citations and external link i checked all the links and they work which is good conversely the 'chronicles' definitely should not be listed as an external link there are many other relevant links regarding the round table a forum posting should not be used as something reliable also we should continue to discuss the state of the 'contributing attendees ' i checked some of the names and they had third party sources should they be added again since all wikipedia needs is third party sources thanks for the check i disagree about deleting the chronicle website link the the article establishes that that discussion is notable yes it is anonymous but it is a discussion board for active academics a truck driver would not be able to construct a useful post for that thread and anonymity has virtues as well as vices anonymity makes it possible to say what you really think without fear of reprisal though at the risk that people will spread misinformation without fear of getting caught many of the posters in that chronicle thread have track records in other threads that make what they say more reliable than it would otherwise bekind of like wikipedia as for the contributing attendees i am skeptical that we can create something that isn't listcruft but it would be a lot easier to evaluate if you proposed a specific edit with genuine third party sources the che is not being used as a source external links are different from sources well my problem with the chronicle for higher learning is that it seems to be very odd to me for some reason i just have read the 'external link' requirement page and the chronicle for higher learning breaks several of the rules please read wp el under 'link to be avoided' and the chronicle forum discussion blog breaks all of a good amount of rules i was drawn to the external links because when i was attempting to fine info regarding the table many other links that could not be cited in the article because of wiki guidelines seem like they are much more revelant than the chronicle blog for external links i propose adding another link and removing the chronicle link because it does not adhere to wiki guidelines academic your statement regarding who posts to the board can neither be confirmed or denyed because the postings are anonymous and nothing can be proven it could be truck drivers with no idea about what they are talking about or otherwise that is why wiki discourages forums as reliable external links more discussion needed but i am going to suggest the chronicle be removed it is already referred to under the the explanation and does not need to be listed as an 'external link ' i read wp el and i don't see that it breaks any rules what rules are you claiming it breaks you really need a stronger argument than it seems to be very odd to me for some reason the december the story has already validated the chronicle link it's a bit rich to start invoking rules here when you have conspicuously failed to do so in response to repeated requests above in any event as you yourself have pointed out here there is a distinction to make between policies and guidelines i disagree that the times article justifies the link to a blog it can be argued that it justifies a link to the 'chronicles for higher education website but not to a blog that god knows who started academic you claim that my only argument is it seems odd however this is not true if you read carefully the wp el under the section links to be avoided you would have your answer as to why the link to the 'chronicle' blog is not up to the guidelines at all nomoskedasticity i am not attempting to use rules only when it seems fit you and academic are asking me to point out regulations in the posts above and yet now you are stating that even though the chronicle blog link breaks wiki guidelines i should be okay with it because i was having a discussion about other rules above no that will not work for this page i will discuss things with the other editors on this page but i will not be bullied into not asking