Talk:List of international rankings

2862:

at Purchasing Power Parity. And articles about the Group of Two (USA+China), the G7, G8, and G20, generally provided links to such lists, with the Group of Two article also including such data for the US and China in the article itself. It seems that some person or group has now systematically removed all such information (or at the very least has systematically made it a great deal harder to find), in what seems at least to me quite likely to be the worst act of vandalism and/or information suppression ever inflicted on Knowledge (XXG) (except that I doubt that the motivation for doing so had anything to do with a mere desire to vandalize). Does anybody have any knowledge or ideas on how and why this came about, and what if anything can be done about it? Meanwhile I shall presumably just have to get my data from such places as the

559: 538: 428: 343: 712: 333: 243: 315: 222: 191: 2684:

to these tables in the list at present: you seem to be in a minority of one here. In spite of what you have written here at great length, the precise form of your edits in the article—simple links to the article pages of the two books without further explanation—indicates that you were using this list as an advertisement for Lynn's books, i.e. some form of advocacy/spamming.

467: 633: 2650:. The tables of average national IQs (this is the correct term) cannot at present be regarded as authoritative, definitive or reliable for wikipedia purposes. That is why at present it is not appropriate to include links to them in these lists. As a closing comment, if indeed you meant tables of average national IQs, country by country, why did you not say so? 2665:

when they compared the rankings to student assessment tests found the books to be correct for most of the world. The study only disagreed for Sub-African Africa and there are other studies disagreeing regarding this. Obviously I mean the average national IQ data, which are the only IQ rankings in the articles which was linked to from here.

1667:. The two links, even with further qualification in a footnote, would be highly misleading to readers. Why do you want to mislead readers in that way? Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia devoted to the mainstream point of view. This anodyne and neutral list is no exception, although apparently you think otherwise. 2664:

Actually, the studies usually do a mini-review of the books and explains why they find them acceptable for further research. Again, if you want more, I can of course add studies such as those that compare the data to international student assessment tests. I should also note that even Wichert eta al,

2060:

Please read the question more carefully. I asked about two headings and so far you have not provided any kind of answer for either. This is not the first time I've asked you this. Please could you now provide a a careful answer for either demograhics or IQ and explain carefully its relevance to this

1644:

There is no rule in Knowledge (XXG) excluding controversy. On the contrary, controversy is usually notable which is a criteria for inclusion in itself. Again, as per policy a book pulished by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources is a reliable source. I have already stated that

1212:

at the moment on wikipedia, both on articles, their talk pages and on user talk pages, are problematic. Your many edits to articles, taken cumulatively as whole, are almost all related to adding content concerning negative aspects of differences between population groups. I have no idea whether these

1080:

It was you yourself who brought up WP:ARBR&I just a few replies above. That a material is controversial is of course not a justification for excluding it from Knowledge (XXG). The data has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing relevance and notability in the academic community.

875:

No one considers this to be a list of international rankings. A few researchers using the data for further research, and a political scandal here or there, does not change that fact. At this point the conversation appears to be over. Failure to produce secondary sources which indicate that this is

2822:

of links to lists, articles and whatevers which may or may not have anything to do with international rankings. Some of the choices of what to include are completely arbitrary (I've removed some of these from the Economics section). There are also many many many obvious gaps in what is excluded (GDP

2683:

Having an introductory survey does not stop an article being a primary source. If, as you say now, you "obviously" meant to refer to these tables of average national IQs, why did you have the heading "demographics"? This has nothing to do with demographics. I can see no way of placing any reference

2216:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a source of any kind. Nicholas Mackintosh is an FRS; Richard Lynn is not. Mackintosh dismissed the first book out of hand. (If my memory is correct, I included a summary of his review in the wikipedia article on the book two or three years ago.) If you cannot explain in simple

2075:

Why should we discuss something I do not longer propose like a demographics section? Regarding the IQ rankings they are notable, interesting, and used in several different branches of science. We can state that they are controversial and by providing a wikilink to the main article for the interested

2028:

You have still not explained what kind of international ranking you were proposing under the heading "demographics". Equally well I am not sure what you might mean if the heading were changed to "IQ", This is a list. How are readers supposed to now what you mean unless you provide several paragraphs

2861:

Last time I looked, about a year ago, Knowledge (XXG) offered quick access to the sort of Lists you need to understand the basic facts about the world we all live in, especially Lists of countries by Population, nominal GDP, GDP at Purchasing Power Parity, nominal GDP per capita, and GDP per capita

2763:

My POV is to present what reliable sources state in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) policy. Currently some views are underrepresented in Knowledge (XXG) compared to the scientific literature. If the same views were overrepresented in Knowledge (XXG) I would work to correct that. I do note, however,

2043:

I have several times stated that I do not longer suggest a demographics section for material. Please explain why you continue to bring this up? Any interested reader can of course go to the full article with a click on a wikilink and read all about any controversies and other things on the subject.

1579:

A book pulished by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources is a reliable source. Which wikipedia policy disallows controversial scholarly material? Certainly not UNDUE since there are far more peer-reviewed articles which have accepted the rankings are reliable and used them in

2645:

and your own assessment of them, which is original research and synthesis: the synthesis/original research is in your inference that because these researchers have used this data, that validates it. There is no way on wikipedia that we can decide that. On the other hand the reliability of reported

860:

The political scandal was not limited to research. For the purpose of WP notability is not limited to research. Something mentioned in many newspaper stories is notable. Also, again, I point the numerous researchers who have written many papers using and commenting on the book. It makes it notable

2698:

Again, if you want other studies there are several comparing the data to international student assessment tests and generally finding them accurate with the possible exception of Sub-Saharan Africa. I have already numerous times stated that I no longer propose a section called "Demographics" but

1866:

Making a comparison to physics is misleading since things are always more uncertain in social sciences. The list is certainly interesting. The scores from the books have been extensively used in numerous peer-reviewed studies showing some level of acceptance in the academic community. As well as

1255:

I'm sorry, I am not following you at all here. You have lost me. I have described the nature of your edits, that is all; no personal attack. Also I do not agree that your editing has been of a high quality. The attempted edits here are a quite good example of that. This page is for authoritative

1483:

to wikipedia. His books, because of the criticisms they have generated in the academic literature, constitute primary sources and therefore cannot be used in the way you wish. From what I understand, you yourself are already aware that there is a problem with using sources like this anywhere on

1217:

represent your views in real life. I hope you will desist now from attempting to add highly controversial and flawed books to this list as if they were authoritative sources comparable in any way to the other items listed, none of which are even remotely of this type. If you are concerned about

1025:

material is completely unacceptable tendentious editing, which should please stop now. As I have said, if you truly think that I am editing in a problematic way, then please go ahead and make a report either directly to arbitrators (a request for clarification or amendment) or on a public

2254:. The book reviews on the other hand tell a completely different story. Selective use of data, flaws in statistical methodology, etc. If you are not willing to discuss in any detail the one sentence you inserted, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this discussion. Thanks, 1167:

that are highly problematic because of the irrelevant, contentious and improperly sourced material that you are adding to spam this article. You are adding content that can loosely be described as racist all over wikipedia at the moment. You are on a short leash because of the previous

1236:

Calling some a racist is certainly a personal attack. Many of my edits are not in the race and intelligence intersection. For example most of my edits to the IQ article, for which I have been praised by an expert in the field, were not about race. Regarding the content dispute, see

661:

Why doesn't this article consist of more countries and their international rankings? Whatever, happen to Canada, the UK, Iceland, Norway, France, Germany, and etc... Is there a lack of available data for this information? Why are these specific countries chosen for this article?

1538:

Since when is controversy a reason for exclusion in Knowledge (XXG)? The scores from the books have been extensively used in numerous peer-reviewed studies showing some level of acceptance in the academic community. As well as being very notable due to the controversy they have

1941:

There are both favorable and unfavorable views. There are far more supportive articles. I have several times stated that I propose to changing the title section to "IQ" from "demographics". Unclear why despite this you continue to insist that I want a "demographics" section?

1021:. She has written this on wikipedia on multiple occasions. Perhaps you should confer with your friends SightWatcher, Boothello or TrevelynL85A2, if you feel that I am somehow mistaken about this. However, as I see it. your spamming of articles like this with irrelevant and 2268:

Knowledge (XXG) can certainly be used as source by its readers when the readers seek more info on the books and controversies which was the original topic. There are dozens or hundreds of peer-reviewed studies which have accepted the book's data and rankings as valid and

2147:

That is not a response. I take it then that you cannot describe in simple language what you mean by "IQ rankings". In that case, no need for any mention in this list. I am not qualified to evaluate the books; but for the purposes of wikipedia, eminent experts like

2699:

instead one called "IQ". You can hardly have failed to read this several times. That you continue to ignore this is increasingly looking to be deliberate. Do not continue with this. I have already stated that we could describe the books as controversial.

1594:

This list is not for controversial books (which both these books indisputably are). Nor are the books about demographics as you claimed. I have outlined wikipedia policy for you. Please do not attempt to add these sources to the article again. Thanks,

1062:. Please do so now. Otherwise please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything whatsoever to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted. Take your time if necessary—there is no rush. The material you wish to add is contentious and 1278:

Calling someone a racist is a personal attack. Differentiate between for example race realism and racism. Your are of course entitled to your own view regarding the quality of my edits; I note the an expert the field has praised my edits in the IQ

952:

Unfortunately it is, since all the material is contentious and totally irrelevant here. I have no topic ban in force and certainly this neutral and anodyne list article has nothing whasoever to do with any ArbCom cases in which I have been a

1926:

But let me ask a different question. Let's forget about Richard Lynn. What exactly within demographics would you be mean by "international ranking"? It's not at all clear what you intended by adding a section with the title "demographics".

2582:

No synthesis. The sources does what I say. They accept the book's data as valid and use the data for further research. If you want more, I can of course add studies such as those that compare the data to international student assessment

2029:

of explanation including comments on the controversy and possible unnotability of the links? The rest of this list is not in any way like that, so what prompted you to introduce an entry that it is so different and problematic? Thanks,

1323:

If you want to make a request at the WP:RSN, feel free to do so. I see no need to do so since you have presented no policy disallowing them. A book pulished by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources is a reliable

1681:"NPOV of course states that all significant views on an area should be included. Not just a single "mainstream" one. Since there are for more supportive than critical studies regarding the books there is no reason for excluding them. 2396:

In his review Nicholas Mackintosh documented errors and misconceptions in the book. In fact he explained how some of the data, which he himself had collected, was manipulated by Lynn. Your arguments about numbers seem to be more

153: 1505:

are not valid scientific arguments. Controversy is not a justification for exclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Whitle some studies are critical, numerous peer-reviewed studies have accepted them. Therefore they rae notable and

2245:

No, wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for writing articles. You've already had that explained to you fairly carefully by an administrator (Guettardo). Your claims of notability are not properly sourced, just

845:

Only in the context of research. Come up with a reliable secondary source indicating that this books should be used as a list of international rankings by the international community. Otherwise, this is undue.

2646:

measurements in parts of Africa for example has been placed in doubt in published reviews by specialists, including Mackintosh, Wicherts, etc. That unfortunately means that the books cannot really be used as a

1835:

No these are unbalanced controversial fringe items, completely unsuitable for the list. Their inclusion would not communicate any encyclopedic information but just mislead the reader. For comparison, look at

799:

On the contrary, it has been cited and used by numerous researchers as can be seen in the article about the book. For the purpose of Knowledge (XXG) another criteria is notability which it certainly fulfills.

938:

Not a primary source anymore than the other rankings. May I remind you that you have voluntary promised to permanently stay out of these articles as a condition for your topic ban by the Arbcom being lifted.

1370:

Yes, according to WP:RS a book published by an academic publisher and cited by numerous academic sources, most of them in support, is a reliable source. How do you personally feel that the other policies

643: 2118:

What does IQ ranking mean? Is it a number? Is it an order? Does it apply to all countries, or just some? Although controversial, I agree with Aprock and Maunus that the books themselves seem non-notable.

1301:. That you choose to misunderstand my words is not helpful (it might be due to the fact that English is not your native language). Instead of engaging in a circular discussion, please make a request at 1966:

Lynn's and Vanhanen's research is not notable enough to include in articles aoutside of the narrow Race and Intelligence topical field. They have no academic weight whatsoever outside of that field.

2566:: you have filled several talk pages with such "reasoning", even though it is at odds with wikipedia editing policies. Please could you stop wasting other editors' time in this way? Thanks, 2291:. Negative book reviews from top experts in a subject undermine the reliability of a book. Even if those reviews contradict Miradre's own unsourced statements, they cannot be dismissed. 147: 44: 2447:

editing on wikipedia. Many of your edits have been like that today in several different places. Tendentious editing is not usually tolerated on wikipedia. So please stop. Thanks,

1125:

Perhaps, since from what I understand English is not your native language (isn't it Swedish?), you might not have understood my question properly. So please allow me to repeat it:

995:

Regarding the ranking that it is controversial does not exclude from Knowledge (XXG). It has been used in numerous peer-reviewed studies establishing its notability and relevance.

1044:

If there continuing problems such as those that lead you to be topic banned from the area I must of course reluctantly take actions. But I hope that this will not be necessary.

2172:

Again, I suggest you read the article. No need for me to repeat them here. Other eminent researchers have accepted the rankings as valid and used them in many further studies.

1524:

Miradre. Richard Lynn is the author of the two linked books, both of which are controversial. If you want to suggest otherwise, try another website, but not this one. Thanks,

611: 447: 2231:

The IQ ranking is explained in the article about the book. WP certainly is a source for WP readers. There have been numerous supportive scholar besides the authors.

2358:

Read the review: it's scathing. That's nothing to do with me. I am sorry if you find that unsettling, but please try and move on. No need to continue this kind of

2954: 601: 2133:

I suggest that you read the article. If you do not know these basic things regarding the rankings, how are you qualified to decide if the books are appropriate?

509: 79: 1305:

to see whether anybody else agrees that the two books you added as links can be described as authoritative international rankings for demographics. Thanks,

2949: 1447:, improperly sourced and irrelevant, no matter what heading you choose. The sources you used are not suitable for adding neutral content to wikipedia. 1218:

possible topic bans, which your edits make continual reference to, why not seek clarification from a non-recused arbitrator, e.g. Newyorkbrad? Thanks,

890:

Also, you wanted a secondary source. Here is one, a peer-reviewed literature review in a journal published by the American Psychological Association:

297: 2554:

and your own assessment of them. Your own opinions, however, are irrelevant, just original research and synthesis, On the other hand the review by

1735:

Ah, you don't intend there to be any other links to provide balance, just these controversial minority links. In that case, your proposed edits are

85: 2944: 2330:. Nicholas Mackintosh's review of the first book is damning. Please try to take that in, even if it goes against all your preconceptions. Thanks, 2217:

terms what you mean by "IQ ranking", that entry cannot be suitable for inclusion in the list. All the other entries are self-explanatory. Thanks,

365: 2405:. I cannot see that a book review by the one of the top experts in the subject can be dismissed, but that's what you seem to be doing. Cheers, 577: 566: 543: 2929: 287: 168: 1461:

How can it be undue when it is widely used in the academic literature? Why was it improperly sourced? The sources are peer-reviewed studies.

2939: 2901: 135: 30: 861:

also for research. I can cite dozens of studies showing it has been used by scientific community for further research using its rankings.

2934: 2886: 2547:

When I asked this before you ignored it and talked about your critical study which did not answer my question.00:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

686: 719: 700: 263: 1129:. You made that claim and, unless you justify yourself, your comments here are unjustified personal attacks and harrassment. Thanks, 356: 320: 99: 2924: 2090:

What do you mean by IQ rankings? Can you name some major body that refers to what you call "IQ rankings"? The CIA factbook? Thanks,

2487:. As I say you are editing tendentiously in various places on wikipedia and that is not usually permitted to continue. Good night, 960:. If you are in any doubt, please feel free to seek clarification from arbitrators directly. But edits which spam articles in this 920:, since it is a controversial primary source. Please stop spamming neutral wikipedia articles with contentious material related to 104: 20: 1017:, or request clarification from ArbCom directly. My understanding about Risker is that she is recused from all matters related to 1190:

Desist with further personal attacks. I am not a racist. I have not been banned from the subject area unlike you have previously.

680: 129: 74: 1553:

The links you added are not authoritative international rankings comparable to any of the other items listed, all of which are

676: 1983:

Their data have been used in numerous studies by economists, political scientists, psychologists, and other social scientists.

440: 202: 1909:

Not at all. Lynn's research is not accepted by mainstream academia, as evidenced by book reviews by experts in psychometrics.

24: 259: 255: 250: 227: 65: 125: 2515:

Have you noticed that you keep asking the same question over and over again, even when it's been answered? That is called

1785:

How can they be mislead if we state that it is controversial and provide a link for more information for those interested?

956:

On the other hand you are currently editing under an extremely short leash in view of the severity of previous reports at

908: 639: 175: 2421:

That is one critical view (which you not represent correctly). Again, I have presented fifteen supportive studies.

1127:

please explain in simple terms, why this article has anything to do with race and intelligence broadly interpreted

109: 2831: 2800: 2435:

You are repeating yourself. It's probably best to remember that repeatedly making unsourced statements, based on

715: 704: 482: 2905: 1645:

I suggest changing the section title to "IQ" from "demogragphics" so I am not sure why you take this up again?

208: 2890: 690: 141: 1849: 896: 2841:

Lacking content for a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. Instead, the article should be expanded.

2717:

material concerning R&I is not a very good idea, no matter how much you try to justify yourself. Bye,

2104:

The IQ rankings from the books. I have already stated that numerous peer-reviewed articles have used them.

1837: 1059: 1027: 1018: 1009:

If you truly feel that I should not be editing this article for any reason whatsoever, then report me at

921: 831:

On the contrary, it has been cited in numerous newspapers and even caused a political scandal in Finland.

745: 466: 55: 876:

a "list of international rankings" that is considered outside of research indicates inclusion is undue.

667: 364:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2819: 2765: 2746: 2516: 1521: 1399:

Huh? He is commenting (incorrectly without sources) in another article, not commenting on this article.

70: 2501:

How? Are you denying that they accept the book's data as valid and use the data for further research?

2344:

How? Are you denying that they accept the book's data as valid and use the data for further research?

2156:

and that is how on wikipedia we can determine whether they are reliable or not. Thanks for your help,

1580:

further research than who have criticized the books. If you want to go to WP:RSN, feel free to do so.

2827: 2796: 727: 498: 1696: 632: 455: 2871: 2555: 2149: 1771:

The only thing obvious here is that you intend to mislead the reader. Classic tendentious editing.

161: 558: 537: 2863: 2823:

per capita?). I know Knowledge (XXG) loves its "list" articles but this one's not even coherent.

1841: 2714: 2484: 2440: 2402: 2363: 2327: 2288: 2251: 1997: 1740: 1664: 1558: 1444: 1349: 1341: 1063: 1022: 961: 917: 814: 782: 1757:

Obviously there are wikilinks to the articles about the book which describes the controversies.

576:

If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

2846: 2773: 2754: 2736: 2722: 2704: 2689: 2670: 2655: 2588: 2571: 2538: 2524: 2506: 2492: 2470: 2452: 2426: 2410: 2385: 2371: 2349: 2335: 2313: 2296: 2274: 2259: 2236: 2222: 2177: 2161: 2138: 2124: 2109: 2095: 2081: 2066: 2049: 2034: 2019: 2005: 1988: 1947: 1932: 1900: 1886: 1872: 1857: 1790: 1776: 1762: 1748: 1726: 1712: 1686: 1672: 1650: 1633: 1616: 1600: 1585: 1570: 1544: 1529: 1511: 1493: 1466: 1452: 1404: 1390: 1376: 1361: 1329: 1310: 1284: 1265: 1242: 1223: 1195: 1177: 1150: 1134: 1086: 1071: 1049: 1035: 1000: 986: 969: 943: 929: 904: 866: 836: 804: 771: 51: 2563: 2283:

Unfortunately we only have the word of Miradre for all these statements, which appear to be

1895:

Cold fusion is fringe while there are far more supportive than critical studies of the books.

1736: 1660: 1480: 1345: 475: 2909: 2894: 2875: 2850: 2835: 2804: 2777: 2758: 2740: 2726: 2708: 2693: 2674: 2659: 2592: 2575: 2562:

by an acknowledged authority. Wearing out other editors out with fallacious arguments is an

2542: 2528: 2510: 2496: 2474: 2456: 2430: 2414: 2389: 2375: 2353: 2339: 2317: 2300: 2278: 2263: 2240: 2226: 2181: 2165: 2142: 2128: 2113: 2099: 2085: 2070: 2053: 2038: 2023: 2009: 1992: 1974: 1971: 1951: 1936: 1904: 1890: 1876: 1861: 1794: 1780: 1766: 1752: 1730: 1716: 1690: 1676: 1654: 1637: 1620: 1604: 1589: 1574: 1548: 1533: 1515: 1497: 1470: 1456: 1408: 1394: 1380: 1365: 1333: 1314: 1288: 1269: 1246: 1227: 1199: 1181: 1154: 1138: 1090: 1075: 1053: 1039: 1004: 990: 973: 947: 933: 885: 881: 870: 855: 851: 840: 826: 822: 808: 794: 790: 775: 731: 694: 670: 348: 1562: 1485: 1302: 1257: 1010: 1848:. All the arguments you have advanced here would apply equally well there; however, your " 723: 462: 2647: 2559: 2533:

I cannot see that it has been answered. Please repeat your answer if it has been. Thanks!

2480: 2436: 2398: 2359: 2323: 2284: 2247: 2153: 1353: 1169: 1014: 957: 891: 2764:

that you yourself consistently seems to edit according to a particular POV, so consider

2731:

The books presents international rankings, this article is about international rankings.

2713:

I have no interest in reading any more of your comments. Spamming neutral articles with

2867: 427: 766:. Please explain. Has been cited by numerous independent researchers and thus notable. 711: 2918: 1081:

If you do not want to have it under the title "Demographics" we can use "IQ" instead.

571: 1145:

Again, it was you yourself, not I, who introduced WP:ARBR&I into the discussion.

2842: 2769: 2750: 2732: 2718: 2700: 2685: 2666: 2651: 2584: 2567: 2534: 2520: 2502: 2488: 2466: 2448: 2422: 2406: 2381: 2367: 2345: 2331: 2309: 2292: 2270: 2255: 2232: 2218: 2173: 2157: 2134: 2120: 2105: 2091: 2077: 2062: 2045: 2030: 2015: 2001: 1984: 1943: 1928: 1896: 1882: 1868: 1853: 1786: 1772: 1758: 1744: 1722: 1708: 1704: 1682: 1668: 1646: 1629: 1612: 1596: 1581: 1566: 1540: 1525: 1507: 1489: 1476: 1462: 1448: 1400: 1386: 1372: 1357: 1325: 1306: 1280: 1261: 1238: 1219: 1191: 1173: 1146: 1130: 1082: 1067: 1045: 1031: 996: 982: 965: 939: 925: 900: 862: 832: 800: 767: 1695:

Where are the other points of view here? (By the way I have just pointed out your

342: 718:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

2795:

Perhaps we should also include a "ranking of countries by their sense of humor"?

1967: 1845: 1743:

applies and your proposed edits are inappropriate. Thanks for clearing that up.

877: 847: 818: 786: 1356:. If you don't understand these policies, you should not be editing wikipedia. 1502: 338: 1659:"There is no rule in Knowledge (XXG) excluding controversy." Wrong, there is 2818:

Actually looking over this whole article it looks like a badly put together

332: 314: 242: 221: 2061:

list. (BTW the reponse "clicking on the link" is not an answer.) Thanks,

1721:

We could include "controversial" to indicate that there is a controversy.

1385:

See below where I have copied VsevolodKrolikov's comment from elsewhere.

2305:

I cited numerous such studies in my last edit to the article. See here:

978:

It was you who just brought up WP:ARBR&1. May I remind you of this:

1700: 361: 1475:

It is undue because it is improperly sourced. Material from books by

2380:

You have presented 1 critical study, I have presented 15 supportive.

1260:

if think the books you added are authoritative references. Thanks,

1172:

requests and the subsequent clarification. Now please stop this.

2479:

Not wise to continue making remarks like this to cover you own

1066:: you have now been made quite aware of why that is so. Thanks, 964:

way are absolutely unacceptable. Please stop this now. Thanks,

1852:" are trumped by wikipedia policy. Does that help you at all? 627: 580:, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. 184: 15: 2044:

As a notable and interesting ranking, it should be included.

1867:

being very notable due to the controversy they have created.

785:. No one uses it outside of a narrow group of researchers. 813:

Yes, it is only used by researchers. Including it here is

2826:

I'm thinking this is a pretty good candidate for deletion.

2014:

Incivility does not help your case. What I stated is true.

262:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 2464: 2306: 1627: 1610: 1479:, all of them controversial, cannot be used for adding 979: 764: 720:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

416: 411: 406: 401: 1484:

wikipedia. But if in doubt, why not file a request at

160: 744:

Extended discussion by editor now topic banned under

570:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 360:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1443:To reiterate, the content which you wish to add is 1026:noticeboard. However, before doing so, please read 174: 1609:Also please read this comment about your editing. 1881:No, the cold fusion case is exactly comparable. 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 666:Because the articles haven't been created yet. 2152:and others have reviewed them unfavourably in 8: 2463:It is not unsourced. See the sources here: 2076:reader can look up more info if interested. 254:, an attempt to structure and organize all 2857:Systematic disappearance of relevant Lists 752:The following discussion has been closed. 740: 532: 435:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 389: 309: 216: 190: 188: 586:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Globalization 258:. If you wish to help, please visit the 737:Removal of IQ and the Wealth of Nations 534: 311: 218: 1737:non-neutral, unbalanced and misleading 2955:Mid-importance Globalization articles 924:. That is highly disruptive editing. 450:; see if anything catches your fancy. 374:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Countries 7: 2308:Did you not check what you deleted? 1707:. Please could you attend to that.) 642:on 9 July 2011 (UTC). The result of 564:This article is within the scope of 354:This article is within the scope of 248:This article is within the scope of 1565:if you are still in doubt. Thanks, 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 589:Template:WikiProject Globalization 14: 2950:List-Class Globalization articles 393:WikiProject Countries to-do list: 272:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 710: 681:International rankings of France 631: 557: 536: 465: 426: 341: 331: 313: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 677:Category:International rankings 638:This article was nominated for 606:This article has been rated as 508:pages of related articles, and 292:This article has been rated as 2945:WikiProject Countries articles 1844:). That list does not include 463:clean-up listing for Countries 377:Template:WikiProject Countries 25:List of international rankings 1: 368:and see a list of open tasks. 256:list pages on Knowledge (XXG) 42:Put new text under old text. 2930:Low-importance List articles 2895:22:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC) 1256:sources. Please take this to 2940:List-Class country articles 2910:15:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC) 2876:06:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) 1340:Relevant policies here are 1297:I have described nature of 1058:You evidently did not read 716:Template:Lists of countries 705:Template:Lists of countries 2971: 2935:WikiProject Lists articles 2550:Unfortunately you rely on 2445:disruptive and tendentious 695:12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC) 612:project's importance scale 298:project's importance scale 275:Template:WikiProject Lists 2778:10:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2759:10:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2741:10:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2727:09:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2709:09:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2694:09:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2675:09:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2660:07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2593:08:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2576:07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2543:00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2529:00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2511:00:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2497:00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 732:06:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 605: 567:WikiProject Globalization 552: 388: 326: 291: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2925:List-Class List articles 2851:22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2836:22:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2805:21:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2475:23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2457:23:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2431:23:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2415:23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2390:23:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2376:23:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2354:23:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2340:23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2318:23:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2301:22:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2279:22:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2264:22:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2241:22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2227:21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2182:21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2166:21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2143:21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2129:21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2114:21:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2100:21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2086:21:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2071:20:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2054:20:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2039:20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2024:20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2010:20:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1993:19:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1975:19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1952:16:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1937:15:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1905:15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1891:15:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1877:15:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1862:15:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1795:14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1781:14:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1767:14:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1753:14:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1731:14:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1717:13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1691:13:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1677:13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1655:13:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1638:13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1621:13:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1605:13:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1590:12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1575:12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1549:12:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1534:12:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1516:11:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1498:09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1471:09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1457:08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1409:13:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1395:13:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1381:13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1366:13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1334:12:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1315:12:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1289:12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1270:12:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1247:12:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1228:12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1200:11:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1182:09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1155:09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1139:08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1091:08:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1076:08:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1054:08:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1040:08:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 1005:07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 991:07:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 974:07:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 948:07:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 934:07:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 916:Again that reference is 886:16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 871:15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 856:15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 841:15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 827:15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 809:15:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 795:15:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 776:15:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 755:Please do not modify it. 671:14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 483:Category:Stubs by region 1208:What personal attacks? 781:Inserting that book is 2154:peer-reviewed journals 1838:List of physics topics 1561:. Please take this to 1163:That is because it is 701:Templates for deletion 592:Globalization articles 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 357:WikiProject Countries 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 574:on Knowledge (XXG). 481:de-stub articles in 105:No original research 2556:Nicholas Mackintosh 2150:Nicholas Mackintosh 2864:CIA World Factbook 2564:interesting tactic 1842:Outline of physics 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2811: 2810: 2481:original research 2443:, is regarded as 2437:original research 2399:original research 2360:original research 2324:original research 913: 899:comment added by 654: 653: 626: 625: 622: 621: 618: 617: 531: 530: 527: 526: 523: 522: 519: 518: 308: 307: 304: 303: 251:WikiProject Lists 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2962: 912: 893: 757: 741: 714: 668:The Evil Spartan 635: 628: 594: 593: 590: 587: 584: 561: 554: 553: 548: 540: 533: 503: 497: 470: 469: 441:Article requests 430: 423: 422: 390: 382: 381: 380:country articles 378: 375: 372: 351: 349:Countries portal 346: 345: 335: 328: 327: 317: 310: 280: 279: 276: 273: 270: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2915: 2914: 2883: 2859: 2828:Volunteer Marek 2816: 2797:Volunteer Marek 2643:primary sources 2552:primary sources 1555:uncontroversial 1481:neutral content 894: 753: 739: 708: 659: 591: 588: 585: 582: 581: 546: 515: 501: 495: 461: 421: 379: 376: 373: 370: 369: 347: 340: 277: 274: 271: 268: 267: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2968: 2966: 2958: 2957: 2952: 2947: 2942: 2937: 2932: 2927: 2917: 2916: 2913: 2912: 2902:79.115.136.249 2882: 2879: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2808: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2678: 2677: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2545: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 1978: 1977: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1318: 1317: 1292: 1291: 1273: 1272: 1250: 1249: 1231: 1230: 1203: 1202: 1185: 1184: 1158: 1157: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 993: 954: 759: 758: 749: 748: 738: 735: 707: 703:nomination of 698: 684: 683: 673: 658: 655: 652: 651: 644:the discussion 636: 624: 623: 620: 619: 616: 615: 608:Mid-importance 604: 598: 597: 595: 575: 562: 550: 549: 547:Mid‑importance 541: 529: 528: 525: 524: 521: 520: 517: 516: 514: 513: 486: 471: 451: 448:article alerts 446:Check out the 434: 432: 431: 420: 419: 414: 409: 404: 398: 395: 394: 386: 385: 383: 366:the discussion 353: 352: 336: 324: 323: 318: 306: 305: 302: 301: 294:Low-importance 290: 284: 283: 281: 246: 234: 233: 231:Low‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2967: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2948: 2946: 2943: 2941: 2938: 2936: 2933: 2931: 2928: 2926: 2923: 2922: 2920: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2887:77.115.216.52 2880: 2878: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2824: 2821: 2813: 2807: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2546: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2465: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1557:. Please see 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1024: 1020: 1019:WP:ARBR&I 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 992: 988: 984: 980: 977: 976: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 950: 949: 945: 941: 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 923: 922:WP:ARBR&I 919: 915: 914: 910: 906: 902: 898: 892: 889: 888: 887: 883: 879: 874: 873: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 844: 843: 842: 838: 834: 830: 829: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 811: 810: 806: 802: 798: 797: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 779: 778: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 760: 756: 751: 750: 747: 746:WP:ARBR&I 743: 742: 736: 734: 733: 729: 725: 722:. Thank you. 721: 717: 713: 706: 702: 699: 697: 696: 692: 688: 687:211.110.55.63 682: 678: 674: 672: 669: 665: 664: 663: 656: 649: 645: 641: 637: 634: 630: 629: 613: 609: 603: 600: 599: 596: 583:Globalization 579: 573: 572:Globalization 569: 568: 563: 560: 556: 555: 551: 545: 544:Globalization 542: 539: 535: 511: 507: 500: 493: 491: 487: 484: 480: 478: 477: 472: 468: 464: 460: 458: 457: 452: 449: 445: 443: 442: 437: 436: 433: 429: 425: 424: 418: 415: 413: 410: 408: 405: 403: 400: 399: 397: 396: 392: 391: 387: 384: 367: 363: 359: 358: 350: 344: 339: 337: 334: 330: 329: 325: 322: 319: 316: 312: 299: 295: 289: 286: 285: 282: 278:List articles 265: 261: 257: 253: 252: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2884: 2860: 2825: 2817: 2794: 2745:Please read 2642: 2641:You rely on 2551: 2444: 1705:Talk:Malaria 1554: 1520:Please stop 1477:Richard Lynn 1298: 1214: 1209: 1164: 1126: 1060:WP:BOOMERANG 1028:WP:BOOMERANG 953:participant. 895:— Preceding 762: 754: 709: 685: 660: 647: 607: 578:project page 565: 505: 489: 488: 474: 473: 454: 453: 439: 438: 355: 293: 260:project page 249: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2766:WP:ADVOCACY 2747:WP:ADVOCACY 2517:WP:TROLLING 2366:. Thanks, 1846:cold fusion 1522:WP:TROLLING 499:WPCountries 148:free images 31:not a forum 2919:Categories 1697:WP:COPYVIO 1503:Ad hominem 1299:your edits 1210:Your edits 1165:your edits 1030:. Thanks, 724:Cybercobra 264:discussion 199:List-class 2868:Tlhslobus 2814:AfD time? 2768:yourself. 2485:synthesis 2441:synthesis 2403:synthesis 2364:synthesis 2328:synthesis 2322:All alas 1850:arguments 1506:relevant. 371:Countries 362:countries 321:Countries 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2820:coatrack 2715:WP:UNDUE 2289:WP:SYNTH 2252:WP:SYNTH 1998:WP:DNFTT 1741:WP:UNDUE 1665:WP:UNDUE 1559:WP:UNDUE 1539:created. 1445:WP:UNDUE 1350:WP:SYNTH 1342:WP:UNDUE 1279:article. 1064:WP:UNDUE 1023:WP:UNDUE 962:WP:UNDUE 918:WP:UNDUE 909:contribs 897:unsigned 815:WP:UNDUE 783:WP:UNDUE 640:deletion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2900:Mexico 2843:Miradre 2770:Miradre 2751:Mathsci 2733:Miradre 2719:Mathsci 2701:Miradre 2686:Mathsci 2667:Miradre 2652:Mathsci 2585:Miradre 2568:Mathsci 2535:Miradre 2521:Mathsci 2503:Miradre 2489:Mathsci 2467:Miradre 2449:Mathsci 2423:Miradre 2407:Mathsci 2382:Miradre 2368:Mathsci 2346:Miradre 2332:Mathsci 2310:Miradre 2293:Mathsci 2271:Miradre 2269:useful. 2256:Mathsci 2233:Miradre 2219:Mathsci 2174:Miradre 2158:Mathsci 2135:Miradre 2121:Mathsci 2106:Miradre 2092:Mathsci 2078:Miradre 2063:Mathsci 2046:Miradre 2031:Mathsci 2016:Miradre 2002:Mathsci 1985:Miradre 1972:snunɐw· 1968:·ʍaunus 1944:Miradre 1929:Mathsci 1897:Miradre 1883:Mathsci 1869:Miradre 1854:Mathsci 1787:Miradre 1773:Mathsci 1759:Miradre 1745:Mathsci 1723:Miradre 1709:Mathsci 1701:Malaria 1683:Miradre 1669:Mathsci 1661:WP:NPOV 1647:Miradre 1630:Miradre 1613:Mathsci 1597:Mathsci 1582:Miradre 1567:Mathsci 1541:Miradre 1526:Mathsci 1508:Miradre 1490:Mathsci 1463:Miradre 1449:Mathsci 1401:Miradre 1387:Mathsci 1373:Miradre 1358:Mathsci 1346:WP:NPOV 1326:Miradre 1324:source. 1307:Mathsci 1281:Miradre 1262:Mathsci 1239:Miradre 1220:Mathsci 1192:Miradre 1174:Mathsci 1147:Miradre 1131:Mathsci 1083:Miradre 1068:Mathsci 1046:Miradre 1032:Mathsci 997:Miradre 983:Miradre 966:Mathsci 940:Miradre 926:Mathsci 901:Miradre 863:Miradre 833:Miradre 801:Miradre 768:Miradre 610:on the 456:Cleanup 407:history 296:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2583:tests. 1563:WP:RSN 1486:WP:RSN 1371:apply? 1303:WP:RSN 1258:WP:RSN 1237:below. 1013:or at 1011:WP:ANI 878:aprock 848:aprock 819:aprock 787:aprock 510:assess 205:scale. 126:Google 2648:WP:RS 2560:WP:RS 2558:is a 2285:WP:OR 2248:WP:OR 1840:(aka 1739:. So 1354:WP:RS 1215:edits 1170:WP:AE 1015:WP:AE 958:WP:AE 657:Notes 490:Other 476:Stubs 417:purge 412:watch 269:Lists 228:Lists 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2906:talk 2891:talk 2872:talk 2847:talk 2832:talk 2801:talk 2774:talk 2755:talk 2737:talk 2723:talk 2705:talk 2690:talk 2671:talk 2656:talk 2589:talk 2572:talk 2539:talk 2525:talk 2507:talk 2493:talk 2483:and 2471:talk 2453:talk 2439:and 2427:talk 2411:talk 2401:and 2386:talk 2372:talk 2362:and 2350:talk 2336:talk 2326:and 2314:talk 2297:talk 2287:and 2275:talk 2260:talk 2250:and 2237:talk 2223:talk 2178:talk 2162:talk 2139:talk 2125:talk 2110:talk 2096:talk 2082:talk 2067:talk 2050:talk 2035:talk 2020:talk 2006:talk 1989:talk 1948:talk 1933:talk 1901:talk 1887:talk 1873:talk 1858:talk 1791:talk 1777:talk 1763:talk 1749:talk 1727:talk 1713:talk 1687:talk 1673:talk 1663:and 1651:talk 1634:talk 1617:talk 1601:talk 1586:talk 1571:talk 1545:talk 1530:talk 1512:talk 1494:talk 1467:talk 1453:talk 1405:talk 1391:talk 1377:talk 1362:talk 1352:and 1330:talk 1311:talk 1285:talk 1266:talk 1243:talk 1224:talk 1196:talk 1178:talk 1151:talk 1135:talk 1087:talk 1072:talk 1050:talk 1036:talk 1001:talk 987:talk 970:talk 944:talk 930:talk 905:talk 882:talk 867:talk 852:talk 837:talk 823:talk 805:talk 791:talk 772:talk 763:See 728:talk 691:talk 675:See 648:keep 646:was 506:talk 494:add 402:edit 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2885:ok 1703:on 1699:on 1488:? 602:Mid 504:to 288:Low 176:TWL 2921:: 2908:) 2893:) 2881:ok 2874:) 2866:. 2849:) 2834:) 2803:) 2776:) 2757:) 2749:. 2739:) 2725:) 2707:) 2692:) 2673:) 2658:) 2591:) 2574:) 2541:) 2527:) 2519:. 2509:) 2495:) 2473:) 2455:) 2429:) 2413:) 2388:) 2374:) 2352:) 2338:) 2316:) 2299:) 2277:) 2262:) 2239:) 2225:) 2180:) 2164:) 2141:) 2127:) 2112:) 2098:) 2084:) 2069:) 2052:) 2037:) 2022:) 2008:) 2000:. 1991:) 1950:) 1935:) 1903:) 1889:) 1875:) 1860:) 1793:) 1779:) 1765:) 1751:) 1729:) 1715:) 1689:) 1675:) 1653:) 1636:) 1619:) 1603:) 1588:) 1573:) 1547:) 1532:) 1514:) 1496:) 1469:) 1455:) 1407:) 1393:) 1379:) 1364:) 1348:, 1344:, 1332:) 1313:) 1287:) 1268:) 1245:) 1226:) 1198:) 1180:) 1153:) 1137:) 1089:) 1074:) 1052:) 1038:) 1003:) 989:) 981:. 972:) 946:) 932:) 911:) 907:• 884:) 869:) 854:) 839:) 825:) 817:. 807:) 793:) 774:) 730:) 693:) 679:. 502:}} 496:{{ 156:) 54:; 2904:( 2889:( 2870:( 2845:( 2830:( 2799:( 2772:( 2753:( 2735:( 2721:( 2703:( 2688:( 2669:( 2654:( 2587:( 2570:( 2537:( 2523:( 2505:( 2491:( 2469:( 2451:( 2425:( 2409:( 2384:( 2370:( 2348:( 2334:( 2312:( 2295:( 2273:( 2258:( 2235:( 2221:( 2176:( 2160:( 2137:( 2123:( 2108:( 2094:( 2080:( 2065:( 2048:( 2033:( 2018:( 2004:( 1987:( 1970:· 1946:( 1931:( 1899:( 1885:( 1871:( 1856:( 1789:( 1775:( 1761:( 1747:( 1725:( 1711:( 1685:( 1671:( 1649:( 1632:( 1615:( 1599:( 1584:( 1569:( 1543:( 1528:( 1510:( 1492:( 1465:( 1451:( 1403:( 1389:( 1375:( 1360:( 1328:( 1309:( 1283:( 1264:( 1241:( 1222:( 1194:( 1176:( 1149:( 1133:( 1085:( 1070:( 1048:( 1034:( 999:( 985:( 968:( 942:( 928:( 903:( 880:( 865:( 850:( 835:( 821:( 803:( 789:( 770:( 726:( 689:( 650:. 614:. 512:. 492:: 485:. 479:: 459:: 444:: 300:. 266:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index