hey i only put wikipedia there because it explains simple things like the UN, Bilderberg etc.. there are plenty of sources on the wikipedia pages if you dont believe they exist, or would like to learn more about them... Nothing I posted was of any complex nature, so they should all link directly back to sites like UN.ORG, Bilderberg for example has 28 references in the bottom of the wikipedia page. If wikipedia is not a good source, what is? I know its easily manipulated, so I will ask what you would prefer? Since sources can be obtained nearly anywhere and all can be discounted... if its mainstream media "thats fox, not to be trusted" or if its an independent site "thats conspiracy". So really the argument of what sources is one that cannot be won unless you give me the criteria What are you looking for? I would suggest looking at the bottom of the wikipedia pages for sources first, direct websites, book references, news columns etc. or if those are not sufficient and you want to know more about a specific topic, let me know, and your preferred source and Ill see what I can do.
It's fine with me that you put the wikipedia info up, it does explain. I honestly don't know which source would be true. It seems to me that most of the information is based on opinions sometimes and not facts. Which is kind of why I wanted to know if you had any other sources yourself just because I'm curiously interested now in what you posted. I don't really have a preferred news source because really, I don't think any of them base their reports on facts alone, it seems to be more like a lot of opinions and a few facts thrown in to call it "news".