Gotta love how totally well sourced the edit prior to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactionary&diff=next&oldid=1245187169
questionable relevance (these are ideologies having to do with territory, the nation, and foreign policy, but irredentists and revanchists can be far leftists as well as they can be reactionaries, or anything in between)
And the part they removed is:
{{see also|Revanchism|Irredentism}}
Using nebulous terminology "far leftists" and they don't even give a source on revanchists or irredentists to explain why removing it is justified. I'm not even saying they're wrong necessarily, they could be right about those terms, but the idea that they can get away with editing like that just based on a nebulous, unsourced claim. I feel like if I get too deep into reading edit logs, I'm going to end up questioning ever using wikipedia to read about anything, which is maybe for the best. I'm inclined to say reading the edits is more insightful than wikipedia itself, at least as explicitly political pages are concerned.
It's gone now
Incredibly reactionary edit. That text was there since 12 august, it's so strange that it gets removed just the day we're talking about it.
Gotta love how totally well sourced the edit prior to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactionary&diff=next&oldid=1245187169
And the part they removed is:
Using nebulous terminology "far leftists" and they don't even give a source on revanchists or irredentists to explain why removing it is justified. I'm not even saying they're wrong necessarily, they could be right about those terms, but the idea that they can get away with editing like that just based on a nebulous, unsourced claim. I feel like if I get too deep into reading edit logs, I'm going to end up questioning ever using wikipedia to read about anything, which is maybe for the best. I'm inclined to say reading the edits is more insightful than wikipedia itself, at least as explicitly political pages are concerned.
There is a fed among us