In a message dated 3/29/2008 4:01:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bobolozo(a)yahoo.com writes: I've actually been using it as explained in WP:V, not WP:RS, as WP:V is policy and RS is not. Note that the subject of this thread mentions WP:V)>> ------------- That's an interesting take on things. I think you may find that, may I be bold to state, that every major contributor to V acknowledges that RS is the place to go to ask about Reliable Sources. Not V. We have RSN to handle exactly the question of whether a source is a reliable source or not. The V talk page editors in fact, redirect these sort of questions to RSN. If you are trying to imply that RS should be sort-of overlooked in favor of V I think you'll find the consensus is that it should not. As to your extreme position that "totally unreliable sources" should be glossed, I doubt anyone here would agree that anyone here is supporting that position. By holding an extreme view, you discredit the people who would much rather see these issues go to RSN for community discussion on *specific sources*. What I think we do not want, is tendentious mass-deletions of sources, which the editors in those articles have accepted, by a person who has not actually investigated the source, but is only characterizing it by its *type* instead of its veracity. Wikipedia is nothing if not grey. Which is why, on RSN, we generally divert hypothetical discussion into specific discussions. Hypothetical discussion of types of sources ends up too many times generating situations that we'd wish to avoid. Will Johnson **************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aol…)