[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[Ray Saintonge]

stevertigo wrote:
> Risker <risker.wp at 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