Comment by elric
1 year ago
I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. Are you surprised that this happened? Is this a value judgement? Would like you discuss the merit of this change?
Or are you just being reactonary because someone mentioned the word gender?
I'm pretty sure the editor was the one being "reactonary" (reactionary) editing a 63 year old article.
It is ironic though considering the topic of the document. Every line in it and the comments here are gold it's amazing to see.
The point of my comment was to express surprise at the hubris of someone editing the dead for their own private political reasons, and to find out more about this practice
To be fair I'm the exact opposite of "reactionary", I'm all for inclusive language, but I still find it an odd choice.
The point is that the text is not authentic. How do we know that the "reduced references", which basically means that the editor removed what he disliked for his own arbitrary and personal reasons, did not affect the meaning of the text?