SD Reliable & Not-so Reliable Sources Thread (Mods only)


Status
Not open for further replies.

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think what by78 meant to say (although I wish he didn't put it so bluntly) was that people with Engineering/hard science backgrounds tend to have a better understanding of technical aspects of military hardware. You can't really substitute years of hardcore math/science education involving proofs, projects, and experiments with a crash course on popular science. It is easier for someone with an engineering background to spot obvious scientific B.S. than it is for a liberal arts major.

We have a lot of people who don't have engineering/hard science on this forum who are very well versed in what they are talking about. This kind of generalization can be offensive to them. I don't understand why we are wasting time generalizing people when this thread was about just listing the sources you think is reliable and not.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I have not run into any instance here of people who have no STEM background discussing the complex chemistry of stealth coatings, as David Axe had done.

As my previous (now deleted) comment states: "science is a not a democracy; it's a meritocracy." The same applies to knowledge in general, not just of physical sciences. Just as one should never seek medical care from those without any training, one should ignore the opinions of those who are grossly unqualified on the subject matter at hand.

I think you have gone too far in 'interpreting' my comments, which have been inexplicably deleted. I don't know how you could have equated my distain for David Axe with an attack on my fellow users at sinodefenceforum.

Please at least restore my previous comments so they are on record for all to read and decide.

I will keep this posts. And it shocks me I even have to moderate this thread that was just about listing good/bad sources.

This thread is about identifying reliable sources and unreliable ones. You have turned it into a thread about people with no STEM background. That alone is off topic and deserves to be deleted. Now you have continued to insist on your right to eliminate sources based on the authors major rather than their work. That only serves to show arrogance of people with STEM background (which btw include me) toward art majors. You could have said you don't think David Axe understands certain issues based on the contents of work, but you chose to say
"As a rule of thumb, people who have liberal arts degrees (esp. English Literature or Political Science majors) are usually the most voluble when in fact they are the least knowledgable:"

And then you complain that I'm being politically correct in my instruction to you to get back on the topic of judging sources based on the content rather than the major of people who wrote them.

So, even after I told you to just concentrate on the source rather than the major, you still continued to post more on that. Based on your insistence of going off topic and refusing to follow direction of moderator, I have no choice but to moderate your last 2 posts. I will have to issue formal warning if you continue to insist in this direction.
 

Brumby

Major
let's not generalize authors here. Or make it about that. Just list which source you think is reliable and which one is not.

I suggest if you want to direct the input and content it is best to outline the outcome you want to achieve from this thread. For example, by listing the categories you want and providing an initial list of sources in each category. You then just need to focus on comments, additions, and changes to that list. Currently it is too loose and you end up with unrelated input that doesn't help in filling your contents.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Do you think this thread will also make it hard for those 'unreliable sources' to quote sinodefence for their material/use in the future? :p


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.
 
Last edited:

flyzies

Junior Member
The U.S. Naval War College publishes some really informative stuff on not only the PLAN, but also on China Coast Guard, as well as China's strategic direction. All of that is (obviously) from the American point of view.

To add to the unreliable source list; anything from Gordan Chang or Meixin Pei on anything remotely related to China is completely unreliable. I don't think I need to state why....most members here would know exactly why
 

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
not everything Pinkov posts is bad. He goes to exhibitions, takes photographs and reports on the specs that are shown there. That should be accurate. And he also interviews with Russians and other countries' military and they will sometimes tell him the military deals they have with China. Those should be fine too. It's when he starts to do his own analysis, he becomes really amateurish.

Anything Chinese with titles like "russian source" or "Western source" said blah blah blah or made big revelation, you know it's pure nonsense.

We have one like Pinkov, he is called Prasun Sen Gupta.
 

Jeff Head

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
[Okay, I am going to close this thread so that only Moderators and Super Moderators can post here.

Too much pure, individual opinion, and even ideological slant entering in.

If members who attain the level of Moderator and Super Moderator, with their expertise, experience on SD, and background, want to make pronouncements based on those things about a site or individual's credibility...purely from an SD opinion standpoint, fine.

Those posts can be entered by the Moderators and Super Moderators in the future.

I am going to go back through and delete purely individual opinions, or any post based on ideology, bias, or slant of that type of nature.

THREAD NOW FOR SD MODERATOR INPUT ONLY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top