2042:. There is no precedent for pointing out white skin colour. While it is true that liberal and left-leaning are mainstream positions in the United States, the same can be said for conservatism (There are tens of millions of conservatives in the United States), yet conservative bias is still pointed out in Fox News' lede and Salon's lede. It's also important to point out that not everyone is familiar with US politics and since WP is global and not American, we should explain political bias to those who are unfamiliar. The edits I made to the article also didn't add the liberal description upfront, it was added a few sentences later in the first paragraph.
3011:, the subjects of which have shows on MSNBC, are labeled as "liberal" political commentators. This isn't the place for it, but I'm going to mention anyway, the issue of what the community deems as a "reliable" source. It's not exactly a secret that the admin class and general demographic of editors lie on the left side of the spectrum, so it's understandable that users might be discouraged with trying to involve themselves in a project that dismisses what many see as reliable sources, simply because the community doesn't see it that way. Just my 2 cents whether this is the place for it or not.
3127:, I know. My biggest gripe with WP lies with what the community deems a "reliable source." Coverage on this site is as skewed as many media outlets are, with the exception of widespread, established outlets like NYP, FNC, Washington Examiner, which aren't seen as "reliable" by the WP community, somehow. It's not exactly a state-level secret. I have (what I feel,) legitimate concerns about the long-term health of WP based on that, but I'm only one person, so my opinion and viewpoint doesn't really matter. Just wanted to offer some support for
3166:, probably about as much as any other newspaper with a similar circulation. I don't put stock into their "headlines," nor was I arguing for their specific inclusion. Plenty of publications put out bad headlines. Whether any one person is "aghast" by headlines also doesn't really matter, that's a personal opinion. I'm not trying to be combative, here. And since all I'm getting in response are cherry-picked portions of my statements along with dismissiveness of what I'm trying to say, I'll let it go.
1061:
1034:
2929:, I agree whole-heartedly on this. Even the issue of what passes as a reliable source on WP is flawed, and contributes to the imbalance of labels on this site. I personally feel the sources in this article that points toward labeling MSNBC as a liberal-leaning channel is sufficient to add this (much like Fox is labelled "conservative" in the first sentence of that article, but the political leanings of the community in general on WP is such that this won't change.
1164:
821:
488:
706:
685:
1071:
305:
716:
342:
378:
1176:
932:
567:
3926:. Attacking the motivations/biases of other editors will not convince. Is Rachel Maddow liberal? Of course and we say so. But it's difficult to label an entire network as liberal when it starts each day with four hours of Joe Scarborough, a lifelong Conservative who during his congressional career, received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, He has been an MSNBC host for 16 years.
811:
790:
1216:
232:
262:
922:
895:
426:
1002:
1946:
discrimination on
Knowledge (XXG)'s editors side. You discredit Fox News by labeling them as having a predetermined position on the news they report, and therefor you voice an opinion, and not a fact. In my opinion neither should be labeled as conservative or progressive in the lede (as those are opinions and not facts), but if one is so should the other.
2744:
478:
457:
3828:
sources; all of a sudden we aren't adding the liberal/progressive classification in the lead at all. And, just to note, the sources describing
Washington Examiner as "conservative" are also either blogs, opinion articles, or written by journalists and authors who are well-known for their left-leaning stances.
2284:
liberal", you need to provide evidence for such an assertion. You have failed to provide a single shred of evidence for that assertion. It is a settled fact that MSNBC is liberal, as sources ranging from Salon, Newsweek, Politico, and implied on page 16 of this court opinion, "Herring
Networks v. Maddow"(
3762:
As stated already, the "disputes" are mostly by non-actual editors. Just passers-by. As for Larry Sanger, he is a MAGA-adjacent talking head personality who overstated his "co-founder" claim, and tried but failed to field his own
Knowledge (XXG) competitor project, leading to ensuing bitterness. His
2403:
No, you're now making a totally different argument. You've gone from saying that MSNBC isn't liberal but that "reality is liberal" to saying that the lack of a political descriptor in the introduction of an article about a news network implies that it is liberal. There are way more than a handful of
2388:
does not state that he was the 43rd white president. You may peruse the archives of this talk page, and see nothing you're offering here is new or novel. And no, there aren't "tons and tons of right-wing news organizations", there are a handful. Conservatism does not lend itself to sustainable media
2319:
No, a news or political commentary organization is defined by the general leanings of its reporters and commentators. "Backing" by NBC news doesn't change the political orientation of MSNBC. Also, what evidence do you actually have that MSNBC adheres to journalistic norms and just what norms are you
1995:
Well, feel free to make your case and try, my friend, but you don't get to just add it unilaterally and then sputter with indignation when reverted. As I've stated before, the reason why it does not need to be stated in the lede is that being "liberal" or left-wing" in
America is the mainstream PoV.
1974:
Not labeling MSNBC as a liberal news source goes against wikipedias guidelines. Articles should be written from a neutral standpoint. Denying MSNBC is a liberal news source would only be done by those with a liberal bias themselves. This page needs to follow wikipedias own guidelines and properly
1773:
Are you seriously suggesting that
Britannica is an unreliable source for the claim of liberal bias? If Britannica, which is more professional than Knowledge (XXG), considers this bias a notable enough aspect to feature in the first paragraph of their article, then why should we not do the same here?
3028:
Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow are labeled liberal because they are liberal. Why not mention Joe
Scarborough who has been on MSNBC for 16 years, starts each morning with a four hour show, and who during his congressional career received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.
2617:
I do not know which news sites you're thinking are news sites? I suspect they are ones that WP considers deprecated as not reliable news sites. Meanwhile, MSNBC gets its news reporting from the NBC news organization, which is RS and well-established for journalistic practice. Some of the discussion
2421:
Your lack of comprehension of my words is a "you" problem, I'm afraid, not mine. MSNBC is "liberal" inasmuch as media itself is inherently progressive and forward-reaching, which is anathema to conservatism. Conservatism seeks to keep what is in place, to maintain the status quo. The core of honest
2283:
Nope. Facts stand on their own and exist independently of people's politics. First of all if reality were liberal, it wouldn't change any statement about MSNBC's political orientation; it would merely imply a conformity with reality. Secondly, if you want to make blanket statements like "reality is
1811:
Just because it has been discussed and rejected in the past doesn't mean that it should continue to be rejected if new reliable sources come to light. The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change". Saying that the only accounts trying to add this content are single purpose is also
3715:
Looking at the edit history of this article, you seem to have been restricting and reverting the liberal/progressive descriptor over and over again, and then calling it a "consensus." Precisely what consensus? Clearly, there is no proper consensus. The vast majority of independent reliable sources
3475:
To call it "liberal" or "left" in
Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, the preponderance of reliable sources would need to describe it that way. Otherwise we could certainly note in the article text something like this website's opinion, if there's some reason to consider it authoritative or otherwise call it
3002:
provide any basis for a source regarding MSNBC's leaning? Pardon my ignorance if not, I'm not totally clear on what sources are reliable and which aren't, but I don't know if I would call the desire to include "liberal" on this page is necessarily revenge. I think it's more based on the desire for
2888:
I understand now, mentioning
Britannica specifically would be undue. If we would want to mention more sources, but all objectively, we would arrive where we are now – to a separate section on bias claims. So I withdraw my suggestion that criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Anyway, thank you
3831:
I think the bias on many of these
Knowledge (XXG) articles for news programs speaks for itself. It's unfortunate, but I can't really do anything because it seems that there is generally a tendency for the majority of editors on Knowledge (XXG) to lean progressive on many contentious issues, which
3567:
I haven't examined all of these yet, but blogs rarely are considered reliable sources. In my experience with this article most people trying to describe MSNBC as liberal or left wing in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice offer opinion pieces, not journalism or something scholarly/academic, as evidence. I do
2568:
Wait what? You are acknowledging msnbc is liberal, then defending it saying that is the main stream point of view? Who are u to decide what the main stream point of view is? If msnbc is liberal then it needs to be labeled as such. Wikipedias own guidelines stress each article should be written
2264:
Please stop sticking your comments in-between the posts of other users. These are threaded replies those people made to each other over 6 months ago, and you just make it confusing. If you have a point to make, do it at the bottom of a discussion. Now, no, it is not a "settled fact" that MSNBC is
3879:
Well, you know what they say about assuming things. No, I did not and have not read the opinion of a far-right provocateur, any more than I would listen to a Steve Bannon podcast. There's really nothing else to discuss here, as you're taking the same, tired route of others, particularly with the
2946:
I hate to say this, but it is so clear that in mainstream progressive network articles like MSNBC, there is a group of left-wing editors who will fight to the death to avoid any left-wing verbiage from being added. This bias needs to be investigated. There are countless sources that have already
2634:
Regardless of what you consider them, they're news sites. The New York Post, The Washington Times, Breitbart News, may all push debunked conspiracy theories as news, but they're still news sites and right-wing. The fact that MSNBC has a few opposing views on doesn't change the orientation of the
2225:
Politico, Newsweek, NYT, Washington Post, Salon, and several other sources say that MSNBC is liberal or Left-wing or progressive. All of those terms imply the descriptor, 'liberal.' We need to interpret sources without bias and that means treating terms like 'progressive' as implying terms like
2436:
No, the simple fact is that you're making two totally different and contradictory arguments. If you don't understand that, too bad, but you're saying on one hand that MSNBC isn't liberal, and, on the other hand, you're saying that it is common knowledge that MSNBC is liberal so it shouldn't be
3827:
I think it reflects poorly on Knowledge (XXG) to have "conservative" classifications on sources that are barely recognized as right-leaning, but when it comes to MSNBC; which is widely recognized as the most left-wing mainstream news program per Pew Research, AllSides, and a plethora of other
2754:
regarding Just wanted to get some other opinions on this and have some discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is
2602:
Like it or not, at least enough of those "right-wing news sites" are "news" in the general sense of the term that an omission of a news network's political leanings doesn't necessarily imply that it is liberal or left-wing. As for your other claims, they're completely irrelevant to the topic,
2369:
That is a very different argument than the one you were making before, and it is also one that doesn't seem to be particularly strong at first glance. There are tons and tons of right-wing news organizations, and even Google, which has usually tried to filter out most of these organizations,
2302:
That primary sourced random judicial opinion more or less vitiates whatever claim you are making about MSNBC. The issue for this page however is that while at present, some of the talk show hosts on MSNBC express "liberal" views, the channel is a news organization that adheres to established
3380:
Do the right thing and add liberal in the intro paragraph. There is no reason not to other than someone having their own political agenda and using wikipedia as a way to promote it. This is really bothersome. Anyone with a political bias should not be editing wiki pages. Even wikipedias
1945:
Why would you describe Fox News as "an American multinational conservative news and political commentary television channel and website based in New York City" but wouldn't describe MSNBC as left leaning or progressive? It is as left leaning and progressive as it gets. This looks a lot like
3846:
I'm not specifically interested in keeping such a descriptor out, I'm interested in such a thing being properly sourced. Most of the people who want to do this seem interested in doing so based on revenge for conservative news outlets being identified that way, not based on proper sources.
2334:
Also, the case, which is hardly random but rather one of the most famous cases associated with MSNBC and recent America media in general, asserts that the views of the network's primetime lead are so well known to have a liberal bias that the programming is not intended to be news but mere
3191:
Add mention that NewsGuard has declared MSNBC to be an unreliable source of information and of poor journalistic quality. NewsGuard has been quoted directly for its assessment of various other news organizations in other articles, so there is consensus in favor of such an inclusion.
3246:
I was referring to other Knowledge (XXG) articles that discuss NewsGuard and what it thinks of them. Who are they exactly? Are they recognized as an authority on judging journalistic quality? I want to know why their opinion should be specifically called out in this or any article.
2056:
Maybe that's cuz FoxNews has the word News in its brand but it broadcasts conspiracy theories, whackadoodle retired petty government factotums masquerading as expert commentators, and false information fed directly to it by various politicians? That could be part of the
2422:
journalism is to investigate, to seek, to uncover truths that other wish to conceal. The nature of journalism, and media, is to progress. So, agaon, there is no point in stating the obvious. MSNBC's notability is simply that it is a media outlet, period and full-stop.
2966:
use that term to describe MSNBC. That hasn't been done yet. See the numerous prior discussions on this topic, such as the one at the bottom of this page(currently). As I said there, I have no specific interest in keeping the use of that term out of this article.
3628:
Actually, no. This is a perennially-pursued topic, mostly by IP editors, one-offs, and single-purpose accounts, and it has been solidly rejected by actual editors who have participated in discussions. The onus is on you to gain consensus for a change here.
1774:
Considering allegations of liberal bias make up a huge chunk of the article, it makes sense to note the allegations in the lede. But I wouldn't mind also saying in the lede for balance that others in the past have claimed a conservative bias instead.
2714:
They are right-leaning, but they are very much within the general media realm. They aren't particularly "outliers". Right-wing sites are about 40% of the news sites, which is why the term "liberal" should be appearing in the lede of this article.
3376:
Does anyone actually think MSNBC does not have a liberal bias? Leaving out liberal news organization, is a great example of why wikipedia people think Knowledge (XXG) is extremely bias. That and the multiple harvard studies also show this.
3794:
Blogs don't count, two of your sources are blogs. The others are mostly opinion pieces that reflect the views of the writer(usually conservative writers), not a neutral judgement based on evidence. That's not the case with outlets like the
3067:
Appears to refute the claim to me. And may be part of why reliable sources do not call MSNBC a liberal network when so much time is devoted to conservatives. Whatever the rationale, we follow RS. (BTW, please don't ping me in responses.)
2699:
Yes, they are right-leaning, thus outliers within the general media realm. There's really nothing more to say here, as this just begins to go around in circles. The label "liberal" will not be appearing in the lede of this article.
3421:
Sources aren't really the issue. IMO. The majority of legitimate, mainstream American media leans liberal or progressive, so there is no need to note the leanings MSNBC. Fox News is an outlier, hence the "conservative" descriptor.
3585:
The description of Fox and WE as conservative are almost always described in opinion pieces as well. The best way to find out the political bias of a news source is usually AllSides, or some form of independent review site.
2873:
Okay, but the mention of Britannica is just one line and its seems disproportionate to call out one line of the entire article in the lead- leaving aside wondering why Britannica should be specifically called out at all.
2584:
The household names that some editors may call "right wing news sites" are not news sites. They are cable drama that do not adhere to journalistic standards, or in most cases not even the literary standards of fine
2525:
A political commentary show having opposing views on it doesn't change the orientation of the host network. Just about every major political commentary show puts opposing views on there as a foil for the audience.
2961:
That the edit you want has not been made does not mean that there is a vast left wing conspiracy here(nor am I "left wing"). I have no problem with making that edit if it can be shown that the preponderance of
1789:
It will not be appearing in the lede, this is a perennial, SPA-fueled agenda item. If you really want to add it further down in that section, that probably won't bean issue, though IMO it is a little redundant.
655:
2854:
To be clear, I am concerned mainly about Britannica. I don't know if its claim is reliable or not, but I think the claim is notable, given that it is Britannica. I do not mean that MSNBC should be labeled as
1189:
1044:
1011:
905:
3131:, because I believe they raise valid points that others have, and have been dismissed. I also understand this is a larger debate among the community, and I can understand some users' frustrations around it.
3819:
I know I'm not going to win here because there's so many people persistent on keeping a liberal/progressive descriptor out of the article, so I don't really have much else to say other than the fact that I
3086:
Consistency is only relevant if sources treat MSNBC and Fox the same but Knowledge (XXG) does not. Then yes, we should be consistent. We are not consistent for consistency's sake, but because sources are.
2828:
What is described there is only one small aspect of the article- and describes which sources deem MSNBC liberal. To make that claim in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, it must be shown that the preponderance of
2540:
Not "opposing views". Hosts and featured personalities. Just one example, Joe "I was a congressman" Scarborough, a Reaganite throwback, and a history of the likes of Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, et al.
2437:
mentioned in the introduction. MSNBC is mostly known for its liberal commentary and the court opinion proves it. Meanwhile, have you provided any actual evidence for any of your contradictory assertions?
166:
3861:
Please take up issues with conservative news outlets on those respective article talk pages, though you aren't the first and won't be the last, so I suggest you examine the archives of those talk pages.
2907:
is appropriate. MSNBC is described as more left-wing than the Washington Examiner is, yet the Washington Examiner article still describes WE as conservative. MSNBC is absolutely left-wing, and the word
2098:
You yourself and nobody else introduced Fox News into this thread. If you continue to make personal remarks and misrepresentations, you're unlikely to change the clear lack of consensus for your views.
2370:
struggles to do so. 99% of the population will say that the sky is blue. I don't think 99% of the population will assume that a news channel is liberal unless the article explicitly states otherwise.
3149:
Do you actually believe NYP is reliable? I see the paper a couple times a week in the grocery line and am aghast at the sick headlines. In any case, this isn't the correct page for this discussion.
3946:
3337:
In addition, articles written for the MSNBC website wrongly declared that New York Post stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop were false (and have continued to be published uncorrected on the site).
1826:
Bias can only be defined in relation to a standard. The standard for WP content NPOV is clear and it is foundational. It's the world that's biased, not Knowledge (XXG). Chew on that for a minute?
3196:
2814:
The section on controversies is sourced. The lead should summarize the whole article, so the fact that it has been labeled as "liberal" by specific sources should be mentioned in the lead.
4118:
1101:
3571:
We go where appropriate sources go; Fox and the WE are described as conservative because sources do so. It misunderstands NPOV to say "X should be done to Y because it's done on Z too".
4028:
3777:
I wasn't asking you to respect or agree with Larry Sanger, I was asking you to read his essay if you hadn't already. Nevertheless, I assume you already have, so I am going to proceed.
2981:
As I said below, most people who want to use liberal on this page seem to want to do so in revenge for conservative outlets being named conservative(where appropriate sources do so).
3894:
I already said that I don't have much else to say. You can keep the article how you want it, I just disagree. I know however much I try to explain, it'll still not be implemented.
3744:
A consensus isn't simply a majority of editors. And, if disputes have been happening for such a long time, then clearly there is an issue with the article. I recommend you read
3261:
1118:
4128:
4093:
1194:
1016:
2569:
from a “neutral” standpoint. The fact your response goes against that shows you probably shouldn’t be editing any wikipedia articles because you from a bias point of view.
2351:
As other editors have noted in past discussions, the majority of the news media has a naturally-leaning progressive bent. We don't need to cite the bloody obvious. So, read
348:
223:
3568:
note that the allsides mentioned above is a good start, and their views could possibly be included as their views, if they are recognized as authoritative on this topic.
1154:
772:
4133:
4098:
2465:
Then your lack of a remotely coherent argument shows that MSNBC should be described as a liberal news network(or news and political commentary network) in the lede.
4113:
4053:
1144:
762:
1108:
992:
877:
4123:
4088:
160:
3232:
just on MSNBC's Morning Joe, which quotes NewsGuard as saying e.g. "the hosts and guests have conveyed false and misleading information on a range of topics".
92:
2665:
I've only seen Dancing with the Stars a couple of times, but I don't think it intends to convey or present general facts outside of the scope of its contest.
3505:
2320:
talking about? Political bias is pretty normal in journalism and commentary is quite different from journalism, as it has a totally different set of norms.
2269:
is liberal, and those who fall to the right of that tend to not like it. This is not a question of finding reliable sources, it is a question of relevance.
2080:
You're engaging in whataboutism. This isn't about Fox, this is about MSNBC. You've done nothing but completely ignore and dismiss my arguments backed up by
1904:
if you believe you have verification for the liberal bias bit. I have rarely edited this article, so I'm afraid I can't be of much further help to you here.
1886:
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why my arguments are wrong, not me. Even the perennial discussions article says "Consensus can change".
4138:
4083:
4068:
4058:
2034:
Comparing white skin colour and political bias sounds like a false equivalence. There is already precedent for adding political bias in article ledes like
982:
867:
282:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
3436:
There is a need to note the leanings of MSNBC. Knowledge (XXG) notes Washington Examiner as conservative, when it is only rated center-right according to
2756:
2751:
1113:
738:
4023:
3396:
Everyone has a political bias, so not allowing that would leave no one left to edit. Knowledge (XXG) does not require a "neutral stance", it asks for a
3943:
3941:
544:
269:
4103:
4073:
2407:
Donald Trump is not known for being White. MSNBC is known for being liberal. Particularly, MSNBC is a liberal alternative to conservative Fox News.
954:
843:
98:
4108:
4048:
2509:
The news is not "liberal". Much of its commentary is progressive, not conservative. But it's long had conservatives and neocons featured as well.
958:
3461:
That website has been brought up before, but it's only one website and is there any reason to consider it authoritative on this subject matter?
2250:
The sensible thing to do is to include the word "liberal" in the introductory sentence in the article. It's settled fact that MSNBC is liberal.
4038:
3500:
534:
1084:
1039:
729:
690:
4078:
4063:
3382:
2775:
2570:
1976:
1947:
43:
4043:
3950:
3530:
2139:. You started the discussion. You found nobody agreeing with you. The discussion continued only to give you a chance to make your case.
945:
900:
834:
795:
510:
3407:
that describe MSNBC as liberal. You aren't the first to request this and won't be the last, but no one has yet to offer such sources.
3225:
3200:
3050:, in its own subheading. Didn't seem necessary to bring up again. That doesn't really refute anything else I said, just one sentence.
3003:
consistency, since it's widely accepted that MSNBC is on the polar opposite of Fox News in regards to its leaning. Even articles like
2948:
1096:
613:
285:
273:
112:
3780:
The preponderance of reliable sources state that MSNBC is a liberal news organization. I already have provided many of them above.
117:
33:
2618:
shows are left-leaning on MSNBC, but then others, like "morning Joe" are stocked with raving Reaganites and recycled republicans.
2603:
particularly the one about "fine fiction." This is about MSNBC's political leanings, not what makes fiction high or low quality.
1092:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
356:
87:
4033:
3229:
3176:
3141:
3060:
3021:
2939:
579:
437:
364:
313:
619:
501:
462:
78:
3495:
3506:
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/section-1-media-sources-distinct-favorites-emerge-on-the-left-and-right/
1863:
Sorry to hear that. Maybe review some of the past discussions of this and think it over and we can resume in a day or two.
737:-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
57:
3193:
2169:
That's simply false. You're showing extreme point-of-view bias and you need to reread Knowledge (XXG) policies on POV.
407:
3540:
3535:
403:
181:
3944:
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/morning-joe-opens-with-15-minute-host-led-campaign-commercial-defending-joe-biden/
3515:
3262:
Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381#Is NewsGuard reliable for checking accuracy of news sites?
318:
231:
198:
3908:
If anything, I'll probably propose it again in the talk page down the line, when I analyze more reliable sources.
626:
291:
148:
122:
2384:(ec)It isn't really different at all, no. As someone else once pointed out in an earlier discussion, the lede of
323:
242:
3763:
opinion carries zero weight here. Less-than-zero, honestly, as citing him hinders your argument, not advances.
3386:
2574:
2193:
MSNBC has repeatedly said in court that it is not primarily a news network but a political commentary network.
1980:
203:
2779:
1951:
443:
3381:
guidelines state articles need to come from a neutral stance. Clearly that guideline has been broken here.
3931:
3501:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/04/21/love-fox-msnbc-you-may-be-locked-in-a-partisan-echo-chamber-study-finds
3154:
3073:
3034:
2720:
2670:
2640:
2608:
2531:
2470:
2442:
2412:
2375:
2340:
2325:
2293:
2255:
2231:
2198:
2174:
1849:
You failed to rebut or respond to most of my arguments and I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.
2649:
Is Dancinig with the Stars also a news broadcast? How is it different from OAN and Fox evening programming?
2952:
2285:
3745:
3643:
I am not a "one-off" writer. I have been contributing to numerous articles of a vast variety of topics.
2136:
411:
360:
68:
2207:
Okay, not sure what the point of that is, but if you want to refer to this network as "liberal" we need
842:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
640:
509:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
506:
352:
142:
83:
3367:
3363:
1076:
721:
219:
215:
211:
207:
3531:
https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/cable-news-networks-have-grown-more-polarized-study-finds
2352:
592:
425:
279:
3797:
3550:
3347:
3318:
3288:
3274:
3174:
3139:
3058:
3019:
2937:
2774:
It is not right to have “conservative” in Fox News wiki page but not note MSNBC being very liberal
2685:
2655:
2624:
2591:
2546:
2515:
2309:
2145:
2104:
2063:
2017:
1910:
1869:
1832:
1795:
174:
3491:
THE PREPONDERANCE of reliable sources describe MSNBC as left-leaning, liberal, and/or progressive:
1901:
585:
138:
3964:
3927:
3885:
3768:
3735:
3662:
3634:
3605:
3427:
3163:
3150:
3069:
3043:
3030:
2894:
2864:
2859:
in the first sentence, but I think the claim should be mentioned (as a claim) later in the lead.
2819:
2716:
2705:
2666:
2636:
2604:
2527:
2466:
2456:
2438:
2427:
2408:
2394:
2371:
2360:
2336:
2321:
2289:
2274:
2251:
2227:
2194:
2170:
2160:
2126:
2089:
2047:
1936:
1891:
1854:
1817:
1779:
602:
328:
247:
2303:
journalistic norms and is backed by NBC News, also RS. That's not the case with Fox, OAN, et al.
1060:
1033:
3913:
3899:
3837:
3785:
3753:
3721:
3648:
3619:
3591:
3558:
3452:
3237:
2917:
1181:
937:
826:
636:
493:
64:
3520:
3397:
188:
3867:
3852:
3810:
3576:
3481:
3466:
3412:
3252:
3215:
3092:
2986:
2972:
2879:
2838:
2798:
2216:
386:
325:
244:
3923:
3657:
Didn't say you were. I characterized past "users" whom you currently happen to be echoing.
2012:. This will never be a question that hinges on sourcing, but rather relevance and purpose.
2004:
American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president...
377:
950:
598:
3404:
2963:
2830:
2790:
2211:
to support that. People have tried and failed for years. If you can do so, power to you.
2208:
3525:
3496:
https://www.allsides.com/blind-survey/rating-bias-cnn-fox-news-msnbc-newsnation-nov-2023
2999:
1163:
3444:
3437:
3342:
3310:
3283:
3266:
3167:
3132:
3051:
3012:
2930:
2680:
2650:
2619:
2586:
2541:
2510:
2304:
2140:
2116:
2099:
2075:
2058:
2029:
2013:
1922:
1905:
1881:
1864:
1844:
1827:
1806:
1791:
1768:
566:
367:
exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
3880:
misunderstanding of how reliable sources are determined (hint, it isn't by ideology).
705:
684:
4017:
3960:
3881:
3764:
3731:
3712:
3658:
3630:
3601:
3423:
3008:
2890:
2860:
2815:
2701:
2452:
2423:
2390:
2356:
2270:
2156:
2122:
2085:
2043:
1932:
1887:
1850:
1813:
1812:
extremely bad faith. You have also failed to rebut my argument regarding Britannica.
1775:
1089:
734:
1175:
931:
3909:
3895:
3833:
3781:
3749:
3717:
3644:
3615:
3587:
3554:
3541:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/msnbc-as-foxs-liberal-evil-twin.html
3536:
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=etd
3448:
3233:
3128:
2926:
2913:
2793:
that describe MSNBC as liberal. Such sources do describe Fox News as conservative.
2385:
2009:
154:
2635:
network, just as those right-wing news sites probably have liberals on sometimes.
2335:
commentary. This decisively implies a court acknowledging that MSNBC is liberal.
3863:
3848:
3806:
3748:, the essay written by the co-founder of Knowledge (XXG), which describes this.
3572:
3516:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/is-msnbc-worse-than-fox-news-179175
3477:
3462:
3408:
3301:
3248:
3211:
3124:
3088:
2995:
2982:
2968:
2875:
2849:
2834:
2809:
2794:
2212:
953:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
3510:
2121:
Since this is clearly going nowhere, can we both agree to end this discussion?
949:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge (XXG) articles about
1171:
1066:
927:
839:
816:
810:
789:
711:
632:
606:
483:
3305:
2155:"You found nobody agreeing with you" That's why I'm ending this discussion.
2039:
2947:
demonstrated the progressive lean of MSNBC, but it stil hasn't been added.
1088:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
402:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
294:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
3614:
You're going to need to explain more than just saying "not gonna happen."
3802:
3004:
2081:
2035:
1928:
3549:
to not label it as such, but to label less-biased organizations such as
3333:
Here's an example of their negative factors for MSNBC: NewsGuard states
2451:
Your simple inability to understand here will no longer be replied to.
2286:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/17/20-55579.pdf
1001:
3746:
https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/
3282:
Their news reporting is NBC News. The opinions are a different matter.
2743:
921:
894:
3730:
I and many others, yes. This is what most editors have decided upon.
2789:
You are not the first person to ask this. Please provide independent
3877:
Nevertheless, I assume you already have, so I am going to proceed.
2760:
2750:
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the
1722:
1709:
1696:
1682:
1667:
1652:
1637:
1622:
1607:
1592:
1577:
1562:
1547:
1532:
1517:
1499:
1484:
1469:
1455:
1442:
1428:
1414:
1401:
1388:
1374:
1360:
1346:
1331:
1316:
1301:
1286:
1272:
1259:
1236:
37:
246:
1993:
The perennial proposals page itself says "Consensus can change".
341:
327:
3940:
mediate states MSNBC is a political commercial for Joe Biden.
1210:
477:
456:
419:
372:
336:
329:
299:
256:
248:
28:
15:
2742:
1929:
MSNBC is generally considered to be liberal or left-leaning.
1162:
1000:
3968:
3954:
3935:
3917:
3903:
3889:
3871:
3856:
3841:
3814:
3789:
3772:
3757:
3739:
3725:
3666:
3652:
3638:
3623:
3609:
3595:
3580:
3562:
3485:
3470:
3456:
3431:
3416:
3390:
3352:
3321:
3293:
3277:
3256:
3241:
3219:
3204:
3178:
3158:
3143:
3096:
3077:
3062:
3038:
3023:
2990:
2976:
2956:
2941:
2921:
2898:
2883:
2868:
2842:
2823:
2802:
2783:
2739:
MSNBC - Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
2724:
2709:
2690:
2674:
2660:
2644:
2629:
2612:
2596:
2578:
2551:
2535:
2520:
2474:
2460:
2446:
2431:
2416:
2398:
2379:
2364:
2344:
2329:
2314:
2297:
2278:
2259:
2235:
2220:
2202:
2178:
2164:
2150:
2130:
2109:
2093:
2068:
2051:
2021:
1984:
1955:
1940:
1915:
1895:
1874:
1858:
1837:
1821:
1799:
1783:
3716:
state that MSNBC is a liberal and progressive news site.
3521:
https://www.biasly.com/blog/how-biased-is-msnbc-if-at-all/
359:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If
3832:
reflects in the writing style of many articles as well.
3801:(under "history" and "content and editoral stance") and
1996:
Stating "MSNBC is liberal" is about as useful as saying
2763:. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
173:
3526:
https://adfontesmedia.com/msnbc-bias-and-reliability/
2084:. I'd rather end this discussion here than continue.
3445:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
3438:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
3210:
Please show other articles where this is discussed.
3047:
838:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
733:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
505:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
187:
4029:Knowledge (XXG) articles that use American English
4119:B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1998:
957:. To improve this article, please refer to the
2752:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution noticeboard
1927:The Britannica article I'm referring to says "
317:. Please read recent comments and look in the
3364:Perception of Liberal Bias confirmed by MSNBC
3335:
2000:"Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a
355:while commenting or presenting evidence, and
8:
3511:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/?p=570604
4129:Mid-importance American television articles
4094:Mid-importance Television stations articles
3371:
3046:, that's already mentioned in the article
1233:
1222:
1028:
889:
784:
679:
574:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
552:
451:
390:, which has its own spelling conventions (
2833:describe it that way, not a limited few.
2679:Same as evening and much other Fox Media.
1129:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
747:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject New York City
1593:Coverage of Israeli–Palestinian conflict
4134:American television task force articles
4099:Television stations task force articles
3947:2603:8080:3EF0:9790:F634:C5F6:B3A5:22FB
3341:Which stories? The ones that say what?
3187:NewsGuard has declared MSNBC unreliable
1578:Coverage of the 2020 Democratic primary
1030:
891:
786:
681:
453:
423:
3876:
3440:, when MNSBC is rated completely left.
3197:2A02:810A:12C0:598:6950:4A0D:9D02:60F3
1992:
967:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television
852:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Journalism
4114:Low-importance United States articles
4054:Low-importance New York City articles
410:, this should not be changed without
7:
4124:B-Class American television articles
4089:B-Class Television stations articles
4024:Knowledge (XXG) controversial topics
2759:".The discussion is about the topic
1518:Romney coverage during 2012 election
1082:This article is within the scope of
943:This article is within the scope of
832:This article is within the scope of
727:This article is within the scope of
499:This article is within the scope of
3545:It would be a blatant violation of
1653:Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough
442:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
4139:WikiProject United States articles
4084:Mid-importance television articles
4069:Mid-importance Journalism articles
4059:WikiProject New York City articles
1132:Template:WikiProject United States
1012:the Television stations task force
750:Template:WikiProject New York City
14:
3959:Opinion pieces are not relevant.
519:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Media
314:previous arguments being restated
63:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1533:Allegations of conservative bias
1214:
1174:
1069:
1059:
1032:
930:
920:
893:
819:
809:
788:
714:
704:
683:
565:
486:
476:
455:
424:
376:
340:
303:
260:
230:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
4104:WikiProject Television articles
4074:WikiProject Journalism articles
3805:(under "political alignment").
1485:Favoritism towards Barack Obama
1149:This article has been rated as
987:This article has been rated as
970:Template:WikiProject Television
872:This article has been rated as
855:Template:WikiProject Journalism
767:This article has been rated as
539:This article has been rated as
284:Content must be written from a
268:The subject of this article is
4109:B-Class United States articles
4049:B-Class New York City articles
2082:an RS that you've also ignored
1190:American television task force
620:Content (media and publishing)
1:
4039:Mid-importance Media articles
3918:15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3904:15:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3890:14:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3872:12:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3857:12:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3842:09:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3815:09:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3790:07:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3773:01:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3758:01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3740:01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3726:01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3667:01:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3653:01:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3639:01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3624:00:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
3610:00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
1975:label MSNBC as liberal news.
1931:". Sorry for not linking it.
1187:This article is supported by
1009:This article is supported by
846:and see a list of open tasks.
741:and see a list of open tasks.
556:WikiProject Media To-do List:
513:and see a list of open tasks.
55:Put new text under old text.
3596:22:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3581:17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3563:16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3486:15:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3471:15:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3457:13:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
3432:22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3417:22:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3391:21:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
3353:21:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
3228:. More in depth coverage in
2922:13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
2899:20:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2884:19:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2869:19:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2843:19:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2824:19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
2725:02:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2710:22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2691:22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2675:21:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2661:21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2645:21:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2630:20:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2613:19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2597:18:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2579:21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
2552:15:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2536:15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
2521:18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2475:02:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
2461:22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2447:21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
2432:20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2417:19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2399:18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2380:17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2365:14:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2345:18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2330:17:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2315:14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2298:14:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2279:02:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2260:01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2236:14:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2221:02:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2203:01:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
2179:01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
1985:20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
357:do not make personal attacks
4079:B-Class television articles
4064:B-Class Journalism articles
3322:18:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
3294:01:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
3278:01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
3257:10:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
3242:10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
3220:18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3205:18:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
278:When updating the article,
4155:
4044:WikiProject Media articles
3361:
2991:07:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
2977:07:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
2957:05:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
2942:13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
2903:I believe adding the word
1548:Lack of diversity of views
1155:project's importance scale
993:project's importance scale
878:project's importance scale
773:project's importance scale
545:project's importance scale
522:Template:WikiProject Media
3936:14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3403:Please offer independent
3179:16:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3159:15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3144:15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3097:15:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3078:15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3063:15:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3039:15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
3024:14:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
2803:22:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
2784:22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
1900:Actually no. Please read
1170:
1148:
1085:WikiProject United States
1054:
1008:
986:
915:
871:
804:
766:
730:WikiProject New York City
699:
551:
538:
471:
450:
310:Discussions on this page
280:be bold, but not reckless
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
3969:21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
3955:10:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
2404:conservative news sites.
2165:02:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
2151:02:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
2131:01:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
2110:01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
2094:01:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
2069:22:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
2052:20:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
2022:12:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
1941:21:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1916:21:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1896:21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1875:21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1859:21:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1838:21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1822:21:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1800:21:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1784:20:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
1563:Romney family grandchild
1090:United States of America
21:
1956:08:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
4034:B-Class Media articles
3372:Add the word “liberal”
3368:"Liberal" in the lead?
3339:
2770:Add the word “liberal”
2747:
2006:
1167:
1135:United States articles
1005:
946:WikiProject Television
835:WikiProject Journalism
753:New York City articles
432:This article is rated
272:and content may be in
88:avoid personal attacks
3398:neutral point of view
3224:Mentioned briefly in
2746:
2355:at your convenience.
1501:Rise of the New Right
1361:Ratings and reception
1166:
1004:
961:for the type of work.
656:requests for comments
641:Alternative newspaper
436:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
286:neutral point of view
224:Auto-archiving period
113:Neutral point of view
3922:When you do, please
2889:for your arguments.
1608:Suspensions of hosts
1077:United States portal
722:New York City portal
408:relevant style guide
404:varieties of English
118:No original research
3798:Washington Examiner
3551:Washington Examiner
3476:out in particular.
1402:MSNBC International
1240:
1103:Articles Requested!
973:television articles
955:join the discussion
951:television programs
858:Journalism articles
406:. According to the
321:before commenting.
3600:Not gonna happen.
2748:
1234:
1168:
1006:
603:Video game culture
438:content assessment
316:
99:dispute resolution
60:
3822:strongly disagree
3553:as conservative.
3194:Here is the link.
2912:should be added.
1754:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1745:
1744:
1235:Section size for
1209:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1182:Television portal
1027:
1026:
1023:
1022:
938:Television portal
888:
887:
884:
883:
827:Journalism portal
783:
782:
779:
778:
678:
677:
674:
673:
670:
669:
666:
665:
637:Alternative media
502:WikiProject Media
494:Journalism portal
418:
417:
371:
370:
335:
334:
311:
298:
297:
255:
254:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
4146:
3405:reliable sources
3317:
3315:
3273:
3271:
3172:
3137:
3056:
3017:
2964:reliabke sources
2935:
2853:
2831:reliable sources
2813:
2791:reliable sources
2209:reliable sources
2120:
2079:
2033:
1926:
1885:
1848:
1810:
1772:
1685:
1670:
1655:
1640:
1625:
1610:
1595:
1580:
1565:
1550:
1535:
1520:
1505:
1487:
1472:
1431:
1377:
1349:
1334:
1319:
1304:
1289:
1241:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1211:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1063:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1036:
1029:
975:
974:
971:
968:
965:
959:style guidelines
940:
935:
934:
924:
917:
916:
911:
908:
897:
890:
860:
859:
856:
853:
850:
829:
824:
823:
822:
813:
806:
805:
800:
792:
785:
755:
754:
751:
748:
745:
724:
719:
718:
717:
708:
701:
700:
695:
687:
680:
580:Article requests
569:
562:
561:
553:
527:
526:
523:
520:
517:
496:
491:
490:
489:
480:
473:
472:
467:
459:
452:
435:
429:
428:
420:
387:American English
383:This article is
380:
373:
363:is not reached,
344:
343:
337:
330:
307:
306:
300:
264:
263:
257:
249:
235:
234:
225:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
29:
16:
4154:
4153:
4149:
4148:
4147:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4014:
4013:
3374:
3360:
3311:
3309:
3304:Check the page
3267:
3265:
3189:
3168:
3133:
3052:
3013:
2931:
2847:
2807:
2772:
2741:
2114:
2073:
2027:
1920:
1879:
1842:
1804:
1766:
1764:
1750:
1710:Further reading
1681:
1666:
1651:
1636:
1621:
1606:
1591:
1576:
1561:
1546:
1531:
1516:
1498:
1483:
1468:
1427:
1389:Carriage issues
1373:
1345:
1330:
1315:
1300:
1285:
1228:
1215:
1180:
1173:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1109:Become a Member
1075:
1070:
1068:
1048:
1042:
972:
969:
966:
963:
962:
936:
929:
909:
903:
857:
854:
851:
848:
847:
825:
820:
818:
798:
752:
749:
746:
743:
742:
720:
715:
713:
693:
662:
599:Media influence
524:
521:
518:
515:
514:
492:
487:
485:
465:
433:
412:broad consensus
365:other solutions
331:
326:
304:
261:
251:
250:
245:
222:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
4152:
4150:
4142:
4141:
4136:
4131:
4126:
4121:
4116:
4111:
4106:
4101:
4096:
4091:
4086:
4081:
4076:
4071:
4066:
4061:
4056:
4051:
4046:
4041:
4036:
4031:
4026:
4016:
4015:
4012:
4011:
4010:
4009:
4008:
4007:
4006:
4005:
4004:
4003:
4002:
4001:
4000:
3999:
3998:
3997:
3996:
3995:
3994:
3993:
3992:
3991:
3990:
3989:
3988:
3987:
3986:
3985:
3984:
3983:
3982:
3981:
3980:
3979:
3978:
3977:
3976:
3975:
3974:
3973:
3972:
3971:
3874:
3859:
3829:
3825:
3778:
3692:
3691:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3676:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3671:
3670:
3669:
3569:
3543:
3538:
3533:
3528:
3523:
3518:
3513:
3508:
3503:
3498:
3493:
3473:
3441:
3401:
3383:98.217.161.235
3359:
3356:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3298:
3297:
3296:
3188:
3185:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
2979:
2776:209.122.198.74
2771:
2768:
2766:
2740:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2582:
2581:
2571:98.217.161.235
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2405:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2332:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2135:Please review
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1977:98.217.161.235
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1948:81.218.199.176
1763:
1760:
1758:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1728:
1725:
1723:External links
1719:
1718:
1715:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1702:
1699:
1693:
1692:
1689:
1686:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1663:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1648:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1623:Michael Savage
1618:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1603:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1588:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1551:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1521:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1495:
1494:
1491:
1488:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1465:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1432:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1411:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1398:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1370:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1342:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1262:
1256:
1255:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1245:
1239:(33 sections)
1230:
1229:
1226:
1221:
1219:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1195:Mid-importance
1186:
1185:
1169:
1159:
1158:
1151:Low-importance
1147:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1099:
1097:Template Usage
1093:
1081:
1080:
1064:
1052:
1051:
1049:Low‑importance
1037:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1017:Mid-importance
1007:
997:
996:
989:Mid-importance
985:
979:
978:
976:
942:
941:
925:
913:
912:
910:Mid‑importance
898:
886:
885:
882:
881:
874:Mid-importance
870:
864:
863:
861:
844:the discussion
831:
830:
814:
802:
801:
799:Mid‑importance
793:
781:
780:
777:
776:
769:Low-importance
765:
759:
758:
756:
739:the discussion
726:
725:
709:
697:
696:
694:Low‑importance
688:
676:
675:
672:
671:
668:
667:
664:
663:
661:
660:
659:
658:
651:
643:
622:
609:
588:
573:
571:
570:
558:
557:
549:
548:
541:Mid-importance
537:
531:
530:
528:
525:Media articles
511:the discussion
498:
497:
481:
469:
468:
466:Mid‑importance
460:
448:
447:
441:
430:
416:
415:
381:
369:
368:
345:
333:
332:
324:
322:
312:often lead to
308:
296:
295:
265:
253:
252:
243:
241:
240:
237:
236:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4151:
4140:
4137:
4135:
4132:
4130:
4127:
4125:
4122:
4120:
4117:
4115:
4112:
4110:
4107:
4105:
4102:
4100:
4097:
4095:
4092:
4090:
4087:
4085:
4082:
4080:
4077:
4075:
4072:
4070:
4067:
4065:
4062:
4060:
4057:
4055:
4052:
4050:
4047:
4045:
4042:
4040:
4037:
4035:
4032:
4030:
4027:
4025:
4022:
4021:
4019:
3970:
3966:
3962:
3958:
3957:
3956:
3952:
3948:
3945:
3942:
3939:
3938:
3937:
3933:
3929:
3925:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3915:
3911:
3907:
3906:
3905:
3901:
3897:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3887:
3883:
3878:
3875:
3873:
3869:
3865:
3860:
3858:
3854:
3850:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3839:
3835:
3830:
3826:
3823:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3812:
3808:
3804:
3800:
3799:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3787:
3783:
3779:
3776:
3775:
3774:
3770:
3766:
3761:
3760:
3759:
3755:
3751:
3747:
3743:
3742:
3741:
3737:
3733:
3729:
3728:
3727:
3723:
3719:
3714:
3710:
3709:
3708:
3707:
3706:
3705:
3704:
3703:
3702:
3701:
3700:
3699:
3698:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3693:
3668:
3664:
3660:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3641:
3640:
3636:
3632:
3627:
3626:
3625:
3621:
3617:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3607:
3603:
3599:
3598:
3597:
3593:
3589:
3584:
3583:
3582:
3578:
3574:
3570:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3560:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3542:
3539:
3537:
3534:
3532:
3529:
3527:
3524:
3522:
3519:
3517:
3514:
3512:
3509:
3507:
3504:
3502:
3499:
3497:
3494:
3492:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3483:
3479:
3474:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3454:
3450:
3446:
3442:
3439:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3414:
3410:
3406:
3402:
3399:
3395:
3394:
3393:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3378:
3373:
3369:
3365:
3357:
3355:
3354:
3351:
3350:
3346:
3345:
3338:
3334:
3323:
3320:
3316:
3314:
3307:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3292:
3291:
3287:
3286:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3276:
3272:
3270:
3263:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3245:
3244:
3243:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3202:
3198:
3195:
3186:
3180:
3177:
3175:
3173:
3171:
3165:
3164:Objective3000
3162:
3161:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3142:
3140:
3138:
3136:
3130:
3126:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3085:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3061:
3059:
3057:
3055:
3049:
3045:
3044:Objective3000
3042:
3041:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3022:
3020:
3018:
3016:
3010:
3009:Rachel Maddow
3006:
3001:
2997:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2980:
2978:
2974:
2970:
2965:
2960:
2959:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2940:
2938:
2936:
2934:
2928:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2906:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2896:
2892:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2858:
2851:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2811:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2781:
2777:
2769:
2767:
2764:
2762:
2758:
2753:
2745:
2738:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2717:CessnaMan1989
2713:
2712:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2698:
2692:
2689:
2688:
2684:
2683:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2667:CessnaMan1989
2664:
2663:
2662:
2659:
2658:
2654:
2653:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2642:
2638:
2637:CessnaMan1989
2633:
2632:
2631:
2628:
2627:
2623:
2622:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2610:
2606:
2605:CessnaMan1989
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2595:
2594:
2590:
2589:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2567:
2553:
2550:
2549:
2545:
2544:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2528:CessnaMan1989
2524:
2523:
2522:
2519:
2518:
2514:
2513:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2476:
2472:
2468:
2467:CessnaMan1989
2464:
2463:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2439:CessnaMan1989
2435:
2434:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2409:CessnaMan1989
2406:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2387:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2372:CessnaMan1989
2368:
2367:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2337:CessnaMan1989
2333:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2322:CessnaMan1989
2318:
2317:
2316:
2313:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2290:CessnaMan1989
2287:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2252:CessnaMan1989
2249:
2248:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2228:CessnaMan1989
2224:
2223:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2195:CessnaMan1989
2192:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2171:CessnaMan1989
2168:
2167:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2143:
2138:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2118:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2077:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2067:
2066:
2062:
2061:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2031:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2005:
2003:
1997:
1994:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1973:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1924:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1908:
1903:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1883:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1867:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1846:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1808:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1770:
1761:
1759:
1756:
1740:
1737:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1668:Martin Bashir
1665:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1609:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1456:Controversies
1454:
1453:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1227:Section sizes
1225:
1224:
1220:
1213:
1212:
1196:
1193:(assessed as
1192:
1191:
1183:
1177:
1172:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1126:United States
1120:
1117:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1078:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1046:
1041:
1040:United States
1038:
1035:
1031:
1018:
1015:(assessed as
1014:
1013:
1003:
999:
998:
994:
990:
984:
981:
980:
977:
960:
956:
952:
948:
947:
939:
933:
928:
926:
923:
919:
918:
914:
907:
902:
899:
896:
892:
879:
875:
869:
866:
865:
862:
845:
841:
837:
836:
828:
817:
815:
812:
808:
807:
803:
797:
794:
791:
787:
774:
770:
764:
761:
760:
757:
744:New York City
740:
736:
735:New York City
732:
731:
723:
712:
710:
707:
703:
702:
698:
692:
691:New York City
689:
686:
682:
657:
653:
652:
650:
648:
644:
642:
638:
634:
631:
629:
628:
623:
621:
618:
616:
615:
610:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
594:
589:
587:
584:
582:
581:
576:
575:
572:
568:
564:
563:
560:
559:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
536:
533:
532:
529:
512:
508:
504:
503:
495:
484:
482:
479:
475:
474:
470:
464:
461:
458:
454:
449:
445:
439:
431:
427:
422:
421:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
382:
379:
375:
374:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
339:
338:
320:
315:
309:
302:
301:
293:
289:
287:
281:
277:
275:
271:
270:controversial
266:
259:
258:
239:
238:
233:
229:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
3821:
3796:
3546:
3490:
3379:
3375:
3358:Liberal bias
3348:
3343:
3340:
3336:
3332:
3312:
3289:
3284:
3268:
3190:
3169:
3134:
3123:
3053:
3014:
2949:47.230.49.22
2932:
2909:
2904:
2856:
2773:
2765:
2749:
2686:
2681:
2656:
2651:
2625:
2620:
2592:
2587:
2583:
2547:
2542:
2516:
2511:
2386:Donald Trump
2310:
2305:
2266:
2146:
2141:
2137:WP:CONSENSUS
2105:
2100:
2064:
2059:
2010:Donald Trump
2007:
2001:
1999:
1991:
1911:
1906:
1870:
1865:
1833:
1828:
1765:
1757:
1755:
1683:Alec Baldwin
1500:
1470:Liberal bias
1375:Demographics
1347:2021–present
1244:Section name
1188:
1150:
1114:Project Talk
1102:
1083:
1010:
988:
944:
873:
833:
768:
728:
646:
645:
625:
624:
612:
611:
591:
590:
586:Mackay Radio
578:
577:
540:
500:
444:WikiProjects
399:
395:
391:
384:
347:Please stay
283:
267:
227:
197:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
3928:O3000, Ret.
3308:. Regards,
3151:O3000, Ret.
3070:O3000, Ret.
3031:O3000, Ret.
3000:this source
2910:progressive
2905:progressive
2226:'liberal'.
2057:difference.
1503:documentary
1287:Development
385:written in
161:free images
44:not a forum
4018:Categories
3362:See also:
2389:presence.
2353:WP:BLUESKY
1762:Britannica
1697:References
1045:Television
964:Television
901:Television
849:Journalism
840:journalism
796:Journalism
633:Multimedia
607:Sound bite
3344:SPECIFICO
3313:Thinker78
3306:Newsguard
3285:SPECIFICO
3269:Thinker78
3264:Regards,
3170:SPF121188
3135:SPF121188
3054:SPF121188
3015:SPF121188
2933:SPF121188
2682:SPECIFICO
2652:SPECIFICO
2621:SPECIFICO
2588:SPECIFICO
2543:SPECIFICO
2512:SPECIFICO
2306:SPECIFICO
2265:liberal.
2142:SPECIFICO
2117:SPECIFICO
2101:SPECIFICO
2076:SPECIFICO
2060:SPECIFICO
2040:Salon.com
2030:ValarianB
2014:ValarianB
1923:SPECIFICO
1907:SPECIFICO
1902:WP:BURDEN
1882:SPECIFICO
1866:SPECIFICO
1845:SPECIFICO
1829:SPECIFICO
1807:ValarianB
1792:ValarianB
1769:ValarianB
1332:2015–2021
1317:2008–2015
1302:1996–2007
361:consensus
292:citations
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
3961:Zaathras
3882:Zaathras
3803:Fox News
3765:Zaathras
3732:Zaathras
3713:Zaathras
3659:Zaathras
3631:Zaathras
3602:Zaathras
3424:Zaathras
3005:Joy Reid
2998:, would
2891:Janhrach
2861:Janhrach
2816:Janhrach
2702:Zaathras
2585:fiction.
2453:Zaathras
2424:Zaathras
2391:Zaathras
2357:Zaathras
2271:Zaathras
2157:X-Editor
2123:X-Editor
2086:X-Editor
2044:X-Editor
2036:Fox News
1933:X-Editor
1888:X-Editor
1851:X-Editor
1814:X-Editor
1776:X-Editor
1741:131,580
1638:Don Imus
906:Stations
400:traveled
319:archives
290:Include
199:Archives
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
3910:DocZach
3896:DocZach
3834:DocZach
3782:DocZach
3750:DocZach
3718:DocZach
3645:DocZach
3616:DocZach
3588:DocZach
3555:DocZach
3449:DocZach
3234:Endwise
3230:Variety
3129:DocZach
2927:DocZach
2914:DocZach
2857:liberal
2267:Reality
1738:131,580
1586:14,447
1478:21,419
1463:52,355
1340:14,480
1325:14,767
1310:13,354
1280:54,291
1273:History
1252:Section
1153:on the
991:on the
876:on the
771:on the
654:Answer
593:Cleanup
543:on the
434:B-class
396:defense
274:dispute
228:90Â days
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
3924:WP:AGF
3864:331dot
3849:331dot
3807:331dot
3573:331dot
3478:331dot
3463:331dot
3409:331dot
3370:, and
3319:(talk)
3302:331dot
3275:(talk)
3249:331dot
3212:331dot
3125:331dot
3089:331dot
2996:331dot
2983:331dot
2969:331dot
2876:331dot
2850:331dot
2835:331dot
2810:331dot
2795:331dot
2213:331dot
1730:1,206
1676:2,989
1661:2,737
1616:7,947
1601:1,464
1583:14,447
1571:2,208
1556:1,730
1541:3,091
1526:1,341
1511:2,428
1493:5,508
1475:12,142
1450:1,401
1437:1,183
1422:3,245
1415:Online
1409:3,149
1396:2,372
1383:1,833
1368:5,396
1355:9,919
1337:14,480
1322:14,767
1307:13,354
1295:1,720
1267:7,695
1254:total
1119:Alerts
627:Verify
440:scale.
139:Google
2761:MSNBC
2757:MSNBC
2002:white
1735:Total
1727:1,206
1673:2,989
1658:2,737
1598:1,464
1568:2,208
1553:1,730
1538:3,091
1523:1,341
1508:2,428
1490:5,508
1447:1,401
1443:Radio
1434:1,183
1429:Shift
1419:2,062
1406:3,149
1393:2,372
1380:1,833
1365:3,563
1352:9,919
1292:1,720
1264:7,695
1260:(Top)
1249:count
1237:MSNBC
647:Other
516:Media
507:Media
463:Media
392:color
353:civil
204:Index
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
38:MSNBC
3965:talk
3951:talk
3932:talk
3914:talk
3900:talk
3886:talk
3868:talk
3853:talk
3838:talk
3811:talk
3786:talk
3769:talk
3754:talk
3736:talk
3722:talk
3663:talk
3649:talk
3635:talk
3620:talk
3606:talk
3592:talk
3577:talk
3559:talk
3547:NPOV
3482:talk
3467:talk
3453:talk
3443:See
3428:talk
3413:talk
3387:talk
3349:talk
3290:talk
3253:talk
3238:talk
3226:WaPo
3216:talk
3201:talk
3155:talk
3093:talk
3074:talk
3048:here
3035:talk
3007:and
2987:talk
2973:talk
2953:talk
2918:talk
2895:talk
2880:talk
2865:talk
2839:talk
2820:talk
2799:talk
2780:talk
2721:talk
2706:talk
2687:talk
2671:talk
2657:talk
2641:talk
2626:talk
2609:talk
2593:talk
2575:talk
2548:talk
2532:talk
2517:talk
2471:talk
2457:talk
2443:talk
2428:talk
2413:talk
2395:talk
2376:talk
2361:talk
2341:talk
2326:talk
2311:talk
2294:talk
2275:talk
2256:talk
2232:talk
2217:talk
2199:talk
2175:talk
2161:talk
2147:talk
2127:talk
2106:talk
2090:talk
2065:talk
2048:talk
2038:and
2018:talk
1981:talk
1952:talk
1937:talk
1912:talk
1892:talk
1871:talk
1855:talk
1834:talk
1818:talk
1796:talk
1780:talk
1717:437
1691:688
1646:758
1631:747
1247:Byte
614:NPOV
351:and
349:calm
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
2288:).
2008:to
1714:437
1704:33
1688:688
1643:758
1628:747
1145:Low
983:Mid
868:Mid
763:Low
535:Mid
189:TWL
4020::
3967:)
3953:)
3934:)
3916:)
3902:)
3888:)
3870:)
3855:)
3840:)
3813:)
3788:)
3771:)
3756:)
3738:)
3724:)
3665:)
3651:)
3637:)
3622:)
3608:)
3594:)
3579:)
3561:)
3484:)
3469:)
3455:)
3447:.
3430:)
3415:)
3389:)
3366:,
3255:)
3240:)
3218:)
3203:)
3157:)
3095:)
3076:)
3037:)
2989:)
2975:)
2955:)
2920:)
2897:)
2882:)
2867:)
2841:)
2822:)
2801:)
2782:)
2723:)
2708:)
2673:)
2643:)
2611:)
2577:)
2534:)
2473:)
2459:)
2445:)
2430:)
2415:)
2397:)
2378:)
2363:)
2343:)
2328:)
2296:)
2277:)
2258:)
2234:)
2219:)
2201:)
2177:)
2163:)
2129:)
2092:)
2050:)
2020:)
1983:)
1954:)
1939:)
1894:)
1857:)
1820:)
1798:)
1782:)
1701:33
1613:28
1460:49
1277:51
1197:).
1043::
1019:).
904::
639:,
635:,
605:,
601:,
398:,
394:,
226::
218:,
214:,
210:,
206:,
169:)
67:;
3963:(
3949:(
3930:(
3912:(
3898:(
3884:(
3866:(
3851:(
3836:(
3824:.
3809:(
3784:(
3767:(
3752:(
3734:(
3720:(
3711:@
3661:(
3647:(
3633:(
3618:(
3604:(
3590:(
3575:(
3557:(
3480:(
3465:(
3451:(
3426:(
3411:(
3400:.
3385:(
3300:@
3251:(
3236:(
3214:(
3199:(
3153:(
3091:(
3072:(
3033:(
2985:(
2971:(
2951:(
2916:(
2893:(
2878:(
2863:(
2852::
2848:@
2837:(
2818:(
2812::
2808:@
2797:(
2778:(
2755:"
2719:(
2704:(
2669:(
2639:(
2607:(
2573:(
2530:(
2469:(
2455:(
2441:(
2426:(
2411:(
2393:(
2374:(
2359:(
2339:(
2324:(
2292:(
2273:(
2254:(
2230:(
2215:(
2197:(
2173:(
2159:(
2125:(
2119::
2115:@
2088:(
2078::
2074:@
2046:(
2032::
2028:@
2016:(
1979:(
1950:(
1935:(
1925::
1921:@
1890:(
1884::
1880:@
1853:(
1847::
1843:@
1816:(
1809::
1805:@
1794:(
1778:(
1771::
1767:@
1157:.
995:.
880:.
775:.
649::
630::
617::
596::
583::
547:.
446::
414:.
288:.
276:.
220:4
216:3
212:2
208:1
201::
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.