Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 178

3739:

unchanged. That it is a comic is totally irrelevant. Words, photographs, ... can be as neutral or as distorted as a comic book. Disputed content? Then present the content, and the dispute, side by side. You don't get to remove one source because another source disputes it (or parts of it), we don't decide which of them is right, we show both (unless there is overwhelming consensus that one source is basically rubbish or fringe, which is not the case here). Dubious fact-checking? Indicating that some of your sources are sometimes confused is not "dubious factchecking", it is being open about the troubles of getting facts about long-past events which were poorly documented at the time. I don't immediately see the relevance of your "dubious sources 2" item, Palestinian survivors exaggerated at first the number of deaths in one massacre so they (Palestinians, not the same people though as these survivors) are unreliable as a source on any alleged massacre? That's dubious logic. Your "dubious sources" 1 is even worse, unless you have evidence that the sources Sacco used were actually all Hamas militants (or that all Palestinians are pro-Hamas) and not e.g. Fatah suppporters or neutral people. Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers, exclude the book from the article".

10025:

for things like "Hospital Researcher Announces New Vaccine". I think the area of disagreement is that some people think that we have to worry about false hopes being raised by hucksters. That is a concern but it doesnt IMHO mean that you have to wait six months for a peer reveiwed journal article when it is a fact of history that, say, a Thailand Hospital research team has a vaccine in testing phase with animal trials. So I was hoping that there would be a similar refinement on dog bit related pages where we distinguish between an article in a newspaper stating thatthere will be say a city council ordinance on pit bulls in a place like Denver, that does these things, and we allow that as RS for that kind of thing. But we do not take it as RS if a newspaper, especially a sleazy rag or something between a sleazy rag and NYT, Wash Post or AP/UPI?Reuters blasts a headline identifying a dog as a "pit bull" becauses some old boozer down the street told the press that such and such a dog is a "pit bull". For encyclopedic statements aboutwhat is and is not true about a breed identification we need a source which is (a) secondary (b) preferably peer reviewed. If it is not (b) or if it is (advoccy), then we can present it if we identify it as a statement of an advocacy group, and/or if we balance it with a contrasting view, a criticism or at least a label that it is controversial. Does this resonate?

1276:"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source even when issued by an academic medical center. News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Knowledge's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources." 4224:

as a source and only introduce it at most in a "in popular culture" section, completely denying the serious journalistic, non-fiction nature of the source as recognized by others. Like every work of historical non-fiction, it is fallible, based on whatever sources are available, and using human judgment in which sources to believe, which sources to give more weight, and so on. But that doesn't mean that it can simply be rejected and removed, unless there is clear evidence of the unreliability of the source (not of the sources used in the book, but of the source itself). Such evidence can be found by either explicit criticism or by a clear consensus of many other sources on the same subject reaching a clearly different conclusion; but the criticism or the consensus have to be reached by reliable, independent, non-partisan sources, not people involved in or sources with a stake in the conflict. If no such evidence is available (as seems to be the case here), then the source shouldn't be removed, but should be used with care, and in balance with other sources, and criticism of the source or of some aspects can be included as well.

7210:

historians. "Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist" are themes in Argentine revisionism and the political movements which spawned revisionism; again, nothing surprising there and references were provided. That a revisionist book gets published by a large publisher is no guarantee of reliability: to go back to the Holocaust denial example, one can find Holocaust denial books printed by the largest publishers in Iran and elsewhere. O'Donnell's credentials are remarkable, but paper-thin when it comes to history. His education was as a psychoanalyst, and his career has been unabashedly political as have his writings. That he has been rewarded by governments with which his views are aligned is not surprising or an endorsement of his credentials as a historian. Neither is his diplomatic appointment to a previously moribund Israeli-Argentine association for developing closer ties (especially given his relationship to the current Peronist government).

2846:

the couple of sources cited, all from one publisher, didn't actually happen to use it. WP's own categorization system cannot be held hostage by one single publisher, and two editors relying on one single publisher. That publisher is reliable for some thing (e.g. the genetic testing and population head counts they've done to date), but what the definitions of biolgical terms are is not among of them. In the interim, I'm okay with "breed" or "landrace" in the article being replaced with "population", which is accurate and neutral. One source using breed in an overbroad way they said is for their own internal categorization needs, isn't sufficient to apply a label in WP that will mislead readers into thinking it's a standardized breed, much less to keep reverting

3073:

references are available in English. As only a minority on the English Knowledge are able to read German, I thought that it was inappropriate to keep this reference in German and in the lead of the article which counts 3 to 4 references. It may let the reader believe that this particular subject is somewhat linked with Germany, when it is not. The editor who inserted the lead claims that Germany is particularly advanced in researches about "Renewable resources" and that this reference is necessary to reflect the German advance in this field. My position, is that he should create a sub-section about the German point of view rather than inserting a German language reference in the lead.

5241:

uses one-level crossings with streets, for passengers or other trains. Or - like Paris-RER only makes very few stop in the city centre or Vienna S-Bahn (which fulfills most conciderations except city centre use). A metro system differs from commuter/suburban trains from not being used for transport within the city centre, and must be fully separated from other tracks and streets, have space for standing passengers when needed, short distances between stations (especially in the city centres), usually they are under ground in city centres but may also be elevated, and the net is located (mainly) within the urban area (not at the country side).

2814:

standardized population and lets them get to keep the word "breed" - a win/win for those who insist that "breed" has some kind special imprimatur to it, as Montanabw definitely does and Jlan seems to. But, they reverted that, too. I think I'm being reverted, and so carelessly, simply because it's me, and they refuse to get over their personal dislike of me after several similar disputes. Basically, any time I touch any animal-breed-related article, there's a very high probability that Jlan, Montanabw or their triumvirate partner PigeonIP will show up to revert me, no matter what it is I'm doing. It's a concerted

8520:

irrelevant. Pointing to the popularity of a writer who is well-known as a revisionist is also no evidence for reliability. There are many other popular writers, complete with awards and glowing endorsements, who put forth work that is regarded as fringe by the mainstream. Some of these even have advanced degrees in their fields, and O'Donnell is a politician who earned no degree in history. Lecen's temporary block for overstepping an interaction ban with another editor had nothing to do with this issue, and dredging that up is both offensive and misdirection from the issue at hand.

182:

Times reported her death date as being 12/23/98 so I'm not sure why you even bring up the fact that IMDB has a different date of death. You have a reliable source for the date of death, so calling another source unreliable adds no value to the discussion. The NYT also stated her age as 30, so the article should be updated with the template of estimated birth year based on death and age and until there's a reliable source to the contrary, we'll just assume she was born in either 1967 or 1968 (even though you know in your heart of hearts what the correct answer is). Satisfied?

9906:. I am leaning toward sources like Veterinary Associations. There is POV warring using a very old and misinterpreted CDC study and the article is not really about pit bulls so much as support for the POV that pit bulls are nature's killing machines. I understand this is different from the sourcing issue but I would appreciate some consensus building advice. I am not sure if posting references here will work and have the refs show up properly so I will come back tommorow and repair if the refs are not working rights. I think this is kind the ideal type of RS 8558:

unsuitable as evidence of historical fact but can be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time. Finally, that it was inappropriate to elevate revisionism to the same level as the mainstream academic view. RSN was being asked to affirm that revisionism, one example in particular, can be used as evidence of historical fact. I would suggest this is left open to allow the outside viewpoint that is so desperately needed and request that those who have contributed so far desist from deterring it any more with walls of text.

3801:

because they live in a country / region / whatever that is (was) partly under control of Hamas, without any evidence that these actual persons had anything to do with Hamas or anti-semitism, is wrong. My post above was purely about the content of your initial post and the arguments you used in it, and doesn't violate ARBPIA in the least. If you don't want to have some of your statements described as borderline racist, then don't make such statements, but don't try to stifle criticism by pointing to an arbcom case or by claiming that my comment was somehow

2601:, there is an issue with a video game journalist who has become part of the issue: this is Leigh Alexander who writes for several works including Gamasutra (where she is an editor-at-large), Time, etc. She wrote a piece for Gamasutra that was very critical of the other group; that group initiated a call to action to email Intel ( a major advertiser on Gamasutra) and were able to convince the company to remove their ads from Gamasutra; it has been identified that this specific article was the one that led to this incident. 5987:"Prem Rawat attended two events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration before the UK Parliament, whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011 . Also, Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) . Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment.“ -- 10100:

than going the rout of arbitrations and edit war reporting and all of that stuff. You are free however to ignore threads on RSN which in your opinion don't follow some etiquette you prefer. I agree however that my more general concern is more effectively taken up on the RS talk page. It would have been nice if you addressed my substantive concern with the distinction between sourcing which should be from peer reveiwed journals rather as opposed to sourcing whihc can be journalistic but you are free to do what you wish.

2902:"The link to CSICOP is not objective, because CSICOP has encouraged UFO research themselves for centuries. They are competitors to the SCC the organ of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer reviewed journal, which encourages to publish scientific literature, including unexplained phenomena, as long as they are in an objective way. The used wording is an unjustified partial defamatory statement contra the Journal of the Scientific Exploration and has to be removed." 2146:

to the additional alphabet soup that might preclude any particular cite.) I read the 2010 discussion as concluding that it is an RS. Your single sentence is being relied upon to conclude it is not. There is zero question that TWS is a partisan source, but that's true of just about all news sources when it comes to politics. The NYT is partisan, but I support its inclusion in the list of RS. If we exclude all partisan sources, we won't have any articles on political subject (which might be such a bad idea :)--

8248:'s book is published by Penguin Random House Group, which is not an academic press. The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community. He is not a professional historian but a psychoanalyst and political writer. His wikipedia biography acknowledges he is of the "neorevisionist" school which rejects the orthodox mainstream historical view. Populism does not confer reliability and revisionist historians are disregarded by academics, because as Goebel notes above, they invent stuff (ie make it up). 654:"A 2014 telephone survey of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania reported that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were reported in 18% of the population 1.2 miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. The number of people reporting skin problems increased in from 3% to 13% over the same distances." 2035:": "In the event of nuclear war, only three things are expected to survive—cockroaches, Twinkies, and the political ambitions of the Kennedy family." Obviously that is meant as humor, but the article has the appearance of an editorial, not a news article. It is commenting on the fact that Kennedy is a candidate, not reporting it. And it uses the fact he is in the news to dredge up the fact he was a defendant in a well-publicized trial, intimating that he was wrongfully acquitted. So even if 35: 8857:"World In Action investigates the secret contract and operations arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (Yellowcake) from the Rössing Uranium Mine in Namibia, whose major shareholders are the governments of Iran and South Africa. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising the UK's position in the United Nations negotiations to remove apartheid South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying." 2408:, etc., etc. and there is no reason it suffer any higher or lower level of scrutiny than any of those. That said, the statement that "No evidence exists that Bush said that" should have been attributed, as common sense tells you it was not a scientific fact, but merely a statement about a search process conducted by the WS or the proxies it relied upon, and the reader should p;referably therefor have been explicitly informed in text as well as citation who was responsible for the 1212:

what they say. More recent primary sources only come into question where they address a topic that had been identified as important but not researched in depth until after the secondary sources were written. In that case, their content may be used carefully, in suitably circumspect language, never putting their findings in the voice of the encyclopedia, nor making our own inferences about their significance. Such exceptions almost always deserve discussion prior to inclusion.

4016:) (which means in that small world virtually everyone was affected and it burnt itself into the collective memory), there was no Western historian or journalist around, as would have been the case had this occurred in our world, to go and conduct a detailed investigation. All you got was a generic field report by the UN of a few pages. Sacco interviewed old men, collated their accounts, and formed for the first time a narrative of Palestinian memories of those incidents. 5420:{{cite book|language=Russian |title=Geografichesko-statisticheskìĭ slovar' Rossìĭskoĭ imperìi |trans-title=Geographical-Statistical Dictionary of the Russian Empire) |last1=Semenov |first1=Pyotr |authorlink=Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky |publisher=Oxford University |year=1862 |page=624}}, cited at {{cite web |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arabat_Spit&oldid=628226109 |title=Arabat Spit |work=English Knowledge |accessdate=October 4, 2014}}</ref: --> 5758:

be bumping into. Each case of use needs to be evaluated individually, so if you can't evaluate it for new content, then it's not a reliable source. Using such sources is usually discouraged, but I'd be somewhat ok with one if we had the original sentence or excerpt being cited on the talk page for reference. That means that if someone wants to use the source for different content from a different excerpt, they'd need to go back and find that material to use it.

9828:’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages. 1635:. Again, it's a textbook used in Veterinary schools. It differentiates "animal rights" from "animal welfare"—two diametrically opposed views that unfortunately get treated as synonyms in the popular press. I'm not here to contest that past discussion. I'm just noting that the sole reason why I was told I can't use the source was because the author "is an animal researcher/former dairy farmer". I want to make sure the same doesn't happen here. 4070:

of course. Congo is also rather narrative, based on interviews with locals, some of them probably not very reliable, focusing largely on the point of view of one group (the native Congolese, not the Belgians), and so on. The main difference is probably that it is less journalistic, but being journalistic is hardly a reason to dismiss a source. (for anyone who doesn't know "Congo", it is very highly recommended reading! It has just been shortlisted

9944:

board. Before that you accused me of "drive-by tagging" after I tagged POV on a section, not the whole article. I had been aware of the POV problem with that articles for weeks if not months. Please stop making personal remarks and allegations of misconduct and discuss constructive edits. You also do not "own" the pafe despite that your UID resonates with the article title. A third personalizing remark, for which however I will reserve you

1260:"Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them). " 3555:. If you read the Haaretz review, you will see why the author chose this format. This work was initially part of a journalistic work. Benny Morris, a mainstream historian, confirms these massacres but does not discuss them in detail. There are no "thick" sources which talk about Palestinian testimonies and so on. The UN report is there but it is rarely quoted. I am happy to use in-text attribution for Sacco's work, in line with 4238:(a) Meir Pa'il doesn't describe himself as a cartoonist on a mission. You should, seriously, rephrase as it appears you are insinuating this living person could be part of a massacre and coverup. You better have phenomenal sources for this, or that you just remove this. (b) "Non-fiction" says nothing about historical reliability. It just means it is based on conversations with real people. (c) On the points you've presented, 3975:, were cited, with no opposition (is it by chance that some of those memories were hostile to al-Husayni?). Swedenburg the academic can write a history of the past using oral reports acceptable to wiki, Sacco, though trained as a journalist to sieve and sift information, is to be excluded, simply because he also wrote out his account with a graphic accompaniment? Swedenburg has a point in his preface which is important here: 8026:. I personally would not hesitate to call Rosas a dictator and I don't understand, frankly, what is so terrible about calling him that. The whole issue mostly depends on what we mean by dictatorship, of course, but I think in Rosas' government we have a pretty good candidate. I don't really get the impression that the revisionists "don't see it that way", as you put it. It's rather the opposite in my view. They like him 4325:

people to reply. You clearly had your opinion from the very start, and nothing anyone says can change that or seems even to register with you. Your prejudices are plain for everyone to see ("Graphc novels belong at comic-con for a reason", I thought that kind of blanket nonsense was no longer common since 20-odd years, but apparently not everyone has caught up with the times), and I am done spending time with you.

9738:

most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.

4242:, a golden globe winning war documentary, is a source for history as well (it is not). This post, btw, was first and foremost to see if the community agree that it should not be used as a neutral voice of history. My own view about how much to use it with attribution, based on my reading of the material, is immaterial at this junction because I am willing to reconsider it based on the consensus reached. 4045:, because Israel documents everything regarding what befalls its army and citizens which permits us to write marvellously complete narrative histories from their archives. Many of Palestinian archives, official and otherwise, have been destroyed or expropriated over the last decades, and no longer are accessible to Palestinians themselves. They have memories and Sacco is one reporter who recorded them. 858:

prevent potentially irreversible threats to the local environment and New York City water supply. Major investments in state and federal regulatory enforcement will be required to avoid these environmental consequences, and a ban on drilling within the NYC water supply watersheds is appropriate, even if more highly regulated Marcellus gas production is eventually permitted elsewhere in New York State."

5775:

relatively obscure topics, such as local history. Another consideration is the age of a source. Since Semenov's book was published in 1862, it should not be used. Not only have we had over 150 years of scholarship to correct any errors that might have been included, but many commonly accepted ideas have been abandoned, such as theories of the divine right of kinds, aristocracy, race and religion.

2969:

determine the astrological signs of 23 individuals based on biographical information, pictures and the results of psychological testing. The authors found that the astrologists did no better than chance and they did not even agree among themselves. While one may question why they would conduct this study, I have little doubt that they actually did and reported their findings accurately.

9372: 852:

and drilling have immediate health effects, and many may have long-term health effects. A 2013 review of environmental exposure studies stated that, "introduction of natural gas drilling with high-volume hydraulic fracturing to Pennsylvania and neighboring states since 2004 has been accompanied by numerous reports of varied symptoms and illnesses by those living near these operations."

3894:

motivation or personal opinion. All my remarks were about the content of your post, none about you. But, never mind what your logic was, if any, but the argument that all Palestinian witnesses are unreliable (or dubious) because Hamas is Antisemitic is borderline racist and certainly not neutral. Which (together with the other reasons I presented) is why I rejected your proposal.

8983:"WIA investigates the secret contract and operation arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (yellow cake) from the Rossing mine in Namibia, one of whose major shareholders is the South African government. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising its position in the U.N negotiations to remove 5433:) to ref identical material (I used a permalink). If it's OK in the first article why not equally OK in the second? Or but suppose the info in the first article is wrong -- the Semenov book is misquoted, say. Errors could promulgate through the Knowledge. But that's true of any second-hand quote of material. But Knowledge is not reliable. But if it's not reliable then 3872:"your logic apparently going..." is the part in question. It is possible to mention when people are under rule of ISIS (or Hamas) when their testimonies are gathered without someone reading into how my logic supposedly goes to suggest all those people belong to ISIS (or Hamas) or agree with ISIS (or Hamas) beliefs. I have learned this behavior is not entirely uncommon 1885:

conservative, that must be re-examined. I think this is a simple issue, that one editor made a throwaway point in the context of making a specific determination about a quote, and should not be construed as representing the Knowledge consensus on the issue. However, as it is being used by an admin to support a contentious edit, I would like to see some clarification.

5809:. Here the translation could be litteral or not. Anyone can atleast check the translation, so it's atleast a bit better, I think. Of cource I appriciate not all around the Globe has this encyclopedia available. But it's better than just refer to the litterature, I think. By the way, I am aware of encyclopedias not be the best of sources. This was an example only. 5500:) and Oxford published the book, and it's probably held in some "reputable libraries, archives, or collections", although possibly only in Russia or maybe England, at least publicly, and I can't get there. "Linking to an established Knowledge article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher)" which is another marker for "availability" according to 3100:. English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are OK if there are no English ones of equal quality. If there are equally good English sources, you can simply replace the citation with one of those. If you can't find a suitable English one, then this may be a case where using a German source is the best option. German isn't a rare language. Cheers, -- 541:

but what you get here is in any case only advice, sometimes bad advice. And Terry Moran's tweet responding to Draper's and saying he's never heard anything like what Tyson had fabricated but plenty of the opposite should also have been good. You don't need editorial intervention to validate expert opinion, as long as it's properly identified as opinion.

3005:

acoustic, thus ignoring documented cases where it was). The measurements he reports are on a sample of one (himself). It also makes extensive use of a questionnaire issued by a self-help group. I'm assuming here that the actual measurements and maths is fine; I'm not qualified to comment on those. Peer review would have picked up on all this.

1189:"We got interested in this issue because there were concerns that had been brought up about people complaining of some health symptoms when living near natural gas drilling or extraction facilities," he said. "At the time we started this study, most of these reports were really just that: isolated case reports of a handful of individuals." 7397:, but to the tenth (also Lecen at least had the common sense to collapse it; WCM: could you collapse the bulk of your cmmt please?) He mixes old (~1930) revisionism with new, right-wing with left-wing (which is what we have today mostly) peronism with revisionism with nationalism, and uses sources as if he was WP's historian to generate 4182:"truth-telling". I wonder why this wasn't adedd to the "points in favour" above, while a comic award and the praise of a "Palestinian rights spokesman" (nice way to dismiss the praise as partisan from the start) have been included. As said before, the initial presentation was severely skewed and biased, e.g. presenting statements by 4012:

key events that are otherwise also mentioned, though without asking survivors of the events, by academic experts on Gaza or Palestine (d) despite the fact that in just over 4 months of the Israeli occupation from November 1956 to March 1957, roughly 1 in every 300 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was shot dead after the ceasefire (

2605:

treated as a dependent source - that is, if there are independent sources saying the same thing that she writes, it would be better to use those sources over hers, but not outright eliminating her as a source, just the normal caution with any dependent source. This would include even if she was republished in Time in the future.

5687:

journalist's blog only a little more. It hinges on the publisher's reputation for honesty, fact checking, etc. Accordingly we would not include a statement that was only supported by a random blog post, no matter how good the source that blog cited, until we verify the statement is supported in that good source ourselves.

9350:

original research based on unreliable sources. I've removed many of these and requested new sources. But more eyes are needed on this article by those familiar with our sourcing policies. It's possible that the article needs to be deleted, but I suspect adequate sources can be found to keep at least some of the material.

4662:"Vice magazine is really full of original research"? Quite possibly. We expect sources to base content on research - that is why we cite them. As for the contested material, I think it should be attributed as opinion (which it clearly is) and could do with copy-editing, but I can't see legitimate grounds for exclusion. 6496:(Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. It was the Argentine nationalist equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, 6427:. This might not look like much of a dispute but this behaviour is spread throughout the entire article and, as Langus pointed out above, these two editors are determined to not allow any historian they consider "revisionist" into the it which is definitely troubling. The question in this case is simple: is the book 8290:

general peer reviewed in academic journals and they have a poor reputation for fact checking. Does this mean they can never be used, no, they can be used to source the revisionist viewpoint when it is appropriate to mention it but this doesn't mean we elevate it to the same level as the mainstream academic view.

2913:(a) Do you believe the JSE is a reliable source in terms of being a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Obviously, it's a reliable source in terms of reporting what's been published there, but I'm talking about the weight that we should assign to research. For example, someone reading the current phrasing of 745:, and makes definitive claims about health effects. This is exactly the kind of editing that MEDRS advises against. We use reviews to determine if the results reported in PRIMARY sources are viewed as credible by the scientific community and to determine how important they are. Without a review, it is pure 3510:

translate the tragedy into an "intimate and immediate experience" (from the publisher's page). So it seems that this could be used as a reference as long as great care is taken in how it is used to support statements of historical fact. Why cannot a more traditional source of historical information be used?

9924:

You haven't even discussed this on the article's talk page, so you're not following good practice. Don't misuse boards. Your concerns will get an ear (or more) at the talk page. Please ping me there, since I have over 5,000 pages (plus their talk pages) on my watchlist. (I recently pared it down when

9428:

Strictly, this is not a reliability issue, but a weight/neutrality issue, since of course a medical centre is reliable for listing its own services. The question is: is the fact these medical centres have such offerings significant? If so, it should be easy to find secondary sources making mention of

8289:

My comments have been a generalised response, to a general question as to the reliability of Argentine Revisionist Sources. Are they in general reliable for historical facts? No, because they are known to be politically biased, they are acknowledged as lacking in academic standards, they are not in

7727:

Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine

5757:

When we say a source is reliable, we are actually saying it's reliable for the specific content citing it (context matters). We don't really give a source a blanket statement as reliable. That's the key understanding of how we determine reliability and why your thought isn't really an issue we should

5671:

Still... it's disconcerting to consider that, if this is the correct interpretation of our rules, even our Reference sections are not considered reliable... and since they're not considered reliable, what use are they? It's a house of cards... But OK, your other points re context etc. are convincing.

5638:

which is actually wrong, I changed "Blog Post" to "Reliable Source" (if you kept the original, and assuming that "Blog Post" means "some random guy's blog" it actually indicates that you can use unreliable sources for second-hand cites, not what was intended I hope). Assuming that change is accepted,

5585:

is the content guideline. An editor is only supposed to add citations they are somehow vouching for themselves, personally. If you're adding something you can't vouch for in your own experience, you may be unwittingly perpetuating an error or a hoax. It's not necessarily sinister, but a citation that

5448:

Another way to state this is, is the following proposition true or false: Knowledge articles are not reliable sources, and that includes everything in Knowledge articles, including their cited references, therefore there is no such thing as a "reliable source" in any Knowledge article and we are down

5138:

4. I.o.w. UITP isn't a scientific organization or remotely close to be a such, and is cetrainly inappropriate as some kind of main source above all other better sources for each system. (Just look at Berlin, without the S-Bahn system, line U-55 is unconnected to the entire metro net, as it starts and

4011:

So, we have to be very careful here, and consider (a) Sacco is a trained journalist (b) his account is based on field work and prior research on the incidents mentioned (c) his accounts give personal testimonies which add more particular details, perhaps subjective as all eye-witness accounts are, to

3915:

The way the article is currently written, it is repeating the claims made in the Sacco source as if it were uncontroversial. The source is controversial. Therefore we shouldn't do that. Since it's important, we can devote a section to the Sacco source, but that section should not be "Events", as that

3773:

without having to deal with allegations of racism against Egyptians. There's a war going on and tales of evilness, sometimes contrived tales as well, have been embraced by both sides of the conflict. To summarize: You are misinterpreting my logic -- there's much more to the Arab-Israeli conflict than

3581:

I figured it would be, if anything, biased against the book; that's certainly what the quotes from the OP seemed to suggest. I wanted to get a quick sense from the sources that were more likely to be neutral or biased in favor of the book, that's why I looked at the NYT review and the publisher's own

2932:

This is plainly untrue; it is the opinion of the author and ignores documented cases where external sounds have been confirmed as causing the problem (as well as the opinion of genuine experts in the field, such as head of audiology at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge). Any scientific peer review

1831:

I seem to remember that we had a general consensus of the community that if a website is not actually the ones with the editorial judgment or oversight of aggregated content that they were not actually RS and that we should be using the actual source. In this particular instance and in possible links

419:

The accounts are longstanding and I don't believe there is any doubt about their provenance, though I can't confirm that the "verified" feature has been used in their cases. Would these Twitter posts be acceptable cites concerning the opinion of these experts regarding the quote used by Tyson? Thanks

155:

There is no evidence that dates of birth and death are crowdsourced, or not under editorial control. On the contrary, IMDB was sued for displaying the real age of an actress and not what she submitted to the editors. "Hoang also made an issue of how IMDb had allegedly used credit information when she

10440:

It was brought here because discussion on the talk page and edit warring threatening 3RR was going around in circles. The specific content that became the center of discussion is what's listed above, but it also affects the entire article as these and other authors who have written about paranormal

10071:

I have read the lengthy text above and find it quite hard to see what is being asked. When posting to this board editors are requested to post (a) some content and (b) its source for evaluation. What seems to be being asked is for general guidance giving permissions for certain classes of source for

9971:

My sincerest apologies for the mixup. I somehow missed your comment on the talk page. I had your user contribution history open, but hadn't refreshed it for a few minutes, and during that time you left the comments there. Then I saw this comment pop up on my watchlist and made the obviously mistaken

9948:

is your speculation regarding my mental state or emotional purchase for the issue or something along those lines. It is not polite to make a remark like that, it is like "cross talk" in a meeting abouta topic in which you "take personal inventory" of someone. So to reiterate, I have the right to ask

7881:

Again we are seeing the line blurred between a source being used as evidence of historical fact, as opposed to how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time. RSN is being asked here to affirm that O'Donnell for example can be used as evidence of historical fact. However, if you

7870:

I agree with the thrust of the finding. I understand the distinction Cambalachero was trying to draw—between a source as evidence of history, and the same source as evidence of how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time—but it doesn't seem that Cambalachero has always observed

5059:

is the preeminent international organization in this field. If you can't call these guys a "reliable source", it completely calls in to question what could possibly be considered a "reliable source" on this topic. What you want us to do here is ignore a reliable source because you don't like what it

4069:

as a source for an article on Congo (or for any of the topics touched upon in the book)? If so (and I hope so!), then why would one allow this book but not the comics by Sacco? Only because of the visual difference between a book and a graphic novel? One can just as eaily lie, distort, ... in a book

4027:

In addition to the above, I believe the work stands on its own merits, and that, since nothing I we use from Sacco seems to stand at variance with what the few specialised studies we have of those neglected events say, it can be used, with attribution, of course. He obviously isn't making it all up,

3943:

for some parts of the article. The Sacco source is used primarily for 3-4 paragraphs of the "Rounding up of the men" section, with a few scattered references elsewhere. This kind of testimony is precisely the places where first-hand accounts are useful. The Sacco source is also used to note: "Rumors

3621:

Official and other sources are quoted in full in a graphic novel published in New York late last year by Henry Holt and Company. "Footnotes in Gaza," by cartoonist-journalist Joe Sacco, is a hefty, album-sized tome whose hard-cover version is 418 pages long - 388 of which are covered with meticulous

3179:

The problem is not about the German language itself. if an article is explained in one language, so it makes it easier for the reader to comprehend. If we start, without any reason, to mix Chinese, Russian, Japanese and other languages in wiki-articles, so we will need to become expert in linguistic

3004:

That highlights the main problem I have with the Frosch piece. He's touting it as peer reviewed, but it takes massive liberties with other research to draw an unsafe conclusion (specifically, it takes evidence that the Taos Hum was probably not acoustic and concludes that therefore all hums are not

2546:

I'd say ResearchGate is never a reliable source, agreeing with Kingofaces43. I'd go for journal articles, if the authors are experts who have published, this may be a pre-publication document, but in any case, why hasn't it been published? So I'd say no, but it may be published at some point. Or, if

2203:

But here’s the real problem—nothing about this anecdote is true. George W. Bush did make a remark that bears a resemblance to this, but it was two years later, in his speech following the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a context that had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Islam. “The same Creator who

181:

Silly question, @SummerPhD. No one is suggesting that IMDB, Find-A-Grave and "I couldn't find it" are reliable sources. Although, if there were a reliable source indicating that Michelle Thomas' nickname was Chu Chu, then it would lend greater credence to the tombstone photo on FindAGrave. The NY

10346:

For anyone else reading this, I don't know where that diff came from, but most of those changes are not me. There are 6 intermediate changes there. However, I also have a problem with taking articles about ghost stories and UFOs and using pieces of them to cite items as facts as though we know what

10024:

I first thought about opening a thread on RSN actually re RS(medical) because some people seem to think that the ONLYlegitimate refs for bio med articles are things like BMJ and JAMA. But I insist that it is OK to use sources like Rueters and mainstream newspapers, including third world newspapers,

9943:

As a matter of fact I posted on the talk page and you ignored it. I have every right to pose a question to this or any other notice board. You are continuing with your opening salvo of vague renarks tantamount to a personal attack. Actually, it is a personal attack to accuse me of misusing a notice

9318:

What we have in essence is a long list of articles (52 by my count, though there may be more), all citing websites with precisely zero medical credibility, clearly created as click-magnets and to promote 'cures' for so-called phobias unrecognised by medical science. I can see no good reason why the

8853:

magazine reported that the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 could be directly linked to the Rossing Uranium Mine's processed uranium ore (Yellowcake) that was illegally extracted from Namibia in the period 1976 to 1989. A TV documentary film in March 1980 described succinctly what was

6524:

The Neo-revisionists appeared in the 1950s and still exist to the present. Some among them are leftists. "All Revisionists argued that they were the victims of a well-orchestrated 'conspiracy of silence' and that Argentina's 'official history' was a deliberate 'falsification' by the intellectuals

6385:

authors are still way outside the fold of mainstream historiography. Knowledge does not turn to politically motivated revisionists for referencing history (we don't allow neo-Nazi authors to be used to source articles on the Holocaust, nor should Peronists myth-spinners be used to source what would

6140:

have pretty low/non-existent editorial standards. Afaik, services like Nexis don't even index them and you'll be hard-pressed to find other reliable sources citing them uncritically. Such publications are mostly filled with uncritical puff-pieces and/or press-releases, and the particular Prem Rawat

5413:

You're not supposed to cite Knowledge articles for anything (except their own contents, a very rare situation), but on the other hand, if the source is OK to use in the original article, why would it not be OK to use in other articles? It doesn't become any less reliable in these articles. What I'm

4922:

about the movie having themes common in the Patriot movement and claims that the movie accuses the Federal Reserve of orchestrating several wars. The first claim seems to be opinion, while the latter claim appears to be a dubious oversimplification. No other source makes this specific claim, nor is

4261:

shouldn't use Pa'il as if a neutral, independent historian has rejected Sacco's work. I have no problem with or opinion about Pa'il, please stop with that incorrect angle of attack. B; I haven't claimed whatever yhou are trying to disprove, but you wanyed to put the work in the "in popular culture"

4256:

A is a strawman (Sacco is a journalist who uses comics (not cartoons) instead of words, and my comment was about the testimonies of others, not of Sacco). As for my insinuation, I don't insinuate anything, I am saying that someone who self declares that he was there at the side of the group accused

4223:

It would not offend, it would simply serve no purpose. Would you apply the same standards to testimonies from the other side, e.g. from Meir Pa'il? The question you posed was not "should we use the source with some care and balance it with other sources", what you wanted was to remove it completely

4181:

in 2010, an award to those "who persevere in acts of truth-telling that protect the public interest, promote social justice or illuminate a more just vision of society". So it looks as if not just the comics world appreciated the book, but that serious journalistic awards also recognised it for its

3964:

I actually went and looked at the few thoroughly reliable academic sources I'm familiar with to see how their versions stood compared to Sacco's. As one can see from several additions I then made, most of what Sacco said is uncontroversial and is endorsed by the account by an eminent French Arabist

3850:

Every work of non-fiction must try to distill truth from the tales told by the sources. Witnesses are unreliable, second-hand witnesses even more so. The source you use to provide us with the "lies and embellishments" quote makes it clear that Sacco is actually very good at spotting these problems,

2337:

publishes any "non-opinion" pieces. It is a commentary magazine, not a news magazine, and it has no journalistic operations or reputation. While the magazine may use various labels for its content ("Scrapbook", "Editorial", "Feature", etc), these are all commentary/opinion in the general sense, and

2145:

Weight is always an issue when determining whether to use something from an RS. But this is the RSN; I'm not asking for a content decision on whether this particular quote deserves to be in the article, I am asking whether there has been a change to the position that TWS qualifies as an RS (subject

1789:

I can't actually find in the source which story is supposed to be summarized but my thought is...this is not the source, but the original news story...which ever one that might be. If you could help me figure that out we can check to see if the coverage in the article is accurate per the source and

857:

A 2013 review focusing on Marcellus shale gas hydraulic fracturing and the New York City water supply stated, "Although potential benefits of Marcellus natural gas exploitation are large for transition to a clean energy economy, at present the regulatory framework in New York State is inadequate to

740:

sources, for a whole host of reasons. MEDRS further defines SECONDARY sources for health related content, as reviews published in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. In the discussion at Project Medicine, EllenCT was pointed to recent reviews. Those

625:

Of course any source is reliable for what it states, though even here it is not accurately stated since the source is reporting on reported health effects gleaned from a telephone survey, not acutally "clinically significant" data. But the real problem here is due weight & neutrality. A primary

540:

The Draper tweet is no longer a SPS, since it has been incorporated as an addendum at TheFederalist.com page whose conclusions it endorsed. I don't see why it wasn't already a RS for Draper's opinion that Bush never said what Tyson claimed he said, and which Tyson has now admitted Bush did not say,

138:

I think the general understanding is that IMDB is not considered a citable reference, because it is crowdsourced. Find-a-Grave is citable only for a picture of the tombstone. Not finding a death in the SSDI is not uncommon, and means very little (if the dead person never received SS benefits, they

10675:

from her campaign website, and even has misspellings to boot. Amazingly enough the "university website" appears to print press releases. Cheers. As for the suggestion that "top of her class" has been shown to be true, that is a matter for consensus at this point, but the fact is that there are

10423:

The real issue is what content supported by what reference in what article with what weight is being proposed. Without these specifics its generally not fair to evaluate a source. A writer who is a generalist, that is writes about multiple topics may not be the best source for an expert opinion on

9635:

Good points, and generally agree all around. Yes, claims of efficacy and sphere of use are different things, and as far as I can tell, acu is used in academic clinics mostly for nausea, pain and anxiety, all of which have a lot to do with its placebo effects, and may be all placebo -- but I'm not

5240:

in Berlin. S-Bahn lines aswell as U-Bahn lines. IF UITP indeed has proclaimed Berlin, Hamburg or Copenhagen S-Bahn/Trains as "non-metro" I would like to read it. It may though come down to a misunderstanding, since there are other S-labeled urban system which f.i. share tracks with other trains or

4857:

My statement is not directed at Vice in general. Just that when an article cites a source with material that is in broad disagreement with general consensus, it cannot be considered a reliable source when it makes its case based on a blog that in fact states the exact opposite of the source's main

4324:

Thanks for again demonstrating that it is nop use to have a serious, unbiased discussion with you. "Journal of accountants", seriously? If all you can do is mock things you don't like and make caricatures of arguments you can't dismiss otherwise, then feel free to have a monologue but don't expect

3800:

If you make statements like "Dubious sources: book is based on conversations with locals, under control of Anti-Semitic, Islamist militant group Hamas.", then I am free to remark that the content of that sentence (and what it is used for in this discussion) is borderline racist. Dismissing sources

2845:

be applicable. I'm unaware of anywhere else we'd do that. I borders on the inconceivable that, for example, some variety of horse, call it the Fnordonian, of very small stature, would not get categorized on WP as a pony, even when we know it fits the requirements of that definition, just because

1990:

rule out sources based on political ideology, vide HuffPo, Salon etc. Where an opinion is cited to an opinion column in TWS, that claim, properly cited, is also allowed by policy. Thus TWS qualifies as RS unless and until Knowledge decides that any publication with "wrong opinions" is estopped,

1451:

sources, rather than on news sources or primary scientific sources. The primary scientific literature needs to be digested and substantiated by other scientists before it should be reported as a statement of fact regarding a contentious issue on wikipedia. I say this, despite the fact that I agree

851:

A 2013 review on shale gas production in the United States stated, "with increasing numbers of drilling sites, more people are at risk from accidents and exposure to harmful substances used at fractured wells." A 2011 hazard assessment found that most of the chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing

693:

In this case, the survey is completely consistent with all of the conclusive MEDRS secondary sources. In such cases is it preferable to use secondary news coverage of the primary source when, as in this case, it has received widespread coverage in national and international reputable news sources?

10758:

Several sources generally considered reliable have reported the matter, including the website of the university that honored her as "alumni of the year". No reliable source has been identified which questions the assertion, and it is widely known that her political opponents scrutinize her claims

10099:

FYI I don't think that there is a hard policy regarding the specific-edit/specific-source framework you suggest although I know that is usually how it works. But if there are sourcing issues that are not being worked out on the talk pages, it seems less confrontational to take them up here rather

9444:

Thanks for commenting, Alex. Good point. As you know, there are more than a few editors determined to depict acu as a wholly fringe phenomenon, and that influence is pervasive. Citing its use in mainstream settings is a counter to this UNDUE problem. Since we do have some sec sources now, it's

8909:

The edit to the Rössing uranium mine article is a direct copy-paste, and thus a copyright violation, for a start. As for Haseldine's theory, unless it has been significantly commented on by credible third party reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article - or anywhere else on Knowledge for

8422:

Gaba p, I know when I'm wasting my time, and this is a fine example of that. Obviously you won't change your mind nor you will present any source declaring that O'Donnel is a reliable source (isn't there a single peer review in a scientific magazine?). Rock and Goebel are mentioned simply because

5126:

S-Bahn/S-train system on ? This association doesn't make studies. Inclusion and exclusion may be bias, depending on membership in this association or not. Who knows ? It's just a webbsite. Does any government or international organizations like UN or EU refer to UITP ? No - it's an association of

4972:

describes his position at the outlet at the time as "lead blogger" and the apparent lack of oversight for a two-paragraph piece is problematic. Not sure why you are characterizing my statements about grammatical errors as "assertions" since they are plainly evident to anyone who has read the very

4635:

Yes and you cannot find any other source for a lot of the information that has been provided in the website of Vice. They have gained popularity after launching videos on YouTube, but we know that there are many other users who have got millions(of views). Their performance in Libya and Syria has

4186:

as coming from "a leading military historian" but omitting the telling "I was there." (as Pa'il was with the IDF at the time of the massacre) from his statement, making him not an unbiased reviewer but someone with a clear COI, but on the other hand omitting clear points in favour (present in the

2968:

I looked at the magazine's website. There are old articles available on-line, they are mostly written by academics and do not contain unusual claims. In one article, "A scientific Inquiry into the Validity of Astrology", for example, psychologists at Indiana University asked six astrologists to

2936:

I've not included a diff; I've refrained from reverting to avoid an edit war, so what's there now is different to what was there and both are different to what will be there. The final version would likely include mention of Frosch and Deming (the two articles published in the JSE), but separate

2799:

was written 2007, and clearly stated various ways in which the breed-under-construction was expected to differ from the landrace population and be more like standard pigs; i.e. they're not even trying to standardize the traits of the feral group, but breed-true only some of them and breed out the

2433:

I agree, something like "No evidence exists that Bush said that" is clearly saying the WS was unable to find any source (not that one cant exist). It should have been sourced to "The WS says...". I wouldn't say its a "unequivocal WP:BLP violation" and "defamation of living persons", but it fell

1532:

The animal industry is very divided, and although the animal rights campaigns have a strong presence on Knowledge (and would therefore support the use of this source), I can still see my potential edits being reverted and attacked, primarily by targeting the source. The book was written based on

1211:

You seem to be getting lost in the content, rather than the method, which is fairly simple. List the secondary, peer-reviewed sources which address the topic. Strike out any of the earlier ones which have been cited in the later ones. You're now left with a short list of "current" ones. Summarize

362:

Just seeking consensus as to whether this resource is a RS. I have been aware of it for several years, and I have found it useful. It is a slightly US-centric but vastly entertaining compendium, and appears to be rich in RSS. It would be useful for a myriad of food and drink related articles. Any

11000:

In regard to the source in question, although framed as a document about the ship in question, the content focuses more on the activities and experiences of one of the sailors. The author appears (based on surname similarity) to be a descendant of the sailor in question. The content added to the

9737:

The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at

9573:

I'd say that Spumuq has hit the nail on the head. Presenting anecdotes as if they were data is often problematic—what you want is a systematic study of the usage of acupuncture in a given country, not a cherry-picked list of the most-impressive-sounding institutions that may have an acupuncture

7580:

The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism.

5774:

Hypothetical questions are difficult because in practice there will always be other considerations in selecting sources. If a fact can only be found in one source then it is probably insignificant and should not be included in an article, let alone several. The only exception is articles about

5153:

No, it is not a problem that not every nation with a metro system isn't in UITP, any more than the UN not containing every "nation" in the world should rule them out on international policy. (Note: Neither are the North American systems included in UITP, because they belong to the North American

3072:

I am involved in a dispute related to the "Renewable resource" article. I was accused of "edit war" for removing a reference in German language from the article lead. The article has no relation with Germany or any German subject. The reference which I have removed was completely in German. Many

2927:

The article is not available online. The author has generously emailed it to me. Bearing in mind IANAscientist, my initial read of it is that the conclusions it draws are far too bold given the limited (and sometimes questionable) data that it uses. For example, its conclusion begins with the

2891:

is a reliable source or not. An editor who has had an article published in that journal believes that it is; I don't. I'd included reference to his article, but drew attention to the fact (as I see it) that the JSE is not your run-of-the-mill scientific journal (i.e. it has been accused by the

2832:

clearly indicate the Arapawa population qualifies as one. If for some reason we're going to play a game where we're going to deny application of the term to the Arapawa population even though it perfectly fit the definitions of landrace, until some source says "The Arapawa pigs are a landrace",

2813:

articles" behavior in the past, but continue as if it's their right to do so. More substantively, they been reverting not only any mention of landrace and any attempt to moderate the "breed" claims (I tried using "landrace breed", a term which correctly identified them as a landrace rather than

2604:

Now while she has not written anything since that we can use on Gamergate, I would be believe that anything Alexander might write in the future about the Gamergate aspect should be considered touched by possible COI issues due to her and her site's involvement in the issue, and as such should be

2419:) is nonsense, as it was in no way the equivalent of a "serious and potentially defamatory factual claim... that tyson fabricated quotes". And, IMHO, MastCell abused his admin bit in editing the way he did, through full protection, to remove all traces of this particular embarrassment for Tyson. 863:

A 2013 review concluded that confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations impede peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts. A 2012 study said that hydraulic gas extraction had a "potential negative impact" on public health, and that pediatric nurses should be prepared to

753:

to give it. We rely on SECONDARY sources for that. EllenCT needs to wait until there are reviews published in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies that make more definitive statements about health effects of fracking. We just don't know yet. (which I am

592:

A 2014 study of households using groundwater near active natural gas drilling in Washington County, Pennsylvania found that upper respiratory illnesses and skin diseases were much more prevalent closer to hydraulic fracturing activity. Respiratory problems were found in 18% of the population 1.2

114:

One cite currently reads, "The Internet Movie Database uses September 23, 1968 and December 22, 1998. Findagrave shows a tombstone in the cemetery marked "Chu-Chu" with a birth date of September 23, 1968 and a death date of December 23, 1998. No entry in the Social Security Death Index was found

8519:

Revisionism by definition not mainstream scholarship. It is you and Langus-TxT‎ who have been attempting to push revisionismo as mainstream: it is not. Evidence that Argentine revisionism is regarded as fringe by mainstream scholars has been presented, and that you don't accept what they say is

8265:

Whilst O'Donnell could be used to source revisionist opinions on Rosas, it is not a reliable source for historical fact. Again I make the point a biased source like this is unsuitable for evidence of historical fact but it could be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a

7609:

for the purposes of Knowledge. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not

5725:

Reference sections are useful because they allow readers to verify for themselves that the article is correct (or not), and as a resource for the reader to investigate further should they chose. There is no 'house of cards' here, and your 'philosophical question' seems more suited to a forum on

5686:

Perhaps you think a cite means "this proves it"? It does not, it merely says "look here to see what is said on the topic". Only by looking at the source can readers or editors know if there is any more meaning to it. We don't normally trust some random blog at all, even for that. An established

4953:

The first ref "THIRD ESTATE" is clearly unreliable. (Anonymous writers, essentially a multi-author blog.) The second ref "NEWS ONE" is different. This is a division of a much larger mainstream news organization. It is prominent in the African American community. They have professional staff and

3116:"Representing Germany" is not a concern. Sourcing the statement is. If there is an English source that makes the same claim, switch to it. If there is not an English source making that claim (and the claim itself passes editorial judgement to be included in the lede) then use the German source. 2023:

is rs for facts does not cast it in stone. I would be interested if Collect could provide evidence that the magazine has editorial review of fact-based articles. I do not even see any fact-based articles in the magazaine. It is a magazine of commentary which uses facts to support opinions as

772:

Your assertion that all of the MEDRSs are inconclusive has not been true for years. Dispute resolution noticeboards are more appropriate than further disruption of WT:MED and the article talk page when dealing with editors who repeatedly admit the shame in which they are unable to control their

11017:

included in the document is reliable and calls into question the reliability of the Miramar Ship Index entry on this particular ship. That entry says 1D, presumably where the 1 diesel engine fact was sourced. However, the SMH article says "engines", which would support the selfpub document's

9349:

article is almost entirely based on unreliable sources such as Internet forums, Google Groups posts, LiveJournal blog entries, transcripts of conversations on AOL Instant Messenger, and press releases and other files hosted on scribd (most if not all now deleted). That is, it's almost entirely

3738:

So, the proposal is to remove the one work of non-fiction that set this subject on the map, from the article on that subject? Seems bizarre. Taking this point-by-point. That a work of non-fiction is narrative-driven is not a problem, as long as the facts on which the narration are based remain

2976:

There is an attempt to work around the lack of these sources by listing various theorists and saying that Frosch's paper appeared in a fringe publication. The implication is that his theory is fringe, which is original research. You would not add the qualification if the source were used for

1505:

considered reliable? The only reason I ask is because I once used a widely used textbook as a source under the topic I'm thinking about citing for here, and I was shouted down because an admin felt the source was strongly biased. (He/She was openly in the animal rights camp, whereas the book

10856:

Digital signatures, which are based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology...are the result of a cryptographic operation that creates a ‘fingerprint’ unique to both the signer and the content, so that they cannot be copied, forged or tampered with. This process provides proof of signer

9817:

The origins of Sukkot are both historical and agricultural. Based on its timing and the fact that it is frequently referred to in the Bible as "the holiday of ingathering," meaning harvest, it is believed that the holiday evolved from ancient agricultural religious practices. Over time it was

8557:

Please note, no one has suggested any historical movement should or should not be banned; that is a red herring. Specifically the point made was that the academic view of revisionism does not consider it mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact. Further, biased source like these are

7807:

Brennan in reference to the 1960s notes: "historical revisionism (exalting the figures of Rosas the caudillos for example) became a sort of alternative official history and the official history of Personism." Revisionism is not limited to the 1930s and is still a factor in Argentine politics

7657:

Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the

1880:

as support for the notion that the Weekly Standard is not a reliable source. In this brief discussion, it looks to me like a specific statement was reviewed, and rejected for technical reasons, not simply because the source is not an RS. The last paragraph opens with "No it is not a reliable

7752:

The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of

3893:

Your exposition of the troubles with the source is based on some logic, I hope. I tried to see what the logic was behind your out-of-the-blue mention of Antisemitism, and the reason that the sources (Palestinians) are dubious because Hamas is antisemitic. Your logic, your reasoning, not your

3509:

still stands. I am basing this partly on the New York Times review, partly on the Amazon page, and partly on the publisher's own page (I purposefully avoided reading the Haaretz review because it seemed likely to be biased). They all seem to suggest that the book serves primarily as a way to

3000:

Apparently 2% heard the Bristol Hum and the Taos Hum, although those fail your test (as they were never detected by science). I know I hear something that sounds like a diesel engine idling outside and a Professor over in Auckland has recorded one. My hum and that hum may (or may not) have

2972:

Since, in the article, Frosch's paper is used as a primary source for his opinion, the issue of reliability does not arise. There is little doubt the article was published as written. However, my reservation is that Frosch's paper is a primary source. Before quoting his opinion we need to

5730:

than to WP:RSN. Knowledge doesn't claim to be reliable, though it does have policies and guidelines which should encourage relative reliability. I think most contributors understand this, and I hope most readers will too. We don't need to tie ourselves in knots over impossible absolutes and

7405:

conclusion about nationalism, revisionism, peronism, etc. Also note that out of the 6 books he quotes, most have little to nothing to do with the issue directly at hand (we could as well quote 1000 books all mentioning either Rosas, nationalism, peronism, revisionism, etc. It's a worthless

7209:

Argentine revisionism is equivalent to Holocaust denial in the sense that both attempt to rewrite mainstream consensus; nothing surprising about using that as an apt illustration. Lecen has already provided references and quotations as to how Argentine revisionists are viewed by mainstream

1884:

If in fact, it is the consensus of Knowledge editors that a news magazine, which happens to be partisan, is not an RS, this would be a major sea change in the way we accept or reject sources as Reliable. If the Weekly Standard does not qualify, there are dozens of sources, both liberal and

1889:

Please note that there is a side issue: the source was initially characterized as an opinion. This is disputed and under discussion, however, the implication of the editor is that it doesn't matter whether the specific piece was an opinion piece, the whole journal "does not have a serious

4584:

in Jan 2013. It's a relatively non-accusatory piece alleging cult like behaviour and looking askance at their guru (Most cult exposes are alleging far worse). In the last week or two, this has been removed 5 times from the article by two editors, mostly with claims that Vice isn't WP:RS.

2204:

names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today,” Bush said. What’s more, there are two biblical references to naming the stars—in Psalms and Isaiah, but not in Genesis. But why let truth and literacy get in the way of bashing George W. Bush and his crazy sky-God?

1605:, which mentions this and the "60 Minutes" program, but I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.) I am considering noting these claims in a manner similar to the following: "Based on public records, Alan Green and the Center for Public Integrity have claimed that <institution X: --> 5154:

equivalent to UITP, APTA.) In fact, UITP operates exactly the same way as APTA does, and APTA is considered an authoritative source on North American systems here on Knowledge. The point is that UITP is an organization with international focus, one of whose sole reasons for being is to

8017:

take most revisionists very seriously. It depends who exactly we are talking about, of course. Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the

4839:. But the point is that Vice is not a self-publication platform, but a respected magazine, with professional journalists and editors, and a twenty year publication history, that has often been cited in other reliable sources. So, no, that can't be applied to any wordpress-blogspot. -- 1582:

That's still pretty general. This source could be generally reliable for some claims, but that's not a blank check for any claim. What material were you "shouted down" over? If it has to do with the specific claim about an organization then it still might be a NPOV or OR/SYNTH issue.

1289:

under MEDRS. What you have is a primary source. Please wait until its findings are included a review article that is actually aiming at synthesizing the research that has been done on health effects of fracking. I understand that the EPA is coming out with their review pretty soon.

4923:

it made in the film. The piece makes other inaccurate claims, such as suggesting Alex Jones produced the film when it was Peter Joseph. Also, numerous grammatical errors are obvious in the piece. So many errors existing in such a brief piece suggests there was no editorial oversight.

7223:

I never said that my personal opinion was that O'Donnel was X or Y, even less tried to "associate" him with anyone or anything. All I did was to provide the views that mainstream historians have of Revisionism. It's not my fault if the best historians around do not share your view.

8157:

broad topic of "revisionism" (including of course your email exchange with Rock)? If so the discussion can be ended right here and now and you are more than welcome to open a discussion about "revisionism" wherever you might feel is appropriate. I'll await your answer. Regards.

10347:

parts of the article are unverifiable retelling of a ghost story and what parts of those articles are verifiable facts. In the context of a ghost story or legend, those sources are reliable for retelling the legend, but may not be reliable for verifiable facts about history. --

5328:. By definition, all those things rule out the Green Line as a "metro" or rapid transit line. And, once again, APTA explicitly splits Boston's system exactly this way in their categorizations. The same issues apply to most of the lines in Los Angeles' Metro Rail system. Etc. -- 3622:

and highly detailed black-and-white illustrations depicting Sacco's journeys to Khan Yunis and Rafah (and Jerusalem) to investigate this unknown "small percentage" of atrocities, and his interpretation in graphic-novel form of the testimonies he collected from dozens of people.

3077:

Is it good practice to insert a reference in a foreign language within the lead of an article (in this particular example the first reference of the article), while the subject is not related to a foreign country or a foreign subject, and when many references are available in

4741:, which has been replaced by the blog owner with a message stating that the organization is a genuine spiritual path. Considering these issues, and the fact that there are no other reliable sources for these accusations, it doesn't seem wise to include these in the article. 5259:

use of old local railway lines, which may become notable at larger stations. But as long as no tracks are shared, the S-system still is fully separated from other traffic. Infact also London Underground began as similar "underground railroads", and is especially notable at

2517:

Repositories are never considered a source at all really. It's the article itself that would need to be judged for reliability. If it's not published in a journal yet (or at least not accepted) then it's not going to be reliable since it's a self publication at that point.

10156:

are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past?

7600: 7597: 8753:

The blog does not accurately represent the contents of the press release, so I advise against using it. This isn't a comment on overall reliability of this blog. When any source--even normally reputable ones--make easily identified mistakes, then they shouldn't be used.

7594: 7591: 7585: 10375:

If an author's previous writing shows that they are credulous about any topic, yes they would be un-reliable. But what about the writers simply having written about paranormal topics? Does that in itself make them un-reliable journalists/writers/authors as the charge

7588: 8286:'s comments quoted above are very relevant since we are seeing a repeat of the lead up to that case and an inability to acknowledge the difference between a reliable peer reviewed work and politically biased tome. Cambalachero's comment's on O'Donnell are accurate. 10441:

topics - no surprise as this topic is a reportedly "haunted" house - are most of the sources. It really came down to the validity of generally discrediting journalists/writers solely because they have previously written about such paranormal topics as UFOs, etc. --

2899:

He's removed any reference to the suspect nature of the peer review/scientific method of the JSE, which was being provided via a CSI quote taken from the WP JSE entry (further, he's now promoting the JSE as "peer-reviewed literature"). The justification given was,

1175:

Those who live 1 kilometer or closer to natural gas fracking wells are more than twice as likely to report skin conditions and upper respiratory symptoms, such as nose bleeds and coughs, as those living more than 2 kilometers away, a new report from Yale University

3582:

page. If everyone is saying that the book is unbiased and as historically accurate as a traditional work of historical non-fiction, I wouldn't argue with that. Perhaps I should not have weighed in on this topic since I don't know much about the book. Signing off.

3742:

If you wanted to discuss the quality of the article or of this source, you should have presented a neutral statement, not some heavily biased one which is much more obviously dubious in its sources and POV than the actual source you are trying to get removed. So

6354:

I know that what I'm asking is pretty obvious, but I need some help to sort this out. I don't know what steps should I take to convince these guys, or what approach should I use. I figured that, being an argument about sources, RSN would be the place to start.

5800:(ref)Swedish encyklopedia "Lilla Uppslagsboken" 1950's, vol 6 of 10, article "Landskrona",column 227,In Swedish "1753 började den stora St Johanneskyrkan rivas",In English this means "In 1753, the large St John the Baptist's Church began to be demolished"(/ref) 8826: 3879:. I don't think sticking to why content/presentation of it is good or bad,is 'stifling an opinion'. As for my presentation, I did my best to keep it neutral. Apologies if you feel another version would have been better. We can always discuss it in good faith. 3613:

has not gone by the totally misleading description given here and read the Haaretz review and the Guardian review as well as the scattered forum shopping. The author is a journalist who has chosen the graphic format. This is not a comic book. From the Haaretz

471:, I agree with you in this case, but you probably shouldn't have narrowed it to only "third-party". SPS can't be used in second-party contexts as well (husband writing an angry blog post about an ex-wife is not a usable source about a living person either). 8423:

they are regarded as the best specialists in Argentine Nationalism in the English speaking world. Bring sources. If you don't plan to do it, don't even bother replying, because I won't be here to answer. Wee Curry Monster said all, BTW. I agree with him. --

10799:

If a reliable source says she graduated at the top of her class then we can say that too. Reliable sources are supposed to weigh evidence and determine whether it is correct. We should not question them except whether different sources are in conflict.

6475: 4905:

suggests this is simply a blog with no real professional oversight or editorial review. Seems the blog post is mostly accusing the movie of being anti-semitic, which I presume is the reason it was added to the lede as the editor who added it has tried to

11018:

assertion. It also gives the total length and cost, which may be useful in the WP entry. Further, there are a number of articles on Trove written on 4th September 1933 (published 5th/6th September) which refer to the launch of the Southern Cross, e.g.

5405:

You can't use it directly since you can't use sources you haven't vetted yourself -- can't find the rule right off, but for any second-hand source you're supposed to say something like "such-and-such journal, cited in such-in-source ". The question is,

3938:

To your first point, I will add an in-text attribution for Sacco in some places. To your second point, the statements supported by the Sacco reference do not even take up half the article, while the references do. A new source (Filiu) has been added by

160:

The submission rules on the webpage for adding yourself as an actor say that " will be sent to the IMDb Data Editors for checking." You can submit a plot summary, you can rate a movie, you can leave comments, you can report an error for review. You can

7753:

authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.

7108:. It's not taken seriously by mainstream historians, and thus Knowledge shouldn't allow it. What other option do we have? Allow Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist publicists to be used as reliable sources? For me, it wouldn't make sense at all. -- 2042:

A further consideration is weight. If only what is termed the "echo chamber" reports certain facts, and mainstream sources ignore them, then there is no reason to include them in articles. We are supposed to provide the same weight as mainstream

8103:

That's it. The deeper issue here, and why this discussion is taking place, is your apparent belief that history is an immutable and objective entity, unable of being examined and interpreted differently by different researchers. This is of course

7756:

As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as

1533:

collaborative research through public records and does not appear to be sponsored by any particular animal rights group. And I know it doesn't matter, but I come from the industry and have seen the tip of the iceberg on which the book focuses.

10739:

Show me where any source disputes this reporting by the NY Times, "Their daughter, Dru, was born in 1988 and, after Ms. Davis graduated from Texas Christian University at the top of her class in 1990, she set her sights on Harvard Law School."

1341:

rely on secondary sources, which as of now say that based on the research so far, we can identify risks but we cannot identify definite health effects. I anticipate this will change with time as more research is done, but that is where we are

6536:." The "common feature of Neo-revisionist writers was their institutional marginality in the intellectual field". In fact, "the institutional marginality of nationalist intellectuals was greater in Argentina than elsewhere in Latin America." 1328:

i cannot make sense out of this comment. 1) you rely on MEDRS by using it to claim your sources are good, but then you ask why we should rely on it. 2) you use a term, "conclusive" that is not a criterion under which we evaluate sources per

9553:, which includes sphere of usage. It's not nearly as common as pizza or ibuprofen, but isn't as fringe-y as some determined woo-fighers would like to depict it. Re which, see also my reply to Alex just above; we do have some sec sources. -- 3243:

Dubious methodology: "Sacco himself admits he takes sides. "I don't believe in objectivity as it's practiced in American journalism. I'm not anti-Israeli ... It's just I very much believe in getting across the Palestinian point of view," he

1567:

And to clarify, the edits will center around the book's thesis: that surplus animals (including SSP animals) from AZA accredited facilities get dumped into the exotic pet trade, canned hunts, and other places the AZA specifically prohibits.

1985:

of fact-based articles, and also runs opinion columns. It is widely cited by other reliable sources. Where a claim is made which has reasonably been subjected to fact-checking, the claims are thus from a reliable secondary source - we do

10424:

any specific subject. However, unless we know more about the content and its source I don't believe we should be making any definitive comments about sources. Id' take this back to the talk page (is there one) and try top get input there.(

10120: 4377:

Ooh, scare quotes, I love those! Should the comments by MarciulonisHOF be taken seriously despite all the issues raised? Can one only be a journalist (or a "journalist") when employed by a news agency? That's, well, news to me. And to our

3948:

states at the top of the page that the exact sentences which a source is used to support should be presented to judge reliability. Reliability is always judged in context. The OP has neglected to do this, which I attribute to his newness.

809:. If the new survey paper is seen to be significant and credible by the experts in that field, it will surely appear in subsequent reviews over the next year or so. That is normally considered to be "soon enough" for Knowledge's purposes. 5594:

says what another editor has written isn't verifiability for additional uses. Even if the first instance in the first article is used correctly, a second editor should be familiar with the source to add citations to it in other contexts.

2781:. Jlan in particular here is making specific claims of fact as being sourced to something cited at the article, but that material and the additional material I've added from the same source proves both of his claims false. It tells us: 9831:

As was the norm with all Jewish holidays during the Temple period, the holiday centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by

8456:

reliable by WP standard and all of you failed completely in doing so. So far the only thing you've done is use some quotes by Goebel and Rock on how "revisionism" (a movement that goes back almost 100 years) is all bad, stitch them with

2350:

may be suitable to describe the opinions of the authors with proper in-text attribution, but are not suitable for bald statements of fact in Knowledge's voice. This is the way we treat opinion pieces from higher-quality sources like the

6394:" – only that they must not be used to suggest that their version of history reflects mainstream historiography. They certainly could be used, with qualification, to support statements of revisionist historical views and on themselves. 1872:. While short of unanimous, and subject to a bit of grumbling, it nevertheless concluded that the Weekly Standard is an RS, with the usual caveat that opinion statements in news magazines can only be cited as opinion. An admin recently 3805:

about the content of your post. As for the rest of your reply here, I fail to the see what it has to do with my post. "not everything said about Palestinians is intended to make them all look antisemitic." is hardly reassuring though.

5464:

I don't see the conundrum. We shouldn't copy attribution from one wp article to another. Doing so to Henichesk Strait was an error that should be corrected. Dubious sources should not just be taken on faith, they should be flagged

4262:

section, which normally isn't done with non-fiction works which pretend (rightly or wrongly) to be factual. C: ? I haven't said anything about Waltz with Bashir, so no idea what you are trying to prove or what you are responding to.

1365:

I have one comment. I thought the purpose of this noticeboard was to get outside opinion. I see the same people as in the other page (talk page and medicine project) involved in the discussion. What is the point of doing this, then?

203:

BTW, I have updated this article to reflect the NYTimes as the primary source for date of death and age. Date of birth is noted as not verified and year of birth is shown as being either 1967 or 1968. I think this case is closed.

10044:

I think advocates are essential sources for perspectives and so I think there is need of good Wiki policies and guidelines which prevent people from reverting any advocate as not RS just because they are POV. A good example is that

3875:, but it shows nearsightedness about the real-life conflict and bad faith. You can say my presentation is bad for X Y Z. Going into assumptions on my logic is bad form. Thus I asked the comments be made strictly on the content. per 3383:"I'd rather emphasise their feelings."; "We asked around, people confirmed the story"; "as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch"; "lies and embellishments." 10089:

I think as much was implied and the obvious reference was to the ongoing edits. I aksi\o had some particulars in mind for here but since I have ironed out the differences with the above users there is no further need to go into it

7974:". Accusations of bad faith lead nowhere. If you doubt us, then read the books yourself (they are on Google books). Lastly, if you really believe we misused Rock and Goebel's words, you should see their own thoughts on the matter: 6515:

A main goal in Argentine Nationalism was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..."

5952:. If authors of self-published sources are highly-respected in their field then the source may be considered reliable but I don't see evidence of that in this particular case. So I would not consider this to be a reliable source. 6520:

and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina. This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revisionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas' image.

10528:

and not simply ones which refer to her official campaign biography which was shown to have a couple of problems in a minor controversy. Had it not been shown to have problems, I would not be as concerned, but it was and so it

10053:(not sure I spelled it right) is vigorously anti Putin but is probably RS for much. But some editors claim that some sources are NEVER RS for ANYTHING and I suspect that problem will look large on pit bull in the coming weeks. 4257:

of the massacre, is not a neutral, independent source to criticize a journalist presenting a different story than his. That doesn't mean that Sacco is right, nor that Pa'il is right (I claim neither of these things), but that

3290:

Determined to uncover the truth behind this forgotten killing, and one that took place in the neighboring town of Rafah a few days later, he returned twice more to Gaza to record the stories of Palestinian eyewitnesses to the

7679:

Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the

5036:

for instance). Associations like this are unreliable as sources as they might favour (in whatever sense possible) membership systems. Under no circumstances can it be regarded as a main reliable source to base an article on.

3840:

The source: "Sacco's ear for the way Palestinian men talk is as sharp as ever (as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch). Ditto his nose for lies and

2787:

The application of the word "breed" to this feral landrace population is an NBCSNZ internals shorthand jargon they're deciding to use for their own convenience; elsewehre they clearly distinguish between landraces and formal

9280:

fearofstuff.com states that it "IS NOT a medical site", "IS NOT affiliated with any medical experts" and again "If we don’t have what you need, just send us a suggestion using the form below and we’ll add it to the website"

7506:

There was a place to comment on contributors, not content. So far you failed to provide any source demonstrating that revisionism is reliable. Your personal opinion on the subject (or mine, or anyone else's) doesn't matter.

5495:

If it's a dubious source it should be removed from the original article also then (or at any rate flagged), right? I don't think it's a dubious source though -- Semonov himself is probably a reliable writer (I guess; he has

2776:

for some reason resist its inclusion pretty much everwhere it's being used. I could almost set a clock by how regularly any landrace-related edit I make will be reverted be one or the other, more often the pair acting as a

2237:

a fair paraphrase of the WS article, then it certainly passes verification. This is a content issue, and one where the proper course would be an RfC and not a condemnation that it "fails verification" as far as I can tell.

5984:, calls it 'self-published'; there is disagreement over that. Please, while you're at it, give your opinion about the other sources, too, as they will probably also be contested, given this article's controversial history. 4834:

Well, first, if it were a wordpress-blogspot written by a professional journalist that had been published on the subject, then it actually would be a reliable source on the subject, despite being self-published. That's per

2791:

NBCSNZ explicitly researched and rejected claims that the Arapawa popular are a breed in a formal sense or even related to any, and have even issued warnings tha breeders claims to the contrary may be legally actionable as

8398:

comments on the author are by no means equivalent to an Arbcom decision preventing us from using his books as a source. You can analyze a lot of books and comment on your own analysis wherever you like, it will still be

7847: 3080:

If there was no regulations on Knowledge against this practice, I guess that the English version would be full of foreign references which would be very difficult to understand and assess. Thank you in advance for your

1890:

journalistic operation or a reputation for independent journalism" so it isn't important whether it is an opinion piece. While anyone is welcome to offer, uh, opinions, on whether the specific cite is an opinion piece,

9181:(unless it is also accepted without doubt in high-quality RS's). If a report of theirs has not found an outlet in a reliable publication then mentioning it would probably raise questions of weight and neutrality too. 4543: 10433: 2608:

Would this be a proper interpretation of sourcing policy? I've always read it that independent sources should be used over dependent sources but that's actually not strongly codified in policy through implied by it.

8270: 7822: 7286:" but you did. You are attempting to associate O'Donnell and every author you deem a "revisionist" with authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism and misogyny. Read your comment above please, apparently you missed it? 3995:

Swedenburg then documents that as occupying power, Israel has long banned thousands of works from circulating in the territories . not only on Palestinian history, but even Shakespeare's The Tempest, Ezer Weizman's

10621:, the wording of the various sources seems to be identical in too many places to have been independently verified, and the use of any campaign website or press release is iffy as a source. Other than that, we all 4036:

on a real set of historical events and maintain the silence that has, inaccountably, marked those episodes. We should not be imposing a criterion which says in effect that only an academic work by historians, like

1452:

with and believe the findings of the Yale study. I simply don't think Knowledge is the place to first report this information. If you want to disseminate cutting edge, controversial research, start a blog instead.

434:

No, they're not reliable in this context. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. See

1943:

but that doesn't seem to be the issue. In the ordinary English sense, failing verification means one cannot find an RS supporting the statement, but that would be circular, if that's what you mean. Can you please

3249:

Dubious fact-checking: "people are confused about which event, what year they are talking about," he (Sacco) said. "Palestinians never seem to have had the luxury of digesting one tragedy before the next is upon

8881: 8507:

I see you've been blocked for a week and probably won't be responding. This thread has gathered very little attention from non-involved editors, so unless it does perhaps the next step could be an RfC. Regards.

8360:", you seem to be under the same impression of Lecen that history can be treated as math. There are sometimes differing and even opposing views and interpretations of historic events. If we have at our disposal 5955:

Additionally, the sentence in the source that supports the statement is very weak and speculative ("...judging from the internet there are still quite a number of performances by church groups of this piece.").

7987:

Dr David Rock sent me an e-mail saying: "Thanks for your message. I suggest you read the standard book on Rosas by John Lynch, which will answer most of your questions. To your second paragraph: Revisionism is

10472: 10166: 5386:

This is more of a philosophical question than referencing any particular pressing dispute, but still. And it's something I've run into a couple times lately. Maybe this will will give people a change of pace.

4187:

article on the book right next to the comics award, which is of course more "interesting" to include here as it strengtens the image of it being "only" a comic book, not something that anyone takes serious).

1869: 7631:

Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate

9310:

Also used is the blacklisted website EzineArticles.com. Evidently PlanetStar didn't consider the fact that this website hosting user-generated articles had been blacklisted as sufficient grounds not to use

8732:

or an accepted expert writing in their field then we might accept it. But as it is, it's just some guy on the internet blogging about news reported elsewhere (and, in this case at least, getting it wrong).

8477:

of those historians you or anyone else considers "revisionist" or "neo-revisionist"). The weight of this argument is so little that it makes it really hard to follow the thread of thinking. Also please see

140: 2878: 1839:

I see it is as an aggregator; better to dig into its content and find the sources they use to produce their numbers, than using them as a source directly. Like how we shouldn't use Knowledge directly as a

388: 10876: 8275:"There seems to be a confusion by all parties here, that this is a forum that considers both user behaviour and content. The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct." 10588:. This is more than ample sourcing to support such a relatively innocuous and uncontroverted statement. Frankly I don't understand why a trip to this noticeboard was necessary for such a clear-cut case. 7684:

such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.

7636:(Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations. 1698:

I had removed the link of this website from some pages before, I couldn't see people opposing. Shall I continue? No doubt that just like before, I will replace the citation with other reliable citation.

8123:

Having published 20 books doesn't turn one person in a reliable scholar. Is that your best argument? I'm asking you again: can you provide any source that says that Argentine revisionism is reliable? --

9836:

in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer.

8676:"Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office." 4954:

editors. This specific piece is a straight news account, not an opinion piece. It seems to be properly used as a ref. Seems entirely RS for this use, assertions of grammatical error not withstanding.

3090: 10987:"... although the Northern Territory Library (NTL) endeavours to monitor the quality and integrity of the information on this site, it does not guarantee that the information is complete or correct." 10977:

government project to collate and present online user-submitted stories and documents. I am concerned that this document (and documents from StoryNT in general) do not meet Knowledge's standards for

7846:

In evidence to the original arbcom case, the use of O'Donnell, one of the sources being advocated here, was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy. See

3980:

Palestinians, who have no yet won formal national independence, must produce their history and memory in a space that is more like a bomb shelter under continuous shelling than a railway station. p.3

2946: 5255:

Forgot. Metro systems also uses schedules with fixed minute departures, and this is used for peak-hours aswell as during the middle of the day. S-system only differs from more modern systems by the

1695:

I had conversation with Sitush about this website and we had agreed that this website has heavy amount of fringe theories as well as pseudo history, contradicting the mainstream historical aspects.

9218: 8668:

Specifically, there is a statement in the blog: "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th ". Is this a reliable interpretation of an

9246: 7214:

is a similar writer in the US, and despite at least having a degree in History, no mainstream historian would cite him in support of revisionist historical claims without prominent qualification.

6277:

is being argued that no author identified as belonging to the Argentine revisionist movement ("revisionismo histórico") can be used as a reference, as, it is argued, "revisionismo histórico" is a

9364: 5911: 1877: 593:

miles or more from drilling, compared to 39% of those within 0.6 miles of new natural gas wells. People with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances.

9949:

for RSN pointers and you do not have the right to accuse me of misuse of the notice board. Aside from your accusations and allegations and innuendos, do you have anything to say about sourcing?

9224: 5926: 3458:. (bold added by me for emphasis) This seems pretty clear cut. We don't use historical novels for statement of historical fact. No matter how accurate they are regarding history, they are still 9617:

As for listing hospitals that perform acupuncture... It is important to look into why they do so... it is quite possible that some of the hospitals do so because they think it has a beneficial

9418: 4285:

Which news agency employed this "journalist"? (Journal of Accountants?). Sacco, not his admirers and superlative givers, describes himself as a comic artist on a mission (in the above sources).

3356: 3064: 9469:

Yes, I remember that article well. Since secondary sources exist can I take it the query here is now moot and whatever issues there are with using the secondary sources can be resolved on the

321:

1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example:

8069:, perhaps even unaware. See my comment above: you can't analyze a bunch of random books and draw your own conclusion that a whole group of heavily published historians should be regarded as 5529:

there's an online Google Book page I can access. However, I ran into a very similar situation recently were there was no such online availability, and I'm trying to figure out what to do in

9005:, Haseldine makes a very credible link between both the illegal occupation and the illegal exploitation of Namibia's natural resources to the targeting of the highest profile victim of the 5131:

transport companys. Nothing else. They have no formal tasks (given them from higher authorities of any kind) and their purpose isn't to rank urban train systems vs each other. Do they even

3031:

I'm with Judith. The JSE may publish some good papers, but papers are not reliable because they are published by the JSE. The very purpose of the Journal is to highlight fringe science. --

4209:

I will add the Ridenhour Prize to the points in favor. Would it offend if I say the testimonies are perhaps refracted by time and filtered through the minds of very fallible human beings?

7706:

Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.

2809:

The editwarring by Jlan and Montanabw has been sloppy and careless, reflexive mass-reverting of all changes, even typo fixes. They've both been warned against this "don't you dare touch

8269:

It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case. Rather obviously that person has not read the evidence provided by the diffs I added or my

7484:

I only commented on your canvassing since it is of relevance to the discussion. Also, that's a very good advice but you'll understand that it is hard to take it seriously coming from you

174: 10198:

It's really a meta-discussion question, but this is an example: An editor has challenged the below statement because "Chad Lewis other works include articles about UFOs and Bigfoot."

7935:

it's just that: a WP editor "examining" sources and arriving at his own conclusion. There's no way that the interpretation of an editor on a few scattered sources is enough to dismiss

4788:

complies with WP:V and cites all of its transitive sources, as would be expected of a WP editor writing on WP? That is not how WP:RS policy works, convenient as you would find that.

2696:

Thanks for the opinion. Yes indeed it's not a medical journal - its field is mainly sociology. There are unfortunately still many people who do not understand "Disability ≠ Medicine".

10332:

Are the publishers and authors of these sources unreliable because the authors of these sources have also written about topics such as Loch Ness Monster, Vampires, UFOs and Bigfoot?--

10034: 8251:

Why would we use a populist work, acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking, when there are many peer reviewed reliable sources that can be used instead?

4438:

issues seriously. Anyone who, after all this discussion, still proclaims "Comic-book research probably should be accompanied with scare quotes.", doesn't fall into that group though.

2907: 2804:

we cannot presume that they have been successful (many if not most attempts to establish new breeds are failures, or we'd have tens of thousands of unique breeds instead of hundreds).

1130: 11024:

This is further evidence of the unreliability of that Miramar entry, which has the launch date as 4/7/1933. Likely this is a September-is-the-seventh-month sort of data-entry error.

10019: 3008:

If we didn't have that list of published works, there wouldn't be a problem as I'm happy to use Frosch to support his statements. As we do, I don't believe it's right to list it as

2678:

Definitely not complete junk. A run of the mill journal, therefore reliable for the majority of purposes. Not a specifically medical journal, so unlikely to publish articles meeting

6144:

The other sources listed above (wafaward.com and www.pledgetopeace.eu) also don't seem to be reliable for any claim other than for themselves, and should be used only as allowed by

5826: 4806:

is a reliable source, staffed by professional journalists, not anonymous Knowledge editors. They are not themselves bound by our rules about original research and citing sources. --

2319:. So, the editor who removed the material was acting within policy. Whether non-opinion pieces published in the Weekly Standard are acceptable as RS is a question for another day. 7899: 6164:

the UK parliament (not at all the same thing!). The two websites contain many such true-but-arguably-deceptive claims, which should make us further wary of using them as a source.

1778:

still operates there. To this day it's estimated that 15 US soldiers were killed while fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Pakistan since the War on Terror began.<ref: -->

4993: 4963: 3197: 1474:

I am reluctant to weigh in here, because I was a marginal participant in the recent AN/I drama. In a nutshell, I agree with Onefireuser below, but I will elaborate only if asked.

8538:

a historical movement can or cannot be banned from Knowledge. Plus, Lecen has been blocked for a week and not a single uninvolved editor has chimed in. I'm requesting closure. --

3141: 2871: 2133: 8669: 4150:

thank you. If you recall, my initial 'merge' talk page section -- my first post in relation to the article -- asked if there weren't any other proper sources for these articles.

3238:

Disputed content 2: "Jose Alaniz, from the University of Washington's Department of Comparative Literature, said Sacco uses "all sorts of subtle ways" to manipulate the reader."

8307: 7778: 3171: 2532:

The authors on the other hand do seem to be experts who've published in the field, so this self-publication could be reliable depending on the content being sourced from it. --

505: 9172: 9158: 3189: 1254: 331:

3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example:

9972:

conclusion that you hadn't used the article's talk page. My bad! Sorry about that. We can work things out on the talk page. You are of course welcome to seek advice here. --

3298: 915: 348: 10840: 9433:

it would seem undue—I don't think we would list medical centres that offered some other medical specialism (for a particular type of operation, say) so why for acupuncture?

8619: 8575: 7749:

Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.

7575: 3150:

Also notice that it's quite probably easier to learn German to a useful degree than to learn science or math to the degree needed to understand some of the sources cited in

1849: 463: 11008: 8768: 5784: 4495: 4162: 3916:

means we endorse it. That section should make it clear that these are the statements of the Sacco source only, and that section should not take up over half the article. --

3687: 3401: 1779:{{cite web|url=http://icasualties.org/oef/ |title=Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan |publisher=iCasualties |date=28 May 2010 |accessdate=26 March 2011}}</ref: --> 1685: 1670: 1561: 1153: 448: 9261: 3109: 2800:

rest, which will result it something that is not the topic of the current article. Reglardless, all progress resports on this breeding project went dark in 2008, and per

2157: 2054: 1812: 9052: 5818: 5504:

is also satisfied, even if "challenged as unavailable" (which it hasn't been, yet). So I don't see how it's a dubious source. I also don't see how it'd be problematic in

4947: 3125: 3058: 3024: 2991: 2841:

over technicalities, that will have the result of filibustering the use of technical terminology even when common sense and reliably sourced facts indicate that the term

1832:

in the future I wonder if just adding the page the article appears on would not be creating verifiability issues when that page changes so drastically. What do you think

428: 245: 10450: 8551: 8416: 7949: 5767: 5740: 5390:

Supposing you come across a source used in an article, but it's offline, hard to get, and in an obscure language which you don't know. Say it has an ISBN and is held in

4724: 4689: 4671: 4645: 4630: 4612: 3343:

There has been forum shopping all over the place. This is not a "comic book". The author is a journalist who has used the graphic format. The publisher is an imprint of

3040: 2527: 1723: 132: 9795: 9587: 9332: 8919: 8331: 6525:

of the 'liberal oligarchy'." The "set of historical villains that the Neo-revisionists identified behind the falsification of history was identical to that proposed by

5941: 5698: 5565: 5542: 5490: 5198:

It seems to be a reliable source. Not necessarily the only one. If you can find another reliable source that says something else, we should also write what they say. --

4533: 4515: 3591: 3569: 2977:

mainstream claims. (For example, "a study published in a magazine noted for inaccurate information claimed that astrologists could not determine people's star signs.")

2328: 1799: 1597:

The book mentioned above makes specific mentions of animals changing hands between highly reputable research facilities/zoos and people/facilities directly related the

1577: 1484: 1312:

Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs?

1228:

Why is adhering to the MEDRS guideline more important than reporting on the largest primary study's confirmation of the unanimous view of all of the conclusive MEDRSs?

274: 10007: 9981: 9958: 9934: 9773: 9131: 5965: 4927:

I have little doubt that The Third Estate is generally unreliable. With News One I am more concerned about the reliability of the specific piece than the whole site.--

3971:

University of Arkansas Prss 2003, which I have had occasion to use several times. There, his reports of what, fifty years onwards, peasants on the West Bank though of

2541: 1826: 219: 11029:

BTW, what's the current source for the armament? Because, if it's unverified, it seems sensible to change to that suggested by the unreliable source (unreliable: -->

10809: 10370: 10361:

If an author's previous writing about the paranormal shows that they are credulous about such matters, that's generally an indicator of unreliability (for anything).

9387:) there's been discussion of how to source the fact that multiple medical centers use acupuncture. Some editors have argued that the websites of these centers (e.g. 8900: 8494:. Stated simply, any statement in Knowledge that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. 7826: 5681: 5604: 4867: 4797: 4054: 3519: 3496: 3325:

opinion), but it should not be used to cite unattributed statements of fact. It needs to be used with hedging phrases like: "according to comic artist Joe Sacco..."

2961: 2365: 1644: 1592: 10385: 9449:

when somebody decides those sec sources are outdated or otherwise inadequate and tries to delete the material. Which is not unlikely given the article's history. --

9185: 9039:

Our personal opinions concerning Haseldine's theory are of no relevance whatsoever. Unless and until it can be demonstrated through significant coverage in credible

9022: 8742: 8719: 5068:– it shares track with other trains, and therefore is excluded on those grounds. Oh, and for informational purposes, the reference that is being challenged here is: 4768: 4750: 4447: 4429: 4391: 4372: 4334: 4319: 4271: 4251: 4233: 4218: 3903: 3888: 3860: 3815: 3795: 3377: 2705: 2691: 2673: 2659: 2556: 2253:

I agree. I hope we can return to the question at hand, there are plenty of other venues to debate the specific edit, which is not the subject of this notice board.--

10407: 10341: 10193: 9535:, we do not say that many pharmacists sell ibuprofen, with citations from individual pharmacists. That would be strange. Why do we say it this way for acupuncture? 8432: 8318: 8279: 6210: 5148: 5095: 4815: 1461: 1410: 1391: 1237: 1223: 834: 820: 302: 288: 260: 11039: 10356: 8957: 8802: 6398: 4848: 4829: 3959: 3829:

Your statement: ""as Edward Said has put it, they exchange their tales of suffering the way fishermen compare the size of their catch"; "lies and embellishments."

3728: 3701: 2512: 2264: 2012: 1881:

source." but that was not the rationale used for rejecting the use of the specific cite. It looks to me like a throwaway comment, that no one bothered to address.

1427: 1270: 148: 10109: 10080: 9671: 9651: 8710:

My argument against is that the author is always "admin" and so we don't know who the author(s) is (are). We don't know if the author is professional in any way.

7817:, he made no attempt to suggest what I commented, merely requested that I did so. There was no attempt to urge me to comment here. I in fact looked in here, as 7420: 4555: 4008:, is "to eradicate expression that could foster Palestinian nationalist feelings, or that suggest that Palestinians are a nation with a national heritage.' (p.11) 1970: 1955: 1934: 197: 10634: 9514: 9497: 9477: 9464: 9437: 5357: 5311: 5289: 5250: 5207: 5193: 5175: 5081: 4288:

Pa'il has uncovered Israeli killings of Arabs. He's a notable academic historian. Not a hack that you can dismiss off hand because you don't like ex-IDF members.

4124: 3316: 2447: 2428: 1714:

It certainly doesn't look like a source we should be citing under most circumstances, so yes, if you can find better sources, replacing it would be a good idea.

480: 11215:

Another issue is that, throughout the article, references are clustered together making it impossible to tell which source refers to which specific information.

10772: 9630: 9568: 7372: 6371: 6173: 2391: 2315:

Clearly the Weekly Standard piece in question is an opinion piece, not straight news, so we shouldn't use it as a basis for statements of fact, especially in a

1068:

Lauver LS (August 2012). "Environmental health advocacy: an overview of natural gas drilling in northeast Pennsylvania and implications for pediatric nursing".

703: 688: 667: 646: 550: 10981:, particularly as the project is soliciting user-submitted content, and does not appear to exercise any editorial control or fact-checking of submissions. The 10612: 10594: 9544: 8524: 7218: 5586:

would work in one context may not work in a different article, based on weight and NPOV considerations that would come from knowing the source you are citing.

4505:, but it is just some people praising them on twitter. I don't see any information to suggest that they are considered authoritative by any news organization. 4295:

is not used in the body of the relevant events for a reason as well (Disclaimer: I haven't checked, but I'd be fully surprised to learn this was not the case).

1351: 1321: 1299: 782: 763: 10749: 10734: 10716: 10689: 10648: 10559: 10545: 8820: 7439: 7233: 5458: 5337: 2644: 1376: 8514: 8164: 8132: 8118: 8052: 7559: 7516: 7501: 7476: 7326: 7204: 7117: 4597: 3662: 3634: 3556: 3471: 3443: 2578:

peer reviewed and highly regarded. Do look out for any changes between the pre-print and the final version though, and make sure to use and cite the latter.

2489: 1182:

The study, which tracked self-reported health data from 180 households containing 492 people in Pennsylvania's Washington County, is the largest of its kind,

10666: 6453: 4303:

Do you think a narrative based comic-book with conflicting stories from people who have memory and exaggeration issues (as Sacco himself records) should be

1168: 721: 524: 9848: 9787: 9754: 6377:

As has been pointed out, pushing the PoV of this particular author (and Argentine revisionists in general) were the subject of an Arbcom case last year at

2980:

Incidentally, I have never heard of "The Hum" before. Are you saying there is a hum that can detected by science and can be heard by 2% of the population?

2587: 1337:. We also of course disagree that the primary sources that you have brought comply with MEDRS. The view of everyone else so far is that they do not. We 378: 10857:

identity, data integrity and the non-repudiation of signed documents, all of which can be verified without the need for proprietary verification software.

5516:

but it seems silly to say "Well, this is a dubious source, but it's acceptable as long as we only use it a few articles but not propagate it to too many".

4603:

Vice magazine is really full of original research, most of the facts that they have presented wouldn't be existing anywhere else. I recommend against it.

3543:

This is a very strange standard. You purposely avoided reading the Haaretz review because it is likely to be biased? Perhaps it is time to read E.H. Carr

3334: 3321:

I would say it can be used for an attributed statement about what the Palestinian viewpoint of events is (and more specifically for a statement as to the

2374:

or any other source should never be stated as fact other then for the opinions of the authors. But for those things that are not opinion that are in the

1203: 619: 10916: 10625:

she was number one in her class, and the most notable alumna of her uni ever. Cheers -- does anyone understand that fluff claims do not belong on BLPs?

8869: 8828: 8280:

As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work.

7351:, which is basically what my original question is. And I presume that none of the editors at WP:RSN know where that place is... not a good sign. Perhaps 4020:. . .It can't be mentioned on wikipedia, one suspects, not because of any scruple over RS quality, but for the kinds of reasons outlined above. The less 2762: 2415:

by MastCell that this statement, fully-cited to the WS editorial, was an "unequivocal WP:BLP violation" (evidently, a "defamation of living persons" per

10072:

as-yet unspecified content. That's not what this board is for, and general discussions about sourcing or neutrality should take place on the respective

5294:

In general, if you have a reliable source that refers to a system as a metro system, we should include it in our list. This is the first time I've seen

3925: 3429: 1903: 1536:

I have not made these edits to any articles, so there are no DIFFs. I also have not picked specific content from the book to use yet, though it can be

1382:

Presumably editors who prefer to evaluate these kinds of questions will eventually weigh in after the discussion between the disputants has acquiesced.

10945: 8101:

Could a historian with almost 20 history books published by top of the line editorial groups throughout the last 20 years be used in a history article?

2795:

NBCSNZ has supported since 1998 some efforts by a grand total of 6 breeds to establish a standardized breed derived from the feral population; a draft

2481: 2118: 1677: 1662: 1636: 1569: 1553: 224: 98: 90: 85: 73: 68: 63: 10911: 10510: 8816:

so do not use. In this topic area, which is throbbing with agendas and PR from rival "camps", it is especially important that sourcing be impeccable.

8000:. There is a similar partial historiography of Brazil by the so-called 'integralistas' of the 1930s, considered by many as fascists." (emphasis added) 4196: 4086: 3756: 5046: 3019:

Also, are you saying we can't even use it until it's in a secondary source, as I don't think there really are any (and certainly none from 2013/4).

2910:

on the JSE, but he hasn't wanted to discuss. Before I enter a situation that may well trigger an edit war, I thought I'd better check for opinions.

2247: 3412:

This is not academic imprint so if it will be used it should only be used with attribution. But the question if it should be used at all this n for

1708: 115:

under the name "Michelle Thomas"." Comments would be appreciated. In other words: Are IMDb, Findagrave and "I couldn't find it" reliable sources? -

10062: 10050: 9907: 4473: 4071: 2621: 1876:

to remove a statement cited to the Weekly Standard. (Two other non-RS's were also removed, whose removal is not disputed) The admin is now using

1756: 1496: 9080: 7182:") so it's not like this is some hidden agenda uncovered by Lecen. O'Donnell has received numerous awards for his writing and has even been named 4820:

Your assumption of considering it as being a reliable can be applied on any wordpress-blogspot as well, just because a writer is using real name.

3770: 2191: 1761:

It looks like a blog site to me but can't tell. It only seems to aggregate news stories from other sources. Here is the content and the reference:

1676:

I am still hoping to hear some input on this matter. For now, I will start making edits to pages and refer back to this post if edit wars erupt.

11216: 4773:@Reg - as you're the most active remover of this critical section in your editing at Isha Foundation, I would hardly expect you to say otherwise. 3307:- I don't mind an off hand mention in the 'popular culture' section. To go beyond that gives this source credibility which it should not posses. 106: 11014:

Technically correct, but it seems a shame to lose the information. Perhaps as a External Link? Incidentally, I'd assume the newspaper article

9213: 8948:) appears to have inserted this theory in several places (and the editor name and contribs suggest a possible association with one another). -- 8262:" Clearly Revisionist historical texts are acknowledged to be politically biased sources and O'Donnell classifies himself as neo-revisionist. 5907: 2060:

I am sure there are editors that would like it if all non-left reliable sources were deemed as non-reliable, and thus non-usable, on Knowledge.

1156: 405: 325: 9143:, and the subject being an active politician, this type of content, needs to be more neutrally worded and sourced to multiple (preferebaly un- 8701: 8073:

because you believe that is the conclusion to be inferred from said books (even worst: that those books you've analyzed represent the view of

372: 11053: 11046: 9391:) are fine; others have argued that they are not because they are "primary sources". IMO, this is a case where a primary source is fine per 9105: 8088:

You are proving my point even further: not only is your entire argument based on drawing conclusions from mainly Goebel and Rock, you've now

5901: 5641:

8. Smith, John, Name of Book I Haven't Seen (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1, cited in Paul Jones, "Name of Reliable Source I Did Read".

5056: 3965:

who wrote a history of the town. What Sacco did was, qua journalist, a piece of oral-historian anthropology, in the vein of Ted Swedenburg's

3254: 1815: 156:

signed up to IMDb's Pro account and how IMDb's employees used a third party verification website to gain information to use in her profile."

11224: 10520:

of the issue at hand. The cites given use her campaign website as the primary source for the claim "top of her class" for which I can find

9887: 9876: 9865: 9731: 6532:

Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists, according to historian Michael Goebel, "academically they ended up in the same marginal position as

5184:

on separate metro systems - and the ones they are supposed to have rejected ? Matters that regards relevant sources must be delt with here.

10640: 10603:

Especially as Davis' life story has been heavily scrutinized for inconsistencies and no source has been presented challenging that text. --

10579: 10495: 9359: 7491:. As for 1421, two things: I never commented on "editorial success" (which I really don't think this particular O'Donnell book is) and see 5996: 3217: 2918: 584: 10536:" again noting that the sources provided all appear to rely on the campaign biography, including copying of entire sentences therefrom. 9918: 9388: 9268:

I've been looking into the long list (XXX by my count) of 'phobia' articles created by PlanetStar myself, and the sourcing is appalling:

8030:

they see a dictator (using more positive terms for the same concept) in him (that's for the early revisionists at least)."(emphasis added)

5917:

My approach would be: use these "wayback machine" forum pages for finding the sources you need, not as a source by itself. Other ideas? --

4677: 3990:

Palstinian attempts at historical self-representation must be understood, thereore, in relation to their narrative absence in the West.p.5

2469: 10639:

I find the position that a university website is not reliable for where a student places in the class of that university beyond bizarre.

9760:

The claim that this material was removed on those grounds is misleading, since much discussion followed after that first post of mine on

8977: 8872:

whose article has a comment calling him a "Lockerbie-bombing conspiracy theorist" in relationship to the article being used as a source.

8781:

This last very point is important. And misconceptions around this is a reason why the phrase "verifiability, not truth" was removed from

8492:

Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material

7352: 6234:

Should the French name Médecins Sans Frontières be used or should the English translation Doctors without Borders be used in the article?

6048: 4987: 4941: 4307:

used as historical accounts for as long as we don't have credible sources to counter each and every one of their "fish catching" stories?

1418:

if you can put up with us, it would be lovely if you would render an opinion on the dispute - we do want outside voices to weigh in. thx

9720: 7257:

author that could be said to be a "revisionist" today is associated to those characteristics based mainly on random quotes and a lot of

1601:(black market). (This was mirrored by a report in 1990 on "60 Minutes", which I'm trying to find so that I can be cited. I just found 9110: 6127: 5866: 5636:

8. Smith, John, Name of Book I Haven't Seen (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1, cited in Paul Jones, "Name of Blog Post I Did Read".

5020:

they make general statements like "all S-Bahns" are not metro, they must be incompetente. There is a huge difference between S-Bahn in

4915: 887:

Centner, Terence J. (September 2013). "Oversight of shale gas production in the United States and the disclosure of toxic substances".

787:

Ellen, is there some reason that a primary source published this month would be considered to be better than such secondary sources as

10899:

In August 2014, CoSign became the first remote / server-side digital signature solution to receive Common Criteria EAL4+ certification

10534:

If a campaign biography has been shown to have inaccuracies, can we assert in Knowledge's voice that it is accurate for other matters?

7489: 7487: 7485: 7426: 4901:

as a necessary source as every claim is backed by another source. From the byline the piece is an unnamed guest poster and the site's

3501:

I stand corrected. I did not realize that the term could be applied to non-fiction. However, my concern with the book as a source for

3263:

Dubious sources 2: Palestinian locals had reliability issues (per "Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities"

2973:

establish its weight by consulting reliable secondary sources about "The Hum" that explain the general acceptance of various theories.

10829: 9691: 9079:

on the article talk page. However, my edits were met with some opposition. I'm still concerned that the sources used do not meet our

4408:

reports are also a form of journalism - no scare quotes needed. Comic-book research probably should be accompanied with scare quotes.

8277:

And indeed it did focus on user conduct, one of which was to use sources like O'Donnell that the editor acknowledged was unreliable

7851: 7279:", really? So almost 20 history books written and published by top editorials is a paper-thin background regarding history? Amazing. 1506:

discredited many radical animal rights groups.) According to WP:RS, that shouldn't matter... but I was outnumbered and voted down.

7916:

case dealt with editor behaviour, not content. The comments by a couple of editors tangentially touching the author (and I do mean

6262: 6118:

In this case, it appears that Asian Voice newspaper uses issuu.com to publish online while it's primary publication is in print. --

1892:

my main goal is to determine whether the consensus of Knowledge editors is that the Weekly Standard no longer qualifies as an RS.--

1613: 1170:. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story: 741:

reviews state that there is not enough research completed to make definitive statements yet. The source EllenCT wants to bring is

170: 9301:

has already been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation) About.com articles written by someone with "a B.A. in Psychology"

7293:". No you didn't. At all. You basically lumped together a bunch of quotes by M Goebel and D Rock, pasted them with quite a bit of 3277: 3245: 3239: 3234: 3229: 3224: 1631:

As for my previous conflict (citing sources that lean the other way in the debate between zoos and animal rights), the source was

10524:

reliable secondary sources. Since this is being used as a parenthetical bit of fluff, I suggest we would need sources which are

9274:

states that "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it."

8563: 8295: 8077:"mainstream" historians, whoever they might be and however they might be classified by who knows who). That is the definition of 7887: 7766: 3652:, another example of forum shopping, not to mention rude. I will make allowances for the newness of the editor and do it myself. 3270: 3045:

Generally unreliable, although there are some articles with a solid mainstream point of view that can be used in accordance with

2571: 825:

How could a primary source consistent with the conclusive MEDRS secondary sources be inferior to inconclusive secondary sources?

7584:

A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See

3769:

not everything said about Palestinians is intended to make them all look antisemitic. It should be possible to e.g. mention the

846:

Here are summaries of additional conclusive MEDRS sources and associated news articles from the current version of the article:

11133:

Korean Veterans of America President’s Address, Hae Soung Kim, Korean Veterans Award Ceremony, Los Angeles CA, December 7, 2007

10978: 9071:

Recently I came across the article for Walter O'Brien and was concerned with the quality of the sources that was listed in the

7211: 4114:, the devil's advocate has its purpose in society. Or as Nietzsche said, (paraphrase) what does not kill me makes me stronger. 21: 7925:

if you examine the academic view of revisionism it is clearly not considered mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact

4103:, but I want to point out an ancillary advantage of this request. Due to this request, the article has been improved with two 1103: 10485: 8925: 8534:

This whole exercise is pointless and a red herring, as we shouldn't discuss the historical movement without first discussing

8236: 7800: 7742: 7720: 7699: 7672: 7650: 7624: 7160: 6871: 6351:

but any of the above could be targeted (they are not disclosing which historians they consider revisionists --see talk page)

6268: 5032:, as the tracks isn't shared with other trains in these three cities. While this indeed is the case in other S-Bahn systems ( 4879: 2626: 1184:

lead author Peter Rabinowitz, M.D., who is now with the University of Washington's School of Public Health, told weather.com.

573:"Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania" 11056:

contains many sources that don't seem to be reliable. For example speeches (or introductory biographies given at speeches):

10573: 10212:, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion. 9002: 8865: 8339:

encompassing from the far right-wing to the left-wing with a book by a heavily published and renowned author are also noted.

7927:", I'm sorry but this is just not true. Quoting some random bits of Goebel and Rock and pasting them together with a lot of 5838: 1991:

and only publications with "correct opinions" are allowed. So far, that does not appear to be part of any policy, however.

1159: 279:

Wherever it is, it should be properly sourced. Any comment on the sourcing for the criticisms, which appears to be a blog?--

157: 7610:

considered a wholly reliable source for material for Knowledge. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.

5398:. As a practical matter it'd be near impossible to get your hands on a copy or read it if you did, though. The question is 3233:

Disputed content 1: "It's a big exaggeration," said Meir Pail, a leading Israeli military historian and leftist politician.

9323:. Neologisms created as word-games, or for the purpose of promoting 'cures', do not belong on any credible encyclopaedia. 8840: 7882:

examine the academic view of revisionism it is clearly not considered mainstream or a reliable source for historic fact.

6104:

issuu.com is a publishing platform, that does not mean that a publication published (or also published) on issuu.com is a

3228:

Comic-book: filled with distortion, bias and hyperbole. "Sacco uses "all sorts of subtle ways" to manipulate the reader."

416:, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC News and a reporter covering the Bush White House during the time frame in question. 139:

may not be in the database). But you can find Michelle Thomas's death reported in the New York Times of 28 December 1998,

10890: 10391: 10278: 8571: 8303: 7895: 7774: 6548: 5853: 3181: 1616:. Since nearly every page of the book I've read so far tracks case after case, and even documents listings in the AZA's 384: 166: 10982: 9120: 6529:, with the same degree of grotesque simplification." The Revisionists had a "lack of interest in scholarly standards". 1746:

Looks like just a website. Not sure what or who it is citing. What exactly is the content which this is used to suppot?

1624:), it goes on the claim that the AZA knowingly participates in these activity (out of necessity) and then covers it up ( 10839:

Hi - wanted to get opinions on whether the following sources can be considered reliable for the article I'm working on

10243: 9116: 8939: 8790: 8108:. History is not math. If two published and renowned historians disagree on how they view an issue what we do in WP is 7529:

need to come up with a way to prove that a dozen or more historians (heavily published authors) from 1930 to today are

6543:

take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as

6253:. I thought it might be relevant here as it would involve sources and I think someone might have posted a few. Thanks. 5381: 4898: 562: 10991:"The information in these collections does not constitute endorsement by NTL, as the sources are outside our control." 10759:

intensely. I respect Collect's skepticism on such matters in general, but am unconvinced by Collect's arguments here.

7309:

author deemed a "revisionist" since 1930 to today. What's worst is that you never bothered to seek consensus for this

10955: 9304:- for an indication of the quality of this material see this page on 'astrophobia' - a supposed "fear of outer space" 7318: 7316: 7314: 7066: 7027: 6988: 6949: 6910: 6425: 6423: 6421: 6349: 6347: 5394:"reputable libraries" but none in your country. It looks reliable and absent any reason to be suspicious it's OK per 4919: 4907: 4512: 4121: 3956: 3725: 3659: 3631: 3566: 3374: 2888: 2862: 2463: 1753: 1549: 1522: 1481: 1407: 1373: 11124:, M.D., Proceedings of The Fourth International Aldous Huxley Symposium, Huntington Library, 31 July – 2 August 2008 11001:

article was from after the sailor's service aboard the vessel, so is likely to be of unspecified secondhand origin.

10941: 10934: 3820:

By the way, please avoid taking quotes out of context to make them look like the opposite of what they actually say.

3548: 2413: 1920:

article which originated all this, I believe it is important to note that the article in TWS used as a source there

1913: 1873: 492:

I think that "third-party" includes "second-party" in this context. In any case, this is the same phrasing used in

11108:

Korean Veterans Memorial Unveiling Ceremony transcript, Hae Soung Kim, War Memorial Park, Glenora CA, May 22, 2009

10477: 9704:"This version also contains some content censorship including the animation of cigar smoking by Fury being removed" 8384:

the use of O'Donnell (...) was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy

7910:

the use of O'Donnell (...) was acknowledged to be unreliable and inconsistent with the neutral point of view policy

7430: 6865:

The Argentine Folklore Movement: Sugar Elites, Criollo Workers, and the Politics of Cultural Nationalism, 1900–1950

5794: 4563: 2172:: they publish news analysis and opinion, not investigative journalism. Just because Time employs left-wing writer 988:"Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply" 9636:

speaking for these clinics. To clarify: when I say "mainstream", I mean the scientific/academic mainstream. --

9506:'s Talk page are at an impasse, it may be worth raising the question of those sources' use as a separate query at 8335:

Goebel and rock's comments on "revisionism" are noted: they dislike it. Your attempt to connect a circa 100 years

7833:

are only relevant in regards to their commentary of the use of revisionist material. The inference of acting for

2753:

If anyone would care to comment on the capitalisation of "pig" in the sources that might also be helpful. Thanks,

1632: 1162: 10994: 8685: 5645:

8. Smith, John, Name of Book I Haven't Seen (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 1, cited in Paul Jones, "Name of

4982: 4936: 3830: 3385: 3360: 2893: 2758: 870: 501: 444: 9908:

https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx

7198:"revisionist" authors) with authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism and misogyny is troubling to say the least. 5512:

article since it's used to cite the exact same material. This makes no sense to me. Yes we don't want errors to

5008:

This membership association cannot be a main source for deciding what is and what isn't a metro system. Article

3873: 3714:

To Shrike: It is called courtesy. It takes 2 minutes, and makes things go much smoother. See last sentence here

10398:

is considered a reliable source of facts regarding who the architects of record were for the Lamont Mansion? -

10314: 10263: 9725: 9697: 9662: 9642: 9559: 9488: 9455: 9409: 9384: 8786: 4107: 4104: 10039: 5881:

No knowledge whether the author (Dennis Pajot) published in "first glance" reliable sources. Found a trace at

3392:

got a golden globe but it shouldn't pass as reliable for anything other than the opinions of the movie maker.

2906:

That's twaddle, IMO (not least because CSI hasn't been around for centuries). I've pointed him to a previous

1537: 873:

has defended their research into hydraulic fracturing while simultaneously attempting to downplay its results.

10834: 10550:

No, you have given no proof that the listed sources have used her campaign website without error checking. --

9294:) is even worse - each entry consists of nothing but a raw definition, followed by the same boilerplate text. 7813:

In regards to the allegation of canvassing. Lecen sent me a private email yesterday suggesting I comment at

7448: 6197:

an ad. Notice the links to wopg.org and tprf.org at the bottom of the insert, and compare with the ad in the

3434:

Not reliable for history. If it's based on a UN special report, use that. Could be added to Further reading.

3264: 2592: 2031:

The article in question was written by "THE SCRAPBOOK" Typical of his/her./their writing is the opening of "

1863: 212: 190: 10847: 9225:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine#Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar

9200:

Since editors here are experienced in sourcing, if you've the time, please comment on the page move request

9076: 4041:, should be used as definitive. Morris doesn't believe in oral history, which is of course very convenient, 2818:

attempting to drive off all editing in this article space that isn't part of their wikiproject inner circle.

1628:). I'm not yet certain how to make mention of this material in a NPOV fashion, but I'm sure it can be done. 142:, where we are told she died "on Wednesday", which would have been 23 December 1998, at Sloane-Kettering. - 10461: 10330: 10199: 7356: 5001: 4416:

NOTE: please discuss content. Suggestions anyone who raises valid issues should not be taken seriously are

1961: 9072: 8486:

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that

2196: 9732:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440

9154: 8661:

a reliable source for the statement that OpenOffice.org, the open-source project, is "discontinued" (see

8566: 8298: 8057:

Lecen, there's no bad faith accusations here. If I comment on how you and WCM are blatantly incurring in

7890: 7769: 6152:, if no reliable independent source has covered them? PS: Note that the "Pledge for Peace" was presented 5631: 5582: 5497: 3718:. To MarciulionisHOF, I have no idea what you mean. That page you linked to is talking about user pages. 3364: 2129: 1845: 1502: 9319:

whole lot should not be deleted, along with much of the other poorly-sourced pseudo-psychology found at

8715: 8658: 8204:

is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by

7305:) conclusion that "mainstream historians" (apparently Goebel & Rock?) somehow prevent us from using 6035: 5886: 3966: 10569: 10490: 10286: 10152: 10049:

Russia Today is very slanted but it is probably RS for things like "Putin has a black dog". Similarly,

9201: 7581:

Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.

7170:, as stated above one of the biggest in Latin América) and written by a renowned historian with almost 5922: 5163: 5061: 4974: 4928: 3137: 3086: 2937:

them out from those published in scientific journals and include mention of the JSE's suspect nature.

2754: 497: 468: 440: 233: 51: 42: 17: 9764:. Not posting a link to that discussion was not nice. I suggest the discussion should continue there. 9761: 9305: 7242:", actually yes. But it is quite telling that neither of you seems (or is willing) to acknowledge the 6136:

While publication on ISSUU is not an issue, niche publications aimed towards the diaspora such as the

6049:

http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/blog/the-pledge-to-peace-is-presented-at-the-house-of-parliament-in-the-uk

5980:

article, at the foot of section 1983-Present. One editor contests the reliability of the issuu-source

5912:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 - Expanding the article.

3486:

the term "graphic novel" is applied broadly, and includes fiction, non-fiction, and anthologized work.

2470:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966824_Cheaters_in_the_Steam_Community_Gaming_Social_Network

651:

Where are you quoting "clinically significant" from? As I understand your comments, you would prefer:

11163: 10805: 10429: 9257: 7814: 7521:

What? I have failed? I've commented no less than three times now that O'Donnell has published almost

6386:

otherwise be OR regarding their slanted versions of history). Nor do I believe anyone suggested that

5780: 4968:

I was not asking about the general reliability of News One, but of this specific piece. The author's

4425: 4368: 4315: 4247: 4214: 4158: 3884: 3791: 3783: 3683: 3397: 3312: 3276:

Sacco has been lauded by Edward Said, the renowned literary scholar and Palestinian rights spokesman.

3054: 2987: 2050: 1775: 1771: 773:

frustration while displaying concordant overreach in the application of rules. Need I provide diffs?

605: 11004:

Was I wrong in reverting this content, or are my concerns about the quality of the source valid? --

9380: 9064: 8368:

feel are good enough. The issue here is not "we use either this one or this one", but rather we use

6556: 2930:"Previous research establishes that hum is not an external sound and has no electromagnetic causes." 2396:

The WS is a perfectly respectable mainstream political journal in no discernable way different than

2032: 1809: 10484:

At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class.

10478: 10307: 9583: 8945: 8634: 7089: 7050: 7011: 6972: 6933: 6894: 6284:

The outcome, if that proposition is true, is that a large number of prominent Argentine historians

5793:

I understand the example from non-English sources. I introduced a reference like follows - article

4738: 3715: 3649: 3167: 3036: 2784:

The name of the population is "Arapawa pig" with a lower-case "pig" (expect in title-case headings)

2574:

proceedings, which should be usable as a source on wikipedia. Note that ACM conference submissions

2077: 1690: 8325: 7342:"This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". 6428: 6312: 6307: 2917:

would likely assign the same weight to information from that source as they would to one from the

2547:

you find that reliably published sources are using it as a source, that may speak to it being RS.

1165: 602: 9791: 9195: 8782: 8227: 6560: 5797:, in order to establish in what year the church was demolished I used this reference formulation 5692: 5559: 5484: 4959: 4737:

being used as a source cites only one source for the cult-specific accusations. That source is a

4033: 3185: 2838: 1729: 1217: 814: 717: 680:

if they run against the grain of information from really good secondary sources. That's what our

8832: 8707:

My argument for is that the site has focused on technology for many years and does so regularly.

8260:

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

6463:, formerly Menem's ambassador to Bolivia and Paraguay, who, however, has more openly avowed his 5162:. Your other complaints basically amount to a content dispute, and should be routed back to the 4028:

or 'fictionalizing'. Not to use it looks like an instrumental appeal to the finicky reading of

608: 9977: 9930: 9844: 9750: 9423:

edited 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

9328: 9168: 9150: 9127: 9048: 9018: 8933: 8915: 8560: 8292: 7884: 7763: 6568: 5805:

but other contributers has in other Swedish-related articles reverted this kind of translation

5763: 5736: 4973:

short two-paragraph piece. Such errors speak to a lack of editorial oversight over the piece.--

4793: 4720: 4667: 4626: 4593: 3344: 2837:

in and of itself, a negative-systhesis refusal to accept demonstrable, sourced facts by use of

2523: 2324: 2125: 2107: 1841: 1814:

is actually a copy of a recent Washington Post article which uses it and that paper is an RS.

1719: 11095:

Biography of PAVA English Language Public Relations Manager Eric “Oops” Diesel, Kodak Theater

9237:. It's easy to create articles if you find a rubbish list somewhere and use that as a source. 8846:

which doesn't say anything about this suggestion. The text, which takes up half the lead, is:

8711: 7733: 7711: 7183: 5069: 4479: 3180:

to read anything on Knowledge. Or we will need to refer to Google translating services 24/7.--

318:

Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:

11146: 10949: 10395: 10366: 9277:

Utterly indiscriminatory, and clearly not RS for any medical topic - or anything else really.

8490:. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. 8380:

It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case.

8099:

The discussion is terribly simple and the only ones trying to complicate it are you and WCM.

7791: 7690: 7663: 7615: 7533:

and you have failed 100%. All you've done so far, together with WCM, is fill the thread with

7389:

Please note that WCM's wall of text below does pretty much exactly what Lecen did above, ie:

5918: 5677: 5538: 5454: 5295: 5231: 5109: 5009: 4825: 4764: 4756: 4685: 4641: 4608: 4529: 4509: 4491: 4118: 3953: 3722: 3656: 3628: 3587: 3563: 3515: 3467: 3439: 3371: 3210:

Content: Pretty much the entire article, written in neutral voice of history as "fact" (e.g.

3133: 3082: 2957: 2859: 2687: 2655: 2598: 2485: 1795: 1750: 1704: 1681: 1666: 1640: 1625: 1621: 1573: 1557: 1541: 1478: 1457: 1404: 1370: 1021: 410: 353: 344: 298: 270: 256: 226: 11099:

festival brochure, Pacific American Volunteer Association, Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2007

10970: 10963: 10923: 10121:

Are journalists/writers not reliable sources if they have written about paranormal subjects?

9694: 7641: 7194:. His credentials are quite remarkable. The attempts by Lecen to associate this author (and 5550:. We have editors in many places and many languages, you don't need to personally be there. 4969: 3253:

Dubious sources 1: book is based on conversations with locals, under control of Anti-Semitic

2924:(b) Is there any problem with the reliability of the CSI regarding its opinion of the JSE? 1609: 949: 11149:, Evolution of Consciousness Lecture Series, Joshua Tree Transmission Theater, CA, 6-2-2011 10801: 10425: 10403: 10189: 9392: 9253: 9242: 8896: 8877: 8798: 8738: 8697: 8614: 8546: 7821:

suggested referring the use of revisionist sources to RSN. My evidence to the arbcom case

7367: 6544: 6517: 6444: 6409: 6366: 6322: 6274: 6250: 6123: 5961: 5932:

We need a good reason to use a forum like a reliable source, I do not see any reason here.

5776: 4886: 4734: 4421: 4417: 4364: 4311: 4243: 4210: 4178: 4154: 4111: 3880: 3876: 3787: 3779: 3775: 3679: 3393: 3308: 3285: 3151: 3050: 2983: 2552: 2259: 2152: 2140: 2046: 1950: 1939:

Sorry, can you explain what you mean by "failed verification"? I'm obviously familiar with

1898: 1822: 806: 417: 9531:, we do not say that many places sell pizza, with citations from individual pizzerias. In 6420:

teaming to remove a perfectly valid source from the article claiming "revisionist source"

5158:

public transit, including metro systems. IOW, it would be ludicrous to rule them out as a

3944:

that he was tied to and pulled apart by two Jeeps exist, but are apocryphal." This is why

3016:. Perhaps remove it from the scientific literature list, but he's not going to like that. 8: 11045: 11035: 10959: 10928: 10862: 10825: 10765: 10352: 10105: 10058: 10030: 10003: 9954: 9914: 9769: 9579: 9549:

Good question, and thanks for commenting; the answer is that it's part of the section on

8327: 7871:

the same distinction himself. It might be useful to add a few more diffs to the finding.

6432: 6332: 6206: 6169: 5992: 5814: 5547: 5353: 5285: 5246: 5236:

and download "Touristenflyer" (available in English) or "Linennetz". The latter includes

5189: 5144: 5091: 5042: 4050: 3972: 3645: 3552: 3547:. There are no unbiased sources anywhere. Anyway, it seems there has been another source 3352: 3176: 3163: 3105: 3032: 2942: 2717: 2583: 2537: 2435: 2424: 2343: 1917: 1286: 737: 546: 128: 10172:

To get the best input from this noticeboard you should probably give more context, i.e.

9302: 9043:

that his theory has been given serious consideration, it doesn't belong in the article.

5348:

to where specificly S-systems in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen are "excluded". Please.

2477: 2069: 11220: 10974: 10907: 10468: 10446: 10381: 10337: 10294: 10257: 10162: 9716: 9657: 9637: 9626: 9554: 9483: 9450: 9404: 9400: 9355: 9338: 8729: 8681: 8648: 8640: 8142: 7941:

almost 20 history books published by one of the biggest latin-american publishing group

7076: 7037: 6998: 6959: 6920: 6881: 6579:. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject." 5476: 4955: 4894: 4863: 4746: 3330: 3155: 3121: 2847: 2701: 2669: 2640: 368: 11194:

Seh-Jik Park, Certification of Meritorious Service Medal presented to Mr. Eric Diesel

11118:

Introductory Biography of Speaker Eric John Diesel, '”Laura Archera Huxley in Memory”

10657:

has not provided a shred of evidence the claim was not verified and was challenged. --

9502:

If there's an issue with the weight accorded to those secondaries, and discussions on

8684:, was discontinued at this time but not the open-source project. In June 2011, Oracle 6504:

political movement with support for racially-based pseudo-scientific theories such as

6226: 5228:

has previously been proven to "be metro" in our list. For Berlin please have a look at

5180:

I do not think so. This is a very insecure source on any topics. Where do I f.i. find

3674:

Would you please be willing to strike through the part of your comment which violates

2567: 11172: 10730: 10685: 10630: 10541: 9973: 9926: 9840: 9746: 9666: 9646: 9563: 9492: 9459: 9413: 9324: 9298: 9209: 9164: 9123: 9044: 9014: 9006: 8953: 8929: 8911: 8843: 8755: 8689: 8452:(and Astyntax & WCM apparently) to bring forth evidence that the book/author are 8233: 7797: 7739: 7717: 7696: 7669: 7647: 7621: 7063: 7024: 6985: 6946: 6907: 6868: 6405: 6258: 6022: 5971: 5759: 5732: 5261: 4789: 4716: 4663: 4622: 4589: 4292: 4239: 3675: 3544: 3389: 3281:

2010 Comic-con award for non-fiction (based on testimonies/conversations with locals)

2815: 2801: 2778: 2519: 2320: 2243: 2008: 1996: 1715: 1519: 1387: 1317: 1233: 1199: 1085: 1044: 1003: 830: 802: 795: 788: 778: 742: 699: 663: 615: 284: 241: 11019: 9227:, a long list of phobia articles created by that editor, some are sourced solely to 7964:

Quoting some random bits of Goebel and Rock and pasting them together with a lot of

6292: 6225:

There's an RfC that might be appropriate for editors on this noticebook to look at.

3747:

but present the well-sourced criticisms of it (and of the article subject) as well.

2114:

what is written in it, and the opinions of the writer(s) whose content they publish.

999: 900: 11022: 11015: 10871:

Industries of focus include life science (particularly research and clinical trials

10362: 10282: 10209: 10146: 9897: 9575: 9550: 9540: 9507: 9320: 9178: 9144: 9097: 8470: 8469:, and conclude that since O'Donnell is a "neo-revisionist" he should be considered 8442:

well known and heavily published historian published by a very big publishing group

8394:" So, after noting that the statement by WCM is not correct, let me point out that 8389: 8283: 8245: 8070: 7913: 7854: 7758: 7530: 7129: 7105: 6552: 6378: 6317: 6302: 6278: 6014: 5937: 5688: 5673: 5555: 5534: 5480: 5450: 5430: 5333: 5307: 5203: 5171: 5077: 4844: 4821: 4811: 4760: 4681: 4637: 4604: 4525: 4506: 4487: 4145: 4115: 4066: 4005: 3950: 3921: 3719: 3697: 3669: 3653: 3625: 3610: 3583: 3576: 3560: 3538: 3511: 3463: 3435: 3425: 3368: 3046: 2953: 2853: 2769: 2683: 2651: 2508: 2473: 2443: 2416: 2387: 2339: 2301: 2173: 2081: 1791: 1747: 1700: 1545: 1475: 1453: 1423: 1415: 1401: 1367: 1347: 1295: 1213: 1077: 1036: 995: 961: 930: 896: 810: 759: 750: 340: 294: 266: 252: 10568:

The statement that Davis graduated at the top of her class at TCU is supported by

7972:

it's just that: a WP editor "examining" sources and arriving at his own conclusion

6093: 5981: 5892: 1552:, a host of zoos, and articles pertaining to conservation of particular species. 864:

gather information on such topics so as to advocate for improved community health.

339:. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". -- 11081: 10644: 10399: 10248: 10227: 10185: 10140: 10134: 9685: 9396: 9238: 9065: 8972: 8892: 8873: 8794: 8734: 8693: 8607: 8539: 8479: 8428: 8128: 8048: 7818: 7541:

that a whole group of historians should be completely dismissed because you feel

7512: 7472: 7360: 7291:

All I did was to provide the views that mainstream historians have of Revisionism

7229: 7175: 7113: 6359: 6119: 6109: 5957: 5842: 4803: 4697: 4580: 4575: 4568: 4564: 4551: 4501:

At first glance, no. It is just a random website. They give a list of "mentions"

4483: 3417: 3413: 3293: 3223:

Narrative driven: "he says he wants to get accross the Palestinian point of view"

3097: 2772:'s last two thread. The short version is two editor who detest the biology term 2679: 2617: 2548: 2254: 2147: 2092: 2086: 2073: 1945: 1893: 1833: 1818: 1805: 1334: 934: 725: 673: 639: 631: 627: 598: 108: 6198: 5302:, that only three of the four colors of T lines qualify?!? That's just silly. -- 2273:

My take is that this particular instance is governed by the following policy in

1964:. The sourced statement is not present in the source being used as a reference. 324:. 2. Article. The Knowledge article(s) in which it is being used. For example: 50:

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

11121: 11031: 10821: 10760: 10348: 10101: 10054: 10026: 9999: 9950: 9910: 9765: 9618: 9602:(especially when you consider it's prevalence in the non-western world). What 9010: 8888: 8644: 8092:

with Rock and attempt to present that as evidence. How can you not see that is

8013:

Dr Michael Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians

7728:

intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".

7171: 6297: 6202: 6165: 5988: 5810: 5596: 5501: 5349: 5325: 5281: 5265: 5242: 5185: 5140: 5087: 5065: 5038: 4443: 4387: 4330: 4267: 4229: 4192: 4082: 4046: 3940: 3899: 3856: 3811: 3752: 3488: 3348: 3101: 3020: 2938: 2821: 2796: 2723: 2579: 2533: 2420: 2233:

a fair phrasing of the WS words, then it "fails verification." If the wording

2220: 2188: 1656: 1584: 1441: 1397: 1081: 542: 487: 472: 392: 116: 8200:

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been

7996:. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders 7713:

Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact

3451:- Of course this should not be used for statements of fact. The full title is 2820:

The thing is, my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching

11065: 11061: 11005: 10903: 10590: 10464: 10442: 10377: 10333: 10158: 10073: 9945: 9712: 9622: 9351: 9140: 8998: 8850: 8725: 8466: 8406: 8150: 8082: 8062: 7969: 7932: 7834: 7550: 7460: 7394: 7298: 7258: 7180:

His historiographical production can be considered within the neo-revisionism

7060:

Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact

6149: 6145: 6105: 5949: 5438: 5395: 5277: 4859: 4836: 4742: 4711:

As a separate issue, high hitrates on YouTube don't convey reliability (c.f.

4539: 4502: 4100: 4074: 4013: 3945: 3477: 3326: 3117: 2834: 2810: 2697: 2665: 2636: 2500: 2361: 2359:, so surely it's appropriate here in the case of a partisan opinion journal. 2316: 2289: 2111: 2098: 1925: 1739: 681: 493: 436: 396: 364: 144: 9786:

is utter nonsense, and is simply an invention of the editor's imagination.

7665:

A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition

7251:"Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist" are themes in Argentine revisionism 1790:

then simply use the news story, agency or media site as the actual source.--

1516:

Animal Underworld: Inside America's Black Market for Rare and Exotic Species

1040: 10726: 10698: 10681: 10654: 10626: 10537: 10077: 9511: 9474: 9434: 9205: 9182: 9084: 9040: 8984: 8949: 8817: 8600: 8521: 8462: 8445: 8402: 8372: 8361: 8255: 8185: 8181: 8146: 8093: 8078: 8058: 7965: 7928: 7830: 7606: 7546: 7390: 7381: 7378:

Langus: agreed 100%. My question for this forum is pretty simple actually:

7294: 7215: 7191: 6497: 6440: 6417: 6395: 6337: 6254: 5727: 5551: 5159: 4781: 4705: 4701: 4618: 4521: 4038: 4029: 4001: 2274: 2239: 2004: 1992: 1383: 1330: 1313: 1250: 1229: 1195: 1088: 1047: 1006: 826: 798: 791: 774: 746: 729: 724:, where EllenCT was advised that for health-related content, the guideline 695: 685: 659: 643: 611: 280: 237: 205: 183: 9808:

Here is the material that was removed, apologies for not adding it before.

7410:

if we consider the simple issue is whether a heavily published historian (

6082: 5861:: "...the Gloria portion of the mass continues to be popular with amateur 5016:

has no members, but the most metro-systems according to the list. Further

5012:

has been usning this membership association as main source, although f.i.

4884:

There are two sources that have been added to the lede of the article for

3162:. Only a minority of readers is able to understand those sources, too. -- 1774:

on targets all over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. However, the

165:

go in an change Denzel Washington's birthday like you can in Knowledge. --

11204: 11181:“exemplary achievement in his field and notable contributions to society” 11069: 10820:

solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past

10815: 10585: 9783: 9782:

As a side comment, the complaint that sourcing behind a paywall violates

9536: 9503: 9470: 9234: 9089: 8509: 8440:

I'm sorry Lecen but you've got this backwards. The usage of a 'book by a

8411: 8159: 8113: 7944: 7554: 7496: 7492: 7444: 7434: 7415: 7321: 7269: 7243: 7199: 6512:(Revisionism) was the historiographic wing of Argentine Nationalism. 6448: 6241: 6220: 5933: 5469: 5426: 5329: 5303: 5273: 5199: 5167: 5086:

Agree heartily with IJBall. If this isn't a reliable source, nothing is.

5073: 4840: 4807: 4777: 4183: 3968:

Memories of Revolt: 1936-1939 Rebellion in the Palestinian National Past,

3933: 3917: 3693: 3421: 2731: 2504: 2439: 2383: 1965: 1940: 1929: 1419: 1343: 1291: 755: 458: 413: 391:. I had originally cited two Tweets concerning the veracity of a claimed 10225:

Wundram, Bill (October 29, 1995). "Summerwind: More ghostly than ever".

4140:

let's start with a good basic question: what do historians say about it?

2566:

This article appears to have been published under the alternate title, "

954:

NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy

11021:, including this one written on the 4th that specifies "launched today" 10741: 10708: 10658: 10604: 10551: 10502: 10126: 9346: 9339: 8891:

where it also mentions Haseldine's claim that Carlsson was the target.

8831:

a reliable source for a statement linking the Lockerbie bombing to the

8662: 8424: 8124: 8044: 7841:

can be summarily dismissed if you actually look at what I've commented.

7838: 7605:

The question posed boils down to whether these works are suitable as a

7508: 7481: 7468: 7225: 7109: 6413: 6327: 5977: 5317: 5029: 4547: 4379: 2610: 2003:

berated the WS in that discussion is banned as a puppet master AFAICT)

1598: 535: 517: 421: 11030:

no source when there's no reason to actually doubt the information).

8351:

acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking

7166:

The book is published by an indisputably established editorial house (

4077:, "the richest non-fiction historical literature prize in the world". 2952:

The raison d'être of JSE is to publish pseudoscience. Never reliable.

1868:

The question of the RS status of the Weekly Standard was addressed in

965: 322: 9532: 9275: 9228: 7414:) is a suitable source for a history article. Yes, it's that simple. 5887:

http://www.mutopiaproject.org/ftp/MozartWA/KV477/k477/k477-pajot.html

4439: 4398: 4383: 4343: 4326: 4278: 4263: 4225: 4204: 4188: 4135: 4094: 4078: 3895: 3867: 3852: 3807: 3764: 3748: 2879:

Journal of Scientific Exploration and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

2293: 2185: 1924:. This makes its removal 100% accurate and necessary, specially in a 1602: 676:-compliant sources for health information, and avoid primary sources 626:

source reporting on a telephone survey should be avoided as it's not

9888:

The history of Sukkot, once the most important Jewish holiday of all

9877:

The history of Sukkot, once the most important Jewish holiday of all

9866:

The history of Sukkot, once the most important Jewish holiday of all

9282: 8488:

directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view

8329: 6539:

Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians

5609:

Yes, OK, I see what you're saying. That makes sense, re context etc.

3001:

different sources, i.e. mine might be internal, similar to tinnitus.

754:

saying, because that is what the most recent SECONDARY sources say)

572: 10329:

The editor has went on to add the word "allegedly" to the sentence.

9903: 7535:

your own analysis of random books discussing/commenting revisionism

7429:. I'd say it surprises me but knowing WCM and seeing his behaviour 6505: 6501: 5119:, not an international organization. Any bus company may join them. 4902: 3207: 3159: 2829: 2773: 2746: 2039:

is rs for fact-based articles, this blog probably does not meet it.

1603:

another source, published by the Performing Animals Welfare Society

987: 11157:

Some of the sources don't reference any publication, for example:

10456:

This edit warring is continuing with a single editor now removing

8793:

for a summary of misconceptions around verifiability and truth. --

7643:

Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History

6904:

Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History

6436: 5878:

publication type: forum (or is it rather a blog type publication?)

3644:

Also the OP has not bothered to notify on the talk page of either

3347:. It is based on an UN special report into two massacres in 1956, 11077: 9219:

FearOfStuff.com and Phobosource.com reliable sources for phobias?

9087:. I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback on the sources. 8988: 8596:

You are asking the RSN to go beyond its boundaries, and redefine

7523:

20 history books in a top publishing house over the last 20 years

7156:" remarks: a few months ago O'Donnell was named president of the 6412:

article that is a perfect example of the issue here with editors

6346:

So far, the only author that has been "banned" is Pacho O'Donell,

5882: 5033: 5021: 2884: 2378:(such as person X said Y), there is no reason to not include the 634:

that say the same thing, simply use them. If this information is

11143:

Consciousness, Ethics, and Empathy in Superintelligent Computers

9707:

as the fifth top Marvel arcade game by iFanboy's Josh Richardson

9482:

I'd rather not, for the reason I stated above ("except...."). --

9365:

Websites of medical centers as sources for services they perform

7021:

Transformations and Crisis of Liberalism in Argentina, 1930–1955

6943:

Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America

5320:, including one branch that operates for a portion as an actual 2499:. So its not peer reviewed .So in my opinion is on the level as 2019:

That Collect and a couple of other editors decided in 2010 that

1540:. The material could be used on several websites, particularly 9825: 7937:

an entire assembly of renowned and heavily published historians

7347:

It seems that this is not the place to ask for questions about

6059: 5299: 5025: 4712: 3065:

Unnecessary use of a foreign language source in an article lead

2664:

So basically it's neither particularly good nor complete junk?

2568:

Branded with a scarlet 'C': cheaters in a gaming social network

2338:

not straight news. They need to be treated as such, subject to

1444:, from what I could gather, we should be basing the article on 1271:

Knowledge:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press

728:

expresses the consensus of the community (as also expressed in

10617:

Except one should note, for example, that CNN ascribed claims

9233:- are these sources that we should be using? See for instance 9231: 7853:. Of particular relevance from that case is the comment from 7425:

Also of importance: I note WCM's own acknowledgemetn of being

5479:

citation precisely because we don't want errors to propagate.

5108:. Yet no other nation is represented by more metro systems at 4004:, and Jack London. 'he censor's primary concern, according to 2896:

of promoting fringe theories and ignoring contrary evidence).

1804:

It has its own article which has details that suggests it is:

1735: 11073: 9833: 9528: 9291: 6629: 6627: 6563:, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they 5862: 5013: 3481: 3257: 2739: 2496: 2297: 2184:

should be considered noteworthy and reliable to some extent.

1608:, which participates in the exotic pet trade." For example, 8346:". Unless of course by "academics" you mean Goebel and Rock? 7939:, the one being discussed here in particular having, again, 7023:. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press. 6651: 5897:

Research seems rather thorough, and quotes a lot of sources.

1104:"EPA's Abandoned Wyoming Fracking Study One Retreat of Many" 359: 10132:

There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the

9399:. What do you folks think? (Relevant section of article 9252:

Not even remotely close. Rubbish is about right on target.

8258:

cautions that biased sources should be used with caution, "

7962:

Gaba p, I'd like to ask you to stop with comments such as "

6945:. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. 6113: 6070: 5321: 2650:

Looks just like a normal academic journal, i.e. reputable.

1999:) 14:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC) (FWIW, the editor who had 1661:

I would still like to hear more opinions on this. Thanks.

1152:

Secondary news sources covering the primary survey include

1131:"EPA defends Pavillion tests but cautions on fracking link" 1022:"Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality" 10244:"Haunted Travel: Wisconsin's Most Notorious Haunted House" 9818:

formalized, centralized and given religious significance.

9119:

an unreliable or biased source? I'm concerned about this

8680:

Other sources say the commercial version of the software,

7284:

even less tried to "associate" him with anyone or anything

7240:

nothing surprising about using that as an apt illustration

6624: 5408:

can you use a Knowledge article for the second-hand source

5232:

http://www.s-bahn-berlin.de/fahrplanundnetz/liniennetz.htm

5139:

ends at two S-stations and lackes change to other U-lines)

4358:

used as historical accounts despite all the issues raised?

3851:

not that his book is filled with lies and embellishments.

3266:) even without collecting stories 50 years after the fact. 403:

contributor and the author of a bestselling book on Bush,

5873: 5839:"KV.Anh C1.04 Mozart's 12th Mass and Two Wenzul Muellers" 5827:

Pajot / Mozart Forum (only available through Archive.Org)

5269: 4704:, then you have rather failed to understand the scope of 4411:

Should this source be widely used as historical accounts?

3212:

A handful of Palestinians were fired upon without warning

2213:

the claim as written in the source may be paraphrased as

916:"Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective" 10725:

have exact quotes from her campaign biography. Cheers.

9297:

PlanetStar has also cited (or plagiarised/copy-pasted -

8728:

that we don't accept as reliable sources. If this was a

8364:(as we do) we should use all of them, not just the ones 7062:. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 6847: 6845: 6820: 6818: 6728: 6726: 6675: 4538:

There was also a previous discussion about this site at

3198:

Narrative driven comic-book as neutral voice of history?

2472:

which contains a large amount of research on cheats and

610:. Prior MEDRSs on the topic have all been inconclusive. 10993:

Submissions to the project are usually released online

10046: 9902:

It seems that there are sourcing issues on the article

8229:

Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial

8043:

I can gladly forward you the e-mails if you want to. --

6745: 6743: 6741: 6711: 6612: 6429:

Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial

5425:

I copied the cite of the Semenov book from the article

5002: 4405: 4382:

article apparently. And probably to most of the world.

4024:

or memories of their suffering is mentioned the better.

2730:

are reliable by our standards for a statement that the

11145:, Introductory Biography of Speaker Eric John Diesel, 11068:

Family Foundation, works and lectures in the field of

10020:

My primary concern/ requesting comments on this issue

8586:"This page is for posting questions regarding whether 6982:

A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present

6779: 6439:, one of the biggest in spanish speaking countries) a 5445:

use of a source? Why? It's a philosophical conundrum.

5212:

Well put, GRuban. The source may possibly be used for

4784:

to mean that a source no longer meets WP:RS unless it

3774:

mere racism. Please make comments on the content. per

2632: 2176:

doesn't mean its opinions are non-notable. Similar to

1912:: given that Sphilbrick mentioned the recent rightful 1509:

I'm thinking of using the following book as a source:

597:

The results of the survey were consistent with recent

9345:

This is more of a general than specific problem. The

8141:

argument is that the book by O'Donnell easily passes

7463:

was a huge editorial success. It's take seriously by

6842: 6815: 6803: 6723: 5475:

so that someone will check them. We don't engage in

5435:

how can we state the material in the original article

4520:

This is a perfect example of a website that is not a

2292:, whether written by the editors of the publication ( 1470: 7658:

movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.

7427:

canvassed off-wiki by Lecen to come here and comment

6830: 6791: 6738: 6663: 6639: 2168:

is a nationwide current affairs magazine similar to

749:

to select a given PRIMARY source and determine what

10680:actual independent sources for the claim. Cheers. 8344:

revisionist historians are disregarded by academics

7661: 6767: 6755: 6699: 6687: 6600: 5908:

Talk:Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232#Pajot a RS?

3609:This is not an RfC: this format is useless. I hope 2887:entry, there's currently an issue over whether the 2768:This isn't actually the nature of the dispute; see 8724:Which would be the very definition of the kind of 8315:not the same book presented in my original comment 8232:. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. 6141:piece being cited seems to falls in that category. 5264:(which by the way reaches several suburbs outside 2727: 2227:in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)" " 251:Include criticism but not in a criticism section. 9147:. But that is not what this noticeboard is about. 8688:they would donate the open-source project to the 7146:Authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist publicists 7139:It's not taken seriously by mainstream historians 4348:Please discuss content. Not perceived user bias. 4291:Graphic novels belong at comic-con for a reason. 2370:I would agree that statements of opinion, in the 2304:, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. 1770:"The United States has carried out a campaign of 516:Thanks to all for taking a look and weighing in. 10653:I will be adding back the statement tomorrow as 9824:Sukkot became a significant holiday during King 8500:(emphasis added) I don't think it could be made 8382:" Let's see what was asserted above. You said: " 8225: 7789: 6867:. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. 6148:. Are the details in the paragraph above really 6015:http://us.macmillan.com/footnotesingaza/joesacco 4177:, the book we are discussing here, received the 2495:It seems that the article coming from pre-print 1620:newsletter and how those animals are processed ( 10463:Input to this question is highly appreciated.-- 8358:it is not a reliable source for historical fact 8353:". again are you talking about Goebel and Rock? 8273:in that case. In that case I pointed out that 7731: 6094:http://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_2nd_august_2014/9 5982:http://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_2nd_august_2014/9 720:. See somewhat-difficult-to-follow discussion 383:For context, please see the final paragraph of 293:There has been no demonstration of that here.-- 11072:, and is active in political issues involving 8980:, broadcast on 10 March 1980, clearly states: 8392:case dealt with editor behaviour, not content. 8112:those views. Again, it really is that simple. 7639: 7617:Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962 7545:proves they should. This is the definition of 6485:What is the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism? 5634:(thank you for the link). It said you can say 5272:, like Watford and even suburbs of Watford) , 2635:- a reputable peer reviewed academic journal? 2302:statements attributed to that editor or author 1928:, whether TWS is deemed a RS or not. Regards. 1738:a reliable source for casualty numbers on the 950:"Navigating Medical Issues in Shale Territory" 406:Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush 10279:"Travel - Wisconsin's 10 most haunted places" 9594:It is important to remember that acupuncture 7412:~20 history books published by top editorials 4482:reliable for the date and place of birth for 4351:Which news agency employed this "journalist"? 1108:Fracking: Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat 1095: 10129:article (scrutinized because it's in AfD). 9163:Are you saying they are no good for facts? 8145:. That's it. Is your best argument your own 7992:regarded as respectable by most historians, 7738:. University of California Press. pp. 220–. 7716:. University of California Press. pp. 167–. 7313:idea but team to impose it nonetheless (ie: 7178:states his position as a "neorevisionist" (" 6575:regarded as respectable by most historians, 6358:Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- 5900:Apparently widely used on Knowledge as a RS 4755:I also thought that it can be considered as 2919:Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1122: 914:Colborn, Theo; et al. (September 20, 2011). 585:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing 379:Request opinion on a couple of Twitter cites 10917:Requesting opinion on document from StoryNT 9696:reliable for the following 2 statements at 9527:It is not a «reliable sources» problem. In 8180:The book by O'Donnell does not easily pass 7688: 7613: 7353:Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources 7158:Israeli Association of Culture and Science. 7128:Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to 7104:Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to 5649:reliable Source Such As A Wiki I Did Read". 4588:Interested parties are invited to comment. 4578:, re an uncomplimentary piece published in 2333:Yes, correct; except that I'm not sure the 1538:browsed and searched online at Google Books 1513: 642:sources, then reporting it is not neutral. 389:Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations 10985:document includes ominous statements like 8313:Except the book presented by WCM above is 7709: 3692:There is no obligation to notify anyone.-- 3363:the book. Please also read the discussion 2102:. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the 1606:sold unwanted animals to <dealer Y: --> 1257:which says (am copying what it says here): 1101: 907: 880: 10707:actual independent sources" assertion. -- 7457:1421: The Year China Discovered the World 6906:. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. 5400:can you use the source in another article 5316:It's really not – Boston's Green Line is 2225:"Our God is the God who named the stars," 1128: 1067: 1061: 941: 9762:Talk:Sukkot#Another_.22source.22_removed 9610:of acupuncture... what acupuncture will 9606:fringe are most of the claims about the 7920:tangentially) are completely irrelevant. 6392:can not be used a reference for anything 6286:can not be used a reference for anything 5346:could You possibly give me the exact URL 5298:, and I'm shocked by the footnote about 5122:3. What do they base their exclution of 4474:Famous Birthdays for birth info in a BLP 3416:board as this single source is probably 2215:"No evidence exists that Bush said that" 2124:So looks like this discussion is moot.-- 1497:Center for Public Integrity publications 1396:It is more likely that they will simply 1013: 979: 10241: 10224: 8887:This also takes up most of the lead at 8321:of the original book published in 2001 7662:Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). 7266:go back to the Holocaust denial example 6940: 6862: 6785: 6732: 6633: 6083:http://www.wafaward.org/#!patrons/c1ckh 4110:by Nishidani. As John Stuart Mill says 3786:) 14:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC) fix link 2631:Is the African Journal of Disability - 2572:International World Wide Web Conference 913: 886: 232:Please see discussion about sources on 14: 11136: 10302:Italic or bold markup not allowed in: 9041:third-party published reliable sources 7646:. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. 7576:Academic View of Argentine Revisionism 7018: 6979: 6901: 6851: 6836: 6824: 6809: 6797: 6749: 6717: 6669: 6645: 6618: 5414:talking about is something like this: 4802:One more in agreement with the Andys. 4574:There's some edit-warring going on at 2438:and should have been cited as such. -- 1612:covers one of many claims against the 1129:Fugleberg, Jeremy (January 21, 2012). 947: 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 11127: 11102: 10922:Source: Word document available from 10276: 9734:has been removed on the grounds that 9137:It is reliable for its own opinions, 8926:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories 8860:Although it calls itself a magazine, 8651:, a commercial version of the suite. 8065:it's because I sincerely believe you 7796:. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 50–. 7261:. There is no justification for that. 6249:Here is the section on the WP:RfC on 5903:- predating the forum going off-line? 5836: 5060:says. And, as was pointed out at the 4546:which reached the same conclusion. - 1019: 985: 11188: 11089: 10218: 9598:isn't Fringe. It is actually quite 8864:is now a website and the article is 8193: 7863: 7057: 6773: 6761: 6705: 6693: 6681: 6657: 6606: 6467:inspirations, in particular through 6435:(published by Spanish editing grpup 4918:- This two-paragraph piece is being 2412:being stated. Nonetheless, the claim 2110:, but at the very least reliable to 1817:is Bloomberg Business Week. So yes. 1020:Vidic, R.D.; et al. (May 17, 2013). 923:Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 29: 11111: 10270: 10235: 8991:, which it is illegally occupying." 8647:, an open-source office suite, and 7790:James P. Brennan (1 January 1998). 7277:paper-thin when it comes to history 6571:was just as clear: "Revisionism is 5976:This paragraph is proposed for the 5891:Spelling issues, e.g. "Wenzul" for 5112:, don't You see this as a problem ? 4715:et al), but nor do they remove it. 2382:as reliable as any other source. -- 2300:) are reliable primary sources for 2288:Editorial commentary, analysis and 2217:with the reference to "that" being 1808:, and it certainly was in 2010, see 1440:Although for me there was a bit of 1102:Lustgarten, Abrahm (July 3, 2013). 27: 10671:The "university website" contains 10572:piece (initially published by the 9656:Closing; thanks to all for input. 9578:issue rather than a WP:RS issue. 9177:What the Center says shouldn't be 9117:Center for Investigative Reporting 9111:Center for Investigative Reporting 8791:Knowledge:Verifiability, not truth 8226:Pacho O ́Donnell (18 April 2013). 7994:either in or outside Latin America 6577:either in or outside Latin America 6189:: The Prem Rawat related piece in 5872:Mozart Forum website is off-line: 5854:Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 5639:the inference is that you can say 5437:using the exact same source? Does 5280:, should we exclude them aswell ? 5135:what is and what isn't "a metro" ? 2828:All the sources already found for 2722:I'd appreciate comment on whether 28: 11235: 11179:from the City of Los Angeles for 10703:No editor here agrees with your " 10242:Schjoth, Corey (March 25, 2014). 9381:Talk:Acupuncture#Academic_centers 9083:and that some of the sources are 9075:. I removed them and provided an 8202:vetted by the scholarly community 6381:. Nothing has changed since, and 6193:doesn't just read like an ad, it 2889:Journal of Scientific Exploration 2080:, just to name two. Yes, it is a 1550:Association of Zoos and Aquariums 11175:in 2007. In 2006, he received a 9370: 7912:", except it was not. Ever. The 7850:and this diff cited in evidence 7553:. See my comment below please. 7253:" themes? Lecen is stating that 5164:List of metro systems' Talk page 5062:List of metro systems' Talk page 3476:That's not a helpful objection. 1285:so no, the news reports are not 992:Science of the Total Environment 571:Rabinowitz, P.M., et al. (2014) 33: 11197: 11080:, and care for the elderly and 10969:The document is available from 9881: 9870: 9859: 9389:Osher Medical Center at Harvard 8606:Hint: you're doing it wrong. -- 8206:well-regarded academic presses. 7732:Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). 7384:to be used in the Rosas article 7340:Guys, the problem here is that 6087: 6076: 6064: 6053: 6042: 5948:Appears to me to be an amateur 5795:Saint John the Baptist's Church 4434:Oh, I take everyone who raises 3132:Thank you, this was useful...-- 2933:should have picked up on that. 2894:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry 1000:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.093 901:10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.03.001 871:Environmental Protection Agency 801:? Knowledge is not intended as 11167:from Korean Veterans, and the 9698:The Punisher (1993 video game) 8787:Knowledge:No original research 7689:Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). 6007: 5064:, you are incorrect about the 3663:18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3635:18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3520:19:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3497:18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3472:16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3444:08:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3430:07:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3402:07:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3378:23:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 3335:21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 3317:21:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 2660:15:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 2645:13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 2366:17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 2329:12:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 2265:01:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 2248:00:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 2192:20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 2158:21:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 2134:19:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 2070:several individuals as editors 2055:19:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 2013:14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 1971:22:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 1956:21:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 1935:14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 1904:14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 1874:edited through full protection 1800:21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 1757:21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 1671:04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1645:21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 1607:, owner of <facility Z: --> 1593:19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 1578:18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 1562:18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 1462:16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 1411:04:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 1392:23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1377:23:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1322:23:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1300:22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1238:23:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1224:21:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 1204:21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 835:20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 821:18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 783:17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 764:17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 704:17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 689:17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 668:17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 647:07:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 638:however properly reflected in 620:07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 525:08:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 506:23:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 481:19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 464:18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 449:18:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 429:08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 420:in advance for taking a look. 275:21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 261:20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 246:18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 167:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 149:05:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 133:01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 13: 1: 9115:Is there anything that makes 8976:synopsis for the documentary 7668:. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. 7614:Monica Rein (11 March 1998). 7525:. I have to "prove" nothing, 6269:Argentine Revisionist authors 6240:Here is the relevant website 5841:. Mozartforum. Archived from 4880:News One and The Third Estate 4065:: would you allow the use of 3716:Knowledge:Consensus#FORUMSHOP 3453:Footnotes in Gaza: A Graphic 3206:Metropolitan Books. Article: 2627:African Journal of Disability 11225:04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 11207:, Councilmember 4th District 11040:18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 11009:08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 10983:Disclaimer/Conditions of Use 10912:09:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 10830:00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) 10810:03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) 10773:01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 10750:02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 10735:01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 10721:Show me a source which does 10717:00:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 10690:03:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 10667:03:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 10649:16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 10635:16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 10613:15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 10595:04:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 10560:18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 10546:17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 10511:16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 10473:02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 10451:18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 10434:17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 10408:17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 10386:16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 10371:11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 10357:23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC) 10342:22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC) 10208:In 1916 it was purchased by 10194:20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC) 10167:19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC) 10110:02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 10081:05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 10063:05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 10035:04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 10008:02:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 9982:15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 9959:04:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 9935:03:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 9919:03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 9849:17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 9796:20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 9774:20:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC) 9755:19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 9721:11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC) 9672:05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC) 9652:23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9631:15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9588:14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9569:08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9545:08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 9515:11:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9498:10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9478:08:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9465:08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 9438:08:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 9419:05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 9360:21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC) 9333:16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 9262:15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 9247:15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 9214:18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 9186:09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 9173:08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 9159:05:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 9132:03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC) 9106:23:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 9053:21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 9023:20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8978:"Follow the Yellowcake Road" 8958:20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8920:16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8901:16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8882:16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8821:09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8803:18:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 8769:15:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 8743:12:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 8720:03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 8702:22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8620:06:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC) 8576:22:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 8552:22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 8525:02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 8515:21:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 8433:22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8417:18:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8308:17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8165:16:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8133:15:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8119:15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 8053:14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7950:13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7900:12:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7779:10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7560:15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7517:14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7502:13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7477:13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7440:11:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7421:11:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7373:03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 7357:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability 6592:References and Bibliography: 6263:17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC) 6211:00:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 6174:00:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 6158:the UK parliament , and not 6128:23:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 6060:http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/ 5966:23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 5942:09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 5819:01:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 5449:the rabbit hole. Yes or no? 5358:00:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 4890:that I feel are unreliable. 3771:Egyptian "Mossad Shark" tale 2317:biography of a living person 1962:Template:Failed_verification 935:10.1080/10807039.2011.605662 7: 11177:Certificate of Appreciation 10962:, which were attributed to 10841:User:Drcarver/CoSign_by_ARX 10125:There's an odd case at the 9149:but no further than that.-- 8842:. Specifically it mentions 8643:used to have two products: 7692:Argentina: A Modern History 7433:, I sadly am not. Regards. 7327:19:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7234:17:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7219:17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7205:16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 7118:14:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 6454:14:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 6399:22:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 6372:01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 6073:in Westminster Hall, London 5997:11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 5927:13:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 5785:20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5768:17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5741:16:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5699:16:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5682:15:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5605:12:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5566:12:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5543:05:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5491:04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5459:03:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5338:03:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 5312:19:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5290:18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5251:18:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5208:14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5194:01:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 5176:15:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 5149:22:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5096:02:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5082:01:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 5047:00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 4994:17:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 4964:21:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4948:17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 4908:add such claims to the lede 4868:07:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4849:16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 4830:08:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4816:20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 4798:14:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 4769:12:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 4751:12:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 4725:17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4690:17:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4672:17:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4646:17:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4631:16:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4613:13:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4598:12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4556:03:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC) 4534:03:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 4516:23:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4496:23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4448:11:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4430:11:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4392:09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4373:09:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4335:04:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC) 4320:18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 4272:12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 4252:23:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 4234:09:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 4219:09:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 4197:07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 4163:21:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4125:14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4087:14:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 4055:18:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3960:16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3926:14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3904:19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3889:18:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3861:14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3816:14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3796:14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3757:10:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3729:12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3702:10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3688:01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3592:12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3570:10:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3202:Source: Sacco, Joe (2009). 3190:14:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 3172:22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 3142:22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 3126:20:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 3110:19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 3091:07:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 3059:13:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 3041:12:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 3025:20:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 2992:23:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2962:17:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2947:10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2872:10:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 2763:07:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC) 2706:07:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 2692:08:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 2674:06:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 2622:01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 2588:20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2557:20:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2542:19:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2528:17:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2513:11:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2490:11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2448:04:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) 2429:15:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 2392:02:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 2346:; that is, pieces from the 1850:17:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC) 1827:17:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 1724:15:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 1709:14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 1686:20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1503:Center for Public Integrity 1501:Are books published by the 1485:16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1428:04:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 1352:13:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 1273:(copying wht it says here): 551:14:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 373:13:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 349:03:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 303:03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 289:00:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 220:21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 198:19:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 175:18:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 10: 11240: 11169:Ambassador for Peace Award 10885:Cosign is used in...Africa 10287:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 10262:: CS1 maint: url-status ( 10153:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 9574:clinic. However, that's a 9368: 9292:http://common-phobias.com/ 7735:The Invention of Argentina 7172:20 history books published 6941:Johnson, Lyman L. (2004). 5382:Knowledge will eat itself? 3256:, Islamist militant group 3208:Rafah Massacre: References 2915:"peer reviewed literature" 2833:that's actually a form of 2117:And as an aside, there is 1082:10.1016/j.pedn.2011.07.012 563:Health effects of fracking 234:Talk:Ello (social network) 18:Knowledge:Reliable sources 11173:Republic of (South) Korea 11164:Meritorious Service Medal 11161:In 2009, he received the 8584:That would be great, but 8386:" to which i responded: " 8184:. In the case of books, 7815:Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas 7019:Nállim, Jorge A. (2012). 5630:Hmmm, extrapolating from 5100:1. No system in China is 4776:Are you now interpreting 3551:for some portions of the 3480:aren't the same thing as 3367:(ignore the first half). 3299:Discussion and preference 2464:Is ResearchGate reliable? 2198:contains the statements: 1255:Respect secondary sources 10973:, which appears to be a 10532:The proper question is " 10516:This is a wee bit of an 10479:Wendy Davis (politician) 8375:history books available. 8337:extremely broad movement 8323:indeed by Grupo Planeta. 8317:. What he showed is the 7620:. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. 7401:research and come up to 7380:is the O'Donnell book a 6902:Goebel, Michael (2011). 6114:http://issuu.com/vicemag 6071:http://www.wafaward.org/ 5220:. The three S-system in 4099:Not strictly related to 3650:Talk:Khan_Yunis_massacre 395:quote. The first was by 360:http://foodtimeline.org/ 107:Dates of birth/death at 10313:CS1 maint: url-status ( 10210:Robert Patterson Lamont 10176:do you wish to cite to 9925:it reached 10,000!) -- 8783:Knowledge:Verifiability 7695:. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. 7640:Michael Goebel (2011). 6980:Miller, Nicola (1999). 6863:Chamosa, Oscar (2010). 4032:in order to maintain a 1041:10.1126/science.1235009 578:DOI:10.1289/ehp.1307732 576:Environ Health Perspect 11213: 11155: 10901: 10887: 10873: 10859: 10848:Legal IT Professionals 10214: 10138:, Bill Wundram of the 9838: 9726:Sukkot section removed 9445:less of a big deal -- 8678: 8672:of 15 April 2011 that: 8222:Looking at O'Donnell: 7837:reasons in support of 7793:Peronism and Argentina 5874:http://mozartforum.com 5117:membership association 4897:- It does not seem to 4354:Should this source be 3992: 3982: 3624: 3355:. Here is the Haaretz 3345:Henry Holt and Company 2296:) or outside authors ( 1960:I mean precisely this 948:Saberi, Pouné (2013). 337: 11203:City of Los Angeles, 11159: 11147:Olivia de Haulleville 11058: 10940:I have just reverted 10897: 10883: 10877:EngineeringNews.co.za 10869: 10854: 10835:Cosign by ARX sources 10206: 9815: 9742:Author Elon Gilad 8814:Not a reliable source 8726:self-published source 8674: 7349:policy interpretation 7186:Distinguished Citizen 7184:"Cuidadano Ilustre" ( 6404:There is currently a 6313:Raúl Scalabrini Ortiz 6308:Tulio Halperín Donghi 6242:for that organization 6106:self-published source 5950:self-published source 5296:List of Metro systems 5110:List of Metro systems 5028:aswell as S-train in 5010:List of Metro systems 3988: 3978: 3745:keep the Sacco source 3619: 3014:scientific literature 2755:Justlettersandnumbers 2599:Gamergate controversy 2593:Sourcing COI question 2119:this, published today 1864:Weekly Standard redux 1542:Species Survival Plan 986:Eaton, T. T. (2013). 630:. If there truly are 498:A Quest For Knowledge 469:A Quest For Knowledge 441:A Quest For Knowledge 385:this previous version 333: 227:Ello (social network) 225:Criticism section of 46:of past discussions. 10619:to her autobiography 10277:Lewis, Chad (2014). 9013:. Don't you agree?-- 8849:"On 6 January 2014, 8833:Rössing uranium mine 8670:Oracle press release 7449:Comment on content, 7344:(see header above). 7058:Rock, David (1995). 6565:plainly invent stuff 6518:Juan Manuel de Rosas 6445:Juan Manuel de Rosas 6410:Juan Manuel de Rosas 6275:Juan Manuel de Rosas 6201:of the publication. 6112:published on Issuu: 5807:within the reference 5632:WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT 5583:WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT 5527:this particular case 5216:but not for general 5003:http://www.uitp.org/ 4977:The Devil's Advocate 4931:The Devil's Advocate 4887:Zeitgeist: The Movie 4179:Ridenhour Book Prize 3998:The Battle for Peace 3484:. From our article: 3286:The Ridenhour Prizes 3218:Points against usage 3152:Quantum field theory 1514:Green, Alan (1999). 10995:after 1 working day 10960:HMAS Southern Cross 10929:HMAS Southern Cross 9711:Thanks in advance. 9690:Is this article at 9073:controversy section 8789:(a pity, IMO). See 7710:David Rock (1993). 7539:your own conclusion 6984:. New York: Verso. 6660:, pp. 104–105, 119. 6406:discussion going on 6229:. The question is: 6108:. So, for example, 5525:Important note: in 5508:article but not in 4920:used to back claims 4757:questionable source 4542:which can be found 3973:Haj Amin al-Husayni 3646:Talk:Rafah_massacre 3553:Khan Yunis massacre 3353:Khan Yunis massacre 2633:http://www.ajod.org 2229:If the material is 2108:questionable source 2037:The Weekly Standard 2028:which reports news. 2024:opposed to say the 2021:The Weekly Standard 1922:failed verification 1918:Neil deGrasse Tyson 1626:source: pages 48–49 1622:source: pages 45–47 1135:Casper Star Tribune 994:. 461–462: 158–69. 722:at Project Medicine 265:What ^ they said.-- 10975:Northern Territory 10518:oversimplification 10390:Are you asking if 10174:what specific text 10144:and Chad Lewis of 9621:on the recipient. 9614:for the recipient. 9139:but I think given 8682:Oracle Open Office 8649:Oracle Open Office 8588:particular sources 7453:on the contributor 6443:to be used in the 6333:es:Pacho O'Donnell 6251:publicizing an RfC 5906:prior discussion: 5554:can usually help. 5055:this stance – the 4696:If you think that 3156:General relativity 2848:Category:Landraces 2742:or, alternatively, 1878:another discussion 1518:. Public Affairs. 1446:reliable secondary 1194:(emphasis added.) 732:) that WP content 412:The second was by 10958:) to the article 10460:of these sources. 10040:Secondary concern 9670: 9650: 9567: 9496: 9463: 9429:it and use them. 9424: 9417: 9299:Siderodromophobia 9151:RightCowLeftCoast 9007:Lockerbie bombing 8870:Patrick Haseldine 8844:Pan Am Flight 103 8839:The edit is here: 8829:Patrick Haseldine 8690:Apache Foundation 8629:{{Request close}} 8618: 8550: 8448:. The onus is on 8266:particular time. 8238:978-987-04-2863-3 8214: 8213: 7878: 7877: 7802:978-0-8420-2706-9 7744:978-0-520-91385-1 7722:978-0-520-91724-8 7701:978-1-84885-654-7 7674:978-0-271-06410-9 7652:978-1-84631-238-0 7626:978-0-7656-4000-0 7543:your own analysis 7371: 7301:and came to the ( 7168:Editorial Planeta 7100: 7099: 6873:978-0-8165-2847-9 6584: 6583: 6549:Hernández Arregui 6408:in the TP of the 6370: 6288:in that article: 6030:Missing or empty 5845:on 8 August 2007. 5697: 5600:E L A Q U E A T E 5564: 5489: 5262:Metropolitan Line 4680:on article talk. 4293:Waltz with Bashir 4240:Waltz with Bashir 4175:Footnotes in Gaza 3877:WP:ARBPIA#Decorum 3776:WP:ARBPIA#Decorum 3503:statement of fact 3492:E L A Q U E A T E 3390:Waltz with Bashir 3204:Footnotes in Gaza 2908:WP:RSN discussion 2850:on this article. 2126:RightCowLeftCoast 1842:RightCowLeftCoast 1776:Pakistani Taliban 1588:E L A Q U E A T E 1222: 966:10.2190/NS.23.1.m 819: 476:E L A Q U E A T E 218: 196: 104: 103: 58: 57: 52:current main page 11231: 11208: 11201: 11195: 11192: 11150: 11140: 11134: 11131: 11125: 11115: 11109: 11106: 11100: 11093: 11082:dependent adults 10979:reliable sources 10770: 10768:Let's discuss it 10746: 10713: 10702: 10663: 10609: 10556: 10507: 10319: 10318: 10311: 10305: 10300: 10298: 10290: 10283:Wisconsin Trails 10274: 10268: 10267: 10261: 10253: 10239: 10233: 10232: 10222: 10147:Wisconsin Trails 9890: 9885: 9879: 9874: 9868: 9863: 9660: 9640: 9608:medical benefits 9557: 9486: 9453: 9422: 9407: 9383:(stable version 9374: 9373: 9321:Category:Phobias 9179:asserted as fact 9104: 9102: 9094: 8868:. The author is 8765: 8762: 8759: 8635:smoothblog.co.uk 8631: 8630: 8612: 8569: 8544: 8512: 8444:is by default a 8414: 8301: 8242: 8194: 8162: 8116: 8090:exchanged emails 8022:-- they plainly 7947: 7893: 7864: 7806: 7772: 7748: 7726: 7705: 7678: 7656: 7630: 7557: 7499: 7437: 7418: 7365: 7324: 7202: 7130:Holocaust denial 7106:Holocaust denial 7093: 7087: 7082: 7080: 7072: 7054: 7048: 7043: 7041: 7033: 7015: 7009: 7004: 7002: 6994: 6976: 6970: 6965: 6963: 6955: 6937: 6931: 6926: 6924: 6916: 6898: 6892: 6887: 6885: 6877: 6855: 6849: 6840: 6834: 6828: 6822: 6813: 6807: 6801: 6795: 6789: 6783: 6777: 6771: 6765: 6759: 6753: 6747: 6736: 6730: 6721: 6715: 6709: 6703: 6697: 6691: 6685: 6679: 6673: 6667: 6661: 6655: 6649: 6643: 6637: 6631: 6622: 6616: 6610: 6604: 6588: 6587: 6481: 6480: 6451: 6364: 6318:Carlos Ibarguren 6303:Rodolfo Irazusta 6096: 6091: 6085: 6080: 6074: 6068: 6062: 6057: 6051: 6046: 6040: 6039: 6033: 6028: 6026: 6018: 6011: 5919:Francis Schonken 5846: 5695: 5691: 5650: 5642: 5637: 5602: 5601: 5562: 5558: 5487: 5483: 5474: 5468: 5431:Henichesk Strait 5421: 4990: 4985: 4979: 4970:LinkedIn profile 4944: 4939: 4933: 4895:The Third Estate 4486:in her article? 4402: 4347: 4282: 4208: 4149: 4139: 4098: 4067:Congo: A History 4034:WP:Systemic bias 4006:Meron Benvenisti 3937: 3871: 3841:embellishments." 3768: 3673: 3580: 3545:What is History? 3542: 3494: 3493: 3359:of and Guardian 3134:Christophe Krief 3083:Christophe Krief 2870: 2839:WP:WIKILAWYERING 2770:Talk:Arapawa pig 2698:Roger (Dodger67) 2666:Roger (Dodger67) 2637:Roger (Dodger67) 2614: 2478:Jeremy Blackburn 2476:. The author is 2474:Valve Anti-Cheat 2262: 2257: 2219:"then-President 2174:Michael Grunwald 2155: 2150: 2144: 1983:editorial review 1968: 1953: 1948: 1932: 1901: 1896: 1691:Ambedkar dot org 1660: 1599:exotic pet trade 1590: 1589: 1546:Captive breeding 1528: 1473: 1269:please also see 1220: 1216: 1146: 1145: 1143: 1141: 1126: 1120: 1119: 1117: 1115: 1099: 1093: 1092: 1065: 1059: 1058: 1056: 1054: 1035:(1235009): 826. 1026: 1017: 1011: 1010: 983: 977: 976: 974: 972: 945: 939: 938: 929:(5): 1039–1056. 920: 911: 905: 904: 889:Resources Policy 884: 817: 813: 716:this is kind of 539: 522: 491: 478: 477: 461: 426: 215: 210: 208: 193: 188: 186: 158:see this article 147: 125: 122: 119: 82: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 11239: 11238: 11234: 11233: 11232: 11230: 11229: 11228: 11212: 11211: 11202: 11198: 11193: 11189: 11154: 11153: 11141: 11137: 11132: 11128: 11116: 11112: 11107: 11103: 11094: 11090: 11060:He directs the 11052:The article on 11050: 10942:these two edits 10919: 10837: 10832: 10818: 10766: 10744: 10711: 10696: 10661: 10607: 10554: 10505: 10482: 10426:Littleolive oil 10323: 10322: 10312: 10303: 10301: 10292: 10291: 10275: 10271: 10255: 10254: 10249:Huffington Post 10240: 10236: 10228:Quad-City Times 10223: 10219: 10141:Quad-City Times 10135:Huffington Post 10123: 10042: 10022: 9900: 9895: 9894: 9893: 9886: 9882: 9875: 9871: 9864: 9860: 9728: 9688: 9395:not to mention 9377: 9376: 9371: 9367: 9343: 9254:Dominus Vobisdu 9221: 9198: 9196:Ebola page move 9113: 9098: 9090: 9088: 9069: 8973:World In Action 8837: 8763: 8760: 8757: 8639:As background, 8637: 8628: 8627: 8603:are identified. 8593: 8589: 8574: 8559: 8510: 8412: 8319:2013 re-edition 8306: 8291: 8246:Pacho O'Donnell 8239: 8160: 8114: 7945: 7898: 7883: 7803: 7777: 7762: 7745: 7723: 7702: 7675: 7653: 7627: 7578: 7555: 7497: 7435: 7416: 7322: 7200: 7190:of the City of 7152:. Relevant to " 7134:" Also O.O wow. 7101: 7096: 7085: 7083: 7074: 7073: 7069: 7046: 7044: 7035: 7034: 7030: 7007: 7005: 6996: 6995: 6991: 6968: 6966: 6957: 6956: 6952: 6929: 6927: 6918: 6917: 6913: 6890: 6888: 6879: 6878: 6874: 6858: 6850: 6843: 6835: 6831: 6823: 6816: 6808: 6804: 6796: 6792: 6784: 6780: 6772: 6768: 6760: 6756: 6748: 6739: 6731: 6724: 6716: 6712: 6704: 6700: 6692: 6688: 6684:, pp. 103, 106. 6680: 6676: 6668: 6664: 6656: 6652: 6644: 6640: 6632: 6625: 6617: 6613: 6605: 6601: 6593: 6585: 6545:José María Rosa 6486: 6469:José Maria Rosa 6461:Pacho O'Donnell 6449: 6433:Pacho O'Donnell 6323:José María Rosa 6273:In the article 6271: 6223: 6199:June 14th issue 6101: 6100: 6099: 6092: 6088: 6081: 6077: 6069: 6065: 6058: 6054: 6047: 6043: 6031: 6029: 6020: 6019: 6013: 6012: 6008: 5974: 5837:Pajot, Dennis. 5829: 5731:hypotheticals. 5693: 5644: 5640: 5635: 5599: 5597: 5560: 5485: 5472: 5466: 5429:to my article ( 5418: 5384: 5238:all metro lines 5222:Berlin, Hamburg 5053:Strongly oppose 5006: 4992: 4988: 4983: 4975: 4946: 4942: 4937: 4929: 4899:have been added 4882: 4804:Vice (magazine) 4576:Isha Foundation 4572: 4565:Isha Foundation 4484:Veronica Taylor 4476: 4422:MarciulionisHOF 4396: 4365:MarciulionisHOF 4341: 4312:MarciulionisHOF 4276: 4244:MarciulionisHOF 4211:MarciulionisHOF 4202: 4155:MarciulionisHOF 4143: 4133: 4092: 4022:their suffering 3931: 3881:MarciulionisHOF 3865: 3788:MarciulionisHOF 3780:MarciulionisHOF 3762: 3680:MarciulionisHOF 3667: 3574: 3536: 3491: 3489: 3394:MarciulionisHOF 3309:MarciulionisHOF 3301: 3273: 3271:Points in favor 3220: 3200: 3067: 3051:Dominus Vobisdu 2881: 2868: 2851: 2720: 2629: 2612: 2595: 2466: 2380:Weekly Standard 2376:Weekly Standard 2372:Weekly Standard 2357:Washington Post 2348:Weekly Standard 2335:Weekly Standard 2260: 2255: 2182:Weekly Standard 2166:Weekly Standard 2153: 2148: 2141:The Four Deuces 2138: 2104:Weekly Standard 2093:Huffington Post 2074:William Kristol 2066:Weekly Standard 1966: 1951: 1946: 1930: 1899: 1894: 1866: 1806:icasualties.org 1732: 1730:icasualties.org 1693: 1654: 1618:Animal Exchange 1587: 1585: 1525: 1499: 1469: 1218: 1150: 1149: 1139: 1137: 1127: 1123: 1113: 1111: 1100: 1096: 1066: 1062: 1052: 1050: 1024: 1018: 1014: 984: 980: 970: 968: 946: 942: 918: 912: 908: 885: 881: 815: 805:, and there is 565: 533: 518: 485: 475: 473: 459: 422: 381: 356: 230: 217: 213: 206: 195: 191: 184: 143: 123: 120: 117: 112: 109:Michelle Thomas 78: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 11237: 11210: 11209: 11196: 11186: 11185: 11152: 11151: 11135: 11126: 11122:Paul M. Fleiss 11110: 11101: 11087: 11086: 11049: 11044: 11043: 11042: 11026: 11025: 10938: 10937: 10931: 10925: 10918: 10915: 10891:DataManager.IT 10836: 10833: 10819: 10817: 10814: 10813: 10812: 10796: 10795: 10794: 10793: 10792: 10791: 10790: 10789: 10788: 10787: 10786: 10785: 10784: 10783: 10782: 10781: 10780: 10779: 10778: 10777: 10776: 10775: 10669: 10615: 10598: 10597: 10575:New York Times 10565: 10564: 10563: 10562: 10530: 10499: 10498: 10493: 10481: 10476: 10454: 10453: 10421: 10420: 10419: 10418: 10417: 10416: 10415: 10414: 10413: 10412: 10411: 10410: 10324: 10321: 10320: 10269: 10234: 10216: 10215: 10205: 10204: 10203: 10202: 10201: 10122: 10119: 10117: 10115: 10114: 10113: 10112: 10094: 10093: 10092: 10091: 10084: 10083: 10051:Interpretermag 10041: 10038: 10021: 10018: 10017: 10016: 10015: 10014: 10013: 10012: 10011: 10010: 9989: 9988: 9987: 9986: 9985: 9984: 9964: 9963: 9962: 9961: 9938: 9937: 9899: 9896: 9892: 9891: 9880: 9869: 9857: 9856: 9852: 9814: 9813: 9812: 9811: 9810: 9809: 9801: 9800: 9799: 9798: 9777: 9776: 9745:Article Sukkot 9741: 9727: 9724: 9709: 9708: 9705: 9687: 9684: 9683: 9682: 9681: 9680: 9679: 9678: 9677: 9676: 9675: 9674: 9619:placebo effect 9615: 9592: 9591: 9590: 9580:TenOfAllTrades 9525: 9524: 9523: 9522: 9521: 9520: 9519: 9518: 9517: 9369: 9366: 9363: 9342: 9337: 9336: 9335: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9308: 9295: 9288:Common Phobias 9285: 9284:Again, not RS. 9278: 9265: 9264: 9220: 9217: 9197: 9194: 9193: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9145:biased sources 9112: 9109: 9068: 9066:Walter O'Brien 9063: 9062: 9061: 9060: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9030: 9029: 9028: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9011:Bernt Carlsson 8994: 8993: 8992: 8963: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8922: 8904: 8903: 8889:Bernt Carlsson 8836: 8825: 8824: 8823: 8810: 8809: 8808: 8807: 8806: 8805: 8774: 8773: 8772: 8771: 8748: 8747: 8746: 8745: 8712:Walter Görlitz 8708: 8645:OpenOffice.org 8636: 8633: 8625: 8624: 8623: 8622: 8604: 8591: 8587: 8579: 8578: 8570: 8532: 8531: 8530: 8529: 8528: 8527: 8505: 8502:any more clear 8498: 8497: 8496: 8420: 8419: 8376: 8354: 8347: 8340: 8333: 8302: 8237: 8217:Emphasis added 8212: 8211: 8208: 8198: 8191: 8178: 8177: 8176: 8175: 8174: 8173: 8172: 8171: 8170: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8097: 8086: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8033: 8032: 8031: 8006: 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 7980: 7979: 7978: 7977: 7976: 7975: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7921: 7903: 7902: 7894: 7876: 7875: 7872: 7868: 7861: 7859: 7858: 7843: 7842: 7810: 7809: 7801: 7786: 7785: 7784:Other sources. 7773: 7743: 7721: 7700: 7673: 7651: 7625: 7577: 7574: 7573: 7572: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7387: 7338: 7337: 7336: 7335: 7334: 7333: 7332: 7331: 7330: 7329: 7287: 7280: 7273: 7268:", go back to 7262: 7247: 7163: 7162: 7142: 7135: 7121: 7120: 7098: 7097: 7095: 7094: 7067: 7055: 7028: 7016: 6989: 6977: 6950: 6938: 6911: 6899: 6872: 6859: 6857: 6856: 6841: 6829: 6814: 6802: 6790: 6778: 6766: 6754: 6737: 6722: 6710: 6698: 6686: 6674: 6662: 6650: 6638: 6636:, pp. 40, 118. 6623: 6611: 6598: 6595: 6594: 6591: 6586: 6582: 6581: 6555:and above all 6488: 6487: 6484: 6479: 6478: 6477: 6402: 6401: 6341: 6340: 6335: 6330: 6325: 6320: 6315: 6310: 6305: 6300: 6298:Julio Irazusta 6295: 6293:Adolfo Saldías 6270: 6267: 6266: 6265: 6246: 6245: 6237: 6236: 6222: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6176: 6142: 6131: 6130: 6116: 6098: 6097: 6086: 6075: 6063: 6052: 6041: 6005: 6004: 6000: 5973: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5953: 5945: 5944: 5915: 5914: 5904: 5898: 5895: 5889: 5879: 5876: 5869: 5868: 5856: 5847: 5828: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5788: 5787: 5771: 5770: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5709: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5651: 5619: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5423: 5422: 5383: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5326:street running 5266:London Orbital 5253: 5234: 5229: 5136: 5120: 5113: 5084: 5066:Hamburg S-Bahn 5005: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4981: 4935: 4925: 4924: 4912: 4911: 4881: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4774: 4771: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4709: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4636:been bad too. 4571: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4518: 4475: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4409: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4352: 4308: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4289: 4286: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4151: 4141: 4128: 4127: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4025: 4009: 3993: 3986: 3983: 3976: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3818: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3690: 3638: 3637: 3616: 3615: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3478:Graphic novels 3449:Remove content 3446: 3432: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3387: 3349:Rafah massacre 3338: 3337: 3319: 3305:Remove content 3300: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3282: 3279: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3261: 3251: 3247: 3241: 3236: 3231: 3226: 3219: 3216: 3199: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3177:Stephan Schulz 3174: 3164:Stephan Schulz 3145: 3144: 3129: 3128: 3113: 3112: 3066: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3043: 3033:Stephan Schulz 3029: 3028: 3027: 3017: 3006: 3002: 2995: 2994: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2965: 2964: 2880: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2866: 2844: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2797:breed standard 2793: 2789: 2785: 2751: 2750: 2743: 2719: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2628: 2625: 2594: 2591: 2570:" in the 2012 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2515: 2465: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2353:New York Times 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2290:opinion pieces 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2268: 2267: 2221:George W. Bush 2207: 2206: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2136: 2122: 2115: 2062: 2044: 2040: 2033:Kennedy Update 2029: 2026:New York Times 2016: 2015: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1865: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1692: 1689: 1675: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1629: 1530: 1529: 1523: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1274: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1258: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1192: 1191: 1186: 1178: 1148: 1147: 1121: 1094: 1070:J Pediatr Nurs 1060: 1012: 978: 960:(1): 209–221. 940: 906: 895:(3): 233–240. 878: 877: 876: 875: 866: 860: 854: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 767: 766: 718:forum shopping 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 672:We should use 657: 656: 655: 595: 594: 590: 587: 582: 579: 569: 564: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 452: 451: 393:George W. Bush 380: 377: 376: 375: 355: 352: 316: 315: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 229: 223: 211: 201: 200: 189: 178: 177: 152: 151: 111: 105: 102: 101: 96: 93: 88: 83: 76: 71: 66: 56: 55: 38: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 11236: 11227: 11226: 11222: 11218: 11206: 11200: 11191: 11187: 11184: 11182: 11178: 11174: 11170: 11166: 11165: 11158: 11148: 11144: 11139: 11130: 11123: 11119: 11114: 11105: 11098: 11092: 11088: 11085: 11083: 11079: 11076:, California 11075: 11071: 11067: 11066:Aldous Huxley 11063: 11057: 11055: 11048: 11041: 11037: 11033: 11028: 11027: 11023: 11020: 11016: 11013: 11012: 11011: 11010: 11007: 11002: 10998: 10996: 10992: 10988: 10984: 10980: 10976: 10972: 10967: 10965: 10964:this document 10961: 10957: 10954: 10951: 10947: 10943: 10936: 10933:Content: See 10932: 10930: 10926: 10924: 10921: 10920: 10914: 10913: 10909: 10905: 10900: 10896: 10893: 10892: 10886: 10882: 10879: 10878: 10872: 10868: 10865: 10864: 10858: 10853: 10850: 10849: 10844: 10842: 10831: 10827: 10823: 10811: 10807: 10803: 10798: 10797: 10774: 10771: 10769: 10764: 10763: 10757: 10756: 10755: 10754: 10753: 10752: 10751: 10748: 10747: 10738: 10737: 10736: 10732: 10728: 10724: 10720: 10719: 10718: 10715: 10714: 10706: 10700: 10695: 10694: 10693: 10692: 10691: 10687: 10683: 10679: 10674: 10670: 10668: 10665: 10664: 10656: 10652: 10651: 10650: 10646: 10642: 10638: 10637: 10636: 10632: 10628: 10624: 10620: 10616: 10614: 10611: 10610: 10602: 10601: 10600: 10599: 10596: 10593: 10592: 10587: 10583: 10582: 10577: 10576: 10571: 10570:Texas Tribune 10567: 10566: 10561: 10558: 10557: 10549: 10548: 10547: 10543: 10539: 10535: 10531: 10527: 10523: 10519: 10515: 10514: 10513: 10512: 10509: 10508: 10497: 10494: 10492: 10491:Texas Tribune 10489: 10488: 10487: 10486: 10480: 10475: 10474: 10470: 10466: 10462: 10459: 10452: 10448: 10444: 10439: 10438: 10437: 10435: 10431: 10427: 10409: 10405: 10401: 10397: 10393: 10389: 10388: 10387: 10383: 10379: 10374: 10373: 10372: 10368: 10364: 10360: 10359: 10358: 10354: 10350: 10345: 10344: 10343: 10339: 10335: 10331: 10328: 10327: 10326: 10325: 10316: 10309: 10296: 10288: 10284: 10280: 10273: 10265: 10259: 10251: 10250: 10245: 10238: 10230: 10229: 10221: 10217: 10213: 10211: 10200: 10197: 10196: 10195: 10191: 10187: 10183: 10179: 10175: 10171: 10170: 10169: 10168: 10164: 10160: 10155: 10154: 10149: 10148: 10143: 10142: 10137: 10136: 10130: 10128: 10118: 10111: 10107: 10103: 10098: 10097: 10096: 10095: 10088: 10087: 10086: 10085: 10082: 10079: 10075: 10070: 10067: 10066: 10065: 10064: 10060: 10056: 10052: 10048: 10037: 10036: 10032: 10028: 10009: 10005: 10001: 9997: 9996: 9995: 9994: 9993: 9992: 9991: 9990: 9983: 9979: 9975: 9970: 9969: 9968: 9967: 9966: 9965: 9960: 9956: 9952: 9947: 9942: 9941: 9940: 9939: 9936: 9932: 9928: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9920: 9916: 9912: 9909: 9905: 9889: 9884: 9878: 9873: 9867: 9862: 9858: 9855: 9851: 9850: 9846: 9842: 9837: 9835: 9829: 9827: 9822: 9819: 9807: 9806: 9805: 9804: 9803: 9802: 9797: 9793: 9789: 9788:Choor monster 9785: 9781: 9780: 9779: 9778: 9775: 9771: 9767: 9763: 9759: 9758: 9757: 9756: 9752: 9748: 9743: 9739: 9735: 9733: 9723: 9722: 9718: 9714: 9706: 9703: 9702: 9701: 9699: 9695: 9693: 9673: 9668: 9664: 9659: 9655: 9654: 9653: 9648: 9644: 9639: 9634: 9633: 9632: 9628: 9624: 9620: 9616: 9613: 9609: 9605: 9601: 9597: 9593: 9589: 9585: 9581: 9577: 9572: 9571: 9570: 9565: 9561: 9556: 9552: 9548: 9547: 9546: 9542: 9538: 9534: 9530: 9526: 9516: 9513: 9509: 9505: 9501: 9500: 9499: 9494: 9490: 9485: 9481: 9480: 9479: 9476: 9472: 9468: 9467: 9466: 9461: 9457: 9452: 9448: 9443: 9442: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9436: 9432: 9427: 9426: 9425: 9420: 9415: 9411: 9406: 9402: 9398: 9394: 9393:WP:SELFSOURCE 9390: 9386: 9382: 9362: 9361: 9357: 9353: 9348: 9341: 9334: 9330: 9326: 9322: 9317: 9316: 9309: 9306: 9303: 9300: 9296: 9293: 9289: 9286: 9283: 9279: 9276: 9273: 9270: 9269: 9267: 9266: 9263: 9259: 9255: 9251: 9250: 9249: 9248: 9244: 9240: 9236: 9232: 9229: 9226: 9216: 9215: 9211: 9207: 9203: 9187: 9184: 9180: 9176: 9175: 9174: 9170: 9166: 9162: 9161: 9160: 9156: 9152: 9148: 9146: 9142: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9133: 9129: 9125: 9121: 9118: 9108: 9107: 9103: 9101: 9095: 9093: 9086: 9082: 9078: 9074: 9067: 9054: 9050: 9046: 9042: 9038: 9037: 9036: 9035: 9034: 9033: 9032: 9031: 9024: 9020: 9016: 9012: 9008: 9004: 9001: 9000: 8999:The Ecologist 8995: 8990: 8986: 8982: 8981: 8979: 8975: 8974: 8969: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8964: 8959: 8955: 8951: 8947: 8944: 8941: 8938: 8935: 8931: 8927: 8923: 8921: 8917: 8913: 8910:that matter. 8908: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8902: 8898: 8894: 8890: 8886: 8885: 8884: 8883: 8879: 8875: 8871: 8867: 8863: 8862:The Ecologist 8858: 8855: 8852: 8851:The Ecologist 8847: 8845: 8841: 8834: 8830: 8822: 8819: 8815: 8812: 8811: 8804: 8800: 8796: 8792: 8788: 8784: 8780: 8779: 8778: 8777: 8776: 8775: 8770: 8767: 8766: 8752: 8751: 8750: 8749: 8744: 8740: 8736: 8731: 8727: 8723: 8722: 8721: 8717: 8713: 8709: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8703: 8699: 8695: 8691: 8687: 8683: 8677: 8673: 8671: 8666: 8664: 8660: 8656: 8652: 8650: 8646: 8642: 8632: 8621: 8616: 8611: 8610: 8605: 8602: 8599: 8595: 8590:are reliable 8583: 8582: 8581: 8580: 8577: 8573: 8568: 8565: 8562: 8556: 8555: 8554: 8553: 8548: 8543: 8542: 8537: 8526: 8523: 8518: 8517: 8516: 8513: 8506: 8503: 8499: 8495: 8493: 8489: 8484: 8483: 8481: 8476: 8472: 8468: 8464: 8460: 8455: 8451: 8447: 8443: 8439: 8438: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8430: 8426: 8418: 8415: 8409: 8408: 8404: 8397: 8393: 8391: 8385: 8381: 8377: 8374: 8371: 8367: 8363: 8359: 8355: 8352: 8348: 8345: 8341: 8338: 8334: 8332: 8330: 8328: 8326: 8324: 8320: 8316: 8312: 8311: 8310: 8309: 8305: 8300: 8297: 8294: 8287: 8285: 8282: 8281: 8276: 8272: 8267: 8263: 8261: 8257: 8252: 8249: 8247: 8243: 8240: 8235: 8231: 8230: 8223: 8220: 8218: 8209: 8207: 8203: 8199: 8196: 8195: 8192: 8189: 8187: 8183: 8166: 8163: 8156: 8152: 8148: 8144: 8140: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8130: 8126: 8122: 8121: 8120: 8117: 8111: 8107: 8102: 8098: 8095: 8091: 8087: 8084: 8080: 8076: 8072: 8068: 8064: 8060: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8050: 8046: 8042: 8041: 8040: 8039: 8038: 8037: 8029: 8025: 8021: 8020:least serious 8016: 8012: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 7999: 7995: 7991: 7986: 7985: 7984: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7973: 7971: 7967: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7951: 7948: 7942: 7938: 7934: 7930: 7926: 7922: 7919: 7915: 7911: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7901: 7897: 7892: 7889: 7886: 7880: 7879: 7873: 7869: 7866: 7865: 7862: 7856: 7852: 7849: 7845: 7844: 7840: 7836: 7832: 7828: 7824: 7820: 7816: 7812: 7811: 7804: 7799: 7795: 7794: 7788: 7787: 7783: 7782: 7781: 7780: 7776: 7771: 7768: 7765: 7760: 7754: 7750: 7746: 7741: 7737: 7736: 7729: 7724: 7719: 7715: 7714: 7707: 7703: 7698: 7694: 7693: 7686: 7683: 7676: 7671: 7667: 7666: 7659: 7654: 7649: 7645: 7644: 7637: 7635: 7628: 7623: 7619: 7618: 7611: 7608: 7603: 7602:for example. 7601: 7598: 7595: 7592: 7589: 7586: 7582: 7561: 7558: 7552: 7548: 7544: 7540: 7536: 7532: 7528: 7524: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7514: 7510: 7505: 7504: 7503: 7500: 7494: 7490: 7488: 7486: 7483: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7474: 7470: 7466: 7462: 7461:Gavin Menzies 7458: 7454: 7452: 7446: 7443: 7442: 7441: 7438: 7432: 7428: 7424: 7423: 7422: 7419: 7413: 7409: 7404: 7400: 7396: 7392: 7388: 7385: 7383: 7377: 7376: 7375: 7374: 7369: 7364: 7363: 7358: 7354: 7350: 7345: 7343: 7328: 7325: 7319: 7317: 7315: 7312: 7308: 7304: 7300: 7296: 7292: 7288: 7285: 7281: 7278: 7274: 7271: 7267: 7263: 7260: 7256: 7252: 7248: 7245: 7241: 7237: 7236: 7235: 7231: 7227: 7222: 7221: 7220: 7217: 7213: 7212:Bill O'Reilly 7208: 7207: 7206: 7203: 7197: 7193: 7189: 7187: 7181: 7177: 7173: 7169: 7165: 7164: 7161: 7159: 7155: 7151: 7147: 7143: 7140: 7136: 7133: 7131: 7125: 7124: 7123: 7122: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7107: 7103: 7102: 7091: 7078: 7070: 7068:0-520-20352-6 7065: 7061: 7056: 7052: 7039: 7031: 7029:9780822962038 7026: 7022: 7017: 7013: 7000: 6992: 6990:1-85984-738-2 6987: 6983: 6978: 6974: 6961: 6953: 6951:0-8263-3200-5 6948: 6944: 6939: 6935: 6922: 6914: 6912:9781846312380 6909: 6905: 6900: 6896: 6883: 6875: 6870: 6866: 6861: 6860: 6853: 6848: 6846: 6838: 6833: 6826: 6821: 6819: 6811: 6806: 6799: 6794: 6787: 6782: 6775: 6770: 6763: 6758: 6751: 6746: 6744: 6742: 6734: 6729: 6727: 6719: 6714: 6707: 6702: 6695: 6690: 6683: 6678: 6671: 6666: 6659: 6654: 6647: 6642: 6635: 6630: 6628: 6620: 6615: 6608: 6603: 6599: 6597: 6596: 6590: 6589: 6580: 6578: 6574: 6570: 6566: 6562: 6558: 6554: 6550: 6546: 6542: 6537: 6535: 6534:nacionalistas 6530: 6528: 6527:nacionalistas 6522: 6519: 6513: 6511: 6507: 6503: 6500:, racist and 6499: 6495: 6490: 6489: 6483: 6482: 6476: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6452: 6446: 6442: 6438: 6434: 6430: 6426: 6424: 6422: 6419: 6415: 6411: 6407: 6400: 6397: 6393: 6389: 6384: 6380: 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6368: 6363: 6362: 6356: 6352: 6350: 6348: 6344: 6343:...etc, etc. 6339: 6336: 6334: 6331: 6329: 6326: 6324: 6321: 6319: 6316: 6314: 6311: 6309: 6306: 6304: 6301: 6299: 6296: 6294: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6287: 6282: 6280: 6276: 6264: 6260: 6256: 6252: 6248: 6247: 6243: 6239: 6238: 6235: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6228: 6212: 6208: 6204: 6200: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6175: 6171: 6167: 6163: 6162: 6157: 6156: 6151: 6147: 6143: 6139: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6129: 6125: 6121: 6117: 6115: 6111: 6107: 6103: 6102: 6095: 6090: 6084: 6079: 6072: 6067: 6061: 6056: 6050: 6045: 6037: 6024: 6016: 6010: 6006: 6003: 5999: 5998: 5994: 5990: 5985: 5983: 5979: 5967: 5963: 5959: 5954: 5951: 5947: 5946: 5943: 5939: 5935: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5928: 5924: 5920: 5913: 5909: 5905: 5902: 5899: 5896: 5894: 5890: 5888: 5884: 5880: 5877: 5875: 5871: 5870: 5867: 5864: 5863:choral groups 5860: 5857: 5855: 5851: 5848: 5844: 5840: 5834: 5831: 5830: 5820: 5816: 5812: 5808: 5804: 5799: 5798: 5796: 5792: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5786: 5782: 5778: 5773: 5772: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5756: 5755: 5742: 5738: 5734: 5729: 5724: 5723: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5700: 5696: 5690: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5679: 5675: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5648: 5633: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5603: 5593: 5589: 5584: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5567: 5563: 5557: 5553: 5549: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5515: 5511: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5488: 5482: 5478: 5471: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5456: 5452: 5446: 5444: 5440: 5436: 5432: 5428: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5411: 5409: 5403: 5401: 5397: 5393: 5388: 5359: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5327: 5323: 5319: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5309: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5279: 5278:District Line 5275: 5271: 5267: 5263: 5258: 5254: 5252: 5248: 5244: 5239: 5235: 5233: 5230: 5227: 5223: 5219: 5215: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5205: 5201: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5173: 5169: 5165: 5161: 5157: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5137: 5134: 5130: 5125: 5121: 5118: 5114: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5085: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5058: 5054: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5015: 5011: 5004: 4995: 4991: 4986: 4980: 4978: 4971: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4956:Capitalismojo 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4945: 4940: 4934: 4932: 4921: 4917: 4914: 4913: 4909: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4889: 4888: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4856: 4850: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4827: 4823: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4772: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4739:personal blog 4736: 4732: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4586: 4583: 4582: 4577: 4570: 4566: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4517: 4514: 4511: 4508: 4504: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4410: 4407: 4404: 4403: 4400: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4357: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4345: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4306: 4302: 4299: 4294: 4290: 4287: 4284: 4283: 4280: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4206: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4185: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4147: 4142: 4137: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4123: 4120: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4106: 4102: 4096: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4075:Cundill Prize 4072: 4068: 4064: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4035: 4031: 4026: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4014:Henry Laurens 4010: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3994: 3991: 3987: 3984: 3981: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3958: 3955: 3952: 3947: 3942: 3935: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3869: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3819: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3772: 3766: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3740: 3730: 3727: 3724: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3671: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3661: 3658: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3640: 3639: 3636: 3633: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3618: 3617: 3612: 3608: 3605: 3604: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3578: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3568: 3565: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3540: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3495: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3456: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3376: 3373: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3294: 3292: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3275: 3274: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3246: 3242: 3240: 3237: 3235: 3232: 3230: 3227: 3225: 3222: 3221: 3215: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182:93.107.45.199 3178: 3175: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3081:assistance.-- 3079: 3074: 3070: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3015: 3011: 3010:peer reviewed 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2982: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2934: 2931: 2925: 2922: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2909: 2904: 2903: 2897: 2895: 2890: 2886: 2874: 2873: 2864: 2861: 2858: 2856: 2849: 2842: 2840: 2836: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2817: 2812: 2808: 2803: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2783: 2782: 2780: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2624: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2606: 2602: 2600: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2358: 2354: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2321:Mr. Swordfish 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2276: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2258: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2222: 2216: 2212: 2209:The issue is 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2159: 2156: 2151: 2142: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2083: 2082:biased source 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1972: 1969: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1949: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1897: 1891: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1777: 1773: 1772:Drone attacks 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1741: 1740:War on terror 1737: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1696: 1688: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1658: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1526: 1524:1-58648-374-9 1521: 1517: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1486: 1483: 1480: 1477: 1472: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1369: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1259: 1256: 1253:, please see 1252: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1190: 1187: 1185: 1183: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1136: 1132: 1125: 1109: 1105: 1098: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1064: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1023: 1016: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 982: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 944: 936: 932: 928: 924: 917: 910: 902: 898: 894: 890: 883: 879: 874: 872: 867: 865: 861: 859: 855: 853: 849: 848: 847: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 818: 812: 808: 807:wp:NODEADLINE 804: 800: 797: 793: 790: 786: 785: 784: 780: 776: 771: 770: 769: 768: 765: 761: 757: 752: 748: 744: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 714: 705: 701: 697: 692: 691: 690: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 670: 669: 665: 661: 658: 653: 652: 650: 649: 648: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 624: 623: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 606: 603: 600: 591: 588: 586: 583: 580: 577: 574: 570: 567: 566: 552: 548: 544: 537: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 523: 521: 515: 507: 503: 499: 495: 489: 484: 483: 482: 479: 470: 467: 466: 465: 462: 457:^ see above. 456: 455: 454: 453: 450: 446: 442: 438: 433: 432: 431: 430: 427: 425: 418: 415: 411: 408: 407: 402: 398: 397:Robert Draper 394: 390: 386: 374: 370: 366: 361: 358: 357: 354:Food Timeline 351: 350: 346: 342: 336: 332: 329: 327: 323: 319: 314: 313: 304: 300: 296: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 278: 277: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263: 262: 258: 254: 250: 249: 248: 247: 243: 239: 235: 228: 222: 221: 216: 209: 199: 194: 187: 180: 179: 176: 172: 168: 164: 159: 154: 153: 150: 146: 141: 137: 136: 135: 134: 130: 126: 110: 100: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 81: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 11214: 11199: 11190: 11180: 11176: 11168: 11162: 11160: 11156: 11142: 11138: 11129: 11117: 11113: 11104: 11096: 11091: 11059: 11051: 11003: 10999: 10990: 10986: 10968: 10952: 10939: 10902: 10898: 10894: 10888: 10884: 10880: 10874: 10870: 10866: 10863:Bio-IT World 10860: 10855: 10851: 10845: 10838: 10767: 10761: 10742: 10722: 10709: 10704: 10677: 10672: 10659: 10622: 10618: 10605: 10589: 10581:New Republic 10580: 10574: 10552: 10533: 10525: 10521: 10517: 10503: 10500: 10496:New Republic 10483: 10457: 10455: 10422: 10272: 10247: 10237: 10226: 10220: 10207: 10181: 10177: 10173: 10151: 10145: 10139: 10133: 10131: 10124: 10116: 10076:Talk pages. 10068: 10043: 10023: 9901: 9883: 9872: 9861: 9853: 9841:Theredheifer 9839: 9830: 9823: 9820: 9816: 9747:Theredheifer 9744: 9740: 9736: 9729: 9710: 9689: 9611: 9607: 9603: 9599: 9595: 9446: 9430: 9378: 9344: 9325:AndyTheGrump 9287: 9272:PhobiaSource 9271: 9222: 9199: 9165:Thundermaker 9138: 9124:Thundermaker 9114: 9099: 9091: 9085:questionable 9081:BLP policies 9070: 9045:AndyTheGrump 9015:Ecophriendly 8997: 8985:South Africa 8971: 8942: 8936: 8930:Ecophriendly 8912:AndyTheGrump 8861: 8859: 8856: 8848: 8838: 8813: 8756: 8679: 8675: 8667: 8654: 8653: 8638: 8626: 8608: 8597: 8585: 8540: 8535: 8533: 8501: 8491: 8487: 8485: 8475:the entirety 8474: 8458: 8453: 8449: 8441: 8421: 8400: 8395: 8387: 8383: 8379: 8369: 8365: 8357: 8350: 8343: 8336: 8322: 8314: 8288: 8278: 8274: 8268: 8264: 8259: 8253: 8250: 8244: 8228: 8224: 8221: 8216: 8215: 8205: 8201: 8190: 8179: 8154: 8138: 8137:Actually my 8109: 8105: 8100: 8089: 8074: 8066: 8027: 8024:invent stuff 8023: 8019: 8014: 7997: 7993: 7989: 7963: 7940: 7936: 7924: 7917: 7909: 7860: 7792: 7755: 7751: 7734: 7730: 7712: 7708: 7691: 7687: 7681: 7664: 7660: 7642: 7638: 7633: 7616: 7612: 7604: 7583: 7579: 7542: 7538: 7534: 7526: 7522: 7464: 7456: 7450: 7411: 7407: 7406:exercise.). 7402: 7398: 7379: 7361: 7348: 7346: 7341: 7339: 7310: 7306: 7302: 7290: 7283: 7276: 7265: 7254: 7250: 7239: 7195: 7192:Buenos Aires 7185: 7179: 7174:so far. His 7167: 7157: 7154:anti-semitic 7153: 7149: 7145: 7138: 7127: 7059: 7020: 6981: 6942: 6903: 6864: 6832: 6805: 6793: 6786:Johnson 2004 6781: 6769: 6757: 6733:Chamosa 2010 6713: 6701: 6689: 6677: 6665: 6653: 6641: 6634:Chamosa 2010 6621:, pp. 43–44. 6614: 6602: 6576: 6572: 6564: 6540: 6538: 6533: 6531: 6526: 6523: 6514: 6510:Revisionismo 6509: 6502:misogynistic 6498:anti-Semitic 6494:Nacionalismo 6493: 6491: 6472: 6468: 6464: 6460: 6403: 6391: 6388:revisionismo 6387: 6383:revisionismo 6382: 6360: 6357: 6353: 6345: 6342: 6338:Felipe Pigna 6285: 6283: 6272: 6233: 6224: 6194: 6190: 6186: 6160: 6159: 6154: 6153: 6137: 6089: 6078: 6066: 6055: 6044: 6009: 6001: 5986: 5975: 5916: 5858: 5849: 5843:the original 5832: 5806: 5760:Kingofaces43 5733:AndyTheGrump 5728:epistemology 5646: 5591: 5587: 5548:Wp:Worldwide 5533:situations. 5530: 5526: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5447: 5442: 5434: 5424: 5419:<ref: --> 5412: 5407: 5404: 5399: 5391: 5389: 5385: 5345: 5256: 5237: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5181: 5155: 5132: 5128: 5123: 5116: 5105: 5101: 5052: 5017: 5007: 4976: 4930: 4926: 4910:in the past. 4885: 4883: 4790:Andy Dingley 4785: 4735:Vice article 4717:Andy Dingley 4664:AndyTheGrump 4623:Andy Dingley 4617:Do you mean 4590:Andy Dingley 4587: 4579: 4573: 4480:this webpage 4477: 4435: 4355: 4304: 4300: 4258: 4174: 4170: 4169: 4062: 4061: 4043:in this case 4042: 4039:Benny Morris 4021: 4017: 4002:Solzhenitsyn 3997: 3989: 3979: 3967: 3914: 3802: 3744: 3741: 3737: 3641: 3620: 3606: 3507:encyclopedia 3506: 3502: 3485: 3459: 3454: 3452: 3448: 3382: 3322: 3304: 3289: 3211: 3203: 3201: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3013: 3009: 2935: 2929: 2926: 2923: 2914: 2912: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2882: 2854: 2825: 2819: 2752: 2721: 2630: 2607: 2603: 2596: 2575: 2565: 2520:Kingofaces43 2467: 2436:WP:RSOPINION 2409: 2406:New Republic 2405: 2401: 2397: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2344:WP:RSOPINION 2334: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2208: 2202: 2195: 2181: 2177: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2103: 2097: 2091: 2085: 2084:, but so is 2072:, including 2065: 2059: 2036: 2025: 2020: 2000: 1987: 1982: 1921: 1909: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1867: 1733: 1716:AndyTheGrump 1697: 1694: 1674: 1653: 1617: 1614:National Zoo 1535: 1531: 1515: 1508: 1500: 1448: 1445: 1364: 1338: 1287:WP:SECONDARY 1193: 1188: 1181: 1180: 1174: 1151: 1140:29 September 1138:. Retrieved 1134: 1124: 1114:29 September 1112:. Retrieved 1110:. ProPublica 1107: 1097: 1076:(4): 383–9. 1073: 1069: 1063: 1053:29 September 1051:. Retrieved 1032: 1028: 1015: 991: 981: 971:29 September 969:. Retrieved 957: 953: 943: 926: 922: 909: 892: 888: 882: 868: 862: 856: 850: 845: 738:WP:SECONDARY 736:be based on 733: 677: 635: 596: 575: 519: 423: 404: 400: 382: 338: 334: 330: 326:Article name 320: 317: 231: 202: 162: 113: 79: 47: 41: 11205:Tom LaBonge 11097:Du Doong II 11070:neuroethics 11062:T.H. Huxley 11054:Eric Diesel 11047:Eric Diesel 10946:JLSperling1 10889:4) Source: 10875:3) Source: 10861:2) Source: 10846:1) Source: 10396:this author 10363:Itsmejudith 10304:|publisher= 10182:what author 9998:NO PROBLEM. 9504:Acupuncture 9473:Talk page? 9471:Acupuncture 9235:Nostophobia 9223:Looking at 9077:explanation 8284:Newyorkbrad 8143:WP:RELIABLE 7943:. Regards. 7855:Newyorkbrad 7537:to come to 7493:red herring 7270:red herring 7244:red herring 7176:own website 6852:Goebel 2011 6837:Goebel 2011 6825:Goebel 2011 6810:Miller 1999 6798:Goebel 2011 6750:Nállim 2012 6720:, p. 7, 48. 6718:Goebel 2011 6670:Goebel 2011 6646:Nállim 2012 6619:Goebel 2011 6557:Ortega Pena 6465:revisionist 6191:Asian Voice 6138:Asian Voice 5689:LeadSongDog 5674:Herostratus 5556:LeadSongDog 5535:Herostratus 5481:LeadSongDog 5477:wp:CIRCULAR 5451:Herostratus 5441:end at the 5427:Arabat Spit 5344:To IJBall, 5274:Circle Line 5106:association 4822:Bladesmulti 4761:Bladesmulti 4700:is failing 4682:Bladesmulti 4638:Bladesmulti 4605:Bladesmulti 4526:Onefireuser 4507:Kingsindian 4488:Nightscream 4146:Kingsindian 4116:Kingsindian 3951:Kingsindian 3720:Kingsindian 3670:Kingsindian 3654:Kingsindian 3626:Kingsindian 3611:Onefireuser 3584:Onefireuser 3577:Kingsindian 3561:Kingsindian 3539:Onefireuser 3512:Onefireuser 3464:Onefireuser 3436:Itsmejudith 3369:Kingsindian 2954:Itsmejudith 2928:statement, 2855:SMcCandlish 2732:Arapawa Pig 2718:Arapawa Pig 2684:Itsmejudith 2652:Itsmejudith 2482:Vaypertrail 2256:S Philbrick 2149:S Philbrick 2078:Fred Barnes 1947:S Philbrick 1895:S Philbrick 1792:Mark Miller 1748:Kingsindian 1701:Bladesmulti 1678:PassTheSake 1663:PassTheSake 1637:PassTheSake 1570:PassTheSake 1554:PassTheSake 1476:Kingsindian 1454:Onefireuser 1416:Kingsindian 1402:Kingsindian 1368:Kingsindian 1214:LeadSongDog 811:LeadSongDog 439:for more. 414:Terry Moran 341:Mark Miller 295:Mark Miller 267:Mark Miller 253:Itsmejudith 99:Archive 185 91:Archive 180 86:Archive 179 80:Archive 178 74:Archive 177 69:Archive 176 64:Archive 175 40:This is an 22:Noticeboard 10586:TCU itself 10400:LuckyLouie 10186:LuckyLouie 10127:Summerwind 9854:References 9730:This edit 9347:Camp Trans 9340:Camp Trans 9239:Dougweller 9204:. Thanks. 8928:. Editor 8893:Dougweller 8874:Dougweller 8854:going on: 8663:OpenOffice 8592:in context 8504:than that. 8188:requires: 7819:Langus-TxT 7431:over at AE 7311:truly wild 6569:David Rock 6328:Felix Luna 6002:References 5978:Prem Rawat 5694:come howl! 5561:come howl! 5498:an article 5486:come howl! 5324:line with 5318:light rail 5226:Copenhagen 5218:exclusions 5214:inclusions 5115:2. It's a 5030:Copenhagen 4903:about page 4406:Channel E! 4380:Journalist 4184:Meir Pa'il 4112:On Liberty 3678:? Thanks. 3676:WP:POLEMIC 3291:tragedies. 2816:WP:FACTION 2802:WP:CRYSTAL 2779:WP:TAGTEAM 2549:Dougweller 2410:conclusion 2398:The Nation 2294:editorials 1944:explain?-- 1834:Dougweller 1819:Dougweller 1449:scientific 1219:come howl! 816:come howl! 743:WP:PRIMARY 678:especially 363:thoughts? 11171:from the 11032:Bromley86 10971:"StoryNT" 10935:this diff 10927:Article: 10895:Content: 10881:Content: 10867:Content: 10852:Content: 10822:Wikidgood 10584:, and by 10526:secondary 10392:this work 10349:Dual Freq 10295:cite news 10258:cite news 10178:what work 10102:Wikidgood 10055:Wikidgood 10027:Wikidgood 10000:Wikidgood 9974:Brangifer 9951:Wikidgood 9927:Brangifer 9911:Wikidgood 9766:Debresser 9576:WP:WEIGHT 9551:reception 9533:Ibuprofen 9508:WP:NPOV/N 9431:Otherwise 8924:See also 8730:news blog 8686:announced 8659:this blog 8655:Question: 8522:• Astynax 8471:WP:FRINGE 8401:your own 8390:WP:ARBARG 8254:Further, 8110:attribute 8071:WP:FRINGE 7914:WP:ARBARG 7835:bad faith 7759:WP:FRINGE 7682:Caudillos 7634:Caudillos 7531:WP:FRINGE 7408:Much less 7216:• Astynax 7086:|ref=harv 7077:cite book 7047:|ref=harv 7038:cite book 7008:|ref=harv 6999:cite book 6969:|ref=harv 6960:cite book 6930:|ref=harv 6921:cite book 6891:|ref=harv 6882:cite book 6854:, p. 116. 6827:, p. 115. 6812:, p. 224. 6788:, p. 114. 6776:, p. 108. 6774:Rock 1995 6764:, p. 119. 6762:Rock 1995 6708:, p. 120. 6706:Rock 1995 6696:, p. 103. 6694:Rock 1995 6682:Rock 1995 6658:Rock 1995 6609:, p. 102. 6607:Rock 1995 6553:Jauretche 6447:article? 6396:• Astynax 6390:authors " 6379:WP:ARBARG 6279:WP:FRINGE 6203:Abecedare 6166:Abecedare 5989:Rainer P. 5972:ISSUU.com 5811:Boeing720 5590:a source 5514:propagate 5350:Boeing720 5322:streetcar 5282:Boeing720 5243:Boeing720 5186:Boeing720 5141:Boeing720 5088:oknazevad 5039:Boeing720 4676:Formally 4363:Regards, 4301:On point: 4105:excellent 4047:Nishidani 3941:Nishidani 3102:Dailycare 3047:WP:PARITY 3021:Bromley86 2939:Bromley86 2580:Abecedare 2534:Dailycare 2421:Andyvphil 2417:WP:PREFER 2340:WP:BIASED 2106:is not a 2099:Brietbart 1840:source.-- 1742:article? 1657:Elaqueate 751:WP:WEIGHT 599:WP:MEDRSs 543:Andyvphil 488:Elaqueate 11217:Lampuser 11006:saberwyn 10956:contribs 10904:Drcarver 10591:MastCell 10465:Oakshade 10443:Oakshade 10378:Oakshade 10334:Oakshade 10159:Oakshade 9904:Pit Bull 9898:Pit bull 9713:Freikorp 9663:contribs 9658:Middle 8 9643:contribs 9638:Middle 8 9623:Blueboar 9560:contribs 9555:Middle 8 9489:contribs 9484:Middle 8 9456:contribs 9451:Middle 8 9410:contribs 9405:Middle 8 9397:WP:SENSE 9375:Resolved 9352:Skyerise 8940:contribs 8480:WP:RS/AC 8396:your own 8271:evidence 8106:not true 7827:comments 7495:please. 7148:" Again 7084:Invalid 7045:Invalid 7006:Invalid 6967:Invalid 6928:Invalid 6889:Invalid 6839:, p. 56. 6800:, p. 50. 6752:, p. 39. 6735:, p. 44. 6672:, p. 43. 6648:, p. 38. 6506:eugenics 6281:theory. 6023:cite web 5643:but not 5592:probably 5588:Assuming 5104:of this 5102:a member 5070:this one 4916:News One 4860:Regstuff 4743:Regstuff 4678:notified 4073:for the 4063:Question 3418:WP:UNDUE 3414:WP:NPOVN 3327:Blueboar 3323:author's 3160:Manifold 3158:or even 3118:Gaijin42 3098:WP:NOENG 3096:Hi, see 3078:English? 2830:Landrace 2824:style. 2774:landrace 2747:landrace 2728:source 2 2724:source 1 2680:WP:MEDRS 2468:I found 2362:MastCell 2043:sources. 1981:TWS has 1335:WP:MEDRS 1089:22703686 1048:23687049 1007:23722091 799:24119661 792:23687049 726:WP:MEDRS 674:WP:MEDRS 640:WP:MEDRS 632:WP:MEDRS 628:WP:MEDRS 601:such as 365:Irondome 214:and done 192:and done 145:Nunh-huh 20:‎ | 11078:ecology 10727:Collect 10699:Collect 10682:Collect 10655:Collect 10627:Collect 10578:), the 10538:Collect 10078:Alexbrn 10069:Comment 9692:iFanboy 9686:iFanboy 9512:Alexbrn 9475:Alexbrn 9435:Alexbrn 9230:and/or 9206:SW3 5DL 9183:Alexbrn 9003:article 8989:Namibia 8950:Tgeairn 8818:Alexbrn 8473:(along 8153:on the 8028:BECAUSE 7825:and my 7403:his own 7399:his own 7272:please. 6561:Duhalde 6473:Source: 6437:Planeta 6418:Astynax 6255:SW3 5DL 6032:|title= 5883:Mutopia 5859:Content 5850:Article 5510:another 5502:WP:CITE 5257:partial 5182:studies 5034:Rostock 5022:Hamburg 4858:point. 4418:incivil 3642:Comment 3614:review: 3607:Comment 2885:The Hum 2822:WP:IDLI 2788:breeds. 2240:Collect 2211:whether 2005:Collect 1993:Collect 1916:in the 1910:Comment 1442:WP:TLDR 1398:WP:TLDR 1384:EllenCT 1314:EllenCT 1251:EllenCT 1230:EllenCT 1196:EllenCT 1029:Science 869:The US 827:EllenCT 775:EllenCT 696:EllenCT 686:Alexbrn 682:WP:PAGs 660:EllenCT 644:Alexbrn 612:EllenCT 589:Content 581:Article 281:ukexpat 238:ukexpat 207:Vertium 185:Vertium 43:archive 10762:Cullen 10673:quotes 10074:WP:PAG 9946:WP:AGF 9826:Josiah 9600:common 9596:itself 9537:Spumuq 9447:except 9141:WP:BLP 9092:Mike V 8641:Oracle 8609:Langus 8541:Langus 8467:WP:SYN 8407:WP:SYN 8362:WP:RSs 8151:WP:SYN 8083:WP:SYN 8063:WP:SYN 7998:reject 7970:WP:SYN 7933:WP:SYN 7808:today. 7551:WP:SYN 7465:no one 7445:Gaba_p 7395:WP:SYN 7362:Langus 7299:WP:SYN 7259:WP:SYN 6508:. The 6361:Langus 6187:Update 6146:WP:SPS 5934:Spumuq 5893:Wenzel 5833:Source 5439:WP:AGF 5396:WP:AGF 5330:IJBall 5304:GRuban 5300:Boston 5200:GRuban 5168:IJBall 5133:define 5074:IJBall 5026:Berlin 4989:cntrb. 4943:cntrb. 4841:GRuban 4837:WP:SPS 4808:GRuban 4713:Cyriak 4540:WP:RSN 4356:widely 4310:Best, 4305:widely 4153:Best, 4101:WP:RSN 3946:WP:RSN 3934:GRuban 3918:GRuban 3694:Shrike 3505:in an 3482:novels 3460:novels 3422:Shrike 3361:review 3357:review 3250:them." 3244:said." 2792:fraud. 2505:Shrike 2501:WP:SPS 2440:Obsidi 2434:under 2384:Obsidi 2298:op-eds 2261:(Talk) 2223:said, 2189:(tock) 2154:(Talk) 2112:verify 2096:, and 1952:(Talk) 1926:WP:BLP 1900:(Talk) 1610:page 5 1471:Jytdog 1420:Jytdog 1344:Jytdog 1342:today. 1339:should 1292:Jytdog 1176:found. 1167:, and 756:Jytdog 734:should 607:, and 568:Source 494:WP:SPS 437:WP:SPS 11074:Korea 10944:from 10641:Yobol 10376:is?-- 10090:here. 9834:Titus 9529:Pizza 9403:.) -- 8987:from 8795:Tóraí 8764:Canoe 8735:Tóraí 8694:Tóraí 8601:WP:RS 8572:email 8463:WP:OR 8459:a lot 8446:WP:RS 8425:Lecen 8403:WP:OR 8373:WP:RS 8304:email 8256:WP:RS 8186:WP:RS 8182:WP:RS 8147:WP:OR 8125:Lecen 8094:WP:OR 8079:WP:OR 8059:WP:OR 8045:Lecen 8015:don't 7966:WP:OR 7929:WP:OR 7896:email 7839:Lecen 7831:WP:AE 7775:email 7607:WP:RS 7547:WP:OR 7509:Lecen 7482:Lecen 7469:Lecen 7459:" by 7391:WP:OR 7382:WP:RS 7295:WP:OR 7255:every 7226:Lecen 7110:Lecen 6541:don't 6441:WP:RS 6414:Lecen 6120:Tóraí 5958:Tóraí 5552:Wp:RX 5531:those 5443:first 5156:study 5129:a few 5014:China 4782:WP:RS 4706:WP:OR 4702:WP:OR 4619:WP:OR 4548:Aoidh 4522:WP:RS 4436:valid 4108:edits 4030:WP:RS 3549:added 3455:Novel 3284:2010 3258:Hamas 3023:(:]) 2740:breed 2497:Arxiv 2444:talk 2275:WP:RS 2087:Salon 2068:list 1331:WP:RS 1025:(PDF) 919:(PDF) 747:WP:OR 730:WP:RS 684:say. 536:Kelly 520:Kelly 424:Kelly 16:< 11221:talk 11064:and 11036:talk 10989:and 10950:talk 10908:talk 10826:talk 10806:talk 10743:Neil 10731:talk 10710:Neil 10705:zero 10686:talk 10678:zero 10660:Neil 10645:talk 10631:talk 10623:know 10606:Neil 10553:Neil 10542:talk 10504:Neil 10469:talk 10447:talk 10430:talk 10404:talk 10382:talk 10367:talk 10353:talk 10338:talk 10315:link 10308:help 10264:link 10190:talk 10184:? - 10163:talk 10106:talk 10059:talk 10031:talk 10004:talk 9978:talk 9955:talk 9931:talk 9915:talk 9845:talk 9792:talk 9784:WP:V 9770:talk 9751:talk 9717:talk 9627:talk 9584:talk 9541:talk 9401:here 9385:here 9356:talk 9329:talk 9258:talk 9243:talk 9210:talk 9202:here 9169:talk 9155:talk 9128:talk 9100:Talk 9049:talk 9019:talk 8970:The 8954:talk 8946:logs 8934:talk 8916:talk 8897:talk 8878:talk 8866:here 8799:talk 8785:and 8761:Blue 8739:talk 8716:talk 8698:talk 8692:. -- 8511:Gaba 8465:and 8429:talk 8413:Gaba 8405:and 8388:The 8234:ISBN 8161:Gaba 8155:very 8149:and 8139:only 8129:talk 8115:Gaba 8081:and 8061:and 8049:talk 7968:and 7946:Gaba 7931:and 7918:very 7848:here 7823:here 7798:ISBN 7740:ISBN 7718:ISBN 7697:ISBN 7670:ISBN 7648:ISBN 7622:ISBN 7556:Gaba 7549:and 7513:talk 7498:Gaba 7473:talk 7467:. -- 7436:Gaba 7417:Gaba 7393:and 7359:? -- 7323:Gaba 7303:your 7297:and 7230:talk 7201:Gaba 7114:talk 7090:help 7064:ISBN 7051:help 7025:ISBN 7012:help 6986:ISBN 6973:help 6947:ISBN 6934:help 6908:ISBN 6895:help 6869:ISBN 6559:and 6492:The 6459:"... 6450:Gaba 6416:and 6259:talk 6227:here 6207:talk 6170:talk 6124:talk 6110:Vice 6036:help 5993:talk 5962:talk 5938:talk 5923:talk 5815:talk 5781:talk 5764:talk 5737:talk 5678:talk 5539:talk 5455:talk 5392:some 5354:talk 5334:talk 5308:talk 5286:talk 5276:and 5247:talk 5224:and 5204:talk 5190:talk 5172:talk 5166:. -- 5145:talk 5092:talk 5078:talk 5072:. -- 5057:UITP 5043:talk 4984:tlk. 4960:talk 4938:tlk. 4864:talk 4845:talk 4826:talk 4812:talk 4794:talk 4786:also 4780:and 4778:WP:V 4765:talk 4747:talk 4733:The 4721:talk 4698:Vice 4686:talk 4668:talk 4642:talk 4627:talk 4621:? 4609:talk 4594:talk 4581:Vice 4569:Vice 4567:and 4552:talk 4544:here 4530:talk 4503:here 4492:talk 4444:talk 4440:Fram 4426:talk 4399:Fram 4388:talk 4384:Fram 4369:talk 4344:Fram 4331:talk 4327:Fram 4316:talk 4279:Fram 4268:talk 4264:Fram 4248:talk 4230:talk 4226:Fram 4215:talk 4205:Fram 4193:talk 4189:Fram 4171:Note 4159:talk 4136:Fram 4095:Fram 4083:talk 4079:Fram 4051:talk 3922:talk 3900:talk 3896:Fram 3885:talk 3868:Fram 3857:talk 3853:Fram 3812:talk 3808:Fram 3792:talk 3784:talk 3765:Fram 3753:talk 3749:Fram 3698:talk 3684:talk 3588:talk 3557:this 3516:talk 3468:talk 3440:talk 3426:talk 3398:talk 3365:here 3351:and 3331:talk 3313:talk 3186:talk 3168:talk 3138:talk 3122:talk 3106:talk 3087:talk 3069:Hi, 3055:talk 3037:talk 2988:talk 2958:talk 2943:talk 2843:must 2826:Osu! 2759:talk 2734:is: 2726:and 2702:talk 2688:talk 2670:talk 2656:talk 2641:talk 2613:ASEM 2584:talk 2553:talk 2538:talk 2524:talk 2509:talk 2486:talk 2425:talk 2388:talk 2342:and 2325:talk 2244:talk 2186:Shii 2178:Time 2170:Time 2130:talk 2076:and 2064:The 2051:talk 2009:talk 2001:most 1997:talk 1967:Gaba 1941:WP:V 1931:Gaba 1914:edit 1870:2010 1846:talk 1823:talk 1796:talk 1736:this 1720:talk 1705:talk 1682:talk 1667:talk 1641:talk 1633:this 1574:talk 1558:talk 1520:ISBN 1458:talk 1424:talk 1388:talk 1348:talk 1333:and 1318:talk 1296:talk 1234:talk 1200:talk 1142:2014 1116:2014 1086:PMID 1055:2014 1045:PMID 1004:PMID 973:2014 831:talk 803:news 796:PMID 789:PMID 779:talk 760:talk 700:talk 664:talk 616:talk 547:talk 502:talk 460:Gaba 445:talk 399:, a 369:talk 345:talk 335:text 299:talk 285:talk 271:talk 257:talk 242:talk 171:talk 129:talk 10816:No. 10802:TFD 10723:not 10529:is. 10458:all 10394:by 10180:by 9667:COI 9647:COI 9564:COI 9493:COI 9460:COI 9414:COI 9379:At 9311:it. 9122:. 8996:In 8827:Is 8758:The 8665:). 8657:Is 8598:how 8461:of 8454:not 8450:you 8370:all 8366:you 8075:all 8067:are 7990:not 7829:at 7761:. 7527:you 7455:. " 7451:not 7355:or 7320:). 7307:any 7196:all 7150:wow 6573:not 6567:". 6551:or 6471:." 6431:by 6221:RfC 6150:due 5865:." 5777:TFD 5598:__ 5506:one 5270:M25 5124:all 4478:Is 4259:you 4018:And 3985:and 3803:not 3648:or 3490:__ 3214:). 3154:or 3012:or 2984:TFD 2883:On 2869:ⱷ≼ 2865:≽ⱷ҅ 2811:our 2597:At 2576:are 2503:.-- 2480:.-- 2402:NRO 2355:or 2231:not 2047:TFD 1988:not 1734:Is 1586:__ 1468:To 1078:doi 1037:doi 1033:340 996:doi 962:doi 931:doi 897:doi 794:or 636:not 496:. 474:__ 401:NYT 387:of 236:.-- 163:not 124:PhD 121:mer 118:Sum 11223:) 11120:, 11038:) 10997:. 10966:. 10910:) 10843:: 10828:) 10808:) 10740:-- 10733:) 10688:) 10647:) 10633:) 10544:) 10522:no 10501:-- 10471:) 10449:) 10436:) 10432:) 10406:) 10384:) 10369:) 10355:) 10340:) 10299:: 10297:}} 10293:{{ 10285:/ 10281:. 10260:}} 10256:{{ 10246:. 10192:) 10165:) 10157:-- 10150:/ 10108:) 10061:) 10047:RT 10033:) 10006:) 9980:) 9957:) 9933:) 9917:) 9847:) 9821:+ 9794:) 9772:) 9753:) 9719:) 9700:: 9665:• 9645:• 9629:) 9612:do 9604:is 9586:) 9562:• 9543:) 9510:. 9491:• 9458:• 9412:• 9358:) 9331:) 9260:) 9245:) 9212:) 9171:) 9157:) 9130:) 9096:• 9051:) 9021:) 9009:, 8956:) 8918:) 8899:) 8880:) 8801:) 8741:) 8733:-- 8718:) 8700:) 8594:". 8536:if 8482:: 8431:) 8410:. 8219:. 8210:” 8197:“ 8131:) 8051:) 7874:” 7867:“ 7599:, 7596:, 7593:, 7590:, 7587:, 7515:) 7507:-- 7475:) 7447:: 7232:) 7224:-- 7116:) 7081:: 7079:}} 7075:{{ 7042:: 7040:}} 7036:{{ 7003:: 7001:}} 6997:{{ 6964:: 6962:}} 6958:{{ 6925:: 6923:}} 6919:{{ 6886:: 6884:}} 6880:{{ 6844:^ 6817:^ 6740:^ 6725:^ 6626:^ 6547:, 6261:) 6209:) 6195:is 6172:) 6161:to 6155:at 6126:) 6027:: 6025:}} 6021:{{ 5995:) 5964:) 5956:-- 5940:) 5925:) 5910:, 5885:: 5852:: 5835:: 5817:) 5783:) 5766:) 5739:) 5680:) 5647:Un 5541:) 5473:}} 5470:vn 5467:{{ 5457:) 5410:? 5402:? 5356:) 5336:) 5310:) 5288:) 5249:) 5206:) 5192:) 5174:) 5160:RS 5147:) 5094:) 5080:) 5045:) 5024:, 5018:IF 4962:) 4866:) 4847:) 4828:) 4814:) 4796:) 4767:) 4759:. 4749:) 4723:) 4688:) 4670:) 4644:) 4629:) 4611:) 4596:) 4554:) 4532:) 4524:. 4494:) 4446:) 4428:) 4420:. 4390:) 4371:) 4333:) 4318:) 4270:) 4250:) 4232:) 4217:) 4195:) 4173:: 4161:) 4085:) 4053:) 4000:, 3924:) 3902:) 3887:) 3859:) 3814:) 3794:) 3778:. 3755:) 3700:) 3686:) 3590:) 3559:. 3518:) 3470:) 3462:. 3442:) 3428:) 3420:-- 3400:) 3333:) 3315:) 3288:, 3188:) 3170:) 3140:) 3124:) 3108:) 3089:) 3057:) 3049:. 3039:) 2990:) 2960:) 2945:) 2921:. 2852:— 2835:OR 2761:) 2745:a 2738:a 2704:) 2690:) 2682:. 2672:) 2658:) 2643:) 2620:) 2609:-- 2586:) 2555:) 2540:) 2526:) 2511:) 2488:) 2446:) 2427:) 2404:, 2400:, 2390:) 2327:) 2246:) 2235:is 2180:, 2132:) 2090:, 2053:) 2011:) 1848:) 1836:? 1825:) 1811:. 1798:) 1722:) 1707:) 1684:) 1669:) 1643:) 1576:) 1560:) 1548:, 1544:, 1460:) 1426:) 1400:. 1390:) 1350:) 1320:) 1298:) 1236:) 1202:) 1164:, 1161:, 1158:, 1155:, 1133:. 1106:. 1084:. 1074:27 1072:. 1043:. 1031:. 1027:. 1002:. 990:. 958:23 956:. 952:. 927:17 925:. 921:. 893:38 891:. 833:) 781:) 762:) 702:) 666:) 618:) 604:, 549:) 504:) 447:) 371:) 347:) 328:. 301:) 287:) 273:) 259:) 244:) 173:) 131:) 95:→ 11219:( 11183:. 11084:. 11034:( 10953:· 10948:( 10906:( 10824:( 10804:( 10745:N 10729:( 10712:N 10701:: 10697:@ 10684:( 10662:N 10643:( 10629:( 10608:N 10555:N 10540:( 10506:N 10467:( 10445:( 10428:( 10402:( 10380:( 10365:( 10351:( 10336:( 10317:) 10310:) 10306:( 10289:. 10266:) 10252:. 10231:. 10188:( 10161:( 10104:( 10057:( 10029:( 10002:( 9976:( 9953:( 9929:( 9913:( 9843:( 9790:( 9768:( 9749:( 9715:( 9669:) 9661:( 9649:) 9641:( 9625:( 9582:( 9566:) 9558:( 9539:( 9495:) 9487:( 9462:) 9454:( 9421:( 9416:) 9408:( 9354:( 9327:( 9307:. 9290:( 9256:( 9241:( 9208:( 9167:( 9153:( 9126:( 9047:( 9017:( 8952:( 8943:· 8937:· 8932:( 8914:( 8895:( 8876:( 8835:? 8797:( 8737:( 8714:( 8696:( 8617:) 8615:t 8613:( 8567:M 8564:C 8561:W 8549:) 8547:t 8545:( 8427:( 8378:" 8356:" 8349:" 8342:" 8299:M 8296:C 8293:W 8241:. 8127:( 8096:? 8085:. 8047:( 7923:" 7908:" 7891:M 7888:C 7885:W 7857:. 7805:. 7770:M 7767:C 7764:W 7747:. 7725:. 7704:. 7677:. 7655:. 7629:. 7511:( 7471:( 7386:? 7370:) 7368:t 7366:( 7289:" 7282:" 7275:" 7264:" 7249:" 7246:. 7238:" 7228:( 7188:) 7144:" 7141:" 7137:" 7132:. 7126:" 7112:( 7092:) 7088:( 7071:. 7053:) 7049:( 7032:. 7014:) 7010:( 6993:. 6975:) 6971:( 6954:. 6936:) 6932:( 6915:. 6897:) 6893:( 6876:. 6369:) 6367:t 6365:( 6257:( 6244:. 6205:( 6168:( 6122:( 6038:) 6034:( 6017:. 5991:( 5960:( 5936:( 5921:( 5813:( 5779:( 5762:( 5735:( 5676:( 5537:( 5453:( 5352:( 5332:( 5306:( 5284:( 5268:/ 5245:( 5202:( 5188:( 5170:( 5143:( 5090:( 5076:( 5041:( 4958:( 4862:( 4843:( 4824:( 4810:( 4792:( 4763:( 4745:( 4719:( 4708:. 4684:( 4666:( 4640:( 4625:( 4607:( 4592:( 4550:( 4528:( 4513:♚ 4510:♝ 4490:( 4442:( 4424:( 4401:: 4397:@ 4386:( 4367:( 4346:: 4342:@ 4329:( 4314:( 4281:: 4277:@ 4266:( 4246:( 4228:( 4213:( 4207:: 4203:@ 4191:( 4157:( 4148:: 4144:@ 4138:: 4134:@ 4122:♚ 4119:♝ 4097:: 4093:@ 4081:( 4049:( 3957:♚ 3954:♝ 3936:: 3932:@ 3920:( 3898:( 3883:( 3870:: 3866:@ 3855:( 3810:( 3790:( 3782:( 3767:: 3763:@ 3751:( 3726:♚ 3723:♝ 3696:( 3682:( 3672:: 3668:@ 3660:♚ 3657:♝ 3632:♚ 3629:♝ 3586:( 3579:: 3575:@ 3567:♚ 3564:♝ 3541:: 3537:@ 3514:( 3466:( 3438:( 3424:( 3396:( 3375:♚ 3372:♝ 3329:( 3311:( 3260:. 3184:( 3166:( 3136:( 3120:( 3104:( 3085:( 3053:( 3035:( 2986:( 2956:( 2941:( 2867:ᴥ 2863:¢ 2860:☏ 2857:☺ 2757:( 2749:. 2700:( 2686:( 2668:( 2654:( 2639:( 2618:t 2616:( 2611:M 2582:( 2551:( 2536:( 2522:( 2507:( 2484:( 2442:( 2423:( 2386:( 2323:( 2277:: 2242:( 2143:: 2139:@ 2128:( 2121:. 2049:( 2007:( 1995:( 1844:( 1821:( 1794:( 1780:" 1754:♚ 1751:♝ 1718:( 1703:( 1680:( 1665:( 1659:: 1655:@ 1639:( 1572:( 1556:( 1527:. 1482:♚ 1479:♝ 1456:( 1422:( 1408:♚ 1405:♝ 1386:( 1374:♚ 1371:♝ 1346:( 1316:( 1294:( 1232:( 1198:( 1144:. 1118:. 1091:. 1080:: 1057:. 1039:: 1009:. 998:: 975:. 964:: 937:. 933:: 903:. 899:: 829:( 777:( 758:( 698:( 662:( 614:( 545:( 538:: 534:@ 500:( 490:: 486:@ 443:( 409:. 367:( 343:( 297:( 283:( 269:( 255:( 240:( 169:( 127:( 54:.

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