Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories/Archive 1

3140:

adults hit, non-fatally, in the extremities. I say again: Newtown Police NEVER told dispatch they had discovered rooms full of dozens of seriously wounded child and adult victims. If it weren't for volunteer EMT Cathy Dahlmeyer's "call for everything" at 10:03 a.m., many more minutes might have passed before dispatcher Bob Nute was aware that this was a mass casualty event. This is where the problem with the Sandy Hook emergency response begins; it is followed closely by the horrific blockage of the only ambulance route by responding state police. We know the road blockage was a problem, because WTNH reporter Bob Wilson read from an independent review (Connecticut Police Chiefs Association report) of the Sandy Hook emergency response; live, on-air, he quoted from a section on 1) road blockage impeding ambulance travel and 2) recommendations for avoiding this tragic error in future. That section NEVER appeared in the public release of the CPCA report. The Hartford Courant doesn't believe that the CT State Police's official version of events is sound, and neither should we. Only days ago, the Courant pointed out that the state has yet to conduct an after-action review of the state's own response to Sandy Hook, and that the amount of time that has passed long exceeds that of other similar events in recent American history. 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)MT

3343:

exact length of which are described in multiple sworn statements in the final report, where the call is verified as a "genuine and continuous" document. This content and length (text only) differs from the audio released by Newtown (three minutes of audio are missing from the end). This is no more analytical than looking at two copies of a book and seeing that pages are missing from one. It is typical of a lawyer's tampering, unfortunately, that simple facts are rendered into a convoluted mess. Tampering with evidence is a major, major crime, and will only be risked by someone who trusts that the public will be too confused or lazy to expose the problem. Judging by the Hartford Courant's continued attention to the case, however, I think we can be confident that a clearer picture of the events of 12/14 will continue to emerge, however slowly. The alleged felonies being committed by NPD personnel within Newtown Police headquarters before, during, and after the shootings (the recently-busted international drug ring) may improve the public's chances of obtaining internal documents for the time period in question.

2537:

allegedly belongs to Lanza, but there is no evidence to suggest it is real. It is only cited in some of the earlier news articles on Sandy Hook. After the initial phase, it became an established "fact" based on no one checking it. Lanza is not listed as an executive officer on GE Energy Financial's filings with the Secretary of State of Connecticut (all corporations are required to report additions, removals, or address changes of officers), nor is his name mentioned anywhere on the company's website. The two universities the LinkedIn profile claims he teaches at--Northeastern and Fairfield--do not list him as a member of faculty, nor does a search for his name on their websites produce any results, nor do the courses he allegedly teaches show up in their course catalog or semester schedules, nor does the degree program he allegedly teaches in even exist at either of those universities.

3472:

and broad as the issue itself. This means that it will need to include debunkings/rebuttals, as well as less "fringe" perspectives to include those of 1) the families who are currently challenging the final report, 2) organizations such as AbleChild who have challenged the report, 3) mainstream media articles which have challenged the final report, etc. It is not--nor has it ever been--the case that the only people challenging the final report are "fringe" theorists. The title may be problematic: "conspiracy theories" is a loaded phrase which implies lack of critical thinking. That shouldn't be the case, but unfortunately, that is the bias that comes along with that phrase. It may be more useful to entitle it something like "Challenges to the Sandy Hook official report," or something to that effect, as that covers a better gamut of perspective.

3617:. You appear to be trying to use Knowledge to discuss fringe material as fact. Knowledge policy is to treat fringe theories as they are treated by a consensus of academic and mainstream media, which means that Knowledge will clearly discuss the fact that the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are described as grossly offensive, untrue and patently ludicrous by scholarship and the mainstream media. If a topic is covered in mainstream media, it should be covered here, but given the same credibility and proportionate weight that the media give it. Knowledge is not a congenial home to conspiracy enthusiasts, and neither this page, nor anywhere else in Knowledge, is a forum to argue that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged and that the victims are conspirators, a gross violation of 3525:

at the speed in which my posts were being taken down - something is not right here, there appears to be some kind of organised attempt to prevent the publication of a different point of view. This is outright censorship, no matter what your guidelines claim. Knowledge readers have a right to know about all researchers and their work. My entry merely mentioned and provided a link to the work of the person in question, it did not concern itself with discussion or debate about exactly what his views and conclusions may be, leaving people free to make up their own minds about that.

719:. That would cover the factual existence of the new CTs, but perhaps a new page should be created to document the increasingly obvious problem we have (in just America?) where any tragic event immediately creates a batch of new conspiracy claims (with the corollary apparently being that the outlandishness of the claims is directly proportional to the intensity of the tragedy) . I presume someone(s) with appropriate credentials has/is looking into this phenomenon. -- 3590:

credible source of news and current affairs to thousands - and probably millions - of people. And in that sphere of alternative media - and within the specific field of reporting and examination of events at and concerning Sandy Hook - Wolfgang Halbig is 'a significant point of view'. Are you saying, to return to my earlier point, that only the mainstream media can be allowed to determine who is or who is not considered to be 'a significant point of view'?

31: 1771:

neutrality. However concerning a subject matter like this, the only people I could see wanting to protect or edit a page like this are those some sort of agenda to disseminate such tripe. And it is tripe. Pure sensationalism for attention seeking sake. This is page is an affront to what Knowledge stands for "to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" not propagate lies and falsehoods.

3582:

on all topics impartially and without censorship - all the time? And that it would definitely report on the research of Wolfgang Halbig if he were a more 'prominent' figure? Conversely, are you also saying that the mainstream press would never fail to mention him - for whatever reason(s)? If you don't mind me saying so, you appear to be very naive about how the mainstream media operates if you genuinely believe that.

2541:

claims that Adam Lanza's father was allegedly an executive..." or something similar. As I'm new, can I have some guidance on this? It seems to me that all references to Peter Lanza's employment should be qualified with words such as "allegedly," if no one is able to find evidence of them being accurate. Perhaps unproven claims regarding Peter Lanza's employment are appropriate fodder for this article?

1322:, it right that known falsehoods should be given equal standing? Surely only people who would have interest in the BS contained in this article would be work on this page. I cannot see how those working sincerely on the real page on this tragedy would want to then come here and denigrate that work by adding to this tripe? Therefore this article is only serving as a platform for those who do not have a 3773:) and have no qualms if the current version of the article exists as it does in the current state. I really couldn't care less. I just want to hereby initiate discussion about the scope of the article and to discuss the encyclopedic merits of including perhaps the only non-batshit-crazy person whose name is virtually eponymous with the sandy hook conspiracy theory "justice movement". 147:- this tries to suggest to the readers that there WERE or even ARE inconsistencies in media reports, or even the story itself. I'm pretty sure that while in the heat of the moment media outlets got somethings wrong (which often happens) there aren't any inconsistencies. The language here however is designed to make the reader think that there might be something to these stories. 3024:. As the article's creator, I can say I categorically reject the veracity of any of these conspiracy theories. I didn't make it to promote any agenda; I only made it because it was receiving extensive discussion in reliable sources. There are all manner of subjects "with no basis in fact" covered on Knowledge. Besides other conspiracy theories, there are articles on 3979: 3303:

shots can be heard long after the "final" shot claimed to have occurred at 9:40:03. The audio expert hired by the investigation, Paul Ginsberg, in fact recorded and noted a very late shot at 9:46:54 a.m., charging $ 6000 in total for his expert services; he later submitted an amended report omitting this shot. Exhibit 329 is available here:

2918:. The existence of something, even if notable, isn't nearly sufficient for considering something accurate. The argument that this article is merely detailing the existence of these conspiracy theories without making truth claims isn't sufficient because the very essence of the article is about delusional nonsense. 2376:

manner. Do not USE THOSE SOURCES IF THEY'RE NOT GOING IN DEPTH WITH IT. HOWEVER IT HAS TO BE MORE RELIABLE WEBSITE THAT KNOWS THE CONSPIRACY WELL! It shouldn't just briefly say it or say it is bullshit. You could make a section on the negative aspects of the conspiracy, or you should go into the conspiracy overall.

959:"Official account" is simply the account released by offical sources. I have read the phrase "official account" used by people who regarded the official account as reliable, probably as often as I have read "official account" used by people who question the official account, although I have not kept a scorecard. -- 2486:"The article has also already been nominated for deletion here, and the result was no consensus. You can see the long debate regarding whether or not the article should be deleted in the link provided. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)" 3302:

There are two sets of 911 calls: The 7 (really 6) released by Newtown on a CD and made available to reporters, and the calls contained in the CT State Police report as Exhibit 329. There are multiple gunshots audible on multiple calls. The problem is not that gunshots are missing; the problem is that

2867:

Which main article is that, the article on the shooting or the article on the reaction? There was a separate section on the reaction that was far too big. This article is filled with such ludicrous nonsense that I have a hard time understanding why it's here. I've read the discussion and I understand

2708:

I would like to nominate this entry for deletion. Speculation (even that backed up by speculative sources) is still speculation. I think it does a great disservice to the children and adults murdered in this massacre by implying that it was ANYTHING but an evil act by disturbed person. I see no value

2620:

Those sources do not substantiate claims about Peter Lanza's employment, they merely repeat them. As I stated in my original message, "After the initial phase, it became an established "fact" based on no one checking it." I have not been able to find any reliable source document on the issue of Peter

1599:

Editors who created this article created it under the same rules as any other article. They are not morons and they do not lack common sense any more than creators of other articles. An Encyclopedia is for information on relevant topics. For anyone who doesn't find this topic relevant, there are lots

686:

for more details. Especally, "Presenting wacky theories as if they had some credibility is POV. The NPOV way to present them is to highlight the fact that they're insane. " which is likely when the tag was added to the article. As to removing the tag, I think that removing the tag wouldn't be good,

3960:

Reference 4: " Moynihan, Michael C. (December 12, 2012). "Newtown Conspiracy Theories: Obama, Iran, and Other Culprits". The Daily Beast. Retrieved January 9, 2013." identifies an incorrect date of the original article. The article was written December 27, 2012, NOT 12/12/12, which was 2 days before

3791:

72.196.99.114, you say you want to initiate discussion, but you don't say anything. Unless you're saying Woflgang Halbig should be mentioned in the article. With that, I agree completely. He's sueing people over the case, how can that not be significant? He is not just talking about it on a webpage,

3581:

So you and/or Knowledge's guidelines are saying that all entries here have to be ratified in the mainstream press? Which is a way of you saying that you consider the mainstream press to be honest, reliable, trustworthy, comprehensive, unbiased and free from political interference? Or that it reports

3532:

I note from this talk page that other readers have expressed similar concerns in the past and in June there was debate regarding 'Fringe View'. The person and link I gave in my addition to the article fulfills the criteria for inclusion as he is recognised as the leading authority on what may or may

3524:

I object to my material (which does something to redress the outright bias and lack of objectivity on this page) being deleted by someone purely because they consider that the source referred to represents 'craziness'. This is personal opinion and not a valid reason for deletion. I am also concerned

3342:

It's actually not analysis--just simple facts, presented in public documents. Those documents are: 1) the CT State Police final report on the Sandy Hook shootings and 2) the Sandy Hook 911 calls released by the town of Newtown. Case in point, custodian Rick Thorne's 911 call, the general content and

1770:

My names Tom, I was the person who started off this thread. I think it's good that this discussion is taking place because there seems to be a mainstay of common sense that Knowledge does not need articles like this. I believe that by the law of averages, the more editors a topic has the greater its

1714:

In general, I like the 10-year test and find it underapplied. On that basis, I've voted to delete many articles on events. A murder can garner a lot of press coverage, especially locally, but most of the time it's still, unfortunately, routine; it's literally an everyday occurrence. The problem with

1330:

Look this isn't rocket science. As I noted above, Knowledge should acknowledge that "fringe theories" do exist but that doesn't mean it should promote them and give them equal status to the reality - with their own articles! There is clearly a marked difference between accepting/tolerating that some

1083:

Thank you for those links I have read 3 of them and glad to see the concept is not taken seriously. Yes your correct "Way too soon to have any books written" - its still just news story. Little disappointing to see we have an ongoing news article on this but it was interesting to say the lest. I am

4261:

I'm not sure if anyone could pin down an exact origin of the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories. If you look at the Las Vegas shooting, people were coming up with all sorts of weird and wonderful theories on the Internet within hours. Some people are professional tinfoil hatters and will always do this

3471:

Whether or not a particular theory is deemed by others as "fringe," the fact remains that the theories exist and have been exhaustively discussed for two years and counting. I do agree that in order to provide a decent Wiki entry worth of the current title, the content will have to be as exhaustive

3163:

Thrice now my edit has been reverted on the basis that reflecting the mainstream media's opinion is important (which my edit removed). The reason I removed the language "These conspiracy theories are contradictory, implausible, without evidence, and offensive to those affected," is because it gives

2540:

I have been unable to substantiate even a single employment-related claim made about Peter Lanza by the media. Can anyone find evidence to suggest these claims are in any way accurate? If not, I believe that the sentence I quoted above should be changed to "Other conspiracy theories have focused on

2375:

Are you fucking serious? That is a legitimate source here in this article? A Fox News article? Time? CNN? As if they would go in depth with the actual conspiracy, they're just going to say it is bullshit or people have no life to make those assertions about this conspiracy, however, it is an biased

2057:

This article has nothing about debunkings, even though there are hundreds of publications on the internet now of people debunking these theories. This article feels biased and misleading because there are absolutely no mentions of debunks, unlike other conspiracy articles. (I mean really people, we

1890:

I don't have a problem persay with an article about conpiracy theories (even though I personally think they're all complete speculation based on very little evidence and overexaduration fueled by a complete distrust of our government). But I think the article should address the debunkings that have

1277:

There are lots and lots of Knowledge by-laws that dictate that it should not. I mean why can't a simple but active-voiced statement be added to the main article on this tragedy to say something like, "the shootings created a lot of conspiracy theories among far right, gun-owning groups who are also

1183:

sources. I don't mind the unreliable citations on the individual sources, as an indicator to readers to take that particular source with a grain of salt. I do object to the overall article being flagged as such. If we were to completely delete those few sources, I don't think any information in the

232:

I'm not planning to opine on the AfD, but this article has problems. The lead says "A number of conspiracy theories related to the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have been proposed." The use of the passive voice masks the question of WHO has proposed these theories. Youtube

170:

inconsistencies in early media reports, simply because they were early. Journalists always want to scoop each other. Reliable sources have discussed this in relation to the conspiracy theories, so I do want to make sure we cite some of them to explain why these inconsistencies shouldn't be taken as

3821:

Based on what I can make out at Veterans Today website, they do not have overarching editoral policy or control. Seems any of their writers may say anything, without implying any other writers endose it. All comments must be attributed to the individual writer. Therefore I will change wording from

3407:

I believe that most of what is said here needs to be deleted from anywhere on the Knowledge. Somebody said that the government was behind the shooting. La de da! Can they prove it? No! Then should it be mentioned? No! When you get rid of all the windbaggy claptrap of "he said, he said", you've

3248:

I'm not a conspiracy nut and believe all evidence suggests this shooting was perpetrated by one maniac named Adam Lanza. That said I have listened to the 911 calls that were released and throughout all of them do not hear any gunshots going off in the background. Some of these calls were made from

2536:

Is his position at GE Energy Financial a fact? I can find absolutely no evidence that any claims made about Peter Lanza are correct. He is claimed to be an executive at that company, in addition to teaching at two universities. The only source for these claims I can find is a LinkedIn profile that

1391:

Time magazine, Newsday, Salon, the Huffington Post, the Atlantic, and the Washington Post are neither small nor "Canadian." Even if they were Canadian, what would be the issue?-- Is Canada a refuge for "right-wing whack-jobs?" COAT might apply if all this were on the actual Sandy Hook article, but

667:

I agree. Some editors have suggested that the article promotes the theories, but I don't really see article content doing that. I think their thinking reflects some of the delete votes at AfD, which is that covering the subject at all is non-neutral. I haven't removed the tag to avoid being overly

649:

So, what's the point of the tag here? What exactly is non-neutral about how the information is presented? I mean, the lede could definitely be a bit more explicit about the fact that these conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked, but other than that, I don't see any other issues with the

3757:

after the horrible consensus-thwarting community-breaking policy which led to many high quality editors quitting in protest from that disastrous year. I only say this stuff to differentiate myself from random newbies who know nothing of wikipedia policy and its criteria for inclusion, notability,

3585:

If we follow your logic, and Wolfgang Halbig's research does become more prominent in the mainstream media (as it could well do), then when would it be considered acceptable for him to be allowed an entry here - after three mentions; six mentions; six months' mentions in the mainstream press? The

3536:

Apologies if this talk is not full of the (to me, confusing) jargon and abbreviations I might be expected to use but as I say, I have no real knowledge of how this editing process works. I do however believe in free speech and from the way my postings were deleted almost immediately, I am in some

3206:

I concur with Acroterion, these statements accurately represent the mainstream view of these theories. I would agree that would be a BLP violation, though it might fit well in the "Harassment by conspiracy theorists" section of the article as evidence. It accurately describes how these conspiracy

3139:

What is lost in the flood of "aliens did it" claims is the ACTUAL problem with the Sandy Hook case, and that is the emergency response. Newtown Police never once--not once, not ever--told dispatch of the leap in patient numbers. As far as dispatch knew, for 30, long minutes, there were only a 2-3

2277:

I ended up incorporating all but the last two. The second to last is a bit rambling and tangential to Sandy Hook conspiracy theories particularly, and the last is more of a primary source espousing conspiratorial views. I think it's ok to have one or two of those if they've attracted attention in

185:

The inconsistencies were very significant. They got the wrong guy (Ryan), said his mother worked at the school, said he did NOT use an AR15, said there were multiple assailants, etc. While all of this is explainable as scoop-chasing, the conspiracy theorists are not exaggerating the extent of the

3179:

They represent a consensus of mainstream sources: do you seriously dispute the truth of any of those statements? We are obligated to plainly describe fringe theories as such. Additionally, you appear to be trying to promote a conspiracy theory component without explicitly stating it via "Many of

1570:

There's a process for deletion and this is not it. You have the power to nominate the article for deletion just like any other editor. This talk page is not a forum or a platform for you to state your personal beliefs. If you feel the need to do that, I encourage you to start a blog. You seem to

3589:

I would also remind you again that the subject of this particular page is such that any attempt to ratify entries by citing coverage in mainstream media is totally inappropriate. Furthermore, you cannot deny the existence of a strong, growing and well-read alternative media which is a valid and

1334:

If people on discovering that conspiracy theories do exist about the shootings, want to follow up their own research on the topic, what is stopping any individual doing an internet search themselves? By unwittingly defending this article, Knowledge (given its global stature) gives the topic its

974:

I have to say that "official accounts" sounds strange in the context of a conspiracy theory. It hints that we are neutral whether these are accurate or not, and that is not how Knowledge handles CT:s. See for example Obama birth, Obama religion, Moonlanding hoax, aspartam controversy, SRA, etc.

4147:

I wish that were true. I'm not entirely sure Trump believes this garbage, but he seemed way too buddy-buddy with Alex Jones during the 2016 election, and Jones did contribute to his campaign. As it stands now, many of the conspiracy believers are convinced they have an ally in President Trump.

1737:

ball and that you obviously cannot make predictions with a great deal of certainty (or perhaps even terribly close to it), but what do you really think the likelihood is that in ten years someone reviewing this content will understand why this has its own highly detailed article when there are

1555:

Thats simply very disappointing to hear from a long time editor. So people have raised concerns about many aspects of the article so much so that deletion is being discussed - and the best you can do is tell those editors that have raised concerns is to go read some other article. Do you have

544:

This is called debunking? "the doctor was trying to spare the families the pain of seeing the horrific injuries the children sustained, so photos of their faces were used instead." So he unloaded hundreds of rounds into the children, carefully avoiding their faces? How would that be possible?

441:

Changed wording to: "Others claim the attack is being used by politicians to push through new gun control legislation." This conspiracy theory is actually similar to 9/11 theory that claims that the politicians used the event as an excuse to invade Iraq, and in this case pass gun control laws.

314:

Who came up with the theories, though? We all know its basement dwelling internet whackjobs. There must be an encyclopedic way to address this. The article now is deceptive because by not giving any context, it implies someone with any legitimacy may have come up with this. Am hoping other

3593:

You say that Knowledge is an encyclopedia and not an outlet for free speech. I totally agree with you. But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present facts - all facts - relevant to the examination, explanation and understanding of a particular subject or topic. That requires a balanced and

2913:

I've said this before but I support relegating this to a bullet point or two (not even sure I would call that a merge) into an article about the fact that this type of societal dysfunction exists in some countries (such as the US), usually as an extreme fringe. Encyclopedias should provide

2026:

But this is a verifiable fact. Numerous politicians, including President Obama, have explicitly referenced the shootings while advocating for new gun restrictions. This is not a "claim" or a "theory", it's 100% verifiable fact. It shouldn't be mixed in with false flag conspiracy theories.

4235:

Encyclopedic entry needs more than a listing of theories. I wanted to know where the Conspiracy first originated, where was it first posted. Would really appreciate if someone has or can find this information and include it in the introduction. Did it come from InfoWars? or elsewhere?

4314:"Suzanne Collins, the author who lived in the Sandy Hook section of Newton, Connecticut wrote The Hunger Games and in The Hunger Games 22 children are "ritualistically" killed, and 20 children were killed in the shooting, and "Sandy Hook" can be seen on a map in The Dark Knight Rises." 2048:

Why not change it to something like< "Politicians have used the attack as evidence that new gun control legislation is needed." Adding that there is a theory that the attack was a staged event for this very purpose. It is being cited by politicians to revise gun control laws.

1066: 3762:. Having contributed to hundreds of AFD discussions, I know this stuff forwards and backwards, and will likely carry this useless knowledge with me for another 10-20 years -- (still know all the shorthand jargon which we regulars at AFD used to cite to save time and keystrokes). 3533:

not have happened at Sandy Hook and has produced substantial evidence and reasoning to back up his theories, as well as having the impressive and relevant credentials and experience I outlined by my addition of his details to the article. Go to his website and see for yourself.

2137:

Regarding the material being offensive/disrespectful, Knowledge is an encyclopedia that covers virtually anything of notability and value; with topics on sex, crimes, etc., people are bound to be offended by various topics, but it is not Knowledge's place to censor. Please see

3180:

these articles, however, leave out several important components of the conspiracy theories, such as the official police timeline as well as local resident 's time spent sheltering children during the shooting." It's unsourced, and it needs to be well-sourced (it's a potential

396:

I agree with your frustration, but we are not having an article because of the conspiracy nuts. We are having an article because those conspiracy nuts are being extensively discussed by NON nuts. go complain to the mainstream media to not give oxygen to these types of issues.

1342:

This leads on to the meta-philosophical point about the nature of Knowledge - is it really about the "child in Africa" - who one day might have access to free knowledge or more cynically - or it just becoming a gateway through which falsehoods can be promoted to the masses?

1064:

What refs would you expect other than News? Way too soon to have any books written etc. From an anthropological standpoint its not surprising that the stories aren't covered as much in Canada, as the US does have a fetish for conspiracy theories. However, according to this

3528:

Also, later attempts by other readers to reinstate my material have been similarly deleted on the grounds that it represents a 'fringe view'. Are you being ironic? This is a page specifically on conspiracy theories for heaven's sake! What other kind of views do you expect?

3382:

Not sure I agree. This article is about the fringe theories. The mainstream article content does not have to be repeated here. (although specific refutations/debunkings should certainly be included if sourced. From the point of view of this article, the mainstream view is

1238:

Were you able to find anything more attributable on this point? I did a bit of research and was not able to find an RS that mentioned contradictory statements on behalf of the relevant medical examiner's office. I suspect it's a CT claim at best but, of course, I could be

912:"Official account" is often used by Truthers (of whatever kind) to describe to describe the preferred output of the putative conspiracy: i.e., what "they" want us to believe. Its use in the article needlessly (and unintentionally) places Knowledge into the Truther corner. 3558:, which isn't enough to satisfy Knowledge's notability guidelines for the individual or to provide a basis for inclusion in the article as a significant point of view, far less as "the leading authority." Knowledge is not an outlet for free speech, it is an encyclopedia. 3498:. Fringe theories can only be introduced if they have received extensive discussion in mainstream sources and they must contain material rebutting the theories and explaining why they are fringe. Also fringe theories cannot be given more weight than the mainstream view. - 801:

If they're reported on in a high level newspaper, I think that's more than enough to say it's not UNDUE. Besides, there's what, 4 theories currently? That's not many at all. It's practically nothing compared to the number of conspiracy theories about Bin Laden's death.

881:

Tom, I'm not sure "mainstream account" avoids those problems. "Official account" is what you read into it. Here, it's to distinguish from the conspiratorial-theoretical accounts. As Gaijin42 has pointed out, these are—well, mainstream terms. You'll find the phrase in

1109:

Please identify specific sources that are considered unreliable, and how those sources, when taken viewed in the context of the 41 sources currently in the article justify the unreliable sources tag. If no argument is made, or there is not consensus to change the

2748: 2726: 2151: 998: 728: 2755:), please review the first debate and see if you have anything new to offer - if you post the same reasoning for wanting the article deleted, you'll just get the same comments and nothing will happen. Better to take some time and come up with a good consensus. 1048:

This was a very interesting article - a nice page of accumulation of guess work and hearsay of news stories. Only in the USA - never heard any of this in Canadian news broadcast. Hopefully in time we can get some real refs in-place over the news ones.

1023:

when I created this article is that that list doesn't appear to be (or want to be) comprehensive. It's a list "of the most popular unproven theories," and while SHCTs (to coin an abbreviation) easily meet GNG, I think coverage there would probably be

1745:

I also understand that it's survived AfD, but it's going to get harder and harder to support this, in its current form at least, as the sensationalism fades away. This will keep coming up and time is only going to make it look more conspicuous, not

3841:", etc. I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that everyone associated with the newspaper has to endorse the story. Such clarification would only really be necessary if there was documented dissent within the publisher or newspaper. -- 3669:

Knowledge covers notable fringe theories. This conspiracy theory and the harassment of victims, victims' families, those who sheltered victims and of public officials by adherents has received extensive coverage, as indicated by the references.

1977:

1) You misread my comment. I explicitly said we should debunk, but that a blog was not sufficient sourcing. If they lifted their debunking from salon, then we should use salon. I believe that article is already used as a source in the article?

2118:

This article should not exist on Knowledge. Knowledge is not the place for all these nonsense conspiracy theories. It is disrespectful to the dead and to the mourning families. Who ever is in favor of this article being here should be ashamed,

4200:

The alt-right template is at the bottom of the page. While I do not doubt that practically all of these conspiracy theorists are right-wing and many are even further right, "alt-right" is not mentioned in the article. This needs referencing.

1685:: In 10 years what will people make of this article as it is? Will they think it out-of-date and largely irrelevant? Filled with the specific details of incorrect beliefs of a fringe societal element regarding an extremely sensational event?- 377:

I guess I'm just frustrated that internet trolls can gin up so much fake controversy. I am pretty sure a number of these people know they are making stuff up, and they encourage the true conspiracy nuts with their silly youtube videos and

4215:

The search "Sandy Hook alt-right" mainly results in references to Jones and InfoWars, therefore attributing the alt-right belief to them rather than the whole conspiracist movement. Again, I do not doubt this but references must be found.

4084:

There are approximately ten zillion tweets on Twitter saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and it is only the fact that Scott Baio is a famous actor and pal of Donald Trump that led to this controversy. Baio apologized for the retweet on 24

2852:

Would also support that Idea - we need to trim back these horrible articles that are full of guess work from news updates. Our younger editors need to understand what is proper for an encyclopedia - news for rating is not one of them.

419:, for example, does not in any way support "Others have suggested the shooting was orchestrated by government officials for political reasons." It has a politician suggesting the attacks are being used to "bully" legislators. It takes a 2821:

It is what it is, and the fact is that such conspiracy theories do exist. I don't know that there needs to be a new article every time the main-stream media swarms but I also don't have a clear feeling for where the demarcation should

3164:

the article an encyclopedic tone. Additionally, the cited sources were themselves very opinionated, leading one to question their use in an encyclopedic setting. Is this such a ridiculous edit that it must be reverted repeatedly?

1482:

We just need editors to use common sense when creating articles. Need editors to understand the different between news and what an encyclopedia is for. We have sister project that deal with non-encyclopedia content for just this

1184:

article would need to change - the remaining reliable secondary sources are sufficient sourcing for all statements. The unreliable sources are just extra "frosting" to show the primary source. 41 sources. 5 marked as unreliable.

233:

commenters? Nobel prize winners? Or, most likely, "primarily by conspiracy enthusiasts." I am adding that phrase to the opening sentence, but open it up to discussion as well. In any event, the currently opening is weak.--

66: 3594:

non-judgemental submission of relevant content irrespective of where those sources may have originated and irrespective of the personal opinions of those compiling what should be as acccurate an account as possible.

767:

I think thats quite a stretch to say that documenting of the lesser theories (assuming they are adequately sourced of course) is a neutrality issue. Do you have anything other than your own opinion to back that up?

1292:, is it all about prominence? Like the old adage about religion: if one person says they talk to God, they're a nutter; if a few people say it, then they're a cult; but if thousands claim it, then that's religion! 285:

So if I post that the underground government of Mars was behind it, will it go into the article? I am sure I can find some "proof" of this. In fact, I guarantee I can make it sound more plausible than these

1028:, though it might be possible to insert a short linking summary there. However, merging would be inappropriate without discussion, given no consensus at AfD and a clear consensus against merging elsewhere. -- 4038:

Baio retweeted a meme suggesting that Sandy Hook was a hoax, leading to criticism from one of the parents and other recrimination. I'm not sure if this meets the standards of notability, or whether it has

3435:

Do you also think we should remove JFK conspiracies, area 51, or Obama birther articles? Thinking the theory is false, or even reprehensible, is not the same thing as thinking the theory is not notable.

1497:

It's probably a little soon to AfD it again, but that's not valid justification for its existence; that's just procedural timing. I really don't think too many of the mentioned policies are applicable but

1506:

doesn't mean it needs an article. I'm sure the general public, as some type of giant media consuming organism, will have forgotten about it entirely in less than six months, but there should be a lesson

96:

You have to plainly state the theory before you can say why it is insane. The article is barely a day old. A bit of time to actually write the content before rushing to deletion would have been helpful.

4338:

Although this is not a grammar related matter per se, the phrase "Snopes.com also debunked several claims of alleged United States government involvement in the shootings." Should read "Snopes.com also

3521:

I am currently waiting for admin guidance on how to proceed, but in the meantime have now found I can place some details on this talk page regarding the situation that led me into a recent 'edit war'.

3086:, unless the context is one of actually examining the topic of falsehood itself (in whatever permutation). It's important that information be presented in not just a technically accurate way but in a 867:

I don't read any kind of reverse conspiracy in the word "official". the most famous conspiracy theory article (JFK) uses the words "official investigation", "official explination" etc multiple times.

2393:

If wikipedia won't delete this article the least it should do as an organization is to include information about the types of atrocious behavior sandy hook truthers regularly commit such as this man

838:

It is the version accepted by the officials, and reported by reliable sources, therefore until proven otherwsise, that is the official account. official does not mean "proven beyond all doubt true".

683: 47: 17: 1423:"is it really about the 'child in Africa' - who one day might have access to free knowledge or more cynically - or it just becoming a gateway through which falsehoods can be promoted to the masses?" 1335:

approbation. Kudos in other words, a free marketing boost to fringe because it is obvious that nowadays if something - real or abstract - being permitted to be an article on Knowledge defines it as

4324: 1210:". I don't know if this actually occurred or not but it's stated as a fact, as opposed to an attributable claim, without a reputable reference. (Which is exactly why I can't tell if it's factual) - 336:

I agree with millowent's point in general, but do not think its as big of an issue as he is stating. The problem is that there are many theories, proposed by many people. I'm sure some of the MANY

79:

Presenting wacky theories as if they had some credibility is POV. The NPOV way to present them is to highlight the fact that they're insane. Which is actually what most non-crazy sources have done.

2709:

whatsoever in fomenting conspiracy theories with absolutely no firm basis. Out of respect to those lives lost, I strongly believe this article which trivialised their deaths should be deleted.

3082:

It's not that I necessarily like or dislike this particular content (and I know you probably weren't referring to me BDD), it's that I have a philosophical problem with presenting falsehoods,

3494:

is the appropriate guideline. We have strict criteria and rules for how patently fringe subjects and beliefs are covered in order to prevent the project from being used as a platform for the

3250: 359:, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Who is saying these things? Read on. Now, this is probably a good case for running against 3249:

inside the building while the shooting was still happening. How is it possible that not one gunshot was picked up on any of the 911 phone calls? Shouldn't this be added into the article?

1571:

forget that you happen to be in a regulated environment with established rules in place. If you would like to create a different environment, feel free to create it on your own web site.

145:

Proponents of these conspiracy theories question the circumstances of the shooting with Adam Lanza as the sole perpetrator and are using early media reports that included inconsistencies

3702:

There are some allegations around her having been a staunch anti-gun activist all along, something with the family photos, etc. Is there a particular reason, why this isn't included?--

1956:

I don't see why debunkings shouldn't be a park of this article, considering it is apart of every other conspiracy theory article. Maybe the authors just don't want to post anything.

3067:

societal dysfunction in 21st century America then this content would be highly appropriate in that context. Outside of this the article is frankly quite sensationalist and reeks of

484:

The specific statements of the tragedy being used as political leverage would be appropriate in the reactions section imo. But that would need consensus from that article's editors

1009:

quite naturally questioned why there was no mention of SH. It doesn't appear the option has ever been considered, unless I've missed something (which is certainly quite likely). --

2962:

If you're successful at incorporating relevant information into the main article(s), at that time this article may become irrelevant and a candidate for deletion. But only then.

1719:

is frowned upon. You have to judge these issues on a case-by-case basis. And like it or not, this one survived AfD and has a large amount of references from reliable sources. --

117:

that makes describing anything as "insane" within that policy? And how does the article present wacky theories as if they had credibility? (On a literal level, they do, because

3079:. It's a result of the fundamental issue itself which, without an appropriate context, is highly sensational and topical. It's essentially saying "Some people believe that ….". 1924:, it seems like more of a blog to me (albeit a well written one). However, the site could be used to find breadcrumbs to more reliable sources that do debunk various theories. 853:"Official account" is tendentious. It suggests this is the account the officials are trying to foist on a credulous public, while the clear-eyed skeptics are looking into what 210:

I realize many are not going to like this source, but here is an interview with one of the Sandy hook parents (kid not shot) debunking some of the rumors. Good primary source?

1502:

certainly is. It's sensationalism, pure and simple, and the evidence for this is the hyperbolic emotional media swarm followed by rapid cooling-off. Just because something is

898:

doesn't use the phrase a great deal, so I'm open to alternatives. I suppose I wouldn't object to "mainstream account," but again, I don't actually see it as an improvement. --

4008:

The man, in all his videos about the shooting, repeatedly states that he doesn't claim that no one died as a result of the shooting but that he doesn't know what happened. --

4093: 3933:

Many of these theorists have harasssed Lenny Pozner, the father of one of the children killed in the shooting. This is what Lucy Richards (see above) was accused of doing.--

1415:

I'm not entirely sure that's a grammatically coherent sentence, but you seem to be arguing on the wrong talk page. Take this to the NOTABLE talk page or the RS talk page.

1938:

This whiteoutpress.com article is actually lifted word-for-word from Salon.com and credit/direct link is given at the close of the blog. Wouldn't salon.com qualify as a

3367:

I have no problem with this article as it is well sourced but it needs to be checked for NPOV statements of opposing views referenced and added to balance things out. -

2226: 3057:

The fact that other articles exist which have the same general inaccurate basis as this one cannot be used as justification for this one's existence (or non-existence).

2211: 300:

Conspiracy theories are verified by reliable sources. Can you please provide a source for the statement "none of whom have been identified as qualified investigators"?

1278:

known as "truthers"." No discussion, no presentation of the theories. Just a throw away line acknowledging that there are people out there who would rather believe in

1585:

We are evaluating the merits of the article and the POV of its creators - have any opinion on the matter at hand - or just here to tell editors what to do and think?

1307:. (Why are a lot of the references all from small news websites? Why are most of the news reports from Canada not the United States?) Things then start to fall into 2518: 2673:

Clyde Lewis was added to the "See Also" area. After reading the Clyde Lewis page, and finding only 1 sentence having to do with Sandy Hook, I reverted the page.

1385:"Why are a lot of the references all from small news websites? Why are most of the news reports from Canada not the United States?) Things then start to fall into 2326: 1392:

it's moot since we have a dedicated article to the conspiracy theories. It's not a coatrack article if the content sufficiently covers the premise of the article.

4036: 2316: 1084:

going to read up on why this type of conspiracy theory is so prevalent in American society - they are educated - so i wonder why... I will discover lots I bet.

2311: 1541:

For anyone not interested in this article, there are 410,000,000 other articles you can view in the English language Knowledge. They're only one click away.

512:

Tons of useful debunking on every sandy hook conspiracy that I am aware of, useful as a source, and worthy as an explicit external link (like snopes) imo.

938:

does have some importance to do with this article. If you know of a better way of saying it, then it might be included in the article if agreed upon. --

4176:

I have merged the Trump stuff with Jones' views as that is what it relates to. I cut the excessive quotes to just leave the facts, no references removed

3758:

verifiability, while notwithstanding the landmines which delineate random verifiable notable information from being justifiably excluded on the basis of

2778:

I just became aware of that deletion discussion and I wish I had known about it. I just don't see how an entire article can be devoted to such nonsense.

2394: 340:

we have will have described the proponents of the theories. We should pick the most neutral/widest applicable description from those sources and use it.

2422:

The insane, unfounded theories of gun rights activists are not encyclopedic content in any way, and this article only serves to spread misinformation.

3184:), clearly described as a conspiracy theory (and again, BLP), in the appropriate context, rather than as an attempt at rebuttal of mainstream sources. 1742:? The only way that's even reasonably plausible is if there were actually some truth here, the case for which is about as far from good as one can get. 2570:"Peter Lanza, who lives in Fairfield County, Conn., and is vice president for taxes at a General Electric subsidiary, GE Energy Financial Services." 1832:

Knowledge, which is the highest degree of the speculative faculties, consists in the perception of the truth of affirmative or negative propositions.

2747:

I've removed the AFD notice, since it linked to the previous debate - one I assume you had not seen before putting up your nomination. That debate,

1267:

Right my view, first and foremost is: this article is a repository for fantasy, BS and the musings of right-wing whack-jobs. It should therefore be

828:

Adam Lanza shot twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It's incorrect and tendentious to call that the "official" account.

735:

conspiracy article linked in this article. The least reported and most off-the-wall should be removed. If they aren't, the article is non-neutral.

3864: 1827:

Knowledge necessitates that one is cognizant of that which is false; merely "knowing" falsehoods without realizing they are false isn't sufficient.

592:

Well, the comments at the end of that article debunk the article as being reliable for many reasons. This is not a link that needs to be included.

527: 2647: 2598: 2201: 3408:

got about 2 sentences left. Those sentences should be merged into the main article. Oh, and did I mention this is an unnecessary content fork?

2331: 1175:

of the conspiracy themselves, and are not used as the primary basis of the article. he vast majority of the content is sourced by very reliable

1171:

I don't dispute that there are those individual refs which are unreliable, but they are already marked as such. There are there to serve as the

2091:

this entire article is based on people's opinions. God forbid you post anything about debunkings like a good conspiracy theory article would.

456:

To me that doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy theory. Thats just normal accepted political practice - "never let serious crisis go to waste"

211: 4374: 4358: 4332: 4301: 4279: 4254: 4225: 4210: 4185: 4171: 4157: 4140: 4112: 4079: 4064: 4017: 3997: 3970: 3950: 3919: 3893: 3850: 3831: 3801: 3785: 3738: 3711: 3687: 3656: 3638: 3603: 3575: 3549: 3507: 3481: 3460: 3445: 3426: 3400: 3376: 3352: 3336: 3316: 3296: 3276: 3258: 3216: 3201: 3173: 3119: 3099: 3052: 3015: 3001: 2971: 2957: 2934: 2891: 2877: 2862: 2845: 2831: 2804:

It's hardly the first article to be devoted to such nonsense. I don't mean that as justification, I mean it as a response to your incredulity.

2787: 2765: 2738: 2718: 2697: 2682: 2630: 2614: 2579: 2564: 2550: 2501: 2479: 2453: 2437: 2411: 2380: 2369: 2351: 2287: 2272: 2255: 2182: 2128: 2106: 2086: 2042: 2004: 1987: 1971: 1951: 1933: 1875: 1854: 1815: 1780: 1755: 1728: 1709: 1694: 1649: 1635: 1609: 1594: 1580: 1565: 1550: 1534: 1516: 1492: 1477: 1448: 1359: 1248: 1233: 1219: 1193: 1162: 1123: 1093: 1078: 1058: 1037: 1013: 984: 968: 947: 929: 907: 876: 861: 847: 832: 813: 796: 777: 753: 723: 710: 701:

We are not presenting them as though they had credibility. We are just documenting that they exist and discussing the commentary aboout them.

696: 677: 661: 630: 601: 587: 567: 554: 538: 521: 493: 479: 465: 451: 432: 406: 387: 372: 349: 324: 309: 295: 280: 264: 242: 222: 195: 180: 161: 134: 106: 90: 2221: 2751:, was closed as no consensus after a lengthy discussion. While you're certainly welcome to re-nominate this article (following the steps at 2365: 980: 4132: 3962: 2471: 2403: 2155:, and the result was no consensus. You can see the long debate regarding whether or not the article should be deleted in the link provided. 2098: 2078: 857:

happened. We should say "the mainstream account," or simply say what in fact did happen, then note that the conspiracy theories deny this.

416: 4350: 4246: 3777: 3703: 3648: 3595: 3541: 3308: 2429: 2065: 1963: 1772: 1351: 4328: 3900: 3090:

accurate way as well. We live in a society where access to information is cheap and easy; the less disinformation there is the better.-

4009: 3147: 3021: 2761: 2444:

I think the title of the page would lead anyone reading it to come to the conclusion that the information should not be taken as fact.

2336: 2227:

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-01-11/news/sfl-fau-profs-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-20130111_1_sandy-hook-conspiracy-chan-lowe

2178: 2034: 1911: 1409:"...because it is obvious that nowadays if something - real or abstract - being permitted to be an article on Knowledge defines it as 2980:

not useful (as notability could imply usefulness). The article's essence is about presenting an inaccurate belief but the article is

2212:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262570/Sandy-Hook-conspiracy-professor-James-Tracy-NOW-concedes-people-undoubtedly-died.html

3473: 3344: 3254: 2216: 363:, which permits ledes without inline citations. So I'm happy with USchick's edits, even though I don't think they were necessary. -- 150:

And that's just the second sentence. I could go through it line by line, but hopefully I won't have to if this nonsense is deleted.

3899:

Lucy Richards was scheduled to appear in court on March 29, 2017, but failed to turn up and there is now a warrant for her arrest.

3556: 2533:"Other conspiracy theories have focused on the fact that Adam Lanza's father was an executive with GE Energy Financial Services." 2231: 1841:

knowledge" as that would require, in part, documenting every single individual's world-view. I suggest that patently false views,

1992: 1153:. If you feel these references are in fact from reliable sources, you should explain why and (with consensus) remove the tags. - 1006: 2361: 1837:

Regardless, it's a bit silly to suggest a world is even possible, in this context, where anyone can "freely share in the sum of

976: 4221: 4206: 4181: 2327:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/israeli-death-squads-in-usa-killed-kids-in-newtown-ct-conspiracy-theories-abound-video-87093/

2321: 1369:

FRINGE states: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for

1069:

there are a few Canadian news sites covering the conspiracy angle as a story (as opposed to propagating the conspiracy itself).

1315:→which this article fails because of the topic of this article is not discussing talking points, it's promoting them, hence : 3104:

I agree that a brief reference to these conspiracy theories is sufficient. We don't have to have an entire article about it.

2317:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/massacre-deniers-harass-sandy-hook-grandfather-comforted-survivors-article-1.1241181

1863: 1296:→ which seems to be the reason why this article is allowed, numbers! But this is still fringe, so it must be making a point: 626: 3307:, and the Newtown 911 calls are widely available internet-wide, to include via the New Haven Register's Soundcloud account. 2023:

Part of the article says "Others claim the attack is being used by politicians to push through new gun control legislation"

1892: 890:

to be neutral; it's a pillar. We just can't say, "John Doe says this, which is crazy." We can say, "John Doe says this, and

3263:

Ahem, I can hear many shots in the recordings of the 911 calls. The calls can be listened to in full, uncensored from here

3207:

theorists have targeted and harassed Gene Rosen (though I don't see a reason to redact his name, its in the main article).

2312:

http://www.latinospost.com/articles/9698/20130116/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-professor-admits-people-undoubtably-died.htm

2299: 578:

Center body mass. Perhaps you've heard of it. Some probably were hit in the face. But not as many as were hit in the body.

3769:. I'd wish to engage here on the talk page in a civil, courteous, slow process (because there is no rush, I was always an 3456: 2678: 2610: 2575: 2497: 2449: 2143: 1331:

would wish to make capital out of tragedy and actually collating and then allowing the dissemination of such material.

1143: 2658: 2591: 2395:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/25/mentally-deranged-sandy-hook-truther-provides-photos-of-stolen-memorial-signs/

2236: 1739: 1133: 1020: 1002: 991: 716: 121:

people believe them.) Are you sure your problem with the article isn't that these theories are presented at all? (cf.

3837:

That's fine, but not necessary. When any mainstream newspaper publishes something, it's common to say, "According to

2882:

Either one. The editors there are unwilling to include any information from this article. That's why it exists here.

4288:

turning up on the web 15 minutes after news of the attack broke. So I'd say you're about right. Even if they're not

2921:

Detailed examination of underlying societal issues from a larger perspective, which would include things like this,

1224:

I believe I know the intent behind that statement. I will try and get something more attributable/cited to clarify.

4217: 4202: 4177: 3415: 1600:

of other topics to choose from. Is there a specific portion of the text that you would like to improve? Go for it.

1466: 1346:

If this article is allowed to be kept, then I fear it's becoming more about the latter rather than the former!!

742: 38: 3518:

Bear with me - I am not familiar with how this side of Knowledge works and have not been in this position before.

2519:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting_conspiracy_theories

3272: 3169: 3032: 607: 157: 86: 3749:

About me, once was a highly active wikipedia editor from 2003 - 2008 over 8,000 edits. I was around back before

1381:

about numbers. If you have a problem with that, go back to the FRINGE talk page and dispute the guideline there.

528:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/23/this-is-theblazes-point-by-point-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-debunk/

4136: 3452: 3372: 3006:

I agree with you. I don't see why it is necessary to drone on about conspiracy theories with no basis in fact.

2989: 2648:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/10/adam-lanza-dad-wishes-son-had-never-been-born-says-cant-get-any-more-evil/

2599:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/10/adam-lanza-dad-wishes-son-had-never-been-born-says-cant-get-any-more-evil/

2475: 2407: 2202:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Conspiracy+theorists+claim+Sandy+Hook+School+mass+shooting/7823304/story.html

2082: 935: 895: 883: 4343:

several claims of alleged United States government involvement in the shootings. It is more formal language.

3966: 2358: 2332:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Conspiracy+theorists+claim+Sandy+Hook+tragedy+elaborate/7822502/story.html

2102: 4354: 4250: 3781: 3707: 3652: 3599: 3545: 3312: 2674: 2606: 2571: 2493: 2445: 2433: 2069: 1776: 1355: 4285: 3420: 3267:. Listen closely at the 10 second mark and you can hear a shot. Frankly, I don't know how one can miss them. 3151: 3063:

there were mainstream research being done (and I'm not saying that there isn't -- I have no actual idea) on

2714: 2464:

There are several criteria for deletion that this article meets that warrant a discussion on its deletion.

2038: 1967: 1907: 1471: 1396:"Surely only people who would have interest in the BS contained in this article would be work on this page." 747: 212:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-student%E2%80%99s-dad-calls-in-to-dispel-conspiracy-theories/

3477: 3348: 4370: 4167: 4075: 4013: 3109: 3025: 3011: 2873: 2783: 2241: 2222:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/08/florida-professor-questions-newtown-shooting-massacre-calls-for-more/

2175: 1947: 964: 943: 808: 692: 656: 1738:

numerous other similarly outlandish extreme fringe conspiracy theories relegated to a small paragraph on

4089: 3992: 3770: 3503: 3410: 3036: 2710: 2688:

It probably would've been better to add one of his statements about the massacre to this page. ---------

2206: 1859: 1461: 737: 1903: 1440: 1891:

been taken place. For example, here is an article from White Out Press, a very centrist news website.

886:

as well. I don't doubt the official account, nor do I want this article to make readers do so. But we

4346: 4320: 4242: 4128: 4125:

The Trump part seems to be added as an attack against him, not as actual information to the article

3889: 3730: 3679: 3630: 3567: 3268: 3193: 3165: 3143: 3115: 3029: 2941: 2626: 2622: 2560: 2556: 2546: 2542: 2467: 2425: 2399: 2193:

Good sources for additional content and criticism/debunking of the theories, and definitive proof of

2094: 2061: 2030: 1959: 1899: 1459:

If you think it should be deleted, start another AfD. I AfDed it once, it was (unfortunately) kept.

1282:

than common sense, plain-sight facts and over-whelming evidence from multiple independent sources.

921: 614: 152: 81: 3827: 3809: 3797: 3495: 3368: 3333: 3293: 3213: 3095: 2997: 2945: 2930: 2827: 2734: 2337:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory-video-debunked_n_2487427.html

2124: 1850: 1751: 1690: 1682: 1678: 1631: 1623: 1530: 1522: 1512: 1285:

Why should getting rid of this article be so difficult? Look at the basic violations of the rules:

1244: 1215: 1176: 1158: 1111: 3765:

I don't want to start an edit war, nor wish to trigger a battleground effect with any editors who

1431: 3750: 3441: 3396: 2752: 2347: 2251: 2217:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_harassed_for_it/

1983: 1929: 1229: 1206:

After examining the article in a bit more detail, the only thing I really have an issue with is "

1189: 1119: 1074: 872: 843: 773: 706: 622: 583: 534: 517: 489: 461: 402: 360: 345: 218: 191: 102: 2232:

http://www.ibtimes.com/newtown-conspiracy-professor-thinks-anderson-cooper-out-harm-him-1011098

4366: 4163: 4071: 4070:

Not yet, we need multiple RS for this. Even then I am not sure it is worthy of inclusion here.

4040: 3105: 3007: 2967: 2887: 2869: 2841: 2779: 2756: 2377: 2168: 2163: 1943: 1920:

The debunking is good, and the site appears unbiased, but I don't think it would qualify as a

1734: 1716: 1705: 1645: 1605: 1576: 1546: 1503: 1410: 1336: 1180: 1172: 960: 939: 858: 829: 803: 688: 651: 597: 550: 475: 447: 305: 276: 2278:

reliable sources, but at this point, more might be overdoing it. Thanks for finding these. --

559:

Please talk about how to improve the article, not about the subject of the article itself. --

3987: 3610: 3499: 3491: 3071:. This isn't the fault of BDD and other editors who have gone to great lengths establishing 2322:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/sandy-hook-hero-harassed-by-burgeoning-truther-movement/

2139: 1402: 1289: 1279: 1715:

the 10-year test, though, is that it basically prescribes the use of a crystal ball, which

4297: 4153: 4086: 3885: 3754: 3724: 3673: 3624: 3561: 3388: 3384: 3187: 2693: 1807: 1300: 1025: 915: 793: 785: 564: 3792:

he has inserted himself into the story by legal action and interaction with Newtownians.

2749:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

1893:

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12013/sandy-hook-conspiracies-debunked-one-by-one/

1274:

However I see that a discussion has already taken place and nothing has been done. Why?

251:, and now the problem is back. Who are these "proponents"? Rush Limbaugh? Te'o's dead 3323:

Have any reliable sources reported on these inconsistencies? Using your own analysis is

2300:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-sandy-hook-massacre-spawned-conspiracy-theories-184323398.html

4044: 3823: 3805: 3793: 3540:

I will now wait for further advice as to what I need to do now to progress this matter.

3328: 3288: 3208: 3091: 3072: 2993: 2985: 2926: 2858: 2823: 2730: 2120: 1871: 1846: 1747: 1686: 1627: 1590: 1561: 1526: 1508: 1488: 1386: 1323: 1319: 1308: 1240: 1211: 1154: 1089: 1054: 1010: 720: 356: 122: 114: 3283:

Have any reliable sources reported on this? Analysis on of a youtube video violations

3931: 3846: 3766: 3759: 3718: 3618: 3614: 3437: 3392: 3391:, unless sources are directly commenting on the fringe theories and debunking them. 3181: 3068: 3048: 2953: 2555:

Having received no input to the contrary, I have changed the word "fact" to "claim".

2343: 2283: 2268: 2263:

Good finds, although the third and fourth sources you've listed are already there. --

2247: 2194: 2000: 1979: 1925: 1724: 1677:"Approval" has nothing to do with it. Contextual truth, however, should. Regardless, 1619: 1499: 1225: 1185: 1115: 1070: 1033: 903: 868: 839: 769: 702: 673: 618: 579: 530: 513: 485: 457: 428: 398: 380: 368: 341: 317: 288: 257: 235: 214: 187: 176: 130: 98: 1845:, should receive significantly less consideration than true or indeterminate views.- 4265: 4098: 4050: 3936: 3905: 3324: 3284: 3076: 2963: 2883: 2837: 2659:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_solomon?currentPage=all

2592:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/17/140317fa_fact_solomon?currentPage=all

2237:

http://www.asianweek.com/2012/12/21/the-sandy-hook-newtown-shootings-and-terrorism/

1939: 1921: 1701: 1641: 1601: 1572: 1542: 1304: 593: 546: 471: 443: 337: 301: 272: 2134:

Hi - I rejected your proposed deletion of the article, for a variety of reasons:

252: 3717:

It would need to have been discussed in major media and comply with Knowledge's

1373:

if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in

271:

By people who ask questions and don't accept the official version of the story.

46:

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

1208:

The medical examiner added to the confusion by making contradictory statements.

1139:

on the page that you reverted, but the article does contain six refs marked as

4293: 4149: 4032: 3537:

doubt as to whether all other readers of this page share the same sentiments.

3264: 2689: 2305: 1800: 1787: 789: 560: 3039:. If the article "is about presenting an inaccurate belief" instead of being 3930:

There is an article on BBC News today about Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists.

3064: 3035:. Many editors who have expressed opposition to this article seem to simply 2854: 1867: 1586: 1557: 1484: 1149:, and a quick examination suggests that their reliability is indeed suspect 1085: 1050: 423:

leap, and a likely BLP violation, to connect this to conspiracy theories. --

3884:

Source can be used to add to section "Harassment by conspiracy theorists".

3043:

them, I'd encourage you to help fix it instead of recommending deletion. --

2725:

Did you read the talk page? This was already tried and failed 19 days ago:

2359:

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/the_worst_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory_yet/

1377:

that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." So... yes, it

3865:"Conspiracy Theorist Arrested for Death Threats Against Sandy Hook Parent" 1786:

You do realise "the sum of all knowledge" includes "lies and falsehoods"?

1425:

If we accept this (I think) false dilemma, remember it's all dependent on

3869: 3842: 3044: 2949: 2279: 2264: 1996: 1995:

might be a good model for this article. See how they handle debunking. --

1720: 1303:, is it all about who is saying then? Which is supported by the rules in 1029: 899: 669: 424: 364: 172: 126: 3857:

Conspiracy Theorist Arrested for Death Threats Against Sandy Hook Parent

4092:

was a hoax perpetrated by crisis actors, in the same way as Sandy Hook.

4028: 3555:

There appears to be only one mention of Halbig in the mainstream press

2242:

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/255400/group/Opinion/

731:. There wasn't a consensus for it. That said, we don't need to have 171:

actual proof. I'd appreciate it if you helped with this, of course. --

4162:

IN two minds, I think it should be mentioned, but not to this degree.

2207:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/a-conspiracy-culture/

3304: 2836:

I would support incorporating this information in the main article.

3619:

Knowledge policy on biographies of the living and recently deceased

3451:

PBP, do you understand Knowledge's criteria for deletion? At all?

1700:

I invite you to come back in 10 years and nominate for deletion.

2984:

about inaccurate beliefs regardless of the valiant effort to be

1681:

is not about that. I particularly like the "recentism test" in

1005:, merely outright deletion. In fact, someone on that article's 715:

This article should be removed and appropriate content added to

25: 18:

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

4284:

I remember reading ridiculous conspiracy theories about the

415:

Actually, I'm going to give some of those citations a look.

4292:

tinfoil hatters, they're definitely chronic ones. ---------

3721:. Knowledge doesn't publish Internet rumor or speculation. 1405:? It's not a good sign for whoever is making the argument. 975:

Suggest changing "official accounts" in lead to "events".

2149:

The article has also already been nominated for deletion

1001:

didn't mention the option of a condensed content move to

687:

though it seems that the tag was applied incorrectly. --

4317:

This doesn't sound right. Someone should rephrase it.

2868:

the justification, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

249: 2058:

all know this theory is bullcrap) 21:30, 21 May 2013

606:

Because comments from random internet people are now

2160:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks,

2586:

Sorry, I see that I do not know how to post a source

1556:

anything relevant to say about the concerns raised?

3232:Close soapboxing unrelated to article improvement 2077:thats your opinion, and those arent allowed here. 470:In that case, can we move it to the main article? 3753:and I was among the group of editors/admins who 315:editors -- HEELLLOOOO - can weigh in too here.-- 4088:Baio also retweeted a meme suggesting that the 8: 3084:even when it's clearly stated they are false 2339:(Not the same huffpost article already used) 1614:An encyclopedia is not "for" information on 166:That is something I want to work out. There 3822:"by Veterans Today" to "in Veterans Today" 3265:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiiABMjbbW8 2925:however useful (and can be made accurate).- 1886:White Out Press Debunking and other debunks 4344: 4318: 4240: 4239:Thanks in advance researchers out there! 4126: 4027:There has been controversy over a post on 3237:The following discussion has been closed. 3228: 3141: 2306:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw4-NooM8M4 1019:The main reason I didn't add anything to 3745:Inclusion of Wolfgang Halbig via WP:BOLD 2490:Sometimes it helps to read the comments 4325:2606:A000:ED02:A200:704C:4379:86F5:78AD 3514:Edit War - Inclusion of Wolfgang Halbig 2640: 2511: 894:has called this crazy." I do note that 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3986:Thank you for catching that error. -- 508:massive debunk article from the Blaze 143:An example from the second sentence: 7: 3719:biographies of living persons policy 3251:2604:2000:7FC0:1:9803:C510:4091:EA8F 3863:Silva, Daniella (7 December 2016), 3817:"Allegations.... by Veterans Today" 2295:a few more. Including Time and CNN 186:inconsistancies - just the reason. 3159:Emotive / Biased Language in Intro 24: 3956:Reference #4 is incorrectly dated 3305:http://cspsandyhookreport.ct.gov/ 684:the PoV section on this talk page 3977: 3647:Then why have this page at all? 1993:Moon landing conspiracy theories 1640:Just the topics you approve of. 113:Can you explain your reading of 29: 4262:in response to a major event.-- 4231:Origin of the theory is missing 4004:Misinformation about Alex Jones 3026:discredited scientific theories 1733:I understand that nobody has a 1419:where the guidelines are drawn. 1179:sources, discussing those same 3739:02:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC) 3712:02:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC) 2087:15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC) 1375:at least one major publication 1: 4375:10:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC) 4359:07:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC) 3832:03:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3802:07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 3786:08:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) 3120:14:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 3100:22:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 3053:21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 3020:But our content is driven by 3016:21:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 3002:21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2972:21:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2958:21:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2935:20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2892:19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2878:17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2863:05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2846:03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2832:03:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 2788:20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC) 2766:13:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 2739:11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 2719:10:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 2183:04:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 2129:04:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 1895:. - 03:13 7 March 2013 (UTC) 1756:17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1729:16:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1710:16:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1695:16:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1650:15:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1636:15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1610:15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1595:07:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1581:07:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1566:06:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1551:04:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1535:04:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1517:04:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC) 1493:19:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 1478:18:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 1449:17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 1360:16:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 1249:22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC) 4302:17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC) 3894:02:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC) 3851:20:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) 3586:whole concept is nonsense. 3496:promotion of fringe theories 3461:01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 3446:01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 3427:01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 3401:01:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 3377:01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 3259:10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 2698:18:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) 2438:20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 2370:16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2352:02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2304:(CNN Anderson Cooper story) 2288:22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 2273:01:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 2256:01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 2144:Knowledge:Offensive material 2107:06:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 1234:02:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 1220:01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 1194:00:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 1163:22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1129:I didn't place the original 1124:22:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1094:22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1079:22:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1059:22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC) 1038:23:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 1014:23:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 985:13:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 969:16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 948:23:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 930:02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 908:02:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 877:01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 862:01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 848:00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 833:00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 814:07:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC) 797:20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 778:20:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 754:20:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 724:18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 711:23:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 697:23:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 678:17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 662:17:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 631:21:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 602:21:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 588:21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 568:21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 555:21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 539:19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 522:19:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC) 494:00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 480:16:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 466:14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 452:06:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 433:19:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 407:17:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 388:17:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 373:16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 350:14:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 325:13:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 310:05:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 296:04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 281:04:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 265:04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 243:03:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 223:02:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 196:01:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 181:00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 162:00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 135:00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 107:00:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 91:23:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 4333:01:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC) 4280:08:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 4255:08:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 4226:00:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC) 4211:00:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC) 4186:00:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC) 4172:15:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC) 4158:15:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC) 4113:07:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 4080:07:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 4065:06:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 2976:The pertinent word here is 2916:useful accurate information 2631:00:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 2140:"Knowledge is not censored" 2019:Questionable/biased wording 1740:List of conspiracy theories 1398:Have you ever heard of the 1021:List of conspiracy theories 1003:List of conspiracy theories 992:List of conspiracy theories 717:List of conspiracy theories 4391: 2551:11:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC) 2381:16:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 2043:18:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 1952:22:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 4018:03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 3998:20:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 3971:19:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC) 3951:06:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC) 3920:06:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC) 3688:23:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 3657:21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 3639:11:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 3604:10:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) 3576:00:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 3550:17:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC) 3136:Information saves lives. 2683:21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 2615:02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC) 2580:20:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 2529:Employment of Peter Lanza 2502:20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 2454:19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 2005:16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 1988:16:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 1972:15:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 1934:16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 1876:09:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 1855:06:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC) 1816:10:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC) 1781:10:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC) 1366:Not this garbage, again. 1114:the tag will be removed. 788:would be a good start. -- 4365:It alters what it means. 4141:21:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC) 3508:20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC) 3482:17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC) 3353:16:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) 3337:03:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 3317:20:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 3297:19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC) 3240:Please do not modify it. 3217:13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 3202:04:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 3174:04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 2480:15:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 2412:19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 1866:should lead our editors. 896:9/11 conspiracy theories 884:9/11 conspiracy theories 248:Its been changed already 4286:Boston Marathon Bombing 4121:Trump part is unrelated 3277:20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) 2704:Nomination for deletion 2565:20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 2389:This Article is Garbage 1263:Delete this article.... 4090:death of Heather Heyer 2460:Nominated for Deletion 4218:Anarcho-authoritarian 4203:Anarcho-authoritarian 4178:Anarcho-authoritarian 1914:) 08:16, 8 March 2013 42:of past discussions. 2942:Knowledge:notability 2621:Lanza's employment. 1864:editorial discretion 1105:questionable sources 206:glenn beck interview 3839:The Washington Post 3453:Against the current 2146:for an explanation. 1792:that which is known 1371:a dedicated article 824:"Official" account? 729:We tried to do that 2990:WP:RELIABLESOURCEs 2675:Robertvincentswain 2607:Robertvincentswain 2572:Robertvincentswain 2494:Robertvincentswain 2446:Robertvincentswain 2362:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2189:additional sources 1843:as isolated topics 1796:that which is true 1144:unreliable source? 1134:unreliable sources 1067:google news search 977:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 892:The New York Times 608:WP:RELIABLESOURCES 4361: 4349:comment added by 4335: 4323:comment added by 4257: 4245:comment added by 4143: 4131:comment added by 3996: 3735: 3684: 3635: 3572: 3360: 3359: 3325:original research 3198: 3155: 3146:comment added by 2764: 2470:comment added by 2428:comment added by 2402:comment added by 2181: 2097:comment added by 2064:comment added by 2033:comment added by 1962:comment added by 1916: 1902:comment added by 936:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT 934:Just to mention, 926: 634: 617:comment added by 386: 323: 294: 263: 241: 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4382: 4275: 4273: 4272: 4108: 4106: 4105: 4060: 4058: 4057: 4023:Scott Baio tweet 3990: 3985: 3981: 3980: 3946: 3944: 3943: 3926:BBC News article 3915: 3913: 3912: 3880: 3879: 3877: 3767:own this article 3736: 3733: 3729: 3727: 3698:Veronique Pozner 3685: 3682: 3678: 3676: 3636: 3633: 3629: 3627: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3564: 3425: 3423: 3418: 3413: 3242: 3229: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3190: 3122: 2944:doesn't require 2760: 2661: 2656: 2650: 2645: 2521: 2516: 2482: 2440: 2418:Are you serious? 2414: 2174: 2171: 2114:Should not exist 2109: 2073: 2045: 1974: 1915: 1896: 1834:" -- John Locke. 1814: 1812: 1805: 1525:. So there. ;) - 1476: 1474: 1469: 1464: 1443: 1434: 1403:appeal to motive 1148: 1142: 1138: 1132: 927: 924: 920: 918: 811: 806: 752: 750: 745: 740: 659: 654: 633: 611: 385: 322: 293: 262: 240: 160: 155: 89: 84: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4390: 4389: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4312: 4270: 4268: 4266: 4233: 4198: 4123: 4103: 4101: 4099: 4055: 4053: 4051: 4025: 4006: 3978: 3976: 3958: 3941: 3939: 3937: 3928: 3910: 3908: 3906: 3875: 3873: 3862: 3859: 3819: 3775:Cheers ex ante, 3747: 3731: 3725: 3723: 3700: 3680: 3674: 3672: 3631: 3625: 3623: 3568: 3562: 3560: 3516: 3421: 3416: 3411: 3409: 3365: 3269:Equivocasmannus 3238: 3227: 3225:911 Phone Calls 3194: 3188: 3186: 3166:Deciduous Maple 3161: 3113: 2706: 2671: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2657: 2653: 2646: 2642: 2531: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2517: 2513: 2465: 2462: 2423: 2420: 2397: 2391: 2191: 2169: 2116: 2092: 2059: 2055: 2028: 2021: 1957: 1940:reliable source 1897: 1888: 1808: 1801: 1799: 1768: 1472: 1467: 1462: 1460: 1441: 1432: 1376: 1372: 1265: 1146: 1140: 1136: 1130: 1107: 1046: 995: 922: 916: 914: 826: 809: 804: 748: 743: 738: 736: 657: 652: 647: 645:Neutrality tag? 612: 510: 253:fake girlfriend 230: 208: 156: 151: 85: 80: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4388: 4386: 4378: 4377: 4311: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4232: 4229: 4197: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4133:69.126.250.144 4122: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4024: 4021: 4005: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3963:65.175.240.161 3961:the incident. 3957: 3954: 3927: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3882: 3881: 3858: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3818: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3746: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3699: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3642: 3641: 3579: 3578: 3515: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3430: 3429: 3404: 3403: 3369:Knowledgekid87 3364: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3340: 3339: 3300: 3299: 3244: 3243: 3234: 3233: 3226: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3160: 3157: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3118:comment added 3080: 3058: 2974: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2742: 2741: 2721:JohnKAndersen 2705: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2670: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2651: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2618: 2617: 2602: 2601: 2595: 2594: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2488: 2487: 2472:67.164.188.243 2461: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2419: 2416: 2404:67.164.188.243 2390: 2387: 2385: 2373: 2372: 2341: 2340: 2334: 2329: 2324: 2319: 2314: 2309: 2302: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2275: 2245: 2244: 2239: 2234: 2229: 2224: 2219: 2214: 2209: 2204: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2147: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2099:67.247.229.103 2089: 2079:205.204.248.68 2054: 2051: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1835: 1828: 1819: 1818: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1743: 1717:as we all know 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1521:Oh, and yeah: 1519: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1429:to change. -- 1420: 1406: 1393: 1382: 1374: 1370: 1363: 1362: 1328: 1327: 1313: 1312: 1294: 1293: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1166: 1165: 1106: 1103: 1101: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 999:AfD discussion 994: 989: 988: 987: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 851: 850: 825: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 646: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 573: 572: 571: 570: 509: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 436: 435: 412: 411: 410: 409: 391: 390: 375: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 268: 267: 229: 226: 207: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 183: 148: 138: 137: 110: 109: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4387: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4351:69.196.128.18 4348: 4342: 4336: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4315: 4309: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4247:209.237.82.18 4244: 4237: 4230: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4213: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4195: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4120: 4114: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4094: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4022: 4020: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4003: 3999: 3994: 3989: 3984: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3955: 3953: 3952: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3932: 3925: 3921: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3872: 3871: 3866: 3861: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3816: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3778:72.196.99.114 3776: 3772: 3768: 3763: 3761: 3756: 3752: 3744: 3740: 3737: 3734: 3728: 3720: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3704:41.150.95.209 3697: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3677: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3649:86.165.233.82 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3628: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3596:86.165.233.82 3591: 3587: 3583: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3565: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3542:86.165.233.82 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3519: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3428: 3424: 3419: 3414: 3406: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3362: 3356: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3331: 3326: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3309:144.92.99.209 3306: 3298: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3246: 3245: 3241: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3224: 3218: 3215: 3212: 3211: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3191: 3183: 3182:BLP violation 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3158: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3137: 3121: 3117: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3059: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022:verifiability 3019: 3018: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2917: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711:JohnKAndersen 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2668: 2660: 2655: 2652: 2649: 2644: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2605:Thats better 2604: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2538: 2534: 2528: 2520: 2515: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2430:67.61.100.130 2427: 2417: 2415: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2388: 2386: 2383: 2382: 2379: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2338: 2335: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2325: 2323: 2320: 2318: 2315: 2313: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2276: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2243: 2240: 2238: 2235: 2233: 2230: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2215: 2213: 2210: 2208: 2205: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2196: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2148: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2135: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2113: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2090: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2066:69.204.26.245 2063: 2052: 2050: 2046: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2024: 2018: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1975: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964:98.118.171.15 1961: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1904:72.75.231.27 1901: 1894: 1885: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1811: 1806: 1804: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1773:86.178.233.88 1765: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1744: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1436: 1435: 1428: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1412: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1390: 1388: 1383: 1380: 1368: 1367: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352:86.179.82.235 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1338: 1332: 1325: 1321: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1275: 1272: 1271:immediately. 1270: 1262: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1145: 1135: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1104: 1102: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 993: 990: 986: 982: 978: 973: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 928: 925: 919: 911: 910: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 880: 879: 878: 874: 870: 866: 865: 864: 863: 860: 856: 849: 845: 841: 837: 836: 835: 834: 831: 823: 815: 812: 807: 800: 799: 798: 795: 791: 787: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 775: 771: 755: 751: 746: 741: 734: 730: 727: 726: 725: 722: 718: 714: 713: 712: 708: 704: 700: 699: 698: 694: 690: 685: 681: 680: 679: 675: 671: 668:combative. -- 666: 665: 664: 663: 660: 655: 644: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 609: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 577: 576: 575: 574: 569: 566: 562: 558: 557: 556: 552: 548: 543: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 529: 524: 523: 519: 515: 507: 495: 491: 487: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 469: 468: 467: 463: 459: 455: 454: 453: 449: 445: 440: 439: 438: 437: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 413: 408: 404: 400: 395: 394: 393: 392: 389: 383: 382: 376: 374: 370: 366: 362: 358: 354: 353: 352: 351: 347: 343: 339: 326: 320: 319: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 299: 298: 297: 291: 290: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 270: 269: 266: 260: 259: 254: 250: 247: 246: 245: 244: 238: 237: 227: 225: 224: 220: 216: 213: 205: 197: 193: 189: 184: 182: 178: 174: 169: 165: 164: 163: 159: 154: 149: 146: 142: 141: 140: 139: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 112: 111: 108: 104: 100: 95: 94: 93: 92: 88: 83: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4367:Slatersteven 4345:— Preceding 4340: 4337: 4319:— Preceding 4316: 4313: 4290:professional 4289: 4264: 4263: 4241:— Preceding 4238: 4234: 4214: 4199: 4164:Slatersteven 4127:— Preceding 4124: 4097: 4096: 4072:Slatersteven 4049: 4048: 4026: 4010:65.152.162.2 4007: 3982: 3959: 3935: 3934: 3929: 3904: 3903: 3883: 3874:, retrieved 3868: 3838: 3820: 3774: 3764: 3748: 3722: 3701: 3671: 3622: 3609:Please read 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3559: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3520: 3517: 3488: 3470: 3450: 3366: 3341: 3329: 3301: 3289: 3262: 3247: 3239: 3209: 3185: 3162: 3148:97.87.56.114 3142:— Preceding 3138: 3135: 3106:Coretheapple 3088:contextually 3087: 3083: 3060: 3040: 3008:Coretheapple 2981: 2977: 2940:Regardless, 2922: 2920: 2915: 2912: 2870:Coretheapple 2780:Coretheapple 2757:UltraExactZZ 2707: 2672: 2654: 2643: 2635: 2619: 2554: 2539: 2535: 2532: 2514: 2506: 2492: 2489: 2466:— Preceding 2463: 2424:— Preceding 2421: 2398:— Preceding 2392: 2384: 2378:panicpack121 2374: 2342: 2294: 2246: 2192: 2164: 2161: 2150: 2117: 2093:— Preceding 2060:— Preceding 2056: 2047: 2035:96.244.51.51 2029:— Preceding 2025: 2022: 1958:— Preceding 1944:Massenetique 1898:— Preceding 1889: 1860:Common sense 1842: 1838: 1831: 1824: 1809: 1802: 1795: 1791: 1769: 1683:WP:RECENTISM 1679:WP:RECENTISM 1676: 1624:WP:RECENTISM 1615: 1523:WP:RECENTISM 1439: 1438: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1416: 1408: 1399: 1395: 1384: 1378: 1345: 1341: 1333: 1329: 1314: 1295: 1284: 1276: 1273: 1268: 1266: 1207: 1177:WP:SECONDARY 1150: 1112:WP:STATUSQUO 1108: 1100: 1047: 996: 961:Naaman Brown 958: 940:Super Goku V 913: 891: 887: 859:Tom Harrison 854: 852: 830:Tom Harrison 827: 766: 732: 689:Super Goku V 648: 613:— Preceding 525: 511: 420: 379: 335: 316: 287: 256: 234: 231: 209: 167: 144: 118: 78: 60: 43: 37: 4310:Bad grammar 3988:regentspark 3771:eventualist 3500:Ad Orientem 3474:96.42.27.12 3345:96.42.27.12 3334:Talk to me! 3294:Talk to me! 3214:Talk to me! 3114:—Preceding 3069:WP:NOT#NEWS 3065:delusionist 3037:not like it 2753:WP:AFDHOWTO 2669:Clyde Lewis 2053:Debunkings? 1620:WP:NOT#NEWS 1500:WP:NOT#NEWS 1044:Interesting 361:WP:LEADCITE 286:theories.-- 36:This is an 4294:User:DanTD 4150:User:DanTD 4041:WP:NOTNEWS 4033:Scott Baio 3886:Sagecandor 3876:8 December 3726:Acroterion 3675:Acroterion 3626:Acroterion 3563:Acroterion 3363:NPOV Issue 3189:Acroterion 2946:usefulness 2690:User:DanTD 2636:References 2623:SusanBroil 2557:SusanBroil 2543:SusanBroil 2507:References 2357:One more: 1735:WP:CRYSTAL 1504:WP:NOTABLE 1411:WP:NOTABLE 1400:ad hominem 1337:WP:NOTABLE 1181:WP:PRIMARY 1173:WP:PRIMARY 917:Acroterion 153:Volunteer 82:Volunteer 4341:falsified 4196:Alt-right 4148:--------- 4047:issues.-- 3824:GangofOne 3806:GangofOne 3804:reedited 3794:GangofOne 3611:WP:FRINGE 3492:WP:FRINGE 3330:Winner 42 3290:Winner 42 3210:Winner 42 3030:religious 2121:Wyatt 151 1788:Knowledge 1618:topics. 1290:WP:FRINGE 1007:talk page 650:article. 619:Gaijin42 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 4347:unsigned 4321:unsigned 4243:unsigned 4129:unsigned 3870:NBC News 3755:vanished 3438:Gaijin42 3393:Gaijin42 3389:WP:SYNTH 3385:WP:UNDUE 3144:unsigned 2988:and use 2978:accurate 2468:unsigned 2426:unsigned 2400:unsigned 2344:Gaijin42 2248:Gaijin42 2179:Contribs 2095:unsigned 2062:unsigned 2031:unsigned 1980:Gaijin42 1960:unsigned 1926:Gaijin42 1912:contribs 1900:unsigned 1825:Sort of. 1766:Addendum 1301:WP:UNDUE 1226:Gaijin42 1186:Gaijin42 1116:Gaijin42 1071:Gaijin42 1026:WP:UNDUE 869:Gaijin42 840:Gaijin42 786:WP:UNDUE 770:Gaijin42 703:Gaijin42 627:contribs 615:unsigned 580:Gaijin42 531:Gaijin42 514:Gaijin42 486:Gaijin42 458:Gaijin42 417:This one 399:Gaijin42 381:Milowent 342:Gaijin42 318:Milowent 289:Milowent 258:Milowent 236:Milowent 215:Gaijin42 188:Gaijin42 99:Gaijin42 4085:August. 4045:WP:10YT 4029:Twitter 3993:comment 3489:Comment 3116:undated 3073:WP:NPOV 2986:WP:NPOV 2964:USchick 2884:USchick 2838:USchick 2170:Hamster 2119:period. 1702:USchick 1642:USchick 1602:USchick 1573:USchick 1543:USchick 1483:reason. 1433:Veggies 1387:WP:COAT 1324:WP:NPOV 1320:WP:SOAP 1309:WP:COAT 1280:fantasy 1269:deleted 1239:wrong.- 1151:at best 594:USchick 547:USchick 472:USchick 444:USchick 378:such.-- 357:WP:LEAD 302:USchick 273:USchick 123:WP:JDLI 115:WP:NPOV 39:archive 3760:WP:NOT 3732:(talk) 3681:(talk) 3632:(talk) 3615:WP:BLP 3569:(talk) 3195:(talk) 2197:imo. 2195:WP:GNG 1862:with 1794:, not 1790:means 1746:less.- 1507:here.- 1417:That's 1350::-( 923:(talk) 855:really 805:Silver 653:Silver 228:By who 3285:WP:OR 3077:WP:RS 3041:about 2165:Super 1922:WP:RS 1803:Auric 1305:WP:RS 810:seren 790:Conti 733:every 658:seren 561:Conti 526:doh! 338:WP:RS 158:Marek 87:Marek 16:< 4371:talk 4355:talk 4329:talk 4298:talk 4267:♦Ian 4251:talk 4222:talk 4207:talk 4182:talk 4168:talk 4154:talk 4137:talk 4100:♦Ian 4076:talk 4052:♦Ian 4043:and 4014:talk 3983:Done 3967:talk 3938:♦Ian 3907:♦Ian 3890:talk 3878:2016 3847:talk 3828:talk 3810:talk 3798:talk 3782:talk 3751:this 3708:talk 3653:talk 3613:and 3600:talk 3546:talk 3504:talk 3478:talk 3457:talk 3442:talk 3397:talk 3387:and 3373:talk 3349:talk 3313:talk 3273:talk 3255:talk 3170:talk 3152:talk 3110:talk 3096:talk 3075:and 3049:talk 3033:ones 3028:and 3012:talk 2998:talk 2968:talk 2954:talk 2948:. -- 2931:talk 2888:talk 2874:talk 2859:talk 2855:Moxy 2842:talk 2828:talk 2822:be.- 2784:talk 2735:talk 2715:talk 2694:talk 2679:talk 2627:talk 2611:talk 2576:talk 2561:talk 2547:talk 2498:talk 2476:talk 2450:talk 2434:talk 2408:talk 2366:talk 2348:talk 2284:talk 2269:talk 2252:talk 2176:Talk 2152:here 2142:and 2125:talk 2103:talk 2083:talk 2070:talk 2039:talk 2001:talk 1984:talk 1968:talk 1948:talk 1930:talk 1908:talk 1872:talk 1868:Moxy 1851:talk 1810:talk 1777:talk 1752:talk 1725:talk 1706:talk 1691:talk 1646:talk 1632:talk 1622:and 1606:talk 1591:talk 1587:Moxy 1577:talk 1562:talk 1558:Moxy 1547:talk 1531:talk 1513:talk 1489:talk 1485:Moxy 1442:talk 1356:talk 1245:talk 1230:talk 1216:talk 1190:talk 1159:talk 1120:talk 1090:talk 1086:Moxy 1075:talk 1055:talk 1051:Moxy 1034:talk 997:The 981:talk 965:talk 944:talk 904:talk 888:have 873:talk 844:talk 774:talk 707:talk 693:talk 682:See 674:talk 623:talk 598:talk 584:talk 551:talk 535:talk 518:talk 490:talk 476:talk 462:talk 448:talk 429:talk 421:huge 403:talk 369:talk 355:Per 346:talk 306:talk 277:talk 219:talk 192:talk 177:talk 131:talk 125:) -- 119:some 103:talk 4300:) 4156:) 4031:by 3843:BDD 3484:MT 3355:MT 3319:MT 3279:-- 3112:) 3092:jss 3045:BDD 2994:jss 2982:not 2950:BDD 2927:jss 2824:jss 2762:Did 2731:jss 2727:AfD 2696:) 2280:BDD 2265:BDD 1997:BDD 1847:jss 1839:all 1798:.-- 1748:jss 1721:BDD 1687:jss 1628:jss 1616:all 1527:jss 1509:jss 1427:you 1339:. 1241:jss 1212:jss 1155:jss 1030:BDD 1011:jss 900:BDD 721:jss 670:BDD 425:BDD 365:BDD 255:?-- 173:BDD 168:are 127:BDD 75:POV 4373:) 4357:) 4331:) 4274:M♦ 4269:Ma 4253:) 4224:) 4209:) 4184:) 4170:) 4139:) 4107:M♦ 4102:Ma 4095:-- 4078:) 4059:M♦ 4054:Ma 4016:) 3969:) 3945:M♦ 3940:Ma 3914:M♦ 3909:Ma 3902:-- 3892:) 3867:, 3849:) 3830:) 3800:) 3784:) 3710:) 3655:) 3621:. 3602:) 3548:) 3506:) 3480:) 3459:) 3444:) 3399:) 3375:) 3351:) 3327:. 3315:) 3287:. 3275:) 3257:) 3172:) 3154:) 3098:) 3061:If 3051:) 3014:) 3000:) 2992:.- 2970:) 2956:) 2933:) 2923:is 2890:) 2876:) 2861:) 2844:) 2830:) 2786:) 2737:) 2717:) 2681:) 2629:) 2613:) 2578:) 2563:) 2549:) 2500:) 2478:) 2452:) 2436:) 2410:) 2368:) 2350:) 2286:) 2271:) 2254:) 2127:) 2105:) 2085:) 2072:) 2041:) 2003:) 1986:) 1970:) 1950:) 1942:? 1932:) 1910:• 1874:) 1853:) 1779:) 1754:) 1727:) 1708:) 1693:) 1648:) 1634:) 1626:.- 1608:) 1593:) 1579:) 1564:) 1549:) 1533:) 1515:) 1491:) 1447:) 1413:." 1389:." 1379:is 1358:) 1247:) 1232:) 1218:) 1192:) 1161:) 1147:}} 1141:{{ 1137:}} 1131:{{ 1122:) 1092:) 1077:) 1057:) 1036:) 983:) 967:) 946:) 906:) 875:) 846:) 776:) 709:) 695:) 676:) 629:) 625:• 610:? 600:) 586:) 553:) 537:) 520:) 492:) 478:) 464:) 450:) 431:) 405:) 384:• 371:) 348:) 321:• 308:) 292:• 279:) 261:• 239:• 221:) 194:) 179:) 133:) 105:) 4369:( 4353:( 4327:( 4296:( 4271:c 4249:( 4220:( 4205:( 4180:( 4166:( 4152:( 4135:( 4104:c 4074:( 4056:c 4035:. 4012:( 3995:) 3991:( 3965:( 3942:c 3911:c 3888:( 3845:( 3826:( 3812:) 3808:( 3796:( 3780:( 3706:( 3651:( 3598:( 3544:( 3502:( 3476:( 3455:( 3440:( 3422:p 3417:b 3412:p 3395:( 3371:( 3347:( 3311:( 3271:( 3253:( 3168:( 3150:( 3108:( 3094:( 3047:( 3010:( 2996:( 2966:( 2952:( 2929:( 2886:( 2872:( 2857:( 2840:( 2826:( 2782:( 2759:~ 2733:( 2729:- 2713:( 2692:( 2677:( 2625:( 2609:( 2574:( 2559:( 2545:( 2496:( 2474:( 2448:( 2432:( 2406:( 2364:( 2346:( 2308:) 2282:( 2267:( 2250:( 2162:~ 2123:( 2101:( 2081:( 2068:( 2037:( 1999:( 1982:( 1966:( 1946:( 1928:( 1906:( 1870:( 1849:( 1830:" 1775:( 1750:( 1723:( 1704:( 1689:( 1644:( 1630:( 1604:( 1589:( 1575:( 1560:( 1545:( 1529:( 1511:( 1487:( 1473:p 1468:b 1463:p 1437:( 1354:( 1326:. 1311:. 1243:( 1228:( 1214:( 1188:( 1157:( 1118:( 1088:( 1073:( 1053:( 1032:( 979:( 963:( 942:( 902:( 871:( 842:( 794:✉ 792:| 772:( 749:p 744:b 739:p 705:( 691:( 672:( 621:( 596:( 582:( 565:✉ 563:| 549:( 533:( 516:( 488:( 474:( 460:( 446:( 427:( 401:( 367:( 344:( 304:( 275:( 217:( 190:( 175:( 129:( 101:( 50:.

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

Index