[nsajko]

Your example with the python list comprehension could just be an example of a conflict over content because of an inevitable difference of opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, and no way around it: you either invest enough of your time to work it through, or pay someone else to do that (although I don't know how you could find someone both competent enough and willing to do it).

The example with the antisemite is probably more complicated, if you wanted a discussion on it you should have posted a link to the relevant discussion on Wikipedia, but I very much doubt it would be appropriate to take Twitter as source in that case, because Wikipedia is not meant to be (an extension of) social media. Also, it seems like you are not aware that it is very much possible to be a pro-Israel antisemite, e.g., the Nazis at one point supported Jewish Zionist emmigration to Palestine.

BTW, I am not a Wikipedia apologist, see my next comment.

It is true that low quality journalism limits Wikipedia in certain areas, but also note that good Wikipedia sources are not limited to newspapers, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliab...

[qPM9l3XJrF]

"I very much doubt it would be appropriate to take Twitter as source in that case"

Editors also didn't like it when I added info from his website. Basically, they didn't want anything he said in his own defense to make it to his Wikipedia page.

"Also, it seems like you are not aware that it is very much possible to be a pro-Israel antisemite, e.g., the Nazis at one point supported Jewish Zionist emmigration to Palestine."

I'm aware of that. This person also said he encouraged Jews to join a political organization he ran.

But anyway, I tried to be very clear: I was not saying the citations which claimed this guy was an antisemite should be removed. I'm saying it was worth including this person's own statement of their political views as well.

[Ntrails]

> I'm saying it was worth including this person's own statement of their political views as well.

It is an interesting situation, because I dislike the idea that my defence of my own position is insubmissible, vs the interpretation of some third party of what they claim I think. Certainly there are positions I have on sensitive topics that could be trivially misrepresented.

On the other hand, just taking my 'PR' response is dangerous as it allows me to potentially Rewrite history / spin truth etc.

I lean towards the right to state: "author claims to be misunderstood and accusations are unfounded". I can see both sides a bit though

[pmachinery]

It would be a lot easier to see if Wikipedia had a point or not if you named the public figure you're talking about.