stevertigo wrote:
Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Using a _reliable source_ means that we depend on
the source to be reliable;
the qualitative analysis is on whether or not the source can be reliable.
Using a _source reliably_ means that it doesn't matter the quality of the
source, as long as we use it in a consistent ("reliable") manner; the
qualitative analysis has nothing to do with the source itself, but in the
way that it is used on Wikipedia.
The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate
characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources
"reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted,
inaccurately cited).
IIRC there was an 18th century edition in which the word "not" was
omitted from "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
The source I cited was already in the article in first
position, use
specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives
a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states
this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to
stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence
my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source
in a "reliable" way.
A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable"
source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context
(subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively)
"reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit
the
context.
The distinction between using "reliable sources" and "using
source
reliably" is not likely to be productive. Having reliable sources is a
fine ideal, but the problem is that the word "reliable" is inherently
just as subjective as the word "notable".
Definition of the article's major thesis should be such as to find
common ground for discussion; it should not be about demanding one or
the other of competing definitions. In the current dispute we have had
one side insisting on a definition that flies in the face of plain
language, and using sources to perpetuate that fiction. Magically they
have taken the position that "Holocaust" should change its meaning in
the expression "Holocaust denial".
Ec