Talk:Clearing House (EU)

This article looks like bullshit... at least another source would be good. --Sterio 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a similar source without need for sub. Thing is about obscure groups with names similar to 100 other orgs is that it is very hard to google. Oh and would you kindly not use language such as "bullshit". -  J Logan t: 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion. Of the three sources used as references, one is now inactive, and the other two are articles that sound very much like conspiracy theory and which actually refer to each other. GetMKWearMKFly (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theory? They're normal news articles and it is hardly something dramatic or shocking that it must be untrue. And they don't "refer to each other", they just contain similar material as one is more reliable news agency but when the article was put up it was locked so the other one was there for people to read.- J.Logan`t : 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The ARMA Int. article repeatedly cites the EUobserver article as a source, and the EUISS paper is a dead link. There is little to no evidence that the group actually exists, as there are no references to it that I can find beyond those two articles, which themselves provide little substantive evidence. GetMKWearMKFly (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already stated, ARMA is there because EU observer was subscriber only before. What grounds do you doubt the EU Observer article? It is hard to find this through a normal google because a) its small b) its secretive c) it has a very very common name and d) it isn't used by that name in most places.- J.Logan`t : 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If the group isn't referred to by that name, then perhaps this article is named incorrectly. In any event, lacking any actual evidence beyond a single poorly-sourced news article, I don't see how this article can be developed any further. Considering the lack of information available on this group, it's perfectly possible that the author just overheard someone referring in passing to "a clearing house for the terrorist blacklist".GetMKWearMKFly (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now who's guessing, how can you even judge if it is poorly sourced when you don't know the sources? And you never do with news articles. You've been making your own assumptions about this from the start, many articles don't even have one source supporting them but no one disputes them like this - fact is it is 1-0 so far and even if there is a problem with the name, its something which is more than nothing - something else might come to light and then it can be worked on - can't you leave it be?- J.Logan`t : 08:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clearing House (EU). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023400/http://www.arma.org/news/policybrief/index.cfm?BriefID=1938 to http://www.arma.org/news/policybrief/index.cfm?BriefID=1938

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)