User talk:Di4gram

Edit warring / content at odds with sources

Please don't engage in edit-warring, especially edit-warring that is borderline WP:PROFRINGE and at odds with cited sources, as you did in the following diffs at Rothschild family:

If you want to improve wording, or you have other reliable sources to offer, you're welcome to come forward with it.

But many, many editors will take a very dim view of edit-warring in a bid to downplay the anti-Semitic nature of conspiracy theories relating to the Rothschild family. The anti-Semitic nature of these conspiracy theories is very well-attested in the literature. Saying that "I will wait until the 24-hour mark to re-instate my change," as you did in the talk page, is also likely to be seen as gamesmanship to circumvent 3RR.

Thanks, Neutrality^talk 04:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Unless you have a hidden policy or guideline that makes WP:TERRORIST irrelevant on the page in question, it will again be reverted. I suggest you take any further objections to a neutral third party, as you (the third of three accounts) are violating the edit warring policy. Apart from that, I do not care what you or anyone else thinks is "downplaying" antisemitism or the fact that you are an admin yourself- the fact of the matter is that taking an authoritative tone on a non-factual argument in an encyclopedia is inappropriate. There are several paragraphs of discussion that you are more than welcome to take part in. Edits that restore bad content will be reverted, it is not edit warring, and the 24 hours was very clearly given in the spirit of WP:3RR. I suggest you read the talk page, refresh yourself on the relevant policies, and stop accusing random users of bad faith "edit warring" when it's clear that you have not even read the relevant discussion and are, again, the third (or fourth) unique account to come out of nowhere to protest a minor change to the article that improves the quality of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Again, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but this is a clear issue of WP:LABEL and I am not satisfied that proper WP protocol is being used here- and that I am the only person actually providing justification for my edits. I didn't even care that much, but now it's becoming clear that there is a concerted effort to keep unencyclopedic content and that grinds my gears. As far as I am aware, there is not some prescribed level of antisemitic content for articles and even if there were, WP:NPOV and WP:LABEL would still take precedent. Accusing me of downplaying antisemitism for following WP protocol is a violation of WP:AGF and I would expect more from an admin. Di4gram (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh .... I haven't edited the page (until just now), so I'm not sure where this "you ... are violating the edit warring" policy comes from. I'm warning you that you need to quit edit warring to establish a version that appears to diverge from what the sources say. :: By the way, when three or four users disagree with you, that's a strong sign that you need to stop and reconsider what you're going. Neutrality^talk 01:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or do you not understand WP:LABEL? I am not removing facts nor am I adding any, so WP:PROFRINGE does not apply. Why are you having such a hard time with this? And why are you ignoring the policy discussion and appealing to popularity? "Many", "mostly", etc are weasel words and don't belong in Wikipedia articles. There is a discussion on the talk page- why didn't you post there to help achieve consensus before editing the article? Why are you siding with people who are reverting without attempting to reach consensus, and why are you targeting me when I am the one who has put the effort in to have a discussion about it? Your behavior does not make sense. The situation smacks of people trying to keep a POV in the article without having a public discussion about it, and now a random admin shows up to similarly ignore the discussion? Why? What the heck does "downplaying antisemitism" have to do with anything? Di4gram (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

(1) I have posted on the talk page, just now, and extensively. I've added an modified text (to drop a phrase that you objected to), added an additional cite, and cleaned up existing cites. Maybe these changes will make this dispute go away.

(2) Others will perceive you to have "removed facts" — you removed the statement that many Rothschild conspiracies are antisemitic and replaced that with "which some authors alledge [sic] are antisemitic." That is watering down the sources, including multiple academic sources, which plainly state that Rothschild conspiracy theories are deeply connected to antisemitism. WP:NPOV states: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." The fact that Rothschild conspiracy theories arise from antisemitism is not controversial among the community of scholars – and that's shown by the citations provided from university presses and other well-regarded publishing houses which direclty state this.

(2a) By the way, WP:LABEL is a guideline, and one that carefully states that "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia .. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." NPOV, V, and WP:RS are core policies, and WP:FRINGE is a guideline as well. All these sources state that we must follow the sources. We don't omit or water down what the sources collectively teach us.

(3) I think you are mistaken on whom the burden to "achieve consensus" belongs to. Here, we have text that (1) is directly supported by the cited source; (2) has been in the article for a long time (stable version); (3) is almost certainly necessary to comply with WP:FRINGE. You want to change this status quo, but three separate editors — myself, Kicker Aha, & DuncanHill — disagree. Under these circumstances, it falls to you to gain consensus. Neutrality^talk 02:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]