How many of you double-check "references"?

A recent question about a "Christian Checklist" was answered by a thorough barrage of statistics about the horrors of homosexuality--everything from the lie that AIDS is primarily a homosexual disease to gays being carriers of flukes. Or was it tapeworms? It was chosen "best answer" with a "thanks for the references" comment.

But I teach English (and research papers) and the citations looked suspicious. One, for example, was from a "Medical Journal of Homosexuality," which just sounded... odd. So I checked. No such animal! The Library of Congress never heard of it. So... when you see a thorough "works cited" list of something, how often do YOU check to see if it's BS or not?

FYI, here's a full article showing the misrepresentations from the list in question:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/...

I think this is the link for the original question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

I have learned, through experience, to be very skeptical of certain sources, and I always check references for those.

But if it's an issue I care very much about, I'll check references no matter the source.

Also, I urge people to go to the *appropriate* source for information, like going to the Department of Education for any CORRECT information about religious expression in American public schools. Not that it makes one darn bit of difference to people who want to believe that they are being persecuted. I doubt that they ever check to find out the truth.

Which simply proves that they'd rather feel self-righteous and "persecuted" than know the truth or ever graduate to questioning why their religious leaders tell them lies about the subject.

I do. even when people say bible interpretation I check it from other parts of the bible.

Well, there will be those doing extremes to show their point but thanks to you who wouldnt easily believe.

Could you give us the link of that with the best answer? thanks.

If you stay current regarding questions of science you can usually spot the bogus references. Usually if their claims were true they would be in the running for the Nobel prize, unsurprisingly there is usually no news of their having been nominated.

I really just assume that any reference that isn't from a known source (Examples BBC, Drudge, National Geographic, etc.) to be very suspect right out of the gate. People who are trying to "scientifically" make cases love to use websites that are just crap. Anyone can put up a website. I have three. So they really are not a decent source even if they are real.

I do check them out when the person makes a good point, and they look OK, but I may re-look up stats to see if they are right.

Usually I make an attempt to do so.
This Nancy Brown seems a bit much doesn't she.

edit after seeing referenced question.
Oh, a Freep, they are always making stuff up. They seem to feel totally justified in saying anything they please to hurt others.

I tend to use multiple references and rarely used obviously slanted ones, unless I'm making a point.

For example, recently someone tried to convince everyone Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and they obviously got their quotes from a fundamentalsit site, so I got some from an Atheist site.

That balances the equation.

I check them over... if it's something I'm interested in or the person is obviously doing it just to be nasty about it. Seems these "good" people have a knack for lying about other groups simply because they don't like them. Which is, in my opinion, pathetic.

Thanks for the article. :)

Yes, I ask for and check references both on-line and off. I want to know what people base their opinions on and why. I look for unbiased sources and usually ignore sources that I know are obviously biased or unreliable. Critical reading/thinking is something that my parents taught me at a very young age.