"

On second thought, Max, I just took a look at the history and saw that you posted not only the link that you say you're not defending, but also the link to the material from the white supremacist antisemite, William Pierce. There's no need to keep the link on the page while discussing its merits (although that link has no merits to discuss). Wikipedia's editors know how to look at edit histories. When a link is that egregious and beyond the pale, any responsible editor will remove it until it's existence can be justified. Also, I didn't ""remove an external link ""without cause."" I explained my cause, both here and in the edit summary. That cause was not a ""claim that it's offensive in some way,"" but a clear, obvious violation of WP:EL and WP:RS with regard to fringe websites.

However, I've just taken a look at your edit history, and can honestly say that, outside of your edits to this article, I can't see any evidence of an antisemitic agenda on your part, so I'm going to continue to WP:AGF. However, it will be to your advantage to recognize that editors who are accustomed to working on Judaism-related articles have long experience with users who ""just innocently raise the question"" of whether there might be racist material in the Talmud, or whether there just might be a Jewish conspiracy for world domination, or whether we've fairly portrayed the views of folks who think that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a genuine document, and shouldn't we leave the material up while we discuss it? The answer to that question is no, and if my assumption of good faith is justified, you'll have no trouble seeing why.

Again, Max, follow those links and you'll see why neither you, nor I, nor any responsible editor would want them to stay on this article or any other that we had a hand in. I'm honestly not trying to start a feud or a flame war or anything else, and I do wish you the best experience possible on Wikipedia.  "