Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295

2124:

Peterhouse, Cambridge and Professor Charles W. Ingrao of Purdue University's History Department in Nationalities Papers and Professor Raphael Israeli Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern, Islamic and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem published his book The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions, 1941-1945, validated his book. As well as other professors, about his writings about Nedic’s regime. Were all these professors part of the propaganda push? Again no doubt his work is controversial but definitely not just one-sided as multiple historians deemed his work on WWII era to be "well-written, heavily footnoted narration" which "details the degree to which the Serbs of what is today Rump-Yugoslavia collaborated with the Nazis, both before and immediately after the April 1941 German invasion". Simms noted that "in places Cohen gives the Croats the benefit of the doubt", but states that "one of this affects Cohen's central argument: "Serbia" and many Serbs collaborated with Nazi Germany". Israeli stated that Cohen had "copiously documented" the large amount of anti-Semitic press in the German-occupied territory of Serbia. He also observed that Cohen had "definitively demonstrated" that the head of the German-appointed puppet regime, Milan Nedić, along with other members of the Serbian Orthodox Church, "were aware and supportive of the German extermination plan and execution , and were not loath to lend a hand when asked". Again, there were negative and positive criticism of Cohen’s works. For that reason despite the book being RS, it should be accompanied by other cited sources as well for heavy claims in edits. But to disregard the book entirely as some “little propaganda book” seems more “I Don’t Like it and want it gone”.

2344:

authorities, who arrested and killed them. (Testimony ... "But Chetniks of Draža Mihajlović who were in that area persecuted the Jews without mercy. The Chetnik detachments that came from Ravna Gora stood out in that, from which we had to hide as if from the Germans ... Our life was not easy. In the middle of 1942, the Chetnik gangs of Draža Mihajlović started wandering in the woods in that area, they found out that the Jews were hiding in that area, began to persecute and kill them"). From the books of the prisoners of the Banjica camp, it can be seen that in the period after the liquidation of the Jewish woman with children at the Sajmište from May 1942 to October 1944, 455 Jews passed through the camp and were taken there to be shot. They were mostly women and children, among them are and children under the age of one... page 44, Of the 93,000 people who passed through the Sajmište camp during 1942/44, over 47,000 were killed or died in the camp, and the rest were mostly killed or died of starvation and exhaustion in various camps in Norway and Germany. In October 1943, about 200 Jews were arrested by the Gestapo in Split (Croatia) and brought in, among them about twenty women. etc. etc.

2338:

ubijale.(Svjedočanstvo.. Ali su zato četnici Draže Mihajlovića koji su se nalazili u tom kraju gonili Jevreje bez milosti. U tome su se naročito isticali četnički odredi koji su dolazili sa Ravne Gore, od kojih smo se morali kriti kao od Nemaca...Naš život nije bio lak. Sredinom 1942 godine otpočele su da lutaju po šumi u tom kraju četničke bande Draže Mihajlovića, koje su, saznavši da se Jevreji kriju u tom kraju, počele da ih progone i ubijaju) Iz knjiga zatvorenika Banjičkog logora vidi se da je u vremenu posle likvidacije Jevrejki sa decom na Sajmištu maja 1942 pa do oktobra 1944 kroz logor prošlo i iz njega odvedeno na streljanje 455 Jevreja. To su bili većinom žene i deca, među njima i deca od nepunih godinu dana. page 44, Od preko 93.000 ljudi koliko je tokom 1942/44 prošlo kroz logor na Sajmištu pobijeno je ili umrlo u logoru preko 47.000 lica, a ostatak najvećim delom ubijen ili umro od gladi i iscrpljenosti po raznim logorima u Norveškoj i Nemačkoj. Oktobra 1943 dovedeno je oko 200 Jevreja koje je Gestapo uhapsio u Splitu(Hrvatska), među njima dvadesetak žena. itd itd..

4424:. The only occasion where I'd consider citing this source is when there is an article written by a named author who is an acknowledged expert. Even then I'd be super-careful since JVL is perfectly willing to alter the text. Once there was a discussion about using an article in JVL cited to Encyclopedia Judaica (a reliable source), but some of it I knew to be nonsense. So I consulted the original EJ article and found that JVL had silently inserted some rubbish sentences of their own into EJ's verbatim text. Regarding Myths and Facts, which is part of JVL, a review of an early edition in an academic journal (Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 16, No 3, p165) includes the lovely sentence "The reason this book is undocumented is because one cannot document lies." It is nearly always possible to consult the sources JVL cites directly, so we don't need the unreliable filtering. In the case that triggered this discussion, JVL provided 19th-century demographic figures but when I looked at the source I found that the information came from the Israeli government Press Office and the 4318:, a tireless propagandist for Israel. Out of Kenen’s propaganda work grew the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), today the most powerful Israeli lobby... The current version of Myths and Facts is curiously without specific mention of its debt to AIPAC, although it acknowledges the pioneering role of the Near East Report. This is hardly encouraging since the latter is a reliable source of myths but hardly of facts. Author Mitchell G. Bard is a former editor of the Near East Report and a coauthor of the 1992 edition of Myths and Facts... Bard is now executive director of yet another pro-Israel group, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), founded in 1993. Among its seven board members are Bard, Arthur Bard, and Eli E. Hertz. Hertz left the Israel Defense Forces as a captain after seven years and moved to New York to found a technology company. He is listed as sponsor of the latest Myths and Facts and chairman of the board of AICE. 598:) the typical editor who cites CleanTechnica does so only once or a couple of times (see above). So there is no indication of an editor-Cabal to introduce bias to Knowledge via repeated citations of (purportedly biased) CleanTechnica stories. Based on these observations, I cannot accept the claim regarding bias - and I cannot see how these many editors who have in fact cited CleanTechnica on Knowledge could, either. As this stage I feel I should explain my own interest in CleanTechnica. As an engineer/scientist and amateur historian I feel strongly not only that Knowledge should cite reliable sources, but also that when possible we should have articles on these sources. This way our readers can follow a source citation to our article on the source and then better form their own opinion of that source and as well easily see where else we cite that source. Technically, since these articles can have 9811:, what makes RT not a reliable source is that they do not have independent editorial oversight. Yes, they have editors, but their editorial oversight is ultimately Putin (and by extension the Russian government). It's true that not everything RT puts out is propaganda, or false. I also sometimes watch RT for news, and sometimes they cover stories in an objective and factual way and provide a different perspective than what you find in mainstream US media. But that doesn't make them a reliable source for Knowledge. IMO, no government-controlled media can be a reliable source, because politics will always cause the editorial oversight to not be independent. We can't separate the propaganda from the "clean" content, so we can't trust it. Unlike, say, The New York Times or Wall St Journal, where we can be confident the editors aren't taking their marching orders from the President. 9878:, I can find most of the claims in the sources, albeit not all. Some of it seems exaggerated. The article is mainly a more or less direct translation from the Chinese article, created in 2013. Which partly explains the "archaic" language, some of it is PRC communist slogan rhetoric. The first two sources are the same, new are two linked e-books, one is a 2010 PRC book, one a 2016 ROC book. Of the two linked sources, the PRC book from 2010 is more detailed. I'd like to find out what the 1992 book says, its quoted, but it doesnt seem to provide much information. Which contradictions do you mean? What I think should happen is to add clarification markers, e.g. at "This controversy is believed to be deliberately raised by Japanese military, who tried to warn Taiwanese intellectuals about their Chinese nationalism." Believed by whom? Etc. 655:

them. You do understand that sourcing rules and OR apply to material that makes into articles. It does not apply to discussions regarding the quality of a source. I've presented material showing that one of CT's top editors has shown COI with regards to his reporting, in particular on material related to Tesla. Rather than address the concerns propperly (ie focus on the arguments) you attack the sources as not reliable per WP:RS... which would only matter if we were putting the material in the CT article. Let's hit on a few other claims of bad faith you are making. You claim I want to remove the CT article. Where did I say that? Where have I supported removal of the CT article? Where did you get the BS idea that I'm accusing editors who have used CT of somehow doing so in bad faith? These are the claims you are making.

5985:- as with all news media, we proceed with caution and stick to the facts, unless we're citing the opinion of a renowned expert and using intext attribution. I challenge what appears to be partisan criticism as the reason to downgrade these sources. In today's polarized media environment, we can expect to see media being critical of each other because they're typically agreeing with different sets of facts based on their POV. Our job is to maintain neutrality, and we cannot accomplish that if we discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them. Also, keep in mind that fact-checkers may have to be critical of the sources they're fact-checking, which means they're not making friends. As editors, we look at the facts and corroborate the material we intend to add or remove in our articles. 9527:, in order to describe the Russian government perspective on a topic. In these cases, it should be prefixed with something like "A report/op-ed/whatever in Russia Today (RT), which is widely recognized as a propaganda outlet of the Russian government, argued that Russia was right to do ABC because XYZ". For anything outside these narrow use cases, RT should be completely deprecated. It's completely unreliable for literally anything involving the US, Russian politics, or geopolitics in general, as well as having clear bias in its news reporting as well as selective omission of relevant facts and context in addition to outright fabrications. I suggest putting an edit filter in place that warns the editor upon any insertion of RT, and where the warning includes a description of what conditions it may be used in. 3619:, I understand your point but when a bad source is used thousands of times, as is the case here, you need some kind of consensus before fixing the problem, and this is as much of a process as we have. The fact that the first deprecated sources were fabricators of "news" is not really relevant. The point is to form an explicit centralised consensus as to whether these are appropriate sources or not (there are self-published sources that are agreed to be reliable and others that are asserted to be so by advocates but appear to fail on objective criteria). Drama always ensues when removing sources even when there's broad consensus that they should not be used. I've had people revert removal of WorldNetDaily, even! So we need some sort of review, and, for better or worse, this is all we got. 5504:

strictly speaking it is a tertiary source. You argue that the JVL should be regarded as reliable because CNN and the NY Times cite it. News organisations cite all kinds of organisations; it can serve as a way of shifting the responsibility for the accuracy of information. Should, for instance, the US government be regarded as a reliable source because of the frequency with which it is cited? Having said that, within the JVL there exists articles written to a high standard, whose authors are named and are reputable and for which full citations are given. Those articles should not really be objectionable. Sometimes it has looked, though, like the contents of the JVL were being transcribed indiscriminately into Knowledge, which wasn't desirable.

2497:. This is a multi-edition book so this information is in my source on the page 737-738. second edition but from year 2003. I quote: "Dr. Schafer reported that apart from Jews in mixed marriages there was no longer any Jewish problem in Serbia (keine Judenfrqpe mehr).47 At the same time he returned to Berlin the gas van, which was to see further service in White Russia.47 48 When Generaloberst Lohr took over as Oberbefehlshaber Siidost in August 1942, Staatsrat Turner jotted down a few notes for a personal report to his new chief. In this report Turner itemized all the achievements of the Widi considerable satisfaction he wrote down a unique accomplishment: “Serbia only country in which Jewish question and Gypsy question solved ,”49. 10993:: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Knowledge. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Knowledge has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Knowledge community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the 1020:. I don't know if this means much but thought it would be worth mentioning. I'm trying to find more background on him, but I at least located an online profile on Zoominfo (can't post URL - /p/Richard-Wilson/1614284654). In any case, the question I'm asking—do Parkz news articles have any history of unreliable or unsubstantiated claims published as "news"? In my research, the answer is a clear no. I've dove a lot into their articles and I just don't see any red flags with what they publish. OurWorlds have been paid to produce media, yes, but I can't see evidence they're paid to produce articles. Clear distinction there, which their About page seems to make. — 2862:). Granted, that government was communist, and said historians were sometimes even officers in the communist army. It is always good to be cautious if we were going to use sources from that time and period on issues which have been affected by censorship/propaganda, but overall, such areas are relatively few (I'd expect to find some glorification of the USSR's contribution to the war, some pro format criticism of the US imperialists, a strong bias towards stressing contributions of the communist-affiliated Polish forces and towards minimizing those of the Polish gov't in exile, it probably omits or would be very unreliable on issues such as the 1981:

footnote and if this source in not RS I will start using those sources from footnote but problem is because and these sources ie informations are also propagandistic if this book and informations from her are propagandistic. I can't edit wikipedia for weeks and then again look for RS sources and after that again someone can say that these sources are also propagandistic because they are used in this book. Therefore please allow me to work, is this source RS or not? I spend my days here and because of that and because of future editors, I ask that this be finally clarified. If this book is not RS it doesn't matter let's move on.

1933:

times, therefore the point is that informations from book are already known in the Yugoslavian era and if you think that there is propaganda information in it, feel free to expose it to all see what's this all about. If he presents propagandistic information, then all the literature he uses is also propagandistic. We must concretize the propaganda information and sources which he uses in order to label those sources as propagandistic. We are editors from wikipedia and we need to know which books and historians have been used to promote propaganda through his book. We have to keep some order here.

4267:), managed by the American–IsraeliCooperative Enterprise, has an excellent range of articles andsources on Jewish history, Israel, Zionism, the Holocaust, Jewish religion, and a number of other topics. As its sponsor’s nameimplies, the Jewish Virtual Library represents a Zionist viewpoint.However, the vast majority of its secondary sources are reliableand written from a scholarly standpoint. The Jewish VirtualLibrary offers one of the best single sites on the Internet forJewish historical and cultural information. 1892:Žerjavića, Ljube Bobana, Bogdana Krizmana, Ivana Jelića. Za američku je širu javnost ovo povijesno štivo ipak prvorazredno otkriće. Ono bi trebalo promijeniti iskrivljeno tumačenje o zbivanjima u Hrvatskoj tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata, a pružiti istinitu sliku o Srbima i njihovim povijesnim krivotvorinama." "If Cohen's book is translated, it will certainly not significantly contribute to Croatian historiography. It is already known about all events and historical facts that we find in Cohen and it is much written and debated. It is enough to remember the edition of 4499:: The last RSN discussion I can remember concluded that, as JVL articles were of variable quality, some unsigned, some written by reputable authors, whether to cite them or not should be decided on a case-by-case basis. That seemed sensible. Contrary to the entry on RSPS, the JVL has no obvious process, such as peer review, for fact-checking. My guess is that there's not much evidence for objectively measuring its reputation for accuracy. The decision to remove the RSPS entry looks reasonable to me. Do we actually need a new RSN discussion on the JVL? 1066:

so I don't think it would be an issue. Also, does the fact that VRTP/Ardent have a direct feed with Parkz mean anything? I'm saying, these are large, public companies that could use any channel they like for distribution of news, and they are all in good standing with Parkz. (I can link articles where they communicate directly with Parkz if you like). Re ALM, what else would you typically expect to see besides stated editorial/content policies? They have admin teams and editor oversight (see links attached above, also their contact pages). —

10700:

of labs which had helped the hospitals to run an analysis of the new virus. Upon testing, a lab in Guangzhou found out that the genome sequence of the new virus was 87 per cent similar to Bat SARS-like coronavirus. The lab shared the results with the China Institute of Pathogen Biology and Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention on 27 of December. However, the National Health Commission issued a new regulation banning all the labs from sharing and releasing their test results in early January."

6931:"Mainstream" sources do precisely that all the time. For example, take the proposition "Reade Seligmann is a rapist." Now everyone acknowledges this is proven false, but "mainstream" sources ran with the opposite conclusion for months after it was proven false. The same thing is still going on with the proposition "Daniel Holtzclaw is a rapist." If you follow the "garbage" sources and actually look at their evidence, it's obvious that he isn't. But Knowledge sourcing rules don't allow that, run into 2574: 806:"To ensure that the Parkz database remains reliable and useful, our editorial staff reviews all edits and submissions to the database. We reserve the right to accept or reject your submissions on the basis of your quality guidelines: Accuracy – we fact-check all submissions and will delete or edit any incorrect submissions; Quality – Parkz is about visually stunning and eloquently written content; Copyright – Parkz will reject any submissions that we believe breach copyright; Duplicate content" 233:

interest are not clearly identified. In general I would be wary of using CT as a source for much of anything and would generally assume any reliable fact reported in CT could be sourced elsewhere. Still, I think the site is often cited by mainstream reliable sources as sort of the opinion of an industry watcher. I would be reluctant to remove any citation to CT without some reason to be suspicious of it. I suspect most of the material cited to CT is going to be non-controversial claims.

35: 7686: 3830: 3516: 3501: 3486: 3366: 3310: 3295: 5490:

conflict. Those claiming not reliable haven't really brought a policy reason. Further down, we're told if a source is regularly used by CNN or NYTIMES then it's a valid RS, well, JVL is regularly used. It is also a RS because it cites its sources. It is also in a niche market when you are in the Jewish article area, and getting rid of 1000 article sources is a bad idea. As always, you should use sources with commonsense but to just depreciate a source is not the right way to go.

7681: 3825: 3511: 3496: 3481: 3361: 3305: 3290: 2575:

https://books.google.hr/books?id=lgc-XDvNWzoC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Bosnia+and+Beyond:+The+%22quiet%22+Revolution+that+Wouldn%27t+Go+Quietly+Harald+Turner+serbia&source=bl&ots=I0IVju6Hwf&sig=ACfU3U0fpTShaP6YEyVnhOA-S6H0r3DkkQ&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj51bnpoMzpAhWu-ioKHflGBaAQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Bosnia%20and%20Beyond%3A%20The%20%22quiet%22%20Revolution%20that%20Wouldn't%20Go%20Quietly%20Harald%20Turner%20serbia&f=false

1856: 10505: 6367: 9044:. Like the Devil, RT spouts lies and falsehoods with the intent of causing chaos and political strife. Even when they do report accurately, there is no reason to use this Kremlin mouthpiece when independent journalism exists. Also, I do not care whether Russia bans me for saying this or even tries to hack my Knowledge account, but I think that if Hitler were possessed by a demon, Putin is possessed by Satan. He and his news outlets are 7767:(last 3 paragraphs), other reliable sources do not consider it a reliable source. However it can have an important place on Knowledge for demonstrating the official views and positions of Russia, even if those views are blatant denialism so long as they are framed correctly. Unfortunately, #4 is supporting a complete and total wipe of every RT sources on Knowledge regardless of its context and content (see what is happening to DM). -- 9095:. And there's massive issues with accuracy and independence here. It remains possible that a state-owned media isn't necessarily state-controlled. We'd want to look for legal protections that guarantee press freedom, and see if those rights are safe-guarded by the directing state. We'd also want to look for the rights of opposing media and opposing parties more generally in that state, the literal "free market of ideas". The fact that 351: 9134:- Umm, this is a call for lynching, *not* a neutral statement of question under way. That said, we’re talking of a publisher for a wide variety of shows, and outside of political guff I think there is clearly some decent reputations and good source content. To any ranting away above or in response... are you *so* certain there is nothing good that you would agree to being wrong with one good counterexample ? Cheers 353: 7545:, there is "no consensus on the reliability of RT" on general topics but a consensus that "RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." This strikes me as a strange status, given that RT pushes disinformation, conspiracy theories and falsehoods (per the citations in the RSP list). RT also pushes constant climate change denial content in its "news" section. 6368:

https://www.google.com/search?biw=2048&bih=1062&sxsrf=ALeKk01xy2gcdRAiOirM0ysvsYKhhdRkbA%3A1589073340798&ei=vFW3XrexMIaoytMP1OK6sA4&q=%22media+research+center%22+site%3Ausatoday.com&oq=%22media+research+center%22+site%3Ausatoday.com&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQA1DMC1iUEGCmEWgAcAB4AIABOogBtAKSAQE2mAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi3__-_j6jpAhUGlHIEHVSxDuYQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

355: 6871:, or any other future event that have appeared in sources we accept as a matter of course. That said, articles that are about future predictions of events that can't be known for certain should be treated as opinion pieces, and it would be equally wise to do the same with other sources, too. Similarly, some rate of arguable factual errors does not disqualify them, unless one wants to disqualify the NYT for 357: 10635: 429:

over Knowledge - and by whom (and whether such an edit was reverted) and present this list to e.g. reviewers on this board. This could help in several ways, e.g. identifying a small group of editors who introduce a large number of citations of a possibly unrealible source or (as my sampling indicates for this case) a large number of editors who each introduce one or a few citations of that source.

4399:: I've used the Jewish Virtual Library in the past for sources for topics unrelated (or not directly related) to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it just seems that it isn't a good source. It is not completely accurate and mostly cites other sources that can or should be accessed by Wikipedians who follow Knowledge's policies. I stopped using it when I realized it cites Knowledge sometimes.-- 4852:). In 2018 they had revenues of $ 196 thousand dollars (p.1), of which $ 164 thousand went straight to pay Mitchell Bard (p7) and $ 23 thousand went to "occupancy" (p.10, which presumably is for the usage of his home-office). The Vice President/Secretary is Mitchell Bard's son, Arthur (last page). The 2017 report also includes a section explaining the Jewish Virtual Library, which states: 4854:"THE JVL ALSO INCORPORATES OUR PUBLICATION, MYTHS AND FACTS: A GUIDE TO THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT, AN ESSENTIAL RESOURCE FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THE DISPUTE, KNOWN AS THE PRO-ISRAEL ACTIVIST'S "BIBLE". THE JVL ALSO INCLUDES MATERIAL FROM OUR STOPBDS.COM SITE THAT PROVIDES VITAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND, RESPOND AND COMBAT THE CAMPAIGN TO BOYCOTT AND DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL. 9023:. Any story they post which may be true and reliable would be reported by a more reliable source that isn't a government stooge. For any story or perspective of which they are the only source, I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could throw them. Usual exceptions carved out for direct quotes and for demonstrating the positions of the source itself in direct attributions. -- 9215:— because of unspecified claims. The lack of neutral statement, lack of any specifics to the proposal, lack of evidence or policy cite - and lack of any apparent need...I mean if there are actual usages being proposed to RSN, then let’s see them. The RSP is *supposed* to be about that yes? Or is it a forum for at-whim denunciations? This one is just not a valid RFC. Cheers 4314:

their wide media access in the United States. The latest edition of Myths and Facts, however, is not one of the better efforts by the pro-Israel side, mainly because it is less adroit than usual at twisting the facts to the benefit of Israel... The original Myths and Facts was published as a byproduct of the Near East Report, a pro-Israel newsletter begun in the 1950s by

10594:, I don't see what difference it makes in the big picture. I think it's reasonable to suspect that China has not been entirely forthcoming; why would they be? I think that if China started the genome sequencing and looking for the virus a few weeks earlier, it might become a cudgel that gets used against them by other countries but will it change anything, really? 6856:. Moving on to the objections above, I notice that a lot of them have to do with predictions of the direction of future climate change. Because we don't know what will happen, that is not factual information. Even in the event that their predictions turn out to be wrong, they will be no more disqualifying than any of the absurdly wrong predictions about covid 6371:

MRC to be less factually reliable than other outlets, we should look at that. Otherwise, options 3 or 4 would merely make Knowledge less neutral. When there is a factual dispute between MRC and another fact checker, editors on a given page should look at the respective arguments (and potentially present the two viewpoints to readers, if appropriate.) --

11056:

Israel's old foe (Exod 17:8-16; 1 Sam 15:1-33). But how does David know that this Amalekite is lying, since David does not know what the reader knows from the preceding chapter? Saul's crown and bracelet look like the plunder that battlefield scavengers would harvest from the slain after a batter, and if the Amalekite could escape, why could not Saul?

7117:- This has been amply demonstrated above. This is not merely about bad predictions or lazy opinion columns (otherwise the comparison to the NYT would make sense). Instead, this is about misrepresentation of facts to push a specific agenda, which is falsely presented as neutral. Reliability is a spectrum, and this is on the far end of that spectrum 324:

for CleanTechnica that excludes the site itself yields plenty of examples of other news media that cite CleanTechnica as a source. In a few days I expect we will see examples among the above mentioned news media citing CleanTechnica for their stories. Such examples could fittingly provide some content and indication of notability to the related

8905:. It’s my main source for news. Very professional approach with some great presenters on its TV network and incredible diversity of opinions. Its web service is reliable and has a wide coverage of events and places. Its coverage of my small corner of the world is invariably accurate. Ruptly provides unmatched video from all parts of the world. 146:, where the CleanTechnica writer is themselves interviewing the person cited and where Fuel Cells "save the day". (It's not explicitly stated that the Fuel Cells are using hydrogen, but hydrogen is basically only usable with fuel cells, so it is as a minimum supporting the main hydrogen use case). This specific source citation was validated by 3793:, Whatculture and Ranker, though Listverse has a broader less pop-culture focused scope than those. I would consider a lowest common denominator listicle site like listverse to be unreliable for facts, and not have any due weight for ranking, and should avoid being cited for attributed opinion. I don't see why listverse ranking 142:. Among the points raised by the previous discussion is that the source favours one technology over another (to the detriment of hydrogen as an energy carrier) and that the source "content appears to summaries of reports and press releases". While there objectively are challenges with hydrogen, it was easy to find an article 7179:. Right there in the headline, they say that the files give "details but no answers." They then write a 6,000 word article without mentioning that there was an ATM videotape of one of the "suspects" a mile away from the alleged scene of the "crime", with a timestamp during the time when the "crime" was supposedly occurring. 6809:"Just becuase they are opinion pieces that does not discount them from being used.” yes, yes it does actually... They havent gone through the paper’s editorial process and thus using them for the RS’s position on a source’s reliability rather than the author’s personal opinion on a sources reliability is inappropriate per 205:

industry-promotional site. The writers there may seek out stories but it looks more like they are tipped to stories from companies that want them to be written up, which are the types of sites we generally avoid. As i noted, they will provide links to actual reports of use which should be the sources to be used instead. --

7051:

provide is just fundamentally not a news service. We shouldn't be citing them just to appear balanced or to find attribution for someone's awful opinions. Why should we even include a statement that was revealed exclusively to one of these sources? If it was actually relevant/noteworthy, actual RSs would pick up on it (

2871:

data presented may be just obsolete) or that it would somehow affect the definition of the term used for railway sabotage operations in WWII (which is what I used it for). Lastly, it is a professional, specialized encyclopedia, a bit old and with a POV, but hardly warranting being called a "picture book propaganda". --

3265:, honestly I wouldn’t use it anywhere except its own page. Neither the system or the institution which produced was known for their credibility and academic rigor. Heck I’m not even sure I’d trust something published by the Polish military last week, there is still a long way to go in terms of professionalism etc. 6909:. It would be more helpful if people stopped trying to defend the crap ones like this, as it tends to give the impression that conservative-leaning media is by default bad media, and that people who defend these sources are more interested in their political leanings than the factualness of their reporting. -- 9211:

source, nor is there in the statement any details being considered - does anyone even know what publications are included under this generic corporate ban ? This isn’t looking to ban specific publication or a specific website or a specific program, it’s looking to ban anything (unstated) tied to the entity

5011:), the "Advisory Board" are wealthy people who donated, and the "Honorary Committee" look like a list of political types that Bard knew from his time at AIPAC. In summary it is clear that none of these people do any work, there is no office or similar – i.e. as mentioned above this is just a glorified blog. 3035:

historiography at least, the real origins may be in Russian, though perhaps in that French movie? But that's speculation, I can't find any sources really so the best we can do to avoid OR is to link and reference the oldest source found); anyway newer sources provide more details and don't contradict it. --

5292:. Using Knowledge ss a source is a red flag. Not seeing it cited much n my quick glance at Scholar/Books. I think in some cases it may be used with due care as a PRIMARY source, and I think it may host copies(?) of some possibly, and I stress, poissbly (I need to look into this further) reliable articles ( 5148:. In the past, discussions on this noticeboard have been upgraded to RfCs once they turned out to be more controversial than initially expected, to attract participation from a wider section of the community. If there is consensus here to downgrade the RfC back to an ordinary discussion, it can be done. — 6935:, and so forth. A third example is the proposition "Ilhan Omar married her brother." Again if you really dig into the evidence, you reach the opposite conclusion from what the "mainstream" sources say. They could see reality easily enough if they chose to, which they don't, and it's a repeating pattern. 10951:

and I have revolves around whether or not we should be stating outright that the account of Saul's death in 1Samuel, and the report from the Amelekite in 2 Samuel should be described explicitly as a conflict within the Bible. Every apologetic I have read has seen no conflict, in that the author gives

10780:

That is because of the "Stopped clock effect": the stopped clock is unreliable, but still gives the right time twice a day. You should not point to the stopped clock as evidence for the time, even if it is one of the two times when that clock does show the right time. "Reliable" means you can rely on

10427:(joke) even on their page? His point does seem to make sense though. Can we talk about that? I specifically wanted to extract this interview from the Epoch Times frame in order to consider his point as a virology expert, which even with his regular contribution to Epoch Times could be mentioned using 10073:

I don't think this is an issue here, I am watching the interview almost in repeat to make sure I didn't prematurely wrote a notice here. And if you watch the interview from 15:12 to 17:53 (where he first says it's impossible) there is no apparent audio gap or appearance of editing. If you want, I can

7204:

My point, which I admit I didn't make very clear, was that this comparison to the NYT's handling of the Duke case is not compelling. In other words, this has almost nothing at all to do with MRC, so this is a distraction. National Review opinions and Amazon links to books published over a decade ago,

7050:

Perhaps the difficulty in finding reliable alt/far-right US sources is just intrinsic to how that ideology treats verifiability and objectivity on the whole? If their methods of reporting are so disconnected from what Knowledge and the majority of news media consider trustworthy, then maybe what they

6270:

Your source there says they’re centrist (*slightly* left of center) and are in the same narrow range as the AP, NPR, and BBC. Also just FYI Knowledge doesn't "discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them," you seem to be operating as if that were a statement of fact

5503:

See my comment of 17:28, 21 April 2020 above for my findings when examining the results of a Google search. Policy reasons for not regarding the JVL as a fully reliable secondary source: authors not always given; sources not always cited; published by an organisation with a mixed reputation for bias;

4885:

for the BBC appears to be from a member of the BBC Club in the Compton Road Library section of that part of the website. The information taken from the JVL is in a 'Facts' sidebox above which is a warning that, "The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites." It then goes on to make

4298:

is a list of strawmen and "rebuttals", entirely one-sided in a highly complex and disputed topic area. It reads like a set of AIPAC talking points. Most of the answers link to sections of Mitchell Bard's version of the book "Myths and Facts" (Bard heads the organization which runs the JVL). That book

2326:

Browning, Christopher R. 1983. “The Final Solution in Serbia: The Semlin Judenlager — A Case Study.” Pp. 55-90 in Yad Vashem Studies. Vol 15. Edited by Livia Rothkirchen. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. 1985. Fateful Months: Essays on the Emergence of the Final Solu¬

1120:

Even so, I don't see alarm bells with Wilson specifically; as stated above, he's been quoted by RS before. Mind you, I have dug deep and haven't unearthed much else about him. (Would he not have standing for hosting one of Australia's top theme park sites for nearly 20 years? If not, no matter). I'll

273:

With a wide range of Wikipedians who have deemed to cite CleanTechnica as a reliable source, there is nothing concrete to suggest that this source should be the contrary. Given this overwhelming body of existing material, we would need concrete, compelling reasons to consider it an unreliable source,

11055:

17. Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume that the narrator's account in 1 Samuel 31, regardless of how he got the information, is reliable. The account told in 2 Sam 1:3-10 is naturally suspect, told as it is by an Amalekite,

10956:

in 2 Samuel. Gleason L. Archer, Elgin Lewis Hushbeck and Carl S. Ehrlich all claim that the report from the Amelekite should not be considered trustworthy. Given Tgeorgescu's sources (Ernest Nicholson and Lucy Bregman) and belief that we should list it as a conflict within the Bible, I have tried

10699:

Update! I just found two sources (one basically translating the other) that suggest they might have received the samples before Dec.30: "Upon interviewing a number of medical doctors who were in charge of treating patients at the very initial stage of the outbreak, Caixin journalists obtained a list

10616:

I get you. It won't change anything about the past. But it might just help the international community to wake up about believing what nations say. I think that this will keep happening if we continue to trust everyone blindly. And maybe pointing out errors in their alledged cover-up (just like this

10117:

I tend to agree with you on that, but it seems that no one else in the mainstream media has noticed/commented this timeline oddity. That's why I came here in the first place, to see if there are other occurences of experts stating that. I also think that the timing of a particular scientific process

10094:

There's also the issue of who the Epoch Times chooses to interview. Does this person represent the scientific mainstream? Would the views they're presenting pass peer review in a reputable journal? The Epoch Times supports the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab, and they found someone

9204:

If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp. If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone

6764:

The USA Today and Hill articles are opinion pieces. The CNBC link is broken. The WaPo piece gets a comment from Tim Graham who works for Media Research Center but does not use them as a source and does not comment on their reliability and in fact the article suggests the Graham’s comment contained a

6599:

largely per Atsme. The sweeping generalizations posed in the RFC are not always applicable, especially when examining the context. If there are issues with sourcing affecting a certain claim, it can be discussed and handled specifically. Is this even really a big problem here or a solution in search

5612:

There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNS, Newsbusters, MRCTV) are, at a minimum, generally unreliable for factual reporting. A significant subset of commenters also endorsed the proposition that these sources publish false or fabricated information, and should

5467:

mention any negative reception for the JVL, such as the review by Donald Neff linked earlier in the discussion above. The JVL article at least has many positive sources in the "Reception" section, I don't see why it can't have criticism as well, but unfortunately I don't have access to JSTOR nor any

4889:

Returning to the main point, there are probably many articles in the JVL whose contents are not touched by the controversies of the the IP conflict. For those that are, there is an underlying problem of how to edit neutrally in Knowledge when much of the source material is politicised, sectarian and

4236:

The source's organizational affiliations aside, I remember having some concerns about its accuracy when working on articles related to Jewish history a while back due to contradictions between it and more academic sources. Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact examples, and I wasn't able to find

3140:

From my own experience, propaganda in this later era was rather subtle (eg. "lie by omission", using too neutral words for own crimes etc.). Is there any evidence author of said book published open falsehoods? Sure, he was military historian of the regime, but this alone doesn´t discount his work as

2448:

Opinions of RS are divided but we as editors need to know if it's RS or not. I can't edit wikipedia for days and someone say that I use source which is not RS. Where it is officially stated? If it is not mentioned anywhere and it was probably discussed here earlier, let's finish it here officially.

2402:

Well, we could look at what the original sources used by Cohen say and see if they individually are reliable sources as a separate question. There's nothing stopping you from using Cohen as a lead to undisputed sources and using those sources instead. I'm not sure how reliable something published in

2337:

Okupatorovi pomagači progone Jevreje. Po raznim mestima Srbije još se krilo nekoliko stotina Jevreja, većinom žena i dece. Nedićevi i Ljotićevi agenti tragali su za takvim licima, iznuđivali od njih novac, a kad bi izvukli i poslednju paru, prijavljivali su ih nemačkim vlastima, koje su ih hapsile i

2075:

country in Europe (despite the inaccuracy that is was actually an occupied territory, not a country) is completely uncontroversial and is in many reliable sources, including Prusin (which I added), Cohen and Haskin (which repeats what Cohen says) amongst others. Not sure what the basis is of a claim

1591:

I'm with GreenC here. This is a perfectly adequate source for the claim that is being made, and it's not required for major news agencies (which often have a bit of blindspot on religion) to report on such a statement for it to meet the bar of verifiability. The task of editors on this article is to

1462:

If The "editor" in charge of the newsletter had written the article there would not any independent editorial judgement. Therefore a self-published source. What makes you believe it is professionally run and not run by the Bishop? As far as I can tell it is a twice monthly newsletter. Turns out

1114:

Respectfully, what's your point? It's credited to a specific author, not site staff. A news article doesn't need to be specifically labelled as such to be news, likewise for op-eds. It's possible they simply left the editorial header off (for whatever reason—perhaps an oversight, perhaps not?) Other

1065:

I'm still digging. I don't echo your concerns, but I'm trying in good faith to respond to them. It appears Wilson is credited for editorials whereas news is attributed to staff. There must be editorial oversight for the latter. I suggested above that Wilson's pieces should be given with attribution,

891:

Their stated editorial policy outlines a commitment to fair, reliable and accurate reporting. Their online site has a much broader scope than the former two (they publish articles on leisure/entertainment activities and attractions, not just theme parks). Articles specific to the theme park industry

785:

The site has an extensive (admittedly incomplete) database similar to RCDB, although it encompasses rides and attractions, not just coasters. Although registered users may edit the database, any changes made are not published until they have been verified and fact-checked by staff. I've spot-checked

188:

that cite CleanTechnica and the editors of each of these citations has made the determination to quote CleanTechnica in support for the added information. While we can not ask the opinion of everyone who previously made such a determination I am now asking a few of you for your opinion regarding the

10706:

saying "on December 24, a deputy chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine performed bronchoscopy on the patient and then sent the patient ’s alveolar lavage fluid sample Tripartite testing agency Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology". Does adding these independent sources on top of it

9994:

page about the possibility that they might have received the samples earlier than 30 December, 2019. Because, according to him, it would be impossible to get the whole genome sequence in three days (you might have to browse a bit in order to get the right time of the start of the interview, the tag

6617:. While I would stay away from this source due to its skewed and contrarian fact-checking, I see that it is fairly relevant to the conservative media, and it could be used to cite opinions of prominent conservatives, but that is all anyone can use it for. Everything from MRC needs to be attributed. 6370:

Knowledge should follow the lead of the typical RS, not the lead of a handful of critical stories. Bigger picture, Knowledge is increasingly in danger of deprecating any voices that disagree with the dominant cultural narrative in the United States. If someone has done a study or analysis showing

5897:

notes in 2009: "Mark Finkelstein of the ever-vigilant Newsbusters pounced on this last comment, accusing me of pandering to liberals by suggesting that conservatives who 'question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union.' I’m not entirely clear on

3034:

article, the source doesn't say anything new - I just added it there to show that the term has been used decades ago (I think it is the oldest source I found that uses this term and such dating is useful in historiography as well, suggesting when and where the term might have originated - in Polish

2417:

As far as I know about the history of the Croatian Nazis, Camps, crimes, foreign historians mostly use these "Yugoslavian Communist block" sources so I don't know how to do that if we stopped using these sources, we would probably have a couple of independent sources as far as the former Yugoslavia

2090:

Cohen is and was a war propagandist, this book is the prime example. A number of historians and other uni. professors have raped his propagandistic little books and there is no consensus among historians that it's reliable, not by a long shot. Sometimes, getting a good publisher is not always about

1568:

The question isn't whether the bishop actually said the thing, the question is whether or not Knowledge should care about it if no reliable sources picked it up. You can say anything on your personal blog/diocesan newspaper/whatever and it's verifiable that you said it, but Knowledge and that blog

971:

parkz.com has a faint whiff of SPS as its editor also write news articles for it, and many more are anonymous (by the staff, of 2 one of whome is the editor). ourworlds.co seems to admit they (in effect) generate income through paid content, and that is all I can find out. ALM is harder as I cannot

729:

article and would like to establish reliability for three sites that are used in the article: Parkz, OurWorlds and Australasian Entertainment Management. I am hopeful that we can establish a consensus that all sites—particularly Parkz—are reliable. I have conducted plenty of research and hunted for

633:

It's possible we cannot reach a unanimous consensus regarding CleanTechnica. Over the years dozens (if not hundreds) of Wikipedians (including some very experienced ones) have chosen to cite CleanTechnica. While editors who just want to add what they self-evidently consider to be notable, technical

582:

The above mentioned CleanTechnica article is indeed special, as it details a sequence of Tesla-related mudslinging on social media. The writer is a 'Johnna Crider' who in 2020 started writing stories on CleanTechnica that seem to be mostly concerned with social media and COVID19. Knowledge does not

428:

validations performed by the editors who decide to cite the source - who in this case probably number in the hundreds. It should be quite possible to write a bot that for a given search string (e.g. cleantechnica.com) will identify all edits that have introduced that string in a source citation all

323:

Correct, we certainly do not assume reliability until proven otherwise. Every editor is supposed to quote a reliable source and while some may fail to do so, wide usage by a range of editors is a strong if implicit indication that the source is indeed reliable. Be that as it may, an Internet search

10852:

The interview is as unusable as the outlet; firstly, there is the issue of whether the "expert"'s views are being presented accurately and reliably by the unreliable source, and then there is the point JoelleJay raises, that the "expert" is not independent of the Epoch Times to begin with (so, his

10765:

I still find it funny though that it basically says the approximate same thing as those two other sources, but is defacto unreliable because it's the Epoch Times. I guess it'll take more time for me to understand how WP works. But I bet some of you already had that kind of flame I have to find and

10617:

one) might help detecting the signs of a terrible outbreak in the future. That's why I do it. I don't want that thing happening again. And if we can find ways to scientifically detect cover-ups, like by looking at research timelines, well it's a hell of a powerful tool for pandemic prevention imo.

9210:

The material below the ‘first’ statement is also part of the RFC, and all description of the issue is to be neutral - which here is just a vague denunciation and call to mob action. There does not seem to be a RFC question in discussions needing dispute resolution, nor of RT (TV) as a ‘perennial’

9099:

is still a thing should put things in context. The presumption should be to remove the material cited to RT. If there's a discussion that leads to a consensus to include the source for some good reason (like describing the state's views, or describing a situation that no independent journalist has

7742:

I want to say on non-political stories of news events within Russia, like natural or man-made disasters, RT tends to have more coverage than we'd get out of other international sources and they have little reason to mask this information. But this is more where I'd see a carve out for when only RT

7182:

That gives a rather clear answer, and the ABC news story about the video was dated four months prior to the NYT publishing its story. So there was an answer, it had been clear publicly for months, but the NYT claimed there wasn't one. The same point is made by KC Johnson, who wrote a well-received

7028:

that reliable sources describe it as a "conservative media watchdog", or something along those lines. It does appear to do some fact-checking regarding inaccuracies targeting conservativess. Overall, the reliability can be conflicted according to who you ask, so additional considerations should be

5208:

in large parts, though some things it can be used as a convenience link for when they have copies of hard to find documents. But things like Myths and Facts is straight up propaganda and the articles that cite and or duplicate Knowledge show the generally low quality of much of the material on the

4269:

That's older than I'd like for evaluating an online source, but I think that based on this praise I would say generally reliable for Jewish history outside Israel/Palestine, evaluate case-by-case and use with attribution for claims related to Israel/Palestine while still maintaining our preference

4005:

Its a Liturgical and practical manual published by a Chicago dioscese seminary. Slugger you haven't even sourced that the manual is in use anywhere, let alone that it is prescripts are being followed in any actual churches. Yet you are using it to say that the entire church is performing what it

2870:

which were effectively censored out of existence until 1989 etc.). But for most other issues it should be reliable, setting aside that it is now ~45 years old as well. There is no reason to assume the censorship/propaganda would affect the information on German casualties in 1939 (but again it the

1522:

The bigger problem is actually that the article is basically how in actuality the situation is exactly the opposite and priests in Africa are discriminating against AIDS victims. I could NPOV the content in the article by adding this but I honestly don't think this article is RS for content about

1363:

source, there's nothing extraordinary about it. The South African bishops are repeating something the Church has been teaching for decades, and a Catholic newspaper is an entirely reasonable place to find news and information about the Catholic Church. AlmostFrancis believes "a Catholic diocese is

654:

OK, let's think about this for a moment. CT is typically cited for low level claims that have little significance, basically industry to reader via CT. I don't have a big issue with such claims. However, what should we make of their in depth reporting? Well we have sources that have questioned

11032:

in 2 Samuel: "Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, the reader is supposed to assume the narrator account in 1 Samuel .. The account told in 2 Samuel 3-10 is naturally suspect told as it is by an Amelekite." This is why we have had an editting war where I

10988:

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Knowledge's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Knowledge reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those

6068:"deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration." 6061:

I disagree with the two arguments presented directly above that are aimed at discrediting my iVote. With regards to the gentlemen's opinions as to what is or isn't a RS, I remain openminded and responsive to constructive criticism - no one is perfect - and I probably would be more inclined to pay

6042:

I understand that you want conservative sources to be considered reliable. The problem is that mainstream sources are reliable first and political second (e.g WSJ, WaPo) whereas a considerable body of academic research shows that conservative sources are conservative first, last and all points in

4313:

The Arab-Israeli conflict is littered with propaganda masquerading as information. Both sides are active in this black art, where distorting the facts to one side’s favor is considered success. In general, Israel and its supporters have been more adept in this poisonous pursuit, mainly because of

2533:

You don't seem to listen. Whether Cohen's book is controversial has no bearing on whether his sources are reliable or controversial. The thing to do is take his sources and look at whether they are published by experts under publishers that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and if

2311:

by Semptember of 1944 capture about 455 remaining Jews in Serbia who were handed over to the Banjica camp where they were killed immediately." (page 83), the footnote in the book is this "Lowenthal (1957), pp. 42-43; Romano (1980), p. 75; Hilberg (1985), p. 692; Browning (1983), p. 90" and it is

1980:

What I have to do with the evil Serbs. I spent my time editing wikipedia and someone deletes one source with the claim that it is a propaganda source and it is not RS. I have no problem with that but it must be officially established. The informations from book which I used has its sources in the

1500:

The quote is not stating anything extraordinary or biased and the source is perfectly acceptable for confirming what the Church declared. If the church actually followed through on it etc.. is a different matter. To counter the quote for example sources that say the Catholic Church said AIDS is a

1413:

page. Some quotes "the Catholic News Herald is the official news outlet for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, N.C." and "The Catholic News Herald is a tool of evangelization and communication". The publisher is the Diocese and there is not even a claim of independence. The author of the

232:

CT are going to be very limited. My concern with CT as a RS is largely based on what I've read from sources that don't pass WP:RS criteria but none the less make strong arguments. I generally feel CT is very promotional and is likely feed select bits of information from companies. Conflicts of

9398:

My argument for not using RT to cover official statements by the Russian government is that RT might not provide appropriate context to those statements. For example, if the Russian government's official position entails falsehoods and conspiracy theories, then RT would omit that context whereas

2319:

Lowenthal, Zdenko, ed. 1957. The Crimes of the Fascist Occupants and Their Collaborators against Jews in Yugoslavia. Belgrade: Federation of Jewish Communities of the Federative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. -. 1972. ‘‘Yugoslavia.” In Geoffrey Wigoder (editor-in-chief). Encyclopedia Judaica.

1891:

I have this Croatian review I quote: "Prevede li se Cohenova knjiga, zacijelo neće bitno pridonijeti hrvatskoj historiografiji. O svim zbivanjima i povijesnim činjenicama koje nalazimo kod Cohena već je mnogo pisano i raspravljano. Dovoljno je samo prisjetiti se izdanja Ljubice Štefan, Vladimira

5546:

Feel free to make the request yourself. Any editor can request closure of any discussion, and it makes no difference who the requester is. Please note that discussions on this noticeboard are automatically archived just over five days after the most recent signed comment. Due to my comment, the

4678:

is one factor that is considered when evaluating a source's reliability. This factor carries more weight for less popular sources (e.g. a non-notable publication with a small editorial team), and less weight for major publications (whose articles receive comment from reliable sources due to the

3887:

by John C. Kasza, pages 169-173. Hillenbrand describes itself as being "focused on contemporary and classical theological thought concerning the liturgy of the Catholic Church. St. Mary of the Lake is a seminary associated with the Archdiocese of Chicago. Is it a reliable source for information

2343:

The occupier's helpers persecuted the Jews. They were still hiding in various places in Serbia several hundred Jews, mostly women and children. Nedić's and Ljotić's agents searched for such people, extorted money from them, and when they extract the last penny, they reported them to the German

1932:

That's what I found online from Croatia, I hope it doesn't offend you that I'm from Croatia. I cannot choose the country of my birth and origin. We are all here together to make wikipedia better and not to look who is from where. These historians from review worked in Yugoslavia and Yugoslavian

6317:

I apologize then, thats my mistake. On the core issue I’m still struggling to see Atsme’s point here and I’m pretty sure we share a party affiliation. The MRC family of outlets may be conservative but they have some serious reliability problems, in particular related to misinformation and fact

5489:

I went through a random sampling of articles linked to JVL and all of them had sources and bibliography. I reiterate my concern that this is a push to get rid of a source that may be pro-Israel from Knowledge. This source is used on almost 1,000 articles the supermajority of them not in the IP

2123:

I agree that Cohen should not be used as a lone source due to the controversy. But to say his book was “raped” by historians is problematic in a number of ways. You left out the numerous professors that gave positive response to his book. As for Cohen’s book, Professor Brendan Simms, Fellow of

836:) is a professional media production company. They have existed at their current domain since 2012 and publish news articles, park/ride reviews and (frankly stunning) ride photography/media. Their news updates are similar in quality to those of Parkz: non-speculative news and industry updates, 673:

My focus here is verified high-profile frauds (Enron, Worldcom) and groups who claim they've discovered a high-profile company committing fraud (at the moment TSLAQ and WeQ, albeit the latter hasn't been referenced in published material as of yet so I haven't published an article). My history

464:] in their pro-Tesla bias. Articles such as this one are pure op-ed yet the site does not indicate as such. This is more troubling given the fiscal ties between CT and Tesla both in terms of may editors being share holders and the way Tesla effectively trades access for favorable coverage. 455:

CT should only be used as a limited RS and with great caution. As a source of statements of others perhaps but not as a source of reliable, independent commentary. The chief editor has been accused of bias/conflict of interest in his coverage, especially as it relates to Tesla Inc vs other

251:

In addition to the 8 articles where the above mentioned (8) editors chose to cite CleanTechnica as a source, I have looked at another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica - out of currently 822 articles in main that mention it (although some not as a source), and have made these observations:

4930:

I have an image in my head of this one guy behind AICE/JVL sitting at his home-office in his pajamas occasionally updating an entry or writing a new one. It seems to, in practice, be a glorified blog. Sure he occasionally gets credible writers to write attributed articles, but even then who

2254:

Basically. Cohen is not a historian but a lawyer. However he does heavily cite his writings from books and articles written by historians and professors. But his wording is not neutral in the book. And seems more reactionary to Serbian slanted books than simply a neutral history textbook .

586:

As for the actual, ca. 800 (!) CleanTechnica citations we have on Knowledge, they have been added over many years by a wide range of editors some of which are highly experienced (see above for a few) and the citations themselves have typically generated no controversy. Apart from a single,

376:

Why is an IP address opining here? The above doesn't really make them reliable so much as just a blog like site that is happy to published content for others. I would be happy to use CT as a source to say something like "Ford said that Ford will release such and such an EV". That's just

2109:@Sadko feel free to quote all the data from his book which are propaganda and which have no source in some RS in the footnote. You can made a separate chapter in this discussion where you will expose all propaganda informations without confirmation that everyone see what it is all about. 10749:

for now, until it's not proven, but will be adding those two other articles. I thought that if you had multiple sources at once, you could include one that has less reliability, because the final reference is the combination of all three. Might be my lack of WP knowledge though, thanks!

1904:, Bogdan Krizman, Ivan Jelić. For American wider public this historical reading is nevertheless a first-class discovery. This book should change distorted interpretation of events in Croatia during the Second World War, and providea true picture of Serbs and their historical forgeries." 1840:

is a generally reliable publisher so that's a tossup. Due to his points of view being potentially in the minority or controversial this is more a question of DUE weight and whether the statements should be attributed. A number of expert historians were critical of the book's statements.

9437:

Even for supposedly benign reporting, the fact that it's an extension of the Russian political propaganda machine and unable to report independently means any news story published is subject to interference and oversight. I say we nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

8026:, since I myself have never cited it. I don't believe in giving blanket passes or making blanket bans, but I am in the minority on that and don't have to deal with one of the hotspots in which it might be (ab)used. Apologies but the change to an RfC convinced me to stay out of this. -- 8123:- Is propaganda. Even if some of its articles are not propaganda, that others are propaganda, is why we should not use it for anything. We don't need to cite to RT to show the positions of Putin. We can cite to reliable sources discussing Putin's positions and/or how RT is propaganda. 4072:. Some point out that it cites other reliable sources, but they also indicate that those citations are not always truthful and that there is little evidence of editorial control, and that the articles are altogether of variable quality. Almost every editor seems to agree that it is a 2353:) one of four which are listed for the information which I enter to The Holocaust in Serbia article. As far as I can see the Cohen book has a lot of Yugoslav sources. Such sources are certainly not propaganda, and whether someone doesn't like that informations is another matter. 9205:

else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise

658:

I stand by my statements that CT is a source that has shown bias when doing original reporting and has a COI when reporting on Tesla material, especially when reporting on "leaked" emails or production numbers which later impact the company's stock price. It is a tainted source.

204:

We can have articles on notable sources that are not reliable for being used on WP. (That said, what's on CT's article right not isn't going to pass the GNG....) The problem with the site is not so much a specific focus on a type of clean energy but that generally it looks like a

9711:

I don't see how reporting unpopular opinions makes a source reliable, particularly when those opinions have already been published in reliable sources. What makes sources unreliable is when they treat opinions as facts. For example, your first example quotes climate change denier

6473:

at page 64 describes "Web sites like Newsbusters" as "willing accomplices in the campaign of deceit ... that often propagate climate change disinformation." On extremely rare occasions it might be cited for its own opinion with in-text attribution, but in most cases that would be

9243: 5911:, as well as: "a website that devotes itself to 'combating liberal media bias.' NewsBusters was launched by the Media Research Center in 2005, the same group behind CNSNews.com. It has been criticized by Media Matters and others for its questionable fact-checking techniques." 4911:

I would be hesitant to delist something that is being used in a content dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area and note that delisting it would add more bias to articles in that area. I would also ask people to note that many people here have no problems with using

2562: 10473:

By the way, the WIV page has this notice on the top. I don't know if it is appropriate to add it here, because I don't really understand what it implies. But ultimately, this discussion will help decide the faith of a reference that will be used/not used on this page. And

4092:

source in cases where it cites another non-internet source, but they also mention that in those cases it would also be preferable if the original source could be cited instead. Thus, I believe the consensus of the below discussion is that the JVL should be considered a

1050:

The reason I said "parkz.com has a faint whiff of SPS" is because its editor also writes for it, this there is no clear line between authorship and editorial oversight. IN essence anything he writes for the site is SPS. Anything that is not attributed might has similar

630:(2017). To return to the direct discussion of CleanTechnica, it could well be appropriate to mention on the CleanTechnica article the critical claims of Niedermeyer (as clearly attributed to him). This could help our readers form a more nuanced opinion on CleanTechnica. 9822:

In general, most international news stories on RT are factual and relate to true events, and provide center-right coverage. However, they for stories involving Russia they are highly biased in favor of Russia and occasionally run Pro-state conspiracy stories. Cheers

6978:

all but says that its subject is a rapist, even though overwhelming evidence says he is not. Meanwhile, I get warned about sanctions for having the audacity to even mention a proposition supported by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Because reliability and truth!

6695:, since this is a source that supports clearly false information like climate change denial, it cannot be used to cite facts. Some of its affiliates should absolutely be blacklisted, but the main org could still conceivably be useful to cite opinions with attribution. 7227:

It has to do with it in the following sense. If we depro right-wing (or "conservative", to me the words are interchangeable) sources for allegedly changing facts to suit their agenda, but accept the same from left-wing (or liberal) sources, we have a double standard.

7186:

about the case. The deceptive ones in this instance are the NYT, not NewsBusters, which is precisely why we need the latter. And if you don't think this was all done in the name of pushing the NYT's leftist agenda, well, their own public editor said pretty much that.

2761:

I'd think it might be reliable for the distance between the place and Tolar Grande. Maaaybe for the animals&plants as it's rough information. For tourist numbers (there'd be a conflict of interest) or more complex assertions (not recognized experts) probably not.

10014:

in the field. Maybe his opinion on the subject could be found elsewhere, but I find this particular interview to be detailled enough, regarding the timing of a scientific process, to be relevant. I want to know wether this interview in particular could be considered

1685: 7585:

No need to change existing guidance “RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics.” And for general topics, no consensus although “Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of

3181: 9276:

Everything above the Survey is part of the RFC statement. Here, what little is above Snooganssnoogans first signature is reasonable, but then he goes into denunciation. Tell you what, I’ll exercise RFC norms and put in the default and see if that flies. Cheers

1209:(you need a subscription to see some of them)—they have a plethora of relevant articles to compare against Parkz. I only used one example, but could cite many. I hope this establishes that Parkz do have quality reporting and don't just tread on the rumour mill. — 583:

appear to cite any articles by this writer. Since Knowledge is not news, I can easily see how articles of that nature would remain uncited here at Knowledge, not necessarily because of claims of bias but just because their content appears unencyclopedic in nature.

10575:

Thank you that's very constructive. What do you think of the actual matter behind it though? Do you think it will get repeated sometime? I will start looking at it, but knowing the scientific process, I find that the timeline is indeed strange... Anyway, thanks!

9347:. Mmmm... spreading of hatred, incitement to mob action and extermination, done outside of any due process or judicial norms of evidence and law... the word ‘lynching’ seems metaphorically spot on. I suppose you could make literal use of ‘rigged proceeding’ or ‘ 8978:

This is simply a propaganda outlet concerned with promoting the Russian government, not truth or verifiability. Of course, there are very specific situation were it can be useful as some people have mentioned, but those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

755:), community forum and photo archive. The site has been operating since June 2002 with Richard Wilson as its main editor. Parkz publishes news articles about the theme park industry, ride/coaster updates and financial/performance analyses. They are often used by 6734: 5004:

I also found that impressive at first. But the "Board of Directors" are paid zero (per the tax return) so likely don't do much (that may be ok for a real charity, but given the amount Bard is paying himself it seems unlikely they would do meaningful work

1501:

punishment from God, include a following sentence w/ multiple POVs. Or show this quote has counter-evidence, then make a WEIGHT case for its removal. But pedantically lawyering RS without taking into context what is actually said is a blunt approach. --

730:

sources from the 90s and 00s, and Parkz is consistently one of the only sources useful for information from this period. I strongly endorse these sites as being reliable, but nevertheless the dialogue should be had. Here's some background for all three:

3188: 377:

regurgitating a press release. I wouldn't trust CT to be critical when reporting something like "Tesla to have 1 million robotaxies on the road this year!" Same when "sources leak" an "internal" email at Tesla that causes the share price to move up.

9853:

Is a new article reliant on non English sources, this would not be an issue except the article about the chief subject makes no mention of this controversy (and seems to even contradict some of it), and seems to use archaic terms. And it is using this

6901:. It's clear that it starts with its conclusions, then seeks "evidence" to support them. Exactly the wrong way to do journalism. There are quality, reliable news sources whose editorial board leans towards the American political right, such as the 5426:

which is much better than anything on *.wp on the subject). I have trouble seeing why using that link would be a problem. As with most of these blanket pronouncements, I fear that "we" are tossing the baby out of the pram with the toys sometimes. --

9233:

that forbids the discussion starter from participating in the discussion. It is common for editors who author the RfC statement to immediately follow the statement with their opinion on the issue. Examples include these recently closed RfCs from the

720: 8924:

Seems a bit of a gap from 2 to 3. I think deprecation is OTT and attribution is as usual sufficient to deal with potentially suspect material. I just rolled over to rt.com and I don't see anything too outrageous there (other than the usual anti-US

7335: 7161:

which barely discusses the "controversy" at all, and a much longer article which provides real substance, but is only used by the article to prop up a cherry-picked quote. Sources don't show that this is a killer comparison, for a lot of reasons.

4916:

in the same IP area. People are also conflating subjects in the general Jewish area and in the IP area. I think a distinction can be made. We should not remove this resource from the encyclopedia merely because people don't like it in one area.

288:

I don’t think one generally assumes reliability of a source until proven unreliable. Usage by other editors also doesn’t really mean anything.A more useful barometer: what do independent reliable sources say about CleanTechnica? I’ve only found

4638:

on a Jewish ambassador to Bahrain. The source seems to be used infrequently, but widely. I agree that lots of its pages are terrible, of course, but it seems like a blanket statement is a step too far based upon its support in other contexts.

3630: 6793:

used a fact from MRC's findings related to Trump's media coverage. The author's may provide their opinions about Trump's media coverage later on but that does not exclude from the fact MRC is being used to supply facts for these RSs. Regards

6007:

This editor has provided nothing to indicate that MRC and its arms have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bizarrely enough, the editor's sole argument for the reliability of MRC is that actual reliable sources have found MRC to be

10669:

Epoch Times has strong political motivations behind their reporting of COVID-19. They themselves refer to the virus as the certainly non-neutral "CCP Virus", so to include a supposed "expert interview" from someone involved in the group (as

2563:

https://books.google.hr/books?id=Fz1PW_wnHYMC&pg=PA83&dq=Harald+Turner+serbia+1942+Judenfrei&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-0efZnMzpAhXSwosKHRMKC3oQ6AEIMzAB#v=onepage&q=Harald%20Turner%20serbia%201942%20Judenfrei&f=false

2091:

having a great work, as we are not living in a perfect world. He is sometimes used but with obligatory "According to". For serious statements such as that one, his work should be the last in line to be used, as there are far better sources.

10058:

The problem is that we can not trust the Epoch Times to accurately present what the expert said. Even with video, an interview can be edited (manipulated) so that it appears as if the expert said X, when he in fact said Y (or even Not X).

6389:

If the "typical" appearance in reliable sources is a superficial mention, like a three-word description with no deeper analysis, then Knowledge should not rely upon that, but instead focus on the analyses which have looked more carefully.

2843:). This RSN report is the account's 4th edit, and in its second edit it removed the reference I added to a stub I created just a few hours ago; same day another new account has been disrupting another article I have been expanding. So AGF/ 1359:, is a reliable source for: "In 2001, in an effort to fight discrimination against AIDS patients, the bishops of South Africa declared that "AIDS must never be considered as a punishment from God."" I contend that while it is certainly a 4097:, and the sources it cites should be preferred instead, with allowance for case by case exceptions, i.e. some articles which are of sufficient quality, as a WP:SPS on the opinion of it's authors, or as a WP:PRIMARY link of convenience. 3959:

rather than a university that happens to have a Catholic affiliation. Seminaries are very much a part of the church in a way that Catholic universities and colleges aren't. I would not consider them to be a reliable academic publisher.

786:

several entries and believe they're highly accountable. As a matter of fact, there are occasional minute discrepancies between Parkz and RCDB entries, but I believe Parkz may actually be more accurate in these cases. A good example is

2943:

A new account using same naming pattern as previous socks and instantly jumping to fight issues that other accounts were debating with Piotrus? Nothing suspicious at all. Anyway this is a highly reliable source that fulfils sourcing

130:. We certainly have articles on news media that is non-reliable, so the talk page question is easily answered. However, I noticed that the discussion of CleanTechnica as reliable source was very brief, started by the aforementioned 9564:. In a tightly controlled authoritarian state like Russia, no media is allowed to be any else, so no Russian media can be trusted. If it is allowed to exist in peace, it exists at the mercy of Putin and must serve his purposes. -- 4698:

a minor factor compared to what reliable sources say about the publication's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. However, for smaller or less controversial publications with little to no direct coverage in reliable sources,

1176: 1665: 5181:

I agree with Sir Joseph.The JVL is valuable source but like any source that may have some slant should be used with care..No one yet proved any proof of unreliablity. And the fact it used by multiple scholarly papers as source

1592:

try to present the diversity of views on this topic in a neutral and balanced manner. That the sentiment behind this statement may not always prevail on the ground is a separate question from whether this is a reliable source.

6120:

I believe they’re saying they disagree with the entire way wikipedia defines reliability and that they do not consider NTY and WaPo to be reliable sources. Such an argument would be well beyond the bounds of this discussion.

2387:

How then do we know that some information or the book itself is propagandistic? I guess we analyze information from the book and check if this informations are true or have confirmation in some source. What is propaganda?

5295:), but those uses would be an exception to the rule. PS. On second thought, I am not sure JVL has permission to even reprint that article, so even its use as a mirror might be problematic due to a possible copyvio angle.-- 4067:

A quick headcount shows that most participants to this RfC do not find the source reliable. Many editors point out that the Jewish Virtual Library (henceforth, JVL) sometime cites Knowledge, which would make it a case of

2052:

Section title is reason for removing this source from the Judenfrei article of some editor. These information(from this book) have been confirmed by other sources in Judenfrei article but this book supposedly is not RS.

6181:

what did you mean then? It seems like you’re suggesting that they did inaccurate reporting RE Trump and Russia and as such would be inappropriate to use in that context, did you mean to suggest something else entirely?

7310:

The site purposefully disseminates fake news. Not "fake news" in the pejorative sense of the term, but in that it publishes literal disinformation to advance a far-right agenda. Not suitable for use in the Knowledge.

1200: 6827:

Can you point to the specific policy that supports your POV here? The RS policy talks about using opinion articles as citations for Knowledge articles. Where does it talk about using them to establish reliability?

3739: 2807:: "The books of the publishing house are characterized by large amount of socialist propaganda and therefore should not be treated as a completely objective source.". A user put it back saying I should take it here 1001:"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" 9117:, regrettably. It's unfortunate to lose the occasional citations where RT reports on something objectively, but there are just too many conspiracy theories being recycled on RT without any level of fact-checking. 981: 9376:, but I don't think Knowledge should link to a conspiracy theory promoting propaganda machine for official statements either, even if they can reliably report on Russian leaders. I suggest that instances such as 9518:

and/or when it contains important details not covered in any other source. If the use of RT for Knowledge-voice statements is questioned, the burden of proof should be on the inserting editor to demonstrate why

2162:

Cohen is a very controversial and questioningly relevant source. Many relevant scholars and observers dispute him. His claims can be cited as one of the views, but we should never cite them as a fact or a final

4886:

the same kind of claim for its being "listed as reference" by a number of universities. The "reference" listed by Purdue University is an inclusion of a virtual tour of Prague in an Internet Resources section.

2840: 651:, what the hell is that load of BS? Are you just making things up? I've never said the CT article should be removed and I've never accused those who have cited CT of doing so in bad faith. That is total BS. 634:

content to our articles may not themselves want to engage in a meta-discussion such as this one, I think their opinions should be solicited if we are to change how CleanTechnica should be cited at Knowledge.

6318:

checking. I’ve voted to deprecate RT and CGTN on the exact same grounds elsewhere on this page so the argument that there is no meat on the bones here and its all a liberal charade just doesn't fly with me.

3238: 1954:

It seems he was providing a quote not his own words. However a biased a partisan quote of which I don’t see what it has to do with the discussion here. I don’t think he himself is calling anyone “evil”. And

1677: 796:

The ride was promoted as a 1.4km coaster, which is likely a rounded-off figure that RCDB runs with. Parkz entries typically have more information about a ride's history, construction cost, changes over time

7845:

Thats kind of the catch-22 with state sponsored propaganda outfit like these, if it wasn’t somehow political they wouldn’t produce/run the story by definition. *Nothing* they publish is “fully apolitical.”

6224:

is a trusted source - read the linked article if you haven't already seen it. My thoughts about your presumptions and analogy would probably put you to sleep, so with a bit of levity, I invite you to read

6039:, but is not specific to this particular source, which is clearly inaccurate. CJR rejects this source entirely, and its statements on things like climate change clearly indicate that it can'ty be relied on. 1872:

Actually a number of historians have said his book is accurate and fair when discussing the topic of WWII and aligns with other historians’ views about the era. So seems overall the book is RS. In fact the

1333: 966: 269:

Give some extra days I (or someone else) could review another 50 articles that cite CleanTechnica, but I see no indication that additional sampling among the about 800 CleanTechnica uses would change these

5464: 4837: 4143: 1418:

when they doing so professionaly. Its a well produced church newsletter and RS for activities at the church. I do also want to point out that the biggest issue is putting the content in wikipedias voice.

10445:

This isn't really the place to discuss the merits of his position, although to me it reads as a blatant attempt at duping naïve laypeople into believing one of a revolving cast of anti-China conspiracies

5708: 7796: 5800: 4482:

If they use us verbatim for even one article that means (to my mind) they are not an RS, as how does that demonstrate a reputation for fact checking? There are better sources they use, so lets use those.

2888:"Socking" or no "socking", this is an old source published by the Ministry of Defense of a Communist state - organizations which aren't, AFAIK, noted for their honest and reliable public communications. 2035:

I’m slightly confused by the section title. A book that is about historical propaganda isn’t necessarily propaganda itself. It sounds like that’s the basis of challenging the reliability of the books? —

5648: 3761: 694:

I got a notification about this discussion. I like to write about energy matters and I think CleanTechnica is a good source for information. I would like to be able to cite CleanTechnica in the future.

10853:

own reliability is called into question), and thirdly there is the issue Thucydides411 raises, that they picked this specific expert to advance their existing conspiracy theory, when his views may be

813:

A Parkz member, "docoaster", created a digital animation of DC Rivals in March 2017; VRTP themselves took notice and consulted "docoaster" for their official animated trailer a couple of months later.

1855:

I do not use his conclusions, I use his information which some of them are confirmed by other sources. He in the book cites many sources. His book is used as a source of information by historians.

5582: 4076:, and particular criticism is directed at the "Myths & Facts" section of the website, which should not be used on Knowledge – this also mirrors the outcome of previous discussions cited at the 5941:: "We contacted Newsbusters and indeed, their executive editor Tim Graham told us they had regurgitated the story from another source without trying to contact Nance before posting". In addition: 3810: 1153:

Or it could be...that is the point. It could be any number of reasons, and thus I need to see they have a reputation for fact checking. I want to be confidant this is not just one blokes opinions.

258:

The information added has not been reverted or significantly modified by subsequent editors, suggesting that the content is non-controversial and that a larger number of editors see it as useful.

5623: 3779: 261:

Occasionally other editors have reviewed these source citations (updating the access-date, introducing citation template, etc.), again suggesting a wider acceptance of the source among editors.

10039:

for their behaviour during the pandemic, and by including one of their videos here It doesn't mean that I adhere or promote their views/behaviour, which is in fact the opposite. Please don't

1918:

Coming here with this "I am just trying to provide the true story of the evil Serbs from a Croat perspective" is probably not going to work out well. Same goes for anyone doing the opposite.

3743: 778:

They do publish editorials/opinion pieces (written by Wilson) about the industry/specific parks and attractions, although claims are typically backed up with references to events and facts.

6993:

Ah yes, the old "Someone did something wrong once too, so there is no way to judge anyone else wrong ever" argument. Take your false equivalences elsewhere. We're all filled up here. --

2671:

It is probably the local tourist board. The website has a contact number phone available Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00, but doesn't state its affiliation clearly. The domain itself (puna.gob.ar) is

2613:

The source is not propaganda, it was published by a US academic publisher and got some favorable reviews. Yes, it does not have pro-Serb POV and should be used alongside other sources for

6743: 5468:

other repositories for journals and articles of the sort, which makes finding sources challenging. Sorry if this doesn't belong in this discussion, FWIW I also support the view that it's

4088:, and some participants find that it is a valuable source on the particular viewpoints it represents. Editors mention that the website of the JVL could be used as a link of convenience/a 3864: 3585:

This feels like mission creep in terms of the source deprecation process. It was originally created for fake news sites / sites that routinely publish fabricated information, such as the

2982:

I am very hesitant about using sources even a few decades ago on WWII because the historiography has changed a lot. I think that we can do a lot better than this source for articles like

2463:

Yes, I know that, and that is the point. Our key is a "reputation for fact checking", plenty of expert opinion says "this is well researched", thus is has that reputation, this its an RS.

424:

On a related note, I will follow up on my above presented idea that a massive body of already cited material from a wide range of editors constitutes a large number of small but specific

6869: 6070:

Until then, I choose to trust my instincts and experience as a WP editor, coupled with what I've learned after a very successful 30+ year career as a media professional. Happy editing!

4890:

affected by denialism, falsification, omission, misrepresentation and distortion. The problem then is that you're dealing with different narratives of which the JVL is transmitting one.

3125:

to write "In the first few days, Germany sustained very heavy losses: Poland cost the Germans 993 tanks and armored vehicles as campaign losses of which 300 tanks were never recovered".

2796:

I removed this because it is a communist-era picture book propaganda published by colitmmunist ministry of defense, at the height of nationalist hate whipping by the communists in 1975.

7441:

There is general consensus that RT is an unreliable source for Knowledge content, and that it publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated along the lines of the

6043:

between. There used to be a time when conservative-leaning media behaved like liberal-leaning media, but that is pretty much over. The conservative media bubble is unmoored from fact.

577:- to use Niedermeyer as source. This writer who is so deeply entrenched in Tesla-criticism is clearly unsuitable for determining whether something is in fact biased in regard to Tesla. 490:

I noticed their puzzling use of the loaded 'ugly' in connection with Tesla as a company. In searching for my own (potentially years-old) CleanTechnica contributions, I discovered that

3394:, ech. Burke's used to be worthwhile but it's hard to say now. That said, both are storied institutions so don't fall into the same bracket as these self-published nobility fansites. 3323: 185: 6960:

violation if you then directly endorse the conspiracy theory... Please retract. This is also not the appropriate place to be posting your general musings about the mainstream media.

5889:: "Conservative media watch group Newsbusters argued, 'Anti-Bush 9-11 'Truthers' get a fair hearing from the New York Times, but anti-Obama 'Birthers' are harshly criticized.'" In a 3128:

LMAO, this is a picture book, half the pages are pictures. The publisher is the People's Republic Ministry of Military Affairs. The government was known for suppressing information (

1771:

in August of 1942." And same information from book of Jeanne M. Haskin, 2006, Bosnia and Beyond: The "quiet" Revolution that Wouldn't Go Quietly Edit was made in article Judenfrei

10997:

side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure.

9648:"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story" (or in this case a nice piece of anti-Russian bias). Possibly most editors have never watched RT to give an opinion, who knows? 5777:

Pushing the discredited Climategate faux controversy long after it was debunked: "Five Years Since ClimateGate: Ten Credibility-Killing Quotes from the Data Files the Media Ignored"

10759: 10716: 10495: 10292: 10253: 10052: 9429: 7281: 10074:

try to isolate the audio track of it to find if there are any abrupt changes or oddities, but I think this goes way beyond the normal procedure for reliable sources on wikipedia.

5020: 4990: 4824: 4006:

says in Knowledge voice. You are also using it to say in wikipedia's voice that it reconnects people to god. No source in the world is RS for that statement in wikipedias voice.

10134:

at some point (God doesn't play dice with the universe). The comparison I want to make here is only that being the first to point out something doesn't automatically relay it to

5811: 4517:, they all have similar problems: no author is given; the contents don't cite sources; better sources for those articles should have been available. The Knowledge articles were: 3969: 7945: 5293: 3106:

Somewhat concurr with Piotrus. Use with caution (eg. it is fine for a name of a battle in Polish historiography), but I would use newer/less biased source for enemy causalties.

937:

etc) cite Parkz articles/DB entries, although the other two sites appear to not be cited very much here. I appreciate if any concerns are raised, but hope to reach an agreeable

10566: 6062:

attention to your opinions as to what is or isn't a RS after I see the NYTimes and WaPo return the coveted Pulitzers they were awarded for what the Pulitzer Board described in

6470: 2953: 5729:. The MRC rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and has been characterized as part of a movement that seeks to obscure the scientific evidence on climate change. 4015: 1472: 10241: 8319: 6988: 6969: 3950: 1774:

and this information is confirmed by other two sources which exist there. Whether these two books and information from them can be used as reliable sources or not. Thanks.

1457: 8829: 8153:

Agree with some of the above commenters that RT can be useful for non political content related to Russia, otherwise I would avoid using it due to disinformation concerns.

7590:

After all, unless RSP has been wrong on this despite several previous checks, the Red is on topics related to Russian interests... and outside of that, seems meh. Cheers

7237: 2834: 10693: 10240:

Since we started talking about this, i'd like it to be in a more rigourous format. Feel free to edit the ballpark options I did here to better reflect the process in this

10147: 9360: 9339: 9244:

Talk:List of Christian denominations by number of members § RfC about whether this article should include Anglicanism under the Protestantism heading or as its own section

8970: 6704: 3735: 2771: 2756: 2740: 2726: 2712: 1443: 10775: 10450:. I would be just as critical of any interviews conducted by Chinese media touting the opinion of a random government-employed expert; if actual independent scientists (= 8030: 8014: 7869: 7712: 7698: 6670: 6327: 6280: 6139:

not deprecating everything and anything, or labeling it unreliable because it doesn't align with a one's political POV - such an argument presented is an argument lost.

6130: 6115: 5927:

This only seems to have been done in a handful (<10) articles, and the coverage is minimal (a sentence or two). The AP does not comment on the quality of Newsbusters.

5368: 4973: 4868: 4491: 4332: 4223: 4191: 3932: 3911:

further up the board, is not "does this verifiably convey the beliefs of the Catholic Church," but "does content sourced to an official arm of the Catholic Church, whose

3842: 2382: 2240:

So overall a bit of a mixed bag, but certifiably not universally reviled. This does not change my view, it may be an RS for his views, and is thus more of a weight issue.

1060: 10793: 9815: 9464: 9109: 9067: 6891: 6822: 6804: 6774: 6636: 5767:

Claiming that the real threat is not global warming, but global cooling: "ABC, CBS, NBC news programs ignore scientists and studies warning of potential cooling threat."

5260: 4474: 4453: 2510:

Note by Turner for personal report to Lohr, August 29, 1942, NOKVV-1486. To Ncdic he expressed a similar sentiment. Memorandum by Turner, March 28, 1942, Südost 75000/2.

10821: 10807: 10368: 10345: 10328: 10179: 9447: 8897: 7726: 7341: 7082: 6837: 6519: 6399: 6380: 6265: 5568: 5494: 5481: 5431: 5411: 5284: 5118: 5096: 5074: 4940: 4921: 4774: 2970: 2932: 2918: 2901: 10463: 10440: 10418: 10232: 10210: 10122:. That's a very good question to ask the other ditors here in my opinion because it is a very specific and interesting question. And please, may I remind you that the 10112: 9887: 9665: 9523:, instead of any other source, should be used there. Additionally, since RT is essentially the Western PR arm of the Russian government, it can be useful to cite it, 9408: 9380:

describes should cite other news outlets which discuss RT's reporting. RT can't establish its own reliability or notability; we need other sources to even discuss it.

9311: 9286: 9271: 9224: 9181: 9143: 9015: 8934: 7921: 7302: 7222: 7199: 7171: 7148: 7006: 6944: 6021: 5726:. The organization (and its arms) has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, MRC is "propaganda clothed as critique" 5387: 3998: 3059:

I think it's fine to cite the source for that, but you should ideally be more clear about exactly what information is being supported by it—in

2883: 2434:

WE do not RS do. If RS say it is propaganda so can we (but note bias is not an exclusion criteria). But if other RS say its a great bit of work we have to accept that.

2221: 1606: 386: 371: 10739: 10651: 10626: 10607: 10585: 10083: 10068: 9974: 9961: 7516: 7264: 6482: 6453: 6434: 5688: 5219: 4899: 4560: 4506: 4432: 4414: 4248: 3681:

Deprecation is needed because they are used so extensively. Creating these genealogies is an amiable hobby for royalists, but the standards for Knowledge are higher.

3274: 3155:

If you consider military maps "a picture book", well... Anyway, I am not "using" the numbers for anything, I just reverted your removal of the referenced content per

3115: 3004: 2819: 2684: 2472: 2458: 2443: 2397: 2362: 2157: 2085: 1373: 264:

Larger articles typically cite more than one CleanTechnica source, typically by different editors suggesting an even wider use of the source than the search suggests.

10385: 9498: 8914: 7855: 7326: 7064: 6755: 6354: 6191: 6168: 6101: 5307: 4142:

states that "The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and has no warnings about it being run by the

3016:

I overall agree per my comments above, but I don't think old means the same as automatically unreliable. I would recommend avoiding the source for anything that's a

2698: 2665: 2332:

I find one source, Lowenthal, Zdenko, ed. 1957. The Crimes of the Fascist Occupants and Their Collaborators against Jews in Yugoslavia and on page 42-43 writes this:

2278: 2264: 2249: 1559: 1532: 1495: 1121:

happily meet you in the middle and say that Wilson-authored pieces (if reused here) should be attributed as opinion only. Appreciate your insight, keep it coming. —

9083: 9036: 7320: 7126: 7109: 7042: 6922: 6867: 6653: 6609: 5511: 5349: 5243: 5198: 4594: 4367: 4035: 2924: 2893: 2203: 1427: 1196: 10874: 9573: 9510:

make sense to use RT in Knowledge voice: (1) non-controversial interviews/official statements/whatever quoting the Russian government or its high level officials (

9481: 9126: 8988: 7386: 6687: 6587: 6242: 6209: 5451: 4881:

section, where it's claimed that the JVL is "regularly cited" by various sources. To try to justify the claim, it links to webpages in some of the listed sources.

4670: 4648: 2543: 2427: 2412: 2104: 2012: 1942: 1927: 1867: 1850: 1827: 1805: 1669: 1282: 1252: 1234: 1162: 1146: 1109: 1091: 1045: 779: 11205: 11106: 11044: 11019: 10972: 8953: 8406: 6570: 6501: 5165: 5135: 4849: 4845: 4281: 4110: 3224: 3211:

2019 gives 236 total losses and 457 damaged of which 180 were repaired and the rest scrapped - i.e. 513 destroyed or scrapped, which is itself sourced to Jentz's

2235: 1886: 687: 668: 643: 502:

against CleanTechnica. While mentioning but not tagging me they discuss how to remove the CleanTechnica article I started (see below) - and this right after user

473: 438: 421:. There are plenty more examples that can be added from any willing editor, but with the examples currently provided we are clearly able to close this discussion. 404: 283: 242: 10847: 9982: 9536: 9389: 7823: 7573: 7536: 5928: 5547:

archival will take place at least five days from today. I prefer to request closure after archival to ensure that no editor gets cut off when the RfC is closed.

4793: 4746: 4635: 4618:

seems to imply at least some use based on authorship and article quality. Similarly, CNN used JVL to source biographical statements about Israeli officials in a

4580: 3707: 3673: 3407: 3386: 3327: 3169:). Anyway, the simplest solution is to verify the numbers, and preferably replace older refs with newer ones. I think this is a better ref (English, newer, CUP: 2133: 2062: 2047: 1990: 1972: 1913: 1582: 602:

to them, they increase the interconnectivity of Knowledge (which is a good thing). As such I have over the years started source-related articles as different as

337: 318: 7840: 5540: 4387: 4132: 3607: 2527: 2316:

Romano, Jasa. 1980. Jevreji Jugoslavije(Jews of Yugoslavia), 1941-1945. Zrtve genocida i ucesnici NOR Belgrade: Federation of Jewish Communities in Yugoslavia.

2186: 2172: 1783: 9544:. For anything related to politics, both foreign and domestic, they are a propaganda arm of the Russian government, not a true news organization. According to 7476: 7401: 6544: 5793: 5783: 3336:

It looks to me as if these should be deprecated and added to the unreliable sources filter, as this is functionally indistinguishable from spam at this point.

3256: 3202: 3095: 3078: 3047: 2945: 2118: 1963:

when starting a section about Rs, stick to the reliability or credibility of the source. He was not talking about you being Croatian but the quote you stated.

217: 11126: 8544: 6063: 3650: 3150: 2635: 704: 678:? That nastiness aside, CT is so obviously biased in favor of Tesla I can't imagine how anyone can argue otherwise. It is not a reliable, independent source. 8093:

for any factual information (per above—that's too much disinfo to trust for much of anything), but can be used for the views of the Russian government where

6256:

Being left of sources that are closer to the center is what left-leaving means. Though I suspect you already knew that and your comment was just hyperbolic.

5713: 2811: 1516: 362:). If sites like Business Insider, Forbes, Bloomberg, the NY Times, etc consider CleanTechnica worth citing, it'd be pretty ridiculous if Knowledge didn't. 3690: 1681: 1188: 10701: 9865: 9581:. It is also my main (but not only) source for news. Unfortunately most of the above comments are editor's personal opinions. Let us go through some facts. 9377: 9101: 7154: 6872: 4567:

This does look problematic, per the information above. We should move it to a no-consensus statement ASAP, I think, and perhaps review it more thoroughly.

4007: 3580: 3244:

Nobody is suggesting we use him as a source for the Katyn massacre. In fact, I explicitly said above he would not be a reliable source for such content. --

1537: 1524: 1464: 1419: 1348: 10912:

between Energion Publications on one hand and Mohr Siebeck, Oxford University Press and ABC-CLIO on the other hand. I suggest to self-revert. Hushbeck is

9934: 7599: 6083: 6056: 1116: 9944:" seems to be user-generated content, and does not have any indications of notability. While the website does contain information about the mechanics of 9604: 8056: 7903: 6200:- so yeah, that is what you appeared to say and mean. If you seriously claim the NYT or WaPo is "left-leaning", then words have stopped meaning things - 4730: 4611: 3901: 3491: 3466: 3300: 3170: 11082: 10937: 3561: 9824: 9803: 9352: 9278: 9216: 9135: 7591: 7451: 5323:: a total white-wash which ends with: "References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was 1673: 1625: 900: 814: 558:

is a web-site that is itself unknown to Knowledge, so hardly suitable for determining whether a highly cited source on Knowledge is biased or reliable.

101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 10376:

Where is the option for "The Epoch Times is never a reliable source, and there is zero scientific merit to the claims as presented in the interview"?

10166:

to Epoch Times, practices Falun Gong, and is "executive director of the Global Alliance against Communist Propaganda and Disinformation" according to

6510:

Per what above? MRC organizations' confirmed history of pushing falsehoods and fringe rhetoric? Does that make it generally reliable in your opinion?

5739: 4680: 3539: 1180: 482:

has tainted their contribution to this discussion and has indeed called into question whether they argue in good faith, since they themselves have an

9247: 6720: 5751: 5473: 4203: 2403:

a Communist block country is (surely has been discussed before on this noticeboard) but it's a start. The Cohen book itself is controversial though.

1352: 198: 11246: 8391: 8085: 7860:

Yes. Having some proportion of the content be seemingly unobjectionable is a means of veiling the misinformation behind superficial respectability.

7791:

source from Knowledge regardless of its context and content you make it sound like a bad thing. Alas, there exists no context or content that makes

5788: 5737: 1118: 9832: 8906: 7379: 5866: 5268:: If they are (whomever "they" are) citing Knowledge, there's clearly an issue with the reliability of such a source, regardless of use by others. 10223:: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified". 9706: 7982: 7559:

In 2011, the news section of RT uncritically quoted two prominent non-scientist climate change deniers without any pushback or additional context.

5778: 3851:

This is a perfect source for completyely unencyclopaedic content on a site that has no reliability standards. Fanmdom, for example. But not here.

2656:. On the one hand, afaik gob. domains are not issued freely. On the other hand, I am not really finding any information on who operates the site. 1172: 350:

Just ran into this discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me that CleanTechnica is frequently cited as a reliable source by other news sources -

10454:

PhD-holding lead researchers actively publishing in this field) give this newest proposal any attention, they will do so from a reliable source.

7073:

No, as I demonstrate above, the issue is that sins which will get a right-wing source banned are routinely ignored when left-wing sources do it.

5845: 4661:

measured? I could bring multiple equivalent references from reputable news agencies linking to Breitbart, Daily Mail, and even Knowledge itself.

3506: 3356: 2717:

LOL, sorry reading that all I could see was "Well, may I suggest that you consider moving to a hotel closer to the sea? ...or preferably in it.".

9996: 9489:. Totally unreliable and, really, should not be used as a source under any circumstances today. We need less propaganda on Knowledge, not more! 9330:

Thats a completely inappropriate word to use in this context, I will be placing a note on your talk page and we can discuss this further there.

8857: 8180: 8162: 7965: 7659: 6726: 5741: 4161:

The entry at WP:RSPS has the "Stale discussions" label, as there has not been a discussion about this topic for a number of years. It was added

2839:

First, anyone participating in this discussion should be aware that topic areas related to Poland have recently seen an avalanche of socks (see

1753: 11268: 10167: 9473: 8726: 8144: 6312: 5977: 3820: 3682: 3349: 607: 483: 11322:

17. Of the two conflicting accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, ... the account told in 2 Samuel 3-10 is naturally suspect

9561: 8879: 8047: 7956:

A quick google search brought up multiple lies. Nor am In sure it can be even used as an "official" Russian moth piece as it pretends its not.

7625: 7157:

directly cites Newsbusters, which suggests this argument comes from the same walled-garden. The other two sources are an obscure interview in

4844:

references, I have found no detailed information on this organization from third party sources. So I looked up the AICE tax filings (here for

2851:(and toss a coin - about half of those new accounts I noticed recently making similar edits in this topic area get CU blocked within ~48h...). 2194:

OK a question, can we have some examples of the historians (non partisan) who have slammed this book? Also I am sure we have been here before.

1763:

Sources are book of Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History. Information from this book is I quote: "

1649: 1645: 1012: 10865:. If, as suggested above, there are two other sources that say the same thing, and if they are reliable and due, etc, then just use them...! 10520: 8263: 6861: 4166: 3476: 3285: 1641: 1184: 8211: 8127: 5925: 5768: 4812:. JVL has several maps showing the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights as being "Israel", see pages 65, 74 and 77: 4809:

JVL is a propaganda tool with a clear agenda to falsify history and reality. It was created by the American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise:

4588:

I don't (and won't) edit in the IP area since it is all just politics. I wouldn't (and have not) use JVL in my Jewish history area editing.

3941:, as well as what counts as "an official arm of the Catholic Church" (this press is run by an American university, not a Vatican office). -- 3641:

note they've been fighting this issue for like a decade. The articles that wholly rely on these sources should likely just be deleted, too.

3185: 2858:

has been published by a publishing house at a government level and it was edited by professional Polish military historians of its era (ex.

1689: 1257:

Reliability isn't always a hard line. Situational/discretionary use exists. That's what I'll advocate for here. Thanks for your comments. —

9048:

bad. That may be greatly exaggerated, but I know no other words that describe my frustration with the government. I could have said worse.

8421: 3415: 1415: 917:. Forum posts and user reviews should obviously not be considered reliable (which are, shockingly, cited on some of our articles). Several 781: 11281: 8466: 8361: 8115: 7782: 7642: 7556:

In 2009, the news section of RT uncritically quoted renowned conspiracy theorist Alex Jones as if he were an authority on climate science.

6783: 6345:. Too much eagerness on this noticeboard to make use of powerful tools like deprecation, which should be used in a highly sparing matter. 5998: 5956: 5795: 4349:

and may copy directly from Knowledge. That said I don't think that pro-Israel slant is a good reason to disqualify a source, accuracy is.

10011:, because it absolutely isn't. What I want to know is if this interview is credible, considering it involves what appears to be an expert 9514:), and (2) news about non-controversial, non-political internal Russian events and affairs. For case 2 it should only be used when it is 7973:

for a while it was argued that RT would get better or is useful in some circumstances. I don’t think those arguments hold water anymore.

7755: 6857: 3133: 2599: 999:

lists the senior editorial team, but there are likely other contributors not listed (they have 35 people on payroll). Even so, from SPS:

6469:. Has none of the indications of a reliable source; it's a partisan media criticism website that promotes, e.g., climate change denial. 4162: 3629:. These sites are routinely used to confer (or infer) noble titles to people based on hypothetical extrapolations of primogeniture. See 1717: 791: 8232: 4784:

in general. I add these uses above in large part because I have not seen this point included yet, and it seems worthwhile to consider.

3235: 3167: 3164: 515: 487: 10031:: I do not pretend to be an expert in the field, and I would very much appreciate if someone with the right background could comment. 7828:

This is my stance too, where the topic is fully apolitical, RT usually is not doing anything weird and is the most detailed source. --

5144:, I don't think this is an issue since an RfC extends the discussion to a minimum of 30 days, and neutrally publicizes it through the 1629: 10812:

What about them? How are they relevant to the question at hand? Other users cannot read your thoughts, unless you write them down. --

8739: 3638: 3369:

to this list, which has nearly 10,000 citations and appears to be a self published source. What's your opinion on the reliability of

2177:@WEBDuB same proposal which I gave to Sadko, expose all informations from book which are propaganda without source in some book etc. 1637: 1633: 8349: 8076:. RT has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Rather, it has a reputation for falsehoods, conspiracy theories and disinfo. 7188: 5857:. Some of the arms, at least CNSNews and Newsbusters, should probably be deprecated regardless of what we do with core MRC content. 898: 307:

Finding these examples and seeing the extent to which they reference CleanTechnica may demonstrate a solid claim for reliability. —

5773: 4913: 2641: 522:

for when they want to create their next anti-company-article. This makes it difficult to assume good faith on their part. Further,

9229:

The RfC statement ends at the first signature. Any additional comments are part of the RfC discussion. There is no restriction in

8278: 5183: 1243:

Even the Daily mail has been known to say something true, that does not make it an RS. Now I will let others respond if they wish.

8241: 7676: 5039:. RfCs are more restrictive than ordinary discussions on how the initial comment should be worded. Could you please add a signed 2791: 1810:

Yes, but a book of "Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History" has information concerning

1758: 1731:

It seem this website was spammed everywhere with canned content like "See history of "X Iron and Steel" as inline external link.

766: 7387:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/03/24/hate-group-leaders-antigovernment-extremists-push-anti-china-coronavirus-rhetoric

7213:

agenda is inflammatory to liberals, insulting to leftists, and irrelevant to Knowledge editors just trying to discuss sources.

4465:

which takes it a step further than mere bias, parroting propaganda. Imagine if WP everywhere changed Israel to "post-Palestine".

4212: 1697: 1693: 1448:

Slatersteven, I am not sure I follow. This isn’t some guy with a blog. It’s a professionally run newspaper. Can you elaborate? —

596: 10401:, a new religious movement that relentlessly peddles conspiracy theories and financially supports extreme-right wing politics, 8074: 3721: 1622: 1338: 798: 594: 304:

Our work has been referenced by the New York Times, Washington Post, Slate, MSNBC, Think Progress, Reuters, Scientific American

21: 11232: 11228: 10722:

You can discuss adding the information using those sources at the applicable article where interested editors can weigh in on

10553:. If any of the information is credible, reliable sources will repeat it eventually, and then it can be added to the article. 9250:. All of these RfCs (and many more in the archives) were valid, and so is this one. This RfC format was broadly authorized in 7205:

about some completely different issue, are even farther off-topic, and are not productive to this discussion. Claiming that a

5126:, I oppose this people when commented didn't now this an RFC.If someone want to start an RFC it should start a new discussion 4206: 2731:

Hah, funny one. Anyhow, I take that this kind of source is only good for strictly factual information that isn't promotional.

776: 11315: 9239: 8626: 8602: 8579: 6444:

First, nobody is trying to do that, and second, this argument does nothing to establish the reliability of MRC specifically.

5315:, at least not for anything concerning Palestine/Palestinians (It might be reliable for things concerning Judaism.) Take the 4209: 2825:

Sorry a bit hard to take referencing that article seriously, and unsourced stub. Now what is the issue, how is it being used?

360: 9945: 9911: 8888:

Propaganda outlet. But if they interview Putin or Lavrov then I think they can be trusted not to mangle Russian officials.--

8071: 8068: 8055:

Aside from the problems I identified in OP, RT promotes 9/11 Trutherism ("911 Reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job"

2855: 9096: 4757:

if used as an attribution of a straightforward assertion, and not in a context that portrays the publication negatively. —

4106: 3880: 3698:

These sources are extensively used in BLP articles, so their use as unverifiable self published sources must be curtailed.

3326:

showed consensus against using Royal Ark in respect of living individuals (all entries on the pretenders list are living).

2418:

is concerned, which means that about 80% of the articles would be left without text. I don't think that this is solution.

1167:

Well, let's take Wilson specifically out of the picture. Would it at all assuage your concerns if I cross-referenced Parkz

764: 9842:

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

7411:

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

5578:

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

4877:

A bit of a digression, but looking at WP's article on the JVL, there's a fairly horrible bit of original research in the

4718: 4607: 3757: 3717:

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

9722:, which is America's foremost business magazine. It's doesn't present his opinion as a fact. Conservative media, such as 9554:

shouldn't be regulated as a traditional media entity; they should be treated as a part of a foreign intelligence service.

9060: 6629: 4041: 1709: 1705: 1414:

piece is also the "editor" so that would also be an issue. The "editor" in question and other reporters publishes under

1356: 895: 599: 499: 363: 10977:

Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, acknowledges there is a conflict between the biblical stories about the death of Saul.

9671: 8291: 6552:

The organization promotes fringe disinformation and conspiracy theories including global warming denial and birtherism.

5887: 4514: 3889: 3766:

Knowledge itself has a strict reliable sources policy that blacklists Knowledge and problematic British papers, and yet

11224: 11112: 10958: 9425: 7925: 7277: 5391: 4158:, which point out both the propaganda-connections and that many of its articles were sourced originally from Knowledge. 3330:

predicated much of its argument on the assumption that this consensus holds. If anything, World Statesmen looks worse.

850: 674:

reflects that focus so please stop trying to distort the picture, Lklundin; by the way, didn't you just complain about

8436: 4952:

in addition to there being no fact-checking process (since it is a one-man website), it turns out that JVL is also an

1738:

or other content. So, steelonthenet is a reliable source? Or did it need the same treatment likes the online clone of

10351:

You don't have to if you'd like other editors to use them. They're perfectly fine both inside and outside of RfCs. —

10036: 9011: 8851:, which RT regularly broadcasts. When the perspective of the Russian government is needed in an article, news agency 8680: 8653: 3603: 3215:

Vol. I (1996). - this looks like the sort of thing were it would be helpful to give a range of sourced values anyway.

1713: 1003:. We'll ignore the fact that he's edited the site for nearly 18 years, but at the very least Richard Wilson has been 7184: 6221: 5890: 10798:

Then, what about the people who have no knowledge of ET, yet believe that Knowledge is generally a credible source?

8812: 8776: 8511: 8171:

Regularly publishes disinformation, regardless of the quality in some topics, It's too great an issue to overlook.

7332:

I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC, as it potentially conflicts with consensus established in two prior RfCs:

6430: 5279: 4703:

may be the only data points available, and that would be sufficient to justify the publication's use on Knowledge.

3126: 2808: 2799: 1701: 1308:

I'd appreciate if we could continue this dialogue. Further insight from others on these sites would be welcomed. —

1014: 893: 255:

In these 58 articles 50 different (43 named + 7 IP) contributors have made the determination to cite CleanTechnica,

7797:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust The Daily Mail?

4542: 3237:. He was a loyal communist party historian, a "quintessential establishment figure" criticized by real historians 2703:

To whit, I was looking to use the list of animals & plants and the distance to Tolar Grande from that source.

800: 9351:’, but the latter term always seemed offensive to Aussies by my lights. At any rate, not a neutral RFC. Cheers 8821: 7899: 7206: 6859: 6135:

That is not what I said or what I meant. There is no RGW on my end - the focus is and should be on using sources

4986: 4820: 4679:

publication's popularity). The context of the use is also important: coverage of the publication's content (e.g.

3928: 2797: 1578: 881: 592: 561:

The cited book and thedrive.com article are by none other than 'Edward Niedermeyer' who already 10 years ago was

9926:, but it would be helpful to know if these sources have any value for sourcing technical names, etc. Thank you! 8334: 8061:), coronavirus disinformation ("Russia Today... broadcast that hand-washing was ineffective against coronavirus" 7607: 7135:

That would be more convincing with an example that is as well-documented as the NYT's endless deceptions in the

6155:...that is what we follow and use to make our determinations about what sources we cite, depending on context. 3753: 2986:. If this is the only source with some information, I would wonder why it can't be found in some better source. 847: 10631:

Exposing cover-ups is what scientists and researchers and investigative journalists do, not Knowledge editors.

9893: 9846: 8725:

Oates, Sarah; Steiner, Sean (17 December 2018). "Projecting Power: Understanding Russian Strategic Narrative".

8198: 8062: 7424: 7415: 5595: 4050: 3424: 3184:

from the same year), although it would be nice to find an even newer estimate (also found it in this 1993 book

3129: 774: 6864: 6728: 5727: 4120: 2801: 1192: 862: 10880: 9421: 8549: 7814:

but I also hope that we can find wording to allow limited use for things like the death of Yevgeny Mikrin. --

7273: 6254: 5422:: many articles at JVL come from Encyclopedia Judaica. (On a talk page, I recently mentioned their page on 3024: 2351:

Published by Federation of Jewish Communities of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia Belgrade 1957

1837: 10405:

makes for an excellent example of a truly unreliable source. If the only source one can find for a claim is

9742:

pay too much attention to lots of unpopular positions, but are still considered reliable sources. What puts

9511: 854: 535: 10686: 10539: 10512: 8376: 8109: 6564: 5332:

That is simply complete bulls..t. There were several other massacres, some larger that Deir Yassin (see eg

4361: 3992: 3946: 3876: 3460: 3072: 2998: 2889: 2629: 1657: 1541: 1344: 885: 756: 109: 7808: 7055:?), and if it's not, then maybe that statement doesn't deserve encyclopedic attention in the first place. 2928: 2897: 1793: 127: 11033:

keep trying to edit in Tgeorgescu's view and Tgeorgescu simply keeps reverting my changes, wholesale. --

10538:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

9991: 8788: 8696: 8481: 8320:"Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group" 8244:, at least 30 in-depth reliable sources describe RT as a propaganda outlet. The list is reproduced below: 5938:'s collection of factcheck failures, here is a piece of evidence showing a lack of actual fact-checking: 5730: 4813: 4155: 3444: 3279: 1327: 1276: 1228: 1140: 1085: 1039: 960: 511: 147: 8007: 5942: 5782:"ClimateGate 1 Year Later: Networks Barely Cover Scandal, But Defend and 'Exonerate' Accused Scientists" 4727:"The Jewish Virtual Library, a website run by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, said that..." 1544:

seems like the right place to NPOV/multi-POV how the Church sees its response and how others see it. --

10784:

Somebody who knows that ET is unreliable will not believe the WP article if it gives ET as a source. --

10535: 9907: 9686: 9404: 8667: 8640: 8081: 7895: 7569: 7532: 7472: 6974:

A fine illustration of what a crock of shit we get ourselves into by our various policies. The article

6515: 6089: 6017: 5807: 5747: 5704: 5644: 4982: 4816: 3897: 3317: 1815: 1453: 1369: 721:

Three Australian theme park industry sites - Parkz, OurWorlds and Australasian Entertainment Management

51: 42: 17: 9923: 8065: 6226: 5939: 5733: 4291: 2600:

https://epdf.pub/the-crimes-of-fascist-occupants-and-their-collaborators-against-the-jews-of-yugo.html

10123: 9988: 9799: 8966: 7180: 7176:

What, precisely, is incorrect? That the NYT coverage was deceptive? The worst example of that is this

6879: 6700: 5423: 3870: 3495: 3304: 3166:- at that point the sentence had a citation needed tag and a few weeks later an anon added the refs: 2949: 2863: 857: 143: 8767: 7548: 6678:, seems to be extremely skewed and occasionally crossing the line into conspiracy-theory promotion. 5944: 5735: 4627: 3500: 3309: 2841:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland

1877:

wiki page lists multiple professors that deem his book valid and factual about WWII Occupied Serbia.

1486:

Not generally reliable, it appears to operate as a non-independent arm of the Diocese of Charlotte.

10027:

criteria for this source, as it does not involve science directly, but the timing of it happening.

9335: 9100:

access to), we should note the source's ownership and control where we refer to it in the article.

7978: 7851: 7355: 6965: 6818: 6770: 6323: 6276: 6187: 6126: 6097: 5862: 4742: 4619: 4425: 4102: 3965: 3270: 2815: 2704: 1995:

As I said at the beginning, because it is controversial this is more a question of attribution and

1858:

If this source is not RS then we have to determine this in order to know this fact in the future.

1491: 934: 726: 10198:

as a source for material that is anti-China. Their expert is also not independent of Epoch Times:

9941: 9899: 9770:. None of them are climate change deniers. On the other hand, CNN once had climate change deniers 8451: 5320: 4882: 3879:, there is a dispute about Hillenbrand Books, an imprint of Liturgy Training Publications and the 839: 565:

and as an apparent epitome of anti-Tesla-bias is central to our self-described anti-Tesla-article

10679: 10108: 9460: 9105: 9055: 8619: 8572: 8022:

I !voted before this became an RfC and am withdrawing my vote as I am uncomfortable defending RT

7336:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters

7233: 7195: 7144: 7078: 6984: 6940: 6887: 6624: 6239: 6165: 6080: 5995: 4011: 3942: 3510: 3360: 2767: 2736: 2708: 2661: 1528: 1468: 1423: 913:

for news articles, database entries etc. Editorials and reviews should be given with appropriate

752: 367: 10397:

and should not be used as a reference under any circumstance. One of several propaganda arms of

10303:(RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at 9594: 5898:

why Newsbusters feels compelled to defend the honor of the birther movement, but no, I don’t..."

3824: 3515: 3365: 2534:

there is no competing RS or expert POV (unlike in the Cohen case) by all means use his sources.

860: 119: 10771: 10755: 10712: 10622: 10581: 10527: 10491: 10436: 10361: 10341: 10321: 10288: 10249: 10228: 10143: 10079: 10048: 9919: 9861: 9856:] as a source, and it seems a bit iffy to me. Can someone who speaks Chinese check the sources? 9847: 9699: 9443: 9304: 9291: 9264: 9174: 9157: 8893: 8872: 8669:

The Plot to Hack America: How Putin's Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election

8589: 8526: 8176: 8158: 7961: 7938: 7708: 7694: 7655: 7502: 7372: 6765:

significant inaccuracy. That appears to leave only Fox and that lacks an explicit endorsement.

6745:. Though MRC should be used sparingly when sourcing content related to global warming. Regards 6426: 6376: 6205: 5841: 5833: 5674: 5561: 5536: 5460: 5404: 5364: 5158: 5111: 5092: 5067: 5016: 4969: 4936: 4864: 4833: 4767: 4666: 4487: 4328: 4219: 4187: 4128: 4073: 3838: 3829: 3806: 3703: 3668: 3480: 3382: 3289: 3232:

Pavlor, Sobczak was on a joint Polish-Soviet commission that downplayed Katyn and other crimes

2830: 2752: 2722: 2694: 2468: 2439: 2378: 2299:

I edit article The Holocaust in Serbia and put this information from Cohen book " Gendarmes of

2274: 2245: 2199: 2153: 2081: 1897: 1439: 1392: 1248: 1158: 1105: 1056: 977: 844: 787: 290: 11304: 10138:. It might not be an appropriate example/comparison, but it's the one I could think of first. 8593: 7560: 6875:, which was typically debunked on the same day on a widely-read blog by an expert on the case 5908: 3485: 3294: 2323:

Hilberg, Raul. 1985. The Destruction of the European Jews. Vol. 2. New York: Holmes and Meier.

10817: 10803: 10789: 9828: 9713: 9662: 9400: 9356: 9282: 9220: 9139: 9007: 8930: 8613: 8566: 8140: 8077: 7999: 7865: 7722: 7621: 7595: 7565: 7554: 7552: 7546: 7528: 7468: 7298: 6853:

As with any source, my first check is whether or not they have a corrections policy. They do.

6802: 6753: 6511: 6449: 6395: 6013: 5973: 5935: 5803: 5743: 5700: 5640: 5635: 5584: 5256: 4658: 4615: 4470: 4450: 3893: 3599: 3233: 2958:

Thanks, I know you are familiar with many Polish WWII sources, so I appreciate your input. --

2076:

that any of these sources are propaganda, the first two are published by university presses.

1614: 1449: 1365: 922: 10890: 8043:- well established that RT is a propaganda/disinformation outlet of the Russian government. 7550: 6036: 5772:"There's no more clear religion in the mainstream media than the religion of global warming" 4522: 3141:

a RS. However, for this very kind of information, more recent and neutral source is needed.

1569:

serve very different functions, and Knowledge's function is not to amplify anyone's voice. –

842: 11201: 11078: 11015: 10933: 10921: 10162:

They didn't just "find" someone to support their view: their expert is literally a regular

9808: 9795: 9189:

Thank you for the cites, but RFCBRIEF requires *all* parts of the statements to be neutral.

8962: 8735: 7807:. RT is another matter. They are completely unreliable on many topics, but take a look at 7260: 6717: 6696: 6649: 6418: 6308: 6261: 6111: 5477: 5337: 5333: 5316: 5275: 4513:

Looking at the JVL articles cited by four Knowledge articles from among the first returned

3775: 3731: 2859: 1749: 7616:

per "wait, we haven't done that already? it's a propaganda machine, for crying out loud".

5920:

seems to include perspectives from Newsbusters as an example of a conservative viewpoint:

4980: 4550: 837: 8: 10531: 10459: 10414: 10381: 10206: 10175: 9957: 9883: 9634: 9494: 9344: 9331: 8910: 8568:

Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics

8426: 8268: 7974: 7847: 7819: 7680: 7359: 7060: 6961: 6906: 6902: 6814: 6766: 6731: 6663: 6350: 6319: 6272: 6183: 6148: 6122: 6093: 5858: 4841: 4304: 4098: 3961: 3924: 3798: 3646: 3266: 3220: 2747:

Well it would depend, as I suggest above not all "facts" are "unpromotional", or "facts".

2539: 2408: 2217: 2008: 1923: 1846: 1801: 1574: 1487: 1205: 11024:

In context, Ehrlich, or more precisely Meier, says that there is a conflict between the

10299:

I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a

9545: 9076: 7685: 6785:. Just becuase they are opinion pieces that does not discount them from being used. The 4462: 3919:

or other sourcing policies as far as what to include or not to include in an article." –

3159:(FYI we are now at the D-step). The number was added (without a ref) on March 8 2017 by 2304: 773:. There is an extensive archive of press releases and articles dating back to the 1990s. 10732: 10644: 10600: 10559: 10308: 10199: 10163: 10104: 10064: 9779: 9645:...I don't think anyone would question Larry King's integrity, or call him pro-Russian. 9456: 9153: 9050: 9029: 8755: 8712: 8673: 8531: 8194: 7316: 7229: 7218: 7191: 7167: 7140: 7136: 7122: 7102: 7074: 7036: 6999: 6980: 6951: 6936: 6915: 6883: 6833: 6619: 6605: 6088:

You realize you just sunk everyone who had built there argument on yours by going full

5787:"Networks Do 92 Climate Change Stories; Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming All 92 Times" 5507: 5229: 5212: 5054: 4931:

fact-checks them? This guy is an expert in public relations advocacy and nothing else.

4895: 4556: 4502: 4408: 4345: 4069: 3333:

There are nearly 2,000 citations to royalark.net and over 3,750 to worldstatesmen.org.

3122: 2983: 2763: 2732: 2657: 2523: 2454: 2423: 2393: 2358: 2182: 2114: 2058: 1986: 1938: 1909: 1863: 1823: 1779: 683: 664: 639: 611: 469: 434: 400: 382: 333: 279: 238: 194: 5923: 5921: 11312: 10767: 10751: 10708: 10618: 10591: 10577: 10487: 10432: 10337: 10284: 10245: 10224: 10139: 10075: 10044: 9914:

section. For example, would this be OK to use to source the first, second, and third

9873: 9857: 9569: 9477: 9439: 9373: 9122: 8984: 8889: 8705: 8677: 8650: 8623: 8599: 8576: 8554: 8512:"RT, Russia's English-language propaganda outlet, will register as a "foreign agent"" 8172: 8154: 7957: 7704: 7690: 7670: 7651: 7557: 7052: 7025: 6810: 6683: 6583: 6372: 6201: 6152: 6144: 5837: 5829: 5548: 5532: 5360: 5301: 5088: 5032: 5012: 4965: 4932: 4860: 4662: 4483: 4324: 4215: 4183: 4171: 4124: 4089: 3834: 3802: 3801:" or any other ranking on their website should ever be cited in a wikipedia article. 3794: 3699: 3686: 3659: 3391: 3378: 3374: 3250: 3196: 3089: 3041: 3017: 2964: 2912: 2877: 2826: 2748: 2718: 2690: 2680: 2518:

which would mean that Raul Hilberg is propagandist because it is data from his book.

2464: 2435: 2374: 2270: 2260: 2241: 2231: 2195: 2149: 2129: 2077: 1968: 1882: 1789: 1593: 1435: 1244: 1154: 1101: 1052: 988: 973: 849:

They also publish interviews and features with notable park industry alumni, such as

619: 153: 10766:

write about stuff like that. Thank you all again for your inputs, very appreciated.

10704: 8797: 8306: 8059: 7810:. That's the sort of thing RT covers in more detail than other sources. So I choose 7177: 4538: 1893: 591:

who has cited CleanTechnica for a range of (non-controversial) contributions, (e.g.

562: 413:(and partly with the suggestions from the IP-editor) I have gone ahead and upgraded 359:

etc, and features op-eds by famous people (for example, here's one from Gavin Newsom

11242: 11122: 11102: 11040: 11002: 10990: 10968: 10854: 10813: 10799: 10785: 10135: 10127: 10096: 10020: 10000: 9967: 9927: 9681:

proposal requires an RfC by definition. See the perennial sources list entries for

9650: 9251: 9248:

Talk:Adolf Hitler § Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust

9149: 8998: 8948: 8926: 8743: 8486: 8396: 8310: 8206: 8136: 8104: 8003: 7887: 7861: 7775: 7718: 7638: 7617: 7354:

proposal requires an RfC by definition. See the perennial sources list entries for

7294: 6975: 6559: 6496: 6445: 6391: 6196:

What you said, and presumably meant, was that you saw the problem as being that we

5969: 5438: 5345: 5252: 5239: 5194: 5131: 4953: 4592: 4466: 4445: 4356: 3987: 3767: 3732:

strict reliable sources policy that blacklists Knowledge and those British tabloids

3616: 3590: 3575: 3455: 3370: 3146: 3111: 3067: 2993: 2624: 2168: 1552: 1509: 1360: 930: 157: 6716:. Media Research Center has been cited by a range of RSs for facts. For instance, 6366:. Many RS outlets refer to MRC as, for instance, a "conservative media watchdog". 6229:

but scroll down to the list #1 - #12. I think Walden may be onto something. 😂

4810: 4165:, without discussion. I have deleted the entry for now subject to this discussion. 3324:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites

2561:

Philip J. Cohen, 1996, Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History,

1721: 1661: 126:

whether the article should be deleted as unreliable, with reference to an earlier

11197: 11090: 11074: 11011: 10946: 10929: 10917: 10913: 10909: 10894: 10882: 10870: 10862: 10675: 10354: 10314: 10304: 10131: 10119: 10100: 10095:

with a PhD who is willing to support that view. That doesn't mean the view isn't

10024: 10016: 10008: 9759: 9692: 9638: 9532: 9385: 9297: 9257: 9212: 9186: 9167: 8865: 8646: 8501: 8456: 8422:"Kremlin propaganda arm RT America warns over dire health impacts of 5G networks" 8044: 8027: 8011: 7931: 7836: 7751: 7633:

State sponsored propaganda machine without any independent editorial oversight --

7463: 7365: 7256: 6479: 6475: 6422: 6304: 6257: 6233: 6159: 6107: 6074: 5989: 5952: 5554: 5522: 5491: 5447: 5428: 5397: 5271: 5151: 5123: 5104: 5084: 5060: 4957: 4918: 4789: 4760: 4644: 4518: 4441: 4376:

Good catch, changing my assessment. If they're citing us then we can't use them.

4347: 4315: 3888:

relating to care the Catholic Church provides to AIDS patients, and specifically

3771: 3160: 2804: 2209: 2099: 1874: 1833: 1745: 1653: 1323: 1272: 1224: 1136: 1081: 1035: 956: 527: 213: 9682: 8847:

It is important for Knowledge to take a hardline stance against state-sponsored

6415:

as per Atsme, let us not try to get rid of all conservative media on Knowledge.

5799:"Media Myth: Networks Stick to Warming Theme Despite Avalanche of Chilling News" 1836:

I would say that its conclusions may be questionable. He is not a historian but

50:

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

10671: 10477: 10455: 10410: 10377: 10202: 10171: 10040: 9953: 9903: 9879: 9783: 9678: 9490: 9348: 9235: 8848: 8636: 8545:"Inside the belly of Russia's 'propaganda machine': A visit to RT news channel" 8296: 8202: 7917: 7815: 7764: 7562:

This leads me to wonder whether there isn't sufficient reason to deprecate RT?

7512: 7351: 7056: 6795: 6746: 6346: 6198:

discredit all conservative views because left-leaning media is critical of them

5684: 5528: 5383: 4343: 4139: 3920: 3642: 3216: 2867: 2848: 2844: 2614: 2535: 2404: 2213: 2004: 1949: 1919: 1842: 1797: 1570: 793:

lists its total length as 1,380m whereas RCDB has it at 1,400m (written in ft).

760: 700: 603: 225: 181: 169: 10019:

because of it's level of scientific timing detail, even if it might enter the

9472:. I don't think they are even reliable for interviews with Russian officials. 5472:

and any current articles citing the domain should be reviewed and/or removed.

5359:

any site that duplicates content from Knowledge can't be considered reliable.

4614:. These are some of the most sensitive areas discussed here (bios and IP), so 4440:

given the above comments. And of course if we can't find another source, then

2923:

I follow the board. Why haven't you directed the same question at MMA, below?

2495: 2300: 1811: 1364:

not a reliable publisher of facts." I would appreciate additional thoughts. --

771: 769: 512:

involve the page creator when discussing (formally) the deletion of an article

10858: 10842: 10727: 10723: 10639: 10613: 10595: 10554: 10300: 10060: 9812: 9618: 9549: 9230: 9161: 9080: 9024: 8747: 8708: 8663: 8557: 8516: 8366: 8324: 8227: 8190: 8124: 8094: 7542: 7447: 7396: 7312: 7214: 7210: 7163: 7118: 7095: 7030: 6994: 6957: 6932: 6910: 6829: 6645: 6601: 6539: 6051: 5903: 5619: 5145: 5036: 4754: 4734: 4722: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4695: 4691: 4675: 4610:

and to source biographical details based on an interview with the site for a

4575: 4530: 4429: 4400: 4380: 4274: 4241: 4151: 4119:

a generally reliable source, across all the areas it covers? It is currently

4085: 4081: 4077: 4030: 3938: 3916: 3859: 3556: 3534: 3402: 3344: 3156: 3030:

can be used - I don't see the necessity of removing it). For example, at the

3020:, and I'd fully support updating the source with new one (if used by itself, 2519: 2450: 2419: 2389: 2354: 2178: 2110: 2054: 1996: 1982: 1958: 1934: 1905: 1859: 1819: 1775: 1764: 1008: 992: 938: 926: 914: 679: 675: 660: 648: 635: 623: 574: 570: 549: 545: 531: 523: 519: 507: 495: 491: 479: 465: 430: 414: 396: 392: 378: 329: 325: 275: 234: 190: 173: 139: 131: 123: 115: 9918:(parts) of a bullfight? This is not for a lack of reliable sources, such as 7139:, which was, after all, done in order to push their general leftist agenda. 2672: 1410: 809: 627: 10428: 10220: 9787: 9755: 9751: 9642: 9565: 9552:, who has enjoyed top security status during his career, stated that "RT... 9118: 9092: 8980: 8471: 8353: 7486: 7458: 7158: 6679: 6579: 6140: 5894: 5658: 5630: 5297: 5186: 5047: 3523: 3246: 3192: 3085: 3054: 3037: 2960: 2908: 2873: 2676: 2491: 2370: 2256: 2227: 2125: 2038: 2000: 1964: 1878: 918: 833: 425: 418: 309: 298: 161: 10003:

because it is from the Epoch Times. What I want to know is not wether the

8058:), birther conspiracy theories ("Obama’s birthplace mystery raises doubts" 4878: 3980:

It's not independent of the Catholic Church and doesn't grant due weight.

3320:

seems to be drawn from two web 1.0 sites: Royal Ark and World Statesmen.

1409:

Not sure why slugger isn't linking to the actual website but here is the

889: 768:

Their YouTube channel distributes official ride POV videos and animations.

11236: 11116: 11096: 11034: 10998: 10980: 10962: 10903: 10004: 9791: 8943: 8822:"Euro-Atlantic values and Russia's propaganda in the Euro-Atlantic space" 8411: 8099: 7891: 7768: 7634: 7153:

That is simultaneously incorrect, misleading, and textbook whataboutism.

6554: 6491: 5341: 5235: 5190: 5141: 5127: 4961: 4589: 4351: 4300: 4175: 3982: 3750: 3570: 3450: 3177: 3173: 3142: 3107: 3062: 3011: 2988: 2675:

to "MINISTERIO DE CULTURA Y TURISMO" (ministry of culture and tourism).--

2653: 2619: 2164: 1901: 1545: 1502: 1017: 10280:

The science might be right, but the Epoch Times is generally unreliable.

9626: 8775:

Orttung, Robert; Nelson, Elizabeth; Livshen, Anthony (19 January 2016).

8716: 8691: 7155:

The New York Times controversies#Duke University lacrosse case reporting

7094:

per Snooganssnoogans, David Gerard, Neutrality, JoelleJay, and others.

6876: 6873:

The New York Times controversies#Duke University lacrosse case reporting

5527:

it looks like this thread will be auto-archived shortly. Should I go to

1725: 1463:

I was wrong about the SPS issue as I was looking at a different article.

544:

The bias of these two, coordinating editors is reflected in the sources

10866: 10516: 10504: 10483: 10398: 9771: 9767: 9763: 9630: 9622: 9614: 9528: 9381: 8392:"Blame politicians for fake news, RT chief tells Whitehall media forum" 8381: 7829: 7744: 7521: 6342: 6230: 6176: 6156: 6071: 6032: 5986: 5948: 5879: 5693: 5443: 4785: 4640: 4117: 3586: 2093: 1310: 1259: 1211: 1123: 1068: 1022: 996: 943: 748: 410: 206: 135: 10834:

For the avoidance of doubt, China plus Epoch Times equals unreliable.

9906:

for noncontroversial and technical information? I am trying to source

4630:

as a good source of information on postwar interstate agreements, and

4264: 2226:

I agree, as I stated before the Wiki article gives a decent overview.

888:) is a leisure industry magazine, which has been published since 1997. 856:

They have been hired to produce official promotional material for VRTP

9775: 8540: 8008:

https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/482554-right-wing-populism-india/

4150:

media editor. It is also misrepresentative of the discussions in the

3790: 3187:. PS. If anyone cares I also found an estimate for 675 tanks lost in 696: 588: 165: 10983:

did not get the point that apologetics books are often junk sources.

7912: 5378: 4237:

them in a five minute search of likely parts of my editing history.

1734:

But it seem that website look like a partial clone of timeline from

274:

rather than the so far provided comments that are more speculative.

10916:, all others I have cited are full professors in a relevant field. 10836: 9747: 8441: 8221: 7390: 6854: 6723: 6533: 6045: 5007: 4725:, since the article frames the statment as something the JVL said: 4711:(including Knowledge) are unacceptable in most cases regardless of 4569: 4534: 4024: 3956: 3853: 3550: 3528: 3396: 3338: 2649: 2642: 2514:

This information or book of Cohen was removed with note that it is

2308: 615: 503: 177: 8564: 8350:"After a week of Russian propaganda, I was questioning everything" 7922:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020

7795:

trustworthy in some situations. They are never to be trusted. See

7650:- how heavily used is it? Also, would this include SputnikNews? - 6740: 6106:

I do not see a right great wrongs argument above. Please explain.

5792:

Uncritically citing prominent non-scientist climate change deniers

5388:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020

3180:. Note that the number 993 is often repeated by numerous sources ( 2506:. Report by Hauptmann Lccb (OB Siidost/Id), June 1942, NOKW-926. 972:

even find an about page. But I would say the first two are nor RS.

744: 9546:

sworn testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence

8692:"Russian Information Warfare: Implications for Deterrence Theory" 8615:

Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy

8595:

Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President

8339: 8253:

30 in-depth reliable sources describing RT as a propaganda outlet

6035:, that's a statement of principle based on repudiation of (e.g.) 5916: 3207:

The numbers for tank losses don't seem too out there - Forczyk's

874: 9746:

in a different category? Incidentally, I watch RT occasionally:

9613:

RT has many internationally recognised journalists/politicians;

8335:"La campaña de desinformación de Rusia sobre la guerra en Siria" 7743:

can be used and nix the rest if that's a reasonable approach. --

4780:

In the current language of the RfC, I agree that this source is

4731:"Doris Roberts, Mother on ‘Everybody Loves Raymond,’ Dies at 90" 10012: 9718: 7578:

That indicates a need for the typical ‘what is it now’ option:

6878:, yet continued for over a year anyway. More recently, we have 2587: 11196:

I was talking about the first question, not about the second.

10274:

The Epoch Times is generally unreliable but this interview is.

9156:

ends at the first signature, as that is the statement that is

8362:"RT's propaganda is far less influential than Westerners fear" 5836:) 21:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC) - nah, let's go straight Option 4 - 2490:

for this information Cohen probably uses as a source book of

9590: 8798:"Beyond propaganda: Soviet active measures in Putin's Russia" 4546: 4526: 4147: 2148:

I would say he is RS for his views, not for them being facts.

829: 794: 751:) is a theme park news site with a ride database (similar to 566: 538: 11282:"Fox News shows broke UK TV impartiality rules, Ofcom finds" 10674:

already established) would not be reliable, especially when

9593:

in the UK for broadcasting standards. While Ofcom said that

9562:

Perennial sources#RT (both general and controversial topics)

9506:. I think there are two types of reporting for which it may 8496: 3328:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Kekoolani

737: 9995:

doesn't seem to be working). It was already debated in the

9987:

I have been discussing the inclusion of an expert interview

9952:, not necessarily giving reliable insight into your topic. 8852: 8527:"Inside RT, Russia's Kremlin-Controlled Propaganda Network" 6956:

Putting the contention in quotes doesnt protect you from a

6780: 6737: 4739:"She made this plain in a Jewish Virtual Library interview" 3634: 3522:

Despite being widely used, these do not meet the tests for

10952:

an actual account in 1 Samuel, but is merely describing a

10526:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

7344:(2019): Consensus that CNSNews.com is generally unreliable 6813:. Jeezy petes that CNBS article is another opinion piece. 5878:*Newsbusters and MRCTV were proponents of the fringe idea 3787:

Unreliable for facts, no due weight for attributed opinion

3190:

but I am too tired right now to check if it is reliable.--

2652:

for tourism-related information, as it might be useful on

10103:

sources for these sorts of issues, not the Epoch Times. -

9420:

Per pretty much countless RS, not reliable for anything.

8282: 8279:"The global internet is disintegrating. What comes next?" 7511:

Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be

6303:

What gives you that impression? I made no mention of it.

6037:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

5683:

Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be

3885:

Understanding Sacramental Healing: Anointing and Viaticum

10515:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to

9603:

RT has been nominated 4 times for the news award in the

6578:, especially Newsbusters. Partisanship trumps facts. -- 4737:, since the article treats the JVL as a primary source: 4263:

Second, the Jewish Virtual Library (

4080:

entry. Given that many articles appear to be written by

3912: 3727: 909:

I endorse all three sites (Parkz, OurWorlds and ALM) as

822: 8262:

Warrick, Joby; Troianovski, Anton (December 10, 2018).

4753:; "according to " is the one of the best indicators of 4747:"Bahrain picks Jew as U.S. envoy, local media critical" 4719:"A Look at the West Bank Area Netanyahu Vowed to Annex" 4022:

More attempts to assert CPOV instead of NPOV, I think.

3441:

There is a clear consensus to deprecate these sources.

1978:"True story of the evil Serbs from a Croat perspective" 417:

from stub to start-class, citing a quite wide range of

7289:

Looking at their news website it's far worse than the

5828:. Is there a legitimate use for this source at all? - 5340:

was that it was the most publicised of the massacres,

2494:

and book "The Destruction of the European Jews" (1985)

2212:

provides a good summary of the extensive controversy.

1796:

for these statements which do not seem controversial.

10194:

including any media from Epoch Times whatsoever, but

10118:

might not meet the requirements to be validated with

5035:, I see that you've converted this discussion into a 1355:

The Catholic News & Herald, the newspaper of the

10551:

Epoch Times, including this interview, is unreliable

10200:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-xiaoxu-sean-lin

9605:

International Emmy Awards Current Affairs & News

8774: 8611: 8307:

The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model

7423:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

5639:

and its various arms (CNSNews, Newsbusters, MRCTV)?

5594:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

4257:

I was able to find this evaluation of the source in

4049:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

3423:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

3083:

I've added a quotation, I think this should help. --

763:

as an official channel to distribute press releases.

10861:, whereas this is a place where we should be using 9560:) That quote should be added to the description at 7433:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5604:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5459:- I find it alarming that neither the articles for 4059:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3908: 3589:, and not self-published sources like these ones. — 3433:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1772: 9091:: Per Bob the Snob. The standard has to flow from 8261: 2906:Say, Francis, how did you find this discussion? -- 1100:]. Nothing says this is an Op-edd or an editorial. 859:and produce official ride POV videos, often in 4K. 10311:as the first signed comment in the discussion. — 10023:category. I would also like an evaluation of the 9687:RT (controversial topics, international politics) 9240:Talk:The Camp of the Saints § Request for comment 8242:Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda 3819:Listverse is currently being used as a source in 2449:Young editors are coming but also because of us. 991:. I don't know that Parkz meets the criteria for 11307:. In Ehrlich, Carl S.; White, Marsha C. (eds.). 10043:me, I recently started editing here. Thank you. 6253:They are left of say the AP, NPR, BBC, and such. 5531:to request a close or could someone here do so? 3472:Deprecate the following self-published sources: 2067:Turner's statement about Serbia being the first 11296: 10961:the section in a way that incorporates both. -- 9983:Expert interview in Epoch Times spinoff channel 8565:Yochai Benkler; Rob Faris; Hal Roberts (2018). 8317: 7255:: Clearly contributes to spreading falsehoods. 6531:or maybe 4. This is a parody of fact-checking. 4956:. The book that is incorporated into the JVL, " 3789:Listverse is another top 10 listicle site like 2689:So likely rather self serving, and promotional. 2269:Hence why I say this is more of a weight issue. 1818:etc, and editors must know if it is RS or not. 1171:articles with vetted RS? Here's some examples: 1098:] third article (and first one with a by line) 10726:. But the interview is not a reliable source. 9677:I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC, as a 9152:. The brief and neutral statement required by 8642:The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America 5968:. Bad enough that there is no legitimate use. 5882:a few years back, and they were criticized by 4523:Nazi Medical Experiments: Freezing Experiments 3883:. Specifically, we are talking about the book 3726:I personally believe it's about time we count 8690:Ajir, Media; Vailliant, Bethany (Fall 2018). 8689: 7436:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 7338:(2010): No consensus on Media Research Center 7272:Per sources presented by Snoogans and others 5607:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 4270:for secondary sources over tertiary sources. 4062:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 3436:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 11165:Why is there a conflict between the stories? 10335:oh thanks, should I remove the options also? 10035:: I know the Epoch Times is currently being 8830:Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej 8724: 8318:Norton, Ben; Greenwald, Glenn (2016-11-26). 8305:Paul, Christopher; Matthews, Miriam (2016). 8304: 8067:, Hillary Clinton health conspiracy theories 5909:one of the best partisan fact-checking sites 1740:International Directory of Company Histories 1736:International Directory of Company Histories 478:By basing their argument on Tesla-bias user 8482:"Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach" 8452:"Russia threatens severe curbs on US media" 8419: 5251:: frequently uses Knowledge as a source. -- 4743:"Sources: Sharon taps new defense minister" 3770:, so no, that is not a winning argument. -- 1767:declared Serbia as first European country 725:I am currently engaged in a rewrite of the 462:]. Articles like this are pretty egregious 114:Some days ago I created an article stub on 10395:The Epoch Times is never a reliable source 8437:"Russia pushes more 'deep state' hashtags" 8389: 8073:, and random-ass 4chan conspiracy theories 7495:Unclear or additional considerations apply 7457:Which of the following best describes the 5667:Unclear or additional considerations apply 5629:Which of the following best describes the 3134:Propaganda in the Polish People's Republic 608:Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory 9778:on for four hours every night. PBS hired 8740:Research Centre for East European Studies 8728:Russia's Public Foreign Policy Narratives 8715: 8374: 8292:"When a Dissident Becomes a Collaborator" 7994:Not sure why anyone would want to censor 4832:: despite our puff-piece articles on the 4751:"according to the Jewish Virtual Library" 4543:History and overview of Aushwitz-Birkenau 1393:"AIDS affects entire planet, says priest" 11162:Is there a conflict between the stories? 11131:Again there are two different questions: 10893:. Please chime in. Hushbeck seems to be 10409:, it really shouldn't be on Knowledge. 8588: 8434: 7024:This is controversial, but I agree with 5185:and this our sign of reliability as per 4342:they cite Knowledge and iMDB as sources 4180:who added the entry, for their comments. 2648:I am wondering about the reliability of 11267:was invoked but never defined (see the 11257: 10703:And the report it references in Caixin. 9455:, of course. Is this still debatable? 8612:Marcel H. Van Herpen (1 October 2015). 8494: 8479: 8332: 5871:Commenting with additional information. 5465:American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise 4838:American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise 4144:American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise 573:has argued at length - with support of 14: 9399:actual RS would provide that context. 8795: 8635: 8525:Morris, David Z. (17 September 2017). 8524: 8467:"What the Russian Facebook Ads Reveal" 8464: 8449: 8404: 5587:and its arms (CNS, Newsbusters, MRCTV) 4606:used the site in a 2019 discussion on 4121:used on 985 pages throughout Knowledge 4084:, some of the site could be used as a 3736:2407:7000:A2AB:D00:8881:4E66:524D:FD70 3633:discussion where several editors like 2320:Jerusalem: Macmillan Company, vol. 16. 1115:content by Wilson is labelled as such. 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 11302: 9627:https://rt.com/onair-talent/bill-dod/ 8997:. In Russia, source deprecates you! — 8819: 8662: 8509: 8465:Graham, David A. (7 September 2017). 8407:"Putin's Weapon in the War of Images" 8347: 8188:for most things. Not better than 3. 5613:be deprecated along the lines of the 5298:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3247:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3193:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3086:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3038:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2961:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2909:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2874:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2349:This is Yugoslavian source from 1957( 853:'s original designer, John Longhurst. 626:(2020) as well as upgraded from stub 548:cite to support their claims against 10632: 10499: 9097:list of journalists killed in Russia 8539: 8435:Schwartz, Jason (February 6, 2018). 8405:Bidder, Benjamin (August 13, 2013). 8289: 8276: 7787:The way you talk about wiping every 5931:does something similar occasionally. 4914:Applied_Research_Institute–Jerusalem 3937:That suggests to me a misreading of 3881:University of Saint Mary of the Lake 3730:as a reliable source as they have a 2890:WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations 563:predicting Tesla's imminent collapse 409:In response to the suggestions from 29: 11262: 10431:manner of stating his affiliation. 8598:. Oxford University Press. p. 115. 8510:Aleem, Zeeshan (10 November 2017). 8375:Manthorpe, Jonathan (May 2, 2019). 8333:Peinado, Fernando (16 April 2018). 4265:http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org 2369:We do not analyse sources, that is 1357:Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte 897:as well as industry/financial news. 228:but the number of reliable sources 27: 9948:, it seems like it has a focus on 9716:in an article from 6 years ago in 8805:Connections: The Quarterly Journal 8777:"Measuring RT's impact on YouTube" 7998:. ^^ Here they are interviewing 7926:Knowledge:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 6880:The 1619 Project#Critical response 5392:Knowledge:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 4840:", both of which are replete with 3768:Knowledge is not a reliable source 2856:pl:Encyklopedia II wojny światowej 1384: 28: 11338: 11095:; I had transcribed manually. -- 11026:narrator's (ie. author's) account 8480:DiResta, Renee (30 August 2018). 8390:Arrowsmith, Kevin (May 7, 2019). 7385:Interesting note from SPLC here: 7029:applied, such as attribution.---- 3915:is promoting a POV, fall foul of 3907:To elaborate, the issue, as with 2847:, but keep the above in mind per 2516:"Propaganda pieces are not WP:RS" 1390: 1203:. I can feed you quotes from the 456:companies/competing technologies 224:My feeling is might be able pass 134:and with just two comments, from 11263:Cite error: The named reference 10633: 10503: 9838:The discussion above is closed. 8813:Partnership for Peace Consortium 8495:Shuster, Simon (March 5, 2015). 8420:Riley-Smith, Ben (13 May 2019). 8348:Flock, Elizabeth (May 2, 2018). 8070:, Bilderberg conspiracy theories 7799:for detailed reasons why we can 7684: 7679: 7407:The discussion above is closed. 5574:The discussion above is closed. 5043:statement immediately below the 4146:, a lobby group run by a former 3828: 3823: 3713:The discussion above is closed. 3514: 3509: 3499: 3494: 3484: 3479: 3364: 3359: 3308: 3303: 3293: 3288: 2643:http://puna.gob.ar/tolar-grande/ 2327:tion. New York: Holmes and Meier 293:so far, which describes it as a 33: 11305:"The Sword. From Saul to David" 11284:. The Guardian. 6 November 2017 10908:We have a problem: we don't do 9597:broke UK TV impartiality rules. 9077:antisemitic conspiracy theories 8450:Seddon, Max (October 9, 2017). 8377:"All the news not fit to print" 8064:, Seth Rich conspiracy theories 6779:Here's the non-broken link for 4717:Looking at the provided links, 3909:#The_Catholic_News_&_Herald 2792:Encyklopedia II wojny światowej 1759:Propaganda pieces are not WP:RS 867:Australasian Leisure Management 804:From Parkz' "Contribute" page: 11274: 11005:) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 9158:transcluded into the RfC lists 8497:"Inside Putin's Media Machine" 7703:gawd, one to kill with fire - 5760:MRC content on climate change: 4545:articles, among many others); 4463:"pre-state Israel (1517-1948)" 3722:Listverse as a reliable source 3130:Censorship in Communist Poland 2593: 2580: 2568: 2555: 1838:Texas A&M University Press 1339:The Catholic News & Herald 875:https://www.ausleisure.com.au/ 128:discussion on this Noticeboard 13: 1: 10667:Not reliable, especially here 10540:contentious topics procedures 10486:made me remember that banner. 9794:was a correspondent on MSNBC. 9607:in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. 9372:. I debated Option 3.999 per 9132:Invalid RFC, and generally 2 8649:. pp. 161–162, 209–212, 306. 8550:The Christian Science Monitor 8290:Ward, Alex (March 12, 2019). 5336:); what was unique about the 4676:Use by other reliable sources 1523:the AIDS situation in Africa. 10707:makes this interview legit? 10262:This interview is unreliable 9589:RT is strictly regulated by 8277:Adee, Sally (May 15, 2019). 6676:Option 4 (first choice) or 3 5321:"The capture of Deir Yassin" 4608:settlements in the West Bank 3877:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS 2588:https://hrcak.srce.hr/214060 1832:Judging from the summary at 1542:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS 1540:honestly the article titled 1345:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS 757:Village Roadshow Theme Parks 510:that it is good practice to 189:reliability of this source. 7: 11309:Saul in Story and Tradition 11227:, here are direct links to 10309:brief and neutral statement 9992:Wuhan Institute of Virology 9898:Does this website, called " 9160:and publicized through the 8789:Center for Security Studies 8697:Strategic Studies Quarterly 5893:, conservative commentator 4749:do count, because they use 4156:Talk:Jewish Virtual Library 4042:RfC: Jewish Virtual Library 587:technically focused editor 10: 11343: 10924:) 16:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 10268:This interview is reliable 9908:Spanish-style bullfighting 9148:This RfC is authorized by 7717:OK, that's amazingly bad. 6644:because they are awful. – 5907:describes them in 2020 as 5886:for this behavior in 2009 5244:02:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 5220:14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 5199:16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 5166:01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 5136:16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 5119:13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 5101:Looks great, thank you. — 5097:13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 5075:12:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 5021:15:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 4991:14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 4974:13:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 4941:16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 4922:03:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 4900:12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 4869:11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 4825:05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 4794:14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 4775:00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC) 4671:20:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4649:16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4595:15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4581:11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4561:17:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC) 4507:11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4492:10:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4475:10:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4454:09:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4433:01:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4415:00:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC) 4388:23:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4368:23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4333:22:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4282:23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4249:18:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4224:12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 4201:Wikiproject notifications: 4192:17:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC) 4133:13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) 3416:RfC: Three genealogy sites 3318:List of current pretenders 1816:Banjica concentration camp 500:coordinating their efforts 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 11303:Meier, Samuel A. (2006). 10542:before editing this page. 10124:Copenhagen interpretation 8781:Russian Analytical Digest 7209:paper like the NYT has a 6661:per Neutrality, et al. — 6143:- that's our guideline... 5437:Generally unreliable and 4979:This is clearly false. - 4535:Timeline of the Holocause 4116:Is Jewish Virtual Library 3182:here's another English RS 2892:applies with full force. 2864:Soviet invasion of Poland 1016:and Parkz is archived in 738:https://www.parkz.com.au/ 144:South Windsor High School 11311:. Mohr Siebeck. p. 160. 11247:16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 11206:16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 11127:16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 11107:16:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 11083:16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 11045:16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 11020:16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 10973:16:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 10938:16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 10875:16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 10848:22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 10822:06:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 10808:16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10794:12:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10776:01:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10760:00:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10740:00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10717:00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10694:23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10652:00:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10627:00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10608:23:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10586:23:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10567:23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10536:normal editorial process 10496:23:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10464:01:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10441:22:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10419:22:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10386:01:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 10369:22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10346:22:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10329:22:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10293:22:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10254:22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10233:22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10211:21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10180:22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10148:22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10113:21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10084:21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10069:21:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 10053:21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 9975:13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 9966:Sounds good, thank you! 9962:05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 9946:the parts of a bullfight 9935:00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 9888:01:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 9866:13:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 9840:Please do not modify it. 9833:04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 9816:05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 9804:03:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 9726:, Fox News Channel, the 9689:for past discussions. — 9666:16:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 9574:13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 9537:21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 9516:the most detailed source 9499:20:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 9482:19:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 9465:18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 9448:19:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 9430:07:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 9422:AmbivalentUnequivocality 9409:13:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 9390:12:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 9361:04:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 9340:18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 9312:04:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 9287:04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 9272:04:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 9225:04:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 9182:06:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 9162:feedback request service 9144:23:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 9127:20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 9110:14:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 9084:23:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 9075:As RT just tweeted more 9068:19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 9037:14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 9016:14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 8989:23:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 8971:15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 8954:21:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 8935:10:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 8915:07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 8898:05:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 8862:is a superior source. — 8748:10.3929/ethz-b-000311091 8620:Rowman & Littlefield 8181:19:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 8031:22:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 7946:14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 7600:04:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 7452:19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 7430:Please do not modify it. 7409:Please do not modify it. 7402:08:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 7362:for past discussions. — 7321:02:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 7303:03:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 7282:02:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 7274:AmbivalentUnequivocality 7265:01:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 7238:23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 7223:21:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 7200:20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 7172:03:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 7149:03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 7127:01:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 7110:20:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 7083:20:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 7065:19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 7043:05:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 7007:17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 6989:00:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 6970:19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 6945:01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 6923:13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6892:00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 6838:05:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 6823:01:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 6805:00:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 6775:00:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 6756:00:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 6705:10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 6688:20:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 6671:23:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 6654:20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 6637:20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 6610:15:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6588:01:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6571:00:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6545:23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6520:22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6502:21:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6483:17:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6454:17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6435:01:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6400:17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6381:01:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6328:16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6313:16:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6281:16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6266:15:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6243:17:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6210:10:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6192:16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6169:01:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6131:01:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6116:01:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6102:00:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6084:00:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 6057:23:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 6022:02:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 5812:02:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 5624:19:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 5601:Please do not modify it. 5576:Please do not modify it. 5569:20:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 5541:14:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 5512:17:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 5495:17:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 5482:01:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 5452:21:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 5432:12:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 5412:14:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 5369:00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 5146:feedback request service 4519:Nazi human experimenting 4461:One has to wonder about 4459:Not reliable for IP area 4299:was reviewed in 2002 by 4259:Religious Studies Review 4111:18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 4095:mostly unreliable source 4056:Please do not modify it. 4036:10:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 4016:21:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3999:21:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3970:15:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3951:12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3933:00:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3902:00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3865:22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3843:19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 3811:19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 3780:13:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 3762:09:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 3744:06:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 3715:Please do not modify it. 3708:19:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 3691:03:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 3674:10:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 3651:19:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 3608:14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 3581:21:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 3562:11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 3540:11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 3467:21:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3430:Please do not modify it. 3408:11:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 3355:I think we can also add 3275:15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3257:07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3225:19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3203:07:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3151:05:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3116:04:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3096:01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3079:01:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3048:01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 3005:23:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2971:01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2954:22:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2933:08:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2919:01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2902:20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2884:13:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2835:11:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2820:11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2772:16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2757:14:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2741:14:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2727:12:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2713:12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2699:10:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2685:10:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2666:09:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2636:23:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2544:21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2528:21:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2473:07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC) 2459:19:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2444:18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2428:19:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2413:18:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2398:18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2383:18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2363:18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2279:14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2265:14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2250:14:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2236:14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2222:13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2204:13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2187:12:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2173:12:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2158:11:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2134:13:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2119:12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2105:11:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2086:06:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2063:06:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2048:05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2013:14:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1991:14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1973:14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1943:13:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1928:12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1914:07:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1887:07:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1868:06:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1851:05:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1828:04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1806:04:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1794:provided a better source 1784:03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1754:10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1607:19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 1583:01:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 1560:19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 1533:23:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1517:20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1496:20:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1473:23:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1458:20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1444:19:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1428:19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1374:18:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1334:04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 1283:04:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 1253:15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1235:15:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 1163:14:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 1147:14:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 1110:14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 1092:12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 1061:12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 1046:11:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 982:10:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 967:09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 892:cover attraction updates 727:Warner Bros. Movie World 705:21:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 688:01:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC) 669:21:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 644:20:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 486:. Also while discussing 474:04:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 439:15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 405:09:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 387:16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 372:15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 338:09:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 319:08:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 284:07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 243:03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 122:now has a question from 11113:diff of desired content 11073:That's the full quote. 10523:as a contentious topic. 9999:, and was dismissed as 9707:23:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8880:23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8590:Jamieson, Kathleen Hall 8573:Oxford University Press 8233:22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8212:22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8163:21:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8145:21:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8128:19:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8116:19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8086:18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8048:17:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 8015:16:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7983:15:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7966:15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7916:, a blocked and banned 7904:15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7870:17:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7856:16:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7841:16:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7824:15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7783:15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7756:15:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7727:18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7713:15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7699:15:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7660:14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7643:14:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7626:14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7574:14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7537:14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7477:14:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 7380:23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 6355:22:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 5999:02:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 5978:22:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5957:22:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5867:21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5846:22:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5752:20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5709:20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5649:20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 5382:, a blocked and banned 5350:23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 5308:02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5285:01:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 5261:01:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 4836:and the grandly named " 4426:IDF Spokesperson's Unit 3387:19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 3350:18:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC) 3121:Pioturs is using it in 2586:Zvonimir Despot, 1997, 995:; I have a feeling the 987:Thanks for your input, 218:13:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 199:10:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC) 11064: 11007: 10926: 10897:in Bible scholarship. 10532:standards of behaviour 9942:madridbullfighting.com 9940:I wouldn't think so. " 9900:madridbullfighting.com 9894:madridbullfighting.com 9848:Motherland controversy 9525:not in Knowledge voice 9207: 8796:Abrams, Steve (2016). 7416:RfC: RT (Russia Today) 5470:not generally reliable 5461:Jewish Virtual Library 4834:Jewish Virtual Library 4709:user-generated content 4705:Self-published sources 4600:Contextual reliability 4296:Jewish Virtual Library 3132:) and spreading lies ( 1353:disagree about whether 788:DC Rivals HyperCoaster 498:(see above) have been 306: 148:Ser Amantio di Nicolao 11053: 10986: 10899: 10099:. We should be using 9202: 8820:Reire, Gunda (2015). 8592:(24 September 2018). 8219:. Cannot be trusted. 8000:Siddharth Varadarajan 7913:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 7896:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 7505:for factual reporting 7489:for factual reporting 7356:Media Research Center 5677:for factual reporting 5661:for factual reporting 5636:Media Research Center 5585:Media Research Center 5379:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 4983:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! 4817:Supreme Deliciousness 4549:(which cites the JVL 4537:(which cites the JVL 4529:(which cites the JVL 4521:(which cites the JVL 4163:here, four months ago 3734:. What do you think? 1700:Reports - Knowledge: 823:https://ourworlds.co/ 514:. Ironic since I had 302: 291:this Mashable profile 46:of past discussions. 11223:All, In addition to 11028:in 1 Samuel and the 10528:purpose of Knowledge 10168:Present Danger China 10126:was also considered 9912:parts of a bullfight 9294:looks fine to me. — 8736:University of Bremen 6899:Option 3 or option 4 6659:Option 3 or Option 4 5983:Option 1 or Option 2 5901:*On the other hand, 5338:Deir Yassin massacre 5334:Al-Dawayima massacre 5317:Deir Yassin massacre 4690:) does not count as 4657:Interesting. How is 3799:Top 10 Most Evil Men 3263:Generally unreliable 3032:battle for railloads 3025:better source needed 2860:pl:Kazimierz Sobczak 1619:steelonthenet.com: 1397:Catholic News Herald 921:-reviewed articles ( 882:Editorial Guidelines 391:Can we please avoid 110:CleanTechnica, again 10301:request for comment 9728:Wall Street Journal 9683:RT (general topics) 9635:Scottie Nell Hughes 9345:User:Horse Eye Jack 8543:(17 January 2017). 8370:. January 19, 2017. 8269:The Washington Post 7425:request for comment 6907:The Weekly Standard 6903:Wall Street Journal 6732:The Washington Post 6271:and not hyperbole. 6090:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 5732:CNSNews falsehoods: 5596:request for comment 5376:Struck comments by 5365:click to talk to me 5290:Mostly not reliable 5041:"neutral and brief" 5037:request for comment 4960:", is published by 4051:request for comment 3955:It appears to be a 3627:Support deprecation 3425:request for comment 3280:Two genealogy sites 2705:JoJo Eumerus mobile 2312:this bibliography: 2082:click to talk to me 1206:Gold Coast Bulletin 556:respectmyplanet.org 526:has been noted (by 11030:Amelekite's report 10513:contentious topics 10482:you talking about 9780:William F. Buckley 9595:Fox News in the UK 8674:Simon and Schuster 8240:. As discussed in 7910:Struck comment by 7765:RT_America#History 7137:Duke lacrosse case 4733:does not count as 4721:is a weak case of 4688:s media bias chart 3943:Andreas Philopater 3833:articles, christ. 3754:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 3492:worldstatesmen.org 3301:worldstatesmen.org 3123:Invasion of Poland 2984:Invasion of Poland 612:Technisch Weekblad 516:offered assistance 11317:978-3-16-148569-5 10943:The disagreement 10846: 10547: 10546: 10519:, which has been 10366: 10326: 10001:conspiracy theory 9704: 9309: 9269: 9179: 8877: 8844: 8843: 8628:978-1-4422-5362-9 8604:978-0-19-091582-7 8581:978-0-19-092362-4 8264:"Agents of doubt" 8231: 8024:as a general rule 7943: 7400: 7377: 7108: 6863:, climate change 6543: 6437: 6421:comment added by 6236: 6162: 6077: 6055: 5992: 5566: 5409: 5222: 5163: 5116: 5072: 5053:template to meet 4855: 4772: 4579: 4444:comes into play. 4413: 4319: 4292:"Myths and Facts" 4261:written in 2006: 4034: 3871:Hillenbrand Books 3863: 3795:Ruhollah Khomeini 3665: 3560: 3538: 3448: 3445:non-admin closure 3406: 3375:Almanach de Gotha 3348: 2043: 1898:Vladimir Žerjavić 1728: 620:Bovrup-kartoteket 484:(anti-)Tesla-bias 314: 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current main page 11334: 11325: 11324: 11300: 11294: 11293: 11291: 11289: 11278: 11272: 11266: 11261: 11239: 11119: 11099: 11094: 11062: 11037: 10965: 10950: 10928:Quoting myself. 10907: 10892: 10840: 10747:Will not include 10737: 10730: 10691: 10684: 10649: 10642: 10638: 10637: 10636: 10605: 10598: 10564: 10557: 10507: 10500: 10481: 10371: 10364: 10360: 10357: 10336: 10331: 10324: 10320: 10317: 9972: 9932: 9902:", qualify as a 9877: 9740:Washington Times 9702: 9698: 9695: 9664: 9660: 9655: 9521:RT in particular 9401:Snooganssnoogans 9307: 9303: 9300: 9267: 9263: 9260: 9177: 9173: 9170: 9063: 9058: 9053: 9027: 9004: 9001: 8951: 8946: 8875: 8871: 8868: 8861: 8838: 8826: 8816: 8802: 8792: 8771: 8765: 8761: 8759: 8751: 8734:. 229. Vol. 17. 8733: 8721: 8719: 8686: 8659: 8639:(3 April 2018). 8632: 8608: 8585: 8561: 8536: 8521: 8506: 8491: 8476: 8461: 8446: 8431: 8416: 8401: 8397:The Sunday Times 8386: 8371: 8357: 8344: 8329: 8314: 8311:RAND Corporation 8301: 8286: 8273: 8249: 8248: 8225: 8210: 8114: 8078:Snooganssnoogans 8033: 8004:The Wire (India) 7948: 7941: 7937: 7934: 7915: 7833: 7780: 7773: 7748: 7740:Option 4, but... 7688: 7683: 7674: 7566:Snooganssnoogans 7529:Snooganssnoogans 7469:Snooganssnoogans 7432: 7394: 7375: 7371: 7368: 7350:Additionally, a 7342:RfC: CNSNews.com 7327:Discussion (MRC) 7105: 7100: 7098: 7039: 6997: 6976:Daniel Holtzclaw 6955: 6913: 6800: 6751: 6668: 6666: 6632: 6627: 6622: 6569: 6537: 6512:Snooganssnoogans 6499: 6494: 6416: 6234: 6180: 6160: 6075: 6069: 6049: 6014:Snooganssnoogans 5990: 5936:Snooganssnoogans 5804:Snooganssnoogans 5744:Snooganssnoogans 5701:Snooganssnoogans 5641:Snooganssnoogans 5603: 5564: 5560: 5557: 5526: 5510: 5414: 5407: 5403: 5400: 5381: 5327:." (My bolding) 5319:, which becomes 5304: 5283: 5232: 5215: 5210: 5161: 5157: 5154: 5114: 5110: 5107: 5087:I have done so. 5070: 5066: 5063: 5052: 5046: 5042: 4898: 4853: 4770: 4766: 4763: 4752: 4740: 4728: 4687: 4681:this article on 4573: 4559: 4551:Raoul Wallenberg 4505: 4448: 4405: 4366: 4312: 4179: 4058: 4028: 3997: 3857: 3832: 3827: 3752:I'm leaning no. 3663: 3596: 3593: 3578: 3573: 3554: 3532: 3524:reliable sources 3518: 3513: 3503: 3498: 3488: 3483: 3465: 3442: 3432: 3400: 3368: 3363: 3342: 3312: 3307: 3297: 3292: 3253: 3199: 3092: 3077: 3058: 3044: 3029: 3023: 3015: 3003: 2967: 2915: 2880: 2634: 2602: 2597: 2591: 2584: 2578: 2572: 2566: 2559: 2305:Dimitrije Ljotić 2102: 2096: 2046: 2041: 1962: 1953: 1620: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1557: 1550: 1514: 1507: 1401: 1400: 1391:Evans, Karen A. 1388: 1331: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1280: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1232: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1144: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1096:Their news page 1089: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1043: 1031: 1028: 1025: 964: 952: 949: 946: 317: 312: 299:their about page 210: 184:: Knowledge has 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 11342: 11341: 11337: 11336: 11335: 11333: 11332: 11331: 11330: 11329: 11328: 11318: 11301: 11297: 11287: 11285: 11280: 11279: 11275: 11264: 11258: 11237: 11117: 11111:All, Here is a 11097: 11088: 11063: 11061:Samuel A. Meier 11060: 11035: 10963: 10944: 10901: 10889: 10886: 10733: 10728: 10687: 10680: 10645: 10640: 10634: 10601: 10596: 10560: 10555: 10530:, any expected 10475: 10407:The Epoch Times 10403:The Epoch Times 10362: 10355: 10350: 10334: 10322: 10315: 10298: 10192:strongly oppose 10132:Albert Einstein 9985: 9968: 9950:selling tickets 9928: 9904:reliable source 9896: 9871: 9851: 9844: 9843: 9809:The Four Deuces 9762:, and formerly 9760:Mike Papantonio 9700: 9693: 9674: 9672:Discussion (RT) 9656: 9651: 9649: 9639:Mike Papantonio 9305: 9298: 9265: 9258: 9213:RT (TV network) 9187:User:Newslinger 9175: 9168: 9061: 9056: 9051: 9025: 9002: 8999: 8963:BobFromBrockley 8949: 8944: 8882: 8873: 8866: 8855: 8845: 8824: 8800: 8763: 8762: 8753: 8752: 8731: 8683: 8656: 8647:Crown/Archetype 8637:Snyder, Timothy 8629: 8605: 8582: 8457:Financial Times 8360: 8254: 8189: 8098: 8021: 7939: 7932: 7928:for details. — 7911: 7909: 7831: 7776: 7769: 7746: 7668: 7610: 7464:RT (TV network) 7454: 7428: 7418: 7413: 7412: 7382: 7373: 7366: 7329: 7103: 7096: 7037: 6995: 6949: 6911: 6796: 6747: 6697:Devonian Wombat 6664: 6662: 6630: 6625: 6620: 6553: 6497: 6492: 6238: 6174: 6164: 6079: 6067: 5994: 5716: 5626: 5599: 5589: 5580: 5579: 5562: 5555: 5520: 5505: 5405: 5398: 5394:for details. — 5377: 5375: 5306: 5302: 5269: 5230: 5213: 5159: 5152: 5112: 5105: 5068: 5061: 5050: 5044: 5040: 4958:Myths and Facts 4893: 4768: 4761: 4750: 4738: 4726: 4685: 4554: 4500: 4446: 4379: 4350: 4294:section of the 4273: 4240: 4169: 4154:archive and at 4138:The summary at 4113: 4074:WP:BIASEDSOURCE 4054: 4044: 3981: 3894:Slugger O'Toole 3873: 3724: 3719: 3718: 3658:per proposal. - 3594: 3591: 3576: 3571: 3469: 3449: 3428: 3418: 3371:Burke's Peerage 3282: 3255: 3251: 3201: 3197: 3161:User:Kolakowski 3094: 3090: 3061: 3060:if neccessary. 3052: 3046: 3042: 3027: 3021: 3009: 2987: 2969: 2965: 2946:MyMoloboaccount 2944:expectations.-- 2925:François Robere 2917: 2913: 2894:François Robere 2882: 2878: 2810:. So here I am. 2805:Wydawnictwo MON 2794: 2646: 2618: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2598: 2594: 2585: 2581: 2573: 2569: 2560: 2556: 2210:Philip J. Cohen 2101:(talk is cheap) 2100: 2094: 2044: 2037: 1956: 1947: 1875:Philip J. Cohen 1834:Philip J. Cohen 1761: 1676:• Discussions: 1617: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1553: 1546: 1510: 1503: 1450:Slugger O'Toole 1406: 1405: 1404: 1389: 1385: 1366:Slugger O'Toole 1341: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1270: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1222: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1033: 1029: 1026: 1023: 954: 950: 947: 944: 941:. Thank you! — 723: 315: 308: 208: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 11340: 11327: 11326: 11316: 11295: 11273: 11255: 11254: 11250: 11221: 11220: 11219: 11218: 11217: 11216: 11215: 11214: 11213: 11212: 11211: 11210: 11209: 11208: 11181: 11180: 11179: 11178: 11177: 11176: 11175: 11174: 11173: 11172: 11171: 11170: 11169: 11168: 11167: 11166: 11163: 11145: 11144: 11143: 11142: 11141: 11140: 11139: 11138: 11137: 11136: 11135: 11134: 11133: 11132: 11058: 11052: 11051: 11050: 11049: 11048: 11047: 11008: 10984: 10978: 10888:This is about 10885: 10879: 10878: 10877: 10850: 10831: 10830: 10829: 10828: 10827: 10826: 10825: 10824: 10782: 10743: 10742: 10697: 10696: 10663: 10662: 10661: 10660: 10659: 10658: 10657: 10656: 10655: 10654: 10570: 10569: 10545: 10544: 10508: 10471: 10470: 10469: 10468: 10467: 10466: 10422: 10421: 10391: 10390: 10389: 10388: 10374: 10373: 10372: 10282: 10281: 10275: 10269: 10263: 10238: 10237: 10236: 10235: 10214: 10213: 10187: 10186: 10185: 10184: 10183: 10182: 10155: 10154: 10153: 10152: 10151: 10150: 10089: 10088: 10087: 10086: 10007:is considered 9984: 9981: 9980: 9979: 9978: 9977: 9920:this great one 9895: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9850: 9845: 9837: 9836: 9835: 9820: 9819: 9818: 9784:Tucker Carlson 9709: 9673: 9670: 9669: 9668: 9646: 9608: 9598: 9583: 9582: 9576: 9539: 9501: 9484: 9467: 9450: 9432: 9414: 9413: 9412: 9411: 9393: 9392: 9367: 9366: 9365: 9364: 9363: 9349:Kangaroo court 9332:Horse Eye Jack 9325: 9324: 9323: 9322: 9321: 9320: 9319: 9318: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9314: 9208: 9195: 9194: 9193: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9129: 9112: 9086: 9070: 9039: 9018: 8992: 8973: 8956: 8937: 8918: 8917: 8900: 8849:disinformation 8846: 8842: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8817: 8793: 8772: 8722: 8687: 8681: 8664:Nance, Malcolm 8660: 8654: 8633: 8627: 8609: 8603: 8586: 8580: 8562: 8537: 8522: 8507: 8492: 8477: 8462: 8447: 8432: 8417: 8402: 8387: 8372: 8358: 8345: 8330: 8315: 8302: 8297:The New Yorker 8287: 8274: 8256: 8255: 8252: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8235: 8214: 8183: 8166: 8147: 8130: 8118: 8088: 8050: 8037: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8018: 8017: 7986: 7985: 7975:Horse Eye Jack 7968: 7951: 7950: 7949: 7880: 7879: 7878: 7877: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7848:Horse Eye Jack 7805:The Daily Mail 7793:The Daily Mail 7758: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7663: 7662: 7645: 7628: 7609: 7606: 7604: 7588: 7587: 7526: 7525: 7506: 7496: 7490: 7455: 7440: 7439: 7438: 7419: 7417: 7414: 7406: 7405: 7404: 7349: 7348: 7347: 7346: 7345: 7339: 7328: 7325: 7324: 7323: 7305: 7284: 7267: 7249: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7245: 7244: 7243: 7242: 7241: 7240: 7225: 7130: 7129: 7112: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7068: 7067: 7045: 7018: 7017: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7013: 7012: 7011: 7010: 7009: 6962:Horse Eye Jack 6926: 6925: 6895: 6894: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6841: 6840: 6815:Horse Eye Jack 6767:Horse Eye Jack 6759: 6758: 6707: 6690: 6673: 6665:Rhododendrites 6656: 6639: 6612: 6590: 6573: 6547: 6525: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6505: 6504: 6485: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6439: 6438: 6405: 6404: 6403: 6402: 6384: 6383: 6357: 6331: 6330: 6320:Horse Eye Jack 6302: 6301: 6300: 6299: 6298: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6288: 6287: 6286: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6273:Horse Eye Jack 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6246: 6245: 6232: 6194: 6184:Horse Eye Jack 6158: 6123:Horse Eye Jack 6094:Horse Eye Jack 6073: 6040: 6027: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6010:unreliable (!) 6002: 6001: 5988: 5980: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5946: 5932: 5912: 5899: 5873: 5872: 5869: 5859:Horse Eye Jack 5848: 5819: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5797: 5790: 5785: 5780: 5775: 5770: 5762: 5761: 5755: 5754: 5715: 5712: 5698: 5697: 5678: 5668: 5662: 5627: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5590: 5588: 5581: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5498: 5497: 5484: 5454: 5434: 5416: 5415: 5372: 5371: 5353: 5352: 5329: 5328: 5310: 5296: 5287: 5263: 5246: 5234:'s rationale. 5223: 5202: 5201: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5078: 5077: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4950:Self published 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4925: 4924: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4891: 4887: 4872: 4871: 4857: 4856: 4827: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4659:WP:USEBYOTHERS 4652: 4651: 4634:cites it in a 4616:WP:USEBYOTHERS 4604:New York Times 4597: 4583: 4564: 4563: 4515:search results 4510: 4509: 4494: 4477: 4456: 4435: 4418: 4417: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4377: 4371: 4370: 4336: 4335: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4307: 4306: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4271: 4252: 4251: 4238: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4181: 4159: 4114: 4099:RandomCanadian 4066: 4065: 4064: 4045: 4043: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4019: 4018: 4002: 4001: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3962:Horse Eye Jack 3872: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3814: 3813: 3783: 3782: 3764: 3723: 3720: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3693: 3676: 3664:the effin dog 3653: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3611: 3610: 3583: 3564: 3520: 3519: 3507:thepeerage.com 3504: 3489: 3470: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3419: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3357:thepeerage.com 3314: 3313: 3298: 3281: 3278: 3267:Horse Eye Jack 3260: 3259: 3245: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3191: 3153: 3119: 3118: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3084: 3036: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2959: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2907: 2872: 2868:Katyn massacre 2852: 2837: 2812:Zofia Branicka 2793: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2604: 2603: 2592: 2579: 2567: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2512: 2511: 2501: 2498: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2366: 2365: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2339: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2321: 2317: 2297: 2296: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2160: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2040: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 1894:Ljubica Štefan 1870: 1760: 1757: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1586: 1585: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1488:Horse Eye Jack 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1403: 1402: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1340: 1337: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1048: 886:Content Policy 761:Ardent Leisure 722: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 692: 691: 690: 656: 652: 631: 604:De frie Danske 584: 580: 579: 578: 559: 542: 506:had to remind 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 422: 407: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 311: 301:mentions that 271: 267: 266: 265: 262: 259: 256: 246: 245: 221: 220: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 11339: 11323: 11319: 11314: 11310: 11306: 11299: 11283: 11277: 11270: 11260: 11256: 11253: 11249: 11248: 11244: 11240: 11234: 11230: 11226: 11207: 11203: 11199: 11195: 11194: 11193: 11192: 11191: 11190: 11189: 11188: 11187: 11186: 11185: 11184: 11183: 11182: 11164: 11161: 11160: 11159: 11158: 11157: 11156: 11155: 11154: 11153: 11152: 11151: 11150: 11149: 11148: 11147: 11146: 11130: 11129: 11128: 11124: 11120: 11114: 11110: 11109: 11108: 11104: 11100: 11092: 11086: 11085: 11084: 11080: 11076: 11072: 11071: 11070: 11069: 11068: 11067: 11066: 11065: 11057: 11046: 11042: 11038: 11031: 11027: 11023: 11022: 11021: 11017: 11013: 11009: 11006: 11004: 11000: 10996: 10992: 10989:mentioned at 10985: 10982: 10979: 10976: 10975: 10974: 10970: 10966: 10960: 10955: 10948: 10942: 10941: 10940: 10939: 10935: 10931: 10925: 10923: 10919: 10915: 10911: 10905: 10898: 10896: 10891: 10884: 10881:Hushbeck and 10876: 10872: 10868: 10864: 10860: 10856: 10851: 10849: 10844: 10839: 10838: 10833: 10832: 10823: 10819: 10815: 10811: 10810: 10809: 10805: 10801: 10797: 10796: 10795: 10791: 10787: 10783: 10779: 10778: 10777: 10773: 10769: 10764: 10763: 10762: 10761: 10757: 10753: 10748: 10741: 10738: 10736: 10731: 10725: 10721: 10720: 10719: 10718: 10714: 10710: 10705: 10702: 10695: 10692: 10690: 10685: 10683: 10677: 10673: 10668: 10665: 10664: 10653: 10650: 10648: 10643: 10630: 10629: 10628: 10624: 10620: 10615: 10611: 10610: 10609: 10606: 10604: 10599: 10593: 10589: 10588: 10587: 10583: 10579: 10574: 10573: 10572: 10571: 10568: 10565: 10563: 10558: 10552: 10549: 10548: 10543: 10541: 10537: 10533: 10529: 10524: 10522: 10518: 10514: 10509: 10506: 10502: 10501: 10498: 10497: 10493: 10489: 10485: 10479: 10465: 10461: 10457: 10453: 10449: 10444: 10443: 10442: 10438: 10434: 10430: 10426: 10425: 10424: 10423: 10420: 10416: 10412: 10408: 10404: 10400: 10396: 10393: 10392: 10387: 10383: 10379: 10375: 10370: 10367: 10365: 10359: 10358: 10349: 10348: 10347: 10343: 10339: 10333: 10332: 10330: 10327: 10325: 10319: 10318: 10310: 10306: 10302: 10297: 10296: 10295: 10294: 10290: 10286: 10279: 10276: 10273: 10270: 10267: 10264: 10261: 10258: 10257: 10256: 10255: 10251: 10247: 10243: 10234: 10230: 10226: 10222: 10218: 10217: 10216: 10215: 10212: 10208: 10204: 10201: 10197: 10193: 10189: 10188: 10181: 10177: 10173: 10169: 10165: 10161: 10160: 10159: 10158: 10157: 10156: 10149: 10145: 10141: 10137: 10133: 10129: 10125: 10121: 10116: 10115: 10114: 10110: 10106: 10105:Thucydides411 10102: 10098: 10093: 10092: 10091: 10090: 10085: 10081: 10077: 10072: 10071: 10070: 10066: 10062: 10057: 10056: 10055: 10054: 10050: 10046: 10042: 10038: 10034: 10030: 10026: 10022: 10018: 10013: 10010: 10006: 10002: 9998: 9993: 9989: 9976: 9973: 9971: 9970:Donna Spencer 9965: 9964: 9963: 9959: 9955: 9951: 9947: 9943: 9939: 9938: 9937: 9936: 9933: 9931: 9930:Donna Spencer 9925: 9921: 9917: 9913: 9909: 9905: 9901: 9889: 9885: 9881: 9875: 9870: 9869: 9868: 9867: 9863: 9859: 9855: 9849: 9841: 9834: 9830: 9826: 9821: 9817: 9814: 9810: 9807: 9806: 9805: 9801: 9797: 9793: 9789: 9785: 9781: 9777: 9773: 9769: 9765: 9761: 9757: 9753: 9749: 9745: 9741: 9737: 9736:New York Post 9733: 9729: 9725: 9721: 9720: 9715: 9710: 9708: 9705: 9703: 9697: 9696: 9688: 9684: 9680: 9676: 9675: 9667: 9663: 9661: 9659: 9654: 9647: 9644: 9640: 9636: 9632: 9628: 9624: 9620: 9619:Peter Lavelle 9616: 9612: 9609: 9606: 9602: 9599: 9596: 9592: 9588: 9585: 9584: 9580: 9577: 9575: 9571: 9567: 9563: 9559: 9558:bolding added 9555: 9551: 9550:Jake Sullivan 9547: 9543: 9540: 9538: 9534: 9530: 9526: 9522: 9517: 9513: 9509: 9505: 9502: 9500: 9496: 9492: 9488: 9485: 9483: 9479: 9475: 9471: 9468: 9466: 9462: 9458: 9457:Beyond My Ken 9454: 9451: 9449: 9445: 9441: 9436: 9433: 9431: 9427: 9423: 9419: 9416: 9415: 9410: 9406: 9402: 9397: 9396: 9395: 9394: 9391: 9387: 9383: 9379: 9378:Shooterwalker 9375: 9371: 9368: 9362: 9358: 9354: 9350: 9346: 9343: 9342: 9341: 9337: 9333: 9329: 9328: 9327: 9326: 9313: 9310: 9308: 9302: 9301: 9293: 9292:Your addition 9290: 9289: 9288: 9284: 9280: 9275: 9274: 9273: 9270: 9268: 9262: 9261: 9253: 9249: 9245: 9241: 9237: 9232: 9228: 9227: 9226: 9222: 9218: 9214: 9209: 9206: 9201: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9196: 9188: 9185: 9184: 9183: 9180: 9178: 9172: 9171: 9163: 9159: 9155: 9151: 9147: 9146: 9145: 9141: 9137: 9133: 9130: 9128: 9124: 9120: 9116: 9113: 9111: 9107: 9103: 9102:Shooterwalker 9098: 9094: 9090: 9087: 9085: 9082: 9078: 9074: 9073:Snow Option 4 9071: 9069: 9066: 9064: 9059: 9054: 9047: 9043: 9040: 9038: 9035: 9034: 9033: 9028: 9022: 9019: 9017: 9013: 9009: 9005: 8996: 8993: 8990: 8986: 8982: 8977: 8974: 8972: 8968: 8964: 8960: 8957: 8955: 8952: 8947: 8942:per above. ~ 8941: 8938: 8936: 8932: 8928: 8923: 8920: 8919: 8916: 8912: 8908: 8904: 8901: 8899: 8895: 8891: 8887: 8884: 8883: 8881: 8878: 8876: 8870: 8869: 8859: 8854: 8850: 8836: 8832: 8831: 8823: 8818: 8814: 8810: 8806: 8799: 8794: 8790: 8786: 8782: 8778: 8773: 8769: 8757: 8749: 8745: 8741: 8737: 8730: 8729: 8723: 8718: 8714: 8710: 8707: 8703: 8699: 8698: 8693: 8688: 8684: 8682:9781510723337 8679: 8675: 8671: 8670: 8665: 8661: 8657: 8655:9780525574484 8652: 8648: 8644: 8643: 8638: 8634: 8630: 8625: 8622:. pp. 73–74. 8621: 8617: 8616: 8610: 8606: 8601: 8597: 8596: 8591: 8587: 8583: 8578: 8574: 8570: 8569: 8563: 8559: 8556: 8552: 8551: 8546: 8542: 8538: 8534: 8533: 8528: 8523: 8519: 8518: 8513: 8508: 8504: 8503: 8498: 8493: 8489: 8488: 8483: 8478: 8474: 8473: 8468: 8463: 8459: 8458: 8453: 8448: 8444: 8443: 8438: 8433: 8429: 8428: 8427:The Telegraph 8423: 8418: 8414: 8413: 8408: 8403: 8399: 8398: 8393: 8388: 8384: 8383: 8378: 8373: 8369: 8368: 8367:The Economist 8363: 8359: 8355: 8351: 8346: 8342: 8341: 8336: 8331: 8327: 8326: 8325:The Intercept 8321: 8316: 8312: 8308: 8303: 8299: 8298: 8293: 8288: 8284: 8280: 8275: 8271: 8270: 8265: 8260: 8259: 8258: 8257: 8251: 8250: 8243: 8239: 8236: 8234: 8229: 8224: 8223: 8218: 8215: 8213: 8208: 8204: 8200: 8196: 8192: 8187: 8184: 8182: 8178: 8174: 8170: 8167: 8165: 8164: 8160: 8156: 8152: 8148: 8146: 8142: 8138: 8134: 8131: 8129: 8126: 8122: 8119: 8117: 8113: 8112: 8108: 8107: 8103: 8102: 8096: 8092: 8089: 8087: 8083: 8079: 8075: 8072: 8069: 8066: 8063: 8060: 8057: 8054: 8051: 8049: 8046: 8042: 8039: 8038: 8032: 8029: 8025: 8020: 8019: 8016: 8013: 8009: 8005: 8001: 7997: 7993: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7987: 7984: 7980: 7976: 7972: 7969: 7967: 7963: 7959: 7955: 7952: 7947: 7944: 7942: 7936: 7935: 7927: 7923: 7919: 7914: 7908: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7901: 7897: 7893: 7889: 7885: 7881: 7871: 7867: 7863: 7859: 7858: 7857: 7853: 7849: 7844: 7843: 7842: 7838: 7834: 7827: 7826: 7825: 7821: 7817: 7813: 7809: 7806: 7802: 7798: 7794: 7790: 7786: 7785: 7784: 7781: 7779: 7774: 7772: 7766: 7762: 7759: 7757: 7753: 7749: 7741: 7738: 7737: 7728: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7715: 7714: 7710: 7706: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7696: 7692: 7687: 7682: 7678: 7672: 7667: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7661: 7657: 7653: 7649: 7646: 7644: 7640: 7636: 7632: 7629: 7627: 7623: 7619: 7615: 7612: 7611: 7605: 7602: 7601: 7597: 7593: 7584: 7581: 7580: 7579: 7576: 7575: 7571: 7567: 7563: 7561: 7558: 7555: 7553: 7551: 7549: 7547: 7544: 7539: 7538: 7534: 7530: 7524: 7523: 7518: 7514: 7510: 7507: 7504: 7500: 7497: 7494: 7491: 7488: 7484: 7481: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7474: 7470: 7466: 7465: 7460: 7453: 7450: 7449: 7444: 7437: 7434: 7431: 7426: 7421: 7420: 7410: 7403: 7398: 7393: 7392: 7388: 7384: 7383: 7381: 7378: 7376: 7370: 7369: 7361: 7357: 7353: 7343: 7340: 7337: 7334: 7333: 7331: 7330: 7322: 7318: 7314: 7309: 7306: 7304: 7300: 7296: 7292: 7288: 7285: 7283: 7279: 7275: 7271: 7268: 7266: 7262: 7258: 7254: 7251: 7250: 7239: 7235: 7231: 7230:Adoring nanny 7226: 7224: 7220: 7216: 7212: 7208: 7203: 7202: 7201: 7197: 7193: 7192:Adoring nanny 7189: 7185: 7181: 7178: 7175: 7174: 7173: 7169: 7165: 7160: 7156: 7152: 7151: 7150: 7146: 7142: 7141:Adoring nanny 7138: 7134: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7128: 7124: 7120: 7116: 7113: 7111: 7106: 7099: 7093: 7090: 7089: 7084: 7080: 7076: 7075:Adoring nanny 7072: 7071: 7070: 7069: 7066: 7062: 7058: 7054: 7049: 7046: 7044: 7040: 7034: 7033: 7027: 7023: 7020: 7019: 7008: 7005: 7004: 7003: 6998: 6992: 6991: 6990: 6986: 6982: 6981:Adoring nanny 6977: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6967: 6963: 6959: 6953: 6952:Adoring nanny 6948: 6947: 6946: 6942: 6938: 6937:Adoring nanny 6934: 6930: 6929: 6928: 6927: 6924: 6921: 6920: 6919: 6914: 6908: 6904: 6900: 6897: 6896: 6893: 6889: 6885: 6884:Adoring nanny 6881: 6877: 6874: 6870: 6868: 6865: 6862: 6860: 6858: 6855: 6852: 6849: 6839: 6835: 6831: 6826: 6825: 6824: 6820: 6816: 6812: 6808: 6807: 6806: 6803: 6801: 6799: 6792: 6788: 6784: 6782: 6778: 6777: 6776: 6772: 6768: 6763: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6757: 6754: 6752: 6750: 6744: 6741: 6739: 6735: 6733: 6729: 6727: 6725: 6721: 6719: 6715: 6711: 6708: 6706: 6702: 6698: 6694: 6693:Option 3 or 4 6691: 6689: 6685: 6681: 6677: 6674: 6672: 6667: 6660: 6657: 6655: 6651: 6647: 6643: 6640: 6638: 6635: 6633: 6628: 6623: 6616: 6613: 6611: 6607: 6603: 6598: 6594: 6591: 6589: 6585: 6581: 6577: 6574: 6572: 6568: 6567: 6563: 6562: 6558: 6557: 6551: 6548: 6546: 6541: 6536: 6535: 6530: 6527: 6526: 6521: 6517: 6513: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6503: 6500: 6495: 6490:per above. ~ 6489: 6488:Option 1 or 2 6486: 6484: 6481: 6477: 6472: 6468: 6464: 6461: 6460: 6455: 6451: 6447: 6443: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6436: 6432: 6428: 6424: 6420: 6414: 6410: 6407: 6406: 6401: 6397: 6393: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6382: 6378: 6374: 6369: 6365: 6361: 6358: 6356: 6352: 6348: 6344: 6340: 6336: 6333: 6332: 6329: 6325: 6321: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6310: 6306: 6282: 6278: 6274: 6269: 6268: 6267: 6263: 6259: 6255: 6252: 6244: 6241: 6237: 6231: 6228: 6223: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6211: 6207: 6203: 6199: 6195: 6193: 6189: 6185: 6178: 6172: 6171: 6170: 6167: 6163: 6157: 6154: 6150: 6146: 6142: 6138: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6128: 6124: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6099: 6095: 6091: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6082: 6078: 6072: 6065: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6053: 6048: 6047: 6041: 6038: 6034: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6023: 6019: 6015: 6011: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6000: 5997: 5993: 5987: 5984: 5981: 5979: 5975: 5971: 5967: 5964: 5963: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5947: 5945: 5943: 5940: 5937: 5933: 5930: 5926: 5924: 5922: 5919: 5918: 5913: 5910: 5906: 5905: 5904:The Daily Dot 5900: 5896: 5892: 5888: 5885: 5881: 5877: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5870: 5868: 5864: 5860: 5856: 5852: 5849: 5847: 5843: 5839: 5835: 5831: 5827: 5824: 5821: 5820: 5813: 5809: 5805: 5801: 5798: 5796: 5794: 5791: 5789: 5786: 5784: 5781: 5779: 5776: 5774: 5771: 5769: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5753: 5749: 5745: 5742: 5740: 5738: 5736: 5734: 5731: 5728: 5725: 5721: 5718: 5717: 5711: 5710: 5706: 5702: 5696: 5695: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5679: 5676: 5672: 5669: 5666: 5663: 5660: 5656: 5653: 5652: 5651: 5650: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5637: 5632: 5625: 5622: 5621: 5616: 5608: 5605: 5602: 5597: 5592: 5591: 5586: 5577: 5570: 5567: 5565: 5559: 5558: 5550: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5524: 5513: 5509: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5496: 5493: 5488: 5485: 5483: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5466: 5462: 5458: 5455: 5453: 5449: 5445: 5441: 5440: 5435: 5433: 5430: 5425: 5421: 5418: 5417: 5413: 5410: 5408: 5402: 5401: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5380: 5374: 5373: 5370: 5366: 5362: 5358: 5355: 5354: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5330: 5326: 5322: 5318: 5314: 5311: 5309: 5305: 5299: 5294: 5291: 5288: 5286: 5281: 5277: 5273: 5267: 5264: 5262: 5258: 5254: 5250: 5247: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5233: 5227: 5224: 5221: 5217: 5216: 5207: 5204: 5203: 5200: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5184: 5180: 5177: 5167: 5164: 5162: 5156: 5155: 5147: 5143: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5117: 5115: 5109: 5108: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5076: 5073: 5071: 5065: 5064: 5056: 5049: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5029: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5009: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4993: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4981: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4948: 4947: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4923: 4920: 4915: 4910: 4907: 4906: 4901: 4897: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4859: 4858: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4835: 4831: 4828: 4826: 4822: 4818: 4814: 4811: 4808: 4807:Not reliable. 4805: 4804: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4773: 4771: 4765: 4764: 4756: 4748: 4744: 4736: 4732: 4724: 4720: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4697: 4694:. I consider 4693: 4689: 4684: 4677: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4612:2016 obituary 4609: 4605: 4601: 4598: 4596: 4593: 4591: 4587: 4584: 4582: 4577: 4572: 4571: 4566: 4565: 4562: 4558: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4504: 4498: 4495: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4478: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4457: 4455: 4452: 4449: 4443: 4439: 4436: 4434: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4420: 4419: 4416: 4412: 4410: 4404: 4403: 4398: 4395: 4394: 4389: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4369: 4365: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4355: 4354: 4348: 4346: 4344: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4323: 4317: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4305: 4302: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4288: 4283: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4268: 4266: 4260: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4250: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4235: 4234: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4214:on 16 April. 4213: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4202: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4182: 4177: 4173: 4167: 4164: 4160: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082:Mitchell Bard 4079: 4075: 4071: 4063: 4060: 4057: 4052: 4047: 4046: 4037: 4032: 4027: 4026: 4021: 4020: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4008:AlmostFrancis 4004: 4003: 4000: 3996: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3986: 3985: 3979: 3978: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3866: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3850: 3849: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3831: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3785: 3784: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3716: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3694: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3657: 3654: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3625: 3624: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3588: 3584: 3582: 3579: 3574: 3568: 3565: 3563: 3558: 3553: 3552: 3548:as proposer. 3547: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3536: 3531: 3530: 3525: 3517: 3512: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3446: 3437: 3434: 3431: 3426: 3421: 3420: 3409: 3404: 3399: 3398: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3367: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3346: 3341: 3340: 3334: 3331: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3319: 3311: 3306: 3302: 3299: 3296: 3291: 3287: 3284: 3283: 3277: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3258: 3254: 3248: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3239: 3236: 3234: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3213:Panzertroopen 3210: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3200: 3194: 3189: 3186: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3097: 3093: 3087: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3056: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3039: 3033: 3026: 3019: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3002: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2985: 2981: 2978: 2977: 2972: 2968: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2942: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2910: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2881: 2875: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2800: 2798: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2764:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2760: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2658:Jo-Jo Eumerus 2655: 2651: 2644: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2616: 2612: 2609: 2608: 2601: 2596: 2589: 2583: 2576: 2571: 2564: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2496: 2493: 2489: 2486: 2485: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347: 2342: 2341: 2336: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2295: 2292: 2291: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2163:conclusion.-- 2161: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2098: 2097: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2034: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1979: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1960: 1951: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1765:Harald Turner 1756: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1624: 1615:steelonthenet 1608: 1605: 1604: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1551: 1549: 1543: 1539: 1538:AlmostFrancis 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1525:AlmostFrancis 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1508: 1506: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465:AlmostFrancis 1461: 1460: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1420:AlmostFrancis 1417: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1398: 1394: 1387: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349:AlmostFrancis 1346: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1274: 1269: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1208: 1207: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1119: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1097: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1047: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1019: 1015: 1013: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 969: 968: 965: 962: 958: 953: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 907: 906: 902: 901: 899: 896: 894: 890: 887: 883: 878: 876: 872: 868: 864: 863: 861: 858: 855: 852: 848: 845: 843: 840: 838: 835: 831: 826: 824: 820: 816: 815: 811: 810: 807: 802: 801: 799: 795: 792: 789: 783: 782: 780: 777: 775: 772: 770: 767: 765: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 741: 739: 735: 731: 728: 706: 702: 698: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 666: 662: 657: 653: 650: 647: 646: 645: 641: 637: 632: 629: 625: 624:CleanTechnica 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 595: 593: 590: 585: 581: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 557: 554: 553: 551: 550:CleanTechnica 547: 543: 540: 536: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 463: 461: 459: 457: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 440: 436: 432: 427: 423: 420: 416: 415:CleanTechnica 412: 408: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 389: 388: 384: 380: 375: 374: 373: 369: 365: 364:157.157.83.50 361: 358: 356: 354: 352: 349: 348: 339: 335: 331: 327: 326:CleanTechnica 322: 321: 320: 316: 305: 300: 296: 292: 287: 286: 285: 281: 277: 272: 270:observations. 268: 263: 260: 257: 254: 253: 250: 249: 248: 247: 244: 240: 236: 231: 227: 223: 222: 219: 215: 211: 203: 202: 201: 200: 196: 192: 187: 186:200+ articles 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 116:CleanTechnica 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: 11321: 11308: 11298: 11286:. Retrieved 11276: 11259: 11251: 11233:Tgeorgescu's 11222: 11054: 11029: 11025: 10995:conservative 10994: 10987: 10953: 10927: 10900: 10887: 10835: 10768:PhysiqueUL09 10752:PhysiqueUL09 10746: 10744: 10734: 10709:PhysiqueUL09 10698: 10688: 10681: 10678:are needed. 10666: 10646: 10619:PhysiqueUL09 10602: 10592:PhysiqueUL09 10578:PhysiqueUL09 10561: 10550: 10525: 10510: 10488:PhysiqueUL09 10472: 10451: 10447: 10433:PhysiqueUL09 10406: 10402: 10394: 10353: 10352: 10338:PhysiqueUL09 10313: 10312: 10307:, and use a 10285:PhysiqueUL09 10283: 10277: 10271: 10265: 10259: 10246:PhysiqueUL09 10239: 10225:PhysiqueUL09 10195: 10191: 10140:PhysiqueUL09 10076:PhysiqueUL09 10045:PhysiqueUL09 10032: 10028: 9986: 9969: 9949: 9929: 9915: 9897: 9874:Slatersteven 9858:Slatersteven 9852: 9839: 9788:Pat Buchanan 9756:Chris Hedges 9752:Rick Sanchez 9743: 9739: 9735: 9731: 9727: 9723: 9717: 9714:James Taylor 9691: 9690: 9657: 9652: 9643:Alex Salmond 9625:, Bill Dod ( 9610: 9600: 9586: 9578: 9557: 9553: 9541: 9524: 9520: 9515: 9507: 9503: 9486: 9469: 9452: 9440:Grandpallama 9434: 9417: 9374:Bob not snob 9369: 9296: 9295: 9256: 9255: 9203: 9166: 9165: 9131: 9114: 9089:Option 3.999 9088: 9072: 9049: 9045: 9041: 9031: 9030: 9020: 8994: 8975: 8958: 8939: 8921: 8902: 8890:Bob not snob 8886:Option 3.999 8885: 8864: 8863: 8834: 8828: 8808: 8804: 8784: 8780: 8727: 8704:(3): 70–89. 8701: 8695: 8668: 8641: 8614: 8594: 8567: 8548: 8530: 8515: 8500: 8485: 8472:The Atlantic 8470: 8455: 8440: 8425: 8410: 8395: 8380: 8365: 8354:PBS NewsHour 8338: 8323: 8295: 8267: 8237: 8220: 8216: 8185: 8173:Hemiauchenia 8168: 8155:Hemiauchenia 8150: 8149: 8135:very biased 8132: 8120: 8110: 8105: 8100: 8090: 8052: 8040: 8023: 8002:, editor of 7995: 7991: 7970: 7958:Slatersteven 7953: 7930: 7929: 7883: 7882: 7811: 7804: 7800: 7792: 7788: 7777: 7770: 7760: 7739: 7705:David Gerard 7691:Hemiauchenia 7675:It's around 7671:David Gerard 7652:David Gerard 7647: 7630: 7613: 7603: 7589: 7582: 7577: 7564: 7540: 7527: 7520: 7508: 7498: 7492: 7482: 7462: 7456: 7446: 7442: 7435: 7429: 7422: 7408: 7389: 7364: 7363: 7307: 7290: 7286: 7269: 7252: 7159:The Big Lead 7114: 7091: 7047: 7031: 7026:MaximumIdeas 7021: 7001: 7000: 6917: 6916: 6898: 6866:, elections 6850: 6798:Spy-cicle💥 6797: 6790: 6786: 6749:Spy-cicle💥 6748: 6742:, USA Today 6713: 6709: 6692: 6675: 6658: 6641: 6618: 6614: 6596: 6592: 6575: 6565: 6560: 6555: 6549: 6532: 6528: 6487: 6476:undue weight 6466: 6462: 6417:— Preceding 6412: 6408: 6373:MaximumIdeas 6363: 6359: 6338: 6334: 6227:this article 6202:David Gerard 6197: 6149:WP:RECENTISM 6136: 6044: 6009: 5982: 5965: 5915: 5902: 5895:Ross Douthat 5884:The Atlantic 5883: 5854: 5850: 5838:David Gerard 5830:David Gerard 5825: 5822: 5723: 5719: 5714:Survey (MRC) 5699: 5692: 5680: 5670: 5664: 5654: 5634: 5628: 5618: 5614: 5606: 5600: 5593: 5575: 5553: 5552: 5533:Onceinawhile 5518: 5486: 5469: 5456: 5436: 5419: 5396: 5395: 5361:Peacemaker67 5357:Not reliable 5356: 5324: 5313:Not reliable 5312: 5289: 5266:Not reliable 5265: 5249:Not reliable 5248: 5226:Not reliable 5225: 5211: 5206:Not reliable 5205: 5178: 5150: 5149: 5103: 5102: 5089:Onceinawhile 5059: 5058: 5033:Onceinawhile 5013:Onceinawhile 5006: 4978: 4966:Onceinawhile 4949: 4933:Onceinawhile 4908: 4861:Onceinawhile 4842:WP:ABOUTSELF 4830:One man band 4829: 4806: 4782:Not reliable 4781: 4759: 4758: 4716: 4682: 4663:Onceinawhile 4636:2008 article 4631: 4623: 4620:2002 article 4603: 4599: 4586:Not Reliable 4585: 4568: 4553:article). 4539:Wilhelm Marr 4525:article ); 4496: 4484:Slatersteven 4480:Not reliable 4479: 4458: 4438:Not reliable 4437: 4422:Not reliable 4421: 4406: 4401: 4397:Not reliable 4396: 4382: 4381: 4362: 4357: 4352: 4340:Not reliable 4339: 4325:Onceinawhile 4295: 4276: 4275: 4262: 4258: 4243: 4242: 4216:Onceinawhile 4200: 4184:Onceinawhile 4172:Guarapiranga 4125:Onceinawhile 4115: 4094: 4061: 4055: 4048: 4023: 3993: 3988: 3983: 3913:explicit aim 3890:this content 3884: 3874: 3852: 3835:Hemiauchenia 3803:Hemiauchenia 3786: 3725: 3714: 3700:Hemiauchenia 3695: 3678: 3669: 3660: 3655: 3626: 3566: 3549: 3546:Support all 3545: 3527: 3521: 3477:royalark.net 3471: 3461: 3456: 3451: 3435: 3429: 3422: 3395: 3392:Hemiauchenia 3379:Hemiauchenia 3337: 3335: 3332: 3322: 3315: 3286:royalark.net 3262: 3261: 3231: 3212: 3208: 3120: 3073: 3068: 3063: 3031: 2999: 2994: 2989: 2980:Not reliable 2979: 2827:Slatersteven 2795: 2749:Slatersteven 2719:Slatersteven 2691:Slatersteven 2647: 2630: 2625: 2620: 2610: 2595: 2582: 2577:#page=29-30 2570: 2557: 2549: 2515: 2513: 2507: 2503: 2492:Raul Hilberg 2487: 2465:Slatersteven 2436:Slatersteven 2375:Slatersteven 2350: 2298: 2293: 2271:Slatersteven 2242:Slatersteven 2196:Slatersteven 2193: 2150:Slatersteven 2092: 2078:Peacemaker67 2072: 2068: 1977: 1790:Peacemaker67 1768: 1762: 1744: 1739: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1674:COIBot-Local 1658:MER-C X-wiki 1618: 1594: 1554: 1547: 1511: 1504: 1499: 1485: 1436:Slatersteven 1396: 1386: 1378: 1342: 1309: 1307: 1258: 1245:Slatersteven 1210: 1204: 1168: 1155:Slatersteven 1122: 1102:Slatersteven 1067: 1053:Slatersteven 1021: 1004: 1000: 989:Slatersteven 974:Slatersteven 970: 942: 910: 908: 904: 903: 879: 870: 866: 865: 846:and reviews. 827: 818: 817: 812: 805: 803: 784: 742: 733: 732: 724: 555: 539:(anti-)Tesla 303: 294: 229: 154:Prairieplant 152: 113: 82: 47: 41: 10914:an engineer 10814:Hob Gadling 10800:David notMD 10786:Hob Gadling 10452:exclusively 10411::bloodofox: 10164:contributor 10037:discredited 10033:Disclaimer2 10029:Disclaimer1 10005:Epoch Times 9825:Markbassett 9792:Ann Coulter 9679:deprecation 9491::bloodofox: 9353:Markbassett 9279:Markbassett 9217:Markbassett 9154:WP:RFCBRIEF 9136:Markbassett 8961:per above. 8927:Selfstudier 8742:. pp. 2–5. 8412:Der Spiegel 8137:Atlantic306 7608:Survey (RT) 7592:Markbassett 7459:reliability 7360:CNSNews.com 7352:deprecation 7295:Gandydancer 5934:*Adding to 5823:Option 3 or 5631:reliability 5442:per above. 5253:K.e.coffman 5055:WP:RFCBRIEF 4962:CreateSpace 4626:recommends 4467:Selfstudier 4447:Doug Weller 4303:as follows: 4301:Donald Neff 4070:WP:CIRCULAR 3772:Nat Gertler 3635:SMcCandlish 3617:pythoncoder 3569:per Guy ~ 3567:Support all 3178:User:Pavlor 3174:User:Buidhe 2654:Ojos de Mar 2650:this source 2590:#page= 623 2301:Milan Nedić 1902:Ljubo Boban 1812:Milan Nedić 1726:AboutUs.com 1722:domaintools 1666:Links on en 1664:• Reports: 1621:Linksearch 1018:Google News 828:OurWorlds ( 622:(2019) and 395:arguments? 297:. However, 158:Minesweeper 102:Archive 300 94:Archive 297 89:Archive 296 83:Archive 295 77:Archive 294 72:Archive 293 64:Archive 290 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 11252:References 11229:my version 11198:Tgeorgescu 11091:Tgeorgescu 11075:Tgeorgescu 11012:Tgeorgescu 11010:Quoted by 10947:Tgeorgescu 10930:Tgeorgescu 10918:Tgeorgescu 10590:Honestly, 10521:designated 10517:Falun Gong 10484:Falun Gong 10399:Falun Gong 10356:Newslinger 10316:Newslinger 10196:especially 9924:Britannica 9772:Glenn Beck 9768:Ed Schultz 9764:Larry King 9694:Newslinger 9631:Max Keiser 9623:Kevin Owen 9615:Larry King 9504:Option 3.5 9299:Newslinger 9259:Newslinger 9238:archives: 9169:Newslinger 8959:Option 3/4 8922:Option 2.5 8867:Newslinger 8541:Weir, Fred 8382:Asia Times 8309:(Report). 8151:Option 2/3 8045:Neutrality 8028:SashiRolls 8012:SashiRolls 7996:On Contact 7933:Newslinger 7918:sockpuppet 7888:XOR'easter 7862:XOR'easter 7789:Daily Mail 7719:XOR'easter 7618:XOR'easter 7522:Daily Mail 7515:as in the 7513:deprecated 7503:unreliable 7501:Generally 7485:Generally 7443:Daily Mail 7367:Newslinger 7291:Daily Mail 7257:NightHeron 7053:WP:NOTNEWS 6811:WP:NEWSORG 6480:Neutrality 6446:XOR'easter 6423:Sir Joseph 6392:XOR'easter 6305:PackMecEng 6258:PackMecEng 6153:WP:NOTNEWS 6145:WP:NEWSORG 6137:in context 6108:PackMecEng 5970:XOR'easter 5880:birtherism 5694:Daily Mail 5687:as in the 5685:deprecated 5675:unreliable 5673:Generally 5657:Generally 5615:Daily Mail 5556:Newslinger 5523:Newslinger 5492:Sir Joseph 5474:Nanophosis 5429:SashiRolls 5399:Newslinger 5384:sockpuppet 5303:reply here 5272:Javert2113 5153:Newslinger 5124:Newslinger 5106:Newslinger 5085:Newslinger 5062:Newslinger 4919:Sir Joseph 4762:Newslinger 4533:article); 4409:talk to me 4090:WP:PRIMARY 3797:as #8 in " 3587:Daily Mail 3252:reply here 3209:Case White 3198:reply here 3091:reply here 3043:reply here 3018:WP:REDFLAG 2966:reply here 2914:reply here 2879:reply here 2673:registered 2550:References 2536:—DIYeditor 2405:—DIYeditor 2214:—DIYeditor 2005:—DIYeditor 1920:—DIYeditor 1843:—DIYeditor 1798:—DIYeditor 1746:Matthew hk 1720:• Domain: 1712:• Google: 1626:(insource) 1379:References 997:Staff page 851:Dreamworld 841:editorials 628:Ingeniøren 600:many links 528:MartinezMD 11269:help page 10991:WP:CHOPSY 10855:WP:FRINGE 10672:JoelleJay 10534:, or any 10478:Bloodofox 10456:JoelleJay 10378:JoelleJay 10278:Option 4: 10272:Option 3: 10266:Option 2: 10260:Option 1: 10203:JoelleJay 10172:JoelleJay 10136:WP:FRINGE 10128:WP:FRINGE 10097:WP:FRINGE 10021:WP:BIASED 9997:talk page 9954:Maxmmyron 9880:EnTerbury 9776:Lou Dobbs 9732:Telegraph 9508:sometimes 9252:WP:RSNRFC 9150:WP:RSNRFC 8907:Burrobert 8858:RSP entry 8766:ignored ( 8764:|journal= 8756:cite book 8709:1936-1815 8558:0882-7729 8091:Deprecate 7884:Option 4: 7816:Guy Macon 7689:articles 7631:Option 4: 7583:Option 5: 7509:Option 4: 7499:Option 3: 7493:Option 2: 7483:Option 1: 7270:Option 4: 7057:JoelleJay 7022:Option 2: 6787:USA Today 6471:Mann 2012 6347:Loksmythe 6064:USA Today 5929:Bloomberg 5681:Option 4: 5671:Option 3: 5665:Option 2: 5655:Option 1: 5439:deprecate 5209:website. 4954:WP:RS/SPS 4879:Reception 4628:this page 3921:Roscelese 3791:WatchMojo 3728:Listverse 3643:JoelleJay 3217:Nigel Ish 2709:main talk 2565:#page= 83 2500:footnote: 2488:Judenfrei 2073:Judenrein 2069:Judenfrei 1950:DIYeditor 1769:Judenfrei 1688:• COIBot- 1654:Spamcheck 1571:Roscelese 1361:WP:BIASED 939:consensus 819:OurWorlds 328:article. 182:Rfassbind 170:Back ache 120:talk page 11265:Guardian 11225:the diff 10910:WP:GEVAL 10895:WP:RANDY 10883:WP:RANDY 10863:WP:MEDRS 10745:Ok then 10729:Schazjmd 10676:WP:MEDRS 10641:Schazjmd 10614:Schazjmd 10612:Yeah... 10597:Schazjmd 10556:Schazjmd 10305:WP:RFCST 10190:I would 10120:WP:MEDRS 10101:WP:MEDRS 10061:Blueboar 10025:WP:MEDRS 10017:WP:MEDRS 10009:WP:MEDRS 9813:Levivich 9748:Lee Camp 9738:and the 9611:FACT #3: 9601:FACT #2: 9587:FACT #1: 9579:Option 1 9542:Option 4 9487:Option 4 9470:Option 4 9453:Option 4 9435:Option 4 9418:Option 4 9370:Option 4 9115:Option 4 9081:Reywas92 9042:Option 4 9021:Option 4 9012:contribs 8995:Option 4 8976:Option 4 8940:Option 3 8903:Option 1 8717:26481910 8666:(2016). 8442:Politico 8238:Option 4 8217:Option 4 8191:Headbomb 8186:Option 4 8169:Option 4 8133:Option 4 8125:Levivich 8053:Option 4 8041:Option 4 7992:Option 2 7971:Option 4 7954:Option 4 7812:Option 4 7761:Option 3 7648:Option 4 7614:Option 4 7541:Per the 7517:2017 RfC 7487:reliable 7448:MastCell 7313:Zaathras 7308:Option 4 7287:Option 4 7253:Option 4 7215:Grayfell 7164:Grayfell 7119:Grayfell 7115:Option 4 7097:Gamaliel 7092:Option 4 7048:Option 4 7032:ZiaLater 6851:Option 1 6830:Springee 6791:The Hill 6724:Fox News 6718:The Hill 6714:Option 2 6710:Option 1 6646:Muboshgu 6642:Option 4 6615:Option 3 6602:Mr Ernie 6600:of one? 6597:Option 2 6593:Option 1 6576:Option 4 6529:Option 3 6467:Option 4 6463:Option 3 6431:contribs 6419:unsigned 6413:Option 2 6409:Option 1 6364:Option 2 6360:Option 1 6339:Option 2 6335:Option 1 5966:Option 4 5891:NYT blog 5855:Option 4 5851:Option 3 5826:Option 4 5724:Option 4 5720:Option 3 5689:2017 RfC 5659:reliable 5620:MastCell 5508:ZScarpia 5487:Reliable 5231:nableezy 5214:nableezy 5008:pro bono 4896:ZScarpia 4683:InfoWars 4557:ZScarpia 4503:ZScarpia 4442:WP:UNDUE 4402:Bolter21 4383:Rosguill 4378:signed, 4316:Si Kenen 4277:Rosguill 4272:signed, 4244:Rosguill 4239:signed, 4168:Pinging 4107:contribs 3957:seminary 3929:contribs 3604:contribs 3373:and the 3316:Most of 3172:). Ping 2854:Anyway, 2611:Reliable 2520:Mikola22 2451:Mikola22 2420:Mikola22 2390:Mikola22 2355:Mikola22 2309:Chetniks 2179:Mikola22 2111:Mikola22 2055:Mikola22 1983:Mikola22 1959:Mikola22 1935:Mikola22 1906:Mikola22 1860:Mikola22 1820:Mikola22 1792:already 1776:Mikola22 1696:, & 1682:advanced 1579:contribs 1177:Guardian 911:reliable 680:QRep2020 661:Springee 649:Lklundin 636:Lklundin 618:(2018), 616:Electrek 614:(2017), 610:(2015), 606:(2014), 575:Springee 571:QRep2020 569:, where 546:Springee 537:with an 524:QRep2020 520:QRep2020 508:Springee 496:QRep2020 492:Springee 480:Springee 466:Springee 431:Lklundin 397:Lklundin 379:Springee 330:Lklundin 276:Lklundin 235:Springee 191:Lklundin 174:Mariordo 140:Springee 132:QRep2020 124:QRep2020 20:‎ | 11087:Thanks 10448:du jour 10242:example 10219:As per 10041:WP:BITE 9990:at the 9566:Valjean 9512:example 9474:Milpack 9236:WP:RFCL 9119:Kaldari 8981:Zoozaz1 8532:Fortune 8340:El Pais 7519:of the 7461:of the 7211:leftist 7207:liberal 6680:Kaldari 6580:Valjean 6220:David, 6092:right? 5917:AP News 5691:of the 5633:of the 5529:WP:RFCL 5457:Comment 5420:Comment 5276:Siarad. 5179:Comment 5083:Thanks 4909:Comment 4883:The one 4741:. But, 4632:Reuters 4497:Comment 4140:WP:RSPS 3696:Support 3683:Milpack 3679:Support 3656:Support 3639:Smeat75 3055:Piotrus 2866:or the 2849:WP:DUCK 2845:WP:BITE 2677:Eostrix 2615:WP:NPOV 2294:Example 2257:OyMosby 2228:OyMosby 2126:OyMosby 1965:OyMosby 1879:OyMosby 1678:tracked 1650:wikt:fr 1646:wikt:en 1399:. p. 9. 1051:issues. 1007:by RS ( 834:YouTube 790:; Parkz 749:YouTube 743:Parkz ( 530:) as a 226:WP:NOTE 162:Varnent 43:archive 11288:27 May 11238:Bertrc 11118:Bertrc 11098:Bertrc 11036:Bertrc 10999:Alephb 10981:Bertrc 10964:Bertrc 10954:report 10904:Bertrc 10859:WP:DUE 10735:(talk) 10724:WP:DUE 10647:(talk) 10603:(talk) 10562:(talk) 9916:tercio 9734:, the 9730:, the 9724:Forbes 9719:Forbes 9658:Whales 9246:, and 9231:WP:RFC 9026:Jayron 9000:python 8925:spin). 8095:WP:DUE 7920:. See 7892:Shrike 7803:trust 7763:- See 7635:Shrike 7586:fact.” 7543:WP:RSP 6996:Jayron 6958:WP:BLP 6933:WP:RGW 6912:Jayron 5424:arenda 5386:. See 5342:Huldra 5325:unique 5236:NickCT 5228:- Per 5191:Shrike 5142:Shrike 5128:Shrike 4755:WP:UBO 4735:WP:UBO 4723:WP:UBO 4713:WP:UBO 4701:WP:UBO 4696:WP:UBO 4692:WP:UBO 4590:warshy 4547:Sweden 4176:ToThAc 4152:WP:RSN 4086:WP:SPS 4078:WP:RSP 3939:WP:SPS 3917:WP:SPS 3592:python 3157:WP:BRD 3143:Pavlor 3108:Pavlor 3012:Buidhe 2165:WEBDuB 1997:WP:DUE 1714:search 1670:COIBot 1642:simple 1351:and I 1005:quoted 676:WP:ABP 541:focus. 532:WP:SPA 393:WP:ABP 118:. Its 10867:-sche 10857:/not 10843:help! 10429:WP:IS 10221:WP:IS 9922:from 9591:Ofcom 9529:CJK09 9382:Daask 9093:WP:RS 9057:Media 9003:coder 8825:(PDF) 8811:(1). 8801:(PDF) 8787:(8). 8732:(PDF) 8713:JSTOR 8487:Wired 8228:help! 7801:never 7771:Green 7677:3,700 7397:help! 6626:Media 6540:help! 6343:Atsme 6177:Atsme 6141:WP:RS 6052:help! 6033:Atsme 5949:Jlevi 5583:RfC: 5444:Daask 5187:WP:RS 4786:Jlevi 4641:Jlevi 4624:Slate 4576:help! 4531:Jesus 4527:Jesus 4148:AIPAC 4031:help! 3860:help! 3595:coder 3557:help! 3535:help! 3403:help! 3345:help! 2371:wp:or 2095:Sadkσ 2039:MarkH 2001:WP:RS 1999:than 1698:XWiki 1694:Local 1602:Canoe 1548:Green 1505:Green 1411:about 1197:Parkz 1189:Parkz 1181:Parkz 1173:Parkz 905:TL;DR 880:ALM ( 830:About 745:About 734:Parkz 567:TSLAQ 426:WP:RS 419:WP:RS 411:MarkH 310:MarkH 230:about 136:Masem 16:< 11313:ISBN 11290:2020 11243:talk 11231:and 11202:talk 11123:talk 11103:talk 11079:talk 11041:talk 11016:talk 11003:talk 10969:talk 10959:edit 10934:talk 10922:talk 10871:talk 10818:talk 10804:talk 10790:talk 10772:talk 10756:talk 10713:talk 10623:talk 10582:talk 10511:The 10492:talk 10460:talk 10437:talk 10415:talk 10382:talk 10363:talk 10342:talk 10323:talk 10289:talk 10250:talk 10229:talk 10207:talk 10176:talk 10144:talk 10109:talk 10080:talk 10065:talk 10049:talk 9958:talk 9884:talk 9862:talk 9829:talk 9800:talk 9786:and 9774:AND 9766:and 9701:talk 9685:and 9653:Seth 9570:talk 9533:talk 9495:talk 9478:talk 9461:talk 9444:talk 9426:talk 9405:talk 9386:talk 9357:talk 9336:talk 9306:talk 9283:talk 9266:talk 9254:. — 9221:talk 9176:talk 9164:. — 9140:talk 9123:talk 9106:talk 9052:Free 9046:that 9008:talk 8985:talk 8967:talk 8931:talk 8911:talk 8894:talk 8874:talk 8853:TASS 8837:(4). 8768:help 8706:ISSN 8678:ISBN 8651:ISBN 8624:ISBN 8600:ISBN 8577:ISBN 8555:ISSN 8502:Time 8177:talk 8159:talk 8141:talk 8106:uidh 8082:talk 7979:talk 7962:talk 7940:talk 7924:and 7900:talk 7890:and 7886:per 7866:talk 7852:talk 7832:asem 7820:talk 7747:asem 7723:talk 7709:talk 7695:talk 7656:talk 7639:talk 7622:talk 7596:talk 7570:talk 7533:talk 7473:talk 7374:talk 7358:and 7317:talk 7299:talk 7278:talk 7261:talk 7234:talk 7219:talk 7196:talk 7183:book 7168:talk 7145:talk 7123:talk 7104:talk 7079:talk 7061:talk 7038:talk 6985:talk 6966:talk 6941:talk 6888:talk 6834:talk 6819:talk 6789:and 6781:CNBC 6771:talk 6738:CNBC 6701:talk 6684:talk 6650:talk 6621:Free 6606:talk 6584:talk 6561:uidh 6516:talk 6450:talk 6427:talk 6396:talk 6377:talk 6351:talk 6341:per 6324:talk 6309:talk 6277:talk 6262:talk 6235:Talk 6206:talk 6188:talk 6173:Ok, 6161:Talk 6127:talk 6112:talk 6098:talk 6076:Talk 6066:as: 6018:talk 5991:Talk 5974:talk 5953:talk 5863:talk 5842:talk 5834:talk 5808:talk 5748:talk 5705:talk 5645:talk 5563:talk 5537:talk 5478:talk 5463:nor 5448:talk 5406:talk 5390:and 5346:talk 5257:talk 5240:talk 5195:talk 5160:talk 5132:talk 5113:talk 5093:talk 5069:talk 5057:? — 5017:talk 4987:talk 4970:talk 4937:talk 4865:talk 4850:2017 4848:and 4846:2018 4821:talk 4790:talk 4769:talk 4745:and 4707:and 4667:talk 4645:talk 4602:The 4541:and 4488:talk 4471:talk 4451:talk 4430:Zero 4358:uidh 4329:talk 4290:The 4220:talk 4188:talk 4174:and 4129:talk 4103:talk 4012:talk 3989:uidh 3966:talk 3947:talk 3925:talk 3898:talk 3892:? -- 3839:talk 3807:talk 3776:talk 3758:talk 3749:Per 3740:talk 3704:talk 3687:talk 3670:wooF 3661:Roxy 3647:talk 3637:and 3631:this 3600:talk 3457:uidh 3383:talk 3271:talk 3221:talk 3176:and 3147:talk 3112:talk 3069:uidh 2995:uidh 2950:talk 2929:talk 2898:talk 2831:talk 2816:talk 2768:talk 2753:talk 2737:talk 2723:talk 2695:talk 2681:talk 2662:talk 2626:uidh 2540:talk 2524:talk 2469:talk 2455:talk 2440:talk 2424:talk 2409:talk 2394:talk 2379:talk 2359:talk 2307:and 2275:talk 2261:talk 2246:talk 2232:talk 2218:talk 2200:talk 2183:talk 2169:talk 2154:talk 2130:talk 2115:talk 2059:talk 2009:talk 1987:talk 1969:talk 1939:talk 1924:talk 1910:talk 1883:talk 1864:talk 1847:talk 1824:talk 1802:talk 1780:talk 1750:talk 1718:meta 1690:Link 1630:meta 1599:Blue 1575:talk 1529:talk 1492:talk 1469:talk 1454:talk 1440:talk 1434:SPS. 1424:talk 1370:talk 1249:talk 1193:myGC 1169:news 1159:talk 1106:talk 1057:talk 978:talk 797:etc. 759:and 753:RCDB 701:talk 697:TGCP 684:talk 665:talk 640:talk 589:TGCP 494:and 488:here 470:talk 435:talk 401:talk 383:talk 368:talk 334:talk 295:blog 280:talk 239:talk 209:asem 195:talk 166:rodw 138:and 10957:to 10837:Guy 10781:it. 10130:by 9910:'s 9796:TFD 9629:), 9556:" ( 9062:Kid 8950:333 8945:HAL 8785:177 8744:doi 8517:Vox 8283:BBC 8222:Guy 8010:-- 8006:. 7391:Guy 7293:. 6905:or 6712:or 6669:\\ 6631:Kid 6595:or 6550:3–4 6534:Guy 6498:333 6493:HAL 6465:or 6411:or 6362:or 6337:or 6222:CJR 6046:Guy 6012:. 5853:or 5722:or 5519:Hi 5506:← 5140:Hi 5048:rfc 5031:Hi 4894:← 4570:Guy 4555:← 4501:← 4109:) 4025:Guy 3875:At 3854:Guy 3821:203 3577:333 3572:HAL 3551:Guy 3529:Guy 3397:Guy 3339:Guy 3136:). 2803:In 2071:or 1686:RSN 1596:The 1416:CNS 1343:At 1201:GCB 1199:vs 1191:vs 1185:SMH 1183:vs 1175:vs 1009:UBO 993:SPS 915:ATT 873:) ( 871:ALM 518:to 504:Liz 460:], 458:], 178:N2e 11320:. 11271:). 11245:) 11235:-- 11204:) 11125:) 11115:-- 11105:) 11081:) 11059:— 11043:) 11018:) 10971:) 10936:) 10873:) 10820:) 10806:) 10792:) 10774:) 10758:) 10715:) 10625:) 10584:) 10494:) 10462:) 10439:) 10417:) 10384:) 10344:) 10291:) 10252:) 10244:. 10231:) 10209:) 10178:) 10170:! 10146:) 10111:) 10082:) 10067:) 10051:) 9960:) 9886:) 9864:) 9831:) 9802:) 9790:. 9782:, 9758:, 9754:, 9750:, 9744:RT 9641:, 9637:, 9633:, 9621:, 9617:, 9572:) 9548:, 9535:) 9497:) 9480:) 9463:) 9446:) 9428:) 9407:) 9388:) 9359:) 9338:) 9285:) 9242:, 9223:) 9142:) 9125:) 9108:) 9079:. 9032:32 9014:) 9010:| 8987:) 8969:) 8933:) 8913:) 8896:) 8835:13 8833:. 8827:. 8809:15 8807:. 8803:. 8783:. 8779:. 8760:: 8758:}} 8754:{{ 8738:: 8711:. 8702:12 8700:. 8694:. 8676:. 8672:. 8645:. 8618:. 8575:. 8571:. 8553:. 8547:. 8529:. 8514:. 8499:. 8484:. 8469:. 8454:. 8439:. 8424:. 8409:. 8394:. 8379:. 8364:. 8352:. 8337:. 8322:. 8294:. 8281:. 8266:. 8205:· 8201:· 8197:· 8179:) 8161:) 8143:) 8097:. 8084:) 7981:) 7964:) 7902:) 7894:. 7868:) 7854:) 7839:) 7822:) 7754:) 7725:) 7711:) 7697:) 7658:) 7641:) 7624:) 7598:) 7572:) 7535:) 7475:) 7467:? 7445:. 7427:. 7319:) 7301:) 7280:) 7263:) 7236:) 7221:) 7198:) 7190:. 7170:) 7147:) 7125:) 7081:) 7063:) 7041:) 7002:32 6987:) 6968:) 6943:) 6918:32 6890:) 6882:. 6836:) 6821:) 6773:) 6736:, 6730:, 6722:, 6703:) 6686:) 6652:) 6608:) 6586:) 6518:) 6478:. 6452:) 6433:) 6429:• 6398:) 6379:) 6353:) 6326:) 6311:) 6279:) 6264:) 6240:📧 6208:) 6190:) 6166:📧 6151:, 6147:, 6129:) 6114:) 6100:) 6081:📧 6020:) 5996:📧 5976:) 5955:) 5865:) 5844:) 5810:) 5802:. 5750:) 5707:) 5647:) 5617:. 5598:. 5551:— 5539:) 5480:) 5450:) 5367:) 5348:) 5270:— 5259:) 5242:) 5218:- 5197:) 5189:-- 5134:) 5095:) 5051:}} 5045:{{ 5019:) 4989:) 4972:) 4964:. 4939:) 4867:) 4823:) 4815:-- 4792:) 4729:. 4669:) 4647:) 4622:, 4490:) 4473:) 4428:. 4331:) 4222:) 4190:) 4131:) 4123:. 4105:/ 4053:. 4014:) 3968:) 3949:) 3931:) 3927:⋅ 3900:) 3841:) 3809:) 3778:) 3760:) 3742:) 3706:) 3689:) 3649:) 3606:) 3602:| 3526:. 3427:. 3385:) 3377:? 3273:) 3240:. 3223:) 3149:) 3114:) 3028:}} 3022:{{ 2952:) 2931:) 2900:) 2833:) 2818:) 2770:) 2755:) 2739:) 2725:) 2711:) 2697:) 2683:) 2664:) 2617:. 2542:) 2526:) 2508:49 2504:47 2471:) 2457:) 2442:) 2426:) 2411:) 2396:) 2381:) 2361:) 2303:, 2277:) 2263:) 2248:) 2234:) 2220:) 2202:) 2185:) 2171:) 2156:) 2132:) 2117:) 2084:) 2061:) 2042:21 2011:) 2003:. 1989:) 1971:) 1941:) 1926:) 1912:) 1900:, 1896:, 1885:) 1866:) 1849:) 1826:) 1814:, 1804:) 1782:) 1752:) 1742:? 1724:• 1716:• 1710:de 1708:- 1706:fr 1704:- 1702:en 1692:, 1684:- 1680:- 1672:- 1668:- 1662:gs 1660:• 1656:• 1652:• 1648:- 1644:- 1640:- 1638:fr 1636:- 1634:de 1632:- 1628:- 1623:en 1581:) 1577:⋅ 1531:) 1494:) 1471:) 1456:) 1442:) 1426:) 1395:. 1372:) 1347:, 1326:• 1318:ZE 1312:CR 1275:• 1267:ZE 1261:CR 1251:) 1227:• 1219:ZE 1213:CR 1195:; 1187:; 1179:; 1161:) 1139:• 1131:ZE 1125:CR 1108:) 1084:• 1076:ZE 1070:CR 1059:) 1038:• 1030:ZE 1024:CR 980:) 959:• 951:ZE 945:CR 933:, 929:, 925:, 919:GA 884:, 877:) 832:, 825:) 747:, 740:) 703:) 686:) 667:) 642:) 552:: 472:) 437:) 403:) 385:) 370:) 336:) 313:21 282:) 241:) 216:) 197:) 180:, 176:, 172:, 168:, 164:, 160:, 156:, 150:. 98:→ 68:← 11292:. 11241:( 11200:( 11121:( 11101:( 11093:: 11089:@ 11077:( 11039:( 11014:( 11001:( 10967:( 10949:: 10945:@ 10932:( 10920:( 10906:: 10902:@ 10869:( 10845:) 10841:( 10816:( 10802:( 10788:( 10770:( 10754:( 10711:( 10689:K 10682:K 10621:( 10580:( 10490:( 10480:: 10476:@ 10458:( 10435:( 10413:( 10380:( 10340:( 10287:( 10248:( 10227:( 10205:( 10174:( 10142:( 10107:( 10078:( 10063:( 10047:( 9956:( 9882:( 9876:: 9872:@ 9860:( 9827:( 9798:( 9568:( 9531:( 9493:( 9476:( 9459:( 9442:( 9424:( 9403:( 9384:( 9355:( 9334:( 9281:( 9219:( 9138:( 9121:( 9104:( 9065:! 9006:( 8991:~ 8983:( 8965:( 8929:( 8909:( 8892:( 8860:) 8856:( 8815:. 8791:. 8770:) 8750:. 8746:: 8720:. 8685:. 8658:. 8631:. 8607:. 8584:. 8560:. 8535:. 8520:. 8505:. 8490:. 8475:. 8460:. 8445:. 8430:. 8415:. 8400:. 8385:. 8356:. 8343:. 8328:. 8313:. 8300:. 8285:. 8272:. 8230:) 8226:( 8209:} 8207:b 8203:p 8199:c 8195:t 8193:{ 8175:( 8157:( 8139:( 8121:4 8111:e 8101:b 8080:( 7977:( 7960:( 7898:( 7864:( 7850:( 7837:t 7835:( 7830:M 7818:( 7778:C 7752:t 7750:( 7745:M 7721:( 7707:( 7693:( 7673:: 7669:@ 7654:( 7637:( 7620:( 7594:( 7568:( 7531:( 7471:( 7399:) 7395:( 7315:( 7297:( 7276:( 7259:( 7232:( 7217:( 7194:( 7166:( 7143:( 7121:( 7107:) 7101:( 7077:( 7059:( 7035:( 6983:( 6964:( 6954:: 6950:@ 6939:( 6886:( 6832:( 6817:( 6769:( 6699:( 6682:( 6648:( 6634:! 6604:( 6582:( 6566:e 6556:b 6542:) 6538:( 6514:( 6448:( 6425:( 6394:( 6375:( 6349:( 6322:( 6307:( 6275:( 6260:( 6204:( 6186:( 6179:: 6175:@ 6125:( 6110:( 6096:( 6054:) 6050:( 6016:( 5972:( 5951:( 5914:* 5861:( 5840:( 5832:( 5806:( 5746:( 5703:( 5643:( 5549: 5535:( 5525:: 5521:@ 5476:( 5446:( 5363:( 5344:( 5300:| 5282:) 5280:¤ 5278:| 5274:( 5255:( 5238:( 5193:( 5130:( 5091:( 5015:( 4985:( 4968:( 4935:( 4863:( 4819:( 4788:( 4715:. 4686:' 4665:( 4643:( 4578:) 4574:( 4486:( 4469:( 4411:) 4407:( 4363:e 4353:b 4327:( 4218:( 4211:, 4208:, 4205:, 4186:( 4178:: 4170:@ 4127:( 4101:( 4033:) 4029:( 4010:( 3994:e 3984:b 3964:( 3945:( 3923:( 3896:( 3862:) 3858:( 3837:( 3805:( 3774:( 3756:( 3738:( 3702:( 3685:( 3666:. 3645:( 3598:( 3559:) 3555:( 3537:) 3533:( 3462:e 3452:b 3447:) 3443:( 3405:) 3401:( 3381:( 3347:) 3343:( 3269:( 3249:| 3219:( 3195:| 3163:( 3145:( 3110:( 3088:| 3074:e 3064:b 3057:: 3053:@ 3040:| 3014:: 3010:@ 3000:e 2990:b 2963:| 2948:( 2927:( 2911:| 2896:( 2876:| 2829:( 2814:( 2766:( 2751:( 2735:( 2721:( 2707:( 2693:( 2679:( 2660:( 2631:e 2621:b 2538:( 2522:( 2467:( 2453:( 2438:( 2422:( 2407:( 2392:( 2377:( 2373:. 2357:( 2273:( 2259:( 2244:( 2230:( 2216:( 2198:( 2181:( 2167:( 2152:( 2128:( 2113:( 2080:( 2057:( 2007:( 1985:( 1967:( 1961:: 1957:@ 1952:: 1948:@ 1937:( 1922:( 1908:( 1881:( 1862:( 1845:( 1822:( 1800:( 1778:( 1748:( 1573:( 1555:C 1527:( 1512:C 1490:( 1467:( 1452:( 1438:( 1422:( 1368:( 1330:) 1328:C 1324:T 1322:( 1315:4 1279:) 1277:C 1273:T 1271:( 1264:4 1247:( 1231:) 1229:C 1225:T 1223:( 1216:4 1157:( 1143:) 1141:C 1137:T 1135:( 1128:4 1104:( 1088:) 1086:C 1082:T 1080:( 1073:4 1055:( 1042:) 1040:C 1036:T 1034:( 1027:4 1011:) 976:( 963:) 961:C 957:T 955:( 948:4 935:4 931:3 927:2 923:1 869:( 821:( 808:. 736:( 699:( 682:( 663:( 638:( 534:, 468:( 433:( 399:( 381:( 366:( 332:( 278:( 237:( 214:t 212:( 207:M 193:( 54:.

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

Knowledge

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295 - Knowledge

Index