Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 164

4731:

documented by over 10 credible sources, of news paper and book archives, who he is the Guiness records book holders working with both lion and tiger simultaneously (note I say simultaneously) none of whats in place have any verification working with both and specifically seen them fight, (or else prove it, prove those sources have seen fights, not just assuming) backed by via news articles and books, yet it gets removed in conjunction by a absolutely no credentials (History) level of science, then when I put in a scholar masters degree authority, the zoo keeper who is less credible and reliable then both of the contradictive exclusions, its then dis-regarded yet again, just because a person owns a dog, doesnt mean he knows the history, origin, import/export, leinage, blood-line ect....the same way a zoo keeper doesnt know the history nor cites any specifics of the romans, there were over 50 emperors, in over 5 centurys, where are the records then to support the zoo keeper? There should be thousands if you make a claim such as large as an empire, not just 1, yet I have over 10 Historians, Theologians, Archaeologist that all supports the lion was the usual victor in rome, along with 8 historical artifacts of origination of rome/italy...its non-challangeable when you only have one staged account and one opinion from a nobody (No credentials or tangible proof).

9331:. There cannot possibly be a "always yes" or "always no" answer to this question. There are far too many different type of journals and abstracts to have a general answer. My experience is with medical journals, and the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. For certain kinds of journal articles like systematic reviews, they will be investigating a very narrow question and often the abstract contains all the information you need, like "Ibuprofen is more effective than paracetamol for treating X" so you do not need the full article. If you get access to the whole article, it'll be 8 pages describing their methodology, and one paragraph at the end stating their conclusion, which is repeated in the abstract. Although sometimes they'll put just enough info in the abstract to let you know if you need to get the whole article to see the conclusion ("We conclude by discussing the relative effectiveness of ibuprofen and paracetamol"--bastards!). Sometimes you'll get the conclusion in the abstract ("Acupuncture was no better than usual care for X") but then you'll need the full article to find out what they mean by "usual care". For other kinds, like for literature reviews, the abstract will probably too brief a summary to be useful and you'll need the full article. It depends. 4907:

happened to the Sumatran tiger, The Indo-chinese, Javan, south-china, caspian, bali and malayian tiger...ohhh, Oblivious and re-written out of history just because they stand little to no chance to even the smaller sub-species of asiatic lions leo persica, and specifically to your comment, he does not have to know current biology 101 of tigers and lions of today, thats not the catagorie/profession he is in, if you even looked into the subject, Ken spiro was in the HISTORY CATAGORIE, as historians study things that are pre-recorded via remnents, archaeology and written documentation that is passed on from the past, so I dont know even why you commented on that, the other catagorie of EXPERTS OPINIONS would then be able to clarify their profession, as in observation, hypothetises, actual studys of live individuals, which yet again is what I brought via Terrell jacobs and Clyde beatty...probably the highest on hand observers intwined with on the field observers and zoologist such as Dave salmoni and Kailash sankhalka...and yet consistantly on a hour to hour basis has to have the same bias revisioner safe guard it by erasing anything that supports the lion. lol

7900:

remarks prepared by the president's staff and uploaded to the whitehouse.gov website. Another source might be a transcript published by the Washington Post. Another source might be a paraphrased summary from a news blurb broadcast by the BBC. Another might be a video of the speech at cspan's website. Deciding which source is most suitable is a different matter than deciding whether an individual source should be regarded as reliable. One conceivable reason IMDb might be offered as a source is that the IMDb awards page offers a convenient listing of other, related information that is usually not available from the awarding organization. (For instance, the IMDb awards page for Marlon Brando shows that not only did Brando win a best actor Oscar in 1973 for The Godfather, but he also won a best actor Golden Globe that year for the same role, was nominated for the role for a BAFTA, and won 2nd place awards for the role from the NY Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics. You wouldn't see any of that at the AMPAS website. As a reader, I find that kind of access to additional information very useful.)

9163:

as it is a more or less random bit of text that lacks any selection process that would make it representative. (Once I cited a very clear statement in a snippet only to later discover that the next sentence, invisible in the snippet, said something like "but nobody believes that any more".) Abstracts written by authors (the usual thing for journal articles) are much better than that because they are intended by the authors to be valid summaries. If one wants to summarise a whole article, rather than to cite a detail, the author's abstract is often a very good start and even protects you from a charge that you are not reflecting the author's opinion correctly. To cite a detail from an article, the abstract might not be good enough since the author might have simplified it for brevity (journals often have word limits on abstracts). An abstract written by someone else is much less reliable than one written by the author, and I would not normally trust it unless the writer of the abstract is an expert in the field. Similarly for book reviews.

10050:

point but uses different language ("Haaretz was more likely to present stories as told from the Israeli side"). The editor's suggestion to write "Haaretz reporting is more favorable to the Israelis and more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" is an attempt to use language from both (that language from the abstract is not repeated in the note) and give undue weight to such a point. There is no reason to use "and" here and I recommend just quoting the (and citing) the part of the actual article. Additionally, the editor suggests that including the "and" would somehow better summarize all of the researcher's 5 findings. This is untrue. The researcher found that Haaretz was more likely to personalize Palestinian deaths than Israeli ones and more likely to give Palestinians the last word ("end quote") in two other findings. How does including "and" summarize those two other findings? I doesn't. That is why we should simply quote the author's research in the article. That is the author's sentence. --

1846:

and published within the walled garden of Misenean think tanks so that he manages to become notable, but because of that most of the available sources will be not of the first tier of preferability. An expert like DeLong, the author of numerous academic peer-reviewed publications, will not publish an academic peer-reviewed publication on views of a figure who is relatively obscure professionally, but will address them in his blog if they receive some media attention. So we have to deal with the sources that we have, and it would be irresponsible of us to have an article about an obscure economist and ignore the viewpoint of a significant economist, likely the only expert, academic attention that the ideas of this obscure economist will likely ever receive. Obviously, these sources should be used with caution, and any claims regarding Murphy himself should not be used. But DeLong's professional, expert opinion about Murphy's economic ideas are not claims regarding Murphy himself.

3351:

article. Even the statement , "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years", which is fairly clearly from Sahlins, isn’t actually a criticism of Chagnon by Sahlins. It’s just a note of the fact that Chagnon was criticised by others, which may or may not have included Sahlins. It’s also a statement of fact which, if the previous point is upheld, can’t be reliably sourced from this opinion piece. No other critical material in the article is clearly originating from Sahlins. The article is clearly critical in tone, but I think we need something more concrete than "tone" for a contentious statement in a BLP. I think the least we should have is a single sentence that is both clearly critical of Chagnon and clearly originating from Sahlins and not a review of a passage in “Darkness in El Dorado”.

3640:(1999) has a bit more but it doesn't clear anything up. It just points to drama, not clarity. It seems that two people, Hutton (in his book) and Frey (in academic journals) have disputed Simpson's opinion on Murray, both of them being in pagan circles themselves, and everybody arguing. I think there's a modern-day POV battle that's obscuring a more neutral take here. As I said on the Murray talk page, there's no clear indication why Murray needed a century of debunking, with nobody being claimed as advancing or supporting any part of her views for that time. And all of these pagan articles have the same nice pull quotes! You don't see that very often. In any case, I also agree that scholarship that's more current would be needed for the claim cited. 2882:

being related to "ideological beliefs". The fact that Krugman cites DeLong in that context would definitely seem to make DeLong notable insofar as it supports Krugmans refusal to provide a platform for airing what DeLong characterizes as intransigent "analytical positions and ideological beliefs". ::::Second, the reason that criticism of Murphy is not made in more prominent publications is because it is not deemed to be worthy even of such a degree of attention, as testified to by these "blog" posts by two very prominent economists. Murphy is not in their league by any stretch of the imagination, and it is probably only because he is getting air time in other media outlets that they feel compelled to debunk his "predictions".--

6955:...yes, endorsed it, and spoke of his reactions on looking through it. But can you seriously claim, Specifico, after all that's been said above, that Hayek's words are "pro-forma and of dubious substance"? Pure mashed potatoes. I suggest that you re-read the discussion above, beginning "Then we can spend the next six months ..." and ending (if you can bear to stop) "... a long, long way above." Then you'll be able to explain how it is you now disagree with those hard-won conclusions and why, precisely, you think those words of Hayek's are "pro-forma and of dubious substance". They're better than anything you or I or Carol has written in this whole thread! No wonder he got a Nobel Prize and we (so far as I know) haven't yet. 3340:

opinion, and which are being quoted/paraphrased by the work under review. For example, "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years" seems to be coming from Sahlins himself. “he also attempted to win the hearts and minds of the people by a calculated redistribution of material wealth, and in so doing, managed to further destabilize the countryside and escalate the violence” is an almost direct quote from “Darkness in El Dorado” and not, presumably, Sahlins opinion. Though it could be. As a result, it’s very difficult to say which parts of this review are purely Shalins’ opinions, and which are selections lifted from the work under review.

3589:, I have a question about the Margaret Murray page. Is it weighted correctly regarding her current academic reputation? The "Legacy" section seems a bit pointed, the article is laced with broadly negative interpretive phrases (like the ones starting "It was likely", "Murray now became more and more emotional", but many more) and the most quoted source is Simpson, whose quotes consider her only negatively. Our article makes it seem like she's only been discredited,mostly per Simpson, but I don't know if that's the actual assessment from current academic sources. Right now it feels like the article is structured as an argument against her. I don't know what's happening there. 235:

you've stated before numerous times that "Digby does not exist" and that it is a "fabricated source" what you seem to be implying is that Digby warrants no mention and is unworthy of inclusion. You are trying to represent that as a world view, "80 million Hindus died" when Lal doesn't even claim that. Digby's critique is in a peer reviewed journal. The usual nutty sources seem to take Lal's words out of context (Koenrad isn't even reliable since he's right wing, and represents a biased viewpoint). I suspect that you're one of those Hindu fanatics who can't seem to able to distinguish fact from fiction given how hard you're trying to negate Digby's position (witness: "

10019:, (which has some 500 citations in GS or ACM DL), simply to say that "SPARK is a subset of Ada focused on safety-critical software development using formal methods ." is okay or not without him/her heaving read the whole 430 pages of the book (which doesn't even have a formal abstract, but you can probably equate the book's introduction with that). Because that's what an academic will do: cite the most authoritative (which usually means the most detailed) source on something, even when they mention it in one sentence and almost certainly haven't read the whole text (because they don't need to for what they are citing it for.) 4436:

noticeboard. Are you saying it wouldn't have mattered because no precedent would have been created anyway were she deemed unreliable in the past? I'd also note that it seems rather too convenient if an RS problem like "The moon is made of cheese" can be solved by just saying "According to , the moon is made of cheese." The second formulation is definitely better but it's hardly home free. Hector is of the view that "9/11 WAS, in fact, a conspiracy, be all accounts." Does this view have to be engaged again and again on article Talk pages or is there some centralized forum where it can be settled?--

7543:"Created by himself"? Every book is created by its author, so I really have no idea what on earth you mean by that. (What "self-published" actually means is that the author paid for publication; that the printer just printed, with no concern as to the commercial viability or quality of the work. Pieris's books were not self-published.) And do you have any evidence for these assertions about Pieris or the publisher? "Anyone can get a book published" - well, I'm sure that will be a relief to various would-be authors, but can anyone also get their work repeatedly reprinted decades after their death? 5026:

out some mistakes, faults, exploits reliability/credability factors, and exposer of un-phantomed subjectivity unchecked biasness, and yet the very person who was frequent (Bigcat82) for years on this subject slipped passed abusing wiki as a propelling device to get out his own bias wants to pollute the world, cloaked unseen for about half a decade pushing out his own selfish needs without one, just one person interveening and having it adressed, moderated, reviewed, corrected, assest properly...and yet he goes un-corrected, un-challanged and unpunished...in fact aided/helped...Huh!

829:

image of Zimmerman initially available to news media was a 7-year-old police booking photograph released by law enforcement officials after the shooting. The image showed a heavy-set Zimmerman who appeared to be unhappy or angry, with an imposing stare. The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "f the ingredients are there."

9054:. Which is why google books is only showing a snippet preview and not the entire page. So, what is that now wikipedians are expecting to do? As per the legal requirement one is not supposed to publish/quote more than the text that is actually required. If that snippet preview is not clarifying the context there is no way one can quote more than that or otherwise it is a legal violation. Curious wikipedians wanting to know the entire facts must buy the book. Wikipedians must also realize there are publishing houses and people making their living over writing books. 3891:@Petrarchan47 has accused me of engaging in a Knowledge campaign of trying to discredit U.S. government "whistleblowers." I disagree, of course. If noting, as I did, that a particular "whistleblower" has also been diagnosed as paranoid psychotic happens to discredit said "whistleblower," the party doing the discrediting is not me but the reliable source reporting the diagnosis. Currently at issue is having Knowledge cite other members of the self-styled whistleblowing community in the various biographies of these people. An example Knowledge edit may be found 4109:

have taken very little effort to look at the article history and see that whoever added the "Truther" category, it wasn't me. There's actually a good explanation for why the Truther stuff is not in Edmonds' article: she said it to other conspiracists and so another Knowledge editor would likely make the knee jerk complaint that the party passing on the information is not reliable as he or she is a fellow conspiracist. Now how about addressing the question of whether whoever did edit Edmonds' BLP did, in fact, commit an "error" in terms of factual accuracy?--

4272:

by that source. The citation should be direct and not to "archive.is" as well.) I don't know whether the article is relevant, and there are many profound errors of weight and sense here, but both sides of the dispute have to use reliable sources, not blogs, and not synthesize a description of her, for or against. Having a mental condition at some point does not automatically disqualify a person by itself, and not being quoted in the mainstream media is not automatically some kind of censorship. It looks sloppy and unreliable on both sides here.

10282:) might be reliable for some statements in the article, but we would need to know what statement in that source is being used to support the line being discussed here. What is the statement in the source and which page can it be found on? From my skimming what can be viewed from the Google books' excerpts (search for "Ghassanids"), I don't see any clear statement that can be used to support the intended Knowledge article line. So, in the absence of additional information it appears that that source is also not reliable for that statement. 8006:

encyclopedic purposes. The fact that it sometimes takes user submissions for an unknown amount of its list makes it unreliable for verification by itself. It's a great resource for seeing if someone said it was awarded a prize, but it's not reliable enough to repeat it as a known thing in the article. IMDb is suggested as a link for further reading on all of the pages you mention (which is higher profile than being in a citation) but the article is supposed to be for those things found especially notable and verifiable.

6367:

comments are reliably sourced. Gray used the comments on p. xii as a source. He references the Fleet edition of the book, although he does not mention the page number. Gray's book is also rs, and was published by Routledge, an academic publisher. The fact that Hayek's comments also appear "on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore", or the fact that the LvMI republished the book, does not mean that the comments published in the Fleet Press edition are no longer rs.

2849:: Paul Krugman noted that DeLong criticized Murphy's reaction to his bet about CPI. It sounds like Murphy's bet is a salient fact because it's received some attention from prominent credible experts, even if only in blogs. But describing the commentary on the commentary might be beyond the limits of salience. Reliability is not the whole issue; if these comments and metacomments were themselves important, encyclopedia-worthy events, they would probably get published in something more weighty than a blog. See 9611:. An abstract is simply a summary of the main points of the article. This is more common in a specialized subject index. The purpose is to allow the researcher an idea of the article's content before taking the time to go to the actual article. Abstracts often contain important and useful information but using the information in the abstract (perhaps 50-100 words) is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article. Do not cite the Abstract as if it were the complete article! 4311:(Edit conflict) The claim I added when mentioning Edmonds comes straight from the her wiki bio, which says "Her later claims gained her awards and fame as a whistleblower." There has not been dispute about it, nor has there been any about Tice, who is constantly referred to as a whistleblower, despite the fact that after going to Congress about lack of whistleblower protection, he suddenly was required to take another psych eval which the government used to discredit him. It didn't work, he 35: 872:

contrast, the WP article only mentions the views of two media experts with similar views. This misrepresents how the source presented it. The WP article is giving the arguments of a single side in something presented in the source as undecided. Also, the errors in that early report go beyond just the age of a photo. There are multiple errors of fact throughout the first half of that piece, errors probably owing to recentism. It could be used as a reliable source regarding evidence of

9805:

to. We come across thousands of citations to journal articles; they are generally cited to specific pages, not the abstract. The university guidelines have given us some definitional insight into what an abstract is and what it is not, and seem to frown upon citations to the abstract as a way of citing to the entire article. Put simply, when we have the actual article's words, why would we use the abstract? If there is a difference, even slight, the actual article is dominant. --

10002:. Academic guidelines want you to cite the full paper; but that's we do too. But I see no problems with quoting (from) abstracts in general; they are part of the full paper. Sometimes it might be necessary to add context from the full paper, but it's rare that the abstract (which is written by the authors themselves) doesn't correctly summarize their own paper. In some areas of research, even the "full" paper might not have all the details, some of which might be relegated to a 4742:

knockd out foreman 100 times, again, there is only one credible and reliable source of the romans/rome/italy historical basis that mentions a tiger defeating a lion, which is Martial even the people who studyed that epigram stated it was un-clear f it was staged, since in that same event awoman killed a lion too, really? A average lady killed a 500lb killing machine...lol, thats it...on the other hand from ancient to modern records we have:

9239:

cut-off in the midst of the relevant section, then it is far less safe to rely on it, because missing context may indeed be crucial. As for abstracts, it depends how they are worded, and what fact is being cited. If it is merely that researcher X wrote aboput subject Y and the general tone of the reaction, to help establish notability, in a "reactions" section of an article about a literary work, say, an abstract should be perfectly fine.

3541:: "Burials suggestive of sacrifice have been found in the sites of ancient bridges and buildings throughout Asia, Europe, and North Africa. It was widely believed that territories were under the control of local gods who might be angered by intrusions. Blood sacrifice at border crossings (often marked by rivers) and within buildings were thought to be prudent offerings. Sacrificial victims were also interred beneath city gates. 7737:

really right. I would have said using "Ethiopians" for sub-Saharan Africans was medieval, while "Moors" were often all Arabic-speaking Muslims, whether from Iraq or Spain. But of course the medieval concepts of distant races were vague and variable, often difficult to interpret from sources, and very difficult to accurately generalize about. To the Arabic-speaking world, all Europeans were usually "Franks" (ie French).

8720: 668:? My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it may be sufficiently relevant as background material to be mentioned in the body of the article. If Lal is right, something in the period of Muslim domination was seriously bad for the wellbeing of the general population of India (the majority of whom were Hindus). To what extent that decline was linked to persecution, it would then be for other sources to say. 8723: 2743: 8714: 1357:

restore and sloppily verify proper sourcing as was the obvious case here. These very editors refused to take responsibility for verifying material they restored. It was their responsibility to verify especially since I challenged and disputed reverting changes. The result of the dispute was an edit war with these editors which to my discredit, I unfortunately did not avoid. To his credit

9966:(Rare case.) Should we quote from the abstract? Not normally, but we might -- why not? It's like quoting from the first paragraph or the conclusion: it might happen to give the author's view more succinctly than any sentence in the body of the article. But then we should say in our text "X writes, in the abstract to his paper ..." because the reader needs to know that we are doing this. 7947:.) Despite the discrepancy in reliability in the example, the usual practice on Knowledge is to cite news agency articles. I suspect a couple of major reasons for that is that they are easier to find (higher search engine indexing) and there is the general preference for using secondary sources. But, getting back to IMDb, the question, again, wasn't whether IMDb awards content is 3395:

manner. They want want to use it is evidence that Sahlins and other anthropologists are personally critical of Chagnon and have been for a prolonged period. They want this information in a different section unrelated to "Darkness in El Dorado”. Since any quote from Sahlins likely comes from "Darkness in El Dorado”, they can't be quoted in another section without violating

3945:

truth" generally). Does the U.S. government in fact propagate fringe theories equally frequently? If you believe so and you mean to make a general call for equal time I would note that on the bios in question equal time is not currently being granted since unverified claims by the self-styled whistleblowers are currently being given significantly more weight.--

6870:

mention Block and Mandeville in the same breath seems like a substantial validation of Block's efforts. Hayek's endorsement on the other hand, other than the fact that he was willing to associate his name with Blocks, seems pro-forma and of dubious substance. And Hayek does not appear (to my reading) to have read the book, but just to have noted its content.

9179: 165:, you should also clear that if it is appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute"), and also that if he is historian(since he is just a writer). There are number of reliable sources, that regarded these 80 million figure to be decreased by population during those 500 years, Such as 4897:

things I have mentioned will be remained hidden from the world because some subjective bias people dont want anyone disagreeing with their own un-educated opinions on subject? lol Maybe you should read up on some of the basics on this subject before you go calling BS to a person who has a Masters degree, while in vice versa you have zero knowledge:

1065: 1831:. Even if somehow this content were salvageable (completely removing all references to Murphy), at best it belongs in an article in article about DeLong. For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. There shouldn't be a need to resort to personal blogs. 8157:. Curious if the community has any thoughts about this site's suitability for inclusion in movie articles, since I don't notice a lot of consideration for the audience's feelings in objective articles. I attempted to communicate with the contributor, but they ignored me and re-inserted their content into the Drishyam article. Thanks, 4826:

amphitheaters by eye witnesses where the lion won, just so happens all the books, newspaper articles ect all quote the same man as their refference, Marcus Valerius Martialis, and it is widely accepted as the epigram is merely just a poem, there are literaly hundreds of poems written of lions defeating tigers...so lets not go there.

9182:". In Zimmerman, Bonnie; Haggerty, George E. Encyclopedia of Lesbian and Gay Histories and Cultures. Taylor & Francis. pp. 64–5. Retrieved 1 February 2014.) The link is to a Google books snippet view, but it includes the whole of the "Art, Contemporary North American" entry. In such a case I see no issue with a snippet citaiton. 904:) that I was looking at (rather dubiously) had a source entry which led to the above web site. The source was supposed to be a book review. When I clicked on it, the web page asked me to install software to see the review. I didn't want to do that. Has anyone heard of this web site, and if so is it a repository of book reviews? — 7969:. The film won Silver Hugo awards at the Chicago Film Festival and won awards at LA Outfest (an LGBT film festival). IMDb shows some of those awards that the film won. Good luck finding that same information at the websites for the Chicago Film Festival or LA Outfest. The Chicago Film Festival's website's archive page shows that 1137:(Involved editor) I suggest checking this editor's use of sources in general. I suspect there is some OR going on here. Note that he has subpages with lots of content. Check the sources used there. He is currently blocked (again) and I have had to ban him from my talk page for his aggressive behavior. Here are convenience links: 857:

Some experts for example may have thought that the ethnicity of the individuals might have affected popular reaction. I agree that media portrayal should be mentioned. Whether or not Martin's photograph was current however does not seem that important, since it is the reaction to the picture that is being discussed.

612:(Sigh) "since it is not backed by secondary source"...again with the circular logic...please. This is painful. It is a secondary source. It's in a journal. It's peer reviewed. It's published. It's on the Cambridge website...it's been cited many, many times. Digby's piece is a part of that widely circulating journal... 5684:

Anyway, it's still a student magazine, edited by students. I wouldn't consider its articles notable unless that particular article has been cited by reliable sources, or, possibly, if that particular writer has become notable later. Otherwise, if not notable, not worth quoting as an opinion on a book. That's my view.

1088:, by Brad Steiger, rushed out in 1969, the year of her death? (In his extended section on 'Judy and the Occult,' neatly divided into subsections on astrology, graphology, and numerology, Mr. Steiger reveals that when young Grances Gumm changes her name to Judy Garland, 'she took on the vibration of the number nine.')" 9834:"using the information in the abstract (perhaps 50-100 words) is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article." That said, if we want to quote or paraphrase a conclusion from the source, it ought to come from the actual article, not the abstract. I hope we are on the same page now. Best, -- 4143:

a minority opinion, but it's far from being a truther. (again, correct me if I'm wrong-- I'm not up to speed on all this). (incidentally 9/11 conspiracy theorist isn't a very good term, 9/11 WAS, in fact, a conspiracy, be all accounts. We're confusing JFK conpsiracy theoriests with 9/11 Truthers). --

145:

throws general doubt on Lal's estimates and the methods Lal used, but he doesn't question this particular figure (see second paragraph on p. 177). (3) Our footnote 3 gives some text in quote marks, not by Lal (because they mention Lal), and with no quoted source. Those words need to be sourced or removed.

6020:

then; maybe Hayek was just trying to be friendly or supportive, in what he thought was private personal correspondence? Also, since the book was published in 1976, TGP (whose wiki says he was born in 1956) was presumably a *teenager* (or barely 20), without a college degree, when he wrote that review.

10049:

No confusion on my part. The issue is that some editors insist on present a specific finding of the source, and the only support they have to cite OR quote it is from the abstract (e.g., "Haaretz reporting is more favorable to the Israelis"). There is one sentence in the article that makes a relevant

9694:

Actually, both universities have graduate and professional schools and the guidelines are used for PhD and other doctoral candidates. Aside from that, as noted, they were being used for insight as to the reliability and verifiability of abstracts versus the actual article. Both support the conclusion

9419:

I agree but would be bit more stringent and say that it's a rare instance when it's a good idea to rely on an abstract instead of an entire article. The only time I would think it's acceptable to cite an abstract is if that is the specific item an editor means to use as a source. But that should be

9173:

True, but I often find that a snippet view includes the whole of a section or sub-section dealing with a specific topic, particularly when the source is an "encyclopedia" or "reader" with many short contributions by different authors, a snippet may well contain the whole of the specific contribution.

9162:

It is all a matter of degree. Nobody will argue that the best thing is to read a source in its entirety and extract information from there. If that is not plausible, one can use some part of the source with differing degrees of danger involved. A Google snippet is one of the most dangerous things,

9140:

Clearly, the degree to which it is necessary to have read an entire source will depend on the source, and on what it is being cited for. Wikipedians are expected to exercise judgement and common sense regarding such issues. Anyway, it is clear from the general consensus of this thread that relying on

7955:

reliable than the awarding organization itself. I provided an explanation as to why an IMDb citation might be of benefit in some situations, as opposed to an AMPAS citation, in response to Jayron23's question about conceivable reasons why anyone would ever cite IMDb. Readers who require a source that

7427:

Pieris is a complete nobody and just because it was published by a book publishing organization does not mean the book is still not self-published and by "self-published" I mean created by himself, anybody can write a book and get it published by a company, it's not too hard. I really don't even like

7202:

a testimony promoted by the company itself about how small business owners can "position themselves as experts" (on themselves) and skip the hassle of getting attention from third-party writers. There's nothing stopping anybody in any scene or business from writing a bunch of fluff pieces and getting

6667:

But why? Hayek's notable, as you yourself have done so much to show, Specifico. Why not quote a bit of the opinion that Gray referred to? It's good stuff, too, whether one agrees or not. "Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it!" Worth a few seconds

6613:

converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it," explaining that an understanding of economics requires the rejection of illusions and prejudices, and that it was a real service to have demonstrated "the

6219:

To answer a few points: New ref welcome. Using positive quotes about Austrian economists is not verboten on Knowledge. Note that SPECIFICO wanted to know origin of Hayek's comments and I gave it to him, writing "All of this can be added to the references if necessary." I meant to prove where comments

6034:

A few of the above comments by Specifico and Steeletrap were worth making, but the majority of them are infantile. Gray's book is a reliable source. The fact that Gray cites Hayek is, in itself, sufficient for us, but it's better to be able to add a quote from the primary source, which is the text of

6019:

Personal letters (or emails) from a prominent economist are not reliable sources. If they were, anyone could create a Knowledge page for herself if she compiled enough friendly or flattering emails, Facebook messages or chat room flirtations, from prominent academics. Doc. Block was a young buck back

5136:

NO! There are NINE! So how is whats in place already a good case? You shouldent even be replying if you arnt interested in improving anything on this subject, I don't even know why you're here, you say you want reliability, and yet you make up lies and subjective remarks and hide behind wiki rules of

4980:

for issues regarding neutrality. You should be aware however that your own editing will be subject to scrutiny too - and that any repeat of the sort of attacks you have indulged in here is certain to lead to sanctions against you. The choice is yours - you can work with us, our way, or you can expect

4271:

about TIce and it quotes and mentions Edmonds. That doesn't appear to be something made up by the editor you're disputing with.(It doesn't directly call her a whistleblower; it says, "Sibel Edmonds, the leader of the newly formed National Security Whistleblowers Coalition", but the connection is made

4000:

I don't know Russ Tice or Sibel Edmonds, but the nature of your post suggests tendentiousness. Your post suggest that we're citing a "truther" as a reliable source, when the "truther" appears to actually be verified agent of the FBI-- i.e. someone who's job is to think about these sorts of things.

3346:

1) The article in question can not be used as a RS for contentious statements of fact in a BLP because it is clearly an opinion piece by Sahlins This is not a RS for the statements of fact that multiple anthropologists have criticised Chagnon, and that criticisms of Changon persisted over a prolonged

2971:

That sounds like the correct reading of the intent of the policy, and I support the use of the statements from the DeLong blog as RS. That rule is not serving the purpose of building the encyclopedia, but as a loophole that is being used to allow an individual that basically has been characterized as

2881:

First, as Krugman notes on his blog, the predictions of Murphy related to inflation are so contradictory (either to the facts or with respect to Bernake) that he even refuses to debate Murphy, because Krugman doesn't want to indirectly give credibility to the theory that DeLong appears to describe as

2313:

I put in material from the two Krugman blog entries which actually mention Murphy by name. I only link to Murphy's replies at this point; only one of them is a personal blog entry and the only direct reply to the second Krugman blog entry. Such self-defensive personal blog entries usually are given a

1379:

I don't care about this source or have an opinion on its merit. I only want the topic I'm working on defined and neutrally approached. Perhaps the legitimacy of this source in defining the phenomena or various nutty beliefs would vindicate my prior edits concerning the source. The source concerns

828:

The contrast in the photos of Martin and of Zimmerman which were most widely used in early media reports of the shooting may have influenced initial public perceptions of the case. The most commonly published image of Martin, provided to media by his family, showed a smiling baby-faced teen. The only

750:

My rewrite attempts were deleted repeatedly, and I'm concerned this was done not for a question of verifiability, but rather for an editor's bias against the movie. I'm posting here following a suggestion on our article's talk-page from a third party (who preferred not to give weight to either side).

148:

Given these observations, I don't think Lal's claim or Digby's doubts are relevant enough to go in the introductory medieval paragraph, where they are now. Instead, somewhere lower down in the text, I'd mention Lal's estimate (but as an estimate of decrease in population, not an estimate of deaths of

9745:

Per the guidelines above, it seems that abstracts are not designed to be cited to, but rather a means by which readers can decide if they would like to read the actual article. It is not about finding the statement to be false once the article is opened; rather, it is about upholding reliability and

9529:

Easy peasy. Read the article. Read the abstract. If the abstract is a fair representation of what's in the article then go ahead and use it. If the abstract is not a fair representation of what's in the article then don't. The abstract is usually (though not always) the author's attempt at summary -

9463:

To clarify, my position is that any citation, selected quotation, or inference taken from an article should come from part of the article itself (especially given that the entire article is available). Abstracts are not designed to be cited and I agree with the consensus here that citations are made

9376:

Agreed. We should not be using abstracts. Sure, maybe it is the conclusion copied as an abstract, but you can't tell until you read the source. I'd say the same thing about snippets - I've never or rarely seen a snippet of a book that I could be sure presented all the relevant information (including

9238:

restrictions, I don't work on that stuff much so I won't offer an opinion there. But in many cases a snippet view clearly includes all the relevant section of a large book, and is ample to work from. I have done so on many occasions and plan to continue where it seems appropriate. Where a snippet is

9197:

etc. There is almost always a way & if something is that obscure that it cannot be obtained nor verified by an alternate source then it probably isn't worth including in the article anyway. Anyone who relies on snippets etc is plain dangerous to this project: there are plenty of examples outside

8940:

states: "Consulting the abstract alone is inadequate for scholarship and may lead to inappropriate medical decisions. ... An abstract allows one to sift through copious amounts of papers for ones in which the researcher can have more confidence that they will be relevant to his or her research. Once

8088:

Wikpedia is allowing an online blog named the Sky Valley Chronicle who refuses post who it's writers are. The Sky Valley Chroncile was also connected with an attack piece and threats made to my life via Facebook and Knowledge attack piece ( Anne Block) which Knowledge removed citing it as an attack

7431:

here is the book in its entirety. Do you not know how to scroll down the page with your mouse or use the search bar to the left? The book states no such thing and libeling doesn't just involve legal action, that may be a deeper process if the libelous is that serious to whoever the copyright goes to

5132:

You see what I mean, I don't like wasting my time like that...you just called them false...how, wheres your tangibe proof they are false, just saying it is dosent make them false, they are all directed straight to its root source, tell me exactly how is his (Bigcat82) a good case and mine isint? You

4832:

The historic value trumps anything that supports the theory tigers won basically 30x fold, this is consistant with modern experts via animal trainers who observed them fighting, it is in consistantcy with science professions such as Biologist, Ecologist and Natralits, all the credible data indicates

4294:

I don't even see any evidence that she denies the known facts of 9/11; She may debate some of the facts about the level of government incompetence, but I don't hear her talking about controlled demolitions of the towers or any other tin-foil hat ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what evidence

4142:

Has she actually claimed the truthfulness of a a fact that's contradicted by extant evidence? As best I can tell, the only thing she claims to know for a fact is that she relayed some relevant intelligence and her higher-ups failed to prevent 9/11 and covered up their own incompetence. That may be

4127:

Specifically, Edmonds subscribes to the "those responsible are not being held accountable because X" theory, not the "controlled demolition" theory. That should be reflected in the text of her article, as she's absolutely a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Furthermore, her statements on matters should be

3605:

Very interesting question. My previous response was, as I said, "hasty", and when I made it I wasn't aware of the extent to which she may have favoured now-unfashionable (and indeed probably erroneous) views both in Egyptology and on witchcraft. (If I sounded knowledgeable, it's because I am (was) a

3544:

Children were often selected as the sacrificial offerings. Excavation of the Bridge Gate in Bremen, Germany, and several ancient fortresses in Wales are among the many examples of this practice." The page has a bibliography, which looks like a list of credible secondary sources, but these claims are

3394:

The problem is that the article already has large (the largest in fact) section on commentary/opinions surrounding "Darkness in El Dorado”. I agree, it could easily be used in that section in the manner you suggest. The editors in question specifically don't want to use it in that section or in that

3339:

The second issue is that, while the review contains criticisms of Chagnon that originate with Sahlins, it also contains criticisms that originate from “Darkness in El Dorado”, either quoted or paraphrased. This is done in such a way that I can not with certainty say which criticism are Sahlins’ own

3271:

To me this means that Steeletrap and others have accepted that this SPS cannot be used in the article except in a limited form as specifically described by Krugman. (I'll have to check to see if recent edits overstep those bounds.) Given this RSN is almost two weeks old, can we considered it closed?

2269:

The problem is that outside of the context of Krugman's NYT blog, there is not going to be any response from prominent authorities in the field because that just serves to add credibility to the dubious "predictions" and the like being advocated. And that means it is harder for Wikipedians to convey

2214:

I have to agree with those who say DeLong's blog can not be used in this context. He is not just criticizing Murphy's theories... he is criticizing Murhpy himself. What is interesting is that, if DeLong had published the same criticism of Murphy in an economic journal, or even in an op-ed piece in

2108:

QfK, we don't use any blogs for sources about living people. Murphy himself establishes all the facts about his failed prediction (which he can, per WP:Aboutself). DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy. It is frustrating how many times

1802:

I might reword or remove material where DeLong criticizes Murphy and not his theories, but the core dispute is one of economics and economic theories. I see no claims about Murphy himself, only claims regarding DeLong's opinions about matters in his area of expertise. DeLong is a recognized expert

1613:

DeLong is an expert on economics, writing on his blog. Reliable, with the caveat that this is talking about an ongoing disagreement within the field. The fact that Krugman mentions the post is a point in its favour, but not absolutely necessary. Krugman links to DeLong's blog post so it's clear that

1356:

Context and perspective. To be clear, I did not propose to use this source. It was already in use on the entry and I simply chose not to abuse it or let other editors continue to. The summary of edits and reversion to the entry shows that the consensus was to (unintentionally) abuse and repeatedly

856:

It is rs, but you should try to get a more detailed analysis for a source. Also, the wording does not appear neutral. Often news reporters will ask a few experts what they think, and they may not be representative of what most experts would say. I would just explain what each of the experts say.

737:

This negative viewpoint seemed amiss, considering the title of Schecter's article and the reiteration of content appearing previously in our article. After reviewing the translations, I removed the direct quotations (not a good idea for translations), and I adjusted our summary to be more reflective

144:

There are a couple of corrections to be made. (1) Lal's book doesn't (so far as I can see) say that 80 million Hindus were killed under Muslim rule. He estimates that the population of India decreased by 75 million during the period (1000-1500). They are not the same thing at all. (2) Digby's review

10323:

No. It is an exhibition organised by a group called FACT India, and it seems that the exhibition was controversial when it was held live. Individual items in an exhibition are primary sources. Explanatory material accompanying exhibitions may be reliable if it is authored by a highly regarded body.

9774:

It is not a matter of "harm," but about accurately citing the author's research/viewpoint the best way possible and citing to the language of the source in the most reliable way possible. Per above, citing to the actual article (which is designed to be cited to) is what most reliably and verifiably

9665:

Please avoid the use of "we." Second, "using the information in the abstract is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article. Do not cite the Abstract as if it were the complete article!" What they warn against sounds like exactly what you suggest doing (i.e., using the abstract

8915:

While it's true that this is not an ideal source, it should be reliable for stating that two sportswriters have expressed skepticism about the claim, as they appear to have been interviewed by the author of the article (or by a contributing author). (However, it would be most faithful to the source

8633:

That is my understanding of the previous discussions. The point about the sporting management firm was that it was also advertising its own services as an agent, and this could be seen as false advertising if what it posts is incorrect. So I would expect that it would have done some checking. It is

8148:

and based on their edit history, they seem to be here to promote r4rating.com by inserting links and reviews into articles. A rough look at the site suggests that the oddly branded "4 rating for you R RATING" (or R4 rating by you RATING ???) might be attempting to aggregate viewer response, akin to

7941:

equally reliable. The video recording, assuming the audio portion is clear, is the most reliable. A verbatim transcript prepared by the president's staff after the speech has been given should be next (although this point might be open to debate). A transcript published by a major news media outlet

7639:

because this is what OR is "Knowledge to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" that is not reliable, but also questionable due to the extremist views expressed in that literature. If Ivan's view is so common, why do I see no reliable

7436:

is such a common fact, why is that I looked for other sources that state such a thing yet fine none of validity to replace Ivan? Either way, it's not gonna change the fact Ivan is an Afrocentrist known for distorting history and has been chastised for his beliefs and the source is currently making

7331:

as you can see a "better source needed" claim is already there. The citation is substantiating the following material "West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty." That material comes from a self-published source by well known Afrocentrist for extremist views

7197:

No, it's not reliable. For the reason look at their "about" page and their ONTopic Custom Content page and "Write for us" pages. The reason they have "100,000 contributors" is Examiner.com takes money from companies to pay writers to write flattering stories and also let's people write about things

7005:

but that article has also some pretty odd, self-promoting sourcing itself and that award might not mean anything. I'm not seeing any third-party endorsements of this magazine. I would be very hesitant to use this source for much of anything, without more evidence of credibility. (Maybe not relevant

6818:

I think the fact that Gray mentions Hayek's endorsement is actually more significant than the "endorsement" itself. In the endorsement, which appears to be a solicited promotional statement, Hayek does not even say that he has read the book. He did however choose to lend his name to the promotion

6596:

Thanks, Specifico. But indeed we can additionally footnote Hayek's text via Google Books -- obviously a help to our readers, since we have found the text, and Hayek is (as this and other discussions have shown) notable and of keen interest -- and we can quote it; but briefly. I think I'd go as far

6195:

TFD my old friend, you misunderstand me. The "endorsed" thing is in Gray's book, and can be used. (anything from that book clearly can.)) However, what was previously being cited was not the Gray book, but a personal correspondence not cited therein, which appears on a promotional page for the book

6141:

Since we have a reliable secondary source for Hayek's opinion (Gray), there is no reason why we cannot expand on on it by using the primary source (Hayek's letter.) Private letters become acceptable sources once they are published, at least for the opinions expressed in them and a secondary source

5627:

I should have mentioned the only reason I put it in was because I frequently have seen reports, book reviews and even opinion pieces from less prestigious universities' student newspapers used in articles. And now I just remembered (duh) this has been discussed at WP:RSN with the reliability of the

5406:

It probably does not qualify as a reliable source, per se, but almost all the information on it is copies of race results, making it a useful resource as a guide for someone building an article, but should not be the sole source of information. Obviously race results and data from official sources

5025:

My behavior? Whats wrong with it...so basically the rightous, the person who wants to be fair, truthful ect has to be victimized by some uneducated people on subject who basically just pointed out in a small time frame 1/100th Bigcat82 was abusing the ethics of this website, and all I did was point

4896:

Ohh, you don't say...and what about everythig else I have mentioned, just grabage too then eh? This topic is so fragile, it needs consistant "hints" that all lead to the same conclusions, not just living in a life of denial obscuring single/individual refferences, so what you are saying is, all the

4053:

You've "never heard of her" but you just KNOW that the "category was not justified," do you? How about practising due diligence before editing a BLP? Clearly some other editor (besides me) disagreed with you on this point, since otherwise the category would not have been added in the first place,

1845:

There is no question that "For serious academic topics such as economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." But that's not the issue we have here. This is an article about an economist who is obscure in professional terms but has been heavily promoted

1361:

was knowledgeable enough to bring this decision up and resolve this issue appropriately. Kudos to him. I'm sort of new to WP and the proper procedures are is still a bit of a mystery to me. I'm newly disabled, and memory (and learning) is affected, hence the slow learning curve. A nerve issue in my

9804:

I am sorry you were confused. The fact is that the choice of language or a given inference is not always identical in the abstract as in the actual article. When that happens, it appears that the best thing to do is cite the actual article (the reliable source), which is actually meant to be cited

9789:

If it's not about harm (i.e. how reliable the source is), then it's not really something that needs discussing on this noticeboard. But you're confusing me because, whether the article or the abstract has been referred to, surely that actual text of the citation is going to be identical, and so no

9628:

Citing to just an article's abstract does not confirm for the reader that you have conducted a thorough or reliable review of the literature. If the full-text is not available, search the HOMER catalog by journal title to see if we have it. If USC does not have the journal, you can request it from

9507:

Most of the discussion here has been about a hypothetical scenario in which an editor may try to cite the abstract without reading the paper. That is not the situation we are discussing. The editor has read the whole paper and is citing the whole paper. they judge the abstract is a good summary of

9492:

Dlv999, I am unsure what you mean by "citing the full paper." I myself have read the full paper, not that that should make any difference in evaluating the merits of citing abstracts (e.g., citing scholarly journals generally involves citing page numbers). Any conclusion or inference drawn from an

9438:

Actually this question is regarding a specific situation. An editor has read the entire paper and is citing the entire paper, but is also using a small quote from the abstract as part of the citation. Precision123 is trying to use the discussion here as the basis for disallowing the quote from the

9357:

The problem is that you cannot possibly know whether the abstract would suffice without reading the entire thing. I'm no medic but I be hesitant to accept even your Ibuprofen example without reading the detail. As with law, the small print should not be ignored and I'm astonished that people think

9026:

I agree that an editor shouldn't rely only on a brief passage from a source as the basis for adding information to an article. I don't mind, however, if someone cites a source and also provides a link to the specific passage in question if it's available in Google books or another website; that's

8666:

I would agree that in general CVs/resumes should be treated as self-published sources, and thus ok to use only for factual, non-controversial data. I would also agree that resumes hosted by an employer may gain credibility, perhaps particularly in the academic case. I think the idea of prosecution

8614:

The consensus from previous discussions seems to be that they should be treated as self-published sources - not to be relied on for anything likely to be contentious. As for your comment about the firm, I see nothing to indicate that they have done anything beyond host the résumé on their website,

7922:

page has an external link for IMDb, so it's not a matter of "liking" the site, it's just not a good site to rely on for verifiable sourcing with clearly understood editorial oversight. In-line citations are primarily intended to show verifiability above all, not to point to interesting sites (even

7831:

I think what is being implied here is why IMDB isn't usually considered useful for information like this. Insofar as the award is itself worth mentioning (BAFTA, Oscars, Golden Globes, major film festival awards, etc.) there exists other more reliable sources. Insofar as there is no other source

7630:

the same link I gave you earlier, hopefully it works now to those having trouble. You then click on the front cover of the book and can scroll down through it all, or use the search bar on the left. I just elucidated what I meant by self-published in the post above, referring to all books, whether

7164:

that I reverted because I was hoping to install a citation for it using this link later in the article). I was trying to point out how the band's live concert performances differ from their studio recordings (they don't play discrete songs, they melt songs into one another so that the concert as a

6568:

Oh, gosh, Carol, I don't think you can, not at that length. This appears to me to be a self-standing text by Hayek, subject to copyright, very short, and you can't go beyond fair use. I'd say about a third of the number of words you are currently quoting, possibly paraphrasing some of the rest. If

6366:

Hayek's comments are shown on p. xii of the Fleet Press original edition of the book. Presumably Hayek read the book before it was published. Fleet Press was a reputable publisher of non-fiction that was later absorbed into Macmillan, which is a reputable publisher of non-fiction. Therefore the

6156:

Good evening, TFD. I have argued that we can use the Gray source. The problem is that the Gray source only briefly mentions Hayek's view of Block's book, saying he "endorsed" it. The personal correspondence is published on Mises.org, on a promotional page for the book. That is what is being cited,

5208:

You, are CONTRADICITING wikipedias own sources, there are more than 2 sub-species of tigers, yet you and flat out reverted to less reliable content...jesus christ talk about hypocrites, good case? You have NO CASE, you cant even exept the basic cases let alone you ignorantly trying to dis-prove of

5204:

there are NINE SUBSPEICES OF TIGERS! I previously added a revision even before the one you undid as ignorant and faslely proclaimed as you were, you offered no proof, and yet the former revision I had mentioned had 2 BIOLOGIST (you can check my other contribs) state all the tiger averages, and the

5036:

Fair assement(Golden Prime)???? Okay, I'm done, I'll take it else where then. No biggie, since absolutely no one gave reasons and was able to prove the accounts of lions killing tigers were un-reliable...just people living in denial, purposely lying for a false cause... you can stay in a demented,

4741:

I'm not chllangeing anything, I pointing out the facts, published? What are you talking about, 10 people quoting one incident (Martials Poem/epigram), doesent make many, its still counts as only one, just because 100 newspaper stations publish muhamid ali kocked out george foremen, doesnt mean ali

4734:

So what exactly are you trying to say? That he (Bigcat82) can post whatever he wants and I and anyone to oppse it will have the data removed? All the revisions are being undone to his bias subjective vision, yet no clarification is being emited, up-held or even verified, the bottom line is, why is

4108:

of "a very gross violation of BLP" despite the fact I have never edited that BLP. Very gross violations of a BLP require editing that BLP, do they not? You opened up a new Talk page section on a different BLP calling on everyone to review my editing based on my "error", despite the fact it would

3944:

So should that particular Knowledge edit I called attention to be in or should it be out? You seem to be calling on Knowledge to give equal time to 9/11 Truthers because "government officials" have a "beef" with the Truthers and are in general conspiracy against the Truthers (or perhaps just "the

3548:

In the same paragraph, "Child-Sacrifice Among European Witches M. A. Murray Man Vol. 18, (Apr., 1918), pp. 60-62" is referenced. I am not convinced that this identifies the reference properly - which journal was it in? and in any case it could be suggested to be out of date. I think that we should

3335:

are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Since contentious material in BLPs require higher standards than most other material, I don't believe the review meets RS standard since the source is "rarely reliable".

2086:

Much of what I said above are direct quotes from official Knowledge policies and guidelines. It always makes for interesting (if not humorous) reading when somebody claims that direct quotes from Knowledge policy are wrong or aren't Knowledge policy. In any case, you asked and you shall receive:

815:

An editor feels that because the AP article was published by a large number of news outlets, it should be regarded as a reliable source on which to base the Knowledge article section. However, Martin's family have said that the photo had been taken only 6 months before the shooting, which occurred

9969:

Should we link to the abstract? Well, yes, if we can't link to a free copy of the article, and we can link to a free copy of the abstract, of course we should. The reader can go on from there, buy the article, find it in a library, get it through JSTOR or Athena or whatever. We will be citing the

8944:

That said, assuming that (in addition to the abstract) the complete article is available, should citations (or selected quotations) be made to the abstract? I have been under the impression that the article's text always takes dominance over the abstract, and that abstracts are not designed to be

8694:

Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as

8693:

as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western

6257:

I see four editors saying the quote itself is useable. If you don't believe Mises.org that it was a letter from Hayek, fine, we don't have to use that claim as a source. But if a fabricated quote from Hayek was used in the foreward to the Fleet Street editions of the book, I'm sure Gray or others

6238:

Unless I am mistaken, we still do not know the origin of the Hayek text on the Mises website, but consensus appears to be not to use that source. If you are saying that you have RS documentation as to the origin of the Hayek text, please provide it. While I don't see anybody objecting to the Gray

5683:

OK, the article on the Review says it's "official", the article on the Institute says it's "home to and publishes" the Review. Those two claims aren't synonymous ("home to" is a good meaningless Knowledge phrase). Maybe we should cite a source for the Review's exact relationship to the Institute.

4694:

A Master's degree isn't very high on the academic reputation scale. The problem with the sources which you are challenging is that they are many, variate, written by people regarded as authorities (e.g. published by Cambridge University Press or upon the websites of other reputable universities).

3904:

that this is because MSNBC "censored his entire testimony on these stunning allegations!" Petrarchan47 referred me to Edmonds' view here that there is conspiratorial suppression at work to answer my question "why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media." Is Sibel Edmonds a reliable

3350:

2) It is unsuitable even for a claim that Sahlins is critical of Chagnon. This is because it is so hard to separate the criticisms that originate with Sahlins from the criticisms that he is reviewing form the work. There is not a single clear example of a criticism originating from Sahlins in the

2802:

There is also a potential pitfall when using primary sources (e.g. Murphy's blog on himself) because wikipedia editor selection from such can easily create certain impressions. For example, the Knowledge editor could select only wrong predictions by the BLP subject to cover and leave out correct

7899:

The question was not whether other sources should be discarded in favor of IMDb. It was whether IMDb is reliable as a source for reports of awards. By analogy: Suppose a source is needed for something said during a speech delivered by US President Obama. One source might be the transcript of the

7862:

I don't know how long they have had the current procedures in place for verification of awards; it's not inconceivable that some entries for lower-profile awards that were added to their database years ago may be incorrect. For high-profile awards (Oscars, BAFTAs, Palmes d'Or) generally, and for

7736:

Let's get away from the sources used now, and try to construct an accurate sentence with better ones. "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes" is oddly put (part 3), and not

5870:

In some areas, recognition of the vital functions of these scapegoat occupations and practices may prompt demands for the revision of law and of customary morality so as to accord them a greater measure of legitimacy and social approval. It is in this spirit that Mandeville himself wrote, and in

4221:

To the extent we're using her as a reliable source to demonstrate obviously false claims, that's fringe. What I've seen so far is just her claim that whistleblower retaliation exists-- which isn't fringe. Having a fringe view in one domain (e.g. Jesus resurrected) doesn't disqualify you from

2000:

is an important consideration when evaluating RS. So, is the personal blog simply commentary on economic questions or does it contain information about living third parties. If the commentary is confined to economic issues, then fine, use it. But once it, the blog, strays into a discussion about

1964:

I worry about the use of blogs. Usually blogs are "thinking out loud," tentative thoughts, or presentation of ideas for feedback. They may not be the final position of the author's viewpoint. Is there a general policy about blogs here on Knowledge. I'm sure this has been discussed. Any pointers?

1893:

and not a discussion about article consensus. Knowledge policy is quite clear, as is what I have been saying, and I'm not quite sure why you are misunderstanding it or are unwilling to discuss that beyond repeatedly invoking policies you well know we are both aware of. An opinion about economic

1803:(I won't bother quoting and highlighting the relevant RS policy regarding that, as I'm sure you are aware of it.) and the content is relevant and permissible under all those policies you've been citing, all the more so because this content is cited by a Nobel laureate in an unimpeachable RS, the 871:

Use of this AP article, as shown here, has a serious problem regarding balance. The AP article quotes two media experts who disagree about the possibility the photos will have an effect; one says the photos could be important. Another (Gordon Coonfield) says they may have little-to-no effect. In

806:

article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting. The AP article, "Old Photos May Have Shaped Public Reaction In Trayvon Martin Case", states as fact that an undated photograph of Martin was several years out of date at the time of the shooting, and incorporates

273:

It is a re-print. Obviously you fabricate the source since it is neither secondary, nor it is disputing the figures. Sweta Dutta who wrote the article is not a reliable source. Digby is not a historian, I bet you regard everyone as historian who you think to be supporting your isolated view. But

234:

Digby is questioning the figures and methods of Lal in a peer reviewed journal, and it is notable enough to mention his critique of Lal's methods since he's a British Scholar (and not a mere "writer" - last time I checked only scholars got their pieces published in academic journals). Given that

9833:

Sure, FormerIP, I am sorry for the confusion. Let me try and divide the issue here. An abstract does often do a good job outlining some of the main points, but I found that it would be inappropriately and possibly unreliably used to cite a source in its entirety. I agree with the guideline that

9562:

The question is not about summarizing the journal article, but rather about citing a certain conclusion or inference from it. As the choice of language and context might differ, even slightly, it is better to cite a specific section of the article rather than the abstract. Indeed, citations are

9099:

Do you read the entire book from the start to the end? Does everyone? Are wikipedians supposed to have read it completely because 1 line in the book can change the entire context. Are you sure the entire of wikipedia are from wikipedians who have read the entire source? If it is so I must start

7359:

Press was not a self-publishing operation, it was (as you can see at that article) part of a highly influential and respectable organisation. Pieris wrote at least a dozen books on Ceylon and related topics which were not self-published, many of which have been felt important enough to see 21st

6869:

I'm lost here. Hayek wrote admiringly of Mandeville in other contexts. Gray presumably knew that. Any comparison of Block, a living and little-known author, to the enduring legacy of Mandeville would seem to be a significant homage to Block's work. Thus for a scholar of Gray's credentials to

6535:

converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently

6069:

I have said the Gray source is RS. I have not said that the reviews from Mises.org -- which includes Hayek's personal letter to Block -- are RS. We can say something like: "Gray notes Hayek endorsed Block's book." We cannot quote the excerpt from the alleged personal letter posted on Mises.org.

4906:

Oh, wow...all that info, yet not one according to the bias necessities of wiki=goers, finds it reliable...XD WOW! Yeah and cherry picking 2 sub-species of the largest tigers to hide the fact lions on average (as a species) are heavier, taller, larger and bigger in size compared to tigers...what

4157:

One assumes that her assertions on the matter regarding the US government covering up portions of the story are believed by her to be truthful. She details them in the documentary about her. It's a theory with no apparent factual basis behind it. This alone should disqualify her from being a

1556:

Brad DeLong is a UC Berkeley economist. He is RS as far as economics is concerned. Murphy's blog is used to establish all the facts about his predictions (which is permissible per WP:Aboutself); DeLong and Krugman are only used to assess those predictions (not establish facts). Krugman links to

551:

I'm going to wait for Andrew and Doug to respond Blade. The latter is an administrator I contacted regarding your disruptive edits (who has responded above). I want to hear from them since all I'm getting is circular logic from you about the reliability of Simon Digby's work even though he's an

9724:

cite an abstract. We ought to be able to apply some common sense, and it really isn't comparable to using a Google snippet. It might make a difference whether you are citing the abstract for findings or background information, and it's going to be important to consider the possibility that the

7168:

Before you ask: I believe this is relevant to the discussion of the reliability of sources because it appears that has had something to do with the site being blacklisted. I want to make sure this particular link is OK to use before I take it back to the spam whitelist and ask that this one be

6753:

I see exactly what you mean, TFD. But this thing has a tendency to go round in circles, and the first circle began with doubts that Hayek's comment is RS. It is in any case a primary source (for Hayek's opinion). Gray, being undoubtedly RS, gives us the lead to quote the primary source that he

5567:

If this book is worth mentioning as a work of economics or political theory, there must be some mention, review, or citations in RS references. An undergraduate magazine and a cable news pundit don't seem commensurate with discussion of a book of presumably encyclopedic noteworthiness. If RS

4730:

And on and on the fairess wheel goes, first I put Clyde beatty in, a person who had directly observed them fighting as stated in his book observation upon 40 years experince (as I provided) and has worked with 1,000 tigers and lions, has accumilated atleast 25 tigers that were killed his lions

2821:

Yes, that could be a problem and frankly I've been too exhausted from the other issue to see if that first paragraph reflects well. Also, there needs to be a few words of substantive reply from Murphy to Krugman, but something else haven't had energy to deal with yet. Still a work in progress!

2264:

It would seem that the policy on using the blog on a BLP as quoted above rules out the use of DeLong's blog, but not Krugman's commentary on DeLong's criticism of Murphy. I think this makes for a gap in the sourcing policy in relation to people such as Murphy that are of marginal notability in

10277:

Source 3 appears to fall into the self-published sources category (regardless of the funding source), and on that count is unreliable for the intended statement and should be removed from the article. I don't see any statement in source 1 ("The King of Ghassan") that says the forebears of the

7677:

I completely concur about your sentiments on Pieris and Stanley, not to mention Stanley is an orientalist, they are well known for distortion of culture and differences between groups. The funny thing is Stanley did not even jot such words in his original book, but a republished version by an

7307:

The next source "The Story of the Moors in Spain" By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman is a book created by an orientalist and orientalism can indeed distort differences between different cultures, not only that but Stanley Lane-Poole has not much scholarship, but the main problem is that the

4971:

issues regarding the sourcing and/or neutrality of the article as it stands which directly relate to Knowledge policy, and can demonstrate them without resorting to personal attacks on other contributors, you could consider raising them in the appropriate places - here for questions regarding

4943:

mis-informed people all being propelled by a bias revisioner...so if anyone is to blame, it should be wikipedias moderators and admins, as I have only seen nothing but negativity be promoted out of what wiki was allowed to be spewed out, propaganda, ignorance, lies, fakes and more...for shame.

4877:

It is frankly ridiculous to cite Ken Spiro for a claim regarding the relative merits of lions and tigers in a fight - he is describing a Roman spectacle, not making an assessment regarding the fighting abilities of the animals. We don't cherry-pick random phrases from publications on entirely

9007:

Whoah there, a Google snippet should never be used as the basis of a cite. I've seen many cases of lazy sourcing to a cite using Google snippets and it nearly always produces misleading results. For example an editor making a claim ignorant of the fact that a negative on the preceding line

8005:

There's no indication what is meant by higher profile so the information is still mostly based on user submission for an unknown amount of awards. Also, Knowledge is not a list of all awards. If an award has not generated any press beyond an IMDb mention, it's probably not notable enough for

7045:. Labelling them as a marketing firm is untrue. The items you linked were 1 - a peer to peer networking "group" they run (I believe it's like a private LinkedIN), paid event coverage (advertising) and a business directory. They exist just as spin-offs from the main magazine, i.e. advertising 6901:

SPECIFICO's User page still sports {{User:UBX/pronoun:comfort}} so I'll go by that until the User page changes. (Don't want another brouhaha about use of pronouns regarding editors who haven't been real clear on their user pages making it hard to keep track of what's official and what's mere

4942:

It woulden't matter to me, since someone would be to blame, it has been un-checked via over 5 years, I've conducted a scan of how many sites have cited and refferenced wiki on this subject, an its almost in the thousands with a ripple effect of viewers in the hudred millions, with incredibly

5074:

So since Bigcat82 has no reason of removing what I posted of lions killing tigers accounts via reliable sources, it is in terms vandalizing, so I would like a mod to place a block on his account if he persist in removing credible and reliable occaisons to have a bias subjective and pro-data

4825:

All solid proof of anecdoctal records the same as martials poem showing lions usually won, to actual artifacts depicting lions the victor via mosaics, engravings, etches, antiques, ect ect, historians and thelogian consenses all with Ph.d and Masters degrees, actual staged accounts in other

4435:

Why does this board exist if every instance has to be evaluated on a case by case basis and no generalizations can be made about the reliability of a source generally? I raised the issue of Sibel Edmonds here because looking through the history apparently she's never come up before on this

398:

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be

9008:

completed flipped the meaning of line quoted. I see someone has also had a similar experience below. I personally would not quote a source unless I could definitively verify a claim and a snippet simply can't do that. I would go so far as to make it policy that Google snippets are not a

8975:

In many cases, however, the full paper is behind a paywall while the abstract is freely available. In such a case (perhaps particularly in non-medical contexts) citing the abstract may be better than including no citation at all, which may be the only other practical choice. For example at

746:, Asher Schechter praised the film's viral popularity and foreshadowing to the Occupy movement, while admitting its evidence to be poor. Schechter excused its deficiencies in light of the movie originally being created as an art film, and he called its reach as an activist effort a success. 4188:

You say "One assumes that her assertions on the matter regarding the US government covering up portions of the story are believed by her to be truthful"-- we assume no such thing. What I'm asking is, has she advanced a theory that is provably false. In my opinion, claiming that the US

5701:

and HPR might be reliable sources for the intellectual and social goings-on of Harvard U. But they are not RS for economics. Their authors may be Harvard students, but they are also teenagers and barely-twenties whose highest educational attainment is a HS diploma. Not even close to RS.

9729:

contains the information that there is no known cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. I fail to see what difference it makes whether I source that information to the abstract or the article. It's not as if I am likely to download the full article and find that the statement is false.

7092: 9069:

I have no idea what you mean by 'publish entire page/books'. The requirement when citing a source has always been the same - that it meets WP:RS standards, and that the material it is being cited for accurately reflects the source - which would imply that the person citing it has

8871:

making a broad claim about a third party. There are probably far more reliable sources (ethnographic or linguistic studies published in scholarly journals, or even articles from tertiary sources, such as a major encyclopedia) that could be used to substantiate the claim intended.

1338:

I'm redeveloping that entry based open the legitimate concerns of other editors and new sources. In your reading, please feel free to identify or tag areas of concern but do not otherwise modify it. The current version is in my sandbox. It still has a lot of work to go ahead of

816:

when he was 17. (Incidentally, although the point has not been a part of the editors' discussion, the AP article also states that a photo the media used to depict Zimmerman, who had shot Martin, shows Zimmerman wearing a jail uniform with an orange collar, but subsequent reporting

8373:

Why would anyone even think that we should use a website for "selected information about garlic" to source a statement about the effects of smallpox on the Inca? It is an utterly ridiculous source to use - and there is no lack of proper academic material on the subject matter.

6495:

There is a clear consensus that Gray's book is reliable secondary source for what Hayek said. Most editors think that we can also use the page in Block's book, published by Fleet Press Corporation and used as a source in Gray's book, as a primary source for what Hayek wrote.

5932:

What's the source of the Commentary? -- never mind that it's attributed to Hayek. Is it well-sourced and the context clear? It's an undated unsourced insertion of what appears to be promotional content. Was it a collegial letter to Block's publisher? A deathbed confession?

4387:

No problem; right now the only diff offered as evidence of anything was a direct quote from a newspaper that was then attributed as a direct quote in the Knowledge article. That's not a reliable source issue. It sounds like people are arguing about due weight, not sourcing.

8980:

citation number 11 (Stifler, Sarah L. (2002). "Slippery When Wet: An Exhibition Dossier". GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 8 (1-2): 241-249.) is to an abstract. For the matter of that, citing to a GBooks snippet is common and in many cases is perfectly sufficient.

6000:

You seem to be painting a picture of solicited endorsements sourced from a number of "likely suspects" by the publisher, eager to promote the book. Now that you've provided the context I think it's hard to claim this is encyclopedia-worthy content. What is "Fleet Press?"

125:

And he keeps edit warring about it, without providing any secondary source that refer to his "dispute". Considering that here, Digby dispute(comment at most) is being used as secondary, so he must be recognized by other reliable source, before it is being recognized here?

2001:

someone then BLP and SPS factors must be considered. "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Is this info worth repeating? Assuming it is, who has done so elsewhere? –

4672:

So I await a consenses in removing things that is unreliable and placing a block on Bigcat82's on his subjective, cherrying picking and constant erasing of reliable content for the Lion vs Tiger subject as he has repeatively undid a more reliable vision numerous times:

5113:

P.S. I would also suggest that it might not be in your best interests to raise the matter at WP:ANI, given that you have clearly failed to take previous warnings regarding your behaviour into account - adding material with a patently-false edit summary as you did here

4347:

I don't know anything about Edmonds, I was only speaking to the quality of the sources mentioned so far. It sounded like someone (subject or editor or both or neither) was advancing fringe theories, so I directed them there to sort it out, without prejudice to anyone.

2874:

DeLong's blog is posted on the website he uses to disseminate course information and curricula related information to his students, or so it would seem, so that would seem to make it marginally--at least--a "professional blog", though I'm not sure how that is defined

3785: 1307:

Wow! Reading that AfD is very enlightening. So this isn't the first time he has been aggressive, showed ownership tendencies, and attacked other editors. He has a very negative learning curve, and blocks don't even help, so I see a siteban looming on the horizon. --

5152:

Knowledge is a work of consensus. If you are putting forward sources that other's deem as unreliable (and they are clearly giving you reasons, btw), then you haven't achieved consensus. You can't revert and insult just to get your way - so either find a way to work

9650:

Sure, but no one here is considering citing the abstract without reading the paper. We have read the paper and consider the abstract to be a good summary of the paper. The paper is being cited, a quote is being used from the abstract as a footnote in the citation.

8819: 8031:

I don't think that is what that statement says. As I read it, it says that they require confirmation to post an award report. For higher-profile awards, they require that the confirmation be from an official source (which I take to mean the organization making the

3488:

Reviews of books, films, TV shows, musical productions etc are not opinion pieces. When written by an academic, as this one is, it is academic scholarship. This is the kind of source that a BLP of an academic should mainly be based on, but do apply normal caution.

1870:(emphasis NOT mine) use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. I have no idea what part of "never" you find ambiguous, nor do I care. The fact is that the 5665:? (Created as a memorial to JFK, one may remember.) It seems like a one sentence book review on a popular book on economics is well within their capability and the opposition to them are just as baseless as the opposition to inclusion of the Hayek material below. 2429:

is latest version and has same problem as above: Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second, and then Krugman commenting on them both. It looks to me like building a POV argument on SPS, which is not a proper use of sources.

10278:

Ghassanids had "merged with Greek-speaking Christian communities". Source 1 may be reliable for other statements in the Knowledge article (I haven't read the entire article), but it does not appear to be reliable for the statement being discussed here. Source 2 (

3973:

Whistleblower retaliation is also not been even close to proven in the cases at hand here. The issue here is one of RS. As for "chilling", have you decided to chill your project to use Knowledge's Main Page for political protest purposes or is that still going

5951:

Looks to be RS to me. I don't think it is particularly notable or clear, however. The meaning of "endorse" is vague; does he endorse Block's economics? His ethics? His writing style? There may also be verification issues. All in all, this doesnt' belong on RSN.

7027:

they are clearly first and foremost concerned with promotion and not fact checking and accuracy. Potentially usable, but with great caution. Almost everything that would be acceptably sourced to the Drum would probably have a more reliable source available. --

9141:

Google snippets is inadvisable, and I only posted here to correct your apparent misapprehension that sources had to be available online. And I'm not interested in debating with you what you think you should be 'questioning' - it is off-topic for this thread.

8461:'s 1909 book. Can this source be considered reliable for claims such as these? Given the confusingly wide scope of the article, talking about people having the same surname over a period of centuries (?) up to the present day, this could even be considered a 4836:

This subject with out the life experinces and memoirs of Clyde beatty, Bert nelson, terrell Jacobs, Dave hoover and more has no value, no substance, and without those authoritys this subject should be classified as medicore and un-educated, in fact ignorant.

6681:, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded." That gives a bit more substance to the Gray's mention of Block's book without drawing on speculation or OR characterization of the Hayek text. 6035:

Block's book, including the full Hayek endorsement, as published originally by Fleet Press and reprinted by Laissez-Faire. The status of these publishers has nothing to do with it. The material is notable, and Gray, as RS, makes it usable. So let's use it.

2530:

no single answer (because the text keeps changing) and thought that if I could propose something it might provide a concrete basis for a conversation. And if not that, then at least something that I could respond to the request at wp:ver on. Sincerely,

1650:

DeLong is a recognized expert in economics and his blog is a reliable and usable source, per policy, for his claims and views and ideas regarding the area of his expertise, economics, as long as they are properly identified as his claims, views, and ideas.

1697:

I am well aware of these policies that you've already linked to previously, but thanks for the reminder regarding what we're already discussing. However, the claims in question aren't claims about a living person. They are claims about economic theories.

8105:. They don't look especially notable and seem overly tabloidy in approach, but I don't see where there's anything at issue right now about them, as they're not currently being used to support any claims. I'd probably accept them as a reliable source for 5059: 3433:

Precisely. The issue is whether it is a RS for the statements given at the start of this section. Alternative usages to support other statements, such as suggested by Jayron32, while useful do not resolve the dispute as it pertains usage in the article.

7982:

So apart from the issue of whether IMDb should or should not be used for reports of high-profile awards like Oscars, taking the position that IMDb should never be cited as a source for any film awards would be detrimental to the encyclopedia's mission.

7455:. I just need that clarified. Also being Afrocentric (like Molefi Asante) does not mean we throw it out. The actual statement which uses Ivan is actually not a pseudo historical claim. And hence why we left it in and allow people to seek better sources 7400:, who are not a vanity publisher. However, the idea that the Almoravids married Africans into the dynasty is hardly remarkable (frex their article cites Lange, Dierk (1996), "The Almoravid expansion and the downfall of Ghana", Der Islam 73, pp. 122-59.) 6708:

I have not read Gray's book. Does he identify that promotional text we've seen from Hayek as being the basis for the sentence we're discussing? The more interesting and informative content actually would be that Gray calls Block's book "Mandevillean".

2041:

Editors are discussing the material and citing RS policy. Also, as Steeletrap is defending the blog on the basis of RS ("restoring RS coverage of inflation prediction...." in the edit summary & above), this noticeboard is an appropriate location. –

9273:

Absolutely, I would strongly agree that Google snippets are inherently unreliable and no matter how well intentioned you simply cannot get enough information from them to form a cite. Anyone doing this and thinking its acceptable should be hit with a

6547: 663:

Quite a lot to read :) I will just give my answer to Bladesmulti's question, far above, "Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right?" This is a good question: if Lal is talking generally about "decline in population", is that relevant to

8063:

I would argue that best practice is to use the awarding institution itself. From time to time we get an argument that such sources are primary, but I don't see any problem at all. If an organisation makes an award then it isn't going to lie about it.

7631:

they be published from a company or not. Stanley's original book says no such thing, but apparently a version by an Afrocentrist does (not surprising). So that excerpt is not by Stanley himself. Also it can possibly fall under the definition of libel

3899:

is cited as a "whistleblower" with no reference to the fact this person is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Elsewhere Sibel Edmonds notes that "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" and

4878:

different subjects to use as source. Spiro may very well be qualified to write on 'The Jewish Impact on Civilization', but there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that he is an expert on lions and tigers - or that he makes the slightest claim to be.

7070: 6628:

I assumed it would be cut somehow. I was just providing the full quote that originally had been in text so people could decide what wanted to use - or could look to the original for other quotes. As long as the main thrust is preserved, I'm happy.

6422:

It shows that the books published appear to be reasonable non-fiction, and that they have been cited in thousands of other books, most of which also appear to be reasonable non-fiction. Some of the cites have "The Macmillan Company" in brackets.

7654:

Colonial era books like Stanley and Pieris are likely to contain nationalistic or racist assumptions and are thus not reliable unless we have recent sources that say that they are still regarded as definitive. Sertima is not reliable for history.

7107:

Are you planning a major event? The Drum can help you build its profile through our Media Partnership programme. It could give you access to: • 750,000 unique monthly online users • 80,000 Twitter followers • 16,000 email newsletter subscribers •

5540:

rmv article from undergraduate magazine. Undergraduates, whose maximal educational attainment is a high school diploma, are not qualified to review an economics book. (even if they are among the best undergraduates in U.S., as H enrollement would

3606:

librarian, used to spotting authors and titles, not because I am expert in these fields.) I wouldn't retract the "very notable", but I might rethink the "reliable" ... Keatinge is right, of course, : we ought to try for more recent sources anyway.

1874:

of proof is on you to justify why these edits are acceptable. You can either gain consensus for these edits or not. And you are certainly entitled to disagree with official Knowledge policies, but again, the onus is on you to get them changed.

566:

I think it can be solved. I consider that the line, at the moment "Which is also disputed by historians", it should be "Which is is also disputed by scholar", and then "Digby". Because we don't have multiple historians here to dispute such claim.

5369:

On the about page its say " contributions from friends and sports car enthusiasts" ....this would be a red flag in my opinion. BUT....its used all over Knowledge (thus some must think its ok) ....so we should get others to look at this closely -

3448:

A Washington Post book review by a distinguished expert in the field is highly reliable for how a scholar's work has been received. It is not "personal opinion" but professional opinion. If other views conflict, include them alongside this one.

3230:

ban on using expert SPS to evaluate the theories of living persons makes little sense, and thwarts the general intention underlying the SPS ban (namely, to prevent the spread of false, dubious or unverifiable information about a living person).

3200:

mainstream opposition and publicity (as well as politics) at stake. Since Krugman has basically covered what DeLong said and linked to his blog, that should suffice for the present. For this case, the policy has basically been sufficient, i.e.,

2381:

Now it becomes a matter of Murphy's self-published blog mentioned first, DeLong's self-published blog second, and then Krugman commenting on them, with a link to Murphy's reply last. That's really building a POV argument misusing SPS in a BLP,

5530: 5491: 9962:

Should we rely on an abstract to tell us what the article says, or when we are citing for a fact or claim? No, we shouldn't. Only the article says what the article says: only the article says exactly how confident the author is about facts or

3128:

The most terrifying thing of all is that being completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, fundamentally, fatally, totally wrong has not led Robert Murphy to rethink or modify any of his analytical positions or ideological beliefs by even one

3533:"throughout Pre-Modern Europe, Child sacrifice was a thriving practice. Children and infants were commonly sacrificed either near river crossings or within new buildings, in which they were then buried or crushed under the foundation stones. 2932:. It starts with cherry picked Murphy quotes, has Krugman bash Murphy and mention DeLong, and does not even yet have a substantive reply from Murphy, though he has made them. So adding DeLong's WP:SPS would just exacerbate the BLP problems. 9977:(Rare case.) If we quote verbatim from the abstract, what do we cite? We cite the paper, and add the word "abstract" -- e.g. where we would normally put the page number. We also make clear in our text that we are quoting from the abstract. 9508:

the whole paper and are quoting from the abstract as part of the citation. Apart from yourself I haven't seen any other editor objecting to that course of action and I would be interested if there are any objections (other than yourself).

7459:

and this nit picking with some agenda behind it which remains unclear to me (at least) is not helping us to push on and make this article A grade. Give it a rest at some stage and fix something else. It is exhausting going on about Poole.

8698:, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. It's actually disappoint to see such a well known publisher misrepresent an author in this way, but a warning to all of us not to take publisher's statements at face value. 4958:

The only person to blame for your behaviour is yourself - and getting permanently blocked will do nothing for your case. I suggest that rather than continuing with this discussion, which is unlikely to achieve anything concrete, you read

8667:

for false advertising of a management agency for hosting an inaccurate resume may be legally possible, but not likely in practice, therefore not much of a motive for fact-checking, and so it adds little to the credibility of the source.

6859:

But I agree with Specifico that we want the the Gray mention, and that in using the Hayek endorsement we need to be selective: just quote a short passage that is a straight response to the book, in clear and trenchant words. Easy to do.

3922:"Are U.S. government officials a reliable source? Does citing the opinions/statements of U.S. government officials who share a beef with "whistleblowers" add value to a "whistleblower"'s article or is it more of a self-referencing loop?" 1063:

a scholar book on Pagan studies: ""These accounts were generally sensationalistic and conflated Paganism with the New Age, "the occult," or Satanism. In the United States, such books were produced by Hans Holzer, Susan Roberts, and Brad

8992:

I'm sorry but I don't follow you at all. If an editor can't or hasn't read an article then he or she shouldn't be citing it. If he or she has read an article then it should be cited regardless of whether it's freely available or not.

4840:

So I say again, I am not against things that support the tiger, I just want both sides as truthful as possible and both sides to be heard, not erasing things because someone is incredibily subjective and bias... is that so much to ask?

7075:- they have a high requirement for original and reputable content. I appreciate this is not "inheritable". But please remember that syndication by Google News is not given to everyone nor non-news sources before you decide this issue. 5133:

dident even check for any of his verifications, so stop lying, there are even previous people who undid his revision since they actually read its content, answer one question andy...just one...are there only two sub-speices of tigers?

5098:

you had a good case, based on relevant evidence and a clear understanding of Knowledge policy. Since you appear to have neither, I would however suggest that doing so based on what you have written here would be a total waste of time.

10015:

As for following to the letter the essay-writing advice pages addressed to college sophomores (at best), which say one must read the whole work before citing it, ask yourselves if some academic cites a several-hundred-pages book, say

8096:

does look like a generally weak source, but it depends what it's being used to support. It's a little bothersome that they call themselves a paper when they're admittedly online only. I can only find them being cited in two articles:

5605:

I have no idea if it is an RS or not, but I'm not sure the opinions of undergraduates are encyclopedic. For a 38 year old book of the significance claimed by the article, surely we can find reviews from more significant publications.

5209:

scholar/masters level'd people who you dident even know the concept between history and biology was supposed to be comprehended...yet again, making up things and being bias and subjective...why are you even here, to be a spaming bot?

5051:

One more last thing, I request a user Block on Bigcat82, since he isint and can't give any tangible proof that whats in place now as my last undo, is unreliable, as all are accounted for via newspaper acrhives, heres of an example...

2956:

regarding the work of that BLP. The idea is to prevent us from spreading false or dubious information about a living person; the DeLong source does not do this, as it simply represents his opinion about Murphy's economic predictions.

2685:

I have slightly reworked your material, Carol, after reverting the BLP-violating changes by Steeletrap. I agree with A Quest For Knowledge regarding the three sources: DeLong, Krugman and Murphy himself. DeLong cannot be used at all.

8931: 6091:

I've only made two comments above in this thread. If you would please indicate which one(s) you're calling "infantile" and why, I'd be pleased to respond to your concern. Otherwise, why bother with pointless denigration? Thanks.

10043: 5445:

source, of content that could be sourced elsewhere in paper publications, then we need to dig out those paper sources. Either way, is there any policy-compliant reason to allow this site to be kept as a source cited in any article?

812:"When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," said Kenny Irby, who teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla. 9258:

to be self-contained is not necessarily so ... and you'll never know unless you've read around the limited view. This applies even to such seemingly basic statements as "X are a Hindu caste" - I know because I've seen it happen. -

3769: 8503:

Looking at the site I can't find any sign of editorial oversight. The articles therefore are in the category of blogs or at any rate, self published material. They are not reliable, except under very limited circumstances as per

4420:

This looks like free-running content dispute and should be handled on the talk page of an actual article, regarding actual claims in context, I think. I haven't seen a single diff where she's being used as a source for anything.

3765: 7856:

Yes, the awards section of IMDb is curated. They ask for sources of awards data that are submitted and reject submissions of awards reports that contain information that is contradicted by other sources that they regard as more

6258:

would have discovered that fact by now. (Feel free to search for any such evidence.) And Gray does use the Fleet Street book as his source for Hayek's statement. Please stop denying what other editors can see obviously is true.

7298:

The problem with the content is the fact that the source that involved Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, is by some obscure author with no validity, is improperly linked, and has no quotation or page reference. Here it is:

1089: 522:

I've asked Stuffandtruth to moderate his language. Bladesmulti, you need to also avoid commenting on other editors. You talk about 'fabricating' sources. What do you think "fabricated" means? It's beyond me why you would think

10257:

Only the unreliable "Sufi Trails" source makes the claim that the Ghassanids were Hellenised. The other two sources never mention that. The editor failed to provide quotes/exact page numbers in the dedicated talk page section

597:

I can refer to some edits, where journals were usually rejected. Thus i thought that if it is notable enough to even add, since it is not backed by secondary source(other than wikipedia), in terms of authorship. Nothing else.

8941:

papers are chosen based on the abstract, they must be read carefully to be evaluated for relevance. It is commonly surmised that one must not base reference citations on the abstract alone, but the entire merits of a paper."

8916:

to use that information in the context of explaining that Ellis himself had at one point said he had been on acid and that a number of commentators other than the two skeptics have chosen to believe that the legend is true.)

5973:

of the 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute edition of the book does note that Hayek had written "the author". All of this can be added to the references if necessary. It also lists a number of other quotes of Praise including by

4103:

You evidently don't believe I deserve the courtesy of being communicated with given the policy you cite here, but I will return to my point about editors "deserv the courtesy of some cursory investigation" by noting that you

8634:

not like a blog where an individual can post whatever she likes. So it is not self-published; but I feel that applying the stricter rules of not relying on it for anything likely to be contentious is a reasonable way to go.

4833:

the lion is the superior animal in combat, all nationalitys and cultures has the lion the superior animal either in healdry or actual accounts, the same way the on record the lion has killed the tiger more than vice versa.

9891:

Abstracts do not give you a complete picture. They may sometimes be inaccurate in the details, so you should not cite the abstract. If the abstract and the discussion differ, you should go with the information given in the

5795:

How does the fact that a different student publication has been considered RS for other content relate to the current issue? Are there specific similarities which support a comparison or equivalence in this case? Thanks.

2703:

I think that one thing that is very clear is that the BLP policy clearly prohibits using the DeLong self-published blog as a source on Murphy, and so it also prohibits any text on Murphy that is dependent on that source.

2226:

blog, published under the auspices of the NY Times. It is the on-line equivalent of an op-ed piece that is published in the dead-tree paper version of the Times. That is OK, as long as we attribute the opinion to Krugman.

5064:

Thats how it would look like in through the archive, you can go to its main site and purchase a Pdf copy of the article to view it your self, heres another account and how a snap shot peice of the article would look like:

3545:

not specifically referenced (and our writing is also stretching the claims too far even if the source is to be considered reliable.) I also haven't found any description of the site's editorial control. Should we use it?

3463:

Judith, I agree that it is reliable for how "Darkness at EL Dorado" has been received. That was never in dispute. What we require is consensus on whether it is reliable for statements of fact about Chagnon. Note also that

2666:

does what you recommend, though it only mentions that Murphy replies and links to replies, something which can be worked on later. It was immediately changed to the version I've been complaining about that leads with SPS.

7286:

The sources are the following: Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, by, Pieris, P. E. 1874-1959, The Story of the Moors in Spain By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman, and The Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima.

3620:

includes the curious, stray, throwaway line "Also cited for disclaiming theories proposed by Margaret Murray." It looks like a recent inexpert addition, but it's been there since the article was created in 2006, and even

9545:

Per Dan Murphy, but is this just about the quote in the footnote? If so, it is no problem at all. Leave it in as a quote - add that it is from the article abstract - or leave it out, or find a quote in the article body.

8848:

Hebrew speakers (the article currently uses a 1998 source which gives the ridiculous number of 5.3 million speakers, and a heated discussion on the talk page didn't produce any consensus about this). Thanks in advance,

8596: 5968:

To address only the RS issue, Gray uses as his ref for "endorsed" an undated Fleet Press' version of the book; Fleet press was the original publisher and can be assumed to have fact checked that Hayek wrote the letter.

5871:

which Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block, “Defending the Undefendable”, in which the social functions of such figures as the pimp, scab and the crooked cop are vigorously expounded.”

3773: 2734:

is well within what a high quality WP:RS can comment on from a self-published blog. Now if Krugman had written "DeLong thinks Murphy is a $ &#*, $ YOQQ, &^#&* and I agree" we'd probably leave it out. Unless

1073: 9063: 5060:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E474f4BFJh8J:http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/38953345/+clyde+beatty++lion+tiger++killed+++site:www.newspapers.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prmd=ivns&strip=1

4922:

Such comments are doing your case no favours. This is the reliable source noticeboard, where we discuss the merits of sources presented here - which is what I was doing. If you prefer, we could discuss the matter at

680: 9973:

Should we cite the abstract? No, we cite the paper. By following the link, all that some readers will be able to see for free is the abstract, but others, e.g. in a subscribing library, will be able to see the whole

7556:

I don't know if this is an artifact of geolocation, but there is no search bar anywhere on that page, no indication that the text of the book is anywhere present; and please remember that it's your previous persona,

2318:

and people who -want to get into that level of nitty gritty nitpicking and name-calling among economists on their personal blogs can just follow Krugman's links. Thus the paragraph in question can be removed. I also

9746:

verifiability of conclusions. As choice of language might differ, it is the actual article that is dominant. Note again that citations are made to certain sections or pages of journal articles--not the abstracts. --

2455:

has asked a simple and proper question. Your response is unintelligible. Could you please re-read North's question and state a complete, self-contained, answer so that editors can comment on your concern? Thanks.

1460: 6536:

express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority."

3886: 10012:; this isn't a great secret and is something you can read in any academic/science writing tutorial. So any researcher worth his salt will usually write a useful abstract (with that fact about readership in mind). 9948: 8954: 8563: 6531:"endorsed" Block's book. Hayek wrote in an introductory commentary in the book that looking through it "made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late 3225:

It makes perfect sense to separate factual assertions made on a SPS from statements of opinion. It also makes sense to avoid using SPS to cite personal attacks against a living person, e.g. "racist." However, the

403:

IndianExpress, or even Guardian, Dailymail can't be accepted as Reliable sources, it depends upon who has wrote the article. You haven't proved how Digby is refuting the figure either. Like it is discussed above.

8960:

Don't cite the abstract. Treat as being only slightly better than a GBooks snippet view, ie: it lacks full context. There may be important provisos or development of argument in the body of the article itself. -

4651:

Random people who are not qualified (no scholar knowledge) specifically in history via knowledgable to historical records and are basing it off hear say, should not be replacing things that have Masters degrees.

9539: 5644: 3564:

Question a: I agree, I can't see any evidence about who creates, publishes, edits the site and whether there is any peer review. If there really isn't any such evidence then we can't treat the site as reliable.

9739: 9167: 8858: 6185:

Exactly. I agree that it's not a good idea to use the Mises Institute page, but, since Gray, as RS, mentions this material, it's quite OK to quote it as it appears in the published editions of the Block book.

5908:

Hayek's view is clearly notable and it would be weird to leave it out. John Gray likewise, with the adjective Mandevillean and the description of the book's content, even if he is only noting Hayek's opinion.

2405:

There was a request at wp:ver for outside input. This looks like a later stage of a complex discussion, and there is no clear pointer to / statement of what text is in question. Could somebody provide that?

2507:

for a response to your query? I don't see a clear question in this entire thread. That's why these Noticeboard threads are such a sump. They need to pose clear questions, otherwise all we get is crosstalk.

8038:

No one disputes this. We are discussing whether IMDb reports can be sufficient for citing awards; we are not discussing whether awards that have been noted only by IMDb merit inclusion in the encyclopedia.

7146:

which I tried to use when it was blacklisted) become acceptable over time, so I don't doubt it could happen here. Nothing about this particular website strikes me as odd, and I wonder why it is not allowed.

5486:, found the book "refreshingly consistent in its efforts on behalf of sexual, pharmaceutical, ecological, financial and other scapegoats" but noted that the book was "likely to elicit mixed responses." (Ref: 3777: 762: 6220:

came from and am indifferent as to whether that is mentioned in the article. However, both the Gray comment and the Hayek quote belong. Feel free to search if anyone else has commented on what Hayek wrote.

4735:

Bigcat82 removing things off thats just as reliable and acedemcially even more so then his, and...only...keeping his? Dont you think then both should be heard, used, provided and or be known to the public?

10383: 7302:

Even if it did have all those things correct, it still doesn't change the fact the main problem with the source is that it's some self-published source with no validity and has never been vetted by anyone.

4663: 7705: 8592: 7522: 4062:

to that "The evidence points to a massive government cover-up" and when Jones asked her "if 9/11 was an inside job" and "Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?" she replied "... I would say

9563:

generally made to specific pages, even if it is to the conclusion section at the end of the article, and not to the abstract. This is especially the case when the entire article is readily viewable. --

8681: 8652:

I wouldn't generalize too much beyond the specific context. I think a CV for an academic at a reasonably prominent institution, hosted by the employing institution, is likely to reliable, for example.

751:

I'm hoping to get additional, neutral opinions on referencing Schechter's general opinion of the movie within our article based on the commonalities in the three machine-translations above. Thank you,

3914: 7375:

is not the book, merely its front cover; and I seriously doubt we should have concerns about a libel suit from authors who were writing in the 1880s; they might be a bit old for legal action by now.

1531: 8707: 5640: 2803:

predictions by the BLP subject. I don't know whether or not something like that has occurred, but I'd suggest at playing it safe with respect to the spirit of the primary sources restrictions.

787: 7945: 5586:

An undergraduate magazine is not RS for economics, no matter how prestigious the university. (As a college student, Al Gore founded and was the chief editor of HPR; is/was he an RS for economic?)

5407:

is preferred, but some series are defunct and no longer exist, making finding race results near impossible, so sometimes racesportscars is the sole source of information available in that regard.

4001:

This is a pretty gross oversimplification that cast doubt on the rest of your statement. The diff you cite merely shows her offering an opinion, which is allowed. In general, dial it down. --

2648:

Assuming that this hasn't already been done, I suggest the editors of the article rewrite the text based on that, and then come back, tell us what you came up with, and we can take another look.

9530:

far better to trust their choice of summary than an anonymous Knowledge editor's (who likely has an axe to grind and doesn't have to go through a peer review process to grind it.) You're welcome.

3468:

does not distinguish between personal and professional opinion pieces. Either the article is an opinion piece or it is not. If it is an opinion piece, which you seem to accept, then according to

5827: 5633: 5200:

lol you have nothing on me and are making up lies after lie andy, go report me, who cares, we both know you have nothing that was true...I'm waiting andy, it states here WIKIPEDIA'S OWN SOURCE!

4416:

The notice board is not a place best-suited for determination of "general reliability" for any and all future or theoretical claims. 1. Source, 2. Article, 3. Content. There's a reason it says,

850: 8260:(and, by extension, of any other stubby village articles I come across and feel inclined to upgrade)? IndiaMapia doesn't say much about itself, and I can't find it in the noticeboard archives. 7704:? Stanley's original version has been deemed as unreliable, so I don't see how a republished version by a publisher that lacks scholarship with some Afrocentric additions are reliable. You can 7432:

finds it that offensive. Damaging someones reputation by publishing false information under his name is a part of libeling, that misquote can fall under that. If the West Africans entering the

1022:

the presence of chentrails in the 1970s. Other sources says that they were started by two guys in 1990s. Steiger does not report the 1990s origin, despite being well documented in the internet

10197:

Agree with Dougweller. There are no named authors or contributors identified for the linked article, or disclosed for the website in general. This source appears to fall into the category of

492:

He's disputing the methods of Lal's figure and hence the number. His conclusions are overall that it isn't reliable (he says the sources are so poor that they are "wilful if not fantastic").

6171:

Hayek's "endorsement" is not on "a promotional page for the book" but is part of the book published by Fleet Publishing Corporation, on p. xii. (That has already been pointed out above.)

2657: 473:

Depends upon the author. It is no more a point whether he is historian or Not. Bigger point is whether he dispute the figure, and even more that if they are related to the hindu population.

10059: 8782: 8141:. I reverted both of those contributions because the movie article already presents a number of glowing reviews, and two more from a questionable source didn't seem to improve the article. 4207:

In this case, the idea that there are groups outside of Al Qaeda that actually funded and orchestrated the attacks and are being ignored by the government, her claim, is considered false.

3836:

from a BLP and noticed it's currently being used in 28 other articles. It looks like a part of a spamming campaign, but I thought I'd first see what others think of the site as a source. --

506:

So you are saying that he "questions" its reliability? But not "disputes", because if he dispute, he might be presenting other figure. But here he is regarding them to be not too accurate.

3558: 2125:

Specifico (and Steeletrap) seems to be saying that WP policy permits SPS commentary about third persons because the material "is just affirming what we all know." Is this what you mean? –

703: 152:

I can't read Lal's book, only the review. If anyone else can read Lal's book, so much the better. But if he really does give this 80 million figure for "Hindus killed", I'll eat my hat :)

9959:

Is an abstract reliable? If it's published in a reliable peer-reviewed journal, yes, in Knowledge terms it is, and in all usual cases the abstract is written by the author of the article.

8756: 8748: 8739:

Having edited in related milhist areas myself, ABC-CLIO books are generally of middling quality. I did find "facts" in them that were wrong, even in books by less controversial authors.

7574:

The idea that whoever now holds the copyright on a book published in 1886 (and we've already got one impossibility there) can be libelled because the book was misquoted is utterly absurd.

5559: 698: 3905:

source? Does citing the opinions of other "whistleblowers" who share a beef with the U.S. government add value to a "whistleblower"'s article or is it more of a self-referencing loop?--

10164:. The page does seem to have an editorial board, but I can't truly verify how much editing goes on and so on- you guys know the usual drill about verifying editorial staff and whatnot. 9927: 6765:

Exactly. Using secondary and primary sources to reinforce each other is standard. Let's not find an excuse to knock how Hayek quote 3 weeks after this thread gets archived or whatever.

4021:

Knowledge currently places the Sibel Edmonds BLP in the 9/11 conspiracy theorists category. Whether people from this category should be deemed RS strikes me as a legitimate question.--

3022:

There does not appear to be a definitive consensus that the blog is not RS and cannot be used, so maybe the Arbcom case will lead to some further opinions on this issue being voiced.--

2301: 715:

3. Content: For a year and a half, this Knowledge article has referenced the Schecter article above. When I came to our article this month, the Schechter article was summarized as:

5621: 5205:

lion on average is heavier and taller, I'm trying to be as historically as accurate as possible, what are you doing? Being subjective, bias and hiding the truth and twisting facts?

3954: 3933: 7260: 3285: 3074: 2565:

use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Empahsis in the original.)

2340: 1992: 876:

but it shouldn't be used as a reliable source of 'what reliable sources think about the topic now. I would avoid this source in favor of more neutral and accurate reliable sources.

9309: 9123: 7006:

to editorial oversight, but I don't see that their articles attract any comments at all). This looks inconclusively iffy to me, unless someone can find something more conclusive..

6609:"endorsed" Block's book. In this prefatory comment Hayek observes that looking through the book made him feel that he was again "exposed to the shock therapy by which ... the late 5501:

rmv review from undergraduate publication. (Harvard students are better than most, but they still have no degree apart from H.S. diploma, and are not qualified to review econ book)

2680: 2209: 9760:

Why do you think it should matter what a source was designed for? All that really matters is the level of risk associated with citing to it. If there's no risk, there's no harm.

9704: 9689: 7481:(it might be a different edition, I neglected to check) and, assuming the search function is reliable, that indeed does not appear to contain the sentence you refer to beginning 7001:

It looks like a business magazine focusing on marketing out of Glasgow. It looks like it has some editorial oversight, but it seems self-promoted only. It received an award from

3678:

As far as this website is concerned, I don't see how it could be considered reliable. It has no indication of who publishes it, for starters, and that's enough to put me off it.

2862: 2717: 2419: 1645: 5242:

The bottom line is you dident state why you revereted it to a less reliable one and yet all the accounts, everysingle one of them had a source, and you still reverted it out lol

3959:

Whistleblower retaliation is not a fringe theory. If Edmonds has a fringe theory about 9/11, it is not in the text cited nor in her bio. It stays, and you need a chill pill. --

3364: 2118: 2010: 1056:

a Fortean review or other of his books: "My own sixth sense, gut instinct says to avoid this book. There’s some gold here, but there’s also an awful lot of sensational idiocy."

583:

That's certainly what you've not been doing. Doug asked you a question. And frankly I'm asking again. Why are you disputing the sources without merit and making bizarre claims?

7708:

and I think just by looking through a little of it you can already see the extremist questionable views and the dates are not correct. It does not seem reliable in my opinion.

7237: 5287:

Amiannoying is pretty well edited and comfortably less misleading compared to NNDB, but still what you think about it? Because I have found some errors in Amiannoying as well.

2103: 372: 9150: 9109: 9091: 8673: 8661: 8608: 5460: 4829:

Thats only records in rome/italy, their are (on hand) records from India, Germany, British, chinese, japanese, persians, ect ect, all suporting the lion was the usual winner.

3625:

didn't think of removing it. Still, however that may be, it's perfectly possible that the current slant of the Murray article is the current consensus. I don't know (yet) :)

3426: 2181: 1909: 1884: 1861: 1840: 1822: 1797: 1713: 1692: 1666: 7760: 5251: 5146: 5084: 5046: 4952: 4916: 4871: 4858: 4688: 3581: 3199:@Blueboar... OK, thanks. Iselilja has a point, too. It seems that it will take some work to figure out how to deal with cases such as this, where there is a fringe<--: --> 2972:

an ideologue to fly under the radar of RS and NPOV, so to speak, and instead be presented as a mainstream scholar, without that important critique being aired in the article.

10160:

and has added the page as a source to various different articles. I've removed the sourcing since it's a new and unproven site, but I thought I'd ask here for confirmation.

9666:

to cite the article in its entirety). These two guidelines point to the same conclusion: the most reliable thing to do is to cite a specific part of "the actual article." --

6758: 6748: 6514: 6190: 6151: 4304: 4245: 4231: 4216: 4167: 4152: 4137: 10126: 6454: 6376: 3481: 2997:

It seems that the wording of the policy may place more stringent constraints on the use of blogs, though. Maybe you could propose some revisions to the text of that policy.

1437: 946: 932: 392: 311: 268: 9478:

So the question is, can a quote be used from the abstract as part of a citation of the full paper, by an editor that has read the full paper and is citing the full paper.

8925: 7429: 7372: 7316: 7084: 6505: 6180: 6166: 3514: 3370:

If there is a question about how to use the review in question, why not just quote a relevant passage from the review directly, and make no commentary. Say exactly this:

1496:

Brad DeLong vents his spleen on one example, a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same.

9986: 9643: 9586: 9036: 9021: 7037: 6864: 6778: 6642: 6573: 6563: 6436: 6399: 6233: 5688: 5455: 5361: 5236: 5194: 5126: 5108: 5019: 4990: 4936: 4887: 4633: 4476: 4342: 4289: 3498: 3458: 1547: 1046:

He also says that a certain laboratory "began shooting huge amounts of porous-walled glass microspheres into the stratosphere." but it only proposed doing so in one paper

885: 635: 621: 607: 592: 576: 561: 515: 501: 455: 413: 283: 10384:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA

9287: 8549: 8535: 8521: 8204:

reference is pretty blatant; it's obviously a verbatim rip from the text of the article, and then added as a "source" after the fact. This unattributed plagirism on the

7872: 7802: 7212: 7123: 7054: 5927: 5918: 5900: 4664:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA

4547:

Bigcat82 is constantly removing refferences and sources to the lion vs tiger subject and "claiming" that they are --un-reliable--, have no sources, are fictional ect...

4318:

as a whistleblower and is continually interviewed about the ongoing NSA revelations. The source I used to quote Edmonds is one brought to the article by Bdell555, whose

2695: 2355: 1974: 1272: 866: 201: 180: 156: 10291: 10228: 9819:

OK you've convinced me that an article is a better thing to cite than an abstract. But that's not the question. It doesn't mean that an abstract can never be reliable.

9572: 8900:

threw a no hitter while on LSD? This story has been around for decades, and the opinion by these journos seems highly relevant and provides some balance to this claim.

8383: 8189: 7863:

recent lower-profile awards, IMDb awards listings should be considered reliable. Info from IMDb's "trivia", "goofs", "quotes", and biography sections are not reliable.

7787: 7731: 7717: 7664: 7494: 6214: 6205: 6079: 6064: 6039: 5995: 5742: 5711: 5352:

article. The website is registered to a named individual, rather than an organisation, and I suspect the content is self-published and lacking any editorial oversight.

4704: 3705: 3687: 1588: 1566: 1317: 1294: 781: 640:

Bladesmulti and then StuffandTruth were banned yesterday for edit-warring. Concerns have also been raise (at ANI) about problems with Bladesmulti's editing in general.

368: 360: 10190: 10106: 9555: 9439:

abstract as part of the citation. I don't see any support for that in this discussion. I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. The article in question is

8457:

violation which focuses on a purported Serbian nature of a surname and people, who today by and large seem to be Croatian. Specifically, the whole innuendo depends on

8027:

Please note that we like to see some third party data source for awards. For high profile events that means we definitely like to stick to the official data published.

8003:

Please note that we like to see some third party data source for awards. For high profile events that means we definitely like to stick to the official data published.

7523:

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Moors-Spain-Illustrated-ebook/dp/B00EKR1VK2/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1380653060&sr=1-2&keywords=moors+in+spain

7340:

In my opinion these sources should be replaced by reliable sources that support the material, and if that cannot be done, then the material should go with the source.

7191: 6959: 6915: 6883: 6851: 6734: 6722: 6703: 6694: 6672: 6662: 6623: 6591: 6408: 6296: 6271: 6252: 6114: 6105: 6014: 5946: 5809: 5783: 5765: 5652: 5581: 5568:

discussion about the book cannot be found, I suggest creating a separate article for the book and listing it with a wikilink in the publications list of this article.

5331: 5317: 4397: 4382: 4357: 3649: 3629: 3598: 3577:, but I haven't checked. If that's the case, Murray is very notable and (I'd say) reliable; the journal is also reliable. But we'd better know exactly what she says! 3443: 3408: 3389: 2835: 2816: 2795: 2777: 2759: 2578: 2469: 2443: 2395: 649: 536: 10141: 9904:

You should not cite an abstract, which is simply a condensed summary of the article written by the author to help researchers know if the information will be helpful.

9857: 9843: 9828: 9814: 9799: 9784: 9769: 9755: 9473: 8734: 8643: 8624: 7687: 7649: 7613: 7534: 7512: 7446: 7418: 6832: 6476: 6338: 5678: 5276: 5176: 4722: 4202: 4118: 4098: 4072: 4048: 4030: 4010: 3983: 3968: 3669: 3119: 2727:. That's a properly written two paragraphs and if it had been written that way originally, within policy, there would never have been hours and hours of debate on it. 2373: 2236: 2134: 1608: 1130: 10333: 10210: 8239: 8073: 6490: 6317: 6029: 5961: 5595: 2945: 2081: 2051: 2036: 1623: 1392: 9675: 9660: 9517: 9502: 9487: 8970: 8488:

be considered a reliable source? I found a couple of articles online that I might want to use in an article, but I am not sure about the reliability of the site?

8036:"Knowledge is not a list of all awards. If an award has not generated any press beyond an IMDb mention, it's probably not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes." 7746: 7469: 7361: 7015: 2544: 2521: 2494: 2163: 1114: 9079: 8813: 8400: 8048: 8015: 7992: 7932: 4510: 4445: 4430: 4411: 3038: 2966: 10181:

I can't find any reliable sources mentioning it, so I'd say no, it's not. Anything it might be used for appropriately will have clearly reliable sources I'd say.

10009:

Also, abstracts aren't usually written willy-nilly; the rule of thumb is that ten to 500 times more people will read your abstract than will read your full paper

9386: 9188: 9078:

been a requirement that the source be available online. Many Knowledge contributors have access to libraries, and for those that don't there are options like the

8881: 7909: 7892: 7847: 7826: 7313:

In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes.

6947: 6929: 6699:

Where's the speculation? Where's the OR characterisation? And why squeeze out Hayek? You surely agree he's a more notable figure than Gray! Let's have his words!

3851:

It looks like a clickbait spamsite with zero credibility or editorial control. I wonder if it should be spam blacklisted or should it just removed as unreliable?

3194: 3176: 2921: 2897: 9404: 9002: 8106: 7349: 5425: 3265: 3220: 3150: 757: 9456: 9268: 9245: 9207: 8987: 8599:. Note that the résumé was not put out by the subject but by a firm that could face prosecution if it is found to be inaccurate. Any help would be appreciated. 3327:

The first is that the review is essentially an opinion piece by the author, and one critical of Chagnon. This would make it unsuitable as a RS for a BLP as per

2928:

Everything that you write above is the kind of stretch that is the definition of "WP:SYNTH". Just to review we are talking about the (already) WP:Undue section

9444: 9348: 8579: 5401: 3878: 3860: 3622: 9429: 9229: 5717: 1471:

adding those better sources to the talk page discussion and inferred intention to properly rewrite the section, an involved editor put back the rejected info

913: 9367: 920: 8306: 7923:

though some sites cited are interesting, of course). "External links" or "Further reading" are where we can put links to sites based on their other charms.

5387: 4035:

It did before you posted to the message board, but it no longer does. That category is not supported by the article text and was thus a gross violation of

3781: 3059:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

7097:

The site does not claim nor is there any evidence of any firewall between their publication arm and their marketing wings. in fact they claim the opposite

5371: 1193: 1121:(Involved editor) It does not look like it would be useful here. Though, as noted for the views of Mr. Steiger, sure, but not for the Chemtrail article. 364: 186: 10317: 7678:

Afrocentrist writer is who those words belong to. Obviously self-published Afrocentrist writers like Sertima with extremist views are in no way reliable.

5868:(Ed 3, Taylor & Francis, 2002), Gray writes in a discussion of “Hayek’s conception of the natural selection of competing social rules” the following: 2606: 2192: 1572: 1571:

The fact that Krugman himself says "Brad DeLong vents his spleen" shows this is a personal blog rant and not a reliable source. Editors can read details

349: 338: 257: 5339: 5299: 5214: 4502: 4402:

Yes but a determination of general reliability about a party making claims would inform the debate about how much space to give to that party's claims.--

3290: 2526:

Thanks, yes, and mostly agree. But I was viewing Carolmooredc as just someone who volunteered to try to answer my question. I'm also guessing that there

1519: 704:

http://www.freetranslation.com/en/translation#!/505037985fe01ac20407b806/505037985fe01ac20407b7fb/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarker.com%2Fmarkerweek%2F1.1620957

6445:

I agree that Hayek's view is notable and that it should be brought to the Block biography. The Gray book is reliable as it is from a respected imprint.

10065: 7943: 4738:

His revision is so bias its ridiculous, whats next, you are gonna tell me that there are only 2 sub-speices of tigers as Bigcat82 has as current? lol

3725: 753: 699:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarker.com%2Fmarkerweek%2F1.1620957&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=UTF-8

671:

I repeat that that's just an opinion. If the consensus of those writing the article was that this material isn't relevant after all, I wouldn't argue.

446:. Also are you seriously claiming the Guardian and Daily Mail are the same? One is a respected paper the other is a tabloid. And is most certainly RS. 101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 10022:

By the way, the heading on top of this noticeboard discourages this kind of purely theoretical discussion as counterproductive. A concrete triplet of

8118: 2092:

use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

1958: 1422: 799: 10153: 7696:

Does anyone care to share their opinions on the source regarding the Moors which is a republished edited version by an independently owned publisher

4496: 2557:, allowing those who care to go there. SPECIFICO may not understand policy and thus ends up muddying the waters, but the policy remains quite clear. 1282: 1104: 837:(a) Should a section of the Knowledge article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting be based on this AP article? 10175: 8279: 1057: 8436: 8367: 6856:

Specifico herself hasn't said that she's read the thread above -- a clue, surely, that she doesn't intend her last comment to be taken seriously :)

6427:

of course is a major reputable publisher of non-fiction. Also, the fact that Gray cites Hayek's remarks provides evidence that they are genuine.

6404:

That's an irrelevant question (though I, too, would be happy to know the answer!), because Gray's reference to it makes the material usable to us.

4924: 4276:

looks like a self-published blog and should not be used for any fact beyond evidence of the opinions of its writer. This could probably be handled

2601:

Yes, there are three sources involved, and the text keeps changing. So, if may summarize what consensus appears to be heading towards, it's this:

693: 149:

one religious community) and I'd also mention Digby's review because it makes us question Lal's methods, and that's quite a reasonable thing to do.

8909: 5839:'s question, and a look at the talk page, reminded me that I got too busy to deal with opposition to including two WP:RS about Nobel Prize winner 5525:, found the book "refreshingly consistent in its efforts on behalf of sexual, pharmaceutical, ecological, financial and other scapegoats"." (Ref: 1628:

It's personal blog. We should never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert. See

1047: 10271: 8850: 8774: 7072:. My point is that the content they produce appears on Google News. Google News demands the following standards from any publications it accepts 5752:

is off-topic for the current discussion. If you disagree, please explain how you think it relates to the issue we are discussing here. Thanks.

3901: 3181:@Ubikwit... My inclination would be to say the quotes you give are comments about the person and not comments about the theories... and so would 3135:

Krugman mentions "...people who stick with their ideology..." and concludes that it represents a refusal to learn, but his columns are not SPS.--

901: 841:(c) Is the AP article's reliability on the issue of the photo's age so high that the mention of the disagreement should be placed in a footnote? 248: 8166: 7956:

carries the smallest risk of error can follow the IMDb link to the AMPAS website, in those cases in which IMDb has been cited rather than AMPAS.

675: 10497: 10480: 9027:

less of a bibliographic issue than a courtesy for readers. The full source is the origin of the cited fact(s), not the complimentary snippet.

4893: 482: 229: 135: 122:, and that he who disputed the "80 million" figure. So he should be added. While this figure remains largely accepted by number of historians. 8591:

over the use of a basketball coach's résumé as sourced from his agent. My understanding is that résumés can be used as sources for facts per

8337:"Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European diseases weakening them further." 8287:

We applogize for any errors if encountered by you or any other incorrect info and pledge you to point out the same so that it can be rectified

7517:

Snap, I just figured that out too. :) If anyone is still interested, the quote in question comes from the introduction to the 1990 edition by

7409:- perhaps if you stopped trying to crowbar changes in and appealing to meatpuppets, they'd have a bit more time to look for something better? 7387:

Furthermore, all that source is actually cited for is that the Moors were medieval and Muslim. I'm not actually sure that is in serious doubt!

3845: 3749: 3745: 8328: 7591:. Only if Van Sertima were to edit the article himself based on his own conclusions would it be OR, and since he is dead that seems unlikely. 6995: 3741: 10359: 8788:

The article's a self-published hit piece and has no place on Knowledge. (A sample from the first page: writing that CAIR attacks any critic

4599: 3789: 3609:

But, as to the slant of our biography page, I'm not sure yet. The ODNB article (shorter than ours) takes a similar line. It is credited to "

3110:"). The theory is not the person... and as long as we stick to commenting on the theory and not the person, expert SPS viewpoints are fine. 9396: 8392: 5004: 810:

Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial perceptions of the deadly shooting.

726:

also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity."

6934:

Did I say that? Since neither of us knows whether he read it, we should focus on what we do know, namely, that he endorsed Block's book.

6730:

Yes, for Hayek's endorsement Gray cites the Fleet Press edition of the Block book. That's all set out above (but a long, long way above).

803: 722:

characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst.

10157: 8474: 8450: 5770:

Please note that past WP:RSN discussions are relevant and above I note that as one of several examples of student publications being RS.

1593:

Brad DeLong more than meets the recognized expert criteria of RS. Experts are allowed to use informal language like that now and again.

342:

since you're too blind to see), you STILL ignore it. I'm reporting this to an administrator. You're behaviour is getting very disruptive.

166: 7225: 4054:

no? Do other editors not deserve the courtesy of some cursory investigation before reverting them? May I point out that Edmonds is a

3817: 9493:

article should be drawn directly from a specific part of the article itself. Citing or quoting abstracts is not responsible editing. --

8615:

and your suggestion that they could face prosecution if it were wrong seems questionable. Where are you getting this information from?

6677:

Here's an alternative suggestion: The article could state, "Philosopher John N. Gray noted that Friedrich Hayek endorsed Block's book,

3317:

I'm willing to accept that the page is a faithful reproduction of a Washing Post book review as it claims. The author of the review is

1210: 4312: 3729: 3167:

a statement about him/her. Whether a SPS says person A is racist or that Person A's ideas are racist are a distinction without merit.

10039: 9220:

the source. Occasionally, I use a Further reading section as a location for something that looks useful but is inaccessible to me. -

8770: 8744: 8497: 8172:

As I look into it this morning, it appears that the site uses content from Knowledge (without attribution, I might add), for example

7807:

I believe there are parts of IMDB that are reviewed, however as Gaijin suggest there must be better sources for all of these awards.

6727:

That's good too, though (I would hazard) more obscure to more readers than the Hayek sentence I quoted :) But, fine. Let's take both.

4967:, and then look for material which both complies with Knowledge policies and guidelines, and supports your position. And if you have 3737: 3733: 3163:

a living person". That is not a valid distinction. What an SPS says about the ideas of a person, reflects directly on the person and

1043:

using it. He also makes scary comments about how this substance causes acid rain (note the use of "causes" instead of "would cause")

8574: 7997:

Being right about some information is not the same as being reliable enough for verification purposes for citations. From their own

7877:

Yes, but for higher profile awards, is there a conceivable reason why one would discard a more reliable source in favor of IMDb? --

3920:

Since it is about opinions/statements it's not a question of "is she a reliable source". The following question should answer yours:

10241:

Claims of Ghassanids being Hellenised backed by one unreliable source(source 3), and two misrepresented sources (sources 1 and 2):

7770: 7137: 5851:

because it might be against BLP and with his recommendation I take it to RSN. A better reference is the "Commentary by F.A. Hayek"

817: 1456: 10132:

You're right. The Indian Railways site is a much better source, and we don't use wikis or sites based on user-generated content.

8129:

Hey all, I'd like to get some community opinions about the following site: r4rating.com. I first noticed some edits at the movie

6739:

I see not reason to mention Gray in the text. That makes it read Gray said that Hayek said. Why not just say what Hayek said.

5375: 2739:

high quality sources decided to comment saying something like "Krugman and Delong are just so unprofessional...blah blah blah."

919:

no evidence of professional level review or notability of the site itself. The film project has a nice assessment of what to use

9178:

article (which i recent spent a good deal of time citing, so it is fresh in my mind) Catation #9 is (Hammond, Harmony (2000). "

8180:. So basically, they've taken content from Knowledge, then used that content as a reference in the Knowledge article. Circular! 7980: 3797: 3793: 7367:

is not the only page he is cited on. You'd do better to put some of this excess energy into writing a Knowledge page about him.

7042:

The Drum is a publication with a team of editorial staff and reporters generating content - i.e. primary sources of information

4960: 3929: 3722: 21: 2144:

Since there is lots of quoting going on, I thought I would quote your relevant summation of the issue, since there's a lot of

141:

Lal's book and Digby's review are probably both safely RS. If we can find other reviews of Lal's book, that would be good too.

10368: 8526:

I asked because I wanted to use a couple of reviews in an article. I wanted to place the reviews under a Reception heading.

7270: 4602:- Year: 2002 - Author: Ken spiro - Book title: WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization - isbn: 978-0-415-10453-1 4519: 4514: 4277: 3374:" and nothing else. That way there's no way someone can claim you are adding your own interpretation of the source text. -- 796: 7778:

part of the curated content that is considered reliable or is that part of the user generated stuff? that we do not use? --

7722:

To be honest, the extremist questionable views don't jump out of the page at me. Whatever, this isn't reliable for history.

7627: 6578:

I believe Mr. Dalby is correct. We can write: "John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek endorsed Block's book." Full stop.

10035: 8893: 8740: 7503:

had quoted a section from the introduction which has now been correctly attributed after I found a machine-searchable text.

7244: 7175: 5848: 5514: 4523: 1428:

Probably not. However, the population figures they use are from the census. You should use the census figures directly.

1161: 5378:

to comment since this could affect many articles and they need to be aware of what people think of the site as a whole.--

2634: 2323:

put an Unreliable tag on the whole paragraph in question and noted in text that Krugman did NOT explicitly name Murphy in

1228: 1110:(Involved editor) Probably reliable for Brad Steiger's view - whether they're worthy of inclusion is another question ... 9680:

Those are guidelines for undergraduates writing papers for credit in classes. How in the world are they relevant here?—

8564:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#RFC_to_resolve_conflict_between_MOS:TM.2C_MOS:CT_WP:TITLETM_WP:RS_WP:COMMONNAME

7558: 7002: 5852: 3809: 3805: 3061:

If you want to propose those policy changes go to the policy page. But don't try to create new policy on WP:RSN. Thanks.

1204: 893: 7914:

All of the sources in your example are equally reliable, and that's not what's happening here. I don't see that IMDb is

7199: 300:"I'd also mention Digby's review because it makes us question Lal's methods, and that's quite a reasonable thing to do." 169: 10297: 8758: 8025:

it's clear that they try to demand third party confirmation, but it seems semi-required if the award is lower profile.

8001:

it's clear that they try to demand third party confirmation, but it seems semi-required if the award is lower profile.

6052:

do we have any quotations from people who criticized this book. We surely need that too. I've just found the review by

4927:, where your apparent inability to discuss the subject without resorting to insults will no doubt come under scrutiny. 4506: 4469: 4375: 4335: 3321:, a respected authority in this field. The book he is reviewing is “Darkness in El Dorado” a work critical of Chagnon. 2193:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/12/when-will-robert-murphy-conclude-that-he-just-does-not-know-what-he-is-doing.html

839:(b) Should quotations in the article from the journalism experts be included in the Knowledge article section as above? 2929: 1945:

issue here. There's simply no such issue with this content or the sources. Wrong place for any concerns about this.

1468: 9619: 8588: 8213: 3925: 3813: 975: 237:

appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute""

6463:

This seems to be the consensus, provided that the article states no more than what Gray stated in the RS reference.

5887:

So does any uninvolved editor see a problem with using both those Hayek-related materials in both articles? Thanks.

5873:(Note: the google page is no longer available but full context still searchable in an earlier version at Amazon.com) 3159:

who says about the SPS ban for BLPs" It does not say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about

3092:

of a living person". In other words... we should not use expert SPS sources for an opinion about the living person

2346:

Good. WP:NEWSBLOG authored pieces are fine, even for BLPs. I also agree that attributing is essential in this case.

3801: 3247: 3054: 9395:

Also agreed. Context is key, and you will not know whether context is missing unless you read the entire source.

6239:

statement, I also do not see anybody other than yourself advocating the use of the Mises Institute/Hayek. Thanks.

5115: 4236:

Except that her status as a "whistleblower" is directly because of her conspiratorial, fringy viewpoints on 9/11.

2056:

Nah. If you believe these are not RS citations, please give specific words in the policy which support that view.

1072:

a University of Kentucky press book: " compiled by ufologist Hayden Hewes and paranormal pulp writer Brad Steiger"

9175: 8977: 8865: 8833: 8809: 8657: 8247: 7756: 7233: 5282: 2724: 2663: 2653: 2378: 2320: 2310: 2177: 2099: 1988: 1880: 1836: 1793: 1751: 1688: 1641: 1557:

DeLong's discussion of Murphy, and it's absurd to suggest that he isn't talking about Murphy in the quoted text.

1503: 1472: 1039:

He contradicts himself, first he says that sulphur dioxide was used in contrails, then says that some scientists

7153:

http://www.examiner.com/review/earthless-and-joy-bring-a-taste-of-san-diego-psych-rock-to-the-pacific-northwest

6819:

of it so I think that Gray's text and his characterization of Block's book as Mandevillean are good WP content.

4666:- Year: 1986 - Author: Jerome Jordon Pollitt - Book title: Art in the Hellenistic Age - isbn: 9780521276726 4058:

of the "9/11 Truth Statement"? May I also note that she went on the show of conspiracy theorist extraordinaire

3693: 694:

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=he&to=en&a=http://www.themarker.com/markerweek/1.1620957

10446: 10406: 9685: 8235: 7106: 7023: 6981: 6838:

In other words leave out any evidence of praise and write Gray so it sounds like criticism of Block as fringe.

6382:

Hello TFD. I'm curious how one traces the history of these defunct small presses. The best I could locate was

5007: 4964: 4669:

As the original refferences was subjectively used without mentioning the lion standing over a prostrate tiger.

4528: 4105: 4081:

territory, but one last stab. The claim that she is a truther was not supported by the text in her bio. Per

3413:

Those issues can be discussed (elsewhere, perhaps), but the specific question here is whether the source meets

2764:

CarolmooreDC, are you referring to Krugman? Because, just clarifying, I didn't comment on Krugman. Sincerely,

2551:

What is relevant, as several editor have pointed out, is that self-published blogs cannot be used to diss BLPs.

524: 119: 9193:

No abstracts, no snippet views, period. If something is behind a paywall then ask around: interlibrary loans,

7832:

than IMDB, the award isn't probably worth mentioning. Therefore, IMDB shouldn't be used for this purpose. --

5468:

Better late than never getting to this issue on my long list, dealing with two stalled talk page discussions:

2952:

I continue to argue that the ban on SPS is clearly intended for statements of facts about a BLP, not (expert)

2626: 2315: 1483: 10308:

can be used as a reliable source on wikipedia (it has the snaps of many of the original orders of a tyrant)?—

7977: 7308:

citation is currently being falsely quoted and possibly libeled. Here is what the citation on the page says:

5879: 5721: 5662: 5522: 5477: 5437:

The conclusion I see is that the site is not reliable, but is nevertheless widely used. I guess if it is the

5184: 4674: 4659:"Another mosaic in the house of the Faun, now badly damaged, showed a lion standing over a prostrate tiger." 3214: 3144: 3031: 2915: 2891: 2553:

Krugman's WP:RS pointing out there's a nasty blog food fight does not make it WP:RS to quote the food fight,

2480:

The "Double-digit inflation predictions" section of the Murphy article as of the moment of my signature here.

2289: 2280:

can be invoked. DeLong mentions "ideological beliefs" in that short post, which seems to be most relevant. --

1252: 1155: 710: 10161: 3303:) as a RS for a contentious statement in a biography of a living person. Specifically the following claims: 2846: 2426: 8083: 7279:

article as they're currently being misquoted (possibly libeled), one from an Afrocentrist author known for

7165:

whole is just one long song made of several and they don't stop playing until they've finished their set).

6383: 5213:

For the 100th time I reverted you for edit warring, but I would be interested in you pointing out where in

5069: 4752:

Historian and Archaeologist Martin seyers (Ph.D of Classical Archaeology, Egyptologym at Vienna University)

3757: 3124:

That is a helpful and important distinction. How would you characterize the comments of DeLong's statement?

1534:

at WP:BLPN since obviously relevant. Should have done so immediately. (Note to self for future reference.)

1443: 1216: 1036:

This book reads very sloppy, and it contains sensationalistic sentences that are not substantiated later.

9921:

Abstracts should not be cited unless the abstract is the only available reference to an important concept.

9212:

It's not the point of this thread but I'll add that both abstracts and snippet views are fine for finding

9198:

the scope of medicine where this could be demonstrated, eg: in my dealings with caste-related articles. -

8093: 7098: 7021: 5441:

source of something, then that something isn't all that notable - and can be removed. If it just the only

4540: 4319: 4264: 3892: 1487: 9305: 9283: 9119: 9105: 9059: 9017: 8905: 8517: 8138: 8134: 6888:

Frankly, now that it's agreed both sources are RS, at this point proposals for wording should be made at

3833: 3109:(we CAN say: "In his blog, expert Fred debunked Joe's theory, calling it idiotic<cite Fred's blog: --> 1894:

matters is not a claim about a living individual, no matter how many times you invoke Knowledge policy.

1246: 1005: 685:

1. Source – An article by professional writer Asher Schechter, published in the notable, Hebrew-language

7974: 7793:

I wasnt aware that any part was curated? Surely there is an official BAFTE site that could be used tho?

7169:

granted immunity to the overall embargo on the site itself. Does anyone see any reason why this link is

5392:

I agree more, when the car websites are based on news. Than just historicity(you prefer books instead).

4600:

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Romans+cheered+as+lions+tore+apart+tigers&btnG=

3105:)... However, we CAN use expert SPS blogs to comment upon the expert's views about the living person's 10262:). Article is currently protected due to edit warring (involving user Lazyfoxx who written the above). 10093:, but distance between any two railway stations or a length of a railway line largely differs with the 9882: 8653: 7942:

next. And a paraphrased summary from a major news organization last. (You might be interested in this:

7752: 7229: 7150:

Here's the link I want to use (nowiki because I will be prevented from posting if I allow it to link):

6890: 6049: 5857: 5509: 5306: 3701: 3554: 3422: 2649: 2173: 2142:

DeLong and Krugman offer their opinions on these facts, but don't add any new information about Murphy.

2095: 1984: 1876: 1832: 1789: 1684: 1637: 1404: 1185: 789: 51: 42: 17: 6920:(ec to SPECIFICO)If you "know" whether someone has read a book, "you are a better man than I am ..." 6420: 5720:

one finds at least 500 uses of it as a reference. Of course, it's not the official publication of the

5058:

The Times 2 September 1936 › Page 12 Clyde beattys lion named boss tweed, kills 3 tigers in one fight

328:

Cambridge University. Again you're laughably claiming it is "fabricated"? How is someone this stupid?

9681: 8821: 7779: 7115: 7029: 6744: 6501: 6432: 6386:. Is there a source which you've generally found helpful in vetting prospective references? Thanks. 6372: 6176: 6147: 4901: 4241: 4212: 4163: 4133: 3713: 1433: 1173: 954: 924: 862: 118:, where a user claims that "historians dispute it" while citing a single writer(not historian) named 10217:

That's sort of what I figured. This guy was setting off my spam vibes and this sort of confirms it.

8177: 2624: 2558: 2215:

a major news paper... we could report on his criticism. But, Policy is clear... we can not use his

1479: 189:, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though. 10267: 10147: 9614: 9601: 9577:

Indeed, Itsmejudith, I had found the relevant part in the article body, which should be favored. --

8312: 7701: 7518: 7249: 7180: 5725: 5657: 5526: 5518: 5487: 5482: 5461: 2169: 2145: 1997: 1970: 738:

of the source's overall opinion, as evidenced by what commonalities the three translations share:

9994:

Precision123 is thoroughly confused (and probably not alone in this) with the distinction between

9775:

conveys the merits the article. Note also, that most journal articles have conclusion sections. --

7073: 6543:

Then we can spend the next six months deciding what to actually quote from Hayek's commentary...

10198: 8868: 7356: 7025: 6987:

for citations. I am not sure about the reliability of the site. Kindly, let us know. Thank you,--

3637: 3477: 3439: 3404: 3360: 1463:

where no involved editors responded. However, it was removed and seemed settled as DeLong's blog

1198: 819:

suggests that that photo actually showed Zimmerman in an orange polo shirt, not a jail uniform.)

617: 588: 557: 497: 451: 388: 307: 264: 244: 9632: 9174:

In that case it may well be nearly as good as having the actual book. Again an example from the

4536: 3307:

Some anthropologists have criticized Chagnon's depiction of the Yanomami as fierce and violent.

1502:

is a long descriptions of DeLong's criticism of Murphy from two different DeLong blog entries. (

1381: 10055: 9983: 9944: 9839: 9810: 9780: 9751: 9700: 9671: 9639: 9582: 9568: 9498: 9469: 9301: 9279: 9146: 9115: 9101: 9087: 9055: 9013: 8950: 8901: 8717: 8620: 8513: 8379: 7397: 6956: 6909: 6861: 6845: 6772: 6755: 6731: 6700: 6669: 6636: 6620: 6570: 6557: 6511: 6405: 6265: 6227: 6211: 6187: 6111: 6061: 6036: 5989: 5924: 5894: 5777: 5736: 5685: 5672: 5553: 5313: 5247: 5190: 5142: 5122: 5104: 5080: 5042: 5015: 4986: 4948: 4932: 4912: 4883: 4867: 4854: 4846: 4684: 4645:

His refferences main source comes from a Zoo keeper, not a historian with a degree in history:

4464: 4370: 4330: 4300: 4227: 4198: 4193:

have connected the dots, failed to, and were shy about admitted that-- that's not a truther. --

4148: 4094: 4044: 4006: 3964: 3626: 3586: 3578: 3279: 3068: 2939: 2829: 2789: 2753: 2674: 2572: 2437: 2389: 2334: 2265:

academia but promoted by advocacy affiliated publications--in this case, Libertarian, Miseian.

2203: 1582: 1541: 1513: 1313: 1268: 1222: 672: 162: 153: 9464:

to the body of the article (and specifically, certain pages therein), and not the abstract. --

3080:

Note the specific language of SPS... "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources

2276:

has voiced support for its reliability, which I am in favor of, so maybe this is a case where

356: 10329: 10221: 10168: 10137: 10122: 9898: 9726: 9551: 8766: 8540:

I think that I might have enough material to write the reception without ARGNet. Thank you.

8444: 8185: 8162: 8069: 7727: 7713: 7683: 7660: 7645: 7530: 7490: 7442: 7345: 7157: 6450: 6424: 5914: 3697: 3665: 3550: 3494: 3454: 3418: 2812: 2773: 2713: 2691: 2540: 2490: 2415: 2351: 1619: 1418: 1179: 1100: 942: 909: 777: 665: 631: 603: 572: 511: 478: 409: 279: 225: 197: 176: 131: 115: 7382:

has a copy perhaps they will be so kind as to provide a page reference and save some effort.

6898: 4532: 2186:

The URL name, which may have been the original title of the blog entry, makes it clear it's

2023:, not RS board stuff. No reason to open this thread instead of using the article talk page. 1767:

DeLong criticized Murphy for 'refusing to rethink or modify any of his analytical' positions

1027: 298:

Blade, Andrew's already answering your question on whether or not Digby should be included:

10186: 9535: 9382: 9251: 8730: 8703: 8431: 8362: 8145: 8124: 7604:

I suspect this is increasingly far removed from the business of RSN, so I'm leaving it be.

7456: 6740: 6497: 6486: 6428: 6368: 6334: 6313: 6201: 6172: 6162: 6143: 6075: 6025: 5957: 5843:'s comments' on Block's book. Rather than start a separate thread, might as well ask here. 5707: 5591: 4718: 4700: 4237: 4208: 4159: 4129: 3243: 3235: 2962: 2130: 2114: 2065: 2047: 2020: 2006: 1614:

Murphy is the subject. Reliable but you will have to decide how much weight to give to it.

1562: 1478:

In short Paul Krugman has mentioned Murphy explicitly a couple times in his NY Times blog (

1429: 1290: 1081: 858: 772:

you will find people who can read the original Hebrew and help you summarise it correctly.

645: 532: 190: 8773:, but another editor insists I can't, reverting me and another editor. Thanks in advance, 8719:, "Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa" used even more widely: 7363:, where you will also discover he spoke on the subject at Kings College, London in 1937). 4675:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff=prev&oldid=591817160

399:

considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

8: 10263: 8805: 8584: 7697: 7609: 7508: 7414: 7254: 7219: 7185: 6988: 6975: 6942: 6878: 6827: 6717: 6689: 6657: 6586: 6471: 6394: 6291: 6247: 6100: 6009: 5941: 5804: 5760: 5576: 5397: 5327: 5295: 5006:

It can make understanding a discussion next to impossible, and in consequence is against

2858: 2516: 2464: 2368: 2076: 2031: 1966: 1953: 1467:, especially since better sources came up in the WP:BLPN discussion. A few hours after I 1167: 1126: 109: 7628:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Story_of_the_Moors_in_Spain.html?id=OMYCAAAAYAAJ

7478: 7376: 4776:

Native to the holy roman empire, Carl Borromäus Andreas Ruthart (Painting/Root artifact)

3347:

period. . This should be uncontroversial, though two editors in that article disagree.

835:

There is a disagreement among editors over several questions related to this AP article:

10313: 10287: 10234: 10206: 9853: 9824: 9795: 9765: 9735: 9243: 9186: 8985: 8937: 8921: 8877: 8854: 8796:, who has absolutely no anti-Muslim positions at all.) Even criticism has to come from 8778: 8671: 8639: 8604: 8570: 8454: 8231: 8201: 8044: 7988: 7905: 7885: 7868: 7840: 7815: 7798: 7080: 7050: 5614: 5349: 5265: 5225: 5165: 4622: 4560: 4441: 4407: 4114: 4078: 4068: 4026: 3979: 3950: 3910: 3617: 3473: 3435: 3400: 3382: 3356: 3190: 3172: 3115: 2232: 2156: 1902: 1854: 1815: 1706: 1659: 1601: 1234: 846: 613: 584: 553: 493: 447: 397: 384: 303: 260: 256:

Here is the reference that is proof that Digby is a historian from the Indian Express.

240: 9420:

a fairly rare occurrence especially if editors are not engaging in original research.

8932:

How reliable are the abstracts of journals compared to the actual text of the article?

8453:

sounds like a copy of some of the typical Serbian nationalist forum posts - a glaring

7979:

Yet a contemporaneous news report shows that the film had indeed been an award winner.

7474:

When I follow that Google link, the page I get explicitly states "No eBook available".

4749:

Historian Margaret George (University with a B.A. and Stanford University with an M.A)

4567:

went all over the empire to find wild, exotic beast to astonish the crowds. Next, the

4189:

intentionally demolished the towers is demonstrably false. A theory that the people

1889:

I am aware of WP burden, but it is irrelevant here as this is a noticeboard regarding

10443: 10403: 10365: 10246: 10051: 9940: 9835: 9806: 9776: 9747: 9696: 9667: 9635: 9578: 9564: 9494: 9465: 9425: 9142: 9083: 9032: 8998: 8946: 8691: 8616: 8414: 8375: 8209: 8154: 7959:

Perhaps I am misreading you, but you seem to be taking the position that IMDb should

7742: 7465: 7433: 6925: 6905: 6841: 6768: 6649:

I think that only first sentence should be in the article, without the scare quotes.

6632: 6553: 6278: 6261: 6223: 6086: 5985: 5890: 5790: 5773: 5732: 5668: 5549: 5309: 5243: 5186: 5138: 5118: 5100: 5076: 5038: 5011: 4982: 4944: 4928: 4908: 4879: 4863: 4850: 4842: 4680: 4459: 4365: 4325: 4296: 4223: 4194: 4144: 4090: 4040: 4002: 3960: 3538: 3469: 3328: 3300: 3275: 3064: 2935: 2850: 2825: 2785: 2749: 2670: 2568: 2502: 2433: 2385: 2330: 2199: 1578: 1537: 1509: 1410: 1388: 1309: 1264: 1149: 1023: 972: 9956:

As others have noted, there are several questions being discussed here all at once.

9607:

ABSTRACTS: Sometimes the index entry will include, following the basic citation, an

8022: 7998: 4553:

This is not a fictional book, but a consenses by a Historian with a masters degree:

998:

in air shows ... The chemtrails that have caused great concern are none of these ...

10325: 10218: 10165: 10133: 10010: 10003: 9656: 9547: 9513: 9483: 9452: 9363: 9264: 9225: 9203: 8966: 8887: 8825: 8545: 8531: 8493: 8302: 8253: 8181: 8158: 8098: 8065: 7965: 7723: 7709: 7679: 7656: 7641: 7526: 7486: 7438: 7393: 7341: 7325: 6610: 6532: 6446: 5910: 5451: 5417: 5357: 4746:

Historian Ken Spiro (M.A In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University)

4556: 3683: 3661: 3490: 3450: 3318: 3296: 2687: 2637: 2609: 2347: 2273: 1871: 1680: 1633: 1615: 1452: 1414: 1358: 1096: 938: 905: 773: 627: 599: 568: 507: 474: 440:

not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable

405: 275: 221: 193: 172: 127: 10109:), most of the web pages are have contents user-generated and casting doubts over 7099:"On one level The Drum Network helps get its members on the radar, by giving them 5090:

If you wish for a contributor to be blocked, this isn't the place to propose it -

4039:. She may be a truther, I never heard of her, but category was not justified. -- 3821: 3761: 3399:

unless they can be ascertained as statements of fact or Sahlins' personal opinion.

3266:

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Expert_SPS_ban_should_not_apply_to_opinion_statements

10449:

Quote: "Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block,

10409:

Quote: "Hayek endorsed a recent Mandevillean work by the economist Walter Block,

10182: 10074: 10067: 10017: 9914: 9531: 9400: 9378: 9340: 9235: 9050:

Does wikipidia now require to publish entire page/books hereafter? That would be

8726: 8699: 8509: 8424: 8396: 8355: 7860: 6606: 6528: 6482: 6330: 6324: 6309: 6197: 6196:

near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore). That was my sole objection.

6158: 6071: 6021: 5953: 5840: 5703: 5636: 5587: 5003:

One other thing - please do not edit your posts after they have been replied to.

4977: 4714: 4696: 3753: 3574: 3396: 3239: 2958: 2126: 2110: 2059: 2043: 2016: 2002: 1980: 1558: 1335: 1286: 641: 528: 7101:

access to The Drum's channels; which include the UK's largest marketing website

4055: 3264:

Note that during this discussion Steeletrap has been trying to change policy at

1075:("Pulp writers" wrote great amounts of low-quality material in very little time) 50:

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

10510: 10259: 10118: 9275: 8896:

article is reliable for the opinions of two journalists who are skeptical that

8801: 8479: 8270: 8110: 8109:

but not much else, and specifically not for anything considered controversial.

8007: 7924: 7632: 7605: 7504: 7410: 7204: 7161: 7007: 6935: 6871: 6820: 6710: 6682: 6650: 6579: 6464: 6387: 6303: 6284: 6240: 6093: 6002: 5934: 5797: 5753: 5569: 5393: 5383: 5323: 5291: 4973: 4550:

I am here to show the proof that they are reliable and not what he insinuated"

4422: 4389: 4349: 4281: 3874: 3852: 3841: 3641: 3590: 3332: 3203:

if a topic is worth writing about some RS will have published a statement on it

2854: 2596: 2509: 2457: 2450: 2361: 2069: 2024: 1946: 1122: 877: 9912: 8220:

to as many articles as possible, and this user was also the one who added the

7918:

as reliable as the awards organization itself or a dedicated news agency. The

5322:

So they basically get every information through some secondary source? Thanks

626:

Yes, but i was only explaining my actual view, since you asked. Nothing else.

527:

wasn't a historian. He is a reliable source and he is disputing the figures.

10309: 10283: 10202: 10098: 10090: 9849: 9820: 9791: 9761: 9731: 9720:

I don't see how it makes sense, even where MEDRS applies to say that you can

9240: 9234:

I strongly disagree with that view. It may be reasonable for stuff under the

9183: 9164: 8982: 8917: 8873: 8668: 8635: 8600: 8566: 8505: 8470: 8462: 8458: 8225: 8040: 7984: 7919: 7901: 7878: 7864: 7833: 7808: 7794: 7776: 7333: 7280: 7076: 7046: 6053: 5979: 5975: 5834: 5607: 5258: 5218: 5158: 5091: 4615: 4437: 4418:

Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

4403: 4110: 4082: 4064: 4036: 4022: 3975: 3946: 3906: 3896: 3866: 3569: 3375: 3186: 3168: 3156: 3111: 3102:"In his blog, expert Fred says that Joe is an idiot <cite Fred's blog: --> 2641: 2617: 2613: 2277: 2228: 2149: 1895: 1847: 1828: 1808: 1777: 1769:

in spite of (what DeLong perceives to be) overwhelming evidence against them.

1699: 1676: 1652: 1629: 1594: 842: 769: 730:

wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by

8350: 8150: 7858: 4770:

Native to the holy roman empire, Johan Wenzel Peter (Painting/Root artifact)

4695:

Even if some of them would be unreliable, this cannot hold for all of them.

10435: 10395: 10114: 9421: 9194: 9028: 9009: 8994: 8793: 8722:, "Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45"is used in 8695: 8410: 7738: 7636: 7588: 7500: 7461: 7406: 7379: 6921: 6602: 6524: 6045: 5473: 4758:

Professor Adolph Hausrath theologian (Privatdozent P.D German universities)

4614:

I don't see how this can be regarded as a reliable source in this context.

4591:. It goes without saying that the Romans had never heard of animal rights" 4315: 3610: 3527: 3465: 3414: 3206: 3136: 3023: 2907: 2883: 2281: 1942: 1890: 1384: 1144: 1111: 964: 955: 681:

Triple–machine-translated article as source for views on independent movie.

7428:

using books as sources unless they have been vetted quite well. Also, yes

4646: 4085:, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced should be 10110: 9652: 9509: 9479: 9448: 9359: 9260: 9221: 9199: 8962: 8557: 8541: 8527: 8489: 8388: 8298: 5648: 5447: 5408: 5353: 3679: 1781: 1671:

Not if it's being used a third-party source about a living person. This

1444: 8290: 8286: 5070:

http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Leofwin/lionvstigeraccount4.jpg

4456:

I've removed Sibel Edmonds, and replaced it with a statement from Tice.

3825: 10235: 9910: 9333: 8897: 8391:

in question, for completeness. Clearly not reliable for Incan history.

8257: 8208:

website would suggest to me that it is not reliable as a source, since

4059: 3887:

Sibel Edmonds' allegations of coverups by the media and U.S. government

2478:

no answer because the text keeps changing, but maybe I can "gel" one:

336:. After giving you a source that says Digby is a historian (again it's 9292:

I've found it, the source described Laurence Olivier's performance as

8176:, which is also problematic, because that link is used as a reference 7963:

be cited as a source for film awards. But consider Deepa Mehta's film

7198:

when they have clear COI. It's not journalism or independent writing.

6481:

The consensus is clear. We can and should use Gray, but nothing else.

4779:

Native to rome Pietro Aquila (Royal Emperyium engraving/Root artifact)

10253:

region, where some merged with Greek-speaking Christians communities.

9999: 9051: 8261: 6210:

Then I think I misunderstood you also. Sorry. This stuff isn't easy.

5379: 4764:

Charles Scribner's Sons (American writing company dates back to 1821)

3870: 3837: 3373:

Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has said: "<direct quote here: -->

216:

Figures might be related to whole Indian population, not hindus just.

9970:

full paper, adding a link to the page that contains a free abstract.

9114:

And in some cases the snippet preview clarifies the entire picture.

8173: 5068:

lion kills three tiger’s Source: Altoona Mirror, September 27. 1928

1506:.) Seems like tortuous synthesis using a questionable source to me. 1019:

a definition of chemtrails that does't fit the mainstream definition

10094: 9995: 9725:

abstract might lack some important context or caveat. For example,

8682:

Salutary reminder - even publishers such as ABC-CLIO can slip badly

8466: 8144:

The contributing editor has also penned a declined AfC of the site

8133:, where an editor attempted twice to include reviews from r4rating 8130: 7143: 5982:; the original sources of some of them surely can be tracked down. 5217:

it states there are 2 sub-species of tiger because I can't see it.

4584: 4273: 2360:

I've left a comment on the article talk page concerning this edit.

2064:

is just affirming what we all know. It's like when you recite the

807:

quotes from journalism experts commenting on that premise, such as:

9916: 9877:

Here are some more citation guides and descriptions of abstracts:

5345: 4902:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17524&PN=6

982:

There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical in this manner:

330:

For fuck's sake it's a secondary source since it's published in a

9440: 8256:

a reliable source for the existence, location and coordinates of

8102: 7043: 5970: 3523: 3515: 3312:

Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has criticized Chagnon's methods.

1675:

official Knowledge policy. If you don't believe me, please read

10462:"Commentary by F.A. von Hayek, Nobel Laureate" in Walter Block, 10422:"Commentary by F.A. von Hayek, Nobel Laureate" in Walter Block, 10089:

as source. Though by far it may be accepted for map or creating

9250:

It will take a bit of time but you might benefit from a read of

8294: 5546:

Thoughts as to whether the source is RS for these uses? Thanks.

4089:. Good luck, I hope I've communicated with you successfully. -- 1362:

elbows (and probably some packet loss) causes even worse typing.

10250: 10117:, since they are neither accurate (to the most) nor updated. -- 8837: 6894:

article and then some version inserted into Block as warranted.

6597:

as this (shortened from Carol's text above), just for example:

6110:

OK, Specifico, I heard the ping. I'll reply on your talk page.

5183:

I have opened a thread concerning User:Golden Prime at WP:ANI.

4588: 4576: 4564: 10260:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ghassanids#Arabs.2FHellenisation

8320: 7315:" and is quoting/claiming Stanley wrote that, but he did not. 4821:

Eye witness: Rudolf kludsky to several occaisons (Turin italy)

4571:

was lowered to feature combat between them, Romans cheered as

2632: 1761:

to the bet. Citing data indicating that CPI never reached 3% (

1451:

Bringing this here now because this has come up repeatedly at

921:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response

894: 274:

interestingly not everyone is historian. He is only a writer.

10386:|author=Jerome Jordan Pollitt |year=1986 |isbn=9780521276726} 10305: 10298: 9848:

If we're on the page where it says: "it depends", then sure.

9790:

more or less reliable or indicative of merit in either case?

8892:

While not the most ideal source, can someone comment if this

8713:

Quick check- his Air Forces book is used in several articles:

8688:

The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe

8409:

Did someone really think this would fly as a source? Really?

7364: 7291: 7276: 6897:

Also, is SPECIFICO now calling "herself" a "her"? I see that

5517:], this text: "An article in the undergraduate magazine the 5201: 4785:

Visitor to rome HECHT Joezef Polish: (Painting/root artifact)

4761:

Theologian Edward beecher (Graduated in Yale college in 1822)

4580: 4572: 4568: 3567:

Question b: A hasty comment: that looks as if the journal is

3088:

say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources

2327:

blog entry, as he did specifically name him in the other two.

1757:

University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics J.

10078: 8867:

does not appear to be a reliable source. It appears to be a

7094:

as the examiner dot com which is blacklisted on wikipedia .

6157:

not the Gray book; and that is what I'm calling unreliable.

2379:

At this final diff of editor's rewrite of my two paragraphs:

2168:

Robert P. Murphy is not an economic theory, he's a person.

2109:

I have had to explain this to you over the last few months.

1281:

He's using his sandboxes to develop the article deleted at

1049:. It's obvious he didn't check any of the original sources. 10346: 7329: 7309: 7300: 7091:

gnews does not guarantee reliability as gnews also carries

6419:

I typed "fleet press corporation" into Google books search.

4782:

Visitor to rome Théodore Géricaul: (Painting/Root artifact)

4640: 4610:

of the event, not the merits of one animal against another

2628:- Reliable for Krugman's opinion. Use in-text attribution. 10245:

that emigrated in the early 3rd century from the Southern

9695:

that citation to the actual article is what is optimal. --

8221: 8217: 8205: 8198: 7319:

and you can check, he did not write that material, at all.

7203:

them published on this site as "expert news and opinion".

6984: 4788:

Visitor to rome Richard westall: (Engraving/root artifact)

4755:

Professor Thomas Gray (Historian at Cambridge University.)

4595: 4268: 1457:

Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Krugman:Misunderstanding_of_WP:BLOGS

220:

Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right?

8562:

There is an RFC which may be of interest to editors here

7173:

to be trusted? Can I use it to cite factual information?

4800:

Two Marbel stone peices (Circa 1700 & the other 1920)

4639:

In fact, his sources are the ones that are not reliable:

9080:

Knowledge:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request

8329:

Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization

7976:

but the website doesn't list it among the award winners.

7561:, who was needlessly offensive: I can use a Web browser. 5480:, this text: "An article in the undergraduate magazine, 5029:

So what you're saying is, Bias intentions(Bigcat82): -->

3549:

not rely on it, but I would be grateful for your ideas.

2314:

bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry

2270:

the actual state of affairs to the reader in such cases.

10442:

Edition 3, revised, Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 43,

10402:

Edition 3, revised, Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 43,

10102: 10086: 8485: 7283:, and one by some obscure author that has no validity. 3924:

In general, the answer would be yes for both scenarios.

2555:

especially when Krugman clearly links to the food fight

1776:

This is a clear violation of two key content policies,

1240: 822:

The text in the Knowledge article under discussion is:

10466:, Fleet Press, (1976 or 1978 edition?), p. xii, ISBN? 10426:, Fleet Press, (1976 or 1978 edition?), p. xii, ISBN? 7700:

of Stanley's original work by the Afrocentrist writer

6569:

others think I'm wrong here, I'm sure they'll say so!

5055:

This is a Newspaper archive with all its credentials:

4797:

Mosaic in the house of Caecilius Jucundus (Pompei A.D)

4773:

Native to the holy roman empire Cicero Epigram/remnent

4767:

Museums and Their Development (Psychology Press, 1656)

4128:

taken with a large grain of salt, especially in BLPs.

4087:

removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

1786:

removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

357:

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies

8216:

does seem to be adding a huge number of reviews from

7479:

https://archive.org/details/storymoorsinspa02gilmgoog

10152:

I'm writing here to check something for a new user,

10006:. So it depends if you need those details or not... 9629:

our interlibrary loan and document delivery service.

7951:

of possible sources. Nobody has argued that IMDb is

7396:, but "The Golden Age of the Moor" was published by 7224:

The answer to your question can be found by reading

6754:

interprets for us. That's the way I see it, anyway.

5923:

Agreed, both views are notable and worth including.

5882:

that we can't write about "Hayek's state of mind"?!?

5308:

for where they say they get their information from.

5257:

You were reverted - and blocked - for edit warring.

2782:

OK, getting tired this PM. Specified Krugman above.

2499:

Hello my North friend. You understand, I was asking

1759:

Bradford DeLong sharply criticized Murphy's reaction

187:

Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam

10469: 10082: 7275:I have a problem with a few sources on the current 7142:I've seen sites that were blacklisted before (like 7020:

they are a marketing firm, not a news organizaiton.

4976:for issues pertaining to original research, and at 2930:

Robert_P._Murphy#Double-digit_inflation_predictions

2316:

he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate

7360:century reprints from a variety of publishers (cf 5655:general discussion. Did I forget to mention that 4322:to this BLP are something everyone should review. 3539:http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Sacrifice.html 3301:http://anthroniche.com/darkness_documents/0246.htm 9899:College of Benedict & Saint John's University 9100:questioning every reference present on wikipedia. 8224:circular reference citing the copy-pasted page. — 6060:, July 02, 1976, p. 817. Some good quotes there. 5037:delusional world of bias subjective B.S, I won't 3526:a reliable source, specifically for the claim at 2068:. We all know it's the flag, but we affirm it. 1283:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat 8824:(associated with Center for Global Education at 7521:. The text of this introduction can be found at 5693:I don't think we're using book reviews from the 4222:expressing legitimate views in other domains. -- 3869:accounts, most that have made no other edits. -- 3613:; edited by R. S. Simpson". That's two Simpsons. 2302:New version; Still Brad DeLong blog in BLP issue 10361:WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization 7477:However, there is a full text of the book here 4925:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 3331:: “Reviews for books... can be opinion pieces.… 3324:My issue is with two interconnected problems. 8580:Are résumés and CVs reliable sources for BLPs? 7587:The source does not make the material OR; see 7290:These sources are currently being used in the 5847:SPECIFICO's Removal of Hayek's positive quote 5157:other editors or cut your losses and move on. 4791:Roman Royal Athena (Belt buckle/Root artifact) 3865:I've removed them all. They were added by new 3660:A 1918 paper is too old to be usable, surely? 324:Who the fuck cares if it's a "reprint" - it's 7499:What was actually going on with that is that 7110:And the pages of the PPA Magazine of the Year 2640:article with all the usual qualifications of 1084:book: "And what about the paperback quickie, 9074:, rather than just a Google snippet. It has 8285:Looks like an aggregator to me, and it says 5117:is unlikely to be seen in a positive light. 1095:This source doesn't look reliable at all. -- 7640:source that expresses the same sentiments? 5340:Is this website a suitable reliable source? 4679:As I just showed its proof of reliability. 3295:There's been an ongoing discussion over at 3291:Reliability of opinion book review for BLP. 2616:can't be used as third-party sources about 2222:The Krugman blog is different... that is a 10156:. He created a page for a new site called 7378:is a non-machine-readable copy, but since 5718:Knowledge search for theharvardcrimson.com 4641:https://en.wikipedia.org/Tiger_versus_lion 2902:Accordingly, I'd be inclined to see it as 2094:" (emphasis NOT mine). Are we happy now? 10357: 9294:"Not one of Olivier's best performances." 5137:abusing authoritys where its not needed. 4794:Mosiac in the house of faun (Pompeii A.D) 4497:Lion vs Tiger Consenses =Reliable sources 444:are widely respected widely peer reviewed 10503: 10486: 9933:Abstracts cannot be cited as references. 6668:of our readers' time. Give it to them! 3343:I would like a consensus on two points: 689:, translated by three online services: 438:Read it again Blade: "Journals that are 10496:was invoked but never defined (see the 10479:was invoked but never defined (see the 9300:Spot an obvious problem with snippets? 8690:by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him 7405:Furthermore, that source was tagged by 5376:Knowledge:WikiProject Sports Car Racing 4818:Eye witness: Trainer Kose (Turin italy) 4647:http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/ewtwet.jpg 4559:In History from The Vermont College of 1455:as not RS for BLP. It was discussed at 963: 788:Associated Press article being used in 14: 10324:This doesn't fall into that category. 7626:Here is the original book by Stanley: 6519:Ditto. So I can put in the following: 6044:Unless I missed something, neither at 4961:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources 2549:Tweaks to the text not that relevant. 1383:. I welcome any decision, either way. 711:Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_response 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 9930:to scholarly article writing states: 9298:"one of Olivier's best performances." 8771:Council on American–Islamic Relations 7973:was screened at the festival in 1996, 6980:An editor pointed out on my talk page 6952:Apologies, the bold pronoun was mine. 6329:No more personal remarks, please. – 5507:At Block's book in question article, 5344:Seeking advice on the suitability of 4815:Eye Witness: Mr. Bolton (veorna 1834) 4713:And that guy isn't an animal keeper. 4158:reliable source, especially on BLPs. 10201:making a claim about a third party. 9597:Also, this may give us some insight 8484:Can the alternate reality game site 7706:take a look at some of the book here 7156:For the record, I hope to use it in 6308:No more personal remarks, please. – 5828:Hayek info RS for same two articles? 5305:Not remotely a reliable source. See 3299:about the status of a book review ( 2740: 2559:Knowledge:SPS#Self-published_sources 2295:19:11, 19:18 24 January 2014 (UTC) 1827:It's completely inappropriate for a 1409:Thinking to use it as reference for 29: 10491: 10474: 9918:, in accepting submissions, state: 9296:the quote culled from snippers was 8344:Natural Health Publications Limited 7003:Professional Publishers Association 6544: 5661:is the official publication of the 2878:There are two other salient points. 213:Digby is not disputing the figures. 27: 10280:A Guide to the Postclassical World 10097:. Also the website is mostly with 10034:is what should be discussed here. 9254:and its archives. Even stuff that 8792:as an Islamophobe. Even - gasp! - 8759:Investigative Project on Terrorism 8210:Knowledge is not a reliable source 6283:No more personal remarks, please. 5860:published by Laissez-Faire Books. 5521:, the official publication of the 5094:would probably be a better place, 4295:is there that she's a truther? -- 3185:be allowed per WP:SPS and WP:BLP. 2664:The diff that led this section off 900:Dear source experts: An article ( 832:(citation #340 is the AP article) 826:Portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman 802:are reliable for a section of the 28: 10526: 9620:University of Southern California 8840:in order to write that there are 8589:Talk:David Gould (basketball)/GA1 5643:discussion, general discussion, 969:Conspiracies and Secret Societies 552:Oxbridge academic and historian. 10492:Cite error: The named reference 10475:Cite error: The named reference 9180:Art, Contemporary North American 7771:IMDB reliable source for awards? 7437:the material OR and is garbage. 7160:(I had added a statement to the 7138:Why is Examiner.com blacklisted? 6545: 3272:Or do we need a formal closure? 2741: 2623:Paul Krugman New York Times blog 2620:even if the author is an expert. 798:over whether statements from an 33: 10036:Someone not using his real name 9909:The guidelines of many journals 9176:Great American Lesbian Art Show 8978:Great American Lesbian Art Show 8741:Someone not using his real name 8151:RottenTomatoes audience ratings 6614:falsity of these stereotypes".' 5632:being the decisive factor. See 5346:http://www.racingsportscars.com 4849:) 07:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 1866:No, policy is extremely clear: 874:what people thought at the time 10456: 10429: 10416: 10389: 10377: 10351: 10340: 8765:I want to cite something from 8293:and it has a very weird link 7937:The sources in my example are 7775:Are the awards portion of IMDB 7336:and this is the epitome of OR. 5008:Knowledge:Talk page guidelines 4965:Knowledge:No original research 3524:http://www.deathreference.com/ 3516:http://www.deathreference.com/ 525:Simon Digby (oriental scholar) 302:Why are you asking him again? 13: 1: 10162:Here's one of the links added 9626:Never Cite Just the Abstract! 9443:, the relevant discussion is 9216:sources. Just don't use them 8107:local Ace Hardware Store news 7271:Sources for the Moors Article 7069:Additionally, I refer you to 5722:Harvard Institute of Politics 5663:Harvard Institute of Politics 5523:Harvard Institute of Politics 5464:RS for economics book review? 4662:- Direct link to the quota: 4598:- Direct link to the quota: 2845:Consider the salience of the 2190:encyclopedic and is vs. BLP: 1285:(and perhaps more material). 1052:Note the negative reviews: 800:Associated Press (AP) article 10334:19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 10318:17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 10292:19:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 10272:02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 10229:09:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 10211:20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 10191:11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 10176:09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 10142:23:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 10127:16:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 10060:22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 10044:04:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 9987:10:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9949:06:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9858:01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9844:01:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9829:01:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9815:00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9800:00:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9785:00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9770:00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9756:00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9740:00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9705:00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9690:00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9676:00:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9661:00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 9644:23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9587:23:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9573:23:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9556:23:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9540:23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9518:23:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9503:23:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9488:23:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9474:23:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9457:23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9430:17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9405:16:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9387:18:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9368:16:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9349:15:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9310:18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9288:18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9269:18:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9246:16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9230:15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9208:15:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9189:14:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9168:13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9151:03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 9124:03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 9110:03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 9092:02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 9064:02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 9037:19:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9022:18:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 9003:17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8988:12:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8971:12:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8955:12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8926:21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 8910:02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8882:20:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 8859:08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 8814:15:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 8783:09:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 8749:06:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 8735:13:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8708:13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8674:23:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8662:22:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8644:22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8625:21:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8609:21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8587:and I reached an impasse on 8575:16:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8550:14:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 8536:21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8522:05:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8498:13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC) 8475:21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 8437:00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC) 8401:00:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8384:00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8368:00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8342:Copyright information says: 8307:11:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8280:11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8240:02:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC) 8190:15:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC) 8167:07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC) 8119:12:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 8074:17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 8049:00:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC) 8016:22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7993:19:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7933:21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 7910:20:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 7893:05:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 7873:19:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 7848:04:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 7827:03:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 7803:03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 7788:02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 7761:23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7747:14:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 7732:22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 7718:21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 7688:13:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 7665:09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 7650:20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7614:19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7535:20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7513:19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7495:19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7470:19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7447:19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7419:16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7350:15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 7261:18:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7238:18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7213:17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7192:17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7124:18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7085:17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7055:17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7038:13:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 7016:19:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 6996:14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 6960:10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 6948:20:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6930:20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6916:20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6884:20:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6865:19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6852:17:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6833:15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6779:09:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6759:09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6749:07:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 6735:19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6723:19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6704:19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6695:18:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6673:17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6663:15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6643:14:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6624:12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6592:00:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 6574:22:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 6564:22:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 6515:11:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 6506:00:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 6491:22:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6477:22:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6455:22:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6437:20:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6409:19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6400:19:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6377:19:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6339:18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6318:18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6297:18:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6272:17:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6253:16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6234:16:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6215:15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6206:15:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6191:12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6181:09:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6167:07:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6152:07:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6115:12:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 6106:19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 6080:18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 6065:13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 6040:13:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 6030:03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 6015:01:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 5996:01:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 5962:21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5947:21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5928:09:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5919:08:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5901:03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5810:18:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5784:17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5766:17:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5743:17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5712:21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5689:20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5679:18:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 5622:04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 5596:04:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 5582:01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 5560:00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 5456:09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 5426:15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 5402:05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 5388:20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5362:20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5348:as a source, as used in the 5332:14:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5318:13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5300:13:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5277:03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5252:03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5237:03:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5195:02:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5177:03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5147:02:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5127:02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5109:01:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5085:01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 5047:10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 5020:09:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4991:09:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4953:08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4937:08:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4917:08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4888:08:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4872:02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4859:08:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4812:Latin writer/historian Aesop 4723:02:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4705:02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4689:01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 4634:03:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 4477:21:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4446:22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4431:21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4412:20:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4398:20:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4383:19:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4358:19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4343:19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4305:19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4290:18:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4246:21:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4232:21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4217:21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4203:21:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4168:20:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4153:20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4138:20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4119:20:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4099:20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4073:19:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4049:19:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4031:19:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 4011:18:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3984:19:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3969:19:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3955:19:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3934:18:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3915:18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 3879:21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3861:19:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3846:19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3706:17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3692:Thanks for the advice. I've 3688:16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3670:15:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3650:16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3630:15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3599:14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3582:13:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3559:12:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3499:09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3482:09:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3459:07:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 3444:10:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3427:09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3409:04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3390:04:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3365:04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 3286:18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 3221:16:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 3195:15:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 3177:15:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 3151:15:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 3120:14:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 3075:00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 3039:06:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 2967:21:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 2946:18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 2922:15:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) 2898:18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC) 2863:17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 2836:21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2817:21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2796:21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2778:21:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2760:21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2718:21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2696:19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2681:18:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2658:18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2579:17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2545:16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2522:13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2495:13:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2470:13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2444:03:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 2420:22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2396:18:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2374:17:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2356:17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2341:16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2237:15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2210:14:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2182:13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2164:04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2135:02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2119:02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2104:02:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2082:01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2052:01:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2037:01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 2011:01:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1993:01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1975:00:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1959:00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1910:04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1885:00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1862:00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1841:00:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1823:00:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1798:00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC) 1763:well short of the 10% Murphy 1750:Here's the diff in question. 1714:23:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1693:23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1667:23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1646:23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1624:22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1609:22:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1589:22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1567:21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1548:18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 1520:18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 1438:03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1423:12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 1393:18:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 1318:23:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1295:21:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1273:17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1131:16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1115:16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 1105:16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 971:. Visible Ink Press. p. 95. 947:21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 933:15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 914:21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC) 886:17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 867:03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 851:21:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 782:15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 763:23:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 676:14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 650:05:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC) 636:20:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 622:19:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 608:19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 593:19:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 577:19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 562:19:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 537:19:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 516:19:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 502:19:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 483:19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 456:19:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 414:18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 393:18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 312:18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 284:18:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 269:18:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 249:18:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 230:17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 209:But i somewhat agree with:- 202:17:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 181:17:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 157:16:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 136:15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 7: 10066:Resources for Articles for 8945:cited to. Please advise. -- 7392:Without going further into 7332:who has been chastised for 4606:The source is relating the 4077:I worry we're getting into 2307:RS version of Krugman views 1006:Chemtrail conspiracy theory 895:http://guerillabookworm.com 770:the language reference desk 10: 10531: 10464:Defending the Undefendable 10451:Defending the Undefendable 10424:Defending the Undefendable 10411:Defending the Undefendable 10306:http://www.aurangzeb.info/ 10299:http://www.aurangzeb.info/ 9097:read the source as a whole 9072:read the source as a whole 7324:The next source is one by 6891:Defending the Undefendable 6679:Defending the Undefendable 6050:Defending the Undefendable 5858:Defending the Undefendable 5510:Defending the Undefendable 965:Steiger, Brad & Sherry 804:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 790:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 352:(Indian Express Obituary). 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 10079:http://indiarailinfo.com/ 8822:Study abroad organization 8289:. The contact address is 7751:Or indeed rūm, "Romans". 6058:Times Literary Supplement 4579:, tigers went up against 4563:Ken spiro comments, "The 3055:WP:Self-published sources 2631:Robert P. Murphy writings 1632:. It's unreliable and a 1494:mention Murphy and says: 10347:http://www.kenspiro.com/ 10107:Indian Railways Fan Club 10103:Indian Railways Fan Club 10073:Most articles regarding 9602:Indiana State University 7702:John G. Jackson (writer) 7519:John G. Jackson (writer) 7311:as you can see it says " 7294:article as I aforesaid. 6142:has commented on them. 5726:Harvard Political Review 5658:Harvard Political Review 5527:Harvard Political Review 5519:Harvard Political Review 5488:Harvard Political Review 5483:Harvard Political Review 5462:Harvard Political Review 4900:(Last Post on the page) 3037:04:39, 25 January 2014; 2015:But these are issues of 1765:needed to win the bet), 1573:at the DeLong Blog entry 359:. University of London. 326:held by and published by 8936:The Knowledge entry on 8248:Is IndiaMapia reliable? 7783:aka The Red Pen of Doom 7357:American Ceylon Mission 7119:aka The Red Pen of Doom 7033:aka The Red Pen of Doom 6985:http://www.thedrum.com/ 5855:in the 2012 edition of 5716:If one bothers to do a 5283:Amiannoying - reliable? 4803:Greek statue (Artifact) 4596:http://www.kenspiro.com 4594:- Maters degree info: 3638:The Triumph of the Moon 3537:This seems to refer to 2723:Binksternet: Excellent 928:aka The Red Pen of Doom 442:" - Cambridge journals 114:The main dispute is on 10255: 10199:self-published sources 10099:user generated content 9935: 9923: 9906: 9894: 9631: 9613: 8423:Thank you everyone. -- 7398:Transaction Publishers 6616: 6538: 4981:to be shown the door. 3535: 3518:, and a 1918 reference 3355:Thanks for your time. 3314: 3309: 3132: 2614:Self-published sources 2425:The Steeletrap revert 1486:). However, the added 923:. this site fails. -- 748: 735: 709:2. Knowledge Article: 10243: 9982:That's how I see it. 9931: 9919: 9902: 9886: 9623: 9605: 8869:self-published source 8654:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 8155:IMDb's viewer ratings 7753:Justlettersandnumbers 7453:Self-published source 7230:A Quest For Knowledge 7158:Earthless discography 6600: 6522: 5531:p. 46 - same as above 5529:, Volumes 4-7, 1976, 5490:, Volumes 4-7, 1976, 5372:External links search 4362:Thanks, good advice. 3800:Reports - Knowledge: 3531: 3310: 3305: 3125: 2650:A Quest For Knowledge 2608:- unreliable for the 2174:A Quest For Knowledge 2096:A Quest For Knowledge 1985:A Quest For Knowledge 1877:A Quest For Knowledge 1833:A Quest For Knowledge 1790:A Quest For Knowledge 1788:(emphasis NOT mine). 1685:A Quest For Knowledge 1638:A Quest For Knowledge 937:Thanks for the tip. — 740: 717: 666:Persecution of Hindus 355:Digby, Simon (1975). 350:Obviously a historian 116:Persecution of Hindus 46:of past discussions. 10477:saudiaramcoworld.com 10101:. So is the case of 10087:http://www.irfca.org 9682:alf laylah wa laylah 9252:Talk:Tamil Kshatriya 8828:) a reliable source? 8321:www.allicinfacts.com 8094:Sky Valley Chronicle 8084:Sky Valley Chronicle 7451:What do you mean by 5630:specific publication 5538:Edit summary reads: 5499:Edit summary reads: 4274:boilingfrogspost.com 4267:cited is sourced to 3719:thecelebworth.com: 3623:User:Simpsonworthing 3100:, for example, say: 2066:Pledge of Allegiance 1636:violation to boot. 1082:Macmillan Publishers 9052:copyright violation 8686:I just came across 7698:Black Classic Press 5878:SPECIFICO objected 3082:about living people 2636:- Reliable for the 2474:It may be that the 2219:for such criticism. 1413:. It will be fine? 1380:are described here: 967:(15 January 2006). 10358:Ken Spiro (2002). 9278:stick repeatedly. 8938:abstract (summary) 8761:a reliable source? 5748:Discussion of the 5350:Vittorugo Mallucci 4561:Norwich University 4079:Knowledge:DONTFEED 3618:Jacqueline Simpson 3573:and the author is 3090:about the theories 1488:Krugman blog entry 1405:citypopulation.de/ 1024:Skeptical Inquirer 795:There is a dispute 10440:Hayek on Liberty, 10400:Hayek on Liberty, 10370:978-0-415-10453-1 10247:Arabian Peninsula 9308: 9302:Wee Curry Monster 9286: 9280:Wee Curry Monster 9116:Ganesh J. Acharya 9102:Ganesh J. Acharya 9056:Ganesh J. Acharya 9020: 9014:Wee Curry Monster 8902:Two kinds of pork 8514:Luke Warmwater101 8435: 8366: 8297:. I'm dubious! - 8114:E L A Q U E A T E 8011:E L A Q U E A T E 7949:the most reliable 7928:E L A Q U E A T E 7784: 7434:Almoravid dynasty 7208:E L A Q U E A T E 7120: 7034: 7011:E L A Q U E A T E 6914: 6850: 6777: 6641: 6562: 6270: 6232: 5994: 5899: 5782: 5741: 5677: 5620: 5558: 5476:, editor removed 5215:Tiger versus lion 4809:Plato's dialogues 4503:Tiger versus lion 4426:E L A Q U E A T E 4393:E L A Q U E A T E 4353:E L A Q U E A T E 4285:E L A Q U E A T E 3856:E L A Q U E A T E 3828: 3714:thecelebworth.com 3645:E L A Q U E A T E 3594:E L A Q U E A T E 3284: 3252: 3238:comment added by 3073: 2944: 2834: 2794: 2758: 2679: 2577: 2442: 2394: 2339: 2208: 2170:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 2162: 2146:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1998:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 1908: 1860: 1821: 1712: 1665: 1607: 1587: 1546: 1518: 1484:December 31, 2012 1411:Rajshahi District 929: 881:E L A Q U E A T E 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current main page 10522: 10515: 10514: 10507: 10501: 10495: 10490: 10484: 10478: 10473: 10467: 10460: 10454: 10433: 10427: 10420: 10414: 10393: 10387: 10381: 10375: 10374: 10355: 10349: 10344: 10225: 10172: 10148:Reliable source? 10095:Official website 10083:http://erail.in/ 10004:technical report 9883:Skidmore College 9347: 9345: 9338: 9304: 9282: 9016: 8864:No, that webpage 8826:Augsburg College 8449:The new article 8429: 8360: 8313:AllicinFacts.com 8277: 8268: 8116: 8115: 8099:Frank Colacurcio 8028: 8021:"From their own 8013: 8012: 8004: 7930: 7929: 7888: 7881: 7843: 7836: 7824: 7823: 7820:let's discuss it 7812: 7785: 7782: 7635:. Yes it can be 7483:In ancient times 7394:Ivan Van Sertima 7328:and here it is: 7326:Ivan Van Sertima 7317:Here is the book 7257: 7252: 7247: 7242:Thank you both. 7223: 7210: 7209: 7188: 7183: 7178: 7121: 7118: 7035: 7032: 7013: 7012: 6993: 6992: 6940: 6903: 6876: 6839: 6825: 6766: 6715: 6687: 6655: 6630: 6611:Ludwig von Mises 6584: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6548: 6533:Ludwig von Mises 6469: 6392: 6328: 6307: 6289: 6282: 6259: 6245: 6221: 6098: 6090: 6007: 5983: 5971:This description 5939: 5888: 5866:Hayek on Liberty 5864:In John Gray's, 5838: 5802: 5794: 5771: 5758: 5730: 5666: 5647:discussion (re: 5617: 5612: 5610: 5574: 5547: 5422: 5414: 5274: 5273: 5270:let's discuss it 5262: 5234: 5233: 5230:let's discuss it 5222: 5174: 5173: 5170:let's discuss it 5162: 4631: 4630: 4627:let's discuss it 4619: 4544: 4526: 4474: 4472: 4467: 4462: 4428: 4427: 4419: 4395: 4394: 4380: 4378: 4373: 4368: 4355: 4354: 4340: 4338: 4333: 4328: 4313:stands alongside 4287: 4286: 3858: 3857: 3720: 3698:Richard Keatinge 3647: 3646: 3596: 3595: 3551:Richard Keatinge 3419:Nomoskedasticity 3385: 3378: 3319:Marshall Sahlins 3297:Napoleon Chagnon 3273: 3251: 3232: 3217: 3211: 3210: 3147: 3141: 3140: 3062: 3034: 3028: 3027: 2933: 2918: 2912: 2911: 2894: 2888: 2887: 2823: 2809: 2783: 2770: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2710: 2668: 2638:Robert P. Murphy 2610:Robert P. Murphy 2605:Brad DeLong blog 2600: 2566: 2537: 2514: 2506: 2487: 2462: 2454: 2431: 2412: 2383: 2366: 2328: 2292: 2286: 2285: 2272:I see that user 2197: 2159: 2154: 2152: 2074: 2063: 2029: 2019:content or BM's 1951: 1905: 1900: 1898: 1857: 1852: 1850: 1818: 1813: 1811: 1784:. It should be 1768: 1764: 1760: 1709: 1704: 1702: 1662: 1657: 1655: 1604: 1599: 1597: 1576: 1535: 1507: 1480:January 19, 2011 1453:Robert P. Murphy 1257: 1256: 1211:deleted contribs 1189: 1162:deleted contribs 1012:used to support: 1000: 930: 927: 883: 882: 761: 334:reviewed article 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 10530: 10529: 10525: 10524: 10523: 10521: 10520: 10519: 10518: 10511:"Deir Gassaneh" 10509: 10508: 10504: 10493: 10487: 10476: 10470: 10461: 10457: 10434: 10430: 10421: 10417: 10394: 10390: 10382: 10378: 10371: 10356: 10352: 10345: 10341: 10302: 10239: 10223: 10170: 10154:User:Kareem1790 10150: 10075:Indian Railways 10071: 10068:Indian Railways 9341: 9334: 9332: 8934: 8890: 8836:on the article 8832:I want to cite 8830: 8769:in the article 8763: 8684: 8582: 8560: 8482: 8447: 8315: 8271: 8262: 8250: 8238: 8127: 8113: 8111: 8086: 8026: 8010: 8008: 8002: 7927: 7925: 7886: 7879: 7841: 7834: 7817: 7816: 7810: 7780: 7773: 7355:In order - the 7273: 7255: 7250: 7245: 7226:this discussion 7217: 7207: 7205: 7186: 7181: 7176: 7154: 7140: 7116: 7030: 7010: 7008: 6990: 6989: 6978: 6936: 6872: 6821: 6711: 6683: 6651: 6607:Friedrich Hayek 6580: 6546: 6529:Friedrich Hayek 6465: 6388: 6322: 6301: 6285: 6276: 6241: 6094: 6084: 6003: 5935: 5841:Freidrich Hayek 5832: 5830: 5798: 5788: 5754: 5750:Harvard Crimson 5637:Harvard Crimson 5615: 5608: 5570: 5466: 5418: 5413: 5409: 5374:. I have asked 5342: 5285: 5267: 5266: 5260: 5227: 5226: 5220: 5167: 5166: 5160: 4624: 4623: 4617: 4557:Master's degree 4517: 4501: 4499: 4470: 4465: 4460: 4458: 4425: 4423: 4417: 4392: 4390: 4376: 4371: 4366: 4364: 4352: 4350: 4336: 4331: 4326: 4324: 4284: 4282: 4238:Thargor Orlando 4209:Thargor Orlando 4160:Thargor Orlando 4130:Thargor Orlando 3889: 3855: 3853: 3776:• Discussions: 3716: 3644: 3642: 3636:The article on 3616:Our article on 3593: 3591: 3575:Margaret Murray 3520: 3383: 3376: 3293: 3233: 3219: 3215: 3208: 3207: 3161:the theories of 3149: 3145: 3138: 3137: 3094:himself/herself 3036: 3032: 3025: 3024: 2920: 2916: 2909: 2908: 2896: 2892: 2885: 2884: 2805: 2766: 2742: 2706: 2594: 2533: 2510: 2500: 2483: 2458: 2448: 2408: 2362: 2304: 2294: 2290: 2283: 2282: 2157: 2150: 2148:going on here. 2070: 2057: 2025: 1947: 1903: 1896: 1855: 1848: 1816: 1809: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1707: 1700: 1660: 1653: 1602: 1595: 1449: 1407: 1196: 1192: 1147: 978: 960: 925: 898: 880: 878: 830: 813: 793: 768:If you post at 752: 732:The Irish Times 683: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 10528: 10517: 10516: 10502: 10485: 10468: 10455: 10428: 10415: 10388: 10376: 10369: 10350: 10338: 10337: 10336: 10301: 10296: 10295: 10294: 10238: 10233: 10232: 10231: 10214: 10213: 10194: 10193: 10149: 10146: 10145: 10144: 10091:route diagrams 10070: 10064: 10063: 10062: 9992: 9991: 9990: 9989: 9980: 9979: 9978: 9975: 9971: 9967: 9964: 9960: 9937: 9936: 9924: 9907: 9895: 9875: 9874: 9873: 9872: 9871: 9870: 9869: 9868: 9867: 9866: 9865: 9864: 9863: 9862: 9861: 9860: 9718: 9717: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9710: 9709: 9708: 9707: 9647: 9646: 9616: 9592: 9591: 9590: 9589: 9559: 9558: 9527: 9526: 9525: 9524: 9523: 9522: 9521: 9520: 9460: 9459: 9435: 9434: 9433: 9432: 9414: 9413: 9412: 9411: 9410: 9409: 9408: 9407: 9390: 9389: 9377:the context). 9371: 9370: 9352: 9351: 9325: 9324: 9323: 9322: 9321: 9320: 9319: 9318: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9160: 9159: 9158: 9157: 9156: 9155: 9154: 9153: 9131: 9130: 9129: 9128: 9127: 9126: 9048: 9047: 9046: 9045: 9044: 9043: 9042: 9041: 9040: 9039: 8933: 8930: 8929: 8928: 8889: 8886: 8885: 8884: 8829: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8762: 8755: 8754: 8753: 8752: 8751: 8716:(reviewed here 8683: 8680: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8649: 8648: 8647: 8646: 8628: 8627: 8585:ChrisGualtieri 8581: 8578: 8559: 8556: 8555: 8554: 8553: 8552: 8538: 8481: 8478: 8446: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8440: 8439: 8408: 8406: 8405: 8404: 8403: 8349:Terms of use: 8341: 8314: 8311: 8310: 8309: 8249: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8243: 8242: 8230: 8126: 8123: 8122: 8121: 8085: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8076: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8058: 8057: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8033: 7957: 7854: 7853: 7852: 7851: 7850: 7772: 7769: 7768: 7767: 7766: 7765: 7764: 7763: 7734: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7672: 7671: 7670: 7669: 7668: 7667: 7621: 7620: 7619: 7618: 7617: 7616: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7593: 7592: 7580: 7579: 7578: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7549: 7548: 7547: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7541: 7540: 7539: 7538: 7537: 7475: 7472: 7422: 7421: 7402: 7401: 7389: 7388: 7384: 7383: 7369: 7368: 7338: 7337: 7321: 7320: 7304: 7303: 7272: 7269: 7268: 7267: 7266: 7265: 7264: 7263: 7220:LazyBastardGuy 7162:lead paragraph 7152: 7139: 7136: 7135: 7134: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7126: 7095: 7062: 7061: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7057: 6977: 6974: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6967: 6966: 6965: 6964: 6963: 6962: 6953: 6918: 6902:speculation.) 6895: 6857: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6813: 6812: 6811: 6810: 6809: 6808: 6807: 6806: 6805: 6804: 6803: 6802: 6801: 6800: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6796: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6792: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6728: 6647: 6646: 6645: 6617: 6576: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6458: 6457: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6414: 6413: 6412: 6411: 6364: 6363: 6362: 6361: 6360: 6359: 6358: 6357: 6356: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6352: 6351: 6350: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6131: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6124: 6123: 6122: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6082: 6042: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5875: 5874: 5862: 5829: 5826: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5818: 5817: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5603: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5544: 5543: 5535: 5534: 5504: 5503: 5496: 5495: 5465: 5459: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5411: 5341: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5284: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5240: 5239: 5198: 5197: 5180: 5179: 5130: 5129: 5111: 5023: 5022: 4999: 4996: 4994: 4993: 4940: 4939: 4891: 4890: 4823: 4822: 4819: 4816: 4813: 4810: 4807: 4804: 4801: 4798: 4795: 4792: 4789: 4786: 4783: 4780: 4777: 4774: 4771: 4768: 4765: 4762: 4759: 4756: 4753: 4750: 4747: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4708: 4707: 4655: 4637: 4636: 4498: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4292: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3923: 3921: 3888: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3830: 3829: 3715: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3614: 3607: 3565: 3519: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3461: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3354: 3333:Opinion pieces 3316: 3292: 3289: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3213: 3153: 3143: 3133: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3030: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2914: 2900: 2890: 2879: 2876: 2847:facts reported 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2728: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2646: 2645: 2629: 2621: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2303: 2300: 2298: 2288: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2220: 2139: 2138: 2137: 1967:Jason from nyc 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1805:New York Times 1774: 1773: 1772: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1532:notice of this 1448: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1406: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1276: 1275: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1190: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1118: 1117: 1093: 1092: 1077: 1076: 1069: 1068: 1060: 1059: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1028:skeptical blog 1020: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1002: 1001: 976: 959: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 897: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 840: 838: 836: 824: 811: 809: 792: 786: 785: 784: 707: 706: 701: 696: 682: 679: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 581: 580: 579: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 401: 377: 376: 361:Vol. 38, No. 1 353: 346: 345: 344: 343: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 218: 217: 214: 207: 206: 205: 204: 183: 150: 146: 142: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10527: 10512: 10506: 10499: 10489: 10482: 10472: 10465: 10459: 10452: 10448: 10445: 10441: 10437: 10432: 10425: 10419: 10412: 10408: 10405: 10401: 10397: 10392: 10385: 10380: 10372: 10367: 10363: 10362: 10354: 10348: 10343: 10339: 10335: 10331: 10327: 10322: 10321: 10320: 10319: 10315: 10311: 10307: 10300: 10293: 10289: 10285: 10281: 10276: 10275: 10274: 10273: 10269: 10265: 10261: 10254: 10252: 10248: 10242: 10237: 10230: 10227: 10226: 10220: 10216: 10215: 10212: 10208: 10204: 10200: 10196: 10195: 10192: 10188: 10184: 10180: 10179: 10178: 10177: 10174: 10173: 10167: 10163: 10159: 10155: 10143: 10139: 10135: 10131: 10130: 10129: 10128: 10124: 10120: 10116: 10112: 10111:verifiability 10108: 10104: 10100: 10096: 10092: 10088: 10084: 10080: 10076: 10069: 10061: 10057: 10053: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10045: 10041: 10037: 10033: 10029: 10025: 10020: 10018: 10013: 10011: 10007: 10005: 10001: 9997: 9988: 9985: 9981: 9976: 9972: 9968: 9965: 9961: 9958: 9957: 9955: 9954: 9953: 9952: 9951: 9950: 9946: 9942: 9934: 9929: 9925: 9922: 9917: 9915: 9913: 9911: 9908: 9905: 9900: 9896: 9893: 9892:introduction. 9890: 9884: 9880: 9879: 9878: 9859: 9855: 9851: 9847: 9846: 9845: 9841: 9837: 9832: 9831: 9830: 9826: 9822: 9818: 9817: 9816: 9812: 9808: 9803: 9802: 9801: 9797: 9793: 9788: 9787: 9786: 9782: 9778: 9773: 9772: 9771: 9767: 9763: 9759: 9758: 9757: 9753: 9749: 9744: 9743: 9742: 9741: 9737: 9733: 9728: 9727:this abstract 9723: 9706: 9702: 9698: 9693: 9692: 9691: 9687: 9683: 9679: 9678: 9677: 9673: 9669: 9664: 9663: 9662: 9658: 9654: 9649: 9648: 9645: 9641: 9637: 9633: 9630: 9627: 9621: 9617: 9615: 9612: 9610: 9603: 9599: 9598: 9596: 9595: 9594: 9593: 9588: 9584: 9580: 9576: 9575: 9574: 9570: 9566: 9561: 9560: 9557: 9553: 9549: 9544: 9543: 9542: 9541: 9537: 9533: 9519: 9515: 9511: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9500: 9496: 9491: 9490: 9489: 9485: 9481: 9477: 9476: 9475: 9471: 9467: 9462: 9461: 9458: 9454: 9450: 9446: 9442: 9437: 9436: 9431: 9427: 9423: 9418: 9417: 9416: 9415: 9406: 9402: 9398: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9391: 9388: 9384: 9380: 9375: 9374: 9373: 9372: 9369: 9365: 9361: 9358:otherwise. - 9356: 9355: 9354: 9353: 9350: 9346: 9344: 9339: 9337: 9330: 9327: 9326: 9311: 9307: 9303: 9299: 9295: 9291: 9290: 9289: 9285: 9281: 9277: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9266: 9262: 9257: 9253: 9249: 9248: 9247: 9244: 9242: 9237: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9227: 9223: 9219: 9215: 9211: 9210: 9209: 9205: 9201: 9196: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9187: 9185: 9181: 9177: 9172: 9171: 9170: 9169: 9166: 9152: 9148: 9144: 9139: 9138: 9137: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9133: 9132: 9125: 9121: 9117: 9113: 9112: 9111: 9107: 9103: 9098: 9095: 9094: 9093: 9089: 9085: 9081: 9077: 9073: 9068: 9067: 9066: 9065: 9061: 9057: 9053: 9038: 9034: 9030: 9025: 9024: 9023: 9019: 9015: 9011: 9006: 9005: 9004: 9000: 8996: 8991: 8990: 8989: 8986: 8984: 8979: 8974: 8973: 8972: 8968: 8964: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8952: 8948: 8942: 8939: 8927: 8923: 8919: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8911: 8907: 8903: 8899: 8895: 8883: 8879: 8875: 8870: 8866: 8863: 8862: 8861: 8860: 8856: 8852: 8847: 8843: 8839: 8835: 8827: 8823: 8815: 8811: 8807: 8803: 8799: 8795: 8791: 8787: 8786: 8785: 8784: 8780: 8776: 8772: 8768: 8760: 8750: 8746: 8742: 8738: 8737: 8736: 8732: 8728: 8724: 8721: 8718: 8715: 8712: 8711: 8710: 8709: 8705: 8701: 8697: 8692: 8689: 8675: 8672: 8670: 8665: 8664: 8663: 8659: 8655: 8651: 8650: 8645: 8641: 8637: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8626: 8622: 8618: 8613: 8612: 8611: 8610: 8606: 8602: 8598: 8594: 8590: 8586: 8577: 8576: 8572: 8568: 8565: 8551: 8547: 8543: 8539: 8537: 8533: 8529: 8525: 8524: 8523: 8519: 8515: 8511: 8507: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8499: 8495: 8491: 8487: 8477: 8476: 8472: 8468: 8465:violation. -- 8464: 8460: 8459:Jevto Dedijer 8456: 8452: 8445:Jevto Dedijer 8438: 8433: 8428: 8427: 8422: 8421: 8420: 8419: 8418: 8416: 8412: 8402: 8398: 8394: 8390: 8389:Specific page 8387: 8386: 8385: 8381: 8377: 8372: 8371: 8370: 8369: 8364: 8359: 8358: 8352: 8351: 8347: 8345: 8339: 8338: 8335: 8331: 8330: 8327: 8323: 8322: 8319: 8308: 8304: 8300: 8296: 8292: 8288: 8284: 8283: 8282: 8281: 8278: 8276: 8275: 8269: 8267: 8266: 8259: 8255: 8241: 8237: 8233: 8229: 8228: 8223: 8219: 8215: 8211: 8207: 8203: 8200: 8196: 8195:Not reliable. 8193: 8192: 8191: 8187: 8183: 8179: 8175: 8171: 8170: 8169: 8168: 8164: 8160: 8156: 8152: 8147: 8142: 8140: 8136: 8132: 8120: 8117: 8108: 8104: 8100: 8095: 8092: 8091: 8090: 8075: 8071: 8067: 8062: 8050: 8046: 8042: 8037: 8034: 8030: 8024: 8019: 8018: 8017: 8014: 8000: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7990: 7986: 7981: 7978: 7975: 7972: 7968: 7967: 7962: 7958: 7954: 7950: 7946: 7944: 7940: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7931: 7921: 7920:Marlon Brando 7917: 7913: 7912: 7911: 7907: 7903: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7891: 7890: 7889: 7882: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7870: 7866: 7861: 7859: 7855: 7849: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7837: 7830: 7829: 7828: 7825: 7822: 7821: 7814: 7813: 7806: 7805: 7804: 7800: 7796: 7792: 7791: 7790: 7789: 7786: 7777: 7762: 7758: 7754: 7750: 7749: 7748: 7744: 7740: 7735: 7733: 7729: 7725: 7721: 7720: 7719: 7715: 7711: 7707: 7703: 7699: 7695: 7694: 7689: 7685: 7681: 7676: 7675: 7674: 7673: 7666: 7662: 7658: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7647: 7643: 7638: 7634: 7629: 7625: 7624: 7623: 7622: 7615: 7611: 7607: 7603: 7602: 7601: 7600: 7599: 7598: 7590: 7586: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7582: 7581: 7573: 7572: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7560: 7559:70.126.13.113 7555: 7554: 7553: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7542: 7536: 7532: 7528: 7524: 7520: 7516: 7515: 7514: 7510: 7506: 7502: 7498: 7497: 7496: 7492: 7488: 7484: 7480: 7476: 7473: 7471: 7467: 7463: 7458: 7457:WP:NODEADLINE 7454: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7444: 7440: 7435: 7430: 7426: 7425: 7424: 7423: 7420: 7416: 7412: 7408: 7404: 7403: 7399: 7395: 7391: 7390: 7386: 7385: 7381: 7377: 7374: 7371: 7370: 7366: 7362: 7358: 7354: 7353: 7352: 7351: 7347: 7343: 7335: 7334:pseudohistory 7330: 7327: 7323: 7322: 7318: 7314: 7310: 7306: 7305: 7301: 7297: 7296: 7295: 7293: 7288: 7284: 7282: 7281:pseudohistory 7278: 7262: 7259: 7258: 7253: 7248: 7241: 7240: 7239: 7235: 7231: 7227: 7221: 7216: 7215: 7214: 7211: 7201: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7190: 7189: 7184: 7179: 7172: 7166: 7163: 7159: 7151: 7148: 7145: 7125: 7122: 7113: 7111: 7104: 7102: 7096: 7093: 7090: 7089: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7082: 7078: 7074: 7071: 7068: 7067: 7066: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7056: 7052: 7048: 7044: 7041: 7040: 7039: 7036: 7026: 7024: 7022: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7014: 7004: 7000: 6999: 6998: 6997: 6994: 6986: 6982: 6961: 6958: 6954: 6951: 6950: 6949: 6946: 6945: 6941: 6939: 6933: 6932: 6931: 6927: 6923: 6919: 6917: 6913: 6911: 6910:Talkie-Talkie 6907: 6900: 6896: 6893: 6892: 6887: 6886: 6885: 6882: 6881: 6877: 6875: 6868: 6867: 6866: 6863: 6858: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6849: 6847: 6846:Talkie-Talkie 6843: 6837: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6831: 6830: 6826: 6824: 6780: 6776: 6774: 6773:Talkie-Talkie 6770: 6764: 6763: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6757: 6752: 6751: 6750: 6746: 6742: 6738: 6737: 6736: 6733: 6729: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6721: 6720: 6716: 6714: 6707: 6706: 6705: 6702: 6698: 6697: 6696: 6693: 6692: 6688: 6686: 6680: 6676: 6675: 6674: 6671: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6661: 6660: 6656: 6654: 6648: 6644: 6640: 6638: 6637:Talkie-Talkie 6634: 6627: 6626: 6625: 6622: 6618: 6615: 6612: 6608: 6604: 6599: 6598: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6590: 6589: 6585: 6583: 6577: 6575: 6572: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6561: 6559: 6558:Talkie-Talkie 6555: 6542: 6537: 6534: 6530: 6526: 6521: 6520: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6513: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6503: 6499: 6494: 6493: 6492: 6488: 6484: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6475: 6474: 6470: 6468: 6462: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6456: 6452: 6448: 6444: 6443: 6438: 6434: 6430: 6426: 6421: 6418: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6410: 6407: 6403: 6402: 6401: 6398: 6397: 6393: 6391: 6385: 6384:this web page 6381: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6374: 6370: 6340: 6336: 6332: 6326: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6315: 6311: 6305: 6300: 6299: 6298: 6295: 6294: 6290: 6288: 6280: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6269: 6267: 6266:Talkie-Talkie 6263: 6256: 6255: 6254: 6251: 6250: 6246: 6244: 6237: 6236: 6235: 6231: 6229: 6228:Talkie-Talkie 6225: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6213: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6203: 6199: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6189: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6178: 6174: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6164: 6160: 6155: 6154: 6153: 6149: 6145: 6140: 6116: 6113: 6109: 6108: 6107: 6104: 6103: 6099: 6097: 6088: 6083: 6081: 6077: 6073: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6063: 6059: 6055: 6054:D. J. Enright 6051: 6047: 6043: 6041: 6038: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6013: 6012: 6008: 6006: 5999: 5998: 5997: 5993: 5991: 5990:Talkie-Talkie 5987: 5981: 5980:Tom G. Palmer 5977: 5976:Robert Nozick 5972: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5963: 5959: 5955: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5945: 5944: 5940: 5938: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5926: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5916: 5912: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5898: 5896: 5895:Talkie-Talkie 5892: 5881: 5877: 5876: 5872: 5867: 5863: 5861: 5859: 5854: 5850: 5846: 5845: 5844: 5842: 5836: 5811: 5808: 5807: 5803: 5801: 5792: 5787: 5786: 5785: 5781: 5779: 5778:Talkie-Talkie 5775: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5764: 5763: 5759: 5757: 5751: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5740: 5738: 5737:Talkie-Talkie 5734: 5727: 5723: 5719: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5709: 5705: 5700: 5696: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5687: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5676: 5674: 5673:Talkie-Talkie 5670: 5664: 5660: 5659: 5654: 5650: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5635: 5631: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5618: 5611: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5580: 5579: 5575: 5573: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5557: 5555: 5554:Talkie-Talkie 5551: 5542: 5537: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5524: 5520: 5516: 5512: 5511: 5506: 5505: 5502: 5498: 5497: 5493: 5489: 5485: 5484: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5463: 5458: 5457: 5453: 5449: 5444: 5440: 5427: 5423: 5421: 5415: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5399: 5395: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5385: 5381: 5377: 5373: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5359: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5333: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5315: 5311: 5307: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5288: 5278: 5275: 5272: 5271: 5264: 5263: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5238: 5235: 5232: 5231: 5224: 5223: 5216: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5206: 5203: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5185: 5182: 5181: 5178: 5175: 5172: 5171: 5164: 5163: 5156: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5144: 5140: 5134: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5112: 5110: 5106: 5102: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5082: 5078: 5072: 5071: 5066: 5062: 5061: 5056: 5053: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5027: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5009: 5005: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4997: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4979: 4975: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4904: 4903: 4898: 4895: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4827: 4820: 4817: 4814: 4811: 4808: 4805: 4802: 4799: 4796: 4793: 4790: 4787: 4784: 4781: 4778: 4775: 4772: 4769: 4766: 4763: 4760: 4757: 4754: 4751: 4748: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4739: 4736: 4732: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4677: 4676: 4670: 4667: 4665: 4660: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4648: 4643: 4642: 4635: 4632: 4629: 4628: 4621: 4620: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4601: 4597: 4592: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4551: 4548: 4545: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4525: 4521: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4478: 4475: 4473: 4468: 4463: 4455: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4429: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4396: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4381: 4379: 4374: 4369: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4356: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4341: 4339: 4334: 4329: 4321: 4317: 4314: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4293: 4291: 4288: 4280:just as well. 4279: 4275: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4187: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4126: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4107: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4061: 4057: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4008: 4004: 3999: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3903: 3898: 3897:Sibel Edmonds 3894: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3859: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3724: 3718: 3717: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3651: 3648: 3639: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3619: 3615: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3597: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3571: 3566: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3546: 3542: 3540: 3534: 3530: 3528: 3525: 3517: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3474:Mark Marathon 3471: 3467: 3462: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3436:Mark Marathon 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3401:Mark Marathon 3398: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3379: 3372: 3371: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3357:Mark Marathon 3352: 3348: 3344: 3341: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3325: 3322: 3320: 3313: 3308: 3304: 3302: 3298: 3288: 3287: 3283: 3281: 3280:Talkie-Talkie 3277: 3269: 3267: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3229: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3212: 3204: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3152: 3148: 3142: 3134: 3131: 3130: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3108: 3104: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3084:"... It does 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3070: 3069:Talkie-Talkie 3066: 3060: 3056: 3040: 3035: 3029: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2941: 2940:Talkie-Talkie 2937: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2913: 2905: 2901: 2899: 2895: 2889: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2837: 2833: 2831: 2830:Talkie-Talkie 2827: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2808: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2791: 2790:Talkie-Talkie 2787: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2769: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2757: 2755: 2754:Talkie-Talkie 2751: 2738: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2709: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2676: 2675:Talkie-Talkie 2672: 2665: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2618:living people 2615: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2598: 2580: 2576: 2574: 2573:Talkie-Talkie 2570: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2536: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2513: 2504: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2486: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2461: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2439: 2438:Talkie-Talkie 2435: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2411: 2397: 2393: 2391: 2390:Talkie-Talkie 2387: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2365: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2336: 2335:Talkie-Talkie 2332: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2287: 2279: 2275: 2267: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2221: 2218: 2217:personal blog 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2205: 2204:Talkie-Talkie 2201: 2195: 2194: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2153: 2147: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2091: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2073: 2067: 2061: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2028: 2022: 2021:WP:NOTABILITY 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1950: 1944: 1911: 1906: 1899: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1858: 1851: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1819: 1812: 1806: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1715: 1710: 1703: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1663: 1656: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1605: 1598: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1584: 1583:Talkie-Talkie 1580: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1545: 1543: 1542:Talkie-Talkie 1539: 1533: 1530:: Just left 1529: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1515: 1514:Talkie-Talkie 1511: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1474: 1470: 1469:got around to 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1446: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1360: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1263: 1262: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1195: 1194:71.47.124.243 1191: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1042: 1037: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1003: 999: 997: 993: 989: 988:cloud seeding 985: 979: 977:1-57859-174-0 974: 970: 966: 962: 961: 957: 948: 944: 940: 936: 935: 934: 931: 922: 918: 917: 916: 915: 911: 907: 903: 902:David Reddish 896: 887: 884: 875: 870: 869: 868: 864: 860: 855: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 833: 827: 823: 820: 818: 808: 805: 801: 797: 791: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 766: 765: 764: 759: 755: 747: 745: 739: 734: 733: 729: 725: 721: 716: 713: 712: 705: 702: 700: 697: 695: 692: 691: 690: 688: 678: 677: 674: 669: 667: 651: 647: 643: 639: 638: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 623: 619: 615: 614:StuffandTruth 611: 610: 609: 605: 601: 596: 595: 594: 590: 586: 585:StuffandTruth 582: 578: 574: 570: 565: 564: 563: 559: 555: 554:StuffandTruth 550: 538: 534: 530: 526: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 513: 509: 505: 504: 503: 499: 495: 494:StuffandTruth 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 480: 476: 457: 453: 449: 448:StuffandTruth 445: 441: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 415: 411: 407: 402: 400: 396: 395: 394: 390: 386: 385:StuffandTruth 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 354: 351: 348: 347: 341: 340: 335: 333: 327: 323: 322: 321: 320: 313: 309: 305: 304:StuffandTruth 301: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 285: 281: 277: 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 261:StuffandTruth 258: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 246: 242: 241:StuffandTruth 238: 232: 231: 227: 223: 215: 212: 211: 210: 203: 199: 195: 191: 188: 184: 182: 178: 174: 170: 167: 164: 160: 159: 158: 155: 151: 147: 143: 140: 139: 138: 137: 133: 129: 123: 121: 117: 103: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 84: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 10505: 10488: 10471: 10463: 10458: 10450: 10439: 10436:John N. Gray 10431: 10423: 10418: 10410: 10399: 10396:John N. Gray 10391: 10379: 10360: 10353: 10342: 10303: 10279: 10256: 10244: 10240: 10222: 10169: 10151: 10072: 10052:Precision123 10031: 10027: 10023: 10021: 10014: 10008: 9993: 9984:Andrew Dalby 9941:Precision123 9938: 9932: 9920: 9903: 9888: 9887: 9876: 9836:Precision123 9807:Precision123 9777:Precision123 9748:Precision123 9721: 9719: 9697:Precision123 9668:Precision123 9636:Precision123 9625: 9624: 9608: 9606: 9579:Precision123 9565:Precision123 9528: 9495:Precision123 9466:Precision123 9342: 9335: 9328: 9297: 9293: 9255: 9217: 9213: 9161: 9143:AndyTheGrump 9096: 9084:AndyTheGrump 9075: 9071: 9049: 8947:Precision123 8943: 8935: 8891: 8845: 8841: 8831: 8797: 8794:Daniel Pipes 8789: 8764: 8696:Frank Collin 8687: 8685: 8617:AndyTheGrump 8583: 8561: 8483: 8448: 8425: 8407: 8376:AndyTheGrump 8356: 8353: 8348: 8343: 8340: 8336: 8333: 8332: 8325: 8324: 8317: 8316: 8273: 8272: 8264: 8263: 8251: 8226: 8222:r4rating.com 8218:r4rating.com 8206:r4rating.com 8199:r4rating.com 8194: 8143: 8128: 8125:r4rating.com 8087: 8035: 8020: 7970: 7964: 7960: 7952: 7948: 7938: 7915: 7884: 7883: 7839: 7838: 7819: 7818: 7809: 7774: 7501:User:Inayity 7482: 7452: 7407:User:Inayity 7380:User:Inayity 7339: 7312: 7289: 7285: 7274: 7243: 7174: 7170: 7167: 7155: 7149: 7141: 7109: 7100: 6983:about using 6979: 6957:Andrew Dalby 6943: 6937: 6906:Carolmooredc 6904: 6889: 6879: 6873: 6862:Andrew Dalby 6842:Carolmooredc 6840: 6828: 6822: 6817: 6769:Carolmooredc 6767: 6756:Andrew Dalby 6732:Andrew Dalby 6718: 6712: 6701:Andrew Dalby 6690: 6684: 6678: 6670:Andrew Dalby 6658: 6652: 6633:Carolmooredc 6631: 6621:Andrew Dalby 6605:writes that 6603:John N. Gray 6601: 6587: 6581: 6571:Andrew Dalby 6554:Carolmooredc 6552: 6527:writes that 6525:John N. Gray 6523: 6512:Andrew Dalby 6472: 6466: 6406:Andrew Dalby 6395: 6389: 6365: 6292: 6286: 6279:Carolmooredc 6262:Carolmooredc 6260: 6248: 6242: 6224:Carolmooredc 6222: 6212:Andrew Dalby 6188:Andrew Dalby 6112:Andrew Dalby 6101: 6095: 6087:Andrew Dalby 6062:Andrew Dalby 6057: 6046:Walter Block 6037:Andrew Dalby 6010: 6004: 5986:Carolmooredc 5984: 5942: 5936: 5925:Andrew Dalby 5891:Carolmooredc 5889: 5886: 5880:at this diff 5869: 5865: 5856: 5831: 5805: 5799: 5791:Carolmooredc 5774:Carolmooredc 5772: 5761: 5755: 5749: 5733:Carolmooredc 5731: 5728: 5698: 5694: 5686:Andrew Dalby 5669:Carolmooredc 5667: 5656: 5653:another 2008 5639:discussion; 5629: 5604: 5577: 5571: 5550:Carolmooredc 5548: 5545: 5539: 5515:at this diff 5508: 5500: 5481: 5478:at this diff 5474:Walter Block 5467: 5442: 5438: 5436: 5419: 5343: 5310:AndyTheGrump 5289: 5286: 5269: 5268: 5259: 5244:Golden Prime 5241: 5229: 5228: 5219: 5207: 5199: 5187:AndyTheGrump 5169: 5168: 5159: 5154: 5139:Golden Prime 5135: 5131: 5119:AndyTheGrump 5101:AndyTheGrump 5095: 5077:Golden Prime 5073: 5067: 5063: 5057: 5054: 5050: 5039:Golden Prime 5028: 5024: 5012:AndyTheGrump 4998: 4995: 4983:AndyTheGrump 4972:sources, at 4968: 4945:Golden Prime 4941: 4929:AndyTheGrump 4909:Golden Prime 4905: 4899: 4894:AndyTheGrump 4892: 4880:AndyTheGrump 4864:Golden Prime 4862: 4851:Golden Prime 4843:Golden Prime 4839: 4835: 4831: 4828: 4824: 4740: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4681:Golden Prime 4678: 4671: 4668: 4661: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4644: 4638: 4626: 4625: 4616: 4611: 4607: 4593: 4555: 4552: 4549: 4546: 4500: 4461:petrarchan47 4457: 4367:petrarchan47 4363: 4327:petrarchan47 4323: 4316:Thomas Drake 4297:HectorMoffet 4269:this article 4224:HectorMoffet 4195:HectorMoffet 4190: 4145:HectorMoffet 4091:HectorMoffet 4086: 4041:HectorMoffet 4003:HectorMoffet 3961:HectorMoffet 3890: 3831: 3774:COIBot-Local 3758:MER-C X-wiki 3627:Andrew Dalby 3611:Max Mallowan 3587:Andrew Dalby 3579:Andrew Dalby 3568: 3547: 3543: 3536: 3532: 3521: 3381: 3380: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3326: 3323: 3315: 3311: 3306: 3294: 3276:Carolmooredc 3274: 3270: 3263: 3234:— Preceding 3227: 3202: 3182: 3164: 3160: 3127: 3126: 3106: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3065:Carolmooredc 3063: 3058: 3053: 2953: 2936:Carolmooredc 2934: 2903: 2844: 2826:Carolmooredc 2824: 2806: 2804: 2786:Carolmooredc 2784: 2767: 2765: 2750:Carolmooredc 2748: 2736: 2731: 2725:at this diff 2707: 2705: 2702: 2671:Carolmooredc 2669: 2647: 2593: 2569:Carolmooredc 2567: 2562: 2554: 2550: 2534: 2532: 2527: 2517: 2511: 2503:Carolmooredc 2484: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2465: 2459: 2434:Carolmooredc 2432: 2427:at this diff 2409: 2407: 2404: 2386:Carolmooredc 2384: 2369: 2363: 2331:Carolmooredc 2329: 2324: 2311:At this diff 2306: 2305: 2297: 2268: 2263: 2224:professional 2223: 2216: 2200:Carolmooredc 2198: 2191: 2187: 2141: 2089: 2088: 2077: 2071: 2032: 2026: 1954: 1948: 1940: 1867: 1804: 1785: 1756: 1672: 1579:Carolmooredc 1577: 1538:Carolmooredc 1536: 1527: 1510:Carolmooredc 1508: 1500:are then two 1499: 1495: 1491: 1477: 1473:at this diff 1465:not being RS 1464: 1450: 1408: 1249: 1243: 1237: 1231: 1225: 1219: 1213: 1207: 1201: 1182: 1176: 1170: 1164: 1158: 1152: 1094: 1086:Judy Garland 1085: 1051: 1045: 1040: 1038: 1035: 996:smoke trails 995: 992:firefighting 991: 987: 984:crop dusting 983: 981: 968: 956:Brad Steiger 899: 873: 834: 831: 825: 821: 814: 794: 749: 743: 742:Writing for 741: 736: 731: 727: 723: 719: 718: 714: 708: 686: 684: 673:Andrew Dalby 670: 662: 472: 443: 439: 337: 331: 329: 325: 299: 236: 233: 219: 208: 163:Andrew Dalby 154:Andrew Dalby 124: 113: 82: 47: 41: 10326:Itsmejudith 10219:Tokyogirl79 10166:Tokyogirl79 10134:Itsmejudith 10115:reliability 9548:Itsmejudith 8767:this report 8455:WP:COATRACK 8214:Athul noble 8182:Cyphoidbomb 8159:Cyphoidbomb 8066:Itsmejudith 7724:Itsmejudith 7710:ShawntheGod 7680:ShawntheGod 7657:Itsmejudith 7642:ShawntheGod 7527:Barnabypage 7487:Barnabypage 7439:ShawntheGod 7342:ShawntheGod 6976:TheDrum.com 6899:as of today 6447:Binksternet 5911:Itsmejudith 5649:Daily Bruin 4575:tore apart 4320:first edits 3826:AboutUs.com 3822:domaintools 3766:Links on en 3764:• Reports: 3721:Linksearch 3662:Itsmejudith 3491:Itsmejudith 3451:Itsmejudith 3228:categorical 3096:(we should 2730:North8000: 2688:Binksternet 2348:Itsmejudith 2274:Itsmejudith 2172:, indeed. 1941:There's no 1616:Itsmejudith 1445:Brad DeLong 1415:Bladesmulti 1359:Enric Naval 1097:Enric Naval 939:Anne Delong 906:Anne Delong 774:Itsmejudith 754:startswithj 628:Bladesmulti 600:Bladesmulti 569:Bladesmulti 508:Bladesmulti 475:Bladesmulti 406:Bladesmulti 276:Bladesmulti 222:Bladesmulti 194:Bladesmulti 173:Bladesmulti 128:Bladesmulti 120:Simon Digby 110:Simon Digby 102:Archive 170 94:Archive 166 89:Archive 165 83:Archive 164 77:Archive 163 72:Archive 162 64:Archive 160 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 10447:0203004019 10407:0203004019 10236:Ghassanids 10183:Dougweller 9532:Dan Murphy 9379:Dougweller 9329:It depends 8898:Dock Ellis 8800:sources. – 8790:ad hominem 8727:Dougweller 8700:Dougweller 8258:Paloorkavu 6483:Steeletrap 6325:Srich32977 6198:Steeletrap 6159:Steeletrap 6072:Steeletrap 6022:Steeletrap 5954:Steeletrap 5704:Steeletrap 5588:Steeletrap 4715:Tgeorgescu 4697:Tgeorgescu 4438:Brian Dell 4404:Brian Dell 4111:Brian Dell 4106:accused me 4065:Brian Dell 4060:Alex Jones 4023:Brian Dell 3976:Brian Dell 3947:Brian Dell 3907:Brian Dell 3834:removed it 3820:• Domain: 3812:• Google: 3726:(insource) 3472:. Correct? 3470:WP:NEWSORG 3329:WP:NEWSORG 3240:Steeletrap 2959:Steeletrap 2855:Ben Kovitz 2851:WP:BALASPS 2612:article. 2111:Steeletrap 2060:Steeletrap 1559:Steeletrap 1528:Later note 1336:Dougweller 1287:Dougweller 1247:block user 1217:filter log 1180:block user 1174:filter log 642:Dougweller 529:Dougweller 10498:help page 10494:Bowersock 10481:help page 10158:FolioWonk 10000:quotation 9897:From the 9889:Remember: 9618:From the 9214:potential 8834:this page 8802:Roscelese 8451:Skaramuca 7857:reliable. 7633:Pinkbeast 7606:Pinkbeast 7505:Pinkbeast 7411:Pinkbeast 6991:Bisswajit 6938:SPECIFICO 6874:SPECIFICO 6823:SPECIFICO 6713:SPECIFICO 6685:SPECIFICO 6653:SPECIFICO 6619:Any use? 6582:SPECIFICO 6510:Exactly. 6467:SPECIFICO 6425:Macmillan 6390:SPECIFICO 6304:SPECIFICO 6287:SPECIFICO 6243:SPECIFICO 6096:SPECIFICO 6005:SPECIFICO 5937:SPECIFICO 5800:SPECIFICO 5756:SPECIFICO 5572:SPECIFICO 5541:indicate) 5394:Noteswork 5324:Noteswork 5292:Noteswork 4608:spectacle 3974:strong?-- 3788:• COIBot- 3754:Spamcheck 2807:North8000 2768:North8000 2708:North8000 2597:North8000 2535:North8000 2512:SPECIFICO 2485:North8000 2460:SPECIFICO 2451:North8000 2410:North8000 2364:SPECIFICO 2072:SPECIFICO 2027:SPECIFICO 1979:Yes, see 1949:SPECIFICO 1872:WP:BURDEN 1681:WP:BLPSPS 1459:and at a 1310:Brangifer 1265:Brangifer 1253:block log 1186:block log 1123:Dbrodbeck 1064:Steiger." 744:TheMarker 728:TheMarker 724:TheMarker 720:TheMarker 687:TheMarker 10310:Khabboos 10284:Dezastru 10203:Dezastru 9996:citation 9850:Formerip 9821:Formerip 9792:Formerip 9762:Formerip 9732:Formerip 9609:Abstract 9236:WP:MEDRS 8918:Dezastru 8894:Deadspin 8888:Deadspin 8874:Dezastru 8851:Yambaram 8844:million 8820:Is this 8810:contribs 8798:reliable 8775:Yambaram 8636:Hawkeye7 8601:Hawkeye7 8567:Gaijin42 8510:WP:USERG 8334:Content: 8326:Article: 8227:Josh3580 8202:circular 8131:Drishyam 8041:Dezastru 7985:Dezastru 7902:Dezastru 7865:Dezastru 7811:Flat Out 7795:Gaijin42 7144:Exclaim! 7077:Jamesfx3 7047:Jamesfx3 5835:Gamaliel 5609:Gamaliel 5261:Flat Out 5221:Flat Out 5161:Flat Out 4978:WP:NPOVN 4969:specific 4806:Phaedrus 4618:Flat Out 4587:against 4585:Leopards 4063:yes."?-- 3902:declares 3895:, where 3796:, & 3782:advanced 3694:taken it 3397:WP:UNDUE 3248:contribs 3236:unsigned 3187:Blueboar 3169:Iselilja 3157:Blueboar 3112:Blueboar 3107:theories 2954:opinions 2229:Blueboar 2151:Gamaliel 2017:WP:UNDUE 1981:WP:BLOGS 1897:Gamaliel 1849:Gamaliel 1810:Gamaliel 1701:Gamaliel 1654:Gamaliel 1596:Gamaliel 1504:See diff 1447:blog RS? 1205:contribs 1156:contribs 1041:proposed 994:... and 843:Dezastru 20:‎ | 10453:, ... " 10413:, ... " 10264:SaSH172 10249:to the 10224:(｡◕‿◕｡) 10171:(｡◕‿◕｡) 10077:quotes 10032:Content 10028:Article 9963:claims. 9441:Haaretz 9422:ElKevbo 9276:WP:CLUE 9256:appears 9029:ElKevbo 8995:ElKevbo 8757:Is the 8411:Collect 8318:Source: 8103:KING-TV 8089:piece. 8032:award). 7916:equally 7739:Johnbod 7462:Inayity 7251:Bastard 7182:Bastard 6922:Collect 6331:S. Rich 6310:S. Rich 6048:nor at 5724:as is ' 5699:Crimson 5695:Crimson 5290:Thanks 4974:WP:NORN 4612:per se. 4520:protect 4515:history 3778:tracked 3750:wikt:fr 3746:wikt:en 3209:Ubikwit 3139:Ubikwit 3057:reads: 3026:Ubikwit 2910:Ubikwit 2886:Ubikwit 2284:Ubikwit 2127:S. Rich 2044:S. Rich 2003:S. Rich 1461:WP:BLPN 1385:Johnvr4 1145:Johnvr4 1112:Alexbrn 367:), pp. 185:As per 43:archive 10251:Levant 10030:, and 10024:Source 9974:paper. 9653:Dlv999 9510:Dlv999 9480:Dlv999 9449:Dlv999 9360:Sitush 9261:Sitush 9222:Sitush 9200:Sitush 8963:Sitush 8846:native 8838:Hebrew 8542:SciGal 8528:SciGal 8506:WP:SPS 8490:SciGal 8486:ARGNet 8480:ARGNet 8463:WP:BLP 8426:Langus 8357:Langus 8299:Sitush 7880:Jayron 7835:Jayron 7781:TRPoD 7200:Here's 7117:TRPoD 7031:TRPoD 5697:. The 5448:Jaggee 5443:online 5354:Jaggee 5092:WP:ANI 5075:topic. 4963:, and 4656:Also: 4589:Wolves 4577:Tigers 4565:Romans 4524:delete 4191:should 4083:WP:BLP 4056:signer 4037:WP:BLP 3867:WP:SPA 3814:search 3770:COIBot 3742:simple 3680:Mangoe 3377:Jayron 2642:WP:SPS 2278:WP:IAR 1829:WP:BLP 1778:WP:BLP 1677:WP:SPS 1634:WP:BLP 1630:WP:SPS 1498:There 1091:p. 112 1067:p. 204 926:TRPoD 10123:ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ 9928:guide 9926:This 9881:From 9722:never 9600:From 9397:Yobol 9195:WP:RX 9076:never 9010:WP:RS 8393:Yobol 8291:Gmail 7961:never 7637:WP:OR 7589:WP:OR 7373:There 7365:Moors 7292:Moors 7277:Moors 7105:and " 5492:p. 46 5202:Tiger 5035:: --> 5034:: --> 5033:: --> 5032:: --> 5031:: --> 5030:: --> 4581:Bears 4573:Lions 4569:Arena 4541:views 4533:watch 4529:links 3798:XWiki 3794:Local 3529:that 3466:WP:RS 3415:WP:RS 3216:見学/迷惑 3146:見学/迷惑 3129:iota. 3033:見学/迷惑 2917:見学/迷惑 2893:見学/迷惑 2875:here. 2737:other 2563:Never 2382:IMHO. 2291:見学/迷惑 2090:Never 1943:WP:RS 1891:WP:RS 1868:Never 1490:does 1482:and 1223:WHOIS 161:Well 16:< 10444:ISBN 10404:ISBN 10366:ISBN 10330:talk 10314:talk 10304:Can 10288:talk 10268:talk 10207:talk 10187:talk 10138:talk 10119:βα£α 10113:and 10085:and 10056:talk 10040:talk 9998:and 9945:talk 9854:talk 9840:talk 9825:talk 9811:talk 9796:talk 9781:talk 9766:talk 9752:talk 9736:talk 9701:talk 9686:talk 9672:talk 9657:talk 9640:talk 9583:talk 9569:talk 9552:talk 9536:talk 9514:talk 9499:talk 9484:talk 9470:talk 9453:talk 9445:here 9426:talk 9401:talk 9383:talk 9364:talk 9306:talk 9284:talk 9265:talk 9226:talk 9204:talk 9165:Zero 9147:talk 9120:talk 9106:talk 9088:talk 9060:talk 9033:talk 9018:talk 8999:talk 8967:talk 8951:talk 8922:talk 8906:talk 8878:talk 8855:talk 8806:talk 8779:talk 8745:talk 8731:talk 8704:talk 8658:talk 8640:talk 8621:talk 8605:talk 8597:this 8595:and 8593:this 8571:talk 8546:talk 8532:talk 8518:talk 8512:. -- 8508:and 8494:talk 8471:talk 8467:Joy 8415:talk 8397:talk 8380:talk 8303:talk 8295:here 8254:this 8236:hist 8232:talk 8197:The 8186:talk 8178:here 8174:here 8163:talk 8146:here 8139:here 8137:and 8135:here 8101:and 8070:talk 8045:talk 7989:talk 7971:Fire 7966:Fire 7953:more 7906:talk 7869:talk 7799:talk 7757:talk 7743:talk 7728:talk 7714:talk 7684:talk 7661:talk 7646:talk 7610:talk 7531:talk 7509:talk 7491:talk 7466:talk 7443:talk 7415:talk 7346:talk 7246:Lazy 7234:talk 7177:Lazy 7081:talk 7051:talk 6944:talk 6926:talk 6880:talk 6829:talk 6745:talk 6719:talk 6691:talk 6659:talk 6588:talk 6502:talk 6487:talk 6473:talk 6451:talk 6433:talk 6396:talk 6373:talk 6335:talk 6314:talk 6293:talk 6249:talk 6202:talk 6177:talk 6163:talk 6148:talk 6102:talk 6076:talk 6026:talk 6011:talk 5978:and 5958:talk 5943:talk 5915:talk 5853:p 24 5849:here 5806:talk 5762:talk 5708:talk 5651:); 5645:2008 5641:2010 5634:2012 5616:talk 5592:talk 5578:talk 5452:talk 5439:only 5420:Talk 5410:The5 5398:talk 5384:talk 5380:Moxy 5358:talk 5328:talk 5314:talk 5296:talk 5248:talk 5191:talk 5155:with 5143:talk 5123:talk 5105:talk 5081:talk 5043:talk 5016:talk 4987:talk 4949:talk 4933:talk 4913:talk 4884:talk 4868:talk 4855:talk 4847:talk 4719:talk 4701:talk 4685:talk 4537:logs 4511:talk 4507:edit 4442:talk 4408:talk 4301:talk 4278:here 4265:diff 4263:The 4242:talk 4228:talk 4213:talk 4199:talk 4164:talk 4149:talk 4134:talk 4115:talk 4095:talk 4069:talk 4045:talk 4027:talk 4007:talk 3980:talk 3965:talk 3951:talk 3930:talk 3926:TMCk 3911:talk 3893:here 3875:talk 3871:Ronz 3842:talk 3838:Ronz 3818:meta 3790:Link 3730:meta 3702:talk 3684:talk 3666:talk 3555:talk 3495:talk 3478:talk 3455:talk 3440:talk 3423:talk 3405:talk 3361:talk 3244:talk 3191:talk 3173:talk 3155:To 3116:talk 2963:talk 2859:talk 2813:talk 2774:talk 2732:This 2714:talk 2692:talk 2654:talk 2541:talk 2518:talk 2491:talk 2466:talk 2416:talk 2370:talk 2352:talk 2325:this 2321:here 2233:talk 2178:talk 2158:talk 2131:talk 2115:talk 2100:talk 2078:talk 2048:talk 2033:talk 2007:talk 1989:talk 1971:talk 1955:talk 1904:talk 1881:talk 1856:talk 1837:talk 1817:talk 1794:talk 1782:WP:V 1780:and 1708:talk 1689:talk 1679:and 1661:talk 1642:talk 1620:talk 1603:talk 1563:talk 1434:talk 1419:talk 1389:talk 1334:Yes 1314:talk 1291:talk 1269:talk 1241:http 1235:RBLs 1229:RDNS 1199:talk 1168:logs 1150:talk 1127:talk 1101:talk 990:... 986:... 973:ISBN 958:book 943:talk 910:talk 863:talk 847:talk 778:talk 758:talk 646:talk 632:talk 618:talk 604:talk 589:talk 573:talk 558:talk 533:talk 512:talk 498:talk 479:talk 452:talk 410:talk 389:talk 365:1975 339:here 332:peer 308:talk 280:talk 265:talk 245:talk 226:talk 198:talk 177:talk 132:talk 10026:, 9336:Zad 9241:DES 9184:DES 9012:. 8983:DES 8669:DES 8558:RFC 8346:. 8265:Pam 8252:Is 8153:or 8112:__ 8023:FAQ 8009:__ 7999:FAQ 7939:not 7926:__ 7256:Guy 7228:. 7206:__ 7187:Guy 7171:not 7114:-- 7009:__ 6741:TFD 6498:TFD 6429:TFD 6369:TFD 6173:TFD 6144:TFD 5472:At 4424:__ 4391:__ 4351:__ 4283:__ 3854:__ 3786:RSN 3643:__ 3592:__ 3570:Man 3522:Is 3417:. 3268:. 3205:.-- 3183:not 3098:not 3086:not 2906:.-- 2853:. — 2561:: " 2309:. 2188:not 1983:. 1807:. 1683:. 1492:not 1430:TFD 1339:it. 879:__ 859:TFD 373:177 369:176 363:. ( 239:). 10500:). 10483:). 10438:, 10398:, 10364:. 10332:) 10316:) 10290:) 10270:) 10209:) 10189:) 10140:) 10125:) 10081:; 10058:) 10042:) 9947:) 9939:-- 9901:: 9885:: 9856:) 9842:) 9827:) 9813:) 9798:) 9783:) 9768:) 9754:) 9738:) 9703:) 9688:) 9674:) 9659:) 9642:) 9634:-- 9622:: 9604:: 9585:) 9571:) 9554:) 9538:) 9516:) 9501:) 9486:) 9472:) 9455:) 9447:. 9428:) 9403:) 9385:) 9366:) 9343:68 9267:) 9228:) 9218:as 9206:) 9149:) 9122:) 9108:) 9090:) 9082:. 9062:) 9035:) 9001:) 8969:) 8953:) 8924:) 8908:) 8880:) 8857:) 8812:) 8808:⋅ 8781:) 8747:) 8733:) 8725:. 8706:) 8660:) 8642:) 8623:) 8607:) 8573:) 8548:) 8534:) 8520:) 8496:) 8473:) 8417:) 8399:) 8382:) 8354:-- 8305:) 8212:. 8188:) 8165:) 8072:) 8047:) 7991:) 7908:) 7887:32 7871:) 7842:32 7801:) 7759:) 7745:) 7730:) 7716:) 7686:) 7663:) 7648:) 7612:) 7533:) 7525:. 7511:) 7493:) 7485:. 7468:) 7460:-- 7445:) 7417:) 7348:) 7236:) 7083:) 7053:) 6928:) 6747:) 6504:) 6489:) 6453:) 6435:) 6375:) 6337:) 6316:) 6204:) 6179:) 6165:) 6150:) 6078:) 6056:, 6028:) 5960:) 5917:) 5729:. 5710:) 5594:) 5513:, 5494:.) 5454:) 5424:) 5400:) 5386:) 5360:) 5330:) 5316:) 5298:) 5250:) 5193:) 5145:) 5125:) 5107:) 5096:if 5083:) 5045:) 5018:) 5010:. 4989:) 4951:) 4935:) 4915:) 4886:) 4870:) 4857:) 4721:) 4703:) 4687:) 4583:, 4539:| 4535:| 4531:| 4527:| 4522:| 4518:| 4513:| 4509:| 4444:) 4410:) 4303:) 4244:) 4230:) 4215:) 4201:) 4166:) 4151:) 4136:) 4117:) 4097:) 4071:) 4047:) 4029:) 4009:) 3982:) 3967:) 3953:) 3932:) 3913:) 3877:) 3844:) 3832:I 3824:• 3816:• 3810:de 3808:- 3806:fr 3804:- 3802:en 3792:, 3784:- 3780:- 3772:- 3768:- 3762:gs 3760:• 3756:• 3752:• 3748:- 3744:- 3740:- 3738:fr 3736:- 3734:de 3732:- 3728:- 3723:en 3704:) 3696:. 3686:) 3668:) 3557:) 3497:) 3480:) 3457:) 3442:) 3425:) 3407:) 3384:32 3363:) 3250:) 3246:• 3193:) 3175:) 3165:is 3118:) 2965:) 2904:RS 2861:) 2815:) 2776:) 2716:) 2694:) 2656:) 2543:) 2528:is 2493:) 2476:is 2418:) 2354:) 2235:) 2196:. 2180:) 2133:) 2117:) 2102:) 2050:) 2009:) 1991:) 1973:) 1883:) 1839:) 1796:) 1691:) 1673:is 1644:) 1622:) 1575:. 1565:) 1475:. 1436:) 1421:) 1391:) 1316:) 1293:) 1271:) 1129:) 1103:) 1080:a 1026:, 980:. 945:) 912:) 865:) 849:) 780:) 648:) 634:) 620:) 606:) 591:) 575:) 560:) 535:) 514:) 500:) 481:) 454:) 412:) 391:) 310:) 282:) 267:) 259:. 247:) 228:) 200:) 192:. 179:) 171:. 168:, 134:) 98:→ 68:← 10513:. 10373:. 10328:( 10312:( 10286:( 10266:( 10258:( 10205:( 10185:( 10136:( 10121:( 10105:( 10054:( 10038:( 9943:( 9852:( 9838:( 9823:( 9809:( 9794:( 9779:( 9764:( 9750:( 9734:( 9699:( 9684:( 9670:( 9655:( 9638:( 9581:( 9567:( 9550:( 9534:( 9512:( 9497:( 9482:( 9468:( 9451:( 9424:( 9399:( 9381:( 9362:( 9263:( 9224:( 9202:( 9145:( 9118:( 9104:( 9086:( 9058:( 9031:( 8997:( 8965:( 8949:( 8920:( 8904:( 8876:( 8853:( 8842:7 8804:( 8777:( 8743:( 8729:( 8702:( 8656:( 8638:( 8619:( 8603:( 8569:( 8544:( 8530:( 8516:( 8492:( 8469:( 8434:) 8432:t 8430:( 8413:( 8395:( 8378:( 8365:) 8363:t 8361:( 8301:( 8274:D 8234:/ 8184:( 8161:( 8068:( 8043:( 8029:" 7987:( 7904:( 7867:( 7797:( 7755:( 7741:( 7726:( 7712:( 7682:( 7659:( 7644:( 7608:( 7529:( 7507:( 7489:( 7464:( 7441:( 7413:( 7344:( 7232:( 7222:: 7218:@ 7112:" 7103:" 7079:( 7049:( 6924:( 6912:) 6908:( 6848:) 6844:( 6775:) 6771:( 6743:( 6639:) 6635:( 6560:) 6556:( 6500:( 6485:( 6449:( 6431:( 6371:( 6333:( 6327:: 6323:@ 6312:( 6306:: 6302:@ 6281:: 6277:@ 6268:) 6264:( 6230:) 6226:( 6200:( 6175:( 6161:( 6146:( 6089:: 6085:@ 6074:( 6024:( 5992:) 5988:( 5956:( 5913:( 5897:) 5893:( 5837:: 5833:@ 5793:: 5789:@ 5780:) 5776:( 5739:) 5735:( 5706:( 5675:) 5671:( 5619:) 5613:( 5590:( 5556:) 5552:( 5533:) 5450:( 5416:( 5412:9 5396:( 5382:( 5356:( 5326:( 5312:( 5294:( 5246:( 5189:( 5141:( 5121:( 5103:( 5079:( 5041:( 5014:( 4985:( 4947:( 4931:( 4911:( 4882:( 4866:( 4853:( 4845:( 4717:( 4699:( 4683:( 4543:) 4505:( 4471:c 4466:t 4440:( 4406:( 4377:c 4372:t 4337:c 4332:t 4299:( 4240:( 4226:( 4211:( 4197:( 4162:( 4147:( 4132:( 4113:( 4093:( 4067:( 4043:( 4025:( 4005:( 3978:( 3963:( 3949:( 3928:( 3909:( 3873:( 3840:( 3700:( 3682:( 3664:( 3553:( 3493:( 3476:( 3453:( 3438:( 3421:( 3403:( 3359:( 3282:) 3278:( 3242:( 3189:( 3171:( 3114:( 3103:" 3071:) 3067:( 2961:( 2942:) 2938:( 2857:( 2832:) 2828:( 2811:( 2792:) 2788:( 2772:( 2756:) 2752:( 2712:( 2690:( 2677:) 2673:( 2652:( 2644:. 2599:: 2595:@ 2575:) 2571:( 2539:( 2505:: 2501:@ 2489:( 2453:: 2449:@ 2440:) 2436:( 2414:( 2392:) 2388:( 2350:( 2337:) 2333:( 2231:( 2206:) 2202:( 2176:( 2161:) 2155:( 2129:( 2113:( 2098:( 2087:" 2062:: 2058:@ 2046:( 2005:( 1987:( 1969:( 1907:) 1901:( 1879:( 1859:) 1853:( 1835:( 1820:) 1814:( 1792:( 1771:" 1755:" 1711:) 1705:( 1687:( 1664:) 1658:( 1640:( 1618:( 1606:) 1600:( 1585:) 1581:( 1561:( 1544:) 1540:( 1516:) 1512:( 1432:( 1417:( 1387:( 1312:( 1289:( 1267:( 1255:) 1250:· 1244:· 1238:· 1232:· 1226:· 1220:· 1214:· 1208:· 1202:· 1197:( 1188:) 1183:· 1177:· 1171:· 1165:· 1159:· 1153:· 1148:( 1125:( 1099:( 1030:. 941:( 908:( 861:( 845:( 776:( 760:) 756:( 644:( 630:( 616:( 602:( 587:( 571:( 556:( 531:( 510:( 496:( 477:( 450:( 408:( 387:( 375:. 371:– 306:( 278:( 263:( 243:( 224:( 196:( 175:( 130:( 54:.

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

Knowledge

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 164 - Knowledge

Index