This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to
Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please
join the project where you can contribute to the
discussions and help with our
open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
@
Beyond My Ken: Per
WP:BADREVERT and
WP:ES, you must have a reason to revert multiple constructive edits to Wiki. I don't need anyone's permission or approval to improve articles here. You are exhibiting
WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR by disruptively reverting improvements without a valid reason to justify them. Your
revert neither stated the reason nor rationale for removing large, constructive edits. Nothing in my changes needed consensus, and if you have problems with any changes, quote the exact
WP:DIFF and the problem HERE. I am a regular editor of this article with a history of constructive discussion about this topic with other editors, so please do not edit war per
WP:3RR rule. --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 06:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, that is not the case. You have made significant changes to the
WP:STATUSQUO of the article, and I have disputed that change, for the simple reason that I don't believe they necessarily improve the article, and I also don't believe that they will get
WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. That is more than enough reason to revert, and by
WP:BRD, since your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to
edit warring, a
disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching
consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why
communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached.This is the Wikipedia way.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 06:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
As for OWNBEHAVIOR, it is you who are exhibiting it: "I am a regular editor of this article". Indeed you are, with
edits beginning in July 2021, and that appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time, which is not the case. Having written
81% of the article, you're certainly entitled to feel STEWARDSHIP in regard to it, but you cannot stop other editors from being involved and expressing their views about the article.Please make your arguments regarding why you feel your changes are justified, so that a consensus discussion can take place.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
What exactly is the problem? Quote me the exact
WP:DIFF and your problem. You are still not stating the issue here. As I already said, I regularly edit this article and edit the topics whenever I find time and need. You have to have a reason to revert edits; failing to do so is a violation of
WP:BITE and
WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 06:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I never said IDONTLIKEIT, I said that they do not improve the article. Please make your arguments.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 07:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles evolve over time; they change their size and shape.appears to have given you the impression that you can make any changes you want to at any time - You cannot prejudicially revert my edits just because I happen to edit this article regularly. There is no such policy. If you have read
WP:WIP you would have realized that articles evolve over time. And some editors dedicate time and energy to some articles over others.Everything I added is sourced from academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations. If you have a problem with the edits, state your problem.And why exactly do you think those aren't improvements? --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Also,
WP:BRD-NOT says BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, which is clearly what your doing here. It is your own opinion that the material is not an improvement. It does not apply to good-faith efforts to improve articles.So BRD does not bind here. --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 07:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" says discuss first or no consensus is not valid reason to revert good-faith edits. I think mass-reverting with such a reason really discourteous good faith editors and I'm pretty sure this is not the goal of this Project. I will be opening a new topic for explaining changes my edits below. --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Consensus to restore revision 1152101176
On a series of diffs, I made the following changes to this article page:
diff 1 - The paragraph interprets and analyzes a 1920
WP:PRIMARY source, so following advice
WP:RESPTAG and policy
WP:OLDSOURCES, I added {{Primary source inline}} tag because such an analysis does not abide by
WP:OR guideline. A tag was placed because the removal was contested
here by
Beyond My Ken.
diff 2 - I copy-edited the subtopic to include additional context on Volksdeutsche, complementing the previous sentence that introduces Volksdeutsche, added how different racial groups are interpreted in Nazi doctrine and added a citation to a journal article for
verifiability.
diff 3 - I added further context into the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, compliment both previous sentences on Volksdeutsche and subtopic that talks about Connotation of Aryan in Nazi theories, and added citation to
Britannica and peer-reviewed dissertations.
diff 4 - I modified Britannica citation to {{Britannica}} template since templated citations are preferred over raw text citation for consistency.
diff 5 - I copy-edited and removed "indeed" because it was an unnecessary adverb here.
diff 6 - I split the paragraph to remove the overcrowded section for ease of readability.
diff 7 - I added a bibliography to a peer-reviewed dissertation that will be used in {{sfn}} (and in diff 8)
diff 8 - I remove duplicate citation and used {{sfn}} to add page numbers on
inline citations.
diff 9 - To remain consistent with other numeric figures, I changed "six" to 6, added figures to "disabled people" data, and added "among others" indicating other Holocaust victims and linked to the respective article.
diff 10 - I removed redundant links and added a link to another per
MOS:SEEALSO.
diff 11 - I added further context into the role played by ethnic Germans who lived outside the German Reich in the Holocaust, complimenting diff 2 and diff 3.
diff 12 - I copy-edited the sentence to make it better reflect the cited material (Weikrt 2013) and wrote a better sentence.
All of the above diffs were mass reverted by
Beyond My Ken in
this diff and further by
Czello in this
this diff for the same reason, with the edit summary stating to get consensus first; they further cited
WP:BRD.
Beyond My Ken stated in their edit summary (
diff) that none of those above 12 diffs are any improvements to the article. However, I made all the above diffs in
WP:GOODFAITH and in an effort to
further improve the article (the reasons are stated for each diff above). I do not believe any of the improvements/changes to the article through these 12 diffs are contentious or controversial changes. Everything I added and copy-edited is from reliable sources (such as academic journals and peer-reviewed dissertations) that meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP policy. None of the sources are
WP:QUESTIONABLE. This is one of the articles that I regularly edit,
gragually trying to improve it over time. But I believe my recent good-faith contributions were mass reverted prejudicially without consideration.
Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling states that Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion. Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)
Since the other involved editors cited
WP:BRD, this is what
WP:BRD-NOT states (3) BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. (2) BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page. This also goes against
WP:BADREVERT.
I spend my volunteer hours and try to improve and contribute to the Wikipedia Project sparingly whenever I find time. Given that I have explained myself in detail, this type of behavior creates a hostile environment and is discourteous to good faith editors like myself, which goes against the spirit of this Project.
I hope the involved editors and those who watch this talk page can provide input on whether my good-faith edits warrants mass-revert. If this consensus is stonewalled, I think taking it to
dispute resolution is the way to move forward.
RfC on restoring revision content to adopt proposed changes
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to adopt the proposed changes, and the reverting editor has withdrawn the objection. --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 21:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Mostly support, as adding relevent sourced material. However, the existing sourced material on the term Volksgemeinschaft should not be removed. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - Given the !votes here, I withdraw my objections to WikiLinuz' edits.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Discussion
@
SMcCandlish: I'm confused by what you mean the existing sourced material on the term Volksgemeinschaft should not be removed. The current version of the articles does not mention the term Volksgemeinschaft at all (you can Ctrl + F and search for "Volksgemeinschaft"). That was added by me in one of those 12 diffs that I am proposing to be adopted into the current article. Mind to elaborate? --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I must have misread the diff by Pincrete, then. My point is that the material on Volksgemeinschaft should definitely be included; it is very helpful to the reader to see these confusingly similar non-English terms in sequence and distinguished from each other. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The diff provided by Pincrete compared my revision vs. current revision. For convenience,
this diff compares current revision vs. my revision. This is the exact revision number that I'm proposing to restore. --
WikiLinuz {
talk} 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Right. I think I'm in agreement with your revisions, then. They seem well-founded and -sourced, and the flow is overall improved, with good material being added (such as the Volksgemeinschaft explanation). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definition of aryan race in nazism
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry, this is an easily verifiable historical fact and I do not understand how
WikiLinuz can delete my contributions.
Midofe1996 (
talk) 20:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Aryan race was defined by Nazism as all Europeans who do not have Jewish ancestry - No, is was not. Read the cited sources. --
WikiLinuz (
talk) 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The page doesn't contradict what I'm saying or what this article says. Slavs, Balkans, Spaniards, etc. are "European", but not "Aryan". Nazi's definition of Aryam primarily implies
Nordic and
Germanic peoples, or their supposed "racially purer" descendants. They did some mental gymnastics with regards to Hungarians, Finns, etc., but doesn't change anything. --
WikiLinuz (
talk) 12:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply