paleo 5285:help! 5165:help! 5133:Masem 5011:help! 4637:help! 4440:undue 4399:fact. 4153:54129 4134:JSTOR 4080:help! 4064:WP:RS 3948:help! 3794:staff 3368:also 3059:is a 2964:Girth 2901:Girth 2798:CFMDC 2764:Flash 2762:Solar 1787:help! 1776:Masem 1747:WP:RS 1718:Past 1549:WP:RS 1427:Govvy 1046:WP:RS 906:WP:RS 852:Govvy 816:WP:RS 756:WP:RS 751:ideal 458:Govvy 411:from 403:I've 340:Govvy 125:Govvy 16:< 11327:talk 11305:talk 11263:talk 11218:talk 11204:talk 11161:talk 11146:talk 11104:talk 11047:talk 11031:talk 10872:link 10795:talk 10791:HLHJ 10774:talk 10766:HLHJ 10757:talk 10743:talk 10739:HLHJ 10616:HLHJ 10607:talk 10603:HLHJ 10584:talk 10576:HLHJ 10555:HLHJ 10545:talk 10541:HLHJ 10519:and 10457:talk 10279:talk 10127:talk 10091:talk 9983:talk 9946:The 9904:talk 9878:talk 9841:talk 9805:talk 9791:talk 9769:talk 9728:talk 9664:. ~ 9633:asem 9555:asem 9508:talk 9466:asem 9395:asem 9346:talk 9320:asem 9281:talk 9246:talk 9231:talk 9212:talk 9193:and 9177:talk 9158:talk 9134:asem 9061:asem 9044:talk 9023:talk 8985:talk 8965:talk 8950:talk 8918:talk 8889:talk 8871:talk 8856:talk 8749:talk 8725:talk 8710:talk 8695:talk 8666:talk 8641:talk 8626:talk 8604:talk 8564:talk 8556:here 8546:talk 8509:talk 8442:talk 8430:talk 8396:talk 8390:. - 8364:talk 8349:talk 8251:talk 8234:talk 8213:talk 8205:this 8194:talk 8190:Yae4 8125:talk 8096:talk 8060:talk 8024:talk 7981:talk 7960:asem 7946:talk 7903:uidh 7883:Nemo 7867:talk 7848:talk 7831:talk 7812:talk 7790:nor 7752:talk 7667:talk 7633:and 7583:talk 7546:talk 7441:talk 7426:talk 7416:and 7403:talk 7370:... 7347:... 7343:the 7309:talk 7246:has 7199:talk 7189:per 7154:talk 7141:Here 7133:This 7117:talk 7087:talk 7010:talk 6995:talk 6980:talk 6958:talk 6938:talk 6917:talk 6902:talk 6836:... 6799:talk 6784:talk 6719:asia 6677:talk 6662:talk 6578:... 6574:... 6546:Dawn 6537:Dawn 6522:talk 6469:talk 6451:talk 6411:talk 6402:Mint 6390:2016 6345:talk 6311:talk 6285:♦Ian 6264:talk 6234:talk 6210:talk 6190:talk 6171:Nemo 6140:talk 6126:talk 6110:talk 6076:talk 6060:talk 6019:talk 5980:talk 5960:talk 5936:talk 5851:talk 5829:SITH 5821:here 5792:talk 5788:Ms96 5778:talk 5763:talk 5759:Ms96 5711:talk 5692:talk 5688:Ms96 5640:(e2) 5545:talk 5501:talk 5487:talk 5469:talk 5450:talk 5446:Ms96 5376:Yae4 5363:talk 5307:talk 5303:Yae4 5262:talk 5238:and 5145:talk 5119:asem 5106:talk 5102:Yae4 5083:asem 5065:talk 5061:Yae4 4989:talk 4967:talk 4940:talk 4930:for 4895:talk 4871:talk 4855:talk 4815:talk 4739:this 4699:talk 4610:talk 4602:also 4592:talk 4578:talk 4555:talk 4520:talk 4479:talk 4475:Idan 4454:talk 4442:. — 4380:talk 4354:talk 4324:talk 4298:talk 4275:talk 4264:and 4244:talk 4236:once 4232:here 4221:talk 4211:and 4190:here 4168:talk 4114:talk 4097:and 4005:talk 3988:talk 3967:talk 3926:talk 3912:talk 3888:talk 3884:Yae4 3827:talk 3778:talk 3731:talk 3727:Yae4 3589:talk 3527:talk 3523:Yae4 3506:talk 3486:and 3466:talk 3462:Yae4 3428:talk 3344:and 3331:talk 3301:talk 3297:Yae4 3281:talk 3269:. — 3246:talk 3242:Yae4 3221:talk 3193:The 3185:talk 3181:Yae4 3123:talk 3102:talk 3090:. — 3043:talk 3000:talk 2945:talk 2928:talk 2867:this 2857:and 2828:talk 2788:talk 2748:talk 2727:talk 2723:JG66 2686:talk 2663:talk 2616:talk 2604:. — 2580:talk 2520:talk 2505:talk 2480:talk 2439:talk 2406:talk 2392:talk 2370:talk 2354:talk 2320:talk 2300:talk 2275:talk 2249:talk 2208:talk 2192:talk 2176:talk 2154:talk 2113:talk 2101:book 2062:talk 1972:talk 1958:talk 1939:talk 1916:link 1815:No. 1755:talk 1745:and 1743:WP:V 1650:talk 1635:talk 1621:talk 1607:talk 1576:talk 1561:talk 1553:WP:V 1539:talk 1522:talk 1507:talk 1488:asem 1475:talk 1446:talk 1431:talk 1412:asem 1406:this 1377:talk 1362:talk 1344:talk 1329:talk 1315:talk 1301:talk 1286:talk 1264:talk 1219:talk 1186:talk 1170:talk 1148:talk 1123:talk 1094:talk 1076:talk 1061:talk 1042:WP:V 1007:talk 990:talk 917:WP:V 894:talk 880:talk 872:WP:V 856:talk 833:talk 825:they 820:WP:V 818:and 797:talk 773:talk 729:talk 713:Rio. 612:talk 597:talk 582:talk 560:talk 548:. — 520:talk 504:talk 462:talk 433:talk 393:talk 371:talk 344:talk 322:talk 261:talk 245:talk 233:ESPN 202:talk 183:talk 158:The 144:talk 129:talk 116:edit 11232:Guy 11179:Guy 11120:Guy 11065:not 11061:not 11059:is 10993:Vox 10621:Guy 10560:Guy 10431:So 9954:to 9855:Guy 9783:], 9752:\\ 9627:can 9580:not 9459:and 9454:But 9313:not 9296:Guy 9258:or 9124:not 8465:ray 8459:Big 8075:Guy 7999:Guy 7859:NOR 7743:may 7725:not 7639:FAZ 7486:one 7270:'s 7171:Guy 7139:. 7111:. – 7065:Guy 6872:He 6825:): 6703:): 6552:): 6496:ray 6490:Big 6155:DGG 6087:Guy 5998:Guy 5909:JzG 5890:Guy 5869:is 5747:VOA 5658:(j) 5652:(i) 5646:(h) 5634:(g) 5628:(f) 5624:(e) 5608:(d) 5600:(b) 5381:Guy 5351:Guy 5349:-- 5279:Guy 5159:Guy 5005:Guy 4836:. 4745:): 4743:UGC 4631:Guy 4408:WBG 4370:or 4193:by 4074:Guy 3942:Guy 3851:are 3846:Guy 3725:-- 3394:VPN 3086:in 2884:RSP 2880:UGC 2845:of 2455:WBG 2423:Jat 2107:). 2006:WBG 1845:Is 1822:WBG 1781:Guy 867:not 747:how 606:no. 544:in 407:to 218:BBC 160:RFC 118:by 11329:) 11307:) 11299:-- 11289:32 11265:) 11220:) 11206:) 11163:) 11148:) 11106:) 11098:-- 11049:) 11033:) 11025:-- 11018:-- 11009:-- 11000:-- 10991:-- 10982:-- 10973:-- 10964:-- 10927:. 10908:. 10889:. 10868:}} 10864:{{ 10852:. 10841:^ 10831:. 10797:) 10776:) 10759:) 10745:) 10737:. 10609:) 10586:) 10547:) 10477:– 10459:) 10419:". 10394:– 10333:– 10312:– 10281:) 10273:-- 10217:, 10203:– 10181:– 10164:, 10129:) 10093:) 10085:-- 9985:) 9962:.) 9928:?) 9906:) 9880:) 9843:) 9826:32 9807:) 9793:) 9785:]. 9771:) 9730:) 9701:32 9640:) 9615:32 9562:) 9510:) 9487:. 9473:) 9462:-- 9440:no 9402:) 9348:) 9340:? 9327:) 9316:-- 9283:) 9248:) 9233:) 9179:) 9171:-- 9160:) 9141:) 9068:) 9046:) 9025:) 8987:) 8979:. 8967:) 8952:) 8944:-- 8920:) 8891:) 8873:) 8858:) 8792:: 8751:) 8727:) 8712:) 8697:) 8668:) 8643:) 8628:) 8606:) 8566:) 8558:. 8548:) 8511:) 8490::: 8444:) 8414:, 8398:) 8366:) 8351:) 8316:." 8296:in 8253:) 8236:) 8215:) 8196:) 8127:) 8119:. 8098:) 8062:) 8026:) 7983:) 7967:) 7948:) 7869:) 7850:) 7833:) 7814:) 7754:) 7669:) 7641:. 7629:, 7585:) 7548:) 7523:ミラ 7517:: 7503:ミラ 7501:. 7465:32 7443:) 7428:) 7405:) 7366:: 7332:: 7311:) 7274:: 7234:: 7201:) 7156:) 7119:) 7089:) 7012:) 6997:) 6982:) 6960:) 6940:) 6919:) 6904:) 6896:- 6889:. 6868:: 6832:: 6801:) 6786:) 6778:- 6726:" 6679:) 6664:) 6656:- 6621:– 6605:: 6583:; 6559:: 6524:) 6471:) 6453:) 6435:– 6413:) 6347:) 6338:– 6313:) 6292:M♦ 6287:Ma 6266:) 6236:) 6212:) 6192:) 6162:) 6142:) 6128:) 6112:) 6078:) 6062:) 6021:) 5995:. 5982:) 5962:) 5938:) 5853:) 5794:) 5780:) 5765:) 5751:DW 5749:, 5713:) 5694:) 5686:. 5626:, 5602:, 5573:, 5569:, 5547:) 5503:) 5489:) 5471:) 5452:) 5415:, 5411:, 5365:) 5335:– 5309:) 5195:, 5189:, 5147:) 5126:) 5115:-- 5108:) 5090:) 5079:-- 5067:) 4991:) 4969:) 4942:) 4934:? 4923:. 4897:) 4873:) 4857:) 4849:. 4817:) 4778:: 4718:. 4701:) 4692:– 4628:. 4612:) 4594:) 4580:) 4557:) 4522:) 4481:) 4401:) 4382:) 4366:, 4356:) 4326:) 4277:) 4260:: 4246:) 4170:) 4147:SN 4140:—— 4116:) 4066:. 4025:32 4007:) 3990:) 3969:) 3928:) 3914:) 3890:) 3733:) 3529:) 3468:) 3400:, 3333:) 3303:) 3248:) 3187:) 3125:) 3055:. 3045:) 3037:. 3002:) 2956:, 2947:) 2930:) 2898:) 2894:, 2890:, 2830:) 2790:) 2750:) 2729:) 2688:) 2665:) 2600:, 2596:, 2558:. 2522:) 2507:) 2482:) 2441:) 2408:) 2394:) 2372:) 2322:) 2210:) 2194:) 2178:) 2156:) 2115:) 2064:) 1974:) 1966:-- 1927:— 1912:}} 1908:{{ 1894:. 1868:: 1757:) 1749:- 1737:". 1710:}} 1707:cn 1704:{{ 1687:}} 1684:cn 1681:{{ 1674:}} 1671:cn 1668:{{ 1652:) 1637:) 1623:) 1609:) 1578:) 1563:) 1551:, 1541:) 1524:) 1509:) 1495:) 1477:) 1448:) 1433:) 1419:) 1379:) 1364:) 1346:) 1331:) 1317:) 1303:) 1288:) 1266:) 1247:}} 1244:cn 1241:{{ 1221:) 1188:) 1172:) 1164:- 1150:) 1125:) 1096:) 1078:) 1063:) 1055:- 1009:) 992:) 896:) 882:) 858:) 835:) 799:) 789:}} 783:{{ 775:) 731:) 639:by 614:) 599:) 584:) 522:) 464:) 395:) 373:) 346:) 324:) 296:) 293:やや 263:) 247:) 204:) 185:) 146:) 131:) 98:→ 68:← 11325:( 11303:( 11261:( 11240:) 11236:( 11216:( 11202:( 11187:) 11183:( 11159:( 11144:( 11140:- 11128:) 11124:( 11102:( 11081:. 11045:( 11029:( 10946:. 10912:. 10893:. 10874:) 10793:( 10772:( 10755:( 10741:( 10675:. 10629:) 10625:( 10605:( 10582:( 10568:) 10564:( 10543:( 10537:) 10455:( 10383:— 10301:— 10277:( 10125:( 10089:( 9981:( 9902:( 9876:( 9863:) 9859:( 9839:( 9803:( 9789:( 9767:( 9726:( 9638:t 9636:( 9631:M 9560:t 9558:( 9553:M 9506:( 9471:t 9469:( 9464:M 9400:t 9398:( 9393:M 9344:( 9325:t 9323:( 9318:M 9304:) 9300:( 9279:( 9244:( 9229:( 9215:) 9209:( 9175:( 9156:( 9139:t 9137:( 9132:M 9066:t 9064:( 9059:M 9042:( 9021:( 8983:( 8963:( 8948:( 8916:( 8887:( 8869:( 8854:( 8747:( 8723:( 8708:( 8693:( 8664:( 8639:( 8624:( 8617:: 8613:@ 8602:( 8562:( 8544:( 8522:) 8518:( 8507:( 8494:: 8486:: 8481:: 8477:@ 8467:ᗙ 8463:X 8457:D 8440:( 8428:( 8422:: 8410:@ 8394:( 8362:( 8347:( 8305:, 8249:( 8232:( 8211:( 8192:( 8186: 8181:. 8175:. 8141:? 8123:( 8094:( 8083:) 8079:( 8058:( 8022:( 8007:) 8003:( 7979:( 7965:t 7963:( 7958:M 7944:( 7908:e 7898:b 7865:( 7846:( 7829:( 7810:( 7750:( 7665:( 7581:( 7544:( 7526:P 7506:P 7439:( 7424:( 7401:( 7307:( 7197:( 7179:) 7175:( 7152:( 7115:( 7085:( 7073:) 7069:( 7008:( 6993:( 6978:( 6956:( 6936:( 6915:( 6900:( 6797:( 6782:( 6675:( 6660:( 6520:( 6498:ᗙ 6494:X 6488:D 6467:( 6449:( 6409:( 6343:( 6309:( 6289:c 6262:( 6232:( 6208:( 6188:( 6158:( 6138:( 6124:( 6108:( 6095:) 6091:( 6074:( 6058:( 6017:( 6006:) 6002:( 5978:( 5958:( 5934:( 5911:: 5907:@ 5898:) 5894:( 5849:( 5790:( 5776:( 5761:( 5728:: 5724:@ 5709:( 5690:( 5679:; 5672:; 5610:. 5562:: 5558:@ 5543:( 5514:: 5510:@ 5499:( 5485:( 5467:( 5448:( 5441:. 5389:) 5385:( 5361:( 5305:( 5287:) 5283:( 5232:) 5228:( 5210:) 5206:( 5167:) 5163:( 5143:( 5124:t 5122:( 5117:M 5104:( 5088:t 5086:( 5081:M 5063:( 5013:) 5009:( 4987:( 4965:( 4938:( 4893:( 4869:( 4853:( 4813:( 4697:( 4639:) 4635:( 4608:( 4590:( 4576:( 4553:( 4518:( 4477:( 4404:∯ 4378:( 4352:( 4348:. 4322:( 4273:( 4242:( 4166:( 4112:( 4101:. 4082:) 4078:( 4003:( 3986:( 3965:( 3950:) 3946:( 3924:( 3910:( 3886:( 3813:) 3809:( 3801:) 3797:( 3729:( 3563:) 3559:( 3546:) 3542:( 3525:( 3464:( 3410:" 3406:" 3389:) 3385:( 3329:( 3299:( 3244:( 3183:( 3121:( 3080:) 3076:( 3041:( 2998:( 2943:( 2926:( 2826:( 2786:( 2746:( 2725:( 2706:' 2684:( 2661:( 2552:) 2548:( 2518:( 2503:( 2478:( 2451:∯ 2437:( 2404:( 2390:( 2368:( 2357:) 2351:( 2333:: 2329:@ 2318:( 2303:) 2297:( 2278:) 2272:( 2252:) 2246:( 2206:( 2190:( 2174:( 2152:( 2111:( 2060:( 2002:∯ 1970:( 1918:) 1904:. 1858:) 1854:( 1818:∯ 1789:) 1785:( 1753:( 1648:( 1633:( 1619:( 1605:( 1574:( 1559:( 1537:( 1520:( 1505:( 1493:t 1491:( 1486:M 1473:( 1444:( 1429:( 1417:t 1415:( 1410:M 1375:( 1360:( 1342:( 1327:( 1313:( 1299:( 1284:( 1277:: 1273:@ 1262:( 1217:( 1184:( 1168:( 1146:( 1121:( 1092:( 1074:( 1059:( 1037:. 1005:( 988:( 967:. 945:. 934:. 912:. 892:( 878:( 854:( 831:( 795:( 771:( 727:( 610:( 595:( 580:( 518:( 460:( 453:: 449:@ 391:( 369:( 342:( 335:: 331:@ 320:( 290:聖 287:( 259:( 243:( 200:( 181:( 142:( 127:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284 - Knowledge

Index