User talk:UlrichVonWilamowitzMoellendorff

Pronunciations
Hi there! I see you've been doing quite a lot of "removing erroneous pronunciation suggestion", as you call it. You know, there are conventional English pronunciations for non-English proper nouns. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm Sir Joseph. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Neturei Karta without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do let me know how exactly my explanation was inadequate. I would be glad to provide further explanation. The article relies heavily on a page written against its subject by an organisation with an opposing viewpoint (the ADL supports Zionist positions, and Neturei Karta is an anti-Zionist group). The particular claim which I sought to remove was the merely the most aggressive of the claims from the organisation (the ADL) against the subject of the page (NK). The source seems to me quite clearly unreliable on this topic, and the claims of support for "extremist" positions are vague, subjective and not easily verifiable. There is also the distinct issue that the link is dead (it produces a 404 error). UlrichVonWilamowitzMoellendorff (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't remove a source or sentence because you don't like it. The ADL is a reliable source. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything "because [I] don't like it". The issue is only that it (the ADL) happens to hold an ideological position (on which I made no judgment) opposed to that of the article's subject (NK). I have tried to explain why the ADL seems to me unreliable and unsuitable in this instance, in the same way that relying on a an article by a Jesuitical organisation with a strongly anti-Protestant viewpoint in an article about a Protestant group would be. Beyond these problems with the source in this context, there is the important fact that virtually no reference could support the vague, unspecified, deeply subjective claim regarding "extremist" positions. The claim is not verifiable in its current form. I attempted to explain why I removed the sentence in the previous post. You responded by simply stating that the source is reliable, without argument, and by attributing a motive to me which I do not hold. Please explain why you think that an organisation (the ADL) which is ideologically opposed to another group (NK) on a central issue of the latter's existence should be relied on as a source in an encyclopedia entry for the aforementioned group. It seems to me quite clear that it should not be, and that the claim must at the very least be modified significantly to reflect the nature of its source. UlrichVonWilamowitzMoellendorff (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)