`  :First of all, WP:3RR is violated through the fourth revert and not the third. Second, it was you assuming bad faith from the start by removing the line stating ``agenda-laden``. When I reverted you back and added the same inline ref from the body, you reverted it back again, describing content written by highly accredited historians ``and just because blah blah blah said it``   :If you had actual concerns regarding the phrasing, you could've easily made up a talk page section as its you whos contesting sourced content. Instead, you continued edit warring (with Twinkle, interestingly). Sorry, but these are not the right steps that should be taken if you had actual concerns only regarding its phrasing. Lastly, you should write this on the talk page of the article itself, and preferably not here. I just did that for you. -   `