Talk:Great Replacement - Knowledge (XXG)

1625:

we disagree if what i wrote is relevant. "And when it comes to "facts"..." just to be clear, claims inside a conspiracy dont have to be true, what is true is the claims have been made. i have written "alleged". "And when it comes to "facts" presented in support of what RS describe as a conspiracy theory, we have to be especially careful not to lend our article text to a BOTHSIDES interpretation." i do not believe i have violated this protocol. what i have written largely sources direct quotes of official Labour and Tory candidates and makes clear what the media response was around those. my sources also are handpicked as they reference one another, and the writing is careful to prevent a "hit piece" violation by offering the media counter-argument. do you have any more concerns?

1179:

cases, to take up work in this country." Journalist Richard Littlejohn alleges that this was done to compensate after losing the votes of the working class while journalist Alex Hern argues that Mandelson "sounded like he was talking about the sort of programmes which were aimed at getting high-skilled immigrants to come to Britain" and that "the argument that Mandelson’s search parties “made it hard for Britons to get work” isn’t based in fact". Mandelson stated ‘we were almost... a full employment economy’ but, he admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now... we have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.'

1658:'the difference i presume is we disagree if what i wrote is relevant.' okay so this is the concern. right, well ive already established my reasoning to how it is relevant. 'Your assertion that they do seems to me to go beyond WP:SYNTH and amount to some kind of leap of faith.' i have sourced discourse in media journals that quote labour politicians saying they intentionally looked for migrants and how that discussion was argued and counter-argued to be an effort to replace the working class indingenous vote they lost. again, how is that not relevant. how is this a 'leap of faith'. 3057: 1575:

be WP:UNDUE to mention in article space if the vast majority of sources do not see a clear connection between thr conspiracy theory's claims and actual phenomena. And WP:FRINGE tells us to be very careful about allowing wikipedia articles to become amplifiers for fringe claims, including those by conspiracy theorists. So while the key question is not actually, "does the source name the article topic?", there are lots of sourced statements that would be completely inappropriate to include in articles - especially articles on FRINGE topics - because of SYNTH concerns.

1081: 1060: 504: 605: 826: 711: 690: 437: 525: 721: 341: 925: 900: 386: 2135:

and I corrected that comment. My, correct (given the obvious and easily accessible discussions on the perennial sources page) comment was reverted, while the false comment that contradicts Knowledge (XXG) policy and discourages other editors from making proper edits and changes remains up. I have yet to get a comment that explains this. At this point, I'm honestly just confused by how that can be. -

816: 1091: 795: 3013: 226: 1351:

confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant and if i need to get wikipedia mods in to review this i will. that is quite literally the whole conspiracy theory in detail from start to finish, and even "potentially" confessed to. what i wrote was fair and balanced and tried to take both sides into account as i know this has been contentious.

307: 992: 971: 473: 1571:

WP:RS. What typicallly happens is that either those editors will seek the inclusion (for "facts") of what are at best WP:RSOPINION sources, or they will do their own "research" into a topic the conspiracy theory is interpreting and seek inclusion of related statements in the article, as if to say, "here is the actual phenomenon that the conspiracy theory is interpreting".

1506:"yes this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially" confessing to it as well as another labour official literally admitting it, is relevant" 1397:, particularly "Policy Misuse". you have been wrong about the rules and stated, prior to me even providing the edit, that "... if this continues don't be surprised if you get blocked - or topic banned." this is a debunked requirement. genuinely stop. off-topic but i just reviewed your profile, sorry about your parkinsons i genuinely hope youre doing well. 256: 2796:

Hi. Just based on your profile I noticed that probably have a history of edit warring. So much so that it's been brought to the administrators. Twice. I have realized it is futile to engage in this argument with you and you can't even respond more than two times in one day due to your restrictions. I

2212:

The reliability is judged, as I wrote, by the editors' feelings on the reliability of the sources. In fact, WP:RS in particular goes into detail about how much this depends on the judgement by editors, explicitly pointing towards the responsibility of editors in the judgement of such a source. So the

2553:

However, when he makes arguments that democrats have an incentive to bring immigrants into the city to win long-term voting power, even the left recognizes he has a valid point. Thus, rather than grapple with such an inconvenient truth, they huddle together and throw "racist" and "conspiracy theory"

2134:

Sorry about not notifying you. I assumed that happens automatically. I don't really know how to notify other editors, but if I did, I would have. I see another editor making a false statement that actively contradicts Knowledge (XXG) policy to the detriment of editors wanting to improve the article,

2119:

So, first of all, you really should have notified NewImpartial and myself--but aside from that, were we to engage with your comment and general conversational tack there, it would be extremely 'forum-y.' It seemed clearly to be headed in the direction of "is Knowledge (XXG)'s reliable source policy

2100:

The policy you linked specifically mentions consensus, which I am trying to achieve here and which neither you and I yet have? Also, if anything, this policy provides more rationale for the very basis of my argument, funnily enough, that the reliability of sources is dependent on consensus, not some

1458:

I saw that discussion and have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion. There are instances where the subject of the article does not need to be mentioned in a source for that source to be relevant to the article, but this clearly isn't one. Again, the proper place for this, if you're not

1178:

said that Labour 'sent out search parties' to bring migrants to Britain at the Blairite think-tank Progress stating "in 2004, when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some

2645:

Hi. Can you please re-iterate your argument. I’m not sure I understand and I don’t want to assume what you meant. The Great Replacement theory concerns the falling of the white population and a theory on why it is falling. Is that in contention? “White demographic decline” is the name of an article

1624:

i made the discussion there when i was informed by Generalrelative. that isnt a violation. "...just because sources that don't mention the article title can be relevant doesn't mean they always are." yes, i concur. i have agreed with this stance since the very beginning. the difference i presume is

1574:

The problem with the latter is the inevitable WP:SYNTH violation - unless reliable sources actually tie the conspiracy theory back to real world phenomena (usually by contrasting one with the other), editors are forbidden from doing so in articles. What is more, even if one source does this, it may

2047:

The comment I made is actively in line with Knowledge (XXG) policy, as a response to which you cited an essay, which is not the same as policy and simply opinions by an editor. I also feel like it comes across as dangerously close to a personal attack, since it makes bad faith assumptions about my

1570:

I'm not sure what precisely you're referring to, but a constantly recurring problem with articles like Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and Great Replacement is that editors arrive and try to impose their BOTHSIDES interpretation of NPOV, where one of the "sides" has no significant support among

1350:

before anyone says, yes this is obviously relevant. sources that say the blair government intentionally broke down migration barriers and actively searched and brought in migrants to replace the indigenous working class vote, citing quotation from a high ranking labour cabinet member "potentially"

2024:

territory. If you have a case to make for a referenced constructive edit, please do so. This is not a forum for general conversation about Knowledge (XXG) policy (which was Dumuzid's point). There's a big red notice at the top of the page concerning sources. Comment on content, not other editors.

1893:

Since I am unsure of where else to take this (I am not very familiar with how to deal with such strange situations) I will post this here, but feel free to inform me of where else to take this: I want to take fault with users NewImpartial's and Dumuzid's false and (in the former case's) repeated

1927:

How so? Reliable sources are what Knowledge (XXG) relies on and what are required for edits that are worthy of remaining on a Knowledge (XXG) article and the discussions I mentioned are easily accessible and viewable by any person interested in checking out the perennial sources page. -

1418:

Doug is one of the most trusted and respected members of this community. You will get nowhere by dismissing his concerns. And you have most certainly not "debunked" anything he's said. If you are not satisfied with the response here, you are welcome to take this to a noticeboard such as

1186:

adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain saying that the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium.

2381:

The articles you linked all talk about the great replacement theory, but nothing musk says in the tweets linked is really about the theory. It's about illegal immigration, which is linked, but I wouldn't say that what he is saying is specifically supporting that particular theory.

286:

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources.

2266:

Whether your statement is correct or not (I would disagree with it) is beside the point. Things can be true and inappropriate for a talk page discussion. Again, there are places to go into such broad inquiries into Knowledge (XXG) workings, but it is not here. Cheers.

2611:/falling white population a real phenomenon? Many references say it is real and there is even a Knowledge (XXG) article on it. Does white demographic decline/falling white population relate to the "Great Replacement theory"? If yes, then it deserves to me mentioned. 1509:

even if those sources are blatantly wrong, this is a conspiracy theory. if conspiracies had to be true the flat earth wiki would be completely empty. the above is discourse in multiple well known publications about something that is obviously about Great Replacement

2630:

I am not aware of any quality sources that specify a relationship between the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and White demographic decline. Any proposed additions to this article must be based on relevant, reliable sources rather than the opinions of editors.

2902:

causing population change. That there is population change is already handled in other articles, and has nothing to do with this article unless there are reliable sources directly stating that it's being caused by a shadowy group working in the background. --

2404:

theory (bold by me). Also from the Verge: «Musk is trying to have it both ways: he wants to send obvious great replacement dogwhistles, but, lest it scare advertisers away, he doesn’t want anyone to accuse him of wholeheartedly believing in what he’s saying.»

2198:. If it isn't true, it doesn't need to be discussed at all. But regardless of the validity of these allegations, they have no place at this, or any, article Talk page where they can do nothing except waste editor time (mine writing this reply, for example). 2664:

to divide the CT into an empirical phenomenon (which can then be described as "actually happening" or not) and an explanation. Providing a Knowledge (XXG) article to explain the phenomenon does not make it self-evidently relevant in the context of this

1672:

To answer your question, I know of no reliable sources stating that the Great Replacement conspiracy theory involves Labour politicians recruiting migrants to shore up their vote share. This alleged connection therefore looks to be a leap of faith.

1894:

reverts of a comment of mine on someone's false interpretation of policy that I posted with the intent to further the improvement of the article. I am seeking both comment and explanation by the two users and other users' input on this matter. -

282:

policies. These policies require that information in Knowledge (XXG) articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

2235:. If other editors to this article don't share your concerns about the way this article uses sources (and I don't believe they do), then you will need to take your concerns somewhere else - preferably to one of wikipedia's many "competitors". 2700:

Editors' opinions are one thing, but to include any statement about a relationship between the conspiracy and actual demographic phenomena in this article, we need reliable, independent sources that specify what the relationship actually is.

637:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 1825:

This misses the same point as the last thread about this, the content has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. Multiple references to poor sources that don't have any mention of the conspiracy theory in no way changes that. --

1639:

To answer your question (in a way): you haven't at all addressed my main concern, which is that the sources you have assembled have nothing to do with the topic of this article. Your assertion that they do seems to me to go beyond

293:

Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

322:. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Knowledge (XXG)'s 164: 1998:

The page you recommended is explicitly made for beginner-questions related to basic Knowledge (XXG) editing and therefore unrelated to the questions I repeatedly asked you now and the reverts being talked about. -

2879:

Please don't restore these changes without reliable sources. GRCT is inherently and clearly about a number of things, and we rely on reliable sources to guide as about which explanations/details/views to include.

2943:

Hi to all who may concern, If you read the original theory. It states that the population changes are “deliberate” actions. Therefore I have added this. I have also added a rebuttal. Reference already on page.

1444:? there was a discussion on this a month ago, the title of an article does not need to appear in a source for that source to be relevant. if i have interpreted the discussion incorrectly, please inform me. 2963:

for a "real" empirical phenomenon. To my knowlege, neither the reliable sources used in this article, nor the corpus of other RS out in the wider world, treat the topic in this way. Therefore it would be

1606:. And when it comes to "facts" presented in support of what RS describe as a conspiracy theory, we have to be especially careful not to lend our article text to a BOTHSIDES interpretation in violation of 2433:

Also, what can be a more reliable source for whether or not someone supports something than asking that person directly if they support something. If he was a proponent, he would be openly supporting it

1499:

however im not sure if you actually mean by "... this clearly isn't " as my 'conclusion', that you believe what i wrote wasnt relevant. in which case, ive already provided my reasoning for coming to the

1042: 2313:

I followed the citation, which led me to an article that mentions an interview. I found the interview and when questioned about it, Elon Musk says ‘I don’t subscribe to any ‘great displacement theory’’

3040:

This article should be edited. The Great Replacement is not a conspiracy theory of white nationalists or anything of the sort. It is readily apparent and objective. This verbiage should be removed.

2452:- this is clearly false. Lots of public figures try to maintain plausible deniability about things they demonstrably day and do; the alt-right, for example, was largely founded on this "principle". 2435: 2420: 2252: 2214: 2136: 2102: 2049: 2000: 1968: 1929: 1895: 2383: 2757:

I hope the participation of other, experienced editors has convinced you not to insert your own interptetation of a topic without providing direct support for the interpretation in the form of

352: 1773:. Additionally, the article should focus on longer-run analyses of the type covered in scholarly sources, rather than short term news items that you are likely to find in a newspaper. ( 2613:

I welcome any feedback or additional perspectives on this matter. If no response is received within a reasonable time frame then I will assume that everyone is fine with my additions.

1262: 1229: 2533:

Of course, Elon Musk should not be added as a proponent. Unfortunately Knowledge (XXG) was captured by the left about ten years ago, so this kind of misinformation will not go away.

1796:

Neither the text nor any of the (poor) sources mention the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. I searched each one for "replac" and found nothing. To add the proposed text would be

672: 2213:

policy explains in detail how my comment is in line with what I outlined in my comment. So I don't see how I'm wrong? Nor how the anti-policy statement remains in place? -

158: 3117: 662: 1339: 1328: 1306: 1240: 1534:

As the editor who made perhaps the strongest statement in thr NORN discussion that the title of the article need not be mentioned in a source for it to be relevant, I

882: 1496:

because the responses i got told me as such, in a non-ambiguous cut and dry manner: the title of an article does NOT have to appear in a source for it to be sourced.

3162: 3122: 2554:

meaningless words at him, and anyone else who holds such a belief. Such is the way of the left, and, since about ten years ago, such is the way of Knowledge (XXG).

1032: 626: 2811:

Ad hominem will not help you. Your opinion about what GR means does not matter. Knowledge (XXG) is based on reliable sources, not on your opinion. End of story. --

1770: 1463:, where the conversation you linked above took place, is for discussing possible revisions to the policy; for questions about the application of the policy, go to 638: 1273: 587: 3147: 2251:(Just a note: I gotta go to bed now, unfortunately, so I won't be able to reply for a little while, but I will when I can again! Just letting everybody know! - 2070:, meaning that editors who demand that a specific legalistic process be strictly adhered to are unlikely to find satisfaction. And the two fundamental policies 872: 1147: 90: 1317: 1251: 3167: 1008: 777: 3112: 3102: 2926: 1849: 1295: 1284: 577: 3092: 2743:

Again, GRCT is inherently about white demographic decline. Just any type of fish is a fish. You don't need a source for that. I will implement the edits.

3177: 3152: 1137: 3087: 2584: 2520: 2493: 2478: 2410: 2366: 848: 633: 610: 3132: 3063:

We have reliable sources for how it is described. We're not going to change it based on an IP's opinion. And please don't raise the same issue twice.

2991: 2889: 1716: 1203:

said that the admission that Labour had let immigration “spiral out of control” was “yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.”

767: 55: 314: 3157: 3107: 1263:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2326352/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Labour-brought-migrants-losing-working-class-votes.html

1230:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2326352/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Peter-Mandelson-admits-Labour-brought-migrants-losing-working-class-votes.html

553: 96: 2547:

Also, here is a tweet in which Elon Musk pokes a hole in the logic of the great replacement theory, explaining why he does not think it is true:

2450:

Also, what can be a more reliable source for whether or not someone supports something than asking that person directly if they support something

1113: 999: 976: 1967:

That neither answered my questions nor addressed the reverts made by users NewImpartial and Dumuzid. Please explain your reasoning in detail. -

3142: 3137: 2841:(ec) That's not how this works. It's on you to explain how the cited sources explicitly connect to "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, per 2345: 1460: 743: 3041: 2580: 2516: 2489: 2474: 2406: 2362: 1379:

this conversation was had before and im not doing it again. i went on a one week long goose chase to debunk this. is this your only concern?

931: 905: 839: 800: 3097: 2355: 1195:

said that the Labour government was not “sufficiently alive to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”.

443: 351:

procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been

41: 323: 1769:

Even if the sources discuss the Great Replacement theory (they don't) the majority of the sources cited are unusable for this topic, see

3172: 2555: 2534: 2335: 2646:

of Knowledge (XXG) concerning the falling of white population. I can rewrite what I wrote and not use the article title if y’all want?

2439: 2424: 2256: 2218: 2140: 2106: 2053: 2004: 1972: 1933: 1899: 532: 509: 3127: 2660:

To answer your question: unless you have reliable sources that divide the GRCT into an empirical phenomenon and an explanation, it is

2387: 2350: 1340:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html

1329:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html

1307:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html

1241:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10055613/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-for-immigrants-Lord-Mandelson-admits.html

1104: 1065: 217: 110: 734: 695: 115: 31: 2982:

I have the same concern. I think the current language makes it clear that deliberate action is involved in the conspiracy theory.

453:

to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to

213: 209: 205: 201: 179: 85: 2922: 1845: 1274:

https://www.newstatesman.com/business/economics/2013/05/mandelsons-search-parties-are-sort-immigration-policy-mail-should-adore

484: 454: 450: 371: 348: 146: 2510:«If musk directly says that he doesn't support the theory when asked about it, can he be classified as a 'proponent'?» =: --> 2340: 2473:

Got it. Please notice that you were not logged in for your last coments so your IP adress is displayed instead an username.

1909:

There was nothing wrong with their reverts as your edit was not correct, not related to this article, and not constructive.

278: 76: 1800:

because the editor, not the sources, are connecting the politicians' actions with the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

1318:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/399490/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-to-entice-migrants-to-UK-Lord-Mandelson-comes-clean

1252:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/399490/Labour-sent-out-search-parties-to-entice-migrants-to-UK-Lord-Mandelson-comes-clean

2987: 2885: 1712: 458: 552:

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

407: 392: 367: 272: 1778: 1393:

ive just reviewed, you were IN that conversation. you know full well this is debunked and this has now become clear-cut

1296:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html

1285:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Lord-Mandelson-Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-hard-Britons-work.html

402:. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. 265:

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

2375:

If musk directly says that he doesn't support the theory when asked about it, can he be classified as a 'proponent'?

1489:" and the general response was that it was so obvious it didnt need to be added. i wasted a week of my life on that. 2908: 2802: 2748: 2720: 2691: 1831: 225: 196: 140: 3019: 1528: 120: 3045: 2854: 2608: 2020:

to be removed is perhaps debatable, but not worth the bytes that are being expended here. You are wandering into

1472: 1432: 2078:, from which everything else derives, and which should answer what appears to have been your original question. 1394: 423: 415: 359: 319: 236: 2983: 2881: 1708: 490: 136: 2559: 2538: 2512: 1989: 1958: 1914: 1874: 2346:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-1234941337/

936: 910: 436: 2973: 2781: 2734: 2706: 2677: 2636: 2457: 2322: 2240: 2203: 2120:

actually good?" There are places to discuss that, but individual article talk pages are not it. Cheers.

1817: 1760: 1744: 1730: 1678: 1663: 1649: 1630: 1615: 1518: 1449: 1402: 1384: 1356: 1208: 385: 2959:

Alexysun, the appearance given by your edits is that the GMCT should be presented as a conspiracy theory

2729:

Without indepentent, reliable sources we can use in article space, yours is not an actionable statement.

2576: 419: 370:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

363: 186: 66: 2816: 2798: 2744: 2716: 2687: 2356:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24111405/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-immigration-don-lemon

1371: 1112:

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

1007:

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

847:

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

742:

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

2511:

Yes if several reliable sources say that Elon Musk support the theory (see my last edit of the article

2318: 81: 1442:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#for_WP:SYNTH,_is_semantic_change_relevant

2850: 2336:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/another-day-another-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-elon-musk-x

2087: 2034: 1468: 1428: 2842: 2067: 2063: 2021: 472: 2400:

theory then i fail to see how this refute reliable sources saying that Elon Musk support the Great

2351:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/19/media/elon-musk-don-lemon-interview-analysis-hnk-intl/index.html

2048:

motivation for editing Knowledge (XXG), which also goes directly against Knowledge (XXG) policy. -

831: 172: 2949: 2868: 2651: 2620: 1985: 1954: 1910: 1870: 241: 2965: 2846: 1797: 1641: 1486: 1424: 1167:

please review this before i add it in. if something needs to be added or removed please tell me

399: 318:, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be 152: 2969: 2793: 2777: 2730: 2702: 2673: 2632: 2453: 2272: 2236: 2199: 2125: 1801: 1756: 1740: 1726: 1674: 1659: 1645: 1626: 1611: 1514: 1445: 1413: 1398: 1380: 1352: 1204: 1188: 1183: 1171: 1080: 1059: 327: 62: 35: 2062:

Here's another essay, which documents general practices and expectations on Knowledge (XXG):

1607: 1464: 1420: 411: 3068: 2812: 1774: 1441: 1366: 524: 503: 238: 2773: 2602:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Great_Replacement&diff=prev&oldid=1235608874

2191: 2158: 2154: 1950: 2341:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/technology/elon-musk-endorses-antisemitic-post-ibm.html

2081: 2028: 1175: 726: 17: 2769: 2762: 2669: 2661: 2378:

Proponent: A person who speaks publicly in support of a particular idea or plan of action

2179: 2071: 1982: 1946: 1182:

Lord Mandelson’s remarks came three years after Labour officials denied claims by former

1096: 1004: 625: 604: 2772:, as my account history confirms - there is no need to bring this up again. We try to 2758: 2195: 2175: 2075: 1943: 720: 710: 689: 3081: 2945: 2864: 2647: 2616: 545: 541: 2776:

on Talk pages, rather than being distracted by our opinions of other contributors.)

2548: 340: 2268: 2121: 1200: 844: 1493:

I saw that discussion and have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.

2898:

Not this again. Great replacement is a conspiracy theory that shadowy groups are

1949:

are rigorously followed. If you have a problem with a source, you can take it to

3064: 1783: 1192: 924: 899: 2419:

Replacement and displacement was a typo from me, did you watch the interview?

1090: 1086: 821: 815: 794: 716: 549: 240: 2016:

is actively and obviously wrong. Content is not decided by vote. Whether it

1459:

satisfied with the answers you've received so far, would be a noticeboard. (

1109: 3072: 3049: 2995: 2977: 2953: 2932: 2893: 2872: 2858: 2820: 2806: 2785: 2752: 2738: 2724: 2710: 2695: 2681: 2655: 2640: 2624: 2588: 2563: 2542: 2524: 2497: 2482: 2461: 2443: 2428: 2414: 2391: 2370: 2326: 2276: 2260: 2244: 2222: 2207: 2144: 2129: 2110: 2095: 2057: 2042: 2008: 1993: 1976: 1962: 1937: 1918: 1903: 1855: 1820: 1789: 1764: 1748: 1734: 1720: 1682: 1667: 1653: 1634: 1619: 1522: 1476: 1453: 1436: 1406: 1388: 1374: 1360: 1212: 1598:

In other words, just because sources that don't mention the article title

1485:

yes it was discussed if we should add "semantic change is not relevant to

739: 2153:, which (to paraphrase closely) asserts that discussions to be found at 537: 2577:

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/19/elon-musk-trump-endorsement-don-lemon

991: 970: 290:

If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted.

255: 2515:) and if no reliable sources deny that Elon Musk support the theory. 1513:

i will go to the WP:NORN notice board to see what is thought there.

1739:

the sources were handpicked as they largely reference one another

404:

Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere

270:

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the

1196: 2396:

If Elon Musk explicitly says that he doesn't support the great

3007: 2190:

If any of this is true, the places to discuss it would be the

466: 431: 380: 335: 301: 250: 242: 26: 2686:

I disagree. GRCT is clearly about white demographic decline.

358:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the

2715:

Again, GRCT is clearly about white demographic decline.

2472:«Replacement and displacement was a typo from me» =: --> 2601: 2150: 2014: 1535: 2797:

want to request an admin to this page as a 3rd voice.

2317:

is there any other times where Musk talks about this?

171: 326:. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise 1108:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1003:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 843:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 738:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 536:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1482:

is for discussing possible revisions to the policy;

185: 1771:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Perennial sources 1707:This is OR of course. Also, the sourcing is poor. 2768:(Also, I learned years ago not to participate in 2549:https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1784388834538762425 2598:For context, two editors reverted my additions. 2579:does not support the statement so i removed it. 934:, a project which is currently considered to be 457:regarding potentially objectionable content and 449:Images or details contained within this article 44:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2668:Without sources providing this analysis, it is 398:This article or its talk page has experienced 3004:Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2024 647:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Alternative Views 8: 2845:. From a quick glance, the edit looked like 2332:Other sources supporting the clasification: 2185:in no way suggests they are indeed reliable 1365:What sources mention “Great Replacement “? 2227:You appear to be confusing judgement with 1882:The following discussion has been closed. 1865: 1644:and amount to some kind of leap of faith. 1557: 1054: 1017:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Discrimination 965: 894: 789: 684: 599: 498: 3118:Mid-importance Alternative Views articles 1862:Actions by users NewImpartial and Dumuzid 1461:Knowledge (XXG) talk:No original research 451:may be graphic or otherwise objectionable 946:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Demographics 857:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Conservatism 2436:2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:4CD0:5514:EA56:AA44 2421:2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:4CD0:5514:EA56:AA44 2309:Should Elon Musk be under ‘proponents’? 2253:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 2215:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 2137:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 2103:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 2050:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 2001:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 1969:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 1930:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 1896:2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:E845:1444:4AC6:1AB1 1222: 1174:politician and former Cabinet minister 1056: 967: 896: 791: 686: 601: 500: 470: 3163:Mid-importance Discrimination articles 3123:WikiProject Alternative Views articles 2449: 2384:2A01:4B00:BC1D:8B00:EC04:6B4:30F3:E215 2232: 2228: 2184: 2173: 2166: 2162: 1981:You can take general questions to the 650:Template:WikiProject Alternative Views 562:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Skepticism 3093:Knowledge (XXG) objectionable content 2487:«did you watch the interview?» =: --> 1602:be relevant doesn't mean they always 1122:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sociology 7: 3148:Top-importance Conservatism articles 3088:Knowledge (XXG) controversial topics 2101:supposedly strict, clear outline? - 1102:This article is within the scope of 997:This article is within the scope of 930:This article is within the scope of 837:This article is within the scope of 752:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics 732:This article is within the scope of 631:This article is within the scope of 530:This article is within the scope of 455:Knowledge (XXG)'s content disclaimer 3168:WikiProject Discrimination articles 1020:Template:WikiProject Discrimination 489:It is of interest to the following 34:for discussing improvements to the 3113:C-Class Alternative Views articles 3103:Mid-importance Skepticism articles 2187:(all words from the one exchange). 2183:and that the resulting evaluation 2169:whose decisions about sources are 25: 3178:Mid-importance sociology articles 3153:WikiProject Conservatism articles 949:Template:WikiProject Demographics 860:Template:WikiProject Conservatism 61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 3133:Mid-importance politics articles 3055: 3011: 2863:Hi. See my reply to user above. 1562:my statement about SYNTH at NORN 1089: 1079: 1058: 990: 969: 923: 898: 824: 814: 793: 719: 709: 688: 624: 603: 523: 502: 471: 435: 384: 339: 305: 254: 224: 56:Click here to start a new topic. 3158:C-Class Discrimination articles 3108:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2605:For them I have two questions. 2167:"random people on the internet" 1869:Wrong page for this discussion 1142:This article has been rated as 1037:This article has been rated as 877:This article has been rated as 772:This article has been rated as 667:This article has been rated as 582:This article has been rated as 565:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 459:options for not seeing an image 444:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored 426:and trolling are never allowed! 1125:Template:WikiProject Sociology 1: 3143:C-Class Conservatism articles 3138:WikiProject Politics articles 2581:Visite fortuitement prolongée 2517:Visite fortuitement prolongée 2490:Visite fortuitement prolongée 2475:Visite fortuitement prolongée 2407:Visite fortuitement prolongée 2363:Visite fortuitement prolongée 1116:and see a list of open tasks. 1011:and see a list of open tasks. 851:and see a list of open tasks. 755:Template:WikiProject Politics 746:and see a list of open tasks. 634:WikiProject Alternative views 556:and see a list of open tasks. 422:, or relevant notice-boards. 372:contentious topics procedures 53:Put new text under old text. 3098:C-Class Skepticism articles 3073:08:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 3050:08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 3034:to reactivate your request. 3022:has been answered. Set the 2996:23:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2933:15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 2894:22:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2821:05:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 2807:23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2786:22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC) 2753:21:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2739:19:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2725:19:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2711:19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 2696:18:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 3194: 3173:C-Class sociology articles 2968:to do so in this article. 2149:The comment I removed was 1148:project's importance scale 1000:WikiProject Discrimination 883:project's importance scale 778:project's importance scale 673:project's importance scale 653:Alternative Views articles 588:project's importance scale 360:purpose of Knowledge (XXG) 18:Talk:The Great Replacement 3128:C-Class politics articles 2978:09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 2954:08:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 2873:08:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 2859:19:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2682:09:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 2656:08:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC) 2641:19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2625:19:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 2609:white demographic decline 2589:16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2525:16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2498:16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2483:16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2462:14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2444:12:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2429:12:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 2415:20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 2392:11:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC) 2371:12:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 2327:09:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 2277:21:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2261:21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2245:23:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2223:21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2208:20:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2194:or a policy page such as 2165:who are considered to be 2145:20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2130:20:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2111:21:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2096:20:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2058:20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2043:19:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 2009:19:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1994:19:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1977:19:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1963:19:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1938:19:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1919:19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1904:19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 1527:I think that would be an 1141: 1074: 1036: 985: 918: 876: 809: 771: 704: 666: 619: 581: 518: 497: 374:before editing this page. 91:Be welcoming to newcomers 2564:19:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2543:19:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 1885:Please do not modify it. 1856:16:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 1821:05:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 1790:01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 1765:13:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1749:13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1735:13:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1721:13:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1683:02:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 1668:01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) 1654:23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1635:12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1620:13:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1523:12:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) 1477:22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1454:22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1437:22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1407:22:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1389:22:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1375:20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1361:20:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 1213:20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) 932:WikiProject Demographics 840:WikiProject Conservatism 368:normal editorial process 2513:Special:Diff/1231302409 1023:Discrimination articles 355:as a contentious topic. 324:policies and guidelines 2672:for editors to do so. 1725:why is sourcing poor. 533:WikiProject Skepticism 479:This article is rated 393:Do not feed the trolls 364:standards of behaviour 86:avoid personal attacks 1105:WikiProject Sociology 952:Demographics articles 863:Conservatism articles 483:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 218:Auto-archiving period 111:Neutral point of view 735:WikiProject Politics 315:controversial issues 313:This topic contains 116:No original research 2984:Firefangledfeathers 2882:Firefangledfeathers 2231:and unanimity with 1709:Firefangledfeathers 832:Conservatism portal 568:Skepticism articles 2594:Removal of content 1128:sociology articles 485:content assessment 405: 395: 349:contentious topics 267: 97:dispute resolution 58: 3038: 3037: 2931: 2916: 2912: 2906: 2306: 2305: 2092: 2039: 1854: 1839: 1835: 1829: 1581: 1580: 1503:here it is again: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1154: 1153: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1048: 964: 963: 960: 959: 893: 892: 889: 888: 788: 787: 784: 783: 758:politics articles 683: 682: 679: 678: 644:Alternative Views 611:Alternative Views 598: 597: 594: 593: 465: 464: 430: 429: 403: 391: 379: 378: 334: 333: 300: 299: 279:original research 273:reliable sourcing 263: 249: 248: 77:Assume good faith 54: 36:Great Replacement 16:(Redirected from 3185: 3059: 3058: 3029: 3025: 3015: 3014: 3008: 2939:Added deliberate 2919: 2914: 2910: 2904: 2799:NamelessLameless 2774:focus on content 2763:reliable sources 2745:NamelessLameless 2717:NamelessLameless 2688:NamelessLameless 2093: 2090: 2086: 2084: 2066:. And a policy: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2031: 1942:The policies at 1887: 1866: 1842: 1837: 1833: 1827: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1786: 1755:why is this OR? 1558: 1529:WP:IDONTHEARTHAT 1417: 1369: 1342: 1337: 1331: 1326: 1320: 1315: 1309: 1304: 1298: 1293: 1287: 1282: 1276: 1271: 1265: 1260: 1254: 1249: 1243: 1238: 1232: 1227: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1099: 1094: 1093: 1083: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1062: 1055: 1043:importance scale 1025: 1024: 1021: 1018: 1015: 994: 987: 986: 981: 973: 966: 954: 953: 950: 947: 944: 927: 920: 919: 914: 902: 895: 865: 864: 861: 858: 855: 834: 829: 828: 827: 818: 811: 810: 805: 797: 790: 760: 759: 756: 753: 750: 729: 724: 723: 713: 706: 705: 700: 692: 685: 655: 654: 651: 648: 645: 628: 621: 620: 615: 607: 600: 570: 569: 566: 563: 560: 527: 520: 519: 514: 506: 499: 482: 476: 475: 467: 439: 432: 408:deny recognition 406:. Know when to 388: 381: 343: 336: 309: 308: 302: 258: 251: 243: 229: 228: 219: 190: 189: 175: 106:Article policies 27: 21: 3193: 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3078: 3077: 3056: 3042:168.150.108.136 3027: 3023: 3012: 3006: 2941: 2851:Generalrelative 2596: 2311: 2163:vote by editors 2088: 2082: 2080: 2035: 2029: 2027: 1883: 1864: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1784: 1563: 1469:Generalrelative 1429:Generalrelative 1411: 1395:WP:POV railroad 1367: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1338: 1334: 1327: 1323: 1316: 1312: 1305: 1301: 1294: 1290: 1283: 1279: 1272: 1268: 1261: 1257: 1250: 1246: 1239: 1235: 1228: 1224: 1176:Peter Mandelson 1169: 1127: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1095: 1088: 1068: 1022: 1019: 1016: 1013: 1012: 979: 951: 948: 945: 942: 941: 908: 862: 859: 856: 853: 852: 830: 825: 823: 803: 757: 754: 751: 748: 747: 727:Politics portal 725: 718: 698: 652: 649: 646: 643: 642: 613: 567: 564: 561: 558: 557: 512: 480: 416:WP:FALSEBALANCE 362:, any expected 306: 296: 266: 245: 244: 239: 216: 132: 127: 126: 125: 102: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3191: 3189: 3181: 3180: 3175: 3170: 3165: 3160: 3155: 3150: 3145: 3140: 3135: 3130: 3125: 3120: 3115: 3110: 3105: 3100: 3095: 3090: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3075: 3036: 3035: 3016: 3005: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2940: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2896: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2766: 2666: 2614: 2612: 2606: 2604: 2599: 2595: 2592: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2551: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2485: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2466: 2464: 2379: 2376: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2353: 2348: 2343: 2338: 2310: 2307: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2188: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 1922: 1921: 1889: 1888: 1879: 1878: 1863: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1823: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1767: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1656: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1572: 1565: 1564: 1561: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1539: 1538:the following: 1532: 1511: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1483: 1391: 1344: 1343: 1332: 1321: 1310: 1299: 1288: 1277: 1266: 1255: 1244: 1233: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1168: 1165: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1151: 1144:Mid-importance 1140: 1134: 1133: 1131: 1114:the discussion 1101: 1100: 1097:Society portal 1084: 1072: 1071: 1069:Mid‑importance 1063: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1039:Mid-importance 1035: 1029: 1028: 1026: 1014:Discrimination 1009:the discussion 1005:Discrimination 995: 983: 982: 980:Mid‑importance 977:Discrimination 974: 962: 961: 958: 957: 955: 928: 916: 915: 903: 891: 890: 887: 886: 879:Top-importance 875: 869: 868: 866: 849:the discussion 836: 835: 819: 807: 806: 804:Top‑importance 798: 786: 785: 782: 781: 774:Mid-importance 770: 764: 763: 761: 744:the discussion 731: 730: 714: 702: 701: 699:Mid‑importance 693: 681: 680: 677: 676: 669:Mid-importance 665: 659: 658: 656: 629: 617: 616: 614:Mid‑importance 608: 596: 595: 592: 591: 584:Mid-importance 580: 574: 573: 571: 554:the discussion 528: 516: 515: 513:Mid‑importance 507: 495: 494: 488: 477: 463: 462: 448: 440: 428: 427: 397: 389: 377: 376: 344: 332: 331: 310: 298: 297: 264: 261: 259: 247: 246: 237: 235: 234: 231: 230: 192: 191: 129: 128: 124: 123: 118: 113: 104: 103: 101: 100: 93: 88: 79: 73: 71: 70: 59: 50: 49: 46: 45: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3190: 3179: 3176: 3174: 3171: 3169: 3166: 3164: 3161: 3159: 3156: 3154: 3151: 3149: 3146: 3144: 3141: 3139: 3136: 3134: 3131: 3129: 3126: 3124: 3121: 3119: 3116: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3106: 3104: 3101: 3099: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3089: 3086: 3085: 3083: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3033: 3030:parameter to 3021: 3017: 3010: 3009: 3003: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2928: 2924: 2918: 2917: 2901: 2897: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2610: 2603: 2600:The removal: 2593: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2556:71.247.12.176 2552: 2550: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2535:71.247.12.176 2532: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2471: 2467: 2465: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2377: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2349: 2347: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2334: 2333: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2308: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2265: 2264: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2182: 2181: 2177: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161:are based on 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2085: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2038: 2032: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2013:This comment 2012: 2011: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1851: 1847: 1841: 1840: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1560: 1559: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1500:'conclusion'. 1498: 1495: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1415: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1370: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1341: 1336: 1333: 1330: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1166: 1164: 1149: 1145: 1139: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1098: 1092: 1087: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1044: 1040: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001: 996: 993: 989: 988: 984: 978: 975: 972: 968: 956: 939: 938: 933: 929: 926: 922: 921: 917: 912: 907: 904: 901: 897: 884: 880: 874: 871: 870: 867: 850: 846: 842: 841: 833: 822: 820: 817: 813: 812: 808: 802: 799: 796: 792: 779: 775: 769: 766: 765: 762: 745: 741: 737: 736: 728: 722: 717: 715: 712: 708: 707: 703: 697: 694: 691: 687: 674: 670: 664: 661: 660: 657: 640: 636: 635: 630: 627: 623: 622: 618: 612: 609: 606: 602: 589: 585: 579: 576: 575: 572: 555: 551: 547: 546:pseudohistory 543: 542:pseudoscience 539: 535: 534: 529: 526: 522: 521: 517: 511: 508: 505: 501: 496: 492: 486: 478: 474: 469: 468: 460: 456: 452: 446: 445: 441: 438: 434: 433: 425: 424:Legal threats 421: 417: 413: 410:and refer to 409: 401: 394: 390: 387: 383: 382: 375: 373: 369: 365: 361: 356: 354: 350: 345: 342: 338: 337: 329: 325: 321: 317: 316: 311: 304: 303: 295: 292: 291: 284: 281: 280: 275: 274: 268: 260: 257: 253: 252: 233: 232: 227: 223: 215: 211: 207: 203: 200: 198: 194: 193: 188: 184: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134:Find sources: 131: 130: 122: 121:Verifiability 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 98: 94: 92: 89: 87: 83: 80: 78: 75: 74: 68: 64: 63:Learn to edit 60: 57: 52: 51: 48: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 3060: 3039: 3031: 3020:edit request 2970:Newimpartial 2960: 2942: 2920: 2915:isinterested 2907: 2900:deliberately 2899: 2794:Newimpartial 2778:Newimpartial 2770:edit warring 2731:Newimpartial 2703:Newimpartial 2674:Newimpartial 2633:Newimpartial 2597: 2575:The article 2574: 2454:Newimpartial 2401: 2398:displacement 2397: 2319:Antonymich47 2316: 2312: 2237:Newimpartial 2200:Newimpartial 2192:village pump 2170: 2079: 2026: 2017: 1892: 1884: 1843: 1838:isinterested 1830: 1802: 1782: 1757:NotQualified 1741:NotQualified 1727:NotQualified 1675:Newimpartial 1660:NotQualified 1646:Newimpartial 1627:NotQualified 1612:Newimpartial 1603: 1599: 1515:NotQualified 1446:NotQualified 1414:NotQualified 1399:NotQualified 1381:NotQualified 1353:NotQualified 1335: 1324: 1313: 1302: 1291: 1280: 1269: 1258: 1247: 1236: 1225: 1217: 1205:NotQualified 1201:Grant Shapps 1181: 1170: 1163: 1143: 1103: 1038: 998: 943:Demographics 935: 906:Demographics 878: 854:Conservatism 845:conservatism 838: 801:Conservatism 773: 733: 668: 632: 583: 531: 491:WikiProjects 442: 420:WP:WikiVoice 357: 346: 328:edit summary 312: 289: 288: 285: 277: 271: 269: 262: 221: 195: 182: 176: 168: 161: 155: 149: 143: 133: 105: 30:This is the 2961:explanation 2813:Hob Gadling 2402:Replacement 1986:O3000, Ret. 1955:O3000, Ret. 1911:O3000, Ret. 1871:O3000, Ret. 1368:Doug Weller 1193:Ed Miliband 1191:politician 159:free images 42:not a forum 3082:Categories 3024:|answered= 2843:WP:PROVEIT 2180:guidelines 2174:judged by 2083:Acroterion 2068:WP:NOTBURO 2064:WP:SATISFY 2030:Acroterion 2022:WP:SEALION 1531:violation. 1218:References 639:discussion 559:Skepticism 550:skepticism 510:Skepticism 353:designated 3061:Not done: 2759:citations 2615:Regards, 2233:consensus 1536:also said 1199:chairman 1119:Sociology 1110:sociology 1066:Sociology 366:, or any 99:if needed 82:Be polite 32:talk page 2992:contribs 2966:WP:SYNTH 2946:Alexysun 2890:contribs 2865:Alexysun 2847:WP:SYNTH 2665:article. 2648:Alexysun 2617:Alexysun 2229:feelings 2151:this one 1983:teahouse 1798:WP:SYNTH 1717:contribs 1642:WP:SYNTH 1487:WP:SYNTH 1425:WP:NPOVN 937:inactive 911:inactive 749:Politics 740:politics 696:Politics 400:trolling 320:disputed 197:Archives 67:get help 40:This is 38:article. 2911:ctively 2269:Dumuzid 2122:Dumuzid 1834:ctively 1608:WP:NPOV 1510:Theory. 1465:WP:NORN 1421:WP:NORN 1146:on the 1041:on the 881:on the 776:on the 671:on the 586:on the 538:science 481:C-class 412:WP:PSCI 222:90 days 165:WP refs 153:scholar 3065:Meters 2176:policy 2159:WP:RSP 2155:WP:RSN 2089:(talk) 2036:(talk) 2018:needed 1951:WP:RSN 1818:(talk) 1785:buidhe 1189:Labour 1184:Labour 1172:Labour 487:scale. 137:Google 3028:|ans= 3018:This 2761:from 2670:WP:OR 2662:WP:OR 2072:WP:RS 1947:WP:RS 1492:: --> 1481:: --> 180:JSTOR 141:books 95:Seek 3069:talk 3046:talk 2988:talk 2974:talk 2950:talk 2886:talk 2869:talk 2855:talk 2817:talk 2803:talk 2782:talk 2749:talk 2735:talk 2721:talk 2707:talk 2692:talk 2678:talk 2652:talk 2637:talk 2621:talk 2585:talk 2560:talk 2539:talk 2521:talk 2494:talk 2488:No. 2479:talk 2458:talk 2448:Re: 2440:talk 2425:talk 2411:talk 2388:talk 2367:talk 2323:talk 2273:talk 2257:talk 2241:talk 2219:talk 2204:talk 2196:WP:V 2178:and 2157:and 2141:talk 2126:talk 2107:talk 2076:WP:V 2074:and 2054:talk 2005:talk 1990:talk 1973:talk 1959:talk 1944:WP:V 1934:talk 1915:talk 1900:talk 1875:talk 1761:talk 1745:talk 1731:talk 1713:talk 1679:talk 1664:talk 1650:talk 1631:talk 1616:talk 1519:talk 1473:talk 1450:talk 1433:talk 1403:talk 1385:talk 1372:talk 1357:talk 1209:talk 1197:Tory 548:and 347:The 276:and 173:FENS 147:news 84:and 3026:or 2925:» ° 2905:LCU 2607:Is 2171:not 1848:» ° 1828:LCU 1813:Fir 1810:een 1807:rgr 1804:Eve 1604:are 1600:can 1467:.) 1423:or 1138:Mid 1033:Mid 873:Top 768:Mid 663:Mid 578:Mid 187:TWL 3084:: 3071:) 3048:) 3032:no 2994:) 2990:/ 2976:) 2952:) 2927:∆t 2892:) 2888:/ 2871:) 2857:) 2849:. 2819:) 2805:) 2784:) 2751:) 2737:) 2723:) 2709:) 2694:) 2680:) 2654:) 2639:) 2623:) 2587:) 2562:) 2541:) 2523:) 2496:) 2481:) 2460:) 2442:) 2427:) 2413:) 2390:) 2369:) 2325:) 2275:) 2263:) 2259:) 2243:) 2221:) 2206:) 2143:) 2128:) 2109:) 2056:) 2007:) 1992:) 1975:) 1961:) 1953:. 1936:) 1917:) 1902:) 1877:) 1850:∆t 1781:) 1777:· 1763:) 1747:) 1733:) 1719:) 1715:/ 1681:) 1666:) 1652:) 1633:) 1618:) 1610:. 1521:) 1475:) 1452:) 1435:) 1427:. 1405:) 1387:) 1359:) 1211:) 544:, 540:, 418:, 414:, 220:: 212:, 208:, 204:, 167:) 65:; 3067:( 3044:( 2986:( 2972:( 2948:( 2929:° 2923:@ 2921:« 2913:D 2909:A 2884:( 2867:( 2853:( 2815:( 2801:( 2792:@ 2780:( 2765:. 2747:( 2733:( 2719:( 2705:( 2690:( 2676:( 2650:( 2635:( 2619:( 2583:( 2558:( 2537:( 2519:( 2492:( 2477:( 2456:( 2438:( 2423:( 2409:( 2386:( 2365:( 2321:( 2271:( 2255:( 2239:( 2217:( 2202:( 2139:( 2124:( 2105:( 2052:( 2003:( 1988:( 1971:( 1957:( 1932:( 1913:( 1898:( 1873:( 1852:° 1846:@ 1844:« 1836:D 1832:A 1779:c 1775:t 1759:( 1743:( 1729:( 1711:( 1677:( 1662:( 1648:( 1629:( 1614:( 1517:( 1471:( 1448:( 1431:( 1416:: 1412:@ 1401:( 1383:( 1355:( 1207:( 1150:. 1045:. 940:. 913:) 909:( 885:. 780:. 675:. 641:. 590:. 493:: 461:. 447:. 396:! 330:. 214:4 210:3 206:2 202:1 199:: 183:· 177:· 169:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 144:· 139:( 69:. 20:)

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

Index