Do you think this thread will also make it hard for those 'unreliable sources' to quote sinodefence for their material/use in the future?
I do not think so, but it could.
They will have on of three responses:
1) Try and improve their behavior so that they are not listed here. (Most desirable outcome).
2) Get upset and stop using SD themselves.
3) Not change at all and just ignore it. (Most likely outcome.)
Now...let me say something about the thread itself.
Tphuang has tried on four or more occasions to give advise/council or direction on the thread as to what it is to be about and some of the limits and guidelines.
Tphuang is a Super Moderator on SD who has been here and moderating, pretty much since the beginning of SD. SHOW HIM THE RESPECT he deserves. It may not be his way to "put it in blue," very quickly. He prefers for people to simply listen to good council and follow suite. Sometimes people believe because it is not in "blue," that they can discount it.
So, (and pardon me for jumping in Tphuang, but seeing you not only ignored but contended with 3-4 times has pushed my own buttons), let me make it easier:
STOP contending with and ignoring what are Tphuang's clear directions regarding the thread.
STOPGeneralizing people as being less reliable (even as a rile of thumb) simply because they do not have a particularly degree or educational background.
This thread is not about that...as Tphuang has said numerous times now.
It is about unreliable sources. List unreliable sources and give specific reasons why, which relate to the analysis, the information, specifications, information that they (or their site) has given which are demonstrably unreliable. DO NOT simply decide or insinuate here on SD that someone is unreliable because of their educational background.
doing so is similar to discounting someone because of their race, or culture, or the way they part their hair, etc. and violates SD rules and it also violated the entire spirit of what SD tries to set forth.
Anyone who has studied military issues, technologies, policies, doctrine, history...and who shows by their writings and information that they have done that well, and are fair minded and accurate in their information and assessments, and who does not attack others or beat a political or ideological drum, is welcome here and can be used as a source on SD, regardless of their background in college or elsewhere.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.