Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288

9948:

tyrant"; "plot gimmick is pretty tacky. It cheapens the issues"; AV: "designed ... to reinforce the stereotypes its chosen audience already holds"; "preaches to the choir"; "any legitimate critiques of Christianity are ignored in favor of suggesting that all atheists are just haters"; "The movie’s deck-stacking arguments could be refuted in a matter of seconds by a pro-atheist subreddit"; "reduces all of its characters to props in an object lesson"; Variety: "The Almighty deserves better advocacy than he gets in this typically ham-fisted Christian campus melodrama"; "about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head"; "just might be the Almighty’s worst advocate since William Jennings Bryan.The movie’s risibly myopic worldview...". Honestly, if you really want to use almost those same words, you could write "the movie was criticized for using

8982:

deprecated is not the best way to handle WP's use of sources. By doing so, are we not being noncompliant with (1) the scope of this noticeboard, (2) NPOV, (3) WP:RS or WP:SOURCE, and probably more that I haven't factored in? I can certainly understand and appreciate why Project Med created MEDRS, and I applaud their efforts, but when the sourcing issue involves opinions, such as the case with politics, or threatens to eliminate all but the popular scientific POV while eliminating the not so popular scientific view, are we not opening the door to POV creep in defiance of what science actually supports; that being the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment? By eliminating context are we not opening the door to the potential of censorsing all substantial views? Again, it goes back to

4067:, so I don't understand what all the hubbub is about. When it comes to RSs, trust is key, and the moment you lose your reader's trust you'll pay hell getting it back. Fool me once... they say. If we've lost valuable information in the process, wouldn't it be a better use of one's time to simply go replace it with better sources? And if that's not possible, isn't that a good reason to be suspicious, in light of their reputation? If you think The Sun should be taken more seriously, then I would suggest first taking that up with The Sun. Play devil's advocate and insist, as a devoted reader, that they do something to renew their reputation. In the meantime, we can only play the cards we're dealt, provided they come from a clean deck. 9021:

inclusion of specific material published by that source and its suitability of the material per context, which is the scope of this noticeboard. I'm of the mind that discussions here that involve the deprecation of and/or dismissal of sources as unreliable or questionable (other than the most blatantly obvious junk sources, of course, rather than sources that are debatable) should involve community-wide discussion at venues like the VP that has a much wider reach. Examples off the top of my head begin with some of the questions asked here regarding the reliability of an entire source. There are also some sources on the perennial list that are rated generally unreliable (partly because they are state-owned), yet

7174:

same information. However, on the contrary, I find this point to further corroborate against deprecation, since if we are not deprecating other sources that offer the same information, why would we single out and deprecate Swarajya? I also read the policy on reliable sources and didn’t see anywhere in the policy that a news source’s use of publicly identifiable information (as has been done about a Knowledge editor) is a criterion for evaluating reliability of a news source. If I missed this detail, I am open to being directed to where it is mentioned in the policy. I think we have to stick to stated Knowledge policy to determine reliability of sources so that an objective decision can be made.

7077:, “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.” In the case of Swarajya, I feel that their news is generally reliable as they present it with evidence to back it up, and they have an editorial policy that they adhere to. So, having a liberal center-right perspective doesn’t make a news source unreliable. Knowledge editors should have access to a liberal center-right perspective so that Knowledge as a whole can maintain a neutral point of view and doesn’t become slanted to the left, which is what would inevitably happen to India-focused articles if reliable right-of-center news sources like Swarajya are blacklisted or deprecated. 5912:- Other editors discussed the doxing issue, so I will be focusing on other aspects of OpIndia that render it an unreliable source. For one, OpIndia - a news, opinions, and fact checking site - makes no pretensions about being neutral in its reporting; the site has made the conscious decision to direct its content towards investigating the mainstream media establishment, with the logic being that the establishment (be it government, media, global elites, etc) has a corruptive effect on society and is suppressing dissent. This is all well and good - similar arguments are made by both sides of the political spectrum - but also puts the site at odds with Knowledge, which is 8670:" (working along much the same organisational basis as the CPA with the intention of countering them) and their tentacles run right through certain flavours of political and industrial history over several decades, quite often (at the time) covertly. For example, they effectively took over and ran several extremely important trade unions from the late 1940s to the 1970s. It's a situation where it (in many situations) essentially takes the form of an active historical participant talking about stuff they did: they're obviously biased, but their opinion about/recounting of what they did is generally going to be very relevant in a whole bunch of historical contexts. 3268:

publishes. On notable occasions it has partnered with media organisations to publish documents and under this arrangement the commentary is provided by journalists from the other organisations. Wikileaks has created tools that allow researchers to use the Wikileaks databases more easily. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However there will be occasions where it is useful to link to the original document in the Wikileaks database and, as pointed out by an editor below, there is a template for this, at least for the cables release.

5932:

into a woman or vice versa through medical procedures. We do not believe secularism as it is practised in India is ideal for the social fabric of the country. We believe illegal immigration is a threat to the sovereignty of the Indian state. We do believe Hindus suffer institutional discrimination in this country. We do not believe Hindutva is a genocidal ideology. We believe in the multiplicity of the Divine. These are our ontological positions which place us at odds with the left-liberal narrative. As is clear, this is not evidence of partisanship, these are evidence of a difference of opinion about the nature of our reality.

5088:

to revert changes to Angola counts multiple times in one day because the underlying source for the first case was a viral WhatsApp audio that was denied by the authorities. Or we wouldn't have needed to edit war over an obvious transcription error of Spain statistics. Or attend edit requests from users reporting a wrong report on unusual high death count in Pakistan. Worldometer is doing a great job on keeping the most fresh data overall, but that comes at the expense of reliability. I'm using it daily to prioritize countries to update and sometimes to find new sources, but I don't think it is reliable enough to use directly. --

1772:

motivation to make Sanders look good or bad, then they'll find excuses for whatever they do. Even worse, the existence of multiple rules confuses editors and allows tendentious editors to find loopholes. There's no reason to think that aggregate polls are more reliable. There are competing aggregates and they can be skewed by including outliers. Also, they cover polls over a period of time. So for example they could include polls taken both before and after candidates dropped out. Polls for Supertuesday for example showed Biden doing much better once Pete and Klobuchar dropped out, hence aggregate polls would be misleading.

5926:

misinformation related to its ideological opponents and for failing to have a clear corrections policy in place. True to form, OpIndia later issued a rebuttal stating that their application to the IFCN had, in fact, been its attempt to check the IFCN for bias; the rebuttal would then go on to criticize other sites that have been accredited by the IFCN while claiming that, while OpIndia is ontologically opposed to some political dispositions, its fact-checking is done without bias. This paragraph from the OpIndia rebuttal sums up the site's innate political disposition and by extension its focus while fact checking - well,

9251:. Responsible editors, particularly administrators who are supposed to be above the fray, are obligated to leave their biases at login. With regards to your repeated references to the Griffin BLP - an incident that took place 5 years ago and one that you misconstrued and are repeatedly misrepresenting - keep in mind that this noticeboard is for discussing the use of RS, and should not be used to harass or hound editors with whom you have an opposing view. Your constant dredging-up of the past to discredit me and diminish my input is unconscionable, particularly for an administrator. Let's not forget that you were 9326:, I agree with you in part which is why I said "...the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of removing the url and adding as necessary (based on certain criteria)." Please consider the following: the sources that have recently been depracated or are being considered for it, and the sources being considered questionable or poor may have been part of a discussion at RSN or an RfC in the past and were approved by consensus for inclusion of a particular statement (in context). We cannot simply ignore that history and start wiping out sources. See 9925:, Normally I would agree, but this seems to be a source uniquely well qualified to comment, as the film is both about and for college students, and the commenter is writing with apparent knowledge of the specific class of subject that is being falsely portrayed in the movie - college age atheists. WaPo and the others do not go into the specifics of this caricature presentation. That seems to me to be a pretty solid reason for including this specific voice, but with caution and attribution, as I did. I can find a bazillion atheist blklogs that make this point, and a couple of hillarious episodes of 1664:. I've noticed that the tendency of some editors to use individual polls when aggregate polls exist creates unnecessary headaches, edit-warring and tendentious editing. The big issue is that editors may cherry-pick (whether intentionally or not) individual polls that are consistent with a particular narrative even though these polls are inconsistent with other polling. I've seen this in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as in various individual congressional races over the same period. There is no upside to using an individual poll when there is aggregate polling on the exact same issue. 7546:- It is clear that this outlet is a pro-Hindu but I consider their reporting is factual and they push more stories discussing the issues related to the Hindu community as compared to news on other topics. This practice does not make this outlet unreliable. I do not see that they have misreported anything or harassed any specific community so far. Especially, due to personal political and ideological hatred, some of the other IFCN-verified fact-checker sources which are often un-reliable and mis-report incidents such as AltNews (the founder of AltNews himself is a public hater of 4023:. It is circular reasoning to say the "discretion" is because the RfC says the source is unreliable! It makes the RfC self-canceling. There is an easier answer: the RfC never intended or recommended for someone to delete all the links "wholesale". RfCs are customized solutions based in policy vs. policy pages themselves which are generalized and can't guess the specifics of each case - RfCs have a high degree of consensus because they are specific to the issue. The RfC gave guidance for this case, it even guessed someone might do a wholesale deletion. Pinging the RfC closer 7274:“If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy.” 10868:, we shouldn't either. If the BBC, for example, discusses a specific document, thent hey will have checked it, they provided context, and established the significance of the content. Including them without a secondary source is analogous to mining PACER and writing about court cases that have not been reported in the press. Why has the press not reported it? Is publishing this data a violation of BLP in osme case? We can't know because we have no secondary sources to guide us. We're allowed to use primary sources buyt we're not allowed to use 8758:

valid use (and a subject area that still needs a lot of improvement so wouldn't necessarily cite it already). The NCC are cranks, but once upon a time they were very influential and somewhat less-cranky and I don't want to find my hands tied writing about the NCC and their shenanigans over several decades to not be able to cite them for their side of the story. I would be content with something like "do not use at all on general topics, use with caution on topics relating to Australian history in which the NCC were involved".

5293:. The information and the data looks probably correct to me. Also, the data represented for every country is being retrieved from the official governement websites of the respective countries and have specified links to those websites. I am not so sure about the day-wise timeline of the incidents but seems that it is also derived from the linked official government sources for respective countries. The data representation is easier to understand the overall impact of the spread of the novel coronavirus 2019 globally. 2131: 9193:, yes we should, if the thousands of urls are the result of people not thinking about reliability. Knowledge has evolved from the barn-raising phase when we were trying to build as much content as possible as quickly as possible, to a global resource and one of the most visited and trusted sites on the internet. We have, rightly, become firmer about the sources we use, not because we have changed our policy, but because we now recognise that we need to be more consistent in meeting our own standards. 7418: 35: 11301: 8849: 8411: 6421: 5472: 11296: 8844: 8406: 6416: 5467: 4306:+1. All replacing a bad source with {{cn}} does is hide the fact that the material in the article is dubious and reduce our ability to figure out where text came from. The point of declaring a source unreliable is to reduce the amount of possibly inaccurate info in our articles; I don't see what is accomplished by removing bad sources without the accompanying content apart from making it seem like we're doing a better job of not using unreliable sources than we really are. 4015:. These terms concern two possible types of actions when a source has been found generally unreliable. With blacklisting actions we add a block filter and remove the links on-sight is usually acceptable. Deprecation is a softer approach, we add warning filters, and remove links only with discretion. You said you made discretion because links were removed "one at a time" (so do bots) but the rapid timestamps, scale of deletions and almost total annihilation ie. it is 1115:, or sth like that. But in this case it is not a work of art but a photorealistic illustration (drawing or painting) without any author or context given, showing a human face with a white beard, and affirming that this is Samuel Fritz. The reader does not realize that it is just a fantasy portrait, as he would in the former case. The other problem, of course, is the lack of proof for public domain status, which is more a problem to be resolved on Commons, I think.-- 5110:. Worldometers had a huge jump yesterday in cases in the United States (~38,000 cases) which they eventually rolled back. I tried quite hard but was not able to find a single source supporting that number, including those cited on their site. I think that Worldometers should be treated as a great source for prioritizing updates and finding reliable sources, but not as the only source for numbers that conflict with more reliable sources. 4083:"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. 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. 2305:. It helps to analogize it to Christianity, with which many of us are more familiar. Would it be proper for an article explaining the Christian viewpoint on marriage to just cite the Bible, or, say, Catholic saints that Protestants don't view as authoritative? No, because these sources have varying interpretations and/or are viewed as authoritative by only some parts of Christianity. For an editor to interpret scripture is 7527:- I repeat the above, which also applies here: I am generally not in favor of declaring sites "reliable" or "unreliable," since this is not a black-and-white matter. The "best" site is sometimes wrong and the "worst" site sometimes has correct, irreplaceable information. However, given this site's practice of doxxing an editor in an effort to skew WP content, I have no objection to blacklisting in this instance. 1749:

edited a lot on)... which of those 20 polls should we use (because it's certainly not feasible to cover them all)? Someone who wants to portray Bernie as unpopular might pick his two worst polls whereas a supporter may pick his two best polls. Why isn't the commonsensical solution to use aggregate polling, and thus take the discretion from individual editors and reduce edit-warring and pointless bickering?

5228:), which makes other editors repeatedly updating figures to wrong counts. Their world totals may be double counting some territories whose cases are listed both in their own entry as well as in another country (e.g. France and its overseas provinces). This is really not a realiable source for Knowledge standards. Reliable sources with up-to-date data DO exist. See reference section for 7848:

it been a news source that doxxed someone not related to wikipedia, we wouldn't have had a problem. Editor of pages like AltNews have doxxed twitter accounts in the past, that doesn't make them unreliable. Swarajya has done great reporting in various fields, publishing one article, which I cannot seem to find on their website anymore, doesn't make them worthy of being deprecated.

9827:, rather than a general statement of fact, but college students are both the subject and the target audience for the film. The statement is neutral in tone, not hyperbolic, and backed by other analyses of the film and its sequels: the consensus of independent reviewers is that the characterisation in the film is woeful. This argument would appear to preclude, on the same basis, 5207:

wish for a confidence level against reports of whether medical experts think the data has timeliness or underreporting issues.). I see concerns on aggregation, but think that’s inevitable in any summary. e.g what one nation defines as ‘serious’ isn’t what another does, the hospitalised counts may be more an indicator of hospital availability than of need, etcetera. Cheers

10944:, I'm ok with whatever consensus determines; however, I disagree with you in that editors are put in the position of being arbiters of fact. I see little to no difference between what Wikileaks publishes vs the unverifiable leaks from anonymous sources published by the NYTimes or worse, the false information published by other believed-to-be RS as reported by the NYTimes 9074:

scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Knowledge article.

6071:- I am generally not in favor of declaring sites "reliable" or "unreliable," since this is not a black-and-white matter. The "best" site is sometimes wrong and the "worst" site sometimes has correct, irreplaceable information. However, given this site's practice of doxxing an editor in an effort to skew WP content, I have no objection to blacklisting in this instance. 8783:, sure - and in order to qualify, it has to be an objectively significant viewpoint represented in proportion to its acceptance and with compelling evidence of its significance, in the form of third-party commentary. Otherwise we'd have a crank climate change denialist group cited in "rebuttal" to every data point on climate change, for example. It all comes down to 1200:

description said "before 1935", so perhaps it is not "o5" but "35"? Also, it is not very clear who the artist is. Is the "López" who made the drawing the same Aristóteles Álvarez López who published the book? Or is it his mother (the signature looks like "Eva López")? And when did she draw it? Of course, the image is not in the public domain as originally stated.--

3285:, given your inexperience of Knowledge';s sourcing policies, I am not surprised to see you make this error. They may well check the person who submits the documents, but they do not check for selective release, and in some cases forgeries have got past them so they don't seem to check for that either. It's basically self-publishing by anonymous people. 670:. Also paraphrasing sources can result in particular words not appearing in the source, without it being OR. As a rule of thumb, if reputable sources are cited, it is not OR. To top it off, you’ve made it exceedingly clear you understand very little about Knowledge policy, which is why I do not take your word for it, but sought third party advice. 5192:

used to assume no recoveries in Ohio since worldometers is also reporting a "recovered" number for the country as a whole, so they must be aggregating stuff that can't be aggregated. At best they should be reporting "reported recoveries" and "cases reported as active" if they're getting that level of detail from some depts of health.

9589:, yes. This is where we establish whether a source is reliable for statements of fact, NPOVN is where we discuss whether a source that is not reliable for statements of fact, is, nonetheless, appropriate for citation in a specific article. That seems pretty clear to me, and is not a particularly difficult distinction to draw IMO. 8806:

what they did are absolutely relevant. In those cases, they absolutely are objectively significant - because it helps tell their side of the story. I also think it's over-egging it slightly to say that it's only RS for "the opinions of the site's publishers" - they have published/will publish relevant things that are not so much

6208:

she doxed to be removed from Knowledge. According to publicly available information, Wales ceased further communication with Sharma. It was clear at this point that Sharma's reputation is that of a blogger who specializes in punditry, not an actual journalist who produces content suitable for referencing in Knowledge.

9856:"There might be the kernel of an intriguing documentary buried within director Harold Cronk's stacked-deck drama, given the extent of real-life academic hostility toward religion. But even faith-filled moviegoers will sense the claustrophobia of the echo chamber within which this largely unrealistic picture unfolds." 4241:, you're warned against such addition and the burden is on you to get consensus that the deprecated source is suitable to back up whatever it is supposed to backup. So unless there was a debate on the talk page that resulted in a consensus that The Sun was appropriate to cite, it wasn't and removal is appropriate. 2935: 9888:, I think we can live without it. A college newspaper can be a reliable source, but it is generally considered to be second best compared to more seasoned sources. If there were a shortage of secular reviews of the film, we should put it in, just to balance out the multiple religious reviews. (There are a 10397:

thought that, per Knowledge policy, if we're discussing any event in the leaked cables we should be doing so via reliable independent secondary sources, not directly from WikiLeaks, because the secondary source may be expected to have authenticated or contextualised the content, where WikiLeaks does not.

982:

hint that it is based on contemporaneous pictorial documents from the 18th century. If the user wants to save that image, it would be his turn to prove that it is not a fantasy portrait (which is a virtually impossible thing to do). It is not me to give reliable sources for deleting the undesired image.

11565:

Ok... I do not have any connection with aglasem.com. However, these colleges exist that's clear from their own website. Knowledge needs some independent link supporting this...that's why I use that. However, it is necessary to include as many references as possible. Some students of this college will

9510:

If editors followed policy correctly, the majority of discussions would be unnecessary. Editors should always seek to use the best sources available and only provide information that meets weight. A lot of discussions are about using obscure sources for information that does not appear anywhere else.

9073:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Knowledge article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and

8986:

and facts vs opinion. It could be a source that published well-sourced information that was cited to a source that not all editors are able to access. Use it, cite it and if another editor has access to the better source, then cite it instead. To do otherwise may prove detrimental to the project, and

8805:

I don't think there's any disagreement that we should absolutely not cite them on climate change or on current-day issues more broadly. However, it is the 80-year old publication of a once-very important organisation, and they were involved in some really important stuff in which their opinions about

7862:

So what? AltNews doxxing someone does not equate to making doxxing ethical for other outlets. OpIndia (and Swarajya) published an article about the very doxxing incident and guess what both of these outlets did now. Ironic, no? Stop defending journalistisic (in the least meaningful sense of the word)

7382:

Many of the stories cited as Fake News on the Swarajya page are articles which are citing mainstream news outlets NOT blacklisted here. Hardly evidence of malicious fake news plants - these seem to be stories that relied on large media outlets - how one can read malice here, when the original sin was

7277:

Unfortunately, because the Wikieditor did not oversight this information in a timely manner, the news organization used that publicly available information to help reveal the identity of the editor in question to raise a related question based on the data they presented. I agree with PinkElixir that

5942:

In addition to the above, some of OpIndia's other practices indicate it is not a reliable source. For example, it - via myvoice.opindia - allows for account holders to submit articles as "Guest Authors" to the site. These articles are checked by staff, but this is (somewhat ironically given OpIndia's

5399:

reporter picks it up and puts it in an article, do we suspend BLPSPS and go right to giving it the weight due to an independent primary source? Do we assume that they exerted some measure of editorial oversight and fact-checking on the Tweet (even though they probably didn't, and rushed to press with

5206:

They look good - quite readable, more up to date than what WP could do, open on sources with their sources are presented in the drilldown by day re GMT+0. Could wish their per nation display showed days-since-data as some nations are not providing timely reporting. (While I’m wishing, I could also

5087:

I think it is not reliable enough and it actually hinders our update efforts if it is used to replace official sources. Worldometer uses either official statistics or press reports. We should use these official or press reports directly. If we had done this in the first place, we wouldn't have needed

4677:

wrote a book disassociating the MEK from radical leftists. There was split between the current (Muslim) MEK and the "extremist secular splinter group. − − Vahid Afrakhteh, who led was responsible for the assassination of three U.S. officers in Tehran in 1973 and 1975, also attempted the assassination

3401:

It has got some things wrong, like any news outlet. It has published corrections where appropriate and it follows IMPRESS rulings where complaints are upheld. But it has a far longer track record of exclusives and information that later prove to be accurate and which have often been used by so-called

10826:

Guy, perhaps you didn't realize that you separated my back-to-back comments when you replied so I moved it back. Your accusation that my reasoning looks "motivated" and that you view my input on this page as personal is unfounded. Why would you would make such an accusation, or is it an aspersion? I

10504:

There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on

10396:

a prime example of making it easier for people to do something they should not be doing? It seems to me that linking to the leaked US cables on Wikileaks is a bad idea on several levels, and providing a template so this continues to work as WikiLeaks male changes also looks ill-advised. I would have

9997:

The issue is more one of WP:DUE vs UNDUE weight than one of Reliability. Any paper is a reliable PRIMARY source for stating the opinion of that paper’s movie critic. The question is how much weight we should give that critic’s opinion. Given that this is a student paper, I would say: very little.

9563:, that opinion is undue. If the individual/organization is significant (in the context of the article), or if the opinion is published in a reliable source, there is a possibility that the opinion is due. Reliability plays a bigger role in determining whether a factual claim belongs in an article. — 9196:

The media landscape has also moved on. Over the last five years there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media. This is a pressing problem for Knowledge: some editors think that the right wing media bubble has parity with

7141:

The news reporting is certainly unreliable, more or less on par with OpIndia with which it has a strong association. It's political stance is more a matter of branding derived from the older magazine. It does maintain the archives of the old magazine which would be reliable though care must be taken

6207:

and demanded that he take action against the editor she doxed. Wales responded with a number of corrections, revealing that Sharma did not fact-check her hit piece at all. Instead of correcting her errors or retracting the hit piece, Sharma sent a 4,000-word email to Wales petitioning for the editor

5066:

Adding that they include a column titled "Sources" which lists the sources they used to gather the information, and that makes them a reliable secondary source which is a bit better than using primary sources like the CDC, although it is always good to corroborate the information. The fact that they

3397:

Skwawkbox is currently in the unreliable section. The site is fully and independently regulated by the UK's only Press Recognition Panel-recognised regulator, IMPRESS, with a published and binding complaints procedure. It is also fully green-lit by Newsguard, including for transparency, credibility,

3367:

2902:

This just seems like such a random, arbitrary thing to want to include. So this one academic quotes this one ancient scholar about houris in heaven. I don't see a wider significance. Is it to show that (some) Muslims believe in sex in heaven? I recall hearing that this stuff about houris is disputed

2879:

I did answer your question. I was very clear that I do not see why it's important to include/how it improves that article. I was clear that not every verifiable thing should be included. I clearly stated, "You have not made a convincing argument for including the material, such as why it's important

1771:

and RS. Specifically, we should emphasize the polls that mainstream media deem most important, which could include aggregate polling, and ignore polls that are considered outliers or insignificant. Unfortunately, any set of rules is only as good as the editors applying them. If editors come with the

1074:

The image in question is sourced to some blog (not available now and certainly not a reliable source), so it is the other editor, who should provide reliable source for disputed content. Note later depiction not based on reality is not a problem in general, many articles about historical figures use

11101:

is a two-part long-form article unlike most of the content in The Hustle. This article is definitely a secondary source. While I am still disappointed in the publication's lack of transparency in its operations, I am impressed that the article included a properly labeled error correction after they

10416:

I don’t have a problem with it. Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. I would regard Wikileaks as close to a

10306:

This source seems valuable because most other sources only cover Kawcyznski's life since moving to Maine, whereas this article starts much earlier. However, its bombastic style and the fact that I don't see many citations (for the source on Knowledge or in the article itself) makes me interested in

9463:

loop that amplifies tropes regardless of factual accuracy, and this contrasts with a fact-checking dynamic that dominates in the mainstream. Left-leaning sources care about what the mainstream media says about a story, so tend not to publish egregious bollocks, whereas the conservative media bubble

9442:

I think you are misunderstanding my argument. The relevance of the Ad Fontes chart is simply that it provides a clear visual picture that illlustrates Benkler's findings. There are many within the Benkler book as well. The thesis is not that right-wing media have become more biased, inherently, but

9215:

get fixed. There are Wikignomes who specialise in sourcing or removing unsourced statements. It's one of the few instances where an unsourced statement, identified as such, is actually better for the encyclopaedia than a sourced statement. Especially in a world of fake news and disinformation where

9171:

We should not be going back in time to delete thousands of urls, particularly if it's being done without consideration for context per WP:V which is one of our core content policies. For the easy to recognize, undisputed junk/spam sources, a BOT with the right instructions could perform the task of

7847:

I think it is unfair to lump both Swarajya and OpIndia in a single category. Swarajya has a well defined editorial policy, R Jagannathan is a well respected journalist. While I don't agree with the practice of doxxing, one article is not enough to characterise a source as completely unreliable. Had

7270:

Additionally, after reviewing other policies, I feel that sanctions (such as blacklisting or deprecating) against either news organization due to the issue of “doxing” appears to be against Knowledge policy. The Wikieditor in question made their private information public which technically excludes

5931:

The IFCN construes our disdain towards the ‘left-liberal narrative’ as evidence of bias. It appears that they do not realize that these are our ontological positions on the basis of which we operate. For instance, we do not believe gender is a social construct. We do not believe a man can transform

5191:

Reporting by worldometers of Ohio's stats is definitely suspicious -- they say they're sourcing to Ohio Department of Health, but ODH is reporting only cumulative cases and deaths, and worldometers is doing arithmetic to arrive at a number for "active cases" for Ohio, which is then apparently being

4630:

It's a fansite. The about page is just "we love arcade games" and doesn't indicate any notion of them having editorial oversight or even journalism experience. I'd say it's unreliable. Plus a lot of the information they have is already covered by reliable sources anyway, so I don't think we're at a

3267:

Wikileaks has a robust process for authenticating documents prior to publication. As far as I know no one has ever claimed any of the documents it has published was fake. It is therefore a reliable source for original documents. Wikileaks does not usually provide much commentary on the documents it

2288:

or other religious texts. Many of the pre-existing cites to these sites are probably citing hadith (and note: I agree that pre-existing cites on Knowledge count for absolutely nothing in terms of reliability). Might it be okay to cite these websites to cite hadith? No, they are not trustworthy, and

1974:

Can we make an FAQ that people are requested to read before posting here, and have the first one be that "YouTube" is not a publisher but rather a medium, and therefore a "YouTube video" is no more or less reliable than any other source, depending on who the actual publisher (channel owner) and the

1748:

and have greater long-term encyclopedic value, but it avoids cherry-picking of polls, debates about which polls to include/exclude and tendentious editing. This is not rocket science: let's say there have been 20 polls that measure support for Bernie Sanders in the democratic primary (a page you've

1377:

Not really. Someone in another discussion said it was unreliable because of native advertising and pointed to RSN as the justification. I couldn't find anything definitive at RSN and so made this post to clarify the situation, in case of future searches of RSN for this domain, since the quote above

1089:

Well, the first burden of proof is to demonstrate that the image is in the public domain or freely licensed. If we have literally no remotely reliable source whatsoever for the image, we can't very well do that. Though things may work out somewhat differently for own works, this is not one of those

10487:

Yes there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents. It is clear why this claim may suit some people or organisations. I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. There are two parts of the linked article that mention fake documents on Wikileaks.

9475:

that liberals consume a broader range of sources than do conservatives. Conservatives cluster around Fox News, they distrust mainstream media, and they reward (with likes and shares, that drive advertising revenue) ideologically consonant information rather than factually accurate informaitont hat

8859:

says "I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism - what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial", and further down "We have scored two victories, in particular an out-of-court settlement from the Metropolitan Police after a raid at the behest of Imperial Zion in

8709:

is the kind of thing I'm getting at. It's an 80-year old publication of an organisation that was fundamentally involved in important parts of Australian industrial and political history, and they're absolutely a relevant (if obviously biased) source about things they were involved in. We shouldn't

7771:

I have also recevived threats of blocking my editorial rights in the past from a Knowledge editor. I believe we are not "we" but groups of ideologically parted "we". Good to know and thanks for the information. I also would like to safegaurd myself from getting doxed by someone on Knowledge, where

3594:

Don't see what left- or right-wing has to do with reliability, 'Guy', or is Knowledge a right-wing organisation now? Of course regulation is relevant, Slatersteven. If anyone wants to challenge the accuracy of an article, they have a means to do so via an independent adjudicator who issues binding

3350:

1790:

No, those two policies clearly do not suffice. In the same way that the RS guidance has to spell out to editors that academic sources are usually preferable over non-academic sources, we need to clearly spell out that aggregate polling is usually better than individual polls. As for your arguments

981:

who wants to have this content to be in the article(s), so he has to prove its reliability. There is no way to do so, because the portrait was made in the thirtieth of the 20th century (see description page of the file), 200 years after Samuel Fritz's death, and there is no reliable source nor any

919:

assume anything in it is automatically notable merely for being listed in the database. GNIS can be useful for matching names (and alternate names) to coordinates and the elevation there, with a primary source to their own data references like topo maps, but it should not be used as a basis for an

9332:

No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the

8757:

To be clear, that source I cited might well be the only one in current use. It's obvious to me that the site is widely being cited inappropriately and that those uses should stop. I've just got the historical background to know that there's a limited but important subject area where they've got a

7639:

Can you provide a link to the piece? Did they report anything that was untrue? What claims were false or misleading? I have been reading Swarajya for some time now. I wouldn't disagree that they have an editorial bias, much like the wire or quint, but overall, I haven't seen any problems in their

7173:

I feel that Swarajya is a generally reliable news source. It has a distinguished editorial advisory board, and while it does make mistakes like any news source, it also makes corrections when necessary. Also, some people have said it is okay to deprecate it since other available sources offer the

5925:

the site's request for accreditation, noting that while OpIndia performed some fact-checking, it rarely relied on data and often employed quotes or information from the India government to disprove claims made by opposition parties. OpIndia was also criticized for primarily following up claims of

2920:

Oh, and continuing with my comparison with Christianity above, it's like randomly wanting the article to refer to, say, Song of Solomon 7:7, 8: "Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit. I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May

2653:

Offtopic, but I only started reviewing your edits (they are only a click away), after you permitted for them to be tracked, (point 12 of your recommendations). The frequent IP changes are annoying to me as well. I am not sure why this happens. Other IP users have stable addresses for months. Will

1223:. I don't know when she was born, but she is obviously not so old to have done this painting "before 1935" (she was present at the exhibition in 2012, about 40 years old, and she is described as "one of the leading artists of a generation that emerged in the wake of the post terrorism years", see 229:

applies: use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Imagine you were writing a speech for a public official on the virus outbreak. Would you use as a source an article by a reporter with no particular expertise on the subject or would you use the World Health Organization or

9947:

But the quote it was being used for, above, doesn't mention anything about college students specifically. It just says strawman and stereotypes. Basically that can be found in the other 4 bigger name reviews: HR: "the film is clearly designed as propaganda"; "Radisson is a pretty one-dimensional

9200:

To address the question of verifiability, my (long) experience has been that if you tag a citation as self-published, dubious or whatever, it pretty much never gets fixed. A statement drawn from a questionable source will stand indefinitely. If, however, you remove the source and replace it with

6884:. In several years of working on this topic I cannot recall factual information that they reported on that better sources did not also report; conversely, I can think of a number of occasions on which the material they have published is unquestionably inappropriate, including the recent episode. 5223:

I keep finding Worldometer updates where underlying source is not cited. Also updates where numbers do not match with the cited source. Yesterday I updated at least two countries where Worldometer figure for recoveries was lower than the cited source. There are other problems like Canada figures

3595:

decisions. It's nonsense. Ultimately any news publication is published by "non-expert" people, the accuracy of the published material depends on the qualifications of sources and contributors and the Skwawkbox has a record of very good sources and demonstrable accuracy in its fields of interest.

2860:

Rather than, "An IP (above) already made a solid argument against including the material". The IP words (above) included, "Perhaps the article could say something along the lines of "Some/or Scholar X,Y have provided vivid, imaginative descriptions of sexual intercourse in paradise (cite)"".

1169:

I would say the image is fine, but it should be tagged as an "artists interpretation based upon descriptions of contemporaries" or similar to make it clear that it's only a theoretical. This is no different to presenting a statue, or other graphical depiction of many pre-photographi c historical

699:

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead.

10227:

of the People's Republic of China. So this attribution issue is independent from the usage of Xinhua as a source. On the other hand, Xinhua is publishing quick reports for many underreported countries (e.g. in Africa) that, as far as I can tell, are as reliable as any other, since they are just

3409:

But that has nothing to do with reliability, nor does the "self-published" barb some use, as this is negated by its IMPRESS regulation. Just because some disagree with it politically or dislike the news it breaks should not allow a 'consensus' to put it in an "unreliable" section with a list of

771:

For a number of reasons statements like this need to be held approximately to MEDRS standards. This particular book is not a reliable secondary scientific analysis of human genetics. Of course, primary sources are also generally not useful here because any study may have all variety of flaws or

10431:

WikiLeaks has on numerous occasions leaked documents that are incomplete and thus lack context. Further, WikiLeaks intentionally misrepresents the documents that they are leaking, providing completely false explanations of what a particular document is saying. Thankfully, reliable sources have

10024:

a due/undue issue (although it certainly is in part). There's the reliability of the critic and the publication to consider. On this board we ask is writing about in a reliable source for in . I don't think it's a good idea to lump film critics in with any other opinion. Some are better to

9029:

How is that a NPOV? We see nothing like that for MSNBC or CNN, the latter of which clearly demonstrates a biased opinion. It is difficult to leave POV at login when we have such a list guiding editors. Does the perennial list by its sheer existence tend to circumvent WP:RS, WP:V and NPOV? I am

7786:

The argument presented here is flawed, there is no policy that makes a page unreliable or worth deprecating because it published a piece critical of an editor, or even if the site engaged in doxxing. Is there a policy that clearly states that news sources that have doxxed wikipedia editors are

10274:

Attribute if used at all, Xinhua does not have a reputation for fact checking or editorial independence and they are headquartered in a country with one of the least free press ecosystems on earth (not to mention a part of a government which has an overwhelming and current record of spreading

9020:

Hi, David - I think you can begin with any question above that asks if is a reliable source. Such a question begs generalization of an entire source (and opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise) rather than affording editors an opportunity to reach a consensus by discussing the

9238:

Guy, with all due respect, I disagree, particularly your opinion that "there has been a sea change in the way the conservative media works, which has not affected left-partisan or mainstream media." It has been demonstrated time and again that the transition from print to internet, increased

1199:

the image is used, it should be described in the same way as in the book (as a reconstructed modern portrait). On the other hand, we still have the problem of copyright and license. There is no date given, the artist's signature says "o5", which I guess can be for the year 2005. The original

8981:

dictates as being an independent RS. That is why context is important when determining whether a source is suitable for inclusion. I'm of the mind that choosing sources that publish opinions we may not agree with and asking for input in general rather than in context if the source should be

2595:

The Islam related discussion in the section seems to be of a general nature so discussing the specific views of of a single scholar in the section seems out of context and rather discordant. Perhaps the article could say something along the lines of "Some/or Scholar X,Y have provided vivid,

1800:

from tendentious editors. (iii) Regarding your last comment: There is nothing that's more misleading about using aggregate polling than individual polling in that situation. If anything, aggregate polling provides greater clarity in who is included in polling over time than randomly picking

1795:

is included, and the aggregate includes the outliers, as well as the polls that are not outliers. How is it better that editors have discretion to pick random individual polls, including the outlier polls (which POV editors are far more likely to do)? (ii) I see absolutely zero confusion in

639:

In instances in which I have pulled statements from pages based on WP:OR, as in Uzbeks, it is because there was noting in the paper that supported the statement on Knowledge. That's original research. So when someone (in this case, a known sockpupoeteer) adds a statement to an article about

7278:

doxxing is not a criteria per WP:RS which also means it’s not a valid argument to support deprecating this source. If there are other policies of which I’m unaware, I’d be happy to review them, but for now, Swarajya fails to meet WP:DEPRECATE based on the evidence presented on this thread.

3159:

Wikileaks does indeed authenticate all documents it publishes and has never been proven wrong. Wikileaks does not claim, that all documents it publishes only contain factual correct statements, but they do check, that the documents are genuine and come from its respective authors. I.e. the

10904:. Use of Wikileaks documents as sources should continue to be governed on a case-by-case basis according to Knowledge rules. Contrary to what is written above, quoting documents to show what they actually say, rather than what 'reliable' sources may claim they say, is a legitimate use. 4879:

but should they be used in preference to official stats? (Hint: that's what people are doing). Worldometers often gives a higher result than the cdc and state health department websites and it's unclear how they learn about new cases before they're posted. Furthermore, it fails MEDRS...

230:

similar sources? You haven't said what text you plan to add, which always affects rs. While MEDRS doesn't cover everything in the article, you need to ensure that it does not apply here. Commentary on the reliability of reported statistics certainly should only be sourced to an expert.

5363:

per Buidhe - I can't find anything on their website about editorial board, who writes their articles, or specifically where the information in this Coronavirus table is coming from (beyond saying that it's 'updated by our team'). Not being obviously wrong isn't enough to make it RS.

5943:

recent criticism of Knowledge) still user-generated content. The site's reliance on social media users to forward leads to instances of misinformation is also a concern. OpIndia's website is also somewhat vague on the status and backgrounds of its editors; for example its "About Us"

3328:

was cited, which includes clear instances of WL publishing fake documents. It also often includes misleading and inaccurate summaries of its documents. I agree that it should be treated with caution as a primary source and not be used without independent verification of its content.

8606:. Had a quick review of the places that it's used and it doesn't seem like they're the sort of things that should be sourced to it. I would add that the NCC is a very significant organisation historically and is relevant to many different Australian topics, so it might have wider 2349:"Whenever one sleeps with a houri . . one finds her a virgin. Indeed the penis of the Chosen One never slackens. The erection is eternal. To each coitus corresponds a pleasure, a delicious sensation, so incredible in this vile world that if one experienced it one would faint." 9219:

Incidentally, you'll note that I proposed a more robust process for deprecating and blacklisting widely used sources. That would seem to me to be a good first step in alleviating any concerns over weaknesses in the review of deprecations / "generally unreliable" classifications.

11054:, which are linked in the articles. After a spot check, I don't think The Hustle does any original research or reporting of its own. I would prefer to use the secondary sources linked in The Hustle instead of The Hustle itself. Which specific article are you planning to cite? — 1439:

for companies, but I have not seen anything indicating the information published by Business Journals is unreliable. The reason I would consider the source generally reliable is that there are some occasions where the site - acting in its role as a paid service - will publish

9455:

what Benkler's analysis is. He and his co-authors used sophisticated network analysis techniques to analyse cross-sharing between media, and found that over a short period of time the conservative bubble effectively isolated itself from the mainstream and its "fact-checking

11397: 3550: 10493:

When the site's first leak, a secret Islamic order allegedly written by Sheikh Hassan Aweys, one of the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, went live in December 2006, there was speculation that it was fake; Wikileaks' credibility was questioned in the

3356:

9443:

that previously mainstream conservative sources have changed the feedback mechanism from fact-checking to ideology-checking. You can see this in the increasing discoinnect between Shep Smith and the bulk of Fox reporting, leading up to his departure from the station.

6290:

are their unbreakable habit of publishing false and misleading information, and their tendency to attack any entity who questions their reporting, instead of making error corrections like a respectable publication. The presence of bias does not excuse unreliability.

2823:" An IP (above) already made a solid argument against including the material. And I questioned the necessity of the proposed text. You have not made a convincing argument for including the material, such as why it's important to include/how it improves the article. 7267:“It is noteworthy Swarjaya later updated its report with the correct information, although clarification on its tweet – “The main accused in Lakshmi’s acid case was Naeem Khan but he is said to have been named “Rajesh” in Deepika’s movie” – is yet to be provided… ” 644:

makes clear that genetic studies about phenotypes (intelligence, hair color) have to be sourced per WP:MEDRS guidelines. If he keeps restoring WP:OR and primary research papers as he's been doing, he should definitely be blocked because he's already been warned. -

780:

no less) for statements of fact on human population genetics or anything related to that. There are potentially multiple scientific fields that one might draw from on this topic, but it is clearly one that demands the highest quality and most current information.

2422: 9377:- note how the conservative media all cluster together with a substantial gap between them and mainstream sources that is simply not present in the left-leaning media. So, yes, you're free to disagree, but my reading of the literature says that makes you wrong. 451:

violation. The problem is that we (the Knowledge community) do not trust you to analyze primary medical sources. You have not been singled out for special treatment: we trust no Knowledge editor to do that. And no, they are not being corroborated: according to

6666:

site’s news section or articles written by Swarajya staff are unreliable. But their opeds seems to have high quality editorial standards. They’ve editorial policies, correction policies and similar structure like any media house. That’s not case with OpIndia.

9511:

It's only topics that have received very little coverage in mainstream sources where one would expect that obscure sources would come up for discussion. These would be articles about local history, minor political figures, minor novelists and musicians, etc.

10020:, an anti-abortion propaganda movie which mainstream critics panned but critics at papers published by anti-abortion organizations liked. Somehow they are all placed side-by-side as though they're equivalent sources for film criticism. I don't think this is 311:

As instructed at the top of the page, this noticeboard is for obtaining input on the reliability of sources in context. We cannot give up an absolute up-or-down answer just based on a list of URLs in isolation. It depends on what you want to cite these for.

1335:

native advertising, clearly marked and disclosed, should not eliminate 40 award-winning print journals with decades of history at least since 1980. The domain is used in over 10,000 articles (can't count beyond that without trouble due to API limits). --

10606:, what "rigors"? See above. There are none. And no, the meos in Steele are different, the primary sources there were assessed by the former head of MI6's Russia desk. Material published by WikiLeaks has been assessed by no verified subject matter expert. 9866:

bad. I think Heckle's comment is actually much more rational, in that it points to a specific issue with the way David A. R. White habitually portrays atheist characters in his films, a matter of both mockery and frustration among the atheist community.

3303:

It is good practice when making claims to provide a supporting reference. Do you have a link to a forged document published by Wikileaks? How you know what Wikileak's does regarding whatever you mean by "selective release"? Do you have an inside source?

2621:

Could I ask IP editor 119.155.38.8 | 119.155.40.215 | 119.155.50.185 | 119.155.36.215 | 39.37.152.160 | 39.37.166.23 | 39.37.128.82 from Lahore Pakistan, who follows me around, to please create and use a Knowledge account.

10432:

started to treat WikiLeaks more carefully than they did in the past due to this history of intentional deception, which is perhaps why fringey Knowledge editors now increasingly seek to insert primary source WikiLeaks content into Knowledge articles.

5602:

I have read some of their articles due to certain case of abuse which has befallen our community recently, and they are clearly partisan hackery. If there was ever for a case for a "news" (tabloid) site to be completely blacklisted on Knowledge, it's

5578:

per what Newslinger said and I think it clear this site is absolutely unreliable and that they are attacking Knowledge because they don't like what we write because it doesn't fit their Islamophobic agenda. I have seen this source used many times on

9448:

Academics are making advances in large-scale content analysis, with new machine-driven techniques and more sophisticated yardsticks with which to measure content. Such approaches can reveal much about news outlets’ choices of stories, sources, and

1471:(73 articles) over here at the English Knowledge. Youth Ki Awaaz is a user-generated crowd funded platform (with internal checks) in India and I wondered if it was reliable enough to be used extensively over here during referencing in the future. 580:

took the same view as the user in question, but did not answer my objections. The question thus is, is MEDRS applicable to studies concerning ethnic origins, appearance of genes fro blond hair in Mesolithic hunter gatherers. Am I misunderstanding

10800:, that looks like a bunch of motivated reasoning to me. We have solid evidence that WikiLeaks publishes indiscriminately, is vulnerable to the agenda of the leaker, has been hoaxed, and may publish material that endangers lives. Just because we 8481:

I think you may not be paying close enough attention to our longstanding PAGs about what is and isn't a RS, or how we can use sources. Is your plan to rewrite those guidelines? BTW, are you quarantined at home with too much time on your hands?

1791:

against aggregate polling, it's absolutely mind-numbing to read them (and astonishing that someone could actually hold these views): (i) Aggregate polling is skewed because they include outlier polls? Yes, that's the point of aggregate polling:

10704:): only secondary-sourced material about the cable leaks should be included in articles other than about the leaks themselves. This reflects concerns about use of primary sources, illegally obtained sources, selective leaking, axe-grinding etc. 4383:

and that (c) we must find an alternative source ourselves. If you would like to run an RfC to decide which is preferred, please do, but anything that places additional burdens on people whoa re, in the end, just cleaning up dross, seems harsh.

2309:. To cite a figure viewed as authoritarive by only some Christians and treat his POV as "the" Christian POV constitutes religious evangelism. The same hazard exists when covering Islam. As always, we avoid this by sticking to sources that meet 985:

Since I am not very familiar with Rules and Regulations on English Knowledge (I am a user from another language version), I need help to get @Cmacauley understand that and refrain from blocking our conversation with unreasonable claims. Thank

11308:

is simply a right wing political blog with no editorial oversight and is Daily Mail and Sun tier in terms of quality for fact checking. It shouldn't be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia for the same reason The Skwawkbox isn't.

10417:

primary source for documents which means that generally we would prefer to use analysis of the documents from another source. However, there will be occasions when we want to link to the primary document and this template is useful for that.

9283:

No, he's right and I'm pretty sure you're incorrect. More broadly, old nonsense from bad sources is nonsense from bad sources, and lots of it is a cleanup task, not a reason to claim it has tenure. The cleanup task is quite doable too, I got

5418:, if the Guardian say that someone tweeted something, that's a good source to use to assert that the person tweeted something. If they report it as fact, I'd probably fall back on 'it depends' - is there a particular case you've got in mind? 6088:

per everyone above. These editors, the smartest on Knowledge, the most experienced, the eloquent, the considerate, toward all points of view, even those least deserving an attribution of reliability, have spoken, and done so unanimously.

5947:

lists a "Core Team" of editors mostly identified with their social media handles, while its "Fact Check Team" - though less vague - only provides brief descriptions of its members. This is in stark contrast to other fact checking sites like

3019:

that was not published on Wikileaks. How does that prove anything? If Wikileaks is not a reliable source, there must be some erroneous document on their website. Please either provide that, or let me use Wikileaks in a reference. Thank you.

2188:

I have no opinion on this source, but being cited in Knowledge is an indication of absolutely nothing. Bad sources are used all the time on Knowledge. But if it's bad and cited, what that means is that it should be removed, not cited more.

5952:, which was accredited by the IFCN, offers more extensive details of its staff, and shows instances where it issued retractions. In light of the above, my conclusion is that OpIndia should be considered an unreliable source of information. 10275:

disinformation through official channels). The use of Xinhua should be avoided entirely in articles that are controversial or political, whether COVID-19 related articles are controversial or political I will leave up to others to decide.

10721:. This is to ensure that we have reliable independent sources to provide context and establish significance for any leaked content that we cover, and ensure that individual editors do not cherry-pick the source to support a personal view. 10095:. What is the exact usage you are referring to? In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Government sources and state-run news agencies from a few countries are so far the most reliable sources for some claims, such as confirmed cases. -- 6454: 464:

sources say. It means being among the 30% slowest developing boys. And you should mind that that's a figure from 35 years ago, as it appears that the age of spermarche decreased meanwhile due to overabundance of food. As the saying goes,

4648: 2957:

There was no need for you to create this subsection. I do not battle over every point and refuse to concede anything. As for this particular case? If I am battling over this minor point, so are you. Let it go and move on. As is clear by

5501: 2173:

I already noted that it's cited within Knowledge. That it's cited within Knowledge doesn't make it a WP:Reliable source. And why cite this website instead of a reputable media source or academic source? This isn't about WP:NOTCENSORED.

8581:

Obviously, this isn't a publication dedicated to objective reporting. The non-neutral descriptors and obstinate ignorance of science speaks volumes. Definitely not a reliable source for reporting facts in Knowledge's narrative voice.

3016: 10303:, but I want to check for reliability first. I am specifically interested in adding details about Kawcyznski's prehistory, such as his (brief) runs for Congress, his time in the Free State Project, and possibly details on his wife. 9103:]. I have no idea if "Grayzone" should or shouldn't be a RS but the RfC is an example of what I think Atsme is talking about. My feeling is we should be less reliant on general RfCs and spend more time looking at specific examples. 3764: 7569:- Swarajya's reporting has been factual. Its editorial policy is sound. Reporting on a WP Editor doesn't make it unreliable, unless the report was fake. Is there a policy that makes news sources critical of Knowledge "unreliable"? 1468: 9476:

contradicts a conservative narrative. Liberals do, however, selectively avoid conservative media. So you now have two disconnected media ecosystems, with different systems of incentives (because only one contains the mainstream).

4740: 3202:

The motives of Wikileaks sources are irrelevant. It is a fact, that Wikileaks has never been caught publishing faked documents. And that is all that should matter to an online encyclopedia, that tries to publish true information.

7372:

Examples include a case in Begusarai district where the National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) ordered follow up action based on a Swarajya report. This involved the rescue of a minor who had been kidnapped.

9395:

Thank you, Guy - but we have had this discussion before and I have cited several, not just one, highly reputable academic sources as well as interviews with highly reputable journalists/news anchors that dispute your position,

8976:

being the descriptor. It appears that quite a few of the most recent discussions are not about context at all; rather, some are about sources that have published opinions which tips the scale as far as "fact"-checking and what

4347:

Do not remove apparently factual information if you are offended by the source being cited to document the fact. Call for a better source with the { { dubious source } } template if you are in a hurry, or better yet: SOFIXIT.

1815:

The encyclopedic value of any poll is individual notability for inclusion in an article about polling itself, and how far/close they were to accuracy once the elections are over. They have -0- lasting value beyond the latter.

7734:

Interesting. Who is "our" in "our editor"? Knowledge do not employ editors, so is there a "group" whose that editor is a member of? I am also an editor (have done some translations) and I have not hit by something like that.

6707:, most of their fake news are being spread on the name of Swarajya Staff. It is unreliable for news reports for sure. Except one case of op-ed, I didn't see much more fake news thing in op-ed and they apologised for it too. 5916:

as it is the oft-maligned establishment that produces the sources used to generate Knowledge articles. If the site had a stellar reputation for accuracy despite its biases then a case could be made that it could be cited on

2806:

Koreangauteng, I know where you are proposing to add the content. So do others. You don't need to point to it. You seem to making the argument that the proposed text should be added because it's verifiable. That is not so.

6270:

was criticized for having a "black crime" section on their website; it is now deprecated and blacklisted. If Breitbart had a "Muslim crime" section, it would look like much of the propaganda in the 300+ articles listed in

2596:

imaginative descriptions of sexual intercourse in paradise (cite)", then again the section is supposed to be about Islam and Sexual intercourse, not Islam and Sexual intercourse in the afterlife. Thoughts by other editors?

10547:

Number of edits, what you're calling experience, doesn't automatically equate to judgement, which is what counts. But, then, I've only made an average of 1.8 edits a day over my own Knowledge career, so what do I know?

7812:

instructs editors to generally avoid questionable sources. Doxing an editor with the intention of subjecting the editor to harassment that prevents the editor from editing Knowledge due to safety reasons, as was done by

3405:

It has a completely transparent political-editorial position and in that it is no different from any of the UK's supposedly mainstream press, most of which follow a right-wing line versus the left-wing of the Skwawkbox.

2951: 6168:

a Knowledge editor in good standing with a history of constructive contributions in order to make it unsafe for them to continue editing Knowledge – solely because she was unhappy that the editor's strict adherence to

4271: 3979: 3499: 1190:

Thank you, @Cmacauley, at last you have delivered at least something. I myself also found the bookpage with the image in the 2nd. edition of the author's book published in 2015, page 21. I have added the source to the

8065:

not the same, there's off-wiki canvassing going on, it is a reasonable assumption and it has always occurred in this topic area. If it results into more egregious POV-pushing I will block the accounts for disruption.

5491:, which has negatively affected at least one Knowledge editor. However, there has never been an extensive discussion on this noticeboard that focused exclusively on OpIndia. Two previous discussions refer to OpIndia: 10580:

Yes, if it is verifiably from Wikileaks and has been through the rigors of substantiating originality as with all the other leaked material they've published. Wikileaks material is as useful as were the memos in the

4117:- the Sun is a terrible source, and I maintain that pretty much every usage of it that I removed was bad. The one thing you haven't done above is list which removals you think you can show against the stated policy ( 2149:. It (and similar) are available from other sources. It is not the ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan, or ḍaʻīf of any given hadith. It is the reliability of the source which publishes it. I appreciate the matter is sensitive but 8880:, which have no relationship whatsoever to the holocaust/conspiracy theories in general. But for anything from this Alexander Baron, or anything Jewish/Nazi related, in general, it's a complete wackadoodle source. 8060:

I'm not a CU, I'm just a clerk at SPI. As someone who has requested CU before in this area and is familiar with it, the result will be be unrelated - I'm pretty sure it's meatpuppetry, while the editors themselves

9335:

I'm of the mind that wiping out sources after the paradigm shift (analog to digital, & from print to internet), or when/if there has been a change of ownership or management may turn out to be a huge mistake.

7867:

AltNews in the same category, because above journalism, the editors of these institutions just want to placate their audience and hold on to their bases without a shred of respect for actual fact-based reporting.

7307:

possible when someone's personal information is available.) Doxing is a questionable editorial practice that – when done with the intention of making it unsafe for an editor to remain on Knowledge (as was done by

5741:

Any media site that doxes a Knowledge editor over what it judges to be "political" edits is unethical and, therefore, unreliable. I think we can find better sources for anything that has been linked to that site.

136: 4444:

I've argued my position earlier in this very section. These are not just unreliable sources, they're deprecated sources - anti-sources. They flatly don't belong in Knowledge, except in very limited circumstances.

2363:

You're not helping your case by starting to quote out of context: what you quote above, is from the author quoting another author (properly indicated by Bouhdiba, but not by yourself in your misquote above). See

9418:...a useful adjunct to your own research and evaluation of the news sources that you rely on provided that you evaluate these rating systems with the same care that you use to evaluate the news sources directly. 7863:

institutions which have no integrity. This thread is not about AltNews and no one cares, if you want to raise this in a separate thread, feel free to do so. I'll do you one better, I will lump Swarajya, OpIndia

9464:

does not care at all: when mainstream sources disagree with a conservative narrative they merely dismiss it as "lamestream media" "fake news" and carry on. And yes, that has changed over time, quite profoundly.

4904:

i wouldn't use it because there is no information about who they are or how they determine their stats. Also, there is a limited value of tertiary sources. We should not insert raw statistics without analysis.

3977:

unacceptable for articles on living people, obviously, except in extremely narrow circumstances. (That we still have so many Daily Mail links on BLPs is a disgrace, although I'm slowly going through those too.

1801:

individual polls over time periods. Anyone looking at the 538 national polling visualizer for the democratic primary can clearly see that Biden spikes in polling just as Buttigieg and Klobuchar leave the race.

8254:) but I had never heard of the site before, and looking at it I can't really tell if it's a legit site or just some blog. Visually it appears to be the latter, but the interviews made me wonder if it's not? — 3722: 9734:. I am challenging the reliability of this source to use. In the context of critiquing this film, is this source really appropriate? It strikes me as essentially quoting a college kid's thought on the topic. 9100:

I think I understand the context. There have been a number of recent RfCs that are focused not on, "is this source reliable for this claim" but instead, "should this source be deprecated". Here is an example

4775: 2903:

in Islam. In any case, your proposal doesn't say anything about Islam generally, so I don't see the point. Also, note that you should never cite a Knowledge page as a source, as you did in your proposal, per

8710:

give two hoots about their opinions on climate change or science because it's crankery, but we should absolutely be interested in things they publish about (to give two examples from a much longer list) the

4695: 6448: 1726:

A month ago, you appeared to express support for creating a policy change (rather than implementation of this on a single article), so that this commonsensical proposal would get accepted across Knowledge

1321:

Quote: "We label all native as “sponsored content” – the preferred FTC labelling. We take one of the more conservative approaches in the industry with very clear, prominent and transparent labelling." --

6611:

for same reasons as above. No opinion on the pre-1980 print version, but the gap between 1980 and 2015 is large enough that I don't see much reason to judge the former version by its latter incarnation.

106: 3689: 7366:

There have been numerous cases where Swarajya reports have been picked up by Constitutional bodies of India (not the government, but those independent of government) and followed up for police action.

3768: 772:

limitations interpretation, so we can't simply find a primary source through a secondary source of this quality either. Whether or not you want to see this as specifically MEDRS-related, or SCIRS as

7757:

I am unpaid member of a local club, all it members, they would still be referred to as "our members". We are in fact all unpaid) and volunteer) editors. Thus yes, they have doxed one of our editors.

5937:

This seems to be a common theme with OpIndia's content - vigorously attacking its opponents while holding its credo as a shield to deflect any criticism of its fact-checking and editorial practices.

9424:, and on and on. Many highly reputable sources TNT your theory about right and left leaning sources, bias and clickbait. Surely you're not putting all your eggs in the "Network Propaganda" basket. 1852:, who appears in turn to own Rolling Out as basically a one-man show (the Steed Media Group website is down.) Feels bloggy, and I can't find examples of major mentions by clearly reliable sources. 9308:

As far as I know there is a policy that says that poorly or unsourced content can be removed, there is no policy that says we must include information. We are not requited to have everything here.

3832:). My concern is about leaving smoking craters in our zeal to eliminate an undesirable source (generally) even when that source is making claims that can supported in other reliable sources. -- 8271:

It's just somebody's blog. It says so at the bottom "Create a free website blog at wordpress.com" and the sidebar exhorts you to "follow the blog via email". Note that wordpress.com is listed on

10751:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

8320:

Yes, generally that's true. You'd have to exercise some judgment, though. In this case the interviews seem legitimate, considering that a band he interviewed republished it on their own website.

1378:

is key to understanding the situation. I felt it was important to make this post since the domain is widely used on WP and their use of native advertising is somewhat new as of 4 years ago. --

9674:

were not determined to be questionable, then Dalrymple's opinion piece would have been eligible for inclusion, and the best venue for a discussion of the piece's due weight would have been the

5391:

What weight can be afforded to normally-reliable news outlets, such as CNN or The Guardian, who write an article based on nothing more than a Tweet by someone, or a Facebook post? Normally, by

1214:

N.B.: Now, I have identified the artist, it is indeed Eva López Miranda, a photorealistic paintress who works as an aquarell painting teacher at the National School of Fine Arts of Lima, Peru.

8347:

is used for a source on an article and any editor objects, there's not much to stand on. It's a self-published source and, as best I can tell, not by a recognized expert, just a serious fan.

1975:

content being attributed to it? It's obvious from the OP's wording that they consider "a YouTube video" to be some statement on the reliability of the source, and this kind of claim comes up

11400: 8250:

is a legitimate reliable source? The writer is based in Manchester, and I came across it because it seems to have several interviews with bands (including one I'm doing some research about,

4781:

What claims in the article would you like to support with this source? It seems to me that most sources for COVID-19 articles, especially one about misinformation, would be required to meet

3161: 3043: 1660:

I have a proposal for a change to Knowledge policy / guidelines (maybe a change to Manual of Style guidelines or Reliable Source guidelines). I want to propose something along the lines of:

640:"linguistic assimilation", but the study cited contains no content about assimilation or even the word "assimilation", that's original research. I have tried to inform this Kleuske guy that 9831:

and other student newspapers. Obviously some are unreliable (Liberty University's student newspaper is controlled by Falwell) but I don't see this as an unreliable source for this content?

7252:

In reviewing this thread, I didn’t see any evidence presented of its inaccurate reporting or the absence of an editorial policy (WP:RS). In fact, Swarajya Magazine has an editorial policy:

5495: 2055:

We'll need more than a blog post by a "Blechnum Maximum" and a single complaint to add that journal, especially if it's just an brainfart from people who interpreted the sentence to mean "

10631:

may help shed some light. Wikileaks provides analysis as do news sources (like the NYTimes) that engage in investigative reporting and publish leaked info by anonymous sources. Wikileaks

4172:. Even if a fact is plausibly true (using my editorial judgement), we should not be putting a little blue number next to it as if it's well-cited, we should be noting it isn't well cited. 1796:

recommending that editors use aggregate polling from a RS in a situation where such polling is available. What loopholes are editors going to find in that? It sets a clear guideline that

1519: 11148:

I am less sure, this "Stories and insights you wont find elsewhere" is either a lie (thus they may be unreliable, they tell lies) or is true, which mean they must right their own stuff.

8427:

The National Civic Council (NCC) is an organisation which seeks to shape public policy on cultural, family, social, political, economic and international issues of concern to Australia.

6226: 4678:

of surviving MEK leaders. The splinter group also killed Majid Sharif-Vaqefi, an MEK member who was later honoured "for defending Islam" (Arya Mehr University of Technology was renamed

1192: 963: 239: 11406: 5863:

doxing, lack of editorial control. Which means my name will be added to the Twitter feed documenting this. I see there's a big dispute at the article itself started by an SPA (and see

2049: 7796: 3820:. What kinds of discretion are you using? I notice that today you deleted 5 Sun cites in 5 articles in less than 2 minutes; or 15 cites in 15 articles in 7 minutes. All replaced with 3614: 3500:

https://api.newsguardtech.com/D380F023084F3635282206792DBBB28038CB0E589ECFADD1D93EBD1E3CC4056F059FB160F1805A7D7EC3F7FC89625808AF75062350E4592F?cid=a1535552-a929-4853-bc0b-6d7a1ae7eacc

3429: 8548:

I think I'd back my understanding of Knowledge policy on fringe sources over yours any day. And I was self-isolating before it was cool. I work from home and have done for a decade.

8302:

slightly. A self-published source (blog), even for a validated identity, can't support statements about other people. Anybody can start a wordpress blog and publish fake interviews.

3657: 536: 1673: 6156:

and blacklist. Among all of the sources I have examined on this noticeboard, I have never encountered a source that blatantly undermined Knowledge's reliability to the extent that

4373:, Any of us who works at this has been told, with equal force and conviction, that (a) we must remove the content with the source; that (b) we must leave the content and tag it as 2402: 7857: 7842: 7649: 7612: 7595:, and the author(s) clearly did not bother to confirm their claims with the subject(s) of the article or any related people, which reflects a poor reputation for fact-checking. — 4581:

notification) Why "reckless"? The site has no hallmarks of reliability: reputation for fact-checking, editorial pedigree, editorial policy or even staff listing. Remove on sight.

896: 195: 177: 7701: 7680: 7662: 4936: 2462:

as a source, while there are appropriate & reliable sources written within the field of expertise matching the one likely acceptable for the "Sexual intercourse" article. --

1810: 1781: 1540: 904: 872: 832: 187: 128: 6297:, which was owned by the same company as OpIndia, republishes entire articles from OpIndia (lightly reworded) under the "Swarajya Staff" byline and should be treated similarly. 5922: 3926:

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

3168:. Wikileaks doesn't claim that the list is correct, in fact it even states, that it "may contain inaccuracies". So yes, Wikileaks should be classified as a reliable source for 1255: 215: 7550:

and whoever is inclided towards that ideology whereas shows a soft stance towards the left-wing believers) seem to have selectively bashed this (Swarajya) outlet in the past.

6923: 5904: 4752: 4742: 3392: 2471: 2376: 2031: 1758: 1495: 1360:, is there a discussion where the reliability of Business Journals is disputed? I've long considered Business Journals to be reliable, and have routinely used it as a source. 995: 962:

The person who runs this article states that I have to provide "reliable sources" in order to delete an undesired fantasy portrait of the person described in the article. The

900: 884: 10025:

include than others based on who they are, where they're writing, the kind of film they're writing about, etc. A student just isn't as good of a source for film criticism as

8619: 7129: 5400:

it)? If the Tweet makes a claim about a third party, is that claim now valid because it's been filtered through a reliable primary news source? Inquiring minds want to know!

4958: 2941: 1554: 11168:

based its story on them. So it's better to use the other publications. Also, the claim in the article that the odds can be beaten goes against received understanding, hence

8679: 8661: 7885: 7578: 6100: 4762: 3523: 2975: 2889: 2874: 2842: 2801: 2753: 2691: 2663: 2501: 2254: 2183: 2161: 2141: 1739: 1717: 1627: 10284: 9679: 8105: 7781: 7766: 5378: 4625: 1697: 666:

WP:SCIRS is an essay, not a policy. I do hope you understand the difference between an essay and a policy. Besides the word “phenotype” does not appear in SCIRS, that’s in

10441: 5355: 3632: 2994:. Perhaps a Korean-speaking editor could evaluate whether it should be considered a reliable source? My concern is that it may be another user-contributed site like IMDB. 2636: 2605: 1598: 11433: 11333: 11037: 11020: 10083: 9699: 9628: 9317: 9260: 7634: 7165: 7086: 6794: 6343: 6024: 5716: 5409: 5034: 4184: 3716: 3384: 2325: 11438:

While it is one of the more respected UK political blogs out there, breaking items that are often reference by media, it is still a blog. I agree it shouldn't be used.--

11265: 8136: 7654:

We don't provide links to blacklisted sites. That's what "blacklisted" means. As for "vindictiveness", that's a good word for the practice of both OpIndia and Swarajya.

6974: 6386: 5997: 5302: 4976: 4292:- Removing a dubious source and replacing it with a CITATIONNEEDED template is terrible practice and any editor who is doing that en masse should knock it the hell off. 3338: 2929: 2915: 1873: 1581: 863: 849: 11360: 11346: 10210: 8293: 7744: 6847: 6046: 5680:

including archived links. Absolutely no modicum of reliability, any news website which outs an editor cannot claim to be journalistic/news portal/fact-checking site. --

5655: 5508:

Is OpIndia a reliable or unreliable source for Indian politics, fact checks, or other topics? Also, should the citations of OpIndia in the 23 articles be removed under

5395:

we would discount the source as primary, or use it with caution, as long as it did not contain e.g. claims about a third party or is not unduly self-serving. So when a

4863: 4845: 4548: 3753: 3739: 2234: 2212: 11244: 11230: 11181: 10598: 10521: 9806: 9421: 6957: 6940: 6895: 5980: 5876: 5855: 5594: 5432: 4914: 4898: 2659: 1829: 808: 500: 10104: 9520: 9239:

competition, and clickbait has effected all media. For you to single out right/conservative media is very disconcerting. I am also concerned over your denigration of

9027:

Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows).

8819: 8767: 8752: 8727: 8700: 7225: 7183: 7055: 7029: 6995: 6742: 6720: 6699: 6680: 6655: 6635: 6325: 6256: 5672: 5332: 5216: 4642: 3998: 3792: 3118: 2019: 11447: 11279: 10832: 10575: 10459: 10375: 8610:

usage than your average source in this position - I don't want to find myself having to argue to keep it in articles talking about stuff the NCC did down the track.

8360: 8334: 8315: 4794: 4484:

relating to arcade games (an area with a shortage of media coverage); however, it does not seem particularly reliable. It is basically a group blog according to the

4456: 4357: 4329: 4301: 4175:

Also, I seem to get a lot more "thanks" clicks than reversions, and a lot less reversions when removing terrible sources than I do in my general editing. But YMMV -

3857:, it isn't David's responsibility to search for sources; the burden lies with the person wishing to add the new source to find it. David has done nothing wrong. -- 3109:

Wikileaks does not edit (as far as I know) or even check veracity, it just publishes what is handed to it. We are not even sure much of what it publishes is genuine.

1413: 950: 943: 888: 11403: 11157: 10263: 10241: 10130:

in China (and in the world), and anything it publishes is certain to be representative of what the Chinese government intends to communicate. (Contrast this to the

9166: 9146: 8957: 7559: 7357: 7287: 6616: 6116: 5961: 5638: 5178: 5150: 5007: 4264: 4046: 3927: 3240: 3101: 1966: 1948: 1744:

As for the substance of your comment, no one is claiming that an individual poll is necessarily unreliable. The argument is that aggregate polling will not only be

1106: 757: 339: 10359: 10038: 9349: 9301: 9091: 9059: 9043: 9015: 8839: 8221: 8201: 8179: 8083: 6876: 6080: 5836: 5245: 5201: 5119: 5097: 3277: 3176: 3150: 2601: 2086: 1472: 1124: 1024: 1010: 800: 327:

is a publication of an industry group (the Used Car Dealer's Association of Ontario), and doesn't seem particularly good except in limited circumstances where the

11394: 11195:

hasn't appeared on this noticeboard before as far as I can tell. I am interested in what other contributors think of this source, especially for BLP information.

11137: 11123: 11092: 11071: 8939: 7244: 6864: 6811: 6063: 5824: 5733: 4315: 3650: 3262: 1351: 725: 679: 654: 319:, so it not really be used except in extremely limited circumstances. PR Wire is just a collection of republished press releases, so it cannot be used except for 11387: 10482: 9580: 9537: 7625:

who is the founder of AltNews. AltNews, still continues publishes similar material. So if we do an apple to apple comparison, AltNews should be deprecated, too?

4764: 3539: 1148: 1063: 522:

ref, which I haven't come across before. It has plenty of info for the article, but I'm unsure how we should look at it, so I'd like opinions. Per aboutpage etc

482: 427: 8903: 8593: 8163: 7930: 7514: 6775: 5697: 5061: 4608: 4410:

Is there not a "dubious source" template? If not, some template person needs to make one. Then just paste after the problematic sources we all love to hate...

3870: 3184:, authenticating is not the same as fact-checking. Pretty much by definition, anything that ends up at Wikileaks got there because someone has an axe to grind. 2005: 1893: 1453: 1393: 1369: 1164: 10322: 9602: 9112: 8800: 8265: 6830: 6598: 6569: 6532: 6364: 5753: 5626: 4572: 4100: 4076: 3588: 3009: 1235: 1209: 1179: 1155:(Image constructed of Samuel Fritz based on descriptions of his physical features made by those Jesuit missionaries who worked with him.) So, not a "fantasy." 408: 10542: 10426: 10029:, and criticism in a paper published by a church about a film relevant to the church's ideology just isn't as good of a source as a mainstream publication. — 7728: 6237: 6146: 3313: 3298: 10936: 10911: 10753:

This noticeboard is not the place to rewrite our PAGs. My concern is that it will open a can of worms regarding the use of primary sources in existing BLPs.

10555: 10007: 9185: 9132: 8381: 8251: 7536: 7494: 5156: 3207: 3197: 2284:

is of anonymous origin and so is also unreliable. Note, though, that much of Muflihun.com and nearly all of Sunnah.com appear to just be the text of Islamic

1084: 876: 795: 183: 11493: 11468: 10529:, with fewer than 1500 edits, an average of one every other day since you registered, I don't think you have sufficient experience to comment meaningfully. 9555:. However, due weight does partially depend on the reliability of the publication. If an opinion from an insignificant individual or organization is either 9137:

Also context must include the context of the reliability of the source in general "st Ralph the liar" cannot be a source for anything, even his own opinion.

8021:'s canvassing and guess what? Most of these editors has less than 100 overall edit counts. This gives a clear hint of disrupting the community's consensus. 5080: 4822: 4427: 4397: 2682:

Koreangauteng, what text are you proposing to add? The proposed source doesn't seem necessary. On a side note: No need to ping me. I've been checking back.

10708: 10161: 9982: 9961: 9942: 9917: 9641: 9259:

until the acting admin removed the warning from the DS log - we call that professional courtesy in the media industry. You were clearly not happy with the

5233: 3602: 3417: 1655: 892: 880: 564: 447:

to primary source 1 and primary source 2. And you have even dared to state it as a medical fact in the voice of Knowledge, despite being told that it is a

10965: 10889: 10856: 10821: 10792: 10766: 10670: 10648: 10619: 10246:

Thanks for the context. I agree with you here, since health figures in underreported countries have very little to do with Chinese politics or affairs. —

9731: 9611:

i.e. an opinion article, Newslinger didn't say "questions about due weight should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard", Newslinger said

9489: 9437: 9390: 9276: 9233: 8561: 8495: 7379:

The Scheduled Castes Commission, an independent Constitutional body picked up a Swarajya report and ordered help to a member of a marginalised community.

6646:

media outlet which puts out hit pieces on our editors because of political motivations and presents it as gospel is an unreliable (and unethical) source.

6265: 3673: 687:

contains the word "phenotype". You're either confused or you're not reading what I'm posting for you. So pay attention: click this link to go to WP:SCIRS:

9000: 7951: 5540: 4673:"In August 1971, many leading members of the MEK were arrested by SAVAK, and by the end of October, most MEK members had been arrested. While in prison, 1933: 510: 10138: 9880: 5801: 5785: 4283: 4199: 4158: 3942:

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.

3137:

source (although I don't feel they can be cited in even that way - even a usable primary source has to do basic fact-checking.) Remember that anything

1480: 10068: 8739:

where you think it's a valid source. The ones I have looked at so far have clearly not been, but you know more about this source than I do, evidently.

8401: 5208: 98: 90: 85: 73: 68: 63: 10184: 8869: 4989:

So, a separate (and highly unusual) RFC was started elsewhere, two days after this request (and with a very unusual interpretation of consensus), and

4226: 10923:. Content sourced directly and solely from WL also places Knowledge edotrs in the position of being arbiters of fact. We are not allowed to do that. 9615:

that it was among items that "should be removed because they constitute WP:UNDUE" so an RfC on WP:RSN "addresses" the use. Subsequently David Gerard

6250: 4760: 868: 11102:

were contacted by Stefan Mandel's attorney. I would consider this particular article usable for uncontroversial facts, but contentious claims about

9263:

that favored my position, so please stop spreading misinformation in your attempts to discredit me in an effort to gain traction for your proposal.

3701: 3046:" (2018), the most recent discussion, for another example of a WikiLeaks document that was rejected by editors for being inadequately authenticated. 1240:

The picture is an obvious copyright violation, so there's no way we can use it here. Also, it's utterly without encyclopedic information value. See

11374:

is not above using smears and falsehoods. It's unclear how much of his blog is written while sober - he has a documented issue with alcohol abuse.

11291: 10526: 10513: 10418: 10350:

Newsblog from real paper, if small; real journalist, discussing his work (the sort of things newsblogs publish). Should be fine with attribution -

6411: 5634:- rejected by the international fact checker organization - that says it all. It’s irresponsible to link our readers to such an unreliable source. 5386: 4871: 3376: 3305: 3282: 3269: 2121: 1464: 1147:.) It is therefore not merely a fantasy, but just as valid a representation as a portrait of any historical figure not drawn from life. FWIW, the 790: 335:

or noncontroversial content within the area of expertise, like number of used car dealerships in Ontario or something). Again, depends on context.

9216:

state sponsored propaganda can appear like legitimate news sources, as has been seen with Russian websites masquerading as Ukrainian news sources.

3847: 572:

has been removing information from a large number of articles on similar grounds, often citing WP:OR, when actual sources are cited. I have had a

11588: 11418: 11318: 5705:

on the doxxing behaviour alone. Legitimate journalists know better than to alienate potential sources or place sources/subjects in harm's way. —

4993:

Someone needs to rationalize this mess, because we don't determine local consensus via a 50% or more vote when a general discussion is underway.

4019:

a nuke. You said that is OK because the source is generally unreliable per the RfC, but this selectively interprets the RfC because it also says

3932:

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

1153:"Imagen construida de Samuel Fritz en base de las descripciones de sus rasgos físicos hechos por los misionarios jesuitas que trabajaron con él." 631: 295: 11478: 11409:, with the general consensus being that it is an unreliable source, so I definitely think adding it to the perennial sources list is pertinent. 7433: 4532: 4003:

Answering here because I probably won't say any more, The Sun links are now all gone at the hands of one determined editor for better or worse.

3948:

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

2738: 2571: 1404:

Reliable in my view as the native ad pieces are clearly marked, even the Guardian has some paid for pieces (which are also clearly marked), imv

10296: 10178: 6642:

Rather than edit my initial statement, I'd like to add that I think one thing we can and should all agree on when it comes to sourcing is that

5229: 4512: 2441: 1858: 1506:, the content is not generated by trained journalists, but by independent users. I am not sure how much content is verified? I would say it is 1111:

I think it is no problem to use works of art even created long after the death of their subject. Then you can usually say in the image subtext

8048: 4500: 2358: 1293: 303: 11370:, absolutely. I would not use this any more than I'd use Occupy Democrats (which I successfully proposed for deprecation). We also know that 9850:

Incidentally no comparable rejection was registered for the inclusion of an entire paragraph on the reaction of the creationist fringe group

8475: 6487:

s weekly print magazine (published 1956–1980), its monthly print magazine (published 2015–present), and its website (active 2014–present)? —

3133:

purposes, which requires sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Even if we did count that, they would still clearly be a

11560: 9469:

Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity

6690:

Your argument is that their op-eds are of good quality and editorial oversight but their actual editorial board published pieces...are not?

3460: 2550: 1142: 11204: 10653:

No, they do not provide expert analysis. They are a primary publisher of stolen information, and as such, we should never base any content

10410: 9819:

noted, "the movie provides no actual intelligent debate, instead opting to use common stereotypes of atheist and straw man arguments".(ref)

9747: 8116: 7261: 6504: 5462: 3985:

I hope this adequately answers GreenC's well-meaning defenses of The Sun. Further discussion of how to treat The Sun should probably go to

2998: 1848:

as it's the single argument for a BLP's notability. Doesn't really have readily available staff/publisher info but it appears to be run by

316: 9952:

arguments and common stereotypes of atheists instead of any actual debate", and cite these 3 reviews to back that, I would support you. --

9844: 8278:

That said, if they have interviews with notable people, it could probably be cited for statements those people make about themselves, but

7392: 5568: 5533: 5346:

per above. They also host a donation link so I don't think it's appropriate to link as a source while other websites provide same info. --

3024: 2966:. If you can't make a case for why content should be included beyond "its verifiable", then expect WP:ONUS to be cited to you more often. 11338:

It's one of the more long-running political blogs, but in the end it is just a blog and shouldn't be used, except in its own article and

10997: 10344: 9929:, but this is pretty much the most cogent and least hysterical presentation of the matter I've come across so far. Have you seen better? 7668:

I didn't know Swarajya was blacklisted. Why are we having this discussion then? Nevertheless, I would stick to my opinion. The source is

5663:

including any archived links. OPIndia is nothing more than a rag-mag and has no reputation for meaningful fact checking or truthfulness.

5611:. They'll stoop to any low to push their pathetic agenda, and it infuriates me that it has come at the human cost to this very project. – 1267: 854:

A comment at the AFD has pointed out they do not only include town names, this makes it harder. Based on that I am changing to not an RS.

369:

website (under "Ask the expert") would be unreliable. I did not revert because I am not completely sure that Planned Parenthood would be

5311: 4164:

I must note, I'm absolutely not claiming perfection here. I'm going to make mistakes, and I welcome correction on them! But I've seen a

1909: 456:

more than two thirds of boys reached spermarche at the age of 13. So "between 13 and 15 years of age" means slower development than the

9771: 9766: 9612: 9327: 9248: 9240: 7690: 5544: 5310:. The company does not provide information about its editorial board and most articles are not bylined and/or transparently derivative 5251: 1272: 820: 8787:, in the end, and the fact that this website is not RS for statements of fact, only for the opinions of the site's publishers, right? 10724:

Ideally the "contents of..." articles should probably be moved to WikiSource, as we already have articles on the impact of the leaks.

9775: 7440: 7069:

I was going through the policy on reliable sources and as I understand it, editorial POV alone does not mean a source is unreliable

6911: 6468:

a reliable or unreliable source for Indian politics, Indian news, international news, or other topics? Also, should the citations of

5892: 1145: 10741: 10332:

for the publisher indicates that their is a stable editing staff, a set of writers, and physical publishing for the paper in Maine.

5125: 2936:

The uncompromising, "I-do-not-see-why-it's-important-to-include-/-how-it-improves-that-article", form of Knowledge editing by-decree

1681:

Clearly, in non-list articles, aggregate polls should be favored over one-off polls. This is for the same reason we generally favor

418:

primary studies. Those here are corrobored by others secondary sources, and they don't contradict each others. What's the problem?--

10173: 9333:

highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV.

4477: 10988:. It's articles are written in an informal writing style and it caters to millenials, sort of like Vice. Is it a reliable source? 10189: 9323: 4990: 3913: 3910:

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

3818:

Furthermore, this closure does neither permit a blacklisting nor a wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion.

2813:

While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article.

200:

It is a nuanced article explaining the difficulties but not making absolutist claims. Depends how it is worded in the article. --

9758: 4270:

By the way - help on clearing down the backlogs of deprecated sources, and thus improving Knowledge, would be most welcomed! See

3567:. Third-party regulators and browser extensions might not take whether a website is self-published into account, but Knowledge's 4748: 4418:) 13:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — See, there already is one. THAT'S what we need to be doing, right there. { { dubious source } }. 3810: 2535: 7376:

Illegal slaughter houses, a major environmental and crime related issue, were ordered to be shut after a Swarajya news report.

4508: 4447:

Please answer the arguments already posted, rather than appearing to start afresh as if this has never been discussed before -

1217: 744:: Would like to inform you both of this user's activity here. Now seems like the time to get a more specific statement over at 21: 11025: 9854:

sourced from two links on their own website, or (and entirely reasonably in this case) to the Catholic News Service's review:

8860:

1993". I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say this site isn't reliable for anything in any article under any circumstances?

1988: 1220: 10468:

I have no idea what it is used for, but if its BLP's that would be an issue, as would the use of illegally acquired material.

8522: 8517: 3049: 9616: 7938:. Too many issues. Maybe they will straighten up their act one day, but for now, this is not a usable source for Knowledge. 6931:- and Vanamonde makes a good point. If it's significant enough to be included in our articles there will be better sources. 3324:

Re the claim that Wikileaks has never been proven wrong, there is another WL-related discussion further down the page where

11535: 8526: 7325: 6054:

per above arguments, they are clearly not interested in providing journalistic content, but in providing a viewpoint only.

5548: 2655: 2429: 1880:

Doesn't look like an RS and even if it were I'd say it does not establish notability, because it's basically full of hype.

347: 154:

the recommendations of the CDC or WHO. And rapidly evolving situations also means that information gets outdated quickly.

115:

is indeed considered a reliable source. It seems to me that there should be no problem using New Scientist as a source for

11016: 8666:

It's less statements about third parties than about themselves - historically, the NCC were effectively built as an "anti-

4714: 4654: 2398: 2218: 532: 11584: 11531: 11523: 11511: 10952:

about Wikileaks (WP is mentioned). As other editors have said above, we should handle Wikileaks on a case by case basis.

10949: 10628: 8963: 8239: 7264:

of these articles, a third-party news organization acknowledges the actions Swarajya took to correct the misinformation:

6278:

Nupur J Sharma had a chance to make OpIndia a respectable publication. Knowledge does not exclude publications for being

4829: 3803: 3610: 3425: 2458:

criteria (short answer: quite unlikely), and even if that works out it seems very unlikely that one would take an author

2343: 1252: 10945: 10635:, dated 03-Nov-2015, lists their awards/recognition & partners (at that time), the latter proving most interesting. 8424:

News Weekly has been published continuously by the National Civic Council since 1941, and was originally called Freedom.

2040:

and of the fact after exchanging with Springer editorial board, nothing happened not even an answer from the authors...

559: 11515: 11046:

It's strange that The Hustle (thehustle.co) lists its investors, but not its editorial staff. The site appears to be a

8509: 5832:- Cited by reliable sources as a news source, albeit one that explicitly leans right and is "against mainstream media". 4726: 3220: 2597: 1899: 191: 132: 10840: 10772: 5041: 11519: 10223:: Note that this is not a Xinhua-specific issue. Xinhua figures for China come from the same source as Reuters': the 9780: 9459:

It's very clear that over a relatively short period, conservative media has turned almost entirely inward, forming a

7853: 7792: 7676: 7645: 7617:

The website truthofgujarat.com which now redirects to altnews.com had hosted all articles which are good examples of

7574: 6425: 4800: 4272:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Clearing_down_review_backlogs_of_deprecated_sources:_call_for_help

3473: 1515: 10864:, and here's the point: where those third-party sources discussed the stolen cables, then so can we. But where they 9892:

number of religious reviews listed; even including half that don't like the film!) But we already have reviews from

1939:

Assuming its a verified account it is reliable for the claim "this TV station has claimed...", and that is about it.

1728: 11342:. There may be other odd exception where something that it's written has been picked up by RS and become notable. 7480: 7409: 6218: 4085:

This "due restraint" has not been followed, no effort was made to source to a reliable source prior to removal. --

3737: 1690: 966:

is an unhistorical and inaccurate illustration work of no encyclopedic value. For details see ongoing debate on my

748:

since some people apparenly believe that genetic studies on ancestry or phenotype aren't biomedical information. -

667: 582: 491:

is not a conclusion lifted from a cited source. It is a conclusion an editor made after reading the cited sources.

116: 11235:

Conde Nast gives them points - CN is reasonably good at fact-checking. Is Tatler a dubious example of a CN mag? -

10446:

And, just as relevant, the material that ends up with Wikileaks is itself selective. It's an axe-grinder's dream.

5607:. They serve as a reactionary dumping ground for mankind's worst natural tendencies on a level of surpassing even 3347:

Sorry to repeat myself but, since the Wired article has been mentioned, here is my comment from the section below:

1311:. This can be a reason to not use it as a reliable source. However, the company confirmed they only started doing 10143:, which publishes incendiary opinion pieces that do not necessarily represent the Chinese government's position.) 9244: 8833: 7476: 7405: 5170: 5142: 5026: 4755:, but I'd like community input on whether Tortoise Media is an RS for these purposes. It seems a serious venture 2222: 11012: 10510:

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

9792: 8321: 7693:, to see that Swarajya is blacklisted and a brief explanation of why we're nevertheless having this discussion. 3970:

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

3373:

The article does describe the efforts that Wikileaks makes to ensure the authenticity of documents it publishes.

2394: 1331:

Given this I believe it to be a reliable source, except when there is native advertising flag. The existence of

1244:– though that's just my personal opinion on this type of issue. This is the textbook case of an image we should 908: 804: 528: 10168: 10122:

in 2019), which is an unavoidable issue that is brought up in discussions on any Chinese news source. However,

9529:. It's okay to establish that here. We don't need to discuss every single use individually of, say, Breitbart. 9256: 9151:

Many sources are found to be unreliable generally, but reliable for some things ie. contextually reliable. --

8926: 8890: 8531: 4251: 2880:

to include/how it improves the article." You are proposing to include material simply because it's verifiable.

2199: 2073: 2000: 1606:

platform has very much poor editorial standards, it allows user generated content which are enough not to pass

1323: 1249: 967: 939: 921: 520: 164: 907:

etc. etc. etc. all over the country. Besides GNIS's unreliability in its place classifications (and that it's

142:

It's a reliable source in general, but like most popular magazines doing science vulgarization, it depends on

9859: 9472: 6918: 6789: 5899: 5711: 816: 9908:, which are far more reliable, and are saying basically the same thing, so we don't need a student paper. -- 5261:

published by BNO News is being circulated by many people everywhere. Can it be considered a reliable source?

573: 10776: 10056: 8815: 8763: 8723: 8675: 8667: 8615: 7849: 7788: 7686: 7672: 7641: 7570: 6444:

has not yet been extensively discussed on this noticeboard, but was mentioned in two previous discussions:

5438: 5326: 5045: 4892: 4026: 1575: 1511: 127:

might not even be entirely relevant. Regardless, I think New Scientist is an appropriate source. Thoughts?

9788: 8843: 8543: 7257: 4490:

Immediately removing all use of the website would be reckless at this point, so please discuss the matter.

3692:- how to filter this, and technical details of how to hamper its use on articles and especially on BLPs - 617: 10827:

provided a RS that supports my position. Following are a few RS that published highlights of the cables:

10499:

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

10149:

in the relevant articles, and Xinhua is probably one of the best available sources for this information.

9762: 9667: 9252: 8848: 7772:

can I learn about it? How should I report it? Is there a list of community meetups that happen in India?

7303:

doesn't suddenly become ethical because someone's personal information is available. (In fact, doxing is

5864: 5174: 5146: 5030: 4665: 4233:

The difference between blacklisting and deprecating is simply that when a source is blacklisted, you are

3362:

The second mention relates to an anonymous informer who again does not identify a specific fake document.

1476: 1289: 1277: 9525:

I don't see the problem. Lots of sources are so unreliable, they are unusable in any context except for

7804:(and OpIndia) doxed the editor without properly fact-checking the article, which is characteristic of a 6392: 6282:; the fact that OpIndia is far-right and pro-Hindutva does not, by itself, disqualify them from being a 5921:

grounds, but OpIndia has been criticized for its reporting/fact-checking methods; for example, the IFCN

4129:(which is policy) for. Even if you think rules-lawyering the wording of the close (which literally says 3688:

The Sun is deprecated anyway, but it's especially a problem on BLPs. Please see discussion I started at

10982:

I found this website that has a nicely written article on something I'm planning to write about called

10571: 10437: 10224: 10044: 9743: 9662:

as a post on Dalrymple's personal blog (i.e. minimal weight). The opinion piece does not qualify under

8196: 8158: 8078: 7880: 6770: 6141: 6095: 5692: 4932: 3919: 2764: 2704: 2467: 2372: 2106: 1806: 1754: 1735: 1669: 392:

is bogus. Who analyzed those primary studies? Knowledge editors did and they are not allowed to do it.

51: 42: 17: 9117:

It's inconvenient and troublesome when trying to delete thousands of URLs to think about context. --

7969: 6190: 5451: 5277: 601: 11580: 11177: 10300: 9516: 8451:

In other words, this is not a news organisation, it's the newsletter of a Christian-right group, the

8395: 8216: 8174: 8100: 8043: 7260:,' 2 of which refer to an article reporting misinformation about the name of an actor in a movie. In 6381: 4910: 4658: 3606: 3421: 3334: 3053: 2817:

may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or

2527:

Irrespective of the commentator's "Islamic" notability and / or qualifications, material relating to

2240: 1777: 541: 441:

From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases.

390:

From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases.

323:

content. Most of the others seem like commercial websites and thus generally should not be used. The

235: 9709: 9025:

is not among them despite being owned by Qatar. Fox News is rated generally reliable but it states:

8405: 7450:

Swarajya's reporting has forced other news outlets to take down reports and is therefore reliable -

7200:

regularly paraphrases entire articles from OpIndia under the anonymous "Swarajya Staff" byline. See

3690:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general)

2513: 489:

From various sources, it appears that spermarche occurs between 13 and 15 years of age in most cases

396: 10715: 10694: 10684: 10390: 10371: 10280: 10092: 9624: 8878: 8715: 8410: 7777: 7740: 7720:. The connection with OpIndia and republication of their hit piece on our editor is enough for me. 7630: 7555: 7340:

frequently republishes lightly rephrased content from OpIndia, so the same arguments apply here. —

7156: 7120: 7082: 6904: 6784: 6477: 6015: 5885: 5706: 5513: 5298: 3065: 2971: 2963: 2885: 2838: 2828: 2749: 2687: 2230: 2179: 2117: 2037: 1536: 1527:. Youth Ki Awaaz is a community-based thought sharing platform/website. The guidelines describe it 1104: 388:

does not allow us to proclaim medical facts having only primary studies to rely upon. So the claim

11295: 10155: 9784: 9409: 8687:, interesting. Of the 65 current cites to the website, which do you think are likely to be valid? 6415: 3829: 3744:

That a category, not all articles that fall under BLP (such as articles about clubs) may be on it.

2940:"if you battle over every point and refuse to concede anything, you hurt Knowledge in many ways". 2412: 1529:

YKA is a people’s platform. That means thousands use it daily to share their thoughts and opinions

609: 593: 11300: 10962: 10853: 10808:. And looking at your input on this page, it's hard to see this as anything other than personal. 10789: 10763: 10645: 10595: 10381: 9434: 9346: 9273: 9182: 9088: 9040: 8997: 8811: 8759: 8732: 8719: 8684: 8671: 8611: 8492: 8279: 6970: 6420: 5993: 5077: 5058: 4813:? I am particularly cautious about any claims of efficacy of COVID-19 treatment at this point. -- 3683: 3670: 2947: 2870: 2797: 2734: 2632: 2585: 2567: 2437: 2354: 2250: 2157: 2137: 1826: 1693:" of individual polling companies. And it's more consistent with an encyclopedic summary style. 1283: 1133:

The image in question is from a portrait painted by a Peruvian artist, which is displayed at the

119:. Given that this is a newsworthy event of international importance (and not, say, an article on 9468: 8539: 7980: 7293:"Unfortunately, because the Wikieditor did not oversight this information in a timely manner..." 6305: 3729:

on all BLPs (or at least all articles in the category "Living People") and there are zero hits.

2921:

your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples".

2821:. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. 2331: 11482: 11429: 11414: 11356: 11329: 11314: 11305: 11240: 11200: 11153: 11116: 11064: 10478: 10355: 10256: 10203: 10079: 10064: 9893: 9754: 9692: 9573: 9413: 9313: 9297: 9142: 9055: 9011: 8953: 8654: 8628:

statements from advocacy organizations (and their publications) about third parties fall under

8513: 8452: 8129: 7923: 7835: 7762: 7605: 7507: 7436:) having tainted this process, several preferences from those users may need to be discounted. 7350: 7218: 7022: 6843: 6562: 6497: 6318: 6041: 5913: 5651: 5561: 5526: 5476: 5427: 5373: 5003: 4954: 4946: 4841: 4544: 4525: 4452: 4325: 4279: 4219: 4195: 4180: 4154: 3994: 3785: 3749: 3712: 3697: 3628: 3581: 3535: 3233: 3114: 3094: 3073: 3039: 3031: 2015: 1944: 1920: 1869: 1491: 1459: 1056: 1006: 859: 845: 374: 10488:

The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

10229: 9374: 7909:, for the record. My rationale can be found throughout my comments in this discussion, and in 5583:. It's full of stuff that are only sourced to this source. I think it needs to be rewritten.-- 5466: 3510:

Why would we want to base any content on a left-wing news blog? That's what it is, after all.

3351:

The first mention relates to "speculation" but no fake document was identified in the article.

1287:

under the bizjournals.com domain. Some of these have won independent press awards for example

716:. The consensus is that race, anatomy and genetic articles have to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. - 11474: 11261: 10567: 10433: 10055:

is an state-run news agency, is a reliable source. By the following reports of this article,

8588: 8329: 8288: 8260: 7369:

These cases involve some of society's marginalised and vulnerable sections including minors.

6953: 6937: 6890: 6090: 5976: 5873: 5850: 5590: 5480: 5471: 5351: 5212: 4972: 4928: 4771: 4614: 4468: 2497: 2463: 2368: 2365: 2150: 1914: 1802: 1750: 1731: 1713: 1665: 1551: 1409: 915:

jump from "Class: Populated place" to "community" or "(historical)" to "ghost town", and you

828: 496: 245: 226: 11098: 11080: 10314: 9471:

describes the effect of closed media bubbles, and numerous subsequent studies have verified

8968:

It is my understanding that the scope of this noticeboard is as stated in the banner above:

8535: 4125:) - and which replacements of this generally-non-reliable-source you think you can show the 3325: 2060: 1040:"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" 359: 354: 11572: 11343: 11285: 11173: 9512: 8909: 8640:. Whether these statements are appropriate to include in a relevant article is a matter of 8368:, and a blog with under 300 followers, at that. Seriously, it's a blog. Just... no thanks. 7991: 7490: 7461: 7179: 7051: 6991: 6738: 6716: 6695: 6676: 6651: 6631: 6351:

and blacklist (through an edit filter if necessary) due to doxxing, which is unacceptable.

5668: 4906: 4859: 4818: 4637: 4021:

this closure does not permit wholesale nuking of all Sun references, without any discretion

3735: 3598: 3413: 3330: 2991: 2981: 2393:(15th century). That may or may not have a place in an article somewhere. Context matters. 2092: 1773: 1623: 1531:. Opinionated articles are published by anyone without any verification on this platform. 1365: 935: 927: 839:

It is my understanding that such sources are RS for both a place being real and notability.

527:, is it generally reliable, use with caution, wiki-like and EL at best, WP:N-good or what? 478: 404: 231: 11164:

The Stefan Mandel story has been covered in many other publications and it is likely that

10711:) it should be used only as a supporting source, no section should be drawn entirely from 9805:

It is asserted that a review in Iowa State Daily is unreliable in God's Not Dead because "

8275:

as a generally unreliable source, except in areas where the author is a legitimate expert.

7046:

tweeting and sharing FB posts about it and encouraging people to continue to dox editors.

6965:

over doxing of Wiki editors and lack of editorial control; reposting of OpIndia material.

6872:- Cited all the time by other Indian newspapers as a news source, albeit a right-wing one. 4649:

University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs publication by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.

3964:

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

2861:

Flyer, you did not answer my question, "why do you oppose its inclusion?" I will await a

955:

Hello, I need some help in a dispute which involves an undesired file used in the article

690: 8: 11505: 11226: 11051: 10836: 10517: 10422: 10367: 10290: 10276: 10119: 10031: 9905: 9663: 9620: 9526: 9397: 9289: 9065: 8913: 8810:

opinions as opinions they approve of, and they should be appropriately cited in context.

8637: 8633: 8607: 8459: 7773: 7736: 7640:

reporting. Marking a publication as unreliable out of vindictiveness sounds petty to me.

7626: 7551: 7472: 7455: 7401: 7388: 7148: 7112: 7098:, there are other Indian right leaning news agencies which have reliable reporting (e.g: 7095: 7078: 6402: 6394: 6336: 6293: 6007: 5774:

threatened on Twitter to out more. The doxer has almost 200k followers. Need more proof?

5444: 5405: 5294: 5166: 5138: 5115: 5022: 4790: 4756: 4311: 3380: 3309: 3273: 3146: 3057: 2990:

appears to be a site listing stage acting credits (at least), based on a conversation at

2967: 2881: 2862: 2834: 2824: 2814: 2745: 2683: 2577: 2226: 2175: 2113: 2045: 1839: 1532: 1160: 786: 753: 739: 721: 650: 577: 457: 332: 320: 143: 4877: 4661:

and published by University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs) a reliable source?

4613:

I believe i brought this up in the past and reached the same conclusion as CZae and JzG.

3165: 568:

and about the appearance of the gene for blond hair in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, but

380:

The second diff has restored in the voice of Knowledge medical claims based solely upon

11576: 11556: 11545: 11527: 11256:

print magazine with full staff, long history (1901), no evidence of unreliability, imv

11047: 10977: 10907: 10551: 10237: 10153:

is necessary, because it's unclear how accurate the statistics are (see reporting from

10123: 10100: 10050: 10003: 9851: 9651: 9608: 9108: 8922: 8886: 8353: 8308: 8212: 8170: 8112: 8096: 8055: 8039: 7725: 7698: 7659: 7283: 7103: 6966: 6377: 6300:

In conclusion, OpIndia has no place in Knowledge citations as long as they continue to

6231: 6225:, they sometimes respond by marking the article as "satirical", as documented in their 6113: 5989: 5957: 5241: 5197: 5093: 4924: 4758: 4496: 4247: 3904:

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

3863: 3204: 3173: 3035: 3021: 2962:, acting like every verifiable thing should be in a Knowledge article harms Knowledge. 2943: 2866: 2818: 2793: 2744:

I'm not sure why you are proposing this or why it's important to include. So I oppose.

2730: 2628: 2581: 2563: 2433: 2350: 2246: 2195: 2168: 2153: 2133: 2102: 2069: 1997: 1730:

Now, you appear to insist that no policy change is necessary. Why the change of heart?

1594: 1449: 1436: 1374: 1361: 1304: 1241: 1224: 1175: 1134: 516: 461: 366: 299: 160: 11473:

Detested as well, certainly. But the likes of the British Broadcasting Corporation do

9365:

you're welcome to disagree, but that view comes directly from published sources, e.g.

7583:

There were a number of false and misleading claims made in the hit piece published by

6455:

I searched for Swarajya magzine in archives or its reliability but cannot find either.

6373: 4810: 4063:

It's a crappy source, and by that I mean bottom of the barrel, perhaps one step above

1137:

in Prague. According to at least two sources, neither of them blogs, the portrait was

423: 11489: 11443: 11425: 11410: 11367: 11352: 11325: 11310: 11275: 11236: 11210: 11196: 11169: 11149: 10474: 10351: 10088: 10075: 10060: 9460: 9309: 9293: 9138: 9051: 9007: 8949: 8711: 8505: 8034: 7758: 7532: 7425: 7074: 6839: 6583:

That last question requires too much thinking, so I'm glad I answered when I did :P –

6473: 6186: 6182: 6076: 6033: 5647: 5509: 5419: 5365: 4994: 4967:

instead; the data is reasonably authoritative and comes from a non-profit source. --

4950: 4837: 4723: 4679: 4578: 4556: 4540: 4448: 4423: 4415: 4353: 4321: 4297: 4275: 4191: 4176: 4150: 4072: 3990: 3745: 3708: 3693: 3624: 3531: 3470: 3169: 3134: 3110: 3061: 3003: 2623: 2302: 2298: 2011: 1940: 1865: 1645: 1502: 1487: 1441: 1091: 1002: 855: 841: 675: 627: 470: 381: 10828: 8168:

You were right but I would still request you to keep a watch because of WP:NOTHERE.

6758:

No way that Swarajya has ever produced unbiased respectable journalistic content. --

5502:

Scroll, OpIndia, The Wire, The Quint, The Print, DailyO, postcardnews, rightlog etc.

5013:

Source IMO is fine enough. This is a balance between uptodateness and reliableness.

3256:

Only source Wikileaks if the information you are citing from them has been confirmed

3141:

there will be cited elsewhere, and we can just use that secondary source instead. --

2537:

Point 3. On the other hand, material deemed to be supportive of Islam is . . .

1308: 622:

These are just recent examples. The users edit history contains many more examples.

525: 11542:

Is aglasem.com a reliable source, especially when it is the only one in an article?

11257: 11214: 11133: 11088: 11033: 10993: 10150: 10145:

For the coronavirus pandemic, statistics from the Chinese government are certainly

9957: 9913: 9815: 9799: 9720: 9659: 9635: 9285: 9159: 9125: 9030:

concerned that it may which is not a good thing for the reasons I mentioned above.

8978: 8934: 8898: 8865: 8629: 8625: 8583: 8324: 8299: 8283: 8255: 7240: 7099: 7070: 6949: 6932: 6886: 6860: 6807: 6458: 6429: 6279: 6059: 5972: 5868: 5846: 5820: 5729: 5584: 5392: 5347: 5321: 5067:

exercise oversight and correct errors is a plus for their fact-checking abilities.

4968: 4887: 4767: 4691: 4259: 4126: 4093: 4039: 4004: 3959: 3937: 3888: 3880: 3854: 3840: 3069: 2780: 2534:(if it is thought to be controversial) is rejected for variations on these reasons 2491: 2455: 2207: 2081: 1962: 1929: 1853: 1707: 1570: 1546: 1405: 1386: 1344: 1080: 1043: 1001:

You do not need an RS to remove an image, or anything. You cannot prove a negative.

824: 585:

or is it being construed overly broad? Some other articles recently affected are:

492: 208: 172: 5155:

Big jump appears to be based on this "According to Cuomo, New York now has 20,875"

1689:— it reduces the risk of citing outliers. Citing aggregate polls also avoids the " 11218: 11109: 11057: 10956: 10920: 10847: 10783: 10757: 10639: 10589: 10340: 10318: 10249: 10220: 10196: 9828: 9726: 9685: 9675: 9586: 9566: 9548: 9531: 9428: 9340: 9267: 9176: 9082: 9034: 8991: 8784: 8780: 8647: 8486: 8122: 8010: 8006: 7916: 7828: 7598: 7500: 7343: 7211: 7175: 7143: 7047: 7015: 6984: 6731: 6709: 6704: 6691: 6669: 6647: 6627: 6578: 6555: 6490: 6311: 5664: 5580: 5554: 5519: 5071: 5052: 4855: 4833: 4814: 4806: 4782: 4632: 4518: 4212: 3778: 3730: 3664: 3574: 3226: 3087: 3012: 2923: 2909: 2319: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1954: 1820: 1694: 1686: 1616: 1231: 1205: 1120: 1049: 1020: 991: 745: 709: 684: 641: 547: 474: 448: 400: 385: 336: 124: 9243:

despite clear consensus here, as well as voicing your generalized criticisms of

5314:? For disease information especially, it is important to use a reliable source. 4485: 3125:

Wikileaks does no fact-checking. Therefore, they don't count as publishing for

50:

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

11222: 11187: 10843:

which refers to them as an "online whistleblower". What RS support your input?

10632: 10582: 9739: 9370: 8930: 8894: 8246: 8190: 8152: 8072: 8030: 8026: 7874: 7468: 7451: 7397: 7384: 7296: 7073:. It’s not a reason to blacklist or deprecate the source. Additionally, as per 6764: 6260: 6161: 6135: 5949: 5918: 5686: 5415: 5401: 5158: 5130: 5111: 5014: 4942: 4786: 4674: 4602: 4584: 4307: 4255: 3828:. Nevertheless, many of these cites could be easily replaced by other sources ( 3488: 3142: 3008:

Please explain to me, why I am not allowed to use Wikileaks as a reference. On

2959: 2808: 2626: 2314: 2203: 2077: 2041: 1156: 978: 782: 773: 749: 732: 717: 661: 646: 613: 569: 168: 9197:

the mainstream, but mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative.

8706: 5971:

as above, they have shown themselves to be partisan to an extreme extent, imv

1905: 1849: 11552: 11463: 11382: 11103: 10931: 10916: 10884: 10816: 10736: 10701: 10665: 10614: 10537: 10454: 10405: 10233: 10146: 10115: 10096: 9999: 9977: 9937: 9901: 9875: 9839: 9824: 9597: 9556: 9552: 9544: 9484: 9385: 9228: 9104: 8970:

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context

8918: 8882: 8795: 8747: 8736: 8695: 8641: 8556: 8470: 8376: 8365: 8348: 8303: 8272: 8018: 7946: 7818: 7721: 7694: 7655: 7429: 7313: 7279: 6982::- Swarajya has took those pieces down. I can't find them on their website.-- 6613: 6590: 6524: 6437: 6433: 6359: 6197:, which establishes the fundamental principle that anyone can edit Knowledge. 6194: 6170: 6124: 6109: 5953: 5635: 5618: 5488: 5484: 5237: 5193: 5107: 5089: 4592: 4567: 4492: 4392: 4243: 4190:

WE do not have to keep poorly sourced material. No issue with Davids actions.

3986: 3858: 3645: 3564: 3555: 3518: 3293: 3212: 3192: 3181: 3077: 2904: 2490:

is a self-publishing company. Anyone can write a book and publish it there.--

2451: 2294: 2277: 2191: 2065: 1992: 1888: 1768: 1682: 1590: 1560: 1445: 1428: 1424: 1171: 931: 156: 112: 8856: 7254:

https://swarajyamag.com/fact-checking-and-correction-policy editorial policy

7004:

published the article, they also shared it with their 670,000+ followers on

4991:

there are indications in that disucssion that this is NOT a reliable source.

3767:

returns just 3 citations in BLPs, which is also pretty good. There are only

2561: 2105:

add a muflihun.com source. But it doesn't seem that muflihun.com passes our

434: 419: 11485: 11452: 11439: 11393:

Update: The source has been mentioned five times before on the noticeboard

11371: 11339: 11290:

Genuinely suprised this isn't on the perennial sources list, currently has

11271: 10873: 10132: 9647: 9560: 8014: 7805: 7622: 7528: 7333: 6873: 6301: 6287: 6283: 6072: 5833: 5396: 4923:

The sources are at the bottom of the page. They look okay to me. This is a

4419: 4411: 4370: 4349: 4293: 4142: 4122: 4068: 3894: 3884: 3398:

differentiation of fact and opinion and for factual accuracy and sourcing.

3130: 3081: 2712: 2310: 2306: 1607: 1219:

The signature is identical, and also her style is recognizable, especially

956: 671: 623: 551: 370: 8573:

Victorian Road Map smooths way of NZ anti-life clique to abortion 'reform'

8455:. Anti-abortion, of course, and also anti-gay and apparently Dominionist. 7417: 5128: 3042:

which mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses letter at 21:36. Please refer to "

11129: 11106:(including Mandel) should also be supported by other reliable sources. — 11084: 11029: 11004: 10989: 10127: 9966: 9953: 9922: 9909: 9401: 9205: 9152: 9118: 8861: 8644:, and organizations that are more prominent are more likely to be due. — 8417: 7809: 7236: 7190:"if we are not deprecating other sources that offer the same information" 6856: 6803: 6783:- Again, based on being accessories to doxxing. My reasoning is above. — 6255:

when others catch them publishing false and misleading information. In a

6200: 6055: 5816: 5725: 5316: 5257:

The link to latest data about positive cases, dealths etc. caused due to

4882: 4687: 4377: 4146: 4138: 4118: 4114: 4086: 4032: 3905: 3876: 3833: 3823: 3568: 3530:

Actually no, being under IMPRESS regulation does not negate SPS concerns.

3126: 1958: 1925: 1565: 1379: 1357: 1337: 1076: 1035: 691:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science)

444: 328: 201: 120: 8420:

is used as a source in over 60 articles right now. From the About page:

5790:

I've decided it's best to remove the links from the current discussion.

4682:

after the revolution, before Rajavi and Khomeini had their falling out).

2147: 2101:

is used in our Knowledge articles for Islamic material. Recently, I saw

1864:

Not really an RS issue so much as notability. But I doubt this is an RS.

1113:

Painting by XY (1Zth century), showing King Alfred XX in his golden robe

970:. The same issue also involves the use of the same image in the article 11480: 10953: 10861: 10844: 10797: 10780: 10754: 10636: 10603: 10586: 10336: 9425: 9405: 9362: 9337: 9264: 9190: 9173: 9172:

removing the url and adding as necessary (based on certain criteria).

9079: 9031: 9022: 8988: 8500: 8483: 5068: 5049: 4964: 3661: 3656: 1817: 1432: 1227: 1215: 1201: 1116: 1016: 987: 812: 597: 313: 9823:

It seems to me that this is a curious view: not only is the statement

6032:

per OpIndia (their statement, quoted by Sam Holt, was enough for me).

2280:. It is also sectarian (i.e. promotes a particular POV within Islam). 11534:

for the last 190 additions), but apparently often removed later (see

10016: 9949: 9735: 9050:

I would agree in context is a bit vague, what context? Usage, policy?

8735:, it would be helpful if you could flip through some of them and add 8442:

Fostering the tested values derived from our Judeo-Christian heritage

8207: 8186: 8148: 8068: 8022: 7870: 7823:"Knowledge is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" 7437: 6760: 6244: 6222: 6131: 5682: 5608: 4064: 3466: 2720: 2618: 2557: 2553: 2487: 2425: 2390: 1706:

Any type of polls can be included if they are from reliable sources.-

274: 10749:

No. We can use primary sources with caution but it is discouraged...

9619:, with a confusing edit summary, the review was in Taki's Magazine. 6838:

Whilst bias may not be an issue but their stuff may not be reliable.

6552:

s print and website eras) right after you submitted your comment. —

5768:

by "journalists" from this site who've already doxed one editor and

4949:

from a related discussion regarding a potential CoVid-19 source. --

4145:. Please list the specific removals you consider indefensible under 1275:

publishes 40 print business journals in the USA with titles such as

107:

Is New Scientist a reliable source for 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak?

11457: 11376: 10941: 10925: 10878: 10810: 10730: 10659: 10624: 10608: 10531: 10448: 10399: 10329: 10053: 9971: 9931: 9869: 9833: 9807:

you cannot cite a college kid to make an overall claim about a film

9715: 9591: 9478: 9379: 9222: 8789: 8741: 8689: 8550: 8464: 8370: 7970:

https://twitter.com/KanoongoPriyank/status/1209484668589854720?s=08

7940: 7547: 7005: 6821: 6585: 6540: 6519: 6353: 6178: 6174: 5792: 5776: 5744: 5613: 5278:

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/02/the-latest-coronavirus-cases/

5258: 4561: 4386: 3639: 3512: 3287: 3186: 2580:

I take it that there is no disagreement with the above proposal.

1882: 1662:"When possible, use aggregate polling rather than individual polls" 1151:

from which the Commons version was derived, contains this caption:

399:, but I did not receive any input, be it thumbs up or thumbs down. 11522:(12 links), currently used as the only reference of articles like 11270:

Probably reliable for fashion and high society which they cover.--

10325:, so this author and publisher have been used by larger sources. 3875:

I remove Sun references one at a time, in accordance with policy (

776:

points out, we simply cannot be using popular science books (from

256: 10700:

is used as a primary source, it should be removed (especially in

10566:

A WikiLeaks cable is not a RS and shouldn't be used as a source.

9897: 9322:

David, which part of my comment do you consider incorrect? In my

7107: 7009: 6407: 6204: 6157: 5944: 5458: 5452: 5439: 3899:

Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published sources

3883:), strongly accepted guidelines included in policy by reference ( 2243: 1912:

for what appears to be an unverified (or bogus) COVID-19 cure at

1075:

works of art created centuries after the death of their subject.

971: 546:

Lately I have been involved in a dispute concerning the scope of

11530:(30 links), with a huge history of additions on many wikis (see 9373:. It's also visible over time in analyses of media bias such as 9288:

from 8000+ uses to 5 in a few months of chewing away at it, and

6173:

formed articles that did not align with OpIndia's far-right pro-

3623:

Yes but not self published. The point is he writes and edits it.

3447: 3030:

Thanks for bringing the mislisted discussion to my attention. I

2389:

Yes, it is at first glance an RS on the words of (I'm guessing)

2038:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/87D82A8CA1C4CB9B74A0C1B111AC4F#

1297: 897:

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Joseph Youth Camp, Arizona

695:

Now hit ctrl+F and type "pheno". It will take you to this quote:

253: 11192: 11050:, since most of its articles are summaries of news pieces from 10014:

This seems similar (in the mirror sense) to what I saw over at

7618: 7588: 7300: 4716:

The Ayatollahs and the MEK Iran’s Crumbling Influence Operation

4031:

in case they want to add anything and perfectly OK if not! --

3560: 2724: 2285: 905:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Willy Dick Crossing, Washington

873:

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road Junction Windmill, Arizona

605: 589: 271: 9467:

And this is consistent with a lot of other research. Example:

8877:

Depends for what exactly. Many sources seem to be things like

6227:

rejection from the International Fact-Checking Network in 2019

4539:

If its a crap source remove it, and it does not look RS to me.

2446:

Short answer: no. The author's field of expertise seems to be

901:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Natures Bathing Pool, Kentucky

885:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Arrowhead Junction, California

414:

I don't understand your concerns. As you quoted, we can't use

262: 250:

Are the following websites can be used as a reliable sources?

111:

As the title states. A search through the archives shows that

11008: 8343:

interviews were fake; just that they easily could be. But if

7981:

https://twitter.com/factcheckindia/status/1082597906123710464

6165: 4766:, but it doesn't seem to have an established reputation yet. 4149:, given that a deprecated source is prima facie unreliable - 3571:

does, and that's why we generally shouldn't use this site. —

3410:

publications that can claim none of what it described above.

2273: 2128: 1315:

native advertising in 2016, and only when it is flagged "".

555: 289: 280: 277: 265: 259: 10228:

informing about figures from the corresponding authorities (

4474: 2964:

Knowledge is not for an indiscriminate amount of information

7256:. Its Knowledge article lists 8 references as evidence of ‘ 5988:

over doxing of Wiki editors and lack of editorial control.

4941:

As a question, are they still a reliable source if they do

3010:

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikileaks

2281: 2276:

shows that it is someone's personal website and thus fails

1030: 286: 283: 8094:

Yes, I agree and thank you for keeping a watch over this.

4753:

Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

4743:

Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

3912:

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

268: 10585:

which few editors objected to including in our articles.

9607:

In July, for using a review mentioning an art gallery by

6211:

OpIndia has more general problems than their doxing, and

4836:

are all over this topic right now, for obvious reasons -

4320:

Feel free to go through and remove the claims entirely -

1845: 977:

In my understanding, the claims do not make sense. It is

889:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cream Can Junction, Idaho

807:(GNIS), part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. At 10984: 8025:, can I request you for a CU here? I am sure users like 7992:

https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/www.truthofgujarat.com

4965:

John Hopkins info @ https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

3811:

WP:BLPN#Edit_filter_for_The_Sun_on_BLPs?_(or_in_general)

2703:

It is proposed to include the following sentence within

2098: 523: 150:

makes a recommendation to do X, that really should fall

11538:

for the few remaining links on the English Knowledge).

10657:

on a document on WL. That should not be controversial.

9416:

which cautions about adfontesmedia by stating they are

7320: 7142:

in its utilization due to its then connection with the

6213: 2987: 1139:"made based on the descriptions of his contemporaries." 560:

where MEDRS was cited as a reason to remove information

8458:

I don't think this is suitable for any use other than

4712: 4170:

almost all of it is actually bad and should be removed

2430:

Sexual intercourse#Ethical, religious, and legal views

2420:

The Strong Delusion: Invasion of an Otherworldly Islam

2032:

Add Current Pain and Headache Reports to the citewatch

9718:

says it is appropriate to cite the student newspaper

7495:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Adurcup23/Archive

6449:

Book reviews of a brand new book are primary sources?

5504:(2018): OpIndia determined to be generally unreliable 4751:

looks like it could be a good source for our article

4205:

I've merged this discussion with the previous one on

877:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Autumn Ridge, Arizona

708:

It's as plain as day for all to see. And by the way,

554:

when sources are cited. Case in point is the article

11484:. In the upper echelon of blogs, but still a blog.-- 10709:

Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

10366:

Use with attribution, overall it looks pretty good.

5234:

Knowledge:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force

3458: 3060:, since the claim is contentious and WikiLeaks is a 1987:

again, even when the actual source is, for example,

893:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Eagle Point, Indiana

881:

wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Place, Arizona

565:

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature

469:. Moshang, Oski and Stockman are allowed to analyze 373:. Do notice that I had stated it in compliance with 9064:Hopefully the following will clarify context: (see 8570:Looking over the site, I find headlines like this: 5541:

Knowledge talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

4237:to re-instate it by the software. When a source is 8908:It does host various primary sources through the ' 8604:except for historical things they were involved in 8005:and it can be seen clearly. Can't agree more with 7271:them from any sanctions as outlined in WP:OUTING: 6948:unreliable and partisan to an extreme extent, imv 6199:If this weren't bad enough, Sharma then contacted 6177:perspective. (If you're unfamiliar with the term, 4832:, is a good place to ask - editors experienced in 2779:. The proposed content meets the requirements of 1767:We already have two policies that should suffice: 1646:https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/community-guidelines/ 123:or any of the specific related illnesses per se), 10074:With attribution maybe, what is their reputation? 8576:Where's the evidence for man-made global warming? 7691:the opening of this thread that you're opining in 3393:Move Skwawkbox to at least 'no consensus' section 2723:, refers to the pleasure of sleeping with virgin 1444:information which should be viewed with caution. 951:Reliable sources for putting into disuse an image 869:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington 704:like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS. 11215:https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/ 10876:. And those are the uses we should be removing. 10317:from the same publisher and author was cited by 10310:Here are some arguments in favor of the source: 9724:as a reliable source for content about the film 6545:Courtesy ping. I added the last question (about 6480:? Finally, should a distinction be made between 2546:It is proposed to cite 'Abdelwahab Bouhdiba' in 10804:link to these stolen documents doesn't mean we 10707:In articles on the content of the cables, e.g. 9858:. In other words, even if you subscribe to the 9412:about media bias. There are many more, such as 9255:over your behavior at the Griffin article, and 8282:are to be avoided if secondary sources exist. ~ 2127:Muflihun.com describes its editorial processes. 11424:+1 - generally unreliable at the very least - 11219:https://www.condenast.co.uk/complaints/policy/ 7316:, which states that anyone can edit Knowledge. 6221:. When OpIndia gets called out for publishing 5724:no reputation for fact checking what so ever. 4513:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources 3771:(including BLPs and non-BLPs) that still cite 2450:, which would mean you'd have to take this to 186:that includes estimates of the fatality rate? 7312:and OpIndia) – is in direct contravention of 3017:a discussion about a Jehovas Witnesses letter 1904:Requesting comment (or editing) on whether a 796:Reliability of U.S. Board on Geographic Names 11548:, do you have any connection to aglasem.com? 11221:. Did you have anything particular in mind? 8142:They are unrelated to the suspected master. 8117:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 6375:. I also endorse blacklisting it per above. 6005:Its misreporting is fairly well documented. 3489:https://impress.press/regulated-publications 3448:https://fr.wikipedia.org/Abdelwahab_Bouhdiba 1989:a video lecture published by Yale University 1656:Aggregate polling vis-a-vis individual polls 1226:). I think the image is from 2003 or 2005.-- 10473:], its just has not got that much coverage. 9400:"The War on the Press: A Conversation with 8184:No worries, my talk page is always open. -- 6855:Re-doxing & lack of editorial control. 5770: 5764: 4488:, and no editorial oversight is mentioned. 3763:is needed to search for text in citations. 3166:a document put together by the pilots union 3056:) needs to be supplemented with a reliable 2112:Thoughts? No need to ping me if you reply. 1953:Thanks; another editor has resolved it per 1423:- Bizjournals is likely well-known to most 803:calls into question the reliability of the 511:The Canadian Writing Research Collaboratory 11028:is another article about them in DigiDay. 8705:Extremely few of them, but something like 8115:, there is an ongoing investigation here: 7910: 5545:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Indian politics 5230:Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data 2792:Flyer, why do you oppose its inclusion? 10118:(ranked #177 out of 180 countries on the 9682:is clear, and this discussion is moot. — 7208:inherits the unreliability of OpIndia. — 4137:) will make a point, that can't override 4081:You are missing the point. The RfC says: 2654:take note of your recommendation. Regards 1034:is right (for unverifiable content). The 11536:Special:LinkSearch/https://*.aglasem.com 11217:and have an editorial complaints policy 11213:, as far as I can tell they comply with 9292:is now below 20,000 from about 26,000 - 8718:, two things that they effectively ran. 7204:for a long list, which establishes that 7202:https://swarajyamag.com/search?q=opindia 5815:Doxing & lack of editorial control. 5762:Apparently, this discussion is followed 5387:News outlets that report on social media 4872:worldometers.info coronavirus statistics 2819:presented instead in a different article 2772:Sexual intercourse#Religious views : --> 10307:checking it before adding it to a BLP. 4809:and how it's applied please check over 2130:Muflihun.com is cited within Knowledge. 1300:the official state press association. 14: 11099:"The man who won the lottery 14 times" 7012:. The damage has already been done. — 4668:and it was used for this information: 4509:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Video games 3966:. So the burden of proof for addition 3044:Is a document from Wikileaks reliable? 2460:writing outside his field of expertise 1248:use, even if we could (and we can't). 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 8339:Good point, and yes, I wasn't saying 8017:of a few of these editors because of 6729:as Swarajya took those pieces down.-- 6472:in the 305 articles be removed under 5914:innately drawn to a centrist position 5844:, per Praxidicae, Liz, and Levivich. 4805:Could someone with a better sense of 4503:, updated 07:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 3637:Oh yes, I am notoriously right-wing. 3050:Unified Extensible Firmware Interface 2454:to see whether the author passes the 2291:we should not be citing hadith anyway 1195:. Of course, I agree with @Koncorde: 8624:From a policy/guideline standpoint, 5549:Knowledge:Current events noticeboard 5496:Unreliability of website Opindia.com 2146:In regards to the hadith in question 1309:advertise they do native advertising 1015:Ok, thank you for the information.-- 700:Genetic studies of human anatomy or 576:with the user on their TP, in which 29: 11532:meta:Special:PermanentLink/19939844 11524:Government Medical College, Jalgaon 11455:, for some values of respected.... 8912:' which might be permissible under 7332:fails to meet the standards of the 6406:, the former parent publication of 6308:when they are called out on it). — 6171:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 4830:Knowledge talk:WikiProject COVID-19 4631:real loss for getting rid of this. 3217:"tries to publish true information" 1268:Business Journals / bizjournals.com 487:Yeah, this is not a difficult one. 27: 9006:Got, say, three clear examples? - 7464:comment added 18:43, 13 March 2020 7383:by other media houses, beats me.-- 6286:. However, what do make OpIndia a 6229:. OpIndia is an Indian version of 5252:COVID-19 data compiled by BNO News 3221:Knowledge:Verifiability, not truth 2765:Sexual intercourse#Religious views 2705:Sexual intercourse#Religious views 819:, United States" is supported by 397:Talk:Spermarche#Planned Parenthood 275:https://www.autosuccessonline.com/ 28: 11600: 10779:showing their Wikileaks' rating. 9676:neutral point of view noticeboard 9549:neutral point of view noticeboard 7621:, most of which were authored by 7326:comprehensive takedown of OpIndia 6426:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 6108:. Vicious and dangerous doxxing. 3962:- which is policy - also states: 3914:#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source 3721:It shouldn't be a problem, AFAIK 3561:a single non-expert person's blog 2715:, Abdelwahab Bouhdiba writing in 1612:I have changed indent to bullet. 365:The first diff declared that the 11299: 11294: 8847: 8842: 8409: 8404: 7416: 7008:and their 170,000+ followers on 6419: 6414: 5470: 5465: 5232:or the work-in-progress list at 3980:Help is most earnestly welcomed. 3887:) and strong general consensus ( 3655: 395:I had initiated a discussion at 33: 11304:using it. As far as I am aware 9543:In my opinion, questions about 8948:Is this not (in effect) an SPS? 8433:Promoting the national interest 7985: 7139:Deprecate (excluding archives): 6193:.) This is a corruption of the 5224:including not confirmed cases ( 4713:Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. (2019). 2775:. The proposed content cites, 2317:, especially academic sources. 2223:Knowledge talk:Reliable sources 1467:is being used as a source in a 1273:American City Business Journals 257:http://www.canadianautoworld.ca 11324:Would agree. Why is this used? 10471:As to rumours of faking stuff 9809:. The content in question is: 7974: 7963: 5271: 4706: 3493: 3482: 3452: 3441: 3258:. Otherwise, not appropriate. 1639: 1435:press releases and propagates 805:U.S. Board on Geographic Names 467:Cite reviews, don't write them 13: 1: 9860:Christian persecution complex 9813:though, as Michael Heckle of 9446:The CJR report you cite says 7587:(and OpIndia) that contained 7314:the third pillar of Knowledge 7295:: That argument is a form of 6160:did in this recent incident. 5312:is this a copyright violation 4876:They seem to be an ok source, 3459:Bouhdiba, Abdelwahab (2008). 2831:) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 1431:participants as it (for pay) 817:Issaquena County, Mississippi 811:, the text "Parks Place is a 254:https://canadianautodealer.ca 11128:Aight, thank you very much. 10057:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic 9969:, OK, I am happy with that. 8668:Communist Party of Australia 8013:'s reasons above. I checked 7489:Struck comment from blocked 7193: 6514: 6476:, or should some of them be 6304:(especially if they dox and 6217:covers some of these issues 5512:, or should some of them be 5046:American Library Association 4741:Tortoise Media reporting on 4168:of Sun and DM sourcing, and 3940:- which is policy - states: 3775:or its regional variants. — 2059:NSAIDs tend to be...". Like 909:no longer updated since 2014 454:1986 Year Book of Pediatrics 348:MEDRS problems at Spermarche 317:has been formally deprecated 272:http://theontariodealer.com/ 117:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic 7: 10728:Does that seem reasonable? 9668:The New Art Gallery Walsall 9547:should be discussed at the 8964:Concerns over scope of RS/N 8503:, from our interactions at 8430:Five Primacies of the NCC: 8345:Birthday Cake for Breakfast 8247:Birthday Cake for Breakfast 8240:Birthday Cake for Breakfast 7689:? Maybe you'd like to read 6436:for republishing OpIndia's 5044:which is a division of the 4943:licensing for the counters? 4722:. University of Baltimore. 3928:deprecation RFC for the Sun 3048:Your attempted edit to the 1290:Birmingham Business Journal 1278:Birmingham Business Journal 1193:file description on Commons 384:sources. As far as I know, 263:https://www.genequityco.com 10: 11605: 11589:21:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11561:18:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11514:, once frequently used by 11494:10:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11469:09:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11448:09:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11434:15:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11419:14:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11388:09:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11361:13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11347:13:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11334:13:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11319:13:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11280:09:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 11266:21:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 11245:20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 11231:20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 11205:19:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 11182:05:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC) 11158:10:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 11138:22:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 11124:19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 11093:14:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 11072:08:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 11038:14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 11021:07:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10998:02:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10966:13:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10937:12:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10912:12:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10890:13:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10857:20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 10822:19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 10793:23:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 10767:21:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 10742:08:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 10671:23:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10649:22:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10620:13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10599:21:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 10576:15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10556:12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10543:20:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10522:11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10483:09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10460:20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10442:12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10427:09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10411:07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 10376:19:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10360:08:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 10345:00:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 10285:19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10264:07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 10242:13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 10225:National Health Commission 10211:22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 10105:13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 10084:13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 10069:13:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 10039:15:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 10008:19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9983:10:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 9962:20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9943:19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9918:18:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9881:17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9845:17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9748:16:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9700:22:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9658:holds a similar amount of 9629:14:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9603:10:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9581:20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9538:15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9521:15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9490:14:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 9438:18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9391:14:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9350:18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9318:13:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9302:13:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9277:11:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9234:10:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 9186:15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9167:14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9147:14:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9133:14:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9113:13:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9092:13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9060:13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9044:13:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9016:11:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 9001:11:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8987:that is my major concern. 8958:10:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 8940:01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 8910:David Webb Virtual Archive 8904:01:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 8870:21:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8820:11:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8801:09:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8768:18:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8753:14:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8728:11:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8701:09:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8680:07:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8662:07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8620:07:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8594:06:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8562:09:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8496:21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 8476:11:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 8436:Assisting small enterprise 8382:14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8361:21:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8335:21:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8316:14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8294:06:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 8266:23:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 8222:07:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 8202:22:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 8180:15:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 8164:13:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 8137:07:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 8106:08:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 8084:07:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 8049:06:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 7952:13:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 7931:00:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 7886:20:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 7858:10:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7843:10:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7817:and OpIndia, corrupts the 7797:09:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7782:09:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7767:09:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7745:08:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7729:08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7702:12:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7681:08:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7663:08:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7650:07:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7635:09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7613:07:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 7579:21:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 7560:18:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 7537:15:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 7515:03:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7441:14:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7393:12:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7358:04:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7334:reliable sources guideline 7288:04:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7245:02:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7226:02:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7184:01:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 7166:19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 7130:19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 7087:18:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 7056:15:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 7030:15:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 6996:11:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 6975:07:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 6743:14:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 6451:(2016): Minimal discussion 6387:15:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 6365:13:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 6344:04:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 6326:00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 6147:23:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 6117:08:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 6101:22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 6081:15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 6064:02:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 6047:22:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 6025:19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 5998:07:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 5646:For any number of reasons. 5433:13:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 5410:02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 5379:09:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 5356:00:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 5333:19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 5303:09:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 5246:09:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 5217:04:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 5202:10:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 5179:16:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 5151:16:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 5124:Johns Hopkins is at 35,000 5120:11:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 5098:10:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 5081:11:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 5062:23:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 5035:21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 5008:19:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 4977:18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 4959:05:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 4937:23:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 4915:04:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 4899:20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 4864:03:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 4846:08:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 4823:22:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 4795:02:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 4776:19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC) 4696:20:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 4666:People's Mujahedin of Iran 4643:14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 4626:14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 4609:22:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 4573:22:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 4549:13:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 4533:23:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 4501:17:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 4457:10:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 4428:14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 4398:13:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 4358:14:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 4330:09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 4316:08:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 4302:15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 3952:- but it is almost always 3920:Knowledge:Reliable sources 3674:23:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 3651:17:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 3633:12:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 3615:12:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 3589:21:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 3540:11:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 3524:11:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 3430:11:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 3385:11:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 3339:11:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 3314:12:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 3299:11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 3278:09:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 3263:18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 3241:17:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 2999:07:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 2976:23:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 2952:21:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 2930:05:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 2916:05:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) 2890:02:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 2875:00:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 2843:00:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC) 2802:03:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 2770:. The proposed content is 2762:The Knowledge article is 2754:00:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 2739:08:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 2711:Academic, sociologist and 2692:22:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 2664:13:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 2637:10:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 2606:06:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 2572:22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2502:12:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2472:11:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2442:11:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2403:10:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2377:09:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2359:08:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2326:06:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2255:02:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2235:01:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2213:01:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2184:01:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2162:01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2142:01:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 2122:22:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 2087:19:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 2050:18:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 2020:08:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 2006:03:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1967:16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1949:13:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1934:12:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1900:YouTube video and COVID-19 1894:22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1874:16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1859:16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1844:I'd like some opinions on 1830:17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1811:15:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1782:18:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 1759:21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 1740:21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 1718:21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 1698:19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 1674:19:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 1628:13:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1599:18:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 1582:19:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1555:14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1541:09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1520:09:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1496:13:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1481:13:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1454:14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 1414:20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1394:19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1370:18:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 1352:20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 1256:22:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1236:22:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1210:21:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1180:20:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1165:20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 1125:17:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1107:16:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1085:16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1064:13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1025:10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 1011:09:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 996:09:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 944:18:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 864:17:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 850:16:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 833:16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 791:09:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 758:23:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 726:22:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 680:20:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 655:18:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 632:09:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 537:08:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) 501:03:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 483:02:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 428:01:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 409:01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 340:21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 304:20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 290:https://calgaryherald.com/ 281:https://www.crunchbase.com 278:https://www.wardsauto.com/ 266:https://www.crunchbase.com 260:https://www.prnewswire.com 240:20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 216:20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 196:19:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 178:19:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 137:19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 10323:article on Tom_Kawcyznski 10301:User:Jlevi/Tom_Kawcyznski 10295:I am interested in using 9330:below wherein he stated, 7819:third pillar of Knowledge 7253: 7201: 6958:22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 6941:14:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 6924:14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 6903:and fuck the Twitterati. 6896:00:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 6877:21:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 6865:21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 6848:18:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 6831:18:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 6812:09:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 6795:20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6776:19:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6721:03:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 6700:19:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6681:18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6656:19:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6636:18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6617:17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6599:17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6570:17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6533:17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6505:17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 6334:per Newslinger, et al. — 6272: 6195:third pillar of Knowledge 6164:, the editor of OpIndia, 5981:22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 5962:16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5905:14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5884:and fuck the Twitterati. 5877:14:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5856:00:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5837:21:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 5825:21:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 5802:02:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5786:02:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 5754:18:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 5734:09:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 5717:20:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5698:19:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5673:18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5656:12:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5639:05:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5627:04:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5595:04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5569:02:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5534:02:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 5127:, this site is at 39,000. 4801:MEDRS and COVID-19 claims 4659:Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. 4284:13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 4265:00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 4227:13:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4200:12:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4185:12:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4159:12:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4121:) and strong guidelines ( 4101:04:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4077:01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 4047:22:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3999:18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3871:17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3848:15:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3793:14:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3760: 3754:14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3740:14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3717:13:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3702:13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 3402:"reliable" publications. 3208:21:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 3198:23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3177:16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3151:12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3119:10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 3102:22:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 3054:Special:AbuseLog/26184477 3025:21:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC) 2719:, citing Islamic scholar 2428:a RS, for content within 2272:, either one. Muflihun's 1855:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 1559:Obviously unreliable per 1298:Alabama Press Association 668:WP:biomedical information 583:WP:biomedical information 550:and the applicability of 11351:Then we would use those. 10872:primary sources. That's 10114:China has extremely low 9678:. But the result of the 9553:the corresponding policy 8462:. What do others think? 8298:I have to disagree with 7911:my evaluation of OpIndia 7787:unreliable? I think not. 7192:: actually, we are. See 7042:Not to mention they are 6626:per my reasoning above. 6440:attempts. Like OpIndia, 6410:, is currently cited in 5106:I agree completely with 4854:Thanks for the steer! -- 4274:for a list with links - 2992:Talk:Han Ji-sang#Credits 2560:within the Wiki article. 2342:by Abdelwahab Bouhdiba 2225:here for more opinions. 1685:over individual studies 809:Parks Place, Mississippi 287:https://paulgillrie.com/ 284:https://www.capterra.com 188:Global Cerebral Ischemia 129:Global Cerebral Ischemia 9886:In this particular case 9324:initial statement above 8840:infotextmanuscripts.org 8834:infotextmanuscripts.org 8716:Federated Clerks' Union 7850:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 7789:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 7687:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 7673:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 7642:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 7571:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 6725:Changing my opinion to 5487:due to its practice of 5040:I agree with Doc - see 4828:The project talk page, 4027:Winged Blades of Godric 3973:Deprecated sources are 3916:, which is headed with 3223:to be a useful read. — 1512:IndianHistoryEnthusiast 1284:Boston Business Journal 922:WP:Significant coverage 269:https://rocketreach.co/ 10507: 10496: 9894:The Hollywood Reporter 9862:fallacy, this film is 9551:since they fall under 9076: 8453:National Civic Council 8015:contribution histories 7685:You didn't know that, 7276: 7269: 7194:the section on OpIndia 6457:(2019): Identified as 6273:opindia.com/tag/muslim 6129:Already blacklisted. - 5934: 5477:List of riots in India 5461:is currently cited in 4811:Didier Raoult#COVID-19 4007:RfC is nuanced, it is 3370: 3359: 3074:Special:Diff/944416302 2061:other sources often do 1921:Calamagrostis epigejos 331:might be cited (i.e., 11566:eventually do that. 10502: 10491: 10386:Is it just me, or is 10112:Use with attribution. 9755:God's Not Dead (film) 9670:is a third party. If 9071: 8439:Supporting the family 7481:few or no other edits 7410:few or no other edits 7272: 7265: 7235:per above arguments. 6664:Selectively deprecate 6513:for the same reasons 6459:biased or opinionated 6280:biased or opinionated 5929: 5600:Completely depreciate 5576:Asbolutely unreliable 5481:Shaheen Bagh protests 3918:Further information: 3725:reports citations to 3565:self-published source 3365: 3354: 3072:, which you cited in 2486:In addition to that, 2345:, a Reliable Source? 2270:Not a reliable source 1915:Deschampsia cespitosa 1908:is a reliable source 1798:takes discretion away 1149:original illustration 562:based on a cite from 473:sources, you aren't. 46:of past discussions. 11510:Recently spammed by 9654:'s opinion piece in 8244:Does anyone know if 7810:verifiability policy 7591:. The piece was not 7483:outside this topic. 7412:outside this topic. 6963:Completely deprecate 6242:that pretends to be 5986:Completely deprecate 5498:(2017): No responses 4945:. I ask because of 4664:It was removed from 4135:actively discouraged 4131:generally prohibited 3816:David, per the RfC: 3569:verifiability policy 3547:Generally unreliable 2988:https://playdb.co.kr 1793:all reliable polling 1769:Due and undue weight 1503:Community Guidelines 1036:verifiability policy 10505:their credibility". 10151:In-text attribution 10120:Press Freedom Index 10027:professional critic 9906:The Washington Post 9561:questionable source 7806:questionable source 6288:questionable source 4476:) is being used on 3908:, which is policy: 3804:The Sun (yet again) 3563:, which makes it a 3551:the 2019 discussion 3368:their credibility". 3080:and not considered 3052:article (logged at 2367:, 2nd paragraph. -- 2107:WP:Reliable sources 1687:for medical content 1500:While it does have 1469:handful of articles 578:User:Flyer22 Frozen 11013:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 10335:Thoughts? Thanks! 10124:Xinhua News Agency 10051:Xinhua News Agency 10045:Xinhua News Agency 9852:Answers in Genesis 9730:. The citation is 9652:Theodore Dalrymple 9609:Theodore Dalrymple 9559:or published in a 9473:Pew's 2014 finding 9367:Network Propaganda 8252:called Field Music 7422:Administrator note 7104:New Indian Express 6786:A little blue Bori 6232:The Gateway Pundit 5708:A little blue Bori 4235:not even permitted 3549:. As mentioned in 3462:Sexuality in Islam 3036:WP:RSP § WikiLeaks 2777:Sexuality in Islam 2717:Sexuality in Islam 2552:page 76, quoting 2548:Sexuality in Islam 2395:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2340:Sexuality in Islam 2241:WP:Reliable source 2239:Is Sunnah.com a 1437:native advertising 1421:Generally Reliable 1305:native advertising 1135:Charles University 529:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 517:Jessie Kerr Lawson 367:Planned Parenthood 144:what it's used for 11591: 11575:comment added by 11467: 11386: 11344:Black Kite (talk) 11121: 11069: 11052:secondary sources 11011:, I'm sceptical. 10959: 10935: 10888: 10850: 10820: 10786: 10760: 10740: 10669: 10642: 10618: 10592: 10541: 10458: 10409: 10261: 10208: 9981: 9941: 9879: 9843: 9697: 9601: 9578: 9488: 9461:positive feedback 9431: 9389: 9343: 9270: 9232: 9179: 9085: 9037: 8994: 8812:The Drover's Wife 8799: 8760:The Drover's Wife 8751: 8733:The Drover's Wife 8720:The Drover's Wife 8712:Industrial Groups 8699: 8685:The Drover's Wife 8672:The Drover's Wife 8659: 8612:The Drover's Wife 8592: 8560: 8506:G. Edward Griffin 8489: 8474: 8402:newsweekly.com.au 8396:newsweekly.com.au 8380: 8333: 8292: 8134: 7950: 7928: 7840: 7610: 7512: 7484: 7465: 7413: 7355: 7223: 7027: 6609:Deprecate website 6601: 6567: 6502: 6363: 6323: 6187:white nationalism 6183:Hindu nationalism 6092:Fowler&fowler 5865:this edit by them 5566: 5531: 5226:presumptive cases 5074: 5055: 4680:Sharif University 4600: 4571: 4530: 4478:surprisingly many 4396: 4224: 3790: 3667: 3649: 3617: 3601:comment added by 3586: 3522: 3432: 3416:comment added by 3297: 3238: 3196: 3099: 3040:struck my comment 2845: 2448:extraterrestrials 2307:original research 2172: 2010:Seems good to me. 2003: 1892: 1823: 1613: 1061: 946: 930:comment added by 542:Scope of WP:MEDRS 519:, I noticed this 104: 103: 58: 57: 52:current main page 11596: 11570: 11461: 11380: 11303: 11298: 11119: 11115: 11112: 11067: 11063: 11060: 10957: 10929: 10910: 10882: 10848: 10814: 10784: 10758: 10752: 10734: 10720: 10714: 10699: 10693: 10663: 10640: 10612: 10590: 10568:Snooganssnoogans 10554: 10535: 10452: 10434:Snooganssnoogans 10403: 10395: 10389: 10259: 10255: 10252: 10206: 10202: 10199: 10193:for details). — 10182: 10165: 10142: 10036: 10034: 9975: 9935: 9927:God Awful Movies 9873: 9837: 9816:Iowa State Daily 9800:Iowa State Daily 9796: 9778: 9721:Iowa State Daily 9695: 9691: 9688: 9646:is considered a 9645: 9595: 9576: 9572: 9569: 9536: 9482: 9429: 9419: 9383: 9341: 9334: 9268: 9249:Republican party 9226: 9210: 9204: 9177: 9164: 9157: 9130: 9123: 9083: 9035: 9028: 8992: 8971: 8938: 8902: 8851: 8846: 8793: 8745: 8693: 8657: 8653: 8650: 8586: 8554: 8547: 8529: 8487: 8468: 8413: 8408: 8374: 8358: 8351: 8327: 8313: 8306: 8286: 8220: 8200: 8195: 8178: 8162: 8157: 8145: 8132: 8128: 8125: 8104: 8082: 8077: 8059: 8047: 7994: 7989: 7983: 7978: 7972: 7967: 7944: 7926: 7922: 7919: 7884: 7879: 7838: 7834: 7831: 7608: 7604: 7601: 7594: 7517: 7510: 7506: 7503: 7466: 7459: 7420: 7395: 7353: 7349: 7346: 7323: 7255: 7221: 7217: 7214: 7203: 7164: 7161: 7153: 7128: 7125: 7117: 7100:Deccan Chronicle 7025: 7021: 7018: 6935: 6921: 6916: 6909: 6894: 6829: 6792: 6774: 6769: 6597: 6588: 6582: 6575: 6572: 6565: 6561: 6558: 6551: 6544: 6531: 6522: 6500: 6496: 6493: 6486: 6430:Malala Yousafzai 6423: 6418: 6385: 6357: 6341: 6339: 6321: 6317: 6314: 6274: 6269: 6254: 6241: 6216: 6185:, which is like 6145: 6140: 6128: 6098: 6093: 6039: 6036: 6023: 6020: 6012: 5902: 5897: 5890: 5871: 5854: 5800: 5784: 5773: 5772: 5767: 5766: 5752: 5714: 5696: 5691: 5625: 5616: 5587: 5571: 5564: 5560: 5557: 5529: 5525: 5522: 5474: 5469: 5425: 5422: 5371: 5368: 5331: 5280: 5275: 5163: 5135: 5072: 5053: 5019: 5000: 4929:Richard-of-Earth 4897: 4733: 4732: 4721: 4710: 4640: 4635: 4607: 4605: 4598: 4597: 4591: 4582: 4565: 4535: 4528: 4524: 4521: 4390: 4382: 4376: 4263: 4229: 4222: 4218: 4215: 4098: 4091: 4084: 4044: 4037: 4030: 4022: 3861: 3845: 3838: 3827: 3819: 3788: 3784: 3781: 3762: 3665: 3659: 3643: 3596: 3584: 3580: 3577: 3516: 3502: 3497: 3491: 3486: 3480: 3479: 3456: 3450: 3445: 3411: 3291: 3261: 3236: 3232: 3229: 3190: 3097: 3093: 3090: 3058:secondary source 2997: 2986:The Korean site 2928: 2914: 2832: 2494: 2464:Francis Schonken 2369:Francis Schonken 2324: 2211: 2166: 2085: 2036:Because of this 1996: 1886: 1856: 1821: 1803:Snooganssnoogans 1751:Snooganssnoogans 1732:Snooganssnoogans 1710: 1666:Snooganssnoogans 1648: 1643: 1611: 1580: 1549: 1391: 1384: 1349: 1342: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1059: 1055: 1052: 1033: 964:file in question 925: 743: 736: 665: 515:Editing the new 439:The bogus claim 438: 361: 356: 213: 206: 176: 82: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 11604: 11603: 11599: 11598: 11597: 11595: 11594: 11593: 11518:(76 links) and 11508: 11288: 11190: 11117: 11110: 11065: 11058: 11048:tertiary source 10980: 10961: 10948:. Also see the 10905: 10852: 10788: 10762: 10750: 10718: 10716:WikiLeaks cable 10712: 10697: 10695:WikiLeaks cable 10691: 10687: 10644: 10594: 10549: 10393: 10391:WikiLeaks cable 10387: 10384: 10382:WikiLeaks cable 10319:The Daily Beast 10315:related article 10293: 10257: 10250: 10204: 10197: 10176: 10159: 10156:Financial Times 10136: 10126:is the largest 10093:Context matters 10047: 10032: 10030: 9998:So... omit it. 9829:Harvard Crimson 9769: 9753: 9712: 9693: 9686: 9672:Taki's Magazine 9656:Taki's Magazine 9639: 9636:Taki's Magazine 9574: 9567: 9530: 9433: 9417: 9414:Cornell Library 9410:this CJR report 9345: 9331: 9328:DGG's statement 9272: 9208: 9202: 9181: 9160: 9153: 9126: 9119: 9087: 9039: 9026: 8996: 8969: 8966: 8917: 8881: 8836: 8655: 8648: 8520: 8504: 8491: 8398: 8354: 8349: 8309: 8304: 8280:primary sources 8242: 8211: 8193: 8185: 8169: 8155: 8147: 8143: 8130: 8123: 8095: 8075: 8067: 8053: 8038: 7999: 7998: 7997: 7990: 7986: 7979: 7975: 7968: 7964: 7924: 7917: 7877: 7869: 7836: 7829: 7774:Vishal Telangre 7737:Vishal Telangre 7627:Vishal Telangre 7606: 7599: 7592: 7552:Vishal Telangre 7508: 7501: 7497:for details. — 7488: 7351: 7344: 7319: 7219: 7212: 7163: 7157: 7149: 7147: 7144:Swatantra Party 7127: 7121: 7113: 7111: 7023: 7016: 6933: 6919: 6912: 6905: 6885: 6820: 6790: 6767: 6759: 6586: 6584: 6576: 6563: 6556: 6549: 6538: 6537: 6520: 6518: 6498: 6491: 6484: 6432:. It is on the 6399: 6376: 6337: 6335: 6319: 6312: 6306:threaten to sue 6284:reliable source 6263: 6248: 6235: 6212: 6138: 6130: 6122: 6096: 6091: 6044: 6037: 6034: 6022: 6016: 6008: 6006: 5900: 5893: 5886: 5869: 5845: 5791: 5775: 5769: 5763: 5743: 5712: 5689: 5681: 5614: 5612: 5585: 5572: 5562: 5555: 5538: 5527: 5520: 5483:. It is on the 5456: 5449: 5430: 5423: 5420: 5389: 5376: 5369: 5366: 5315: 5295:Vishal Telangre 5285: 5284: 5283: 5276: 5272: 5254: 5159: 5131: 5076: 5057: 5015: 4998: 4881: 4874: 4803: 4746: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4729: 4719: 4711: 4707: 4651: 4638: 4633: 4603: 4601: 4595: 4589: 4588: 4536: 4526: 4519: 4506: 4471: 4380: 4374: 4344:Absolutely not. 4242: 4220: 4213: 4204: 4094: 4087: 4082: 4040: 4033: 4024: 4020: 3859: 3841: 3834: 3821: 3817: 3806: 3786: 3779: 3686: 3684:The Sun on BLPs 3669: 3582: 3575: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3498: 3494: 3487: 3483: 3476: 3457: 3453: 3446: 3442: 3395: 3331:BobFromBrockley 3259: 3234: 3227: 3219:, you may find 3162:discussion here 3095: 3088: 3006: 2995: 2984: 2938: 2922: 2908: 2556:, published by 2516: 2492: 2415: 2348:page 76 : --> 2334: 2318: 2190: 2095: 2064: 2034: 1910:as claimed here 1902: 1854: 1842: 1825: 1708: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1640: 1564: 1547: 1533:Vishal Telangre 1462: 1387: 1380: 1345: 1338: 1270: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1057: 1050: 1029: 953: 798: 737: 730: 659: 544: 513: 432: 375:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 358: 353: 350: 248: 209: 202: 155: 109: 78: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 11602: 11550: 11549: 11543: 11516:RichaChaudhary 11507: 11504: 11503: 11502: 11501: 11500: 11499: 11498: 11497: 11496: 11475:WP:USEBYOTHERS 11391: 11390: 11365: 11364: 11363: 11336: 11287: 11284: 11283: 11282: 11268: 11250: 11249: 11248: 11247: 11189: 11186: 11185: 11184: 11161: 11160: 11146: 11145: 11144: 11143: 11142: 11141: 11140: 11104:living persons 11075: 11074: 11043: 11042: 11041: 11040: 10979: 10976: 10975: 10974: 10973: 10972: 10971: 10970: 10969: 10968: 10955: 10898: 10897: 10896: 10895: 10894: 10893: 10892: 10846: 10782: 10769: 10756: 10726: 10725: 10722: 10705: 10686: 10683: 10682: 10681: 10680: 10679: 10678: 10677: 10676: 10675: 10674: 10673: 10638: 10588: 10583:Steele Dossier 10564: 10563: 10562: 10561: 10560: 10559: 10558: 10511: 10508: 10500: 10497: 10489: 10469: 10466: 10465: 10464: 10463: 10462: 10383: 10380: 10379: 10378: 10368:Horse Eye Jack 10363: 10362: 10321:for their own 10292: 10289: 10288: 10287: 10277:Horse Eye Jack 10271: 10270: 10269: 10268: 10267: 10266: 10215: 10214: 10108: 10107: 10086: 10046: 10043: 10042: 10041: 10033:Rhododendrites 10011: 10010: 9994: 9993: 9992: 9991: 9990: 9989: 9988: 9987: 9986: 9985: 9821: 9820: 9803: 9802: 9797: 9727:God's Not Dead 9711: 9710:God's Not Dead 9708: 9707: 9706: 9705: 9704: 9703: 9702: 9621:Peter Gulutzan 9613:here on WP:RSN 9605: 9557:self-published 9540: 9523: 9508: 9507: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9503: 9502: 9501: 9500: 9499: 9498: 9497: 9496: 9495: 9494: 9493: 9492: 9465: 9457: 9444: 9427: 9371:Yochai Benkler 9360: 9359: 9358: 9357: 9356: 9355: 9354: 9353: 9352: 9339: 9266: 9217: 9198: 9194: 9175: 9115: 9097: 9096: 9095: 9094: 9081: 9077: 9069: 9048: 9047: 9046: 9033: 8990: 8965: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8946: 8945: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8853: 8852: 8835: 8832: 8831: 8830: 8829: 8828: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8824: 8823: 8822: 8778: 8777: 8776: 8775: 8774: 8773: 8772: 8771: 8770: 8597: 8596: 8579: 8578: 8577: 8574: 8567: 8566: 8565: 8564: 8485: 8449: 8448: 8447: 8446: 8445:Defending life 8443: 8440: 8437: 8434: 8428: 8425: 8415: 8414: 8397: 8394: 8393: 8392: 8391: 8390: 8389: 8388: 8387: 8386: 8385: 8384: 8276: 8241: 8238: 8237: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8232: 8231: 8230: 8229: 8228: 8227: 8226: 8225: 8224: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8086: 7996: 7995: 7984: 7973: 7961: 7960: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7933: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7889: 7888: 7750: 7749: 7748: 7747: 7715: 7714: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7706: 7705: 7637: 7563: 7562: 7540: 7539: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7364: 7363: 7362: 7361: 7297:victim blaming 7258:misinformation 7247: 7230: 7229: 7228: 7188:Responding to 7168: 7155: 7151:Tayi Arajakate 7135: 7134: 7133: 7132: 7119: 7115:Tayi Arajakate 7096:Harshmellow717 7090: 7089: 7079:Harshmellow717 7063: 7062: 7061: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7035: 7034: 7033: 7032: 6977: 6960: 6943: 6926: 6898: 6879: 6867: 6850: 6833: 6814: 6797: 6778: 6752: 6751: 6750: 6749: 6748: 6747: 6746: 6745: 6685: 6684: 6659: 6658: 6639: 6638: 6620: 6619: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6603: 6602: 6462: 6461: 6452: 6434:spam blacklist 6398: 6391: 6390: 6389: 6367: 6346: 6338:Rhododendrites 6329: 6261:Breitbart News 6162:Nupur J Sharma 6151: 6150: 6149: 6103: 6083: 6066: 6049: 6042: 6027: 6014: 6010:Tayi Arajakate 6000: 5983: 5965: 5964: 5939: 5938: 5928: 5927: 5907: 5879: 5858: 5839: 5827: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5757: 5756: 5736: 5719: 5700: 5675: 5658: 5641: 5629: 5597: 5537: 5506: 5505: 5499: 5485:spam blacklist 5455: 5450: 5448: 5437: 5436: 5435: 5428: 5388: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5374: 5358: 5344:Preferably, no 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5305: 5282: 5281: 5269: 5268: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5253: 5250: 5249: 5248: 5220: 5219: 5204: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5101: 5100: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5070: 5051: 5011: 5010: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4918: 4917: 4873: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4849: 4848: 4802: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4745: 4739: 4735: 4734: 4728:978-0578536095 4727: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4685: 4684: 4675:Massoud Rajavi 4650: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4628: 4611: 4575: 4552: 4551: 4505: 4473:This website ( 4470: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4445: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4318: 4268: 4267: 4188: 4187: 4173: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 3983: 3971: 3968:or restoration 3957: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3935: 3924: 3902: 3805: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3756: 3685: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3663: 3635: 3592: 3591: 3543: 3542: 3527: 3526: 3504: 3503: 3492: 3481: 3474: 3451: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3394: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3374: 3371: 3363: 3360: 3352: 3348: 3342: 3341: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3265: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3215:Responding to 3154: 3153: 3122: 3121: 3106: 3105: 3078:self-published 3062:primary source 3038:at 21:38, and 3005: 3002: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2968:Flyer22 Frozen 2937: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2918: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2882:Flyer22 Frozen 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2835:Flyer22 Frozen 2833:Updated post. 2825:Flyer22 Frozen 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2757: 2756: 2746:Flyer22 Frozen 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2684:Flyer22 Frozen 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2656:119.155.21.118 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2590: 2589: 2578:Flyer22 Frozen 2515: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2227:Flyer22 Frozen 2176:Flyer22 Frozen 2151:WP:NOTCENSORED 2144: 2114:Flyer22 Frozen 2094: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2033: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1901: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1877: 1876: 1841: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1819: 1785: 1784: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1742: 1721: 1720: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1601: 1584: 1557: 1545:Not reliable. 1543: 1522: 1498: 1465:Youth Ki Awaaz 1461: 1460:Youth Ki Awaaz 1458: 1457: 1456: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1212: 1183: 1182: 1167: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 979:User:Cmacauley 952: 949: 948: 947: 866: 852: 797: 794: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 740:Flyer22 Frozen 706: 696: 693: 688: 620: 619: 614:Chuvash people 611: 603: 595: 570:User:Hunan201p 543: 540: 512: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 352:This concerns 349: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 325:Ontario Dealer 247: 244: 243: 242: 223: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 108: 105: 102: 101: 96: 93: 88: 83: 76: 71: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 11601: 11592: 11590: 11586: 11582: 11578: 11577:Soumitrahazra 11574: 11567: 11563: 11562: 11558: 11554: 11547: 11546:Soumitrahazra 11544: 11541: 11540: 11539: 11537: 11533: 11529: 11528:Soumitrahazra 11525: 11521: 11520:Rameshpoonia1 11517: 11513: 11512:182.69.143.56 11495: 11491: 11487: 11483: 11481: 11479: 11476: 11472: 11471: 11470: 11465: 11460: 11459: 11454: 11451: 11450: 11449: 11445: 11441: 11437: 11436: 11435: 11431: 11427: 11423: 11422: 11421: 11420: 11416: 11412: 11408: 11405: 11402: 11399: 11396: 11389: 11384: 11379: 11378: 11373: 11369: 11366: 11362: 11358: 11354: 11350: 11349: 11348: 11345: 11341: 11337: 11335: 11331: 11327: 11323: 11322: 11321: 11320: 11316: 11312: 11307: 11302: 11297: 11293: 11281: 11277: 11273: 11269: 11267: 11263: 11259: 11255: 11252: 11251: 11246: 11242: 11238: 11234: 11233: 11232: 11228: 11224: 11220: 11216: 11212: 11209: 11208: 11207: 11206: 11202: 11198: 11194: 11183: 11179: 11175: 11171: 11167: 11163: 11162: 11159: 11155: 11151: 11147: 11139: 11135: 11131: 11127: 11126: 11125: 11122: 11120: 11114: 11113: 11105: 11100: 11096: 11095: 11094: 11090: 11086: 11082: 11079: 11078: 11077: 11076: 11073: 11070: 11068: 11062: 11061: 11053: 11049: 11045: 11044: 11039: 11035: 11031: 11027: 11024: 11023: 11022: 11018: 11014: 11010: 11006: 11002: 11001: 11000: 10999: 10995: 10991: 10987: 10986: 10967: 10964: 10960: 10954: 10951: 10947: 10943: 10940: 10939: 10938: 10933: 10928: 10927: 10922: 10918: 10915: 10914: 10913: 10909: 10903: 10899: 10891: 10886: 10881: 10880: 10875: 10871: 10867: 10863: 10860: 10859: 10858: 10855: 10851: 10845: 10842: 10838: 10834: 10830: 10825: 10824: 10823: 10818: 10813: 10812: 10807: 10803: 10799: 10796: 10795: 10794: 10791: 10787: 10781: 10778: 10774: 10770: 10768: 10765: 10761: 10755: 10748: 10747: 10746: 10745: 10744: 10743: 10738: 10733: 10732: 10723: 10717: 10710: 10706: 10703: 10696: 10689: 10688: 10672: 10667: 10662: 10661: 10656: 10652: 10651: 10650: 10647: 10643: 10637: 10634: 10630: 10626: 10623: 10622: 10621: 10616: 10611: 10610: 10605: 10602: 10601: 10600: 10597: 10593: 10587: 10584: 10579: 10578: 10577: 10573: 10569: 10565: 10557: 10553: 10546: 10545: 10544: 10539: 10534: 10533: 10528: 10525: 10524: 10523: 10519: 10515: 10512: 10509: 10506: 10501: 10498: 10495: 10490: 10486: 10485: 10484: 10480: 10476: 10472: 10470: 10467: 10461: 10456: 10451: 10450: 10445: 10444: 10443: 10439: 10435: 10430: 10429: 10428: 10424: 10420: 10415: 10414: 10413: 10412: 10407: 10402: 10401: 10392: 10377: 10373: 10369: 10365: 10364: 10361: 10357: 10353: 10349: 10348: 10347: 10346: 10342: 10338: 10333: 10331: 10326: 10324: 10320: 10316: 10311: 10308: 10304: 10302: 10298: 10286: 10282: 10278: 10273: 10272: 10265: 10262: 10260: 10254: 10253: 10245: 10244: 10243: 10239: 10235: 10231: 10226: 10222: 10219: 10218: 10217: 10216: 10213: 10212: 10209: 10207: 10201: 10200: 10192: 10191: 10186: 10180: 10175: 10171: 10170: 10163: 10158: 10157: 10152: 10148: 10140: 10135: 10134: 10129: 10125: 10121: 10117: 10116:press freedom 10113: 10110: 10109: 10106: 10102: 10098: 10094: 10090: 10087: 10085: 10081: 10077: 10073: 10072: 10071: 10070: 10066: 10062: 10058: 10054: 10052: 10040: 10035: 10028: 10023: 10019: 10018: 10013: 10012: 10009: 10005: 10001: 9996: 9995: 9984: 9979: 9974: 9973: 9968: 9965: 9964: 9963: 9959: 9955: 9951: 9946: 9945: 9944: 9939: 9934: 9933: 9928: 9924: 9921: 9920: 9919: 9915: 9911: 9907: 9903: 9902:The A.V. Club 9899: 9895: 9891: 9887: 9884: 9883: 9882: 9877: 9872: 9871: 9865: 9861: 9857: 9853: 9849: 9848: 9847: 9846: 9841: 9836: 9835: 9830: 9826: 9818: 9817: 9812: 9811: 9810: 9808: 9801: 9798: 9794: 9790: 9786: 9782: 9777: 9773: 9768: 9764: 9760: 9756: 9752: 9751: 9750: 9749: 9745: 9741: 9737: 9733: 9729: 9728: 9723: 9722: 9717: 9701: 9698: 9696: 9690: 9689: 9681: 9677: 9673: 9669: 9665: 9661: 9657: 9653: 9649: 9643: 9638: 9637: 9632: 9631: 9630: 9626: 9622: 9618: 9614: 9610: 9606: 9604: 9599: 9594: 9593: 9588: 9585: 9584: 9583: 9582: 9579: 9577: 9571: 9570: 9562: 9558: 9554: 9550: 9546: 9541: 9539: 9535: 9534: 9528: 9524: 9522: 9518: 9514: 9509: 9491: 9486: 9481: 9480: 9474: 9470: 9466: 9462: 9458: 9454: 9450: 9445: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9436: 9432: 9426: 9423: 9415: 9411: 9407: 9403: 9399: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9387: 9382: 9381: 9376: 9372: 9368: 9364: 9361: 9351: 9348: 9344: 9338: 9329: 9325: 9321: 9320: 9319: 9315: 9311: 9307: 9306: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9299: 9295: 9291: 9287: 9282: 9281: 9280: 9279: 9278: 9275: 9271: 9265: 9262: 9258: 9254: 9250: 9246: 9245:conservatives 9242: 9237: 9236: 9235: 9230: 9225: 9224: 9218: 9214: 9207: 9199: 9195: 9192: 9189: 9188: 9187: 9184: 9180: 9174: 9170: 9169: 9168: 9165: 9163: 9158: 9156: 9150: 9149: 9148: 9144: 9140: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9131: 9129: 9124: 9122: 9116: 9114: 9110: 9106: 9102: 9099: 9098: 9093: 9090: 9086: 9080: 9078: 9075: 9070: 9067: 9063: 9062: 9061: 9057: 9053: 9049: 9045: 9042: 9038: 9032: 9024: 9019: 9018: 9017: 9013: 9009: 9005: 9004: 9003: 9002: 8999: 8995: 8989: 8985: 8980: 8975: 8959: 8955: 8951: 8947: 8941: 8936: 8932: 8928: 8924: 8920: 8915: 8911: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8900: 8896: 8892: 8888: 8884: 8879: 8876: 8875: 8874: 8873: 8872: 8871: 8867: 8863: 8858: 8850: 8845: 8841: 8838: 8837: 8821: 8817: 8813: 8809: 8804: 8803: 8802: 8797: 8792: 8791: 8786: 8782: 8779: 8769: 8765: 8761: 8756: 8755: 8754: 8749: 8744: 8743: 8738: 8734: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8725: 8721: 8717: 8713: 8708: 8704: 8703: 8702: 8697: 8692: 8691: 8686: 8683: 8682: 8681: 8677: 8673: 8669: 8665: 8664: 8663: 8660: 8658: 8652: 8651: 8643: 8639: 8635: 8631: 8627: 8623: 8622: 8621: 8617: 8613: 8609: 8605: 8601: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8595: 8590: 8585: 8580: 8575: 8572: 8571: 8569: 8568: 8563: 8558: 8553: 8552: 8545: 8541: 8537: 8533: 8528: 8524: 8519: 8515: 8511: 8507: 8502: 8499: 8498: 8497: 8494: 8490: 8484: 8480: 8479: 8478: 8477: 8472: 8467: 8466: 8461: 8456: 8454: 8444: 8441: 8438: 8435: 8432: 8431: 8429: 8426: 8423: 8422: 8421: 8419: 8412: 8407: 8403: 8400: 8399: 8383: 8378: 8373: 8372: 8367: 8364: 8363: 8362: 8359: 8357: 8352: 8346: 8342: 8338: 8337: 8336: 8331: 8326: 8322: 8319: 8318: 8317: 8314: 8312: 8307: 8301: 8297: 8296: 8295: 8290: 8285: 8281: 8277: 8274: 8270: 8269: 8268: 8267: 8264: 8263: 8259: 8258: 8253: 8249: 8248: 8223: 8218: 8214: 8209: 8205: 8204: 8203: 8198: 8192: 8188: 8183: 8182: 8181: 8176: 8172: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8160: 8154: 8150: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8138: 8135: 8133: 8127: 8126: 8118: 8114: 8113:KartikeyaS343 8109: 8108: 8107: 8102: 8098: 8093: 8092: 8091: 8090: 8085: 8080: 8074: 8070: 8064: 8057: 8056:KartikeyaS343 8052: 8051: 8050: 8045: 8041: 8036: 8032: 8028: 8024: 8020: 8016: 8012: 8008: 8004: 8001: 8000: 7993: 7988: 7982: 7977: 7971: 7966: 7962: 7959: 7953: 7948: 7943: 7942: 7937: 7934: 7932: 7929: 7927: 7921: 7920: 7912: 7908: 7905: 7904: 7887: 7882: 7876: 7872: 7866: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7855: 7851: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7841: 7839: 7833: 7832: 7824: 7820: 7816: 7811: 7807: 7803: 7800: 7799: 7798: 7794: 7790: 7785: 7784: 7783: 7779: 7775: 7770: 7769: 7768: 7764: 7760: 7756: 7755: 7754: 7753: 7752: 7751: 7746: 7742: 7738: 7733: 7732: 7730: 7727: 7723: 7719: 7716: 7703: 7700: 7696: 7692: 7688: 7684: 7683: 7682: 7678: 7674: 7671: 7667: 7666: 7664: 7661: 7657: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7647: 7643: 7638: 7636: 7632: 7628: 7624: 7620: 7616: 7615: 7614: 7611: 7609: 7603: 7602: 7590: 7586: 7582: 7581: 7580: 7576: 7572: 7568: 7565: 7564: 7561: 7557: 7553: 7549: 7545: 7542: 7541: 7538: 7534: 7530: 7526: 7523: 7522: 7516: 7513: 7511: 7505: 7504: 7496: 7492: 7487: 7486: 7485: 7482: 7478: 7474: 7470: 7463: 7457: 7453: 7449: 7445: 7444: 7443: 7442: 7439: 7435: 7431: 7427: 7423: 7419: 7414: 7411: 7407: 7403: 7399: 7394: 7390: 7386: 7380: 7377: 7374: 7370: 7367: 7360: 7359: 7356: 7354: 7348: 7347: 7339: 7335: 7331: 7327: 7322: 7315: 7311: 7306: 7302: 7298: 7294: 7291: 7290: 7289: 7285: 7281: 7275: 7268: 7263: 7259: 7251: 7248: 7246: 7242: 7238: 7234: 7231: 7227: 7224: 7222: 7216: 7215: 7207: 7199: 7195: 7191: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7181: 7177: 7172: 7169: 7167: 7162: 7160: 7154: 7152: 7145: 7140: 7137: 7136: 7131: 7126: 7124: 7118: 7116: 7109: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7094: 7093: 7092: 7091: 7088: 7084: 7080: 7076: 7072: 7068: 7065: 7064: 7057: 7053: 7049: 7045: 7041: 7040: 7039: 7038: 7037: 7036: 7031: 7028: 7026: 7020: 7019: 7011: 7007: 7003: 6999: 6998: 6997: 6994: 6993: 6989: 6988: 6987: 6981: 6978: 6976: 6972: 6968: 6967:SerChevalerie 6964: 6961: 6959: 6955: 6951: 6947: 6944: 6942: 6939: 6936: 6930: 6927: 6925: 6922: 6917: 6915: 6910: 6908: 6902: 6899: 6897: 6892: 6888: 6883: 6880: 6878: 6875: 6871: 6868: 6866: 6862: 6858: 6854: 6851: 6849: 6845: 6841: 6837: 6834: 6832: 6828: 6826: 6825: 6818: 6815: 6813: 6809: 6805: 6801: 6798: 6796: 6793: 6788: 6787: 6782: 6779: 6777: 6772: 6766: 6762: 6757: 6754: 6753: 6744: 6741: 6740: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6728: 6724: 6723: 6722: 6719: 6718: 6714: 6713: 6712: 6706: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6697: 6693: 6689: 6688: 6687: 6686: 6683: 6682: 6679: 6678: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6665: 6661: 6660: 6657: 6653: 6649: 6645: 6641: 6640: 6637: 6633: 6629: 6625: 6622: 6621: 6618: 6615: 6610: 6607: 6600: 6596: 6594: 6589: 6580: 6574: 6573: 6571: 6568: 6566: 6560: 6559: 6548: 6542: 6536: 6535: 6534: 6530: 6528: 6523: 6516: 6512: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6503: 6501: 6495: 6494: 6483: 6479: 6475: 6471: 6467: 6460: 6456: 6453: 6450: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6443: 6439: 6435: 6431: 6427: 6422: 6417: 6413: 6409: 6405: 6404: 6397: 6396: 6388: 6383: 6379: 6374: 6371: 6368: 6366: 6361: 6356: 6355: 6350: 6347: 6345: 6340: 6333: 6330: 6328: 6327: 6324: 6322: 6316: 6315: 6307: 6303: 6298: 6296: 6295: 6289: 6285: 6281: 6276: 6267: 6262: 6258: 6252: 6247: 6246: 6239: 6234: 6233: 6228: 6224: 6220: 6215: 6209: 6206: 6202: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6181:is a form of 6180: 6176: 6172: 6167: 6163: 6159: 6155: 6152: 6148: 6143: 6137: 6133: 6126: 6121: 6120: 6118: 6115: 6111: 6107: 6104: 6102: 6099: 6094: 6087: 6084: 6082: 6078: 6074: 6070: 6067: 6065: 6061: 6057: 6053: 6050: 6048: 6045: 6040: 6031: 6028: 6026: 6021: 6019: 6013: 6011: 6004: 6001: 5999: 5995: 5991: 5990:SerChevalerie 5987: 5984: 5982: 5978: 5974: 5970: 5967: 5966: 5963: 5959: 5955: 5951: 5946: 5941: 5940: 5936: 5935: 5933: 5924: 5920: 5915: 5911: 5908: 5906: 5903: 5898: 5896: 5891: 5889: 5883: 5880: 5878: 5875: 5872: 5866: 5862: 5859: 5857: 5852: 5848: 5843: 5840: 5838: 5835: 5831: 5828: 5826: 5822: 5818: 5814: 5811: 5810: 5803: 5799: 5797: 5796: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5783: 5781: 5780: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5758: 5755: 5751: 5749: 5748: 5740: 5737: 5735: 5731: 5727: 5723: 5720: 5718: 5715: 5710: 5709: 5704: 5701: 5699: 5694: 5688: 5684: 5679: 5676: 5674: 5670: 5666: 5662: 5659: 5657: 5653: 5649: 5645: 5642: 5640: 5637: 5633: 5630: 5628: 5624: 5622: 5617: 5610: 5606: 5601: 5598: 5596: 5592: 5588: 5586:SharʿabSalam▼ 5582: 5577: 5574: 5573: 5570: 5567: 5565: 5559: 5558: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5536: 5535: 5532: 5530: 5524: 5523: 5515: 5511: 5503: 5500: 5497: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5490: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5473: 5468: 5464: 5460: 5454: 5447: 5446: 5441: 5434: 5431: 5426: 5417: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5407: 5403: 5398: 5394: 5380: 5377: 5372: 5362: 5359: 5357: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5334: 5330: 5329: 5325: 5324: 5320: 5319: 5313: 5309: 5306: 5304: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5279: 5274: 5270: 5267: 5260: 5256: 5255: 5247: 5243: 5239: 5235: 5231: 5227: 5222: 5221: 5218: 5214: 5210: 5205: 5203: 5199: 5195: 5190: 5189: 5180: 5176: 5172: 5168: 5164: 5162: 5157: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5148: 5144: 5140: 5136: 5134: 5129: 5126: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5109: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5086: 5082: 5079: 5075: 5069: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5060: 5056: 5050: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5032: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5018: 5009: 5005: 5001: 4997: 4992: 4988: 4987: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4896: 4895: 4891: 4890: 4886: 4885: 4878: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4763: 4761: 4759: 4757: 4754: 4750: 4744: 4730: 4725: 4718: 4717: 4709: 4705: 4702: 4698: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4683: 4681: 4676: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4667: 4662: 4660: 4656: 4644: 4641: 4636: 4629: 4627: 4624: 4623: 4620: 4617: 4612: 4610: 4606: 4594: 4586: 4580: 4576: 4574: 4569: 4564: 4563: 4558: 4555:Looks like a 4554: 4553: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4537: 4534: 4531: 4529: 4523: 4522: 4514: 4510: 4504: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4469:Arcade Heroes 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4399: 4394: 4389: 4388: 4379: 4372: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4346: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4266: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4228: 4225: 4223: 4217: 4216: 4208: 4202: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4102: 4099: 4097: 4092: 4090: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4048: 4045: 4043: 4038: 4036: 4028: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3981: 3976: 3972: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3958: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3900: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3862: 3856: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3844: 3839: 3837: 3831: 3825: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3795: 3794: 3791: 3789: 3783: 3782: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3757: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3738: 3736: 3734: 3733: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3675: 3672: 3668: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3647: 3642: 3641: 3636: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3603:92.237.134.69 3600: 3590: 3587: 3585: 3579: 3578: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3557: 3556:The Skwawkbox 3552: 3548: 3545: 3544: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3525: 3520: 3515: 3514: 3509: 3508: 3501: 3496: 3490: 3485: 3477: 3475:9780415426008 3472: 3469:. pp. 75–76. 3468: 3464: 3463: 3455: 3449: 3444: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3418:92.237.134.69 3415: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3375: 3372: 3369: 3364: 3361: 3358: 3353: 3349: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3295: 3290: 3289: 3284: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3266: 3264: 3257: 3254: 3253: 3242: 3239: 3237: 3231: 3230: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3194: 3189: 3188: 3183: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3104: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3092: 3091: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3014: 3011: 3001: 3000: 2993: 2989: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2944:Koreangauteng 2942: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2919: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2906: 2901: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867:Koreangauteng 2864: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2820: 2816: 2810: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2794:Koreangauteng 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731:Koreangauteng 2728: 2727:in paradise. 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2709: 2706: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2629:Koreangauteng 2627: 2625: 2620: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582:Koreangauteng 2579: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2564:Koreangauteng 2562: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2538: 2536: 2533: 2531: 2525: 2524: 2522: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2493:SharʿabSalam▼ 2489: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2434:Koreangauteng 2431: 2427: 2423: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2351:Koreangauteng 2346: 2344: 2341: 2336: 2335: 2327: 2323: 2322: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2268: 2267: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247:Koreangauteng 2244: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2170: 2169:edit conflict 2165: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2154:Koreangauteng 2152: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134:Koreangauteng 2132: 2129: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2110: 2108: 2104: 2103:Koreangauteng 2100: 2088: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2002: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1917: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1906:YouTube video 1895: 1890: 1885: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1851: 1847: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1747: 1746:more reliable 1743: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1709:SharʿabSalam▼ 1705: 1704: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1683:meta-analyses 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1647: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1629: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1583: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1562: 1558: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1544: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1499: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1385: 1383: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1348: 1343: 1341: 1334: 1325: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1301: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1103: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1065: 1062: 1060: 1054: 1053: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 993: 989: 983: 980: 975: 973: 969: 965: 960: 958: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 923: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 867: 865: 861: 857: 853: 851: 847: 843: 840: 837: 836: 835: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 793: 792: 788: 784: 779: 775: 759: 755: 751: 747: 741: 734: 729: 728: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 705: 703: 697: 694: 692: 689: 686: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 669: 663: 658: 657: 656: 652: 648: 643: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 629: 625: 618: 615: 612: 610: 607: 604: 602: 599: 596: 594: 591: 588: 587: 586: 584: 579: 575: 571: 567: 566: 561: 557: 553: 549: 539: 538: 534: 530: 526: 524: 521: 518: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 485: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 463: 459: 455: 450: 446: 442: 436: 431: 430: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 412: 411: 410: 406: 402: 398: 393: 391: 387: 383: 378: 376: 372: 368: 363: 360: 355: 341: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 315: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 301: 297: 292: 291: 288: 285: 282: 279: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 261: 258: 255: 251: 246:Web resources 241: 237: 233: 228: 227:Good research 225: 224: 217: 214: 212: 207: 205: 199: 198: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 179: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 153: 149: 148:New Scientist 145: 141: 140: 139: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113:New Scientist 100: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 11571:— Preceding 11568: 11564: 11551: 11509: 11456: 11426:David Gerard 11411:Hemiauchenia 11392: 11375: 11372:Paul Staines 11368:Hemiauchenia 11353:Slatersteven 11340:Paul Staines 11326:Slatersteven 11311:Hemiauchenia 11306:Guido Fawkes 11289: 11286:Guido Fawkes 11253: 11237:David Gerard 11211:Hemiauchenia 11197:Hemiauchenia 11191: 11165: 11150:Slatersteven 11108: 11107: 11056: 11055: 11007:! Per their 10983: 10981: 10924: 10901: 10877: 10869: 10865: 10809: 10805: 10801: 10729: 10727: 10658: 10654: 10629:this article 10607: 10530: 10503: 10492: 10475:Slatersteven 10447: 10398: 10385: 10352:David Gerard 10334: 10327: 10312: 10309: 10305: 10299:article for 10294: 10248: 10247: 10195: 10194: 10190:PBS NewsHour 10188: 10167: 10154: 10144: 10133:Global Times 10131: 10111: 10089:SwissArmyGuy 10076:Slatersteven 10061:SwissArmyGuy 10048: 10026: 10021: 10015: 9970: 9930: 9926: 9889: 9885: 9868: 9863: 9855: 9832: 9822: 9814: 9804: 9725: 9719: 9713: 9684: 9683: 9671: 9664:WP:ABOUTSELF 9655: 9648:questionable 9634: 9590: 9565: 9564: 9542: 9532: 9527:WP:ABOUTSELF 9477: 9452: 9447: 9378: 9366: 9310:Slatersteven 9294:David Gerard 9290:WP:DAILYMAIL 9221: 9212: 9161: 9154: 9139:Slatersteven 9127: 9120: 9072: 9066:WP:RSCONTEXT 9052:Slatersteven 9008:David Gerard 8983: 8973: 8967: 8950:Slatersteven 8914:WP:ABOUTSELF 8854: 8807: 8788: 8740: 8688: 8646: 8645: 8638:WP:ABOUTSELF 8634:WP:RSOPINION 8608:WP:ABOUTSELF 8603: 8549: 8463: 8460:WP:ABOUTSELF 8457: 8450: 8416: 8369: 8355: 8344: 8340: 8310: 8261: 8256: 8245: 8243: 8121: 8120: 8110: 8062: 8033:are clearly 8002: 7987: 7976: 7965: 7957: 7939: 7935: 7915: 7914: 7906: 7864: 7827: 7826: 7822: 7814: 7801: 7759:Slatersteven 7717: 7669: 7623:Pratik Sinha 7597: 7596: 7584: 7566: 7543: 7524: 7499: 7498: 7447: 7446: 7421: 7415: 7381: 7378: 7375: 7371: 7368: 7365: 7342: 7341: 7337: 7329: 7317: 7309: 7304: 7292: 7273: 7266: 7249: 7232: 7210: 7209: 7205: 7197: 7189: 7170: 7158: 7150: 7138: 7122: 7114: 7066: 7043: 7014: 7013: 7001: 6990: 6985: 6983: 6979: 6962: 6945: 6928: 6913: 6906: 6900: 6881: 6869: 6852: 6840:Slatersteven 6835: 6823: 6822: 6816: 6799: 6785: 6780: 6755: 6737: 6732: 6730: 6726: 6715: 6710: 6708: 6675: 6670: 6668: 6663: 6662: 6643: 6623: 6608: 6592: 6554: 6553: 6546: 6526: 6510: 6489: 6488: 6481: 6469: 6465: 6463: 6441: 6424:, including 6412:305 articles 6401: 6400: 6393: 6369: 6352: 6348: 6331: 6310: 6309: 6302:act this way 6299: 6292: 6277: 6243: 6230: 6210: 6198: 6191:more popular 6153: 6105: 6085: 6068: 6051: 6029: 6017: 6009: 6002: 5985: 5968: 5930: 5909: 5894: 5887: 5881: 5860: 5841: 5829: 5812: 5794: 5793: 5778: 5777: 5746: 5745: 5738: 5721: 5707: 5702: 5677: 5660: 5648:Slatersteven 5643: 5631: 5620: 5604: 5599: 5581:this article 5575: 5553: 5552: 5518: 5517: 5507: 5475:, including 5457: 5443: 5390: 5360: 5343: 5327: 5322: 5317: 5307: 5290: 5273: 5265: 5225: 5160: 5132: 5016: 5012: 4995: 4963:I would use 4951:Super Goku V 4893: 4888: 4883: 4875: 4838:David Gerard 4804: 4747: 4715: 4708: 4700: 4686: 4672: 4663: 4652: 4621: 4618: 4615: 4560: 4541:Slatersteven 4517: 4516: 4489: 4481: 4472: 4449:David Gerard 4385: 4343: 4342: 4322:David Gerard 4289: 4276:David Gerard 4269: 4238: 4234: 4211: 4210: 4206: 4203: 4192:Slatersteven 4189: 4177:David Gerard 4169: 4165: 4151:David Gerard 4134: 4130: 4113: 4095: 4088: 4041: 4034: 4016: 4013:blacklisting 4012: 4008: 3991:David Gerard 3974: 3967: 3963: 3953: 3949: 3941: 3931: 3917: 3909: 3898: 3865: 3864: 3842: 3835: 3815: 3808: 3807: 3777: 3776: 3772: 3758: 3746:Slatersteven 3731: 3726: 3709:Slatersteven 3694:David Gerard 3687: 3638: 3625:Slatersteven 3597:— Preceding 3593: 3573: 3572: 3554: 3546: 3532:Slatersteven 3511: 3495: 3484: 3461: 3454: 3443: 3435: 3412:— Preceding 3408: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3366: 3355: 3326:this article 3286: 3255: 3225: 3224: 3216: 3185: 3138: 3111:Slatersteven 3086: 3085: 3047: 3007: 2985: 2982:playdb.co.kr 2939: 2924: 2910: 2812: 2776: 2771: 2763: 2729: 2716: 2713:Islamologist 2710: 2702: 2598:119.155.38.8 2547: 2545: 2542:The proposal 2541: 2539: 2530:2020 society 2529: 2528: 2526: 2521:2020 society 2520: 2519: 2517: 2459: 2447: 2419: 2339: 2337: 2320: 2290: 2269: 2111: 2099:muflihun.com 2096: 2093:Muflihun.com 2056: 2035: 2012:Slatersteven 1971: 1941:Slatersteven 1919: 1913: 1903: 1881: 1866:Slatersteven 1843: 1797: 1792: 1745: 1691:house effect 1661: 1659: 1641: 1633: 1622: 1617: 1615: 1603: 1589:per others. 1586: 1576: 1571: 1566: 1528: 1524: 1507: 1501: 1488:Slatersteven 1463: 1420: 1388: 1381: 1346: 1339: 1332: 1330: 1312: 1302: 1288: 1282: 1276: 1271: 1245: 1196: 1152: 1138: 1112: 1048: 1047: 1039: 1038:states that 1031:Slatersteven 1003:Slatersteven 984: 976: 961: 957:Samuel Fritz 954: 926:— Preceding 916: 912: 856:Slatersteven 842:Slatersteven 838: 799: 778:25 years ago 777: 770: 713: 701: 698: 621: 574:conversation 563: 545: 514: 488: 466: 458:WP:SECONDARY 453: 440: 415: 394: 389: 379: 364: 351: 333:WP:ABOUTSELF 324: 321:WP:ABOUTSELF 293: 252: 249: 210: 203: 184:this article 151: 147: 110: 79: 47: 41: 11506:aglasem.com 11292:84 articles 11258:Atlantic306 10291:Mainer News 10128:news agency 9402:Marvin Kalb 9211:, it often 8636:instead of 8584:Anachronist 8418:News Weekly 8325:Anachronist 8300:Anachronist 8284:Anachronist 7479:) has made 7460:—Preceding 7408:) has made 6986:Brihaspati 6950:Atlantic306 6934:Doug Weller 6733:Brihaspati 6711:Brihaspati 6671:Brihaspati 6511:Depreciate. 6478:whitelisted 6201:Jimmy Wales 5973:Atlantic306 5950:Vishvasnews 5870:Doug Weller 5514:whitelisted 5463:23 articles 5348:K.e.coffman 5209:Markbassett 5042:RUSA rating 4969:K.e.coffman 4925:WP:TERTIARY 4856:Nat Gertler 4815:Nat Gertler 4749:This report 4655:this source 4009:deprecating 3809:Moved from 3769:23 articles 3765:This search 3172:sources. -- 2221:editors at 2109:guideline. 2097:I see that 1846:Rolling Out 1840:Rolling Out 1618:Brihaspati 1548:Doug Weller 1406:Atlantic306 1242:WP:PORTRAIT 825:Magnolia677 821:this source 493:Someguy1221 462:WP:TERTIARY 445:WP:Verified 329:trade press 121:coronavirus 99:Archive 295 91:Archive 290 86:Archive 289 80:Archive 288 74:Archive 287 69:Archive 286 64:Archive 285 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 11553:~ ToBeFree 11170:WP:REDFLAG 11166:The Hustle 11111:Newslinger 11059:Newslinger 11009:about page 10985:The Hustle 10978:The Hustle 10950:MIT review 10633:about page 10330:about page 10251:Newslinger 10221:Newslinger 10198:Newslinger 9687:Newslinger 9587:Newslinger 9568:Newslinger 9545:due weight 9533:Crossroads 9451:- that is 9406:Ted Koppel 9023:Al Jazeera 8974:IN CONTEXT 8781:Newslinger 8649:Newslinger 8642:due weight 8626:attributed 8213:KartikeyaS 8206:Thank you 8171:KartikeyaS 8124:Newslinger 8097:KartikeyaS 8040:KartikeyaS 8035:WP:NOTHERE 8011:Praxidicae 8007:Newslinger 7958:References 7918:Newslinger 7830:Newslinger 7600:Newslinger 7502:Newslinger 7491:sockpuppet 7426:canvassing 7345:Newslinger 7213:Newslinger 7176:PinkElixir 7075:WP:NEWSORG 7048:Praxidicae 7017:Newslinger 6802:as above. 6705:Praxidicae 6692:Praxidicae 6648:Praxidicae 6628:Praxidicae 6579:Newslinger 6557:Newslinger 6492:Newslinger 6474:WP:ELNEVER 6378:KartikeyaS 6313:Newslinger 6003:Depracate: 5910:Unreliable 5771:(Redacted) 5765:(Redacted) 5722:Depreciate 5665:Praxidicae 5556:Newslinger 5539:Notified: 5521:Newslinger 5510:WP:ELNEVER 5266:References 5194:--valereee 4768:XOR'easter 4701:References 4577:(Here via 4557:WP:FANSITE 4520:Newslinger 4507:Notified: 4486:about page 4239:deprecated 4214:Newslinger 3975:completely 3780:Newslinger 3732:Ritchie333 3576:Newslinger 3436:References 3228:Newslinger 3170:WP:PRIMARY 3164:refers to 3139:noteworthy 3135:WP:PRIMARY 3089:Newslinger 3032:removed it 3015:linked to 3013:Newslinger 2925:Crossroads 2911:Crossroads 2624:WP:ACCOUNT 2514:Two points 2321:Crossroads 2303:WP:PRIMARY 2299:WP:SOAPBOX 2282:Sunnah.com 2274:About page 1924:. Thanks. 1695:Neutrality 1634:References 1604:Unreliable 1587:Unreliable 1508:unreliable 1442:WP:PRIMARY 1433:churns out 1307:, in fact 1294:won awards 1051:Newslinger 813:ghost town 783:—DIYeditor 702:phenotypes 598:Dongxiangs 475:Tgeorgescu 471:WP:PRIMARY 401:Tgeorgescu 382:WP:PRIMARY 337:Neutrality 314:Crunchbase 294:Thank you! 182:How about 152:well below 11569:Soumitra 11223:Vexations 11172:applies. 11083:article. 10900:A strong 10527:Burrobert 10514:Burrobert 10419:Burrobert 10179:RSP entry 10162:RSP entry 10139:RSP entry 10017:Unplanned 9950:straw man 9642:RSP entry 9456:dynamic". 9449:language. 9398:including 9286:WP:THESUN 9261:consensus 8979:WP:SOURCE 8916:though. 8857:home page 8630:WP:BIASED 8144:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 8031:Timbim111 8027:Adurcup23 8003:Deprecate 7936:Deprecate 7907:Deprecate 7718:Deprecate 7593:"factual" 7567:Reliable: 7544:Reliable: 7469:Timbim111 7452:Timbim111 7448:Reliable: 7434:AE report 7398:Adurcup23 7385:Adurcup23 7250:Reliable: 7233:Deprecate 7171:Reliable: 7071:WP:BIASED 7067:Reliable: 6946:Deprecate 6929:Deprecate 6901:Deprecate 6887:Vanamonde 6882:Deprecate 6853:Deprecate 6836:Deprecate 6817:Deprecate 6800:Deprecate 6781:Deprecate 6756:Deprecate 6624:Deprecate 6370:Deprecate 6349:Deprecate 6332:Deprecate 6266:RSP entry 6251:RSP entry 6245:The Onion 6238:RSP entry 6223:fake news 6154:Deprecate 6106:Blacklist 6086:Deprecate 6052:Deprecate 6043:(blether) 6030:Depracate 5969:Deprecate 5882:Deprecate 5861:Deprecate 5847:Vanamonde 5842:Deprecate 5813:Deprecate 5739:Deprecate 5703:Deprecate 5678:Deprecate 5661:Deprecate 5644:Deprecate 5632:Deprecate 5609:Breitbart 5429:(blether) 5416:Elizium23 5402:Elizium23 5393:WP:BLPSPS 5375:(blether) 5161:Doc James 5133:Doc James 5112:Eitan1989 5017:Doc James 4947:this edit 4787:Elizium23 4657:(book by 4587:, please 4480:articles 4312:pingó mió 4308:Galobtter 4127:WP:BURDEN 4065:The Onion 4017:in effect 4005:WP:THESUN 3960:WP:BURDEN 3950:mandatory 3938:WP:BURDEN 3889:WP:THESUN 3881:WP:BURDEN 3855:WP:BURDEN 3761:insource: 3723:this link 3467:Routledge 3377:Burrobert 3306:Burrobert 3283:Burrobert 3270:Burrobert 3143:Aquillion 3066:blog post 3004:Wikileaks 2863:Consensus 2815:Consensus 2811:states, " 2781:WP:CONPOL 2721:Al-Suyuti 2558:Routledge 2554:Al-Suyuti 2532:and Islam 2523:and Islam 2488:iUniverse 2456:WP:FRINGE 2426:Al-Suyuti 2424:quoting 2413:Al-Suyuti 2391:Al-Suyuti 2042:Walidou47 1993:Hijiri 88 1727:articles. 1296:from the 1250:Fut.Perf. 1170:figures. 1157:Cmacauley 1044:WP:BURDEN 968:talk page 920:article. 774:Hunan201p 750:Hunan201p 733:Ermenrich 718:Hunan201p 714:consensus 712:reflects 662:Hunan201p 647:Hunan201p 11585:contribs 11573:unsigned 11477:Fawkes: 11254:Reliable 11097:Thanks. 10921:WP:UNDUE 10917:ZScarpia 10908:ZScarpia 10685:Proposal 10552:ZScarpia 10234:MarioGom 10097:MarioGom 10000:Blueboar 9680:2019 RfC 9650:source, 9247:and the 9105:Springee 8919:Headbomb 8883:Headbomb 8785:WP:UNDUE 8366:Schazjmd 8350:Schazjmd 8305:Schazjmd 8019:Moksha88 7815:Swarajya 7802:Swarajya 7722:Bishonen 7695:Bishonen 7670:Reliable 7656:Bishonen 7585:Swarajya 7548:Hindutva 7477:contribs 7430:Moksha88 7406:contribs 7338:Swarajya 7330:Swarajya 7328:for why 7321:SamHolt6 7310:Swarajya 7280:Moksha88 7206:Swarajya 7198:Swarajya 7110:, etc). 7006:Facebook 7002:Swarajya 6870:Reliable 6727:reliable 6614:Levivich 6547:Swarajya 6482:Swarajya 6470:Swarajya 6466:Swarajya 6442:Swarajya 6403:Swarajya 6395:Swarajya 6294:Swarajya 6257:2018 RfC 6214:SamHolt6 6179:Hindutva 6175:Hindutva 6125:Bishonen 6110:Bishonen 5954:SamHolt6 5923:rejected 5830:Reliable 5636:Levivich 5445:Swarajya 5259:COVID-19 5238:MarioGom 5171:contribs 5143:contribs 5108:MarioGom 5090:MarioGom 5027:contribs 4927:source. 4834:WP:MEDRS 4807:WP:MEDRS 4783:WP:MEDRS 4634:Namcokid 4585:watching 4493:Glades12 4244:Headbomb 3759:I think 3611:contribs 3599:unsigned 3426:contribs 3414:unsigned 3260:Kirbanzo 3205:Raphael1 3182:Raphael1 3174:Raphael1 3082:reliable 3022:Raphael1 2332:Bouhdiba 2192:Headbomb 2066:Headbomb 1972:Question 1955:WP:MEDRS 1850:this guy 1591:Glades12 1446:SamHolt6 1375:feminist 1362:feminist 1303:They do 1172:Koncorde 940:contribs 932:Reywas92 928:unsigned 801:This AfD 746:WP:MEDRS 710:WP:SCIRS 685:WP:SCIRS 642:WP:SCIRS 548:WP:MEDRS 449:WP:MEDRS 386:WP:MEDRS 296:Nice0903 157:Headbomb 125:WP:MEDRS 20:‎ | 11486:Eostrix 11453:Eostrix 11440:Eostrix 11272:Eostrix 10866:diodn't 10837:NYTimes 10833:Reuters 10771:Adding 10702:WP:BLPs 10328:2. The 10230:example 10169:Fortune 9898:Variety 9772:protect 9767:history 9744:contrib 9714:Editor 9617:removed 9453:exactly 9408:", and 9241:FoxNews 8984:CONTEXT 8714:or the 8602:Agreed 8523:protect 8518:history 7529:Carrite 7525:Comment 7462:undated 7424:due to 7196:above. 7108:Aaj Tak 7010:Twitter 6980:Comment 6874:Pectore 6819:Ditto. 6408:OpIndia 6205:Twitter 6158:OpIndia 6073:Carrite 6069:Comment 5945:section 5919:WP:NPOV 5834:Pectore 5605:OpIndia 5459:OpIndia 5453:OpIndia 5440:OpIndia 4999:Georgia 4619:Pumpkin 4559:to me. 4420:Carrite 4412:Carrite 4371:Carrite 4350:Carrite 4294:Carrite 4290:Comment 4207:The Sun 4069:Zaereth 3954:correct 3830:example 3773:The Sun 3727:The Sun 2960:WP:ONUS 2809:WP:ONUS 2708:Islam: 2418:Is the 2315:WP:PSTS 2219:pointed 1090:cases. 972:Cambeba 911:), you 672:Kleuske 624:Kleuske 43:archive 11193:Tatler 11188:Tatler 11130:Kalimi 11085:Kalimi 11030:Kalimi 11005:Kalimi 11003:Hello 10990:Kalimi 10919:, see 10839:, and 10806:should 10690:Where 10655:solely 10494:press. 10187:, and 9967:GRuban 9954:GRuban 9923:GRuban 9910:GRuban 9904:, and 9825:WP:ATT 9776:delete 9660:weight 9633:Since 9422:Gallop 9257:argued 9253:warned 8862:FDW777 8737:WP:ATT 8527:delete 8356:(talk) 8311:(talk) 8273:WP:RSP 8257:Hunter 7808:. The 7619:doxing 7589:doxing 7493:. See 7301:Doxing 7237:Waggie 7000:After 6992:(talk) 6857:Cabayi 6804:Curdle 6739:(talk) 6717:(talk) 6677:(talk) 6438:doxing 6097:«Talk» 6056:Waggie 6038:Summit 5817:Cabayi 5726:Curdle 5489:doxing 5424:Summit 5370:Summit 4688:Ypatch 4115:GreenC 3987:WP:RSN 3930:says: 3897:says: 3860:Jayron 3357:press. 3070:Purism 2905:WP:UGC 2725:houris 2452:WP:FTN 2301:, and 2295:WP:NOR 2286:hadith 2278:WP:SPS 1959:Doremo 1926:Doremo 1624:(talk) 1561:WP:UGC 1429:WP:AFC 1425:WP:NPR 1358:GreenC 1324:Source 1077:Pavlor 986:you.-- 917:cannot 913:cannot 606:Uzbeks 590:Yakuts 11464:help! 11383:help! 10932:help! 10885:help! 10874:WP:OR 10862:Atsme 10817:help! 10798:Atsme 10737:help! 10666:help! 10615:help! 10604:Atsme 10538:help! 10455:help! 10406:help! 10337:Jlevi 10313:1. A 10232:). -- 10059:. -- 9978:help! 9938:help! 9890:large 9876:help! 9864:still 9840:help! 9793:views 9785:watch 9781:links 9666:, as 9598:help! 9485:help! 9386:help! 9363:Atsme 9229:help! 9191:Atsme 9155:Green 9121:Green 8808:their 8796:help! 8748:help! 8696:help! 8557:help! 8544:views 8536:watch 8532:links 8501:Atsme 8471:help! 8377:help! 8341:these 8063:might 7947:help! 7825:). — 7044:still 6920:54129 6791:v^_^v 6515:above 6360:help! 6219:above 6166:doxed 6035:Girth 5901:54129 5713:v^_^v 5421:Girth 5397:WP:RS 5367:Girth 5175:email 5147:email 5031:email 4996:Sandy 4720:(PDF) 4583:(not 4579:WT:VG 4568:help! 4393:help! 4143:WP:RS 4123:WP:RS 4089:Green 4035:Green 3895:WP:RS 3885:WP:RS 3836:Green 3646:help! 3519:help! 3294:help! 3193:help! 3131:WP:RS 3076:, is 3068:from 3034:from 2773:Islam 2768:Islam 2767:: --> 2707:: --> 2518:1. 2347:: --> 2311:WP:RS 2057:other 1889:help! 1608:WP:RS 1382:Green 1340:Green 1228:Jordi 1202:Jordi 1141:(See 1117:Jordi 1046:). — 1017:Jordi 988:Jordi 556:blond 552:WP:OR 435:Aréat 420:Aréat 371:WP:RS 204:Green 146:. If 16:< 11581:talk 11557:talk 11490:talk 11444:talk 11430:talk 11415:talk 11357:talk 11330:talk 11315:talk 11276:talk 11262:talk 11241:talk 11227:talk 11201:talk 11178:talk 11154:talk 11134:talk 11118:talk 11089:talk 11081:This 11066:talk 11034:talk 11026:Here 11017:talk 10994:talk 10958:Talk 10946:here 10870:only 10849:Talk 10785:Talk 10773:link 10759:Talk 10641:Talk 10591:Talk 10572:talk 10518:talk 10479:talk 10438:talk 10423:talk 10372:talk 10356:talk 10341:talk 10297:this 10281:talk 10258:talk 10238:talk 10205:talk 10185:CNBC 10101:talk 10080:talk 10065:talk 10022:just 10004:talk 9958:talk 9914:talk 9789:logs 9763:talk 9759:edit 9740:talk 9736:Erik 9732:here 9694:talk 9625:talk 9575:talk 9517:talk 9430:Talk 9420:And 9404:and 9375:this 9342:Talk 9314:talk 9298:talk 9269:Talk 9213:will 9178:Talk 9143:talk 9109:talk 9084:Talk 9056:talk 9036:Talk 9012:talk 8993:Talk 8954:talk 8866:talk 8855:The 8816:talk 8764:talk 8724:talk 8707:this 8676:talk 8656:talk 8616:talk 8589:talk 8540:logs 8514:talk 8510:edit 8488:Talk 8330:talk 8289:talk 8262:Kahn 8217:talk 8208:QEDK 8187:qedk 8175:talk 8149:qedk 8131:talk 8119:. — 8101:talk 8069:qedk 8044:talk 8023:QEDK 8009:and 7925:talk 7913:. — 7871:qedk 7854:talk 7837:talk 7793:talk 7778:talk 7763:talk 7741:talk 7726:tålk 7699:tålk 7677:talk 7660:tålk 7646:talk 7631:talk 7607:talk 7575:talk 7556:talk 7533:talk 7509:talk 7473:talk 7456:talk 7438:El_C 7402:talk 7389:talk 7352:talk 7318:See 7305:only 7284:talk 7241:talk 7220:talk 7180:talk 7159:Talk 7123:Talk 7083:talk 7052:talk 7024:talk 6971:talk 6954:talk 6938:talk 6891:Talk 6861:talk 6844:talk 6808:talk 6761:qedk 6696:talk 6652:talk 6632:talk 6593:Talk 6564:talk 6527:Talk 6499:talk 6428:and 6382:talk 6372:per 6320:talk 6189:but 6132:qedk 6114:tålk 6077:talk 6060:talk 6018:Talk 5994:talk 5977:talk 5958:talk 5874:talk 5851:Talk 5821:talk 5730:talk 5683:qedk 5669:talk 5652:talk 5621:Talk 5591:talk 5563:talk 5551:. — 5528:talk 5516:? — 5479:and 5442:and 5406:talk 5352:talk 5323:uidh 5299:talk 5242:talk 5236:. -- 5213:talk 5198:talk 5167:talk 5139:talk 5116:talk 5094:talk 5073:Talk 5054:Talk 5023:talk 5004:Talk 4973:talk 4955:talk 4933:talk 4911:talk 4889:uidh 4860:talk 4842:talk 4819:talk 4791:talk 4772:talk 4724:ISBN 4692:talk 4616:Blue 4604:czar 4593:ping 4545:talk 4527:talk 4515:. — 4497:talk 4453:talk 4424:talk 4416:talk 4354:talk 4326:talk 4298:talk 4280:talk 4221:talk 4209:. — 4196:talk 4181:talk 4155:talk 4147:WP:V 4141:and 4139:WP:V 4133:and 4119:WP:V 4073:talk 4011:not 3995:talk 3906:WP:V 3877:WP:V 3853:Per 3787:talk 3750:talk 3713:talk 3707:Yes. 3698:talk 3666:Talk 3629:talk 3607:talk 3583:talk 3536:talk 3471:ISBN 3422:talk 3381:talk 3335:talk 3310:talk 3274:talk 3235:talk 3147:talk 3127:WP:V 3115:talk 3096:talk 3084:. — 3064:. A 2972:talk 2948:talk 2886:talk 2871:talk 2865:. 2839:talk 2829:talk 2798:talk 2750:talk 2735:talk 2688:talk 2660:talk 2633:talk 2619:HaeB 2602:talk 2586:talk 2568:talk 2540:2. 2498:talk 2468:talk 2438:talk 2432:? 2399:talk 2373:talk 2355:talk 2313:and 2293:per 2251:talk 2245:? 2231:talk 2180:talk 2158:talk 2138:talk 2118:talk 2046:talk 2016:talk 1985:over 1983:and 1981:over 1979:and 1977:over 1963:talk 1945:talk 1930:talk 1918:and 1870:talk 1822:Talk 1807:talk 1778:talk 1755:talk 1736:talk 1714:talk 1670:talk 1595:talk 1572:uidh 1552:talk 1537:talk 1516:talk 1492:talk 1477:talk 1450:talk 1427:and 1410:talk 1366:talk 1333:some 1313:some 1281:and 1232:talk 1221:here 1206:talk 1176:talk 1161:talk 1144:and 1121:talk 1081:talk 1058:talk 1021:talk 1007:talk 992:talk 936:talk 924:is. 860:talk 846:talk 829:talk 787:talk 754:talk 722:talk 676:talk 651:talk 628:talk 533:talk 497:talk 479:talk 424:talk 416:only 405:talk 357:and 300:talk 236:talk 192:talk 133:talk 11526:by 11458:Guy 11377:Guy 11174:TFD 10942:Guy 10926:Guy 10906:← 10879:Guy 10841:NPR 10829:BBC 10811:Guy 10802:may 10777:ALA 10775:to 10731:Guy 10660:Guy 10625:Guy 10609:Guy 10550:← 10532:Guy 10449:Guy 10400:Guy 10174:CNN 10147:due 10049:If 10037:\\ 9972:Guy 9932:Guy 9870:Guy 9834:Guy 9746:) 9716:JzG 9592:Guy 9513:TFD 9479:Guy 9380:Guy 9369:by 9223:Guy 8790:Guy 8742:Guy 8690:Guy 8632:or 8551:Guy 8465:Guy 8371:Guy 8111:Hi 8029:or 7941:Guy 7865:and 7428:by 7324:'s 7262:one 6644:any 6587:MJL 6541:MJL 6521:MJL 6517:. – 6464:Is 6354:Guy 6342:\\ 6203:on 5615:MJL 5291:Yes 5006:) 4907:TFD 4653:Is 4622:Pie 4562:Guy 4387:Guy 4166:lot 3891:). 3640:Guy 3559:is 3513:Guy 3288:Guy 3187:Guy 2338:Is 1883:Guy 1774:TFD 1486:No. 1473:DTM 1246:not 815:in 460:or 443:is 232:TFD 11587:) 11583:• 11559:) 11492:) 11446:) 11432:) 11417:) 11359:) 11332:) 11317:) 11278:) 11264:) 11243:) 11229:) 11203:) 11180:) 11156:) 11136:) 11091:) 11036:) 11019:) 10996:) 10963:📧 10902:No 10854:📧 10835:, 10831:, 10790:📧 10764:📧 10719:}} 10713:{{ 10698:}} 10692:{{ 10646:📧 10627:, 10596:📧 10574:) 10520:) 10481:) 10440:) 10425:) 10394:}} 10388:{{ 10374:) 10358:) 10343:) 10283:) 10240:) 10183:, 10172:, 10166:, 10103:) 10091:: 10082:) 10067:) 10006:) 9960:) 9916:) 9900:, 9896:, 9791:| 9787:| 9783:| 9779:| 9774:| 9770:| 9765:| 9761:| 9742:| 9627:) 9519:) 9435:📧 9347:📧 9316:) 9300:) 9274:📧 9209:}} 9206:cn 9203:{{ 9183:📧 9145:) 9111:) 9089:📧 9058:) 9041:📧 9014:) 8998:📧 8972:. 8956:) 8933:· 8929:· 8925:· 8897:· 8893:· 8889:· 8868:) 8818:) 8766:) 8726:) 8678:) 8618:) 8542:| 8538:| 8534:| 8530:| 8525:| 8521:| 8516:| 8512:| 8493:📧 8210:-- 8146:-- 8066:-- 8037:. 7868:-- 7856:) 7795:) 7780:) 7765:) 7743:) 7731:. 7724:| 7697:| 7679:) 7665:. 7658:| 7648:) 7633:) 7577:) 7558:) 7535:) 7475:• 7467:— 7458:) 7404:• 7396:— 7391:) 7336:. 7299:. 7286:) 7243:) 7182:) 7146:. 7106:, 7102:, 7085:) 7054:) 6973:) 6956:) 6914:SN 6907:—— 6863:) 6846:) 6827:iz 6810:) 6698:) 6654:) 6634:) 6259:, 6119:. 6112:| 6079:) 6062:) 5996:) 5979:) 5960:) 5895:SN 5888:—— 5867:. 5823:) 5798:iz 5782:iz 5750:iz 5732:) 5671:) 5654:) 5593:) 5547:, 5543:, 5408:) 5361:No 5354:) 5308:No 5301:) 5244:) 5215:) 5200:) 5177:) 5173:· 5169:· 5149:) 5145:· 5141:· 5118:) 5096:) 5078:📧 5059:📧 5048:. 5033:) 5029:· 5025:· 4975:) 4957:) 4935:) 4913:) 4862:) 4844:) 4821:) 4793:) 4785:. 4774:) 4694:) 4639:47 4596:}} 4590:{{ 4547:) 4511:, 4499:) 4482:on 4455:) 4426:) 4381:}} 4378:cn 4375:{{ 4356:) 4328:) 4314:) 4300:) 4282:) 4258:· 4254:· 4250:· 4198:) 4183:) 4157:) 4075:) 3997:) 3989:- 3879:, 3866:32 3826:}} 3824:cn 3822:{{ 3752:) 3715:) 3700:) 3671:📧 3660:. 3631:) 3613:) 3609:• 3553:, 3538:) 3465:. 3428:) 3424:• 3383:) 3337:) 3312:) 3276:) 3149:) 3129:/ 3117:) 3020:-- 2996:—— 2974:) 2950:) 2907:. 2888:) 2873:) 2841:) 2800:) 2752:) 2737:) 2690:) 2662:) 2635:) 2604:) 2570:) 2500:) 2470:) 2440:) 2401:) 2375:) 2357:) 2297:, 2253:) 2233:) 2217:I 2206:· 2202:· 2198:· 2182:) 2160:) 2140:) 2120:) 2080:· 2076:· 2072:· 2063:. 2048:) 2018:) 2004:) 2001:やや 1991:. 1965:) 1957:. 1947:) 1932:) 1872:) 1827:📧 1809:) 1780:) 1757:) 1738:) 1716:) 1672:) 1614:-- 1610:. 1597:) 1563:. 1539:) 1525:No 1518:) 1510:. 1494:) 1479:) 1452:) 1412:) 1368:) 1234:) 1208:) 1197:If 1178:) 1163:) 1123:) 1083:) 1023:) 1009:) 994:) 974:. 959:. 942:) 938:• 903:, 899:, 895:, 891:, 887:, 883:, 879:, 875:, 871:, 862:) 848:) 831:) 823:. 789:) 756:) 724:) 678:) 653:) 630:) 616:, 608:, 600:, 592:, 558:, 535:) 499:) 481:) 426:) 407:) 377:. 362:. 302:) 238:) 194:) 171:· 167:· 163:· 135:) 95:→ 11579:( 11555:( 11488:( 11466:) 11462:( 11442:( 11428:( 11413:( 11407:5 11404:4 11401:3 11398:2 11395:1 11385:) 11381:( 11355:( 11328:( 11313:( 11274:( 11260:( 11239:( 11225:( 11199:( 11176:( 11152:( 11132:( 11087:( 11032:( 11015:( 10992:( 10934:) 10930:( 10887:) 10883:( 10819:) 10815:( 10739:) 10735:( 10668:) 10664:( 10617:) 10613:( 10570:( 10540:) 10536:( 10516:( 10477:( 10457:) 10453:( 10436:( 10421:( 10408:) 10404:( 10370:( 10354:( 10339:( 10279:( 10236:( 10181:) 10177:( 10164:) 10160:( 10141:) 10137:( 10099:( 10078:( 10063:( 10002:( 9980:) 9976:( 9956:( 9940:) 9936:( 9912:( 9878:) 9874:( 9842:) 9838:( 9795:) 9757:( 9738:( 9644:) 9640:( 9623:( 9600:) 9596:( 9515:( 9487:) 9483:( 9388:) 9384:( 9312:( 9296:( 9231:) 9227:( 9162:C 9141:( 9128:C 9107:( 9068:) 9054:( 9010:( 8952:( 8937:} 8935:b 8931:p 8927:c 8923:t 8921:{ 8901:} 8899:b 8895:p 8891:c 8887:t 8885:{ 8864:( 8814:( 8798:) 8794:( 8762:( 8750:) 8746:( 8722:( 8698:) 8694:( 8674:( 8614:( 8591:) 8587:( 8582:~ 8559:) 8555:( 8546:) 8508:( 8473:) 8469:( 8379:) 8375:( 8332:) 8328:( 8323:~ 8291:) 8287:( 8219:) 8215:( 8199:) 8197:c 8194:心 8191:t 8189:( 8177:) 8173:( 8161:) 8159:c 8156:心 8153:t 8151:( 8103:) 8099:( 8081:) 8079:c 8076:心 8073:t 8071:( 8058:: 8054:@ 8046:) 8042:( 7949:) 7945:( 7883:) 7881:c 7878:心 7875:t 7873:( 7852:( 7821:( 7791:( 7776:( 7761:( 7739:( 7704:. 7675:( 7644:( 7629:( 7573:( 7554:( 7531:( 7471:( 7454:( 7432:( 7400:( 7387:( 7282:( 7239:( 7178:( 7081:( 7050:( 6969:( 6952:( 6893:) 6889:( 6859:( 6842:( 6824:L 6806:( 6773:) 6771:c 6768:桜 6765:t 6763:( 6694:( 6667:— 6650:( 6630:( 6595:‐ 6591:‐ 6581:: 6577:@ 6550:' 6543:: 6539:@ 6529:‐ 6525:‐ 6485:' 6384:) 6380:( 6362:) 6358:( 6275:. 6268:) 6264:( 6253:) 6249:( 6240:) 6236:( 6144:) 6142:c 6139:心 6136:t 6134:( 6127:: 6123:@ 6075:( 6058:( 5992:( 5975:( 5956:( 5853:) 5849:( 5819:( 5795:L 5779:L 5747:L 5728:( 5695:) 5693:c 5690:桜 5687:t 5685:( 5667:( 5650:( 5623:‐ 5619:‐ 5589:( 5404:( 5350:( 5328:e 5318:b 5297:( 5240:( 5211:( 5196:( 5165:( 5137:( 5114:( 5092:( 5021:( 5002:( 4971:( 4953:( 4931:( 4909:( 4894:e 4884:b 4858:( 4840:( 4817:( 4789:( 4770:( 4731:. 4690:( 4599:) 4570:) 4566:( 4543:( 4495:( 4451:( 4422:( 4414:( 4395:) 4391:( 4352:( 4324:( 4310:( 4296:( 4278:( 4262:} 4260:b 4256:p 4252:c 4248:t 4246:{ 4194:( 4179:( 4153:( 4096:C 4071:( 4042:C 4029:: 4025:@ 3993:( 3982:) 3956:. 3934:. 3923:. 3901:. 3843:C 3748:( 3711:( 3696:( 3648:) 3644:( 3627:( 3605:( 3534:( 3521:) 3517:( 3478:. 3420:( 3379:( 3333:( 3308:( 3296:) 3292:( 3272:( 3213: 3203:— 3195:) 3191:( 3145:( 3113:( 2970:( 2946:( 2884:( 2869:( 2837:( 2827:( 2796:( 2783:. 2748:( 2733:( 2686:( 2658:( 2631:( 2600:( 2588:) 2584:( 2566:( 2496:( 2466:( 2436:( 2397:( 2371:( 2353:( 2249:( 2229:( 2210:} 2208:b 2204:p 2200:c 2196:t 2194:{ 2178:( 2171:) 2167:( 2156:( 2136:( 2116:( 2084:} 2082:b 2078:p 2074:c 2070:t 2068:{ 2044:( 2014:( 1998:聖 1995:( 1961:( 1943:( 1928:( 1891:) 1887:( 1868:( 1805:( 1776:( 1753:( 1734:( 1712:( 1668:( 1593:( 1577:e 1567:b 1535:( 1514:( 1490:( 1475:( 1448:( 1408:( 1389:C 1364:( 1347:C 1253:☼ 1230:( 1204:( 1174:( 1159:( 1119:( 1100:G 1097:M 1094:G 1079:( 1042:( 1019:( 1005:( 990:( 934:( 858:( 844:( 827:( 785:( 752:( 742:: 738:@ 735:: 731:@ 720:( 674:( 664:: 660:@ 649:( 626:( 531:( 495:( 477:( 437:: 433:@ 422:( 403:( 298:( 234:( 211:C 190:( 175:} 173:b 169:p 165:c 161:t 159:{ 131:( 54:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.