Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 166

8695:, because your question "Where are such series typically reviewed?" is getting to the core of my concerns. Dramabeans has a bunch of facets, but its raison d'etre is something called "recaps". A recap is essentially a summary of a drama episode, with still photos. As Dramabeans does them there's usually also one song per recap (these aren't permanently available, however, unlike the text and photos), and occasionally some actual video is quoted. I've seen recaps older than Dramabeans, and they tended to be really light on text. In contrast, Dramabeans provides lots of detail, and the main writers have similar, and pronounced, styles, some of their locutions having become popular. I've met people who, too busy to actually watch their dramas every episode, rely *primarily* on Dramabeans recaps to follow dramas that interest them. The two main writers, "javabeans" (hence the site name) and "girlfriday", appear to be two women, probably in their 30s, who grew up in America but speak fluent Korean, and grew up on K-dramas. They may live in or near Seattle, as do I, but I haven't to my knowledge met either. I know of no professional qualifications either has as a TV critic except her long experience of K-dramas, and her current ability to make a living from Dramabeans; nor do I know whether, in either case, that ability is supported by a better-paying spouse's job. 9449:

don't know whether they have any from the 1980s or before yet. DramaWiki articles start with a short info section, comparable to the combination of intro and info box in Knowledge articles; then comes a synopsis, generally written short and with attention to avoiding spoilers; then there are usually episode ratings for newer dramas, or more limited ratings info for older ones, there may be a soundtrack listing, and there may be other info. Most of the material at a DramaWiki page is factual and difficult to prove plagiarism of, though I have little doubt, given what I've already found, that DramaWiki is the real source for much of this sort of thing at English Knowledge. I've generally ignored the synopses, because all the dramas I've watched to date are on DVDs, and come with their own teaser synopses; but in fact, the main way people in anglophone countries now experience K-dramas is online streaming, so synopses of this sort are urgently needed, and deserve the care DramaWiki often bestows on them. They are also the easiest things to catch Wikipedians plagiarising. DramaWiki is a sub-site of D-Addicts, whose other main facets are a set of fora, and bittorrent offerings of K-dramas. I assume the latter is illegal, but legal streaming sites advertise on both D-Addicts proper and DramaWiki. Knowledge blacklists links to DramaWiki - so in other words, the

1003:], and describes them as "a non-profit health... agency... including scientific advisors". Unless there is something to make us question this standing, that's enough right there to make the organisation itself, including its website, RS. Unless of course you are arguing that the US Dept of Health is itself not MEDRS, which seems unlikely. It is indeed known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage. I have no idea where you got your information from, but the organisation is headed by a former university professor with numerous publications this field. The NPA is also regularly cited, favourably, in top tier medical and scientific journals and is a chosen partner of various research and public health programs. So the organisation clearly RS. You could have ascertained this yourself with a simple Google search, rather than relying on the erroneous information about the organsation being run out of a garage. And can you explain why citing the NPA raises questions about the reliability of the Eisenhower article, and by extension the reliability of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? 8509:

nothing showing that it's relevant - why should our readers care about what some editor's uncle Al thinks? So we should similarly avoid "Some bloggers object to that episode of The Secret Garden". I'm guessing we can find a few bloggers objecting to pretty much any given tv show in a reasonably internet-wired country. This one is sexist, that one instead threatens traditional values, this one is too violent, that one is instead too boring. Without reliable sources saying these specific objections matter, we're pretty much going by your - one anonymous editor's - opinion that they do. Now I'm not sure if I understand what you write there at the top - are you saying that you are a published author (by a professional publishing house, not just self-published) of a book on the subject of K-dramas? If so, then you're not just an anonymous editor, and we can take your opinion as such - put it up on your blog so we can cite it, and we might well write "Joe Bernstein, author of FooBar's Guide to KDrama, notes objections to some episodes of The Secret Garden due to such-and-such." --

6168:. Say "Al-Jazeera is reporting that the sky is red, while other sources such as the New York Times, the BBC, and Mom's Totally Reliable News Blog, dispute this claim, noting that the sky is actually a sort of yellowish-green color with a bit of a paisley pattern". If you do it that way, you make it clear that there is a dispute, you make a note of the sides of the dispute, you place the reporting of facts in the voice of those that are reporting it, and you leave it to the reader to decide where the Truth lies. This is not necessary where all reliable sources clearly agree; in those cases you can report something in Knowledge's voice. But where there is disagreement, Knowledge does not take a stance, but merely reports the disagreement. Also, this does not apply where FormerIP notes as well: When a normally reliable source is demonstratedly wrong, we don't report it. The issue here is that we haven't demonstrated that Al-Jazeera is wrong here, we've just demonstrated that other sources disagree; it could be that those other sources are wrong. -- 3290:

Sakya tradition believed that Shugden is a harmful demon, ghost, worldly protector, spirit, etc. In light of those sources, as well as numerous well reported statements from the Dalai Lama, and many other notable Tibetan religious leaders which have appeared in the press, you might want to consider rewriting the opening to something more like: "Dorje Shugden is a controversial Tibetan deity or spirit. For over three hundred years while some in the Gelug, and a few in the Sakya tradition, of Tibetan Buddhism have worshipped Dorje Shugden as a Dharma protector, many others in all Tibetan Buddhist traditions consider Dorje Shugden to be either a worldly spirit or a malevolent oath breaking demon." - giving the proper references and citations to those sources of course. That might give a brief summary of the background of the "controversy" which the article is about, without getting too technical or bringing up unfamiliar names and terms in the opening paragraph.

688:

document the report authors' own involvement in the events in question (eg, video secretly recorded by the California Attorney General of ACORN workers engaging in conversations about prostitution). Secondary sources would be conclusions based on having reviewed primary sources (eg, a statement of the California Attorney General concluding that O'Keefe and Giles secretly recorded audio and video at ACORN offices). The portions that might be considered primary sources in certain contexts would be something like (p. 18), "On November 24, 2009, we interviewed Roach in our San Diego office.... We obtained from Roach a digital copy of the documents he recovered." Here the Attorney General's investigators describe their own involvement in collecting information. If someone wanted to write an analysis of investigations into the ACORN affair, this kind of statement would be considered a primary source.

8808:

several registered Wikipedians, and isn't nearly so negative. Both are, by English Knowledge's standards, inadequately sourced. Why the difference? Maybe because I insulted someone's favourite drama; that's obviously bias. Maybe because I objected to a drama; but if praise can stand while objections can't, that's obviously bias. ("Praise?", you ask. Um, documenting awards, for example, is praise; I haven't heard about any Korean equivalent to the Razzies. I don't know, but wouldn't be surprised if authoritative sources in general shied away from criticism, partly for the same reasons many do in the West, but also partly out of East Asian traditions of courtesy; this would, if true, introduce a systemic bias.) Maybe because people who pay attention to specific dramas' pages have a lot of experience dealing with blog-sourced edits, while people who pay attention to

8790:. Soompi is multilingual; I haven't used English Soompi much, since it's mostly below even my evidential standards, but it is where I can get lists of nominees for some earlier awards, and it's where Dramabeans, at least, got started.) I know there are tons of Knowledge pages dealing with Western pop culture, heavily sourced to periodicals whose evidential value I think clearly lower than, say, Dramabeans, but y'all seem to disagree. There are tons of pages (in *English* Knowledge) dealing with East Asian pop culture, heavily sourced to periodicals most of y'all can't even read to evaluate, though some of those are reasonably respectable sources. I now understand why those pages aren't, by and large, sourced to places like Dramabeans and DramaWiki, but I suspect that lack impoverishes English Knowledge to some extent. 1114:

have suffered from unnecessary, unsuccessful or excessive chemical treatments. The activist must do what disinterested experts will not do: investigate the origin, nature, methods and limits of knowledge in Pediculosis and its management. The activist must also seek allies - often the school nurses, occasionally the press, and sometimes (in cases where a child has suffered grievous harm), the lawyers - when there is no mechanism in place to exchange insights, experience and research. With the exception of an occasional accolade for all the hard work that goes into being an activist, I generally find myself resenting the term.... It is the activist's particular challenge to educate the public in spite of the relative indifference to this issue on the part of the professional communities the public turns to for advice.

9877:

subtitles; soundtracks are more often there than not; Dramabeans is clearly encouraged to use images galore; *video stores* in the US get licenses to produce what amount to legal bootleg copies of currently airing dramas; the list goes on. If javabeans, girlfriday, or the DramaWikians want to get up in arms about this plagiarism, I won't object, but I'm not personally all that interested in leading the charge. What takes my breath away is the CONTEMPT shown by years' worth of plagiarism of these two sites, while simultaneously pretending that Knowledge is on a pedestal that would be contaminated if it dealt honourably with them: links to Dramabeans are speedily removed (a search the other day found only two in English Knowledge - though dozens in European Wikipedias), links to DramaWiki barred from getgo.

4962:

there have directed parishes to form committees to advocate the church's position", so it is reliable for a statement that Catholic leaders have campaigned against same-sex marriage. The statement that "Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against same-sex marriage" is clearly true, you just need to search more thoroughly for better sources if you want to include that information, since it is in contention. (And not just Catholic leaders in some parts of the United States; there are sources documenting such efforts by Church leaders in a number of countries.) For information on the US context specifically, you might try searching for reports in catholicnews.com.

5570:"Whatever one believes about the reality of fierce angels or demons, it is clear that the leaders of the Dolgyal Shugden cult have done nothing over the last 30 years but cause trouble.... It has benefited no one except those misguided operatives in the Chinese government who wish to destroy Tibetan Buddhist culture, in order to assimilate systematically deracinated Tibetans into becoming second class Chinese citizens, and thus, through such a policy of crushing the identities and even lives of the 'minority nationality' Tibetans, to secure forever their claim to the vast territories and resources of the Tibetan plateau. But as we have seen all over the world--and as aware persons can attest here in America with our still very much present First Americans...." 4725:

independents, age groups, etc. The figures themselves don't really tell us much. It's the third-party editorial that's probably going to be most valuable. I'm not sure that comparisons to previous Presidents is particular valuable given only one (Gallup from memory) actually covered all of them. The others (non-Gallup) were linear chronological comparisons to favourable/unfavourable polls during and after his presidency. I don't think either of those "statements" is particularly "good" so I don't see the value in fighting over reliable sources (or not) with that as the end goal. Can we come up with a better form of words that doesn't just use Gallup and doesn't quote particular polling figures?

8925:, right after writing the section in the first place, as already noted in the second paragraph of this section. OK, I didn't ask *in Korean Knowledge*, but NB Korean Knowledge has its own "History" section in its own "Korean drama" article, and that has no references at all; it's not obvious to me that Korean Knowledge contains people who'd care about writing in English so as to meet English Knowledge's standards of evidence. Anyway, the reason I'm not a registered Wikipedian is precisely that I don't want to put in the time to, among other things, learn how to "ask around" on Knowledge; these past weeks have taken rather more Knowledge-internal time than I've ever wanted to spend. 969:

that tea tree oil should be avoided because it causes eczema. And it wouldn't matter if Ivermectin led to irreversible lycanthropy, and tea tree oil caused flatulence. It wouldn't be evidence that tea tree oil didn't case flatulence. Comparing tea tree oil to other treatments is utterly irrelevant because this article is about tea tree oil, not about other treatments. If tea tree oil is unsafe, it will still remain unsafe whether some other treatment is more or less safe. And if the medical consensus is that tea tree oil is unsafe, then that will remain the consensus even if the consensus is that some other treatment is even less safe. That is how both Wikpedia and science work.

3324:? The site is set up and the content is written by an anonymous source, it is not peer reviewed by any academic source and it is not known if there is any established academic researcher behind the site and how much valid its content is. If someone argues this ANONYMOUS site should be used than also any other anonymous site can be used. This is all self-created, anonymous content where not even the writer stands up with his name. What is reliable in this? I don’t see any argument to use this site. Established research papers as Dreyfus or von Brück etc should be of prior use for the acticle. Here is a list of academic research which can be used because it meets the criteria for 4776:"substantially" was based on the collective (perhaps paraphrased) interpretation of multiple reliable sources that described the increase in a similar but not identical fashion. If the objection is to the word, which is the part you say changed between revisions, then pick another word. Collect used the term "substantial" whereas reliable sources used the words "significant", "remarkable" and "notable". It doesn't really matter how Collect came to his conclusion or what his specific conclusion was - reliable sources came to the same conclusion and have provided a bunch of different words you could use in place of the one Collect picked. This really isn't a matter for 8111:

extensive family tree. Birth records may be used to source DOB as long as they do not contain any personal information. Same as a death certificate or even the photo of a headstone may be used to source the date of a death. On the other hand, a lot of these supposed primary sources are in fact secondary in nature. Testimony from probate documents and sworn affidavits can also be used if they contain pertinent information. Even if there is no additional sourcing, an actual primary source is not simply excluded because it is primary. It still has pertinent information and using My heritage instead of the actual source...DOES NOT MAKE IT SECONDARY.--

9436:, of which only thirteen concern dramas dated there before 2000. I certainly haven't consulted all of them, but am speaking of those I have.) After the intro there's generally a synopsis or plot summary, often detailed and comprehensively spoiling said plot. Then there's usually either a succinct cast list or a detailed list of characters; the latter often goes with a less substantial synopsis. There are usually, but not always, episode ratings; there may be a soundtrack listing; there may be text about the drama's reception; there may be other stuff. There may or may not be references. (Speaking of which, the latest Wikipedian to edit 1218:

Calling themselves the "National Pediculosis Society" is intended to give themselves a neutral, authoritative image, but their actual activities would be better described as the "National Society for Reducing the Use of Chemical Treatments of Skin Infections". They also appose the use of FDA approved, guideline-recommended treatments, and thus are not a mainstream group. The fact that they are listed on Healthcare.gov is not pertinent. The same website lists the National Alliance for Mental Illness, which receives 90% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry and is a poster child for industry sponsored "patient advocacy groups".

10190:

her father Wi Dae Han (Park Sang Myun) is saved from his debtors by his old friend, Jung Suk (Park Joon Gyu), who had just returned from considerable success in the japanese entertainment industry. Jung Suk, who had harboured a secret love for Mae Ri's dead mother, sets a deal with Dae Han to have Mae Ri marry his son, Jung In (Kim Jae Wook). In her desperate to escape this predicament, Mae Ri begs Moo Kyul to pose as her husband, and finds herself in even more trouble than before when her father proposes a 100-days period in which she has to divide her time equally between Moo Kyl and Jung In, after which he as to decide who to marry.

8557:, for which you do cite material objections because they happen to come from the Seoul YWCA. But I'm more worried that any editor who happens to dislike me can justifiably remove a section of an article that I worked on for some time, not because anything in it is untrue (though bits of it may be, and almost certainly the emphases are distorted by the info I had access to), but because I, personally, happen to be unable to meet your evidential standards for *showing* that it's true. And I'm especially worried that the standard by which one thing I wrote was cut, while another, so far, survives, seems to be essentially biased. 2982:

are often competing against each other. Much of the criticism comes from his competition, or people seen to gain some advantage by publicly criticizing him. PETA leaps on cases like this, so I'm surprised they haven't done so. Another thought is what damage has anyone actually shown? It seems like its a sharp disagreement in training styles. Meanwhile he's getting praised again and again for doing exactly what he claims to do, and his critics saying he's doing wrong in some way. This feels like a case where a few sentences … not everyone agrees with his methods … would suffice. And I think that would go on both articles.

2910:

which they warned against the dog training techniques used by Cesar Milan: "The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour." It's been suggested at the talk page that the organisations may not know that their names are being used, ie that the "joint press release" wasn't actually what it claimed to be. I see no reason to think that the website is not telling the truth about this. However, it's hard to find publicity for it in the media. However, I've only found

9628:

billionaire's heir would have; all these efforts are for the day he meets his birth father. But one day, Seok-bong is diagnosed with testicular cancer, which only has a 50 percent survival rate. Seok-bong doesn't have enough money for treatments, and finds it absolutely ridiculous that a billionaire's heir would die because he has no money. Finding his biological father may be Seok-bong's only hope. So he approaches Lee Shin-mi, the heiress of Ohsung Group and a notorious penny-pincher. Although they get off to a rocky start, with Shin-mi's help, Seok-bong struggles towards his goal of attaining wealth.

9641:

billionaire's heir would have; all these efforts are for the day he meets his birth father. But one day, Seok-bong is diagnosed with breast cancer, which only has a 50 percent survival rate. Seok-bong doesn't have enough money for treatments, and finds it absolutely ridiculous that a billionaire's heir would die because he has no money. Finding his biological father may be Seok-bong's only hope. So he approaches Lee Shin-mi, the heiress of Ohsung Group and a notorious penny-pincher. Although they get off to a rocky start, with Shin-mi's help, Seok-bong struggles towards his goal of attaining wealth.

5298:"The Mexican Japanese studied by Chizuko Watanabe shared certain characteristics with the Punjabi Mexicans. Japanese immigration to Mexico was greatest between 1908 (when the Gentlemen's Agreement cut it off to the United States) and The Nikkei (Japanese or half- Japanese born in Mexico), even those children whose parents were both Japanese, all spoke " and also "she studied are not part of any one community. However, Chizuko Watanabe's study of the Japanese in Mexico and Barbara Posadas' studies of the Filipino-Europeans in Chicago do focus on groups comparable to the Punjabi Mexicans" 985:

organization out of her or his garage? The fact that the article by Eisenhower and associates cites anything that the National Pediculosis Association says raises questions about the reliability of the article. (I have not read the Eisenhower article, so I don't know the context in which the statement was made.) Incidentally, a specific statement warning against the use of tea tree oil for treatment of head lice in children seems out of place in the lede of a general article on tea tree oil – but that discussion is not really appropriate for this noticeboard.

8764:

for Korean Knowledge to write an unsourced account, and I came forward for English Knowledge to write one sourced, as it turns out, almost entirely in things English Knowledge specifically rules out. (I've taken the section as it existed two or three days ago and rewritten it to exclude everything "unreliably" sourced. Should I just post the two versions here so you can see what I'm talking about? One is a genuine historical account, however distorted by the availability of evidence; the other is a slapdash collection of factoids.)

409:. The statement being supported is "Throughout history Heart has been labeled as Hard Rock, Folk, Easy Listening, Heavy Metal, and Adult Contemporary, many times demonstrating two or more of these styles on the same album. Their album title Dog And Butterfly was a symbol of their sometimes contradictory styles, with the "Dog" side of the album focusing on hard rock tunes and the "Butterfly" side made up of acoustic folk music". The site has named reviewers, but does not seem to give any information about them, or about the site.-- 378:

were involved in something “we knew nothing about.” Bogart angrily complained to Danny Kaye that members of the Committee for the First Amendment had “sold me out.” The California state legislature determined that the Committee for the First Amendment was a communist front. It was not, since most of its members were non-communist liberals who had been fooled by the communists. Members of the Committee for the First Amendment saw their reputation damaged and had to explain that they were not communists.

5612:

struggle for an autonomous region within China. Shugden is a segment of Tibetan community which follows Dorje Shugden, reportedly a Dharma protector of Sakya Gelug tradition. But it has not been recognized by the Dalai Lama and had been socially boycotted. Dalai Lama had issued an explicit ban order on this section of practitioners in 1996, stating that they do not comply with the principles of Buddhism. Dorje Shugden practitioners have also been stripped off voting rights, which other Tibetans enjoy.

9575:) of an actual attempt to stop the plagiarism: Decltype, a Wikipedian in good standing, almost instantly got into an edit war with XChampagne, explicitly because of the copyright violation, and won it after two rounds; there's no further record of XChampagne, whose activity seems to have been confined to this article. However, Darkpiggy put this synopsis back on 22 May 2010. Darkpiggy's activity was confined to two days, and concerned this article and the article about its titular lead, 35: 3828:

thing, but historians say another thing". Unfortunately, because this subject is not a significant part of political history, the only political historians who have discussed it in any detail are the very few who oppose the theory on grounds of political history, and the overwhelming majority who (probably) see the theory as something for literary historians to decide amongst themselves have not touched it. This makes it very hard for me to discuss with Dwy, who

9656:, whose DVD title is the same. This is the twenty-ninth drama I watched; although both main writers for Dramabeans castigated the sexual assault scenes as harshly as I could wish, they ended up giving the show favourable ratings over all, despite seeing its flaws clearly; I hated enough aspects of the show (not just the sexual assaults) that saying I hated the show over all is fair. This is the other case in which I've found an attempt to stop the plagiarism. 9424:

invested enough in DramaWiki to want to learn how to zap all the plagiarisms, especially since that would put the onus on me to write new synopses of these dramas I've watched, and my preferred style for such is more like DramaWiki's than Knowledge's. My point here isn't about plagiarism, although I certainly think it needs dealing with, but about the dynamics I see as resulting from Knowledge's stance on verifiability. Just to start with: I found

9076:

note that the current K-drama in question, at English Knowledge, plagiarises Dramabeans, the very site whose reliability I've been defending. (And for whom I'm not a sock puppet: they *like* the episodes that're boring me!) Evidence way up above, just below the note on plagiarism from DramaWiki. The editor who originally perpetrated this plagiarism has been banned, so I'm not blaming anyone here now, or even the editor who killed "Controversy" in

4708:

restoring the pollingreport.com citation along with a citation of a Gallup article that was published too early to possibly be a reliable source as well as a citation of a USA Today article citing Gallup that reported positive ratings of Bush had increased only from 17% - 25% and that concluded "Americans still rate George W. Bush among the worst presidents, though their views have become more positive in the three years since he left office".

5133:

located in the fashionable suburb of Pedregal, soon enrolled over 1,000 students from kindergarten through secondary school and became one of the most prestigious schools in the nation. Both Mexican and Nikkei-jin students attended the school, along with the children of Japanese diplomats and business owners residing in Mexico. Fieldwork by Chizuko Watanabe concludes that Japanese parents sent their children to the school to "main-"

4744:

summaries and comments posted here, the editor who made the reversion appears to be misreading the source that is being restored. So I'm not trying to include the figures in the Knowledge article; I am trying to confirm whether the editor has read the source correctly. If the editor has in fact misread the source, the editor's opinion on whether the source is reliable for the statement that is being challenged is invalid.

6261: 3890:

history, he's a historian. In my opinion this is the same for the two scholars I mention. The problem is that another user is insisting that they are "not real historians". I'm not concerned with being allowed report what the scholars say anymore (I won that debate), but with whether we should have to say "this theory is rejected by historians", or whether we can just work with the fact that, since literary historians

7787:

books - that are the same as the books found on Google Books or archive.org. Those should be considered reliable sources. The remainder of the records on the site are indexes of primary sources. Although not primary sources themselves, the method of index creation often leaves a lot to be desired, so the indexes should not be considered reliable. Any family trees found on the site are user-contributed, so they fail

5906:. There's no question Al Jazeera has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control and that we should consider it a reliable source. But it's not unheard of for reliable sources to disagree, even over the facts. When that happens, we do not decide the controversy and we do not decide the truth. We simply report the disagreement in proportion to the support each side has in the relevant sources. 1603:

Security Agency was watching. I would suggest it seems unreasonable that if anyone was concerned about the intentions of German leadership that they would only watch Merkel and not her aides, not other prominent officials, not heads of ministries or even local government officials." That is very different from the specific claim that Bild is making, namely that 300+ officials are being monitored including

8023:. My comparison might not be accurate, but i see the site's positive uses to finding reliable sources, much like one can use Google Books. However not everything at either of these cites can or should be used as sources, and just like we don't use a Google Book search as an actual reference, neither should we use this cite. Instead directly attribute to the underlying source and reference that. 6766: 8399:, because I'm hoping it'll have formatted information I can use in related projects not on, or meant for, Knowledge. So in other words, the information exists - the self-published up-to-1964 work is patently based on research the authors probably didn't do themselves - and exists in what Knowledge would apparently consider reliable sources, but isn't available in English-language sources. 5628:

political statement, when they call Shugden, NKT etc. a cult? This video is the political statement, since it is used everywhere in Shugden propaganda. A staged confrontation by a guy dressed as a monk, and wrongly translated subtitles is not evidence of discrimination against Shugden practitioners, especially since there are NO SHUGDEN practitioners in India, except Chinese employees.

1403:") PUBMED secondary source review articles that establishes toxicity and safety data for Tea Tree Oil. Tea tree Oil specific material from other major tertiary sources with recent citations (EU Commission, NIH, Australian RDIC, ACS ) also help establish guidelines for safety. Any comments on these papers would be appreciated. I have the full articles available if anyone would like them. 1031:

HHS medical scientists on medical claims made by any of the organizations. Unless you are arguing that medical scientists at the US Department of Health and Human Services also endorse medical claims made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Farm Animal Rights Movement, and the North American Vegetarian Society, all of which are on that same list on HHS's website.

6257: 8407: 7159:, the centerpiece of which is what Dr. Brown calls "The Pandeist Theorem." He therein sets forth a proposition that of all extant theological models, Pandeism is the one best supported by physics, and he goes on to comment as to how Pandeism compares to other theological models (or specific religions) in light of principles of physics. In addressing this issue 6767:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QQPQnCwBdJ8C&pg=PT283&lpg=PT283&dq=john+collins+1869+steward+%26+barkeeper%27s+manual&source=bl&ots=u5PqmcKf-a&sig=D5YF_xzUurC2__9GuFYLTeK6j0A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g0d4UrmPK6rS0QXptIGQBA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=john%20collins%201869%20steward%20%26%20barkeeper%27s%20manual&f=false

1092:

academy recommends treatment with a cream rinse, sold commercially as Nix, which contains permethrin. The nursing journal article said those recommendations had been vigorously contested over the last year by members of the National Pediculosis Association, which opposes chemical treatments in favor of the use of special combs to find and remove nits.

9029:- Even though the article on the Korean Knowledge lacks references, I'm confident somebody there will know where to find reliable sources in Korean. Some people who are on the Korean Knowledge also write for the English Knowledge and they are aware of the sourcing here. If anything, your questions may result in the Korean article getting sources. 7852: 1395:* Hello, I agree with you about the NPA. Though I feel the information from the CPS.ca about toxicity data on Tea Tree Oil being unknown is a bit out of date (citations from 1999 and 2003, Tea Tree Oil has been more extensively studied in the last 10 year). Per WP:MEDRS, I'm currently using currently using the gold standard in the form of a 2006 ( 5202:

se necesitan investigaciones originales para extraer el contenido. Cobertura significativa es más que trivial pero puede ser menos que exclusiva. Esta cobertura tiene que proporcionar suficiente información para escribir un artículo verificable, aunque sea breve." I also just found out the campus is a work of art of a famous Mexican architect...

5396:

useful anyway. Then, if the article really is deleted, you can come back to the subject six months later and try again. The Wikicontext will be different, your sources will be better, and the topic will look more notable because there are better articles about it in other languages. Don't know if that helps -- it's just a friendly suggestion :)

767:. After all, the use of this substance as a treatment isn't exactly mainstream. Notable enough, but requiring an unambiguous statement saying that it's dangerous bollocks as far as the medical establishment is concerned. Just saying that it is used but not recommended gives undue weight to what is really a psuedo-scientific fringe treatment. 8414:

nobody's stepping forward. The little concern is that an issue that taints not only a drama, but because of similar issues with other dramas and the praise the first drama received, the whole industry, apparently can't be addressed on Knowledge. (Unless there's Korean feminist scholarship on the subject and I just don't know about it.)

7522:

could be cited without a link. But if there is no transcript or other written documentation of the content of the remarks, then the link to the video becomes the only source for this primary information. (And it isn't a convenience link, as I erroneously wrote, since the site is published by the Parliament, not by a secondary provider.)

3284:

appears to be to one written by a keen devotee simply trying to show the practice he believes in in the best light he can. Anyway, I think you're right in thinking that the site www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org is not a neutral academic source. So on that basis, my own view is that you would be justified in reverting the edit by TruthSayer.

7204:. I have pointed out that physicists do, as it happens, comment on the viability of theological models in light of scientific knowledge, and TippyGoomba propsed bringing the discussion here. And so I propose it to be proper to reference to a self-published work inasmuch as Dr. Brown therein discusses this theological model within the 8314:"Some Western viewers object strongly to scenes in which Kim Joo-won's sexual assaults on Gil Ra-im are portrayed as romantic, and received by her as such. As usual in discussions of media portrayals of sexual assault, other viewers object to these objections; some offer explanations involving traditional Korean gender politics." 4622:. I'm not sure what you're after here. Each of those sources is reliable and the Pollingreport source that repeats their raw polling data is a reliable source for that raw polling data. I think you know what I meant about "interpretation" with regard to raw data provided in secondary sources - I'm not suggesting editors conduct 2229: 5753:

politicised figure, highly compromised by the legal ambiguities that surround the practices he endorsed. He has no medical background or credentials that might allow him to objectively assess the impact of waterboarding on a person, and he certainly has no scholarly track record as an authority on ethical behaviour. --

7896:. Records found in the Birth, Marriage, Death, & Other; Military; and Land, Court, & Probate categories are indexes of primary records. Those in the Biography & History and Geography & Reference categories are digitized books, such as those shown above, and those found on archive.org and Google Books. 2187: 1678: 8566:(Off to Dramabeans to check whether the book really is self-pub, and what do you know? They have a set of twelve outside links on their front page, two of which are to DramaWiki, the site I already mentioned, and to Outside Seoul, the thoughtful but I thought obscure blog which was the other thing I cited re 6942:

rationale for that, or else it is a personal opinion which we can swing through every ref used in every article. Unreliable according to who? We must prove RS, but we must also have a criteria for not RS. I mean "quick look at google preview" translates as "it seems against my politics and I do not like it:"

8296:. A few months ago I used all the sources I could find to compile a sort of history of K-dramas, realised it was too much for the log, and adapted it into a "History" section for the article "Korean drama", which is over a third of the article's total length. (Compare my work on a comparable section for " 7881: 10198:

contributed a new synopsis, and actually a half-decent one. That synopsis then evolved until 13 Aug 2011, when an anonymous editor "changed the Synopsis and Description to the correct Synopsis and Description" (!), in the process messing up the whole article. That's the source of the renewed plagiarism.

825:

disagrees is whether enough evidence has been gathered to indicate it is as safe as current drugs. I think the issue here is Alex is operating on a belief it is pseudo science instead of looking for reviews on clinical trials. Luckly, I just got my VPN up, so i can get through the science direct paywall.

8723:

is recent.) I don't know much about this quarterly but assume it would pass English Knowledge's muster. The other is Dramabeans, where each recap usually includes comments by the recapper at the end, and the final one usually includes an extensive evaluation of the drama as a whole by each recapper

8317:

The section was promptly removed, ostensibly because its only support was blogs. I responded by creating a section in the talk page about it. (There I speculate that there may be more authoritative sources in Korean, but the specific one I hypothesise has not, in fact, said anything on the subject,

8221:

Soldiers, Saints, and Scallywags, David Gore, 2009, chapter A Mild Deception, pp 72-79, gives details to the discredit of my great-great-great grandfather, who appears to have invented aristocratic connections for his family and purchased both unrelated portraits (of people with the same surname) and

7923:

In the above examples, it would make sense to cite the original source rather than FamilyTreeLegends. When someone uses Google or Google Books they are not putting the search as the source, they put the original source. I have no issue with using this company if it leads to a source but i don't think

7806:

I'm trying to see if this is mostly being used to support BLP names and date of births, which sure seems likes it's misusing primary sources, or if there is valid uses that it is also accomplishing. If the site is using reliable sources, then those are the reliable sources we should be citing, not an

6960:

Jackson and Poole are established academics in their respective fields. And not one word by ShawntheGod actually even attempts to make an academic charge against what is so Un RS about it. Now that makes it a personal opinion. Or is the work of any and all Afrocentrics now banned by Knowledge on Face

6608:

claims that " All lap times published in fastestlaps.com originate from trusted sources - car magazines, automotive TV shows etc.", but I don't see that actually done in practice, it looks like anonymous site members can generally add what they like. Crownvic.net seems to be entirely a bulletin board

6121:

Heicth, I suggest you find a couple of highly reputable sources that contradict the Al Jazeera claims you believe are false, and add those to the article for balance. If they really are more reputable, they can be given greater primacy, e.g. "There are an estimated 400,000 Shugden worshippers, though

5627:

The murders of 3 people by Shugden cultists are from 1997. The video is from 2008. There is no excuse omitting this most famous aspect of Shugden. Thurman is a Gelug specialist. Accusing him of making a political statement is rubbish. Are you going to accuse other scholars like Kapstein as making a

5450:

Seems like a source you could list on the WikiProject page if other members of the project don't object. The only potential problem is that they solicit user-generated content for use in their site directory, forums, and perhaps elsewhere, and explicitly encourage their readers to use these pages for

5201:

One thing interesting is that the Wikipedian said that the sources I showed did not show significant coverage. When I put the Spanish quote in Google translate, it sounds very similar to the English one: "«Cobertura significativa» significa que las fuentes tratan el tema directamente en detalle, y no

5186:

Spanish Knowledge will have its own rules, but this would definitely be a reliable source in English language Knowledge. A scholarly book is a scholarly book. If it originates from a masters' thesis that just shows that the thesis must have been exceptional and worth publishing. The school would meet

5132:

Text: "When the Liceo Mexicano Japonés (Mexican Japanese School) opened in the late 1970s, after more than a decade of organizational activity, it marked the culmination of the Japanese community's efforts in Mexico City to centralize its educational facilities in one well-funded setting. The school,

4904:

because he can't be arsed to do it himself. The article and its sources are very clear about the large sums of money that the church donated to anti-marriage campaigns, their lobbying against hiring discrimination laws, etc. I have pointed out repeatedly on the article talk page that this material is

4754:

If you'd like help rewrite the article, feel free to join the discussion on the article's Talk page. A number of us have not felt the current wording is particularly good, but it was hammered out after months of discussion and edit-warring a year ago, and as much as any of us have disliked it, it was

4688:

I don't understand why that matters. Is someone trying to insert those figures into the article? You wanted to know if it was a reliable source for the statement, "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office". I'm saying it might be but it doesn't matter

1629:

As a practicing journalist, I would warn against any blanket assumptions or accusations when it comes to the reliability of a published source. Some are better, some worse, nobody is perfect. The famed “editorial control” more and more becomes a matter of mythology. When newspapers have to save – and

542:

The instances I've seen it included so far have been fair use. However, I should mention that publishers (in this case, Spin Media) are not the same as the writers. One writer I've frequently seen used from there is Sam Lansky, who seems to be a pretty honest writer. For all we know, however, another

377:

bylines, party application forms, and membership card numbers. Lauren Bacall said that when the Committee for the First Amendment flew to Washington “We didn’t realize until much later that we were being used to some degree by the Unfriendly Ten. As a result, Bacall and her fellow committee members

117:

is a news website for mainly metal and hardcore bands, and has been used used on some articles as a reference for information. It posts news regularly although author names are hidden. I've looked for information about who runs the site and who's its authors are but I have found nothing. I personally

10228:

Hi, Joe. Unfortunately, we do tend to have repeated issues with copying in television and film related articles where people copy synopses and other material from official or other sources. :/ While fans tend to put these back repeatedly, we do what we can to remove them when they are identified and

9586:

Ma Hye Ri is a woman with an excellent memory and ability to focus, which allowed her to pass the bar exam with ease. Despite her talents, she is more interested in being fashionable and dislikes hard work so she is far from being an ideal prosecutor and has doubts about her suitability for her job.

9075:

OK, against my better judgement, I've gone and done that, both places. (The K-drama I'm currently watching is boring enough so far to make me welcome such distractions.) I've also included pointers to this page. We'll see if anything results. Meanwhile, since I'm posting here at the bottom, I'll

8807:

Separately, I stand by my claim that there's a bias in the relative survival of the two sections I wrote. One came down in days, and happens to document a disreputable aspect of K-dramas. The other has lasted for months (it's *still* up, even after this), has gotten various kinds of attention from

8338:

It gets worse, though. It now appears that well over 50% of the content of the "History" section of "Korean drama" is also due for removal for lack of reliable sources. ("State income tax" is not comparably vulnerable.) Since the section consists of fifteen paragraphs, I'm not going to go over it

8222:

space in books of the time to substantiate the connections. The author seems to have done his homework in this and other historical matters, and the book is recommended by the Guild of one-name studies (of perhaps rather humble academic status, certainly not a certified peer-reviewed publication) at

8163:

is extensively sourced to Rootsweb. The problem is that we do not know if the records in that source relate to the subject of the article. A judgment was made that Richard Tylman, yeoman, who is mentioned in a license issued by the magistrates is the same person as the subject of the article, even

8065:

be used. I feel just as strongly about that as others. But some of the "records" are not actually records - they're historical texts. Please see my (71.139.152.78) comment above where I laid out 3 examples of historical texts hosted at familytreelegends that are without a doubt reliable sources. See

6505:

regarded as a reliable secondary source? The two reviews at the source webpage are evidence that the two albums produced by Café Jacques are covered by a reliable media publisher. This is the means by which I wish to show notability (i.e. the band released two albums with a major record label). I am

5654:

I don't have much sympathy for the Shugden, but Dezastru is right that "the video is reliable for statements saying that Shugden adherents say they have been subject to discrimination." Other evidence from reliable sources should be used to provide balance and alternative viewpoints. And if, as you

5581:

The video says that Shugden adherents say they have been discriminated against, and several of them are interviewed in the video saying as much. The video maker has the prime minister of the Tibetan government in exile read a sign that asks Shugden worshippers not to enter a shop; the prime minister

5405:

Thank you for the suggestion! I've edited both the English and Spanish versions at the same time so both have the relevant information. He said he has access to the Mexico Journal article and Watanabe's thesis, but when I asked him to e-mail me a full copy of the Mexico Journal article, he said that

4961:

The cited NPR article does not mention cardinals, so it is not reliable for any statement about cardinals per se. However, the source does say that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex marriage in other states. In Minnesota, where it's also on the ballot this fall, bishops

4724:

Sure, but that's different again to the "26% to 49%" figures you're demanding reliable sources for. I, personally, don't think we should be quoting figures at all. What's the point? The "results" are actually a massive group of figures and even within those there are categories of registered voters,

3289:

However while you are at it, I'm sure you are also familiar with several other very good secondary sources (Drefyus, Lopez, Bell, Kay, Watts, and so on) where they relate various independent accounts, as well as historical and contemporary research showing that many in the Gelug and particularly the

3188:

that the sources AcuteInsight has cited for her/his statement are not reliable by Knowledge standards. AcuteInsight's unsupported opinion that they are "quite substantial" is an insufficient rebuttal. If the book AcuteInsight refers to should turn out to contain a statement in support, it can then

3150:

The amount of information supporting the “failed attempt” statement is quite substantial, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. I’m confident that there are still many more sources of books, periodicals, information, etc. to be tapped. My next move is to contact all the sources in an effort to

2998:

In this case though the criticism isn't coming mainly from competitors or individuals, although some is. I've just noticed that content critical of him has been removed because it discusses his TV show and we have a separate article on that, so the controversy section is certainly being 'distilled'.

1442:

and also a Jat. I can't find out much about them in terms of their academic expertise as historians and worry greatly that they're promoting the deeds of the Jat people, as is common among caste-affiliated "pseudo-histories". The book itself barely registers as a citation on GBooks (and then only in

1069:

Since then, she has been trying to de-stigmatize lice, and to get people to behave rationally when they find them. Her group sells a $ 14.95 comb, which she believes is the only thing that will stop an infestation: picking out the eggs, or nits, one by one. She warns that many pesticide shampoos are

1030:

That's just a listing of non-profit organizations interested in helping people with health concerns – through support groups, advocacy for patient issues before government bodies and medical professional organizations, fundraising for medical research, education, etc. It's not a stamp of approval by

984:

I don't see any evidence that the National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments. Is it known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the

10189:

Wi Mae Ri (Moon Geun Young) is a cheerful, pragmatic daughter of an failed businessman who had grown used to being constantly on the move to escape debtors. She becomes fast friends with the free-spirited indie singer Kang Moo Kyul (Jang Geun Suk) when she nearly ran him over with a car. Meanwhile,

9986:

Um. I apologise to the extent that you think I accused you, personally, of hostility to me, personally; I think it's quite obvious that you're trying hard to be helpful to me, albeit to a version of me that, well, doesn't exist. In particular, how do you write a "sourced" synopsis? To the extent

9864:

Now, neither Knowledge nor DramaWiki *started* with this synopsis. I don't have an exact quote available of the DramaWiki one, but both sites started out with very similar synopses. The first edit to the article at each site involved a separate line, reading "credit to dramabeans". At DramaWiki,

9640:

Choi Seok-bong believes he is the son of a billionaire, from a one-night stand with his mother. The problem is, his father doesn't know the existence of his son, nor does Seok-bong know who his father is. While working as a bellboy at a luxury hotel, Seok-bong practices at the qualities he thinks a

9627:

9453:

way Knowledge encourages people to cite DramaWiki is by stealing! - and I don't know whether this is because D-Addicts' bittorrent offering is against the law or because of some specific misbehaviour. DramaWiki's info pages do not link to pages offering downloads, at D-Addicts or elsewhere, unlike

9205:

The only person who seems to have been active in the past year at the ko embassy talk page knows French but not English, so I posted in both languages there. Then I wondered, what if French Knowledge has a sourced discussion of K-dramas' history? So I went and looked. Well, it doesn't, but of 13

8781:

I think ruling out blogs, wikis, theses, enthusiast pages, etc. makes it unreasonably difficult to deal with this particular element of global pop culture, one which has been reasonably successful internationally, and one whose creators interact copiously with self-appointed, self-published fans at

8490:

is one of the most important dramas in the history of K-drama. It is not an accident that it is (at least as far as I know) the earliest drama available on English-subtitled DVD. Its continued absence from Knowledge after over six years, while Knowledge covers literally hundreds of less important

8334:

critiquing itself, but not, as marketers do, quote its reviews of actual dramas. Um. Dramabeans is more or less a blog, certainly a self-published work at least as regards the two main writers, and one of the main sites in English on K-dramas. It's one of the two blogs I cited, the other being a

8125:

The main issue here is the notability of the figure and whether they are a living person. Primary sources of someone from 100 years ago is a different animal. I used to be slightly envious of people with famous ancestors...now I am envious of people with good paper trails. Just remember that if you

7981:

This is actually directing me to My Heritage.com. This site is exactly like Ancestry.com and is all user generated content. The site itself is not RS and I can see no logical reasoning to use the site as a source when the references used to document genealogy there would be like finding a reference

7304:

is one example of how someone can become a recognized expert in both fields (and at their intersection). That's an extreme example, but I just don't see any particular theological or interdisciplinary expertise demonstrated on Brown's CV, so I would not consider Brown's self-published work in this

7240:

But is he not a reliable source as to physics? Or as to a point of physics which happens to have ramifications for theological claims? By comparison we don't so far as I have heard exclude, for example, geologists from commenting that creationist claims are unsupported simply because the geologists

7225:

Since Brown has not published in reliable (e.g. peer-reviewed academic) publications in the field of philosophy/theology, he isn't a reliable source in his own right as it relates to this the Pandeism article. Based on the foregoing, it's also IMO dubious whether he's an "established expert" in the

5736:

The lead of the waterboarding article says waterboarding is torture. This source says waterboarding is not torture. Is John A. Rizzo a "high quality" source that can be used to restart the debate (which has recurred many times) on whether a less definitive statement like "waterboarding is generally

5674:

I'll also echo was other editors said previously: if there are elements of the film that are demonstrably false, then they shouldn't be included. Thurman's piece might disprove or at least qualify some of the aspects of the film, but he can't disprove the fact that Shugden followers claim they face

5611:

The Tibetan community is divided over Dorje Shugden controversy, evidently in recent days, as local police station has received an unnamed parcel from Singapore bearing the sender's name as Shugden, which contained a DVD and a letter questioning the role of Dalai Lama and the deities in the Tibetan

4707:

It matters because when an actual attempt was made to use a better source, such as you suggested above, and to revise the statement in the article to the more neutral "as with most former presidents, his approval rating among the public has improved since he left office", the changes were reverted,

3974:

It is not very nice of Hijiri 88 to open a discussion here with such a one-sided description of the case, especially when he did not give me any notification or a chance to present my side of story. I am tempted to contradict every point Hijiri 88 made, but it would not be very constructive. So I

3951:

If your doctoral thesis was written as a historical analysis of an 8th-century poet are you still not a historian? (This is Levy: I don't know off the top of my head what Keene wrote his dissertation on. I also don't have him answering questions after a lecture in which some guy asked him if he's a

3920:

It may be relevant to your discussion that to classify our scholars into groups, unless they explicitly do so themselves, is synthesis, which we try to avoid. So I wouldn't even say that "political historians" or "literary historians" take a particular view here, unless these conflicting groups are

3889:

I brought Jesus in because Ehrman is an English-speaking historian who has had people ask him "Are you a literary scholar or are you a historian?" Y'know -- a REAL historian. He basically dismisses this question, saying that if he has a doctorate in the relevant field and teaches history and writes

2981:

I would focus on several sentences then that distill down the most credible criticism, and any effects/responses. The ones that aren't that strong, or didn't go anywhere weaken the case. Part of the issue is that animals don't speak for themselves so everything is filtered through professionals who

2931:

In both the bio and show articles the criticism is heavy handed, basically alleging various things he's done wrong, generally without rebuttal. Meanwhile he's wildly successful so my impression is that the criticism is a bit out of proportion and misleading. It would be better for both articles, to

2210:

request and that the admins wouldn't do it even if he did. Its for that reason that the sources were and should remain removed. If they are reliable then this user must request removal from the blacklist or request whitelisting. Doing neither is not an excuse, for leaving links that are blacklisted

2045:

I'm inclined to think yes, it's RS. It seems to be taken seriously by Turkish historical linguists. The review first cited above is a long discussion of particular entries, often reaching different conclusions, but that's quite normal in etymology :) and the fact that another scholar gave it a full

1217:

The National Pediculosois Society is an advocacy group and not a professional medical society. The fact that they have "scientific advisors" does not change that fact. So do all kinds of fringe organizations like the Fluoroquinolone Research Toxicity Foundation and various anti-psychiatry groups.

968:

Once again, none of this has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of Tea Tree Oil or the reliability of the source provided. It wouldn't matter if we had reliable sources stating that Lindane caused spontaneous human combustion and tea tree oil caused eczema. A reliable source will still say

10197:

Within minutes, Acather96 removed this as a copyright violation not of DramaWiki but of the Blogspot plagiariser. Ultimately VernoWhitney won the resulting edit war the same day. On 15 Mar 2011, Iamtheman03, whose Knowledge history covers about two months interested primarily in things Filipino,

9457:

I've already described Dramabeans recaps, but I left something out: Sometimes the recap of episode one begins with a set of character sketches. Now, I've actually found an example of Knowledge plagiarising Dramabeans for a synopsis, but it's an uphill battle; the other example of plagiarism I've

9448:

most useful sites in my ongoing research on the Korean dramas I watch. DramaWiki, the main site plagiarised in my sample, has articles on over 1200 K-dramas (as well as lots of Japanese dramas and dramas in Chinese), including pretty much every K-drama since 2000 and a fair sample of the 1990s; I

8763:

And that's pretty much my point. People who read Korean have not come forward to produce, for either Korean or English Knowledge, accounts of K-dramas' history that are well-sourced by Knowledge's standards, in the existing, mostly Korean, scholarship on the subject. Instead someone came forward

8622:

Blogs and self-published sources are, basically, unrealiable. That isn't biased but is a long-standing policy. However, some of the sources you are talking about may not be blogs but online arts magazines. For a review of a Korean TV series we're looking for the same kind of sources as for a US TV

8410:, and which cites no sources at all. I obviously don't know much about Korean Knowledge's policies, but what I've observed from the pages on individual dramas is that those are low on text (plot summary, reception, production notes) in general, so this section in the overview page is exceptional. 7481:

As for whether the MP actually did say what the editor who has added this content claims the MP said, I cannot say because the linked page is for what appears to be a 2-hour-long meeting, and I have neither the time nor patience to listen to the whole thing to see whether the MP said what has been

6109:

Knowledge's role is not to establish the truth in any instance, such as here, where Heicth is saying that this particular Al Jazeera piece is inaccurate. That point, that we don't attempt to establish truth, is rather unintuitive, and bears some thinking about. Instead, Knowledge attempts to rally

6078:

Exactly. Knowledge isn't concerned with whether something is true. An oft-cited example is that if Knowledge had been around in Copernicus' day it'd have posited as uncontroversial that the earth was at the center of the universe. What Knowledge is concerned with is how generally reliable a source

5395:

I think you have met a Wikipedian who is staking his life on killing this article. I guess we don't know yet what the result will be. What I have done, if it happens to me, is to create or improve the relevant article on other Wikipedias. If you do this you go on finding relevant sources, which is

5322:

Yes, certainly it does. It doesn't matter how the work set out in life, so long as it now has peer recognition, and this work clearly does. You could use it on the relevant article here, no problem. But you have to understand that we can't make a rule for the Spanish Knowledge. It's the discussion

4565:

Did you actually look at the source that is being discussed? Where specifically in the source is there a "near-doubling" of favorability ratings? I honestly don't know how Collect (or you) is coming up with these numbers. (Note that in an edit summary on reverting a removal of this and two related

4537:

I think so, yes. It's a fairly straight repetition of statistics from a bunch of reliable sources including NBC, CNN, Pew, CBS, Fox, etc. It doesn't editorialise and it provides clear reference points so that others can find the information in question which is what we require of our sources. That

3746:

If anyone else wants to go through every single one of the above articles to find how each reference is being used fine, but if you want help you need to show the exact reference used in each one. I am not going to do that amount of work for you. Sorry. You provided the article and the claims, but

2028:

A statement that a work dealing with etymology follows a particular orthography system does not mean that the etymology content for the entries in the work is valid. Orthography deals with how words are written or spelled, not with the derivation of their meaning, which is what etymology involves.

1984:

Are you fluent in Turkish? Did you translate the passage yourself? Does the line say that the Turkish Language Association has given its blessing on the accuracy of etymology in his dictionary, or just on the spelling of words in his dictionary – or does the line actually say that the words in the

1685:

I personally would also have cited the primary source BamS article itself, not to prove what we don’t have to prove, namely that BamS is correct in saying that the NSA now spies on Germany’s Interior Minister and 300 more high profile people, but to fact-check Reuters’ assertion that BamS reported

1221:

The fact that Tea Tree Oil is a natural substance does not guarantee that it is safe. Indeed, there are many highly toxic drugs used for chemotherapy (taxol, vincristine) that are natural products extracted from plants. If this was a synthetic drug produced by a pharmaceutical company, its minimal

1157:

Anyhow I've found a couple of PUBMED secondary source reviews of trials that I believe are as close to top tier in WP:MEDRS as we can get for Tea Tree Oil. I will also reiterate that MEDRS is need for the portion of the article that include medical treatment, including treatment of lice. Simple RS

254:

says is instantly reliable, and there are probably a few circumstances where even tabloid rags are reliable. Try to use the most reliable source available for each claim, and avoid the use of any questionable claims in a biography. I often use obscure sites for their reviews, but I don't source

9996:

I'm in the process of evaluating everything I do with Knowledge. When Usenet stopped taking up so much of my time, I figured Knowledge might absorb it. What I'm finding is that much about Knowledge - signally, but not only, the issues I'm having with verifiability - is not to my taste. Since I

9880:

I understand that no individual I'm addressing here now is in a position to change that, and to the extent that anyone not specifically interested in K-dramas is still reading, they're not even a tiny bit responsible for it. Except that Knowledge's standards of evidence, which y'all have clearly

9423:

I've watched all or part of thirty K-dramas, of which twenty-four have English Knowledge articles. Six of these plagiarise DramaWiki today, one having replaced its plagiarism of Dramabeans with a plagiarism of DramaWiki, a different one also plagiarising Dramabeans today. As it happens, I'm not

8508:

The problem is that we're trying to avoid the "My uncle Al" effect. (Which name I just made up.) It goes like this: "My uncle Al objects to some episodes of The Secret Garden due to such-and-such." Clearly we shouldn't put that in the article, right? Even though it's true, and verifiable, there's

8413:

So OK, I have a big and a little concern here. The big concern is that two long documents of presumptive merit (well, I certainly think mine has some!) are vulnerable to deletion not because they can't be done well but because they *haven't* been done well *by Knowledge's evidence standards* and

8140:

Last comment....I have to wonder how the majority of these articles are using these sites. The issue becomes when the site itself is used because there is nothing else. Gosh...I wish I could just use the content from My Heritage and Ancestry.com. Think of all the research I could save myself if I

7786:

I know WP editors like to paint an entire website with a single brush, but that's not a very good practice. In the case of familytreelegends.com, whether it's a reliable source depends on which records from the site are being cited. The site has digitized books - reference, history, and geography

7267:

I would say this Dr. Brown, who is an established expert in physics, has some education also in philosophy, and wrote the linked essay about relations between physics and theology, in particular pandeism, could be considered an expert of this sub-field (border field) of links between physics and

5216:

Since one Spanish Wikipedian is for deleting it, and three are for keeping it, it may survive! It would be surprising to see this article deleted. Yes, the fact that the building is by a well known architect should help to make the topic notable. Masterson gives the reason for being interested in

4649:

USAToday (given above) says "notable" for the increase. Would you prefer that term here? I trust the RS nature is not at issue here. Pollingreport lists a change from 26% to 49%, and some other polls (one CBS one, for example) had a low of 19%. Still -- 26 to 49 is "notable" without making any

4518:

Again, the question here is whether Pollingreport.com is a reliable source for the statement "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office". This discussion is not about other sources for that statement. Please quote the content from Pollingreport.com

4239:

Or are we going to use only high-quality independent, reliable sources? In which case the subject may not meet notability criteria, or would have a two-line article like: "Salby is a climate scientist best known for promoting climate-change skepticism. He was fired from his academic post in 2013.

3381:

Having been asked for my opinion, I agree with Chris Fynn. And I would like to emphasise Chris' point that there is another goal here besides reliability, and that is balanced neutrality. The article needs to explain the controversy, and not just rely on one-sided referencing to say "Shugden is a

2894:

is a famous dog trainer but with controversial methods. This has affected the article for years. A section about a campaign against these methods backed by a number of well known organisations such as the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, The World Society for the Protection of Animals, " Association for the

1143:

Another issue I have with the NPA is their TTO source material is dated from 1999 and is a non-peer reviewed letter. There have been about 100 articles about Tea Tree Oil since the 1999 letter. Also the TTO page has a 2009 copyright date and has no date of last review as is common on most medical

1113:

Many of us come naturally to advocacy in our role as parents. The activist in public health, however, can face a peculiar set of problems.... This is where the activist evolves into educator, support system and collector of personal accounts - sometimes appalling - of families and individuals who

10071:

Thanks for the pointer, but: "To get people to stop copypasting from Dramawikis, you add sourced content". What people on Knowledge copy from DramaWiki is (at least) synopses. So I understood this as a suggestion that I (or someone) write sourced synopses. In any event, the record shows that

9876:

My position is becoming clear. I find the K-drama world remarkably casual about intellectual property. It's true that a major illegal streaming site, dramacrazy, was recently shut down, and another may be in trouble too. But there are plenty of entire dramas on YouTube, some even with English

9406:

I think you're mistaking my motivations here. I'm not saying "Oh, I see, English Knowledge is a monolith with consistent standards of evidence, and I'm desperate to get my content to fit those standards". I'm saying "Huh. I'm coming to English Knowledge with the fruits of a community who work

8745:

Mind, as GRuban suggested, there's a *massive* blogosphere around K-dramas, specifically in English (there's yet more in Korean, and some in other languages). Pretty much every time I find that I need to do a lot of searches about a particular drama, I find at least one blog I hadn't previously

8329:

I have since read a fair amount of what Knowledge's policies say about reliable sources. I conclude that although it's clearly insane to object to these blogs as self-published sources per se, given that what I'm trying to support is the existence of "objections", the rider about self-published

8091:

In each of those cases though, FTL is a conduit pointing to sources. The original sources themselves should be cited, not FTL. Meanwhile FTL is being highly abusive of the BLP policies and sharing birth names and birth dates, as well as other personal information that may or may not be accurate,

7521:

Sorry, let me amend my previous post. I was under the impression that there is a written transcript somewhere of the remarks that were made during the proceedings and that the video recording is provided as a second form of documentation. If that were the case, then the transcript of the meeting

6696:

It looks like HometownLocator.com simply scrapes (or licenses?) data from Google and the U.S. Government. I don't see any particular reason why it should be treated as a reliable source. The data should probably be cited from the original source, rather than some middleman. Didn't look at the

5567:

statement made in the video, although it does challenge or contradict several of the claims made by people interviewed in the video or stated by the reporter. Also, while Thurman is a scholar of Buddhism and was ordained as a Buddhist monk, his article is not written as a dispassionate scholarly

2909:

has brought this up on the talk page, asking if it is an organisation known for fact checking, etc. I don't think that's the point here. The edit itself says "In March 2010, various preeminent UK animal welfare, behaviour, training, canine and veterinary organisations issued a joint statement in

2058:

It's possible it is reliable. Much of the evidence being presented here has not been particularly persuasive, however. Do you honestly believe he "knows about 12 languages" (the implication being that he doesn't just know greetings and a few basic travel-related words, but rather has an in-depth

6141:

This is not correct, Fuzzypeg. The role of Knowledge editors can be to establish truth, insofar as Knowledge articles should never include information that is not true and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. If it can be established with reasonable certainty that the figure quoted by Al

5752:

No, John A. Rizzo is not a scholar of any description, but a lawyer for hire. Under the George W. Bush administration he was appointed the Acting General Counsel of the CIA. In his advisory capacity he approved and thereby helped enable the use of torture in CIA interrogation practices. He is a

4981:

It seems clearly true to me as well. I am not sure why there is such resistance to this particular phrase being let in to the article. It is not overly contentious, or dubious. One look at the USCCB's activities under the former president, Cardinal Dolan, is enough to confirm it beyond a doubt.

4775:

but I also wouldn't say it's particular relevant either. You're asking for "evidence" of something that nobody seems to want to introduce into the article (the figures themselves) because someone has used those figures to justify the addition of the word "substantially". It seems clear the word

4213:

The blog's primary problem is that it is specifically "opinion oriented" and specifically implies that "established official IPCC reports are good" and "anyone opposing them is bad." As a result, within any post thereon is unlikely to be any balancing information about the person being written

3827:

I interpret this as meaning that the consensus theory is that Okura was probably born in Baekje, but that we probably shouldn't state this in the article until a new general reference work is published that backs this up explicitly. User:Dwy, however, interprets it as "literary scholars say one

3283:

who is a professor at Williams College and a well regarded Tibetologist, is a much better source than the one the person who changed your edit used. That source www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org is a self published site written by someone who lists no academic or professional affiliation, The site

2293:

It doesn't matter whether reliable or not they have to be whitelisted. Thats up to you. Your the one that caused the links to be removed by refusing point blank to do anything about links being on the blacklist. However even if these are whitelisted its best to see if they are in fact reliable.

762:

I'd make the wording stronger in the lede. Something to the effect of "Despite being of no proven medical value and often causing allergic skin reactions, it is used as a treatment for head lice in children. The National Pediculosis Association strongly recommends not using tea tree oil for the

687:

The California Attorney General's report is primarily a secondary source in this context (although portions of it might be regarded as a primary source). The authors of the report collected and reviewed primary sources (evidence), which they are analyzing and interpreting. Primary sources would

7956:

I di dactually, and I think it's misleading to the reader who sees FamilyTreeLegends as a source when they, much like Google books, is simply the conduit to the real source. The real source should be cited directed, possibly with a link to FTL's image capture. But the source should be honestly

7051:

Makes no difference to RS if outdated, or if republished. Black Classic is a respectable publisher of African American scholars (yes you can have African scholars on Africa). But at least now you are having a discussion about the book, because what you and others where having was not a serious

3823:

political historians based on somewhat non-intuitive readings of ancient texts and one or two of the minor details that are known about him. The theory was defended by several prominent literary historians, and the debate has largely died down since c.1985. Since then, virtually every book and

1892:

I'm the one who created Nshanyan's template in Wiktionary. I do not know anything about his linguistic training, but I can tell from my experience that the dictionary is reliable. I deal a lot with Iranian and Armenian etymologies and often create entries for Turkish words borrowed from these

1676:

I personally would not have used the second source from germanynews.net, not because it is wrong what it says (it basically repeats the Reuters report) but because its headline editor was sloppy, calling it a “Dutch” news report. Bild am Sonntag is not Dutch, it’s Deutsch. Minor quibble. Other

1331:"Essential oils have been widely used in traditional medicine for the eradication of head lice, but because of the variability of their constitution, the effects may not be reproducible... As natural products, they are not required to meet FDA efficacy and safety standards for pharmaceuticals." 1091:

A year after the American Academy of Pediatrics called on schools to end no-nits policies that keep children being treated for head lice out of classes, little has changed except the intensity of the debate, according to an article published yesterday in The American Journal of Nursing.... The

824:

Hello, I see that Alex posted this here without notifying me. I understand that AlexBrn has misrepresented this as pseudo-science. I've done quite a bit of reviews on Pubmed articles, and every experiment where it has been used shows it is effective in killing lice. Where the medical community

8110:

No, sorry IP, but primary sources can be used in a number of instances. You are simply incorrect about that. But thinking that using the My Heritage as a source for ANYTHING is even worse. And I actually understand these sites pretty well as I am a member of almost all of them and have a very

7148:

spells out a history of something more than two dozen publications in peer-reviewed journals in the field of physics, and numerous magazine columns and articles predominately addressed to aspects of information theory. He has, as well, an undergraduate degree in philosophy, though this may be

6941:

Since you arrived you been pushing your agenda. Now RS is not proved by people's personal opinions. or because you do not like Afrocentric authors. Does not work like that. Quick glances and no rationale are actually not how we work on Knowledge. If something is unreliable there needs to be a

4743:

I'm demanding proof because this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If someone is going to revert a change and replace a reliable source with a different source, they need to be able to show that the source they are restoring is reliable. In this case, based on the numbers cited in the edit

3936:

Keene's background is in Japanese literature, so it would be incorrect to call him an historian. But an article about history published in an academic journal is rs, because academic disciplines do not operate in isolation. The issue seems to be however about what weight to assign different

1602:

Snowden is not confirming the specific report in Bild. The quote from Snowden that you linked is: "The question is how reasonable is it to assume that she is the only German official that was monitored, how reasonable is it to believe that she’s the only prominent German face who the National

430:

The site has an "about" page, which lists an editor and staff, but it also consistently describes them as "fans". The presence of an editor may push it into "borderline acceptable" territory. I'm usually pretty lenient when it comes to such sites; I would allow it for reviews, opinions, and

10163:

Argh. I wanted to see if anyone had done what I was supposed to, overnight - gone and zapped the plagiarisms - and found I'd made an egregious mistake. My apologies to Sunuraju in particular, whose 9 Dec 2011 edit did exist but was certainly not the creation either of the article or of the

4750:

Well, that's just the point, isn't it? I can tell you precisely where the 17% - 25% rates are cited from. I'm not the one claiming that a source reported a 26% to 49% increase or a "near doubling". Is it not perfectly reasonable to ask someone who makes such a claim to produce the evidence,

4673:

Again, please state from precisely where in the pollingreport.com page you are getting the 26% to 49% figures. (For example, if you were referring to pollingreport.com data included under the NBC News poll of May 2011, you could say that there were figures of 13% in 1/9-12/2009 and again in

1222:

level of safety and efficacy testing and lack of FDA approval would prevent it from being discussed as a remedy for any disease at Knowledge. If it was mentioned at all, it would be only to state that is no convincing evidence of its safety and efficacy. The same standard should apply here.

640:

I think Sitush is correct in that such a source needs some other reason to be seen as reliable, but the response at my talk page leaves me satisfied with leaving it in at the moment, although a comment on the talk page as well as attributing the statements seems appropriate. Thanks to both.

727:

Another home remedy, tea tree oil, also is not recommended because topical application often leads to local irritation and inflammation, allergic contact eczema, and allergic contact dermatitis as a result of eucalyptol and limonene content (Therapeutic Research Center, 2011). The National

905:

None of which has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of Tea Tree Oil or the reliability of the source provided. It wouldn't matter if Lindane caused spontaneous human combustion, that still wouldn't make Tea Tree Oil any more effective. And it wouldn't matter if Ivermectin led to

5168:) published cites a master's degree thesis, does it make the content acceptable? Does the presence of Watanabe's conclusion increase the topic's notability? Or does the fact that it originates from a master's degree thesis harm the prospects of this quote giving notability to the article? 3711:

I thought I was being as specific as possible by copying the lines in each article that various pages from notafina.de is being used to support. From my assessment they are nothing more than promotional links but I want someone else to investigate. The first article for instance links to

2405:

Blethering Scot, you could have just commented out the URLs instead of removing the sources; that was done before when CBRonline got blacklisted. CBR was a respectable trade magazine when the RS/6000 was still current; it's just unfortunate that its buyer decided to spam WP at one point.

1999:

Yes, I did tranlate the passage on my own. My Turkish is fluent but sometimes I have to check foreign words like "Kılavuz". In this case the passage basically says that the words listed in his dictionary are based on the TDK's orthography. TDK maintains a close relationship with Nisanyan

7477:

to that meeting. (The citation details should be cleaned up to better reflect what the actual source is. Incidentally, it looks like the date provided in the Knowledge articles text contains a typo. The convenience link goes to a recording of what is labeled as a 12 March meeting on the

948:

It appears eczema is a worse result than head lice per that article? I would fer shure have thought "seizures and deaths" were a teeny bit worse than head lice. AFAICT, the major issue is that there is insufficient money to be made to warrant full scale medical studies about "possible

9440:

has inserted a wholly unreferenced section about blogs and streaming sites, linking to several of the latter but none of the former, and has inserted a false alert that the entire article, not just my section or his, "does not cite any references". Response to my postings at last, and

8623:

series. Where are such series typically reviewed? What did those sources say? If you work from that direction, from the sources into Knowledge, you should be fine. Problems typically arise when someone wants to include content and then goes looking for sources to justify that content.

4342:

There certainly must be a better source than tripod.com. The author of the web site does not seem to possess any apparent expertise, but who knows. That's the problem with free web hosting: you never really know who's writing the page. It looks like an enthusiast's home page to me.

9987:

that it isn't a plagiarism, it's original research, pretty much by definition. See, this is an example of what I *was* talking about: verifiability, as defined by Knowledge, operates as an *engine* of hostility, in this case by making pretty much any synopsis vulnerable to deletion.

3812:. The problem is that the article in question is about a poet who is not notable for any impact he had on politics or the like, and whose name gets only a few passing mentions in the historical records of the time. For this reason, virtually no political historians write about him. 6633:

hometownlocator.com is being used in some 1200 pages. Is it reliable? Or is it comparable to the nototriously unreliable fallingrain.com (i.e., do we have any evidence that it uses a better database than fallingrain, or is it one of the many similar websites based on the same poor

2678:

Should never, ever, use a machine translation of a source. Risk of missing subtle nuances in the language and just plain errors in translations. You can also post to an appropriate Wikiproject asking for help with a translation or for a summary of the source if you aren't sure.

2327:

Where is the evidence that anything new on it goes through proper editorial. It does not seem like it. That means anything current on their prior to it becoming like this is probably reliable, however anything published now is dubious. There are far more reliable sites than this

1706:

To sum it up, the reliability or unreliability of BILD, or rather BamS, is not what needs to be weighed. The only fact that needs to be sourced is: Did BamS report that the NSA shifted its focus from the German Chancellor to the rows behind her? And the answer appears to be yes.

10041:"In particular, how do you write a "sourced" synopsis? To the extent that it isn't a plagiarism, it's original research, pretty much by definition.". No it isn't. You don't need independent sources to write plot synopses where the work itself can be consulted as a source. See 6023:

sources are perfectly legitimate, even if you subjectively feel they are hit pieces. If you feel the report is incorrect, then there's little you can do about it but quote a reliable source that disputes it. If you're feeling particularly argumentative, you could tag it with

4406:"Americans' opinions of George W. Bush have improved with the passage of time, and now the public's ratings of the former president tilt positive. Bush left office with decidedly negative favorability ratings as well as approval ratings, so the recovery in his image is notable. 1144:

websites. They also don't list any of their staff or credentials on their website. They also appear to be pushing some sort of Nit Comb for people to buy. Also listing on Heathfinder.gov is no guarantee of medical competence. That index lists everything from social activists (

5582:

says that the sign is perfectly reasonable. A representative of the Parliament says all of the MPs were in agreement on government policy dealing with Shugden. So the video is reliable for statements saying that Shugden adherents say they have been subject to discrimination.

5953: 4004:

p.140 「高木氏は「彼我の歴史や記録を漁ってその真偽を確かめなくてはならない責任」を果たすための適任者として古代史研究者を推している。よって本稿では…」(Mr Takagi suggests that the responsibility of researching their history and ours to verify the facts should appropriately be performed by the scholars of ancient history, and therefore, in this

8724:

who worked on it. Nor is this Dramabeans-centricity limited to me: YA Entertainment, whose 80-odd releases may be an actual majority of *all* Region 1 DVD, English-subtitled K-drama releases, quoted Dramabeans more than any other source in its marketing. As it happens,

5866:

as a source for various claims. I notice several glaring errors, such as the number of Shugden practitioners, not to mention staged purposeful confrontations, slow motion editing to make people seem sinister etc. This is the very definition of a "hit piece". What do you

3835:

My question here is whether scholars like Nakanishi and Keene count as "historians" for our purposes. Both of them have spent over half a century teaching and writing about the history of Japanese literature (the latter wrote a 4,000+page history of Japanese literature in

6118:. Al Jazeera is generally considered fairly reliable as news sources go, but news sources are not generally considered to be as reliable as, say, academic articles printed in reputable peer-reviewed journals, or academic books published by reputable academic publishers. 9214:. Both exist; both call for references; the Korean one explicitly bans blogs, the French one only discourages them. (It also has a detailed guide as to what to do if there are issues with references, but none of the situations discussed is closely similar to that in 7096:

To rework a book by Lane Poole like this was an intriguing idea. It isn't a way to produce a reliable historical source for Knowledge. The original book might be useful as a source for Lane Poole's views, the revised version as a source for Jackson's views; that's it.

572:, an article that has suffered from NPOV problems. I don't find it cited in Google Books or Google Scholar. I'm inclined to remove it as well as other material fact tagged over a year ago, but would like other opinions first. I can't see a justification for using it. 9687:

Bumblelion1018 created a page for another K-drama the next month, and then seems to have vanished. On 1 March 2011, administrator VernoWhitney zapped this synopsis as a copyright violation. An anonymous user added it back on 5 May 2011, and it's stayed ever since.

9428:

plagiarisms going the other way. I was sure there'd be at least one in my sample, but no. DramaWiki, which requires registration of participants (I haven't even been able to notify them of this post, as I have Dramabeans), has not to my knowledge copied Knowledge.

6872:

and I think just by looking through a little of it you can already see it comes off as a questionable source. It does not seem reliable in my opinion due to the fact it has no scholarship and it comes off as questionable too. The source already was deemed unreliable

745:: "A 2012 review of head lice treatment recommended against the use of tea tree oil for children because it could cause skin irritation or allergic reactions, because of contraindications, and because of a lack of knowledge about the oil's safety and effectiveness." 3921:

so named in our sources. Instead, given that there is disagreement, I would name the most useful or eminent names on either side: one should be enough, two at the most. And that's what we probably ought to do in the Jesus case too, I think, whenever that arises ...

7658:

This website, from the "leader in software and services for family history enthusiasts," was recently used as a source to insert alleged birth names, and date of births on a BLP. No other sources I found were reporting this information. I'm told this is covered by

6604:- basically, have reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazines, tv shows) written substantial information about them? Frankly I doubt it, but you might be able to find a few and surprise us. Or as reliable sources for articles? Then, well, I'd have to say no. 890:

No that is Lindane in the XKCD comic. It is the current alternative when lice are resistant to Ivermectin. Side effects of Lindane include : "seizures and deaths have been reported to the FDA in patients who use too much Lindane or after a second treatment with

9462:, follow the link to "Recaps", find the title indicated, and go to the recap for its episode one. Dramabeans doesn't hyperventilate about Knowledge plagiarism as DramaWiki does - well, it has far less reason to - but does have a copyright notice on each page. 6734: 660: 2791:

Thanks all. It turned out that the historian's translation of the Pravda article more or less matched the google translate version. The google translation of the crimea.comments.ua page has been ignored because nobody knows what crimea.comments.ua is exactly.

3095:

reliable (by Knowledge norms) for the statement, "After a failed attempt to persuade Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnation, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani at the Holy Office included her works on a list he submitted to the newly elected Pope John XXIII in 1959"?

5292: 4266:

DeSmogBlog is the creation of a PR executive/PR company. The blog makes no pretense of being an independent news site. They are an advocacy opinion site and tool of its PR executive founder and super-wealthy patron. They are reliable for their own opinion.

3913:

Yes, I see, sorry. Well, literary historians are historians. The name's a giveaway, really. What they might be called in Japanese is not so very persuasive, because we ought to try to give guidance that would work similarly in other contexts on the English

9645:(In case anyone cares: The testicular cancer / breast cancer dispute is endemic in discussions of this drama. All we know for sure is that he's unwilling to identify the cancer site; he frequently denies that it's breast cancer, but could be lying.) 4884:

for people to seek signatures on a petition outside a specific church. It is a major problem when people jump from a very limited source into making general statements. To make a general statement, one needs a reliable source making that statement.

4845:

In some parts of the United States, Catholic bishops "urged their parishes to host a signature drive" for a referendum against same-sex marriage, and an opponent of this measure said that "Catholic leaders have increasingly campaigned against same-sex

4012:

p.5 「関晃、平野邦雄両氏をはじめとする日本古代史研究家が既に否定的に見られた問題について専門外の人間がふれることになるわけで…」(I we will be dealing, despite being non-expert, with a problem on which the scholars of ancient Japanese history, such as Aikra Seki and Kunio Hirano, have already expressed a negative

9454:

the inferior pages at hancinema.net which English Knowledge often links to. Anyway, to get to DramaWiki's page on each drama listed below, go to wiki dot d-addicts dot com slash the title indicated, with the usual substitutions such as _ for space.

9414:

been let stand by Wikipedians in good standing, including the one who zapped my citation of Dramabeans. So either Wikipedians who edit Korean drama articles don't know enough about anglophone resources re K-drama to know that DramaWiki keeps on its

5374:?) so it doesn't count as a secondary reliable source. My counter-argument is that Janett Nathal (author of the article) is an employee of the company and that the company has editorial control, and so since she is the writer, it counts as reliable. 4928:

contending that there's support for your statement that "the church" made donations of "large sums of money" and that such is equivalent to the assertion that "cardinals" and "bishops" "actively campaigned" against specific legislative initiatives?

2709:

What about crimea.comments.ua: is this a reliable source? I can't tell if it's a comment, or article, or what. And why does the google translated text from it look similar to the google translated Pravda paragraph, but different in important ways?

6360:, and other newspapers with a strong arts/film tradition. In the UK, Australia, and Canada, you can sometimes find budgets and box office stats from government sources. And, finally, it never hurts to check specialty magazines/websites, such as 3981:

the term "historians"(史家) was taken from the words of Susumu Nakanishi himself, 「帰化人の推定について史家の意見を仰いだところ「臣」たることに異議があった」(I asked for the opinion of historian on assuming that he was an immigrant, and they raised objection on the basis of his being

9632:

Note the final sentence. The footnotes point to the same article in two places, which does not include any of this text, and which I'm pretty sure doesn't actually back up much of it either, although I haven't read with care to establish that.

7268:

philosophy/theology. As a consequence, I believe he could be cited inside a possible paragraph of the article pertaining to connections between pandeism and science, or similar. Viceversa I agree he cannot be considered an expert about pandeism

8540:

Anyway, is the "My uncle Al" effect then the entire history of K-dramas? No, I'm not a published author on this subject, except, again, self-publication (a few posts on Usenet). As far as I know, nobody in Knowledge has cited my articles in

3824:

scholarly article covering the subject in detail (with one exception) has said either "Okura was born in Baekje" or "Okura was probably born in Baekje". All of these books and articles are written by "literary scholars" and not "historians".

3799:

User:Dwy has been claiming that literary scholars such as Donald Keene and Nakanishi Susumu don't qualify as "historians" because they are "literary scholars" instead. I should clarify that by "historians" Dwy is referring to a Japanese word

3997:, p.263 「憶良帰化人説関係論文の論証過程には、日本古代史専攻者にとって常識と思はれる所知見が無視されてゐる部分があり」(In the arguments in the treatise of Okura Toraijin theory, various knowledge which should be regarded as common sense for the scholars of ancient Japanese history are ignored) 190:

Agreed that it may be reliable enough for some small, simple claims. The site actually looks like it is copying posts, news, etc., from other sources. So it may benefit you to just click the link on each post and go directly to the source.

2227:

No opinion on the reliability of the source, but I figure if I post this here someone might clarify for me (this has been bugging me for years): SNUHRN cites "800 citations", but when I followed the search results to the end it came up as

8381:

6) One footnote tries to cite DramaWiki, the other main site in English about K-dramas, which as a wiki is also unacceptable, but Knowledge blacklists it anyway, for reasons not made remotely clear when editing. (Not this time either.)

9963:. The vast majority of people don't have the time or inclination to read a post that long. If you want to post more detailed analysis you can make a collapsible section that can be opened or closed (I can find the code if you need me to) 9401: 205:

Did not think to search "lambgoat reports" nor did I realise there was a staff page. So it should be classed as reliable? I have no issue with that because it saves me from removing them and finding new reliable sources to replace them.

9908:. I already knew I couldn't cite my own work here; I now know why the pathetic and unreferenced "History" section in "Big 8 (Usenet)" doesn't cite it either. (But hey, at least it doesn't plagiarise it. I should count my blessings.) 3165:

Just got a tip that there is also a reference to Ottaviani's attempt to get Pope Pius XII to sign a condemnations in "Vatican Secret Diplomacy: Joseph P. Hurley and Pope Pius XII by Charles R. Gallagher, Society of Jesus New England

5489: 2004:). The author of the academic response to Nisanyan (the link provided by user Vahagn Petrosyan above) lauded his efforts. Nisanyan's etymological dictionary is also frequently used as a source in Turkish academic circles like here: 728:

Pediculosis Association (1997-2009) also strongly recommends avoiding tea tree oil because pure tea tree oil is contraindicated in neonates, infants, and pregnant women because of a lack of information regarding safety and efficacy.

613:

Blumenfield is an internationally recognized expert on the Na, her subsequent work has been both published and lauded by reliable third parties, and she says in the document that she's summarizing a planned book. I put more detail

4542:

points out, describing a near-doubling of favorability ratings as "substantial" is fairly NPOV. It's not "massive" or "significant" or "incredible" or whatever. So... reliable? Yes. How we describe those sources is another matter.

3879:

Let's leave Jesus out of it :) We can report what these scholars say. It isn't our job to subclassify them. All that really matters is that this topic is relevant to their work, and it clearly is. Does that answer your question?

9955:

the Wikipedias, by contacting people to get them to give you info. To get people to stop copypasting from Dramawikis, you add sourced content that satisfies their desire for information, so they have no need to copy-paste from

9911:

In other words, Knowledge is hostile to pretty much every community I've ever participated in, except the academic and journalistic communities. (The only reason I might have some credibility now on Usenet's history is that I

6376:

is usually your best bet if BOM and The Numbers come up empty. Sometimes useful articles are archived by the Google newspaper archive or in Google Books, but don't get your hopes up. The IMDb is not a reliable source, but it

7016:, at all. I could go on, but I think you understand why I see the source as questionable with extremist views and poor job of fact cheking and having no scholarship. If you feel like "a quick look" isn't enough, then I'm sure 1650:, a close confidant of Merkel. Caitlin Hayden, a security adviser to President Obama, was quoted in the newspaper report as saying, "The US has made clear it gathers intelligence in exactly the same way as any other states." ” 672:. The query is as to whether it is a primary source and not a secondary one, and whether quotes taken from it are usable in the article where they might possibly be taken from a primary document out of full context. Thanks. 8126:

are using genealogy sites to find information of living persons....you must be very careful what you divulge. If you are using the site to find information of someone who dies 100 years ago...there is little chance of that.--

6735:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SYUXAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA97&dq=Steward+%26+Barkeeper+Manual&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TPkdU4r-GqeC2QWpoYDoCQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Steward%20%26%20Barkeeper%20Manual&f=false

5949: 1530:

seems to have a good track record when it comes to reporting on these surveillance disclosures. Its headlines may appear to be sensationalized, but I do not see any attempts to distort or misrepresent the facts. According to

9924:

of the hostility I'm talking about, not because a bunch of individuals, some of whom Knowledge actually has sanctioned, perpetrated plagiarism, but because Knowledge's ivory tower kept the plagiarism undiscovered for years.

9419:

an explicit request to Wikipedians to kill plagiarisms, or they don't care. And anyway, you're reifying me into a good Wikipedian, so it's only fair that I reify Knowledge into a bad organisation, or find out why it isn't.

6987:

The book is not the original version of Poole's outdated work. It's a version published in 1992 in which has been retouched by other authors and was not even published by a scholarly publisher. What type of scholarship does

7728:

Take it to RSN and see if people want it added to the blacklist. That can be done if there is consensus there. I don't mess with the list myself as I'm always afraid of breaking the syntax, but I know how to add a request!

3537:

The work's original German title, Als Jakob erwachte aus dem Schlaf, sah er, daß Gott dagewesen war. Er hat es aber nicht gemerkt (Jacob woke from his sleep and said: Truly the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.

1450:

I'm worried here that we're dealing with crusading amateur historians/caste hagiographers. Can anyone find anything more that might give a general indication of reliability or otherwise for statements of historical fact? -

8335:

much more typical trivial blog, though one that happens to be well written and well thought out and so forth.) Near as I can tell, even the talk section is impermissible, not that I'm going to be the person to delete it.

8833:

to come down, although "my uncle Al" is something of an argument. I don't expect to change Knowledge's standards of evidence. So I don't see a good solution here, but will keep talking until it's clear that there isn't

4943:

Instead of discussing editors, attributing motives to them, and using offensive language, would it not be better to address the question of the reliability of the cited source for the statement it is claimed to support?

8303:

Since I don't read Korean, I promptly posted to the "Korean popular culture" working group's talk page, noting the existence of the section and my disqualification, and inviting corrections. None have been forthcoming.

9407:

together, and English Knowledge scorns that community and doesn't want its fruits. Except by stealing them, which it frequently does. Can this be changed, or defended, or is English Knowledge just irredeemably evil?"

5792:

Is this newspaper reliable? the fact that the article has been primed to say "created with a goal to provide objective information " gives one pause, taglines asserting objectivity are generally signs of the opposite.

2536: 5014:

I didn't think the point of this board was for editors to chime in as to whether they hold a personal belief as to a statement's truth. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the board was about reliable

1633:

Having said that, the fact that BILD (not unlike other media elsewhere) sometimes can have a cavalier attitude towards sourcing should not be used to delete a whole passage from WP. I have checked the deleted passage

9080:; but she's edited the plagiarised article, so she's not entirely innocent, either. Dramabeans is good enough to steal from but not good enough to draw from honourably? An emperor here is looking increasingly nude. 1023:"The National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit" 4840:

The question is about "cardinals and bishops" (not other leaders) themselves "actively campaigning" (not just encouraging others to campaign). It is claimed that the citation gives support only to a statement such

4236:

shitty sources for a BLP). I think you (collectively) have to make a decision about this article: is it going to feature back-and-forth claims from global-warming partisans? Then cite Delingpole, Bolt, and probably

1701:

What is also mildly disconcerting is the fact that there seems to be a low level edit war about this passage, with one of the edit warriors among us. This forum should not be instrumentalized to gain points in edit

1000:

The National Pediculosis Association should be regarded as a reliable source on claims of efficacy or safety of medical treatments because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit

5151:"Chizuko Watanabe. "The Japanese Immigrant Community in Mexico Its History and Present" (M.A. thesis, California State University at Los Angeles, 1983." - Watanabe's master's thesis includes interviews with people. 9733:

Archive.org's 10 Sep 2008 copy shows this material. I imagine you now see why Knowledge relatively rarely plagiarises Dramabeans; I'm pretty sure it isn't for lack of desire, just for lack of convenient brevity.

7525:

The page you are questioning IS a reliable source (although a primary source) for the statements being discussed. That a particular plugin or web viewer is necessary to view the content does not detract from that

681: 9497:

Since Knowledge has such a hostile attitude to DramaWiki, I figured y'all might not trust its use of wiki software, so I checked each page in question at archive.org, whose 31 Dec 2010 copy shows this synopsis.

4626:. But we can't just repeat, verbatim, extensive polling results in a single line of prose. Feel free to use "significant", "remarkable" or "notable" instead (in quotation marks even), sourced to those articles. 2647: 2575: 1064:

At least, that's what Deborah Altschuler of the National Pediculosis Association says. Ms. Altschuler started the group 15 years ago when her daughter was sent home from nursery school with lice and the message

4479:

Introducing that "substantially" might seem innocent enough – unless you have been following the editing on this article, in which case you would know, as Collect knows, that that change would be controversial.

5288: 9916:

the arguments, and the community, so the Big 8 now has the sort of active management Knowledge can believe in.) And near as I can tell, this hostility is directly rooted in the way verifiability is handled.

3408:

Because of the public domain status, the film is sold on home video by many distributors. As of 2012, the Amazon.com lists copies of Night of the Living Dead numbering 52 on VHS, 181 on DVD, and 9 on Blu-ray.

8570:- and note that that particular drama is mentioned, in that cite, only in the comments, not in the main article, which is however a substantial article on sexual assault vis-a-vis K- and other Asian dramas.) 7997: 6079:

is, and Al Jazeera is generally highly reliable. It might very well be wrong in this case. If so you should use other reliable sources demonstrating other positions in order to show that's the case. This is

4009: 1878:, though he has a strange background, he wrote his Etymological Dictionary in prison and studied History, Philosophy and Political Systems in the U.S. and knows about 12 languages. So yes, maybe reliable. -- 7300:(ec) Geologists tend to limit themselves to the geological (not theological) bits of creationist arguments. When someone like Dawkins goes after theology instead of science, what results is not reliable. 6506:

intending to put two inline citations after the names of the albums in the discography, if that is the right way to approach it. In other words where citations 2 & 3 are now. Thankyou. Have a great day.

2724:

You can use Google Translate to get an impression of what is in a source, and whether the source is a blog comment or a proper newspaper article. If that's not enough, ask for a translation or a reading on

2251:

Well, I had only checked the first page which says "About 857 results (0.15 seconds)", even the 2nd to last page says "Page 14 of about 793 results (0.28 seconds)". I guess google overestimated a fair bit.

4171:

section of the article talk page, apparently as a resource for editors researching the article. It seems to provide handy links to a lot of primary documents surrounding Salby's...interesting...history.

6869: 5143:

A Wikipedian questioned why one should care about Chizuko Watanabe's viewpoint (it wasn't directly cited in the Spanish article), but I decided to check on who she is. It turns out she is the author of a

2946:

He's controversial in the dog training world, and that should be reflected. That's not the same world as his audience, which is basically dog handlers and dog fanciers. There are sources at the bottom of

2502:

The recent discussions I can find seem to conclude that the Rovi/AMG bios can be used as reliable sources, especuially for noncontroversial matters, and subject to the usual caveats and limitations. See

8417:

Oh, and one other concern: When I do something that helps the promotion of K-drama, its flaws are ignored. When I do something that hurts the promotion of K-drama, its flaws justify its deletion. Um?

7868: 3837: 1695:

Further minor quibble: It was not BILD that said it, but Bild am Sonntag. Officially a different paper. Thicker. Longer stories. But if we discuss the reliability of sources, we should name the correct

6122:

one news report has estimated 4 million." If it ends up just looking like an embarrassment for Al Jazeera, then other editors might concede the point and let the Al Jazeera claims be removed altogether.

4566:

sources, Collect also wrote, "most people consider a change from 19% to 49% to be 'substantial' see Gallup article thereon", yet there is no 19% to 49% in any of the 3 sources that were being replaced).

4119:

I have long been familiar with this website, and have used it as a reference myself in some articles. However, I have since begun to question whether it is a reliable source, given that it has the word

2830:

in which some users might wish to comment. A large part of the situation concerns establishing the common name of a person from sources outside Knowledge. Full information is provided on the talk page.

8527:

Well, um, akcherly, one of the sources I was citing *has* published a book about K-dramas, but it seems to be more or less self-published (it's an e-book), so what does that show? (Dramabeans again:

3843: 3841: 3839: 3693:

Please be more specific on how the site is being referenced. You list all these articles but not the actual reference from the site. in looking at the first article, I can't see it being used at all.--

2636: 2595: 7394:

In Archive 112 there's a discussion on whether or not Cyberbaiting deserves an article or should be part of Cyberbullying. Neither has happened. Sources mentioned way back in the 2012 discussion were

9737:

DramaWiki tracked this drama starting long before it aired, and had a placeholder synopsis for much of that time. On 6 Oct 2008 Leimomi considerably revised and expanded the existing synopsis into:

5084: 3395: 6110:

together a variety of accounts from reputable sources to cover all the main positions on the subject. These will often be in disagreement with each other; but no attempt is made to say which one is

5180: 2504: 1491:

Our Knowledge article on Bild indicates that the source is not reliable: "Bild has been known to use controversial devices like sensational headlines and invented "news" to increase its readership."

8746:

seen, years old, devoted to K-dramas. So yes, there are lots of reviews out there beyond the two sources I just cited. Dramabeans is unique not from being a blog but from consistency and quality.

8396: 10203:

Again, I apologise. Obviously this also means my count of, and similar comments about, previous anti-plagiarism activity, were also wrong. I know of no other errors, and find no results, so far.

4788:

of the words used to describe their conclusions. I can't see Collect objecting to you selecting one of the three words listed above, each of which can be directly attributed to a reliable source.

4040:, there is no rule that we have to present a "neutral" version of the dispute on this noticeboard. Nor was I under any obligation to inform Dwy of my post here, as I wanted to get the opinions of 8049: 5971:

Al Jazeera is a reliable source - but that doesn't mean that none of these are too. And when two reliable sources disagree yes, we should probably report both, and put them in context. Watch for

3429: 1646:

reported that whilst President Obama's order to stop spying on Merkel was being obeyed, the focus had shifted to bugging other leading government and business figures including Interior Minister

9941: 8435:" has the ratings agencies backwards; I know this because the Korean TV advertising agency, Kobaco (no longer a monopoly, but was one at this document's date), confirms DramaWiki's version; see 8388:

In comparison, only a few of the footnotes cite a published article about early radio in Korea, a published article about K-dramas' exports in the past two decades, and some newspaper articles.

8079: 4836:

Leading figures in the Catholic hierarchy, including cardinals and bishops, have sometimes actively campaigned against or encouraged clergy and parishioners to campaign against same-sex marriage

4160:), unsurprisingly offering slanted and uncritical endorsement of Salby's claims. It's not clear what benefit plugging Bolt's blog offers, or why it gets so much attention in this short article. 3761:

I've inserted urls to each page being used in the articles. Is this ok now? At least now I know where not to come for consultation on reliable sources. Are you always this hostile to newcomers?

2965: 1893:

languages. And whenever I check Nshanyan, his etymology agrees with my well-known and clearly academic sources. One critique I have, is that he does not give his sources. PS Here is an academic

581: 7040:

is general Amru, and that spelling of his name is OK. By 1492 the Moors had lost so much of Spain, and by 1492 they had lost all of it. But in general terms I agree that this book is not RS.

6640:

Is there any means or effort to get rid of those? Blacklisting is normally only done for sites that are actively promoted (spammed), not for sites that get added by unsuspecting or lazy editors

5274:: "We will concentrate this discussion on Mexico City's Nikkei-jin, who have been studied most intensively, particularly by Chizuko Watanabe and Takehiro Misawa, in the decades following 1970." 3687: 560: 9410:

Now, your obvious reply is that I'm reifying English Knowledge. As the evidence below shows, relatively little plagiarism has been done by Wikipedians in good standing. But the thing is, it

8032: 5140:: "tain their ethnic identity and pride, implant a spiritual heritage that they claim is the basis for success, and to establish close ties with Nikkei-jin children who live in distant areas." 2386: 2365: 2339: 2322: 2305: 2288: 2222: 170: 8015: 5539:"In the Tibetan refugee camps, Shugden worshippers have been turned away from jobs, shops and schools. Posters with the message 'no Shugden followers allowed' cover hospital and shop fronts." 4240:

Salby claimed he was fired in retaliation for his skeptical views on climate change, while his university stated that he was fired for failing to meet his academic and teaching obligations."

1566:

If another source is able to provide independent confirmation, then there isn't an issue. However, I don't believe that we should accept Bild as a reliable source on the basis of one report.

7706:

I'm thinking the site needs to be blacklisted, which requires an administrator to do. BUt I may be missing that this has some validity. I haven't seen a case yet which didn't violate either

3873: 2899:]. I replaced it as I strongly disagree that it is not a reliable source for the campaign and the views of the sponsoring organisation, and it's been removed again. Here is the press release 269:

In general I steer away from citing opinions from obscure sites. I am not sure what kind position Lambgoat.com enjoys in the metal and hardcore music world, but it looks like it is somewhat

6142:

Jazeera is plain wrong, then it should not be included in the article. Of course, the burden to demonstrate the unreliability of the information rests with anyone that wishes to remove it.

3782: 3051:

I think you need to only get rid of the least meaningful criticism, I also think a condensed but potent few sentences should go into both articles as his notability is tied to the methods.

1690:

BILD is behind a paywall, and I will not spend 99 cents to prove a point. Again, a minor quibble, and an irritating personal habit born from trying to get as close to the facts as possible.

1439: 445:

I agree that it seems likely that more well-known sources should be available if this is a widespread opinion about such a well-known and successful band. If not, you then have to address

7764: 7217: 6662: 3849:

out as well? To the best of my knowledge the only "historian" (by Dwy's definition) Ehrman has ever cited in one of his books was a historian of classical Greece and Rome who rejected the

8443:

Sheesh. Much of my following verbiage is devoted to defending Dramabeans as a reliable source. And here I find that English Knowledge plagiarises them too! So what's not acceptable in

6575: 431:

analysis. I can understand why someone would object to its use, however. Also, Heart is a pretty big deal, and I would be surprised if you couldn't source this to a more reliable site.

8502: 8481: 6652: 6301:

I have always wondered about this so I feel it is best to ask here what others think. Box office Mojo is actually IMDB. Is this site actually a reliable source for Knowledge? What about

1323:"While a number of 'natural' agents, such as tea tree oil and aromatherapy, have been used for the treatment of head lice, efficacy and toxicity data are not available for these agents." 1058:"It is indeed known that the National Pediculosis Association isn't being run by a concerned parent with no medical training, who is operating the organization out of her or his garage." 8307:

Last month I watched a drama that considerably disturbed me, in a way that I then found was reasonably common among anglophone viewers. I added a "Controversy" section to the article "

6657: 4026: 2932:

remove the one-off complaints that don't seem to have any traction, eliminate the controversy section altogether, and weave the one or two notable criticisms into the larger narrative.

2420: 2261: 1831: 1504:

Another editor restored the material noting that Reuters picked up the story. However, Reuters is not verifying or independently reporting on this - they're just repeating Bild's claim.

3523:

Moreover, the score also includes a fourth bagatelle as an encore of the piece to be performed if the pianist wishes, which is marked "Tempo primo" and only includes a sixteenth rest.

2110: 6667: 3504: 5746: 5731: 5591:

On the statement "No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism", the video is not reliable. (Bear in mind that the video was made more than 5 years ago.)

611:

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.

10239:. Unfortunately, it doesn't help always. I've cleaned up all the issues that you've identified here. If you see anymore, please let us know - you can use the procedure described at 8666:

It isn't clear to me how to reliably tell the difference between a blog and an online arts magazine, although I'm quite confident Dramabeans is closer to a blog than it is to, say,

3494: 1687: 7606:

are obviously still controlling as to if the source is valid or not. Use of that source should be handled on a case by case basis. How the source was obtained is irrelevant, and a

5363:

1. One Wikipedian says that because Masterson is quoting Watanabe and not analyzing that particular quote, her sentence counts as a primary source and not a secondary source. Does

2097:— Translator. Indiana University, graduate student in Mongolian Studies. Leland is a fluent speaker of Mongolian, and has over two years' cumulative experience in. And this is the 9873:. In other words, DramaWiki plagiarised Dramabeans for a little while, and then corrected it; Knowledge quoted Dramabeans for a little while, and then turned it into plagiarism. 8491:

dramas, is shameful. I expect to watch it within a couple of months, and would be tempted to address that absence myself, except for this education I'm getting in verifiability.

7128: 4460:"Although his presidency has been ranked among the worst in recent surveys of presidential scholars, his favorability ratings among the public have improved since he left office." 2474:

As always, it is helpful to know what's the content actually at issue here. For what purpose would the AMG content be used? I don't see any clues in the recent editing history.--

6515: 3609:

The composition is dedicated to Serge Koussevitzky and his wife, Natalia Koussevitzky and is meant to be a gift for the Koussevitzky Music Foundation in the Library of Congress.

2651: 2624: 7314: 6842: 6822: 6444: 9587:

Through her conflicts with senior colleagues and struggles with difficult cases; however, Hye Ri gradually matures into a brilliant prosecutor with a sense of duty and justice.

8393:

while there isn't much published scholarship on K-dramas, there is some, and it's primarily, of course, in Korean, with bits and pieces in Japanese, Chinese, and Thai, at least

8275: 8257: 4352: 3178: 3160: 2198: 650: 10080:- so I don't think it's a perfect solution; it's possible, if unlikely, that adding references would help deter this, if there were a sane way to add references to a synopsis. 5542:"No Shugden worshipper has ever been charged or investigated for terrorism, and yet the monks that continue to worship Shugden remain victims of a campaign of name and shame." 4232:

DeSmogBlog is a blog and, thus, should not be used in BLPs. (In practical terms, it's no worse than Delingpole's or Bolt's blogs, which are cited in the article and which are

4158: 2009: 1803: 10251: 10221: 10152: 9334: 9321: 3480: 3466: 2508: 322: 286: 264: 185: 6795: 6404: 6390: 6032:. After that, i suggest you just give up and let it go. Sometimes consensus goes against you, and you have to leave an article in a state you find offensive or incorrect. 1460: 8173: 6916: 3732:

article. Is that clear enough now? All of the others also lead to a page to purchase sheet music. I had used the format suggested for requests: Source - Article - Content.

1874:

On his homepage he writes that the credibility of his etymological dictionary and his credibility as a historical etymologist (or historical linguist) is recognized by the

627: 10110: 10054: 10028: 9977: 9480:

This is the third drama I watched (I'm going mostly in that order) and one of my favourites, although pretty much everyone at Dramabeans considers it absolutely terrible.

9395: 9164: 9038: 9010: 8896: 8878: 8632: 7966: 7951: 7933: 7918: 7824: 7082:, you know the typical nonsensical claims of history that don't hold much validity anywhere and distortion of history for a racial POV that comes along with Afrocentrism. 6520: 6314: 6092: 3770: 3756: 3741: 3702: 3368: 3273: 3112: 1869: 10247:

appreciate your careful documentation above - made it a lot easier to do the mop-up. :) If you want to talk about this aspect any further, please drop by my talk page. --

7991: 3989:

By the other scholars who took part in the debate on the Toraijin theory, the opponents were often referred to as something like "scholars of ancient (Japanese) history"

1865:

Not unless there's some evidence of his expertise in historical linguistics or some academic response to his dictionary. (For full disclosure, I never trust Wiktionary.)

1245:

I would suggest using a non-NPS source to point out the lack of safety and efficacy testing. If none can be found, I would not mention Tea Tree Oil in the article at all.

552: 308: 219: 200: 8283: 8120: 7101: 7044: 6590: 6412: 5701: 5419: 5400: 5345: 5327: 5317: 5221: 4205: 4190:(but could also have used it a lot more often than I actually did), I wanted to know if its use in Ball's article (or any other BLP) was acceptable as per our policy on 4181: 3966: 3946: 3128:

might be useful if it indicated its sources; unfortunately, it doesn't. So, no, none of these meet Knowledge reliable sources standards for that statement. This article

2246: 1860: 462: 440: 8242: 8154: 8135: 7738: 6594: 6498: 6073: 6055: 6041: 5390: 5367:(in anthropology or ethnic studies) count as a secondary source or a primary source? I would think field work involves analyzing what other people say and write, right? 5299: 5211: 5196: 4454:(Off-topic, but just to clarify: The statement that the article had been stable for a long time until two editors recently sought to remove material is very misleading. 3060: 3046: 3032: 3018: 2991: 2959: 2941: 2186:

of various citations because they are "blacklisted". I think CBR is a reliable source for computer history. Searching Google Books for "Computer Business Review" finds

10217: 10148: 10106: 10024: 9937: 9892:. He found the site interesting and worth his attention. I'm surprised to hear Knowledge wouldn't have. Around the same time, I got involved in the workings of the 6677:

And less commonly (less than 100 times) used ones like myfishmaps.com, eachtown.com, placekeeper.com, anyplaceamerica.com, gmap3D.com, geoview.info, itouchmap.com, ...

6618: 6571: 2158: 2132: 2053: 1906: 1671:

did the reporting. That fact is properly sourced with a Reuters report. This is all we should be concerned with, and having done so, we should leave the passage alone.

1132: 1047:

I'd be very interested in seeing these numerous publications in the related field that you are citing. Can you list them or point to a reliable source that lists them?

1012: 915: 856: 834: 244: 131: 8617: 8518: 7250: 7235: 6813:. The book certainly exists, and the fact that the text is not readily available on the interwebs does not affect the reliability (in the en.WP sense) of the work. 6720: 6706: 5762: 4276: 3925: 3908: 3884: 3452: 2976: 2454: 2077: 2068: 1970:, the official regulatory body of the Turkish language. Sevan Nişanyan, of Armenian origin, is known to have a strong reputation in the linguistic field in Turkey. -- 1763: 978: 929: 808: 792: 776: 8603: 8599: 7947: 7914: 7796: 7723: 7701: 6856:

Does anyone care to share their opinion on a source for the Moors article currently? This source is a republished edited version by an independently owned publisher

4801: 4764: 4738: 4719: 4702: 4639: 4589: 4556: 4385:

It gives the numbers without commentary. I suggest going from 26 to 49 percent is "substantial." YMMV, but I do not think that a near doubling can be described as

4370:

a reliable source for the following statement, specifically as worded: "his favorability ratings among the public have substantially improved since he left office"?

3198: 3023:

I think the biggest issue is that a controversy section invites POV editing, so instead merging the content into the main article would likely alleviate the issues.

2610: 1979: 1856: 1616: 1597: 1579: 1561: 1412: 1378: 1296: 1254: 7780: 7381: 7061: 6955: 6484: 5778: 5689: 5669: 5465: 5046: 5024: 4938: 4108: 3389: 3354: 2738: 2005: 1928: 8085: 7574: 7551: 7516: 7491: 7281: 6227: 4991: 4918: 2758: 2719: 2692: 2524: 2497: 2483: 2038: 2021: 1994: 1887: 537: 141:

isn't too hard to find, but it doesn't really indicate any editorial control. I did a Google search on the phrase "lambgoat reports", and I turned up a few hits:

6348:

for the project's full list of resources, but keep in mind that most of them won't report on details like budget or gross. Besides that, it's worth checking the

6151: 5965: 5937: 5876: 5068: 5009: 4971: 4953: 4214:

about. I find it interesting that they now appear to post unedited press releases from some companies - I guess they do not have enough material otherwise now?

3567:

The set has been published by Schott Music together with Ligeti's Invention for piano, which is put in the middle and which the set is strongly associated with.

2469: 1950: 1339: 1197: 1175: 596: 9727:

The Dramabeans recaps for this series appeared shortly after airdates, beginning 6 Jul 2008 with a post by javabeans including the following character sketches:

7192:

Here we are not speaking of the use of self-published information as a source about a living person, so only the first line relates to this issue. Specifically,

6002: 5988: 5895: 4870: 4683: 4528: 4503: 4441: 4417: 4261: 4246: 3303: 3144: 900: 869: 700: 8266:

the subject was mildly notable and we have a poorly-written and adulatory comment on him. I'd like to replace it with something shorter and less complimentary.

6974: 6468: 6291: 6209: 6183: 6132: 5808: 5637: 5622: 5536:"The Shugden worshipers in India protest that they are denied admission to hospitals, stores, and other social services provided by the local Tibetan community" 5526: 4894: 4336: 2663: 543:

writer for the site could have very false writing. Of course, this would take further searching. Last I checked, blogs weren't considered reliable sources.....

482: 7183:. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see 7080:"In The Origin of Races and Color Delany demonstrates that the builders of the pyramids, the sculptors of the sphinxes, and the original god-kings were Black." 5915: 5051:

Verifiability is indeed in question here, but not whether there may exist other unspecified sources to verify the statement made. The question here is whether

4857:

This question, together with the broader one whether other supporting sources perhaps exist, has been discussed without conclusion on the article's talk page:

2801: 2512: 1418: 8330:

sources as sources about themselves applies: since these objections concern a third party, they can't be cited. (So if I understand correctly, I could cite

6737:

in one book, thats it, much less a recipe to base an entire wikipedia page off of. the book in question is called "Steward & Barkeeper's Manual in 1869"

6690: 3122:, but the rest all appear to be self-published sources, mostly blog posts, making claims about third parties. They do not cite their sources. Daniel Klimek's 2911: 1917:

Not reliable. Anyone who takes a language course can publish a "dictionary" and call himself or herself a "linguist", which seems to be what is going on here.

7140:

I seek a determination on the usability of a self-published work by Dr. Robert G. Brown, professor of physics at Duke University, proposed to be used on the

6273:

Although it may not be obvious, those publishers were the vanity press of the day. It's doubtful whether any of those works received any editorial oversight.

4066: 3346: 1447:

is a Jat hero and that the primary purpose of the SMES seems to be technical education rather than something more attuned to the subject matter of the book.

669: 8145:'s great, great, great grandson...so it must be true. No need to research further". Yeah...it simply doesn't work that way in the real world or Knowledge.-- 3795:

I'm not sure if this belongs here or on ANI, since it's clearly a politically-motivated user trying to find any excuse he can to dismiss my sources, but on

1042:"I have no idea where you got your information from, but the organisation is headed by a former university professor with numerous publications this field." 9359: 8403: 7800: 5551: 5505: 3340: 3099:

Although this sounds somewhat like a conspiracy theory, I would not oppose it, if only it is judged to be based on a reliable source. I have discussed it

1635: 1483: 1435: 9362:(the page is in Korean but people respond to English messages). If that doesn't work, I know of some other Korean users who may help you. Try contacting: 7682: 7364: 4327:). I cannot find anything on the internet that leads me to believe the site's author is an expert gemologist or historian. Is his site actually reliable? 4252:

As I understand it, he has written texts of some repute, which also should be mentioned in any BLP. You might note my wording on that article talk page.

3952:"real historian" and he responded by saying that he has a job as a historian so that's what he is; that's part of why I started with the Ehrman analogy.) 3082: 2925: 250:

They are certainly reliable for their own opinions, which includes reviews. Whether they are reliable for news is a judgment call. Not everything that

8057:

Most of those supporting the ban really do not understand what the website (or rootsweb or ancestry) are all about. This isn't a black and white issue.

6305:

is that a reliable source? I can't see where they are getting their information from. Does anyone know if there is an accepted site for these figures?--

5444: 5000:. Whether other sources are reliable is another question. What is asked here is whether the one source actually cited is reliable for the statement? 4861:. Perhaps an advance can be made by examining whether this, the one source actually cited, supports or does not support the statement in the article. 4607: 8349:

2) Self-published works (including the most historically-inclined source for the years up to 1964, cited as "With S2", a set of five PDFs, for example

8198: 8105: 5601: 1471: 101: 93: 88: 76: 71: 63: 8392: 7757: 6728: 4996:

All you need is a reliable source for "campaigning" in the sense in which it is used in the context, which speaks of encouraging clergy and laity to

9501:

On 9 Dec 2011, Sunuraju, who appears to be a Wikipedian in good standing, created the Knowledge page. The synopsis included in that first version:

7122: 7091: 7029: 6934: 6886: 5094: 4463:

An editor, for unexplained reasons, recently removed the part of the sentence that said his favorability ratings have improved since he left office.

176:. So other sites seem to consider them reliable. It's not overwhelming evidence or anything, but maybe they're reliable enough for simple claims. 9811:

instead. This is the nineteenth drama I watched, and while javabeans at Dramabeans thought better of it than I did, I thought it on balance good.

8922: 7074:

Really? I take a look at books published from there and I see typical questionable Afrocentric pseudohistory illogical revisionist claims. Such as

6902: 6492: 4580:

analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

3204: 2840: 8436: 4379: 346:. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) Books (2010), pp. 226-227. The material is also provided on Ronald and Allis Radosh, 10042: 9828:

Even if archive.org had the necessary granularity, they were thrown off by the question mark in the title until 2011, so they don't verify this.

7610:

should not be problematic (However, agree that the source itself is what should be cited and not family tree). For user generated content, fails

6296: 4667: 8887:

can be used to find journal articles and news articles, but maybe those on the Korean Knowledge can do the same with Korean academic databases.

8363:

4) Dissertations cited without regard to supervision, independent citation, etc. (Ironically, I do know of one citation to one of these, since

8350: 7409: 3457:

I agree with Bluerasberry. Until a third party reliable source states it, it's undue. Trivia about Amazon sales does not belong in Knowledge.

2950:

that haven't been used, and there are sources in which he discusses his critics, although I'm sure he hasn't responded to each specific critic.

1389: 4037: 7473:

You are confusing the real source being cited, which is primary source testimony from a parliamentary meeting, with what is apparently just a

2377:; he made similar edits to other similar (old hardware) articles. He has stopped editing Knowledge around 2011, but he has a clean block log. 528:; treat it like a moderately reliable blog. Briefly looking through the article, I see no problems with the way it has been used and cited. -- 369:

During the hearing, the committee presented evidence against members of the Hollywood Ten. This included communist party registration rolls,

9951:. There's no hostility on my part in asking you to contact people on the Korean Knowledge to get better sourcing. I am teaching you a way of 7467: 7425: 5836: 5831: 3227: 3222: 2426: 2313:) The content has been made available online now on a site with a networking focus. Which doesn't make it unreliable for old/staff material. 1570:

broke the story that John Edwards had an affair. We would never accept a report in the Enquirer cited to unnamed sources on a similar matter.

994: 424: 9673:

Bumblelion1018 created the Knowledge page 3 Dec 2010, too fast for archive.org to capture an intervening copy, with the following synopsis:

7556:

I do realise that you are referring to dates like 12/04/2014 - that is exactly why I said "I already fixed the dates, three days ago" - see

7451:. My browser (Firefox 27) shows the message "Silverlight does not appear to be correctly installed on this computer." Since this would fail 6774:

The author of this book along with the author of "imbibe!" David Wondrich who frequently self promotes including on this page several times

5217:

Chizuko Watanabe's work, so there was really no need for anyone to question that. But, as Judith says, Spanish Knowledge has its own rules.

4147: 3167: 962: 906:

irreversible lycanthropy, it wouldn't be evidence that the source provided is unreliable. That's not how either Knowledge or science works.

753: 142: 9380: 8649:

Belatedly I've noticed the instruction to link to outside web pages referenced. So I've inserted a bunch of links above and below. Sorry.

7416:. It looks like it peaked in usage around then, based on a quick look at Google Books, but it would be nice to have a formalized decision. 5840: 5710: 3231: 839:

As I said over on the talk page, that's fine. But you need to bring the references. Until then, this meets all the standards standards for

391: 7540: 4226: 3747:

not the citation used. In order to help, one has to go to every article and check each inline citation as you are not providing it here.--

1485: 7905:

I'm not sure what you mean by "software". None of the familysearchlegends citations I looked at were to any software, only to the site's

6046:

I asked if this Al Jazeera PIECE was a reliable source. Not Al Jazeera in general. I have clearly demonstrated that its not reliable.

5813: 5227: 3329: 163: 7414: 5823: 4615: 4402: 4093: 3214: 109: 9724:. This is the thirtieth drama I'm watching, which I'm finally beginning to enjoy, and which javabeans at Dramabeans thought well of. 8218: 4611: 518: 9885: 8404:("대한민국의 텔레비전 드라마" or "%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%98_%ED%85%94%EB%A0%88%EB%B9%84%EC%A0%84_%EB%93%9C%EB%9D%BC%EB%A7%88" 6624: 6197: 5481: 4819: 2382: 2361: 2318: 2284: 2257: 2194: 1516: 618:. I'm not arguing that it is reliable, but I think it's not so easily dismissible as the average PDF on a grad student's web page.— 7436: 4851: 2964:

There's a 2012 Daily Mail article where he responds to critics which includes some criticism by Beverly Cuddy, Editor of Dogs Today.

1100: 6877:, but before I decide to officially remove it from the article, I would like to hear a few more editors sentiments on this source. 6580: 5655:

say, the clear majority of reliable sources agree to certain facts about the Shugden sect, then those views should have prominence.

5052: 4829: 1719: 6961:

value? Please get serious.No serious discussion to warrant any removal, it has already been discussed on article talk page. Again

6874: 3126: 2094: 1379:

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/tea-tree-oil

10240: 9026: 8431:" ), and frankly should do more of that, since DramaWiki tends to be more reliable within its remit. For example, Knowledge on " 8212: 7113:

has removed the source from the Moors article, it's quite clear he sees as to why the source is unreliable after my elaboration.

5336:. And despite having no power over there, I can use this noticeboard's expertise as an argument in favor of keeping the article. 5284: 2211:

on a page. The removal of sources would not have been done pending whitelist request, if he/she showed willing to actually do so.

8950:

So I'm skeptical about this as a solution in general, but if someone else wants to try, wonderful. I've already failed with it.

3937:

opinions. Try to find an rs that writes about the various views and explains the weight that academics have assigned to them.

2310:

It's not "your tech social network". It was a printed magazine at one point that went bust like many others. (See its entry in

2294:

Personally I think your tech social network seems a bit dubious, do all articles go through a full and proper editorial process.

9901: 9211: 4603: 4153:

I can't find any reference to DeSmogBlog in that section of the talk page. The proposed edit does, however, include a link to

2275:

about something being blacklisted (for spam) being automatically unreliable or necessitating removal, by the way. We even have

21: 8463:

The edit producing this was done by 69dressings nearly a year and a half after the Dramabeans recap, i.e. over four years ago.

3169:. It's $ 40, and I'm not buying another book just to have it rejected again. I'm going to try to order it through the library. 1423:

I apologise for this not being an inquiry relating to a specific article but the nature of the query really is a general one.

1070:

dangerous. And she says that if people are serious about nitpicking, they really don't need to go into housekeeping overdrive.

401:

I would appreciate some views on the validity of the website Made of Chalk, which has been used to support some assertions at

9997:

routinely write long, I'm interested a priori in that collapsible code, but the odds of my using it here seem to be dropping.

6586: 4858: 3264:

I had removed it saying the website fails RS, but it's been replaced claiming it is a reliable source. What do others think?

149: 9537:, whose DVD title is the same. This is the twelfth drama I watched, and girlfriday of Dramabeans liked it more than I did. 6807:

A bibliography on grapes, wine, other alcoholic beverages, and temperance: Works published in the United States before 1901

5451:

self-promotion. For that reason you may want to add a qualifier that some sections of the site should be used with caution.

4619: 4432:

AFAICT. The material was in the BLP for a very long period until two editors sought to excise the sources for some reason.

4395: 3917:

So it would be misleading to readers if we said that historians reject this theory if (for example) Donald Keene accepts it.

2207: 365:

The following is needed to make the discussion of the hearing more neutral. It currently leaves out important information.

359:

Section and paragraph -- The blacklist begins. The paragraph will follow the one starting with "The other ten refused ..."

10213: 10144: 10102: 10020: 9933: 9375: 9326: 9313: 9156: 9002: 8870: 8782:

home. (Several Korean entertainment *awards*, *which English Knowledge documents*, are *voted* at major fan sites such as

8609: 8494: 8473: 8071: 7645:

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

7533:

The date I referred to is 12/04/2014: "MP Stephen Hammond revealed on 12/04/2014 that ...." That date has not yet occurred.

6567: 6283: 5532:

The unreliable short film is currently being used in Knowledge for these claims, which are rebutted by Thurman and others:

5471: 5435: 4328: 3135:

is reliable, but the Knowledge article statement would need to be revised somewhat to reflect what the Allen article says.

2832: 2378: 2357: 2314: 2280: 2253: 2190: 1630:

they all have to – the unproductive and bothersome fact checker usually is first not to be replaced when retirement comes.

605:

Sitush, I think your position is too broad here. It's at least plausible that this paper falls under the one exception to

10182:

On 2 Feb 2011, Fiercejacci created the Knowledge page, which appears to be that Wikipedian's whole history. The synopsis:

8208:

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

6028:

and raise a stink on the talk page. Maybe consensus there will establish some sort of amicable solution. If not, try an

5948:

There are several other obvious "errors". Furthermore, they don't even mention the murder of 3 people by Shugden cultists

5281:

Explorations in Ethnic Studies: The Journal of the National Association of Interdisciplinary Ethnic Studies, Volumes 14-16

5137: 5126: 4129: 3120:

Prayer, Aspiration and Contemplation: Selections from the writings of John of St. Samson, O. Carm., mystic and charismatic

2561: 1507:. I would appreciate comments on whether this material should be included from editors who are familiar with German media. 8595: 7943: 7910: 7792: 7405: 7326: 5797: 4825: 4399:

Americans' views of former president George W. Bush have improved, with 49% now viewing him favorably and 46% unfavorably

3979: 3845:), and if scholars who study old literary texts don't count as "historians" then do we throw New Testament scholars like 3829: 2269: 2128:

Scholarly publisher, scholarly series. Looks OK, though, as always, it depends what information you want to cite it for.

1852: 1813: 9259:

I'm beginning to wonder about dispute resolution processes, though I'm not sure whether complaining about plagiarism in

8323: 1738: 1505: 7846: 7153:

is, naturally, generally a philosophical topic, but Dr. Brown wrote and posted on his university website this article,

5845: 3236: 587:

I don't think that anything pre-PhD itself is reliable. Only after that point does it become suitably peer reviewed. -

453:

to include that material. If it passes the due weight hurdle then it may be best to simply attribute the information.

166: 9606:

The synopsis whose first sentence Hanjae revised, and whose other sentences Hanjae contributed, on 28 Mar 2010 reads:

8883:

An idea: Why not ask around the Korean Knowledge to find people who speak English who can find Korean sources? I know

8233:

I am considering using some of this information to point out the deception. Is this source reliable for this purpose?

7558: 7440: 6801:

The book "Haney’s Steward & Barkeeper’s Manual" is reviewed at length in the April 2009 edition of barkeeper.com,

4618:

calls the results a "rehabilitation" and "notable" but mostly quotes material directly from Gallup which is available

3857:

should say "literary scholars of the New Testament consider Jesus to have existed, but historians reject this claim"?

1939:

kayak2 ~ İng kayak Eskimo kayığı ~ İnuit kayak "erkek aracı", erkeklere özgü kayık < kayık < İnuit ka "erkek"...

1438:. From what I've been able to piece together, Dwivedi appears to be/have been a Jat himself; Vir Singh is director of 7938:

You didn't bother to click on any of those footnote links, did you? None of them was using the search as the source.

7857: 7397: 6233: 5429: 4320: 4286: 4186:

Whoops, you're right, it's not in that section. Good catch. Nevertheless, given that I have used it in, for example,

3262: 2049:

If it's RS that doesn't mean it's always right, but that it may be worth citing even in cases where opinions differ.

615: 10209: 10098: 10016: 9929: 9432:

Let me start with the typical English Knowledge K-drama article. (English Knowledge now has over 500 of these, per

9309: 9118: 8976: 8852: 8469: 8422: 7399: 7372:

Core Tennis looks pretty legitimate. Steve G Tennis looks a bit bloggish, as it gets its info from other sources. --

5737:

considered to be torture" should be substituted in the lead? Any opinions will be sincerely appreciated. Thank you.

1145: 1078: 9017:

Joe, I would recommend asking on the main talk page of the Korea WikiProject on the English Knowledge. Anyway, the

7667: 7155: 5784: 3100: 2868: 2863: 2178: 1494:

When Bild came up on RSN in the past, all three editors who commented expressed significant concerns about its use:

8543: 7448: 5857: 5306:

So does this support the idea that this master's thesis is at a higher standard compared to other master's theses?

3248: 3103:

in the hope that someone (anyone other than the editor who has inserted the statement) would express an opinion.

8812:

don't; but hey, here I am at sourcing central, pointing out my own work's deficiencies, so why is it still there?

7767:

include a link to familytreelegends. The software depends on user input, which can be good or it can be garbage:

6011:

is a reliable source. You got an answer: yes, it is. If you want to fight its inclusion, you could try to cite

5769:

If waterboarding is torture, then John A. Rizzo should be in jail. So he is the opposite of an impartial source.

4914: 3439:

data and has no particular significance except what the reader puts into it. This information should be omitted.

2872: 2749:. Google Translate can be used to get the gist of something written in a foreign language, but never as a source. 1549:...a claim made by a mass-circulation newspaper that Germany's army knew about Prism in 2011 is, in fact, true... 9966:

I went ahead and notified a Wikipedian who is experienced with dealing with copyvio stuff, so she'll take a look

9210:, 7 reference Dramabeans, explicitly as a "blog". I also checked both the French and the Korean equivalents to 8580: 7815:. Can you show some examples where that is not the case and the software is being used within acceptable areas? 3638: 3568: 3037:

I've got nothing against that, but if everything pertaining to his tv show is removed there won't be much left.

8712:

There are two basic places I know to look for English-language reviews of K-dramas. One is, um, lemme see ...

8437:

http://www.kobaco.co.kr/information/adinfo/UploadFile/%281%29120_%BD%C3%C3%BB%B7%FC%C6%C4%B0%ED%B5%E9%B1%E2.pdf

8293: 7630: 7403: 7310: 6818: 5886:

that would suggest errors or inaccuracies in its reportage? Disliking something is not reason for removing it.

5827: 5117: 4486: 4484: 4482: 4464: 4061: 4049: 3961: 3903: 3868: 3424: 3218: 3000: 2845: 2241: 1326: 691:

What are the statements in the Knowledge article that there is a question about in terms of reliable sourcing?

623: 8728:

reviews no drama later than 2006, while Dramabeans started in 2007, so their remits are sort of complementary.

6996:

That's clearly false, by 1492 the Moors lost Iberia in its entirety, and Granada fell in 1492. It I'll go on

6733:

The book itself is not listed in loc.gov or google books project, however a mention of the book is found here

5560:

The Thurman article is not enough to declare the video completely unreliable for the statements in contention.

5097:, which differ from the English Knowledge) I referred to a passage in a book as an argument that the book has 9920:

Which is why I'm posting this here, instead of looking for a forum on copyright violations instead. This is

8553: 7586: 7444: 7411: 7179: 6998:"The original inhabitants of Arabia...were not familiar Arabs of our own time, but a very much darker people" 5332:

Thank you. Now, I understand this has no power over there. That's okay. What I wanted was this noticeboard's

4924:

Ros, you know how it works: statements need facts; facts need support. Attacking Esoglou won't do. Are you

4689:- there are plenty of other (better) reliable sources that could be used to verify even stronger statements. 3645: 3490: 2855: 502: 405:. It looks like a self published site, but it has a journalistic type form. The page in question is a review 7614:. But in any case, no evidence or consensus that the site is problematic enough to be globally blacklisted. 3716:

from notafina which contains nothing more than a buy download button, the name of the author and score. The

1941:

I know Inuit and other Eskimo languages; but, not found "ka" (erkek = male) in Inuit and Yupik languages. --

1430:

are well-covered by uninvolved reliable sources. However, our articles also frequently cite G. C. Dwivedi's

1359: 763:

treatment of pregnant women and young children because of safety concerns." That would be more in line with

9948: 9800: 9754:

JKSarang, blocked as a sock puppet of InkHeart, created the Knowledge page 16 Oct 2009 with this synopsis:

7842: 6417: 5165: 5110: 1967: 1875: 6992:

have? I don't see it. You want to me point out the questionable views? I'll be glad to do that right now.

6473:

I just removed it and all the Status-Labs related stuff sourced to it. Let's hope no one adds it back in.

5090: 4709: 4492: 4490: 4488: 4480: 4477: 2877: 2375: 2183: 1847: 9433: 9370: 9365: 8343: 6511: 6200:

that debunks all of the claims put forth in this video, although doesn't mention the video specifically.

5945: 1894: 1318: 9881:

bought into or you wouldn't be here, more or less ineluctably lead to precisely this sort of situation.

7172:

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work

6064:

for a controversial essay on this topic. It might explain why people are not swayed by your arguments.

5853: 3815:

The subject is considered by a vast number of (probably most) literary scholars to have been of Korean (

3244: 2896: 2646:

One other thing what would be helpful, if anybody's able to figure it out, is an explanation of why the

2146: 313:

Maaaaybe. I don't know if I would go that far. But you could bring it up on the associated talk page.

9768:

69dressings, blocked as a sock puppet of InkHeart, added the following character sketches 21 Nov 2009:

8288:

In the past couple of years I've watched nearly thirty examples of the kind of TV program the article "

8271: 8238: 7607: 6912: 6702: 6386: 6069: 6037: 5093:, a Japanese curriculum school in Mexico. (See the notability standards of the Spanish Knowledge here: 4348: 3462: 1902: 436: 318: 260: 181: 51: 42: 17: 9358:

That's a good idea, trying the French Knowledge. In the meantime, you can try posting in English here

7838: 7536:

Hammond's remarks are about @10:55 in the video. I think he said until March 2016, not until May 2016.

3330:

http://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2008/07/24/academic-researches-regarding-shugden-controversy-nkt/

3254: 2046:

academic analysis speaks in its favour. If it's all rubbish, a reviewer would just say so and move on.

1122: 10170: 10077: 9649: 9469: 9264: 8830: 8445: 8308: 8169: 8045: 7861: 7306: 6814: 6760: 5819: 5800: 4748:"Sure, but that's different again to the "26% to 49%" figures you're demanding reliable sources for." 4358: 3942: 3517: 3359:

Agreed, there is no question here that this source does not even remotely meet reliability standards.

3210: 2889: 2344:

Who cited anything "new" from it? Those RS/6000 stories are from before 2000. And even for new stuff

2334: 2300: 2271:, so I have filed for another. What was refused was a removal from the blacklist. There's nothing in 2217: 661: 619: 9905: 9557:

On 1 May 2010, XChampagne created the Knowledge page. The synopsis included in that first version:

8164:

though the subject of the article held the social rank of gentleman and had died 16 years earlier.

7877: 6637:

Is there a list of other similar unreliable geographic sources that get used regularly on Knowledge?

5849: 3240: 1845:. "www.nisanyansozluk.com" is also accepted as academic source in the Wiktionary with the template " 505:

in a near future and I do not know if I should keep mentions to Idolator or remove them completely.

9330: 9317: 9160: 9006: 8874: 8613: 8498: 8477: 8253: 8075: 7496:

I already fixed the dates, three days ago. My question is: do I remove those refs and replace with

7401: 6865: 6850: 6287: 6025: 5370:

2. The second is that the newspaper supplement was for promotion and/or entertainment (did he mean

4332: 4312: 4177: 3766: 3737: 3683: 3486: 3398: 3350: 3129: 2836: 2443: 1792: 1710:

Should the passage be removed because BILD's reliablility is in doubt? The answer appears to be no.

1638:, and in my professional opinion, there is very little a newsdesk editor would object to. To wit: 8219:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2_ZstVBZSfIC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=true

6429: 3575: 2914: 1985:

dictionary are spelled/written following the style recommended by the Turkish Language Institute?

156: 8547:

ed. John Clute and John Grant, let alone any of my journalism. But my question isn't limited to

7437:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14995&player=silverlight&wfs=true

6836: 5511:

For what purpose? The reliability of a source depends entirely on what it is being used for. --

4272: 2903: 2505:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#AllMusic/AMG as a source for biographical info

2206:

User was advised to follow the bot's instructions and request whitelisting. User has advised, he

1008: 974: 911: 852: 804: 772: 406: 10174: 8375: 7942:

of them linked to the actual source, either a digitized image or a transcription of the source.

6549:

Jump up ^ Viyogi, Naval and Ansar. History Of The Later Harappans And Silpakara Movement, p.198

4900:

Esoglou seems to have come to RSN hoping that other users will read the article and its sources

3659: 1964:

Türk Dil Kurumu Yazım Kılavuzu'nda bulunan sözcükler Yazım Kılavuzu'na uygun olarak yazılmıştır.

1933:

He is not a linguist and his "etymological" dictionary is not reliable. On the Nişanyan Sözlük (

1495: 9592: 8194: 8101: 8028: 7962: 7929: 7820: 7719: 7678: 7527: 7377: 7098: 7070:

This book isn't a exact republished version of Stanley's original work, it's an edited version.

7041: 6507: 5397: 5324: 5218: 4408:

I suggest if "substantial" is not good that "notable" is straight from the sources. Cheers.

3922: 3881: 3796: 3603: 3476: 3447: 3174: 3156: 3092: 3056: 3028: 2987: 2937: 2606: 2129: 2074: 2050: 1866: 1537:, the German govt. has even confirmed that an exclusive report related to these disclosures by 1330: 548: 533: 302: 292: 282: 238: 213: 196: 125: 9900:, and am cited along with Jim Riley because the two of us (locked into lots of arguments) did 8319: 7184: 6554:

Jump up ^ Pranab Chandra Roy Choudhury, (1968).< Folk Tales of Bihar, p.63. Sahitya Akademi

5271: 4215: 3581:

The premiere took place in Saarbrücken, with Robert Pappert conducting the Kammerchor Hausen.

2311: 118:

believe that it is an unreliable source of information however I need the opinions of others.

10050: 9973: 9603:. This is the fourteenth drama I watched, and I moderately liked it; Dramabeans skipped it. 9391: 9034: 8892: 8628: 8267: 8234: 8150: 8131: 8116: 8011: 7987: 7776: 7246: 7213: 7118: 7087: 7025: 7017: 6930: 6908: 6882: 6791: 6783: 6698: 6400: 6382: 6310: 6223: 6065: 6033: 5568:

exploration of a topic. It is written as an opinion piece, with political statements such as

5415: 5386: 5341: 5313: 5207: 5192: 5176: 4794: 4731: 4695: 4632: 4602:

Then go for secondary sources instead (always a better option) rather than raw polling data.

4549: 4344: 4304: 4104: 3752: 3698: 3561: 3458: 3364: 2895:

Study of Animal Behaviour was removed with an edit summary that it was not a reliable source.

2734: 2349: 2345: 1898: 1593: 1585: 1567: 1557: 1385: 1250: 922: 847:

that the medical consensus is otherwise. You need to actually provide those references first.

432: 396: 314: 256: 177: 7673:

Should this cite by blocked from use on Knowledge? Is there some value that is appropriate?

7196:

disputes that it at all matters that Dr. Brown is reasonably well-published in the field of

7145: 4606:

calls the jump "significant" (which I jokingly included in my list of less-NPOV terms), the

1604: 1548: 1475: 10128: 8165: 8093: 8041: 7808: 7734: 7711: 7660: 7618: 7599: 7389: 6898: 6601: 6160:

Look, here's the simplest way to report this. Say what the sources say. Attribute to the

5758: 5742: 5727: 5164:

considered a reliable source. But if a secondary source (a scholarly book published by the

4132:). I would like some feedback as to whether it is a reliable source. The website itself is 3938: 3850: 3269: 3042: 3014: 2972: 2955: 2921: 2885: 2821: 2686: 2329: 2295: 2212: 1966:" Here it says that the orthography of his dictionary was found to be adequate/reliable by 1827: 706: 646: 577: 350:. I prefer to use Kengor's book since it is more popular and presumably easier to verify. 9861:

Neither reference supplies this wording, though at least they aren't identical this time.

6239: 5379:

Again, I am aware this board has no power over there. But what are your opinions about it?

3582: 1838: 8: 10248: 9706: 9530: 9260: 8451: 8249: 8061:

of the records on familytreelegends (and rootsweb and ancestry) are primary records that

7666:

Hundreds of Knowledge articles are using this cite as a reference or external link, (see

7570: 7512: 7463: 7430: 7231: 7010:"the first Islamic incursion into Africa was in 640A.D, when General Amru captured Egypt" 6989: 6857: 6479: 6463: 6114:. Rather, we attempt to give more weight to those sources that are considered to be more 6088: 5984: 5933: 5891: 5277:

And this statement may be related to why her work was cited by the Punjabi Mexican book:

5042: 5020: 4987: 4934: 4910: 4308: 4200: 4173: 4142: 3762: 3733: 3679: 3553:

The composition is mathematically adjusted so that all musicians end the piece together

2565: 2520: 2479: 2154: 2106: 2017: 1975: 1918: 843:. Not that I reject what you say, but this sourced material can't be removed because you 334: 270: 9897: 9025:. The Korean Knowledge has an "embassy" that lists some members who also speak English: 8096:. I just haven't seen any case where we should cite FTL instead of the original source. 7841:, a reliable historical text. For comparison purposes, the volume is also online at the 7075: 3717: 3539: 2900: 8432: 7873: 7748:

It is a software company, and of essentially nil value for making any claims of fact.

7626: 7547: 7487: 7421: 7395: 7332: 6861: 6740:

A recipe for a John Collins is featured in the Steward and Barkeeper's Manual of 1869:

6218:

Al Jazeera is a reliable source generally for statements of fact, although not always.

6176: 6147: 6129: 5882:

In general Al Jazeera is one of the most trustworthy journalistic sources. Do you have

5774: 5618: 5519: 4967: 4760: 4751:

particularly if the discussion is occurring on a noticeboard dedicated to that purpose?

4715: 4679: 4674:

5/5-7/2011 with ratings of "very positive.") I do not see any 26% to 49% on that page.

4585: 4524: 4499: 4375: 4268: 4114: 4058: 3958: 3900: 3865: 3729: 3721: 3631: 3547: 3531: 3421: 3386: 3189:

be cited, but the question is about the sources that AcuteInsight has actually cited.

3140: 3088: 2881: 2616: 2493: 2465: 2450: 2415: 2276: 2238: 2064: 2034: 1990: 1924: 1779: 1664: 1656: 1647: 1612: 1575: 1512: 1408: 1292: 1193: 1171: 1128: 1004: 990: 970: 907: 896: 848: 830: 800: 768: 696: 7542:(secondary source), which looks like it is probably reliable, reports on the meeting. 7407: 6395:

Thanks. I was all over project film the other day and was not able to find anything.--

6265: 5488:. Thurman also points out facts that are missing in Hague's film, but are present in 3713: 3678:

page, Notafina "is a legal download site for sheet music and other digital content".

3666: 3524: 733:

Avoid unproven remedies such as use of mayonnaise, petrolatum jelly, and tea tree oil.

8227: 8190: 8097: 8024: 7958: 7925: 7849: 7834: 7816: 7753: 7715: 7697: 7674: 7603: 7373: 7301: 7057: 7037: 6970: 6951: 6430:"WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups" 6340:, Indiewire.com, and, to a lesser extent, consumer entertainment magazines/websites ( 5911: 5676: 5656: 5452: 5114: 5064: 5034: 5005: 4949: 4890: 4866: 4663: 4655: 4437: 4413: 4257: 4222: 4089: 4045: 3805: 3652: 3513:

as a source for various bits and pieces of information. The source has been used in:

3472: 3440: 3436: 3194: 3170: 3152: 3108: 3052: 3024: 2983: 2933: 2897:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cesar_Millan&diff=next&oldid=597205314

2859: 2827: 2797: 2715: 2659: 2632: 2602: 2591: 2550: 1121:, president of the National Pediculosis Association, from the organization's website 958: 782: 718: 677: 544: 529: 477: 458: 419: 387: 297: 278: 233: 228: 208: 192: 145: 120: 10229:

to keep them out if we see them come back. We have a template that helps sometimes:

7020:

will tell you why he feels the source isn't reliable in a little more elaboration.

6671:

lat-long.com, used about 100 times (search function doesn't work well with the dash)

5258:

Transpacific Mexico: encounters with China and Japan in the age of steam (1867-1914)

5253:

America's Japanese Hostages: The World War II Plan for a Japanese Free Latin America

3725: 3554: 2627:, instead of the comment. You'll have to scroll down to find the appropriate text. - 2436: 2142: 799:

I've just addressed that and a few of the other issues raised over on the talk page.

10046: 9969: 9444:

We have two plagiarised sites at issue here, which happen to be the two I consider

9387: 9030: 9018: 8888: 8624: 8514: 8297: 8146: 8127: 8112: 8007: 7983: 7772: 7692:, especially as I'm uncertain how this matter requires administrator intervention. 7452: 7354: 7277: 7242: 7209: 7193: 7160: 7137: 7114: 7083: 7021: 6926: 6878: 6832: 6787: 6779: 6614: 6454: 6396: 6345: 6306: 6302: 6219: 6205: 6051: 6020: 5998: 5961: 5872: 5633: 5547: 5501: 5411: 5382: 5337: 5309: 5203: 5188: 5172: 5145: 4789: 4781: 4726: 4690: 4650:

improper surmise (though out of a hundred people, 99+ would find it "substantial:.

4627: 4544: 4100: 3784: 3748: 3694: 3360: 3258: 3151:

compile more verification. I’ll add additional references as they become available.

2754: 2746: 2730: 1946: 1842: 1715: 1589: 1553: 1456: 1381: 1280: 1246: 764: 749:: "Its use as a treatment for head lice in children has been recommended against." 592: 492: 10127:

Found the collapsing code further down on this page, have now hidden the lists in

8719:, where a bunch of the earlier North American releases were reviewed. (Note that 8067: 6536:

Lineage.Also i am saying that the references provided for "Nagavanshi" Lineage in

5993:

Please stop parroting that Al Jazeera is a reliable source. Reread my comments.

5572:

So the reliability of Thurman's article on all of its claims is not unimpeachable.

3610: 2569: 9714: 8456: 8342:

1) Blog posts (including the main source cited for TV ratings records, cited as "

7730: 6894: 6810: 6437: 6061: 6012: 5754: 5738: 5723: 4296: 4072: 3299: 3280: 3265: 3125:

article "ON SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT - HISTORY SHOWS POPES VIEWS ON MYSTICS DIFFER"

3038: 3010: 2968: 2951: 2917: 2680: 2353: 1883: 1823: 1668: 1660: 1643: 1322: 1314: 840: 642: 573: 513: 274: 173: 10177:

copied it. On 31 Dec 2010 archive.org captured the DramaWiki page as indicated.

9831:

The synopsis contributed by an anonymous Knowledge editor on 26 Dec 2009 reads:

1146:

http://healthfinder.gov/FindServices/Organizations/Organization.aspx?code=HR2452

50:

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

10233: 9893: 8160: 8006:

This looks like it is being misused on a large enough scale to be concerning.--

7865: 7707: 7563: 7505: 7474: 7456: 7227: 6962: 6943: 6716: 6686: 6474: 6458: 6321: 6243: 6193: 6084: 5980: 5976: 5972: 5929: 5903: 5887: 5785: 5477: 5056: 5038: 5016: 4983: 4930: 4906: 4785: 4777: 4573: 4364: 4324: 4316: 4195: 4137: 4121: 3336: 2906: 2516: 2475: 2150: 2102: 2013: 1971: 1283:. However, it should be noted that the Knowledge article being discussed is on 8531:

by the two lead writers, one of whom was the author of the page I was citing.)

8223: 7000:

I think you can just see the claims with no validity here. Here's another one

5863: 5485: 4610:

calls the increase "slight" but focuses only on national, whole-poll results,

4017:

The term "scholars of ancient Japanese history" may therefore work as well. --

2948: 1841:

says "dil bilimcidir" which is translated as "linguist" by google translator:

1400: 1396: 1358:

I found something from the European Commission, if you dont' already have it.

1163: 1159: 277:

a sentence, for example, as a review, it would probably not be problematic. --

8581:

http://jpdstudio.com/2013/01/dimension-four-logo-combines-tradition-and-edge/

8397:

waiting for months now for access to a recently published history of K-dramas

8263: 7788: 7689: 7622: 7543: 7530:), although it would be optimal if no special plugin or viewer were required. 7483: 7417: 7336: 7164: 6169: 6143: 6126: 6029: 5770: 5715: 5702: 5614: 5512: 4963: 4756: 4711: 4675: 4581: 4520: 4495: 4371: 4300: 4242: 4191: 4053: 4033: 4022: 3953: 3895: 3894:

historians, then virtually all historians who we can cite accept the theory.

3860: 3637:

It is a very quick piece, marked Risoluto, ♩ = 88, and gravitates towards F.

3624: 3416: 3383: 3185: 3136: 2726: 2489: 2488:

For example, "Wallach first appeared on stage in a 1930 amateur production."

2461: 2446: 2407: 2233: 2060: 2030: 1986: 1920: 1608: 1571: 1508: 1404: 1335: 1288: 1189: 1185: 1167: 1124: 986: 892: 826: 692: 606: 446: 356: 344:

Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century

9623:

The synopsis created by an anonymous Knowledge editor on 10 Jul 2013 reads:

8713: 6805:. The book is also cited in Maynard Andrew Amerine and Axel E. Borg's 1996 6544:^ Omacanda Hāṇḍā. Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya, p.251. 4457:

The lede of the article had contained the following line for the past year:

3596: 1818:

says he started by writing about computing, then travel books. He's written

9889: 9572: 9437: 9215: 8884: 8809: 8428: 8289: 8248:

Marginal, but conceivably COULD be used - how, and is it uncontroversial?--

8092:

likely could be used for identity theft, and should not be used anyway per

7893: 7812: 7749: 7693: 7611: 7110: 7053: 6966: 6947: 5946:"The figure of four million worshippers for Dorje Shugden is preposterous." 5925: 5907: 5883: 5799:

which would help establish the notability if it is an acceptable source.--

5407: 5060: 5001: 4945: 4886: 4862: 4659: 4651: 4623: 4539: 4433: 4429: 4409: 4368: 4253: 4218: 4187: 4085: 4077:

Who said the Cathars worshipped two Gods - their persecutors? (unsigned)

3984:（Nakanishi Susumu (1973), “ Yamanoue no Okura”, Kawade Shobo Shinsha, p.45） 3788: 3617: 3485:

Not notable and not reliable. It's an advertisement, which is prohibited.--

3325: 3321: 3316:

are that these are reliable academic third party sources. How can the site

3313: 3190: 3104: 2851: 2793: 2711: 2655: 2628: 2587: 2546: 2538: 2272: 2268:

I see a batch of whilelist URLs was approved not so long ago for this site

1465: 1284: 954: 926: 866: 789: 785: 750: 721: 707: 673: 470: 454: 450: 412: 402: 383: 291:

Do you think it should be placed onto the table of reliable sources on the

10173:. Hanjae did write the synopsis as indicated. On 30 Nov 2010 someone at 8226:. It has also been reprinted by the Wiltshire Family History Society, see 6994:"and by 1492 the Moors had lost all of Spain except the Kingdom of Granda" 6860:

of a book from 1886. This new republished version of the original book by

3674:

All of these articles were created by the same editor. According to their

2553:

as to whether Right Sector leader, Dmytro Yarosh, should be quoted from a

9576: 8551:. Yes, I'm extremely pissed off about that, specifically in relation to 8510: 8142: 7499: 7348: 7273: 6893:

Not, I'd say. Unless we are talking about historical views of the Moors.

6610: 6502: 6320:

The Numbers and Box Office Mojo are both accepted as reliable sources by

6201: 6047: 5994: 5957: 5868: 5720:

Content: "Is waterboarding a form of torture? No." As per John A. Rizzo.

5629: 5543: 5497: 5439: 5030: 4154: 4125: 3846: 3123: 3003: 2750: 2509:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#disputed date of birth

2432: 1942: 1934: 1711: 1655:

The passage from the article does not say “the NSA now spies on Minister

1533: 1526:, I think there are circumstances in which doing so is warrated. So far, 1452: 1360:

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_160.pdf

588: 566: 231:

said, it may be useful small and simple claims, but what about opinions?

159: 8402:

The Korean page linked to from "Korean drama" as the equivalent article

8357: 7791:(the site hosts, but does not publish the trees), and are not reliable. 7347:

would be considered reliable websites for use. Any help is appreciated.

6802: 3623:

This composition is in one movement and takes three minutes to perform

2098: 7982:

here. We don't cite Knowledge just because the source was found here.--

7072:"Black Classic is a respectable publisher of African American scholars" 6559: 6529: 5364: 3295: 2371: 1879: 1822:

and I presume it's the website version that is being used as a source.

1152:). The descriptions are pretty much taken off the website "about" page. 525: 507: 9540:

The synopsis contributed to DramaWiki by Hanjae on 17 Feb 2010 reads:

9483:

The synopsis contributed to DramaWiki by Hanjae on 23 Nov 2010 reads:

8367:, which is quite recent and is my single most important source, cites 5406:

I should just pay for the service. Instead I put requests both on the

2141:. In the past 2 years there were deleted some portions of text due to 227:

Another thing about this website that I've noticed is reviews, and as

7002:"The word Moor literally means black, so the Moors were black people" 6712: 6682: 6609:

of anonymous posters, no more reliable than a Knowledge talk page. --

6585:

I'm wondering if I should add these as articles on Knowledge or not.

6563: 6537: 6533: 6521: 6424:

In 2014 Wiki-PR launched a new website under the name StatusLabs.com.

5371: 5234:. That means this master's thesis has been cited at least six times. 5029:

It has little to do with a "personal belief" and more to do with the

4048:

refers to him as a "historian" in at least four places; we even have

3332: 3317: 1522:

While I generally agree that we should avoid tabloid sources such as

1444: 9465:

Introductions complete, here's my evidence, in considerable detail:

6778:

use sources or references that do not exist or are behind pay walls.

6605: 5607:

is relatively recent and less polemical than the article by Thurman:

4466:

Collect then restored the line, but added the word "substantially":

4292: 3589: 7839:

Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Volume 12

7150: 7141: 7130: 6755:

Shake up, or stir up with ice. Add a slice of lemon peel to finish

4018: 1724: 1397:"A review of the toxicity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil" 152: 138: 9814:

The synopsis contributed to DramaWiki by C51236 7 Dec 2009 reads:

9458:

found instead uses the character sketches. To get to these go to

8368: 8262:

It is marginal, but seems to be completely uncontroversial. Under

7013: 6761:

http://secondgoldenage.com/2012/07/21/collinses-fizzes-difference/

5187:

our notability guidelines since we regard all schools as notable.

5059:, judges it to be a reliable source for verifying the statement. 3819:) descent, but in the 1970s and 80s this theory was criticized by 662:

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf

7455:

if used as an external link, is it admissible as a ref source? --

5248:

Allied policy toward axis Interests in Mexico during World War II

4905:

already adequately cited, and he has flat-out refused to check. –

1809: 1443:

poor sources) and it doesn't register at all at JSTOR. Note that

8364: 7598:

to blacklist. In cases where a primary source is being linked,

7344: 5928:

has touched on precisely the right way to treat this situation.

1584:

The NSA's surveillance of Merkel's aides has been independently

467:

OK thanks, that seems a reasonable approach. Much appreciated.--

7807:

aggregator of sorts. The majority of cases have been violating

7339:, I need sources from a third party and I am wondering whether 6828: 5323:

over there that will decide whether that article is retained.

3816: 2137:

The same information relating the Hunnic etymology of the word

561:

Is this unpublished paper by a PhD candidate a reliable source?

9207: 8829:

I don't want it to come down. I didn't want "Controversy" in

8376:

An enthusiast page for the history of a video recorder company

6562:

page with experts & remove that "Nagavanshi" Lineage from

2001: 1739:"U.S. now bugging German ministers in place of Merkel: report" 9459: 8692: 8331: 7340: 7335:

article with a hope to one day be able to take an article to

7208:

of his area of abundantly demonstrable expertise in physics.

6019:

is generally considered a high profile, reliable source, and

5496:

school. Can we consider Hague's film as a Nonreliable source?

5493: 5238:

Making Ethnic Choices: California's Punjabi Mexican Americans

3854: 2348:

cites a 2006 cbronline story. A 2012 CBR article is cited in

1956: 1756: 569: 9402:

Plagiarism of Ostensibly Unreliable Sources: Eight Examples

8040:

Also rootsweb.ancestry.com, and see if there are any more.

7688:

I believe this might be more appropriately discussed at the

4538:

does mean we need to interpret the results somewhat but, as

4133: 4124:

right in its title, after it was proposed as an addition to

4084:

one of the two -- the second was Satan. Interesting group.

3382:

dharma-protector" or "Shugden is a worldly spirit". Cheers,

2537:

Google translate or blog translate for article on Ukraine's

1500:

The cited report in Bild relies entirely on unnamed sources.

9659:

Hanjae heavily revised the DramaWiki synopsis 23 Nov 2010:

7998:

Should FamilyTreeLegends.com/My Heritage.com be blacklisted

7771:. The reference is not reliable or unreliable on its face. 7768: 3544:(Notafina and another source used to support this content). 2601:

If quoting, definitely go with the Google-translated page.

2143:

some incidents with IP sockpuppets and persistent vandalism

1816: 1764:"Merkel's aides now on NSA radar, claims Dutch news report" 1479: 1315:

look to reputable, well-recognized independent sources here

10076:

plagiarise DramaWiki - see the corrected example below re

8070:. Do you really want to blacklist the CIA World Factbook? 6540:

page are not at all reliable. The reference provided are:

4780:

because it's not the source that's in question - it's the

4570:"That does mean we need to interpret the results somewhat" 3505:

Use of www.notafina.de in several articles on compositions

3007: 2913:

and a statement by one of the participating organisations.

2513:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Allrovi

498: 9853:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9838:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9821:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9795:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9787:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9775:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9761:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9744:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9613:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9564:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9547:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9522:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9508:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 9490:<removed for copyright issues - but problem fixed: --> 8787: 3510: 1427: 862: 7004:

the original Moors were Arabs and Berbers from Morocco,

6499:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Café Jacques (band)

5243:

Mexico in the 1940s: Modernity, Politics, and Corruption

5085:

Is this viewpoint considered "RS" enough for notability?

5033:

of the contested statement. Verifiability is one of the

4044:

Wikipedians. It's also worth noting that our article on

1401:"A review of applications of tea tree oil in dermatology 1188:'s comments about the National Pediculosis Association. 8783: 4130:

Talk:Murry_Salby#Protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2014

3595:

Magány, sometimes translated into English as Solitude.

1149: 949:

contraindications" of a home remedy but that, IMHO, is

114: 8455:- compare the character listing there with the one in 8427:

Knowledge has in the past plagiarised DramaWiki (see "

8318:

at least to judge by web searches.) The blogs cited:

6566:

page immediately if they are not reliable.Thank You. -

5492:. Thurman is a Buddhist scholar, and an expert in the 2438:

a reliable source for info about his life and career?

2370:

And for clarity, I didn't add those citations, it was

1804:

Is Sevan Nisanyan acceptable as a source for etymology

921:

Ironically, the National Pediculosis Association also

781:

Thanks. One question that's arisen in Talk is whether

10072:

people are willing to delete perfectly good synopses

9896:. I was one of the first members of what became the 8579:

Oh, and yes, the Dramabeans book is self-published:

6907:

From a quick look at the Google preview, unreliable.

6775: 6344:, IGN.com, Deadline.com, etc) can also be used. See 5148:

thesis, and Masterson cited her thesis in this book.

1667:.” The fact to prove is not the spying, but whether 670:

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

668:

Is used as a source for a number of strong claims at

9947:

Joe, the copyright problem reporting board is here:

9751:

Archive.org's 17 Jan 2009 copy shows this synopsis.

9620:

Archive.org's 29 Mar 2010 copy shows this synopsis.

8284:

Verifiability and popular culture: Korean TV dramas

4424:

In any case, Pollingreport.com, Gallup and USAToday

1158:

will not do for these sections. These articles are:

9554:Archive.org's 9 Mar 2010 copy shows this synopsis. 8691:Maybe I should, however, go into more detail about 8385:7) One footnote even amounts to "Citation needed". 7562:

where I altered "12/04/2014" to "12 March 2014". --

6600:As the subjects of articles? Then you want to read 5484:that directly contradicts every claim made by this 4830:

Seattle Catholics Divided On Repealing Gay Marriage

2579: 2073:No idea :) I focused on what seemed most relevant. 1541:is factually accurate. If I may briefly quote from 9715:DramaWiki's recap of episodes one through four of 8228:http://issuu.com/wiltshirefhs/docs/65_-_april_1997 6083:true with fraught political issues like this one. 5230:on Google scholar, but this list does not include 7878:The Native Americans of Southern California, 1852 2652:google translation of the original Pravda article 8292:" covers (K-dramas), and written about them for 7129:Dr. Robert G. Brown and The Pandeist Theorem in 4469:"His favorability ratings among the public have 2578:, which is, I think, translating a comment from 10043:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction 9571:This is the first example I found (though note 7005: 6015:, but I don't think you'll have much success. 5563:Thurman's article does not directly contradict 3804:, a term that generally refers to the study of 3415:It's there in the quote. What do people think? 2093:Is this person reliable for the same arcticle? 1843:http://translate.google.de/#tr/en/dil%20bilimci 1820:Etymological Dictionary of Contemporary Turkish 8365:the later and more useful dissertation, Jeon's 7226:field of philosophy/theology to begin with. -- 5095:es:Knowledge:Artículos_sin_relevancia_aparente 4032:Note that, unlike Dwy's obligation to post an 2905:is a page about the sponsoring organisations. 2625:here is the google translation of that article 2557:interview using one of two available sources: 1812:in a discussion about the meaning of the word. 1472:Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) 1419:Some help with an author, please: G. C.Dwivedi 9807:, until it started plagiarising DramaWiki on 9441:unsurprisingly, but excessively, hard line.) 8189:. I've asked for an outside editor to close. 7862:Sixty Years in Southern California, 1853-1913 4099:Eh? Is there a question about sources here? 3665:It was eventually published by Schott Music. 3009:) isn't written by anyone directly involved. 2826:There is currently a request for comments at 2654:, and of what crimea.comments.ua really is? - 1731: 1642:“Quoting an unnamed NSA official in Germany, 9904:underlying the historical discussion of the 9022: 7957:represented instead of appearing to be FTL. 7036:Not all of those are equally good examples. 6558:Please analyse these references provided in 5952:mentions. Lastly, its an academic fact that 5089:On the Spanish Knowledge there is an AFD on 3087:Are any of the many online sources cited in 1377:Here's one from the American Cancer Society 1214:I'd say there are two separate issues here: 8224:http://www.one-name.org/profiles/mayne.html 7924:the search vehicle itself should be cited. 6864:has been redone by the Afrocentrist writer 6381:be used to gather clues for your research. 5796:Use: It published an obituary of an artist 3083:Cardinal Ottaviani, Pius XII and John XXIII 1663:reports that the NSA now spies on Minister 1164:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16243420 1160:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998411 8406:) has an extensive history section, which 8344:Top 50 highest-rated TV dramas of all time 8339:in detail here, but such sources include: 6925:Anybody else care to share their opinion? 6524:Page & its Lineage Article Reliability 5434:Is www.jazz.com reliable enough to add to 5055:verifies the statement. Nobody, not even 4034:accurate, neutrally-worded opening comment 3471:Agreed with all. Should be not be used. -- 3396:Amazon.com search results as a source for 1333:Neither is exactly a ringing endorsement. 568:is extensively used on our article on the 9869:that line. At Knowledge, the first edit 7413:. I come to it by means of this article: 6729:recipe in book that cant really be found? 6656:placenames.com, used more than 5000 times 5270:In addition, Masterson's book says on p. 4876:The source is RS only for a claim that a 4010:the Title of Extraction of Okura Yamanoue 3832:that "no historians accept this theory". 3205:dorjeshugdenhistory.org reliable source? 2648:google translated crimea.comments.ua post 1432:The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire 8449:turns out to be perfectly acceptable in 7860:article, footnote 13 cites this source: 7837:article, footnote 19 cites this source: 6493:Is Dutch Progressive Rock Page reliable? 3651:The movement list is as follows: ..... 3435:No it is not a reliable source. This is 3279:Doug. I'd say the article you quoted by 953:to label it as "pseudoscience" either. 10241:Knowledge:Text Copyright Violations 101 8408:Google Translate makes mincemeat out of 7876:article, footnote 3 cites this source: 7714:. And most of these links are on BLPs. 7439:which was used in the following edits: 6661:cartographic.info, used some 2700 times 6651:fallingrain.com, used nearly 5000 times 6297:Domestic and worldwide box office gross 5360:I encountered the following arguments: 3257:as a source for claiming Shugden was a 1659:.” The passage says (to paraphrase): “ 1279:I generally agree with the comments of 14: 9791:Knowledge's character list now reads: 9729:<snipped for copyright reasons: --> 9698:<snipped for copyright reasons: --> 9680:<snipped for copyright reasons: --> 9666:<snipped for copyright reasons: --> 9595:incompletely plagiarises DramaWiki on 9212:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources 5956:. This was nothing but a "hit piece." 4824:In the third paragraph of the article 4389:than substantial with a straight face. 3808:, and by "literary scholars" he means 1935:http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=kayak 1787:Italic or bold markup not allowed in: 1434:and in particular a version edited by 1067:we don't have families like that here. 788:is a good enough source to be usable. 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7894:familytreelegends' records collection 7892:Take a look at the categories in the 6503:Dutch Progressive Rock Page CD review 6497:Hi, I am in search of references for 5705:is he a high quality reliable source? 4832:a reliable source for the statement: 3986:So it was not actually my synthesis. 2427:BLP info sourced from All Movie Guide 2189:some 800 citations to their stories. 1478:that was cited to the German tabloid 8457:the Dramabeans recap of episodes 1-4 7641:The following discussion is closed. 7136:At the suggestion of my dear friend 7014:I don't see any "General Amru" there 7006:just like the article says currently 6870:take a look at some of the book here 6831:in the library of congress catalog. 6776:https://en.wikipedia.org/Tom_Collins 6644:Other at first sight similar sites: 5436:Knowledge:WikiProject Albums/Sources 4784:given to particular sources and the 4217:demonstrate the POV pretty clearly. 3975:make the most relevant point only: 29: 10169:Corrected version of case 1 above, 10006:Thanks for your attention and help. 8141:just say "screw it...this says I'm 7167:, specifically (emphasis theirs): 5814:Al Jazeera piece a reliable source? 4826:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism 4614:calls the results "remarkable" and 4576:on use of sources is unambiguous: " 1440:Surajmal Memorial Education Society 27: 10131:. Thanks for the suggestion. JLB 9886:the first English-language website 8311:" about this, reading as follows: 7880:, also available at Google Books: 4295:as either an external link (i.e., 3318:http://www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org 2059:knowledge of numerous languages)? 110:Is LambGoat.com a reliable source? 28: 10263: 9803:used to plagiarise Dramabeans on 7858:Henry Hammel and Andrew H. Denker 6625:hometownlocator, fallingrain, ... 6606:http://fastestlaps.com/about.html 4820:Cardinals and bishops campaigning 4321:Coronation of the Russian monarch 4291:There are over 50 articles using 3853:-- does this mean the article on 3509:I just met eleven articles using 9846:Knowledge's synopsis now reads: 9783:Knowledge's synopsis now reads: 9691:Knowledge's synopsis now reads: 9636:Knowledge's synopsis now reads: 9582:Knowledge's synopsis now reads: 9515:Knowledge's synopsis now reads: 8204:The discussion above is closed. 7241:are not themselves theologians. 6581:Fastestlaps.com and Crownvic.net 5160:a master's degree thesis is not 2374:who added them some 5 years ago 1688:this is the article in question. 1487:. My rationale for deletion is: 664:"REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL" 33: 8369:the earlier and less useful one 8213:Self-published source reliable? 7864:also available at archive.org: 6765:all based off this 2010 book ^ 6674:mytopo.com, used some 150 times 4473:improved since he left office." 4315:); and/or as a citable source ( 3320:fulfill the criteria set up in 2379:Someone not using his real name 2358:Someone not using his real name 2352:. I think you need to drop the 2315:Someone not using his real name 2281:Someone not using his real name 2254:Someone not using his real name 2191:Someone not using his real name 501:I've been planning to nominate 8461:as long as no credit is given! 8320:Dramabeans recap of episode 13 6743:Teaspoonful of powdered sugar 6432:. SignPost. February 12, 2014. 5975:when doing so, of course, but 2582:published about 20 days later. 2279:issues with off-line sources. 1327:American Academy of Pediatrics 255:contentious claims from them. 13: 1: 8294:a book (and movie) log I keep 7919:21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 7825:20:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 7801:20:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 7781:16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 7758:16:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 7739:15:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 7724:15:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 7702:15:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 7683:14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 7331:I'm currently working on the 7078:that says in the description 5263:The Japanese in Latin America 5232:The Japanese in Latin America 5107:The Japanese in Latin America 4658:) 19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4519:that supports the statement. 4192:Biographies of living persons 4002:Nihon Kodai Shizoku no Kenkyu 3646:Clarinet Quartet (Penderecki) 3369:16:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 3355:20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 3341:00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 3304:23:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 3274:22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 3179:03:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 3161:23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 3145:18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 3113:07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2759:15:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 2739:11:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 2720:22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2693:18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2664:17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2637:16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2611:16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2596:16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2498:17:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 2484:17:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 2470:17:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 2455:00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 2159:19:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 2133:18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 2111:15:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC) 2101:I would like to refer to. -- 2078:00:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 2069:22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 2054:22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 2039:22:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 2022:21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1995:23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 1980:16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 1951:09:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 1929:18:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 1907:15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 1888:07:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 1870:18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 1861:16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 1832:16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 1808:is being used as a source in 1720:15:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 1617:05:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 1598:19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1580:18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1562:18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1517:18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1461:14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 1413:03:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 1390:03:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC) 1340:21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 1313:I'm going to suggest that we 1297:23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 1255:21:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 1198:21:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1176:18:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1133:22:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 1013:11:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 995:14:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 979:12:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 963:12:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 930:11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 916:10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 901:10:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 870:10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 861:Not pseudoscience, but maybe 857:10:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 835:10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 809:09:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 793:08:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 777:07:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 754:07:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC) 701:18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 682:16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 651:12:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 628:12:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 597:11:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 582:11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 553:18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 538:20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 519:19:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC) 503:Trouble (Natalia Kills album) 483:09:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 463:19:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 441:16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 425:20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 392:23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 323:16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC) 309:20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 287:02:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC) 265:23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 245:21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 220:21:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 201:20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 186:19:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 132:16:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 9949:Knowledge:Copyright problems 9809:Will it Snow at Christmas%3F 8424:not a registered Wikipedian 7843:Wisconsin Historical Society 7690:reliable sources noticeboard 6786:) 18:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6749:A wine glass of Old Tom Gin 6666:topozone.com, used 415 times 6418:Wiki-PR editing of Knowledge 5954:China fuels Shugden activity 5472:Short film by Nicolas Hague? 5265:(not seen on Google scholar) 5166:University of Illinois Press 5111:University of Illinois Press 3006:(originally from Scienceline 2586:Help would be appreciated. - 2564:, which is a translation by 1876:Turkish Language Association 1848:wikt:Template:R:tr:Nishanyan 1586:confirmed by Snowden himself 7: 9805:Will It Snow For Christmas? 9801:Will It Snow For Christmas? 9434:List of South Korean dramas 9267:is what I might want to do. 8544:The Encyclopedia of Fantasy 7663:, and should not be used. 7478:parliamentlive.tv website). 7327:SteveGTennis and Coretennis 6827:While rare, that manual is 5486:short film by Nicolas Hague 3720:used to support content in 3255:www.dorjeshugdenhistory.org 2545:There is a disagreement on 1679:would be readily available. 1319:Canadian Paediatric Society 10: 10268: 10252:23:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 10243:. We'll do what we can. I 10222:15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 10153:16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 10111:16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 10055:16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 10029:15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 9978:15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 9942:02:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 9396:01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 9335:17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 9322:16:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 9263:or contesting the edit to 9165:02:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 9039:23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 9011:16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 8897:13:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 8879:03:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 8633:16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 8618:01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 8604:01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 8519:21:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 8503:19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 8482:23:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 8276:16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 8258:01:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 8243:12:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 8199:08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC) 7608:Knowledge:Convenience link 7575:22:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 7552:21:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 7517:19:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 7492:19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) 7468:15:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 7441:First TransPennine Express 7426:07:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 7382:20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 7365:16:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 7315:21:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 7282:20:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 7251:20:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 7236:20:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 7218:19:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) 7123:19:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 7102:15:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 7092:14:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 7062:14:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 7045:16:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 7030:14:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6975:13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6956:13:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6935:11:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6843:13:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6823:02:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6796:18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6746:The juice of half a lemon 6721:13:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6707:17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6691:12:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6648:mbendi.com, used 194 times 6619:01:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 6595:18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6576:08:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6528:Hi, what i mean to say is 6516:02:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 6282:Thanks for taking a look. 6278:Are they reliable sources? 6238:Please take a look at the 5950:that every academic source 4755:what could be agreed to. 3133:National Catholic Reporter 3131:by John L. Allen from the 2576:this google translate page 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 10171:Mary Stayed Out All Night 10078:Mary Stayed Out All Night 9709:plagiarises DramaWiki on 9652:plagiarises DramaWiki on 9650:Secret Garden (TV series) 9533:plagiarises DramaWiki on 9474:Mary Stayed Out All Night 9472:plagiarises DramaWiki on 9470:Mary Stayed Out All Night 9265:Secret Garden (TV series) 8831:Secret Garden (TV series) 8446:Secret Garden (TV series) 8309:Secret Garden (TV series) 8174:18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 8155:06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 8136:06:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 8121:06:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 8106:22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 8080:21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 8050:14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 8033:09:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 8016:09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 7992:09:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 7967:07:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 7952:01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 7934:00:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 7504:, or leave them alone? -- 6917:19:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 6903:16:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 6887:07:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 6485:23:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 6469:14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 6445:13:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 6405:21:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 6391:16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 6315:04:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 6292:21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) 6250:Are these self-published? 6234:Self-published? Reliable? 6228:07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 6210:02:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 6184:12:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 6152:11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 6133:00:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 6093:00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 6074:23:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 6056:22:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 6042:22:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 6003:21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5989:21:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5966:21:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5938:20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5916:20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5896:19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5877:17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 5862:and other pages now uses 5820:Dorje Shugden controversy 5809:07:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 5779:03:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 5763:22:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 5747:21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 5732:14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 5690:01:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 5670:01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 5638:21:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5623:17:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5552:04:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5527:02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5506:01:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5466:01:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 5445:22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5430:Is www.jazz.com reliable? 5420:12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5401:12:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5391:10:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5346:10:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 5328:09:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 5318:04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 5222:13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 5212:09:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 5197:09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 5181:09:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 5091:es:Liceo Mexicano Japonés 5069:08:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5047:01:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5035:five pillars of Knowledge 5025:00:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 5010:20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4992:19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4972:18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4954:17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4939:17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4919:17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4895:16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4871:16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4802:07:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 4765:06:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 4739:04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 4720:23:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4703:22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4684:22:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4668:19:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4640:21:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4590:17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4557:13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4529:16:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4504:06:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 4442:00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4418:00:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4380:00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4353:04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 4337:20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC) 4293:famousdiamonds.tripod.com 4287:famousdiamonds.tripod.com 4277:03:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC) 4262:19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4247:17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4227:16:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4206:13:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4182:05:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4148:04:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4109:21:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4094:20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4080:I rather think they only 4067:15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 4050:an article on the subject 4027:18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3967:14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3947:14:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3926:09:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 3909:23:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 3885:17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 3874:01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 3771:14:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 3757:09:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 3742:03:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC) 3724:article is the same, and 3703:23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 3688:22:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 3518:Three Bagatelles (Ligeti) 3495:01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 3481:20:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3467:16:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3453:15:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3430:14:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3390:23:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3211:Dorje Shugden controversy 3199:09:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3061:07:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3047:06:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 3033:23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 3019:18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2992:16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2977:16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2960:15:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2942:07:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2926:06:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2841:21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2802:01:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 2650:is do different from the 2570:this professor of history 2525:23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2421:17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2387:17:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2366:16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2340:16:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2323:16:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2306:16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2289:16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2262:15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2247:15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2223:14:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 2199:14:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC) 273:. So if you just want to 10129:State income tax#History 9906:Big-8 Usenet hierarchies 9381:ko:사용자토론:Tsuchiya Hikaru 8206:Please do not modify it. 7643:Please do not modify it. 7180:third-party publications 7156:A Theorem Concerning God 6866:John G. Jackson (writer) 6026:template:disputed-inline 4313:Imperial Crown of Russia 4307:); a general reference ( 3995:Okura Kikajinsestu Hihan 3399:Night of the Living Dead 2232:. Any idea why this is? 2179:Computer Business Review 2149:the relevant points. -- 1815:His biography at tr.wiki 1470:I removed material from 382:Thanks for your time. 9713:and, as posted before, 9023:http://ko.wikipedia.org 8391:It's worth noting that 7851:, and on Google Books: 7633:) 16:25, 17 March 2014‎ 7185:WP:BLP#Reliable sources 6752:A bottle of plain soda 6629:A couple of questions: 6276: 5804:aka The Red Pen of Doom 5031:objective verifiability 3118:I don't have access to 1955:Looks almost reliable. 1837:The Turkish page about 1148:) to weightloss gurus ( 348:Red Star Over Hollywood 9898:Big 8 Management Board 9884:A long time ago I ran 9601:Becoming a Billionaire 9593:Becoming a Billionaire 8529:Why Do Dramas Do That? 7765:661 Knowledge articles 7449:British Rail Class 170 7305:area to be reliable. 7176:has been published by 6556: 6551: 6546: 6426: 6338:The Hollywood Reporter 4852:has also been disputed 4848: 4838: 4771:I wouldn't say that's 3797:Talk:Yamanoue no Okura 3670: 3656: 3642: 3628: 3614: 3604:Ramifications (Ligeti) 3600: 3586: 3572: 3558: 3543: 3528: 3511:http://www.notafina.de 3093:Mary Faustina Kowalska 2846:Dogwelfarecampaign.org 2727:the languages ref desk 735: 499:this website reliable? 380: 9599:, whose DVD title is 9597:The Birth of the Rich 9476:, whose DVD title is 7587:FamilyTreeLegends.com 7435:Regarding the source 7200:, when Pandeism is a 7174:in the relevant field 7012:Who is general Amru? 6602:Knowledge: Notability 6552: 6547: 6542: 6422: 6196:just came out with a 5226:I found the paper is 5105:Masterson, Daniel M. 4843: 4834: 4305:Taylor-Burton Diamond 3978:As mentioned earlier, 3663: 3649: 3635: 3621: 3607: 3593: 3579: 3576:Mátraszentimrei dalok 3565: 3562:Due capricci (Ligeti) 3551: 3535: 3521: 1897:to his dictionary. -- 1568:The National Enquirer 725: 724:. Pertinent extracts: 367: 46:of past discussions. 9902:most of the research 9720:. The DVD title is 7654:Moved from ANI board 7594:Closing from ANRFC. 7307:Lesser Cartographies 7149:minimally relevant. 6815:Lesser Cartographies 6342:Entertainment Weekly 5864:this Aljazeera piece 5053:the adduced citation 4038:the page in question 3851:historicity of Jesus 3345:I agree with you 3. 2435:. Is All Movie Guide 1287:, not on head lice. 1150:http://www.tops.org/ 620:alf laylah wa laylah 9871:took that line away 9707:Gourmet (TV series) 9535:Prosecutor Princess 9531:Prosecutor Princess 9261:Gourmet (TV series) 8452:Gourmet (TV series) 6990:Black Classic Press 6858:Black Classic Press 6326:Box Office Magazine 6125:I hope this helps. 5490:every academic book 5099:significant content 4309:Pink Star (diamond) 3487:Rurik the Varangian 2145:. I just wanted to 1317:. For example, the 524:It is published by 357:Hollywood blacklist 8433:My Lovely Sam Soon 8324:Outside Seoul blog 8086:Further discussion 7907:record collections 7874:San Timoteo Canyon 7867:and Google Books: 7848:, at archive.org: 7644: 6862:Stanley Lane-Poole 6532:is not one of the 6368:, Twitch Film, or 6354:The New York Times 5291:. (Snippet view) ( 4574:Knowledge's policy 3722:The Dream of Jacob 3632:Invention (Ligeti) 3532:The Dream of Jacob 3091:of the article on 2568:, who seems to be 2442:seems to think so. 2350:this academic book 1766:. Germany News.Net 1665:Thomas de Maiziere 1657:Thomas de Maiziere 1648:Thomas de Maiziere 1605:Thomas de Maizière 1476:Thomas de Maizière 1436:Vir Singh (author) 1321:guidelines state: 1119:Deborah Altschuler 252:The New York Times 8554:Boys Over Flowers 8358:A master's thesis 7835:Monroe, Wisconsin 7642: 7635: 7621:comment added by 7445:Chiltern Railways 7333:ITF Men's Circuit 7302:John Polkinghorne 7202:theological model 6875:by another editor 6841: 6508:CaesarsPalaceDude 6350:Los Angeles Times 6166:Knowledge's voice 5805: 5603:article from the 5482:article yesterday 5480:came out with an 4828:, is citation of 4624:original research 4359:Pollingreport.com 4064: 4046:Winston Churchill 3985: 3964: 3906: 3871: 3806:political history 3427: 3312:The criteria for 2828:Talk:Pablo Casals 2555:Ukrains’ka Pravda 2551:Talk:Right Sector 2419: 2411: 2244: 2095:Leland Liu Rogers 1636:named in the diff 932: 167:Alternative Press 146:Bloody Disgusting 107: 106: 58: 57: 52:current main page 10259: 10238: 10232: 10208:Joe Bernstein 10097:Joe Bernstein 10015:Joe Bernstein 9928:Joe Bernstein 9854: 9839: 9822: 9796: 9788: 9776: 9762: 9745: 9730: 9699: 9681: 9667: 9614: 9565: 9548: 9523: 9509: 9491: 9376:ko:사용자토론:Ykhwong 9360:ko:위키백과:사랑방 (일반) 9308:Joe Bernstein 9117:Joe Bernstein 9019:Korean Knowledge 8975:Joe Bernstein 8851:Joe Bernstein 8726:Korean Quarterly 8716:Korean Quarterly 8714:the archives of 8468:Joe Bernstein 8322:, December 2010 8298:State income tax 8268:Richard Keatinge 8235:Richard Keatinge 7634: 7615: 7566: 7561: 7508: 7503: 7475:convenience link 7459: 7361: 7351: 7194:User:TippyGoomba 7161:User:TippyGoomba 7138:User:TippyGoomba 7081: 7073: 7018:Richard Keatinge 7011: 7003: 6999: 6995: 6909:Richard Keatinge 6851:Reliable or not? 6839: 6835: 6809:(p 127, #1626), 6699:NinjaRobotPirate 6482: 6477: 6466: 6461: 6442: 6441: 6433: 6383:NinjaRobotPirate 6322:WikiProject Film 6179: 6172: 6066:NinjaRobotPirate 6034:NinjaRobotPirate 5884:reliable sources 5861: 5843: 5806: 5803: 5686: 5683: 5680: 5675:discrimination. 5666: 5663: 5660: 5522: 5515: 5462: 5459: 5456: 5442: 5228:cited five times 5120:, 9780252071447. 4798: 4735: 4699: 4636: 4553: 4476:(emphasis added) 4345:NinjaRobotPirate 4203: 4198: 4145: 4140: 4057: 4008:Izuru Murayama 3983: 3957: 3899: 3864: 3785:Susumu Nakanishi 3660:Éjszaka – Reggel 3459:NinjaRobotPirate 3450: 3445: 3420: 3259:Dharma Protector 3252: 3234: 2893: 2875: 2745:Fully seconding 2689: 2619:is the original 2580:http://crimea.ua 2445:Does Knowledge? 2413: 2409: 2337: 2332: 2303: 2298: 2237: 2220: 2215: 1899:Vahagn Petrosyan 1797: 1796: 1790: 1785: 1783: 1775: 1773: 1771: 1760: 1754: 1753: 1751: 1749: 1735: 920: 612: 516: 512: 510: 481: 473: 433:NinjaRobotPirate 423: 415: 315:NinjaRobotPirate 307: 305: 300: 257:NinjaRobotPirate 243: 241: 236: 218: 216: 211: 178:NinjaRobotPirate 130: 128: 123: 85: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 10267: 10266: 10262: 10261: 10260: 10258: 10257: 10256: 10236: 10230: 9865:the first edit 9852: 9837: 9820: 9794: 9786: 9774: 9760: 9743: 9728: 9697: 9679: 9665: 9612: 9563: 9546: 9521: 9507: 9489: 9478:Marry Me, Mary! 9404: 9371:ko:사용자:ChongDae 9366:ko:사용자:Neoalpha 9337:(fixing a link) 8421:Joe Bernstein 8326:, August 2013. 8286: 8215: 8210: 8209: 8088: 8055:Strongly oppose 8000: 7829:Three examples: 7647: 7638: 7637: 7636: 7616: 7589: 7564: 7557: 7528:WP:SOURCEACCESS 7506: 7497: 7457: 7433: 7392: 7355: 7349: 7329: 7134: 7079: 7071: 7009: 7001: 6997: 6993: 6853: 6837: 6731: 6627: 6587:198.228.217.171 6583: 6526: 6495: 6480: 6475: 6464: 6459: 6439: 6438: 6428: 6421: 6299: 6236: 6177: 6170: 5834: 5818: 5816: 5801: 5790: 5707: 5684: 5681: 5678: 5664: 5661: 5658: 5613: 5520: 5513: 5474: 5460: 5457: 5454: 5440: 5432: 5410:and on Reddit. 5146:master's degree 5087: 4822: 4796: 4733: 4697: 4634: 4608:Washington Post 4551: 4363:For the BLP on 4361: 4297:Samarian spinel 4289: 4201: 4196: 4143: 4138: 4117: 4075: 4000:Arikiyo Saeki, 3810:kokubun-gakusha 3802:rekishi-gakusha 3793: 3507: 3448: 3441: 3403: 3225: 3209: 3207: 3085: 2866: 2850: 2848: 2824: 2687: 2543: 2429: 2335: 2330: 2301: 2296: 2218: 2213: 2181: 1839:Sevan Nishanyan 1806: 1801: 1800: 1788: 1786: 1777: 1776: 1769: 1767: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1747: 1745: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1686:same. I assume 1669:Bild am Sonntag 1661:Bild am Sonntag 1644:Bild am Sonntag 1468: 1421: 1325:Similarly, the 1115: 1093: 1071: 923:took a dim view 711: 666: 610: 563: 514: 508: 506: 495: 471: 468: 413: 410: 399: 337: 303: 298: 296: 293:WP:ALBUM/SOURCE 239: 234: 232: 214: 209: 207: 174:Nashville Scene 126: 121: 119: 112: 81: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 10265: 10255: 10254: 10249:Moonriddengirl 10225: 10224: 10214:128.95.223.229 10211: 10205: 10204: 10200: 10199: 10194: 10193: 10192: 10191: 10184: 10183: 10179: 10178: 10166: 10165: 10160: 10159: 10158: 10157: 10156: 10155: 10145:128.95.223.229 10137: 10136: 10135: 10134: 10133: 10132: 10120: 10119: 10118: 10117: 10116: 10115: 10114: 10113: 10103:128.95.223.229 10100: 10088: 10087: 10086: 10085: 10084: 10083: 10082: 10081: 10062: 10061: 10060: 10059: 10058: 10057: 10034: 10033: 10032: 10031: 10021:128.95.223.229 10018: 10010: 10009: 10008: 10007: 10001: 10000: 9999: 9998: 9991: 9990: 9989: 9988: 9981: 9980: 9967: 9964: 9959:Your post was 9957: 9934:128.95.223.196 9894:Big 8 (Usenet) 9860: 9858: 9857: 9856: 9855: 9845: 9843: 9842: 9841: 9840: 9826: 9825: 9824: 9823: 9782: 9780: 9779: 9778: 9777: 9766: 9765: 9764: 9763: 9749: 9748: 9747: 9746: 9722:The Grand Chef 9703: 9702: 9701: 9700: 9685: 9684: 9683: 9682: 9671: 9670: 9669: 9668: 9643: 9642: 9630: 9629: 9618: 9617: 9616: 9615: 9589: 9588: 9569: 9568: 9567: 9566: 9552: 9551: 9550: 9549: 9527: 9526: 9525: 9524: 9513: 9512: 9511: 9510: 9495: 9494: 9493: 9492: 9403: 9400: 9399: 9398: 9385: 9384: 9383: 9378: 9373: 9368: 9356: 9355: 9354: 9353: 9352: 9351: 9350: 9349: 9348: 9347: 9346: 9345: 9344: 9343: 9342: 9341: 9340: 9339: 9338: 9327:128.95.223.129 9324: 9314:128.208.76.117 9311: 9287: 9286: 9285: 9284: 9283: 9282: 9281: 9280: 9279: 9278: 9277: 9276: 9275: 9274: 9273: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9269: 9268: 9238: 9237: 9236: 9235: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9230: 9229: 9228: 9227: 9226: 9225: 9224: 9223: 9222: 9221: 9220: 9219: 9184: 9183: 9182: 9181: 9180: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9176: 9175: 9174: 9173: 9172: 9171: 9170: 9169: 9168: 9167: 9157:128.95.223.129 9137: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9133: 9132: 9131: 9130: 9129: 9128: 9127: 9126: 9125: 9124: 9123: 9122: 9121: 9120: 9098: 9097: 9096: 9095: 9094: 9093: 9092: 9091: 9090: 9089: 9088: 9087: 9086: 9085: 9084: 9083: 9082: 9081: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9053: 9052: 9051: 9050: 9049: 9048: 9047: 9046: 9045: 9044: 9043: 9042: 9041: 9021:is located at 9003:128.95.223.129 8989: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8984: 8983: 8982: 8981: 8980: 8979: 8978: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8955: 8954: 8953: 8952: 8951: 8937: 8936: 8935: 8934: 8933: 8932: 8931: 8930: 8929: 8928: 8927: 8926: 8908: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8904: 8903: 8902: 8901: 8900: 8899: 8871:128.95.223.129 8861: 8860: 8859: 8858: 8857: 8856: 8855: 8854: 8842: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8838: 8837: 8836: 8835: 8820: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8815: 8814: 8813: 8798: 8797: 8796: 8795: 8794: 8793: 8792: 8791: 8772: 8771: 8770: 8769: 8768: 8767: 8766: 8765: 8754: 8753: 8752: 8751: 8750: 8749: 8748: 8747: 8736: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8703: 8702: 8701: 8700: 8699: 8698: 8697: 8696: 8682: 8681: 8680: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8675: 8657: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8653: 8652: 8651: 8650: 8640: 8639: 8638: 8637: 8636: 8635: 8610:128.95.223.129 8606: 8593: 8587: 8586: 8585: 8584: 8574: 8573: 8572: 8571: 8561: 8560: 8559: 8558: 8535: 8534: 8533: 8532: 8522: 8521: 8495:128.95.223.129 8485: 8484: 8474:128.95.223.129 8471: 8465: 8464: 8285: 8282: 8281: 8280: 8279: 8278: 8250:Anonymous209.6 8214: 8211: 8203: 8202: 8201: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8181: 8180: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8176: 8161:Richard Tylman 8087: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8072:71.139.149.178 8066:hundreds more 8052: 8035: 8018: 7999: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7978: 7977: 7976: 7975: 7974: 7973: 7972: 7971: 7970: 7969: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7887: 7886: 7885: 7884: 7871: 7855: 7831: 7830: 7784: 7783: 7763:It looks like 7746: 7745: 7744: 7743: 7742: 7741: 7656: 7655: 7652: 7648: 7639: 7593: 7592: 7591: 7590: 7588: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7582: 7581: 7580: 7579: 7578: 7577: 7537: 7534: 7531: 7523: 7479: 7432: 7429: 7391: 7388: 7387: 7386: 7385: 7384: 7328: 7325: 7324: 7323: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7319: 7318: 7317: 7291: 7290: 7289: 7288: 7287: 7286: 7285: 7284: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7255: 7254: 7253: 7190: 7189: 7146:Dr. Brown's CV 7133: 7127: 7126: 7125: 7107: 7106: 7105: 7104: 7067: 7066: 7065: 7064: 7049: 7048: 7047: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6981: 6980: 6979: 6978: 6977: 6922: 6921: 6920: 6919: 6890: 6889: 6852: 6849: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6771: 6758: 6730: 6727: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6723: 6679: 6678: 6675: 6672: 6669: 6664: 6659: 6654: 6649: 6642: 6641: 6638: 6635: 6626: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6582: 6579: 6568:117.200.18.243 6525: 6519: 6494: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6420: 6416:as source for 6411: 6410: 6409: 6408: 6407: 6298: 6295: 6284:71.139.148.125 6280: 6279: 6275: 6274: 6270: 6269: 6268: 6267: 6263: 6259: 6252: 6251: 6244:Robert Hunkins 6235: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6194:Robert Thurman 6187: 6186: 6162:source's voice 6157: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6136: 6135: 6123: 6119: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5919: 5918: 5899: 5898: 5815: 5812: 5789: 5786:Bernardinai.lt 5783: 5782: 5781: 5766: 5765: 5706: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5696: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5672: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5641: 5640: 5610: 5608: 5605:Times of India 5595: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5586: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5561: 5555: 5554: 5540: 5537: 5530: 5529: 5478:Robert Thurman 5473: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5431: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5380: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5368: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5307: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5300:See the search 5296: 5275: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5260: 5255: 5250: 5245: 5240: 5170: 5169: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5141: 5134: 5130: 5122: 5121: 5086: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5057:User:Elizium23 5012: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4898: 4897: 4821: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4752: 4745: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4567: 4560: 4559: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4455: 4445: 4444: 4421: 4420: 4391: 4390: 4365:George W. Bush 4360: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4329:71.234.215.133 4325:Gabi Tolkowsky 4317:Brown diamonds 4288: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4174:TenOfAllTrades 4167:linked in the 4161: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4074: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4015: 4014: 4006: 3998: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3918: 3915: 3792: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3763:EagerToddler39 3734:EagerToddler39 3706: 3705: 3680:EagerToddler39 3672: 3671: 3657: 3643: 3629: 3615: 3601: 3587: 3573: 3559: 3545: 3529: 3506: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3483: 3443:Blue Rasberry 3414: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3402: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3347:TiredofShugden 3307: 3306: 3292: 3291: 3286: 3285: 3206: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3148: 3147: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 2907:User:Dreadstar 2847: 2844: 2833:131.111.185.66 2823: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2614: 2613: 2584: 2583: 2573: 2562:this blog post 2542: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2368: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2180: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 1953: 1931: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1798: 1755: 1729: 1728: 1726: 1723: 1704: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1692: 1691: 1682: 1681: 1673: 1672: 1628: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1492: 1467: 1464: 1420: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1343: 1342: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1179: 1178: 1154: 1153: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1112: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1097:New York Times 1090: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1075:New York Times 1063: 1061: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1045: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1016: 1015: 982: 981: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 863:more like this 859: 816: 814: 813: 812: 811: 797: 796: 795: 757: 756: 736: 732: 731: 730: 729: 710: 705: 704: 703: 689: 665: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 633: 632: 631: 630: 609:, namely that 600: 599: 562: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 494: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 398: 395: 342:Paul Kengor. 336: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 295:article then? 225: 224: 223: 222: 188: 111: 108: 105: 104: 99: 96: 91: 86: 79: 74: 69: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10264: 10253: 10250: 10246: 10242: 10235: 10227: 10226: 10223: 10219: 10215: 10212: 10210: 10207: 10206: 10202: 10201: 10196: 10195: 10188: 10187: 10186: 10185: 10181: 10180: 10176: 10172: 10168: 10167: 10162: 10161: 10154: 10150: 10146: 10143: 10142: 10141: 10140: 10139: 10138: 10130: 10126: 10125: 10124: 10123: 10122: 10121: 10112: 10108: 10104: 10101: 10099: 10096: 10095: 10094: 10093: 10092: 10091: 10090: 10089: 10079: 10075: 10070: 10069: 10068: 10067: 10066: 10065: 10064: 10063: 10056: 10052: 10048: 10044: 10040: 10039: 10038: 10037: 10036: 10035: 10030: 10026: 10022: 10019: 10017: 10014: 10013: 10012: 10011: 10005: 10004: 10003: 10002: 9995: 9994: 9993: 9992: 9985: 9984: 9983: 9982: 9979: 9975: 9971: 9968: 9965: 9962: 9958: 9954: 9950: 9946: 9945: 9944: 9943: 9939: 9935: 9931: 9930: 9926: 9923: 9918: 9915: 9909: 9907: 9903: 9899: 9895: 9891: 9887: 9882: 9878: 9874: 9872: 9868: 9862: 9851: 9850: 9849: 9848: 9847: 9836: 9835: 9834: 9833: 9832: 9829: 9819: 9818: 9817: 9816: 9815: 9812: 9810: 9806: 9802: 9797: 9792: 9789: 9784: 9773: 9772: 9771: 9770: 9769: 9759: 9758: 9757: 9756: 9755: 9752: 9742: 9741: 9740: 9739: 9738: 9735: 9731: 9725: 9723: 9719: 9718: 9712: 9708: 9696: 9695: 9694: 9693: 9692: 9689: 9678: 9677: 9676: 9675: 9674: 9664: 9663: 9662: 9661: 9660: 9657: 9655: 9654:Secret Garden 9651: 9646: 9639: 9638: 9637: 9634: 9626: 9625: 9624: 9621: 9611: 9610: 9609: 9608: 9607: 9604: 9602: 9598: 9594: 9585: 9584: 9583: 9580: 9578: 9574: 9562: 9561: 9560: 9559: 9558: 9555: 9545: 9544: 9543: 9542: 9541: 9538: 9536: 9532: 9520: 9519: 9518: 9517: 9516: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9503: 9502: 9499: 9488: 9487: 9486: 9485: 9484: 9481: 9479: 9475: 9471: 9466: 9463: 9461: 9455: 9452: 9447: 9442: 9439: 9435: 9430: 9427: 9421: 9418: 9413: 9408: 9397: 9393: 9389: 9386: 9382: 9379: 9377: 9374: 9372: 9369: 9367: 9364: 9363: 9361: 9357: 9336: 9332: 9328: 9325: 9323: 9319: 9315: 9312: 9310: 9307: 9306: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9302: 9301: 9300: 9299: 9298: 9297: 9296: 9295: 9294: 9293: 9292: 9291: 9290: 9289: 9288: 9266: 9262: 9258: 9257: 9256: 9255: 9254: 9253: 9252: 9251: 9250: 9249: 9248: 9247: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9242: 9241: 9240: 9239: 9217: 9213: 9209: 9206:footnotes in 9204: 9203: 9202: 9201: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9196: 9195: 9194: 9193: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9166: 9162: 9158: 9155: 9154: 9153: 9152: 9151: 9150: 9149: 9148: 9147: 9146: 9145: 9144: 9143: 9142: 9141: 9140: 9139: 9138: 9119: 9116: 9115: 9114: 9113: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9108: 9107: 9106: 9105: 9104: 9103: 9102: 9101: 9100: 9099: 9079: 9078:Secret Garden 9074: 9073: 9072: 9071: 9070: 9069: 9068: 9067: 9066: 9065: 9064: 9063: 9062: 9061: 9060: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9040: 9036: 9032: 9028: 9024: 9020: 9016: 9015: 9014: 9013: 9012: 9008: 9004: 9001: 9000: 8999: 8998: 8997: 8996: 8995: 8994: 8993: 8992: 8991: 8990: 8977: 8974: 8973: 8972: 8971: 8970: 8969: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8964: 8963: 8949: 8948: 8947: 8946: 8945: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8940: 8939: 8938: 8924: 8920: 8919: 8918: 8917: 8916: 8915: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8911: 8910: 8909: 8898: 8894: 8890: 8886: 8882: 8881: 8880: 8876: 8872: 8869: 8868: 8867: 8866: 8865: 8864: 8863: 8862: 8853: 8850: 8849: 8848: 8847: 8846: 8845: 8844: 8843: 8832: 8828: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8824: 8823: 8822: 8821: 8811: 8806: 8805: 8804: 8803: 8802: 8801: 8800: 8799: 8789: 8785: 8780: 8779: 8778: 8777: 8776: 8775: 8774: 8773: 8762: 8761: 8760: 8759: 8758: 8757: 8756: 8755: 8744: 8743: 8742: 8741: 8740: 8739: 8738: 8737: 8727: 8722: 8721:Secret Garden 8718: 8717: 8711: 8710: 8709: 8708: 8707: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8694: 8690: 8689: 8688: 8687: 8686: 8685: 8684: 8683: 8673: 8672:Event Horizon 8669: 8665: 8664: 8663: 8662: 8661: 8660: 8659: 8658: 8648: 8647: 8646: 8645: 8644: 8643: 8642: 8641: 8634: 8630: 8626: 8621: 8620: 8619: 8615: 8611: 8608:(error fixes) 8607: 8605: 8601: 8597: 8596:66.212.71.207 8594: 8592:Joe Bernstein 8591: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8582: 8578: 8577: 8576: 8575: 8569: 8568:Secret Garden 8565: 8564: 8563: 8562: 8556: 8555: 8550: 8549:Secret Garden 8546: 8545: 8539: 8538: 8537: 8536: 8530: 8526: 8525: 8524: 8523: 8520: 8516: 8512: 8507: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8500: 8496: 8492: 8489: 8483: 8479: 8475: 8472: 8470: 8467: 8466: 8462: 8458: 8454: 8453: 8448: 8447: 8442: 8441: 8440: 8438: 8434: 8430: 8425: 8423: 8419: 8415: 8411: 8409: 8405: 8400: 8398: 8395:. I've been 8394: 8389: 8386: 8383: 8379: 8377: 8372: 8370: 8366: 8361: 8359: 8354: 8352: 8347: 8345: 8340: 8336: 8333: 8327: 8325: 8321: 8315: 8312: 8310: 8305: 8301: 8299: 8295: 8291: 8277: 8273: 8269: 8265: 8264:Teffont Evias 8261: 8260: 8259: 8255: 8251: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8240: 8236: 8231: 8229: 8225: 8220: 8207: 8200: 8196: 8192: 8188: 8185: 8175: 8171: 8167: 8162: 8158: 8157: 8156: 8152: 8148: 8144: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8133: 8129: 8124: 8123: 8122: 8118: 8114: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8103: 8099: 8095: 8094:WP:BLPPRIMARY 8090: 8089: 8081: 8077: 8073: 8069: 8064: 8060: 8056: 8053: 8051: 8047: 8043: 8039: 8036: 8034: 8030: 8026: 8022: 8019: 8017: 8013: 8009: 8005: 8002: 8001: 7993: 7989: 7985: 7980: 7979: 7968: 7964: 7960: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7949: 7945: 7944:71.139.152.78 7941: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7931: 7927: 7922: 7921: 7920: 7916: 7912: 7911:71.139.152.78 7908: 7904: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7895: 7891: 7890: 7889: 7888: 7882: 7879: 7875: 7872: 7869: 7866: 7863: 7859: 7856: 7853: 7850: 7847: 7844: 7840: 7836: 7833: 7832: 7828: 7827: 7826: 7822: 7818: 7814: 7810: 7809:WP:BLPPRIMARY 7805: 7804: 7803: 7802: 7798: 7794: 7793:71.139.152.78 7790: 7782: 7778: 7774: 7770: 7766: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7759: 7755: 7751: 7740: 7736: 7732: 7727: 7726: 7725: 7721: 7717: 7713: 7712:WP:BLPPRIMARY 7709: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7699: 7695: 7691: 7687: 7686: 7685: 7684: 7680: 7676: 7671: 7669: 7664: 7662: 7661:WP:BLPPRIMARY 7653: 7650: 7649: 7646: 7632: 7628: 7624: 7620: 7613: 7609: 7605: 7601: 7600:WP:BLPPRIMARY 7597: 7576: 7572: 7568: 7560: 7555: 7554: 7553: 7549: 7545: 7541: 7538: 7535: 7532: 7529: 7524: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7514: 7510: 7501: 7495: 7494: 7493: 7489: 7485: 7480: 7476: 7472: 7471: 7470: 7469: 7465: 7461: 7454: 7450: 7446: 7442: 7438: 7428: 7427: 7423: 7419: 7415: 7412: 7410: 7408: 7406: 7404: 7402: 7400: 7398: 7396: 7383: 7379: 7375: 7371: 7370: 7369: 7368: 7367: 7366: 7362: 7360: 7359: 7352: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7334: 7316: 7312: 7308: 7303: 7299: 7298: 7297: 7296: 7295: 7294: 7293: 7292: 7283: 7279: 7275: 7271: 7266: 7265: 7264: 7263: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7252: 7248: 7244: 7239: 7238: 7237: 7233: 7229: 7224: 7223: 7222: 7221: 7220: 7219: 7215: 7211: 7207: 7203: 7199: 7195: 7188: 7186: 7182: 7181: 7175: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7166: 7162: 7158: 7157: 7152: 7147: 7143: 7139: 7132: 7124: 7120: 7116: 7112: 7109: 7108: 7103: 7100: 7095: 7094: 7093: 7089: 7085: 7077: 7069: 7068: 7063: 7059: 7055: 7052:discussion.-- 7050: 7046: 7043: 7039: 7035: 7034: 7033: 7032: 7031: 7027: 7023: 7019: 7015: 7008:. I'll go on 7007: 6991: 6986: 6985: 6976: 6972: 6968: 6964: 6959: 6958: 6957: 6953: 6949: 6945: 6940: 6939: 6938: 6937: 6936: 6932: 6928: 6924: 6923: 6918: 6914: 6910: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6900: 6896: 6892: 6891: 6888: 6884: 6880: 6876: 6871: 6867: 6863: 6859: 6855: 6854: 6844: 6840: 6834: 6830: 6826: 6825: 6824: 6820: 6816: 6812: 6808: 6804: 6800: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6793: 6789: 6785: 6781: 6777: 6772: 6769: 6768: 6763: 6762: 6756: 6753: 6750: 6747: 6744: 6741: 6738: 6736: 6722: 6718: 6714: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6704: 6700: 6695: 6694: 6693: 6692: 6688: 6684: 6676: 6673: 6670: 6668: 6665: 6663: 6660: 6658: 6655: 6653: 6650: 6647: 6646: 6645: 6639: 6636: 6632: 6631: 6630: 6620: 6616: 6612: 6607: 6603: 6599: 6598: 6597: 6596: 6592: 6588: 6578: 6577: 6573: 6569: 6565: 6561: 6555: 6550: 6545: 6541: 6539: 6535: 6531: 6523: 6518: 6517: 6513: 6509: 6504: 6500: 6486: 6483: 6478: 6472: 6471: 6470: 6467: 6462: 6456: 6452: 6449: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6443: 6434: 6431: 6425: 6419: 6415: 6406: 6402: 6398: 6394: 6393: 6392: 6388: 6384: 6380: 6375: 6371: 6367: 6363: 6359: 6355: 6351: 6347: 6343: 6339: 6335: 6331: 6327: 6323: 6319: 6318: 6317: 6316: 6312: 6308: 6304: 6294: 6293: 6289: 6285: 6277: 6272: 6271: 6266: 6264: 6262: 6260: 6258: 6256: 6255: 6254: 6253: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6245: 6241: 6229: 6225: 6221: 6217: 6216: 6211: 6207: 6203: 6199: 6195: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6185: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6173: 6167: 6163: 6159: 6158: 6153: 6149: 6145: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6134: 6131: 6128: 6124: 6120: 6117: 6113: 6108: 6107: 6094: 6090: 6086: 6082: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6071: 6067: 6063: 6059: 6058: 6057: 6053: 6049: 6045: 6044: 6043: 6039: 6035: 6031: 6027: 6022: 6018: 6014: 6010: 6007:You asked if 6006: 6005: 6004: 6000: 5996: 5992: 5991: 5990: 5986: 5982: 5978: 5974: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5967: 5963: 5959: 5955: 5951: 5947: 5939: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5923: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5917: 5913: 5909: 5905: 5902:I agree with 5901: 5900: 5897: 5893: 5889: 5885: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5878: 5874: 5870: 5865: 5859: 5855: 5851: 5847: 5842: 5838: 5833: 5829: 5825: 5821: 5811: 5810: 5807: 5798: 5794: 5787: 5780: 5776: 5772: 5768: 5767: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5744: 5740: 5734: 5733: 5729: 5725: 5721: 5718: 5717: 5716:waterboarding 5712: 5711: 5704: 5703:John A. Rizzo 5691: 5688: 5687: 5673: 5671: 5668: 5667: 5653: 5652: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5639: 5635: 5631: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5609: 5606: 5602: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5590: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5571: 5566: 5562: 5559: 5558: 5557: 5556: 5553: 5549: 5545: 5541: 5538: 5535: 5534: 5533: 5528: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5516: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5491: 5487: 5483: 5479: 5467: 5464: 5463: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5443: 5437: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5409: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5399: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5388: 5384: 5381: 5378: 5373: 5369: 5366: 5362: 5361: 5359: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5326: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5315: 5311: 5308: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5282: 5279: 5278: 5276: 5273: 5269: 5264: 5261: 5259: 5256: 5254: 5251: 5249: 5246: 5244: 5241: 5239: 5236: 5235: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5220: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5194: 5190: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5178: 5174: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5150: 5149: 5147: 5142: 5139: 5135: 5131: 5128: 5124: 5123: 5119: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5100: 5096: 5092: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5058: 5054: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5032: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5013: 5011: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4927: 4923: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4903: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4855: 4853: 4847: 4842: 4837: 4833: 4831: 4827: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4793: 4792: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4774: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4753: 4749: 4746: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4737: 4736: 4730: 4729: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4710: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4701: 4700: 4694: 4693: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4641: 4638: 4637: 4631: 4630: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4568: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4558: 4555: 4554: 4548: 4547: 4541: 4536: 4535: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4491: 4489: 4487: 4485: 4483: 4481: 4478: 4475: 4474: 4472: 4471:substantially 4465: 4462: 4461: 4456: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4422: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4400: 4396: 4393: 4392: 4388: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4366: 4354: 4350: 4346: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4301:Chalk Emerald 4298: 4294: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4269:Capitalismojo 4265: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4245: 4244: 4235: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4207: 4204: 4199: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4159: 4156: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4146: 4141: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4078: 4068: 4063: 4060: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3996: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3987: 3980: 3976: 3968: 3963: 3960: 3955: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3935: 3934: 3927: 3924: 3919: 3916: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3905: 3902: 3897: 3893: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3870: 3867: 3862: 3858: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3842: 3840: 3838: 3833: 3831: 3825: 3822: 3818: 3813: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3798: 3791:"historians"? 3790: 3786: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730:Magyar Etüdök 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3669: 3668: 3661: 3658: 3655: 3654: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3633: 3630: 3627: 3626: 3619: 3616: 3613: 3612: 3605: 3602: 3599: 3598: 3591: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3570: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3556: 3549: 3548:Magyar Etüdök 3546: 3542: 3541: 3533: 3530: 3527: 3526: 3519: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3512: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3451: 3446: 3444: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3426: 3423: 3418: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3400: 3391: 3388: 3385: 3380: 3379: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3294: 3293: 3288: 3287: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3233: 3229: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3187: 3186:User:Dezastru 3184:I agree with 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3127: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3094: 3090: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2898: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2829: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2694: 2690: 2684: 2683: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2623:article, and 2622: 2618: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2581: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2566:William Risch 2563: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2540: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2441: 2437: 2434: 2422: 2417: 2412: 2404: 2403: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2373: 2369: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346:this textbook 2343: 2342: 2341: 2338: 2333: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2304: 2299: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2243: 2240: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2221: 2216: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1963: 1958: 1954: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853:91.56.242.218 1850: 1849: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1794: 1781: 1765: 1759: 1744: 1740: 1734: 1730: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1708: 1700: 1699: 1694: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1639: 1637: 1631: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1607:specifically. 1606: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1486: 1484: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1448: 1446: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1380: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1184:I agree with 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1142: 1141: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1117: 1116: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1079: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1062: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1046: 1044: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1029: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005:Mark Marathon 1002: 999: 998: 997: 996: 992: 988: 980: 976: 972: 971:Mark Marathon 967: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 952: 931: 928: 924: 919: 918: 917: 913: 909: 908:Mark Marathon 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 871: 868: 864: 860: 858: 854: 850: 849:Mark Marathon 846: 842: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 810: 806: 802: 801:Mark Marathon 798: 794: 791: 787: 784: 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 769:Mark Marathon 766: 761: 760: 759: 758: 755: 752: 748: 744: 740: 737: 734: 723: 720: 716: 713: 712: 709: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 685: 684: 683: 679: 675: 671: 663: 652: 648: 644: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 629: 625: 621: 617: 608: 604: 603: 602: 601: 598: 594: 590: 586: 585: 584: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 554: 550: 546: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 522: 521: 520: 517: 511: 504: 500: 484: 479: 475: 474: 466: 465: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 429: 428: 427: 426: 421: 417: 416: 408: 404: 397:Made of Chalk 394: 393: 389: 385: 379: 376: 372: 366: 364: 360: 358: 355: 351: 349: 345: 341: 324: 320: 316: 312: 311: 310: 306: 301: 294: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 276: 272: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 253: 249: 248: 247: 246: 242: 237: 230: 221: 217: 212: 204: 203: 202: 198: 194: 189: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 168: 164: 161: 157: 154: 150: 147: 143: 140: 136: 135: 134: 133: 129: 124: 116: 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: 10244: 10073: 9961:way too long 9960: 9952: 9932: 9927: 9921: 9919: 9913: 9910: 9890:John Crowley 9883: 9879: 9875: 9870: 9866: 9863: 9859: 9844: 9830: 9827: 9813: 9808: 9804: 9798: 9793: 9790: 9785: 9781: 9767: 9753: 9750: 9736: 9732: 9726: 9721: 9716: 9710: 9704: 9690: 9686: 9672: 9658: 9653: 9647: 9644: 9635: 9631: 9622: 9619: 9605: 9600: 9596: 9590: 9581: 9573:Eyes of Dawn 9570: 9556: 9553: 9539: 9534: 9528: 9514: 9500: 9496: 9482: 9477: 9473: 9467: 9464: 9456: 9450: 9445: 9443: 9438:Korean drama 9431: 9425: 9422: 9416: 9411: 9409: 9405: 9216:Korean drama 9208:Drama_coréen 9077: 8885:Knowledge:RX 8810:Korean drama 8725: 8720: 8715: 8671: 8667: 8567: 8552: 8548: 8542: 8528: 8493: 8488:Eyes of Dawn 8487: 8486: 8460: 8450: 8444: 8429:Eyes of Dawn 8426: 8420: 8416: 8412: 8401: 8390: 8387: 8384: 8380: 8373: 8362: 8355: 8351:"Radio Dayz" 8348: 8341: 8337: 8328: 8316: 8313: 8306: 8302: 8290:Korean drama 8287: 8232: 8216: 8205: 8191:Sportfan5000 8186: 8159:The article 8098:Sportfan5000 8062: 8058: 8054: 8037: 8025:Sportfan5000 8020: 8003: 7959:Sportfan5000 7939: 7926:Sportfan5000 7906: 7817:Sportfan5000 7785: 7747: 7716:Sportfan5000 7675:Sportfan5000 7672: 7665: 7657: 7640: 7617:— Preceding 7596:no consensus 7595: 7559:this example 7434: 7393: 7390:Cyberbaiting 7374:Precision123 7357: 7356: 7345:SteveGTennis 7330: 7269: 7205: 7201: 7197: 7191: 7177: 7173: 7171: 7163:quotes from 7154: 7135: 7099:Andrew Dalby 7042:Andrew Dalby 6806: 6773: 6770: 6764: 6757: 6754: 6751: 6748: 6745: 6742: 6739: 6732: 6680: 6643: 6628: 6584: 6557: 6553: 6548: 6543: 6527: 6496: 6451:Not reliable 6450: 6435: 6427: 6423: 6413: 6378: 6373: 6369: 6365: 6361: 6358:The Guardian 6357: 6353: 6349: 6341: 6337: 6334:Screen Daily 6333: 6329: 6325: 6300: 6281: 6237: 6175: 6174: 6165: 6161: 6115: 6111: 6080: 6016: 6008: 5944: 5817: 5795: 5791: 5735: 5722: 5719: 5713: 5708: 5677: 5657: 5604: 5569: 5564: 5531: 5518: 5517: 5475: 5453: 5433: 5408:Knowledge:RX 5398:Andrew Dalby 5333: 5325:Andrew Dalby 5280: 5262: 5257: 5252: 5247: 5242: 5237: 5231: 5219:Andrew Dalby 5171: 5161: 5157: 5156:I know that 5106: 5098: 5088: 4997: 4960: 4925: 4901: 4899: 4881: 4878:local priest 4877: 4856: 4849: 4844: 4839: 4835: 4823: 4795: 4790: 4773:unreasonable 4772: 4747: 4732: 4727: 4696: 4691: 4648: 4633: 4628: 4577: 4569: 4550: 4545: 4470: 4468: 4467: 4459: 4458: 4425: 4405: 4401:. USAToday 4398: 4386: 4362: 4290: 4241: 4238: 4233: 4212: 4188:Timothy Ball 4168: 4164: 4118: 4081: 4079: 4076: 4041: 4016: 4001: 3994: 3993:Kazuo Aoki, 3988: 3977: 3973: 3923:Andrew Dalby 3891: 3882:Andrew Dalby 3859: 3834: 3826: 3820: 3814: 3809: 3801: 3794: 3789:Donald Keene 3675: 3673: 3664: 3650: 3636: 3622: 3608: 3594: 3580: 3566: 3552: 3536: 3522: 3508: 3473:Precision123 3442: 3413: 3397: 3208: 3171:AcuteInsight 3164: 3153:AcuteInsight 3149: 3132: 3119: 3098: 3089:this section 3086: 3053:Sportfan5000 3025:Sportfan5000 2984:Sportfan5000 2934:Sportfan5000 2852:Cesar Millan 2849: 2825: 2822:Pablo Casals 2681: 2620: 2615: 2603:XXSNUGGUMSXX 2585: 2554: 2547:Right Sector 2544: 2539:Right Sector 2439: 2430: 2182: 2138: 2130:Andrew Dalby 2092: 2075:Andrew Dalby 2051:Andrew Dalby 1961: 1960: 1938: 1867:Andrew Dalby 1846: 1819: 1807: 1768:. Retrieved 1758: 1746:. Retrieved 1742: 1733: 1709: 1705: 1641: 1640: 1632: 1627: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1532: 1527: 1523: 1503: 1469: 1449: 1431: 1425: 1422: 1399:) and 2013 ( 1376: 1334: 1285:tea tree oil 1118: 1096: 1074: 1066: 1057: 1056: 1041: 1040: 1022: 1021: 983: 951:insufficient 950: 947: 925:of Lindane. 844: 815: 746: 742: 738: 726: 714: 708:Tea tree oil 667: 564: 545:XXSNUGGUMSXX 530:Precision123 496: 469: 411: 403:Heart (band) 400: 381: 374: 371:Daily Worker 370: 368: 362: 361: 353: 352: 347: 343: 339: 338: 299:SilentDan297 279:Precision123 251: 235:SilentDan297 229:Precision123 226: 210:SilentDan297 193:Precision123 122:SilentDan297 115:Lambgoat.com 113: 82: 47: 41: 10164:plagiarism. 10074:in order to 9970:WhisperToMe 9577:Kim So-yeon 9388:WhisperToMe 9031:WhisperToMe 9027:ko:위키백과:대사관 8889:WhisperToMe 8625:Itsmejudith 8147:Mark Miller 8143:Kanekapolei 8128:Mark Miller 8113:Mark Miller 8008:Mark Miller 7984:Mark Miller 7773:Binksternet 7453:WP:ELNO#EL8 7431:Silverlight 7243:DeistCosmos 7210:DeistCosmos 7115:ShawntheGod 7084:ShawntheGod 7022:ShawntheGod 6927:ShawntheGod 6879:ShawntheGod 6833:LeadSongDog 6788:Drinkreader 6780:Drinkreader 6681:Any ideas? 6397:Mark Miller 6370:Film Threat 6307:Mark Miller 6303:The Numbers 6220:ShawntheGod 6198:piece today 5412:WhisperToMe 5383:WhisperToMe 5338:WhisperToMe 5310:WhisperToMe 5293:Search View 5287:, 1991. p. 5204:WhisperToMe 5189:Itsmejudith 5173:WhisperToMe 4237:DeSmogBlog. 4163:DeSmogBlog 4155:Andrew Bolt 4126:Murry Salby 4101:Itsmejudith 3847:Bart Ehrman 3749:Mark Miller 3695:Mark Miller 3361:Sylvain1972 3004:LiveScience 2999:This source 2747:Itsmejudith 2731:Itsmejudith 2433:Eli Wallach 2431:Article on 2277:WP:BOOKSPAM 2008:, or here: 1789:|publisher= 1770:24 February 1748:25 February 1590:A1candidate 1554:A1candidate 1543:Der Spiegel 1534:Der Spiegel 1382:Formerly 98 1281:Formerly 98 1247:Formerly 98 747:In the lede 743:In the body 449:as well as 335:Paul Kengor 160:ChartAttack 102:Archive 170 94:Archive 168 89:Archive 167 83:Archive 166 77:Archive 165 72:Archive 164 64:Archive 160 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 9956:elsewhere. 9888:on author 9460:Dramabeans 9417:front page 8693:Dramabeans 8332:Dramabeans 8063:should not 7731:Dougweller 7604:WP:PRIMARY 7539:This site 7341:Coretennis 7270:tout court 6895:Dougweller 6868:. You can 6838:come howl! 6829:found here 6634:database)? 6560:Kshatriyas 6530:Nagavanshi 6481:talk to me 6465:talk to me 6240:references 6081:especially 6017:Al Jazeera 6009:Al Jazeera 5755:Epipelagic 5739:Glennconti 5724:Glennconti 5365:field work 5136:Page: No. 5125:Page: No. 5118:0252071441 4882:permission 4846:marriage". 4786:neutrality 4202:talk to me 4144:talk to me 4115:DeSmogBlog 4082:worshipped 3914:Knowledge. 3728:is in the 3437:WP:PRIMARY 3296:Chris Fynn 3266:Dougweller 3039:Dougweller 3011:Dougweller 2969:Dougweller 2952:Dougweller 2918:Dougweller 2682:Ravensfire 2372:User:Rilak 2331:Blethering 2297:Blethering 2214:Blethering 1824:Dougweller 1725:References 643:Dougweller 574:Dougweller 565:This paper 526:Spin Media 375:New Masses 373:articles, 139:Staff page 137:Well, the 9953:improving 7845:website: 7482:claimed. 7228:Dailycare 7178:reliable 7076:this book 6564:Kshatriya 6538:Kshatriya 6534:Kshatriya 6522:Kshatriya 6476:Jinkinson 6460:Jinkinson 6455:WP:WINARS 6346:WP:FILM/R 6246:article. 6085:Simonm223 5981:Simonm223 5930:Simonm223 5924:Exactly. 5904:Simonm223 5888:Simonm223 5788:reliable? 5714:Article: 5372:soft news 5158:by itself 5039:Elizium23 5017:Cloonmore 4984:Elizium23 4931:Cloonmore 4907:Roscelese 4850:But this 4616:USA Today 4197:Jinkinson 4157:'s blog ( 4139:Jinkinson 4054:Hijiri 88 4005:paper...) 3954:Hijiri 88 3896:Hijiri 88 3861:Hijiri 88 3726:this link 3714:this page 3417:Hijiri 88 3253:now uses 2517:Arxiloxos 2476:Arxiloxos 2234:Hijiri 88 2151:Mrliebeip 2103:Mrliebeip 2014:Mrliebeip 1972:Mrliebeip 1780:cite news 1445:Suraj Mal 891:Lindane." 765:WP:WEIGHT 10175:Blogspot 9922:evidence 7631:contribs 7623:Gaijin42 7619:unsigned 7544:Dezastru 7484:Dezastru 7418:Thmazing 7151:Pandeism 7142:Pandeism 7131:Pandeism 6711:Thanks. 6697:others. 6414:Signpost 6362:Fangoria 6144:Formerip 6127:Fuzzypeg 6116:reliable 6062:WP:TRUTH 6013:WP:UNDUE 5771:Mnnlaxer 5709:Source: 5615:Dezastru 5334:guidance 5113:, 2004. 5015:sources. 4998:campaign 4964:Dezastru 4915:contribs 4791:Stalwart 4757:Dezastru 4728:Stalwart 4712:Dezastru 4692:Stalwart 4676:Dezastru 4629:Stalwart 4582:Dezastru 4546:Stalwart 4521:Dezastru 4496:Dezastru 4428:to meet 4372:Dezastru 4243:MastCell 4013:view...) 3676:About us 3667:Citation 3653:Citation 3639:Citation 3625:Citation 3611:Citation 3597:Citation 3583:Citation 3569:Citation 3555:Citation 3540:Citation 3525:Citation 3384:Fuzzypeg 3281:Dreyfuss 3137:Dezastru 2902:and here 2490:Dezastru 2462:Dezastru 2460:Anyone? 2447:Dezastru 2440:NY Times 2410:VVERTYVS 2354:WP:STICK 2061:Dezastru 2031:Dezastru 1987:Dezastru 1921:Dezastru 1895:response 1677:sources 1609:GabrielF 1572:GabrielF 1509:GabrielF 1405:Gsonnenf 1336:MastCell 1329:states: 1289:Dezastru 1190:Dezastru 1186:Gsonnenf 1168:Gsonnenf 1125:Dezastru 987:Dezastru 893:Gsonnenf 841:WP:MEDRS 827:Gsonnenf 786:23099312 722:23099312 693:Dezastru 493:Idolator 271:relevant 153:Exclaim! 20:‎ | 9717:Gourmet 9711:Gourmet 8187:Comment 8038:Support 8021:Support 8004:Support 7750:Collect 7708:WP:ELNO 7694:DonIago 7206:context 7198:physics 7111:Inayity 7054:Inayity 6967:Inayity 6963:WP:VOTE 6948:Inayity 6944:WP:VOTE 6501:. Is a 6374:Variety 6366:Starlog 6330:Variety 6242:in the 5977:be bold 5973:WP:NPOV 5926:Msnicki 5908:Msnicki 5837:protect 5832:history 5162:usually 5061:Esoglou 5002:Esoglou 4946:Esoglou 4902:for him 4887:Collect 4863:Esoglou 4778:WP:RS/N 4660:Collect 4652:Collect 4540:Collect 4434:Collect 4410:Collect 4397:states 4394:Gallup 4254:Collect 4219:Collect 4086:Collect 4073:Cathars 3982:"Omi.") 3836:English 3830:insists 3618:Pápainé 3228:protect 3223:history 3191:Esoglou 3105:Esoglou 2869:protect 2864:history 2794:Darouet 2712:Darouet 2656:Darouet 2629:Darouet 2588:Darouet 2184:Removal 1810:Tarkhan 1743:Reuters 1099:, 2003 1077:, 1998 955:Collect 927:Alexbrn 867:Alexbrn 790:Alexbrn 751:Alexbrn 739:Content 674:Collect 472:SabreBD 455:ElKevbo 414:SabreBD 384:LesLein 363:Content 354:Article 43:archive 10047:Paul B 8788:Soompi 8511:GRuban 7811:, and 7789:WP:SPS 7567:rose64 7509:rose64 7460:rose64 7350:Aureez 7337:WP:FLC 7274:LNCSRG 7165:WP:UGC 7144:page. 6611:GRuban 6202:Heicth 6171:Jayron 6048:Heicth 6021:biased 5995:Heicth 5958:Heicth 5869:Heicth 5867:think? 5841:delete 5802:TRPoD 5630:Heicth 5544:Heicth 5514:Jayron 5498:Heicth 5441:GabeMc 4782:weight 4578:Do not 3817:Baekje 3590:Magány 3449:(talk) 3232:delete 2873:delete 2751:BsBsBs 2621:Pravda 2147:re-add 2139:tarqan 1943:Kmoksy 1712:BsBsBs 1453:Sitush 845:assert 715:Source 607:WP:SPS 589:Sitush 447:WP:DUE 340:Source 10234:plot2 9867:added 8923:I did 8668:Slate 7813:WP:EL 7710:, or 7612:WP:RS 6440:rybec 5858:views 5850:watch 5846:links 5685:Canoe 5665:Canoe 5600:This 5565:every 5494:Gelug 5461:Canoe 5285:NAIES 4880:gave 4430:WP:RS 4404:has 4128:(see 4042:other 3855:Jesus 3326:WP:RS 3322:WP:RS 3314:WP:RS 3249:views 3241:watch 3237:links 3002:from 2890:views 2882:watch 2878:links 2273:WP:RS 2208:won't 2012:. -- 1880:F3n7x 1702:wars. 1696:ones. 570:Mosuo 509:Prism 451:WP:RS 275:quote 172:from 165:from 158:from 151:from 144:from 16:< 10218:talk 10149:talk 10107:talk 10051:talk 10025:talk 9974:talk 9938:talk 9914:lost 9451:only 9392:talk 9331:talk 9318:talk 9161:talk 9035:talk 9007:talk 8921:Um, 8893:talk 8875:talk 8834:one. 8786:and 8784:Daum 8629:talk 8614:talk 8600:talk 8515:talk 8499:talk 8478:talk 8346:"). 8300:".) 8272:talk 8254:talk 8239:talk 8195:talk 8170:talk 8151:talk 8132:talk 8117:talk 8102:talk 8076:talk 8068:here 8059:Some 8046:talk 8029:talk 8012:talk 7988:talk 7963:talk 7948:talk 7930:talk 7915:talk 7821:talk 7797:talk 7777:talk 7769:GIGO 7754:talk 7735:talk 7720:talk 7698:talk 7679:talk 7668:here 7651:Note 7627:talk 7602:and 7571:talk 7548:talk 7513:talk 7488:talk 7464:talk 7422:talk 7378:talk 7358:Talk 7343:and 7311:talk 7278:talk 7247:talk 7232:talk 7214:talk 7119:talk 7088:talk 7058:talk 7038:This 7026:talk 6971:talk 6952:talk 6931:talk 6913:talk 6899:talk 6883:talk 6819:talk 6811:here 6803:here 6792:talk 6784:talk 6717:talk 6713:Fram 6703:talk 6687:talk 6683:Fram 6615:talk 6591:talk 6572:talk 6512:talk 6453:per 6401:talk 6387:talk 6311:talk 6288:talk 6224:talk 6206:talk 6192:Dr. 6164:not 6148:talk 6112:true 6089:talk 6070:talk 6060:See 6052:talk 6038:talk 5999:talk 5985:talk 5962:talk 5934:talk 5912:talk 5892:talk 5873:talk 5854:logs 5828:talk 5824:edit 5775:talk 5759:talk 5743:talk 5728:talk 5682:Blue 5662:Blue 5634:talk 5619:talk 5548:talk 5502:talk 5476:Dr. 5458:Blue 5416:talk 5387:talk 5342:talk 5314:talk 5208:talk 5193:talk 5177:talk 5115:ISBN 5065:talk 5043:talk 5021:talk 5006:talk 4988:talk 4968:talk 4950:talk 4935:talk 4911:talk 4891:talk 4867:talk 4859:here 4761:talk 4716:talk 4680:talk 4664:talk 4656:talk 4620:here 4586:talk 4525:talk 4500:talk 4438:talk 4426:seem 4414:talk 4387:less 4376:talk 4349:talk 4333:talk 4273:talk 4258:talk 4234:also 4223:talk 4178:talk 4169:next 4134:here 4122:blog 4105:talk 4090:talk 4023:talk 3943:talk 3787:and 3783:Are 3767:talk 3753:talk 3738:talk 3718:link 3699:talk 3684:talk 3491:talk 3477:talk 3463:talk 3365:talk 3351:talk 3337:talk 3333:Kt66 3300:talk 3270:talk 3245:logs 3219:talk 3215:edit 3195:talk 3175:talk 3157:talk 3141:talk 3109:talk 3101:here 3057:talk 3043:talk 3029:talk 3015:talk 2988:talk 2973:talk 2956:talk 2938:talk 2922:talk 2886:logs 2860:talk 2856:edit 2837:talk 2798:talk 2755:talk 2735:talk 2716:talk 2688:talk 2660:talk 2633:talk 2617:Here 2607:talk 2592:talk 2572:, or 2549:and 2521:talk 2515:. -- 2494:talk 2480:talk 2466:talk 2451:talk 2383:talk 2362:talk 2336:Scot 2328:one. 2319:talk 2302:Scot 2285:talk 2258:talk 2219:Scot 2195:talk 2155:talk 2107:talk 2099:work 2065:talk 2035:talk 2018:talk 2002:link 1991:talk 1976:talk 1957:Link 1947:talk 1925:talk 1903:talk 1884:talk 1857:talk 1851:. -- 1828:talk 1793:help 1772:2014 1750:2014 1716:talk 1613:talk 1594:talk 1576:talk 1558:talk 1539:Bild 1528:Bild 1524:Bild 1513:talk 1480:Bild 1474:and 1466:Bild 1457:talk 1428:Jats 1426:The 1409:talk 1386:talk 1293:talk 1251:talk 1194:talk 1172:talk 1162:and 1129:talk 1009:talk 991:talk 975:talk 959:talk 912:talk 897:talk 853:talk 831:talk 805:talk 783:PMID 773:talk 719:PMID 697:talk 678:talk 647:talk 624:talk 616:here 593:talk 578:talk 549:talk 534:talk 478:talk 459:talk 437:talk 420:talk 407:here 388:talk 319:talk 304:talk 283:talk 261:talk 240:talk 215:talk 197:talk 182:talk 127:talk 9799:6. 9705:5. 9648:4. 9591:3. 9529:2. 9468:1. 9446:the 9412:has 8670:or 8374:5) 8371:.) 8356:3) 8353:). 8230:. 8217:At 8166:TFD 8042:TFD 7940:ALL 7670:). 7565:Red 7507:Red 7458:Red 6379:can 6372:. 6324:. 6030:RFC 5679:The 5659:The 5455:The 5289:153 5272:265 5138:215 5127:214 4926:now 4797:111 4734:111 4698:111 4635:111 4612:Fox 4604:CNN 4552:111 4367:is 4036:on 4019:Dwy 3939:TFD 3892:are 3821:two 2916:. 2416:hm? 2230:155 1968:TDK 1959:: " 1937:): 1588:. - 1552:" - 717:. 497:Is 10245:do 10237:}} 10231:{{ 10220:) 10151:) 10109:) 10053:) 10045:. 10027:) 9976:) 9940:) 9579:. 9426:no 9394:) 9333:) 9320:) 9218:.) 9163:) 9037:) 9009:) 8895:) 8877:) 8631:) 8616:) 8602:) 8517:) 8501:) 8480:) 8459:- 8439:. 8378:. 8360:. 8274:) 8256:) 8241:) 8197:) 8172:) 8153:) 8134:) 8119:) 8104:) 8078:) 8048:) 8031:) 8014:) 7990:) 7965:) 7950:) 7932:) 7917:) 7909:. 7823:) 7799:) 7779:) 7756:) 7737:) 7722:) 7700:) 7681:) 7629:• 7573:) 7550:) 7515:) 7502:}} 7500:cn 7498:{{ 7490:) 7466:) 7447:, 7443:, 7424:) 7380:) 7363:) 7313:) 7280:) 7272:-- 7249:) 7234:) 7216:) 7121:) 7090:) 7060:) 7028:) 6973:) 6965:-- 6954:) 6946:-- 6933:) 6915:) 6901:) 6885:) 6821:) 6794:) 6759:^ 6719:) 6705:) 6689:) 6617:) 6593:) 6574:) 6514:) 6457:. 6403:) 6389:) 6364:, 6356:, 6352:, 6336:, 6332:, 6328:, 6313:) 6290:) 6226:) 6208:) 6178:32 6150:) 6091:) 6072:) 6054:) 6040:) 6001:) 5987:) 5979:. 5964:) 5936:) 5914:) 5894:) 5875:) 5856:| 5852:| 5848:| 5844:| 5839:| 5835:| 5830:| 5826:| 5777:) 5761:) 5745:) 5730:) 5636:) 5621:) 5550:) 5521:32 5504:) 5438:? 5418:) 5389:) 5344:) 5316:) 5283:. 5210:) 5195:) 5179:) 5109:. 5101:: 5067:) 5045:) 5037:. 5023:) 5008:) 4990:) 4970:) 4952:) 4937:) 4917:) 4913:⋅ 4893:) 4869:) 4854:. 4841:as 4763:) 4718:) 4682:) 4666:) 4588:) 4572:– 4527:) 4502:) 4494:) 4440:) 4416:) 4378:) 4351:) 4335:) 4323:, 4319:, 4311:, 4303:, 4299:, 4275:) 4260:) 4225:) 4194:. 4180:) 4165:is 4136:. 4107:) 4092:) 4065:) 4062:やや 4052:. 4025:) 3965:) 3962:やや 3945:) 3907:) 3904:やや 3872:) 3869:やや 3769:) 3755:) 3740:) 3701:) 3686:) 3662:- 3648:- 3634:- 3620:- 3606:- 3592:- 3578:- 3564:- 3550:- 3534:- 3520:- 3493:) 3479:) 3465:) 3428:) 3425:やや 3367:) 3353:) 3339:) 3328:: 3302:) 3272:) 3247:| 3243:| 3239:| 3235:| 3230:| 3226:| 3221:| 3217:| 3197:) 3177:) 3159:) 3143:) 3111:) 3059:) 3045:) 3031:) 3017:) 2990:) 2975:) 2967:. 2958:) 2940:) 2924:) 2888:| 2884:| 2880:| 2876:| 2871:| 2867:| 2862:| 2858:| 2839:) 2800:) 2757:) 2737:) 2729:. 2718:) 2691:) 2662:) 2635:) 2609:) 2594:) 2523:) 2511:, 2507:, 2496:) 2482:) 2468:) 2453:) 2385:) 2364:) 2356:. 2321:) 2287:) 2260:) 2245:) 2242:やや 2197:) 2157:) 2109:) 2067:) 2037:) 2020:) 1993:) 1978:) 1962:7. 1949:) 1927:) 1905:) 1886:) 1859:) 1830:) 1784:: 1782:}} 1778:{{ 1741:. 1718:) 1615:) 1596:) 1578:) 1560:) 1545:: 1515:) 1459:) 1411:) 1388:) 1295:) 1253:) 1196:) 1174:) 1131:) 1011:) 993:) 977:) 961:) 914:) 899:) 865:. 855:) 833:) 807:) 775:) 741:. 699:) 680:) 649:) 626:) 595:) 580:) 551:) 536:) 461:) 439:) 390:) 321:) 285:) 263:) 199:) 191:-- 184:) 169:, 162:, 155:, 148:, 98:→ 68:← 10216:( 10147:( 10105:( 10049:( 10023:( 9972:( 9936:( 9390:( 9329:( 9316:( 9159:( 9033:( 9005:( 8891:( 8873:( 8674:. 8627:( 8612:( 8598:( 8583:. 8513:( 8497:( 8476:( 8270:( 8252:( 8237:( 8193:( 8168:( 8149:( 8130:( 8115:( 8100:( 8074:( 8044:( 8027:( 8010:( 7986:( 7961:( 7946:( 7928:( 7913:( 7883:. 7870:. 7854:. 7819:( 7795:( 7775:( 7752:( 7733:( 7718:( 7696:( 7677:( 7625:( 7569:( 7546:( 7526:( 7511:( 7486:( 7462:( 7420:( 7376:( 7353:( 7309:( 7276:( 7245:( 7230:( 7212:( 7187:. 7117:( 7086:( 7056:( 7024:( 6969:( 6950:( 6929:( 6911:( 6897:( 6881:( 6817:( 6790:( 6782:( 6715:( 6701:( 6685:( 6613:( 6589:( 6570:( 6510:( 6436:— 6399:( 6385:( 6309:( 6286:( 6222:( 6204:( 6146:( 6130:★ 6087:( 6068:( 6050:( 6036:( 5997:( 5983:( 5960:( 5932:( 5910:( 5890:( 5871:( 5860:) 5822:( 5773:( 5757:( 5741:( 5726:( 5632:( 5617:( 5546:( 5500:( 5414:( 5385:( 5340:( 5312:( 5295:) 5206:( 5191:( 5175:( 5129:. 5063:( 5041:( 5019:( 5004:( 4986:( 4966:( 4948:( 4933:( 4909:( 4889:( 4865:( 4759:( 4714:( 4678:( 4662:( 4654:( 4584:( 4523:( 4498:( 4436:( 4412:( 4374:( 4347:( 4331:( 4271:( 4256:( 4221:( 4176:( 4103:( 4088:( 4059:聖 4056:( 4021:( 3959:聖 3956:( 3941:( 3901:聖 3898:( 3866:聖 3863:( 3765:( 3751:( 3736:( 3697:( 3682:( 3489:( 3475:( 3461:( 3422:聖 3419:( 3387:★ 3363:( 3349:( 3335:( 3298:( 3268:( 3261:. 3251:) 3213:( 3193:( 3173:( 3155:( 3139:( 3107:( 3055:( 3041:( 3027:( 3013:( 2986:( 2971:( 2954:( 2936:( 2920:( 2892:) 2854:( 2835:( 2796:( 2792:- 2753:( 2733:( 2714:( 2710:- 2685:( 2658:( 2631:( 2605:( 2590:( 2541:? 2519:( 2492:( 2478:( 2464:( 2449:( 2418:) 2414:( 2408:Q 2381:( 2360:( 2317:( 2283:( 2256:( 2239:聖 2236:( 2193:( 2153:( 2105:( 2063:( 2033:( 2016:( 2010:2 2006:1 2000:( 1989:( 1974:( 1945:( 1923:( 1901:( 1882:( 1855:( 1826:( 1795:) 1791:( 1774:. 1752:. 1714:( 1611:( 1592:( 1574:( 1556:( 1547:" 1511:( 1497:. 1482:. 1455:( 1407:( 1384:( 1291:( 1249:( 1192:( 1170:( 1166:. 1127:( 1027:] 1007:( 989:( 973:( 957:( 910:( 895:( 851:( 829:( 803:( 771:( 695:( 676:( 645:( 622:( 591:( 576:( 547:( 532:( 515:△ 480:) 476:( 457:( 435:( 422:) 418:( 386:( 317:( 281:( 259:( 195:( 180:( 54:.

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

Knowledge

:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 166 - Knowledge

Index