1282:, I don't have a position on Jones as a conspiracy theorist, but that justification in the immediately preceding paragraph surprised me. Isn't it a bit too broad? Following logic, if someone restates an accusation without the disclaimer that it is an accusation made by a particular source, then that last person in the chain is simply joining in on the attack. The same problem arises when using something like the phrase āsources have saidā: anonymous "references" do not give the reader a chance to investigate the claims. Same for not including a reference to a reliable source what disagrees with the accusation. All of those actions are not neutral, but can slyly advocate the attackersā positionāintentionally or not. Wouldn't you agree that we have an obligation to do some quick basic research and then carefully craft our summaries so that we are presenting a NPOV?
3121:"On his radio program, he told his listeners: āThe government lies out of hand. You say, āwell then, why do you believe in the moon landing?ā Because I have sources inside NASAāthey put on some fake stuff for youāsee, there was a lie. Itās not just ādid we goā or ādidnāt we go.ā You were shown the tinker-toy stuff because youāre not supposed to see what they really got. Youāre not supposed to know the thousands of astronauts that have died. Oh, yeah. In fact, I should to a whole show on that. This is the kind of stuff that will get you killed. I shouldn't even get into things I know, because I donāt have the absolute proof in front of meāI just have sources and evidence that backs it up, but Iām digressing.ā
2061:
2507:. Videos are not simply allowed as a source -- at best they are a "primary source" and where quotes are used, the need for a full transcript is essential. Too often people take nice snippets from material and forget that we do not quote mine but try to present full context. Nuzzi does not appear to be phrasing anything neutrally, which further removes her as a source for any contentious claim. Find real reliable secondary sources please. Cheers.
31:
201:
and yet is automatically dismissed as a racist at every turn. Sounds to me that he wouldn't take anything to this effect personally (after all, he did famously dismiss
Knowledge (XXG) as being hopelessly out of touch in the Piers Morgan interview, which wasn't entirely rooted in the sort of hyperbole you would expect in such as situation), but would love it for the fodder (and therefore, material with which to talk about) it provides.
1260:). At Knowledge (XXG), our policies are inline with this good advice. It is an invariable fact here that editors who fail to bring their fringe POV into line with the facts described in our articles usually end up being bad editors who do nothing but cause trouble. They are unable to learn, and therefore are mentally unfit for collaborative work on this project. There are very few exceptions to this rule of observation, IMHO. --
1091:
occupation in the first sentence of the article. While it certainly can be argued that this is his "occupation", I still feel like that could be expanded and better handled elsewhere in the lead. I also question seeing twelve sources in the lead. The lead should lack sources, yet reflect sourced content found in the article's body. Of course, it's a pretty common over-reaction found in all too many articles.
1157:
NPOV means free from editorial bias and POV. It applies to editors' introduction of their own POV, not to the documentation of POV found in RS. Articles which fail to document POV are blah, boring, and not worth having. The real world is full of POV, and we document it, including some pretty strong stuff. If properly sourced, it's fair game for inclusion. Countless RS describe him as a conspiracy theorist.
278:"Sure, it's both fun and funny to treat these buffoons like, you know, buffoons, and I enjoy doing it, but it's important to remind ourselves that underneath the cartoonishly unhinged rants, they're really deceitful, sociopathic individuals who market in fear and paranoia while turning serious events and the deaths of innocent civilians into their own personal clown show. Again and again and again."
2007:
725:? As far as I can tell the two are mutually exclusive. Just because someone can report on a story (hopefully accurately but no guarantee of that, ahem Fox News) does not somehow validate the ability to write political commentary. It's just bad logic. But I would love to hear the explanation of why you think that reporting validates opinion writing. Waiting with an open mind. Thanks --
1235:, that indicates that so far RS have not proven that it is a true claim. When RS prove that the theory is true, we change the title of the article to indicate that fact. Theory has become fact. We cannot state something is fact until RS have shown it to be fact. It would also be foolish to give it credence until such proof is presented, and claims are not proofs.
3381:
watchlist only validates the sort of things coming from his mouth. This article in particular is an obvious poster child, but plenty of other examples point to a concerted effort by a cadre of editors to marginalize anything which doesn't mirror the corporate and governmental disinformation found everywhere else on the web. However, give it a rest, please.
1378:
1473:
1332:, since I don't have any context in the form of a quote from the existing content which you dispute, I can only answer in principle. If you will provide some disputed wording, maybe we can improve it. There are situations where you are correct. The question would be if this is one of them. Provide some wording and we can talk about it.
2829:
on you to show they are needed and that they are being used properly. Videos sans transcripts are often misused otherwise. Find a transcript for what you wish to claim -- Wikipedians find it hard to verify what someone says in a video and consider the full context of what they are saying even with a transcript. Now drop your
2220:*p 73 "His highly conspiratorial tone and Web-oriented approach brings in a younger demographic than do Beck and other well-known talkers" *p 73 "he's aired on roughly 60 stations (it used to be more before his 9/11 inside-job rants)" *p 74 "Beck, naturally, synthesized the parts of Alex Jones inspired style that worked for him."
2979:, contentious material about living persons require reliable sources. Personally, I have no doubt that Jones does not accept the accurate, mainstream view of the moon landings, but, until we have a reliable, third-party source for exactly what Jones does (state that he) accept(s), it may not be in the article.
1382:) is in the eye of the beholder. If a label isn't accurate, I'm sure RS would comment on that fact, and we might be able to use such sources. I doubt that anyone would deny that a large part of what Jones deals with falls under the label/description of conspiracy theories, and RS seem to confirm this. --
2828:
Unless you have become
Emperor, I find your tone here to be errant from the requirements of the project. You have made claims that it is up to others to fix your own mess. That is not true. You have asserted that you can command others. You can't. If you want to use primary sources, the onus is
2336:
indicate that the US hardcover book is not the same as the UK paperback. What is clear, however, is that the ref as given failed verification. Reading the book, it does not appear, alas, to be a strict recitation of fact, but appears to be a tad polemic. As such, most of the material should be
1676:
so the coverage is decidedly overwhelmingly about this guy. the only place where he isn't is in the english language India news, but the Times of India and the Hindu combined provided a total of two valid hits for "alex jones" - one about the movie character and one about a leader of a local business
1156:
We document what reliable sources say, regardless of whether they are derogatory or not. That is none of our concern. If we censored the RS, reported them differently than what they actually said, or refused to use them, that would be an introduction of editorial bias and POV, and that is forbidden.
3128:
If
Collect feels the article and the transcript within it are not representing the statement reliably (which would be a surprise since apparently he didn't even bother to read the article otherwise he would've known there was a transcript inside) what he should have done is edit it accordingly, not
2254:
Google Books has a page for this book but does not have the book itself. It says on the Google page 'no eBook available'. That's why the quote cannot be found using Google. However, Amazon UK has a 'look inside' facility for the book, including search, and I was able to confirm that the quote IS in
1358:
Brangifer, thanks for your reply. I haven't read the article while keeping the conspiracy theory labels in mind, so I don't have any particular statement from the article in mind. As I mentioned, it was the sweeping comment about descriptions that caught my attention. I appreciate your explanation.
1336:
probably be more careful and add qualifying words, like "so and so has described Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist." Attribution would solve any problem. In this case, it's so obvious that adding attribution would seem as foolish as being required to add attribution to the description of a common
555:
Actually I agree with you about the racist thing, it hasn't been said but I disagree completely with your characterization of Cesca as a comedian. It doesn't wash and repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. I never said that HuffPo called him racist so quit trying to make strawman
200:
I wonder how many of the people who read/edit this article and talk page actually listen to his show. If you don't, you might not know about the kick he's been on lately where he shouts "Shut up, racist!" over and over again, in highlighting examples of how he's been proven right on various topics
1923:
Alex Jones is seen more as a far right John Birch
Society type lunatic fringe figure in the U.S. that panders to a small fringe on the U.S. far right. He is not widely known to the rest of the world at all. It is completely wrong to list Alex Jones as primary topic. That panders to Alex Jones' far
1511:
Blowing through and after scanning what has been written so far I've found there is nothing here in this article about AJ being part of
Project Mockingbird, a u.s. gov mis/disinformation campaign. I think, concerning AJs current role and that PM made him what he is today it should definitely be in
1122:
From
Knowledge (XXG), regarding "conspiracy theorist": "In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning." We can (and should) include a discussion of this claim within the body of the article, but there is nothing neutral about stating it unconditionally in the lead sentence, as if it
430:
says he is a political commentator and YOU are that last person to make an edit on that page. Huffington Post also says he is a political commentator. Note that your argument that his background is as a comedian is not in his Wiki page and you have provided no references to back up your assertion.
3380:
I'm pretty sure I've indicated before that I'm a listener. I rarely drink anymore, so nothing else to do at 1 or 2 in the morning when KFAR airs his show. All I'm gonna say is this: regardless of whatever opinion you have of Alex Jones or his show, the bullshit I see constantly coming across my
2746:
source if you wish to refer to anything like that. All too often, a primary video source is presented with a "quote snippet" which does not reflect the entirety of the source, which would mislead readers, whom I am sure you would not wish to mislead in any way. I would suggest, moreover, that
2454:
Not sure what you mean by "the youtube stuff is still not a valid ref" but in case you are referring to the moon landing statement, I note that two editors already have agreed with me and I'm waiting to hear about a third before re-instating the properly sourced content into the article. Regards.
1846:
and you might be able to argue the Alex Jones in sports have equal press time, the us conspiracy theorist is the only one in the "news" section and the top hit under editors choice. As shown above the top hit in
Australia news is the US conspiracy theorist, and also in the Canada national papers
958:
Are you trying to deny that the hosts in the video from 5.10 onwards is implying that Alex Jones has far right racist strands? No one so far has a problem with that video mentioning that Alex Jones has racist strands. You are the first so far. You are also the only one who raised issues with Bob
502:
I'm noticing shifting goal posts here. You skipped right past the part about political commentator and paraphrased his previous experience down to comedian. Which ironically is what you are objecting to when the IP editor paraphrases down to racist. Yet
Huffington Post was your justification for
475:
and even if Cesca is reliable for BLP claims, the article listed does NOT call him a racist, it goes into quite a bit of details about his wingnut theories, but it does not call them racist, just "deceitful, sociopathic" "bafoons", but i would have been justified to remove those from the section
1335:
Otherwise, you seem to be treating a description as being equal to an accusation. In principle that can be true, but in this case I doubt you'd find anyone who would deny that Alex Jones uses much of his time in discussing and spreading various conspiracy theories. If there were any doubt, we'd
1090:
Just wanted to point out that a lot of the discussion on this talk page over the past four months smells of trying to "seek consensus" for what amounts of POV pushing. Glad to see that it hasn't gained much traction. As for this specific point, I question placing "conspiracy theorist" as an
3163:
one added a simple question mark after "Because I have sources inside NASA?" which would completely negate the claim you wish to assert. Jones may be loony, but that does not mean we abrogate
Knowledge (XXG) policies because of that, in fact it means we should and must follow the policies
590:
No, comparing the 2 is not ridiculous, winning a
Pulitzer does nothing to establish credibility as a political commentator since the Pulitzer is for REPORTING not commentary. Would a prize winning (whatever the award is for this)automotive reviewer/journalist be qualified to offer political
640:
Everyone knows that Alex Jones is a far right southern fringe John Birch Society gun nut. The only one who disagrees on that here is Red Pen of Doom. He is probably a far right follower of Alex Jones. I am wondering whether below three sources can be used as reference on Alex Jones being a
2428:
is to remove it. In the case at hand, the quote was found in what appears to be a different edition of the book - so it can now be allowed, but it was clearly nor in the original cite, so the policy requirement is clear. This has absolutely nothing to do with who edits - it is part of
605:
Daffydavid, what happened to your previous dispute with Red Pen of Doom? Did you report him to the wiki authorities? Ren Pen of Doom is shamelessly abusing his power as mod to cover up and white wash Alex Jones. He is on the side of Alex Jones. I am going to report him to the wiki
1305:
1299:
943:
you would see someone talking about chocolates as clearly implying jones was a racist and someone mentioning the sky is blue as clearly implying jones is insane. you are grasping at straws but the only thing you are clearly showing that jones isnt the only looney out there. --
529:,) when you create cartoons is now the equivalent of being called a racist? And the where exactly does the Huff Po actually call Jones a racist so that such slander should be allowed in multiple section headers as being "sourced"? (and yes, there are times and places when even
1308:
1296:
2211:
shows what appears to be the only mention of Alex Jones in Bunch's book. The quotes asserted to be in that book do not appear to be in that book. Creation of quotes and attributing them to a book where the google search in that book does not show such a quote is improper.
575:
in realms of reliable sources. Huff Po is the only source publishing the content of a cartoonist and former shock jock radio person. Yes, the Huff Po does indeed raise his reliability a little, but to compare the two and place them on the same level is just ridiculous. --
1069:
In addition to what TRPoD said, the term "conspiracy theorist", at its most basic, refers to one who puts forward theories regarding conspiracies, which is undoubtedly what Alex Jones is most known for. I wouldn't say that "conspiracy theorist" is, in itself, derogatory.
1454:
If it's relevant enough to be mentioned it's relevant enough to be cited. The views portrayed on any YouTube channel with a dedicated focus to the man should serve as a fine indication of his relevance to public interest, an important factor for a conspiracy theorist.
1444:
mark on in the starting synopsis regarding total views on his YouTube channel. I don't have editing accessibility to that part of the article so I'm requesting aid from anyone who has. The source for the claim is easily found here and matches the current claim:
570:
1) thank you for admitting that I was justified in my actions in removing and hatting BLP content. 2) Huff Po was one of many publications publishing content that further qualified the credentials of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and made his publications a
913:
what kind of drugs are you on? even in that edited clip there is not once where anyone calls jones a racist. i really do not understand your personal obsession. you dont have to make shit up to make Jones look bad. he does a fine job of that all by himself. --
255:
must be upheld to the max then. I think there can be no discussion about it. A website with a professional layout which makes allegations, or uses original definitions of 'racism', does not count. Citing the contents of a YouTube video does not count either.
2101:
The movie is a live action-animation mix. To call it simply an animated film is not accurate. First actors are filmed, then they were rotoscoped over with animation for the final film. Alex Jones did this as well for his cameo. A better wording would be:
556:
arguments. What I am saying is that if HuffPo is valid to supply bonafides for Mr. Bunch then you can't say it's not valid for Cesca. So, racist- no RS sources for this, Cesca as a political commentator - using your criteria for validating Bunch, yes. --
1302:
898:
So far no one from mainstream media has come out and say that Alex Jones is not racist. There seems to be no argument in mainstream media on whether Alex Jones is a racist or not. To say that Alex Jones is a racist is not controversial in mainstream.
2747:
substantial amounts of this article are critical of Mr. Jones, and that adding a problematic claim would substantially weaken the article. Cheers. By the way, "commanding editors" is not exactly a great idea when dealing with policy-basd cavils.
503:
including Will Bunch as qualified to comment but he was a reporter not a political commentator prior to his move to HuffPo. So if writing for HuffPo is no longer bonafides for being a political commentator shall we remove the Will Bunch material?--
1226:
As to whether a conspiracy theory is true or not, it can be true or not true. Some conspiracies exist, and some which are claimed do not exist. At Knowledge (XXG), if the title of an article indicates it is about a conspiracy theory, such as
1359:
Personal attacks such as labeling someone to minimze them and avoid a real discussion (ad hominem attacks) from the media are common nowadays. But without a specific statement from the article, there's no point in my pursuing this. Regards,
1208:
When we describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist, we are not taking any position as to the truth or falsity of his claims, we are only using the descriptions used by RS. You would have to examine the sources to find out what they
467:
also, not a foundation to be making BLP claims. I stand by (repeated) removals of accusations of racism from the section headings and closing the comment that had been open for over a month with no reliable sources provided per
450:"he founded Camp Chaos, an alternative media production studio based near Philadelphia for which he animated and performed voices for the cartoon Napster Bad. He currently runs a new media production company called Snark Rocket.
1340:: "According to so and so, a crow is black in color." Since crows ARE black (with few exceptions), and all are agreed on that fact, we are safe to just state it as a fact: "Crows are black in color." Attribution isn't needed.
2331:
The link given here was for the US hardcover - and not the UK paperback. It appears the two may either have different content or that Google's search is not as good as Amazon's. I suspect the different publication dates
1343:
OTOH, if we were stating that Jones spreads untrue conspiracy theories, we'd have to attribute that, because there would be wide disagreement on that issue. I don't think we say that in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, do we? --
928:
The video from 5.10 onwards clearly shows the hosts implying that Alex Jones has strands of a far right fringe racist. There's no doubt on that. No one can deny, suppress, distort or whitewwash Alex Jones on that point.
830:
appears a tad non-notable for a major award (it appears to give out about $ 20K per annum in awards" per four NYT articles from press releases). His Twitter posts seem all to be to blogs, and I suggest he might not meet
763:
Arthur Robin, did you look at the sources that I provided? I want your views on whether they are valid as a reference to show that Alex Jones is a far right racist bigot. Can you take a look at them and give your views?
455:
Beginning in 2006, Cesca edited and directed the animated series Kung Fu Jimmy Chow for Heavy.com. In addition, he conceived and produced ILL-ustrated, a VH1 animated comedy series which premiered on October 17, 2003."
1882:
I didn't say he was a TV presenter. I said a radio host is also a presenter (any broadcaster in any medium is a presenter), so using "presenter" to disambiguate the British Alex Jones is no disambiguation at all. --
1373:
Thanks for the reply. Anytime you wish to pursue this with something specific, we can deal with it. We don't want to mislead anyone or misuse sources. Whether something is a label or a description (a label should be
1254:"A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering."
825:
article appears to be specifically aimed at promoting an editorial opinion rather than be an objective article on the living person. Burghart appears to be an anonymous blogger (see his "picture"), and
2264:
2295:
now an inexistent link with your constant reverts (which by the way is a Youtube link being used as a source; ironic given how much you opposed YT sources in the above thread). You need to stop now.
2714:
by a political journalist and both you and Collect need an actual reason to reject it along with the also valid primary sources that were in place with it. Your own personal opinion on how it "
2356:
verified you still haven't' re-instated it into the article. Why am I not surprised? I'll add it myself since I have the distinct feeling you have no intention of doing so, even though it was
2288:, Collects' constant edit-warring is becoming really tiresome. I've alerted the editor who originally inserted the sourced statement into the article to see what s/he has to say about this.
1631:- I'll be okay with this either way this goes. As an American, Alex Jones, the radio host, is the only one who comes to mind when I hear his name but I suppose it is different elsewhere.
243:
I'm no fan of this man. To me he's a con-artist. Doesn't mean he's a racist. An editor who wishes to add this accusation to his page should present mighty good evidence. Core values like
158:
of racism could possibly addressed in the bio if there is significant enough coverage of the issue in multiple reliable sources and it were presented in a neutral and balanced manner.--
985:" it requires us to use only what reliable sources state as fact when we state something as a fact. Period. And I would kindly suggest that you well ought to raise your position at
126:
There are many sources online that show Alex Jones as a far right racist but I am wondering whether below clip can be used as a source in the bio to show that Alex Jones is a racist:
2256:
426:
you are clearly overstepping your bounds and deleting comments to hide an ongoing discussion. Your argument that Bob Cesca is not a political writer is exceptionally odd considering
3202:, right? The article has the excerpt fully transcripted and it is of course a reliable secondary source for it. Now you are talking about what would happen if someone altered it??
2173:
Jones has been the center of many controversies, such as the controversy surrounding his actions and statements about gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
1975:, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In addition there is
1613:
is quite a well known figure in Britain, many British people would regard her as the primary meaning, and have never heard of the radio host. Traffic stats aren't everything.
3405:
That's funny. I've noted a tendency to censor anything contradicting liberal propaganda, but we "marginalize" Alex because reliable sources do. Every single one of them. ā
2500:
may be a reliable source for the fact that Olivia Nuzzi has opinions about Jones. That, alas, does not make her editorial a reliable source for claims of fact about Jones.
363:
huffingtonpost states that Bob Cesca is a political writer. I don't see a problem with that. Can you cite a source that shows Bob Cesca is not credible as a political writer?
3140:
I'm going to give him yet one more chance (the sixth) to fix his own mess and restore the information he removed improperly, editing it if he feels it would be appropriate.
1275:
the following comment was originally posted in the middle of Brangifer's comment, following the paragraph that begins "When we describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist,...
673:
178:
229:
And wikipedia is "hopelessly" out of touch. And "infowars" is a credible "news site", I suppose. lol. You might as well tell me Obama plotted the Boston bombings. lol.
1906:
The radio host is clearly not the primary topic from a global perspective, and arguably is not primary by any measure, as he is far from a household name in America.
2239:
Please do NOT try reverting again - it simply makes me get to regard an editor as tendentious when they repeatedly insert material which is not in the source cited.
2265:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backlash-Right-Wing-Radicals-High-Def-Hucksters/dp/0061991724/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409342090&sr=1-1#reader_0061991724
1674:
the overwhelming majority of hits on the first few pages are still the US alex jones, with a few other "Alex Jones" thrown in, but none of whom we have articles for
2312:
the dead link and now use a live Forbes link for listenership. Dead links are not the same as links which do not support a claim in the first place. Cheers.
2771:
should have done instead of removing long standing and properly cited content from the article, as I've stated above already: if you feel it needs work done
1232:
2337:
cited to the author as opinion at best. The author is a fellow at MMfA, and is possibly not a dispassionate observer of those whom he pillories. Cheers.
2135:(which I admittedly just read) merits mentioning; if someone else agrees, please add in a way that does not run afoul of rules (which I seem to have done)
2498:
1672:. when you do a google book search and filter out the books written by the US alex jones and the Knowledge (XXG) scrapings that feature the US alex jones
3102:
section of a reputable news outlet. I'm not sure what you mean by a "column" vs an "article", you mean if it is an editorial opinion piece? In that case
3159:
not an excerpt in an article. Is this clear? Absent the full context, how do we know he was not making a point in a hypothetical manner -- f'rinstamce
1673:
2573:
I'll give you the chance to reinstate the very long standing content you removed. If you feel it needs to paraphrase Jones more closely then edit it.
3358:
a major issue on Knowledge (XXG), I told you what his affiliations were, and any cavil about the word "and" is simply silly. Back to vacation.
2257:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backlash-Right-Wing-Radicals-High-Def-Hucksters/dp/0061991724/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409342090&sr=1-1
1419:
when the news spread that Jared Laughner had been "a fan" of the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change, of which Jones had been an executive producer.
2308:
Actually it counts as a "dead link" which is not automatically a problem, it did exist once per the note it was live on 13 Feb 2014. But I have
1841:
1174:
We do discuss the claim in the body of the article, and document it using many RS. It is an undisputed fact that he spreads conspiracy theories.
445:
it is NOT out of bounds to remove accusations of racism about a living person from section headings where no reliable sources make such claims.
2897:
own mess and edit the sourced information in place rather than edit-war to remove it completely because you feel the article is too "critical".
1733:āĀ this Alex Jones clearly does not approach the threshold for primary topic of such a common name, and gets fewer than half the page views.
1569:
859:
1688:
1023:
Calling Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist" seems derogatory. Doesn't the use of this term presuppose the truth or non-truth of his claims?
2661:
I concur with WP Editor Collect on this issue. Biographies of living persons MUST have the highest standards for reliable sources. See:
677:
230:
184:
2447:
Uh-huh "not provably in a source given", perhaps you should have better checked the source or even taken the time and invested the effort
1649:
1544:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
541:
by a comedian in an reliable source making commentary about a living person. One is generally acceptable; one is almost always not. --
2929:
to find a transcript while holding the properly sourced information hostage until that happens? Are you for real or was that a bad joke?
1925:
960:
930:
900:
880:
lease. Contentious claims about living persons require strong reliable sourcing. So far, no such source has been proffered. Cheers.
808:
607:
314:
282:
133:
2813:
Collect: restore the reliably sourced content you've edit-warred to remove editing it if you think it needs improvement. Fourth time.
400:
If no one provides evidence that shows Bob Cesca is not a political writer, I will be reverting the archive status of the topic thread.
3011:
to determine whether your secondary source is "news" or a "column". I lean toward it being a "column", which would probably not be a
2209:
1513:
1494:
1456:
1426:
401:
385:
370:
225:
lol. That is a very naive and gullible view of Alex Jones. People who are less naive can easily see through the racism of Alex Jones.
1795:
1130:
1030:
1653:
2097:
Alex Jones and fans at the PremiĆØre of A Scanner Darkly, an animated film by Richard Linklater, in which Jones has a voice credit.
3076:
1683:
various alex jones who do not have articles yet but maybe should. when you take out jones as author to find who is being written
804:
3394:
2535:. That you feel it is opinionated is so irrelevant it makes your second revert, once again acting as if you had never heard of
1104:
261:
1837:
a search of news from around the globe puts your claim of "is the primary in their country" claim in quesion. in the Guardian
2131:
794:
665:
1666:
4 of the first six hits are for the US Jones (the other two being a fictional movie character and a school crossing guard )
2801:. This leads to the involvement by other editors who will also contribute and so on. That's how it works. You don't break
2049:
1665:
747:. A political commentator is very likely to write the latter, while journalists are more likely to write the former. We
2797:
If you have an issue with how a properly cited piece of information is presented, then do what a WP editor should do and
1971:
co-authored by John Paul Holdren, the current Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy." is two-fold. Per
1661:
3205:
Once again you've wasted a significant portion of my time attempting by all means to whitewash conservative/republicans
1767:. I'm not even convinced this Alex Jones is notable, not to mention the primary usage of the term. I should add that
1535:
2993:
interpretation of what he said. (Considering that (IMO) no one in his right mind could believe much of what he said,
1865:
1636:
1595:
3210:
2912:
If you want to use primary sources, the onus is on you to show they are needed and that they are being used properly.
2805:
and edit-war a suitable and reliable sourced statement from an article because you think the article is too negative.
1838:
1691:
with the rest slightly favoring the pulitzer prize journalist alex jones over the US conspiracy theorist alex jones.
1669:
1609:. The large number of people with this name means that we should be cautious about deciding a primary meaning, and
2670:
1857:
1422:
311:
279:
257:
94:
38:
2013:
1854:
977:
allow "implication" as a reason to make a claim in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. Nor does it allow us to add what we "
2106:
Alex Jones and fans at the PremiĆØre of A Scanner Darkly, a film by Richard Linklater, in which Jones has a cameo.
1869:
1816:
1713:
1712:(and you obviously havent read the article if you think this alex jones is a radio host giving traffic stats) --
1699:
1605:ā I realize that this was discussed just over a year ago, but I believe this is an example of systemic bias, see
1565:
1316:
1054:
945:
915:
577:
542:
477:
418:
348:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
1791:
628:, and no one has provided evidence that Cesca is a journalist. You're quoting an opinion column in Huff Po. ā
2255:
the book. I cannot link to the sub-page which opens up when you click on 'look inside' but the product page is
2045:
1228:
863:
681:
1953:
1545:
799:
669:
234:
188:
2468:
Gaba_p is correct: The citations given for the statement on the Moon landing meet the policy requirements. --
2263:
EDIT: The sub-page CAN be linked but you will have to input text into the search box to find the quotations:
2140:
1929:
1668:
showing significant international coverage. the other Alex Jones article has coverage from British press and
964:
934:
904:
812:
318:
286:
137:
2017:
1864:
And he is not a TV presenter, he is a radio and internet guy. however if there is going to be a DAB on him,
1755:
1632:
1517:
1460:
611:
3187:
2949:
2706:, in case you haven't' noticed I mentioned it several times. If you have an issue with the DB article then
1126:
1026:
3409:
3031:
1812:
1779:
1618:
1610:
1488:
1387:
1349:
1265:
755:
632:
405:
389:
374:
3309:
in "..Web-oriented approach" and "there was always.." is grammatically inconsistent. Stop introducing it.
2540:
2411:
not self-reverting to re-instate the properly sourced content you removed even after being proven wrong.
2385:. The quote you loved is not apparently in the earlier book, but in the UK paperback AFAICT. Cheers.
2699:
2666:
2473:
2181:
2078:
1689:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22alex+jones%22+-author:jones&hl=en&as_sdt=0,24
1134:
1034:
722:
621:
3005:
can verify that it was uploaded with permission of the copyright holder. I'm not familiar enough with
1512:
the article. Is there a reason this info has been excluded, or did I just read too fast and miss it?
858:
Would it be fair to say that Alex Jones has racist tendencies? Mainstream media seems to agree on that.
333:
146:
No, that clip does not "prove" he is racist. Calling him such in his bio would be a clear violation of
827:
2115:
1988:
1888:
1824:
1811:. Each is the primary topic in their respective countries, but neither is internationally. Also move
1687:, the first couple of pages of results are mostly not ones that we dont seem to have articles about [
1657:
1558:
1364:
1287:
730:
596:
561:
533:
reliable sources are not reliable. For example, when a reliable source is being used as a source for
508:
436:
2791:
2772:
2191:
1046:
328:
Cesca's background appears to be as a comedian and not of the standing required for commentary in a
3388:
2981:
2195:
1851:
1098:
208:
3312:
Your MMfA link is invalid and furthermore this is an award winning book author and journalist of
3094:", we already have it, it's the DB article I posted. It is an article by a political journalist (
2808:"substantial amounts of this article are critical of Mr. Jones", I couldn't care less, see above.
2136:
1751:
1738:
2839:, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Knowledge (XXG) editors.
2830:
1976:
1312:
986:
982:
3406:
3363:
3282:
3231:
3173:
3095:
3047:
3028:
2845:
2752:
2595:
2512:
2438:
2390:
2342:
2317:
2271:
2244:
2230:
1776:
1614:
1483:
1383:
1345:
1279:
1261:
994:
885:
848:
752:
714:
629:
464:
1606:
978:
248:
173:
I don't know, there are clips all over the place on Alex Jones' blatant racism, for example:
151:
3347:
3330:
3250:
3219:
3146:
2962:
2819:
2727:
2640:
2579:
2469:
2461:
2417:
2370:
2301:
2177:
2156:
1848:
1798:
1313:
in representing the mainstream academic view of Jones, to not call out "conspiracy theorist"
1257:
1076:
3206:
3134:
2976:
2941:
2802:
2787:
2776:
2707:
2590:
Find reliable secondary sources other than opinion sources for statements of fact. Cheers
2536:
2430:
2072:
1980:
1664:
and when you type "alex jones" into the search engine for the major aussie paper "The Age"
873:
836:
469:
344:
340:
329:
252:
147:
113:
3007:
2111:
1984:
1911:
1884:
1820:
1360:
1329:
1283:
726:
592:
557:
504:
432:
163:
47:
17:
3012:
2933:
2711:
2703:
2662:
2631:
2614:
2565:
2532:
2504:
2068:
1972:
1943:
1448:
1191:
You seem to deny that he spreads conspiracy theories. Is it true that you deny the claim?
877:
839:
requires strong reliable sourcing for contentious claims, and calling a living person an
832:
244:
117:
2634:
and primary sources in place and restore the content you removed with no valid reasons.
3382:
1092:
518:
202:
2407:
I have no issues with that quote, I never touched it. I do have an issue however with
2225:
When a claim fails verification, one doubts the use of the source entirely. Cheers.
1050:
226:
130:
3027:
as to what is needed here, but I agree that what has been provided is not enough. ā
3020:
1734:
3359:
3292:
3278:
3227:
3169:
3024:
2889:
by some other editor, I simply provided the secondary source after you removed it.
2841:
2748:
2591:
2508:
2434:
2386:
2338:
2313:
2285:
2267:
2240:
2226:
1844:
990:
881:
844:
821:(od) only the last appears to call his positions "racist" and the problem is that
591:
commentary? I would like to think no, but that's the way your argument appears. --
384:
Red Pen, what grounds to you have to say that Bob Cesca is not a political writer?
3213:
attitude and constant goalpost moving. I'll take this to the proper noticeboard.
1967:
The issue concerning "To support this point of view, he often refers to the book
3342:
3325:
3245:
3214:
3141:
3096:
Olivia Nuzzi is a writer and journalist who covers politics for The Daily Beast.
2972:
2957:
2814:
2722:
2635:
2621:
Olivia Nuzzi is a writer and journalist who covers politics for The Daily Beast.
2574:
2456:
2412:
2365:
2296:
2151:
1071:
526:
522:
312:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/alex-jones-insists-the-ke_b_4006051.html
280:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/alex-jones-insists-the-ke_b_4006051.html
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3412:
3399:
3367:
3349:
3332:
3286:
3252:
3235:
3221:
3177:
3148:
3034:
2964:
2849:
2821:
2756:
2729:
2674:
2642:
2599:
2581:
2516:
2477:
2463:
2442:
2419:
2394:
2372:
2346:
2321:
2303:
2275:
2248:
2234:
2199:
2185:
2158:
2144:
2119:
2085:
2053:
1992:
1933:
1915:
1892:
1877:
1828:
1803:
1782:
1759:
1742:
1721:
1707:
1640:
1622:
1574:
1521:
1501:
1464:
1430:
1391:
1368:
1353:
1324:
1291:
1269:
1138:
1109:
1081:
1062:
1038:
998:
968:
953:
938:
923:
908:
889:
867:
852:
816:
758:
734:
685:
635:
615:
600:
585:
565:
550:
512:
485:
440:
409:
393:
378:
356:
322:
290:
265:
238:
213:
192:
167:
141:
1952:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
1907:
1772:
1698:
all in all i am not convinced that we have not got the primary alex jones. --
1599:
1584:
895:
718:
625:
174:
159:
127:
3277:
Given and sourced as opinion lest anyone think I would censor his opinions.
3099:
3019:"journalists") are considered reliable sources for conservatives such as the
2835:
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources
3317:
2665:
To restore these assertions you will need truly reliable secondary sources
1790:
Does not meet the threshold ("highly likely" and "much more likely") set by
1051:
fact that multiple reliable sources consider him to be a conspiracy theorist
427:
805:
Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights report on Alex Jones
367:
2721:
Collect: restore the content you removed for no valid reason, third time.
3302:, the show) and loose symbols (paranoia."<.<ref). Be more careful.
3301:
You keep introducing syntax mistakes like multiple spaces (</ref: -->
2790:
that this is just an honest mistake and you are actually familiar with
2612:
I have no idea what you mean by "opinion sources". The DB article is a
2952:
and restore the appropriately sourced content you edit-war to removed
1979:. Come to an agreement and I'll unprotect early or someone can ask at
2451:
in tracking down the original edit and asking the editor who made it.
2042:
620:
Sorry. Although I agree with you that Jones is a right-wing loon, a
3113:. The article used even has that relevant part of Jones' statement
989:
as you quite appear to lack any support from others here. Cheers.
3354:
Je suis en vacance, but I find your tone above inapt. Spaces are
2879:
You have made claims that it is up to others to fix your own mess.
739:
I made a mistake. Cesca's credentials are irrelevant. We need a
310:
Alex Jones is worse than a far right con man to others:(redacted)
3080:
3054:
be used as primary sources and are reliable sources for what he
1337:
2938:
The secondary source is in place along with the primary sources
2738:. As I have iterated. The primary video sources are,however,
2377:
I use a quote which is quite notable about Jones - and cite it
2525:
you need reliable secondary sources for any contentious claims
2001:
1860:
1677:
association and google scholar where there are a lot of works
25:
301:
additional discussion about Bob Cesca and the Huffington Post
3137:
as he tends to do to whitewash conservative/republican BLPs.
2786:.", given the time you've spent as a WP editor I'm going to
2940:. If you have an issue with the DB's political journalist,
2718:" as a reason to dismiss it, is as irrelevant as Collect's.
1840:
this Alex Jones is the primary hit as well as at the times
1775:
to make sure they point to the correct place, afterward. ā
1300:
the most visible and vocal of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
3075:
has (...) accused the U.S. government of (...) filming of
1750:
doesn't meet a 66% of all long term print uses criterion.
1309:"radio talk show host, film maker and conspiracy theorist"
3337:
Found a source where it states that Bunch is apparently
3182:
I see, so the goalpost now moved to a transcript of the
2433:. And note the youtube stuff is still not a valid ref.
1534:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
275:
Alex Jones is worse than a far right con man to others:
3296:
3241:
2558:
Nuzzi does not appear to be phrasing anything neutrally
2551:
2528:
2424:
Where something is not provably in a source given, the
2381:
as Bunch's opinion. I believe I said a few times that
1648:
the US Alex Jones article right now has coverage from
1589:
894:
MSNBC says that Alex Jones is a far right deep racist.
517:
Being called a comedian (particularly one compared to
3070:. Just to remind you, this is what is being sourced:
1942:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1449:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/about
306:
redacted duplicate comment from above to give context
2914:" Which they are, as clearly proven by the reliable
2907:? So you've decided you are simply going to lie now?
2067:
It doesn't look like hollowverse.com qualifies as a
1843:
even at the BBC where some other Alex Jones pop up,
1548:. No further edits should be made to this section.
713:I'm clearly missing the logic behind your argument
3198:"One" added? You do realize you are talking about
2779:and then challenge other editors to fix your mess.
1956:. No further edits should be made to this section.
271:"I'm no fan of this man. To me he's a con-artist."
2997:must be given a wide range.) Youtube videos are
2885:add the statement into the article, it was added
2775:, don't edit-war to remove it blatantly ignoring
2550:a primary source as I explicitly mentioned in my
1303:"one of America's best known conspiracy theorists
3015:. On the other hand, ultra-liberal columnists (
2901:"You have asserted that you can command others."
795:Southern Poverty Law Center report on Alex Jones
3341:a fellow in MMfA. I added it into the article.
3023:, so what do I know? I don't fully agree with
2710:is the place to ask. Until then is it indeed a
2352:I note that inspite of acknowledging the quote
1252:In the real world, this quote is a good guide:
624:is not a BLP-reliable source. We would need a
460:not a basis for someone to be making BLP claims
1819:, since a radio host is also a presenter. --
470:Knowledge (XXG):TPG#Maintain_Wikipedia_policy
8:
3092:until we have a reliable, third-party source
2923:Find a transcript for what you wish to claim
1233:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
131:Alex Jones responds to MSNBC's Racist claims
3240:Noted indeed which is why the statement is
2150:What do you mean by "appearance"? Regards.
1868:would be the most descriptive indicator.--
227:Is Alex Jones Racist? Is The Pope Catholic?
3117:(as Collect felt was so utterly crucial):
3110:and this is an article by said journalist.
3058:said since it's recordings and filming of
128:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sU-9ZV7WsM
107:
2071:for Knowledge (XXG)'s purposes, as it is
2038:Add Christianity as Alex Jones' religion
800:Anti-Defamation League file on Alex Jones
3226:I note the reply you already got there.
3186:show. I'll tell you what is clear, your
2932:I don't understand why you feel quoting
2837:must be referenced to a secondary source
2782:"The primary video sources are,however,
721:? How does that qualify someone to be a
368:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/
336:from every person who doesnt like Jones.
3295:, about the recent edit you are making
1924:right fringe followers. That is wrong.
1771:would need to check the references to
896:MSNBC Calls Alex Jones āDeeply Racistā
835:for any contentious claims of fact.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3068:there is no interpretation to be made
2630:Once again: stop ignoring the proper
1998:Protected edit request on 27 May 2014
1553:The result of the move request was: '
1421:His name is actually Jared Loughner.
7:
3106:, as I stated above the author is a
1856:and japanese english language press
1375:
334:not a chatroom to spam every comment
3194:one added a simple question mark",
2554:. You chose to ignore this as well.
2956:with no valid reason. Fifth time.
2936:strengthens your case in any way.
2383:opinions must be cited as opinions
2190:I agree. It should be taken down.
2043:http://hollowverse.com/alex-jones/
843:seems to fall into that category.
24:
3320:. Stop removing this information.
2503:YouTube videos are covered under
1306:"conspiracy theorist broadcaster"
1297:"omnipresent conspiracy theorist"
3066:interpretation involved because
2985:itself is not a reliable source
2763:"You can quote Nuzzi's opinions
2360:who removed it from the article
2059:
2005:
1866:Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist)
1471:
1376:
29:
2734:You can quote Nuzzi's opinions
2716:MUST have the highest standards
2560:, do you want to know how much
666:SPL Center report on Alex Jones
2799:edit the content appropriately
2627:, are proper primary sources..
2129:I think Jones's appearance in
266:02:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
1:
3413:01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
3400:21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
3368:13:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3253:01:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
2925:", what? You are challenging
2742:. Find a reliable secondary
2132:The Man Who Wouldn't Stand Up
1502:06:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1440:I couldn't help but notice a
1392:03:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
1369:17:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1354:16:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1325:13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1292:12:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1270:08:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1139:07:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1110:05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1082:04:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1063:03:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1039:03:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
1019:POV about conspiracy theories
959:Cesca being political writer.
751:the former, to be BLP-RS. ā
330:article about a living person
1963:Article protected for a week
1465:01:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
1431:18:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
999:11:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
969:04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
954:04:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
939:03:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
924:02:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
909:02:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
890:17:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
868:14:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
853:12:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
817:05:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
3350:01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
3333:01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
3287:22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
3236:16:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
3222:15:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
3178:12:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
3149:02:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
3131:edit war to remove it twice
3035:17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2965:14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2850:13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2822:13:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2757:12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2730:02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2675:01:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2643:00:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
2600:23:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
2582:22:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
2517:21:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
2478:03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2464:01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2443:00:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2420:00:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2395:00:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
2373:23:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2347:22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2322:22:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2304:20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2291:Collect: you have inserted
2276:20:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2249:19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2235:16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
2200:14:55, 04 August 2014 (UTC)
2032:to reactivate your request.
2020:has been answered. Set the
1660:and a british edition from
1596:Alex Jones (disambiguation)
1467:- AKA PPH, a casual editor
1315:would be inappropriate. --
759:23:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
735:20:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
686:08:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
674:IREHR profile on Alex Jones
636:14:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
616:08:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
601:23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
586:11:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
566:01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
551:00:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
513:00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
486:19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
441:19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
410:12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
394:11:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
379:11:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
357:10:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
323:09:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
291:09:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
239:02:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
214:18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
193:05:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
168:19:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
142:14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
3429:
1934:07:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
1921:Complete and total Support
1916:21:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1893:14:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
1878:13:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1829:12:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1804:06:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
1783:22:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1760:07:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1743:03:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1722:00:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1708:01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1641:23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
1623:22:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
1575:00:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
1522:22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
1436:Citation for YouTube views
339:Closing and archiving per
103:descriptions of Alex Jones
3155:Um -- "transcript" means
3062:saying them. There is no
2916:secondary source in place
2625:as stated three times now
2617:by a political journalist
2562:your own personal opinion
2186:07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
2159:14:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
1817:Alex Jones (TV presenter)
1670:wales, her place of birth
3273:Will Bunch opinion added
3209:with your stonewalling,
3157:a transcript of the show
3001:reliable sources unless
2765:as opinions cited to her
2736:as opinions cited to her
2169:no explanation of this:
2145:23:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2120:20:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
2086:21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
2054:19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
1993:08:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
1949:Please do not modify it.
1853:and in the german press
1541:Please do not modify it.
1423:Doopliss von grapple 2.0
1229:9/11 conspiracy theories
745:political opinion column
463:before that he was with
3190:which escapes no one. "
2546:The youtube videos are
2284:Thanks for stepping in
2018:Alex Jones (radio host)
1873:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1717:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1703:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1590:Alex Jones (radio host)
1320:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1123:were undisputed fact.
1058:aka The Red Pen of Doom
949:aka The Red Pen of Doom
919:aka The Red Pen of Doom
581:aka The Red Pen of Doom
546:aka The Red Pen of Doom
481:aka The Red Pen of Doom
422:aka The Red Pen of Doom
352:aka The Red Pen of Doom
2623:") and the YT videos,
2108:
2099:
1813:Alex Jones (presenter)
1611:Alex Jones (presenter)
841:far right racist bigot
670:ADL file on Alex Jones
179:Alex Jones and Bigotry
175:Alex Jones is a Racist
2104:
2095:
2046:Reverend Mick man34 ā£
973:Knowledge (XXG) does
723:political commentator
622:political commentator
114:about a living person
42:of past discussions.
3133:completely ignoring
3108:political journalist
3083:'s secret technology
1973:No original research
476:headers as well. --
2982:The Alex Jones show
1662:palmgrave macmillon
1507:Project Mockingbird
717:. Why do we need a
116:unsubstantiated by
3390:Talk to me, Billy
3168:strictly for him.
3077:fake Moon landings
2989:there is no other
2767:", no that's what
2702:I'm well aware of
1650:the Ottawa Citizen
1100:Talk to me, Billy
537:as compared to an
258:Gretchen MƤdelnick
210:Talk to me, Billy
3211:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
3200:altering a source
2527:, which is why I
2036:
2035:
1874:
1797:
1718:
1704:
1633:Mark Schierbecker
1573:
1321:
1276:
1129:comment added by
1059:
1029:comment added by
950:
920:
582:
547:
482:
465:Don and Mike Show
423:
353:
307:
297:
296:
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3420:
3397:
3391:
3385:
3345:
3328:
3318:properly sourced
3316:news outlets as
3248:
3244:in the article.
3217:
3144:
3098:) posted in the
2960:
2817:
2725:
2700:ReformedBeliever
2667:ReformedBeliever
2638:
2577:
2494:Reliable sources
2459:
2415:
2368:
2299:
2154:
2081:
2080:Mr. Stradivarius
2063:
2062:
2027:
2023:
2009:
2008:
2002:
1951:
1875:
1872:
1794:
1719:
1716:
1705:
1702:
1592:
1564:
1561:
1543:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1322:
1319:
1274:
1258:Bertrand Russell
1141:
1107:
1101:
1095:
1060:
1057:
1041:
951:
948:
921:
918:
828:Petra Foundation
743:, rather than a
583:
580:
548:
545:
483:
480:
424:
421:
354:
351:
305:
211:
205:
118:reliable sources
108:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3428:
3427:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3395:
3389:
3383:
3378:
3343:
3326:
3275:
3246:
3215:
3142:
3008:The Daily Beast
2958:
2815:
2723:
2636:
2575:
2496:
2457:
2413:
2366:
2297:
2207:
2205:reference abuse
2167:
2152:
2127:
2125:Edit Suggestion
2094:
2079:
2069:reliable source
2060:
2025:
2021:
2006:
2000:
1965:
1960:
1947:
1870:
1792:wp:primarytopic
1714:
1700:
1588:
1559:
1539:
1529:
1509:
1486:
1482:
1481:
1472:
1470:
1442:citation needed
1438:
1416:
1377:
1374:descriptive....
1317:
1124:
1105:
1099:
1093:
1080:
1055:
1024:
1021:
946:
916:
860:220.255.169.143
578:
543:
478:
419:
349:
303:
298:
209:
203:
120:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Alex Jones
12:
11:
5:
3426:
3424:
3416:
3415:
3396:Transmissions
3377:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3371:
3370:
3352:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3310:
3303:
3274:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3203:
3138:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3111:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3040:
3039:
3038:
3037:
2948:Collect: stop
2946:
2945:
2930:
2919:
2908:
2898:
2893:need to clean
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2806:
2795:
2780:
2719:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2628:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2585:
2584:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2555:
2544:
2495:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2452:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2289:
2279:
2278:
2260:
2259:
2223:
2222:
2215:
2206:
2203:
2175:
2174:
2166:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2126:
2123:
2093:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2073:self-published
2034:
2033:
2010:
1999:
1996:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1958:
1944:requested move
1938:
1937:
1936:
1918:
1904:Strong Support
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1862:
1832:
1831:
1806:
1785:
1762:
1745:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1710:
1693:
1692:
1643:
1603:
1602:
1593:
1580:
1578:
1551:
1550:
1536:requested move
1530:
1528:
1527:Requested move
1525:
1508:
1505:
1437:
1434:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1341:
1333:
1277:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1106:Transmissions
1085:
1084:
1074:
1066:
1065:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
803:
798:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
678:116.14.148.109
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
519:Weekend Update
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
473:
461:
458:
452:
446:
413:
412:
397:
396:
365:
364:
360:
359:
337:
302:
299:
295:
294:
273:
272:
231:219.74.133.191
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
185:119.74.160.192
182:
181:
122:
121:
111:
106:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3425:
3414:
3411:
3408:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3398:
3392:
3386:
3375:
3369:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3351:
3348:
3346:
3340:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3331:
3329:
3324:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3308:
3304:
3300:
3299:
3297:
3294:
3291:
3290:
3289:
3288:
3284:
3280:
3272:
3254:
3251:
3249:
3243:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3233:
3229:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3220:
3218:
3212:
3208:
3204:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3188:filibustering
3185:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3167:
3162:
3158:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3150:
3147:
3145:
3139:
3136:
3132:
3127:
3122:
3119:
3118:
3116:
3112:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3084:
3082:
3078:
3072:
3071:
3069:
3065:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3041:
3036:
3033:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3021:Koch brothers
3018:
3014:
3010:
3009:
3004:
3000:
2996:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2983:
2978:
2974:
2971:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2963:
2961:
2955:
2951:
2950:filibustering
2943:
2939:
2935:
2931:
2928:
2924:
2920:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2906:
2903:What? I have
2902:
2899:
2896:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2851:
2847:
2843:
2840:
2838:
2832:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2820:
2818:
2812:
2807:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2784:not permitted
2781:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2754:
2750:
2745:
2741:
2740:not permitted
2737:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2728:
2726:
2720:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2701:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2644:
2641:
2639:
2633:
2629:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2616:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2583:
2580:
2578:
2572:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2556:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2542:
2539:, borderline
2538:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2501:
2499:
2493:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2462:
2460:
2453:
2450:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2427:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2418:
2416:
2410:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2335:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2302:
2300:
2294:
2290:
2287:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2266:
2262:
2261:
2258:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2237:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2221:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2213:
2210:
2204:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2188:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2164:
2160:
2157:
2155:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2137:LincolnWarsII
2134:
2133:
2124:
2122:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2107:
2103:
2098:
2091:
2087:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2044:
2039:
2031:
2028:parameter to
2019:
2015:
2011:
2004:
2003:
1997:
1995:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1962:
1957:
1955:
1950:
1945:
1940:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1926:182.55.93.198
1922:
1919:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1876:
1867:
1863:
1861:
1858:
1855:
1852:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1839:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1796:
1793:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1781:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1752:In ictu oculi
1749:
1746:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1723:
1720:
1711:
1709:
1706:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1591:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1556:
1549:
1547:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1531:
1526:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1506:
1504:
1503:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1485:
1478:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1452:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1413:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1339:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1278:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1108:
1102:
1096:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1018:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
981:" to be the "
980:
976:
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
961:121.7.118.225
957:
956:
955:
952:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
931:121.7.118.225
927:
926:
925:
922:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
901:121.7.118.225
897:
893:
892:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
829:
824:
819:
818:
814:
810:
809:219.74.220.99
806:
801:
796:
762:
761:
760:
757:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
639:
638:
637:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
608:116.14.146.77
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
589:
588:
587:
584:
574:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
554:
553:
552:
549:
540:
539:opinion piece
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
487:
484:
474:
471:
466:
462:
459:
457:
453:
451:
447:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
429:
425:
417:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
369:
362:
361:
358:
355:
346:
342:
338:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
315:121.7.228.101
313:
308:
300:
293:
292:
288:
284:
283:121.7.228.101
281:
276:
270:
269:
268:
267:
263:
259:
254:
250:
246:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
217:
216:
215:
212:
206:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
180:
176:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
143:
139:
135:
134:219.75.106.37
132:
129:
124:
123:
119:
115:
110:
109:
102:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3407:Arthur Rubin
3379:
3376:Edit warring
3355:
3338:
3313:
3306:
3276:
3199:
3195:
3191:
3183:
3165:
3160:
3156:
3130:
3120:
3115:transcripted
3114:
3107:
3104:no it is not
3103:
3091:
3074:
3067:
3063:
3059:
3055:
3051:
3048:Arthur Rubin
3029:Arthur Rubin
3016:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2986:
2980:
2953:
2947:
2944:is that way.
2937:
2926:
2922:
2915:
2911:
2904:
2900:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2878:
2872:
2836:
2834:
2798:
2783:
2768:
2764:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2715:
2624:
2620:
2613:
2561:
2557:
2547:
2541:WP:VANDALISM
2524:
2502:
2497:
2448:
2425:
2408:
2382:
2379:specifically
2378:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2333:
2330:
2309:
2292:
2238:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2208:
2189:
2176:
2168:
2130:
2128:
2109:
2105:
2100:
2096:
2092:Edit Request
2077:
2076:
2064:
2040:
2037:
2029:
2014:edit request
1968:
1966:
1948:
1941:
1920:
1903:
1808:
1799:
1787:
1777:Arthur Rubin
1768:
1764:
1747:
1730:
1684:
1679:
1678:
1654:the guardian
1645:
1628:
1615:PatGallacher
1604:
1579:
1554:
1552:
1540:
1533:
1514:96.54.130.64
1510:
1491:
1484:MrScorch6200
1476:
1469:
1457:80.197.59.82
1453:
1447:
1441:
1439:
1418:
1417:
1253:
1125:ā Preceding
1025:ā Preceding
1022:
974:
872:Nope. Read
840:
822:
820:
793:
753:Arthur Rubin
748:
744:
741:news article
740:
715:Arthur Rubin
664:
630:Arthur Rubin
606:authorities.
572:
538:
534:
530:
454:
449:
402:219.75.50.93
386:219.75.50.93
371:219.75.50.93
366:
309:
304:
277:
274:
242:
224:
183:
155:
145:
125:
78:
43:
37:
3050:the videos
2470:Mr. Billion
2178:Zeddocument
1954:move review
1800:victor falk
1646:weak oppose
1546:move review
1480:--Regards,
1131:72.179.39.8
1031:72.179.39.8
527:Aziz Ansari
523:Steve Allen
156:accusations
36:This is an
3384:RadioKAOS
2881:" What? I
2792:WP:PRIMARY
2773:WP:SOFIXIT
2426:obligation
2165:sandy hook
2112:Harizotoh9
2022:|answered=
1985:Dougweller
1969:Ecoscience
1885:Necrothesp
1859:and spain
1821:Necrothesp
1773:Alex Jones
1600:Alex Jones
1585:Alex Jones
1562:HairedGirl
1414:Small edit
1361:Desertroad
1330:Desertroad
1284:Desertroad
1094:RadioKAOS
1047:WP:REDFLAG
727:Daffydavid
719:journalist
626:journalist
593:Daffydavid
558:Daffydavid
505:Daffydavid
448:Re Cesca:
433:Daffydavid
332:. This is
204:RadioKAOS
95:ArchiveĀ 10
2568:is worth?
2548:precisely
2529:presented
2192:Mdifranco
2065:Not done:
1384:Brangifer
1346:Brangifer
1280:Brangifer
1262:Brangifer
531:generally
428:Bob Cesca
90:ArchiveĀ 9
85:ArchiveĀ 8
79:ArchiveĀ 7
73:ArchiveĀ 6
68:ArchiveĀ 5
60:ArchiveĀ 1
3100:Politics
3079:to hide
3064:possible
3056:verbatim
2995:possible
2991:possible
2905:asserted
2887:long ago
2831:WP:Stick
2564:about a
2041:source:
1977:WP:UNDUE
1735:Dicklyon
1570:contribs
1495:contribs
1127:unsigned
1049:and the
1045:not per
1027:unsigned
987:WP:BLP/N
3360:Collect
3293:Collect
3279:Collect
3242:back up
3228:Collect
3207:WP:BLPs
3192:suppose
3170:Collect
3161:suppose
3025:Collect
2883:did not
2842:Collect
2749:Collect
2592:Collect
2552:summary
2509:Collect
2435:Collect
2387:Collect
2339:Collect
2314:Collect
2310:removed
2286:Dubmill
2268:Dubmill
2241:Collect
2227:Collect
1809:Support
1788:Support
1765:Support
1748:Support
1731:Support
1629:Neutral
1607:WP:BIAS
991:Collect
882:Collect
845:Collect
764:Thanks.
249:WP:NPOV
152:WP:NPOV
112:Claims
39:archive
3410:(talk)
3184:entire
3135:WP:BRD
3032:(talk)
2987:unless
2977:WP:BLP
2975:, Per
2973:Gaba p
2942:WP:RSN
2873:What?
2803:WP:BRD
2788:WP:AGF
2777:WP:BRD
2708:WP:RSN
2537:WP:BRD
2431:WP:BLP
1981:WP:RPP
1871:TRPoD
1780:(talk)
1715:TRPoD
1701:TRPoD
1566:(talk)
1318:TRPoD
1072:clpo13
1056:TRPoD
947:TRPoD
917:TRPoD
874:WP:BLP
837:WP:BLP
756:(talk)
641:bigot:
633:(talk)
579:TRPoD
544:TRPoD
479:TRPoD
420:TRPoD
350:TRPoD
345:WP:TPG
341:WP:BLP
253:WP:BLP
154:. The
148:WP:BLP
3339:still
3013:WP:RS
2954:twice
2934:WP:OR
2712:WP:RS
2704:WP:RS
2663:WP:RS
2632:WP:RS
2615:WP:RS
2566:WP:RS
2533:WP:RS
2505:WP:RS
2449:I did
2362:twice
2293:twice
2026:|ans=
2012:This
1908:Xoloz
1685:about
1560:Brown
1557:. --
1555:moved
1209:mean.
983:truth
878:WP:RS
833:WP:RS
347:. --
245:WP:RS
160:Dwc89
16:<
3364:talk
3344:Gaba
3327:Gaba
3314:many
3305:The
3283:talk
3247:Gaba
3232:talk
3216:Gaba
3174:talk
3166:more
3143:Gaba
3081:NASA
2959:Gaba
2895:your
2846:talk
2816:Gaba
2753:talk
2744:fact
2724:Gaba
2671:talk
2637:Gaba
2596:talk
2576:Gaba
2513:talk
2474:talk
2458:Gaba
2439:talk
2414:Gaba
2391:talk
2367:Gaba
2343:talk
2318:talk
2298:Gaba
2272:talk
2245:talk
2231:talk
2196:talk
2182:talk
2153:Gaba
2141:talk
2116:talk
2075:. ā
2050:talk
1989:talk
1930:talk
1912:talk
1889:talk
1850:and
1825:talk
1756:talk
1739:talk
1656:the
1652:the
1637:talk
1619:talk
1518:talk
1489:talk
1477:Done
1461:talk
1427:talk
1388:talk
1365:talk
1350:talk
1338:crow
1311:---
1288:talk
1266:talk
1231:and
1135:talk
1077:talk
1053:.--
1035:talk
995:talk
979:know
965:talk
935:talk
905:talk
886:talk
864:talk
849:talk
823:that
813:talk
749:need
731:talk
682:talk
612:talk
597:talk
562:talk
535:news
509:talk
437:talk
406:talk
390:talk
375:talk
319:talk
287:talk
262:talk
251:and
235:talk
189:talk
164:talk
150:and
138:talk
3356:not
3307:and
3196:uh?
3060:him
3052:can
3017:not
2999:not
2891:You
2769:you
2409:you
2358:you
2334:may
2024:or
2016:to
1946:.
1815:to
1680:by
1658:BBC
1568:ā¢ (
975:not
876:ad
573:duh
3366:)
3298::
3285:)
3234:)
3176:)
3003:we
2927:me
2848:)
2833:.
2755:)
2673:)
2619:("
2598:)
2531:a
2515:)
2476:)
2441:)
2393:)
2364:.
2354:is
2345:)
2320:)
2274:)
2247:)
2233:)
2198:)
2184:)
2143:)
2118:)
2110:--
2052:)
2030:no
1991:)
1983:.
1932:)
1914:)
1891:)
1827:)
1769:we
1758:)
1741:)
1639:)
1621:)
1598:ā
1587:ā
1538:.
1520:)
1463:)
1451:.
1429:)
1390:)
1367:)
1352:)
1290:)
1268:)
1137:)
1037:)
997:)
967:)
937:)
907:)
888:)
866:)
851:)
815:)
797:,
733:)
684:)
672:,
668:,
614:)
599:)
564:)
525:,
521:,
511:)
439:)
431:--
408:)
392:)
377:)
343:/
321:)
289:)
264:)
247:,
237:)
207:ā
191:)
166:)
140:)
64:ā
3393:/
3387:/
3362:(
3281:(
3230:(
3172:(
3123:"
3090:"
3085:"
3073:"
2921:"
2918:.
2910:"
2877:"
2844:(
2794:.
2751:(
2669:(
2594:(
2543:.
2511:(
2472:(
2437:(
2389:(
2341:(
2316:(
2270:(
2243:(
2229:(
2194:(
2180:(
2139:(
2114:(
2048:(
1987:(
1928:(
1910:(
1887:(
1823:(
1754:(
1737:(
1635:(
1617:(
1572:)
1516:(
1497:)
1492:Ā·
1487:(
1459:(
1425:(
1386:(
1363:(
1348:(
1286:(
1264:(
1256:(
1133:(
1103:/
1097:/
1079:)
1075:(
1033:(
993:(
963:(
933:(
903:(
884:(
862:(
847:(
811:(
807:.
802:,
729:(
680:(
676:.
610:(
595:(
560:(
507:(
472:.
435:(
404:(
388:(
373:(
317:(
285:(
260:(
233:(
187:(
177:.
162:(
136:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.