I spent time arguing about this back in July. Unfortunately, I don't have time to be on Wikipedia all the time anymore, to keep close watch on policy and guideline pages. But, my view on this matter has not changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_15 The concept of "reliable sources" is an important one, and one more simply understood (readability) by the newbie than verifiability. If I revert someone's edits, because they use some unreliable website (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theory site), it's simple and clear enough to tell them that it's not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], pointing them to that page. I have spent way much more time than I wish, helping maintain pages about the 9/11 attacks, dealing with people that keep inserting unsourced or non-reliably sourced material. It's also an issue on other topics (e.g. medical/health topics) where rigorously reviewed sources (e.g. peer reviewed journal articles) should usually take priority over other sources. You just look at the name of the page or guideline "reliable sources" and a newbie has a pretty good idea what it is about. You tell them "verifiability" and it is not obviously clear from that word, what we mean. The word "reliable" is of utmost importance. Having a page with that word ("reliable) in the title gives this expectation extra emphasis. The guideline page can reiterate what is said on WP:V, could elaborate about reliable sources, and simply tell people that "reliable" sources is important on Wikipedia. Please do not take this page away and redirect it. Please do not make it all the more difficult for me (and others) to edit, write, and maintain articles on Wikipedia. Regards -Aude On Nov 18, 2007 12:47 PM, jossi fresco <jossif(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Aude