[WikiEN-l] Invitation for review

[stevertigo]

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> The distinction between using "reliable sources" and "using source
> reliably" is not likely to be productive.

If a fundamental editorial foundation is flawed because of
subjectivity is in the mix, that means we need to reformulate the
mixture. The Titanic came apart not just because of bad driving, but
because of flaws in the basic composition of its components.

> Having reliable sources is a fine ideal, but the problem is that the word
> "reliable" is inherently just as subjective as the word "notable".
Well, yeah and you and I have probably been saying that for years.

BTW, my new "Awesome sources" replacement proposal is no more
subjective than RS but has even higher goals.  ;-)

In any case, in the discussion, the issue of RS was a total red
herring, and anyone who reads the discussion can see it. (That's why
at my own honorary ANI subpage, Rube and others are looking at my
"pattern of disruptive editing" - which apparently means "edits" to
talk pages, and digging up diffs from 2003).

> 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".

This is vague writing of the best kind - it requires people to
actually parse it in order to grep your meaning. Unfortunately the
typical 6-ply parsing will output the opposite result than a 7-ply
parsing. ;-)

-Stevertigo