1003:– While there are multiple sources that call True North far-right, there are also multiple sources that call it right-wing or right-leaning. A more accurate and neutral description would be to say "Far North is a right-wing to far-right media outlet...". However, it would be even more better to reword the lead, so that a better discussion of the organisation's political stance can be had outside the first line. A separate sentence such as "True North's political leanings have been described as ranging from right-wing to far-right." would be excellent.
84:
189:
694:
sources which disagreed with you. Did you really think I wouldn't notice that? There are some sources that describe it as "far right," but other sources which I would argue are more reliable (such as CBC) do not. You also completely ignored my point about the snarky attack in the
Election debate access section. This is really unbelievable stuff. I'm not an avid Knowledge editor like you, but it's sort of incredible how heavily motivated editors can completely twist the truth like this.
399:
284:
263:
797:
opposite of neutral, it would be partial. We are not here to help this outlet with its PR problems, we are here to explain to disinterested readers what it is in simple language. Calling it 'far-right' helps us to meet this goal. Likewise, it sources describe it as fake news, so be it (but again, more and better sources would help). It doesn't matter in the slightest if some of the sources describing this outlet are "leftist". What matters is whether or not they are
294:
179:
158:
606:. Being a "#1 Best seller" is not sufficient. These lists are devoid of context and completely fail to explain anything about the book itself other than vaguely implying a level of popularity. They are also widely manipulated for promotional purposes. The purpose of a Knowledge article is to explain things, meaning to provide context. Listing isolated factoids is not an explanation, so more work is needed before including Lawton in this article.
389:
368:
74:
53:
22:
654:, noted to be a leftist outlet. In fact, another source cited from Press Progress contradicts this. Taking another look at at the article now, it seems that Fred Zepelin has managed to scrounge up another example of them being labeled as so which was not there previously. This does not seem to be a good faith change and is certainly not enough evidence for it to be labeled as "far right" in both the short description or the lede.
963:: This RfC was made necessary by an editor who has been removing those sources from the article repeatedly, so rather than edit war, I chose to start an RfC when my points made in the discussion above were basically ignored by them. If you don't see the sources, it may be necessary to go back in the article history to see them.
496:"Not acting in good faith" – how so? Could you be more specific? I haven't been on here for a while, but it is crystal clear that other users, namely Benicio2020, have been the ones making very biased edits to this page - sometimes nuanced, and sometimes not at all nuanced and based on very old and very biased sources.
938:- multiple reliable secondary sources describe True North as far-right. It is a political organization, it has a particular approach, and that approach, as described by sources in the article, springs from a far-right viewpoint. One of those sources, from the Canada Press Freedom Project, is actually from a piece
804:
So with that in mind, if there are sources which dispute that this outlet is far-right, they should be posted here for discussion. Vaguely implying that such sources exists, somewhere, isn't compelling. Since it comes up a lot, I will state the obvious: it is completely possible to be both right-wing
796:
source to demonstrate weight. Concerns about it being a "neutral portrayal of the outlet" seem misguided to me. A neutral portrayal of a far-right fake news outlet will call it a far-right fake news outlet. Downplaying these traits, or getting evasive with them via euphemisms or similar, would be the
657:
The sentence at the end of the
Election debate access section is totally irrelevant to the section topic. Why cite a personal attack on the outlet in an unrelated section on its access to election debates? This isn't a nuanced issue, it should be immediately removed and no real person would view this
727:
I agree that I should not have to make accusations like this, because I wish all editors would act in good faith. Yes, they're still in the lede but you've deliberately changed their location to make them not appear after the claim of the TNC being "far-right" since they directly counter that claim.
693:
There are three good sources which you specifically selected, removing all sources which disagree with you. This is plain and obvious bad faith editing. You literally just added the Canada Press
Freedom Project source, that wasn't the source I was referring to, and removed the Press Progress and CBC
1040:
That's only correct in a more general sense. If you're using right-wing to describe an outlet you almost certainly don't mean far-right, or you would just say far-right. The proposed line could be rephrased to "True North's political leanings have been described as either right-wing or far-right by
731:
I invite you to study the three citations after the words "far-right" in the opening sentence before you remove them (again). I've even added quotes from the sources to help you. They all describe True North as "far-right", so no, what you say above is, at best, a mistake, and at worst, an outright
708:
You shouldn't be making accusations like this against another editor to begin with, but if you do, at least make sure you have your facts straight. The Press
Progress and CBC sources are still in the lead. They don't "disagree with me" - they simply describe TN as "far right." I think I'm done with
621:
Agree with this, that "bestseller", by itself, is next to meaningless because of the myriad ways publishers have of being able to claim virtually any book is a bestseller. A NYT bestseller would be one thing, and that certainly would carry more weight than "Globe and Mail bestseller", but even that
765:
is a notable journalist and author. If you think that whitewashing the article by removing that sentence is the right thing to do, I invite you to seek a third opinion on the matter, as I disagree. I'm not the one who added that sentence or citation to the article, which means at least two editors
1064:
It is not self-evident that sources don't mean far right when they say right-wing. The article cites two PressProgress sources, each using a different term. This demonstrates that not all outlets consider them contradictory. So, setting it up as being "either" one or the other is falsely claiming
1203:
Based on the range of currently cited sources used in the article. It doesn't appear that far right is the most common term. Additionally, the line between right and far right is often subjective while simply staying they are on the right is more likely to be correct. Anything that makes them
537:
which do not, themselves, have to be "neutral" to your personal satisfaction. It appears that "right wing" is accurate, and it doesn't matter whether or not you personally find that term to have negative connotations. The article does need more work, but that will be based on sources. Digging up
1079:
The language used is important. I disagree that you can make such a blanket judgement, sources using different terms are doing so for some reason. Knowledge is meant to represent the views of reliable sources. Stating that sources have used a range of descriptions does not imply controversy, it
674:
There are three good sources that describe TN as "far-right", so your description here is less than accurate. One of them is the Canada Press
Freedom Project, which is actually advocating in TN's favor, and also describes them as far-right, so your cries of "leftist!" are quite nonsensical.
515:
Not-so-nuanced: They insist on the opening paragraph read that TNCPP "is a right-wing media outlet". A "conservative outlet" would be more respectful, but "right-wing" carries negative connotations. Why do wikipedia admins prefer the latter, and consider my change to be "not acting in good
599:
1179:
a subject is notable is a requirement in deletion discussions. If a subject has a wikipedia article, it is assumed that the subject is notable (barring new articles that may or may not be deleted). It's superfluous to say "here's why this thing has an article!"
508:
article links to a years-old screenshot in which the True North *Initiative* describes itself as an advocacy organization. The True North
Initiative, based on a search of registered corporations, no longer exists. Why is this allowed to remain on the
1148:: This article should talk more about what really makes the subject notable. Perhaps it could describe notable content from the publisher that has caught others' attention. Can't help but to notice this article is quite light on such a thing.
499:
Nuanced: that the True North Centre for Public Policy "describes itself as" a registered
Canadian charity. They ARE a registered Canadian charity. Documents prove it. Why do they word it this way, and how was my correction "not acting in good
1080:
merely means there are different views (which, as a matter of fact, there are). You are welcome to suggest alternative language for the lead, but just as we should not falsely present a controversy, we should not falsely present a consensus.
481:, and reading the sources, I am satisfied that Bigbluenet is not acting in good faith with their removals. I've reverted their POV edits. I think further discussion should take place here before any more edit warring by Bigbluenet.
1065:
that the two are mutually exclusive. The more detail we go into in explaining this in the lead, the more we are implying to readers that this is a controversy, or at least a contradiction, but I have not seen any evidence of that.
503:
Straight-up false: that the True North Centre for Public Policy "describes itself as an "advocacy organization"". It does not. If you drill down into their years-old source (which is PressProgress, a very biased source itself),
748:
You also continue to ignore my argument about the inclusion of the
Drimonis line in the Election debate access section, which is only getting more obvious as this conversation continues.
646:
over the past few years. In 2022, it was contentious whether it was okay to label the TNCPC right wing at all. Now it is being labeled "far right." My basic contentions are as follows:
542:
listings or trivial passing mentions is not the best way to improve the article. The goal should be to provide context to readers, not to help this organizations with its PR problems.
576:
650:
The provided sources do not support the TNCPC being "far right" enough for that to be in the lede. Only one of the sources cited actually claims that, and it's from
455:
622:
would need in-depth coverage in secondary sources to make the book notable. As
Greyfell pointed out, that's still a long way from making the author notable.
550:
245:
801:. While political ideology may correlate with reliability, correlation is not causation, so this is a poor starting position for disqualifying a source.
833:
728:
And actually no, neither the
October 15, 2019 PressProgres article nor the CBC article ever describe this organization as "far right." You are wrong.
350:
946:
describes them as far-right, so I don't think it gets much more neutral than that. Even conservative writers are describing True North as far-right.
520:
140:
1254:
130:
512:
Nuanced: that Candice Malcolm "describes herself as" the founder of True North. She IS the founder of True North. Why do they word it this way?
1162:
915:
894:
880:
866:
852:
490:
1299:
1189:
857:
If you're looking at the discussion below, and you've come to some other conclusion than "consensus is yes", I'd like to see your reasoning.
445:
972:
741:
814:
749:
695:
659:
528:
1269:
1249:
235:
667:
631:
1304:
819:
1225:. "True North" is a rather suggestive name which means we might want to be particularly charitable to avoid likely misunderstandings.
562:
1294:
1284:
1059:
1035:
775:
757:
722:
703:
688:
340:
1274:
986:. That page explains what should be done first, and which templates should be posted here to invite input from uninvolved editors.
1264:
1098:
1074:
421:
710:
676:
1289:
1279:
1259:
1234:
679:
in which you wholesale-removed a published book source, without explanation or justification? That one concerns me the most.
211:
1140:
955:
615:
316:
885:
When the outcome is this obvious, there's no need for you to make edits to the article as if it's going to go your way.
1213:
995:
412:
373:
929:
637:
106:
1021:
472:
202:
163:
1115:
545:
Since you have primarily edited this article for over a year, with few other edits, I again invite you to review
983:
546:
307:
268:
792:
I don't see any particular problem with including Drimonis's opinion, per say, but it would be better with a
97:
58:
33:
591:. For this article, sources should also directly explain Lawton's significance to the True North Centre.
1094:
1055:
1017:
1230:
1175:
I think the article should describe the subject, as is the purpose of any encyclopedia. Describing
911:
876:
848:
519:
I'm sure I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. An explanation for above would be appreciated.
420:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
315:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
210:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1156:
1134:
713:
without explanation again, I'm going right to an admin, because this is clearly a waste of time.
1185:
1118:
describes this publication as "conservative" and "right-wing". Also, prominent persons such as
1031:
968:
951:
890:
862:
829:
771:
737:
718:
684:
627:
595:
486:
21:
805:
and far-right, so sources which say one thing to not contradict sources which say the other.
39:
524:
642:
After checking the talk page here, I've noticed a series of increasingly radical edits by
8:
1226:
907:
872:
871:
Well, usually these are closed (preferably by an admin), and this has not happened here.
844:
793:
651:
404:
1209:
1150:
1128:
1070:
991:
810:
709:
this particular dead horse. If you try to force your preferred version of the lead, or
611:
558:
824:
Should True North be described as "far-right" as it is described in multiple sources?
1181:
1126:
would reasonably lead one to believe that the publication's philosophy is far-right.
1027:
964:
947:
886:
858:
840:
825:
767:
733:
714:
680:
643:
623:
539:
482:
194:
570:
1119:
1090:
1051:
1013:
902:
is a bit flippant, wouldn't you say? I, for one, in fact, see no clear consensus
753:
699:
663:
603:
299:
762:
584:
600:
Draft:The Freedom Convoy: The Inside Story of Three Weeks that Shook the World
1243:
1205:
1066:
987:
806:
607:
554:
478:
89:
798:
594:
Having authored a notable book does not, by itself, bestow notability (see
588:
534:
417:
1123:
293:
283:
262:
1082:
1043:
1005:
207:
312:
1026:
Far-right seems like a subset of right-wing and is more specific.
533:
A neutral summary of this organization will be based on reliable,
388:
367:
178:
157:
73:
52:
906:
for calling the organization "far right" in the comments below.
843:
is certainly acting as if it has. This seems problematic to me.
102:
1204:
specifically far right should be clear in the article text.
551:
Knowledge:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
789:Fred Zepelin has asked for my input, so here I am.
416:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
394:
311:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
289:
206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
184:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
583:per Knowledge's understanding of the term, meaning
766:(myself and whoever added it) disagree with you.
1241:
587:. The best way to do this is with reliable,
579:, generally lists of "notable people" are
19:
1114:- First, it is very significant that the
575:Regarding the repeated edits to include
820:Request for comment on opening sentence
602:, it is not clear that this book meets
1255:Low-importance Canada-related articles
1242:
658:as an neutral portrayal of the outlet.
1300:Low-importance Conservatism articles
1041:several sources/outlets/media/etc."
410:This article is within the scope of
305:This article is within the scope of
200:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
1270:Low-importance Journalism articles
1250:Stub-Class Canada-related articles
598:) but it could help. However, per
430:Knowledge:WikiProject Conservatism
14:
1316:
1305:WikiProject Conservatism articles
900:"As if it's going to go your way"
732:fabrication. I don't know which.
433:Template:WikiProject Conservatism
1295:Stub-Class Conservatism articles
1285:Low-importance politics articles
397:
387:
366:
292:
282:
261:
220:Knowledge:WikiProject Journalism
187:
177:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
1275:WikiProject Journalism articles
1116:initial version of this article
450:This article has been rated as
345:This article has been rated as
240:This article has been rated as
223:Template:WikiProject Journalism
135:This article has been rated as
1265:Stub-Class Journalism articles
1235:23:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
984:Knowledge:Requests for comment
916:20:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
895:19:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
881:05:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
867:00:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
853:23:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
638:Edit reversals by Fred Zepelin
547:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
325:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics
1:
1290:WikiProject Politics articles
839:So, has this RfC concluded? @
473:Recent removals by Bigbluenet
424:and see a list of open tasks.
328:Template:WikiProject Politics
319:and see a list of open tasks.
214:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1280:Stub-Class politics articles
1260:All WikiProject Canada pages
942:True North, and that source
585:they already have an article
563:22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
529:19:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Canada
7:
675:Meanwhile, can you explain
632:15:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
616:20:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Canada
10:
1321:
1190:18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
1163:07:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
1141:07:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
1099:10:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
1075:22:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
1060:05:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
1036:02:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
1022:02:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
996:23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
973:00:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
956:00:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
834:00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
815:23:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
776:20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
758:07:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
742:00:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
723:18:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
704:17:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
689:16:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
668:16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
456:project's importance scale
351:project's importance scale
246:project's importance scale
141:project's importance scale
491:22:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
449:
382:
344:
277:
239:
172:
134:
67:
46:
1214:11:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
982:-You may wish to review
477:After a discussion with
413:WikiProject Conservatism
711:remove reliable sources
121:Canada-related articles
203:WikiProject Journalism
28:This article is rated
436:Conservatism articles
549:. You may also find
308:WikiProject Politics
589:independent sources
535:independent sources
405:Conservatism portal
226:Journalism articles
553:helpful. Thanks.
98:WikiProject Canada
34:content assessment
470:
469:
466:
465:
462:
461:
361:
360:
357:
356:
331:politics articles
256:
255:
252:
251:
195:Journalism portal
151:
150:
147:
146:
1312:
1161:
1159:
1153:
1139:
1137:
1131:
438:
437:
434:
431:
428:
407:
402:
401:
400:
391:
384:
383:
378:
370:
363:
362:
333:
332:
329:
326:
323:
302:
297:
296:
286:
279:
278:
273:
265:
258:
257:
228:
227:
224:
221:
218:
197:
192:
191:
190:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
152:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1240:
1239:
1157:
1151:
1149:
1135:
1129:
1127:
1120:Candice Malcolm
1086:
1047:
1009:
932:
822:
640:
596:WP:NOTINHERETED
573:
475:
435:
432:
429:
426:
425:
403:
398:
396:
376:
330:
327:
324:
321:
320:
300:Politics portal
298:
291:
271:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
193:
188:
186:
166:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1318:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1252:
1238:
1237:
1227:Biohistorian15
1216:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1084:
1045:
1007:
998:
977:
976:
975:
931:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
908:Biohistorian15
873:Biohistorian15
845:Biohistorian15
821:
818:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
763:Toula Drimonis
746:
745:
744:
671:
670:
655:
652:Press Progress
639:
636:
635:
634:
572:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
543:
517:
513:
510:
501:
497:
474:
471:
468:
467:
464:
463:
460:
459:
452:Low-importance
448:
442:
441:
439:
422:the discussion
409:
408:
392:
380:
379:
377:Low‑importance
371:
359:
358:
355:
354:
347:Low-importance
343:
337:
336:
334:
317:the discussion
304:
303:
287:
275:
274:
272:Low‑importance
266:
254:
253:
250:
249:
242:Low-importance
238:
232:
231:
229:
212:the discussion
199:
198:
182:
170:
169:
167:Low‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1317:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1245:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1154:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1132:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1100:
1096:
1095:contributions
1092:
1088:
1087:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:contributions
1053:
1049:
1048:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1018:contributions
1015:
1011:
1010:
1002:
999:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
934:
933:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
898:
897:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
817:
816:
812:
808:
802:
800:
795:
790:
777:
773:
769:
764:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
730:
729:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
673:
672:
669:
665:
661:
656:
653:
649:
648:
647:
645:
633:
629:
625:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
592:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:Andrew Lawton
571:Andrew Lawton
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
507:
502:
498:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
457:
453:
447:
444:
443:
440:
423:
419:
415:
414:
406:
395:
393:
390:
386:
385:
381:
375:
372:
369:
365:
364:
352:
348:
342:
339:
338:
335:
318:
314:
310:
309:
301:
295:
290:
288:
285:
281:
280:
276:
270:
267:
264:
260:
259:
247:
243:
237:
234:
233:
230:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
154:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
90:Canada portal
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1222:
1219:Conservative
1218:
1200:
1182:Fred Zepelin
1176:
1145:
1111:
1081:
1042:
1028:Fred Zepelin
1004:
1000:
979:
965:Fred Zepelin
960:
948:Fred Zepelin
943:
939:
935:
903:
899:
887:Fred Zepelin
859:Fred Zepelin
841:Fred Zepelin
826:Fred Zepelin
823:
803:
794:WP:SECONDARY
791:
788:
768:Fred Zepelin
734:Fred Zepelin
715:Fred Zepelin
681:Fred Zepelin
644:Fred Zepelin
641:
624:Fred Zepelin
593:
580:
574:
505:
483:Fred Zepelin
476:
451:
427:Conservatism
418:conservatism
411:
374:Conservatism
346:
306:
241:
201:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1124:Ezra Levant
1244:Categories
1223:right-wing
1201:Right-wing
930:Discussion
677:this edit,
540:WP:PRIMARY
521:Bigbluenet
217:Journalism
208:journalism
164:Journalism
30:Stub-class
940:defending
1206:Springee
1067:Grayfell
988:Grayfell
807:Grayfell
799:reliable
608:Grayfell
604:WP:NBOOK
555:Grayfell
479:Grayfell
322:Politics
313:politics
269:Politics
1001:Comment
980:Comment
581:notable
516:faith"?
500:faith"?
454:on the
349:on the
244:on the
139:on the
904:at all
112:Canada
103:Canada
59:Canada
36:scale.
1158:Peter
1152:Ender
1136:Peter
1130:Ender
944:still
750:Smefs
696:Smefs
660:Smefs
509:page?
1231:talk
1210:talk
1186:talk
1155:and
1146:Note
1133:and
1122:and
1091:talk
1083:5225
1071:talk
1052:talk
1044:5225
1032:talk
1014:talk
1006:5225
992:talk
969:talk
961:Note
952:talk
912:talk
891:talk
877:talk
863:talk
849:talk
830:talk
811:talk
772:talk
754:talk
738:talk
719:talk
700:talk
685:talk
664:talk
628:talk
612:talk
559:talk
525:talk
506:that
487:talk
1221:or
1177:why
1112:Yes
936:Yes
446:Low
341:Low
236:Low
131:Low
1246::
1233:)
1212:)
1188:)
1097:)
1093:•
1073:)
1058:)
1054:•
1034:)
1020:)
1016:•
994:)
971:)
954:)
914:)
893:)
879:)
865:)
851:)
832:)
813:)
774:)
756:)
740:)
721:)
702:)
687:)
666:)
630:)
614:)
561:)
527:)
489:)
1229:(
1208:(
1184:(
1089:(
1085:C
1069:(
1050:(
1046:C
1030:(
1012:(
1008:C
990:(
967:(
950:(
910:(
889:(
875:(
861:(
847:(
828:(
809:(
770:(
752:(
736:(
717:(
698:(
683:(
662:(
626:(
610:(
557:(
523:(
485:(
458:.
353:.
248:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
