User talk:Nblund/Archives/2019/September

response to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalergi_plan&action=history

curprev 13:47, 2 September 2019‎ Nblund talk contribs‎ 8,305 bytes -1,462‎ Reverted to revision 913587766 by DumbBOT: Rv - this appears to be combining two different passages separated by more than 20 pages in order to imply some connection - we should use secondary sources rather than spreading conspiracies theories ourselves (TW) undo Tags: Undo PHP7,

I could not agree more regarding spread of conspiracy theory, and that is not what i meant or tried. The point is to show the main source where it all started, from Mr. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, and to explain at the same time what he actually meant. It's like the stab in the back legend, we do have source from where it started during the end of WW1 with many german generals like general Ludendorff, I don's see a difference even here, and regarding source, Praktischer Idealismus was published by Kalergi in 1925. What he meant was to strenghten Europe against the Soviet Union, or Russia as he called it that time. Remember that Europe was much devestated and divided after the Imperialism and the Forst World War, and he presented an alternative, an United States of Europe, a Federation between the former State-Nations, and then it was necessarly he said to "mix" more. It was to him an action that was natural, and he examines the old Germanic knighthood culture, what he calls the "Siegfried-hero" worshippers disguised in Christianity. And when he argues for a aristocracy elite on this Federation, remember that the Upper class was still a dominant if not the dominant factor in almost every leadership, and jews played a important role. He was married to one, and learned a lot about judaism and christianity. And he concludes with that judaism can fit every where, mulitcultural if you like. Regarding aristocracy he had much influence from the United States, where the upper class traditionally ruled through the Senate, beacuse they were seen as more responsible to have the last say in say, a bill, that was passed through the H of R. So my point is to show a source from where this "conspiracy" comes from and it will enlighten more people to in my view argue with source based evidence, and to do that, firstly to show the source, and secondly, when not, then more the conspiracy, if you'd like, spreading. It is like the Holocaust-deniers, the most of I have talked to, has not even head much about the evidence, the rest of us has or even seen, say like a concentration camp, heard historians and with source, secondary source, off course. Therefore I think it is so important, especially today to show sources in every article, and Wikipedia is amazing place to start. But unfortunately I have only found the german source. It is indeed important to administrating the editing, but to delete it, in my view is to add fuel to the fire.--92.220.21.38 (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this would be the article talk page. I removed the quote because it seemed like WP:SYNTH. It took two unrelated passages and combined them in a way that implied Kalergi was connecting Jewish people to his beliefs about a more racially mixed Europe. That isn't just informing people of the conspiracy theory, it seems to be actively trying to advance it.Nblund ^talk 13:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The point is that from these two unrelated passages that was combined and linked to the jews, the conspiracy theory started.--92.220.21.38 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Again: the best place to have this conversation is on that article talk page where other editors could weigh in. I recognize that advocates of the conspiracy theory combine these two passages, but it isn't informative for readers to simply transcribe their misleading interpretation on to Wikipedia without any additional commentary. If reliable secondary sources discuss this as an important passage for the formation of the conspiracy theory, then we can cite those and then discuss it with the appropriate context. But we shouldn't be spreading misinformation. Nblund ^talk 14:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert on TERF

Could you comment on my contribution to TERF. Your edit summary when you reverted my earlier edit gave me the impression the sentence needed work. If you think my edit was non-constructive, please let me know here or on my talk page and I will consider self-reverting. Lmatt (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: Yes, it gives a misleading impression about who "coined" the term and when. Please follow WP:BRD - you made a change, you were reverted, and now you need to take the initiative to explain your changes on the talk page and gain consensus before restoring. Nblund ^talk 22:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I don't agree that the wording gives a misleading impression, given the citation I'm credited with having coined the word 'Terf'. Here's how it happened Nevertheless, if you believe my edit was unconstructive please place Template:Uw-disruptive1 on my talk page and then I will self-revert. Lmatt (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: Why would I need to use a template here? I'm asking you directly to self-revert and start a discussion on the article talk page - a template really shouldn't be necessary. The article doesn't say that Smythe was crediting with coining the term in her blog post, and Smythe actually doubts she even coined the term. We can discuss further on the article talk page. Nblund ^talk 00:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I will revert as soon as you post a comment on my talk page with the diff and a note that you believe the edit was unconstructive. Lmatt (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Evergreen Page

Do you have a place on Wikipedia where it states that Youtube can never be a reliable source? In this instance the Youtube video shows, in part, a presentation by the President of TESC, showing a graphic, that shows a real plunge in enrollment. Seems pretty reliable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesint (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tesint: Youtube videos are generally unreliable. You should discuss this at the article talk page instead of edit warring. Nblund ^talk 20:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)