User talk:Sgallach

Welcome!
Hello, Sgallach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! GPinkerton (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

July 2020
Hello, I'm GPinkerton. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Declaration of Arbroath have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Declaration of Arbroath. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. GPinkerton (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have now engaged as requested by justifying the removal of distorting information. The page appears to be trying to engage in modern politics while the page is supposed to be informative of the history of the declaration of Arbroath. Use of words like Scottish Nationalists clearly evidence this aim or perspective of some editors. Sgallach (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the addition of a citation, that's helpful, butI see that you also removed a different one. Certainly some discussion of modern politics (and Scottish Nationalists) is WP:DUE, but I quite agree it has nothing to do with a Latin letter sent 700 years ago in reality. The Scottish Nationalists is what the modern political party call themselves, so I don't think it's distortion to phrase it that way. Moreover, labelling historians identities/nationalities or ascribing political views to them is definitely unjust and improper and can clearly colour the article in distasteful ways where it's not appropriate. GPinkerton (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed a citation which distorts the position as it is effectively making the isolated item on a wikipedia into something self-referential. It may be that whoever inserted that could paraphrase and include language such as 'it is argued'. I agree with the removal of nationality although the historian/political science distinction is important and there may be an argument for having a separate wikipedia page on the Declaration of Arbroath in political discourse. Finally, regarding the political party, as a resident in Scotland I can assure you they do not call themselves nationalists and it is well known that the term is only used as a pejorative in the media. Wikipedia should be above that. However, there was no citation and so the revised version I inserted, I have marked as citation needed.
 * At the moment our article Scottish National Party describes them as a "Scottish nationalist" party, since they have a platform including Scottish nationalism, common sense dictates such a label can hardly be pejorative in their eyes or in the eyes of the reliable sources. Anyway it's beside the point; at the moment this article is brief enough as it is, so any movement of the way its political legacy has fared to a different page would be a bit unnecessary until the main article becomes over-long. It's usually best to expand and article before thinking about hewing off bits. In any case I'd say it would be better to have discussion of the medieval text and events on the same page as the later developments, to get the fuller view of things and how the history and impact of the Declaratio has changed over time. GPinkerton (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)