From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
>*All* secondary sources must be handled with
caution.
Handled with caution is fine, specific ones
singled out for special
treatment is not.
Bjorn's handling of it may have been clumsy (and that username raises an
eyebrow), but I think the essential point he was trying to make still
stands.
(Also, you both seem to be assuming less than complete good faith on the
part of the other.
Bjorn created his Userid for a particular kind of advocacy, and has used it
for nothing else. In the case of this article, he has produced a large
number of extremely high estimates of dubious provenance from many
pro-Palestinian sites, without questioning them at all. In others he has
considered blogs, Letters to the Editor of the Guardian newspaper, even
Holocaust Denial sites as valid references, but somehow thought this
particular reference (which happened to be lower than he liked, and from a
source he didn't like) needed an overwhelming amount of scrutiny. I think
lack of good faith is entirely warranted in this case.
I really don't see that as eing the case for either
of
you. I see no reason this can't be worked out in a mutually satisfactory
manner now and for the future.)
I can work in a satifactory way with anyone who follows Wikipedia policy.
I see no reason why each of the thousands of secondary
references shouldn't
have attention paid to them in principle. We have a reference checking
project, after all.
A great idea, in principle.
Jay.