From: David Gerard fun@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.