Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289

5731:

expected to do what is required to remove unreliable information from Knowledge, the same way I am expected to use my judgement to fix the more minor issue of known innacuracies, such as typos. If this argument held any water at all, if attribution was the only reason people here are deciding this claim for this purpose is reliable, they would be able to explain the contradiction in the early history of this very article. Kit Chapman is, as far as I know, still generally considered a reliable source. His specific claim about Phelps however, no longer appears on Knowledge, because it has been found to be innacurate, or rather, unverifiable, which for Knowledge, is assumed to be equivalent, much to the annoyance of the activists. But because he said it in a Tweet first, it's still out there, Knowledge can still include it with attribution. Maybe some people did argue that it could still be included in the article if the text attributed Chapman as the source, but thankfully for the reputation of Knowledge, they don't seem to have prevailed, and he has been removed as a source for that specific claim, because they know what he said about his book wasn't true. Critical thinking in action. In short, you do not knowingly mislead readers, or fall back on attribution when what you're supposed to be considering is reliability of the specific claim and the source in general. For the purposes of this noticebaord, thinking about whether or not this specific claim has undergone the fact checking you would assume to be applied by IUPAC, is part of that critical thinking process. I await arguments that speak to that issue, rather than trying to avoid it, including the circular argument that says it is reliable because it is the IUPAC.

5671:

it an entirely more believable claim than when it was simply coming from Phelps' employer and nobody else presumed reliable for such a claim would touch it with a bargepole without qualifiers. They want people to believe IUPAC have independently verified it as if it were a journal paper on the history of element discovery, rather than as I suspect, they perhaps have simply taken Kit Chapman at his word as a recognized expert, having maybe not realised that the guy who said he "literally wrote the book" didn't ultimately say this about Phelps in his book, or anything close to it. If the claim cannot reasonably be assumed to have been fact checked, then attribution is in effect, merely a case of Knowledge choosing to duck responsibility and perhaps hope IUPAC carry the can if or when someone realizes their mistake. It is my belief that IUPAC would kick that can right back into Knowledge's court, on the basis Knowledge clearly hasn't taken full account of the likelihood of an error, and they would presumably point them to their website disclaimer and remind them that it is really only their peer reviewed journals and books that should be used for claims like this, certainly when the claim stands alone as an historical fact in their wheelhouse.

2028:

eliminating weak RSes off the bat. Going back and forth, figuring out what are common high and low points (acting? writing? etc?), and then writing some type of impartial summary, deciding which reviews make the best sense to include, and if there's any smart soundbites to also link in there. This is the WEIGHT exercise, but that because we're already starting with a limited number of sources, having to also look at the RSOPINION ones. In the latter case, we're always going to be including in-line attribution, obviously. We also make sure to avoid giving excessive weight to the opinions coming off the RSOPINION sources, and here the principles of UNDUE still apply: if 19 of 20 sources loved the acting but the DM hated it, we're not going to give the DM any serious (if any) weight here. But key is that the net effect is that we as editors are trying to summarize the critical consensus in a neutral fashion as there is no higher-level sources that gives us that analysis (with limited exceptions). And yes, how to do that has been debated on the various film, TV, etc projects multiple times. its a type of art, but one most experienced editors in that field know how to do.

5709:

since you end up wondering why he chose to mention Phelps, but not this historical first claim, if he had apparently discovered this while researching the book. Nor does it explain why Wade was apparently among those who had assumed the claim was going to be in the forthcoming book. Most importantly of all, why no subsequent clear and unambiguous clarification from Chapman or Wade? They have had ample opportunity, certainly once they realised their early private communications and decision to publish on Knowledge first before his book was published, were the source of much of the confusion on Knowledge and the media at large. Frankly, more clarity all round is needed, stuff that explains all these supposed miscommunications, before I drop my belief there was deception here, because the result of all of it, certainly for a time, was exactly what they were trying to achieve with their activism, namely to get something into Knowledge they believed to be true, and hope the media would then write about Phelps because she was in Knowledge. As it turned out, they wrote about her because of the inevitable back and forth, because of their failure to provide verification.

5465:

resolution to the question of what role Phelps has played in the history of element discovery? No other reliable independent sources state this first claim as an unqualified fact, all cast some level of doubt or uncertainty. I am unconvinced that something that wasn't even fact checked was meant to carry such significance, and believe it is more likely that either the text has been lazily accepted simply on the basis of who submitted it without being fact checked, like so many of the press releases around this issue have been, or worse, the fraud has extended to this website somehow. Which is why it would be helpful if it named names, because nobody is named here at all, not the nominator or anyone who might have fact checked their submission. Clearly this doesn't rise to the level of a journal or book, but it doesn't even really meet the same standards as say, a news release. All of which shows the IUPAC couldn't possibly have meant it to have the same significance that Knowledge editors apparently attached to it, first using it to recreate the article, then using this exact claim to promote her on the Knowledge front page.

4866:. These are two totally different issues. Primary source material, particularly for people who were notable in the pre-google era, is perfectly fine for verifying information like someone’s birthdate, just as a modern celebrity’s web site is a useful place to find out their birthday. Both have to be taken with a grain of salt (multiple Mary Smiths in census data or the celebrity knocking a year or two off their age) but where they are the best available evidence, can be cited (stylistically, it’s wise to say “census data states” or “the celebrity states”...) It’s true we often cannot use primary sources to prove notability (most everyone is listed in a census, most everyone is at Find-a-grace), bit for simple facts, it’s not OR. To do a bit of analysis, such as to determine if one Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875 is the correct Mary Smith in Killarney in 1875, is not SYNTH, either. In this context, so long as due diligence is used and caveats are noted, the example above is fine. 5619:

obvious spelling mistake, they applied critical thinking to weight the possibility that was an error. This same principle applies here, you are discounting any and all evidence that this might have been an erroneous statement, on the mere basis of who is making it, but instead of fixing that error, you're attributing. Stating who said it does not absolve you of responsibility of what can happen if you end up repeating a false claim based on merely who said it, because like it or not, no reader will ever read that text and assume you're wanting them to apply their own critical thinking as to whether the IUPAC might not be a reliable source for what they have said. The text pretty blatantly tries to persuade people they should be taking them as the authority in such matters, without of course telling them the sort of things I have identified that cast doubt on it for use in this context, including the fact all other independent reliable sources use qualifiers.

4755:

on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I said it was not impossible to confirm that the information was referring to the notable person, given all the information that was known. In every single instance of gathering sources for an article, one must look at them and evaluate whether they refer to the same person and whether the information is likely to be true. It doesn't matter if the source is a census, or a news article, or a scientific journal. If one is talking about apples and the other oranges, then they cannot be used to draw conclusions and infer they refer to the same thing. On the other hand, if 5 sources give information that is similar and one can logically see that they are all for the same topic, it is likely the information they contain is accurate (or they are all repeating the same mistake) and can be stated in the article as the information is represented in the source.

11933:? If the article is the latter then I don't see a reason to include because the list of examples can be limited and still serve it's illustrative function. Looking at the article I would hope there would be more content and sources that talk about the concept of media blackouts, why they could be seen as good and bad, what motivated them etc. The sources, again, should be articles about media blackout as a concept, not articles where the author says "the media is not reporting on this story I'm about to talk about". Basically I'm saying, even if the Biden story is true and the media is choosing not to cover the story, I still don't think it should go into this article because the sources aren't illustrative of the general concept and don't further then reader's understanding of the general concept. Think of this as talking about the pathology of a disease without talking about the stories of those who have suffered because of the disease. 5529:

of this source, which finally achieves their apparent goals, is a more artful and less traceable continuation of the fraud, or an innocent mistake they had no part in, that is what I am hoping to clear up here. Cast iron reasons to believe this specific web page or website section should carry equivalent gravitas to say, a journal article, would do that. Have you any? I certainly did not need reminding what the IUPAC do or that in most cases they probably do apply full academic rigour to their publications, that is all a given in the above, but your comment doesn't address why there is still good reason to believe that in this case, they might not have.

404:, the Express is different in character to the Mail: they show less evidence of false and politically motivated stories, but they have a remarkable tendency to publish conspiracy theories. UFOs, Diana bollocks, Maddie McCann and more. So yes, the Express is a pretty terrible source. The Sun has another specific problem, around involvement in phone hacking and other underhand methods, and of course its role in the Hillsborough coverup - leading to the Liverpool boycott and the startling finding that Liverpool is substantially more pro-European than other comparable places, attributed to less exposure to anti-EU propaganda in the Murdoch press. 3878:, a news outlet controlled by the Saudi government, wrote that..." or some such. Since Saudi news outlets follow government-issued guidelines, and are told what to cover and when and how to cover it, they should be treated as PR agencies; they should not be used to establish notability (which requires independent third-party sources) on anything the Saudi government has a stake in publicizing. They are, however, perfectly acceptable sources for the same uses for which a government press release would be acceptable, and we can rely on them in the same way we rely on press releases, following 6380:

Europe to publish critically important health data on a server in California instead of in Poland (or at least in the EU). "The best source of data that we have" does not mean we can "assume" that the data is correct. We use the data, fine, that's not disputed. That's not the same as "assuming" that the data is correct. We know of at least one straight-out arithmetic error (see the talk page) where the Ministry (MOH) calculated 19+6+8 (three individual, archived MOH tweets) = 14 (MOH sums per day). The consensus was to add a note and put "14" in the cell. So we

2566:. An RfC might be okay if there was neutral wording about what needs settling but I fear the wording suggested by this straw poll wouldn't address that sufficiently. Should not be merely about "entertainment reviews" but all reviews editorials and opinion columnists and quotes of opinions attributed to employees of any Mail-related publication or site. Should not be mentioning "reliable" since that narrows the range of arguments. Should be mentioning where the RfC goes since there have been mentions of weight which is not a WP:RSN matter but a WP:NPOV matter. 2742:- look, a writer with an article of her own! - opining that if a soap opera character "started charging for sex – they'd never worry about money again. It would be a busman's holiday for them. They could even make it a family business – slappersRus.com". I submit that I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstance in which this is an addition to the sum of human knowledge. I'm really, really not going to spend time looking for some other commenter in an RS who I can cite calling fictional characters "slappersRus" to. Nor should anyone else be expected to. 2032:

Express because they do have notable critics). They help inform the broader direction (what the high and low points were) and may be useful for specific quotes, though we're not required to use those quotes nor even source them if we can pull from the better RS reviews. This is all justified under the implication of RSOPINION with the additional clarification that Blueboar has provided in this thread. As long as the material is inline-attributed and only used for those opinions, nothing is violations, not WEIGHT, not RSOPINION, not the DM deprecation. --

4607:

1904. Per the marriage record, she was 17 and had the same parents as listed in the birth record. She also married Gilbert Samuel Langstaff, her later surname and the spouse's name contains all the names given by Bergeron. I think you see that each of the records confirms the information in the previous record. No conclusions are required, no original research. The records say what they say and it all works together to confirm each record refers to the same person. So yes, I think the records are reliable, based on an evaluation of their totality.

6512:: it seems that you are accusing me of having negative intent by pointing to uncontroversial facts and that I am psychologically abusing other Wikipedians. The uncertainties of obtaining knowledge may be psychologically uncomfortable to some people, but in Knowledge, as in scientific study of the real world, these uncertainties are inevitable, and we have to live with them. Referring to context is the contrary of making people doubt their memory and perception. Being suspicious of knowledge managed by authoritarian organisations is 10454:

illustrations. It is a while since I looked but undoubtedly some of the illustrations will be straightforward presentations based on a specific bit of published research, like our users also might do. Unfortunately they won't all be like that. The one Ermenrich and I came across (on a talk page) is clearly outside our norms, because it was a map showing frequencies of "Germanic DNA" (i.e. something no scholar is going to have defined). I am not sure if that is being used on any WP article though.--

4083:"Today’s conflict is on two fronts – the military front and the public opinion front. The main driving force for public opinion today is Social Media and online activity. Israel Unwired serves as a voice for Israel and the Jewish people that mainstream media rarely feature. At this point, hundreds of thousands of people are being reached everyday across social media channels. That places Israel Unwired at the forefront of impacting individuals worldwide about Israel and the Jewish people." 35: 4602:

impossible would be more accurate). The McGill Law Library says she was "born in 1887 in Alexandria, Glengarry County, Ontario" and Bergeron says "Née en Ontario le 6 juin 1887, elle épouse Samuel Gilbert Langstaff en 1904". There are precisely two births in that place in 1887, except the other one died at birth. The one who did not die, was born on 6 June. The record given shows the parents names. The Law Library article says she graduated from Prescott (Ontario) High School and the

7765: 7760: 5983:

Australia appears to be false, but that the sorts of information that cast doubt on it come from the Twitter feed of another journalist and a video recorded from an online conference. Then again, 60 Minutes Australia doesn't provide any details on how they know that she's disappeared. My impression, in general, is that 60 Minutes Australia tends to be a bit sensationalized. I'd really like to see a reliable newspaper pick this story up before including it at

4435:/Mako) and I found several other sources (news portals/newspapers) which mention it which can be used as references. Please also bear in mind that generally it's difficult to find sources for documentaries as opposed to theatrical releases and book releases. And since there was a question of the filmmaker's reputation, he is a known TV entity (including a Wiki article) and has a long list of programs under his name on that TV station as mentioned in the 1833:(Ie: a statement noting that “Ima Blowhard wrote an Op-Ed saying Trump is a poopy head” can be supported by citing the Op-Ed where he said this... BUT the statement “Trump is a poopy head” may NOT be appropriately supported by that same Op-Ed). Note - this does NOT mean that we must include Ima Blowhard’s opinion (THAT depends on DUE weight)... merely that IF we include his opinion, the Op-Ed where that opinion was stated is a reliable primary source. 5242:. It's not kind, describing it as "Spirited but misdirected stab at a definitive biography of the great Shawnee warrior" and "A biography that succeeds better as fiction. Astoundingly detailed but ambitious to a fault, in its interpretative zeal it strays from, or at least embellishes, the historical record to the point of being suspect." Publishers weekly described it as "an entertaining blend of fact and fiction.", so I would avoid using it. 11189:. Linking to such a site in a BLP would be unadvisable, and I do not think that particular reference belongs in this spot either, since what we have is basically a slice of BLP under a topic heading. Even if all we are doing is noting that an opinion has been voiced, we are implicitly saying that the site is worth reading, and as it stands the text is not providing any cautions that claims of fact made in the source should be taken advisedly. 4908:

no official outlet of film finances in India, all figures are estimates that reliable sources arrive at through their proprietary journalistic methods, which might include having relationships with theatre owners and getting figures that way, etc. So having figures this close to another source is questionable. There are a number of sources that are already considered reliable and unreliable in the context of Indian entertainment. (See

4419:

reverted an entire paragraph which detailed the content of the documentary for which these three sources were used, one of which being israelunwired. Those sources were used solely to present the documentary's content and that particular last sentence starts with "According to the film, etc etc...". The paragraph didn't discuss the merits of that conclusion, it just presented the documentary and that is what the sources were used for.

10186: 3422: 2182:"Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." 1948:"Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media. In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." 11822:

three for "media blackout", are considered necessary. The question of whether a particular ref satisfies WP:RS is a bit beside the point which is whether electioneering talking points should be spread around the encyclopedia. However, my frank advice would be to forget about it—let the text stand. In a year from now it can be removed, along with the corresponding muck on the other side.

1852:

IF the answer to question one is yes, THEN we have phrase what we write as an opinion, and not state it as fact. 3- Sourcing. IF we phrase as opinion, THEN the Op-Ed reliably supports the statement. So... 1- first we need to ask if the Opinion of this specific TV critic is DUE? IF not then omit. If yes 2) then phrase as opinion (attribute) and 3) cite the opinion as primary source.

6213:) as a PS rather than any secondary sources, of which there seem to be few. The tunnel project is the subject of hundreds of news stories, therefore supporting notability for the overall topic, but there is disagreement on the talk page about whether those sections on the EES and Business Case should be retained if they lack secondary sources. External guidance would be appreciated. 6406:: If the issue is some error in some of the updates, we can discuss that. But then, I would ask you to stop deflecting the discussion to points like where servers are hosted, the GDPR, privacy concerns of users visiting US-hosted website linked from Knowledge, Twitter's ability to tamper with tweets, data integrity issues related to software being proprietary, etc. -- 1308:

hypothetically, only two opinion pieces existed for an episode, there's zero way we could judge WEIGHT or UNDUE at all. With 20-some sources we may be getting closer to a broad consensus on overall episode quality and what facets were strengths and weaknesses, but we're still major viewpoint deviations across the board that can't be judged by WEIGHT. Then and

7358:, they do seem to have an editing staff (though that doesn't mean the staff does anything, necessarily). The about page describes them as " multi-award-winning," and if those are the right kinds of awards, then that could be a positive indicator for reliability. The page notes that they're goal is "creating awareness," and it seems fair to describe them as 3555:- I don't believe they are reliable on Saudi involved political issues, particularly including the named topic. While there may be a dearth of non-biased sources, this isn't a case of a source being just one notch above. They aren't tabloid-y, I don't think their level of bias is problematic for sports coverage etc, or even much of their world coverage 1304:

RSes that in generally all going to be around point "it was a poor response". I would not be able to evoke RSOPINION to say "well, I'm going to go include Breitbart's opinion source that says 'It was great!' and you can't stop me!" because WEIGHT overrides that for all purposes (eg that gets to FRINGE). That fully follows the line of logic you present.

211:, agreed on the bright-line rule, though these also pop up in band articles, which kind of straddle the BLP line. Personally, I think that if an artist/band is notable enough for an article there will be a review or something out there which mentions a track list, but I'm willing to compromise since a track list is a pretty straightforward fact. 2649:

down by topic area and notify those editors with an interest or experience in those topic areas is a good idea. They will know how reliable or not DM is based on their experiences of dealing with it as a source. (n.b. If you have comments or questions please ping me in the Discussion section not immediately below my comment, thank you.) --

4788:

require that multiple sources confirm every piece of information, merely unique claims of notability or extraordinary claims should have more than one source. It is not original research to state different information that is given in different sources, as it is given in that source. It is neither an assumption nor drawing a conclusion.

115:

artist pages on Spotify. As far as I can tell, Spotify artist pages are submitted by the artist or label, so they're self-published sources and usually full of puffery anyway ("so-and-so took the world by storm with their chart-topping first album 'We're Notable! Really!'" or something like that). Does this seem reasonable enough?

2278:. You want a change to the present rule, to let through stuff that isn't being let through now - so you have to make the case for it. I don't have to make your case for you, as you seem to be requesting - you have to make your own case yourself, if you're actually interested in convincing people who don't already agree with you - 2256:

disadvantage as I haven't reviewed and removed thousands of examples from Knowledge. Still, I would argue that the example that kicked this discussion off looks like a bad removal. Let's zoom out a bit. Per WP:IAR, how are we harming Knowledge by keeping these citations and how are you improving Knowledge by removing them?

608:

above the Mail and Express. If you look at stats on trust in news sources, at numbers of PCC/IPSO complaints/breaches upheld, or assessments by fact checkers, the Mirror performs better than other tabloids but worse than most broadsheets, while the Express performs similarly to or slightly better than the Express.

10833:. I am of the view that we should not generally use think tanks as sources, but the magazine has been around for a long time and seems to be widely respected. I don't really see it as having a dog in this fight, so I would not discount it unless the claim is extraordinary (which in this case I don't think it is). 5572:

review exercise, a thorough review of this specific source for use in this specific manner. The issue of prominence and indeed the parallel omission of all the other reliable sources which cast doubt on this one, can be raised as a proposed change of text, as suggested there, if that is not rendered moot here.

10870:"In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, came out accusing Biden of having sexually assaulted her in 1993. The lack of any news coverage from major news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC news regarding the accusations were considered by some as a media blackout." 4806:"Knowledge does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". This is my last word as far as I can see this usage violates OR. 2584:

from sources not normally considered reliable", then maybe a specific question on whether an RFC for the Daily Mail specifically may be needed, though I think that answer should be obvious from the first. But it would be key to present the RSOPINION question without the loaded factor of the DM question. --

11438:

over allegations that Biden sexually abused someone. The text is: "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden staffer, came out accusing Biden of having sexually assaulted her in 1993. The lack of any news coverage from major news outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC

10488:

This source says "As we've noted before, there are a bunch of charlatans in the world of Ancient DNA. The worst offender, perhaps, is a pseudonymous Belgian named Maciamo Hay, who runs a site called Eupedia. This uneducated man knows just enough to sound knowledgable, and to delude himself and some

10453:

Just to make sure everyone is aware, there may be a complication in that a lot of the use is likely to be their graphics. They clearly have people who are good at making scientific style graphics (e.g. maps showing frequencies), and for better or worse we have a slightly different ways of approaching

9811:

alert) people may well have died because this kind of misinformation was not tackled early enough. It is down to us to make sure the the information (on any aspect of this topic) is of the best kind. We cannot allow even the possibility of misinformation entering any of or articles on this topic. See

9588:

As a Seeking Alpha reader I would protest if someone used it as a RS for fact. Some articles are great others are trash. The site does have editors so this isn't quite self published. But it is effectively a collection of editorials. As such I would treat it only as reliable for the statements of

5693:

That's using "wrote the book" in the sense of "I've done the research", not "if you look at page 216 of my book you will see a verbatim statement of the following claim". He goes on to elaborate (it's an interesting bit of science history, and a glimpse back to when experimental teams were small; not

4970:

Frank J. Menetrez received his PhD in philosophy and JD from UCLA. This essay is drawn from his epilogue to the paperback edition of Norman G. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, forthcoming from the University of California Press. He can be reached

4601:

Just as it may be difficult to determine if a subject in a newspaper article, journal article or book is the subject? One weighs the evidence, evaluates it based on what else is known — hardly "impossible" (in fact, I would postulate that that statement in the guideline is completely false. It may be

2877:

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability,

2648:

I've looked through the previous RfCs and while many if not all agree DM is problematic, there is considerable disagreement over total banishment. I don't think the previous RfC close went far enough in representing the opinions of many community members who saw some limited place for DM. Breaking it

2202:

Certainly not. I've reviewed more Knowledge usages of the Daily Mail in the past six months than anyone, I'm pretty sure - about 8,000 so far, I think - and I have so far found at least ten or so that are arguably indispensable. But it's definitely the case that if you want to use the DM, you need an

2023:

in this area. You're actually suggesting a very different interpretation of WEIGHT which only works for topics maybe years out from the event of note, where academic secondary sources are reviewing the sources around the time of the event. When we are close to an event, we need to actually gather all

1303:

The second interpretation does not necessarily work against WEIGHT, as WEIGHT can only be assessed when there is a plethera of good RS sourcing to start with. Again, say we were talking Donald Trump and his handling of the COVID situation. Literally hundreds of opinion sources exists from our quality

1070:

For me the Daily Mail is still a national newspaper, for its lack of basic fact checking and tabloidism they do still represent some element of political thought and general opinion. The "weight" in question for me is clear - as a national newspaper they clear possess it. It's basically irrelevant if

12313:

I still consider Norman Davies as the source in this case, he is unquestionably "high quality". We often permit blogs and other unreliable sources so long as the person doing the writing is a known author whose opinion is relevant, and not framed in wikivoice. In this case the book is reliable under

10076:

about this. This Money Inc website seems to be a collection of articles disguised as advertisements, but also contains a net worth section with figures for numerous public figures. However, there is never any information as to where the (what I assume are) freelance writers get the figures from. The

9684:

No... Fox’s NEWS coverage is fine. It is no worse (or no better) than that of the other networks. The problem lies with their opinion and analysis shows, which are sensationalist and biased (but that is also true for the other networks). I could agree to restrictions targeting specific shows, but

6615:

As promised, their articles (really more like short blog posts) lack depth, and as a result provide little useful insight. (Aside: However, because of the site practices, the site causes my slower devices' CPUs to be overloaded, and my network traffic to stay high the entire time the site is viewed.

5670:

This cannot be a primary source in that sense, the people who have believed it was a true fact all along seized on it to recreate the biography precisely because it is their hope the magic initials IUPAC, without any other critical examination of what it is and how it is being used, means this makes

5464:

Other than the fact it is the IUPAC website, and in recognition of all the controversy and indeed fraud that has surrounded previous attempts to get this claim included in Knowledge, what reason is there for anyone to really believe that this one single web page is meant to be seen as the definitive

5262:

is one of my favorite books. It is embellished, where history ends and fiction starts is hard to gauge. It seems accurate in the spirit of the thing, and big picture it gets events right the conflicts described did happen. The personal history of the main character are not so reliable. One could use

4907:

also phrased "crores". The rest of the figures are about the same, minus two slight discrepancies, 5.40 vs 5.50 and 6.6 vs 6.5, bestoftheyear.in vs bollywoodcat.com respectively. Indian film articles are prone to exaggerated or deflated financial figures depending on the submitter's agenda. There is

4754:

There is no synthesis either. The census lists the subject's family members. That is not given in any other source. The question refers to whether it is likely that the information is indeed for her family, since the guideline states "it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed

3208:

What do you mean by still exist? That's not an opinion piece, it's an article written by a Dailymail columnist. Even if the Dailymail columnist is notable, we don't use it. Most of the Dailymail columnists are notable. We should not use the Dailymail even with attribution. If what the person said in

1925:

Not quite... lets follow Godwin’s law and invoke Hitler. I think everyone here would agree that Mien Kamph is NOT a reliable source. However, there are (very limited) situations where noting what Hitler said in that book would help explain why history took the path that it did. We could quote it,

1561:

But the Daily Mail was not deprecated for opinion - it says so under the deprecation entry - so if your interpretation is true we have just shadow-banned the DM while at the same time proclaiming that we have definitely not shadow-banned them, while again at the same time gesturing at ways that they

1378:

Also, I would add that if editors tried to use RSOPINION to inject "factual" assertions as opinions (eg passing off fringe theories as such), that's absolutely a non-starter. I totally agree we cannot have this go there, and I think it's rather clear that there a clear line between using the opinion

1074:

Instead, for me, the issue is whether what is being said is actually significant enough for inclusion as an opinion in any case. Reading the content, the answer is 'no'. It's a throwaway line that barely says "X is is not Y but that's okay". There is no actual meaning to the discussion. Now if there

11893:

It's also not a media blackout if the media is actually doing its journalism part and trying to verify the claims / accusations, particularly in the face of conflicting claims and the lack of corroboration. The few relatively mainstream articles to have covered the issue all seem to have focused on

11843:

your last point makes no sense given the main point of your comment. Why should we ignore the inclusion of an accusation against a BLP, which currently doesn't even have consensus for inclusion in his own article? Only one source is describing it as a media blackout, while numerous others cover the

8689:

1941 Association", which appears to be legit. However, for historical topics it's best to rely on good quality print publications, such as academic articles and books. The Balkans, unfortunately, seem to be plagued by nationalist historical revisionism which makes it extra important to be cautious.

6971:

We can't judge reliability of a YouTube clip simply by being on YouTube, though 99% of the material on YouTube will be considered unreliable or unusable as either we have no clear idea of whom the uploader actually is, or that the material will likely be a copyright violation of the actual work. We

6954:

It is always unreliable because (1) the information in clips is not fact-checked by youtube and (2) we don't know it the statements people make on youtube have been edited. It normally goes against good scholarship to use it. If you are editing an article about corona virus for example, there is no

5528:

I can quite easily demonstrate fraud, at least insofar as what people did with Chapman's book, how they tried and failed to use it as a source. It is actually pretty blatant once all the edit logs, Tweets and media statements are compiled and looked at together, in the round. Whether the appearance

5069:

Perfectly good content and attributed properly. I suggest that anyone who does not know the history of this thread should read the two links I have provided for "CONTEXT" above. While bringing this here isn't technically forum shopping, we are dealing with this quite well on the talk page, and this

4418:

I'll try to present additional background on this issue. This particular entry is in the "documentaries" portion of this Wiki article. This particular documentary is directly relevant to the topic of the article as it deals precisely with this subject and interviews multiple relevant people. The OP

2031:

So now, why explaining this is important is that in this exercise, we are still including the weaker RS or the RSes that would not meet RS for fact-checking but have generally notable media critics. This would include the Daily Mail for UK television (as well as the other "tabloids" like Mirror and

2027:

What we normally have to do for a TV episode (or other media like films and the like) is collect all the reviews that we know exist, picking the ones that from editors' past experience and common sense are the typical go-to for that media type and show with more weight given the strong RSes but not

1851:

Relating this to the current DM discussion, there are three issues to address: 1- Due Weight. should an article mention the opinion of someone writing for the DM in the first place? This really should be answered by examining the qualifications of the author more than the publication. 2- Phrasing.

1832:

As best as I can remember, the intent was to say that sources such as OP-Ed columns can be seen as (primary) sources ... they reliably support an attributed statement as to the opinion of its writer, even if not reliable when used as a secondary source to support an unattributed statement of fact.

1739:

a nobody here. He may not an immediate household name like Roger Ebert, but he's name is mentioned several times alongside other modern UK television critics like Brooker and Lewis-Smith, and to simply call him a "non-notable" at this point would be completely BS. Just because he may be writing for

961:

op-ed piece, if it starts making statements that are fact-like, will reference or link to the source they got that fact from , as a good debater would do so. Or otherwise they are going to cite an easily sourceable fact (such as in the current environment "There have been over 1000 deaths in the US

607:

The thrust of that article is that this is uncharacteristic of the Mirror, of which the article is generally complimentary. The Mirror is certainly not 100% reliable, e.g. it often sensationalises as with that example, but it is widely considered a league above other UK tabloids and a league or two

12428:

I know Melanie, fwiw. She studied history and writes popular histories for proper publishers for a living, which helps. She's good (IMO) and very detailed and painstaking. Lists her bibliographies if you want to dive deeper. Doesn't have a Knowledge article yet, but that's a "yet". What article is

11798:

I can't speak for the motivation of the argument, but I think you're right. Most Sources aren't describing it as a media blackout, so the bar for reliable source coverage isn't met and anecdotally, as a nonreliable observer, I would say it doesn't appear to be a media blackout in fact either, as a

9966:

I agree as with all sources, an examination for potential bias should be done as appropriate. To take a not-so random example, there is a formerly New York-based real estate developer who routinely sues everyone, including media outlets. Their coverage can certainly be examined for problems, but I

9758:

disseminate false information denying and minimizing the danger posed by the spread of the novel Coronavirus, or COVID-19, which is now recognized as an international pandemic.”, that is a pretty damning condemnation (and yes it is Fox news). However they (and thus we) should also include AT&T

8911:

Not sure it's an RS, and FWIW I'm entirely unconvinced of due weight - it's a polemical opinion piece in a (non-notable) polemical source, not something I'd look to factual content of anything for. The Rod Dreher definitely needs attribution by name and publication, or perhaps it should be removed

8153:

It's the reliability. If the NYTimes published the net result of the FOIA, I know the information is not doctored, etc. If a random person publishes it, I do not know that, though if a third-party reliable sources reviews that and publishes their own summary, that gives a bit of review to say they

5959:

has disappeared. This claim has been disputed by Fan Wenxin, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong. He tweeted that he has been in contact with a 60 Minutes Australia producer, and that the producer promised to amend the program. The program aired without the corrections Fan Wenxin

5618:

See below, and previous statements. You are misusing attribution as a get out of jail free card, not as a means of identifying who believes what in cases of source disagreements or sparcity of coverage. The fact this source was published by the IUPAC did not stop Knowledge editors correcting their

5571:

How do you intend to prove this, other than the circular argument that they are the IUPAC? Do you assume infallibility on their part, for example? I have already accepted that for most things, they could be assumed to be reliable, but there are specific reasons to doubt it in this case. Hence this

3740:

I mean ... maybe we need to be careful when citing them on issues where the Saudi government is known to be involved and/or doing some shady shit; but their lack of independence on certain topics doesn't make them "inherently unreliable" (if there is such a thing) on all topics, and even on topics

3690:

In case of this civil war, Saudi sources (or even Saudi-owned like Arab news) aren´t really independent, so their reliability is indeed dubious. These may be perfectly reliable for many uses here on Knowledge (eg. camel racing), but certainly not for regional conflicts (except probably as a source

2932:

I'm raising the question. Please don't accuse me of "hoping for a loophole." I'm not suggesting motives behind your actions, please return the favor. I think if you check I've never added the DM as a source. I do understand RS. Consider if Jeremy Clarkson or Stirling Moss did a car review for

2583:

I think it's addressing the wrong question. A first question would be to make sure the intent behind RSOPINION, which would not only cover Daily Mail but several other UK tabloids in the area of TV reviews, but also several other factors. Should an RSOPINION RFC end with "yes, we can draw opinions

1011:

where the DM was being used strictly under an RSOPINION - it is a DM staff writing, providing their opinion of the episode. I have no idea how critical the opinion is, and whether it actually is needed is the topic of a separate discussion. The issue here is that outright removal of a DM reference

12344:

A book forward is not unlike a blurb in that it is written to promote the book and therefore is not an independent source on the book. I think it could be cited on a SELFSOURCE basis, but it should not be given as much weight as or grouped with independently published review of the book. In this

10794:

met them in his residence on 19 July 1986 and urged them to "seek unity", telling them "You must endeavor, not to think in terms of being members of the Armed Forces or those of the Guards Corps or of the Basij forces. ... We must understand that if there were to be any disputes among you ... not

9735:

shows, just as I would be with opinion shows on MSNBC and CNN (or the opinion/editorial section of any newspaper). US cable news opinion shows are highly partisan, ergo not a good source of factual content. However, absent a good reason, I'd be wary of ruling out an entire news network, including

6651:

Yes, it's reputable and generally reliable. As a google search for "Axios reports" shows, the news source is used by many other reputable RS (NPR, NBC News, CBS, CNBC, QZ, U.S. News, Haaretz, the Atlantic, Star Tribune, The Hill, Daily Beast, KFF), substantiating its reliability. Furthermore, the

6379:

I'm sure your error was in good faith, but please do not misrepresent my words. I'm fairly sure that I did not at any point say that the MOH data "cannot be used". I stated reasons why we cannot literally describe the data as "valid" or "reliable", and why it's absurd for a governmental agency in

6157:

My views are the same as Ian.thomson's. I also cannot reach abdullahandalusi.com and have to conclude it's not an RS. I looked at thesunniway and see that "hte aim and mission of this website is to propagate the correct Áqaýed (beliefs)" which is unpromising. Worse, one of the two people cited as

5708:

To answer the last part first, nobody has any idea who the IUPAC consulted, or even if they consulted anyone, in cases where no published records were available, and that is rather the point. As for the Tweet, that's one interpretation sure, but not the only one. And it doesn't really make sense,

5030:

CounterPunch is reliable for attributed opinion, which is what this is. "Looks like contributed content" is not a policy-based argument, since all material published in a magazine or newspaper with a byline is just as much contributed content. If the intent is to depict this as self-published, it

4787:

In any article, one uses multiple sources. Some information in those sources is the same and some information in the sources is different. If one can logically evaluate the sources and weigh whether they are all about the same person, then the information in those sources can be used. WP does not

4195:

are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles

3263:

Which is great, that is your opinion and I am overjoyed that we both think it's a piece of shit newspaper. However your stance simply reinforces that this is in fact a ban on any content associated with the Daily Mail, regardless of how notable or significant the individual or their opinion or if

2856:

What aspects of DM were shown to be unreliable. I'm under the impression that the issue is related to political related stories/people. Is that correct? Do we have any evidence their sports, TV reviews etc are unreliable? I also agree that the idea that we need others to note their opinion is

2184:

So which is it; is it banned, or is it situational? Are we using the RFC, or the Deprecation statement, or the description of Deprecation and its intent? Why does Breitbart have a different deprecation statement (among others) when it refers specifically to the Daily Mail? If originally it wasn't

2114:

That is not what the DM's deprecation statement says. You are interpreting them to be an unreliable source for all subject matter. It is clear from the deprecation statement that was not the intent. It is clear from the essay on deprecation that it is not the intent. At no point was the intent to

1458:

This is not a valid interpretation, and I would suggest that it is actually misleading to suggest that an unreliable opinion gains weight and therefore reliability just because it is mentioned in another supposed reliable source. The Daily Mail has a very real and valid opinion as a major British

271:

Prose, unless sourced to a known, reputable reviewer, are now and have always been considered unreliable. Track listings are better sourced to something like AllMusic, or a publication where an article has an actual byline. If none can be found, it's unlikely that the subject is notable, but this

11821:

electioneering effort, matched by numerous examples from the other side. We might need a bot to ensure that the number of non-encyclopedic pokes at Trump is balanced by the corresponding number aimed at Biden. One give-away is the fact that eight references for the sexual assault accusation, and

10468:

It's a personal website run by someone who uses the name Maciamo Hay and you'll find him described as "a researcher in genetics, as well as a futurist, philosopher, historian, linguist, and travel writer." So, "master of none"? You can see my comments in the earlier discussion. His Facebook page

10189:

of Money Inc references on English Knowledge, there appears to be at least 50. tvovermind.com seems to have the exact same format/style of website as Money Inc. Uncoached.com also has the same format, but I couldn't find any references. Uncoached Corp might be the same thing as "BC Media Group",

7205:

While creating the biography of living person I have found that there are few interviews on television with expert advice on the news. But the news become older and miss placed on Google. I found that it is on YouTube not on Google is the source called reliable? and those source are from best tv

5220:

Do you feel Eckert is or is not a reliable source (in the above three books)--particularly for historical events regarding Native Americans and early settlers to the Ohio valley? Have there been past discussions about his reliability that I should be aware of? I have not found any. The author

4606:

1914 says she was a native of Prescott and married at 17. Searching Prescott residence for 1887-1904, only one entry is returned and that person is the same age and has the same parents as were listed in the birth record from Alexandria. There is only 1 Annie MacDonald who married in Prescott in

114:

Apologies if I'm not following correct procedures here, RSN isn't one of my usual haunts. I searched the RSN archives and RSP, but I didn't see any official determination of what kind of source Spotify is. I often see musician biography drafts (nearly all of which are autobiographical) source to

10865:

I added sources for the following claim. (The claim was already in the article; I just added citations). Because this involves a BLP, I would like to ask that the citations I added be reviewed here so that I can remove any that don't meet our standards for reliability. Here is the claim and the

10100:

My view is that Moneyinc should be considered unreliable. Prompted by this thread, I took a look at the subject website and found no evidence of any sort of editorial staff or board; it seems most articles published by the site are published by seemingly random authors without oversight. Though

8713:

There is no indication of an editorial board, it appears to be just a registered public association for those connected to survivors of the camp. No academic qualifications are claimed for the supposed editor-in-chief and contributors are often not identified. It is effectively a self-published

7897:

article to back the statement: "In the 21st century, the term has increasingly been used to denote the free-market economics of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, including their criticisms of government intervention in the economy, which has tied the school to neoliberal

6204:

project has a section on its Business Case and another on its Environment Effects Statement (EES), a mandatory inquiry process prior to government approval. The article contains a summary of key points in the 10,000-page EES produced by a government body (the Western Distributor Authority) plus

5982:

I personally think this claim is quite doubtful, given that it's disputed by a WSJ reporter and given that Ai Fen has appeared publicly (at the online conference) since her supposed disappearance. I have to admit that this is a somewhat awkward situation, given that the claim made by 60 Minutes

5401:

Some people (in blogs) disagree with Ferroni's EROI paper, but disagreement happens. To me Ferroni's summary looks in line with the 2 or 3 other summaries I've seen, and CC Network helpfully makes the book available for convenient download too. People (co-founders?) associated with the Network

3849:, which would not be Arab news. Generally it should be used if at all in information about topics that receive little or no coverage in major news media. For example if an article is about a new restaurant in a suburb of Riyadh or some minor prince's falcons, then it might be the source to use. 3530:

May be reliable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the topic in qestion. Saudi Arabia is a party to the conflict and one can´t label any of their media as independent, because freedom of press is severely restricted (an euphemism) in Saudi Arabia. What will be next? Al-Ba'ath as a

10801:

Shirazi used harsh counterinsurgency methods against the rebellious Kurds. Many within the regular army did not like the idea of suppressing Iranians, even if they were minorities from the periphery. Some army personnel deserted from the front in the Sanandaj region during the battles with the

10633:

I agree there is no doubt that this source is not RS according to WP norms. I do still wonder what this discussion means in practice though, because I think Ermenrich and I have not seen examples of this site being used, only heard a report from an IP editor that WP uses some of the same maps.

7474:

I'm wondering if it is reliable, as Cox is an anti-public transit lobbyist and generally creates research articles that favour car-based development (like suburbs). In itself, this doesn't disqualify the source, however, in determining what constitutes an "urban area", there is criticism based

2770:

Please stop being so dramatic. The DM is a trashbag liner and nobody is going to defend its use as a factual tome, but you are summarising the question being asked and the reason why in order to cast aspersions at other editors motives which will not be bore out by looking at their actual edit

1910:

editorial page said that COVID-19 was a hoax and reliable news media reported they said that, then we could report what those rs said. But if it wasn't reported, then we could not add this information to articles. Bear in mind that there are many fringe sources that are reliable for what their

1204:

be considered a significant viewpoint among those, though again, whether it is or not is a separate question that should be beyond this scope. It may not be in this case, but outright removal just because we're saying DM broadly is an unreliable source doesn't seem appropriate without having a

5730:

The attribution argument is totally irrelevant. I don't even need to look to know I won't find a single word of advice on Knowledge that tells me to use a source I know is inaccurate for a specific claim, if I simply state their name and rest on their overall record of reliability. I would be

4721:

no one is inferring anything. The information in the record was used, as it was stated in the record. No OR, no conclusions were drawn. The question was could the record be used as a reliable source? By looking at all the other evidence, the information in the source is supported, and thus in

2485:

in such a context too. I supported the ban (and still do) on the basis it was proposed. However, I resent the fact that this blanket ban is being extended beyond the purpose of what I supported. Extending the application of the ban beyond the scope of the original RFC is just straightforward

1667:

But as to the idea of the writer themselves being his to judge the use of a review is not a good metric, it is the work itself one should consuder. (The author would only be important if the work itself was non notable). DM is still a major publication in the UK that covers its entertainment

10006:

its unlikely this suit will end up with any resolution, as the lawsuit specificly focuses on Fox's statement of opinions, nothing out of their news departments. So this is a non-starter for us in any case. As others have said, MEDRS already takes precedence for any medical-based discussions.

2255:

First, you haven't provided a specific example so we can't see why you think a citation should remain. The best I can guess is you are going for ABOUTSELF. I'm not advocating a near total ban in inclusion nor have I tried to scrub Knowledge to remove DM citations. I guess you have me at a

371:

Also I don't even know why you have Daily Mirror being more reliable than the Daily Express and other papers, they really are the same as The Sun. I don't think Daily Mirror sources should be allowed on wikipedia. I have much more respect for the Daily Express over the others I've mentioned.

8789:

A general discussion leading to some sort of evaluation on the perennial sources list at the very least would be very valuable. So yeah, some sort of RFC. Editors need to be able to get information on companies such as Star Media which according to that snopes report appear to be disguising

6976:

use YouTube videos where the channel is clearly identified as the entity it presents itself has (verified), that they are an appropriate expert for the material in the video, that they own the copyright on the video and materials within it, and otherwise thus relevant. (For a quick example

1104:

For the purposes of my question, I'd set aside the issue of whether the WEIGHT of the opinion is needed or not, and assume that editors beleive it is appropriate to include. This still leaves the question of whether the DAILYMAIL RFC meant to exclude the use of an RSOPIONION in this manner.

763:

was accused of publishing photographs of soldiers torturing prisoners. These photographs had been created by Private Stuart Mackenzie of the Royal Lancashire Regiment. Ironically the accusations he made turned out to be true. I think that current policy is adequate. In general we should use

7407:

of their subjects, failing to add new information/analysis. Please note that I'm fairly new to making this kind of evaluation, so I may be misunderstanding this feature. In addition, I may be looking at an uncharacteristic collection of articles, so this statement should be evaluated on an

4426:

the OP repeatedly claims that the documentary actually says something else than what is quoted in those sources without providing any sources for his claim except for his own analysis of the movie, which basically represents original research. Moreover he also appears to conflate between a

3070:

In the area of British television, DM reviews by DM staff writers should be considered for inclusion by editors. Whether they are included or not, that's up to local consensus, but neither the DM RFCs nor RSOPINION prohibit their use. All factors of RSOPINION must be followed, with in-line

1307:

But if we only have a handful of sources as the case of reviews of a TV episode where it is impossible to assess WEIGHT - not because we don't have RSes but because of simple statistical aspects. The fewer and fewer sources one has to evaluate WEIGHT, the less WEIGHT can really apply. If,

3193:

If a person, in a position of providing a professional opinion in their role as providing such an opinion professionally, and who perhaps has a long-standing career with work outside of the Daily Mail, cannot be used as a source for their direct opinion, then does that person still exist?

4995:, Los Angeles attorney Frank Menetrez asserted that "neither Dershowitz nor Harvard ... has identified the specific issues or arguments that Harvard allegedly investigated and rejected. In particular, neither of them has ever said whether Harvard investigated the identical errors issue". 4587:, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name." I'd think the census falls in that category. 6612:, which is a deceptive practice, and Knowledge should avoid being complicit in sending users to be subjected to that practice. Their About highlights "Smart Brevity®" with mission: "Axios gets you smarter, faster on what matters," and says (long) "Stories are too long or too boring." 5459:

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC; which, among other responsibilities, coordinates with laboratories and the public for the naming of new chemical elements), recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical

2951:

The problem is not Autoweek's circulation versus the Daily Mail's. Autoweek do not have an extensively documented history of just making stuff up, and the Daily Mail does, which is why it was deprecated. If you think circulation is the problem, then you fail to understand the issue -

10634:

Potentially we may even have over-lapping users with this website. So things like maps uploaded to WP might need to be looked at case-by-case? The one map we were shown was clearly OR/SYNTH and inconsistent with our content policies, but I doubt this one is being used on Knowledge.--

12249:

Norman Davies is a well known historian. His opinion matters, more so, that Davies literally wrote the book's "Forward" (the topic of the article no less) makes it imperative to mention in the article. Francois' requirement that Davies' "Forward" be peer-reviewed is nonsensical. --

7648:

whatsoever. But one thing for sure is that there's no accurate and definite "urban area", because simply there's no official boundary of it. Demographia explains their methodology in their publication. There's always flaw in every study, let alone urban study. That's all I can say.

1379:

on a topic from a normally non-RS , and presenting the assertions as opinions from a non-RS, particularly when one considers the topic to be covered. EG: RSOPINION is fine in the area of contemporary entertainment like TV and movies but it better not be used in political circles. --

367:

we have Daily Express being quoted as being similar to the Daily Mail. Well I think that needs to be slightly adjusted, as a newspaper they have in fact been more reliable than the Daily Mail, how often have you ever heard the Daily Express being shammed or getting in to trouble?

900:

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

764:

broadsheet publications rather than tabloids. In the same sense, a professor writing a paper on ancient Rome would cite academic sources rather than History Channel articles. It's not that the History Channel publishes false stories, it's just that academic sources are better.

312:. In the past, editors have considered AllMusic marginally reliable for biographical information. I would cite AllMusic instead of Spotify, since AllMusic has a stronger reputation for music reviews. If there are more reliable sources available (especially if the artists are 8457:

If it were an exceptional claim perhaps. I don't think that one would need multiple reliable sources to establish that the position of the Catholic Church is that Jesus is in heaven. It's even in the Bible. He ascended to heaven on the third day and sits beside the Father.

6429:

That is disputed. But that is not a practical problem. It is independent of using the MOH as a "reliable source" in Knowledge terminology; a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable in the ordinary sense of the word. It has a Knowledge-specific meaning. You also wrote

2179:

So then it is banned, right? Literally it states right there then that it cannot be used, ever. Which is strange, because you yourself have just given a "historic" wiggle room, and then that does not gel with the actual purpose or use of deprecation per the quote provided:

7402:

about UK meat consumption. It uses one specific source for all the content in the article, and they add little analysis or commentary. For this reason, it's unlikely that this site would be useful for establishing notability, since a lot of the articles don't seem to be

2365:

opinion, it's DM trying to report on the show, and it falls squarely in type of tabloid-ish coverage that contributed the DM deprecation. I have rarely seen any "fact" that the DM says in this aspect about Doctor Who that can't be sourced from elsewhere or that actually

2066:, and the due weight policy exists to ensure that opinions covered in reliable sources (including opinions originally published by reliable sources, and opinions originally published by questionable sources and then covered in reliable sources afterward) are represented 8580: 6238:

There are quite a many website which was used as a reference for Italian football stats. However, i wanna ask , the site content itself probably reliable, but the site also flagged by anti-virus for a possible javascript related problem. So, how should treat this site?

2857:

problematic. When dealing with lower profile topics it isn't always practical to find a large number of sources. If the claims aren't controversial or if the opinions are widely noted (as is the case here) then we shouldn't remove based only on the deprecated status.

10146:"Benjamin Smith is one of the managing editors of Moneyinc. He has a strong interest in sports, video games and acting his age (and he's not even in college yet!) but we love him over here because he's attentive, detailed, and knows how to make an article look great." 6850:

with an appalling error "Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Science Feedback does not have a website." How hard is it to check whether they have a website?! That IS what Climate/Health/Science Feedback does - operate a website. --

6353:

Note that there is no report or evidence of this account being compromised or tampered with. The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched.

1192:

If this were, say, opinions about Donald Trump, there would be no end to reliable sources to pull opinion from, and it would be extremely unlikely we'd have to pull a DM opinion piece to suggest anything not covered in the major viewpoints. That makes sense to omit

7635:

The sales price, per square foot, is three times more than the median square foot price for homes in Hong Kong, which has been ranked by the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey as the world’s most expensive housing market for the ninth straight

1440:

I see no reason for this - it would be adding a carve-out unnecessarily. There is literally no reason to print "critical" analysis of fictional subjects from a deprecated source - and especially for what is actually some un-notable person's opinion in a known bad

6008:), but its been a week and other than RFA the outlets that have picked up on the story are pretty poor. They might have a source they don't want to reveal who knows something Fan Wenxin doesn't. Or they might not. Wait and watch seems like the least bad solution. 2814:

We should not be removing DM references for things like movie reviews. The wide circulation of the DM, even if editors here say it isn't reliable, adds weight to the opinions. In cases where the material is being used per RSopinion this shouldn't be an issue.

6459:

we are in the situation where we have to speculate whether or not these two accounts on servers run by Twitter, an authoritarian, secretive, non-democratic, centralised organisation, which is not even in the EU, are really under the control of the MOH and of

2310:

Ah, but you see it's not a ban if we can use it on the Daily Mail article itself and Paul Dacres article. Doesn't matter what it is, just so long as it's confined to a few page spaces where we can always point at it and say "see, told you it wasn't banned!".

6017:

Tangential, but there's actually been two different Radio Free Asias. The first was CIA run and existed for a couple of years in the '50s before the plug was pulled. The modern RFA was set up forty years later during the Clinton administration's first term.

5409: 11912:

Not wholly sure the source for "BLACKOUT" is an RS, and now the argument over at the RFC is that RS have now covered it. I think (being very very generous) we could say "according to...", and even that may now no longer be the case (but that is an issue of

11338:

is listed as "There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." There is no attribution, and the piece is not necessary given the abundance of other, better sourcing.

10216:

ive found this website being used for info on a bunch of pages but until being curious about the source of some of the info on pages and seeing "The Futon Critic" ive never heard of it before. ill put one example below but ive found it in a lot of places.

8092:<!--117180 daily weekday arrivals, 116160 daily weekday departures, 48960 Saturday arrivals, 48470 Saturday departures, 36950 Sunday arrivals, 40700 Sunday departures. This gives us a yearly total of ((117180+116160)*5+(48960+48470)+(36950+40700))*52 = 6136:, which makes the ridiculous claim that "Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims)." Even as a Christian, I'm far more interested in other religion's metaphysics and folklore than some worldly politician's hijacking of any religion. 7385:

says, "Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article." They seem to meet this requirement. In addition, I haven't hit too many sponsored pages, so there may be useful material here.

4890:

at Knowledge. It appears to be a site run by a small group of people, none of whom have admitted to having any journalism education, despite calling themselves journalists. I suspect that it does content aggregation in some form or another. For instance,

5652:). That would be a matter for editorial consensus via the Talk page, or an additional secondary reliable source noting the recognition. This is not especially controversial I'd say, so even a story based on a press release from the lab should be enough. 4430:

In any event, the discussion on israelunwired reliability is moot since I just found out that the documentary was broadcast several times on mainstream TV stations including the 2014 premiere on the largest commercial TV station in Israel (Channel Two /

831:. It looks like the website is essentially a WordPress blog that has a team. However, I do not see any corporate/partnership credentials, and I am not seeing this website ever referenced by publications in Google News that jump out to me as reliable per 5406: 4366:

The reliability of the documentary depends on the reputation of the producers (Roy Mandel and Ron Berstein). I'm not familiar with them, so you may want to ask some related WikiProjects to offer their opinions on this discussion. The film is probably a

3402:). However, that does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. If it's difficult to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Arab News stated that ..." 3303:

I agree with those saying we can not have a blanket ban here. When assessing DUE WEIGHT for an opinion, the reputation of the person giving the opinion is of significantly greater importance than the reputation of the publication in which he gives it.

3904:

The source for that statement have been replaced by source from Reuters which said pretty much the same thing. I believe everyone agree not to use Arab News on such topics. But, it doesn't mean Arab News is unreliable for other uncontroversial topics.

3233:

That looks like semantics. So a columnist that is otherwise well known for doing the job that they do, but happen to do it for the Daily Mail doesn't exist and neither does their opinion, unless it is subsequently published in another reliable source.

11385: 10382:, some including trivia like the number of castles in Belgium, but a number concerning human genetics. Specifically, many citations from Eupedia appear to connect specific Haplogroups with specific ethnic groups. My question, prompted by a discussion 8752:. We cite more than a few times in our articles, and there's a lot of cause for concern here. For starters, they seem to have connections to, and reprint material from, a couple other sites that are already deprecated: the Daily Caller and Breitbart. 6652:

people behind the website are all reputable journalists from other recognized RS. I see no RS about how the website engages in deceptive practices, so I cannot take a position on that, and other users shouldn't unless OP can actually substantiate it.

5263:

it as a starting point to investigate other more reliable sources. If I read an article mostly sourced to Eckert I'd probably think it wasn't well sourced - in fact I recall seeing this very thing years ago but don't remember which article it was. --

2966:

Are you suggesting DM would change what a reviewer wrote? In this case if Clarkson said the car was good the DM would change his statements? Is there any history of them doing such a thing, using their editorial chair to change what a reviewer said?

6420:

Errors in the MOH have already been discussed on the talk page, in various places for the various errors. This page (RS/Noticeboard) is not the place to deal with those. In-depth discusion is not "deflection". I would rather ask you to accept that

12180:"With a social media following in excess of 15 million across the US, Canada, UK and Australia, MEA WorldWide dovetails the virality of social platforms with the rigour and expertise of digital journalism". Translation: Meaww is a clickbait site. 8257:

issue. As long as those aren't "hidden" files, in that a logged in user can find their way there by some link or search, then yes they can be used. Being a paid user is not a limitation against those sources. But they need to be non-hidden links.

1153:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." 9656:

Sounds sensible. There's general sanctions on COVID-19-related articles for the same obvious reason. What's the correct Knowledge bureaucratic mechanism to declare a source not usable on a particular topic - can it be done as part of the general

3031:

If there's some interesting or quirky fact that's only in the DM or Sun, it'll usually be exaggerated or made-up nonsense. Details that aren't in any other source - because they made them up. That's why it can't even be trusted for pop culture -

1495:"All encyclopedic content on Knowledge must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by 1769:, and if it has also been published in reliable sources then we should cite those sources instead. However, per Newslinger, we should hold a clarifying RfC if there's a strong feeling among editors that DM is reliable for entertainment reviews. 8915:(I should probably note that Winegard claimed RationalWiki was somehow involved in his firing, and I've been ragging Winegard over this claim, which I think is basically silly, on the @rationalwiki Twitter, so take my opinions accordingly.) - 12035:

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. Their Facebook page has 12 million followers, more than the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc. -- and nearly as much as India's largest newspaperS such as Dainik Jagran:

1416:

RfCs for them. Exempting all opinions from the verifiability policy would distort articles on less popular topics that don't have enough opinions for due weight to be assessed, by allowing opinions from unreliable sources for those topics.

2751:

to decide which are acceptable pop culture opinion claims from the DM and which aren't. This has the same problem as using it for facts, in which some DM fans seem to want editors to do OR to support the use of their favourite deprecated

1954:

Now whether or not all sources being removed are being done so indiscriminately, is a separate issue, or whether as BlueBoar made clear in his summary the RSOpinion is worth having even if it is something we can use, is another question.

8564: 6318:. However, at least one user states that it cannot be used because they are published in a California-based server, using proprietary software, the feasibility of tampering by a third-party, etc. Here's the main discussion for context: 8560: 7878:

I am not sure why Spiked would be used as a source for anything here. It is purely a platform for (contrarian) opinions, and so if it is used as a source for anything other than the opinions of its contributors that would be worrying.

8350:

but can be downloaded, used for the statement "These views are considered to be blasphemous by the majority Sunni Islamic scholars and authorities who assert that Jesus is presently alive in Heaven." Her article is also source 110 at

3248:

They have to be a pretty notable expert in the field that even their casual blog posts in deprecated sources would be Knowledge-worthy. Open slather for anyone writing in the DM with a Knowledge article to their name would be inane -

2917:

You seem to be saying that you know what it actually says, but you're hoping for a loophole. I think if you're trying that hard to find excuses to include the Daily Mail, you don't really get the idea of Knowledge reliable sourcing -

6800:

Another detail from the NYT Piece, in the NYT author's own voice, criticizes Axios: "That Mr. Swan works for Axios, the rapid-fire news site founded by the Politico creators Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, brings its own complications.

4492:. If Chumchum7 challenges content in the article that you want to keep, it is your responsibility to prove that the content is fully supported by reliable sources. Any editor may remove the content if you are unable to show this. — 2755:

Fundamentally, the Daily Mail is a tabloid source so bad that we deprecated it. This entire discussion is an attempt to weasel a gratuitous exception to the deprecation, on a flimsy excuse. There's no reason for us to indulge it -

1075:

was a discussion over the character / actor and several papers had made various comments then I could see some value in contrasting opinions but as a solo statement it is basically unwarranted without context about Jenna Coleman.

758:

If publishing fake news about the Iraq War were reason to ban a publication, then we would have to ban all major media in the U.S. and UK. They all promoted the false story that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The

10484: 10481: 10479: 8639:

when investigating. Since there never was an RSN discussion yet about it, I decided to create an entry. My initial impression is that it seems usable: the publication is not anonymous (Macallan Communications) and also has a

3569:

Lacking information on when and in what context the source was cited, I don't feel comfortable saying that it wouldn't be appropriate even with inline attribution to a source whose publisher has close ties to the Saudi regime.

5778: 4899:

says, but Box Office India includes print and advertising figures in their budgets, which nobody in their right mind would do, since a film's budget is, across the globe, typically considered the straight cost of production.

9641:]. Given this I think it is our duty to only use the best and most respected sources over this issue I would like to propose a (at least) temporary and partial ban on Fox as a source for any news relating to the Corona Virus. 8568: 6384:

that there is at least one error of internal inconsistency in the data; we also know of at least three COVID-19 deaths that the MOH has ignored, based on reliable sources. These errors don't stop us from using the MOH data.

4196:

published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an

9113:"The talk, which addressed the possibility that human populations may have evolved different psychological tendencies, stirred a controversy at the University because of the perceived “racist implications” of the research." 7487:, Massachusetts. I would say that those are two difference cities, as would most people, I assume. He would say, I imagine, that because they are drivable in an hour they are the same city, because of his car-centric bias. 6257:: I didn't get any warning on Google Chrome or Firefox, even with a couple extensions enabled to block dubious stuff. It seems to have just the usual ads-related tracking code. Maybe others can check with other software. -- 5221:

makes clear that the dialogue in these books should not be considered reliable, but he also insists that the events are all real and have been painstakingly researched. I am not aware of any glaring errors in his work. --

3632:

that also talk about a UN report on NK selling weapons to the Houthis. Moreover, the cartoon above and the lack of context provided by the OP makes it look like this is just being used as a forum to attack Saudi Arabia and

7776:

as "mixed" while also stating that there are "many articles featuring anti-feminist tones" and that "they are fiercely pro-Brexit and when covering USA politics they report favorably on President Donald Trump",it has also

130:

Agreed. It's unlikely that Spotify hires its own journalists to produce these profiles, so they are probably taken from press releases and material found elsewhere. This would also apply to Amazon.com, Last.fm and similar

1256:

are a different case, because they are published in a source that is otherwise considered questionable for facts. Under this interpretation, these opinions are not considered reliable, and they are generally excluded as

7578:

A study by U.S.-based firm Demographia of international housing affordability in six nations found that while the United States had the top 5 least affordable cities, along with Canada it had all the affordable housing

6981:

that's behind the scenes on Better Call Saul meets all those requirements) But most other videos are not like that and thus cannot be used. We're not judging YouTube itself, since they don't actually publish the works.

1346:

that each removal was not being thought about, when mine are. But you seem to be starting from the position that it might be a good source - hence your repeated defences of it over the past several months - rather than

1089:

If the DM's opinion on a particular topic is notable, it will have been noted elsewhere, e.g. electoral endorsements, which RSes often compile. If its opinion hasn't been noted, it's prima facie not a notable opinion -

7665:

Can you link to his methodology? The methodology section on his website is very vague and not scientific at all. Also because newspapers pick up his publications doesn’t make them true because it’s not a peer review.

9362:

reporting on 04/08/20, several nurses at different New York City hospitals stated that nursing staff were not allowed sufficient paid sick leave and that nurses presenting symptoms of coronavirus continued to work."

2933:

the DM. They are both notable opinions on cars (for different reasons). You are arguing that we couldn't include their opinions because by virtue of the fact that they were in the DM they are not reliable. If the

5694:

the worst use of Twitter, actually). And his book does mention Phelps in the context of African-American researchers in the field. No deception, no fraud, no grounds to think the IUPAC were less than conscientious.

5323:, which is a German... something. Maybe a group blog? I don't speak German, so it is rather hard to evaluate this source. The source is significant for being the only (possible) reliable source to mention the book. 4256:, thanks for the speedy reply. NB will be referring to this discussion on the Talk page, for informational purposes. I appreciate the point about being now justified in reverting the revert, but have now been told 962:

from COVID." which editors can find a good RS to back up. If you can't find additional sourcing to back up such "factual" statements they need to be treated as a claim and subject to other polices re: inclusion. --

8572: 7602:

Demographia’s annual Housing Affordability Survey, which calculates median house prices divided by median incomes by region, suggests a ratio of 8.5 in London, 6.8 in Cambridge, 6.4 in Oxford and 7 in Bournemouth.

7439:

I would opt for more information required, what is their reputation (and no just "winning awards" is not a sign of anything, it could be The BAttly town women guilds award for the best floral reenactment of Pearl

3718:

for uncontroversial content, the lack of media independence in "Saudi Barbaria" doesn't actually affect their reliability for such content, as the Saudi government is not directly involved in 99% of our articles.

3096:

unreliable sources - as in, more unreliable than run-of-the-mill self-published sources. You seem, functionally, to be trying to leverage your bizarre personal interpretation into an end-run around deprecation -

2413:

also be an undue one that is not always going to be the case. Can't see any reason why the DM's entertainment critics' opinions would be less notable than those of any other UK newspaper's entertainment critics.

2070:. The due weight policy does not make any space for opinions published in questionable sources that are not also mentioned in reliable sources. Otherwise, editors would be able to, for example, add opinions from 11718:

So there are three sources for the term "media blackout". One, the Guardian, doesn't use the term, just says it's been largely ignored by the news. I can't see the Economist source. The third is the Libertarian

6532:. You might also wish to withdraw your accusation that by talking about Twitter as a secretive authoritarian organisation that is in California, not in the EU, I have tried to psychologically abuse Wikipedians. 6143:, calling that site "partisan" is a gross understatement. I'm inclined to not trust anything it has to say about Islam, and would be hesitant to cite it for anything except for uncontested claims about itself. 4313:

discussing it. That's a pity because the video seems to be an interesting contribution to the subject. So for the final word, would Knowledge policy or guidelines require outright removal on notability grounds?

2270:

So, you've got one example, excellent! So far it's not convincing people who didn't already agree with you. If you want to convince more people, I suggest convincing examples might help! Or maybe you don't have

1320:

to include it if they feel the point is unnecessary or effectively covered by others; if the DM's point is the same as, say, the Radio Times, then we'd encourage editors to just use the Radio Times. I'm all for

11732: 4820:

It is verifiable. No conclusions or synthesis were required to infer who the family members were. The source listed them. But I agree, our exchange is not likely to lead to either of us changing our positions.

10684:

Thanks. I did not know how to do a link search. (Never looked I guess.) I see a lot of these are on talk pages, or external links section, but I eventually found at least one in a footnote, so you are right.--

3824:, Saudi Arabia is a participant to this conflict. Using information from their media depicting the Saudi government POV is fine if attributed. For any controversial topics, this media may not be reliable.---- 622:

And I have linked already to the fake solders photos. I have said it before and I will say it again, all this proves is that all of our tabloids should not be RS. Here is is again (note sticking to the story

8223:

These are from an MTA sub-website, and unless you hacked into the website, there is no way to alter the documents. Given that this is hosted on the MTA website, is it okay to use this as a source? Thanks so

12212: 9934:

Regarding this specific question, in general news organizations are sued all the time. Here's an overview of some cases in 2019, including the Miami Herald, Washington Post, CNN, NBCUniversal, and the BBC:

7523:

A recent report by Demographia, an international urban planning policy consultancy, ranked Hong Kong as the least-affordable housing market for the ninth straight year, ahead of New York, London and Sydney.

2902:

I get that someone closed the discussion that way but is that really what the discussion supported? I personally think the remove on site mentality has gone too far and is a violation of the spirit of RS.

6792:

is a perfect example of a very short, twitter-like post, and even that needed correction. Also, it links to NY Times. You seem to be supporting NY Times as a reliable source, but against Axios. Your first

4912:

if you are interested.) I don't see how this site materially differs from any of the other small-time Indian news portals and I personally think it's not suitable for inclusion in articles as a reference.

4265:

To conclude this efficiently and not to bother you here again, would also appreciate your comment on the knock-on effect of your advised removal of the citation. Because it will leave two other citations,

471:

I still think the Daily Express needs a slight rewrite on the list, yes they do seem to like to report on the bizarre, conspiracies, stuff like that. I felt more worried that The Mirror wasn't red listed!

6467:

PL - we have no serious evidence that the Ministry of Health data are "reliable"; what we do know is that they are regular and frequent and well-formatted, but published in California instead of in Poland

4055:

According to the film, the Jedwabne incident was not an exception but rather the rule in which tens of thousands of Jews had been murdered by their neighbors in villages across Poland, Russia and Ukraine.

3705:

Yeah, I don't disagree. I think it depends on context, though; in this case the problem with adding North Korea as a "party" to the conflict had nothing to do with the independence of the source, as even

3676:, and removal claim NK as "party" to the war). But, it seems OP openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech." 3432:, Arabnews operates from Saudi Barbaria. There is no freedom of the press in Saudi Barbaria, they have killed a journalist using a saw. How in God's name are we going to consider these sources reliable?.- 10802:

Kurdish irregulars. 14 A senior army aviation officer was tried and executed in Isfahan for his refusal to participate in the war against the Kurdish insurgents; several others were tried and imprisoned.

7478:

online with a similar criticism for his unique definition of density. His work is not peer reviewed, and his definitions are his own creation. One specific example of what I would call bizarre: he lumps

5054:

That principle is not the principle under which this source is used. It is not just that it is reliable for what it contains, but that it is reliable for the opinion of who it attributes the opinion to.

1600:

I would point out there is no blanket ban on the use of the Daily Myth. However there is also the fact that we use the person as much as the publisher to determine weight (assuming this is an RS and not

10312:

The perennial sources page isn't an end-all-be-all list. It's just the ones that have been discussed to death, potentially to the point that trying to argue the opposite might be considered a sign of

9888:

that general news sources are not great for medical subjects. For the medical aspects of CoVID-19, as opposed to its economic/political/social aspects, we should lean heavily on the recommendations of

3050:(not that I am suggesting the DM would ever proactively own up, rather than just deleting said article off the internet wherever possible and salting the earth with a clone-a-like and a new headline). 1740:

the DM does not mean his opinion is disgardable. Shelley has bounced between many different papers in the UK, both legit and tabloid, but that's not changing how he writes or how his opinion weighs. --

11894:

the conflicting statements by Reade and denials by those she has accused of being party to certain events. Convenient for Biden, maybe, but not a blackout, and certainly not a blackout by all media.

11844:

issue itself, so it seems self evident that it doesn't meet the bar for inclusion in the media blackout article. At the very least it should be removed until there's consensus for it to be there. —

8912:

too. I see there's the Washington Times and Inside Higher Ed also covering the issue, and they're non-polemical general publications - did any other non-polemical general publications cover the talk?

7118:

Since there seems to be a discussion about YouTube, I wonder if it's okay to say that you can add an external link in articles to a documentary video produced by a reliable source. For example, this

3360:

in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.--

11439:

news regarding the accusations were considered by some as a media blackout. However, this issue was covered in 2019 by The Union, a local Nevada paper, in which Tara Reade made a different claim. "

6425:

as the main source for the PL COVID-19 data (not from me anyway). In-depth discussion of issues is normal on Knowledge. Here are some quotes to clarify the misunderstandings. You (MarioGom) wrote:

1005:

in that it fails RS for fact checking. No issue at all with that (though I believe there's better ways of handling "deprecation" than rushing removal unless it is dealing directly with BLP issues.)

10554:

Just a perusal of the website and clicking a handful of articles, I was able to identify dozens upon dozens of inaccuracies. I only checked the articles on Classics and Anthropology, but honestly,

4184: 3173:. Only use for it I can think of at the moment, in the light of the current UK bogroll shortage, is as a substitute. It's a bit rough on the arsehole, but nevertheless satisfying, and functional. - 2091:

has a large audience. The opinions of unreliable sources are not due even if they happen to align with the majority opinion in reliable sources, unless they are also covered by reliable sources. —

9852:

It's not enough for me to draw that conclusion. If there are specific concerns with news reporting from Fox News, then that's one thing. What Hannity says on his talk show is a different matter. -

6319: 2292:

You have zero examples. Since you say you don't always remove on site please offer examples where you think such a citation can stay and why. Not an article, actual examples of citations. Else,

109: 907:

says, "I interpret that to mean that the opinion itself cannot be used as a statement of fact, but facts reported within the editorial can (at least I thought I read that within some PAGs...)."

7787: 6760:

Another detail from the NYT piece: The founder of Politico (VandeHei) supports the short style of Axios, saying, "Journalists have a bad, bad habit of equating length with substance and depth."

124: 10795:

only are we doomed here and now, but we also are guilty before God." It remains unclear why, Mohsen Rezaee, who had little military experience was in a technical dispute with a senior general.

9489:, although this one is not. I am not certain whether the contributed articles on LiveWire are reliable, because I am unsure of the quality of the editorial process for contributed articles. — 6060:

Are www.islamicstudies.info, jstor.org, politicalislam.com, alislam.org, abdullahandalusi.com, thesunniway.com, danielpipes.org and haribhakt.com reliable sources for the Knowledge article on

3975:

As it appeareth to me that all respondents are in general agreement and/or accordance with one another, and have thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed the topic, I will close this discussion.

407:

I'm not aware of accuracy / fake news issues with the Mirror, though it would not surprise me. Any specifics please? Tabloids should all be on a "with caution at best" list anyway, obviously.

780:

The current advice seems adequate to me, both Express and Mirror should be used with caution but they can be reliable for non-controversial topics such as sport, film reviews, music etc, imv

12287:

Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions.

5964:. Complicating this is the fact that Ai Fen continues to post on her social media, including pictures of herself, and that she participated over video in an online conference this Thursday ( 3278:

It's "a piece of shit newspaper"? At this time of coronavirus shortages, that suggests it's more useful than hitherto thought. Hope it's suitably soft. Caution: may entail cancer risk. . .

1268:

can also be interpreted to mean that sources which are considered questionable for facts can still be used for their opinions. I never used this interpretation, because it works against the

5333:

The blog seems to have some editorial oversight (what is does, practically, is unclear). How do folks usually evaluate non-English sources? Perhaps a German-speaker could weigh in? Thanks!

1812: 1167:(although this is subject to editorial discretion). Opinions published by notable people are more likely to meet the weight threshold, especially if the publication has high circulation. — 7727:

I would use either the actual censuses or news media reporting the data. Also, you should use intext citation (that is, mention the source in the text), which is what the publications do.

4351:

links to "Two Barns - English Version" and other videos on the account, there is a good chance that the Vimeo uploads are authorized by Mandel. A link to the video would not belong in the

3046:

There are known instances of many newspapers publishing retractions. In most cases publishing such a retraction, or issuing an apology, is considered the right thing to do when it happens

10077:

website's "contact us" email address is "uncoached@gmail.com" I found that there is even a network of these websites all run by "Uncoached Corporation", including tvovermind.com. I found

6938:

entry to see the conditions under which Youtube is clearly acceptable. Do you feel that there are examples where something beyond what is discussed in those locations should be accepted?

12228: 7949:

My sense is that Spiked is an RS, with full editorial staff and procedures. Is there an example of their reporting that was inaccurate and not corrected? I do not see one given above. --

6228: 5604:

As to the rest, we do not claim it is a fact, we claim they have said this. They are an RS for what they say, they may not be an RS for it being true, but then we are not claiming it is.

3471:

I have to disagree about SharabSalam's statement about Saudi Arabia murdering the journalist because the suspects who murdered that journalist are arrested by Saudi police. Just look at

1071:

the opinion of the person being published is of a given weight as their opinion is granted weight through being published (which is in and of itself an issue with the DM, but I digress).

7644:

The amount of major news services citing the Demographia data say it all. I'm not in a position to judge a work by an "urban consulting firm", because I have no background education in

1163:

have low weights for their published opinions. Their opinions gain weight if they are mentioned in reliable sources; if this is the case, the original publication might be citable as a

9807:

I did not file the complaint to the courts I am just pointing this out. It is enough for me to say we should not use them on this subject. This is too important to take chances with. (

8293:

no if its not been published it cannot be verified as not being edited or doctored. A source is not the document, it is the publisher of the document. Thus the publisher must be an RS.

8275:

Yeah, I just tried them in a private window and saw that they do not work. If I provided evidence that the MTA actually made the document, and that I did not alter it, could it work?--

6566: 11207:

XOR'easter removed it. Thanks! Any other problem refs anyone sees? I agree that this claim is under our BLP policy and want to be extra careful that all of the citations are solid. --

10586: 10534:

said. An obvious crank site, and given its obvious inaccuracies in even its most non-contentious content like the tour guides, shouldn't be taken as a reliable source for anything. ‑

6596: 10222: 5996: 3153:. Today it's a TV critic, tomorrow is an economist, political analyst, political commentator etc. RSOPINION talks about opinions from reliable sources, doesn't support Masem claim.-- 11761:

I am arguing that without multiple reliable sources using the term "media blackout" we can't put our own swing on "ignoring' or such words, and the whole section should be removed.

8057: 6195: 5975:(ironically, the New York Post put a picture of her posted to her social media on 1 April, after her supposed disappearance, at the top of the article). It's also been picked up by 1209:

otherwise the statement should be that DM should be not included even for RSOPINION (which is not something read into the closure of the RFC, but could be added per a consensus). --

11235: 9952:

And if they were being relied on for information relating to their court case we would also probably have to take a look at any potential conflicts in current or future reporting.

9277: 8962:, which is considered "generally unreliable" (Areo is a bit more left leaning). It's a new, online only publication which publishes mostly commentary from non notable individuals. 8307:

The publisher is the MTA, who made it available on their website to subscribers (i.e. Kew Gardens 613). This is a paywall issue, not an issue of whether these were ever published.

6912:

YouTube is not always unreliable. It is reliable in cases where YouTube is its actual proof of existing, or the fact is related to YouTube. I want to hear other people's concerns.

6331: 6927:

If you could find a specific example to which you can relate this discussion, that would probably be helpful. Otherwise, I'm not sure this statement can be meaningfully addressed.

10375: 8364: 6835:—headline, image and a short block of text—and take up the full screen of a mobile device when they appear in newsletters or on the website. Axios says its short-form native ads 4472:

upload of the film itself, and Israel Unwired. As explained above, IMDb and Israel Unwired are unacceptable as sources for factual claims. It does not matter if they are used to

9437: 7864:

My bad on that one, Spiked seems to be covered far less by reliable sources than Quilette, so I retract my comment for the moment, and will reformulate it at an opportune time.

3765:

The proof of reliable source is that you can find same content on multiple sources. Based on discussion above, I believe everyone is agree that Arab News IS reliable source per

10837:

also has a slant on things, but again it's unclear that this would produce any bias in respect of this content. Is there a particular reason you question the reliability here?

7768:, the publication has a somewhat confusing political history as it was originally founded as "Living Marxism" but the magazine is considered to have a right-libertarian slant. 5497: 938: 929:

Like I said, I thought I read something that speaks to this somewhere else. I think here the opinion piece can be used as a source to simply state that an allegation exists.

12295:- so it does not qualify as a "reputable publisher" for that purpose. If it was a university press like UPKY, which published the first edition, or a specialized imprint like 12090: 12076: 10567: 9471: 9425: 7190: 7112: 3399: 1410: 1397:

Instead of creating a broad exception for opinion pieces in all questionable sources, I think the most straightforward option would be to hold a discussion/RfC on whether the

10606: 10463: 8248: 8029: 7449: 5515: 12243: 11570: 11025: 10501: 10117:, I find that the website's contact email address (uncoached@gmail.com) looks dubious and does not reflect well on Moneyinc. It should go on the list of unreliable sources. 9375: 8332: 8302: 7907: 7888: 4427:

description of the docu which should be straightforward and his own critique of its conclusion which could be discussed after presenting what the documentary actually says.

952: 636: 617: 602: 10693: 10671: 8784: 8494: 8467: 8401: 6964: 6432:

The mere possibility of Twitter tampering with the Ministry of Health of Poland daily tweets without Poland government or the press to say anything is extremely far-fetched

5251: 4736:

I would say still no. If there is reliable sources that supported the statement use those. But if it is a case of X says Y and Z says A and W says Y and A then Xis that is

10710: 10643: 9861: 9823: 9802: 9768: 7567:

The Demographia survey, which focuses on the middle of the market across nine nations, found the price of a home is now more than seven times the average household income.

6027: 11309: 9679: 9581: 9351:) I know it has a less-than-stellar reputation. I generally would avoid the source for anything of political significance. On the other hand, I believe in this case the 8769: 7958: 7736: 7230: 7215: 6185: 6152: 5785:

Its a circular reference, that is to say, the content in venciclopedia is from Knowledge and wikipedia refers to venciclopedia, which means that it is referring to itself

5628: 5613: 5599: 5581: 5562: 4013: 3484: 12478: 12464: 12438: 11922: 11740:

Did you look at the other entries in the list and notice how few use the exact term "media blackout"? Are yiou prepared to argue that those should be removed as well? --

9390: 8452: 8423: 8381: 7784: 7778: 7168: 6469: 6292: 3984: 1935: 1325:

editors from using DM for opinions but that should be a case-by-case evaluation and not forced in the same manner that we need to remove DM from anything BLP related. --

12141: 12048: 11784: 11770: 11229: 9566: 9244: 9147: 9076: 8994: 8946: 8924: 8316: 7873: 7856: 7675: 7658: 6171: 5943: 5718: 5703: 5538: 3858: 3369: 3339: 3188: 2765: 2459: 1453: 695: 680: 333: 12333: 12308: 12171: 12122: 11803:

reinstated the contentious material while protecting the page. As text covered by BLP, surely we should err on the side of removing it until the issue is resolved? —

11698: 11377: 11363: 10525: 10448: 10280: 9915: 9901: 9745: 9506: 8760:

characterizes them as basically fake local sites that really just push content by ideologically aligned national sites with a lot of problems. Is this worth an RfC? —

8111: 7432: 5832: 5818: 5025: 3164: 2937:

same reviews were in Autoweek, a publication with far less circulation, would you oppose their inclusion? I think this is the very legitimate point Mansen is making.

1631:

Masem's addition of the deprecated source - for nothing more substantial than a non-notable writer's passing opinion on Doctor Who - was not reasonably supportable by

1562:

could totally be in Knowledge if they just got their words published in another reliable source. I cannot agree with that interpretation of the deprecation of the DM.

444:, you know, I had forgotten that Piers "Morgan" Moron used to be the editor there, despite being a Private Eye reader (he was a prominent fixture in Street of Shame). 11962: 11749: 10620: 10363: 9929: 9708: 9694: 9598: 9404: 9229: 8799: 8757: 8392:

and therefore reliable. I don't see anything controversial with the statement. Bear in mind that by scholars and authorities they are referring to religious leaders.

8284: 8180: 8166: 8148: 6698: 6661: 6625: 6346: 6038:

To what extent has 60 Minutes Australia been accepted as a citable source for other Knowledge articles? To what extent has its credibility been called into question?

4174: 3796: 3273: 3258: 2976: 2961: 2946: 2927: 2912: 2889: 2849: 2780: 2729: 2575: 2305: 2287: 2265: 2250: 2230: 2216: 2130: 1920: 1468: 1406: 1099: 773: 586: 498:

is supposed to be a serious national newspaper. It was at one time, but nowadays it spends far too much time on stories that look like they have been lifted from the

240: 11942: 11831: 11269: 11255: 11216: 11198: 10538: 9335: 8934:

definitely has an editorial slant worth noting; I don't know whether it should be called "polemical" in an absolute sense, but I think it's on a different tier than

8233: 8075: 7248: 7009: 6095:

so unless that particular sayyid is notable (i.e. if we had an article about him and he has other professionally-published works), it's not reliable by our standards

4411: 4148: 3874:"; if there are no better sources, such statements should be omitted. Statements for which is Arab News is cited should be attributed in the text of the article to " 3243: 3220: 3041: 1895: 1735:

So, having to spend time to figure out and at least remove (the rather POINTy) PROD with additional sourcing that gives more notability to Shelley, he is definitely

494:. It suggests that Elvis is still alive, while the right hand sidebar asks "Nostradamus 2020: Three predictions that came true - is coronavirus the fourth?" And the 281: 12300: 12216: 12062: 12024: 11812: 11479: 11329: 11169: 11155: 10911: 10732: 10434: 10203: 10180: 9947: 9132: 8723: 8270: 8134: 7934: 7581: 7080: 6284: 6266: 6047: 5035: 4830: 4815: 4797: 4782: 4764: 4749: 4731: 4712: 3564: 3519: 3441: 3411: 3313: 3286: 3203: 2866: 2824: 2640: 2619: 2428:

If the opinion is only published in the Dailymail then it's undue weight. If it's notable then there should have been secondary sources. I agree with the removal.--

2194: 2174: 2124: 2010: 1571: 1556: 1084: 1012:

being used as a RSOPINION appears to fail the reason to remove DM links from the previous RFC, as its not being used to support any thing factual, just opinion. --

886: 541: 348: 10402: 10354:

The Futon Critic is technically in the grey and theoretically open for debate, though in a very light shade that requires a similarly reliable source to counter.

10299: 10250: 10019: 8006: 7499: 5182: 5160: 5141: 4239: 3968: 3106: 2805: 2423: 1752: 1730: 1701: 1687: 1655: 1614: 1371: 1135: 974: 396: 266: 11874: 10746: 10126: 9269: 9172: 8980: 7046: 6994: 6947: 6901: 6581: 6363: 3330:

The general consensus seems to be that Arab News may be reliable: particularly for topics unrelated to Saudi rule, but not for topics concerning the Saudi gov't.

2992: 2495: 2439: 2320: 1964: 1861: 789: 747: 723: 12546: 12521: 12503: 12146:

I'm seeing some limited use of MEAWW (Media, Entertainment, Arts, WorldWide) by other sources, although the sources are borderline and not strong enough to meet

11903: 11853: 9300: 9178: 7823: 7722: 7704: 7556:

Vancouver was ranked the third most unaffordable city in the world, after Hong Kong and Sydney, in a study published this year by Demographia, a consulting firm.

7310: 7296: 5680: 5665: 5302: 4523: 4509: 4213: 3939: 3837: 3782: 3760: 3685: 3584: 3083: 3059: 3022: 2108: 2044: 1668:

options, and reviews UK programming regularly. It doesn't matter who they assign the weeks episode to review, just that they are a major publication people read.

1434: 1391: 1337: 1297: 1221: 1184: 1061: 650: 457: 436: 220: 148: 12389: 12193: 11980: 10822: 9980: 9961: 8905: 5384: 5366: 5059: 5049: 4636: 3733: 3663: 3605: 3466: 2670: 1827: 1785: 12363: 12265: 12009: 10386:, is whether Eupedia is a reliable source or whether this sourcing should be removed. It's unclear to me whether the website is user-created content or not. -- 8708: 8656: 8576: 8338: 7066: 5127: 3744:

If the only purpose of this thread is to attack "Saudi Barbaria", with no serious questions regarding sourcing in a particular instance, can it just be closed?

3700: 3610:

Well, in that case I would say no attribution necessary, but maybe use a better source. SharabSalam reverted content attributed to multiple sources, including

3540: 2396: 1842: 1117: 738:" I really feel that needs to be improved, explain more what the Daily Express is about, not just tag it the same as the Daily Mail when it's run differently. 11886: 9667:

Local Fox affiliates running news stories, they're not quite the same thing as the main organisation (except when they are) - not sure how to deal with those.

6541: 6491: 6447: 6415: 6394: 5393:

FYI, (copying from previous talk and expanding) In this case, the author, Ferruccio Ferroni, is an "Energy Consultant" with at least 3 technical publications

4688: 4552: 2664: 2185:

banned, but now it is banned, then we need to just remove the idea that this is an instance of deprecation at all and just flag the stuff as banned properly.

712:

Anyone who reads these newspapers knows that Mirror is better than Daily Express. In fact, I think the Daily Mail is slightly better than the Daily Express.--

525: 203: 169: 12199: 11294: 11260:

OK, I removed IBTimes as well. Thanks! Controversial claims about current US presidential candidates need to have only the best sources, nothing marginal. --

11137: 9412: 9138:

Erm, I'd use anything better if available. It's possible the talk itself wasn't really that worth noting, and this is dredging the available sources a bit -

9084: 8520: 7490:

What do you think? I'm not an expert in this field, but the lack of peer review and single person determination of standards such as density is fishy to me.

6646: 5740: 5474: 4661: 3914: 3895: 2596: 873:

that they have an editor (though he is just one of the co-founders), as well as a stable of writers. For what it's worth, Digital Spy (which is reliable via

10850: 9318: 9029: 6738: 6593: 5754: 5105: 3769:. However, due to high possibility of biased information on controversial topics (such as Yemen civil war), it should be avoided to use on those topics per 3378: 2382: 566: 487: 381: 10072:

article: "The level of her success is evident when you consider her estimated personal net worth of $ 300 million." There is currently a discussion on the

7240: 6860: 6775: 5434: 5420: 2700: 11879:

We're not supposed to count votes. The RfC should run the full 30 days so that more experienced editors can weigh in. It's important to get this right. -

9650: 8843: 7981:; it was never officially published, and the only publicly-available copy is hosted on a personal Google Drive account. I believe that this does not meet 6881: 5801: 1511: 481: 420: 10592: 9626: 7348: 6721: 5890: 5316: 5118:, I appreciate that feedback. So this is more of an DUE question it seems clear from most of the responses including yours which is perfectly explained. 2546: 2019:

individual review rarely is of specific mention in any RS. So if you are asking editors to try to use which reviews that RSes point to determine WEIGHT,

7558: 6462: 6248: 6100:

Jstor.org is a place that hosts sources. It is not a source but a resource for finding sources (like Google). What sources did you find there to cite?

4961: 2983:

Echo the above entirely. The use of deprecation here is to completely ban the use of the Daily Mail for anything, even the opinions of notable critics.

2551: 10050: 9367: 8815: 8443:

I'd agree if it had been frequently cited. Using an uncited or rarely cited source to state what the majority of scholars in any field seems dubious.

7985:, and as an unpublished source with no official public availability it is not a reliable/verifiable source and should not be used in articles. Pinging 7755: 6073: 2487: 1993:

should be considered reliable for entertainment reviews, then we can start a separate discussion/RfC to see if there is consensus to establish that. —

174:

Sources like Spotify, Amazon and Last.fm are generally reliable for things like album track listings, but they are not ideal. The real problem area is

101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 12015:

My opinion: No. I'm unable to find support for claims of any meaningful reputation one way or the other. Meaww appears to be known only to Meaww.

8632: 7536: 6824: 6682: 5425:

Note that having papers in other locations does not necessarily imply reliability in the subject domains of this article or at this publishing source.

5230: 4262:

So given this is getting personal I'd rather pull that punch and have short community input from you guys as a longer-lasting, constructive solution.

1024: 923: 12452: 11608: 11063: 9326: 9054: 8882: 8866: 8849: 8679: 6587: 5092:, in the absence of a secondary source commenting on this opinion piece. I'm fussier than some here, I would not include it, but it's not forbidden. 3870:

for info on the war in Yemen; should not be used to source statements like "In 2019, a secret UN report documents the Houthis receiving weapons from

2627:. There is no reason to open a loophole to add Daily Mail opinion pieces. And if we were to do so, it would require another full RFC on the level of 295: 8544: 8540: 5937: 5865: 5344: 4922: 2143:"if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead" 2078: 1926:

or paraphrase it as part of that explanation. When doing so, the book itself is reliable (as a primary source) to support our quote or paraphrase.

863: 11547: 10979: 10287: 8536: 5008: 4887: 4329: 4100: 3629: 11676: 10159:. If there is a pattern of sites from Uncoached Corporation being inappropriately cited in Knowledge articles, this should be investigated on the 9538: 8584: 3453:. There's no evidence presented here that Arab News is printing falsehoods, though they may well be highly selective in what facts they do print. 1444:

We have literally no reason to care what the Daily Mail says about something - unless its opinion is covered in an RS, and then we can use that -

12422: 7398:

I looked at a few example articles, and from what I can see this site tends to rely on a single source for each of their articles. An example is

6789: 6746: 6438:

Since we agree that tampering is unlikely, there's not much point debating whether it's an event with a 10^{-3} or 10^{-6} Bayesian probability.

5968: 5911: 4309:

issues putting video linked to Vimeo in the 'See Also' section? 5) Another editor has questioned the video's noteworthiness as we can't find any

10140:

with no evidence of adequate editorial oversight. I am not convinced that the authors are real people, but even if they are, here's the bio for

9334:

seems to have broken a story about nurses infected with COVID-19 working at several NYC hospitals due to insufficient paid sick leave policies.

7613:

The city was named the least affordable real estate market in the world for an eighth year by Demographia, an urban planning policy consultancy.

6817: 5079: 4948: 4872: 4381: 3006: 2024:

the RS opinions ourselves and make that judgement on WEIGHT, we aren't likely going to find the sources that are going to make that call for us.

10648: 9450: 9285: 7604: 6506:

psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception.

6308: 4447: 2739: 10778: 7713:

If official census data is available for urban area populations, would that be the preferred source? There are users that argue against this.

5278: 2241:

Your turn - you're strongly advocating the DM's hypothetical utility in this thread, what convincing concrete examples do you have to hand? -

11630: 11085: 9972: 9939: 9201: 9185: 9098: 9091: 8871: 8854: 8807: 8217: 8212: 8207: 7534:

More than 27 million people live in and around Delhi, with about 700,000 more joining them each year, according to research firm Demographia.

7200: 4616: 4258:

you may disagree with the movie's conclusion but you cannot claim that it says something else without bringing sources to support your claim.

4188: 10723:

I've tried to remove it from all the genetics articles I could find, but it's still in a number of prehistory and tourist/genealogy pages.--

10470: 9355:

would not publish this local story without sufficient strong evidence; in fact several sources are identified in the article, some by name.

8524: 7514: 7151: 4127:. The site consists mostly of polemic. I'm going to submit a spam report to see if this site is being added to Knowledge for the purpose of 3930:

seems relevant here. I prefer not to state my opinion on a matter this controversial, but noticed that no one has linked the guideline yet.

1312:

then introducing the opinion piece an otherwise notable source (as the Daily Mail is for a UK TV show would qualify) to state their opinion

8861: 8612: 8532: 8528: 7799: 7137: 7024: 6921: 4515: 4453: 4439: 3319: 1906:

is not a reliable source, opinions expressed in it have no weight except when they are reported in reliable sources. So for example if the

1815:. As the lack of clear talk page discussion leave open debate to what the intent was, an RFC to get clarity on RSOPINION is fair enough. -- 1041: 364: 12132:

it came up in the context of a BLP discussion. This is one site that has an article mentioning a person's birth name and parents' names.

10094: 8886:

contended that the talk explicitly denounced racism and urged people to treat others as individuals, not tokens of some group or another."

7916:

is reliable for that claim, or much anything else. I would look to see if you can find a stronger source for the claim or else remove it.

6847: 5745:

I have blocked Crash Dennis for harassment and making implicit threats against an editor (on another page but involving this same issue).

10395: 9968: 8731: 4260: 4084: 10558:

was factually inaccurate, or just convoluted. This isn’t just an unreliable source. It shouldn’t be used to cite anything on Knowledge.

7790:. It seems similar to Quilette, with it essentially being a right-wing opinion magazine, and therefore an inherently unreliable source. 6572:

Sorry, I just saw your note after I saved my edit. I agree that the issue is closed. I can survive without an apology from MarioGom. :)

3691:

for statements by Saudi government). There are many much better reliable sources covering this region, I recommend using these instead.

3594: 2501: 1196:

But we're talking a TV episode here. The number of sources that provide reviews on this episode are far far less, probably a few dozen (

12223:. The context is whether we can provide a (positive) assessment of the book from a foreword of the book. The author of the foreword is 10383: 9344: 7978: 7686:

I would expect better sources to be available. At best, we should attribute as the news services do, because of obvious partisan lean.

4344: 4201: 3027:

Yep - and I keep finding that not even their sports coverage is so great actually, particularly anything involving a quote or opinion.

2358: 1808: 10701:, if you look at my search for Eupedia in the first comment in this thread you'll see a bunch of links to EUpedia used as citations.-- 8592: 8588: 8118:

Unless a reliable third-party source has requested the FOIA, or is republished or discussed FOIA numbers, these are inappropriate. Eg

5485: 3710:

didn't directly verify that content, and most of the rest could be easily verified with better sources, so the relative citability of

577:

I'm not aware of problems with the Mirror; it has a far better reputation than the other tabloids. I see Express as one of the worst.

11524: 10956: 10211: 8517: 8171:

I got sent an email from the MTA. Is there a way I could show that I got the information from the MTA and that it was not doctored?--

7615: 7547: 7455: 7159:

There was an RFC on this not long ago that determined that views and subscribers should be included on youtube related articles, imv

6123: 4359:

section (subject to editorial discretion) if there is consensus to do so. I would not include a link to the video if it represents a

1342:

Your implication is that this was not removed as part of a case-by-case evaluation. This is not the case, and you'd need to actually

9699:

Problem is just how easy would such a selective restriction be? How easy is it to separate their "news" from their "opinion" pieces?

7512:

Demographia, a research firm, has just released its fourth annual international housing affordability survey, and it’s worth a look.

5481: 231:

The bios are mostly an old AllMusic dump. Some indie bands write their own bios. So in general, we should look for better sources -

9892:. This is very different from ruling out Fox News' news reporting for other (i.e., non-medical) aspects of the CoVID-19 pandemic. - 9306: 8119: 7015:

What if the fact was how many likes a video had? Like if you were stating how many likes a video had, it would be reliable, right?

6005: 1459:

newspaper even if we do not trust it for non-attributed opinion because of historic (and current) basic issues with fact checking.

908: 10758: 9288: 9102: 6158:

answering questions for anyone is "Mufti Zahid Hussain al-Qadri" who lives in Preston England and is described as a hate preacher

5170: 4982: 4536:

reception or such if it hosts reviews. But if it is indeed a blog and not a reliable portal as I assumed at first, then it is not

4072: 4049: 3997: 3620:

source for the claim that NK is a "party" to the war is appropriate is an entirely separate issue from the general reliability of

12231:. I argue that it should be sufficient to clearly attribute the quote to the author and state it comes from the book foreword. -- 11300:

I don't see any reliable sources that support the topic of the article. Without that, it's impossible to determine what belongs.

10343:

are never reliable... They might get a very blunt warning shot before being thrown out the door. Hell, I've blocked people for "

9191: 4192: 7545:

Late January every year for the past seven years, the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey is released.

6766:

Finally, what is the specific form of the native advertising? If it is clearly marked, would it necessarily impact reliability?

8604: 8600: 8084:, and some are calculated yearly figures (though sometimes the assumptions are in the comments) like this in the wikicode for 7626: 7257: 7252: 5399: 4958: 2050:

Opinions published in reliable sources don't need to be mentioned in other reliable sources, since they already constitute the

1232:"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." 358: 21: 11457:"Time's Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run" 10889:"Time's Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run" 10489:

of the similarly ignorant. In the world of Ancient DNA, he is probably the best example of Dunning-Krueger effect out there."

9422: 8348: 8053:

to get the numbers up. So I assumed the FOIA document, once online, was sufficient. Again my apologies. This is how I learn :)

7624:

According to the Demographia research group, the world’s most populous country boasts 102 cities bigger than 1 million people.

7071:

We also want to avoid the inevitable minute-by-minute view count updates that will spam the watchlists and new edits patrols.

6210: 1040:

is a tabloid with high circulation, but a questionable reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the reviewer (

9736:

their news reporting. Do you have a specific concern with a particular claim made in Fox News' news (not opinion) programs? -

8823: 7964: 7261: 7051:

Because of the above concern, and because a Youtube video's view count is a primary source, view counts will probably not be

4305:

about the piece of content that has been filleted out to support a line of article content? 4) As a side note, are there any

7475:

largely on his unique definition of density. Articles such as "Why demographia is fundamentally wrong" have been published

6831:

article, excerpt: "Those native items, which have featured messages from brands like AT&T, Anheuser-Busch and Facebook,

8819: 8085: 5353:, The Carnot-Cournot-Netzwerk für Politikberatung in Technik und Wirtschaft is a nuclear energy lobby group organized as a 3351:

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

12072: 7420: 7186: 7108: 6436:

we can assume is ... that hidden editing of individual tweets is unlikely (I've never heard claims of Twitter doing that).

5967:), after her supposed disappearance. The claim of her disappearance has been picked up by a number of tabloids, including 5493: 4027:

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

3625: 2477:

should be perfectly accept for a review or a columnist's opinion or an op-ed or for anything else that is consistent with

11986: 10856: 9906:

I can agree that news outlets are poor sources for the medical aspects of CoVid... But that applies to ALL news outlets.

8596: 7592: 7244: 6315: 5972: 12372: 8608: 7590:

An average home in Sydney now costs more than 12 times the median income there, according to research firm Demographia..

7476: 5327: 2880:

This was the result of a broad RFC, that was ratified again in 2019. This is what we're talking about in this section -

2785:

DM critics may also "try" to write factual stories for the DM as you are linking to in your example, and per the DM ban

1805: 272:

would be the only reason to use Spotify (or Apple Music, the iTunes Store, Amazon, or other sales channel) as a source.

12378: 11412: 11407: 11356: 9938:. The filing of the suit in itself doesn't, absent a judgment, by default invalidate the news coverage under question. 8508: 7412: 6455:: Please, stop the gaslighting. You even questioned that this Twitter account is run by the Ministry of Health at all: 4568: 3010: 1879: 998: 9639:

There is one (and they appear to be preparing for more) lawsuits over deliberate misinformation over the corona virus

6209:

has not been challenged, but almost all of that material cites the official documents and submissions themselves (see

11416: 11002: 10230: 6794: 6750: 6726:

Good point, they do admit to having an agenda, so attribution for any controversial content is indeed a good idea. --

4293:

in themselves? 3) In either case, how should an hour-long documentary be summarized in one sentence if there are no

5166: 5070:

just creates another venue for the OP to vent. Attempts to delete this long-standing content have been rebuffed. --

4278:, which would inform removal of the first. That leaves the Vimeo citation. So that it's crystal clear for everyone: 3948: 3883: 734:

I am talking about improving what is written in the summary for the Daily Express at the moment what is written is "

9789:

Does this concern Fox News' news programs, or its opinion programs? Can you give a specific example in which using

8352: 8042: 6839:, and Schwartz is quick to compare Axios’s native ads to social media advertisements." Based on that, the ads look 5442: 5239: 4904: 3490: 2789:

would be and has been taken out, and that's not an issue. Its only when we're looking at the critic's opinion, not

1778:

is trying to say as it's regularly used both for and against the use of opinions published in unreliable sources. –

1638:

When editors bring matters to RSN, we always ask for examples of the problem they're talking about. If this is the

1316:

be an option open to editors that is in line with RSOPINION that is not violating WEIGHT. But editors are also not

982: 10004: 8714:

source. Most of the stuff on there is heavily biased towards a Serb perspective. Definitely not an RS in my view.

5152:

Clearly not usable for factual assertions; as for in-text attribution for opinion statements, I think it would be

5088:, this is not a RS question (it's clearly a valid use of an attributed source). The real question is whether it's 3741:

where they are probably not reliable, they can still be cited with inline attribution under certain circumstances.

686:

Its the only one I found up to that point (apart form the DM own one). If you have a better one please link to it.

11399: 10476: 10042: 8805: 8753: 6955:

reason to reject what the World Health Organizations says or major media reports and instead use a youtube clip.

5919:

and not usable for anything per WP:UGC. Should be immediately removed from all 21 articles in which it is cited.

12068: 11950: 11368:

Thanks! Removed and now on my list of sources to nuke wherever they are used to support the Biden accusation. --

11317: 7525: 7266: 7182: 7104: 5489: 4882:

Bestoftheyear.in calls itself an Indian news portal. It appears to have been started in 2016 according to their

4769:

If its not given in any other source how do you know its them? You do not, thus it is an assumption, thus it is

1487:"All material in Knowledge mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." 12469:

Nothing wrong with non-English sources, particularly if they machine-translate intelligibly - maybe add both -

10563: 7416: 7411:

I haven't found too many examples of this source cited by reliable sources. For what it's worth, it's cited in

7099:

to mention it in a WP-article. If a CNN-article or something like that mentions it, that's different. See also

6482:

of the source, as it seems you do in your last comment, I guess this thread is kind of solved at this point. --

6473:

Plus several instances where you used "the California point" to cast doubt about the reliability of the source.

5310: 4630: 3755: 3728: 3658: 3579: 1801: 1661: 8552: 6686: 3047: 2481:. If the opinion would be citeable for any other mainstream news outlet then it should be permissible to cite 12053:

Okay, maybe they're reliable, just not as reliable Justin Bieber, who has 77 million followers on Facebook.

11502: 10934: 9631: 8661: 6233: 5759: 5289:, any source that mixes fact and fiction cannot be considered to be a reliable source for a factual article. 1944:

or the RFC closure comments or the intent of RSOpinion per BlueBoar above. To quote the Deprecation article:

1505:

in an article (especially if it is not mentioned by reliable sources). Using a previously mentioned example,

11421: 9154:

I don't think that university newspapers count as RS, especially when there are better sources on Winegard.

7399: 6813: 6598: 5375:

Thank you! If you know or can find out, is there any evidence for reliability or importance for that group?

4045: 2735: 549:, one of my claims to fame is that I was libelled in the student newspaper while at uni by its then editor, 12490:, from the goth community? Anyway, Pen & Sword are reputable, I think, so this seems OK to me as well. 12357: 12282: 11653: 11223: 11108: 10830: 10582: 9526: 9309:(by Buzzfeed News) on post millenial highlighting the opaque connections between its advocacy and its news. 9263: 9166: 8974: 8702: 8081: 7928: 7698: 7390: 7278: 6320:

Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland § Table New confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Poland by voivodeship

5931: 4682: 2275: 12304: 8218:

https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591170/1572463095/filename/2018_Inbound_Station_Boardings.pdf

8213:

https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591172/1572463095/filename/2018_Weekend_Station_Boardings.pdf

8208:

https://mta-nyc2.custhelp.com/ci/fattach/get/591171/1572463095/filename/2018_Weekday_Station_Boardings.pdf

8203:

I went back to the email I received and just realized that the files are also on an mta sub website here:

6634:). I think they are reliable just like a small newspaper, through they do try to look like 'new media'. -- 6159: 5691:

Hi. I literally *wrote the book* on the history of transuranium element discovery. I've met all the teams.

5402:

include professor emeritus Silvio Borner, and successful consulting company owner Markus Haring or Haering

4595:(below) convinces me, but I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience in this aspect would chime in 3497:, although they dont put news that link the event to saudi royal familiy). Well, it's pretty much what is 2406: 1009: 11929:

Does inclusion improve the understanding of this topic? Is the article meant to be a list or an article

10862: 10762: 10046: 8323:

It being handed over publicly as part of a FOIA request, I believe, should consider being "published". --

8038:

here: I didn't see this until now. I will stop now. I just finished the New Haven Line and its branches.

4584: 305: 11699:"Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office" 7374: 4540:

for reception either, IMHO. And frankly not good much for anything. Blogs are low quality, after all. --

4532:

I stand by my prior view that this site can only be used to prove the existence of the documentary, and

277: 11433: 10834: 10689: 10639: 10611:

I agree with Doug. Especially for human genetics this is a terrible source and should be blacklisted.--

10459: 9604: 9023: 8686: 7344: 6889:- Reputable; retractions and errata notices are also part of good journalism. May need attribution. — 6657: 6300:) reliable for COVID-19 statistics (confirmed cases and deaths) attributed to the Ministry of Health? ( 2829:

I agree with Springee as above. I would also agree we should not be removing it from sports reporting.

1126:, not "generally prohibited except for non-notable writers saying something in passing about Dr Who" - 844: 819: 51: 42: 17: 11775:

Oops, I mean that all sections that don't have sources calling it a media blackout should be removed.

10786:

A clash and disagreement over strategy to be adopted in the Iran-Iraq war emerged between Shirazi and

8985:

Aero is an academic online magazine, run by academics; is there any reason to think it's NOT an RS? --

8756:

mentions that "The site doesn’t have the traditional separation of editorial and business interests".

7034:

because these are gameable numbers, it is always better to let a third-party source report on them. --

5976: 4670:

Use with caution, but I think in this case it's reasonable to conclude they refer to the same person.

1807:, but as best I can tell not from any discussion at its talk page (archive that covers that period is 12448: 12081:

I was merely using FB likes to address your comment about Meaww appearing to be known only to Meaww.

11858:

Re: "until there's consensus for it to be there" the RfC is currently 47 "Yes", 19 "No" or "Not Yet".

11305: 10559: 8463: 8397: 8280: 8229: 8176: 8144: 8025: 7884: 7732: 6960: 6604:, but there was approximately zero discussion. My opinion is Axios.com should be avoided because the 6055: 5169:

for this since it appears this RSN is not the correct venue and the content continues to suffer from

4909: 4564: 4034: 3854: 3209:

the Dailymail was notable then there should be secondary sources and we can use secondary sources.--

1916: 1479:"verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a 1044:) does not appear to be notable. I would exclude Shelly's review from the article as undue weight. — 934: 919: 769: 613: 582: 12410: 11593: 11480:"A woman accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault, and all hell breaks loose online. Here's what we know" 11048: 10912:"A woman accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault, and all hell breaks loose online. Here's what we know" 7759: 3637:

in particular -- I am not saying I disagree with that sentiment (heck, I'm not even saying that the

12345:

case I believe it is sufficient to say that Davies wrote the forward, as the article is currently.

11343:

might consider removing this one (and from the "assault" article) unless attribution is included.

9622: 9010: 7764: 7480: 7320: 5226: 4927: 4877: 4154: 2571: 1891: 9936: 6823:

The form of native ads? You tell me. My browsing PC melts down if I try to see them. According to

5648:

says, this is a reliable primary source but cannot establish the significance of the content (per

5506:

are literally the people who decide what the names of the elements are; they do not move lightly.

5040:

Every source is reliable for its own words. Doesn't mean we should include it especially in BLP.--

4936: 4317:

Phew, hopefully that comprehensively covers everything so that this will be resolved immediately.

1710:- which is policy - re-adding requires justification just as adding does. They are the same thing. 627:], which is enough for me to say we should not use a source that is "mixed" for factual reporting. 11654:"Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?" 11548:"Joe Biden's Sexual Assault Accuser Wants To Be Able To Speak Out Without Fear of 'Powerful Men'" 11109:"Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?" 10980:"Joe Biden's Sexual Assault Accuser Wants To Be Able To Speak Out Without Fear of 'Powerful Men'" 10766: 10578: 10340: 10149: 10081:

about how these websites might be infringing copyright as well. Perhaps these should be added to

9897: 9857: 9798: 9741: 8389: 8244: 8002: 7654: 7329:. The website described itself as "The very latest plant based vegan news from around the world" 7274: 6181: 6069: 5992: 5847: 5188: 4372: 4183:

Can't be used due to Arbitration Committee decision. Remove immediately and inform the editor of

3980: 3792: 3480: 1672: 859: 530:

Yea! I remember that they always say something like "WW3 ALERT" or "WW3 FEARS" in their titles.--

263: 12455:

gives his death of death but it is in French, I try to use English sources whenever possible. --

11456: 10888: 10332: 7055:

in an article mentioning a Youtube video/channel unless a secondary source has commented on it.

5411:

PS. Shouldn't other interested editors be notified of noticeboard discussions on Talk pages? --

5014:

What seems to be the problem here? The author sounds notable and the source is not unreliable.--

4966:

Author: Taken from end of the source, about the author section. Looks like contributor content.

1813:

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_20#Incorporating_WP:BLP_into_WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion

12517: 12474: 12434: 12164: 12115: 11918: 11351: 11248: 10752: 10652: 10595: 10521: 10444: 10277: 10173: 9925: 9819: 9764: 9704: 9675: 9664:

already, and I'd think Fox News would be a hard fail in that regard on their COVID-19 coverage.

9646: 9577: 9559: 9534: 9499: 9386: 9240: 9222: 9143: 9125: 9069: 9035: 9013:, and none of the listed staff members have disclosed any academic credentials. Based on this, 8990: 8920: 8898: 8836: 8780: 8719: 8650: 8419: 8377: 8328: 8298: 8139:

Why does it make a difference who requested the FOIA, when the information would be the same?--

7954: 7903: 7869: 7849: 7795: 7468: 7445: 7306: 7226: 7211: 7147: 6895: 6562: 6342: 6023: 5952: 5828: 5797: 5736: 5714: 5676: 5624: 5609: 5595: 5577: 5558: 5534: 5470: 5247: 4811: 4778: 4745: 4708: 4558: 4502: 4461: 4404: 4167: 4141: 3961: 3770: 3254: 3183: 3102: 3037: 2957: 2923: 2885: 2761: 2722: 2636: 2614: 2539: 2419: 2409:

was a mistake; I can't see how that edit improves the project. While an unreliable source will

2283: 2246: 2212: 2167: 2101: 2003: 1911:

publishers say, but no reason to add these opinions to articles about the topics they discuss.

1883: 1726: 1697: 1651: 1610: 1549: 1449: 1427: 1367: 1290: 1197: 1177: 1131: 1095: 1054: 992: 948: 892: 795: 691: 673: 632: 598: 432: 392: 326: 301: 236: 9467: 5686: 4200:

action." If the editor(s) restore the material using that reference, I would file a report at

3714:

was not really relevant. And of course, for 99% of our articles that might theoretically cite

3668:

The issue on that edit was fixed on later revision (such as cite generally-known RS which are

3493:

is related to decide whether Arab News is reliable source or not (they still have coverage on

273: 12460: 12418: 12395: 12137: 12086: 12044: 12005: 11781: 11767: 11729: 11429: 11194: 10698: 10685: 10635: 10603: 10498: 10455: 10359: 10078: 9512: 9434: 9371: 8942: 8491: 8449: 8361: 7817: 7770: 7540: 7340: 7270: 7164: 7133: 7020: 6917: 6668: 6653: 6168: 6148: 6126:, so I'm inclined to distrust anything that site has to say and to revert any edit citing it. 5884: 5750: 5699: 5511: 5021: 4918: 4576: 4009: 3846: 3560: 3437: 3365: 3335: 3216: 3160: 2491: 2455: 2435: 2139:

should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles"

1765:

I subscribe to the idea that a view that's only been published by an unreliable source fails

943:

That is my take, Opp edds cannot be used for statements of fact, only for attributed opinion.

832: 785: 719: 644: 537: 9750:

I am just pointing out others do have specific concerns that Fox "...acted in bad faith to

4490:"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" 4067: 2115:

effectively ban opinion other than in the factual sense of misinformation / disinformation.

11301: 10656: 10082: 8930: 8476: 8459: 8434: 8411: 8393: 8312: 8276: 8225: 8172: 8140: 8021: 7992: 7974: 7970: 7880: 7728: 7362:, so if they are used, then their statements should be attributed (not in Knowledge voice). 7096: 7076: 6956: 6601: 6301: 6280: 6244: 6133: 5961: 5502:

Looks reliable for the purpose to me (and accusations of "fraud" are way out of line). The

5178: 5123: 5004: 3879: 3865: 3850: 3283: 2842: 1912: 1501:

Just because an opinion is published on a high-traffic medium does not necessarily make it

930: 915: 904: 765: 609: 578: 250: 246: 7569: 5403: 3649:

got the relevant facts right in this case), but RSN definitely is not the forum for that.

1875: 8: 11958: 11870: 11745: 11425: 11403: 11373: 11325: 11290: 11265: 11212: 11165: 11151: 11133: 10728: 10706: 10660: 10616: 10430: 10401:

It seems there was a previous discussion that reached no consensus/only a weak consensus

10391: 10324: 10295: 10246: 10153: 10038: 9618: 9479: 9196: 9180: 8775:

If they cannot be honest about themselves I doubt they can be honest about anything else.

8762: 7982: 7718: 7671: 7597: 7585: 7495: 7378: 6745:

Looks like it's willing to offer clarifications and retractions, based on the example in

6086: 5814: 5394: 5362: 5296: 5222: 4737: 4368: 4325: 4286: 4096: 3639: 3612: 3450: 3170: 3113:

Don't open the door for "opinion" claims. A lot of Dailymail columnists are notable like

3089: 2872: 2734:

There is no reason to take the Daily Mail's opinion seriously on anything. One example I

2628: 2567: 2478: 1887: 1782: 1775: 1632: 1265: 1237: 1227: 1002: 805: 10591:

No question in my mind that this needs blacklisting, I've found some dreadful stuff. See

9291:

that discuss false coronavirus coverage and poor news-opinion separation, respectively.

7638: 5397: 4903:

They have the first day gross figure at "8.15 crores", (should be "crore") which I find

4896: 4228:

if they continued to reinstate it without first obtaining a consensus on the talk page.

4224:

procedures, so you would have been justified in reverting their revert and reporting to

4220:

As a side note, the other editor's reinstatement of the content wasn't following proper

4185:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations

3845:

No source is reliable for everything. The best approach is to use the best sources, per

11938: 11899: 11827: 10791: 10790:, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, in July 1986.When this rivalry became public, 10320: 10199: 10122: 10110: 10090: 9967:

wouldn't block its use by default. There continue to be CNN citations, for example, in

9957: 9911: 9893: 9853: 9794: 9737: 9690: 9614: 9594: 9400: 8240: 8194: 7998: 7650: 7551: 6678: 6609: 6487: 6411: 6359: 6327: 6262: 6221: 6177: 6081: 6065: 5988: 4892: 4128: 3992: 3976: 3935: 3831: 3788: 3752: 3725: 3655: 3576: 3476: 3309: 3269: 3239: 3199: 3134: 3055: 2988: 2972: 2942: 2908: 2862: 2820: 2776: 2392: 2316: 2301: 2261: 2226: 2190: 2120: 1960: 1931: 1857: 1838: 1795: 1567: 1464: 1080: 854: 344: 216: 157:

RSes for album catalogs and equivalent for what spotify/etc. are being used for now. --

120: 11677:"Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?" 11503:"A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy" 10935:"A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy" 9549:

to this noticeboard, as it is a discussion on the reliability of a specific source. —

8239:

No, those links only work for you logged into your account. They 403 for anyone else.

8080:

BTW: the old passenger numbers, posted by others, do not always have obvious sources,

6837:

have engagement rates that are, on average, four times that of a traditional banner ad

6113:

I can't find who is behind thesunniway.com so I can't say if that's the case for them.

3472: 2068:"in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" 1642:

example Masem has of a use case for the DM, then the DM fails hard. If this isn't the

427:], OK they sacked him but it means under Morgans leadership it published fake stories. 12526: 12513: 12487: 12470: 12430: 12385: 12237: 12058: 12020: 11914: 11849: 11808: 11720: 11346: 10818: 10774: 10742: 10517: 10440: 10412: 10348: 10261: 10073: 10055: 9921: 9885: 9815: 9808: 9760: 9700: 9671: 9642: 9610: 9573: 9546: 9530: 9428:. LiveWire is part of The Wire network. I'd attribute it if I reinstated it. Thanks. 9382: 9280:

RSN conversation, which describes it as both unreliable and undue (in the context of

9236: 9139: 9107: 9086: 8986: 8916: 8776: 8715: 8675: 8645: 8641: 8616: 8556: 8482: 8438: 8430: 8415: 8414:. It is an RS -- whether it warrants citation in that article is another question. -- 8407: 8373: 8324: 8294: 8254: 7950: 7899: 7865: 7791: 7751: 7608: 7441: 7336: 7302: 7301:

Could not care less about which article its the youtube channel I am concerned about.

7235: 7222: 7207: 7143: 7092: 6931: 6890: 6732: 6640: 6558: 6338: 6107: 6019: 6004:

Yeah, tricky. 60 Minutes is the 'serious' show in its network line up (as opposed to

5824: 5806: 5793: 5732: 5710: 5672: 5645: 5641: 5620: 5605: 5591: 5573: 5554: 5530: 5466: 5354: 5243: 5137: 5075: 4944: 4855: 4807: 4774: 4741: 4718: 4704: 4580: 4546: 4484:

requires all claims in articles to be backed by reliable sources. Also, according to

4306: 4298: 4290: 4275: 3910: 3778: 3766: 3681: 3515: 3407: 3391: 3250: 3174: 3098: 3033: 3018: 2953: 2919: 2881: 2757: 2632: 2605: 2445: 2415: 2279: 2242: 2208: 2059: 1874:

Kudos to Masem for bringing this up again. Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that

1722: 1717:

example you have of a use case for the DM, then the DM fails hard. If this isn't the

1693: 1647: 1606: 1445: 1363: 1164: 1127: 1091: 988: 944: 897: 877:

for entertainment and movies) references the editor a couple times in its coverage. (

687: 660: 628: 594: 441: 428: 388: 232: 11571:"Rose McGowan calls Charmed co-star Alyssa Milano 'a fraud' for endorsing Joe Biden" 11026:"Rose McGowan calls Charmed co-star Alyssa Milano 'a fraud' for endorsing Joe Biden" 10003:

of a lawsuit, nothing has been proven. Second, as many legal experts have stated eg

8548: 6805:(motto: “smart brevity”) means its articles are presented as bullet points that can 4476:; they are still unacceptable. Any sources that describe the film's content must be 2207:

convincing reason. It's not clear what your difficulty with understanding this is -

12456: 12414: 12352: 12326: 12289: 12258: 12220: 12205: 12133: 12102: 12082: 12040: 12001: 11793: 11776: 11762: 11724: 11190: 10664: 10598: 10531: 10493: 10408: 10355: 10336: 10156: 9976: 9943: 9445: 9429: 9258: 9235:

An opinion piece in a non-notable publication seems an immediate "no", I'd think -

9161: 8969: 8938: 8875: 8795: 8697: 8636: 8486: 8444: 8356: 8047:

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

7923: 7693: 7404: 7160: 7127: 7016: 6913: 6816:

lowers my view of both NYT and Axios. Do I really need NYT to write articles about

6201: 6163: 6144: 6140: 5926: 5876: 5858: 5746: 5695: 5507: 5450: 5271: 5045: 5015: 4934: 4914: 4826: 4793: 4760: 4727: 4677: 4612: 4485: 4360: 4302: 4209: 4107: 4005: 3927: 3696: 3601: 3556: 3536: 3446: 3433: 3395: 3361: 3331: 3210: 3154: 2657: 2449: 2448:

about this discussion. The above ping is to another editor called "David Gerald".--

2429: 2063: 1974: 1766: 1707: 1269: 1258: 1245: 1148: 1140: 1031: 781: 713: 531: 179: 7773: 6520:

say that the context is irrelevant in judging whether the MOH tweets qualify as a

6497: 4077: 2370:

to include.These removals on DW or other television articles aren't in question --

12213:

Talk:The_Forgotten_Holocaust:_The_Poles_Under_German_Occupation,_1939-1944#Davies

12157: 12129: 12108: 11241: 10668: 10535: 10420: 10369: 10344: 10166: 10026: 10015: 9889: 9661: 9552: 9492: 9314: 9296: 9215: 9118: 9062: 9009:. The editor-in-chief, Helen Pluckrose, is best known for her involvement in the 8891: 8829: 8308: 8266: 8162: 8130: 7842: 7630: 7529: 7428: 7369:

code of conduct and make corrections. It would be useful to see if they actually

7100: 7072: 7042: 6999:

Because Youtube is user-generated content, I don't think that it could be an RS.

6990: 6943: 6907: 6828: 6771: 6674: 6605: 6276: 6254: 6240: 6043: 5649: 5587: 5550: 5430: 5380: 5340: 5194: 5174: 5157: 5153: 5119: 5089: 5085: 5000: 4976: 4863: 4519: 4495: 4443: 4397: 4245: 4160: 4134: 4039: 3954: 3279: 3079: 2832: 2801: 2715: 2695: 2592: 2532: 2378: 2160: 2094: 2040: 1996: 1823: 1748: 1683: 1629:

Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.

1620: 1602: 1542: 1536: 1532: 1420: 1387: 1333: 1283: 1217: 1170: 1113: 1047: 1020: 970: 882: 743: 666: 477: 377: 319: 309: 257: 165: 9210:"Some sources suggested that Winegard may have been fired for his 'wrongthink'" 4436: 4423: 3494: 1811:, though I do point out later added the BLPSPS aspects due to an RSN discussion 1240:

as a guideline that restricts the use of opinions in sources that are otherwise

182:

preventing their use in BLP articles. So in some ways, this is more on topic at

50:

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

12529:, I am told that at least one woman particularly dislikes being described as a 11967:

You need, at a minimum, reliable sources that describe it as a media blackout.

11954: 11866: 11862: 11800: 11756: 11741: 11395: 11386: 11369: 11340: 11321: 11286: 11282: 11261: 11208: 11181: 11161: 11147: 11129: 10724: 10702: 10612: 10426: 10387: 10307: 10291: 10257: 10242: 10137: 10065: 10030: 9358:

I believe this would be OK to include with attribution, e.g. "According to the

9281: 8107: 8071: 7746: 7714: 7667: 7645: 7507: 7491: 7355: 6877: 6856: 6694: 6621: 6577: 6537: 6478:

However, if you agree that all of these points are irrelevant to determine the

6443: 6390: 5810: 5416: 5358: 5291: 4867: 4391: 4321: 4092: 3891: 3645: 3150: 3126: 3118: 2525:

for its entertainment reviews? Also, should any other types of coverage in the

2238:

is one it would obviously be difficult to completely remove from, for instance.

1779: 1521: 1506: 1490: 840: 813: 736:

The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail.

183: 12447:

She makes mention of a few details concerning the duke and duchy of Lorraine.

8041:

As I was recently chided about liking to use sources available online, as per

7119: 6978: 6681:("probably deceptive under federal law"), and their sources, and others, like 1362:

use of the DM you could find, then it shows just how bad the other uses are -

852:

I thought it belonged better here, where more people can state their opinion.

12541: 12498: 12315: 12293: 12224: 12201: 12188: 12151: 12147: 11975: 11934: 11895: 11883: 11838: 11823: 11176: 10845: 10787: 10328: 10316: 10195: 10160: 10141: 10118: 10114: 10086: 9953: 9907: 9724: 9686: 9590: 9522: 9518: 9396: 9348: 8628: 7894: 7829: 7359: 7291: 7059: 7052: 7004: 6935: 6716: 6509: 6483: 6407: 6374: 6355: 6323: 6258: 6215: 6094: 5906: 5660: 5100: 5056: 5032: 4656: 4641: 4624: 4387: 4253: 4232: 4225: 4221: 4116: 3931: 3825: 3747: 3720: 3650: 3571: 3505: 3461: 3305: 3265: 3235: 3195: 3146: 3130: 3051: 2984: 2968: 2938: 2904: 2858: 2816: 2772: 2512: 2388: 2312: 2297: 2293: 2257: 2222: 2186: 2116: 2055: 1956: 1927: 1853: 1834: 1791: 1563: 1502: 1460: 1076: 874: 828: 656: 561: 550: 452: 415: 340: 313: 212: 175: 116: 12105:, can you please give an example of what you intend to use this site for? — 7461: 6337:

As a verified twitter account I would say yes, usable with attribution (PS).

2690: 1261:. They can still be included if they are also mentioned in reliable sources. 12381: 12233: 12054: 12032: 12016: 11845: 11804: 10814: 10770: 10738: 10313: 10069: 9572:

Reads more like an SPS, it may not be reliable those who contribute may be.

8671: 8620: 7619: 7382: 7326: 6728: 6636: 6479: 6304:). We are using their Twitter updates as a source to update case counts on 6119: 5979:, which is funded by the US government and was founded by US intelligence. 5133: 5071: 4991: 4954: 4940: 4859: 4770: 4700: 4645: 4542: 4537: 4477: 4356: 4310: 4294: 4282: 4197: 4063: 3906: 3774: 3677: 3511: 3429: 3403: 3122: 3114: 3014: 2748: 2522: 1941: 1664:. I objected to its first removal hence the reversion. I did not "add" it. 1496: 1480: 1156: 1144: 546: 511: 500: 208: 189: 134: 12533:

goth, so clearly this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing...

10492:

But I know nothing about snplogic. I'd like to see both sites deprecated.

10102: 6064:? Can we cite any of them as a reference? Which of them are unacceptable?— 1981:, the review does not have the necessary weight for inclusion because the 1401:

is reliable for its entertainment reviews. If there is consensus that the

12347: 12319: 12296: 12276: 12251: 11393:

There is what looks more like a political argument than anything else at

10513: 9253: 9156: 9039: 8964: 8791: 8692: 8627:

I noticed that this was used in around 77 articles lately (an example at

7918: 7688: 7464: 5921: 5851: 5264: 5041: 4895:

a film's budget is listed as 26 crore rupees, which is identical to what

4822: 4789: 4756: 4723: 4696: 4672: 4608: 4592: 4481: 4249: 4205: 4062:(2) The narrator of the film does not exactly say that, but I remove per 4046:

https://israelunwired.com/most-controversial-polish-holocaust-movie-ever/

3871: 3692: 3597: 3532: 2650: 2145:. For the purposes of the current discussion, I am only referring to non- 1474: 1273: 12429:

the book being used as a reference in, that you were wondering about? -

10490: 9474:

was written by "LiveWire Staff", which might inherit the reliability of

7221:

That depends on whose Youtube channel it is. Care to show us what it is?

6528:, it is reasonable to let the MOH tweets have the Knowledge status of a 6129: 4267: 3005:

There are known instances of the Daily Mail publishing fake quotes from

1405:

can be used for these reviews, then we'll carve out an exception to the

1001:) has been working steadily to remove Daily Mail refs per the result of 10106: 10008: 9414: 9310: 9292: 8259: 8198: 8155: 8123: 7424: 7415:

Fox Business story which has been reprinted on Yahoo! News, but in the

7366: 7035: 6983: 6939: 6785: 6767: 6039: 5965: 5426: 5376: 5350: 5336: 4124: 3142: 3072: 2794: 2684: 2673: 2585: 2554: 2517: 2504: 2371: 2235: 2084: 2033: 1816: 1741: 1676: 1517: 1380: 1326: 1210: 1106: 1036: 1013: 963: 878: 739: 473: 401: 373: 254: 158: 12292:- a publisher of general purpose prose, dictionaries and cooking books 10194:

it lists 3 other websites, but they don't seem to be cited anywhere.

9103:"Evolution Working Group on hosting Bo Winegard: ‘It was our mistake’" 8862:"The Firing of Bo Winegard: When Academic Freedom and Outrage Collide" 6677:("Axios generates revenue through short-form native advertising") and 3013:

figures, so it isn't confined to unreliability on political issues. -

642:

Regarding your second link, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on

12154:, I would avoid MEAWW for claims about someone's personal details. — 12037: 9483: 9048: 9007:"an opinion and analysis digital magazine focused on current affairs" 8958: 8103: 8067: 8035: 8015: 7988: 6873: 6852: 6705: 6690: 6632: 6617: 6573: 6533: 6501: 6452: 6439: 6403: 6386: 6297:

Is the verified Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland (

5412: 5408:

overseeing operations. They also operate a book publishing operation.

4883: 4120: 3887: 3875: 3387: 3357: 836: 809: 153:

Only comment I would add is to make sure we provider users with what

10191: 7325:

Plant Based News is a promotional vegan website. I believe it fails

4854:

Some folks here are confusing the reliability and verifiability of

2529:(e.g. sports reporting) be specifically assessed for reliability? — 12535: 12492: 12182: 11969: 11880: 11859: 10839: 10808: 10416: 8344: 7408:

article-by-article basis. This does, however, appear to be a trend.

7393:

article certainly feels like an advertisement, but it's not marked.

7339:

article, but it is used on a few other articles as well. Thoughts?

7285: 7091:

If the fact of how many likes a video had is only found on YT (the

6710: 5900: 5654: 5115: 5094: 4650: 4352: 3499: 3455: 3138: 2072: 870: 555: 466: 446: 409: 290: 12318:

is a matter of opinion based on the strength of Norman Davies. --

11996: 9002: 7898:

thought." So it is being used as a source other than for opinion.

7330: 4514:

I'm in the process of working in the new sources as references...

4375:

to support a claim that is not representative of the entire film.

3421: 3092:

does not do nearly what you think it does. Deprecated sources are

1205:

discussion regardly the weight of its opinion relative to others.

12380:. Their webpage has nothing on being academic or peer reviewed.-- 8347:

an article by "Alexa Brand" which doesn't seem to have been cited

7573: 7123: 6708:, reputable, but with an agenda so attribution may be advisable. 6103: 5770: 5760: 4773:. You might have come to that conclusion, someone else might not. 3773:. If no further comment from OP, yea... agree to close this Rfc. 3673: 1940:

Per BlueBoar above, that is gibberish at best and does not match

10150:"Max Hazan: A Visionary Artist Building Exceptional Motorcycles" 10029:

more. One should not use the popular press for medical content.

7812: 6298: 5486:

Talk:Clarice_Phelps#Possible_case_of_Wikipedia_rewriting_history

4281:

1) Would you extend the same rationale to texts at Vimeo as not

3787:

It seems like SharabSalam had refused to make further comments.

289:

A spot check confirms that Spotify uses the same artist bios as

12413:, but I am not sure this qualifies her as a reliable source. -- 11525:"Tara Reade discusses Biden allegation with Hill.TV's 'Rising'" 11389:- what sources do we need to include something in this article? 10957:"Tara Reade discusses Biden allegation with Hill.TV's 'Rising'" 10256:

Yes, it's generally considered reliable by the TV WikiProject.

9462: 7977:). The source is an internal document that was obtained with a 7484: 6613: 6090: 5984: 5956: 5945: 5320: 5214:

That Dark and Bloody River: Chronicles of the Ohio River Valley

4432: 1977:

policy. When no other reliable sources mention a review in the

12512:

I'm sure she'd be outraged at the g-word suggestion. (Yes.) -

11799:

whole list of sources has covered the story. Also noting that

8355:. It might be used elsewhere linked through Semantic scholar. 8122:

all the time, that's fine, but a random person is not a RS. --

7030:

Technically things like view counts, likes, etc are reliable,

6139:

I can't find who is in charge of haribhakt.com either. While

5987:, but I want to hear what others think about this situation. - 5955:

ran a segment on 29 March, in which it states that the doctor

4336: 4271: 2473:

was ONLY proscribed on the basis of its factual reporting.The

2015:

To take the logic you present, particularly for a TV episode,

1605:

question). So both sides may in fact be right, but also wrong.

11953:. Might I suggest that we centralize the discussion there? -- 11320:. Might I suggest that we centralize the discussion there? -- 8372:], so I suspect this is less about RS than it is about undue. 7779:

recieved significant funding from the Charles Koch Foundation

6061: 5503: 4469: 4340: 1248:

for these opinions, which prevents these opinions from being

801: 10068:

is currently being used by a reference that cites it in the

9115:

Is this student newspaper article reliable for the claim? —

6631:

Hmmm, they claim to have some ethics and presumably review (

5823:

It seems to just be a place to post user generated articles.

4563:

Are census records reliable in the context they are used on

4112: 553:. He used to run clones of the Sport's ludicrous headlines. 12281:

Piotrus neglected to mention that the entire TA is subject

11861:

It will probably stay open a while longer, but it could be

10379: 9731:

reporting is generally fine. I would be very wary of their

9670:(I've put a note on the wikiproject page pointing here.) - 8012:

I was not adding them, and was going to bring it here, but

7467:

and is used as the source of urban population of cities in

6797:

is a detailed discussion of how these Axios posts go wrong.

4579:, which states that "Many other primary sources, including 4465: 4376: 9192:"Professor fired from his tenure track job for wrongthink" 6595:

However, it has only been discussed on RSN a little, once.

4989:

In an opinion piece supportive of Finkelstein written for

4274:. Another editor on the Talk page has already pointed out 1623:

addition of a link to the DM. Remember that, per the RFC,

11631:"How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden" 11086:"How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden" 10472:

He runs another travel type guide, Japan Reference (JREF}

8667: 7562: 7518: 6196:

Official documents for tunnel project as a primary source

4962:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#CounterPunch

4348: 3669: 3379:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews

2052:"viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" 1987:"viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" 1692:

Two sources, both of which do not appear to be about him.

12067:

Number of FB-followers is no indication of reliability.

11003:"The Sexual Assault Allegations Against Biden Explained" 10061: 8066:

what changes, including reverting back, need to be made.

6427:

I think it can be assumed that the information is valid.

6116:

abdullahandalusi.com doesn't work when I try to load it.

5405:(if I understand correctly). They have a operating board 5330:

appears to be a summary of a book that Nakamura wrote.

2221:

Can you provide an example where you think it can stay?

2153:, as this discussion started as a question about a 2015 1804:) added the base language of RSOPINION back in Nov 2008 1280:

requirement by labeling their assertions as opinions. —

339:

They probably copy the artists' short form PR profile.--

7783:

The source has been discussed a couple of times before

7419:

on the fox site, the link is replaced with a BBC link.

6524:

for Knowledge purposes. What I do say is that overall,

6141:

we are allowed to use partisan sources with attribution

4343:

by an account with the name Roy Mandel, the person who

4297:

discussing it and an editor (in this case me) raises a

10319:. For example, if someone came to an article arguing 9212:. Is this website a reliable source for this claim? — 9021:; that kind of description is reserved for sites like 8870:

magazine (areomagazine.com) a reliable source for the

5777:

It is widely used in various articles about Venezuela

110:

Formally make Spotify a "generally unreliable" source?

12227:, a reputable historian. Removed content can be seen 8685:

I wouldn't use it. It looks like it is published by "

5132:

Yes, DUE weight is the proper discussion, not RS. --

3947:

As this RfC has elapsed, I have requested closure at

3820: 3547: 3264:

they have previously done any work for any other RS.

10737:

This site, run by Maciamo Hay, should not be used.--

10478:

I found him cited in these two self-published books

10473: 7423:

article cites it, too. That's about all I can find.

6763:

Here's a that uses an Axios interview very heavily.

5482:

Talk:Clarice_Phelps/Archive_3#Weighting_and_accuracy

5238:

You can read the Kirkus review of the Tecumseh book

1625:

its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited

1349:

its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited

10237:

It's being used for ratings, production codes, etc.

8878:, the source is currently being used to claim that 7969:Several editors have been adding ridership data to 7377:, but they say they use clearly marked notices for 6293:

Twitter account of the Ministry of Health of Poland

4933:CONTEXT for this thread is found in these threads: 1272:policy and allows unreliable sources to bypass the 387:

Yes I agree the Daily Mirror should be depreciated.

12368:The publisher is small. Published topics include: 12150:. Since the standard of reliability is higher for 9453:and an array of other notable awards. LiveWire is 2361:that I just noticed is 100% absolutely okay. It's 1774:It would also be helpful to clarify what the heck 659:by Knowledge's standards. No comment on the rest. 12402:Scourge of Henry VIII: The Life of Marie de Guise 10105:were clearly written by freelancers, which poses 10101:article authors do have biographies, some of the 9276:Generally a dubious-quality publication. See the 7832:. I would rely on more reliable sources to gauge 7828:is considered generally unreliable because it is 6516:for encyclopedic and scientific knowledge. I do 6110:for those particular groups' views on the matter. 5315:There is some discussion of the recently-created 1721:example, then it was just tendentious editing. - 1660:To correct an error, I did not add that DM link, 1226:I think we're interpreting the first sentence of 10649:It's being used as a source on numerous articles 6592:Axios.com has been used many times in Knowledge. 6205:several submissions by local city councils. Its 5451:https://iupac.org/100/chemist/clarice-phelps-es/ 2062:regardless of its reliability if its claims are 1646:example, then it was just tendentious editing - 11221:The only other questionable source here is the 9019:"an academic online magazine, run by academics" 7997:who have been adding these over my objections. 4285:? 2) May videos linked to Vimeo be treated as 4078:https://israelunwired.com/israel-unwired-about/ 2631:and its 2019 ratification, at the very least - 12314:normal conditions, and if it's unreliable for 9451:Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards 6423:there is no opposition to using the MOH tweets 4695:NO, it is never reasonable to infer anything. 3949:WP:RFCL § Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source? 2878:nor should it be used as a source in articles. 1985:– as a questionable source – does not provide 912:Is that how the policy should be interpreted? 6833:borrow the formatting of Axios news bulletins 5167:Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#RfC_on_Menetrez_response 4076:(4) I take it to the Talk page, quoting what 1973:as you claim, as it is well-supported by the 1662:It existed in the article since at least 2016 1189:Then fundamentally RSOPINION shouldn't exist. 10667:. This isn't just a hypothetical problem. ‑ 10594:] as a recent edit adding junk to junk, and 8343:Is this a reliable source? Specifically, at 6820:, and Twitter tweets, with links to youtube? 4088:(5) Source and content remains in article. 2058:. Any source can theoretically be used as a 365:Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 9969:January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation 8154:don't think the documents were doctored. -- 6807:negate nuance, with headlines that can hype 6616:So they fail on the "faster" promise.) -- 5319:article. A source came up published at the 5202:A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh 2444:I would also note that Masem didn't notify 1278:"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" 11951:Talk:Media blackout#Criteria for inclusion 11318:Talk:Media blackout#Criteria for inclusion 11187:generally unreliable for factual reporting 10516:-bent fringe source, definite depreciate. 10349:InfoWars is unreliable but CNN is accepted 9449:is a reliable source, as it has won three 9395:With attribution, I think it can be used. 9345:2020 coronavirus pandemic in New York City 4202:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 3593:I think it may be this (and related) edit 2712:s reliability for movie and TV reviews. — 1876:there was no intention to exclude opinions 1809:Knowledge talk:Reliable sources/Archive 20 9685:not a blanket ban on the entire network. 9327:NY Daily News on NYC coronavirus outbreak 6588:Axios.com as a generally reliable source? 6124:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories 5553:issue. Yes they are RS for what they say. 1535:), yet we regularly exclude its views as 11545: 11477: 11000: 10977: 10909: 9793:from Fox News would damage an article? - 8056:Thinking back, I guess I misinterpreted 7142:Again less of an RS than an undue issue. 6557:Please do not rehash this argument here. 4957:with source taken down, link to archive 4699:is clear unless it say it we cannot use 3420: 3088:Your bizarre personal interpretation of 3071:attribution to the writer and source. -- 2705:, which is a favorable indicator of the 2083:on any topic solely on the grounds that 11674: 10469:still doesn't claim any qualifications. 9617:. More eyes on this would be welcome. — 9200:(thepostmillennial.com) is used in the 6803:Its stripped-down version of journalism 6200:The article on Melbourne's $ 6 billion 6134:Center for the Study of Political Islam 4355:section, but it can be included in the 4193:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland 1539:because it is a questionable source. — 804:a reliable source? This started at the 14: 11723:which also doesn't use the term. WTF? 11606: 11591: 11061: 11046: 9636:Yes I know but this time its serious. 9466:, and contains both staff-written and 9463:"space for young writers and creators" 9034:, which features articles from actual 7181:Interesting, can you link to the RFC? 7095:source), it's very very likely out of 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 12370:Healthful Indian Flavors with Alamelu 12234:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11651: 11568: 11500: 11281:...aaaand now we have an edit war at 11106: 11023: 10932: 10597:which is where I started my cleanup. 9609:An editor has been repeatedly adding 9347:, although in my experience (and per 8824:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Psychology 7201:Sources of biography of living person 6729:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 6637:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 4543:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 4268:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8668248/ 1244:for facts. Specifically, it requires 12283:WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations 11546:Da Silva, Chantal (March 27, 2020). 11454: 10978:Da Silva, Chantal (March 27, 2020). 10886: 10829:Foreign Affairs is published by the 10025:We really need to work on following 8820:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Sociology 8370:Well it claims it is peer reviewed 8339:"Journal of Mason Graduate Research" 8086:Pennsylvania Station (New York City) 6673:See the wiki articles linked above: 3398:himself said it was reliable source 3356:Hi, recently an editor tried to use 3347:The following discussion is closed. 3320:Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source? 1878:. See also the November 2019 thread 29: 11478:Marcotte, Amanda (March 31, 2020). 11234:, which reached a turning point in 11001:Williams, Lowell (March 27, 2020). 10910:Marcotte, Amanda (March 31, 2020). 9660:General news sources are not great 8732:Tennessee Star, Michigan Star, etc. 8485:earlier today I concede the point. 6316:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland 4474:"present the documentary's content" 1942:the equivalent essay on the subject 27: 12376:Beginner's Danish with 2 Audio CDs 12299:, it would've been another story. 12038:https://www.facebook.com/meawwcom/ 10231:List of Austin & Ally episodes 10060:I question the reliability of the 9482:. Some articles from LiveWire are 9413:Is LiveWire a reliable source for 8102:Thanks for your patience with me. 5156:in most contexts, including here. 4569:Talk:Annie MacDonald Langstaff/GA1 2691:"Tomatometer-approved publication" 28: 12564: 10813:Can I ask you to leave a comment? 10212:The Futon Critic - is it reliable 7456:Is demographia a reliable source? 6309:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data 4575:are census records reliable? see 3531:source for the Syrian Civil War? 12411:short biography of Melanie Clegg 11675:Mahdawi, Arwa (March 28, 2020). 11607:Finley, Nolan (March 30, 2020). 11592:Halper, Katie (March 31, 2020). 11062:Finley, Nolan (March 30, 2020). 11047:Halper, Katie (March 31, 2020). 9884:I'll also add that I agree with 9545:I've moved this discussion from 9042:makes an apt comparison between 8353:Prophets and messengers in Islam 7815:), but I need to point out that 7774:rates their fact checking record 7763: 7758: 7463:is a website run by one person, 5549:This is not an RS issue it is a 5193:I have been reading a number of 4023:The discussion above is closed. 3491:Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi 506:WORLD WAR 2 BOMBER FOUND ON MOON 33: 11691: 11668: 11652:Soave, Robby (March 30, 2020). 11645: 11623: 11600: 11585: 11562: 11539: 11517: 11494: 11471: 11448: 11107:Soave, Robby (March 30, 2020). 11100: 11078: 8043:Verifiability#Access to sources 7973:station articles (for example, 4717:You misunderstand the question 3868:only. Obviously not independent 2747:We are then faced with our own 2694:that is counted in scores from 2141:. The statement also says that 1673:that critic is actually notable 1354:If this example was really the 11633:. The Economist. April 4, 2020 11609:"Finley: I believe Tara Reade" 11501:North, Anna (March 27, 2020). 11088:. The Economist. April 4, 2020 11064:"Finley: I believe Tara Reade" 11055: 11040: 11017: 11005:. International Business Times 10994: 10971: 10949: 10933:North, Anna (March 27, 2020). 10926: 10903: 10880: 10425:who were involved last time.-- 10286:Thanks. why isnt it listed at 10190:which runs tvovermind.com. On 9424:The actual source involved is 5792:] tells me no it is not an RS. 3596:(arms supply by North Korea). 2387:I would agree... not opinion. 847:) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)" 359:Daily Express and Daily Mirror 13: 1: 12219:questions the reliability of 12152:biographies of living persons 11569:White, Adam (April 8, 2020). 11455:Grim, Ryan (March 24, 2020). 11024:White, Adam (April 8, 2020). 10887:Grim, Ryan (March 24, 2020). 10767:Ali Sayad Shirazi#Controversy 9999:First, this is only just the 9381:Yes I think we should use it. 7965:Unpublished ridership numbers 5326:Anyway, the specific article 5208:The Frontiersmen: A Narrative 4910:WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources 4722:context, is deemed reliable. 4337:"Two Barns - English Version" 4071:(3) My removal gets reverted 3859:15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) 3838:14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC) 3783:23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3761:09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3734:09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3701:09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3686:08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3664:07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3606:06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3585:06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3565:11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 3541:10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 3520:02:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 3485:17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 3467:10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 3442:02:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 3412:02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 3370:02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 2486:censorship, pure and simple. 2129:The closing statement in the 1882:and the February 2020 thread 1122:The RFC appears to me to say 12451:, mainly his date of death. 11594:"Tara Reade Tells Her Story" 11224:International Business Times 11049:"Tara Reade Tells Her Story" 10831:Council on Foreign Relations 10556:nearly every other statement 10331:are completely reliable and 9920:And how many are being sued? 9208:in the context of the claim 9204:article for the single word 8020:went ahead and added them.-- 6500:, let's look at the lead of 5809:Sorry, I cant underestand -- 4386:is unreliable because it is 4155:WP:RSPAM § israelunwired.com 2793:of their work for the DM. -- 2200:So then it is banned, right? 1524:(which is comparable to the 1491:neutral point of view policy 1200:gives 20) At this point, DM 827:"You can ask here and/or at 7: 11987:Is Meaww a reliable source? 11949:This is being discussed at 11316:This is being discussed at 10863:Media blackout#Contemporary 10857:Media blackout#Contemporary 10439:My opinion has not changed. 10148:Some of the articles (e.g. 8481:Good point. As I mentioned 7373:made corrections. They use 6526:keeping the context in mind 4971:at frankmenetrez@yahoo.com. 4585:Social Security Death Index 4272:https://vimeo.com/104504131 3998:Blanking the discussion is 3545:I'm inclined to agree with 3048:with more reputable sources 1008:This removal came up today 316:), I would prefer those. — 10: 12569: 12547:21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 12522:20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 12504:20:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 12479:20:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 12465:19:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 12439:11:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 12423:17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 12390:10:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 12364:19:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12334:14:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 12309:13:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 12266:03:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 12244:02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 12194:14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12172:01:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 12142:14:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12123:09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12091:14:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12077:09:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12063:05:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12049:02:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 12025:18:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 12010:17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 11981:18:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11963:14:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11943:11:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11923:08:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11904:07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11887:10:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11875:07:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11854:06:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11832:06:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11817:It's obviously a partisan 11813:06:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11785:08:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11771:08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11750:07:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11733:05:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11701:. The Union. April 3, 2019 11527:. The Hill. March 26, 2020 11378:23:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 11364:23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 11330:14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11310:05:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11295:02:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11270:01:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 11170:01:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 10959:. The Hill. March 26, 2020 10851:14:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 10835:Middle East Policy Council 10823:05:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 10779:10:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 10747:10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 10733:15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 10577:per Symmachus Auxiliarus. 10364:08:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 10300:06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 10281:06:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 10251:06:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 10204:22:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 10181:09:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 10161:spam blacklist noticeboard 10127:00:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 10095:00:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 10051:03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 9981:20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 9962:19:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 9948:18:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 9759:and Comcast. (my emphasis) 9627:16:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 9613:to a predatory journal to 9339:I believe we can cite the 8790:propaganda as local news. 8509:Homeland Preparedness News 7874:12:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 7857:06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 7800:14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 5873:Same reason as above, UGC 5396:and two technical patents. 5385:18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 5367:15:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 5345:00:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 4571:. My initial concern was: 3969:03:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 3940:19:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 3915:01:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 3896:00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 3274:20:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3259:19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3244:18:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3221:18:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3204:17:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3189:17:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3165:17:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3107:19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3084:14:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3060:17:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3042:19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 3023:14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2993:20:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2947:19:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2928:19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2913:14:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2890:13:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2867:12:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2850:12:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2825:11:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2806:14:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2781:11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2766:11:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2730:04:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2665:20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2641:19:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2620:17:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2597:14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2576:14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2547:04:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2460:10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2440:10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2424:03:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2397:17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 2383:23:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 2125:10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2109:04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2045:03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 2011:03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1965:20:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1936:20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1921:19:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1896:19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1880:Opinions in the Daily Mail 1862:20:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1843:19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1828:17:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1786:17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1753:14:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1731:11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1702:11:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1688:11:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1656:10:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1615:09:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1572:10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1557:03:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 1469:11:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1454:10:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1435:06:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1392:06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1372:10:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1338:06:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1298:06:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1222:03:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1185:03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1136:10:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1118:02:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1100:10:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1085:02:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1062:02:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 1025:02:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 939:23:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 924:22:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 887:13:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 864:00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 822:) answered the following: 790:18:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 774:18:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 748:13:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 724:13:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 696:09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 681:06:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 637:14:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 618:14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 603:12:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 587:12:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 567:15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 542:13:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 526:12:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 482:11:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 458:15:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 437:11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 421:11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 397:10:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 382:10:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 349:08:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 334:05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 282:05:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 267:14:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 245:The bios would fall under 241:10:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 221:13:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 204:09:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 170:06:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 149:06:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 125:03:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 12449:Antoine, Duke of Lorraine 12285:which mandate just that: 11334:At RS/Perennial Sources, 11256:23:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 11217:23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 11199:19:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 11156:23:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 11138:18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 10711:13:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 10694:13:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 10672:10:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 10651:, on topics as varied as 10644:10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 10621:15:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 10607:15:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 10587:06:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 10568:02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 10539:18:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10526:17:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10502:17:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10475:which we use as a source. 10464:16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10449:16:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10435:16:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10396:15:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 10290:or am i just missing it? 10020:13:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9930:13:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9916:13:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9902:12:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9862:13:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9824:13:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9803:12:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9769:12:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9746:12:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9709:12:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9695:10:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9680:09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9651:09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 9599:14:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9582:14:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9567:14:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9539:07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9507:13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9438:18:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 9405:12:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9391:10:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9376:02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 9319:17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 9301:16:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 9270:02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 9245:05:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 9230:04:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 9173:02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 9148:05:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 9133:04:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 9077:11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 8995:17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8981:02:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 8947:18:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 8925:05:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 8906:03:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 8880:"Christopher Ferguson of 8844:03:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 8800:12:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 8785:11:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8770:04:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8758:This Snopes investigation 8736:I keep coming across the 8724:06:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 8709:11:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8680:02:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8657:02:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 8642:team of qualified editors 8495:18:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8468:18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8453:18:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8424:17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8402:14:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8382:11:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8365:11:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8333:17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 8317:19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 8303:09:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 8285:19:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8271:19:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8249:19:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8234:19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8181:19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8167:19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8149:19:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8135:19:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8112:21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8082:like this edit to Fordham 8076:21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8030:19:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 8007:19:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 7959:17:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7935:03:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 7908:13:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 7889:12:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 7737:14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7723:13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7705:11:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7676:13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7659:02:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7500:20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 7450:09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7433:00:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7349:20:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 7311:09:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7297:22:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 7231:14:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 7216:14:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 7191:09:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 7169:19:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7152:07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7138:06:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7113:07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7081:06:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7067:06:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7047:05:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7025:04:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 7010:13:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 6995:04:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 6965:04:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 6948:01:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 6922:01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 6902:08:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 6882:15:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6861:18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6776:02:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6739:02:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 6722:15:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 6699:15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 6662:12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 6647:12:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 6626:07:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 6582:16:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6567:15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6542:16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6492:15:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6448:15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6434:, while what I wrote was 6416:14:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6395:14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6364:13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6347:13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6332:12:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6285:14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6267:14:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6249:14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6229:12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6186:17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6172:06:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6153:05:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6074:04:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6048:17:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 6028:04:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 5997:22:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 5944:Reliability of claims of 5938:07:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 5912:15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5891:15:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5866:12:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5833:12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5819:12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5802:12:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5755:11:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 5741:18:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5719:19:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5704:18:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5681:16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5666:15:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5629:16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5614:15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5600:15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5582:15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5563:13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5539:15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5516:13:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5498:08:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5475:05:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5435:03:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 5421:05:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 5303:00:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC) 5279:13:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5252:13:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5231:07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5197:'s books, in particular: 5183:18:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5161:15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5142:17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5128:17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5106:15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 5080:15:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5060:13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5050:13:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5036:11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5026:09:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 5009:08:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4949:15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4923:18:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4873:18:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4831:15:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4816:14:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4798:14:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4783:14:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4765:14:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4750:14:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4732:14:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4713:13:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4689:02:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4662:15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4637:15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4617:14:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4565:Annie MacDonald Langstaff 4553:12:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 4524:13:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4510:13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4448:13:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4412:06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4330:05:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 4240:22:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 4214:22:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 4175:22:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 4149:22:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 4101:21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 4014:22:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 3985:21:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 3797:22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3340:22:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 3314:11:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 3287:10:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2977:11:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2962:08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2496:16:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2321:21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2306:18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2296:is correct, it's a ban. 2288:17:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2266:16:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2251:14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2231:12:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2217:12:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2195:12:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2175:07:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 2054:that are required by the 1619:This was a fundamentally 975:19:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 953:07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 10575:Do not use and deprecate 9011:grievance studies affair 8644:. More input welcome, — 7481:Providence, Rhode Island 7389:Huh. On the other hand, 6846:Adding another example: 6788:, for the examples. The 5480:Previous discussions at 5443:IUPAC for Clarice Phelps 4025:Please do not modify it. 3349:Please do not modify it. 2671:Discussion (Straw poll: 1242:"recognized as reliable" 1236:I've always interpreted 1234:) in two different ways. 983:Daily Mail and RSOPINION 178:, and there should be a 11160:IBTimes ref removed. -- 10653:Watney Combe & Reid 9421:It's been deleted here. 8874:article? After I added 8740:and its sister papers, 8514:homelandprepnews.com: 8390:George Mason University 7893:It's being used in the 7365:They say that they use 5590:issue, not an RS issue. 4644:, No. This is textbook 4371:, and it should not be 4198:arbitration enforcement 4191:applied to the article 3390:is reliable source per 957:This is my take too. A 12404:, Melanie Clegg, 2016. 11865:closed at any time. -- 10757:Tow reports, one from 10376:the following articles 9036:subject-matter experts 9017:does not appear to be 8668:http://www.jadovno.com 8388:it's a publication of 7469:List of largest cities 7335:I removed it from the 6508:That's a violation of 5321:Carnot-Cournot Netwerk 5311:Carnot-Cournot Netwerk 4997: 4973: 4886:page. It's spread has 4462:Special:Diff/947279965 4153:The spam report is at 4129:external link spamming 4057: 3425: 1969:TFD's argument is not 1264:The first sentence in 1159:publications like the 1030:This is a question of 11931:about media blackouts 9632:Fox News and COVID-19 9527:WP:deprecated sources 9472:This particular piece 8754:This Politico article 8662:Is Jadovno.com an RS? 8595:Reports - Knowledge: 7818:Media Bias/Fact Check 7771:Media Bias/Fact Check 7754:is currently used in 7541:Sydney Morning Herald 6600:I also brought it up 6234:carrierecalciatori.it 5761:www.venciclopedia.org 4987: 4968: 4189:sourcing expectations 4053: 3884:history on this board 3424: 3385:Reliable, use caution 1884:Daily Mail TV reviews 806:WikiProject Film talk 645:Media Bias/Fact Check 625:]. We also have this 46:of past discussions. 12217:User:François Robere 11236:this 2019 discussion 10769:. Are they reliable? 10657:Haplogroup U (mtDNA) 10560:Symmachus Auxiliarus 10134:Generally unreliable 10103:articles I looked at 8931:The Washington Times 7975:East Norwalk station 7971:Metro-North Railroad 6930:Consider looking at 6848:Axios longer article 5953:60 Minutes Australia 5586:As I said this is a 4482:verifiability policy 4347:. Since the website 4345:co-produced the film 4108:Generally unreliable 3616:. Whether using the 3473:the BBC News article 2552:Survey (Straw poll: 2087:is notable and that 1475:verifiability policy 1274:verifiability policy 1252:. Opinions from the 1124:generally prohibited 10661:Cannabis in Estonia 10221:The Futon Critic - 10079:this twitter thread 10066:One of its articles 9727:on this. Fox News' 9468:contributed content 9197:The Post Millennial 9181:The Post Millennial 9101:article also cites 8956:is very similar to 8876:in-text attribution 8720:click to talk to me 7912:I don't think that 7598:The Daily Telegraph 7586:Wall Street Journal 6979:this video from AMC 6087:islamicstudies.info 4437:Article's Talk page 4117:self-published blog 4080:says about itself: 3640:Wall Street Journal 3613:The Huffington Post 3451:motivated reasoning 3029:They make stuff up. 2837:God Save the Queen! 2513:request for comment 2133:actually says that 2021:that does not exist 1989:. If you think the 1246:in-text attribution 12069:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 11611:. The Detroit News 11596:. Current Affairs. 11066:. The Detroit News 11051:. Current Affairs. 10792:Ayatollah Khomeini 10483:and this odd book. 10157:without disclosure 10111:native advertising 9615:Integer complexity 9605:Integer complexity 8064:Please let me know 7552:The New York Times 7241:Sandeep Maheshwari 7183:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 7105:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 6747:this Axios article 6679:Native_advertising 6610:Native_advertising 6275:I use Norton BTW. 6130:Politicalislam.com 6089:appears to be one 5490:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 5031:obviously is not. 4581:birth certificates 4187:which states "The 4111:. Israel Unwired ( 3426: 3350: 3135:Richard Littlejohn 2467:Permit for opinion 2064:attributed in-text 1250:"asserted as fact" 898:News organizations 12545: 12502: 12192: 12169: 12120: 11979: 11721:Reason (magazine) 11656:. Reason Magazine 11573:. The Independent 11253: 11111:. Reason Magazine 11028:. The Independent 10849: 10784:foreign affairs, 10765:were used in the 10579:The Drover's Wife 10178: 10154:sponsored content 10136:. Money Inc is a 9569: 9564: 9525:may be listed in 9504: 9227: 9130: 9108:The Crimson White 9087:The Crimson White 9074: 8936:Inside Higher Ed. 8903: 8841: 8623: 8120:NYTimes does FOIA 8049:", I guess I was 7854: 7839:s reliability. — 7813:spiked-online.com 7609:The Straits Times 7337:Vegan school meal 7295: 6825:the Adweek source 6720: 6122:'s website hosts 6056:Reliable sources? 5973:The New York Post 5948:'s disappearance? 5910: 5664: 5355:Swiss association 5317:Mototaka Nakamura 5104: 4660: 4635: 4507: 4424:Article Talk page 4409: 4172: 4146: 4113:israelunwired.com 4035:israelunwired.com 3966: 3882:. This issue has 3758: 3731: 3661: 3582: 3553:somewhat reliable 3509: 3465: 3348: 3180: 2727: 2611: 2544: 2511:Should we hold a 2274:BTW, this is the 2172: 2106: 2056:due weight policy 2008: 1554: 1477:establishes that 1432: 1295: 1182: 1155:Because of this, 1059: 678: 565: 456: 419: 331: 260: 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current main page 12560: 12539: 12496: 12362: 12331: 12324: 12290:Hippocrene Books 12280: 12263: 12256: 12240: 12221:Hippocrene Books 12206:Hippocrene Books 12186: 12167: 12163: 12160: 12118: 12114: 12111: 11973: 11842: 11797: 11779: 11765: 11760: 11727: 11711: 11710: 11708: 11706: 11695: 11689: 11688: 11686: 11684: 11672: 11666: 11665: 11663: 11661: 11649: 11643: 11642: 11640: 11638: 11627: 11621: 11620: 11618: 11616: 11604: 11598: 11597: 11589: 11583: 11582: 11580: 11578: 11566: 11560: 11559: 11557: 11555: 11543: 11537: 11536: 11534: 11532: 11521: 11515: 11514: 11512: 11510: 11498: 11492: 11491: 11489: 11487: 11475: 11469: 11468: 11466: 11464: 11452: 11437: 11419: 11361: 11359: 11354: 11349: 11251: 11247: 11244: 11233: 11121: 11120: 11118: 11116: 11104: 11098: 11097: 11095: 11093: 11082: 11076: 11075: 11073: 11071: 11059: 11053: 11052: 11044: 11038: 11037: 11035: 11033: 11021: 11015: 11014: 11012: 11010: 10998: 10992: 10991: 10989: 10987: 10975: 10969: 10968: 10966: 10964: 10953: 10947: 10946: 10944: 10942: 10930: 10924: 10923: 10921: 10919: 10907: 10901: 10900: 10898: 10896: 10884: 10843: 10812: 10761:and another for 10699:Andrew Lancaster 10686:Andrew Lancaster 10665:Belgian nobility 10636:Andrew Lancaster 10601: 10496: 10456:Andrew Lancaster 10424: 10311: 10274: 10271: 10268: 10265: 10176: 10172: 10169: 10035: 10012: 9562: 9558: 9555: 9544: 9502: 9498: 9495: 9459: 9432: 9268: 9225: 9221: 9218: 9171: 9128: 9124: 9121: 9072: 9068: 9065: 9058: 9033: 9024:The Conversation 9020: 9003:describes itself 8979: 8901: 8897: 8894: 8846: 8839: 8835: 8832: 8816:Talk:Bo Winegard 8767: 8765: 8707: 8653: 8648: 8515: 8489: 8480: 8447: 8442: 8359: 8263: 8202: 8159: 8127: 8097: 8060:on this subject. 8058:our conversation 8019: 7996: 7933: 7852: 7848: 7845: 7838: 7827: 7767: 7762: 7703: 7341:Psychologist Guy 7321:Plant Based News 7289: 7282: 7264: 7238:, guessing it's 7130: 7039: 7008: 6987: 6898: 6893: 6814:second NYT piece 6795:NY Times example 6749:as discussed in 6735: 6714: 6672: 6669:Snooganssnoogans 6654:Snooganssnoogans 6643: 6496:In referring to 6378: 6313: 6307: 6227: 6224: 6202:West Gate Tunnel 6166: 6085: 5936: 5904: 5898:. $ RANDOMWIKI. 5889: 5879: 5863: 5856: 5848:WP:USERGENERATED 5658: 5301: 5299: 5294: 5276: 5269: 5260:The Frontiersmen 5098: 5018: 4928:CounterPunch BLP 4897:Box Office India 4878:bestoftheyear.in 4870: 4687: 4654: 4627: 4604:The Windsor Star 4591:The response by 4549: 4505: 4501: 4498: 4407: 4403: 4400: 4385: 4369:secondary source 4357:"External links" 4339:was uploaded to 4170: 4166: 4163: 4144: 4140: 4137: 4044:(1) Citation to 3996: 3987: 3971: 3964: 3960: 3957: 3926:: The guideline 3834: 3823: 3751: 3724: 3654: 3575: 3550: 3503: 3459: 3375:Past Discussions 3213: 3178: 3157: 3076: 2848: 2845: 2838: 2835: 2798: 2725: 2721: 2718: 2711: 2704: 2662: 2655: 2609: 2589: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2452: 2432: 2375: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2104: 2100: 2097: 2082: 2037: 2006: 2002: 1999: 1972: 1820: 1745: 1680: 1552: 1548: 1545: 1531:s Alexa rank of 1530: 1515: 1497:reliable sources 1430: 1426: 1423: 1384: 1330: 1293: 1289: 1286: 1214: 1180: 1176: 1173: 1110: 1057: 1053: 1050: 1017: 967: 716: 676: 672: 669: 654: 559: 534: 521: 519: 518: 470: 450: 413: 329: 325: 322: 299: 258: 199: 197: 196: 180:bright-line rule 162: 144: 142: 141: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 12568: 12567: 12563: 12562: 12561: 12559: 12558: 12557: 12398: 12346: 12327: 12320: 12301:François Robere 12274: 12259: 12252: 12242: 12238: 12211:An argument at 12209: 12165: 12158: 12116: 12109: 11989: 11836: 11791: 11777: 11763: 11754: 11725: 11716: 11715: 11714: 11704: 11702: 11697: 11696: 11692: 11682: 11680: 11673: 11669: 11659: 11657: 11650: 11646: 11636: 11634: 11629: 11628: 11624: 11614: 11612: 11605: 11601: 11590: 11586: 11576: 11574: 11567: 11563: 11553: 11551: 11544: 11540: 11530: 11528: 11523: 11522: 11518: 11508: 11506: 11499: 11495: 11485: 11483: 11476: 11472: 11462: 11460: 11459:. The Intercept 11453: 11449: 11410: 11394: 11391: 11357: 11352: 11347: 11345: 11249: 11242: 11227: 11146:ref removed. -- 11126: 11125: 11124: 11114: 11112: 11105: 11101: 11091: 11089: 11084: 11083: 11079: 11069: 11067: 11060: 11056: 11045: 11041: 11031: 11029: 11022: 11018: 11008: 11006: 10999: 10995: 10985: 10983: 10976: 10972: 10962: 10960: 10955: 10954: 10950: 10940: 10938: 10931: 10927: 10917: 10915: 10908: 10904: 10894: 10892: 10891:. The Intercept 10885: 10881: 10859: 10806: 10755: 10599: 10494: 10406: 10378:appear to cite 10372: 10305: 10272: 10269: 10266: 10263: 10214: 10187:a Google Search 10174: 10167: 10058: 10031: 10010: 9634: 9607: 9560: 9553: 9515: 9500: 9493: 9457: 9430: 9419: 9329: 9252: 9223: 9216: 9189: 9155: 9126: 9119: 9095: 9070: 9063: 9052: 9027: 9018: 8963: 8899: 8892: 8858: 8847: 8837: 8830: 8813: 8811: 8763: 8761: 8734: 8691: 8664: 8651: 8646: 8571:• Discussions: 8511: 8487: 8477:The Four Deuces 8474: 8445: 8435:The Four Deuces 8428: 8357: 8341: 8277:Kew Gardens 613 8261: 8226:Kew Gardens 613 8192: 8173:Kew Gardens 613 8157: 8141:Kew Gardens 613 8125: 8091: 8022:Kew Gardens 613 8013: 7993:Kew Gardens 613 7986: 7967: 7917: 7881:BobFromBrockley 7850: 7843: 7836: 7821: 7749: 7687: 7530:The Japan Times 7458: 7375:affiliate links 7323: 7255: 7239: 7203: 7128: 7058: 7037: 7000: 6985: 6934:or reading the 6910: 6896: 6891: 6829:Axios_(website) 6790:Axios "article" 6737: 6733: 6675:Axios_(website) 6666: 6645: 6641: 6606:Axios_(website) 6590: 6530:reliable source 6522:reliable source 6372: 6311: 6305: 6295: 6236: 6222: 6214: 6198: 6164: 6108:primary sources 6079: 6058: 5977:Radio Free Asia 5960:asked for. See 5950: 5920: 5877: 5874: 5859: 5852: 5764: 5445: 5313: 5297: 5292: 5290: 5272: 5265: 5195:Allan W. Eckert 5191: 5189:Allan W. Eckert 5016: 4977:Alan Dershowitz 4951: 4930: 4888:grown over time 4880: 4868: 4671: 4633: 4561: 4551: 4547: 4503: 4496: 4458:"three sources" 4405: 4398: 4379: 4349:roymandel.co.il 4320:Thanks again, - 4231: 4168: 4161: 4142: 4135: 4040:Jedwabne Pogrom 4037: 4029: 4028: 3990: 3974: 3962: 3955: 3946: 3832: 3819: 3771:WP:ACHIEVE NPOV 3546: 3353: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3327: 3322: 3211: 3155: 3074: 2843: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2796: 2723: 2716: 2709: 2698: 2696:Rotten Tomatoes 2679: 2658: 2651: 2587: 2560: 2540: 2533: 2515:on whether the 2509: 2450: 2430: 2373: 2276:burden of proof 2168: 2161: 2102: 2095: 2076: 2035: 2004: 1997: 1970: 1818: 1743: 1713:If this is the 1678: 1550: 1543: 1528: 1509: 1481:reliable source 1428: 1421: 1382: 1360:most defensible 1328: 1291: 1284: 1212: 1198:Rotten Tomatoes 1178: 1171: 1108: 1055: 1048: 1015: 985: 965: 931:Kolya Butternut 905:Kolya Butternut 895: 869:I see on their 798: 714: 674: 667: 648: 610:BobFromBrockley 579:BobFromBrockley 532: 516: 514: 512: 486:Have a look at 464: 361: 327: 320: 310:Michael Jackson 293: 262: 194: 192: 190: 160: 139: 137: 135: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 12566: 12556: 12555: 12554: 12553: 12552: 12551: 12550: 12549: 12507: 12506: 12484: 12483: 12482: 12481: 12442: 12441: 12407: 12406: 12405: 12397: 12394: 12393: 12392: 12366: 12341: 12340: 12339: 12338: 12337: 12336: 12269: 12268: 12232: 12208: 12198: 12197: 12196: 12177: 12176: 12175: 12174: 12126: 12125: 12098: 12097: 12096: 12095: 12094: 12093: 12065: 12028: 12027: 11999: 11998: 11988: 11985: 11984: 11983: 11965: 11946: 11945: 11926: 11925: 11910: 11909: 11908: 11907: 11906: 11891: 11890: 11889: 11815: 11789: 11788: 11787: 11773: 11752: 11713: 11712: 11690: 11679:. The Gaurdian 11667: 11644: 11622: 11599: 11584: 11561: 11538: 11516: 11493: 11470: 11446: 11445: 11441: 11396:Media blackout 11390: 11387:Media blackout 11384: 11383: 11382: 11381: 11380: 11332: 11313: 11312: 11283:Media blackout 11279: 11278: 11277: 11276: 11275: 11274: 11273: 11272: 11202: 11201: 11182:The Daily Wire 11174: 11173: 11172: 11123: 11122: 11099: 11077: 11054: 11039: 11016: 10993: 10970: 10948: 10925: 10902: 10878: 10877: 10873: 10872: 10871: 10858: 10855: 10854: 10853: 10826: 10825: 10804: 10797: 10759:foreignaffairs 10754: 10753:foreignaffairs 10751: 10750: 10749: 10735: 10720: 10719: 10718: 10717: 10716: 10715: 10714: 10713: 10677: 10676: 10675: 10674: 10631: 10630: 10629: 10628: 10627: 10626: 10625: 10624: 10623: 10542: 10541: 10528: 10512:Seems to be a 10510: 10509: 10508: 10507: 10506: 10505: 10504: 10486: 10371: 10368: 10367: 10366: 10352: 10325:Breitbart news 10284: 10283: 10239: 10238: 10234: 10233: 10229:The Article - 10226: 10225: 10213: 10210: 10209: 10208: 10207: 10206: 10142:Benjamin Smith 10130: 10129: 10057: 10054: 10023: 10022: 9997: 9996: 9995: 9994: 9993: 9992: 9991: 9990: 9989: 9988: 9987: 9986: 9985: 9984: 9983: 9877: 9876: 9875: 9874: 9873: 9872: 9871: 9870: 9869: 9868: 9867: 9866: 9865: 9864: 9837: 9836: 9835: 9834: 9833: 9832: 9831: 9830: 9829: 9828: 9827: 9826: 9791:news reporting 9778: 9777: 9776: 9775: 9774: 9773: 9772: 9771: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9668: 9665: 9658: 9633: 9630: 9619:David Eppstein 9606: 9603: 9602: 9601: 9589:the authors. 9585: 9584: 9570: 9514: 9511: 9510: 9509: 9484:syndicated to 9418: 9411: 9410: 9409: 9408: 9407: 9328: 9325: 9324: 9323: 9322: 9321: 9282:Dave Chappelle 9273: 9272: 9251:Fails WP:DUE. 9248: 9247: 9188: 9177: 9176: 9175: 9151: 9150: 9111:for the claim 9094: 9083: 9082: 9081: 9080: 9079: 8983: 8951: 8950: 8949: 8913: 8857: 8848: 8812: 8810: 8804: 8803: 8802: 8787: 8764:Rhododendrites 8738:Tennessee Star 8733: 8730: 8729: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8663: 8660: 8625: 8624: 8510: 8507: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8499: 8498: 8497: 8404: 8385: 8384: 8340: 8337: 8336: 8335: 8321: 8320: 8319: 8291: 8290: 8289: 8288: 8287: 8253:This become a 8221: 8220: 8215: 8210: 8190: 8189: 8188: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8100: 8099: 8098: 8078: 8061: 8054: 8039: 7966: 7963: 7962: 7961: 7947: 7946: 7945: 7944: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7830:self-published 7807:No comment on 7748: 7745: 7744: 7743: 7742: 7741: 7740: 7739: 7708: 7707: 7683: 7682: 7681: 7680: 7679: 7678: 7646:urban planning 7642: 7641: 7640: 7628: 7617: 7606: 7595: 7583: 7571: 7560: 7549: 7538: 7527: 7516: 7508:Bloomberg News 7471:among others. 7457: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7436: 7435: 7421:A food network 7409: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7363: 7322: 7319: 7318: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7202: 7199: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7174: 7173: 7172: 7171: 7122:on YouTube in 7116: 7115: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7056: 7013: 7012: 6997: 6968: 6967: 6951: 6950: 6928: 6909: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6884: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6844: 6821: 6810: 6798: 6779: 6778: 6764: 6761: 6758: 6743: 6742: 6741: 6727: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6649: 6635: 6589: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6552: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6548: 6547: 6546: 6545: 6544: 6476: 6475: 6474: 6471: 6464: 6398: 6397: 6367: 6366: 6350: 6349: 6294: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6288: 6287: 6270: 6269: 6235: 6232: 6197: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6176:Okay, thanks!— 6137: 6132:is run by the 6127: 6117: 6114: 6111: 6101: 6098: 6057: 6054: 6053: 6052: 6051: 6050: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 5969:The Daily Mail 5949: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5914: 5893: 5868: 5840: 5839: 5838: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5787: 5786: 5780: 5772: 5763: 5758: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5725: 5724: 5723: 5722: 5721: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5602: 5566: 5565: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5444: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5370: 5369: 5312: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5223:David Tornheim 5218: 5217: 5211: 5205: 5190: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5163: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5109: 5108: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5028: 4931: 4929: 4926: 4879: 4876: 4858:material with 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4692: 4691: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4629: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4589: 4588: 4577:WP:PRIMARYCARE 4560: 4559:Census records 4557: 4556: 4555: 4541: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4416: 4415: 4388:user-generated 4243: 4242: 4229: 4217: 4216: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4123:page contains 4036: 4033: 4031: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 3943: 3942: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3899: 3898: 3861: 3840: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3745: 3742: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3646:Jerusalem Post 3588: 3587: 3567: 3543: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3487: 3469: 3427: 3415: 3414: 3377: 3354: 3345: 3329: 3328: 3326:MAYBE RELIABLE 3325: 3324: 3323: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3191: 3167: 3151:Amanda Platell 3127:Dominic Lawson 3119:Stephen Glover 3111: 3110: 3109: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3044: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2853: 2852: 2827: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2783: 2753: 2744: 2743: 2732: 2678: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2643: 2622: 2599: 2578: 2568:Peter Gulutzan 2559: 2550: 2508: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2483:The Daily Mail 2464: 2463: 2462: 2426: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2357:Just to note, 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2272: 2239: 2205:overwhelmingly 2060:primary source 2029: 2025: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1899: 1898: 1888:Peter Gulutzan 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1846: 1845: 1771: 1770: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1711: 1704: 1669: 1665: 1636: 1617: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1507:Breitbart News 1442: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1352: 1305: 1194: 1190: 1165:primary source 1138: 1102: 1072: 1065: 1064: 987:As most know, 984: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 941: 894: 893:Opinion pieces 891: 890: 889: 850: 849: 833:WP:USEBYOTHERS 802:DiscussingFilm 797: 796:DiscussingFilm 794: 793: 792: 777: 776: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 727: 726: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 657:self-published 655:, since it is 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 544: 462: 461: 460: 405: 399: 360: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 314:living persons 286: 285: 284: 274:Walter Görlitz 256: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 12565: 12548: 12543: 12538: 12537: 12532: 12528: 12525: 12524: 12523: 12519: 12515: 12511: 12510: 12509: 12508: 12505: 12500: 12495: 12494: 12489: 12486: 12485: 12480: 12476: 12472: 12468: 12467: 12466: 12462: 12458: 12454: 12450: 12446: 12445: 12444: 12443: 12440: 12436: 12432: 12427: 12426: 12425: 12424: 12420: 12416: 12412: 12403: 12400: 12399: 12396:Melanie Clegg 12391: 12387: 12383: 12379: 12377: 12373: 12371: 12367: 12365: 12361: 12360: 12356: 12355: 12351: 12350: 12343: 12342: 12335: 12332: 12330: 12325: 12323: 12317: 12312: 12311: 12310: 12306: 12302: 12298: 12294: 12291: 12288: 12284: 12278: 12273: 12272: 12271: 12270: 12267: 12264: 12262: 12257: 12255: 12248: 12247: 12246: 12245: 12241: 12235: 12230: 12226: 12225:Norman Davies 12222: 12218: 12214: 12207: 12203: 12202:Norman Davies 12195: 12190: 12185: 12184: 12179: 12178: 12173: 12170: 12168: 12162: 12161: 12153: 12149: 12145: 12144: 12143: 12139: 12135: 12131: 12128: 12127: 12124: 12121: 12119: 12113: 12112: 12104: 12100: 12099: 12092: 12088: 12084: 12080: 12079: 12078: 12074: 12070: 12066: 12064: 12060: 12056: 12052: 12051: 12050: 12046: 12042: 12039: 12034: 12030: 12029: 12026: 12022: 12018: 12014: 12013: 12012: 12011: 12007: 12003: 11997: 11994: 11993: 11992: 11982: 11977: 11972: 11971: 11966: 11964: 11960: 11956: 11952: 11948: 11947: 11944: 11940: 11936: 11932: 11928: 11927: 11924: 11920: 11916: 11911: 11905: 11901: 11897: 11892: 11888: 11885: 11882: 11878: 11877: 11876: 11872: 11868: 11864: 11860: 11857: 11856: 11855: 11851: 11847: 11840: 11835: 11834: 11833: 11829: 11825: 11820: 11816: 11814: 11810: 11806: 11802: 11795: 11790: 11786: 11783: 11780: 11774: 11772: 11769: 11766: 11758: 11753: 11751: 11747: 11743: 11739: 11738: 11737: 11736: 11735: 11734: 11731: 11728: 11722: 11700: 11694: 11678: 11671: 11655: 11648: 11632: 11626: 11610: 11603: 11595: 11588: 11572: 11565: 11549: 11542: 11526: 11520: 11504: 11497: 11481: 11474: 11458: 11451: 11447: 11444: 11440: 11435: 11431: 11427: 11423: 11418: 11414: 11409: 11405: 11401: 11397: 11388: 11379: 11375: 11371: 11367: 11366: 11365: 11362: 11360: 11355: 11350: 11342: 11337: 11333: 11331: 11327: 11323: 11319: 11315: 11314: 11311: 11307: 11303: 11299: 11298: 11297: 11296: 11292: 11288: 11284: 11271: 11267: 11263: 11259: 11258: 11257: 11254: 11252: 11246: 11245: 11237: 11231: 11226: 11225: 11220: 11219: 11218: 11214: 11210: 11206: 11205: 11204: 11203: 11200: 11196: 11192: 11188: 11184: 11183: 11178: 11175: 11171: 11167: 11163: 11159: 11158: 11157: 11153: 11149: 11145: 11142: 11141: 11140: 11139: 11135: 11131: 11110: 11103: 11087: 11081: 11065: 11058: 11050: 11043: 11027: 11020: 11004: 10997: 10981: 10974: 10958: 10952: 10936: 10929: 10913: 10906: 10890: 10883: 10879: 10876: 10869: 10868: 10867: 10864: 10852: 10847: 10842: 10841: 10836: 10832: 10828: 10827: 10824: 10820: 10816: 10810: 10805: 10803: 10798: 10796: 10793: 10789: 10788:Mohsen Rezaee 10783: 10782: 10781: 10780: 10776: 10772: 10768: 10764: 10760: 10748: 10744: 10740: 10736: 10734: 10730: 10726: 10722: 10721: 10712: 10708: 10704: 10700: 10697: 10696: 10695: 10691: 10687: 10683: 10682: 10681: 10680: 10679: 10678: 10673: 10670: 10666: 10662: 10658: 10654: 10650: 10647: 10646: 10645: 10641: 10637: 10632: 10622: 10618: 10614: 10610: 10609: 10608: 10605: 10602: 10596: 10593: 10590: 10589: 10588: 10584: 10580: 10576: 10573: 10572: 10571: 10570: 10569: 10565: 10561: 10557: 10553: 10552: 10547: 10544: 10543: 10540: 10537: 10533: 10529: 10527: 10523: 10519: 10515: 10511: 10503: 10500: 10497: 10491: 10487: 10485: 10482: 10480: 10477: 10474: 10471: 10467: 10466: 10465: 10461: 10457: 10452: 10451: 10450: 10446: 10442: 10438: 10437: 10436: 10432: 10428: 10422: 10418: 10414: 10410: 10404: 10400: 10399: 10398: 10397: 10393: 10389: 10385: 10381: 10377: 10365: 10361: 10357: 10353: 10350: 10346: 10342: 10338: 10334: 10330: 10329:WorldNetDaily 10326: 10322: 10318: 10315: 10309: 10304: 10303: 10302: 10301: 10297: 10293: 10289: 10282: 10279: 10276: 10275: 10259: 10255: 10254: 10253: 10252: 10248: 10244: 10236: 10235: 10232: 10228: 10227: 10224: 10220: 10219: 10218: 10205: 10201: 10197: 10193: 10188: 10185:According to 10184: 10183: 10182: 10179: 10177: 10171: 10170: 10162: 10158: 10155: 10151: 10147: 10143: 10139: 10135: 10132: 10131: 10128: 10124: 10120: 10116: 10113:issues. Like 10112: 10108: 10104: 10099: 10098: 10097: 10096: 10092: 10088: 10084: 10083:WP:RSPSOURCES 10080: 10075: 10071: 10067: 10063: 10053: 10052: 10048: 10044: 10040: 10036: 10034: 10028: 10021: 10017: 10013: 10005: 10002: 9998: 9982: 9978: 9974: 9970: 9965: 9964: 9963: 9959: 9955: 9951: 9950: 9949: 9945: 9941: 9937: 9933: 9932: 9931: 9927: 9923: 9919: 9918: 9917: 9913: 9909: 9905: 9904: 9903: 9899: 9895: 9894:Thucydides411 9891: 9887: 9883: 9882: 9881: 9880: 9879: 9878: 9863: 9859: 9855: 9854:Thucydides411 9851: 9850: 9849: 9848: 9847: 9846: 9845: 9844: 9843: 9842: 9841: 9840: 9839: 9838: 9825: 9821: 9817: 9813: 9810: 9806: 9805: 9804: 9800: 9796: 9795:Thucydides411 9792: 9788: 9787: 9786: 9785: 9784: 9783: 9782: 9781: 9780: 9779: 9770: 9766: 9762: 9757: 9753: 9749: 9748: 9747: 9743: 9739: 9738:Thucydides411 9734: 9730: 9726: 9723:I agree with 9722: 9721: 9720: 9719: 9718: 9717: 9710: 9706: 9702: 9698: 9697: 9696: 9692: 9688: 9683: 9682: 9681: 9677: 9673: 9669: 9666: 9663: 9659: 9655: 9654: 9653: 9652: 9648: 9644: 9640: 9637: 9629: 9628: 9624: 9620: 9616: 9612: 9600: 9596: 9592: 9587: 9586: 9583: 9579: 9575: 9571: 9568: 9565: 9563: 9557: 9556: 9548: 9543: 9542: 9541: 9540: 9536: 9532: 9528: 9524: 9523:Seeking Alpha 9520: 9519:crowd-sourced 9513:Seeking Alpha 9508: 9505: 9503: 9497: 9496: 9488: 9487: 9481: 9477: 9473: 9469: 9465: 9464: 9456: 9452: 9448: 9447: 9442: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9436: 9433: 9427: 9423: 9416: 9406: 9402: 9398: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9388: 9384: 9380: 9379: 9378: 9377: 9373: 9369: 9364: 9361: 9360:NY Daily News 9356: 9354: 9350: 9346: 9342: 9337: 9336: 9333: 9332:NY Daily News 9320: 9316: 9312: 9308: 9307:third article 9304: 9303: 9302: 9298: 9294: 9290: 9287: 9283: 9279: 9275: 9274: 9271: 9267: 9266: 9262: 9261: 9257: 9256: 9250: 9249: 9246: 9242: 9238: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9228: 9226: 9220: 9219: 9211: 9207: 9203: 9199: 9198: 9193: 9187: 9183: 9182: 9174: 9170: 9169: 9165: 9164: 9160: 9159: 9153: 9152: 9149: 9145: 9141: 9137: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9131: 9129: 9123: 9122: 9114: 9110: 9109: 9104: 9100: 9093: 9089: 9088: 9078: 9075: 9073: 9067: 9066: 9056: 9051: 9050: 9045: 9041: 9037: 9031: 9026: 9025: 9016: 9012: 9008: 9004: 9001: 8998: 8997: 8996: 8992: 8988: 8984: 8982: 8978: 8977: 8973: 8972: 8968: 8967: 8961: 8960: 8955: 8952: 8948: 8944: 8940: 8937: 8933: 8932: 8928: 8927: 8926: 8922: 8918: 8914: 8910: 8909: 8908: 8907: 8904: 8902: 8896: 8895: 8887: 8885: 8884: 8877: 8873: 8869: 8868: 8863: 8856: 8853:magazine for 8852: 8845: 8842: 8840: 8834: 8833: 8825: 8821: 8817: 8809: 8801: 8797: 8793: 8788: 8786: 8782: 8778: 8774: 8773: 8772: 8771: 8766: 8759: 8755: 8751: 8750:Minnesota Sun 8747: 8743: 8742:Michigan Star 8739: 8725: 8721: 8717: 8712: 8711: 8710: 8706: 8705: 8701: 8700: 8696: 8695: 8688: 8684: 8683: 8682: 8681: 8677: 8673: 8669: 8659: 8658: 8654: 8649: 8643: 8638: 8634: 8633:this question 8630: 8629:Orthopoxvirus 8622: 8618: 8614: 8610: 8606: 8602: 8598: 8594: 8590: 8586: 8582: 8578: 8574: 8570: 8566: 8562: 8558: 8554: 8550: 8546: 8542: 8538: 8534: 8530: 8526: 8522: 8519: 8513: 8512: 8496: 8493: 8490: 8484: 8478: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8465: 8461: 8456: 8455: 8454: 8451: 8448: 8440: 8436: 8432: 8427: 8426: 8425: 8421: 8417: 8413: 8409: 8405: 8403: 8399: 8395: 8391: 8387: 8386: 8383: 8379: 8375: 8371: 8369: 8368: 8367: 8366: 8363: 8360: 8354: 8349: 8346: 8334: 8330: 8326: 8322: 8318: 8314: 8310: 8306: 8305: 8304: 8300: 8296: 8292: 8286: 8282: 8278: 8274: 8273: 8272: 8268: 8264: 8256: 8252: 8251: 8250: 8246: 8242: 8241:Pi.1415926535 8238: 8237: 8236: 8235: 8231: 8227: 8219: 8216: 8214: 8211: 8209: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8200: 8196: 8195:Pi.1415926535 8182: 8178: 8174: 8170: 8169: 8168: 8164: 8160: 8152: 8151: 8150: 8146: 8142: 8138: 8137: 8136: 8132: 8128: 8121: 8117: 8113: 8109: 8105: 8101: 8095: 8090: 8089: 8087: 8083: 8079: 8077: 8073: 8069: 8065: 8062: 8059: 8055: 8052: 8048: 8044: 8040: 8037: 8033: 8032: 8031: 8027: 8023: 8017: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8004: 8000: 7999:Pi.1415926535 7994: 7990: 7984: 7980: 7976: 7972: 7960: 7956: 7952: 7948: 7936: 7932: 7931: 7927: 7926: 7922: 7921: 7915: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7905: 7901: 7896: 7895:Neoliberalism 7892: 7891: 7890: 7886: 7882: 7877: 7876: 7875: 7871: 7867: 7863: 7862: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7858: 7855: 7853: 7847: 7846: 7835: 7831: 7825: 7820: 7819: 7814: 7810: 7805: 7804: 7803: 7801: 7797: 7793: 7789: 7786: 7782: 7780: 7775: 7772: 7766: 7761: 7757: 7753: 7738: 7734: 7730: 7726: 7725: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7712: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7706: 7702: 7701: 7697: 7696: 7692: 7691: 7685: 7684: 7677: 7673: 7669: 7664: 7663: 7662: 7661: 7660: 7656: 7652: 7651:Bluesatellite 7647: 7643: 7639: 7637: 7632: 7629: 7627: 7625: 7621: 7618: 7616: 7614: 7610: 7607: 7605: 7603: 7599: 7596: 7593: 7591: 7587: 7584: 7582: 7580: 7575: 7572: 7570: 7568: 7564: 7561: 7559: 7557: 7553: 7550: 7548: 7546: 7542: 7539: 7537: 7535: 7531: 7528: 7526: 7524: 7520: 7517: 7515: 7513: 7509: 7506: 7505: 7504: 7503: 7502: 7501: 7497: 7493: 7488: 7486: 7482: 7477: 7472: 7470: 7466: 7462: 7451: 7447: 7443: 7438: 7437: 7434: 7430: 7426: 7422: 7418: 7414: 7410: 7406: 7401: 7397: 7392: 7388: 7387: 7384: 7380: 7376: 7372: 7368: 7364: 7361: 7357: 7353: 7352: 7351: 7350: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7333: 7331: 7328: 7312: 7308: 7304: 7300: 7299: 7298: 7293: 7288: 7287: 7280: 7276: 7272: 7268: 7263: 7259: 7254: 7250: 7246: 7242: 7237: 7234: 7233: 7232: 7228: 7224: 7220: 7219: 7218: 7217: 7213: 7209: 7192: 7188: 7184: 7180: 7179: 7178: 7177: 7176: 7175: 7170: 7166: 7162: 7158: 7157: 7156: 7155: 7154: 7153: 7149: 7145: 7140: 7139: 7135: 7131: 7129:SharʿabSalam▼ 7125: 7121: 7114: 7110: 7106: 7102: 7098: 7097:WP:PROPORTION 7094: 7090: 7089: 7082: 7078: 7074: 7070: 7069: 7068: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7054: 7050: 7049: 7048: 7044: 7040: 7033: 7029: 7028: 7027: 7026: 7022: 7018: 7011: 7007: 7006: 6998: 6996: 6992: 6988: 6980: 6975: 6970: 6969: 6966: 6962: 6958: 6953: 6952: 6949: 6945: 6941: 6937: 6933: 6929: 6926: 6925: 6924: 6923: 6919: 6915: 6903: 6899: 6894: 6888: 6885: 6883: 6879: 6875: 6871: 6868: 6867: 6862: 6858: 6854: 6849: 6845: 6842: 6838: 6834: 6830: 6826: 6822: 6819: 6818:an Axios post 6815: 6811: 6808: 6804: 6799: 6796: 6791: 6787: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6780: 6777: 6773: 6769: 6765: 6762: 6759: 6756: 6754: 6748: 6744: 6740: 6736: 6730: 6725: 6724: 6723: 6718: 6713: 6712: 6707: 6704: 6700: 6696: 6692: 6688: 6684: 6680: 6676: 6670: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6650: 6648: 6644: 6638: 6633: 6630: 6629: 6628: 6627: 6623: 6619: 6614: 6611: 6607: 6603: 6599: 6597: 6594: 6583: 6579: 6575: 6571: 6570: 6569: 6568: 6564: 6560: 6543: 6539: 6535: 6531: 6527: 6523: 6519: 6515: 6511: 6507: 6504:, which says 6503: 6499: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6489: 6485: 6481: 6477: 6472: 6470: 6468: 6465: 6463: 6461: 6457: 6456: 6454: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6445: 6441: 6437: 6433: 6428: 6424: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6413: 6409: 6405: 6402: 6401: 6400: 6399: 6396: 6392: 6388: 6383: 6376: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6365: 6361: 6357: 6352: 6351: 6348: 6344: 6340: 6336: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6329: 6325: 6321: 6317: 6310: 6303: 6299: 6286: 6282: 6278: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6256: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6250: 6246: 6242: 6231: 6230: 6225: 6219: 6218: 6212: 6208: 6203: 6187: 6183: 6179: 6178:Souniel Yadav 6175: 6174: 6173: 6170: 6167: 6161: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6150: 6146: 6142: 6138: 6135: 6131: 6128: 6125: 6121: 6118: 6115: 6112: 6109: 6105: 6102: 6099: 6096: 6092: 6088: 6083: 6082:Souniel Yadav 6078: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6071: 6067: 6066:Souniel Yadav 6063: 6049: 6045: 6041: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6034: 6029: 6025: 6021: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6007: 6003: 6002: 6001: 6000: 5999: 5998: 5994: 5990: 5989:Thucydides411 5986: 5980: 5978: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5963: 5958: 5954: 5947: 5939: 5935: 5934: 5930: 5929: 5925: 5924: 5918: 5915: 5913: 5908: 5903: 5902: 5897: 5894: 5892: 5887: 5886: 5881: 5880: 5872: 5869: 5867: 5864: 5862: 5857: 5855: 5849: 5845: 5842: 5841: 5834: 5830: 5826: 5822: 5821: 5820: 5816: 5812: 5808: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5799: 5795: 5791: 5789: 5788: 5784: 5781: 5779: 5776: 5773: 5771: 5769: 5766: 5765: 5762: 5757: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5743: 5742: 5738: 5734: 5720: 5716: 5712: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5701: 5697: 5692: 5688: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5678: 5674: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5662: 5657: 5656: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5640: 5639: 5630: 5626: 5622: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5611: 5607: 5603: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5579: 5575: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5564: 5560: 5556: 5552: 5548: 5547: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5527: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5495: 5491: 5487: 5483: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5462: 5461: 5456: 5453: 5452: 5448: 5436: 5432: 5428: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5407: 5404: 5400: 5398: 5395: 5392: 5391: 5386: 5382: 5378: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5356: 5352: 5349: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5342: 5338: 5334: 5331: 5329: 5324: 5322: 5318: 5304: 5300: 5295: 5288: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5277: 5275: 5270: 5268: 5261: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5228: 5224: 5215: 5212: 5209: 5206: 5203: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5196: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5172: 5168: 5164: 5162: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5150: 5143: 5139: 5135: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5107: 5102: 5097: 5096: 5091: 5087: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5061: 5058: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5034: 5029: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5017:SharʿabSalam▼ 5013: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5006: 5002: 4996: 4994: 4993: 4986: 4984: 4979: 4978: 4975:Article: BLP 4972: 4967: 4964: 4963: 4959: 4956: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4937: 4935: 4925: 4924: 4920: 4916: 4911: 4906: 4901: 4898: 4894: 4889: 4885: 4875: 4874: 4871: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4720: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4693: 4690: 4686: 4685: 4681: 4680: 4676: 4675: 4669: 4668: 4663: 4658: 4653: 4652: 4647: 4643: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4632: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4610: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4594: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4570: 4566: 4554: 4550: 4544: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4530: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4506: 4500: 4499: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4460:you added in 4459: 4455: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4438: 4434: 4428: 4425: 4420: 4414: 4413: 4410: 4408: 4402: 4401: 4393: 4389: 4383: 4378: 4374: 4373:cherry-picked 4370: 4364: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4318: 4315: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4279: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4263: 4261: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4241: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4218: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4181: 4176: 4173: 4171: 4165: 4164: 4156: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4147: 4145: 4139: 4138: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4086: 4085: 4081: 4079: 4074: 4073: 4069: 4068: 4065: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4050: 4047: 4042: 4041: 4032: 4026: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4001: 3994: 3993:Firejuggler86 3989: 3988: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3977:Firejuggler86 3973: 3972: 3970: 3967: 3965: 3959: 3958: 3950: 3945: 3944: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3880:WP:SELFSOURCE 3877: 3873: 3869: 3867: 3866:WP:SELFSOURCE 3862: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3847:Good research 3844: 3841: 3839: 3835: 3829: 3828: 3822: 3817: 3814: 3813: 3798: 3794: 3790: 3789:SpinnerLaserz 3786: 3785: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3757: 3754: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3730: 3727: 3722: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3660: 3657: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3642: 3641: 3636: 3631: 3630:Saudi sources 3627: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3614: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3586: 3581: 3578: 3573: 3568: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3544: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3529: 3528: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3507: 3502: 3501: 3496: 3492: 3489:I dont think 3488: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3477:SpinnerLaserz 3474: 3470: 3468: 3463: 3458: 3457: 3452: 3448: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3434:SharʿabSalam▼ 3431: 3428: 3423: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3396:SharʿabSalam▼ 3393: 3389: 3386: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3362:SharʿabSalam▼ 3359: 3352: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3302: 3301: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3212:SharʿabSalam▼ 3207: 3206: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3192: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3172: 3168: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3156:SharʿabSalam▼ 3152: 3148: 3147:Andrew Pierce 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3131:Quentin Letts 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3069: 3068: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3011:entertainment 3008: 3004: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2846: 2840: 2839: 2828: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2813: 2812: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2731: 2728: 2726: 2720: 2719: 2708: 2702: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2666: 2663: 2661: 2656: 2654: 2647: 2644: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2603: 2602:Certainly not 2600: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2562: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2543: 2537: 2536: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2514: 2507: 2506: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2451:SharʿabSalam▼ 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2431:SharʿabSalam▼ 2427: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2412: 2408: 2407:removing this 2405:I agree that 2404: 2403: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2171: 2165: 2164: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2138: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2099: 2098: 2090: 2086: 2080: 2075: 2074: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2001: 2000: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1599: 1598: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1553: 1547: 1546: 1538: 1534: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1498: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1482: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1431: 1425: 1424: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1324: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1294: 1288: 1287: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1208: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1181: 1175: 1174: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147:are related. 1146: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1103: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1058: 1052: 1051: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1010: 1006: 1004: 1000: 997: 994: 990: 976: 972: 968: 960: 956: 955: 954: 950: 946: 942: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 910: 909: 906: 902: 899: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 865: 861: 857: 856: 848: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 825: 824: 823: 821: 818: 815: 811: 807: 803: 791: 787: 783: 779: 778: 775: 771: 767: 762: 757: 756: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 725: 721: 717: 715:SharʿabSalam▼ 711: 710: 697: 693: 689: 685: 684: 683: 682: 679: 677: 671: 670: 662: 658: 652: 647: 646: 640: 639: 638: 634: 630: 626: 624: 621: 620: 619: 615: 611: 606: 605: 604: 600: 596: 592: 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 568: 563: 558: 557: 552: 551:Dominic Mohan 548: 545: 543: 539: 535: 533:SharʿabSalam▼ 529: 528: 527: 524: 523: 522: 507: 503: 502: 497: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 479: 475: 468: 463: 459: 454: 449: 448: 443: 440: 439: 438: 434: 430: 426: 424: 423: 422: 417: 412: 411: 406: 403: 400: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 383: 379: 375: 369: 366: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 335: 332: 330: 324: 323: 315: 311: 307: 303: 297: 292: 287: 283: 279: 275: 270: 269: 268: 265: 261: 255: 252: 251:WP:BLPSELFPUB 248: 247:WP:SELFSOURCE 244: 243: 242: 238: 234: 230: 222: 218: 214: 210: 207: 206: 205: 202: 201: 200: 185: 181: 177: 173: 172: 171: 167: 163: 156: 152: 151: 150: 147: 146: 145: 129: 128: 127: 126: 122: 118: 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 12534: 12530: 12527:David Gerard 12514:David Gerard 12491: 12488:David Gerard 12471:David Gerard 12431:David Gerard 12408: 12401: 12375: 12369: 12358: 12353: 12348: 12328: 12321: 12286: 12260: 12253: 12210: 12200:Foreword by 12181: 12156: 12155: 12107: 12106: 12000: 11990: 11968: 11930: 11915:Slatersteven 11818: 11717: 11703:. Retrieved 11693: 11681:. Retrieved 11670: 11658:. Retrieved 11647: 11635:. Retrieved 11625: 11613:. Retrieved 11602: 11587: 11575:. Retrieved 11564: 11552:. Retrieved 11541: 11529:. Retrieved 11519: 11507:. Retrieved 11496: 11484:. Retrieved 11473: 11461:. Retrieved 11450: 11442: 11392: 11348:petrarchan47 11344: 11335: 11280: 11240: 11239: 11222: 11186: 11180: 11143: 11127: 11113:. Retrieved 11102: 11090:. Retrieved 11080: 11068:. Retrieved 11057: 11042: 11030:. Retrieved 11019: 11007:. Retrieved 10996: 10984:. Retrieved 10973: 10961:. Retrieved 10951: 10939:. Retrieved 10928: 10916:. Retrieved 10905: 10893:. Retrieved 10882: 10874: 10860: 10838: 10800: 10785: 10756: 10574: 10555: 10550: 10549: 10545: 10518:Hemiauchenia 10441:Slatersteven 10413:Slatersteven 10373: 10317:incompetence 10285: 10262: 10240: 10215: 10165: 10164: 10152:) look like 10145: 10133: 10070:Mariah Carey 10059: 10032: 10024: 10000: 9922:Slatersteven 9886:David Gerard 9816:Slatersteven 9790: 9761:Slatersteven 9755: 9751: 9732: 9728: 9701:Slatersteven 9672:David Gerard 9643:Slatersteven 9638: 9635: 9608: 9574:Slatersteven 9551: 9550: 9531:Marc Lacoste 9516: 9491: 9490: 9485: 9480:WP:RSOPINION 9475: 9461: 9454: 9444: 9420: 9383:Slatersteven 9365: 9359: 9357: 9352: 9340: 9338: 9331: 9330: 9264: 9259: 9254: 9237:David Gerard 9214: 9213: 9209: 9206:"wrongthink" 9205: 9195: 9190: 9179: 9167: 9162: 9157: 9140:David Gerard 9117: 9116: 9112: 9106: 9096: 9085: 9061: 9060: 9047: 9043: 9022: 9014: 9006: 8999: 8987:MaximumIdeas 8975: 8970: 8965: 8957: 8953: 8935: 8929: 8917:David Gerard 8890: 8889: 8881: 8879: 8865: 8859: 8850: 8828: 8827: 8806:Sources for 8777:Slatersteven 8749: 8745: 8741: 8737: 8735: 8716:Peacemaker67 8703: 8698: 8693: 8665: 8626: 8569:COIBot-Local 8553:MER-C X-wiki 8439:MaximumIdeas 8431:Slatersteven 8416:MaximumIdeas 8408:Slatersteven 8374:Slatersteven 8342: 8325:MaximumIdeas 8295:Slatersteven 8222: 8191: 8093: 8063: 8050: 8046: 7983:WP:PUBLISHED 7979:FOIA request 7968: 7951:MaximumIdeas 7929: 7924: 7919: 7913: 7900:Hemiauchenia 7866:Hemiauchenia 7841: 7840: 7833: 7816: 7808: 7806: 7792:Hemiauchenia 7769: 7756:268 articles 7750: 7699: 7694: 7689: 7634: 7623: 7620:The Guardian 7612: 7601: 7589: 7577: 7566: 7555: 7544: 7533: 7522: 7511: 7489: 7473: 7460:Demographia 7459: 7442:Slatersteven 7400:this article 7379:WP:SPONSORED 7370: 7334: 7324: 7303:Slatersteven 7284: 7236:Slatersteven 7223:Slatersteven 7208:Kashish pall 7204: 7144:Slatersteven 7141: 7117: 7061: 7060: 7031: 7014: 7001: 6973: 6911: 6886: 6869: 6843:like "news." 6840: 6836: 6832: 6806: 6802: 6752: 6709: 6591: 6559:Slatersteven 6556: 6529: 6525: 6521: 6517: 6513: 6505: 6466: 6458: 6435: 6431: 6426: 6422: 6381: 6339:Slatersteven 6296: 6237: 6216: 6206: 6199: 6120:Daniel Pipes 6059: 6020:RaiderAspect 5981: 5951: 5932: 5927: 5922: 5916: 5899: 5895: 5883: 5875: 5870: 5860: 5853: 5843: 5825:Slatersteven 5807:Slatersteven 5794:Slatersteven 5782: 5774: 5767: 5744: 5733:Crash Dennis 5729: 5711:Crash Dennis 5690: 5673:Crash Dennis 5653: 5646:Slatersteven 5642:Crash Dennis 5621:Crash Dennis 5606:Slatersteven 5592:Slatersteven 5574:Crash Dennis 5555:Slatersteven 5531:Crash Dennis 5467:Crash Dennis 5463: 5458: 5457: 5454: 5449: 5446: 5335: 5332: 5325: 5314: 5287:Not reliable 5286: 5273: 5266: 5259: 5258: 5244:Hemiauchenia 5219: 5213: 5207: 5201: 5192: 5154:undue weight 5093: 5068: 4998: 4992:CounterPunch 4990: 4988: 4980: 4974: 4969: 4965: 4955:CounterPunch 4952: 4932: 4902: 4881: 4853: 4808:Slatersteven 4775:Slatersteven 4742:Slatersteven 4738:wp:synthesis 4719:Slatersteven 4705:Slatersteven 4703:to infer it. 4683: 4678: 4673: 4649: 4628: 4603: 4590: 4562: 4533: 4494: 4493: 4489: 4473: 4457: 4429: 4421: 4417: 4396: 4395: 4365: 4335: 4319: 4316: 4287:WP:SECONDARY 4280: 4264: 4257: 4244: 4234: 4233: 4159: 4158: 4133: 4132: 4106: 4090: 4087: 4082: 4075: 4070: 4061: 4058: 4054: 4048:gets added: 4043: 4038: 4030: 4024: 3999: 3953: 3952: 3923: 3863: 3842: 3826: 3815: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3644: 3638: 3634: 3621: 3617: 3611: 3552: 3498: 3454: 3384: 3374: 3373: 3355: 3346: 3251:David Gerard 3184: 3175: 3171:WP:DAILYMAIL 3123:Max Hastings 3115:Alex Brummer 3099:David Gerard 3093: 3090:WP:RSOPINION 3034:David Gerard 3028: 2954:David Gerard 2934: 2920:David Gerard 2882:David Gerard 2876: 2873:WP:DAILYMAIL 2834:The C of E 2831: 2790: 2786: 2758:David Gerard 2740:Jaci Stephen 2714: 2713: 2706: 2689: 2683: 2672: 2659: 2652: 2645: 2633:David Gerard 2629:WP:DAILYMAIL 2624: 2615: 2606: 2601: 2580: 2563: 2553: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2516: 2510: 2503: 2502:Straw poll: 2482: 2479:WP:RSOPINION 2474: 2470: 2466: 2446:David Gerard 2416:RaiderAspect 2410: 2367: 2362: 2359:this removal 2280:David Gerard 2243:David Gerard 2209:David Gerard 2204: 2199: 2181: 2159: 2158: 2157:article. — 2154: 2150: 2149:uses of the 2147:"historical" 2146: 2142: 2136: 2134: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2071: 2067: 2051: 2049: 2020: 2016: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1947: 1907: 1903: 1798: 1776:WP:RSOPINION 1736: 1723:David Gerard 1718: 1714: 1694:Slatersteven 1648:David Gerard 1643: 1639: 1633:WP:RSOPINION 1628: 1624: 1607:Slatersteven 1541: 1540: 1537:undue weight 1525: 1499:on a topic." 1494: 1493:states that 1486: 1478: 1446:David Gerard 1419: 1418: 1413: 1402: 1398: 1396: 1364:David Gerard 1359: 1355: 1348: 1343: 1323:discouraging 1322: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1266:WP:RSOPINION 1263: 1259:undue weight 1253: 1249: 1241: 1238:WP:RSOPINION 1235: 1231: 1228:WP:RSOPINION 1206: 1201: 1169: 1168: 1160: 1157:questionable 1152: 1128:David Gerard 1123: 1092:David Gerard 1046: 1045: 1035: 1007: 1003:WP:DAILYMAIL 995: 989:David Gerald 986: 958: 945:Slatersteven 914: 911: 903: 896: 853: 851: 826: 816: 799: 760: 735: 688:Slatersteven 665: 664: 643: 641: 629:Slatersteven 595:Slatersteven 554: 510: 509: 505: 501:Sunday Sport 499: 495: 491: 445: 442:Slatersteven 429:Slatersteven 408: 389:Slatersteven 370: 362: 318: 317: 288: 233:David Gerard 188: 187: 154: 133: 132: 113: 82: 47: 41: 12457:Kansas Bear 12415:Kansas Bear 12297:Basic Books 12134:Samp4ngeles 12103:Samp4ngeles 12083:Samp4ngeles 12041:Samp4ngeles 12002:Samp4ngeles 11995:About us: 11794:Doug Weller 11778:Doug Weller 11764:Doug Weller 11726:Doug Weller 11285:. :( -- 10866:citations: 10600:Doug Weller 10532:Doug Weller 10514:Nordic race 10495:Doug Weller 10409:Doug Weller 10374:Currently, 10356:Ian.thomson 10345:just asking 10241:thank you. 10223:Source link 10192:its website 9756:maliciously 9431:Doug Weller 9368:Zloyvolsheb 9202:Bo Winegard 9186:Bo Winegard 9099:Bo Winegard 9092:Bo Winegard 8872:Bo Winegard 8855:Bo Winegard 8808:Bo Winegard 8637:Ancheta Wis 8631:), and saw 8621:AboutUs.com 8617:domaintools 8561:Links on en 8559:• Reports: 8516:Linksearch 8488:Doug Weller 8446:Doug Weller 8406:Agree with 8358:Doug Weller 8034:Apologies, 7483:as part of 7465:Wendell Cox 7405:independent 7354:From their 7161:Atlantic306 7017:Pikachu6686 6914:Pikachu6686 6841:deceptively 6784:Thank you, 6498:gaslighting 6480:reliability 6165:Doug Weller 6145:Ian.thomson 6104:alislam.org 5962:this thread 5878:Thepenguin9 5747:Newyorkbrad 4985:with text: 4915:Cyphoidbomb 4006:Ian.thomson 3872:North Korea 3624:. Here are 3557:Nosebagbear 3495:this topics 3449:, see also 3447:SharabSalam 3332:Ian.thomson 3094:prima facie 2488:Betty Logan 1971:"gibberish" 1145:reliability 782:Atlantic306 102:Archive 295 94:Archive 291 89:Archive 290 83:Archive 289 77:Archive 288 72:Archive 287 64:Archive 285 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 12409:I found a 12239:reply here 12159:Newslinger 12130:Newslinger 12110:Newslinger 11550:. Newsweek 11443:References 11243:Newslinger 11191:XOR'easter 11144:Daily Wire 10982:. Newsweek 10875:References 10669:Iridescent 10546:Do not use 10536:Iridescent 10421:Iridescent 10314:disruptive 10168:Newslinger 10138:group blog 10107:churnalism 9809:wp:soapbox 9662:WP:MEDRSes 9657:sanctions? 9611:WP:REFSPAM 9554:Newslinger 9494:Newslinger 9443:Not sure. 9415:Pinjra Tod 9366:Comments? 9353:Daily News 9341:Daily News 9217:Newslinger 9120:Newslinger 9064:Newslinger 8939:XOR'easter 8893:Newslinger 8831:Newslinger 8814:Notified: 8615:• Domain: 8607:• Google: 8521:(insource) 8483:WP:BLUESKY 8309:epicgenius 8255:WP:PAYWALL 8094:69,722,560 7844:Newslinger 7356:about page 7093:WP:PRIMARY 7073:Mr rnddude 6932:WP:YOUTUBE 6870:Unreliable 6734:reply here 6642:reply here 6277:Matthew hk 6255:Matthew hk 6241:Matthew hk 5917:Unreliable 5896:Unreliable 5871:Unreliable 5844:Unreliable 5696:XOR'easter 5508:XOR'easter 5175:Jtbobwaysf 5173:. Thanks! 5158:Neutrality 5120:Jtbobwaysf 5086:Jtbobwaysf 5001:Jtbobwaysf 4856:WP:PRIMARY 4548:reply here 4497:Newslinger 4399:Newslinger 4353:"See also" 4307:WP:COPYVIO 4299:WP:REDFLAG 4291:WP:PRIMARY 4276:WP:IMDBREF 4246:Newslinger 4162:Newslinger 4136:Newslinger 4125:dummy data 4121:Contact Us 4002:closing it 3956:Newslinger 3767:WP:NEWSORG 3392:WP:NEWSORG 3280:dave souza 3179:the PROD. 3143:Bel Mooney 2717:Newslinger 2707:Daily Mail 2685:Daily Mail 2674:Daily Mail 2610:the PROD. 2555:Daily Mail 2534:Newslinger 2527:Daily Mail 2518:Daily Mail 2505:Daily Mail 2475:Daily Mail 2471:Daily Mail 2236:Paul Dacre 2162:Newslinger 2155:Daily Mail 2151:Daily Mail 2137:Daily Mail 2096:Newslinger 2085:Alex Jones 1998:Newslinger 1991:Daily Mail 1983:Daily Mail 1979:Daily Mail 1975:due weight 1902:Since the 1706:No, under 1544:Newslinger 1526:Daily Mail 1518:Alexa rank 1422:Newslinger 1414:Daily Mail 1403:Daily Mail 1399:Daily Mail 1285:Newslinger 1270:due weight 1254:Daily Mail 1172:Newslinger 1161:Daily Mail 1049:Newslinger 1042:Jim Shelly 1037:Daily Mail 1032:due weight 668:Newslinger 488:this story 321:Newslinger 131:sources.-- 11955:Guy Macon 11867:Guy Macon 11801:Jauerback 11757:Guy Macon 11742:Guy Macon 11370:Guy Macon 11322:Guy Macon 11287:Guy Macon 11262:Guy Macon 11230:RSP entry 11209:Guy Macon 11162:Guy Macon 11148:Guy Macon 11130:Guy Macon 10725:Ermenrich 10703:Ermenrich 10613:Ermenrich 10551:Deprecate 10427:Ermenrich 10388:Ermenrich 10308:ToeFungii 10292:ToeFungii 10243:ToeFungii 10074:talk page 10064:website. 10062:Money Inc 10056:Money Inc 10033:Doc James 9752:willfully 9521:website, 9055:RSP entry 9049:Quillette 9030:RSP entry 8959:Quillette 8746:Ohio Star 8583:• COIBot- 8549:Spamcheck 8051:too eager 8036:User:Lent 7824:RSP entry 7715:Mattximus 7668:Mattximus 7492:Mattximus 7440:Harbour). 7381:content. 7206:channel. 7126:article.- 6502:Gas Light 6106:might be 6093:'s blog, 5811:Wilfredor 5359:Vexations 5293:GregJackP 4981:Content: 4869:Montanabw 4486:WP:BURDEN 4480:, as the 4382:RSP entry 4322:Chumchum7 4303:WP:FRINGE 4093:Chumchum7 4091:Cheers, - 3928:WP:BIASED 3876:Arab News 3748:Hijiri 88 3721:Hijiri 88 3708:Arab News 3651:Hijiri 88 3635:Arab News 3622:Arab News 3572:Hijiri 88 3400:back then 3388:Arab News 3358:Arab News 2771:history. 2701:RSP entry 2368:necessary 2079:RSP entry 1780:dlthewave 1767:WP:WEIGHT 1708:WP:BURDEN 1621:WP:POINTy 1512:RSP entry 1485:and that 1149:WP:WEIGHT 871:team page 651:RSP entry 296:RSP entry 11935:Springee 11896:Koncorde 11839:Johnuniq 11824:Johnuniq 11705:April 9, 11683:April 9, 11660:April 9, 11637:April 9, 11615:April 9, 11577:April 9, 11554:April 9, 11531:April 9, 11509:April 9, 11486:April 9, 11463:April 9, 11115:April 9, 11092:April 9, 11070:April 9, 11032:April 9, 11009:April 9, 10986:April 9, 10963:April 9, 10941:April 9, 10918:April 9, 10895:April 9, 10321:InfoWars 10196:Heartfox 10119:SamHolt6 10115:Heartfox 10087:Heartfox 10043:contribs 10027:WP:MEDRS 9954:Koncorde 9908:Blueboar 9890:WP:MEDRS 9812:my rant 9725:Blueboar 9687:Blueboar 9591:Springee 9486:The Wire 9476:The Wire 9455:The Wire 9446:The Wire 9397:Blueboar 9289:articles 9278:previous 8591:, & 8577:advanced 8345:Yuz Asaf 7579:markets. 7101:WP:RSPYT 7062:Rosguill 7057:signed, 7005:BEANS X2 6827:for the 6484:MarioGom 6408:MarioGom 6375:MarioGom 6356:MarioGom 6324:MarioGom 6259:MarioGom 6217:BlackCab 6207:accuracy 5971:and the 5846:Classic 5783:Content. 5775:Article. 5685:Chapman 5650:WP:UNDUE 5588:wp:undue 5551:wp:undue 5460:element. 5447:Source: 5165:Created 5090:WP:UNDUE 4999:Thanks! 4953:Source: 4884:About Us 4864:WP:SYNTH 4642:Eddie891 4625:Eddie891 4623:thanks, 4478:reliable 4254:Rosguill 4235:Rosguill 4230:signed, 3932:Glades12 3864:Use per 3827:ZiaLater 3816:Depends: 3643:and the 3306:Blueboar 3266:Koncorde 3236:Koncorde 3196:Koncorde 3139:Jan Moir 3052:Koncorde 2985:Koncorde 2969:Springee 2939:Springee 2905:Springee 2859:Springee 2817:Springee 2773:Koncorde 2523:reliable 2389:Blueboar 2313:Koncorde 2298:Springee 2294:Koncorde 2258:Springee 2223:Springee 2187:Koncorde 2131:2017 RfC 2117:Koncorde 2089:InfoWars 2073:InfoWars 1957:Koncorde 1928:Blueboar 1854:Blueboar 1835:Blueboar 1802:contribs 1792:Blueboar 1603:wp:undue 1564:Koncorde 1461:Koncorde 1318:required 1151:states: 1077:Koncorde 999:contribs 855:El Millo 820:contribs 808:, where 341:Pikavoom 306:AllMusic 291:AllMusic 213:creffett 117:creffett 20:‎ | 12382:Hippeus 12055:Msnicki 12033:Msnicki 12017:Msnicki 11913:undue). 11863:WP:SNOW 11846:Amakuru 11805:Amakuru 11482:. Salon 11413:protect 11408:history 10914:. Salon 10815:Saff V. 10771:Saff V. 10739:Hippeus 10419:, and 10380:Eupedia 10370:Eupedia 10258:WP:TVRS 9733:opinion 9284:). See 8687:Jadovno 8672:OyMosby 8670:an RS? 8652:Neonate 8573:tracked 8545:wikt:fr 8541:wikt:en 8437:, and 8224:much.-- 8096:--: --> 7574:Reuters 7417:version 7258:protect 7253:history 7124:Jambiya 6908:Youtube 6897:Neonate 6514:healthy 6302:example 5768:Source. 5298:Boomer! 5134:Valjean 5114:Thanks 5072:Valjean 4941:Valjean 4422:In the 4115:) is a 4066:alone: 3924:Comment 3907:Ckfasdf 3843:Comment 3775:Ckfasdf 3678:Ckfasdf 3674:Reuters 3626:two non 3512:Ckfasdf 3430:Ckfasdf 3404:Ckfasdf 3015:MrOllie 2752:source. 2736:removed 1516:has an 1441:source. 845:contrib 547:Ianmacm 508:fame.-- 496:Express 492:Express 490:in the 302:Spotify 300:, e.g. 209:Ianmacm 184:WP:BLPN 43:archive 12453:Bogdan 12316:WP:APL 12277:GreenC 12148:WP:UBO 11819:gotcha 11417:delete 11179:lists 11177:WP:RSP 10548:, and 10347:" why 10339:, and 10337:Snopes 10327:, and 10278:(talk) 9973:isaacl 9940:isaacl 9478:under 9349:WP:RSP 9040:Buidhe 8792:Curdle 8748:, and 8609:search 8565:COIBot 8537:simple 7914:Spiked 7834:Spiked 7809:Spiked 7752:Spiked 7747:Spiked 7485:Boston 7360:WP:POV 7262:delete 6936:WP:RSP 6887:Usable 6872:. -- 6510:WP:AGF 6091:Sayyid 5985:Ai Fen 5957:Ai Fen 5946:Ai Fen 5455:Text: 5216:(1995) 5210:(1967) 5204:(1992) 5042:Shrike 4823:SusunW 4790:SusunW 4757:SusunW 4724:SusunW 4609:SusunW 4593:SusunW 4583:, the 4567:? See 4468:, the 4456:, the 4433:Keshet 4361:fringe 4250:FDW777 4226:WP:AN3 4206:FDW777 4119:. Its 3821:Pavlor 3693:Pavlor 3598:Pavlor 3548:Pavlor 3533:Pavlor 3510:said. 3394:(even 3007:sports 1790:FWIW, 1671:Also, 1627:. And 1141:Weight 1034:. The 875:WP:RSP 829:WP:RSN 761:Mirror 176:WP:BLP 12542:help! 12499:help! 12322:Green 12254:Green 12189:help! 11991:See: 11976:help! 11505:. Vox 11434:views 11426:watch 11422:links 11336:Salon 10937:. Vox 10846:help! 10799:MEPC, 10530:What 10047:email 10001:start 9547:WT:RS 9517:As a 9311:Jlevi 9293:Jlevi 9194:from 9105:from 8864:from 8647:Paleo 8593:XWiki 8589:Local 8199:Masem 7636:year. 7425:Jlevi 7383:WP:RS 7327:WP:RS 7292:help! 7279:views 7271:watch 7267:links 7120:Video 7003:: --> 7002:: --> 6940:Jlevi 6892:Paleo 6786:Jlevi 6768:Jlevi 6755:story 6751:this 6717:help! 6689:. -- 6608:uses 6460:KPRM. 6062:Kafir 6040:Acone 5907:help! 5854:Green 5790:This 5661:help! 5644:, As 5504:IUPAC 5427:Jlevi 5377:Jlevi 5351:Jlevi 5337:Jlevi 5267:Green 5101:help! 4860:WP:OR 4771:wp:or 4701:wp:or 4657:help! 4646:WP:OR 4538:WP:RS 4534:maybe 4516:N1of2 4470:Vimeo 4464:were 4454:N1of2 4440:N1of2 4363:view. 4341:Vimeo 4311:WP:RS 4295:WP:RS 4283:WP:RS 4131:. — 4064:WP:RS 4051:for: 3506:help! 3462:help! 3176:Roxy, 2935:exact 2749:WP:OR 2688:is a 2653:Green 2607:Roxy, 2411:often 2135:"the 879:Jlevi 740:Govvy 591:This 562:help! 474:Govvy 453:help! 425:This 416:help! 402:Govvy 374:Govvy 16:< 12531:fake 12518:talk 12475:talk 12461:talk 12435:talk 12419:talk 12386:talk 12374:and 12354:uidh 12305:talk 12229:here 12166:talk 12138:talk 12117:talk 12087:talk 12073:talk 12059:talk 12045:talk 12021:talk 12006:talk 11959:talk 11939:talk 11919:talk 11900:talk 11871:talk 11850:talk 11828:talk 11809:talk 11782:talk 11768:talk 11746:talk 11730:talk 11707:2020 11685:2020 11662:2020 11639:2020 11617:2020 11579:2020 11556:2020 11533:2020 11511:2020 11488:2020 11465:2020 11430:logs 11404:talk 11400:edit 11374:talk 11326:talk 11306:talk 11291:talk 11266:talk 11250:talk 11238:. — 11213:talk 11195:talk 11166:talk 11152:talk 11134:talk 11117:2020 11094:2020 11072:2020 11034:2020 11011:2020 10988:2020 10965:2020 10943:2020 10920:2020 10897:2020 10819:talk 10775:talk 10763:MEPC 10743:talk 10729:talk 10707:talk 10690:talk 10663:and 10640:talk 10617:talk 10604:talk 10583:talk 10564:talk 10522:talk 10499:talk 10460:talk 10445:talk 10431:talk 10403:here 10392:talk 10384:here 10360:talk 10341:WaPo 10296:talk 10288:link 10247:talk 10200:talk 10175:talk 10163:. — 10123:talk 10109:and 10091:talk 10039:talk 10011:asem 9977:talk 9958:talk 9944:talk 9926:talk 9912:talk 9898:talk 9858:talk 9820:talk 9799:talk 9765:talk 9754:and 9742:talk 9729:news 9705:talk 9691:talk 9676:talk 9647:talk 9623:talk 9595:talk 9578:talk 9561:talk 9535:talk 9501:talk 9435:talk 9426:this 9401:talk 9387:talk 9372:talk 9315:talk 9297:talk 9260:uidh 9241:talk 9224:talk 9184:for 9163:uidh 9144:talk 9127:talk 9097:The 9090:for 9071:talk 9059:. — 9046:and 9044:Areo 9015:Areo 9000:Areo 8991:talk 8971:uidh 8954:Areo 8943:talk 8921:talk 8900:talk 8883:Areo 8867:Areo 8851:Areo 8838:talk 8826:. — 8796:talk 8781:talk 8699:uidh 8676:talk 8613:meta 8585:Link 8525:meta 8492:talk 8464:talk 8450:talk 8420:talk 8410:and 8398:talk 8378:talk 8362:talk 8329:talk 8313:talk 8299:talk 8281:talk 8262:asem 8245:talk 8230:talk 8197:and 8177:talk 8158:asem 8145:talk 8126:asem 8108:talk 8104:Lent 8072:talk 8068:Lent 8026:talk 8016:Lent 8003:talk 7991:and 7989:Lent 7955:talk 7925:uidh 7904:talk 7885:talk 7870:talk 7851:talk 7796:talk 7733:talk 7719:talk 7695:uidh 7672:talk 7655:talk 7631:Time 7496:talk 7446:talk 7429:talk 7413:this 7391:this 7371:have 7367:this 7345:talk 7307:talk 7275:logs 7249:talk 7245:edit 7227:talk 7212:talk 7187:talk 7165:talk 7148:talk 7134:talk 7109:talk 7077:talk 7038:asem 7021:talk 6986:asem 6961:talk 6944:talk 6918:talk 6878:talk 6874:Yae4 6857:talk 6853:Yae4 6812:The 6772:talk 6706:Yae4 6695:talk 6691:Yae4 6687:this 6685:and 6683:this 6658:talk 6622:talk 6618:Yae4 6602:here 6578:talk 6574:Boud 6563:talk 6538:talk 6534:Boud 6488:talk 6453:Boud 6444:talk 6440:Boud 6412:talk 6404:Boud 6391:talk 6387:Boud 6382:know 6360:talk 6343:talk 6328:talk 6322:. -- 6281:talk 6263:talk 6245:talk 6223:TALK 6211:here 6182:talk 6169:talk 6160:here 6149:talk 6070:talk 6044:talk 6024:talk 5993:talk 5928:uidh 5885:talk 5829:talk 5815:talk 5798:talk 5751:talk 5737:talk 5715:talk 5700:talk 5687:said 5677:talk 5625:talk 5610:talk 5596:talk 5578:talk 5559:talk 5535:talk 5512:talk 5494:talk 5484:and 5471:talk 5431:talk 5417:talk 5413:Yae4 5381:talk 5363:talk 5341:talk 5328:here 5248:talk 5240:here 5227:talk 5179:talk 5138:talk 5124:talk 5076:talk 5057:Zero 5046:talk 5033:Zero 5022:talk 5005:talk 4983:Diff 4945:talk 4919:talk 4905:here 4893:here 4862:and 4827:talk 4812:talk 4794:talk 4779:talk 4761:talk 4746:talk 4728:talk 4709:talk 4697:wp:v 4679:uidh 4631:Work 4613:talk 4520:talk 4504:talk 4466:IMDb 4444:talk 4406:talk 4377:IMDb 4326:talk 4270:and 4210:talk 4169:talk 4157:. — 4143:talk 4097:talk 4010:talk 3981:talk 3963:talk 3951:. — 3936:talk 3911:talk 3892:talk 3888:HLHJ 3855:talk 3833:talk 3818:Per 3793:talk 3779:talk 3697:talk 3682:talk 3672:and 3602:talk 3561:talk 3537:talk 3516:talk 3481:talk 3438:talk 3408:talk 3366:talk 3336:talk 3310:talk 3284:talk 3270:talk 3255:talk 3240:talk 3217:talk 3200:talk 3185:wooF 3169:See 3161:talk 3103:talk 3075:asem 3056:talk 3038:talk 3019:talk 3009:and 2989:talk 2973:talk 2958:talk 2943:talk 2924:talk 2909:talk 2886:talk 2871:Per 2863:talk 2844:talk 2821:talk 2797:asem 2787:that 2777:talk 2762:talk 2738:was 2724:talk 2682:The 2637:talk 2616:wooF 2588:asem 2572:talk 2541:talk 2492:talk 2469:The 2456:talk 2436:talk 2420:talk 2393:talk 2374:asem 2317:talk 2302:talk 2284:talk 2271:any. 2262:talk 2247:talk 2227:talk 2213:talk 2191:talk 2169:talk 2121:talk 2103:talk 2036:asem 2005:talk 1961:talk 1932:talk 1917:talk 1892:talk 1858:talk 1839:talk 1819:asem 1796:talk 1744:asem 1727:talk 1719:best 1715:best 1698:talk 1679:asem 1675:. -- 1652:talk 1644:best 1640:best 1611:talk 1568:talk 1551:talk 1489:The 1473:The 1465:talk 1450:talk 1429:talk 1411:2019 1409:and 1407:2017 1383:asem 1368:talk 1358:and 1356:best 1344:show 1329:asem 1310:only 1292:talk 1213:asem 1179:talk 1143:and 1132:talk 1109:asem 1096:talk 1081:talk 1056:talk 1016:asem 993:talk 966:asem 959:good 949:talk 935:talk 920:talk 883:talk 860:talk 841:talk 837:Erik 814:talk 810:Erik 786:talk 770:talk 744:talk 720:talk 692:talk 675:talk 633:talk 614:talk 599:talk 583:talk 538:talk 513:♦Ian 478:talk 433:talk 393:talk 378:talk 345:talk 328:talk 308:for 304:vs. 278:talk 259:Talk 237:talk 217:talk 191:♦Ian 161:asem 136:♦Ian 121:talk 12536:Guy 12493:Guy 12215:by 12204:in 12183:Guy 12101:Hi 11970:Guy 11881:MrX 11341:You 11302:TFD 11185:as 10861:At 10840:Guy 10809:JzG 10417:Wnt 10333:NYT 10273:Fir 10270:een 10267:rgr 10264:Eve 9529:?-- 9343:in 9286:two 9005:as 8860:Is 8768:\\ 8666:Is 8635:by 8581:RSN 8460:TFD 8412:TFD 8394:TFD 8045:: " 7802:}} 7729:TFD 7563:BBC 7519:CNN 7286:Guy 7053:due 7032:but 6974:can 6957:TFD 6753:NYT 6711:Guy 6518:not 6314:or 6006:ACA 5901:Guy 5850:-- 5655:Guy 5116:Guy 5095:Guy 4939:-- 4651:Guy 4289:or 4222:BRD 4059:. 4000:not 3851:TFD 3670:CNN 3500:Guy 3456:Guy 2791:all 2646:Yes 2521:is 2363:not 1913:TFD 1737:not 1533:263 1522:255 1520:of 1503:due 1314:can 1276:'s 1202:can 1193:DM. 916:TFD 800:Is 766:TFD 556:Guy 504:of 467:JzG 447:Guy 410:Guy 363:At 249:or 186:.-- 155:are 12520:) 12477:) 12463:) 12437:) 12421:) 12388:) 12307:) 12140:) 12089:) 12075:) 12061:) 12047:) 12023:) 12008:) 11961:) 11941:) 11921:) 11902:) 11884:🖋 11873:) 11852:) 11830:) 11811:) 11748:) 11432:| 11428:| 11424:| 11420:| 11415:| 11411:| 11406:| 11402:| 11376:) 11353:คุ 11328:) 11308:) 11293:) 11268:) 11215:) 11197:) 11168:) 11154:) 11136:) 11128:-- 10821:) 10777:) 10745:) 10731:) 10709:) 10692:) 10659:, 10655:, 10642:) 10619:) 10585:) 10566:) 10524:) 10462:) 10447:) 10433:) 10415:, 10411:, 10405:. 10394:) 10362:) 10335:, 10323:, 10298:) 10260:. 10249:) 10202:) 10144:: 10125:) 10093:) 10085:? 10049:) 10045:· 10041:· 10018:) 10007:-- 9979:) 9971:. 9960:) 9946:) 9928:) 9914:) 9900:) 9860:) 9822:) 9814:]. 9801:) 9767:) 9744:) 9707:) 9693:) 9678:) 9649:) 9625:) 9597:) 9580:) 9537:) 9470:. 9460:s 9403:) 9389:) 9374:) 9317:) 9305:A 9299:) 9243:) 9146:) 9038:. 8993:) 8945:) 8923:) 8888:— 8822:, 8818:, 8798:) 8783:) 8744:, 8722:) 8678:) 8655:– 8619:• 8611:• 8605:de 8603:- 8601:fr 8599:- 8597:en 8587:, 8579:- 8575:- 8567:- 8563:- 8557:gs 8555:• 8551:• 8547:• 8543:- 8539:- 8535:- 8533:fr 8531:- 8529:de 8527:- 8523:- 8518:en 8466:) 8433:, 8422:) 8400:) 8380:) 8331:) 8315:) 8301:) 8283:) 8269:) 8258:-- 8247:) 8232:) 8179:) 8165:) 8147:) 8133:) 8110:) 8088:: 8074:) 8028:) 8005:) 7957:) 7906:) 7887:) 7872:) 7798:) 7735:) 7721:) 7674:) 7657:) 7633:: 7622:: 7611:: 7600:: 7588:: 7576:: 7565:: 7554:: 7543:: 7532:: 7521:: 7510:: 7498:) 7448:) 7431:) 7347:) 7332:. 7309:) 7283:. 7277:| 7273:| 7269:| 7265:| 7260:| 7256:| 7251:| 7247:| 7229:) 7214:) 7189:) 7167:) 7150:) 7136:) 7111:) 7103:. 7079:) 7045:) 7023:) 6993:) 6982:-- 6963:) 6946:) 6920:) 6900:– 6880:) 6859:) 6809:." 6774:) 6697:) 6660:) 6624:) 6580:) 6565:) 6540:) 6490:) 6446:) 6414:) 6393:) 6362:) 6354:-- 6345:) 6330:) 6312:}} 6306:{{ 6283:) 6265:) 6247:) 6184:) 6162:. 6151:) 6072:) 6046:) 6026:) 6018:-- 5995:) 5831:) 5817:) 5800:) 5753:) 5739:) 5717:) 5702:) 5689:, 5679:) 5627:) 5612:) 5598:) 5580:) 5561:) 5537:) 5514:) 5496:) 5488:. 5473:) 5433:) 5419:) 5383:) 5365:) 5357:. 5343:) 5250:) 5229:) 5181:) 5171:TE 5140:) 5126:) 5078:) 5048:) 5024:) 5007:) 4960:. 4947:) 4921:) 4829:) 4814:) 4796:) 4781:) 4763:) 4748:) 4730:) 4711:) 4648:. 4615:) 4522:) 4488:, 4446:) 4394:— 4390:. 4328:) 4252:, 4248:, 4212:) 4204:. 4099:) 4012:) 4004:. 3983:) 3938:) 3913:) 3894:) 3886:. 3857:) 3836:) 3795:) 3781:) 3759:) 3756:やや 3732:) 3729:やや 3716:AN 3712:AN 3699:) 3684:) 3662:) 3659:やや 3618:HP 3604:) 3583:) 3580:やや 3563:) 3551:- 3539:) 3518:) 3483:) 3475:. 3440:) 3410:) 3368:) 3338:) 3312:) 3282:, 3272:) 3257:) 3242:) 3219:) 3202:) 3163:) 3149:, 3145:, 3141:, 3137:, 3133:, 3129:, 3125:, 3121:, 3117:, 3105:) 3082:) 3058:) 3040:) 3021:) 2991:) 2975:) 2960:) 2945:) 2926:) 2911:) 2888:) 2875:, 2865:) 2823:) 2804:) 2779:) 2764:) 2639:) 2625:No 2595:) 2581:No 2574:) 2564:No 2494:) 2458:) 2438:) 2422:) 2414:-- 2395:) 2381:) 2319:) 2304:) 2286:) 2264:) 2249:) 2229:) 2215:) 2193:) 2123:) 2043:) 2017:no 1963:) 1934:) 1919:) 1908:DM 1904:DM 1894:) 1886:. 1860:) 1841:) 1826:) 1751:) 1729:) 1700:) 1686:) 1654:) 1613:) 1570:) 1467:) 1452:) 1417:— 1390:) 1370:) 1336:) 1220:) 1207:Or 1134:) 1116:) 1105:-- 1098:) 1083:) 1023:) 973:) 951:) 937:) 922:) 885:) 862:) 843:| 835:. 788:) 772:) 746:) 722:) 694:) 663:— 635:) 616:) 601:) 593:]? 585:) 540:) 520:M♦ 515:Ma 480:) 435:) 395:) 380:) 347:) 280:) 264:📧 253:. 239:) 219:) 198:M♦ 193:Ma 168:) 143:M♦ 138:Ma 123:) 98:→ 68:← 12544:) 12540:( 12516:( 12501:) 12497:( 12473:( 12459:( 12433:( 12417:( 12384:( 12359:e 12349:b 12329:C 12303:( 12279:: 12275:@ 12261:C 12236:| 12191:) 12187:( 12136:( 12085:( 12071:( 12057:( 12043:( 12031:@ 12019:( 12004:( 11978:) 11974:( 11957:( 11937:( 11917:( 11898:( 11869:( 11848:( 11841:: 11837:@ 11826:( 11807:( 11796:: 11792:@ 11759:: 11755:@ 11744:( 11709:. 11687:. 11664:. 11641:. 11619:. 11581:. 11558:. 11535:. 11513:. 11490:. 11467:. 11436:) 11398:( 11372:( 11358:ก 11324:( 11304:( 11289:( 11264:( 11232:) 11228:( 11211:( 11193:( 11164:( 11150:( 11132:( 11119:. 11096:. 11074:. 11036:. 11013:. 10990:. 10967:. 10945:. 10922:. 10899:. 10848:) 10844:( 10817:( 10811:: 10807:@ 10773:( 10741:( 10727:( 10705:( 10688:( 10638:( 10615:( 10581:( 10562:( 10520:( 10458:( 10443:( 10429:( 10423:: 10407:@ 10390:( 10358:( 10351:. 10310:: 10306:@ 10294:( 10245:( 10198:( 10121:( 10089:( 10037:( 10016:t 10014:( 10009:M 9975:( 9956:( 9942:( 9924:( 9910:( 9896:( 9856:( 9818:( 9797:( 9763:( 9740:( 9703:( 9689:( 9674:( 9645:( 9621:( 9593:( 9576:( 9533:( 9458:' 9417:? 9399:( 9385:( 9370:( 9313:( 9295:( 9265:e 9255:b 9239:( 9168:e 9158:b 9142:( 9057:) 9053:( 9032:) 9028:( 8989:( 8976:e 8966:b 8941:( 8919:( 8794:( 8779:( 8718:( 8704:e 8694:b 8674:( 8479:: 8475:@ 8462:( 8441:: 8429:@ 8418:( 8396:( 8376:( 8327:( 8311:( 8297:( 8279:( 8267:t 8265:( 8260:M 8243:( 8228:( 8201:: 8193:@ 8175:( 8163:t 8161:( 8156:M 8143:( 8131:t 8129:( 8124:M 8106:( 8070:( 8024:( 8018:: 8014:@ 8001:( 7995:: 7987:@ 7953:( 7930:e 7920:b 7902:( 7883:( 7868:( 7837:' 7826:) 7822:( 7811:( 7794:( 7788:2 7785:1 7781:. 7731:( 7717:( 7700:e 7690:b 7670:( 7653:( 7594:. 7494:( 7444:( 7427:( 7343:( 7305:( 7294:) 7290:( 7281:) 7243:( 7225:( 7210:( 7185:( 7163:( 7146:( 7132:( 7107:( 7075:( 7043:t 7041:( 7036:M 7019:( 6991:t 6989:( 6984:M 6959:( 6942:( 6916:( 6876:( 6855:( 6770:( 6757:. 6731:| 6719:) 6715:( 6693:( 6671:: 6667:@ 6656:( 6639:| 6620:( 6576:( 6561:( 6536:( 6486:( 6442:( 6410:( 6389:( 6377:: 6373:@ 6358:( 6341:( 6326:( 6279:( 6261:( 6243:( 6226:) 6220:( 6180:( 6147:( 6097:. 6084:: 6080:@ 6068:( 6042:( 6022:( 5991:( 5933:e 5923:b 5909:) 5905:( 5888:) 5882:( 5861:C 5827:( 5813:( 5796:( 5749:( 5735:( 5713:( 5698:( 5675:( 5663:) 5659:( 5623:( 5608:( 5594:( 5576:( 5557:( 5533:( 5510:( 5492:( 5469:( 5429:( 5415:( 5379:( 5361:( 5339:( 5274:C 5246:( 5225:( 5177:( 5136:( 5122:( 5103:) 5099:( 5074:( 5044:( 5020:( 5003:( 4943:( 4917:( 4825:( 4810:( 4792:( 4777:( 4759:( 4744:( 4740:. 4726:( 4707:( 4684:e 4674:b 4659:) 4655:( 4611:( 4545:| 4518:( 4442:( 4392: 4384:) 4380:( 4324:( 4301:/ 4208:( 4095:( 4008:( 3995:: 3991:@ 3979:( 3934:( 3909:( 3890:( 3853:( 3830:( 3791:( 3777:( 3753:聖 3750:( 3726:聖 3723:( 3695:( 3680:( 3656:聖 3653:( 3628:- 3600:( 3577:聖 3574:( 3559:( 3535:( 3514:( 3508:) 3504:( 3479:( 3464:) 3460:( 3436:( 3406:( 3364:( 3334:( 3308:( 3268:( 3253:( 3238:( 3215:( 3198:( 3181:. 3159:( 3101:( 3080:t 3078:( 3073:M 3054:( 3036:( 3017:( 2987:( 2971:( 2956:( 2941:( 2922:( 2907:( 2884:( 2861:( 2847:) 2841:( 2819:( 2802:t 2800:( 2795:M 2775:( 2760:( 2710:' 2703:) 2699:( 2677:) 2660:C 2635:( 2612:. 2604:- 2593:t 2591:( 2586:M 2570:( 2558:) 2490:( 2454:( 2434:( 2418:( 2391:( 2379:t 2377:( 2372:M 2315:( 2300:( 2282:( 2260:( 2245:( 2225:( 2211:( 2189:( 2119:( 2081:) 2077:( 2041:t 2039:( 2034:M 1959:( 1930:( 1915:( 1890:( 1856:( 1837:( 1824:t 1822:( 1817:M 1799:· 1794:( 1783:☎ 1749:t 1747:( 1742:M 1725:( 1696:( 1684:t 1682:( 1677:M 1650:( 1635:. 1609:( 1566:( 1529:' 1514:) 1510:( 1483:" 1463:( 1448:( 1388:t 1386:( 1381:M 1366:( 1351:. 1334:t 1332:( 1327:M 1230:( 1218:t 1216:( 1211:M 1130:( 1114:t 1112:( 1107:M 1094:( 1079:( 1021:t 1019:( 1014:M 996:· 991:( 971:t 969:( 964:M 947:( 933:( 918:( 881:( 858:( 839:( 817:· 812:( 784:( 768:( 742:( 718:( 690:( 661: 653:) 649:( 631:( 612:( 597:( 581:( 564:) 560:( 536:( 517:c 476:( 469:: 465:@ 455:) 451:( 431:( 418:) 414:( 391:( 376:( 343:( 298:) 294:( 276:( 235:( 215:( 195:c 166:t 164:( 159:M 140:c 119:( 54:.

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