User talk:71.179.172.219

January 2022
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mises Caucus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Mises Caucus, you may be blocked from editing. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What a bizarre pair of messages. I did not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; I *removed* a phrase that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I deliberately *avoided* replacing it with my own P.O.V. or personal analysis; indeed, I added no commentary at all, with or without a "formal tone." I hope someone else will come along and expand the article in a way that describes the multiple perspectives people have on this issue; I'm just removing a single inappropriate phrase.
 * WP:NPOV does not mean we whitewash information in an attempt to salsify all participants in an external political debate. It means we reflect the sources without adding our own spin. The lead reflects the article, which makes clear that the caucus sees itself as more radical in all aspects of libertarianism, not just the culture war. The "perspectives people have on this issue" are irrelevant; only the sources are relevant. Wikipedia is not a venue for either pro or anti-Mises partisans to push their view of the caucus. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If the article said that the Mises Caucus "presents itself" or "styles itself" as being more radical, that would be accurate. But to declare that it *is* more radical, even as other factions in the party accuse the caucus of softpedaling libertarian positions on issues such as immigration, is taking a stand on a disputed point (and—unlike anything I've done here—actually *would* whitewash information).
 * Alright, indulge me. Provide a reliable source to support your claim that their claim to be radical is widely disputed within the party. So far, you are claiming this is a "disputed point" without evidence. ― Tartan357  Talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If I wanted to take the time to write a paragraph on this with citations for multiple sides, I would have done that. I have neither the time nor the energy, which is why I stuck to deleting a statement that, you will note, is also not presently supported by a reliable source. As I said above, I hope someone else will come along and expand the article. As you can see from my edit history, I'm mostly a "fixes some typos" guy.
 * Well, you're using this claim of an internal dispute to justify the removal. If you cannot back that claim up, then there is no justification for the removal. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about backing claims up, I could note that there was no citation offered for the claim I removed in the first place. But a quick visit to an anti-Mises Caucus site found a post that claims the leadership covered for a member who "wanted to ban all immigration to the United States" (https://fakertarians.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/why-i-left-the-libertarian-party-mises-caucus/) and another that accuses a prominent Mises Caucus member of defending police brutality (https://fakertarians.wordpress.com/2020/09/06/leash-the-police-a-response-to-late-rothbard/). The broader argument in both cases is that the caucus leadership includes people who are not sufficiently libertarian—the opposite of claiming that they are too radical.
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. If you don't take the time to read the policies I'm linking, you won't get very far here. ― Tartan357  Talk 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There were—as I already mentioned—no reliable sources offered for the claim I removed either. There was no citation in the sentence, and neither of the citations in the paragraph backs up the claim. As I also already mentioned, I have neither the time nor the energy to dig up the sorts of sources required for adding to a Wikipedia article, which is why (as I also already mentioned!) I limited my edit to removing an uncited claim that took a side in an ongoing public dispute. I agree that someone here isn't taking the time to read things.
 * As I've already told you, we cannot base an editorial decision on your unevidenced claim that there is an "ongoing public dispute". And if you look at Talk:Mises Caucus, you will see my explanation for what the Reason source supports. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your source makes a statement about what "various critics" said, and it says that some of those critics are aligned with the Mises Caucus. That clearly isn't sufficient evidence for the claim I removed. To extend it in that way is to engage in one of the very acts—"adding your personal analysis into articles"—that you falsely accused me of above.