Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290

8314:(from the Arbcom case it originated from) is that you better be 100% sure that if you are doing such mass changes that can be difficult to revert, you better be confident you have consensus to do that, or else you may have admin actions taken against you. Or a better way to phrase it is basically to make sure you have the blessing of consensus that you can point to before taking on mass actions to minimize disruption to the project and what may be admin actions later. You're free to run off and do these without that but you take responsibility if you haven't gained the proper consensus to start. This, at least to me given that SPS does not disallow the use of SPS, put the current situation as one that is not within the clear because there is no obvious concensus to mass remove from existing policy or talk page discussions.-- 6256:

really present", and the Pew Research choice between "during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus" and "the bread wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ". He quotes an observation by Mark Gray that the word "actually" makes it sound like "something that could be analyzed under a microscope or empirically observed", while what the Church teaches is that the "substance" of the bread and wine are changed at consecration, but the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. Erlandson commented further: "Catholics may not be able to articulately define the 'Real Presence', and the phrase 'transubstantiation' may be obscure to them, but in their reverence and demeanor, they demonstrate their belief that this is not just a symbol"

8069:

of time they right. So there's zero reason to make it about editor behavior there. It was trying to seek clarity where there wasn't anything specific. Importantly, you have the DM RFCs behind you to justify the "mechanical action", and in this case, my point was about a limited exception, nothing against your action. Here, there just isn't that same clear consensus. SPS are not preferred sources, and there are certainly types of SPSs that we'd likely kick out, but there's no simple or easy consensus to point to like with the DM RFC to say "we don't allow SPS". One editor making that decision for themselves is going to be responsible for those edits, per FAIT, if they're found to not be within consensus. This is generally why

8883:. I removed it because it's a blog with zero indication of meeting RS, and had been tagged as such cine mid 2018 (by someone else) without being fixed. Kvng restored it and I removed it. Rinse and repeat., Finally Kvng restored it in an HTML comment, for no readily explicable reason, and accused me of not wanting to "compromise" (the definition of "compromise" being, apparently, to include the source in some way even if not visible - which doesn't sound like a compromise, but whatever). I did a search to look for other uses, to see if it's genuinely widely considered reliable. I found one: an external link alongside two links to a WordPress blog. I removed. Kvng restored. And here we are. 261:

futile. The Chechen Mafiya, on the other hand, found better sources for such weapons. Back in 1994, a Moscow-based Palestinian Islamist named Shaaban Khafiz Shaaban claimed to have purchased two suitcase bombs with the help of the Chechen Mafiya. The Chechens claimed to have acquired a few such nuclear weapons, and with the economic crisis in the former Soviet Union nearly out of control, it was not inconceivable that Chechnya could have used its substantial resources to arrange such a sale. Indeed, by 1997, General Aleksandr Ivanovich Lebed, Russia’s former security tsar, acknowledged that several nuclear suitcase bombs had disappeared from Russia’s arsenal.

11316:

of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

10822:

getting taken over by new small unknown organizations, or with The Wall Street Journal being owned by Rupert Murdock. There are ways to work around the limitations of the parent, as every child knows! The SP is not an "anybody can edit" newspaper - articles must be submitted before acceptance, and then are reviewed and copyedited by others and approved by the EIC. Our writers may be pseudonymous, but they are well known within the community. Our comments sections that follow the articles are just amazing - online comment sections don't seem to work well with any other publication, but they do on

8659:, This has its root in a single website that a single editor - Kvng - is determined to include. See my note below, check the article history. The source had been tagged as self-published since July 2018, and not fixed. So I removed it. This process has been discussed here multiple times, and nobody has seriously dissented from the view that a source marked as unreliable for a lengthy period may (and in many people's view should) be removed. The fact of it being self-published is not contested. There are no indicia of reliability about that blog. So: I removed it, because in my (long) experience 10074:

Owning large printing presses or television networks is no longer a pre-requisite of running a news organisation. Some organisations now only have a Web presence. These include newly created ones and others which used to run in the traditional form. The newer ones may have a very small number of staff compared to what used to be the case. That means that we now have a grey area where trying to block use of sources on the grounds that they are 'self-published', as happens on the RSN, sometimes using a double-standard, is not appropriate.

7343:

thing). They do link to the original reports in nearly all spot checks so editors on WP here should be using those original reports and not the summary at Cleantechnica. The fact they favor sustainable renewables over, say, a hydrogen economy should not be taken as a strike against it. But I think between the claimed "recognizition" and the disclaimer points to me that very little content on the site has use for WP, but editors should not be afraid to click through the links in their stories to get the useful meaty stuff. Eg

5816:" page. This seems to be a site where any average Joe can apply and get their stuff published. "Once formatted, you’ll be able to publish it directly to the site (editorial approval may or may not be necessary)" implies that they do not curate some of what is published. It describes the process of sending your writing in to gain "exposure, experience, and opportunity." Why would we source a cite for people wanting experience rather than people who actually have it? I'd vote to call this source 3834:, when Breitbart started eating Fox's lunch, Fox became markedly more partisan and markedly less factual. Fox have basically taken OAN's space, and OAN is responding in the same weay. This is fully consistent witht he positive feedback loop effect documented by Benkler, which means that partisan right wing media will tend to become more right wingh and less accurate, because their system of incentives penalises rather than rewarding factual content that contradicts the right-wing narrative. 35: 6134:, I'm not seeing any information on wordspy.com about who runs the site, who writes their content, etc - it doesn't look like RS to me. They do have some quotes there from reliable sources, which if you were able to track down and check might be usable; however, they're mostly just examples of usage, only one of them actually mentions anything about the meaning of the word (and that source's definition doesn't align exactly with the definition that the wordspy.com gives for the word). 2396:. The original is behind a paywall while the Academia PDF is readily available. The citation didn't specify either website; I found these on my own. However, the Academia PDF contained a credit, "Edited By: Habesha Gaaffaa-Geeska Yäafrika, PhD," and has yellow highlighting throughout the document (presumably added there by Yäafrika). But for all I know, this version has had its text modified, as well. (I've previously brought up another problematic source attributed to Yäafrika at 10802:. As far as the book review Piotrus asked about and acknowledging that whether a source is reliable depends on the context and the details. Yes, that book review looks very reliable for most uses. Why Piotrus needs to know whether Wikipedians consider it reliable is an open question, but the author has a Ph.D., work experience at at the WMF. Off-Signpost the author reveals his real world name. The review itself was obviously well edited. The quality in general just shines through. 1698: 1086: 1693: 1081: 5217:, "Little is known about the origins and activities of his family." and "This suggests that it was the grandfather of Ibn Rushd’s great-grandfather...who converted to Islam. Assuming that the average lifespan in al-Andalus was forty lunar years, and that twenty-five was the average age of conversion, Ibn Rushd’s ancestors would have converted to Islam about the middle of the 3rd/9th century, approximately two centuries after the Muslims arrived in the Iberian Peninsula." - 4116: 122:. Murphy is reportedly "a former U.S. government senior counterterrorism official" and "a U.S. congressional special adviser on Russia in 2002" who "dealt with issues related to counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Russia" (I have not been able to verify this biography). There's not much reviews about the book, and while some positive ones can be found, there are also at least two negative ones which described it as very biased and void of sources 9714:- on the basis that the book itself was self-published and someone had tagged it with the SPS template. My experience is that people who engage in that kind of insistent silliness with automated tools even when challenged don't tend to only do it in isolated instances." (I've just remembered that he didn't actually start with deleting it, he was instead removing the reference to the National Library and replacing it with a CN tag at first, which was even sillier.) 5058:(which no reliable source says exists in this case) is a document filed by a prosecutor charging a defendant with a crime. It must be made under oath before a magistrate judge. It initiates a criminal case and leads to a show cause hearing scheduled by a clerk-magistrate. If a criminal complaint existed for Biden / Reade the NYT would have reported "Joe Biden was charged with sexual assault today" and everybody would be talking about the upcoming criminal trial. 707:, which meets rs. IIRC Scott was the young woman who spoke up when one of the killers asked if anyone was a Christian and was killed. Since that is why she is notable, I think the emphasis of the article should be on that incident and it's development into a myth. Is that what actually happened, was she a martyr and what influence has her story had? Those are the issues that should be the focus of the article, per weight, rather than biographical information. 6190:, and if our very short, poorly-sourced article about him is accurate, I agree with you that he's not an established expert in the field of etymology, so wordspy.com wouldn't reach the level of an expert SPS (in the same way that a blog by a heavily-cited professor of the English language from a major university might) - so no, not reliable. I wouldn't even rely on it for the quotes - you'd need to go to the original source to check that it was accurate. 7032:

Indore, India, and Moscow, Russia. We don’t answer to stockholders, a corporate parent company, or a deep-pocketed donor. Instead we’re accountable to, and funded by, you—our readers.". The website seems to be barely updated, with articles on the front page being several months old, there's no evidence of any editoral oversight, and the entire website seems like it could just be a self published blog. Including it seems like a huge BLP violation.

127:. The book is filled with rather controversial statements about a subject that is already heavily politicized. For example, Murphy has alleged early ties between Al-Qaeda and Chechen insurgents in the early phase of the 2nd Chechen War (while other authors have always pointed out that there was no real evidence for this), and also that "Chechens supplied Bin Laden with suitcase nukes in the mid-90s", amongst other unverified claims of 6895:

heritage country, and I also identify with that, but nonetheless, I was born in country A. I understand Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, but the countries that were in it still do (even though they weren't countries then). If there is no verbal confirmation or any documents that prove nationality, how can it just be assumed that it is one and not the other, regardless of whether it seems more plausible. I'm just trying to understand.

9967:- the documentation allows for the case where it is unclear whether a source is self-published, but not for cases where a SPS is used correctly according to policy. Because of this ambiguity, I for one have refrained from removing SPS tags from appropriate ABOUTSELF or expert self-published citations, because I did not see an appropriate procedure or documented grounds to do so (and I don't generally believe in IAR tag removal). 10278:- you've made a number of extremely aggressive replies in this thread in reflexive defense of JzG that don't actually engage with anything said by anyone in the conversation whatsoever apart from to engage in random personal attacks. It's sad and unhelpful, and makes it more likely that they continue to come up again and again despite being issues that are entirely resolvable with the slightest bit of effort towards resolution. 1999:"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." -- 3059:, the source is reliable (display official election result data imported both from the primary official result website in each state and from the New York Times) and it is also of a unique high quality (as it transparently outline how national pledged delegates have been calculated while explaining the underlying math, so that the reader himself can check and verify that the calculated results indeed are correct). 6802:

multiple nationalities through their life etc leaving the question up in the air, and there are also many countries who confer nationality onto any child born within their territory by default. Also on wikipedia for WP:FOOTBALL the players are listed based upon their representative nationality (which differs to their passport in a significant number of cases - every English player for starters).

5761:

experienced editors as to when SPS can be used and when they cannot: the actual ABOUTSELF carve-out includes authentic information about the person or group that has authored the source, not only "self-descriptions". One of the more common cases where these issues arise is when SPS are used to document a source's reaction to a matter of public interest, which is occasionally (though seldom) DUE.

7061:

terms, money from savings has long run out, they are even building now manually, without any equipment at all. There aren't even any concrete mixers. And all his hope is on the Internet platforms, on the help of caring people. And then there are obvious lies, attracting nonexistent cases to Dean, and so on. In General, the authority of the link-fake no, definitely delete and do not restore.--

11106:

Times Company. User's on Knowledge are not published by a separate publisher no matter what review by other User's they go through, they are always the publisher, even when it's jointly published by more than one User. None of our Users get to launder User generated Knowledge writings to claim it's not User generated because another User also had a hand in generating it. --

6026: 5910: 4238:"Rich McHugh is an Emmy-winning investigative producer with over 20 years experience in television news. Recently, he served as executive producer for Al Gore’s 24 Hours of Reality, a global broadcast focused on climate change. Prior to that, he was a supervising producer in the NBC News Investigative Unit and spent nearly a decade at ABC News producing Good Morning America." 3826:, I am a big fan, and the site definitely informs my view of the bias and reliability of a source, but we cannot use it to drive content. Partly because it's self-published, partly because it doesn't have a peer-reviewed methodology, and partly because it is time sensitive and lags events (successive versions have moved Fox steadily down and right, for example). MBFC are 3021:: The site provides high quality information, but it's essentially a self-published website by two politics geeks, with no editorial oversight (nor any web designer to speak of). It can be used, but if The Green Papers say one thing and mainstream media outlets say another, report what the mainstream outlets say, even if you believe the Green Papers are "more accurate". 2553:

represents the partial view of a missionary who sought to return Albanians to their supposed exalted Western Christian origins. (There is a Saudi publication by Muslim missionaries on Albanians too to watch out for, which is nearly the Islamized mirror image of Jacques, similarly exaggerating the significance of Albanians in Islamic and Mediterranean history etc etc) --

10856:. Signpost has editorial controls and is not a place where vandalisms and such are found (edited in by anyone). And many top quality newspapers have anonymous writers (think The Economist, for example). Also, for this particular source, I accept smallbones note that the author is RL reliable (but I don't want to investigate this further due to possible 6392:, whose real names are (except for two first names) officially unknown. However, on ASCAP, they are listed with their (supposed) real names and their PKAs, their artist names. I'd like to know how trustable ASCAP is as a source for real names and if it would be alright to add these names to their respective articles with ASCAP as the reference. Thanks! 8750:

occasionally does an article pop up on my watchlist where someone is fixing an unreliable source. The vast majority of these removals get no pushback at all, a few result in consensus to include the source and a more appropriate tag noting the consensus, and a few, like this, end up with a fight with someone who wants to include the source regardless.

1880: 1802:, which documents important events in modern South African history. I know that the government South Africa during apartheid had not been kind to its dissidents, and I have no doubt that it would push its pro-apartheid propaganda in the press. Since the end of apartheid, however, the nation seems to have a relatively free press, as evidenced 9168:

they think about something) then they may be OK, and should not be removed with out discussion. It seems to me (and if this is wrong the pair of you need to make a better case) GUy wants to remove SPS that meet this on the grounds they are SPS and you want to him to stop removing SPS that fail this because they are SPS, you are both wrong.

4663:"An arrest, by itself, doesn’t begin formal criminal proceedings. Rather, the filing of a document in court is required. In most instances in state court, the document is a 'complaint.' Complaints can be either civil or criminal. Civil complaints initiate lawsuits, typically between private parties or a private party and the government. 10313:- I could link any one of your comments in this discussion (and if I was feeling more facetious and less tired I'd just gather each diff): for all the aggressive comments and personal attacks, at no point have you even acknowledged that you understand that this was even a conversation about self-published sources or acknowledged that 3229:

calculation details - plus some sourced comments on all potential subsequent changes to the count of pledged national convention delegates happening after the election date itself) for all Democratic/Republican presidential races from 2000-2020 in their database. It can simply not just be replaced by any other reliable source.

9660:, So if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that in your view the onus is on me, as the editor seeking to remove a source tagged as unreliable, to demonstrate its unreliability, rather than on the editors of the article, duly notified by tagging the source with an appropriate tag, to demonstrate that it 7726:. The source was tagged for well over a year. You had all that time to fix it, since you were clearly monitoring the article. You didn't. When I did, you reinstated it multiple times. It is very clear to me that it's not about "awaiting improvements", you consider yourself an authoritative reviewer of content ( 6622:"many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Knowledge includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" 4679:"What will happen after I file a Criminal Complaint? There is a person at the court called the "clerk-magistrate." The clerk-magistrate will schedule a hearing. The hearing is called a "show cause" hearing. The show cause hearing is to see if there are enough facts to show that what happened was a crime." 10230:

find themselves in these sorts of conflicts), which makes your instant aggro, rationale-less defence of them just because they make the same kind of edits and apparently you've got a chip on your shoulder from someone (probably incorrectly) having criticised you for yours along the way somewhere very

8902:

It's not an issue about Kvng at all (and Kvng is not the only editor to raise issues with your discretionless purge in the past). You could well be right about this individual case (which I have no opinion on), but "all self-published links are unreliable and replaced with CN tags, regardless of what

8032:

someone else came along to restore/readd it without improving that sourcing to meet the BURDEN. What isn't covered - and this is something that numerous ANI/ARBCOM cases have show - mechanical actions of removals without appropriate discussion or human review is a major disruption for WP even if the

7031:

states: "Epistle News is a reader-supported nonprofit news organization. We do independent and investigative reporting on everything from politics and climate change to education and food (plus cat blogging). You can follow us on Twitter. We are headquartered in The United Kingdom and have bureaus in

6920:

Yes that would make sense, but we have no access to his official documentation, nor is there evidence of him stating his nationality anywhere. So how does one come to the conclusion that he is this or that nationality? The assumption would be that his nationality is Croatian, but there is no proof of

6879:

with the idea of a "nationality" etc which is pretty common in articles covering the FRY. Boris was (as a child born in Yugoslavia) born with Yugoslavian nationality, and then following the break-up of the FRY, he would have had to take another nationality from one of the new independent countries. I

3003:

The days and weeks after a primary/caucus is over, there can still be updates to votes totals and delegates from official sources until the final results are certified. The Green Papers always keeps up with these updates, while other reliable sources like the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN often

1860:

Yes, PhD theses should always be considered reliable unless there is very good evidence to suggest otherwise, and I have no problem with this one. PhD theses go through peer review, and Wikipedians should always respect this, unless we have specific evidence to prove "plagiarism, bribery, and fraud".

11380:

university anywhere unless special circumstances dictated an exception. For that reason, I would not consider such a thesis reliable without an in-depth inspection and a highly reliable citation for its reliability. The site, of course, is doing a signal service by keeping records of them, for who

11035:

source. Editorial control? Check. A reputation for fact-checking? Check. Independence from the topic the source is covering? Maybe, and maybe not. The Signpost regularly publishes material that is critical of the WMF, Arbcom. etc. On the other hand, the WMF has made noises in the past that show that

10225:

I'm not sure I've disagreed with you before in all our years on Knowledge, but your reflexive, aggressive defences of other users engaged in semi-automated editing without engaging with anything anyone says whatsoever are getting very tiring. Your approach to your own article editing in this area is

9853:

I don't know how "actionable" anything is, but there is clearly a difference of emphasis and interpretation w.r.t. policy, which appears to reflect underlying presumptions. On the one hand, we have a group who regard WP:SPS as presumptively unreliable, who treat an SPS tag as morally equivalent to a

9668:

For the umpteenth time, you're not removing sources tagged as unreliable (or at least it's not those edits that are being disputed). You're removing sources tagged as self-published, which is not the same thing, and which has its own guidelines specifically to give people like you editorial guidance

9380:

I'm not talking about Kyng's blog, as you well know, so yes, there is (obviously) dispute that sources that are not tagged as unreliable but merely as self-published can be shot on sight as "unreliable". All you need to do for there to be absolutely no dispute here is to read and follow the guidance

9361:

Well, there's no dispute in this acse that it is unreliable, and the presence of a tag warning editors that it's disputed, for more than 3 months, is a minimum before I willr remove it, so what we're left with is a reversal of the burden of evidence, requiring someone to prove a source is unreliable

9167:

No, as this dispute seems to have originated with a source that did not satisfy about self. Thus (the pair of you) are using too broad a page viewer. SPS can (and should be removed) if they are not by an expert and not about themselves. But if they are about themselves (that is to say them, not what

8120:

Agree with Newslinger. This is perfectly normal editorial cleanup. Cleaning up our extensive backlogs of terrible sourcing is good, and proposals to arbitrarily hinder dealing with it are nonsensical, as are objections to any "systemic approach" whatsoever - where the "systemic approach" is properly

8068:

The case where there was general agreement that RSOPINION may be valid for reviews from DM writers that I'm still waiting for more input on? For one, it was only one example I saw and was about the general question of DM deprecation and RSOPINION. I know you're removing nearly all DM refs and 99.99%

7973:

Your last point only deals with edit warring on new-ish content. When content has been in articles for a while, while there is still the factor of ONUS for retaining that content, we'd also prefer to retain content and find better replacement than outright remove when that content's been there for a

6824:

True, but by the same token a person may not be the national of the country they were born in. Hence if someone moves (especially at a young age) the only way we have of determining nationality is either some form of official document (such as a passport) that states it, or their own statements. Not

6801:

Not picking a fight Slater, just wary people might latch onto that as it's a bit that is a bit of an oversimplification and not always true; many US Citizens do not have passports (was it something like 60%?), and obviously this doesn't work when countries have split, reformed, where people may have

6330:

Mark Gray, from the Georgetown University CARA centre, who is the person quoted by Erlandson with regard to the Pew Research survey, is clearly an opinion\-survey expert. Erlandson's subsidiary remark, that the reverence and demeanour of Catholics in general towards the consecrated Eucharistic bread

6300:

Op-edds are allowed as long as the opinion is attributed (it is) and is form someone whose opinion might be considered expert (that is harder as Greg Erlandson appears to only be an editor of various publications, not an acknowledged expert). Also as the section is about the catholic church, that is

4331:

The present text is sourced to the NYT, but misquotes it. NYT doesn't say Reade filed a public incident report. It simply calls it "a report". The document about the report that was released to media is public, while the report that was filed is not. Our article has it twisted and claims she filed a

3069:

Another quality of The Green Papers source is that it continue to track subsequent developments for the calculated final result of allocated won "national pledged delegates", both when "certified final results" are published by the official result website roughly one month after the election, and in

2463:

Thanks, I was able to get it via ProQuest. No, no one was specifically citing the Academia.edu version (nor any online version) but, again, I recognized the name therein from a different cited reference (made to appear as though it appeared in an academic journal, when, as far as I can tell, it did

495:

states that a reliable source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and there is no indication that this applies to Murphy's book. To the contrary, the book has hardly any sources and no footnotes, exactly the opposite of a reliable source. But I'll let others give an opinion now, since

220:

The attitude of the reviews shows that the book is vetted by the scholarly community. The only negative review has been published by an NGO, and doesn't contain any specific criticism which concerns claims currently made on the page Russian apartment bombings and supported by the book by Murphy as a

11535:, I just restored the last stable version from before the recent edit war (27 March 2020 version, but there are only minor differences from the 27 February 2020 version). The edit warring has to stop. Leave the status quo version up while you discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page. -- 11315:

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process

8985:

are rarely fixed. Very rarely. I've been doing this for more than two years, and have responded to comments over time. Thus I don't usually remove a bad source straight away, I first make sure it has been tagged for some months and editors have had an opportunity to fix it, and have not done so. Of

8246:

Which two examples? They're not examples I cited. What are you hoping to achieve by noting that yes, there are obviously bad self-published sources which ought to be removed (and which absolutely no one is arguing) every time someone points out that Knowledge has policies which set out the criteria

8050:

You keep claiming "mechanical actions" in your objections to the removal of bad sources. You need to show this specifically for your justification for not removing bad sources to hold up. I pointed out just a week or two when you tried claiming this one about me, and you failed to come through then

6255:

In a comment on the Pew Research Report, Greg Erlandson drew attention to the difference between the formulation in the CARA survey, in which the choice was between "Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist" and "the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not

3956:

This reply will apply to both of your posts since they are the same for both. Do you have any evidence that they are not? What should we use in their absence? Do we just use editor opinion? You are proposing the OAN be labeled "far-right" but the bias reporting sites don't agree with that. Why

3436:

We are however experience editors who (generality) understand policy, an SPS is an SPS accuracy is irrelevant. If this was produced by A recognised (BY other RS) it might be usable, no evidence has been produced it is. can tell you (exactly) what the weather is like outside my house, that does not

3392:

All of the above 4 additional data points are not provided by alternative newspaper sources. Once certified results are published by the primary official election source (which TGP link to), they then finally also remove their data disclaimer about "preliminary data subject to change" (i.e. see the

1666:

seems to be better in (usually) attributing the content to the original source, which puts them ahead of most of the similar quick-to-set-up aggregators in the Indian marketplace but there is no indication of actual original reporting and/or of additional fact-checking, which would make them useful

376:

database, it remains one of the few known terrorist attacks involving a radioactive substance. His act became one of the first radiological terrorist attacks in the world and thus paved the way for imitation by other terrorist organizations. In the world of terrorist organizations, Basayev's attack

11138:

let alone reliable, it's user generated by Knowledge editors, so not reliable; it's not a professional structure, it's amateur, which is fine but not for a Knowledge source, we want professional publishers (now, if you want a particular author to be considered an expert, than that would have to go

9234:

sure, it's a self-published book, but if you have good sources for its significance then we can mention it without violating WP:UNDUE. What you're doing is spot on: improving the sourcing. I'm not even clear why we're having this argument. I followed up on a tag that had not been actioned in ages,

9202:

And I would point out I am not alone in thinking you were making an argument about all SPS. I in fact said "and if this is wrong the pair of you need to make a better case". AS I said I think the pair of you have been so keen of arguing (see What this is about below) that you are arguing past each

8950:

I'm not talking about Kvng, I'm talking about you. I don't disapprove of the concept of deprecation at all. David does good work in that regard. I very strongly disapprove of pretending you can unilaterally "deprecate" sources which are not, in fact, deprecated, and are, in fact, fine. That you're

7882:

issue that can arise if the action is actually found not to be within consensus. This seems to be the type of action that needs to be checked first. Tagging SPS as such to ask for their removal or replacement is one thing, but to remove them to replace with CNs and without first seeking consensus,

7060:

Thank you for your support. I looked at both the article and the video and immediately realized that this is clearly no proof, but just a fake, sketch, maybe even a goal of extortion. It's no secret that Dan Schneider was rich only in the beginning. Today they are extremely vulnerable in financial

5034:

You keep calling the police report a "criminal complaint" as if that was an established fact, citing the same unreliable source and deciding to ignore reliable sources. We are not going to deliberately introduce false information from an unreliable source into a Knowledge page. That's not going to

4821:

Given that it's a marginal RS to begin with and that it's using a term that falsely implies that Joe Biden was indicted for a crime, I don't feel real good about BI for any of this content. One reason it might be showing more detail on the report is that the report itself is insignificant and that

4695:

Biden has not been charged with a crime. There was no show cause hearing. It is unlikely that a magistrate judge or clerk-magistrate was involved. It is likely that the report was made to a cop manning the front desk at the police station. It appears that Reade simply reported what happened to the

4381:

Reade said she filed the complaint against Biden for "safety reasons," to establish a paper trail of the incident in case anything happened to her. The statute of limitations for the alleged incident has passed..."I also wanted to make it clear that I would be willing to go under oath or cooperate

3411:

There are reasons. We are an encyclopedia whose credibility is based on adherence to referencing to sources with reputations for fact checking, editorial oversight, and making corrections when necessary. Your argument is based largely on the mechanics of the information that TGP publishes and your

3257:

should be added to Knowledge articles by AP/CNN/TGP or none of them at all, is a second very seperate ongoing debate, where my own position is, that infoboxes should completely refrain from displaying these calculated preliminary data figures delivered by any source, meaning that we should instead

3222:

I suspect that all those who replied "No" from 23-26 February most likely lack some experience on what this source is really about and how Knowledge article's previously chose to use it (as a supplementing secondary source along with the primary source being the "official election result webpage")

2552:

Not RS. I believe this has been discussed before. Jacques' commentary occasionally has notability not as a source but as a topic. Aside from that, he is, very much as AB has already demonstrated, not reliable. Even if it weren't for his hilarious claim about Troy, which is news to me, he very much

683:

has termed these books "hagiographies". There's also a myriad of articles from reliable news sources that quote extensively from interviews with her family. The books and interviews are used to support numerous claims mostly related either to Rachel's personality, her religious views and piety, or

444:

Both also sought, Abu al-Walid reports, to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or at least dirty bombs, in their confrontation with the great powers. One of the major reasons for bin Laden’s contacts with Khattab was a quest for WMD because Al Qaeda hawks were convinced, Abu al-Walid

11105:

Wiki's are by every sensible standard including Knowledge's user generated. User:Guy Macon is incontrovertibly a User. User:SignpostEditor is incontrovertibly a User. They are incontrovertibly not reporters nor editors for the New York Times. And they certainly are not published by the New York

10073:

The idea of self-publishing goes back to the era when vanity publishers would be paid to print books which the writer would then give away free to his friends. With the advent of the Web, it's become inexpensive to broadcast written material. The journalism industry is going through a revolution.

8931:

The bald fact is that searches routinely show tens of thousands of uses of sources that should not be in Knowledge, and the people who try to fix that continually get pushback from the same small group of individuals who seem to think that's fine despite pretty solid consensus here that it's not.

8927:

Yes, lots of people who disapprove of the concept of deprecation are very fond of trying to prevent any action based on it. I think everyone here is well aware. I think we're also well aware that words like "discretionless" are used with zero evidence and are in fact 100% incorrect as David and I

8726:

is simply not true in the context of your edits, because a self-published source and a "source marked as unreliable" are not the same thing. Claiming what you just did in response to multiple editors spelling out why your approach is problematic makes it pretty obvious that it's not just an issue

8641:

But that's not happening here: in no case is it being addressed in any other way on any case by case basis than "shoot on sight" and replace with a CN tag, even when disputed by other editors. (And once again, we don't have a list of situations where the Daily Mail is acceptable, so the attempted

7319:

It publishes heavily promotional and padded content. For example, an article published recently on Cleantechnica entitled "Why People Love Elon Musk So Much" is effusive in celebrating Elon Musk, a polarizing figure, and the article is openly a repost of an identical article from four years ago.

6421:

This feels like it straddles a line between self-published sources and legal records. ASCAP, as a performance-rights organization, would have a record who is registered as the copyright holder of a work. The names would be provided by the creator of the work. So, on the one hand, we have a record

5050:

is a document that the police department publishes showing that a police report exists and thus that someone reported a crime. Public incident reports often withhold the name of the accused and the name of the person reporting the crime. The NYT correctly reports that Reade says that a particular

4984:

The tides began to shift following Rich McHugh's report in Business Insider on Friday that Reade had filed a criminal complaint against Biden. The New York Times ran its first report about the allegation on Sunday morning as millions of Americans were observing Easter. The Washington Post and NBC

3867:

Usable if quoted in a third-party source. So, hypothetically, if the New York Times cites the Ad Fontes Chart's "skews right" rating of One America News in a news article about OANN, we can use the NYT article as a source to support a statement which reads 'The source is rated "skews right" by Ad

3228:

is not a traditional source, but more of a factual election result database, which collected and documented all official election results (with its primary data-input being identical to the imported results from the primary official website result webpages, and adding several important additional

2183:, sufficient that we don't need to source directly from the primary, even if it was a good idea, which it is not. Or do you mean re "manifesto"? They vary. We obnessively use manifesto, sources use manifesto, story, email, diatribe and other characterisations. Incels always use manifesto, though. 295:

Murphy also wrote about a "Chechen terrorist carrying out the first-ever act of nuclear terrorism". It shouldn't really matter that you want to use the source for another topic though. Apart from the dubious claims, his book has no footnotes. There's many books like that about conflicts, all very

9543:

has two sections (one on top of the other). A number of the commenters here (most recently Slatersteven) don't bother to read the second one ("Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves", for the lazy), which is largely where this problem lies. JzG is systematically removing

7877:

systematic removal that is not clearly shown in policy to be something like "immediately removed" or the like (this is like for copyright violations, gross BLP violations, NFC violations, etc.), should typically not be done in a systematic approach until prior consensus is developed first, as to

7370:

Strong bias and possible undisclosed conflict of interest: I've read a number of people in the finance sector who have raised questions about the relationship between Cleantechnica and Tesla. It seems the site may have a relationship with the company leaking information to them that would be of

6894:

So what then is the conclusion that we come to? That he is Croatian because it seems the most plausible outcome as he moved there when he was 2? Think about it this way, I was born in country A and moved to country B, but I still identify with country A which is where I was born. Country C is my

6715: 6315:

Yep, I agree it's hard to establish that Erlandson is an expert (he's not). And frankly, someone quoting an unnamed theologian's opinion is somehow representative of "General belief and knowledge among Catholics" is a really large stretch. And really, the opinion isn't really Erlandson's in that

5042:

is a document prepared by a police officer (typically the desk sergeant) when someone shows up at the police station and reports a crime. No police department will reveal the contents of a police report, so neither Knowledge, Business Insider, or The New York Times knows from any official police

2693:

so is very pro-Catholic, and probably not an acceptable source for claims like O'Connor "ministering" to AIDS patients; the consensus view seems to be that he was - to put it charitably - not well-disposed towards gay people. The word homophobe is commonly used (as indeed is bigot). I propose to

2039:

This establishes that there is no blanket prohibition on Tweets (One could ague that the "subject of the article" is Biden, not Reade, but I am not about to open that can of worms). The question to me is whether the twitter citation in any way "augments the secondary source" or whether it simply

1231:

strategy in which an article is taken without permission from another source, lightly modified by having a computer program swap out synonyms for random words and phrases, and then republished as a new article. The Hindi2News article is full of grammatical errors, as is typical of spun articles.

10821:

WP:WINARS says that Knowledge itself is not a reliable source, and SP is a part of Knowledge. How can the child overcome the limitations of the parent? e.g. anonymous editing by "anybody". Note the same questions should be asked outside Knowledge, e.g. with UPI, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated

7544:

I was also concerned something like this was going to happen, and would also appreciate seeing some diffs. Another of my concerns involves the citing of sources that were once RS prior to the paradigm shift to digital internet and the irresistible lure of clickbait which has led so many of them

7462:

David's edits usually make sense, and in all the time I've seen his removals pop up in my areas of interest I've never seen a bad call. JzG's are another matter entirely, because he's nuking self-published sources from orbit even in contexts where they're explicitly allowed by policy (as in the

7323:

It appears to favor one "flavor" of clean energy over another. "The Allure Of A Hydrogen Economy Continues To Dazzle Some Researchers" features next to no sources but nevertheless states "Someday, in the far distant future, there may be so much renewable energy available that using it to making

5760:

I have no opinion whatsoever about this case, but wanted to point out that "uncontroversial self-descriptions" is not a phrase that describes everything covered by ABOUTSELF, which includes both QS and SPS material. Part of the tangle of problems in this area is the lack of agreement among even

10811:

I believe this is just one case where individual articles could very well be considered reliable sources. SP does have an editorial team working well together, though at times our staffing can be a bit thin. There's a 15 year history behind SP, and there have been downs as well as ups, but the

9621:

What, exactly, was confusing to either of you about "I still have no position either way on Kvng's blog because the issue is much bigger than him"? If you're going to contribute to a discussion, it would vastly assist everyone if you would read both the relevant guidelines and the posts you're

9510:

SPS is clear that SPS are "largely not acceptable as sources" it goes on to give one (and as far as I can see only one) reason that an SPS might be acceptable "produced by an established expert on the subject matter". Does the blog meet this requirement, if the answer is anything but yes it is

9459:

No. We know of old that The Drover's Wife rejects the idea that unreliable sources should be removed, for reasons I still don't fully understand, but this thread has its specific genesis in Kvng's insistence, as documented on his talk page, on including that blog, and when I checked the site I

7342:

This to me looks like an industry trade magazine. Very little of the content is unique to the site, most of the content appears to summaries of reports and press releases that the site editors seek out to summarize, with only a handful of wholly original materials (like the mentioned Elon Musk

6778:

That doesn't make sense. There is no statement in this source from Novkovic that he isn't Bosnian nor is there a mention that he is Croatian. We're going off of personal knowledge/beliefs that he was born somewhere and lives somewhere to determine nationality? So this source wouldn't determine

6261:

1 Let me quote what is in the page footer "Echoes is the opinion section of TheBostonPilot.com, the Web site of The Pilot. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or The Pilot. Publication does not represent an endorsement by the

4750:

checks. The claim "in my home state of Massachusetts, it is quite possible and common for a regular persons to file a criminal complaint with the police" is directly contradicted by the link provided, which says that you fill out a Police Incident Report form, take it to the court, complete an

4633:

describes an indictment. It's a gross abusee of Knowledge policies to use a twist of language, regardless of its origin, to insinuate to our readers that Biden has been indicted. As has also been pointed out on the article talk page, it's irrelevant, encouraging SYNTH OR, to follow up with the

674:

and was subsequently given a Christian martyr treatment in the USA, some of which seems to have crept into the article. I'm particularly concerned about the many books written about Rachel after her death under the supervision of her family, which has done a fair share to promote the martyrdom

260:

But the Chechen leaders’ greatest service to Osama bin Laden and the jihadist movement was helping al Qaeda acquire a number of nuclear “suitcase bombs.” Between 1996 and 1998, bin Laden had spent well over $ 3 million trying to purchase an ex-Soviet nuclear suitcase bomb, but his efforts were

226:

Beyond that, review (2) has noted that the book's biggest shortcoming is the absense of footnotes, which "points to potential shortcomings in research". Review (3) has also noted the absense of footnotes and that "the accuracy and veracity of many of the author’s assertions or accounts must be

5327:

staffer made up what they thought Garden would have said and published it under his name on the assumption that the extra clicks generated would make up for the cost of any legal action if he complained. It seems ridiculous that we have to take things like this into consideration with a major

622:

It should have limited use as a tertiary publication. In this case, they said in 1999 that Chechen terrorists were considered to be responsible for the bombings. They provide sources that say this. They did not conduct any investigation or provide any statement about whether those claims were

237:

Other criticism made within the review (3) is that a reader might find "more balanced and intellectually rigorous accounts of the Russo-Chechen War". However, the author of the review doesn't criticise the point essential to the article "Russian apartment bombings", that is, the complicity of

3361:

You accidently missed the point of my stated comment above. MrX started this "reliable source RFC" because he want to use AP/CNN instead of TGP as a reliable source for the preliminary calculated number of "pledged national convention delegates" election results. My position is, that neither

9861:

I myself don't have a bone to pick with the SPS tag-based edits, but have had to put enough time and effort into reminding editors on Talk pages that the carve-out for expert SPS even exists that I have some sympathy with the second group. I would at least want it recognized that there is a

7515:

This is not an argument about "unreliable" sources. It is an argument about self-published sources, and Knowledge already has clear guidelines about when they're usable, which JzG is ignoring and just nuking them from orbit. A source from the National Library database that an author wrote a

6555:

Even if the artist's stage name is listed under "Performers" and the artist's assumed real name is listed under "Writers", I don't think this would be enough to show that the artist's real name corresponds to the artist's stage name. This is because the song isn't necessarily written by the

8749:

OK, so what's your preferred way of dealing with a source that's been tagged as unreliable for over a year? Bear in mind that there are tens of thousands of them and, by definition, they are being ignored. In fact I have no evidence of any widespread fixing of unreliable sources, only very

3183:

If something is an estimate, that must be mentioned in the text. But there is no reason in reporting their estimates since they have no claim to expertise. However, journalists are supposed to have the expertise to weigh sources, so we can use their info if it is reported in news articles.

404:

Alright, didn't know about such a move (sounds like something Basaev could do), so Murphy probably did refer to that, but the selling of nuclear weapons to Bin Laden is too much. The problem with a book like this is, again, that it has no footnotes, so we often don't know what he bases his

9857:

On the other hand, we have another group who - for quite varied reasons - take a broader view of the exceptions granted in ABOUTSELF and for the self-published work of established experts, and who therefore see a fundamental difference between SPS and CN tags such that it appears entirely

7447:

cites - I review every single one by human eyeball and hand-click in Firefox, but the usages are so routinely terrible it's rare for me to do anything but just remove the damn things. I understand JzG uses AWB due to accessibility issues, but has said previously that each edit is properly

3381:

Display exactly how many pledged delegates each candidate won within respectively each of the 6 election races that form part of a states overall election event (i.e. congressional district 1+2+3+4 delegates, plus the PLEO delegates per statewide total and at-large delegates per statewide

9490:

Lying about my clear and repeatedly restated position does not help your case. (Actually) unreliable sources should be removed. Claiming that all self-published sources are, by definition, unreliable, so you can sidestep our self-published sources guidelines and delete them all because

9278:

arguments I've ever seen in all my years on Knowledge and a sad attempt to retrospectively come up with a justification for the edit rather than just admitting that you had erred. That very response is one of the major reasons I highly doubt that that was a one-off error of judgment.

9777:

Well, not by the examples given. If you want to show a campaign of behaviour, you have to actually do the bit where you actually show problematic diffs and so forth. So far it looks like you're jumping on a barely-substantiated claim to bring other complaints, without even that much

7498:, and if the problem is not fixed in a month or two, then the source (and material sourced to it) can then be removed. Note this only applies to existing sources. New attempts to add sources after they have been listed for notice as a unreliable source can be removed without wait. -- 11192:

per JzG and Headbomb. To continue Smallbones' metaphor, while in (say) real life a child can and probably should outgrow a parent, in case of Knowledge/ Signpost, it is more a question of how, metaphorically, a child with developmental and behavioral issues can outgrow its parent.

3066:), then The Green Papers source add quality to wikipedia. Newspaper sources and even the offical website result websites, tend to skip publication of the calculations behind the allocation of national pledged delegates, and instead just jump on to display only the final results. 3370:

there is absolutely no reason to change how Knowledge has previously used TGP as a reliable supplementing secondary database source for US election articles in the past 20 years, as it provides this important valuable additional info not reported by ordinary newspaper sources:

623:

credible, they merely reported what reliable sources were saying at the time. Sure what they said was reliable, sources did say that, but it has no relevance to the article. Bear in mind that their objective is to collate information in reliable sources, not to analyze events.

8555:

There is no good-faith dispute about the content in these situations - JzG doesn't (and can't) argue that they're not actually reliable for what's being sourced in the cases I'm concerned about (because it's not actually factually disputable), or that it's not allowable under

7932:"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a 4552:, a person in the middle of trying to win an election, and a serious accusation that has ruined many careers (many rightly and a few wrongly). We need to be super careful about the sourcing for even small details. I say we should only use the highest quality sources and not 3925:

I think they (edit: I'm referring to both bias check sources) are widely accepted and used around here. I would never give their ratings weight by themselves. However, when deciding how to label an organization I do think they offer a reasonable, method based way to decide.

5007:

made a decision to refer to the criminal complaint as "a report", but I don't think this is encyclopedic. There is no NPOV reason for us to make this change; we should be relying on the best sources and be wary of adopting language from those known to have a partisan slant.

10087:

There is definitely a gray area for reliability, but I think it's a bit higher on the scale than that. On this noticeboard, new or less popular sources with small editorial teams could be considered unreliable or marginally reliable depending on the available evidence (e.g.

8699:

The only part of this that is generic, rather than one editor obsessing over one source, is the perennial battle between people who are certain that the content is correct and therefore the source is justified, and people who say that all sources must meet the standard of

1578:

for copying one of their articles verbatim without permission or attribution. This kind of incident generally only happens when the website publishes content from non-staff contributors without review, as it only takes a minute to check for plagiarism on a search engine.

8986:

course there are exceptions. WorldNetDaily, for example, should never be used as a source of fact. But this set of edits was taking sources that had been tagged as unreliable - self-published, mainly - and either editing the article or replacing the disputed source with

4717:

Those are procedures for Federal crimes, but in the US, different jurisdictions have different rules and procedures. For example, in my home state of Massachusetts, it is quite possible and common for a regular persons to file a criminal complaint with the police , per

10248:

This claim seems literally false, given the editor you're complaining about is responding extensively. Unless you're talking about a previously unmentioned editor who isn't posting in this very thread. Just to be clear - who is this editor you are talking about, who is

9075:- on the basis that the book itself was self-published and someone had tagged it with the SPS template. My experience is that people who engage in that kind of insistent silliness with automated tools even when challenged don't tend to only do it in isolated instances. 8560:(because it is), he's just making an ambit claim about the extent of what he can remove for funsies, with our articles being the worse for it. If someone actually disputes the accuracy of a source, I'll do the digging to make sure it's accurate every time. But as there 9686:, self-published largely equates to unreliable, outside of a specific set of circumstances. Can you give any examples (ideally diffs, I'm lazy) where Guy has removed a self-published source where it was being used in a way that would be justified by either section of 9525:

And policy is clear, SPS are "largely not acceptable as sources" and that " The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", I take this to mean that yes removing SPS's that have not been demonstrated to be RS is perfectly

7463:

issues I raised which Kvng cites above). David's approach for the Daily Mail does not generalise to all self-published sources. (I also dispute that he'd be happy to do better, because he certainly wasn't that time and these issues clearly haven't gone away since.)

7424:

about these edits. It would help me if someone could explain current consensus on dealing with suboptimal sources in lower-quality articles. Is it necessary to expunge these or is it acceptable to leave them for reference to other editors who can make improvements?

2534: 886:

That you opened this thread is already a good thing, as it'll be in searchable RSN archives. I agree it's not usable as a source for anything. It'd also be possible to request that it be blacklisted but I doubt it'd be accepted without prior use. Maybe easier at

8295:

No one needs permission to do editorial cleanup removing sps. Obviously it's always important to be careful, and just as obviously if someone is doing a lot of it they may make mistakes at times. I agree with Newslinger that neither of the examples are a problem.

2126:

I am disturbed by the obsessive use of the word "manifesto" to describe Rodger's diatribe, but rather more disturbed to see ten separate statements sourced to it within the article. This appears to me not to be a valid use of a primary source, gioven its content?

3800:

It certainly can't be cited in the article but when it comes to helping editors judge how a site should be labeled when RS's can be found for the labels should we still ignore it? If we are willing to use such information to help exclude sources from being RS's

6169:, or rather did, since the website hasn't been updated since 2018. His only qualifications seem to be computer programming and I suspect he is an amateur etymologist. I'm leaning towards both the website and the book being unreliable except for example usages. 5524: 10201:

I opened this discussion because JzG claimed in a discussion on my user talk page that here was consensus for these edits at this noticeboard. It is clear now that there is no such consensus. That's all I really needed to know. I'm not trying to blame anyone.

7483:

be removed with either replacement by a reliable source, or removal of the material that was sourced to that unreliable source removed. But this requires time and effort to evaluate, and we should not remove these sources without giving editors time to review

6056:

Sorry but at best the catholic encyclopedia would be an RS for what its authors thought in 1913. At best you could say that "according to the catholic encyclopedia", but in no way can it trump modern scholarship. Now I can see why modern scholarship was used

1418:, Telangana, a man alleged that he was beaten by BJP and RSS mob for not chanting Jai Shree Ram. However, the Commissioner of Police after investigation clarified that the incident was not communal and that the man was trashed for harassing a teenage girl. 808: 7828:

just because the subject matter receives less attention on Knowledge. There's no harm in placing the source on the talk page if it will help editors find better sources later. Commenting out the source makes it harder to track uses of the domain through an

4225:

with the Washington, DC, police about the alleged incident, Business Insider has learned. Late Thursday afternoon, Reade filed a report of the incident with the sexual assault unit of the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department. Business Insider has

10036:

My opinion in that RfC is independent of this discussion, and I gave a straightforward answer to an interesting question that applies to many source disputes on this noticeboard. But I agree that the RfC does not directly address the concerns related to

9709:

To repeat my response to Newslinger asking the same thing above: "My dog in this fight arose when JzG persistently tried to remove any mention from an author's article that he had written a self-published book - of which the actual reference was to the

9460:

concurred with the person who originally tagged it over a year ago that is it an unreliable source. One of fewer than 20 posts on the blog of someone who is not a specialist in the field, not notable, doesn't have an article. It's a straight-up case of

3377:

Subsequent changes to the number of allocated pledged national convention delegates due to events from candidates pulling out of the race - or subsequent changes due to subsequent election system developments at the state's district convention or state

3701:

as far-right. It's important to mention this here, because it is not clear to other editors that this is the case. To me the concern about it not being a reliable source stems from it being effectively a self-published source. I personally think it is

2969: 7637:

You might try reading the very next section, "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves". JzG is regularly nuking sources that are perfectly find according to this section. Or perhaps he didn't bother to read down there either.

1329:

Hindi2News is clearly violating the copyrights of other websites by taking their articles and republishing mangled versions of them without permission. Copyright violations are unacceptable as sources regardless of whether the underlying sources are

5811:

article, I found a "source" in a review from WeGotThisCovered.com. It describes a user's opinion on the episode and helps support the idea that the episode is well-liked by fans. I went to investigate the site, and the most concerning part is their

9748:

The thread is about JzG's generalised campaign of behaviour, not about Kvng's blog, and accordingly the vast majority of replies don't concern Kvng's blog. We don't close topics just because you disagree with some of the points being made in them.

6265:

2 Users Bealtainemí and Elizizum23 appear to be obscuring the POV here and it is primarily edited by Catholics. It appears, that they disagree with the results of the CARA, unnamed, and Pew polls and provide an opinion about how we should view the

238:

international terrorists in perpetrating the apartment bombings of 1999. Contrary to that, the author of the review believes that the weakness of the book is its weak coverage of "historical roots of Chechen resistance to Russian and Soviet rule".

8033:

actions appear to meet policies like ONUS. It is not any one of these edits alone is bad, it is the culmination of actions that is the issue here. (And again: SPS is not defined anywhere as "bad" content outside BLPSPS that requires removal). --

5366:, good shout. There will be no shortage of better sources: I expect a tribute programme on the Beeb in which I confidently predict we will hear the voices of messrs. Garden, Oddie, Dee, Fry and others. With luck, Colin Sell won't play the piano. 3397:). This is why Knowledge shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source (along with a primary official election webpage source), without enforcing any changes to how Knowledge previously up until today has opted to use this TGP source. 3076:

wikipedia article, where it should be noted that most newspapers at the time in comparison failed to update their several month old result articles to keep track of the subsequent developments happening months later for the Iowa national pledged

2408:. The larger issue for Knowledge, though, is that (apparently) anyone can take a journal source, modify it at will, upload it to Academia.edu and (intentionally or not) pass it off as the original source. Presumably this has come up before. -- 8331:

So far consensus is that bad sourcing should be removed, despite your resistance to, as far as I can tell, absolutely every effort so far to actually do so, and using your personal bizarre misreadings of sourcing policy to support your claims -

4327:

is an unreliable source. From Perennial Sources: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher".

6839:

But then that also means that the source being cited to say that someone is a particular nationality, even though there is no proof, does not mean it is true either. How can that source then be cited to reaffirm another third parties beliefs?

2871: 2428:

If the source cited is the Academia reprint, the person originally citing the source should have linked the reprint. Otherwise, it's assumed to be the original source. To verify the information, make a request for the original publication at

351:

ordered that a small radioactive parcel of cesium be buried in Izmailovsky Park in the heart of Moscow. He then gave Russian journalists directions to the spot to prove to the Russians that he was "not bluffing" in his threats to Russia.

6422:

created by the artist showing their legal and performing names, which we could rely on the same as we would a statement by them about their date of birth. On the other hand, is this the kind of legal record that the privacy guidance in

5095: 3249:, it also like CNN+AP trade in the business of calculating a projected preliminary count of won pledged national convention delegates based on the ongoing preliminary partial count before 100% of the voting places reported their result 7824:). I am aware that many of Knowledge's computing articles have citations of self-published sources like these (most likely because blogging is very popular among programmers), but I don't think we should lower the standards set by the 7693:

My dispute with JzG is not about whether or not the sources are reliable. The dispute is about whether it is appropriate to systematically remove substandard sources or can they be allowed to stay awaiting improvements to the article.

6725:

It says in the subheading that he was born in Sarajevo and moved to Zagreb when he was 2 years old, but it doesn't say that he isn't Bosnian. Therefore he is also Bosnian as he was born there, but he is also Croatian by heritage. Yes?

445:

says, that their Chechen counterparts could acquire these weapons ready-made from the scattered arsenal of the former Soviet Union, or by seeking help from experts, who worked during the Soviet era and are now suffering unemployment.

6456:

C.Fred has the correct analysis. The name that ASCAP shows is the one the artists provide. They will usually provide their legal name, but they don't have to, they just have to be able to cash a cheque by whatever name they provide.

10972:

I did have the option of withdrawing my submission rather than allowing the edits, but leaving those citations in was not an option. And that's fine. I would expect the exact same treatment if I wrote an op-ed that was published in

425:

Bodansky (who Murphy quotes, with a proper attribution) claims to have used sensitive sources which he doesn't disclose. I concur with you that that information, taken as a fact, would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However,

10980:

We also disagreed about the use of cancer as an analogy. Some people think that it is inappropriate. I am a cancer survivor myself, and showed it to several other cancer survivors, all of whom encouraged me to use the analogy. The

9495:

still needs to stop, no matter how repeatedly you deliberately misrepresent my position because you apparently can't justify your own. (I still have no position either way on Kvng's blog because the issue is much bigger than him.)

8833:

This entire thing begins with an unbelievably trivial and, I think, relatively uncontentious removal: orospakr.ca, a blog, has a yerars-old article called "bufferbloat demystified". It appears to be the last entry in that blog, by

8093:

The rest of your paragraph appears to be an admission you don't have a claim to make, you're just trying to vaguely threaten other editors when you know damn well neither the facts nor policy back you. You should stop doing this -

3118:- It is a self published website with unknown editorial oversight. It may be usable in some contexts, but when major news organizations routinely report election results, there is no real value in citing a self published source. - 1602:

It does not say what these staff do (or come to that any of the volunteers) they could just trawl the internet for any old rubbish that takes their fancy and just publish it (and that does seem to be the implication form the about

6272:

4 The article literally says "For 2,000 years, this has been the teaching of the Church." ALL non-Catholic Christians (50% of all Christians) would STRONGLY disagree with this statement. And even Catholic scholars do not say this

5871:. Known publisher of unsubstantiated (and ultimately false) rumors and speculation-reported-as-fact coupled with clickbait headlines that try to change readers based on currently trending legitimate news. Should not be used ever. 4547:

lists as being "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" instead of using a source that is "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context". This is a

7350:

that could be used to draw data in WP. So I would agree it is a Questionable Source and generally unreliable (in that we should not use it) but editors should feel free to consider it a reference tool to lead to usable sources.

1876: 3272:

do not deliver the same amount of data details compared to The Green Papers. Finally, it is similar to all alternative newspaper sources being updated very frequently several times per day, so it never features outdated data.

2680:

It contains a substantial number of cites to a podcast, "Plague: Untold Stories of AIDS & the Catholic Church ", by Michael O'Loughlin. We have no article on the podcast or the presenter. I think this is an impermissible

8969:

It's good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it? What I was doing with that series of edits was taking sources that had been tagged as failing our sourcing policy for a minimum of three months, and replacing the source with

5968:

On further inspection, there are even more problems with these two edits than I mentioned (including the misattribution and perhaps misrepresentation of the newly added source), but I would still appreciate some extra eyes.

3097:. Yes in that its data is probably accurate; no in that it doesn't really qualify as RS in the usual Knowledge sense, though IAR may apply. I largely agree with what Buidhe and MaxBrowne2 said above. This site reminds me of 458:

Meanwhile, Murphy is cited only in a few places in the article on the Russian apartment bombings. His lack of sourcing could be accounted for by seeking an independent verification of his claims (for example, in the media).

684:

the effects of her interactions with other people (her family says she was kind to a bullied kid thus he chose not to kill himself, for example). The sources are obviously not independent, and in many ways would seem to be

11157:. It's a completely self-published/user-generated source, written by anonymous writers and anonymous editors, with no formal background in anything. This is a huge Pandora's box best left unopened. Could be allowed under 3678:

Absolutely not. There's nothing to indicate that they are reliable. Editors really need to stop citing random-ass "media bias" websites. The chart from this website is ludicrous and conflates opinion and news reporting.

3134:- I agree with feminist that the data might be accurate, but it is a self published Blog so its reliability is questionable. I don't think it should be used as a main reliable reference, maybe a secondary in some cases. 2734:

I am not sure why Radio Free Europe wouldn't be counted differently than other nonproblematic state media, such as the BBC for instance. I would consider it generally reliable for its own reporting. It does rely on TASS

1958:

I don't personally think you need to restore the source, as long as the content remains. I simply objected to your edit summary as I think it mischaracterizes policy. Thank you for bringing it here for greater clarity.

860: 8601:

behind. That does not improve the encyclopedia and it can actually make lives of other editors harder. Either there are reasons to think that the statement is not contentious and a better source can be found (then keep

5508: 2676:

This is an article on a protest at New York's Catholic cathedral organised by ACT UP during the AIDS crisis, primarily against the Catholic position on condoms and teaching safe sex as personified by Cardinal O'Connor.

8980:

or editing the article and removing the content and the bad source. Some of them had been tagged for years (the blog Kvng wants to include, for example). The elephant in the room here is that sources tagged as failing

4049:

I was today years old when I found out that the original source for the grotesque caricature of the Ad Fontes chart, used by Trump as the basis of his 2018 rant against Google, was actually not from PJ Media, but from

434:, according to which a part of bin Laden's interest in Khattab was trying to secure nuclear weapons from Russia's arsenals. Gerges wrote so about Khattab and bin Laden (p. 59 of "The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global"): 11036:

they think they can overrule any decision by the Signpost editorial team, just as (before it blew up in their face) they previously made noises that showed that they thought they could overrule any decision by Arbcom.

5504: 8135:

It would be normal editorial cleanup if more judgment was being used, but none is here concerning any of the situations when it's acceptable to use self-published sources: it is not appropriate to act like we have a

4055: 3352: 4634:

penalty for a false police report. I certainly would not be citing Business Insider on sensitive, difficult details or to cobble some article content not that, if valid, could be cited to better mainstream sources.

3755:

David, being deprecated doesn't mean left or right. The real question here is should we give credence to the ratings of these sites when trying to decide if a source is far-left, left, centrist, right, far-right.

10001:"Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with an article, or a method of warning readers about an article." 9894:) into account when considering the removal of content supported by self-published sources. If a self-published source does not qualify for these exceptions, then it is not reliable. Aside from the two exceptions, 6905:

his formal national status is determined by his official documentation. His personal feelings of ethnic identity are determined mainly by how he feels about them. This source isn't reported here as quoting either.

5839: 1160:

The item you linked aboved has a little bit of paraphrasing, not exact copy. Even without the copyright violation, a serious matter, it appears to be a website run by two individuals with little to no reputation.--

247:'s 1999 book (Murphy, p. 155), and it is indeed a longstanding opinion by Bodansky. For example, at page 102 of his 2008 book "Chechen Jihad: Al Qaeda's Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror" Bodansky writes: 10128:

This discussion seems to be on the same path as my talk page interactions with JzG. It's a lot of engagement for what I consider to be a minor issue. I'm guilty of taking the bait on this. I do prefer to spend my

10152:, since this noticeboard is for tackling any and all questions about sourcing, and you're in the right place. I do think this noticeboard is most suitable for tackling pure content disputes, and that requests in 5318:

isn't that they re-use content from other sources (so do we!) but that they have a documented history of fabricating quotes out of whole cloth. The fact that a Google search doesn't bring anything other than the

11346:, no Indian universities are ranked in the top 300 globally. And you can find lots of RS articles raising concerns about plagiarism and fraud in Indian academia (although the government is trying to crack down). 788: 9945:- I think we're basically on the same page here because I completely agree with what you've said, so it's frustrating that you've !voted in JzG's strawman RfC below that misrepresents this entire conversation. 2028:"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." 9014:

But they weren't necessarily "failing our sourcing policy at all": they were just tagged as self-published, whether or not their usage was actually consistent with our guidelines. I'm sure some of them failed

8724:"This process has been discussed here multiple times, and nobody has seriously dissented from the view that a source marked as unreliable for a lengthy period may (and in many people's view should) be removed" 6111:

article. The entry for frontrunneritis references specific reliable sources, which makes the website reliable. On the other hand, it is run by one person who has no qualifications in linguistics just like the

4659:

Complaints serve at least a couple purposes: providing some kind of showing that the government has a legitimate reason to prosecute the defendant and clearly informing defendants of the allegations against

4556:. I don't find your argument for making an exception compelling, and so far I am not seeing a bunch of RSNB regulars telling me "you are wrong, Guy, BI is clearly reliable for the "criminal complaint" claim". 10733: 7416:. My position is that this replacement of one tag for another is not improving anything. JzG's position is that there is consensus at this noticeboard supporting this sort of campaign. In discussion of this 6752: 5512: 2930: 10370: 10358: 8492:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

8004:

2952: 1727:

It's a wiki, worse than that it's an advocacy wiki - completely unusable for Knowledge purposes. (Though for e.g. my own purposes, it can be surprisingly helpful and is not always wrong as such! FWIW.) -

10646: 7373:]. Certainly should be used with caution and should be avoided for all but the most uncontroversial claims. Especially if related to any of the BLP/controversies related to subjects they are covering. 5118:. Using a reliable philosophical work that talks (tangentially) about his ethnicity while avoiding all the other reliable sources that talks about his life in more detail is disingenuous. In example the 4700:

to the local police and they will file a police report on it. (Even a report that a dead squirrel told me that John Smith is an evil space alien might be good to know if John Smith gets murdered later).

3416:

is a poor argument for elevating this source. I would be careful about making declarations like "Knowledge shall continue to use TGP as a supplementing data source" that may run contrary to consensus. -

721:

Columbine in general is a mass of conflicting third-hand accounts. I don't think there's any solution other than noting inconsistencies between sources when they appear and pruning back peacock terms. --

7348: 5235:

If his ethnicity is disputed, he should be omitted from the list and the disagreement discussed in the article. Philosophers are experts on philosophy, but aren't necesarily RS for someone's ethnicity.

1209:

Jo Ferguson ‘selected to show life assist machine off as a substitute of going sober for six months to qualify for lifesaving liver transplant’ amid well being battle earlier than her tragic dying aged

10709:, since there is editorial control by a team. Some editors could even considered "experts" in the subject matter. In some cases, they have published in independent sources about the same subject, e.g. 5201:

Using a reliable philosophical work that talks (tangentially) about his ethnicity while avoiding all the other reliable sources that talks about his life in more detail is disingenuous. In example the

4384:

There is no dispute in RS that she filed a criminal complaint. You could probably reach out to McHugh with questions. You might be interested to hear an interview with him from earlier today for more:

796: 11376:

I have never used "Shodhganga" before. I understand it to be a repository of unpublished PhD dissertations submitted to Indian universities. I would be reluctant to cite to unpublished PhD theses of

10985:

editors disagreed, I said that I would rather withdraw the op-ed than have the analogy removed, and they decided to go with my version. If it had been a SPS that decision would have been mine to make.

6079:

There are now a couple of editors looking into this, but more eyes (e.g., for those who understand how WP:V interacts with difficult-to-access sources) on the talk page discussion would be helpful. --

8996:

because in the end that is the one tag that does seem to get fixed. If there was a WikiProject for fixing tagged unreliable sources, that gnomed away and fixed them, none of this would be necessary.

5285:, which is notorious for reusing content from other sources; but in this case a quick Google appears to indicate that it was genuinely written for the Daily Mail (i.e. googling for the article title 2393: 8928:

apply a lot of discretion. The edit history does not show the roughly one in five that I skip as needing further attention later, for example, or the ones that I open in a browser and edit manually.

11436: 9186:

about cases that are about themselves, hence we're on the same page (though once again, it seems that you've not read the comments you're immediately responding to, or this would've been obvious).

3374:

Number of pledged national convention delegates based on the election result itself (while providing all verifiable math and explanation for this calculation, which competing sources tend to skip).

3201:

Where more reliable sources agree with their data, use the more reliable sources. Where more reliable sources disagree with it, then we can't trust this one. There's no good reason to use it. --

10386: 5775:

It would be helpful to have a specific example, but I think this counts as a self-description, since a claim about a source's reaction to something is an assertion regarding the source itself. —

5516: 10436: 7530:

May I please have some diffs showing several examples that demonstrate that "Knowledge already has clear guidelines about when usable, which JzG is ignoring and just nuking them from orbit"? --

5149: 2491:

in 1995. Although revered in the Albanian diaspora, the book has been by dismissed by Western academics as pseudo-history, which isn't much of a surprise given that Jacques was not a historian.

1343:

Article spinning frequently changes the meaning of the text or makes it incomprehensible. For example, the Hindi2News article claims that Ferguson died from liver and kidney failure because she

11501: 9669:

in this regard as to when and why you should remove things. This repeated wordplay to try to dodge and misrepresent the responses of everyone who has disagreed with you is getting very tiring.

3741:

in the last couple days you have called me a fool and an idiot. Now, I have a "design to discredit". I suggest you take more care when posting on a noticeboard. Behavior will catch up to you.

6762:

And you don't need a peer-reviewed source for someone's nationality, a mention of it in a newspaper or a statement by the person is sufficient, unless there is some problem with the claim.

3180:

I notice a disclaimer on the Nevada Democrats caucus page: "These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change."

2841: 800: 6825:"allegations" of nationality by third parties. I will also invoke the sea is wet no matter how many sources do not say it. A source not saying something does not mean the opposite is true. 11343: 9071:

My dog in this fight arose when JzG persistently tried to remove any mention from an author's article that he had written a self-published book - of which the actual reference was to the

5068: 1067:"Jo Ferguson 'chose to turn life support machine off instead of going sober for six months to qualify for lifesaving liver transplant' amid health battle before her tragic death aged 46" 8449:

Yes and no. I have no issue (and support) the removal of sources that have been found by THE COMMUNITY THROUGH DISCUSSION here. I do not support any removal based upon personal opinion.

7066: 2771:, there's quite a difference between RFE/RL and the BBC (which is much closer to PBS, as an analogy). It's not even analogous to the BBC World Service. It's really a cold war hangover. 134:), which in my opinion is already a reason not to consider it a reliable source. What do others think? And how should Knowledge deal with such source? Cite it with care, or not at all? 10321:

exist - it strangely seems like you've acted like this dispute was a proxy for your own editing, which is not about self-published sources and which those policies aren't relevant to.

6857:

Agreed. So this source doesn't have a high standard of fact checking, so the user who cited it to reaffirm his point was wrong in using it for the basis of defining nationality. Great.

6116:(the consensus seems to be that Online Etymology Dictionary is unreliable), which hinders its reliability. I also want to know if the definition given for frontrunneritis is reliable. 4007:

Nope. A handy guide but there's nothing there that would pass our bar for reliability. Exactly as per Ad Fontes. Helpful in assessing other sources, but not in and of itself reliable.

3614: 7448:

human-reviewed. Basically, bad cites are pretty generic in their badness. I'm sure he'd be happy to do better if you point to a reasonable selection of particular edits you dispute -

5003:(which covered it right away and did not mince words: "Tara Reade filed a criminal complaint with the Washington Metropolitan Police Department...according to Business Insider"). The 4726: 3260:

Contrary to AP/CNN, the The Green Papers however nevertheless is the only source that transparently display how this calculation of pledged national convention delegates is performed

387:

p.s. Of course, reviews are supposed to provide some criticism. To point out a deficiency with the author's sourcing is also a polite way to say that you've actually studied his work.

3985:

Where is the published method behind your opinion? Is your opinion cited by others? "sourced to others" but not the majority of others who use "conservative" and not "far-right".

1219:

Jo Ferguson reportedly made the choice to show off the machines filtering her blood and holding her alive final week, resulting in her dying from liver and kidney failure days later.

11481:. After a bit of polite discussion with RobP we decided to remove the section. But now it has reverted to a mess as Knox490 wants to reinstate. I'm hoping this can be handled here. 4056:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wrote-the-article-about-media-bias-in-google-searches-regulation-isnt-the-answer/2018/08/29/15bdaae2-abaa-11e8-8f4b-aee063e14538_story.html

2352:

Forebears Names data has been used by publicly traded companies, banks, national security contractors, marketers, The Federal Reserve and has been cited in over 60 academic studies.

1200:

Jo Ferguson reportedly made the decision to turn off the machines filtering her blood and keeping her alive last week, leading to her death from liver and kidney failure days later.

143: 11213: 9356: 9023:. The rhetorical attempt to portray the entire category of self-published sources as "failing our sourcing policy", "unreliable source", "bad source" and thus able to be given the 7371:

interest to the company's stock price. Fiscal conflicts of interest haven't been disclosed. This again has been an issue with some of the blogish sites that report in this space

6880:

am not sure how this was selected / done, or how it is independently verified without him saying what he is officially now listed as in some form (or via another reliable source).

6388:

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I have a question regarding ASCAP as a source for artists' real names. More specifically, this is about the band members of

4751:

application for criminal complaint, wait for a hearing will be scheduled, see if the clerk-magistrate finds probable cause, and if she does, she will issue a criminal complaint. --

3168:- Self-published blog. They probably get it right most of the time but I see no reason to rely on them when there are ample better sources (official reports, AP, NYTimes) to cite. 10153: 2321:

reliable? I'm not referring to user-generated content about surname etymologies, but the numerical data that is listed about surname use in each municipality of a given country.--

10123: 9270:

guidelines. You then repeatedly tried to delete the material entirely, despite it being (as multiple editors here have agreed) a valid reference. The attempt to reframe it as an

6556:

performer, and it's unclear whether the stage name and the real name belong to the same person. This is especially the case for living artists, due to the higher standard set by

2571:. The fact that scholars have explicitly criticized his use as a source on Knowledge is quite telling. BTW, you wouldn't happen to know the title of that Saudi missionary book? 11079:

from material that someone else generated. If a publication has an editorial team that edits and approves what gets published it isn't user generated. You might wish to review

7181: 4963: 4760: 4741: 2597: 2580: 2562: 10330: 10301: 10287: 10266: 10240: 9976: 9954: 9862:

policy-relevant distinction between CN and SPS tags - WP:V is actually pretty clear that information can be Verifiable without being independently sourced in specific cases.

9790: 9772: 9758: 9723: 9704: 9573: 9557: 9535: 9520: 9212: 9195: 9177: 9162: 8651: 8577: 8149: 7472: 7062: 3658: 3339:. But there is no reason to report their calculated results if they have been ignored by mainstream sources. Bear in mind too that we are not preventing readers from going to 650: 632: 7938:

I would prefer to remove the information altogether if it cannot be supported by another reliable source, but removing the blog link itself is enough to address the issue of

6945: 4688:

and inform the defendant of the charges against him. They also ensure that a prosecutor has sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed."

3951: 3406: 2905:

on the reliability of this source. To sum up the results of the RFC: On the one hand, most supporters cite the source's versatility in calculating its election results, with

2617: 11392: 10351:

I currently have a copy of the music/composition of the alma mater written by Samuel Barber in 1928 for West Chester Higby School, West CHester, PA. Would you like a photo?

10058: 9436: 9132: 9084: 9066: 8286: 8256: 8239: 7684: 7647: 7630: 7070: 4799:

It looks like most sources refer to it as a "police report", so I would prefer that, especially since there is some question over whether the term is used improperly in the

3566: 3446: 2401: 2293:

article also refers to the Industrial Society and Its Future text as a manifesto. And both Elliot Rodger and Ted Kaczynski's texts are listed as "Notable Manifestos" in the

232:

That's valid criticism, but that's the criticism made within the scholarly community. That criticism might be mentioned within the article on the Russian apartment bombings.

8247:

in which self-published sources are allowable? We don't disagree on the literal application of the policy to specific cases, we disagree that JzG should have to follow it.

7539: 6088: 5978: 3688: 716: 575: 11233: 10366: 7157: 7120: 6066: 6051: 6006: 5992: 3489: 2363: 2345: 535: 521: 505: 484: 475:

The source actually indicates that Chechens didn't provide WMD's to Al-Qaeda, so the opposite of what Bodansky claims. Also, as a side-note, WMDs can also be non-nuclear.

468: 418: 399: 323: 309: 290: 11720: 11115: 11100: 11066: 8458: 6962: 6852: 6650:

Okay, I will ask there, but what I'd still like to know is: Does this connection you mention change anything in terms of credibility? Or could those names still be fake?

4935: 4901: 4863: 4833: 4816: 4794: 4778: 4710: 4645: 4595: 4491:

the sources used on that page. In particular, I have taken a very conservative position, insisting on only high-qulaity sources, nothing marginal. Have I gone too far? --

3994: 3980: 3966: 3878: 1825: 11184: 7327:

Every page features a disclaimer that makes me wonder if the publication takes itself seriously: "The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only."

6480: 6466: 6325: 6310: 3673: 730: 158: 10512: 10028: 9933: 9919: 9871: 9148: 8425: 7909: 7580: 7525: 7288: 7269: 7055: 7041: 6915: 6340: 5792: 5770: 5226: 5139: 4029: 3919: 2330: 1638: 1612: 1596: 1533: 10226:

generally sensible and something other editors attempting this stuff and finding themselves in conflict could generally a few things from (things that would mean they

8305: 6989: 6771: 6616:

and I see what you're talking about. Here, it's clear that the writer names are connected to the "professionally known as" names. However, I'm not sure if this passes

6416: 6218: 6204: 6178: 6148: 5735:

This source meets neither condition, as it is written by a non-expert, and it is used for claims about something other than the author. Therefore, it is unreliable. —

5266: 5080: 3942:

Absolutely not. There's nothing to indicate that they are reliable. Editors really need to stop citing random-ass "media bias" websites. Their ratings are ridiculous.

3765: 3715: 3282: 3262:(first based on preliminary unofficial results and later based on final official certified results being imported by the source-linked primary official result webpage) 2049: 1979: 1110: 10540: 10463: 9635: 9505: 9394: 9375: 9288: 9036: 9009: 8964: 8945: 8916: 8789: 8763: 8744: 8717: 8636: 8621: 6834: 6811: 6369: 5863: 4038: 3862: 3533: 2970:

Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Poll: Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?

2865: 1837:

Outside the top 200 or 300 univerisities however there starts to be concerns with plaigiarism, bribery, and fraud that make it difficult for theses to qualify as RS.

1517: 1486: 1277: 553: 243:

Lastly, indeed, the book by Murphy concerns the claim that Chechens purchased nuclear weapons for bin Laden. However, the said claim appears as a direct quotation of

11431: 11014: 10489: 6697: 6659: 6645: 6607: 6581: 6550: 6536: 5880: 5829: 4473: 1870: 1855: 1676: 1037: 917: 109: 11639: 11052: 10601: 10587: 10117: 7488:

when they are used in BLPs or other sensitive topic areas like MEDRS. I would rather see editors that seek to remove them tag the sources first with something like

6796: 6437: 6401: 5428:

accepts blacklisting requests, but administrators there will generally require consensus on this noticeboard before blacklisting a source on reliability grounds. —

3935: 3872: 3750: 3193: 2743: 1372: 1295: 1253: 1125: 10918: 10678: 9886:

tag does not belong in an article unless the use of the self-published source is actually inappropriate. I agree that it's important to take the two exceptions of

8370: 8341: 8130: 8103: 8085: 8063: 8045: 8019: 5418: 5254: 5196: 5109: 3729: 3143: 2921:. At this point, though the opposition's arguments are slightly stronger, I think there is still enough room for doubt to consider the source marginally reliable. 1545: 1169: 1155: 989: 149:

He may well claim that, that does not mean its true. I would say not an RS for facts, it is an RS for his opinion, but then undue comes into it. Not really usable.

11611: 11544: 11371: 10211: 10187: 8550: 8529: 8507: 8481: 8326: 7810: 7457: 7434: 7382: 7017: 5358: 5332: 5289:

give no hits except Daily Mail and a handful of mirror sites). So the link has been added, and hopefully the "unreliable source" tag can be removed in this case.

3830:. Sources are pretty clear on OAN having lurched to the right recently, and become less reliable as a result. They are in fact "doing a Fox": as Benkler noted in 3425: 3087: 3013: 2063: 11672: 10757: 10377:

As with five pound notes I am not sure that a photo can be used to show its by My Barber, only that it exists. It would nerd to have some form of authentication.

9594: 9485: 8411: 7986: 7967: 6451: 5693: 5445: 4652:

The NYT says "police report", not "criminal complaint". I am fine with either "incident report" or "police report". "Criminal complaint" has a specific meaning:

4469: 4408: 4374: 4020: 3160: 2729: 2306: 2270: 2249: 2235: 2210: 2196: 2175: 1737: 1003: 10872: 10173: 8054:

Else, bring the arbcom case you're trying to threaten. Though I suspect your track record of failing to justify your claims about other editors will not help -

8010:

policy page, which does not include anything about your made-up notion of bad content getting grandfathered in for being there for a long time not cleaned up -

7868: 7703: 7562: 6889: 5997:

However the source for the claim it was used for ritual bathing doers support that claim. So both the sources used seem to support that they are being sued for.

5207:

Ibn Rushd belonged to an important Spanish family. His grandfather (d. 520/1126), a Maliki jurisconsult, had been qaddi and imam of the Great Mosque of Cordova.

5124:

Ibn Rushd belonged to an important Spanish family. His grandfather (d. 520/1126), a Maliki jurisconsult, had been qaddi and imam of the Great Mosque of Cordova.

2471: 2451: 2415: 933: 616: 11520: 10843: 10560: 10346: 10142: 9854:

CN tag, and who do not believe they are causing undue hardship for other editors if they mass-delete self-published sources or article content sourced to them.

9564:

Err how can a hardware action blog about itself? The article is not about a person, nor was the section this source was added to. It was not about the blogger.

9261: 8028:

poor sourcing for the first time. It also would apply if a source (and info associated with it) was removed through consensus provided reasons at some point,

7717: 7363: 7090: 4100: 3791: 3609: 3546: 3172: 3030: 1327:"if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." 1066: 11702: 8464:

Thank you. I think my basic question has been answered. There is no clear consensus on these sorts of edits so presumably, they should be handled with normal

6950:

So what now? Do I edit the page of Boris Novkovic to suggest he is a singer from former Yugoslavia and not a Croatian singer or do I leave the page as it is?

4577: 2546: 2240:

This is not an RS issue then. So cannot be answered here, maybe take it to...this is awkward as I am about to tell a very experienced user how to suck forums.

1952: 1906: 1757: 880: 11650:. They have decent editorial practices and a clear division between factual reporting and opinion. I don't know much about Chrisitian Post, but I don't find 11148: 8822: 6494: 6282:

Now I ask, how is this count as "General belief and knowledge among Catholics" to which the section is titled. How is an opinion of an opinion even notable?

3847: 3818: 3214: 3110: 1654:

This is just another news-aggregator rewriting stories reported by mainstream press and commingling it with user-submitted and sponsored content. Better, if

10901: 10777: 9678: 7104: 6021:

The exact place where the boy's body was found seems to be unclear. According to the Catholic historian Cölestin Wolfsgrüber, the body was found in a ditch.

5905:

The exact place where the boy's body was found seems to be unclear. According to the Catholic historian Cölestin Wolfsgrüber, the body was found in a ditch.

3047: 697: 11084: 10988: 7895: 7510: 5962: 5379: 4461: 4184: 2995: 2917:

is no excuse. I'm also not seeing much evidence that the source is regularly cited by established RSes, placing its dubiosity somewhat on par with that of

2807: 2784: 2763: 1783: 1388: 11336: 11294: 11267: 11229:

where the exact wording of an specific Knowledge edit is at issue, but it doesn't have any greater degree of reliability than any other Knowledge page. ‑

7027:(this account is linked from the official website), and there seems to be no reliable coverage of the outlet, nor any bylines for any of the writers. Its 5983:

I cannot see any reference to ritual bathing I can to a sewer (which I doubt was in use for ritual cleansing) and to the house being used an a synagogue.

3589: 11274: 10619: 9266:

You removed the SPS-tagged reference to the National Library and replaced it with a CN tag, as per your generic practice of doing this regardless of the

8213: 7751: 4629:

A "criminal complaint" is an indictment that is adjudicated by a trial court. As I pointed out at least a week ago on the article talk page, our article

1493: 1411:

Multiple cases have been reported where people have alleged the usage of Jai Shri Ram during an altercation or a fight which have turned out to be fake.

959: 10764:

A Knowledge article by a pseudonymous Knowledge editor reviewing something about Knowledge? This seems like a truly terrible idea. Please don't use it.

9616: 8772:

been tagged as unreliable for over a year, or has it been tagged as self-published for over a year and you're just conflating the two so you can ignore

3557:

Yes, it is an RS. It could be contradicted by even more reputable outlets, but should still be considered an RS. It is widely cited by RS's, as well. --

3126: 688:. So, should these sources be used at all, or should they (and the text they supposedly support) be removed? If they are to be used, for what details? - 10362: 9742: 9453: 7919:

in almost all cases, and making it arduous to remove these inappropriate citations would turn the original act of adding these unreliable sources into

2488: 1938: 101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 11351: 10952:

And here is the actual self-published Knowledge essay that I created so that I could self-publish my preferred version that I control the content of:

9830:, then please start a new discussion here so that other editors can evaluate it. Until then, I'm not seeing anything actionable in this discussion. — 7571:. People who are unaware of basic policy around a particular type of source should not be making mass edits focusing on that specific type of source. 6716:

Is this source valid for deciding whether someone is a particular nationality and isn't a particular nationality as it's not academic or peer reviewed

5520: 4610:

On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police.... Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

4077: 2821: 1928: 1926: 1060: 10634: 9847: 9115:

tag. If you identify specific removals like these in the future, simply escalate them to this noticeboard, and the editors here can sort them out. —

4885: 4379:

I'm not sure how to respond to that. We can only follow what sources say. Have you read much of the coverage of this story? More from the BI report:

3412:

own assessment of its value and quality. We should not use questionable sources simply because they publish information that reliable sources don't.

3245:

noted that the site "...does something very few media organizations are willing to do: accurately and independently tabulate delegates in real time."

11677: 11489: 10565:

Reputable publisher and not in any list of predatory journals that I found. AFAIK it is not indexed in JCR and has a relatively low impact score at

10443: 8170:. A non-notable artist's video of themself playing in a studio is undue in the article on the studio, and is also likely to be spam considering the 5403: 4729: 3265: 2849: 2837: 2160: 491:

You may believe in all kinds of sinister plots, but repeating unverified claims and presenting them as facts is not what a scholar should be doing.

10726: 10081: 8722:

I have no opinion on the site Kvng is concerned about, as my concerns about this purge originally stemmed from my own interaction with it. Stating

8191: 8180: 6442:

I'm unsure as well, exactly do to the reason you mentioned: If an artist can provide the name, what stops them from providing a false name, right?

6210: 6183: 6170: 6158: 6131: 6117: 4623: 3251:(hence they also added their "data disclaimer" on the top of the page, warning readers that their page features preliminary data subject to change) 804: 8202: 6316:

case, but a person he quotes. Yep, I agree about the latter sentence, that's why there is NO non-Catholic source having opinions in that section.

6269:

3 The writer of the opinion piece, Greg Erlandson, is quoting the head of a (Catholic Director of CARA - Catholic polling service's personal blog)

4070: 3971:

My opinion is equally reliable as theirs: completely unreliable. That's why the far-right description is sourced to actual RS, and not to myself.

3269: 2816:

The podcast is obviously not an SPS: it was produced by America Media, the parent of America magazine. It also seems notable: see coverage in the

1524:

personally I doubt it as they are not forthcoming about their editorial policy (or even who actually works for them) and they accept paid content.

11474: 8835: 7254: 1191:

Jo Ferguson chose to turn off life support machine instead of going sober for six months to qualify for a liver transplant before her death at 46

1076: 792: 6291: 5306: 5028: 4888:, but until you do you must follow it. There is also a strong consensus regarding Trump and Biden that we should use only high-quality sources. 4352: 2738: 2397: 1834:, I think the thesis is usable because PhD theses are typically reliable sources and UCT is rated as one of the top 200 universities worldwide: 1538:

I'm having a hard time determining whether this site's articles are written by staff members or from non-staff contributors in the same vein as

11381:

knows what occasional gem we might find there. My vote would be generally "No, but possibly Yes if highly recommended by a scholarly source.

7046:

I doubt it, a look at them threw up much the same as Hemiauchenia. For a BLP we want more than this (especially as its also a criminal matter).

6985: 8896: 7336: 6346: 5752: 3335:. For example in a 1948 congressional race in Idaho, we could cite that electoral board and mention in the footnote that we got the info from 10945: 8828: 7568: 7388: 4500: 2977:

Should not be used in preference to established RS like the New York Times and other newspapers which cover this topic in sufficient detail.

2132: 8924:, you're wrong as a matter of fact, since Kvng did not come here until after I rejected his "compromise" of keeping the blog in the article. 4044: 3706:

for providing a general assessment of media bias (far more so than a competitor news agency which is currently deemed de-facto "reliable").

2405: 1351:

If you want to cite something from Hindi2News, try to find where the article was originally published. If it's a reliable source (which the

1048:. Hindi2News copies articles from other websites, changes some words around, and then republishes them without permission. For example, see 11398: 6876: 5464: 4881: 4544: 4152: 3385:

Finally TGP also keep track on how each states unpledged delegates finally vote on the floor of the Democratic Partys' National Convention.

3264:, and The Green Papers is the only available source that provides a full explanation of how this calculation math is working, and moreover 2714: 2097: 2092: 1878: 1789: 1704:

This is a wiki, I assume it's considered unreliable, as wikis generally are, and specifically unreliable as an in-universe crypto website.

893: 10995:"Examples of non-self-published sources... The contents of magazines and newspapers, including editorials and op-ed pieces in newspapers." 7801:

will fly with JzG who could not tolerate my idea of leaving a substandard source in as an HTML comment to help with future improvements. ~

7766: 6279:

5b not only is this "one theologian" unnamed and his quote is being used in the article, it refers to a completely DIFFERENT unnamed poll.

6125: 4586:), and it was pointed out to you there, by several editors, that it is a false claim. Why are you repeating this false claim again here? 2354:

In the case of US surnames, I have verified that their data has been mined directly by the 2000/2010 US census database and is accurate.--

4144: 4025:

I agree with Guy. Not usable as a source (it's self-published and does not have the usual requirements for a source to be considered RS.

3858:

I agree with Guy. Not usable as a source (it's self-published and does not have the usual requirements for a source to be considered RS.

3362:

AP/CNN/TGP should be used as sources for a display of this preliminary data (based on less than 100% of the votes being counted), as per

2101: 1884:

and probably others, where systemic problems may mean that there isn't effective peer review or other editorial oversight as required by

1688: 1377: 10100:

that aren't used for the allowed exceptions are generally dismissed outright, since it's clear that they have no editorial oversight. —

7344: 10471: 8073:

type of mass action an editor takes, they better be damn sure that they are right with consensus in doing it. That's the difference. --

7791:

is a good suggestion though some of the articles I work on get improved over a timescale of years, not months. I would be surprised if

6383: 5802: 5678: 2312: 2054:

Regardless of reliability, there is no need for the tweet as American news organizations have covered this episode with great detail.--

6519:

was temporarily credited in the song's ASCAP listing under the pseudonym "Nils Sjöberg" to divert unwanted attention from the song. —

1721: 871:. Is there any way that we can take preventative action against this site, or do we have to wait until people are actually citing it? 11201: 7243:

It appears to be managed by a company possibly called praegressus, although I have found nothing particularly interesting about them.

7230:

The source is a dead link, so I'm considering removal but trying to do some due diligence to see if there is an acceptable source.

2084: 1009: 748: 9733:

OK, can we close this sub thread as clearly whatever this is about its not the use of this blog. As such this is just a distraction.

8731:

don't need to be removed as "challenged" just because you're feeling argumentative that day. If you'd limit your removals to cases

8541:

is an essay. If you think an essay that contradicts policy is worth considering for sourcing issues, I think you may be incorrect -

6664:

I'm not sure, since I'm not familiar with ASCAP's internal procedures, and I don't have any examples or cases to draw from. Perhaps

5267:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8231623/No-costume-ridiculous-nor-stunt-dangerous-Tim-Brooke-Taylor-says-GRAEME-GARDEN.html

5094:

Editors have been trying to remove this person from List of pre-modern Arab... Saying that he is not an Arab. Here is a source from

4612: 4519:"After Rich McHugh reported on the report for Business Insider on Friday, the Times, the Post, the AP, and NBC News all followed". 4320: 4297: 2909:

in particular pointing out that the site also discloses its methodologies. On the other hand, most opponents point out the source's

2745:

and other suspect sources for some reporting, but these are clearly marked on articles. If so, additional considerations may apply.

2720:

Seems to fall foul of SPS, so then the question become who is he. As it seems he is no one of significance I would say its fails RS.

11550: 8627:

That's an editorial question that needs to be addressed case by case, which is why we aren't just removing the Daily Mail by bot -

7440:

Speaking generally: removing unreliable sources is obviously good for Knowledge, and should be done - all other things being equal.

6875:

But we need to be clear, the use of the term Bosnian in Boris article is probably conflating his birth in the federal state of the

5323:

up is a negative, not a positive; if we're going to use it, we need evidence that Graeme Garden actually wrote this, rather than a

4465: 3236: 9415:

It's impossible to address a perceived problem without examples. Your comment alleges that JzG is removing self-published sources

5556: 5488: 5484: 4769:

I have not commented on the term "criminal complaint". I am opposed to "incident report". She did not file an incident report.

4670:"The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule 4.1, it 4361:, I am not sure the police would take a criminal complaint - this is, by her own admission, well past the statute of limitations. 2845: 1835: 1311:

Yes, that's right. There are two factors here, each of which are enough to disqualify a source from use (on any article, not just

11250:

Hello, Iam writing an article on some of the policies of Indian Government and I've found some research articles on the topic on

10578:

for contentious claims and avoid misrepresentation (e.g. avoid saying "" if the source says "preliminary evidence suggests "). --

10133:

time improving crappy articles. I will try to avoid further interactions with JzG and further participation in this discussion. ~

8696:

get fixed, either by removing the statement or by finding a reliable source. In this case, Kvng is not prepared to accept either.

6976: 5480: 5086: 4954:

When there are different ways to phrase the same thing and some of them have technical meanings, we should use terms that don't.

2371: 9781:

If you have a claim about JzG: make it properly, with enough clear diffs to convince others that don't already agree with you -

6541:

What if the artist in question is listed with both their (assumed) real name and their artist name? Would that change anything?

5528: 5341:

That is a possibility I hadn't thought of. I will self-revert (no harm waiting a few days if it is genuine) and keep an eye on

4974: 4513: 4332:

public report which is simply not true. I see no reason to prefer imprecise language, nor why Rich McHugh would be unreliable.

7820:

as a citation in the article, since it is a blog post from someone who is not a subject-matter expert (under the definition in

4430: 4221:

A woman who accused Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her when she worked for him in 1993 has

1882: 840: 736: 212: 21: 9419:, but does not provide any examples of inappropriate removals. The only two examples discussed so far are both appropriate. — 7773: 6162: 6107:

contains useful information about its etymology, namely the fact that it was used as early as 1983, that I want to add in the

3720:

u wot m8? OANN is deprecated - the only lower regard it could be held in here would be to actually be on the spam blacklist -

3304: 197: 125: 9858:

inappropriate and a violation of editing norms to treat them as equivalent, whether in editing or on Talk page argumentation.

5946: 5206: 5123: 4822:

other media, such as the extensive NY Times reporting, gives better journalistic weight to the important parts of the story.

8838:, the last of fewer than 20 posts in total. A canonical example of $ RANDOMBLOG, in other words. It was used as a source in 7549:

tag, editors have a chance to explain why the source was reliable at the time it was cited, if that happens to be the case.

2959: 2853: 772: 768: 9898:

does not actually distinguish between content cited by an unreliable source and content that is uncited, as it states that

9090: 8809:, yes, we don't do this by bot. I use AWB to reduce errors (regex is more reliable than my fingers), but it's 100% manual. 7545:

astray. Some changed hands or were sold to questionable publishers and sank into the depths of unreliable. At least with a

7421: 6501:

for this information. ASCAP listings are reliable for an artist's officially credited name for a specific work (e.g. in an

4564:, that is very wise. The article itself is a self-evident end-run around failure to gain consensus for coverage elsewhere. 4256: 3580: 3343:

if they wish to do so. It is not the role of Knowledge to incorporate everything available on other sites on the internet.

2381: 1914: 764: 598: 10965:

In my original there are citations where you can check the numbers. They were in the version I submitted as an op-ed. The

8090:

Again, you are dishonestly asserting a claim of "mechanical action" on my part. Substantiate this claim or stop making it.

5468: 3576:

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

968:

prohibits linking to copyright violations. If you notice editors adding links to n5ti.com or similar sites, please file a

859:

doesn't appear to have cropped up on Knowledge yet, but a lot of the heavily trending fake news stories about coronavirus

812: 175:

So far, four reviews of the book by Murphy have been discussed at the talk page of the Russian apartment bombings article.

10955: 8612:) or it is contentious or flagged for years, then it is better to just remove the whole text that is being referenced. -- 5808: 5476: 5472: 4456: 4273: 4245: 4175: 2833: 2647: 2642: 1920: 1818: 1497: 9818:, so no action is necessary. Anyone can still remove self-published sources by non-experts if they do not qualify under 1806:. If the sources do not meet any opposition for being state-owned media, then I think there are credible sources there. 8516:

argument by JzG. It is strained in this case because there is no content dispute. It also needs to be balanced against

6301:

the church it is speaking of, not the wider christian church, so it is irrelevant what other denominations think of it.

5060:

No prosecutor will file a criminal complaint or schedule a show cause hearing if the statute of limitations has expired

5021: 4532: 4509:, it's really a matter of whether the reporter is reliable in this case, rather than the publisher. He clearly is, and 4401: 4345: 4156: 2651: 1972: 9274:

case (one sentence referencing that an author wrote a book that he did, in fact, write) was one of the most far-flung

6598:" on ASCAP for the band I want to add the members' real names. So something like "John (PKA: JoDo) Doe", for example. 2686: 2106: 1130:

To clarify my previous comment, the entire website is a collection of copyright violations. It's not usable under the

9900:"verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" 8472:'s suggestion of moving things to the respective article talk page. I will continue to monitor the discussion here. ~ 7305:

a generally reliable source, across all the areas it covers? It is currently used on 314 pages throughout Knowledge.

5158: 3693:

Users Snooganssnoogans, and O3000 do not appear impartial to this discussion. Both users appear to want to discredit

3073: 2825: 924:

Should not use. Running on Wordpress. Unclear oversight. Tabloid style stories and full of adverts for adult games.--

593:

Recently I've added a mention of its entries regarding the September 1999 terrorist attacks in Russia to the article

581: 566:. That doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusions reached by the authors are correct or that there are no errors. 10830:

generally acceptable for inclusion as a source within a Knowledge article?". Well, ask me that question next year!

7991:

You are bizarrely misreading sourcing policy (again), and claiming policies say things that the actual words don't.

6953:

Why do we need to know this? we could just say "who was born in Freedonia now lives in the Duchy of Grand Fewnwick".

6360:

from this editor. We are bogged down arguing about semantics and translations rather than improving these articles.

5536: 5532: 4481: 752: 330:

You are very well-knowleadgeable about the Russo-Chechen conflic! However, Murphy is indeed correct with that claim.

11529: 10657:

generally remain unchanged once published (except for corrections, like any other publication), so I'm not sure if

5461: 5173: 2634: 2608:

Does not appear to be reliable given that it was published by a religious figure and espoused a fringe viewpoint.--

2389: 2073: 760: 756: 658: 179: 123: 7915:

I have to disagree. There is no reason Knowledge articles should be citing content from a non-notable, non-expert

1799: 11651: 11239: 11226: 8857: 8852: 6019:

If these comments are related to my question, I can't see how. To re-emphasize: another editor removed the text

5594: 5589: 4737: 4591: 4276: 4140: 2698: 2576: 2542: 2118: 11654:

concerning and we should not ban outlets just for having pro-Trump opinions if their factual reporting is good.

11057:

What? You proved it's user generated: users generated The Knowledge Signpost with your user generated article.

9963:, above. The documentation around the SPS tag is written on the presumption that SPS are potentially unreliable 9603:. I invite you to tread Kvng's talk page. He doesn't argue that it's reliable, only that he thinks it's useful. 278:

My opinion is that the book by Murphy is a RS and should be kept, at least for the uses within the said article.

11171: 10527: 8861: 6331:

and wine demonstrates their belief that these "are not just a symbol" is unlikely to be seen as controversial.

5598: 5552: 5389: 2884: 1236:

and spun them through this process. Every article on Hindi2News is a copyright violation just like this one. —

11527: 9664:

reliable? Is that what you are saying? I am pretty confident that is not how we have ever interpreted policy.

5043:

source the contents of any police report. The NYT correctly reports that Reade says she filed a police report.

4998: 4477: 1794:

Are there any sources coming from South Africa that we can consider to be reliable? I see one coming from the

1436: 820: 816: 11208: 10962:

Please compare the table titled "Consider the following example of runaway spending growth" in both versions.

10609: 9711: 9072: 8269:. At this point, these are the only two examples of removals that have been brought up in this discussion. — 8222:, so these removals of self-published and user-generated content are well-grounded in policy and practice. — 7795: 7785: 7492: 5886: 5548: 5544: 4260: 3899: 3890:(allsides.com) a reliable source for the bias or reliability of a publication (in article space)? The site's 3638: 3630: 2964: 2829: 2656: 2088: 1341:"Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." 888: 745: 296:

opinionated, but there's nothing "scholary" about it, and Knowledge would do better by not regarding them as

11043:

self-published or user-generated without even trying to address my counterexample showing that it is not. --

5953:) I am a bit skeptical of this, but I was hoping someone with more relevant expertise might take a look. -- 4969:

Rich McHugh is clearly a reliable source. While he isn't credited with breaking the Reade allegation story (

4148: 1075:

forbids linking to copyright violations, including the articles in Hindi2News. If you notice editors citing

836: 512:

Thanks for a fairly insightful discussion! You are welcome to continue it at my talk page, if you please. --

132: 11696: 11680:

is worse, although it's not clear if it's impacted Christian Post news coverage beyond anything related to

11666: 11365: 10880:, my problem with it is not so much that it's a book review on Knowledge, but that it's a review of a book 10711: 10326: 10283: 10236: 9950: 9754: 9719: 9674: 9631: 9553: 9501: 9390: 9352: 9284: 9191: 9158: 9080: 9032: 8960: 8912: 8844: 8785: 8740: 8647: 8573: 8252: 8145: 8024:

The language of BURDEN is aimed to resolve immediate edit warring conflicts, despite around when an editor

7905: 7643: 7576: 7521: 7516:

self-published book is not an "unreliable" source, but it's an example of the kind of thing he's removing.

7468: 6746: 6353:

because he did not use user talk pages. It's interesting that he did not deny that it was non-neutral, etc.

5581: 5248: 5205:

gives more detail about his life... without talking about his ethnicity because nothing is know about it, "

5122:

gives more detail about his life... without talking about his ethnicity because nothing is know about it, "

3891: 3266:

it has a historic track record of doing these calculations both faster and more accurate compared to AP/CNN

2989: 2801: 2757: 2445: 2297:

article, alongside those of Anders Behring Breivik, David Duke, Dylann Roof, and the Christchurch shooter.

1900: 1849: 1777: 1174:

I think it's much more serious than paraphrasing. Compare the headline, byline, and first paragraph in the

563: 11623: 11347: 10392:

Hi there, thanks for offering to upload a copy of the composition. This looks like a nice addition to the

9826:. In the future, if any editor sees a removal of a self-published source that should have been covered by 8121:

describe as "dealing with a backlog". The objections here are editorial issues, not a behavioural issue -

7417: 7240:

With multiple captures each day for many days in 2013. none of the captures included the specific color.

5927: 5896: 3629:

a reliable source for the bias or the reliability of a publication (in article space)? The organization's

10178:

Given that it was you that brought this here, I think you may be implying the wrong person is to blame -

8866: 7777: 7237: 6511:

template for a song), but I would avoid using ASCAP for an artist's real name. A high-profile example is

5603: 4803:

article. However, the reporting of the details of the police report and incident report are superior in

3070:

those cases where the initial won "national pledged delegates" subseqently transfers to other candidates

2860: 201: 131:. More importantly, the book has no footnotes or bibliography (you can see this in the Amazon preview too 8390:, but all other uses of self-published sources as secondary sources are unreliable because they have no 7655:

is an extremely restricted exception with five conditions, and any uses of self-published sources under

6462: 6276:

5 Then the author Erlandson quotes "one theologian" who "told when a similar survey came out years ago"

2668: 2464:

not). That this happens at all is, I guess, outside (or bigger than) the scope of this noticeboard. --

1116:

This website is run by two individuals. It may be OK for Bollywood trivia, but it is not high quality.--

314:

P.S. You are wrong in calling reviews 2 and 3 "positive" when they point out some obvious shortcomings.

11470: 11387: 11027:

is a reliable source. I am claiming that I have a valid counterexample to the claim that it is it is a

10396:

article, if we are able to get it approved for copyright. It doesn't look like this material is in the

8162:

applies to a non-notable blogger's uncontroversial descriptions of themself (which is almost certainly

7236:

I don't know whether it's relevant but I know that it has an unusually large number of captures at the

7111:

Even if its a blog, the website has a video to back up their claim, does that not support the claim? -

6911: 5540: 4733: 4680: 4587: 4136: 3976: 3947: 3684: 2585: 2572: 2538: 2114: 832: 828: 594: 272: 169: 51: 42: 17: 10798:

for bringing it up. There are 2 parts here, 1st Piotrus's specific question and then questions around

6720: 4783:

So you oppose the use of "criminal complaint" to describe the report Reade filed with the local cops?

4583: 3809:] why shouldn't we also use it to help decide which label found in various RS's is most appropriate? 2694:

replace such references regardless - we have better ones. But is this podcast an appropriate source?

11716: 11450: 11144: 11111: 11062: 11001:

My essay in my own userspace is a self published source. The similar op-ed, edited and vetted by the

7933: 7177: 7116: 6767: 6512: 5639: 5634: 5496: 5328:

national newspaper, but unfortunately they've been caught in the act of doing this too many times. ‑

5260: 5182: 5167: 4986: 4959: 4931: 4859: 4812: 4774: 4619: 3348: 3189: 948: 712: 704: 628: 587: 571: 373: 209:

A Pandora's Box Opened”: Al Q'aeda, Fundamentalist Islam, and the Global War on Terror—A Review Essay

10404:. I'm unsure of the copyright status of this document, so I'm going to refer this discussion to the 8878: 5615: 4918:. So for instance, if sources rated 7-10 out of 10 are considered generally reliable, I would rate 11194: 10615: 10246:

other users engaged in semi-automated editing without engaging with anything anyone says whatsoever

9102: 5932:

Other sources suggest the area where the body was found served as the Jewish community's synagogue.

5648: 5643: 5214: 5115: 3895: 3880: 3698: 3634: 3619: 3139: 2479: 2201:

I mean your question, I assumed you were asking if we can call this a manifesto. If RS do so do we.

2110: 2080: 994:

I don't have much to add, but I concur with the others that this does not look like a good source.

646: 612: 517: 464: 395: 377:

on Moscow provided an example of the successful use of radiological agents for terrorist purposes.

286: 10931:

is a self-published source, why was I not allowed to self publish? Why were my words changed by a

7942:. For systematic removals, it would not hurt to start a discussion on this noticeboard first, but 7817: 6336: 5572: 1347:, which is incorrect. Poorly spun articles are not reliable even if they do not violate copyright. 780: 190: 11005:

editorial team and published with changes that I would not have made if I had a choice is not. --

10322: 10279: 10232: 9946: 9750: 9715: 9683: 9670: 9657: 9627: 9549: 9497: 9386: 9348: 9280: 9187: 9154: 9076: 9028: 8956: 8921: 8908: 8781: 8736: 8656: 8643: 8569: 8248: 8141: 7901: 7639: 7572: 7559: 7517: 7464: 7313: 7217: 6843:

Yes, but that is why we should use only those sources that have a high standard of fact checking.

6084: 6047: 5974: 5958: 3746: 3669: 3402: 3278: 3083: 3009: 2623: 2359: 2326: 1813: 1795: 1080: 824: 9924:

Problem is I am not sure that is at all clear, that the SPS tag should only be uses in that way.

9235:

you reacted by fixing the problem properly. This seems like Knowledge working as designed to me?

7948:"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." 7225: 6613: 3697:

without any justification or evidence. Their motive appears to be to progress the definition of

3239:, many journalists started paying attention to the site's delegate counts, and Quoctrung Bui of 2817: 2533:

was built by the Albanians. For the academic critique of the book that I mentioned earlier, see

2351: 1933: 1569: 1085: 208: 11329: 11287: 10671: 10508: 10480:? The journal is not listed on DOAJ. But, the DOI of the published article is correct. Regards 10456: 10429: 10382: 10297: 10262: 10183: 10166: 10110: 10051: 10021: 9972: 9929: 9912: 9867: 9840: 9811: 9807: 9799: 9786: 9768: 9738: 9699: 9569: 9531: 9516: 9449: 9429: 9337: 9208: 9173: 9144: 9125: 9094: 9059: 8632: 8568:), and no one is actually arguing that it's inaccurate, I'm not going to indulge misbehaviour. 8546: 8503: 8454: 8421: 8404: 8337: 8279: 8266: 8262: 8232: 8126: 8099: 8059: 8015: 7960: 7861: 7836: 7708:

Pretty sure we should remove substandard sources and replace them with Citation Needed tags. --

7677: 7623: 7453: 7265: 7189: 7150: 7051: 7037: 7010: 6958: 6941: 6848: 6830: 6792: 6690: 6638: 6586:

Oh, it's not like that, actually. I'm only talking about writers' credits, which are given as "

6574: 6529: 6412: 6306: 6243: 6199: 6143: 6062: 6002: 5988: 5856: 5785: 5766: 5745: 5689: 5626: 5438: 5414: 5202: 5119: 5016: 4527: 4431:"Former staffer files criminal complaint against Joe Biden over 1993 sexual assault allegation" 4396: 4340: 4248:

about his work as Ronan Farrow's producer at NBC when the two attempted to report on Weinstein.

4093: 3912: 3725: 3651: 3602: 3562: 3526: 3513: 3482: 3442: 3156: 2857: 2725: 2341: 2302: 2245: 2206: 2171: 1967: 1733: 1631: 1608: 1589: 1529: 1510: 1479: 1365: 1246: 1148: 1103: 982: 911: 726: 193:

by Robert M. Cassidy, published by a peer-reviewed magazine Military Review. A positive review.

154: 7997:

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

7844: 6458: 5660: 5164: 4842:

story simply is more focused on the police complaint, as the title suggests. I feel that the

4725:. In any case, the "criminal" part has also been reported by other sources, including Fox News 4308:

with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the

2664: 1071:

Try to locate the original source, and cite that source instead (but only if it is reliable).

11575: 11411: 11382: 11306: 10722: 9492: 9362:

before removing it rather than requiring ediotors of an article to get their house in order.

9027:

treatment by ignoring us having clear guidelines on the subject is not on and needs to stop.

8302: 7600: 7296: 6907: 6505: 6321: 6287: 6036: 5937: 5920: 5222: 5192: 5135: 5105: 5067:

This has all been explained to you before. Several times by several editors, in fact. Please

3972: 3943: 3680: 3253:. Whether or not these preliminary calculated data for pledged national convention delegates 3223:

for most US presidential elections (including primaries and caucuses) over the past 20 years.

2510: 1692: 1033: 693: 531: 501: 480: 414: 405:

conclusions on. Hence all my other arguments still stand, - this book shouldn't qualify as a

319: 305: 139: 11039:

I do think that it is interesting that multiple editors here are claiming that the Signpost

2350:

They seem to have access to census data and other population metrics tools. They claim that

1697: 1566:, but the site does not indicate which authors are staff members and which are "volunteers". 949:"Italy’s Coronavirus Nightmare Could Happen in U.S. Within Days or Weeks, Ex-CDC Chief Says" 943:. News NT (n5ti.com) republishes articles from other sites without permission. For example, 11712: 11263: 11140: 11107: 11058: 10836: 10597: 10567: 10500: 10485: 10354: 9600: 9139:

I agree SPS should not be removed if they are talking about themselves, without discussion.

7283: 7249: 7173: 7137: 7112: 6990:"EXCLUSIVE: Gabo’s Founder Exposes Social Media Influencer Dean Schneider for Animal Abuse" 6763: 6617: 6557: 6230: 6166: 5825: 4955: 4927: 4855: 4808: 4770: 4615: 4126: 3827: 3344: 3185: 3106: 3026: 2701:. I have always thought of that as a propaganda outlet and not reliable. Is it valid here? 2638: 2000: 1273: 1268:

So what you are saying is we should not use it for information on a BLP like was purposed?

708: 624: 567: 183: 10736: 10729: 10715: 10572: 9798:

Three examples have been provided so far in this discussion. The Drover's Wife brought up

8874: 7396:

is on a campaign to remove unreliable sources from articles. The edits generally remove a

5611: 2844:, etc. In addition to his work for America, O'Loughlin has written on the subject for the 2660: 1050:

https://hindi2news.com/celeb-stylist-jo-ferguson-selected-to-show-life-assist-machine-off/

8: 11635: 11607: 11540: 11532: 11139:

under user generated and expertise would have to be proven, and the case for due made).

11096: 11048: 11010: 10745: 10416: 10318: 10156:

are most likely to generate productive discussion and bring about a speedy resolution. —

10130: 10038: 9992: 9891: 9827: 9819: 9815: 9803: 9098: 9024: 8387: 8159: 8137: 7713: 7664: 7656: 7652: 7535: 7444: 7233:

That led me to the encycolorpedia site. I'm concerned that it isn't a reliable source.

7133: 6655: 6603: 6546: 6476: 6447: 6397: 6365: 6214: 6174: 6121: 5876: 5726: 5708: 5452: 5076: 4897: 4828: 4789: 4756: 4732:), MSN, Vox and the Washington Examiner, so it could easily be sourced to one of those. 4706: 4640: 4496: 4106: 3413: 3135: 2593: 2558: 2502: 2286: 2045: 1948: 1803: 1754: 1672: 1459: 642: 608: 549: 513: 460: 391: 334: 282: 191:

THE WOLVES OF ISLAM, Paul Murphy, Potomac Books, Washington, DC, 2006, 268 pages, $ 18.95

11349: 10908:

It's a self-published source, so it can be used with the restrictions that apply to any

6332: 4973:

did that), he is credited with breaking the criminal complaint aspect of the story, per

4719: 670:

would be helpful. This is a sensitive topic, as Scott was a young student killed in the

11595: 11591: 11571: 11556: 11458: 11427: 11167: 10753: 10583: 10523: 10496: 10077: 8617: 8538: 8517: 7830: 7378: 7332: 6885: 6807: 6248: 6080: 6043: 5970: 5954: 4630: 4035: 3990: 3962: 3931: 3869: 3814: 3778:

Nope. A handy guide but there's nothing there that would pass our bar for reliability.

3761: 3742: 3665: 3398: 3274: 3241: 3207: 3102: 3079: 3005: 2914: 2906: 2690: 2468: 2412: 2355: 2322: 1831: 1808: 1682: 1322: 1291: 1131: 1072: 999: 965: 671: 431: 11478: 11225:

limited circumstances where it might be a legitimate primary source for articles like

9581:, exactly. And even if it was, his "about" does not make him an expert in this field. 8870: 6407:

I am not sure, I suspect not as they do not seem to have an editorial board or policy.

5607: 5211:...was born at Cordoba into a family prominent for its expert devotion to the study... 5128:...was born at Cordoba into a family prominent for its expert devotion to the study... 5051:

public incident report was the result of her filing a police report reporting a crime.

3664:

IIRC, this was discussed. It is an interesting tool. But, not to be used a as source.

2588:

have looked. Cannot find it at the moment. If I do and I remember I'll let you know.--

2526: 1232:

Hindi2News took every paragraph, and even the byline and the image captions, from the

11497: 11454: 10885: 10866: 10628: 10504: 10419:. However, it can probably be included as an image to help illustrate the article. — 10412: 10378: 10308: 10293: 10273: 10258: 10220: 10196: 10179: 9968: 9960: 9925: 9863: 9782: 9764: 9734: 9691: 9578: 9565: 9527: 9512: 9461: 9445: 9204: 9169: 9140: 8628: 8542: 8499: 8450: 8417: 8333: 8186: 8122: 8095: 8055: 8011: 7939: 7449: 7274: 7261: 7168:

I see. Thank you so much for clarifying. Yes, Epistle News does not seem to be under

7126: 7100: 7047: 7033: 6954: 6937: 6844: 6826: 6788: 6498: 6408: 6350: 6302: 6191: 6154: 6135: 6104: 6058: 5998: 5984: 5943: 5762: 5685: 5410: 5270: 5011: 4522: 4391: 4358: 4335: 3721: 3558: 3438: 3363: 3152: 3043: 2721: 2613: 2337: 2298: 2254: 2241: 2215: 2202: 2180: 2167: 2059: 1962: 1729: 1705: 1604: 1525: 1165: 1135: 1121: 1044: 939: 929: 906: 876: 722: 685: 172:

provides precisely the context where one might want to use his 2004 book as a source.

150: 128: 10969:

editorial team and I had a disagreement about the content. The editors removed them.

9347:

The dispute, of course, is that these sources are necessarily, in fact, unreliable.

8591:

I don't think it is generally a good idea to remove a source completely and leave a

8520:. I do not plan to revert all of these. I will try to work something out with JzG. ~ 5656: 4684:"an 'indictment,' an 'information,' and a 'complaint' all serve the same function – 4239: 4034:

Usable if quoted in a third-party source, as I explained above for Ad Fontes Media.

3231:

Besides of being the most complete and accurate historic database for final results

11691: 11661: 11516: 11360: 11179: 11135: 10857: 10799: 10706: 10695: 10691: 10658: 10575: 10535: 9545: 8848: 8673: 8534: 8513: 8487: 8351: 8297: 8197: 7999: 7927: 6741: 6433: 6317: 6283: 6094: 5719: 5585: 5354: 5302: 5294: 5243: 5218: 5186: 5131: 5099: 4689: 4667:(Some states allow citizens to file criminal complaints or applications for them.)" 4487:

I would invite anyone who is familiar with our sourcing and BLP policies to review

3225: 2984: 2938: 2926: 2796: 2752: 2687:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/12/01/surviving-aids-crisis-gay-catholic

2498: 2440: 2040:

leads the reader to a whole series of reply tweets that are not allowed per BLP. --

2014: 1895: 1875:

While I would generally agree with you, there's certain countries (such as Ukraine)

1866: 1844: 1772: 1224: 1029: 689: 541: 527: 497: 476: 410: 315: 301: 135: 9806:, and that citation had previously been restored to the article. Kvng's examples ( 5181:

The only reason I can think of to completely remove Arab from the article is that

4675: 4665:

Criminal complaints, on the other hand, are almost always filed by the government.

1401:

article? Two articles from the website are being used to cite the following text:

271:

Moreover, the topic of the suitcases nukes doesn't even appear within the article

11484: 11414:? Should they be added to the "Uses" column? I'm looking at the Turkish edition ( 11322: 11280: 11259: 11230: 10913: 10831: 10664: 10593: 10481: 10449: 10422: 10159: 10103: 10044: 10014: 9940: 9905: 9833: 9422: 9330: 9275: 9271: 9241: 9229: 9118: 9052: 8955:

deprecation (not a personal dislike) is basically the whole problem right there.

8735:

covered by that, you'd be getting far less pushback - but you don't, so you are.

8469: 8397: 8366: 8322: 8272: 8225: 8163: 8081: 8041: 7982: 7953: 7891: 7854: 7840: 7670: 7616: 7553: 7506: 7359: 7278: 7260:

Well as we are ont even sure who runs them (let alone ho writes it) no not an RS.

7244: 7214:

I'm on again off again active in researching color issues, mainly at pages like:

7143: 7003: 6683: 6669: 6631: 6567: 6522: 5849: 5821: 5778: 5738: 5431: 5399: 5329: 5210: 5127: 4086: 4051: 4026: 3905: 3859: 3711: 3694: 3644: 3626: 3615: 3595: 3581: 3519: 3475: 3332: 3169: 3022: 2630: 2377: 1624: 1582: 1503: 1472: 1358: 1269: 1239: 1141: 1096: 975: 244: 11221:. What Headbomb said. As with every Knowledge page there are a few hypothetical 11089:"Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." 10444:

WP:CQ § Copy of music/composition of alma mater written by Samuel Barber in 1928

5652: 604:

I would like to know how reliable the Global Terrorism Database is as a source.

50:

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

11631: 11603: 11536: 11175: 11092: 11044: 11006: 10531: 10207: 10138: 9320: 8780:(both sections) are specifically there to provide you guidance in this regard. 8525: 8477: 8311: 7992: 7943: 7920: 7879: 7806: 7709: 7699: 7531: 7430: 7324:

hydrogen will be a good idea. That day is not likely to arrive any time soon."

6997: 6978: 6677: 6673: 6665: 6651: 6625: 6599: 6542: 6472: 6443: 6393: 6361: 6113: 5900: 5872: 5714:

The self-published source is written by a subject-matter expert (as defined in

5072: 4893: 4889: 4868:

You are certainly allowed to have that opinion, but when editing Knowledge you

4823: 4784: 4752: 4702: 4674:

or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer."

4635: 4561: 4492: 4130: 3258:

just opt to display a "TBD" - at least until 100% of the vote has been counted.

3072:(i.e. check how the source was used to keep track of the final results in this 2589: 2568: 2554: 2495:

Its use as a source on Knowledge has led to criticism in the academic community

2041: 1944: 1751: 1668: 545: 348: 9041:

Can you name one example of a self-published source that JzG removed that was

8140:

approach to self-published sources when it's not and has never been the case.

5725:

The self-published source is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions under

5153: 4884:. You are, of course, allowed to make an argument to change that consensus at 4385: 3331:

Where the source collates information from electoral officials, we can follow

2385: 198:

The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror by Paul J. Murphy.

11423: 11163: 11158: 11080: 10909: 10896: 10772: 10749: 10702: 10579: 10555: 10519: 10397: 10393: 10314: 10097: 10093: 10089: 9887: 9611: 9589: 9540: 9480: 9469: 9465: 9382: 9370: 9267: 9256: 9044: 9020: 9004: 8940: 8904: 8891: 8817: 8806: 8777: 8773: 8758: 8728: 8712: 8613: 8565: 8557: 8465: 8375: 8208: 8155: 7916: 7848: 7821: 7746: 7735: 7727: 7660: 7590: 7374: 7328: 7085: 7024: 6881: 6803: 6423: 6357: 6236: 6187: 6165:, I highly suspect that the website is entirely written by only him. He does 6031: 5915: 5892: 5715: 5704: 5673: 5425: 5374: 5278: 4572: 4549: 4369: 4164: 4065: 4015: 3986: 3958: 3927: 3842: 3823: 3810: 3786: 3757: 3543: 3469: 3421: 3202: 3122: 2948: 2910: 2779: 2709: 2682: 2465: 2423: 2409: 2290: 2265: 2230: 2191: 2155: 1716: 1655: 1551: 1312: 1287: 1090: 995: 969: 953: 8354:(for good reason) SPS is sourcing that should be used with caution, but it 5560: 5500: 5098:

written by a leading historian. Yet they said this source is not reliable.--

4746:

Please don't post false information hoping that nobody will check. Somebody

3590:

Talk:One America News Network § No clear consensus on 'far-right' descriptor

11493: 11444: 11353:

So I would be reluctant to use PhDs from Indian universities for anything.

11255: 10877: 10862: 10793: 10684: 10641: 10624: 10477: 10405: 10401: 10008: 10004: 9996: 9985: 9880: 9324: 9245: 9109: 9016: 8982: 8951:

continually equating your removals with his, despite his being grounded in

8701: 8663: 8606: 8386:

There are two exceptions, content by subject-matter experts and uses under

7608: 7420:

we have not been able to make progress on this disagreement. Other editors

7400: 7169: 7130: 7096: 6993: 6731: 6516: 6108: 5843: 5492: 5424:

Yes, this noticeboard is the right place to make this kind of request. The

5394:

Where can one suggest to blacklist/ban the usage of a unreliable source? --

5274: 4922:

a 7, which I would consider very unreliable for a story such as this. And

4722: 4122: 3506: 3462: 3268:. We have no source to replace it, because as you can see this alternative 3039: 2685:, albeit an interesting one, since he is a gay Catholic. The link is here: 2609: 2487:

is a book that was published by a nonagenarian Protestant missionary named

2430: 2055: 1885: 1618: 1397: 1392: 1380: 1161: 1117: 1019: 925: 872: 680: 667: 660: 492: 427: 406: 297: 11508: 10812:

general level has always been of good quality, even during the down times.

7028: 3394: 3056: 11686: 11656: 11512: 11464: 11355: 10912:, which would include not using it to support text about living persons. 9895: 9823: 9687: 8990: 8974: 8840: 8687: 8595: 8171: 8167: 8007: 7825: 7410: 6933: 6736: 6428: 6389: 5577: 5363: 5350: 5298: 5290: 5238: 4657:

A criminal complaint is a document that charges a defendant with a crime.

4582:

You've made this false claim (that there was no consensus to include it

3181: 2979: 2922: 2791: 2768: 2747: 2522: 2458: 2435: 1890: 1862: 1839: 1767: 1748: 1555: 1336: 1216:

Printed: 07:25 BST, 12 April 2020 | Up to date: 10:02 BST, 12 April 2020

900: 844: 784: 119: 11711:

They seem reliable. But as always it depends on what they are used for.

11305:

is a repository of dissertations and theses, the following excerpt from

3233:(i.e the created wikipedia article about the source features this line: 1197:

Published: 02:25 EDT, 12 April 2020 | Updated: 16:22 EDT, 13 April 2020

776: 666:

Some additional input on guidance regarding the appropriate sources for

11681: 11302: 11240: 8359: 8315: 8074: 8034: 7975: 7884: 7883:

given that SPS does not say they cannot be used, is not appropriate. --

7550: 7499: 7352: 7347:

points to an AU energy service agency directly involved in the project

5630: 5395: 5282: 3736: 3707: 3062:

When used along with a primary official result website source (i.e the

2876:

a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

2506: 1539: 1415: 1228: 1054: 168:

Paul J. Murphy is an American counterterrorism expert, and the article

11469:

added content from these articles ... Opinion piece from Senapathy on

10499:, which is a well-known reputable publisher, so it definitely isn't a 7569:

WP:SPS#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

5813: 4543:...Then you should have no problem finding another source -- one that 2485:

The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present

11251: 11244: 10203: 10149: 10134: 9991:

should be removed if it is attached to an appropriate application of

9548:

is not a way of circumventing sourcing guidelines you disagree with.

8521: 8473: 8346:

There is no place I see in policy that SPS equates to "bad sourcing"

7802: 7695: 7426: 4614:

The public incident report is a public summary of the police report.

4115: 2518: 2402:

Knowledge:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Habesha peoples

2294: 7974:

while. It's part of minimizing disruption to the work as a whole. --

7613:. Was the source in question authored by a subject-matter expert? — 7205: 7197: 5342: 10890: 10853: 10766: 10549: 9605: 9583: 9474: 9364: 9250: 8998: 8934: 8885: 8811: 8752: 8706: 7740: 7393: 7079: 6721:

https://radio.hrt.hr/clanak/boris-novkovic-s-ines-ide-dalje/116178/

5667: 5368: 5088: 4566: 4363: 4059: 4009: 3887: 3836: 3780: 3540: 3455: 3418: 3119: 3063: 2945: 2918: 2773: 2703: 2259: 2224: 2185: 2149: 1710: 1024: 10517:

It's not listed in DOAJ because it's not an open access journals.

8564:

an acceptable source that directly supports the contribution (per

8154:

Neither of the two examples listed earlier are acceptable uses of

7667:

would not be due anywhere except in the author's own biography. —

7222:

I specifically investigating Alloy Orange which is included here:

6628:, since this is no longer a reliability issue, but a BLP issue. — 5564: 1437:"False Cases Of Harassment In The Name Of 'Jai Shri Ram' Multiply" 11583: 11437:

Center for Inquiry - Huffpost Article, UnDark, Skepticink, Medium

8175: 5346: 2404:). I've gone into more detail about this particular instance at 1747:

as a publicly-editable wiki. Additionally, the first page I read

1574: 9599:

Your comment that this source is "compliant with the second" is

8486:

If you plan to go mass-reverting these edits, keep in mind that

8380:"self-published material are largely not acceptable as sources" 8358:

be used - it is not, for example, deprecated like Daily Mail. --

7724:

can they be allowed to stay awaiting improvements to the article

7302: 2944:

a generally reliable source for election-related information? -

868: 864: 5573:

http://www.orospakr.ca/blog/2013/01/22/bufferbloat-demystified/

5277:

because it is a tribute by one of TBT's closest collaborators,

4163:

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of

3516:

after this RfC was prematurely archived. I restored the tag. —

1750:

cites a forum, two Reddit threads and two Knowledge articles. –

848: 562:

Yes, it was published by Brassey's, which is an imprint of the

11511:

as an official reply from CFI regarding the Senapathy affair.

9101:, as it was cited in the author's biography. Fortunately, the 8416:

That is my reading too, maybe the wording needs tightening up.

7769:. A couple specific ones that we have had disagreements over: 5842:. The lack of editorial oversight makes We Got This Covered a 5071:. Beating that dead horse will not cause him to run faster. -- 11419: 10744:

I would summarize as generally reliable but possibly biased.

5684:

No, as I can see no evidence they are an acknowledged expert.

5622: 4926:

reports on details for which we do not have better sources.

2942: 2514: 496:

this should become a discussion forum between the two of us.

11563: 11415: 6356:

I am frankly tired of the stonewalling and partisanship and

3151:

SPS blog by people who do not seem to be recognised experts.

2222:

time. That makes the aarticle read as a polemic for incels.

1939:

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Twitter as a source

10748:

and other considerations for reliable sources may apply. --

10547:

Seems legit. Bit niche, though, which is always a problem.

9327:

warning editors against adding the source in the future. —

8166:), but not to their claims regarding other things, such as 7663:. In most cases, content by a non-expert person that meets 7443:

I'd likely remove them entirely, as I have been doing with

3592:. Please note that they are being used in article space. — 2530: 116:

The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror

11684:, for which it can't be considered an independent source. 6787:

A persons nationality is what they have on their passport.

5069:

drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass

4228:

obtained a public incident report recording the allegation

1355:

is not), then the original source can be cited instead. —

1014:

Is hindi2news.com a reliable source? For reference, see:

6921:

it, nor is there proof that he has a Bosnian nationality.

6560:. However, ASCAP can still be used to say something like 6042:, as unreliably sourced. Is this correct/appropriate? -- 4516:

credits him with being the source used by all other MSM:

675:

message. The one most prominently used in the article is

10476:

Can The Journal of Development Studies be considered as

10292:

I am literally asking you to back up your claims here -

6103:

can be considered reliable. I ask because the entry for

2501:

views that Jacques espouses, notably that the likes of "

2318: 9385:

without trying to circumvent them with silly wordplay.

6239:

in this thread. Let me go first, I am not a Catholic.

6209:

Alright, that cleared everything up for me. Thank you!

5287:"No costume was too ridiculous nor stunt too dangerous" 11617:

Also note the citation to the Oprah Winfrey Network...

11075:

is user generated. Someone generated today's issue of

10790:

I'm glad to see this question discussed and thanks to

8468:. Other than the fact that it's a bit tedious, I like 7833:

search, so I think the talk page method would be best.

6779:

whether someone is/isn't a particular nationality yes?

5035:

happen, so you can stop trying to make it happen now.

3498: 2398:

Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/June#Synthesis, POV

1460:

https://thelogicalindian.com/news/muslim-youth-attack/

1286:

I think they are saying it should not be used AT ALL.

964:. Try to cite the original source, if it is reliable. 10255:

without engaging with anything anyone says whatsoever

6495:

American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

6100: 6029: 5913: 5215:

Islamic Legal Thought: A Compendium of Muslim Jurists

4730:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News

3098: 2913:

status and lack of editorial oversight, and that the

1617:

For the record, I agree that The Logical Indian is a

362:

Or "Chechnya's Terrorist Network" by Pokalova, p. 50:

11085:

Knowledge:Identifying and using self-published works

10989:

Knowledge:Identifying and using self-published works

9763:"sub thread" this one entitled "what this is about". 9323:

to be removed. All deprecation does is authorize an

4979:, which then led to reluctant legacy media reports: 4872:

abide by the consensus regarding the reliability of

2883:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

11275:

Knowledge talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

10888:. But this is not a hill on which I intend to die. 10620:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2010-10-04/Book review

9544:material that's compliant with the second one, and 9203:

other, and this is confusing a lot of other people.

9105:article currently includes that citation without a 4289:

with the Washington, D.C., police on April 9, 2020.

4204:

with the Washington, D.C., police on April 9, 2020.

2893:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2406:

Talk:Habesha peoples/Archives/2020/May#Source redux

1765:per above, this isn't useable for anything at all. 1494:

Knowledge talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

11594:page. No prior RSNB discussion. Knowledge page at 11574:page. No prior RSNB discussion. Knowledge page at 5345:, which as far as I can tell is Garden's official 5281:. I assume the warning is because the link at the 5209:". The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, " 5126:". The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, " 3437:make me an RS on it (no matter how accurate I am). 11479:David A. Osorio writing on his blog at SkepticInk 9091:User talk:JzG/Archive 180 § Vanity press removals 9089:Thank you. I've found the relevant discussion at 4886:Knowledge talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 4672:must be made under oath before a magistrate judge 3472:, or removing "RfC:" from the section heading? — 3255:(based on partial less than 100% counted results) 110:Is this book by Paul J. Murphy a reliable source? 10938:Here are my words as edited by and published in 10574:). Looks good for topics on its niche. Consider 7345:This article on Telsa's megabattery in Australia 5926:, as unreliably sourced. (It was then replaced 5145:We have multiple sources saying he is an Arab. 4505:I think you may have misunderstood consensus on 2697:I also note several references to an article on 180:Beyond the Myth: A review of the Wolves of Islam 9097:. I agree that the cited source is valid under 5152:: University of Chicago by a leading historian 4454:Given the multiple questions about sourcing at 455:May be Bodansky is not off the mark, after all. 11578:. Not to be confused with religionnewsblog.com 10653:does have an editor-in-chief, and articles in 10415:, and should ideally be backed up by reliable 10347:Verify writing of alma mater for Samuel Barber 10011:reviewers would also want that tag removed. — 8727:with Kvng. Sources that are appropriate under 6163:Paul McFedries authored a book called Word Spy 3305:"The Secretive Duo Guiding the Delegate Count" 372:While Basayev's attack is not recorded in the 211:by Leo J. Daugherty III, Ph. D., published by 11555:I am starting to go through the citations at 10946:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed 4997:was next to mention McHugh's reporting after 4985:News issued their own reports later that day. 4310:public incident report, provided to The Times 3468:tag to this discussion to make this a formal 2896:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 2567:That pretty much sums up my view on Jacques, 2257:, LOL! s/very experienced user/serial idiot/ 1052:, which is a lightly modified version of the 11457:in the Huffpost as the only citation on the 10739:, for example, but there's quite a few more. 9417:"regardless of what context they're used in" 8185:and self-published blog platforms including 7843:of a non-notable artist whose biography was 6877:Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina 4882:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 4545:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 3957:is your opinion more reliable than theirs? 2218:, I agree we can call it that once, but not 1708:, is that correct? Anyone else have a view? 891:though... And probably a good idea to keep 9822:, as that is supported by the remainder of 9511:acceptable to remove it as it is not an RS. 8392:"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" 7926:. These removals are within policy because 6471:So that would be a no to adding them then? 5838:. There was a discussion on this source in 4054:, the well-known totally-not-an-antivaxer. 1558:page lists two founders and claims to have 1214:By Joshua Fox For Day by day Mail Australia 10645:was briefly discussed on this noticeboard 8903:context they're used in and regardless of 7851:(unambiguous advertising or promotion). — 7095:I too am going to say "no", just say no.-- 5935: 1345:"made the choice to show off the machines" 114:A book by a certain Paul J. Murphy titled 8498:material unless you have an RS to hand - 8172:G11 deletion of the article on the artist 7900:I agree with Masem, for what it's worth. 7129:. Interpretation of the video requires a 6626:biographies of living persons noticeboard 6235:It is important to note and disclose any 3588:These two sources are being discussed at 2525:" were ethnically Albanian. Jacques also 200:by Mark J. Conversino, PhD, published by 10701:I think it should not qualify as purely 5161:encyclopedia of Islam published by Brill 2433:; someone probably has access to a pdf. 182:by Andrew McGregor, published by an NGO 118:(2004) is currently under discussion at 10592:Thank you for all your inputs. Regards 10411:As for reliability, this document is a 7765:{{od} } The bulk of the campaign is on 7595:"are largely not acceptable as sources" 2130:Another inclusion - the external link " 14: 11406:Should different regional editions of 10503:, so I would say that it is reliable. 10359:2601:246:4800:58b0:c0bb:6703:b099:6189 10092:, quality of writing, etc.). However, 10003:I don't think an article can become a 8907:" is an approach that has gotta stop. 8261:The two examples I'm referring to are 7734:blog removed from the article. I call 6186:, if it's written by one person, it's 5703:. There are two situations in which a 5297:) 04:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC), updated 4382:with any law enforcement regarding it" 4121:This discussion has been disrupted by 2382:looked up the source at Google Scholar 2376:I was trying to verify a statement in 1195:By Joshua Fox For Daily Mail Australia 213:The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 11254:database. Could this be considerd as 10863:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10625:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 9319:Unreliable sources do not need to be 7406:-tagged source and replace it with a 7389:Campaign to remove unreliable sources 7194:Does anyone have any thoughts about: 6562:" is a song by . It was written by ." 5891:I was browsing through some edits of 4608:does say she filed a police report. 11507:Need to point out that I also cited 10884:on Knowledge. That seems to me like 7839:was a problem because it looks like 6040:. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 5924:. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 4110: 1790:Post-apartheid South African sources 1667:or usable as a source on wikipedia. 437: 409:— it's better to cite other sources. 365: 340: 253: 29: 10956:User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer 10826:So for the general question of "Is 9622:apparently intending to respond to 8702:reliable, independent and secondary 6099:I am wondering whether the website 5809:Rock Bottom (SpongeBob SquarePants) 5176:published by the University of Yale 4457:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation 4274:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation 4176:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation 3539:Yeah, I should have caught that. - 3302: 1921:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation 1498:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics 1434: 27: 10472:The Journal of Development Studies 10124:Sorry for poking the hornet's nest 7603:on the subject matter, whose work 6384:ASCAP as a source for artist names 5803:WeGotThisCovered.com is unreliable 3892:rating of One America News Network 2313:Statistical data from Forebears.io 2285:Isn't the text reliable only in a 2144:with link to word processor format 28: 11732: 10251:engaged in semi-automated editing 9444:So is that blog an RS, if so why? 9093:, which refers to the removal in 8310:While this is true, the point of 7607:has previously been published by 7206:https://encycolorpedia.com/c46210 6614:the ASCAP listing for Dir En Grey 5720:claims about other living persons 5343:https://twitter.com/GraemeGarden1 5265:I got a warning about using this 4223:filed a formal criminal complaint 3894:is being used for the claim that 3633:is being used for the claim that 3395:2016 Iowa election result article 1428: 1391:(thelogicalindian.com) article a 1204:to this excerpt from Hindi2News: 1089:inappropriately, please submit a 1010:Is Hindi 2News a reliable source? 11624:Talk:Center for Inquiry#Sourcing 11551:Religion News and Christian Post 11134:does not meet the definition of 9965:and therefore should not be used 7138:in biographies of living persons 6676:could help answer this question. 6034:. In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). 6024: 5918:. In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). 5908: 5273:. IMHO it qualifies as a useful 4854:are more professional sources. 4428: 4211:Source: Rich McHugh writing for 4114: 3572:The discussion above is closed. 1696: 1691: 1084: 1079: 33: 11227:List of Knowledge controversies 10852:I find this rather convincing, 10442:The copyright discussion is at 10406:copyright questions noticeboard 7593:policy, self-published sources 5936:Feigenbaum, Gail (2018-03-06). 5269:article as an external link at 4910:is very unreliable compared to 4846:reporting is very unreliable. 4319:An attempt to correct this was 4251:Here are two of his pieces for 3414:We have always done it that way 2901:Overall, I'd say that there is 2699:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 2372:Altered source and academia.edu 2317:Is statistical data taken from 1943:Should I restore the source? -- 11584:https://www.christianpost.com/ 11559:. Are the following reliable? 10400:yet, but it might qualify for 10257:- and have you pinged them? - 7023:Epistle news has 17 followers 6157:Based on the wiki article for 6030:Wolfsgrüber, Cölestin (1913). 5939:Getty Research Journal, No. 10 5914:Wolfsgrüber, Cölestin (1913). 4422: 4287:filed a public incident report 3296: 3074:2008 Iowa Democratic cacucuses 2689:. It is apparently related to 1453: 737:n5ti.com fake coronavirus news 13: 1: 10090:use by other reliable sources 9712:National Library of Australia 9153:Then we're on the same page! 9073:National Library of Australia 7816:Personally, I would not keep 7226:Shades_of_orange#Alloy_orange 7077:Going with "fuck no" here... 6426:says we shouldn't be using? — 5575:a reliable source for use on 4838:No I wouldn't go there. The 4696:local police. You can report 4686:they initiate a criminal case 3426:13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 3407:18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3353:17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3303:Bui, Quoctrung (2016-05-08). 3283:17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3215:15:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3194:20:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 3173:20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 3161:10:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 3144:19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3127:13:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2142:(unscrubbed, free-copy ed.). 1405:Fake cases alleging usage of 945:https://n5ti.com/health/1121/ 869:https://n5ti.com/italy-07099/ 865:https://n5ti.com/health/1233/ 333:See "Inferno in Chechnya" by 9890:(subject-matter experts and 9019:, but some were fine as per 6358:failure to assume good faith 4807:compared to other sources. 4721:. The above is, in any case 3111:16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 3088:15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 3048:04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 3031:01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 3014:21:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 2996:21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 2953:20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1915:Twitter as a source in a BLP 1658:, to cite the media-sources 1568:In 2015, The Logical Indian 1560:"a crew of 25 and a pool of 905:) and occasionally check. — 564:University of Nebraska Press 7: 8006:Both of those are from the 7611:, independent publications" 7125:No, because the video is a 6513:"This Is What You Came For" 6167:take suggestions from users 6114:Online Etymology Dictionary 3458:, would you mind adding an 1435:Sen, Sumanti (2019-07-29). 703:The books are published by 202:Strategic Studies Quarterly 10: 11737: 11721:07:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 11703:06:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 11673:06:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 11646:Religion News Services is 11640:05:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 11612:05:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 11545:22:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11521:00:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 11502:22:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11432:18:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11393:13:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11372:08:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11337:06:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11295:05:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 11268:18:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11234:14:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11214:10:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11185:10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11149:09:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11116:21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11101:19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11067:15:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11053:15:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 11015:11:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 10919:02:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 10902:14:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 10873:02:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 10844:22:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10786:As the editor-in-chief of 10778:22:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10758:10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10679:10:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10635:10:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10602:18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 10588:12:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 10561:22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10541:22:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10513:18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10490:18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10464:11:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 10437:10:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 10387:10:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 10371:00:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 10331:10:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10302:10:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10288:09:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10267:05:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10241:22:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 10212:15:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10188:21:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 10174:15:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 10143:14:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 10118:06:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 10082:15:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 10059:14:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 10029:14:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9977:13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9955:13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9934:13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9920:13:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9872:12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9848:12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9802:, which did qualify under 9791:13:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9773:12:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9759:12:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9743:12:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9724:12:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9705:12:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9679:11:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9636:11:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9617:11:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9595:11:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9574:11:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9558:11:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9536:11:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9521:11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9506:11:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9486:11:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9454:11:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9437:11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9395:12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9376:12:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9357:11:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9344:11:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC 9289:12:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9262:12:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9232:, As I said at that time, 9213:13:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9196:13:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9178:12:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9163:12:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9149:12:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9133:12:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9085:11:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9067:11:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9037:11:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 9010:11:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8965:10:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8946:10:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8917:23:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8897:22:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8823:23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8790:12:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8764:10:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8745:23:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8718:23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8704:- at least if challenged. 8652:22:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8637:20:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8622:14:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8578:22:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8551:18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8530:17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8508:16:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8482:13:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8459:13:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8426:14:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8412:14:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8371:19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8342:16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8327:14:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8306:12:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8287:11:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8257:22:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8240:11:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8150:10:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8131:07:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8104:14:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8086:14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 8064:21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8046:19:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 8020:16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7987:14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7968:07:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7910:04:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7896:04:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7869:01:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7811:00:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7752:11:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 7730:) and you don't want this 7718:01:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7704:00:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7685:07:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7648:04:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7631:00:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7581:04:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 7563:23:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7540:23:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7526:23:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7511:23:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7473:23:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7458:22:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7435:19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 7383:12:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 7364:06:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 7337:03:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC) 7312:as it is an instance of a 7289:20:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7270:16:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7255:16:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7182:12:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7158:05:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7121:04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7105:10:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 7091:22:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 7071:16:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 7056:15:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 7042:15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 7018:15:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 6963:11:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 6946:09:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 6932:Then we leave it out, per 6916:10:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 6890:10:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 6853:09:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 6835:10:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 6812:10:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 6797:09:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 6772:05:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 6753:04:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 6698:03:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 6660:11:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 6646:10:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 6608:22:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 6582:11:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 6551:13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 6370:01:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 6341:08:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 6326:07:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 6311:10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 6292:09:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 6219:00:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 6205:08:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 6179:01:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 6149:13:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 6126:02:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 6089:23:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 6067:17:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 6052:17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 6007:14:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5993:14:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5979:13:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5963:13:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5881:17:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5864:00:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5830:23:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 5793:15:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5771:15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5753:13:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5694:13:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5679:12:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5446:13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5426:spam blacklist noticeboard 5419:16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5404:16:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5380:10:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5359:08:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5333:08:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5307:07:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 5255:22:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5227:11:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5197:11:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5140:01:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5110:01:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5081:19:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 5029:21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4964:04:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4936:04:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4902:03:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4864:02:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4834:01:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4817:01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4795:01:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4779:00:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4761:04:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4742:03:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4711:23:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4646:23:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4624:23:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4596:01:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4578:20:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4501:22:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 4409:20:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4375:20:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4353:20:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 4101:10:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 4071:10:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 4039:09:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4030:20:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 4021:20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3995:14:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3981:14:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3967:14:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3952:13:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3936:14:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 3920:13:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 3873:09:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 3863:20:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3848:09:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3819:03:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 3792:20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3766:18:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3751:17:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3730:17:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3716:16:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3689:13:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 3674:14:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 3659:13:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 3610:13:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 3237:2016 presidential election 2931:21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 2866:09:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2808:01:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 2785:12:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2764:04:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2730:15:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2715:15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2618:10:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2598:00:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 2581:14:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2563:15:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 2547:16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 2472:16:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2452:04:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2416:00:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2364:16:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2346:15:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2331:15:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2307:15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2271:12:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2250:15:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2236:15:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2211:11:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2197:11:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2176:11:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2161:11:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 2064:10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 2050:22:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 1980:21:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 1953:20:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 1907:06:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 1871:13:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 1856:19:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 1826:05:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 1784:04:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 1758:13:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 1738:10:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 1722:10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 1677:15:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1639:03:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 1613:10:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1597:10:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1534:10:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1518:07:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1487:07:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1373:03:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 1296:15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1278:15:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1254:08:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 1170:10:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 1156:00:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 1126:11:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 1111:09:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 1038:17:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 1004:15:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 990:11:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 934:10:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 731:08:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 717:02:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 698:01:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 651:05:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 633:03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 617:23:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 595:Russian apartment bombings 576:04:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 554:15:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 536:18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 522:18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 506:18:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 485:18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 469:17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 419:17:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 400:16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 324:16:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 310:16:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 291:15:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 273:Russian apartment bombings 170:Russian apartment bombings 159:14:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 144:14:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 120:Russian apartment bombings 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 11564:https://religionnews.com/ 11418:) and an Australian one ( 10683:My initial thoughts, per 10253:(please define), and yet 8512:Yes, I've been given the 8384:(Shouldn't that be "is"?) 7818:"Bufferbloat Demystified" 6624:. I recommend asking the 6537:12:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 6481:12:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC) 6467:16:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 6452:15:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6438:13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6417:12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 6402:12:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 5903:, which removed the text 5168:Jon Stewart (philosopher) 4133:from the following user: 4083:is even more peculiar. — 3567:17:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 3547:13:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3534:13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3490:12:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3447:13:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC) 3057:2020 Iowa results article 3055:Based on a read of their 2852:, and been quoted in the 2789:What makes you think so? 2289:fashion? I note that the 1049: 944: 918:08:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC) 881:19:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 861:are coming from this site 856: 588:Global Terrorism Database 586:My question concerns the 582:Global Terrorism Database 11410:be considered under the 10616:Good Faith Collaboration 10007:with a cleanup tag, and 9814:) did not qualify under 9103:Bruce Elder (journalist) 7936:tag as an interim step." 4892:got it exactly right. -- 3896:One America News Network 3881:One America News Network 3828:somewhat more up to date 3699:One America News Network 3635:One America News Network 3620:One America News Network 3574:Please do not modify it. 2890:Please do not modify it. 2392:'s website, but also to 2384:. It pointed me to the 2081:2014 Isla Vista killings 2074:2014 Isla Vista killings 1091:request for blacklisting 227:accepted at face value". 11461:Knowledge page. Editor 10148:Please don't be sorry, 9381:of the two sections of 9244:[ question more than a 9182:Except that my dispute 7140:like Dean Schneider. — 6345:Dr. Ryan E. feels that 6262:Archdiocese of Boston." 5718:), and is not used for 5170:published by Bloomsbury 5087:University of Chicago, 1796:University of Cape Town 1550:, which are considered 1378:The Logical Indian for 11490:Here is the discussion 11344:Times Higher Education 11318: 11019:Just to clarify, I am 10723:usage by other sources 10703:user-generated content 10098:user-generated content 10094:self-published sources 10041:in this discussion. — 9876:As a cleanup tag, the 9812:Special:Diff/943122375 9808:Special:Diff/943118054 9800:Special:Diff/943196055 9095:Special:Diff/943196055 8776:? If it's the latter, 8267:Special:Diff/943122375 8263:Special:Diff/943118054 8156:self-published sources 7767:this contribution page 7659:must still constitute 6258: 5942:. Getty Publications. 5390:Blacklisting of source 5183:you just don't like it 5048:Public Incident Report 4045:And in related news... 3514:Special:Diff/940712018 1662:are citing, directly. 1552:self-published sources 1420: 1221: 1202: 903:|insource:"n5ti.com"}} 11576:Religion News Service 11399:Regional editions of 11313: 10690:It may be considered 10610:Is The Signpost a RS? 8768:That depends. Has it 7837:Zach Heckendorf video 7605:in the relevant field 7599:"when produced by an 7198:encycolorpedia c46210 6347:this mass-ping notice 6253: 6037:Catholic Encyclopedia 5921:Catholic Encyclopedia 5887:Catholic Encyclopedia 5814:Want to Write for Us? 5705:self-published source 5539:Reports - Knowledge: 4734:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 4588:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 4137:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 3333:Say where you read it 2963:Previous discussion: 2842:Catholic Health World 2586:Amanuensis Balkanicus 2573:Amanuensis Balkanicus 2539:Amanuensis Balkanicus 2511:Constantine the Great 2394:a PDF at Academia.edu 1403: 1206: 1188: 889:XLinkBot's revertlist 823:Reports - Knowledge: 607:Thanks in advance! -- 432:Abu al-Walid al-Masri 46:of past discussions. 11492:. Thanks in advance 11252:Shodhganga Inflibnet 10568:SCImago Journal Rank 9601:begging the question 8218:have been discussed 7826:verifiability policy 7796:Better source needed 7786:Better source needed 7547:better source needed 7493:Better source needed 7422:have raised concerns 7310:generally unreliable 6620:, which states that 6349:does not constitute 5869:Generally unreliable 5836:Generally unreliable 2968:Related discussion: 2497:, given some of the 2386:original publication 2336:How is it generated? 2013:This is right above 1441:thelogicalindian.com 1320:Copyright violation: 970:blacklisting request 947:is an exact copy of 540:Agree entirely with 347:In November of 1995 215:. A positive review. 204:. A positive review. 186:. A negative review. 184:Jamestown Foundation 10576:in-text attribution 10495:It is published by 8683:get fixed, whereas 7479:Unreliable sources 7314:Questionable Source 7218:List_of_colors:_A–F 7172:based on the same. 5844:questionable source 5314:The issue with the 4906:My opinion is that 3470:request for comment 2885:request for comment 2503:Alexander the Great 1988:Here is our policy: 1619:questionable source 1045:Copyright violation 940:Copyright violation 11648:generally reliable 11596:The Christian Post 11592:Center for Inquiry 11572:Center for Inquiry 11557:Center for Inquiry 11459:Center for Inquiry 11077:The New York Times 10975:The New York Times 10927:If, as you claim, 10696:intext attribution 10497:Taylor and Francis 8829:What this is about 7601:established expert 6670:WikiProject Albums 6249:Transubstantiation 6245:This is the source 6161:and the fact that 5895:and I came across 5096:Chicago University 5056:Criminal Complaint 4908:The New York Times 4631:Criminal complaint 4606:The New York Times 4202:criminal complaint 4185:Related discussion 3832:Network Propaganda 3309:The New York Times 3242:the New York Times 2915:grandfather clause 2691:America (magazine) 1925:Edits in question: 1664:The Logical Indian 1389:The Logical Indian 1223:This is a case of 1018:Editorial policy: 672:Columbine Massacre 11455:Sikivu Hutchinson 11420:ausepochmedia.com 11384:Fowler&fowler 11334: 11309:is relevant here: 11292: 11161:, but let's not. 11071:By that standard 10917: 10900: 10776: 10676: 10559: 10501:predatory journal 10461: 10434: 10417:secondary sources 10373: 10357:comment added by 10323:The Drover's Wife 10280:The Drover's Wife 10233:The Drover's Wife 10171: 10115: 10056: 10026: 9961:User:Slatersteven 9947:The Drover's Wife 9917: 9845: 9751:The Drover's Wife 9716:The Drover's Wife 9684:The Drover's Wife 9671:The Drover's Wife 9658:The Drover's Wife 9628:The Drover's Wife 9615: 9593: 9550:The Drover's Wife 9498:The Drover's Wife 9484: 9434: 9387:The Drover's Wife 9374: 9349:The Drover's Wife 9342: 9281:The Drover's Wife 9260: 9188:The Drover's Wife 9155:The Drover's Wife 9130: 9077:The Drover's Wife 9064: 9029:The Drover's Wife 9008: 8957:The Drover's Wife 8944: 8922:The Drover's Wife 8909:The Drover's Wife 8895: 8821: 8782:The Drover's Wife 8762: 8737:The Drover's Wife 8716: 8657:The Drover's Wife 8644:The Drover's Wife 8570:The Drover's Wife 8409: 8284: 8249:The Drover's Wife 8237: 8142:The Drover's Wife 7965: 7946:establishes that 7902:The Drover's Wife 7866: 7750: 7682: 7640:The Drover's Wife 7628: 7589:According to the 7573:The Drover's Wife 7556: 7518:The Drover's Wife 7465:The Drover's Wife 7208:encycolorpedia]? 7155: 7089: 7063:Бутывский Дмитрий 7015: 6977:Epistle News for 6695: 6674:WikiProject Songs 6666:WikiProject Music 6643: 6579: 6534: 5948:978-1-60606-571-6 5861: 5790: 5750: 5707:can be used as a 5677: 5567: 5443: 5378: 5271:Tim Brooke-Taylor 5261:Use of Daily Mail 5116:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 4880:as documented at 4576: 4373: 4172: 4171: 4098: 4069: 4019: 3917: 3846: 3790: 3656: 3607: 3531: 3496:Wait, I see that 3487: 3078: 2783: 2713: 2269: 2234: 2195: 2159: 1720: 1636: 1594: 1515: 1484: 1370: 1251: 1153: 1108: 987: 857:https://n5ti.com/ 851: 452: 451: 430:cites diaries by 384: 383: 359: 358: 268: 267: 129:nuclear terrorism 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current main page 11728: 11701: 11671: 11488: 11477:and this person 11468: 11448: 11416:epochtimestr.com 11390: 11385: 11370: 11332: 11328: 11325: 11297: 11290: 11286: 11283: 11211: 11206: 11199: 11183: 10916: 10894: 10869: 10839: 10797: 10770: 10674: 10670: 10667: 10631: 10618:and I wonder if 10553: 10539: 10459: 10455: 10452: 10432: 10428: 10425: 10352: 10312: 10277: 10224: 10200: 10169: 10165: 10162: 10113: 10109: 10106: 10080: 10054: 10050: 10047: 10024: 10020: 10017: 10005:featured article 10002: 9990: 9984: 9944: 9915: 9911: 9908: 9901: 9885: 9879: 9843: 9839: 9836: 9697: 9694: 9609: 9587: 9478: 9432: 9428: 9425: 9418: 9368: 9340: 9336: 9333: 9254: 9128: 9124: 9121: 9114: 9108: 9062: 9058: 9055: 9048: 9002: 8995: 8989: 8979: 8973: 8938: 8889: 8882: 8864: 8815: 8756: 8710: 8692: 8686: 8678: 8672: 8668: 8662: 8642:analogy fails.) 8611: 8605: 8600: 8594: 8407: 8403: 8400: 8393: 8385: 8381: 8363: 8319: 8300: 8282: 8278: 8275: 8235: 8231: 8228: 8217: 8206: 8195: 8184: 8078: 8038: 7979: 7963: 7959: 7956: 7949: 7937: 7888: 7864: 7860: 7857: 7845:speedily deleted 7800: 7794: 7790: 7784: 7744: 7680: 7676: 7673: 7626: 7622: 7619: 7612: 7596: 7554: 7503: 7497: 7491: 7415: 7409: 7405: 7399: 7356: 7286: 7281: 7252: 7247: 7238:internet archive 7202:Or, in general: 7153: 7149: 7146: 7134:secondary source 7083: 7013: 7009: 7006: 6908:Richard Keatinge 6751: 6693: 6689: 6686: 6641: 6637: 6634: 6592:tage/Artist Name 6577: 6573: 6570: 6532: 6528: 6525: 6510: 6504: 6197: 6194: 6141: 6138: 6041: 6028: 6027: 5952: 5928:in the next edit 5925: 5912: 5911: 5859: 5855: 5852: 5788: 5784: 5781: 5748: 5744: 5741: 5709:secondary source 5671: 5664: 5646: 5619: 5601: 5459: 5441: 5437: 5434: 5372: 5253: 5189: 5102: 5026: 5024: 5019: 5014: 4924:Business Insider 4874:Business Insider 4840:Business Insider 4805:Business Insider 4801:Business Insider 4570: 4554:Business Insider 4537: 4535: 4530: 4525: 4507:Business Insider 4486: 4485: 4446: 4445: 4443: 4441: 4435:business Insider 4426: 4406: 4404: 4399: 4394: 4367: 4350: 4348: 4343: 4338: 4325:Business Insider 4213:Business Insider 4118: 4111: 4096: 4092: 4089: 4081:media bias chart 4063: 4013: 3973:Snooganssnoogans 3944:Snooganssnoogans 3915: 3911: 3908: 3840: 3784: 3740: 3681:Snooganssnoogans 3654: 3650: 3647: 3631:Media Bias Chart 3605: 3601: 3598: 3536: 3529: 3525: 3522: 3511: 3505: 3501: 3492: 3485: 3481: 3478: 3467: 3461: 3337:The Green Papers 3319: 3318: 3316: 3315: 3300: 3263: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3226:The Green Papers 3205: 3101:for music data. 3071: 2994: 2939:The Green Papers 2892: 2874:The Green Papers 2863: 2806: 2777: 2762: 2742: 2707: 2672: 2654: 2489:Edwin E. Jacques 2480:Edwin E. Jacques 2462: 2450: 2427: 2263: 2228: 2189: 2153: 2146: 2141: 2135:My Twisted World 2122: 2104: 1977: 1975: 1970: 1965: 1905: 1854: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1782: 1714: 1700: 1695: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1549: 1520: 1513: 1509: 1506: 1482: 1478: 1475: 1462: 1457: 1451: 1450: 1448: 1447: 1432: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1346: 1342: 1328: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1225:article spinning 1151: 1147: 1144: 1106: 1102: 1099: 1088: 1083: 1064: 1051: 985: 981: 978: 963: 946: 914: 909: 904: 896: 858: 743: 438: 366: 341: 254: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 11736: 11735: 11731: 11730: 11729: 11727: 11726: 11725: 11685: 11655: 11652:this kerfluffle 11553: 11482: 11462: 11442: 11439: 11408:The Epoch Times 11404: 11401:The Epoch Times 11388: 11383: 11354: 11339: 11330: 11323: 11298: 11288: 11281: 11272: 11256:reliable source 11248: 11209: 11202: 11195: 11162: 11141:Alanscottwalker 11108:Alanscottwalker 11059:Alanscottwalker 10882:about Knowledge 10871: 10867: 10842: 10837: 10791: 10672: 10665: 10633: 10629: 10614:I am expanding 10612: 10518: 10474: 10457: 10450: 10430: 10423: 10349: 10306: 10271: 10218: 10194: 10167: 10160: 10126: 10111: 10104: 10075: 10052: 10045: 10022: 10015: 10000: 9988: 9982: 9981:In my opinion, 9938: 9913: 9906: 9899: 9883: 9877: 9841: 9834: 9778:substantiation. 9702: 9695: 9692: 9430: 9423: 9416: 9338: 9331: 9126: 9119: 9112: 9106: 9060: 9053: 9042: 8993: 8987: 8977: 8971: 8855: 8839: 8831: 8690: 8684: 8676: 8670: 8666: 8660: 8609: 8603: 8598: 8592: 8405: 8398: 8391: 8383: 8379: 8361: 8317: 8298: 8280: 8273: 8233: 8226: 8211: 8200: 8189: 8178: 8076: 8036: 7977: 7961: 7954: 7947: 7934:citation needed 7931: 7886: 7862: 7855: 7798: 7792: 7788: 7782: 7678: 7671: 7624: 7617: 7598: 7594: 7558: 7501: 7495: 7489: 7418:on my talk page 7413: 7407: 7403: 7397: 7391: 7354: 7299: 7284: 7279: 7250: 7245: 7192: 7174:TheodoreIndiana 7151: 7144: 7113:TheodoreIndiana 7011: 7004: 6994:reliable source 6982: 6735: 6718: 6691: 6684: 6639: 6632: 6575: 6568: 6530: 6523: 6508: 6502: 6386: 6233: 6202: 6195: 6192: 6146: 6139: 6136: 6105:frontrunneritis 6097: 6025: 5949: 5909: 5889: 5857: 5850: 5805: 5786: 5779: 5755: 5746: 5739: 5637: 5621: 5592: 5576: 5515:• Discussions: 5455: 5439: 5432: 5392: 5263: 5237: 5187: 5100: 5092: 5022: 5017: 5012: 5010: 4928:Kolya Butternut 4916:Current Affairs 4878:New York Times' 4856:Kolya Butternut 4852:Current Affairs 4844:New York Times' 4809:Kolya Butternut 4771:Kolya Butternut 4616:Kolya Butternut 4533: 4528: 4523: 4521: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4439: 4437: 4427: 4423: 4402: 4397: 4392: 4390: 4346: 4341: 4336: 4334: 4312:by Ms. Reade... 4255:on the subject 4193:Proposed text: 4109: 4094: 4087: 4052:Sharyl Atkisson 4047: 3913: 3906: 3884: 3868:Fontes Media'. 3734: 3695:Ad Fontes Media 3652: 3645: 3627:Ad Fontes Media 3623: 3616:Ad Fontes Media 3603: 3596: 3586: 3582:Ad Fontes Media 3578: 3577: 3527: 3520: 3509: 3503: 3497: 3495: 3483: 3476: 3465: 3459: 3453: 3341:The Green Paper 3324: 3323: 3322: 3313: 3311: 3301: 3297: 3261: 3254: 3250: 3232: 3203: 2978: 2958:Current usage: 2933: 2888: 2878: 2861: 2850:Washington Post 2790: 2746: 2736: 2645: 2631:Stop the Church 2629: 2626: 2624:Stop the Church 2482: 2456: 2434: 2421: 2378:Habesha peoples 2374: 2315: 2166:What do RS say? 2147:" - I removed. 2139: 2131: 2095: 2079: 2076: 1973: 1968: 1963: 1961: 1917: 1889: 1838: 1819: 1814: 1809: 1798:, specifically 1792: 1766: 1685: 1632: 1625: 1590: 1583: 1543: 1521: 1511: 1504: 1491: 1480: 1473: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1458: 1454: 1445: 1443: 1433: 1429: 1409: 1393:reliable source 1385: 1366: 1359: 1344: 1340: 1339:requires us to 1326: 1257: 1247: 1240: 1149: 1142: 1134:policy and the 1104: 1097: 1058: 1012: 983: 976: 957: 912: 907: 898: 892: 863:, for example, 799:• Discussions: 739: 664: 584: 245:Yossef Bodansky 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 11734: 11724: 11723: 11708: 11707: 11706: 11705: 11643: 11642: 11627: 11626: 11619: 11618: 11600: 11599: 11587: 11586: 11580: 11579: 11567: 11566: 11552: 11549: 11548: 11547: 11524: 11523: 11449:is using this 11438: 11435: 11403: 11397: 11396: 11395: 11374: 11312: 11311: 11310: 11307:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 11271: 11247: 11238: 11237: 11236: 11224: 11216: 11187: 11129: 11128: 11127: 11126: 11125: 11124: 11123: 11122: 11121: 11120: 11119: 11118: 11037: 11033:user generated 11029:self-published 11023:claiming that 10999: 10998: 10997: 10986: 10978: 10970: 10963: 10960: 10959: 10958: 10950: 10949: 10948: 10936: 10922: 10921: 10906: 10905: 10904: 10861: 10849: 10848: 10847: 10846: 10834: 10816: 10815: 10814: 10813: 10806: 10805: 10804: 10803: 10781: 10780: 10761: 10760: 10742: 10741: 10740: 10719: 10707:self-published 10699: 10694:and requiring 10681: 10623: 10611: 10608: 10607: 10606: 10605: 10604: 10563: 10545: 10544: 10543: 10473: 10470: 10469: 10468: 10467: 10466: 10413:primary source 10389: 10348: 10345: 10344: 10343: 10342: 10341: 10340: 10339: 10338: 10337: 10336: 10335: 10334: 10333: 10216: 10215: 10214: 10176: 10125: 10122: 10121: 10120: 10071: 10070: 10069: 10068: 10067: 10066: 10065: 10064: 10063: 10062: 10033: 10032: 10031: 9859: 9855: 9796: 9795: 9794: 9793: 9779: 9775: 9731: 9730: 9729: 9728: 9727: 9726: 9700: 9655: 9654: 9653: 9652: 9651: 9650: 9649: 9648: 9647: 9646: 9645: 9644: 9643: 9642: 9641: 9640: 9639: 9638: 9523: 9493:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 9442: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9410: 9409: 9408: 9407: 9406: 9405: 9404: 9403: 9402: 9401: 9400: 9399: 9398: 9397: 9310: 9309: 9308: 9307: 9306: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9302: 9301: 9300: 9299: 9298: 9297: 9296: 9295: 9294: 9293: 9292: 9291: 9240:So that was a 9238: 9227: 9226: 9225: 9224: 9223: 9222: 9221: 9220: 9219: 9218: 9217: 9216: 9215: 8929: 8925: 8830: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8803: 8802: 8801: 8800: 8799: 8798: 8797: 8796: 8795: 8794: 8793: 8792: 8697: 8589: 8588: 8587: 8586: 8585: 8584: 8583: 8582: 8581: 8580: 8447: 8446: 8445: 8444: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8440: 8439: 8438: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8431: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8293: 8292: 8291: 8290: 8289: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8113: 8112: 8111: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8091: 8052: 7912: 7872: 7780: 7779: 7775: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7759: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7755: 7754: 7722:Kvng, you say 7720: 7691: 7690: 7689: 7688: 7687: 7587: 7586: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7552: 7477: 7476: 7475: 7441: 7390: 7387: 7386: 7385: 7367: 7366: 7298: 7295: 7294: 7293: 7292: 7291: 7191: 7190:Encycolorpedia 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7163: 7162: 7161: 7160: 7127:primary source 7109: 7108: 7107: 7074: 7073: 7058: 7044: 6998:Dean Schneider 6981: 6979:Dean Schneider 6975: 6974: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6967: 6966: 6965: 6925: 6924: 6923: 6922: 6899: 6898: 6897: 6896: 6869: 6868: 6867: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6781: 6780: 6775: 6774: 6756: 6755: 6717: 6714: 6713: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6700: 6499:primary source 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6483: 6459:Walter Görlitz 6385: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6354: 6295: 6294: 6280: 6277: 6274: 6270: 6267: 6263: 6259: 6251: 6246: 6232: 6229: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6222: 6221: 6200: 6188:self-published 6159:Paul McFedries 6144: 6096: 6093: 6092: 6091: 6076: 6075: 6074: 6073: 6072: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 5995: 5947: 5901:Simon of Trent 5888: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5866: 5804: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5723: 5697: 5696: 5569: 5568: 5458:orospakr.ca: 5454: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5421: 5391: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5336: 5335: 5312: 5262: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5178: 5177: 5171: 5162: 5156: 5143: 5142: 5091: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5052: 5044: 4991: 4990: 4967: 4966: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4728:(reliable per 4693: 4692: 4691: 4682: 4677: 4668: 4661: 4649: 4648: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4540: 4539: 4448: 4447: 4420: 4419: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4317: 4316: 4314: 4306:filed a report 4294: 4293: 4291: 4282: 4270: 4269: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4249: 4242: 4232: 4218: 4209: 4208: 4206: 4200:Reade filed a 4197: 4191: 4190: 4182: 4181: 4170: 4169: 4161: 4160: 4119: 4108: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4046: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4032: 4023: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3939: 3938: 3883: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3865: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3795: 3794: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3732: 3676: 3622: 3613: 3585: 3579: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3356: 3355: 3321: 3320: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3259: 3230: 3224: 3196: 3175: 3163: 3146: 3136:ContentEditman 3129: 3113: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3067: 3050: 3033: 3016: 2998: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2966: 2961: 2934: 2911:self-published 2900: 2899: 2898: 2879: 2877: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2834:Digital Trends 2818:New York Times 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2732: 2674: 2673: 2625: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2481: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2400:, and also at 2373: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2314: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2124: 2123: 2075: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1983: 1982: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1858: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1760: 1741: 1740: 1702: 1701: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1490: 1464: 1463: 1452: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1404: 1384: 1376: 1349: 1348: 1331: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1281: 1280: 1215: 1196: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1114: 1077:hindi2news.com 1027: 1026: 1021: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1006: 992: 936: 921: 920: 853: 852: 738: 735: 734: 733: 719: 679:. Sociologist 677:Rachel's Tears 663: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 643:Document hippo 636: 635: 609:Document hippo 583: 580: 579: 578: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 514:Document hippo 510: 509: 508: 489: 488: 487: 461:Document hippo 456: 450: 449: 446: 442: 436: 435: 423: 422: 421: 392:Document hippo 388: 382: 381: 378: 370: 364: 363: 357: 356: 353: 345: 339: 338: 331: 328: 327: 326: 312: 283:Document hippo 279: 276: 266: 265: 262: 258: 251: 249: 248: 240: 239: 234: 233: 229: 228: 223: 222: 217: 216: 205: 194: 187: 176: 173: 164: 162: 161: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 11733: 11722: 11718: 11714: 11710: 11709: 11704: 11700: 11699: 11695: 11694: 11690: 11689: 11683: 11679: 11676: 11675: 11674: 11670: 11669: 11665: 11664: 11660: 11659: 11653: 11649: 11645: 11644: 11641: 11637: 11633: 11629: 11628: 11625: 11621: 11620: 11616: 11615: 11614: 11613: 11609: 11605: 11597: 11593: 11589: 11588: 11585: 11582: 11581: 11577: 11573: 11569: 11568: 11565: 11562: 11561: 11560: 11558: 11546: 11542: 11538: 11534: 11530: 11528: 11526: 11525: 11522: 11518: 11514: 11510: 11506: 11505: 11504: 11503: 11499: 11495: 11491: 11486: 11480: 11476: 11472: 11466: 11460: 11456: 11452: 11451:opinion piece 11446: 11434: 11433: 11429: 11425: 11421: 11417: 11413: 11409: 11402: 11394: 11391: 11386: 11379: 11375: 11373: 11369: 11368: 11364: 11363: 11359: 11358: 11352: 11350: 11348: 11345: 11342:According to 11341: 11340: 11338: 11335: 11333: 11327: 11326: 11317: 11308: 11304: 11300: 11299: 11296: 11293: 11291: 11285: 11284: 11276: 11270: 11269: 11265: 11261: 11257: 11253: 11246: 11242: 11235: 11232: 11228: 11222: 11220: 11217: 11215: 11212: 11207: 11205: 11200: 11198: 11191: 11188: 11186: 11181: 11177: 11173: 11169: 11165: 11160: 11156: 11153: 11152: 11151: 11150: 11146: 11142: 11137: 11133: 11117: 11113: 11109: 11104: 11103: 11102: 11098: 11094: 11090: 11087:, which says 11086: 11082: 11078: 11074: 11070: 11069: 11068: 11064: 11060: 11056: 11055: 11054: 11050: 11046: 11042: 11038: 11034: 11030: 11026: 11022: 11018: 11017: 11016: 11012: 11008: 11004: 11000: 10996: 10993: 10992: 10990: 10987: 10984: 10979: 10976: 10971: 10968: 10964: 10961: 10957: 10954: 10953: 10951: 10947: 10944: 10943: 10941: 10937: 10934: 10930: 10926: 10925: 10924: 10923: 10920: 10915: 10911: 10907: 10903: 10898: 10893: 10892: 10887: 10883: 10879: 10876: 10875: 10874: 10870: 10864: 10860:concerns). -- 10859: 10855: 10851: 10850: 10845: 10840: 10833: 10829: 10825: 10824:The Signpost. 10820: 10819: 10818: 10817: 10810: 10809: 10808: 10807: 10801: 10795: 10789: 10785: 10784: 10783: 10782: 10779: 10774: 10769: 10768: 10763: 10762: 10759: 10755: 10751: 10747: 10743: 10738: 10735: 10731: 10728: 10724: 10720: 10717: 10714: 10713: 10708: 10704: 10700: 10697: 10693: 10689: 10688: 10686: 10682: 10680: 10677: 10675: 10669: 10668: 10660: 10656: 10652: 10648: 10644: 10643: 10639: 10638: 10637: 10636: 10632: 10626: 10621: 10617: 10603: 10599: 10595: 10591: 10590: 10589: 10585: 10581: 10577: 10573: 10570: 10569: 10564: 10562: 10557: 10552: 10551: 10546: 10542: 10537: 10533: 10529: 10525: 10521: 10516: 10515: 10514: 10510: 10506: 10502: 10498: 10494: 10493: 10492: 10491: 10487: 10483: 10479: 10465: 10462: 10460: 10454: 10453: 10445: 10441: 10440: 10439: 10438: 10435: 10433: 10427: 10426: 10418: 10414: 10409: 10407: 10403: 10399: 10398:public domain 10395: 10394:Samuel Barber 10390: 10388: 10384: 10380: 10376: 10375: 10374: 10372: 10368: 10364: 10360: 10356: 10332: 10328: 10324: 10320: 10316: 10310: 10305: 10304: 10303: 10299: 10295: 10291: 10290: 10289: 10285: 10281: 10275: 10270: 10269: 10268: 10264: 10260: 10256: 10252: 10247: 10244: 10243: 10242: 10238: 10234: 10231:frustrating. 10229: 10222: 10217: 10213: 10209: 10205: 10198: 10193: 10192: 10191: 10190: 10189: 10185: 10181: 10177: 10175: 10172: 10170: 10164: 10163: 10155: 10151: 10147: 10146: 10145: 10144: 10140: 10136: 10132: 10119: 10116: 10114: 10108: 10107: 10099: 10095: 10091: 10086: 10085: 10084: 10083: 10079: 10061: 10060: 10057: 10055: 10049: 10048: 10040: 10034: 10030: 10027: 10025: 10019: 10018: 10010: 10006: 9998: 9994: 9987: 9980: 9979: 9978: 9974: 9970: 9966: 9962: 9959:I agree with 9958: 9957: 9956: 9952: 9948: 9942: 9937: 9936: 9935: 9931: 9927: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9918: 9916: 9910: 9909: 9897: 9893: 9889: 9882: 9875: 9874: 9873: 9869: 9865: 9860: 9856: 9852: 9851: 9850: 9849: 9846: 9844: 9838: 9837: 9829: 9825: 9821: 9817: 9813: 9809: 9805: 9801: 9792: 9788: 9784: 9780: 9776: 9774: 9770: 9766: 9762: 9761: 9760: 9756: 9752: 9747: 9746: 9745: 9744: 9740: 9736: 9725: 9721: 9717: 9713: 9708: 9707: 9706: 9703: 9698: 9689: 9685: 9682: 9681: 9680: 9676: 9672: 9667: 9666: 9665: 9663: 9659: 9637: 9633: 9629: 9626:you respond. 9625: 9620: 9619: 9618: 9613: 9608: 9607: 9602: 9598: 9597: 9596: 9591: 9586: 9585: 9580: 9577: 9576: 9575: 9571: 9567: 9563: 9562: 9561: 9560: 9559: 9555: 9551: 9547: 9542: 9539: 9538: 9537: 9533: 9529: 9524: 9522: 9518: 9514: 9509: 9508: 9507: 9503: 9499: 9494: 9489: 9488: 9487: 9482: 9477: 9476: 9471: 9467: 9463: 9458: 9457: 9456: 9455: 9451: 9447: 9438: 9435: 9433: 9427: 9426: 9414: 9413: 9412: 9411: 9396: 9392: 9388: 9384: 9379: 9378: 9377: 9372: 9367: 9366: 9360: 9359: 9358: 9354: 9350: 9346: 9345: 9343: 9341: 9335: 9334: 9326: 9322: 9318: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9290: 9286: 9282: 9277: 9273: 9269: 9265: 9264: 9263: 9258: 9253: 9252: 9247: 9243: 9239: 9236: 9231: 9228: 9214: 9210: 9206: 9201: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9193: 9189: 9185: 9181: 9180: 9179: 9175: 9171: 9166: 9165: 9164: 9160: 9156: 9152: 9151: 9150: 9146: 9142: 9138: 9137: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9131: 9129: 9123: 9122: 9111: 9104: 9100: 9096: 9092: 9088: 9087: 9086: 9082: 9078: 9074: 9070: 9069: 9068: 9065: 9063: 9057: 9056: 9046: 9043:"fine as per 9040: 9039: 9038: 9034: 9030: 9026: 9022: 9018: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9006: 9001: 9000: 8992: 8984: 8976: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8962: 8958: 8954: 8949: 8948: 8947: 8942: 8937: 8936: 8930: 8926: 8923: 8920: 8919: 8918: 8914: 8910: 8906: 8901: 8900: 8899: 8898: 8893: 8888: 8887: 8880: 8876: 8872: 8868: 8863: 8859: 8854: 8850: 8846: 8842: 8837: 8836:Andrew Clunis 8824: 8819: 8814: 8813: 8808: 8805: 8804: 8791: 8787: 8783: 8779: 8775: 8771: 8767: 8766: 8765: 8760: 8755: 8754: 8748: 8747: 8746: 8742: 8738: 8734: 8730: 8725: 8721: 8720: 8719: 8714: 8709: 8708: 8703: 8698: 8695: 8689: 8682: 8679:and the like 8675: 8665: 8658: 8655: 8654: 8653: 8649: 8645: 8640: 8639: 8638: 8634: 8630: 8626: 8625: 8624: 8623: 8619: 8615: 8608: 8597: 8579: 8575: 8571: 8567: 8563: 8559: 8554: 8553: 8552: 8548: 8544: 8540: 8536: 8533: 8532: 8531: 8527: 8523: 8519: 8515: 8511: 8510: 8509: 8505: 8501: 8497: 8493: 8489: 8485: 8484: 8483: 8479: 8475: 8471: 8467: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8460: 8456: 8452: 8427: 8423: 8419: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8410: 8408: 8402: 8401: 8389: 8377: 8374: 8373: 8372: 8368: 8364: 8357: 8353: 8349: 8345: 8344: 8343: 8339: 8335: 8330: 8329: 8328: 8324: 8320: 8313: 8309: 8308: 8307: 8304: 8301: 8294: 8288: 8285: 8283: 8277: 8276: 8268: 8264: 8260: 8259: 8258: 8254: 8250: 8245: 8244: 8243: 8242: 8241: 8238: 8236: 8230: 8229: 8221: 8215: 8210: 8209:WordPress.com 8204: 8199: 8193: 8188: 8182: 8177: 8173: 8169: 8165: 8161: 8157: 8153: 8152: 8151: 8147: 8143: 8139: 8134: 8133: 8132: 8128: 8124: 8119: 8105: 8101: 8097: 8092: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8083: 8079: 8072: 8067: 8066: 8065: 8061: 8057: 8053: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8043: 8039: 8031: 8027: 8023: 8022: 8021: 8017: 8013: 8009: 8005: 8001: 7998: 7994: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7984: 7980: 7972: 7971: 7970: 7969: 7966: 7964: 7958: 7957: 7945: 7941: 7940:citation spam 7935: 7929: 7925: 7923: 7922:fait accompli 7918: 7917:person's blog 7913: 7911: 7907: 7903: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7893: 7889: 7881: 7876: 7873: 7871: 7870: 7867: 7865: 7859: 7858: 7850: 7846: 7842: 7838: 7832: 7827: 7823: 7819: 7815: 7814: 7813: 7812: 7808: 7804: 7797: 7787: 7778: 7776: 7774: 7772: 7771: 7770: 7768: 7753: 7748: 7743: 7742: 7737: 7733: 7729: 7728:user:Kvng/RTH 7725: 7721: 7719: 7715: 7711: 7707: 7706: 7705: 7701: 7697: 7692: 7686: 7683: 7681: 7675: 7674: 7666: 7662: 7658: 7654: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7645: 7641: 7636: 7635: 7634: 7633: 7632: 7629: 7627: 7621: 7620: 7610: 7606: 7602: 7592: 7588: 7582: 7578: 7574: 7570: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7561: 7557: 7551: 7548: 7543: 7542: 7541: 7537: 7533: 7529: 7528: 7527: 7523: 7519: 7514: 7513: 7512: 7508: 7504: 7494: 7487: 7482: 7478: 7474: 7470: 7466: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7455: 7451: 7446: 7442: 7439: 7438: 7437: 7436: 7432: 7428: 7423: 7419: 7412: 7402: 7395: 7384: 7380: 7376: 7372: 7369: 7368: 7365: 7361: 7357: 7349: 7346: 7341: 7340: 7339: 7338: 7334: 7330: 7325: 7321: 7317: 7315: 7311: 7306: 7304: 7303:Cleantechnica 7297:Cleantechnica 7290: 7287: 7282: 7276: 7273: 7272: 7271: 7267: 7263: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7253: 7248: 7241: 7239: 7234: 7231: 7228: 7227: 7223: 7220: 7219: 7215: 7212: 7209: 7207: 7203: 7200: 7199: 7195: 7183: 7179: 7175: 7171: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7159: 7156: 7154: 7148: 7147: 7139: 7136:, especially 7135: 7132: 7128: 7124: 7123: 7122: 7118: 7114: 7110: 7106: 7102: 7098: 7094: 7093: 7092: 7087: 7082: 7081: 7076: 7075: 7072: 7068: 7064: 7059: 7057: 7053: 7049: 7045: 7043: 7039: 7035: 7030: 7026: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7016: 7014: 7008: 7007: 6999: 6995: 6991: 6987: 6980: 6964: 6960: 6956: 6952: 6951: 6949: 6948: 6947: 6943: 6939: 6935: 6931: 6930: 6929: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6919: 6918: 6917: 6913: 6909: 6904: 6901: 6900: 6893: 6892: 6891: 6887: 6883: 6878: 6874: 6871: 6870: 6856: 6855: 6854: 6850: 6846: 6842: 6841: 6838: 6837: 6836: 6832: 6828: 6823: 6822: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6813: 6809: 6805: 6800: 6799: 6798: 6794: 6790: 6786: 6783: 6782: 6777: 6776: 6773: 6769: 6765: 6761: 6758: 6757: 6754: 6750: 6749: 6745: 6744: 6740: 6739: 6733: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6723: 6722: 6699: 6696: 6694: 6688: 6687: 6679: 6675: 6671: 6667: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6657: 6653: 6649: 6648: 6647: 6644: 6642: 6636: 6635: 6627: 6623: 6619: 6618:WP:BLPPRIVACY 6615: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6605: 6601: 6597: 6593: 6589: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6580: 6578: 6572: 6571: 6563: 6559: 6558:WP:BLPPRIMARY 6554: 6553: 6552: 6548: 6544: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6535: 6533: 6527: 6526: 6518: 6515:: songwriter 6514: 6507: 6500: 6496: 6492: 6482: 6478: 6474: 6470: 6469: 6468: 6464: 6460: 6455: 6454: 6453: 6449: 6445: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6435: 6431: 6430: 6425: 6420: 6419: 6418: 6414: 6410: 6406: 6405: 6404: 6403: 6399: 6395: 6391: 6371: 6367: 6363: 6359: 6355: 6352: 6348: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6338: 6334: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6323: 6319: 6314: 6313: 6312: 6308: 6304: 6299: 6298: 6297: 6296: 6293: 6289: 6285: 6281: 6278: 6275: 6271: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6257: 6252: 6250: 6247: 6244: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6238: 6220: 6216: 6212: 6208: 6207: 6206: 6203: 6198: 6189: 6185: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6176: 6172: 6168: 6164: 6160: 6156: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6147: 6142: 6133: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6123: 6119: 6115: 6110: 6106: 6102: 6090: 6086: 6082: 6078: 6077: 6068: 6064: 6060: 6055: 6054: 6053: 6049: 6045: 6039: 6038: 6033: 6022: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6008: 6004: 6000: 5996: 5994: 5990: 5986: 5982: 5981: 5980: 5976: 5972: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5960: 5956: 5950: 5945: 5941: 5940: 5933: 5929: 5923: 5922: 5917: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5882: 5878: 5874: 5870: 5867: 5865: 5862: 5860: 5854: 5853: 5845: 5841: 5840:December 2019 5837: 5834: 5833: 5832: 5831: 5827: 5823: 5819: 5815: 5810: 5794: 5791: 5789: 5783: 5782: 5774: 5773: 5772: 5768: 5764: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5754: 5751: 5749: 5743: 5742: 5728: 5724: 5721: 5717: 5713: 5712: 5710: 5706: 5702: 5699: 5698: 5695: 5691: 5687: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5675: 5670: 5669: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5650: 5645: 5641: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5624: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5600: 5596: 5591: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5574: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5554: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5506: 5502: 5498: 5494: 5490: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5466: 5463: 5457: 5456: 5448: 5447: 5444: 5442: 5436: 5435: 5427: 5422: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5401: 5397: 5381: 5376: 5371: 5370: 5365: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5334: 5331: 5326: 5322: 5317: 5313: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5304: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5279:Graeme Garden 5276: 5272: 5268: 5256: 5252: 5251: 5247: 5246: 5242: 5241: 5234: 5233: 5228: 5224: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5194: 5190: 5188:SharʿabSalam▼ 5184: 5180: 5179: 5175: 5172: 5169: 5166: 5163: 5160: 5157: 5155: 5151: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5101:SharʿabSalam▼ 5097: 5090: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5061: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5040:Police Report 5037: 5036: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5027: 5025: 5020: 5015: 5006: 5002: 5001: 4996: 4989: 4988: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4978: 4977: 4972: 4971:The Intercept 4965: 4961: 4957: 4953: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4913: 4912:The Intercept 4909: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4848:The Intercept 4845: 4841: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4832: 4831: 4827: 4826: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4810: 4806: 4802: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4793: 4792: 4788: 4787: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4768: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4749: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4731: 4727: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4699: 4694: 4690: 4687: 4683: 4681: 4678: 4676: 4673: 4669: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4653: 4651: 4650: 4647: 4644: 4643: 4639: 4638: 4632: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4611: 4607: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4574: 4569: 4568: 4563: 4560: 4555: 4551: 4546: 4542: 4541: 4538: 4536: 4531: 4526: 4518: 4517: 4515: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4458: 4453: 4452: 4436: 4432: 4425: 4421: 4418: 4410: 4407: 4405: 4400: 4395: 4387: 4383: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4371: 4366: 4365: 4360: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4351: 4349: 4344: 4339: 4329: 4326: 4322: 4315: 4313: 4311: 4307: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4292: 4290: 4288: 4283: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4275: 4268: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4247: 4243: 4241: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4231: 4229: 4224: 4219: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4207: 4205: 4203: 4198: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4168: 4166: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4135: 4134: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4123:block evasion 4120: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4102: 4099: 4097: 4091: 4090: 4082: 4080: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4067: 4062: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4040: 4037: 4033: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4022: 4017: 4012: 4011: 4006: 4005: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3918: 3916: 3910: 3909: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3882: 3879:AllSides for 3874: 3871: 3866: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3849: 3844: 3839: 3838: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3806: 3804: 3802: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3793: 3788: 3783: 3782: 3777: 3776: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3738: 3733: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3677: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3657: 3655: 3649: 3648: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3621: 3617: 3612: 3611: 3608: 3606: 3600: 3599: 3591: 3583: 3575: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3548: 3545: 3542: 3538: 3537: 3535: 3532: 3530: 3524: 3523: 3515: 3508: 3500: 3494: 3493: 3491: 3488: 3486: 3480: 3479: 3471: 3464: 3457: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3427: 3423: 3420: 3415: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3399:Danish Expert 3396: 3391: 3390: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3310: 3306: 3299: 3295: 3292: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3275:Danish Expert 3271: 3267: 3246: 3243: 3240: 3238: 3227: 3221: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3206: 3200: 3197: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3182: 3179: 3176: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3130: 3128: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3114: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3080:Danish Expert 3075: 3068: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3058: 3054: 3051: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3038:per above. -- 3037: 3034: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3017: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3006:Spiffy sperry 3002: 2999: 2997: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2982: 2976: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2965: 2962: 2960: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2943: 2941: 2940: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2907:Danish Expert 2904: 2897: 2894: 2891: 2886: 2881: 2880: 2875: 2867: 2864: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2776: 2775: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2744: 2740: 2733: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2711: 2706: 2705: 2700: 2695: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2678: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2606: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2490: 2486: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2432: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2356:Maleschreiber 2353: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2323:Maleschreiber 2320: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291:Ted Kaczynski 2288: 2284: 2272: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2256: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2188: 2187: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2157: 2152: 2151: 2145: 2138: 2136: 2128: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2002: 2001:WP:BLPPRIMARY 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1941: 1940: 1935: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1887: 1883: 1881: 1879: 1877: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1859: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1836: 1833: 1832:FreeMediaKid! 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1817: 1812: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1743: 1742: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1707: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1687: 1686: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1640: 1637: 1635: 1629: 1628: 1620: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1587: 1586: 1577: 1576: 1571: 1565: 1563: 1557: 1553: 1547: 1542:contributors 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1514: 1508: 1507: 1499: 1495: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1483: 1477: 1476: 1461: 1456: 1442: 1438: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1419: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1402: 1400: 1399: 1394: 1390: 1383: 1382: 1375: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1354: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1244: 1243: 1235: 1230: 1226: 1220: 1217: 1212: 1211: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1146: 1145: 1138:guideline. — 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1107: 1101: 1100: 1092: 1087: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1068: 1062: 1057: 1056: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1025: 1022: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 991: 988: 986: 980: 979: 971: 967: 961: 956: 955: 954:The Intercept 950: 942: 941: 937: 935: 931: 927: 923: 922: 919: 915: 910: 902: 895: 890: 885: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 747: 741: 740: 732: 728: 724: 720: 718: 714: 710: 706: 705:Thomas Nelson 702: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 687: 682: 678: 673: 669: 662: 652: 648: 644: 640: 639: 638: 637: 634: 630: 626: 621: 620: 619: 618: 614: 610: 605: 602: 600: 596: 591: 589: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 538: 537: 533: 529: 525: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 466: 462: 457: 454: 453: 447: 443: 440: 439: 433: 429: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 403: 402: 401: 397: 393: 389: 386: 385: 379: 375: 371: 368: 367: 361: 360: 354: 350: 346: 343: 342: 336: 332: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 311: 307: 303: 299: 294: 293: 292: 288: 284: 280: 277: 274: 270: 269: 263: 259: 256: 255: 252: 246: 242: 241: 236: 235: 231: 230: 225: 224: 219: 218: 214: 210: 206: 203: 199: 195: 192: 188: 185: 181: 177: 174: 171: 167: 166: 165: 160: 156: 152: 148: 147: 146: 145: 141: 137: 133: 130: 126: 124: 121: 117: 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 11697: 11692: 11687: 11667: 11662: 11657: 11647: 11601: 11554: 11533:WP:STATUSQUO 11440: 11407: 11405: 11400: 11377: 11366: 11361: 11356: 11321: 11320: 11314: 11279: 11278: 11249: 11219:Not reliable 11218: 11203: 11196: 11190:Not reliable 11189: 11155:Not reliable 11154: 11132:The Signpost 11131: 11130: 11088: 11076: 11072: 11040: 11032: 11031:source or a 11028: 11025:The Signpost 11024: 11020: 11002: 10994: 10982: 10974: 10966: 10940:The Signpost 10939: 10932: 10929:The Signpost 10928: 10889: 10881: 10828:The Signpost 10827: 10823: 10788:The Signpost 10787: 10765: 10746:WP:RSOPINION 10734:The Atlantic 10727:Ars Technica 10712:The Register 10710: 10687:, would be: 10663: 10662: 10655:The Signpost 10654: 10651:The Signpost 10650: 10647:once in 2014 10642:The Signpost 10640: 10613: 10566: 10548: 10505:Hemiauchenia 10475: 10448: 10447: 10421: 10420: 10410: 10391: 10379:Slatersteven 10353:— Preceding 10350: 10319:WP:ABOUTSELF 10309:David Gerard 10294:David Gerard 10274:David Gerard 10259:David Gerard 10254: 10250: 10245: 10227: 10221:David Gerard 10197:David Gerard 10180:David Gerard 10158: 10157: 10131:WP:VOLUNTEER 10127: 10102: 10101: 10072: 10043: 10042: 10039:WP:ABOUTSELF 10035: 10013: 10012: 10009:good article 9993:WP:ABOUTSELF 9969:Newimpartial 9964: 9926:Slatersteven 9904: 9903: 9892:WP:ABOUTSELF 9864:Newimpartial 9832: 9831: 9828:WP:ABOUTSELF 9820:WP:ABOUTSELF 9816:WP:ABOUTSELF 9804:WP:ABOUTSELF 9797: 9783:David Gerard 9765:Slatersteven 9735:Slatersteven 9732: 9661: 9656: 9623: 9604: 9582: 9579:Slatersteven 9566:Slatersteven 9528:Slatersteven 9513:Slatersteven 9473: 9446:Slatersteven 9443: 9421: 9420: 9363: 9329: 9328: 9249: 9233: 9205:Slatersteven 9183: 9170:Slatersteven 9141:Slatersteven 9117: 9116: 9099:WP:ABOUTSELF 9051: 9050: 9025:WP:DAILYMAIL 8997: 8952: 8933: 8884: 8832: 8810: 8769: 8751: 8732: 8723: 8705: 8693: 8680: 8629:David Gerard 8590: 8561: 8543:David Gerard 8500:David Gerard 8495: 8491: 8451:Slatersteven 8448: 8418:Slatersteven 8396: 8395: 8388:WP:ABOUTSELF 8378:states that 8355: 8347: 8334:David Gerard 8271: 8270: 8224: 8223: 8219: 8160:WP:ABOUTSELF 8138:WP:DAILYMAIL 8123:David Gerard 8096:David Gerard 8070: 8056:David Gerard 8029: 8025: 8012:David Gerard 8003: 7996: 7952: 7951: 7930:states that 7921: 7914: 7874: 7853: 7852: 7834: 7781: 7764: 7739: 7731: 7723: 7669: 7668: 7665:WP:ABOUTSELF 7657:WP:ABOUTSELF 7653:WP:ABOUTSELF 7615: 7614: 7604: 7546: 7485: 7480: 7450:David Gerard 7445:WP:DAILYMAIL 7392: 7326: 7322: 7318: 7309: 7307: 7300: 7275:Slatersteven 7262:Slatersteven 7242: 7235: 7232: 7229: 7224: 7221: 7216: 7213: 7211:Background: 7210: 7204: 7201: 7196: 7193: 7142: 7141: 7078: 7048:Slatersteven 7034:Hemiauchenia 7002: 7001: 6986:Epistle News 6983: 6955:Slatersteven 6938:Slatersteven 6902: 6872: 6845:Slatersteven 6827:Slatersteven 6789:Slatersteven 6784: 6759: 6747: 6742: 6737: 6724: 6719: 6682: 6681: 6630: 6629: 6621: 6595: 6591: 6587: 6566: 6565: 6561: 6521: 6520: 6517:Taylor Swift 6506:Infobox song 6427: 6409:Slatersteven 6387: 6303:Slatersteven 6254: 6234: 6231:Echos source 6155:Girth Summit 6109:front-runner 6098: 6059:Slatersteven 6035: 6020: 5999:Slatersteven 5985:Slatersteven 5938: 5931: 5919: 5904: 5890: 5868: 5848: 5847: 5835: 5817: 5806: 5777: 5776: 5763:Newimpartial 5737: 5736: 5727:WP:ABOUTSELF 5700: 5686:Slatersteven 5666: 5570: 5513:COIBot-Local 5497:MER-C X-wiki 5430: 5429: 5423: 5411:Slatersteven 5393: 5367: 5324: 5320: 5315: 5286: 5264: 5249: 5244: 5239: 5144: 5093: 5059: 5055: 5047: 5039: 5013:petrarchan47 5009: 5004: 4999: 4994: 4992: 4983: 4975: 4970: 4968: 4923: 4919: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4877: 4873: 4869: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4829: 4824: 4804: 4800: 4790: 4785: 4747: 4697: 4685: 4671: 4664: 4656: 4641: 4636: 4609: 4605: 4604: 4565: 4553: 4524:petrarchan47 4520: 4510: 4506: 4488: 4438:. Retrieved 4434: 4429:Hugh, Rich. 4424: 4416: 4393:petrarchan47 4389: 4380: 4362: 4359:Petrarchan47 4337:petrarchan47 4333: 4330: 4324: 4318: 4309: 4305: 4303: 4295: 4286: 4284: 4271: 4252: 4227: 4222: 4220: 4212: 4210: 4201: 4199: 4192: 4183: 4173: 4162: 4131:sockpuppetry 4085: 4084: 4078: 4058: 4048: 4008: 3904: 3903: 3885: 3835: 3831: 3779: 3722:David Gerard 3703: 3643: 3642: 3624: 3594: 3593: 3587: 3584:and AllSides 3573: 3559:MaximumIdeas 3518: 3517: 3502:removed the 3474: 3473: 3439:Slatersteven 3367: 3340: 3336: 3312:. Retrieved 3308: 3298: 3290: 3244: 3235:"During the 3234: 3219: 3209: 3208: 3198: 3177: 3165: 3153:Slatersteven 3148: 3131: 3115: 3094: 3052: 3035: 3018: 3000: 2990: 2985: 2980: 2937: 2935: 2903:no consensus 2902: 2895: 2889: 2882: 2873: 2802: 2797: 2792: 2772: 2758: 2753: 2748: 2722:Slatersteven 2702: 2696: 2679: 2675: 2494: 2493: 2484: 2483: 2446: 2441: 2436: 2375: 2338:Slatersteven 2319:forebears.io 2316: 2299:Hemiauchenia 2287:WP:ABOUTSELF 2258: 2255:Slatersteven 2242:Slatersteven 2223: 2219: 2216:Slatersteven 2203:Slatersteven 2184: 2181:Slatersteven 2168:Slatersteven 2148: 2143: 2134: 2129: 2125: 2017:, which says 1964:petrarchan47 1960: 1942: 1936: 1931: 1924: 1918: 1901: 1896: 1891: 1850: 1845: 1840: 1807: 1793: 1778: 1773: 1768: 1762: 1745:Not reliable 1744: 1730:David Gerard 1709: 1706:David Gerard 1703: 1663: 1659: 1652:Not reliable 1651: 1623: 1622: 1605:Slatersteven 1581: 1580: 1573: 1567: 1561: 1559: 1526:Slatersteven 1502: 1501: 1471: 1470: 1468: 1455: 1444:. Retrieved 1440: 1430: 1422: 1413: 1410: 1407:Jai Shri Ram 1406: 1398:Jai Shri Ram 1396: 1386: 1381:Jai Shri Ram 1379: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1350: 1333: 1319: 1310: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1175: 1140: 1139: 1095: 1094: 1070: 1053: 1043: 1028: 1013: 974: 973: 952: 938: 854: 797:COIBot-Local 781:MER-C X-wiki 723:RaiderAspect 681:Ralph Larkin 676: 668:Rachel Scott 665: 661:Rachel Scott 659:Sources for 606: 603: 592: 585: 428:Fawaz Gerges 250: 163: 151:Slatersteven 115: 113: 82: 47: 41: 11412:RSP listing 10737:(RSP entry) 10730:(RSP entry) 10716:(RSP entry) 10661:applies. — 10622:is a RS? -- 9526:acceptable. 9325:edit filter 8841:Bufferbloat 8539:WP:DEMOLISH 8537:is policy, 8518:WP:DEMOLISH 8299:Doug Weller 8168:bufferbloat 7831:"insource:" 7280:S Philbrick 7246:S Philbrick 7000:article? — 6390:Dir En Grey 6333:Bealtainemí 6318:Dr. Ryan E. 6284:Dr. Ryan E. 6101:wordspy.com 6023:, cited to 5934:, cited to 5907:, cited to 5578:Bufferbloat 5565:AboutUs.com 5561:domaintools 5505:Links on en 5503:• Reports: 5460:Linksearch 5453:orospakr.ca 5219:TheseusHeLl 5154:Rémi Brague 5132:TheseusHeLl 4987:CNN (sike!) 4976:Vanity Fair 4511:Vanity Fair 4272:Presently, 4253:Vanity Fair 4127:ban evasion 4107:Rich McHugh 3378:convention. 3077:delegates). 3064:IDP website 3019:Yes, but... 2846:Daily Beast 2523:Hippocrates 1937:Discussion: 1334:Inaccuracy: 1323:WP:COPYLINK 1132:WP:COPYLINK 1073:WP:COPYLINK 1030:Samp4ngeles 966:WP:COPYLINK 849:AboutUs.com 845:domaintools 789:Links on en 787:• Reports: 744:Linksearch 742:n5ti.com: 690:Indy beetle 542:Machinarium 528:Machinarium 498:Machinarium 477:Machinarium 411:Machinarium 316:Machinarium 302:Machinarium 136:Machinarium 102:Archive 295 94:Archive 292 89:Archive 291 83:Archive 290 77:Archive 289 72:Archive 288 64:Archive 285 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 11682:David Jang 11485:Harizotoh9 11324:Newslinger 11303:Shodhganga 11282:Newslinger 11273:Notified: 11260:Santoshdts 11241:Shodhganga 11231:Iridescent 11073:everything 10886:WP:SELFREF 10868:reply here 10832:Smallbones 10666:Newslinger 10630:reply here 10594:Santoshdts 10482:Santoshdts 10451:Newslinger 10424:Newslinger 10161:Newslinger 10154:this style 10105:Newslinger 10046:Newslinger 10016:Newslinger 9941:Newslinger 9907:Newslinger 9835:Newslinger 9466:side order 9462:WP:ILIKEIT 9424:Newslinger 9332:Newslinger 9321:deprecated 9230:Newslinger 9120:Newslinger 9054:Newslinger 8470:Newslinger 8399:Newslinger 8274:Newslinger 8227:Newslinger 8220:ad nauseum 7955:Newslinger 7878:avoid the 7856:Newslinger 7672:Newslinger 7661:due weight 7618:Newslinger 7277:, Thanks. 7145:Newslinger 7029:about page 7025:on twitter 7005:Newslinger 6685:Newslinger 6633:Newslinger 6588:First Name 6569:Newslinger 6524:Newslinger 6351:canvassing 5851:Newslinger 5822:Scrooge200 5818:unreliable 5780:Newslinger 5740:Newslinger 5701:Unreliable 5559:• Domain: 5551:• Google: 5465:(insource) 5433:Newslinger 5330:Iridescent 5316:Daily Mail 5283:Daily Mail 4417:References 4321:overturned 4304:Ms. Reade 4244:Here is a 4088:Newslinger 4027:Neutrality 3907:Newslinger 3860:Neutrality 3646:Newslinger 3597:Newslinger 3521:Newslinger 3477:Newslinger 3364:WP:NOTNEWS 3314:2018-09-10 3291:References 3170:Neutrality 3095:Yes and no 3023:MaxBrowne2 3004:do not. -- 2856:. Cheers, 2826:NewNowNext 2507:Diocletian 2137:manifesto" 1689:bitcoin.it 1683:bitcoin.it 1626:Newslinger 1584:Newslinger 1570:apologized 1562:volunteers 1540:Forbes.com 1505:Newslinger 1492:Notified: 1474:Newslinger 1446:2020-03-04 1423:References 1416:Karimnagar 1360:Newslinger 1353:Daily Mail 1270:PackMecEng 1241:Newslinger 1234:Daily Mail 1229:spamdexing 1176:Daily Mail 1143:Newslinger 1136:WP:ELNEVER 1098:Newslinger 1055:Daily Mail 977:Newslinger 843:• Domain: 835:• Google: 749:(insource) 686:WP:Primary 641:Thanks! -- 597:. Here is 221:reference. 11632:Guy Macon 11622:Related: 11604:Guy Macon 11590:Cited on 11570:Cited on 11537:Guy Macon 11245:INFLIBNET 11136:WP:SOURCE 11093:Guy Macon 11045:Guy Macon 11007:Guy Macon 10858:WP:OUTING 10838:smalltalk 10800:WP:WINARS 10721:There is 10659:WP:WINARS 9701:(blether) 9546:WP:BURDEN 8535:WP:BURDEN 8514:WP:BURDEN 8494:So don't 8488:WP:BURDEN 8352:WP:BLPSPS 8214:RSP entry 8203:RSP entry 8192:RSP entry 8181:RSP entry 8000:WP:BURDEN 7928:WP:BURDEN 7841:promotion 7710:Guy Macon 7532:Guy Macon 6652:Seelentau 6600:Seelentau 6596:Last Name 6543:Seelentau 6473:Seelentau 6444:Seelentau 6394:Seelentau 6362:Elizium23 6211:FunnyMath 6201:(blether) 6184:FunnyMath 6171:FunnyMath 6145:(blether) 6132:FunnyMath 6118:FunnyMath 5873:oknazevad 5820:for now. 5527:• COIBot- 5493:Spamcheck 5349:account. 5130:", etc. - 5073:Guy Macon 4920:The Times 4894:Guy Macon 4890:SPECIFICO 4825:SPECIFICO 4786:SPECIFICO 4753:Guy Macon 4703:Guy Macon 4637:SPECIFICO 4562:Guy Macon 4493:Guy Macon 4323:, saying 4246:NYT piece 4165:consensus 4149:block log 3900:far-right 3639:far-right 3270:AP source 2739:RSP entry 2590:Calthinus 2569:Calthinus 2555:Calthinus 2519:Aristotle 2466:Gyrofrog 2410:Gyrofrog 2295:Manifesto 2042:Guy Macon 2015:WP:BLPSPS 1945:Guy Macon 1752:dlthewave 1669:Abecedare 1546:RSP entry 1330:reliable. 1061:RSP entry 960:RSP entry 894:this link 855:The site 811:• COIBot- 777:Spamcheck 546:Calthinus 337:, p. 148: 11424:MarioGom 11164:Headbomb 11003:Signpost 10983:Signpost 10967:Signpost 10933:Signpost 10854:User:JzG 10750:MarioGom 10580:MarioGom 10520:Headbomb 10402:fair use 10367:contribs 10355:unsigned 10078:ZScarpia 9999:states, 9276:WP:UNDUE 9272:WP:UNDUE 9242:WP:UNDUE 8807:MarioGom 8770:actually 8614:MarioGom 8350:over at 8051:as well. 7732:specific 7609:reliable 7375:Springee 7329:QRep2020 7131:reliable 6996:for the 6882:Koncorde 6804:Koncorde 6730:No, see 6612:I found 6095:Word Spy 6057:instead. 5899:edit to 5893:Edit5001 5535:, & 5521:advanced 5174:source 4 5165:source 3 5159:source 2 5150:source 1 5089:Averroes 5000:Newsweek 4698:anything 4440:13 April 4296:Source: 4174:Article: 4145:contribs 4079:InfoWars 4036:feminist 3987:Springee 3959:Springee 3928:Springee 3898:is not " 3888:AllSides 3870:feminist 3824:Springee 3811:Springee 3758:Springee 3704:reliable 3637:is not " 3368:However, 3220:Comment: 3103:feminist 2919:VGChartz 2872:RfC: Is 2854:Guardian 2848:and the 2424:Gyrofrog 2390:Springer 1919:Article: 1800:this one 1556:About Us 1395:for the 1325:states, 1288:Blueboar 1065:article 996:Glades12 819:, & 805:advanced 599:the diff 335:Williams 20:‎ | 11494:Sgerbic 11445:Knox490 11441:Editor 10935:editor? 10914:SarahSV 10878:Piotrus 10794:Piotrus 9464:with a 8858:protect 8853:history 8674:dubious 8496:restore 8312:WP:FAIT 8187:Blogger 8176:YouTube 7993:WP:ONUS 7944:WP:ONUS 7924:actions 7880:WP:FAIT 7597:except 7097:Eostrix 6984:Is the 6590:(PKA: S 6497:) is a 6493:ASCAP ( 6032:"Trent" 5916:"Trent" 5807:On the 5640:protect 5635:history 5595:protect 5590:history 5517:tracked 5489:wikt:fr 5485:wikt:en 5347:Twitter 4470:history 3512:tag in 3499:Legobot 3382:total). 3040:Enos733 2648:protect 2643:history 2610:Hippeus 2527:claims 2098:protect 2093:history 2056:Hippeus 1932:Source: 1763:Kill it 1575:Mid Day 1162:Hippeus 1118:Hippeus 1023:About: 926:Hippeus 913:Neonate 873:Kaldari 801:tracked 773:wikt:fr 769:wikt:en 544:here.-- 349:Basayev 43:archive 11475:Medium 11471:Undark 11465:Rp2006 11389:«Talk» 11301:Since 11258:? TIA 11159:WP:SPS 11081:WP:UGS 10991:says: 10910:WP:SPS 10692:biased 10315:WP:SPS 10228:didn't 9888:WP:SPS 9696:Summit 9624:before 9541:WP:SPS 9470:WP:OWN 9383:WP:SPS 9268:WP:SPS 9045:WP:SPS 9021:WP:SPS 8953:actual 8905:WP:SPS 8862:delete 8778:WP:SPS 8774:WP:SPS 8729:WP:SPS 8566:WP:SPS 8558:WP:SPS 8466:WP:BRD 8376:WP:SPS 8348:except 8207:, and 8198:Medium 7849:WP:G11 7847:under 7822:WP:SPS 7736:WP:OWN 7591:WP:SPS 7486:except 7481:should 7308:It is 7285:(Talk) 7251:(Talk) 6988:piece 6429:C.Fred 6424:WP:BLP 6237:WP:COI 6196:Summit 6140:Summit 5716:WP:SPS 5644:delete 5599:delete 5553:search 5509:COIBot 5481:simple 5364:Adpete 5351:Adpete 5299:Adpete 5291:Adpete 4748:always 4660:them." 4285:Reade 3204:Jayron 2923:ToThAc 2769:Buidhe 2683:WP:SPS 2652:delete 2499:fringe 2469:(talk) 2459:Buidhe 2413:(talk) 2140:(HTML) 2102:delete 1863:Ahiroy 1603:page). 1554:. The 837:search 793:COIBot 765:simple 11422:). -- 11210:54129 10897:help! 10773:help! 10685:WP:RS 10556:help! 10478:WP:RS 9997:WP:TC 9693:Girth 9612:help! 9590:help! 9481:help! 9371:help! 9257:help! 9248:one. 9246:WP:RS 9017:WP:RS 9005:help! 8983:WP:RS 8941:help! 8892:help! 8879:views 8871:watch 8867:links 8818:help! 8759:help! 8713:help! 8681:never 8490:says 8164:undue 8002:says 7995:says 7747:help! 7170:WP:RS 7086:help! 6732:WP:OR 6672:, or 6273:line. 6193:Girth 6137:Girth 5674:help! 5661:views 5653:watch 5649:links 5623:CoDel 5616:views 5608:watch 5604:links 5537:XWiki 5533:Local 5409:here. 5396:Saqib 5375:help! 5275:WP:EL 4723:WP:OR 4573:help! 4514:today 4478:watch 4474:links 4370:help! 4129:, or 4066:help! 4016:help! 3902:". — 3843:help! 3787:help! 3743:O3000 3737:Aeonx 3708:Aeonx 3666:O3000 3641:". — 3099:Kworb 2780:help! 2710:help! 2669:views 2661:watch 2657:links 2535:here 2529:that 2515:Homer 2431:WP:RX 2380:. I 2266:help! 2231:help! 2220:every 2192:help! 2156:help! 2119:views 2111:watch 2107:links 1886:WP:RS 1815:Media 1717:help! 951:from 908:Paleo 821:XWiki 817:Local 526:Okay. 493:WP:RS 407:WP:RS 298:WP:RS 16:< 11717:talk 11693:uidh 11678:This 11663:uidh 11636:talk 11608:talk 11541:talk 11531:Per 11517:talk 11513:RobP 11509:this 11498:talk 11473:and 11428:talk 11362:uidh 11331:talk 11289:talk 11277:. — 11264:talk 11223:very 11145:talk 11112:talk 11097:talk 11083:and 11063:talk 11049:talk 11011:talk 10754:talk 10673:talk 10598:talk 10584:talk 10509:talk 10486:talk 10458:talk 10446:. — 10431:talk 10383:talk 10363:talk 10327:talk 10298:talk 10284:talk 10263:talk 10237:talk 10208:talk 10204:Kvng 10184:talk 10168:talk 10150:Kvng 10139:talk 10135:Kvng 10112:talk 10096:and 10053:talk 10023:talk 9973:talk 9951:talk 9930:talk 9914:talk 9902:. — 9896:WP:V 9868:talk 9842:talk 9824:WP:V 9810:and 9787:talk 9769:talk 9755:talk 9739:talk 9720:talk 9675:talk 9632:talk 9570:talk 9554:talk 9532:talk 9517:talk 9502:talk 9450:talk 9431:talk 9391:talk 9353:talk 9339:talk 9285:talk 9209:talk 9192:talk 9174:talk 9159:talk 9145:talk 9127:talk 9081:talk 9061:talk 9049:? — 9033:talk 8961:talk 8913:talk 8875:logs 8849:talk 8845:edit 8786:talk 8741:talk 8694:does 8648:talk 8633:talk 8618:talk 8574:talk 8547:talk 8526:talk 8522:Kvng 8504:talk 8478:talk 8474:Kvng 8455:talk 8422:talk 8406:talk 8394:. — 8362:asem 8338:talk 8318:asem 8303:talk 8281:talk 8265:and 8253:talk 8234:talk 8146:talk 8127:talk 8100:talk 8077:asem 8060:talk 8037:asem 8030:then 8016:talk 8008:WP:V 7978:asem 7962:talk 7906:talk 7887:asem 7863:talk 7835:The 7807:talk 7803:Kvng 7714:talk 7700:talk 7696:Kvng 7679:talk 7644:talk 7625:talk 7577:talk 7567:See 7555:Talk 7536:talk 7522:talk 7502:asem 7469:talk 7454:talk 7431:talk 7427:Kvng 7379:talk 7355:asem 7333:talk 7266:talk 7178:talk 7152:talk 7117:talk 7101:talk 7067:talk 7052:talk 7038:talk 7012:talk 6959:talk 6942:talk 6934:wp:v 6912:talk 6886:talk 6849:talk 6831:talk 6808:talk 6793:talk 6768:talk 6743:uidh 6692:talk 6656:talk 6640:talk 6604:talk 6576:talk 6547:talk 6531:talk 6477:talk 6463:talk 6448:talk 6434:talk 6413:talk 6398:talk 6366:talk 6337:talk 6322:talk 6307:talk 6288:talk 6266:poll 6215:talk 6175:talk 6122:talk 6085:talk 6063:talk 6048:talk 6003:talk 5989:talk 5975:talk 5959:talk 5944:ISBN 5897:this 5877:talk 5858:talk 5846:. — 5826:talk 5787:talk 5767:talk 5747:talk 5690:talk 5657:logs 5631:talk 5627:edit 5620:and 5612:logs 5586:talk 5582:edit 5557:meta 5529:Link 5469:meta 5440:talk 5415:talk 5400:talk 5355:talk 5325:Mail 5321:Mail 5303:talk 5295:talk 5245:uidh 5223:talk 5193:talk 5136:talk 5106:talk 5077:talk 4993:The 4960:talk 4932:talk 4914:and 4898:talk 4876:and 4870:must 4860:talk 4850:and 4830:talk 4813:talk 4791:talk 4775:talk 4757:talk 4738:talk 4707:talk 4642:talk 4620:talk 4592:talk 4584:here 4497:talk 4482:logs 4466:talk 4462:edit 4442:2020 4386:link 4141:talk 4095:talk 4076:The 3991:talk 3977:talk 3963:talk 3948:talk 3932:talk 3914:talk 3815:talk 3762:talk 3747:talk 3726:talk 3712:talk 3685:talk 3670:talk 3653:talk 3618:for 3604:talk 3563:talk 3528:talk 3484:talk 3443:talk 3403:talk 3349:talk 3279:talk 3190:talk 3157:talk 3140:talk 3107:talk 3084:talk 3053:Yes. 3044:talk 3036:Yes. 3027:talk 3010:talk 3001:Yes. 2986:uidh 2927:talk 2838:Crux 2798:uidh 2754:uidh 2726:talk 2665:logs 2639:talk 2635:edit 2614:talk 2594:talk 2577:talk 2559:talk 2543:talk 2531:Troy 2442:uidh 2360:talk 2342:talk 2327:talk 2303:talk 2246:talk 2207:talk 2172:talk 2115:logs 2089:talk 2085:edit 2060:talk 2046:talk 1949:talk 1897:uidh 1867:talk 1846:uidh 1810:Free 1804:here 1774:uidh 1734:talk 1673:talk 1660:they 1633:talk 1621:. — 1609:talk 1591:talk 1530:talk 1512:talk 1500:. — 1481:talk 1367:talk 1337:WP:V 1313:BLPs 1292:talk 1274:talk 1248:talk 1227:, a 1166:talk 1150:talk 1122:talk 1105:talk 1093:. — 1034:talk 1000:talk 984:talk 972:. — 930:talk 877:talk 867:and 841:meta 813:Link 753:meta 727:talk 713:talk 694:talk 647:talk 629:talk 613:talk 572:talk 550:talk 532:talk 518:talk 502:talk 481:talk 465:talk 415:talk 396:talk 320:talk 306:talk 287:talk 155:talk 140:talk 11713:TFD 11453:by 11378:any 11243:at 11021:not 10891:Guy 10767:Guy 10705:or 10550:Guy 10317:or 10076:← 9986:sps 9881:sps 9606:Guy 9584:Guy 9475:Guy 9468:of 9365:Guy 9251:Guy 9110:sps 8999:Guy 8935:Guy 8886:Guy 8812:Guy 8753:Guy 8733:not 8707:Guy 8664:sps 8607:sps 8356:may 8071:any 8026:add 7875:any 7741:Guy 7401:sps 7394:JzG 7316:: 7301:Is 7080:Guy 6764:TFD 6081:JBL 6044:JBL 5971:JBL 5955:JBL 5930:by 5668:Guy 5571:Is 5525:RSN 5369:Guy 5213:", 5203:EI2 5185:.-- 5120:EI2 5005:NYT 4995:NYT 4956:TFD 4567:Guy 4550:BLP 4489:all 4388:. 4364:Guy 4298:NYT 4277:has 4157:lta 4153:spi 4060:Guy 4010:Guy 3886:Is 3837:Guy 3781:Guy 3625:Is 3541:MrX 3507:rfc 3463:rfc 3456:MrX 3454:Hi 3424:🖋 3345:TFD 3186:TFD 3125:🖋 2951:🖋 2936:Is 2858:gnu 2830:POZ 2822:NPR 2774:Guy 2704:Guy 2388:at 2260:Guy 2225:Guy 2186:Guy 2150:Guy 1820:Kid 1711:Guy 1656:due 1572:to 1414:In 1387:Is 1315:): 809:RSN 709:TFD 625:TFD 568:TFD 374:GTD 207:4) 196:3) 189:2) 178:1) 11719:) 11638:) 11630:-- 11610:) 11602:-- 11543:) 11519:) 11500:) 11430:) 11319:— 11266:) 11204:SN 11197:—— 11178:· 11174:· 11170:· 11147:) 11114:) 11099:) 11091:-- 11065:) 11051:) 11041:is 11013:) 10942:: 10756:) 10732:, 10725:: 10649:. 10600:) 10586:) 10534:· 10530:· 10526:· 10511:) 10488:) 10385:) 10369:) 10365:• 10329:) 10300:) 10286:) 10265:) 10239:) 10210:) 10186:) 10141:) 9995:. 9989:}} 9983:{{ 9975:) 9953:) 9932:) 9884:}} 9878:{{ 9870:) 9789:) 9771:) 9757:) 9741:) 9722:) 9690:? 9677:) 9662:is 9634:) 9572:) 9556:) 9534:) 9519:) 9504:) 9472:. 9452:) 9393:) 9355:) 9287:) 9211:) 9194:) 9184:is 9176:) 9161:) 9147:) 9113:}} 9107:{{ 9083:) 9035:) 8994:}} 8991:cn 8988:{{ 8978:}} 8975:cn 8972:{{ 8963:) 8915:) 8877:| 8873:| 8869:| 8865:| 8860:| 8856:| 8851:| 8847:| 8788:) 8743:) 8691:}} 8688:cn 8685:{{ 8677:}} 8671:{{ 8669:, 8667:}} 8661:{{ 8650:) 8635:) 8620:) 8610:}} 8604:{{ 8599:}} 8596:cn 8593:{{ 8576:) 8562:is 8549:) 8528:) 8506:) 8480:) 8457:) 8424:) 8382:. 8369:) 8340:) 8325:) 8255:) 8196:, 8174:. 8158:. 8148:) 8129:) 8102:) 8084:) 8062:) 8044:) 8018:) 7985:) 7950:— 7908:) 7894:) 7809:) 7799:}} 7793:{{ 7789:}} 7783:{{ 7738:. 7716:) 7702:) 7646:) 7579:) 7560:📧 7538:) 7524:) 7509:) 7496:}} 7490:{{ 7471:) 7456:) 7433:) 7414:}} 7411:cn 7408:{{ 7404:}} 7398:{{ 7381:) 7362:) 7351:-- 7335:) 7268:) 7180:) 7119:) 7103:) 7069:) 7054:) 7040:) 6992:a 6961:) 6944:) 6914:) 6903:No 6888:) 6873:No 6851:) 6833:) 6810:) 6795:) 6785:No 6770:) 6760:No 6734:. 6680:— 6668:, 6658:) 6606:) 6594:) 6564:— 6549:) 6509:}} 6503:{{ 6479:) 6465:) 6450:) 6436:) 6415:) 6400:) 6368:) 6339:) 6324:) 6309:) 6290:) 6217:) 6177:) 6124:) 6087:) 6065:) 6050:) 6005:) 5991:) 5977:) 5969:-- 5961:) 5879:) 5828:) 5769:) 5711:: 5692:) 5665:? 5659:| 5655:| 5651:| 5647:| 5642:| 5638:| 5633:| 5629:| 5614:| 5610:| 5606:| 5602:| 5597:| 5593:| 5588:| 5584:| 5563:• 5555:• 5549:de 5547:- 5545:fr 5543:- 5541:en 5531:, 5523:- 5519:- 5511:- 5507:- 5501:gs 5499:• 5495:• 5491:• 5487:- 5483:- 5479:- 5477:fr 5475:- 5473:de 5471:- 5467:- 5462:en 5417:) 5402:) 5357:) 5305:) 5225:) 5195:) 5138:) 5108:) 5079:) 5054:A 5046:A 5038:A 5018:คุ 4962:) 4934:) 4900:) 4862:) 4815:) 4777:) 4759:) 4740:) 4709:) 4701:-- 4622:) 4594:) 4529:คุ 4499:) 4480:| 4476:| 4472:| 4468:| 4464:| 4433:. 4398:คุ 4342:คุ 4259:, 4155:· 4151:· 4147:· 4143:· 4125:, 3993:) 3979:) 3965:) 3950:) 3934:) 3817:) 3807:], 3805:], 3803:], 3764:) 3749:) 3728:) 3714:) 3687:) 3672:) 3565:) 3544:🖋 3510:}} 3504:{{ 3466:}} 3460:{{ 3445:) 3419:Mr 3405:) 3366:. 3351:) 3307:. 3281:) 3210:32 3199:No 3192:) 3178:No 3166:No 3159:) 3149:No 3142:) 3132:No 3120:Mr 3116:No 3109:) 3086:) 3046:) 3029:) 3012:) 2946:Mr 2929:) 2887:. 2862:57 2840:, 2836:, 2832:, 2828:, 2824:, 2820:, 2728:) 2667:| 2663:| 2659:| 2655:| 2650:| 2646:| 2641:| 2637:| 2616:) 2596:) 2579:) 2561:) 2545:) 2537:. 2521:, 2517:, 2513:, 2509:, 2505:, 2362:) 2344:) 2329:) 2305:) 2248:) 2209:) 2174:) 2117:| 2113:| 2109:| 2105:| 2100:| 2096:| 2091:| 2087:| 2062:) 2048:) 1969:คุ 1951:) 1888:. 1869:) 1736:) 1675:) 1611:) 1579:— 1532:) 1496:, 1469:— 1439:. 1294:) 1276:) 1210:46 1168:) 1124:) 1036:) 1002:) 932:) 916:– 901:sl 899:{{ 879:) 847:• 839:• 833:de 831:- 829:fr 827:- 825:en 815:, 807:- 803:- 795:- 791:- 785:gs 783:• 779:• 775:• 771:- 767:- 763:- 761:fr 759:- 757:de 755:- 751:- 746:en 729:) 715:) 696:) 649:) 631:) 615:) 601:. 590:. 574:) 552:) 534:) 520:) 504:) 483:) 467:) 459:-- 448:” 441:“ 417:) 398:) 390:-- 380:” 369:“ 355:” 344:“ 322:) 308:) 300:. 289:) 281:-- 264:” 257:“ 157:) 142:) 98:→ 68:← 11715:( 11698:e 11688:b 11668:e 11658:b 11634:( 11606:( 11598:. 11539:( 11515:( 11496:( 11487:: 11483:@ 11467:: 11463:@ 11447:: 11443:@ 11426:( 11367:e 11357:b 11262:( 11182:} 11180:b 11176:p 11172:c 11168:t 11166:{ 11143:( 11110:( 11095:( 11061:( 11047:( 11009:( 10977:. 10899:) 10895:( 10865:| 10841:) 10835:( 10796:: 10792:@ 10775:) 10771:( 10752:( 10718:. 10698:. 10627:| 10596:( 10582:( 10571:( 10558:) 10554:( 10538:} 10536:b 10532:p 10528:c 10524:t 10522:{ 10507:( 10484:( 10408:. 10381:( 10361:( 10325:( 10311:: 10307:@ 10296:( 10282:( 10276:: 10272:@ 10261:( 10235:( 10223:: 10219:@ 10206:( 10202:~ 10199:: 10195:@ 10182:( 10137:( 9971:( 9949:( 9943:: 9939:@ 9928:( 9866:( 9785:( 9767:( 9753:( 9737:( 9718:( 9688:V 9673:( 9630:( 9614:) 9610:( 9592:) 9588:( 9568:( 9552:( 9530:( 9515:( 9500:( 9483:) 9479:( 9448:( 9389:( 9373:) 9369:( 9351:( 9283:( 9259:) 9255:( 9237:. 9207:( 9190:( 9172:( 9157:( 9143:( 9079:( 9047:" 9031:( 9007:) 9003:( 8959:( 8943:) 8939:( 8911:( 8894:) 8890:( 8881:) 8843:( 8820:) 8816:( 8784:( 8761:) 8757:( 8739:( 8715:) 8711:( 8646:( 8631:( 8616:( 8572:( 8545:( 8524:( 8502:( 8476:( 8453:( 8420:( 8367:t 8365:( 8360:M 8336:( 8323:t 8321:( 8316:M 8251:( 8216:) 8212:( 8205:) 8201:( 8194:) 8190:( 8183:) 8179:( 8144:( 8125:( 8098:( 8082:t 8080:( 8075:M 8058:( 8042:t 8040:( 8035:M 8014:( 7983:t 7981:( 7976:M 7904:( 7892:t 7890:( 7885:M 7805:( 7749:) 7745:( 7712:( 7698:( 7694:~ 7642:( 7575:( 7534:( 7520:( 7507:t 7505:( 7500:M 7467:( 7452:( 7429:( 7425:~ 7377:( 7360:t 7358:( 7353:M 7331:( 7264:( 7176:( 7115:( 7099:( 7088:) 7084:( 7065:( 7050:( 7036:( 6957:( 6940:( 6936:. 6910:( 6884:( 6847:( 6829:( 6806:( 6791:( 6766:( 6748:e 6738:b 6678: 6654:( 6602:( 6545:( 6475:( 6461:( 6446:( 6432:( 6411:( 6396:( 6364:( 6335:( 6320:( 6305:( 6286:( 6213:( 6173:( 6153:@ 6120:( 6083:( 6061:( 6046:( 6001:( 5987:( 5973:( 5957:( 5951:. 5875:( 5824:( 5812:" 5765:( 5729:. 5722:. 5688:( 5676:) 5672:( 5663:) 5625:( 5618:) 5580:( 5413:( 5398:( 5377:) 5373:( 5353:( 5301:( 5293:( 5250:e 5240:b 5221:( 5191:( 5134:( 5104:( 5075:( 5062:. 5023:ก 4958:( 4930:( 4896:( 4858:( 4811:( 4773:( 4755:( 4736:( 4705:( 4655:" 4618:( 4590:( 4575:) 4571:( 4534:ก 4495:( 4484:) 4460:( 4444:. 4403:ก 4372:) 4368:( 4347:ก 4261:* 4257:* 4240:* 4230:. 4167:. 4159:) 4139:( 4068:) 4064:( 4018:) 4014:( 3989:( 3975:( 3961:( 3946:( 3930:( 3845:) 3841:( 3813:( 3789:) 3785:( 3760:( 3745:( 3739:: 3735:@ 3724:( 3710:( 3683:( 3668:( 3561:( 3441:( 3422:X 3401:( 3347:( 3317:. 3277:( 3247:) 3188:( 3155:( 3138:( 3123:X 3105:( 3082:( 3042:( 3025:( 3008:( 2991:e 2981:b 2949:X 2925:( 2803:e 2793:b 2782:) 2778:( 2759:e 2749:b 2741:) 2737:( 2724:( 2712:) 2708:( 2671:) 2633:( 2612:( 2592:( 2575:( 2557:( 2541:( 2461:: 2457:@ 2447:e 2437:b 2426:: 2422:@ 2358:( 2340:( 2325:( 2301:( 2268:) 2264:( 2244:( 2233:) 2229:( 2205:( 2194:) 2190:( 2170:( 2158:) 2154:( 2133:" 2121:) 2083:( 2058:( 2044:( 1974:ก 1947:( 1902:e 1892:b 1865:( 1851:e 1841:b 1823:! 1779:e 1769:b 1755:☎ 1732:( 1719:) 1715:( 1671:( 1607:( 1564:" 1548:) 1544:( 1528:( 1449:. 1290:( 1272:( 1178:: 1164:( 1120:( 1069:. 1063:) 1059:( 1032:( 998:( 962:) 958:( 928:( 897:( 875:( 725:( 711:( 692:( 645:( 627:( 611:( 570:( 548:( 530:( 516:( 500:( 479:( 463:( 413:( 394:( 318:( 304:( 285:( 275:. 153:( 138:( 54:.

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

Knowledge

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290 - Knowledge

Index