![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)