Jump to content

Talk:Mark Felton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some possible references

[edit]

The concern has been raised that most of the refs are by Felton rather than about him. Just a quick search at this point (I haven't got time right now to dig deeper) but these might possibly help establish third party notability?? Melcous (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 24 April 2020

[edit]

update my book list to include my latest book Operation Swallow: American Soldiers' Remarkable Escape from Berga Concentration Camp (Center Street, 2019) https://www.centerstreet.com/titles/mark-felton/operation-swallow/9781546076438/78.149.7.114 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added the book to the article yourself (which under WP:COI you are asked not to do) 7 minutes before you posted this request, making this request entirely redundant. Melcous (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 24 April 2020

[edit]

In 2016, I was made a Companion of the Naval Order of the United States. Can this be added to my biography and linked to the Companions page of the Naval Order?78.149.7.114 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, but  Not done - please provide reliable sources. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 25 April 2020

[edit]

please update the list called 'Television'inside the box right of screen to include two more programmes - 'Nazi World War Weird' and 'Hitler's Steel Beast'.https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8657536/?ref_=fn_al_nm_178.149.7.114 (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb is not considered a relieable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 28 April 2020

[edit]

In 2016, I was made a Companion of the Naval Order of the United States. Can this be added to my biography and linked to the Companions page of the Naval Order?https://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/about-us/staff-profiles/tutor/dr-mark-felton78.149.7.114 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: the link you have provided is to your own profile on your institute's page. It does not independently verify the information. A reliable, independent, secondary source would be necessary. Melcous (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55eb4805e4b0c7e05226cf5f/t/592c7c6ad1758e7c6fdcdebd/1496087826803/Spring%2B2017.pdf
I'm listed in their news magazine, new members section, New York City as Mr. Mark Paul Felton. 92.12.37.204 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

From watching the content he puts on YouTube there is a disturbing feeling that he is commending the Nazis by enthusiastically showing their grandeur, weapons that they developed, and the surviving Nazi wives and families. Then again he does clean Britain from claims like Bacque's about the mass killing of captive Nazi POWs at the Rheinwiesen camps after the war in the hands of the allies. Anyway it got me digging up what people are saying about Felton.

So here's a discussion on Reddit.com, bringing up several problems with his Youtube channel:

  1. . He turns off comments and does not allow discussion.
  2. . He has plagiarized material from online forums without credit. For example:
  1. . He has factual errors (usually copied from others without fact checking) such as Jagdtiger Ambush - Ardennes 1944, claimed to be false, and the abovementioned Tiger tanks not being from Kursk.

Since most of this article (and the talk page!!) is by the subject of this entry, it would be nice if he could drop us a link to his Professorship at whatever university he teaches at, and a bit about his biography.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Pashute, Reddit is inherently non-reliable, primary, and non-independent (the trinity of non-suitability!), your comments risk being viewed as unreferenced accusations against the subject. If you want a specific source, that's fine to ask for (though linking to his professorship still wouldn't be good as a source for all but the most basic things - we use secondary sources) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Non reliable, primary, non independent. I'm not accusing, I'm just pointing to sourced accusations made by others. There are three links included above to be compared with three of his videos. Its up to us to decide for ourselves and figure out what to do, when a self made article, arises our suspicions, and when external non-reliable sources point us to a few links for us to check out and conclude. Especially when the main topic is Nazism.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for us to judge - we go off what reliable secondary sources have said. If they were having mixed views, we'd be assessing what the consensus was (if there was one). If we go around vetting the videos than that is nothing more than Original Research, which is specifically outside our remit. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your view is that we have evidence strong enough to convict him of plagiarism in any academic setting. When he publishes a video that contains long passages verbatim from a pre-existing web post thats plagiarism. When he uses pictures from that same post to illustrate his video its plagiarism.
Furthermore, his videos are generally entirely unsourced. For example he published a video claiming that British Lancasters were trained and ready to carry out the atomic bomb attacks and the only reason they didn't was politics. That claim has since been thoroughly debunked in another video that does cite primary source documents within it as evidence. Given that Felton does not provide any source information for his YouTube work, does not defend that work when it is seriously called into question with solid primary source information, and has posted videos which copy verbatim long passages of existing work that needs to be called out. Especially given his academic standing and professional standing which lends great credibility to his work. These are not just vague accusations. They are backed up by clear and convincing evidence. Ski206 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 20 May 2022

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Additional reference added to the line announcing my Royal Historical Society Fellowship
  • Why it should be changed: To provide evidence directly from the RHS showing my name on the list
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

92.12.37.204 (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Felton get his BA

[edit]

"Felton sat for a BA in history with English at Anglia Polytechnic University," Did he actually get the degree? Was he successful or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.219.21.205 (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 5 June 2022

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: The following line added in the appropriate section: 'In 2016, Felton was made a Companion of the Naval Order of the United States.'
  • Why it should be changed: Because I have evidence to support this honour, listed below in the Naval Order's members' magazine, where I'm listed as a new companion under the New York City Commandery, announced in their Spring 2017 issue.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): <refhttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/55eb4805e4b0c7e05226cf5f/t/592c7c6ad1758e7c6fdcdebd/1496087826803/Spring%2B2017.pdf/ref>

92.6.242.132 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Can you link to where that source came from? A link to a PDF on a CDN is slightly sketchy, as sources go. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 01:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.navalorder.org/newsletter-back-issues 79.67.203.240 (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://royalhistsoc.org/society-elects-333-new-fellows-associate-fellows-members-and-postgraduate-members

 Done Cheers Duke Gilmore (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 11 November 2022

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed:
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


79.67.203.240 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

The line reads: 'Felton lives in Norwich with his wife and wife's son' This used to correctly read 'Felton lives in Norwich with his wife and son'. Please change this back to the original, as the line currently suggests that my son is not my child. The reference currently attached to the line correctly says that I live in Norwich with my wife and son. Thanks.

 Done The editor who changed it was an anonymous editor who provided no reason for doing so. I don't have access to the source, but Occam's razor suggests trolling. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 01:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please put in Mark's son name
Stepan Felton 2601:98A:501:6180:C0C5:BA26:8329:C933 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 13 November 2022

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Felton lives in Norwich with his wife and wife's son'
  • Why it should be changed: Should be changed back to what it always read 'Felton lives in Norwich with his wife and son', otherwise the current line suggests that my son is not my child, which is incorrect.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The current reference is correct and simply tells readers that I live in Norwich with my wife and son. No new reference needed.


79.67.203.240 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felton son name is Stepan
Please put that in 2601:98A:501:6180:C0C5:BA26:8329:C933 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Closing as duplicate of above. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 01:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 26 February 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: My fellowships' post nominals have been deleted from behind my name on the first line. These should be reinstated as I have a legal right to their usage. My name should be expressed as 'Mark Felton, FRHistS, FRSA'
  • Why it should be changed: Because it is not correct
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): The article already cites my being awarded these fellowships and in the box to the right of the article, they are still correctly listed in relation to my name.

92.13.37.205 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying The ed17 who made the change here. Per WP:POSTNOM, it seems reasonable to include them in the lead sentence, given the example there including FRSA. Thoughts? I realize it also says "The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, along with the above, but should be omitted from the lead" so it ends up being a little subjective whether this qualifies as something from a "widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject", but given that FRSA is included as an example it seems reasonable to include. The ed17, let me know what you think. SpencerT•C 02:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Having never dealt with post-nominals, it seemed reasonable to assume that including them in the lead sentence was overkill. Apparently not. No objections to the restoration per MOS, and I've just made the edit. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mark you got a fake phd and u love bandera 2601:98A:501:6180:C0C5:BA26:8329:C933 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 21 July 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: The section titled 'Controversies' needs to be deleted
  • Why it should be changed: It contains unproven slurs against me, including suggesting that I am a Nazi supporter. None of these slurs are borne out by actual evidence from proper sources, just unproven attacks from unnamed social media users. This is in violation of Wikipedia's own policies and is simply vandalism by person(s) unknown.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Not relevant.


92.13.32.221 (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reply 22-JUL-2023

[edit]

❎  Item removed  

  1. The information included in the Controversies section was not supported by references to reliable, third party sources.

Regards,  Spintendo  10:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but part of what has been removed has been posted yet again. The section concerning the German Panzer Museum and one of my videos is another attack from an unnamed social media user attempting to damage my reputation as a historian. I would term this deliberate vandalism, and it is unsupported by proper references. 80.42.127.205 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understand your frustration at the unsourced and downright libellous stuff others have attempted to add to your article, but this is something entirely different. This is the German Tank Museum stating you got something incorrect about them, not an "attack" from an "unnamed social media user". To say it is not supported by proper references is false too. The open letter in question is sourced to the museum's website, and they provide plenty references themselves, many of them links to your own videos which you seem to have privatised. If you disagree, then that's something you ought to take up with the German Tank Museum, the person who wrote the website page is certainly not unnamed and easily contactable. Otherwise, I fail to see how this is not worthy of note. Unlike random social media users, the museum is an actual, reliable organisation that have wrote a critique of your research. Noting disputes is not exactly an uncommon thing especially on articles on historians. If you truly think this is an "attempt to damage your reputation" then again, that's an issue with the museum. 148.252.128.46 (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have issues with the wording of the paragraph under contention. For example, I am quoted as saying that I stated the museum "sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model". What is the evidence for that - where's the reference? They can say what they like, but they have no evidence I said that - they are paraphrasing in order to damage my reputation. That should be grounds for removal. 80.42.127.205 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 28 August 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Please add the following - "In 2021, Felton was made an Honorary Companion of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States.
  • Why it should be changed: To update my awards and memberships
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://loyallegion.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-78-2-Summer.pdf

78.147.236.188 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Implemented This information was placed in the infobox under the |awards= parameter. As there is no Awards and memberships section of the main article, the information could not be placed as prose, as was requested (e.g., "In 2021, Felton was made an Honorary Companion of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States.") If a separate section is requested, please add this as part of your request. I would have added the section myself, but it's not entirely clear whether the item is an award or a membership. According to the WP section on this, "MOLLUS allows state commanderies, at their discretion, to elect up to one-third of their membership as Associate Companions" which implies that it may be an elected membership rather than an award, per se. Regards,  Spintendo  02:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 20 November 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: There has been additional controversy regarding his YouTube content. In 2020 he published a video titled Hiroshima 1945 -The British Atomic Attack in which he claimed the RAF had a secret unit of Lancasters ready and able to drop the atomic bomb if the B-29 proved unable to do so. [31]. In his video no source material was cited or provided to support this incredible claim. However in March of 2022 another YouTube Historian provided a very clear rebuttal of the claims Mark made in his video [32]

There have also been claims that he has plagiarized the works of others in creating his videos. [33]

  • Why it should be changed: These accusations are based on Reddit posts, which are not properly recognised references. They provide no substantial evidence to disprove my videos, only biased opinions. A rebuttal video by another YouTuber is not 'evidence', merely their opinion. These sections need to be removed as they violate Youtube's policies. The plagiarism accusation was previously deleted by Youtube editors on the basis that Reddit is not a reliable source.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): None - my belief is these sections need to be deleted forthwith as they are nothing more than unsubstantiated heresay and unprovable internet gossip.


92.29.224.226 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First these actions are not “based on Reddit posts” they cite those posts because it’s an easy way to direct people to all the relevant links. For example in there are links to an original post with pictures and his YouTube video. That enables watching the video, comparing his narrative to the original post along with pictures that appear in both. If there is a better way to demonstrate plagiarism than linking both the original and the copy I’d really like to know what it is.
Second with regards to the Hiroshima YouTube video and the response posted. If
you watch the response which is heavily annotated with original primary source documentation it becomes clear that the claims made by Felton in his video are clearly false. The rebuttal video is a year old and this has given Felton more than ample opportunity to respond, clarify, provide source material etc to justify his claims. He is a noted historian with a popular YouTube channel that purports to provide accurate historical content. With the accuracy of at least some of that content having been shown to be wrong and with evidence that he has plagiarized source material for videos it seems entirely fair to note that there is documented controversy around some of his material. This is no different than the existing entry about the Tank video which he attempted to have censored after being called out for it
Again if there is a better way to source these issues I’d like to know what it is. Ski206 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s also worth noting that this is an addition to an existing section regarding controversy around his YouTube content. Controversy that isn’t limited to one video. Ski206 (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. How do you know that the sources used in the Lancasters rebuttal video are correct? Are you an expert on this subject? And why do you assume that the other Youtube 'historian' is an expert?
2. My Lancasters video does have sources listed, and which support much of my argument.
3. Calling me a 'plagiarist' and then blanket referencing some Reddit post doesn't prove anything. You are allowing a collection of accusations by anonymous people to be taken at face value.
4. The motivations of many of the Reddit posters are clearly malicious and/or simple dislike of me, my video style or something else they don't like (as evidenced by how they reference me, including personal insults etc). Reddit is not a reliable source for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. 92.29.224.226 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to what I have said about Reddit, some time ago a post accusing me of plagiarism was removed from this page by one of your editors for the very reasons I have outlined. Look it up in the edits. I quote your own editor: "Reddit is inherently non-reliable, primary, and non-independent (the trinity of non-suitability!), your comments risk being viewed as unreferenced accusations against the subject." 92.29.224.226 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have deleted the video in question that renders independent verification of those allegations impossible. So I have deleted that accusation and its link.
However, lets turn to the Lancaster video. The only source you cite in the video which remotely comes close to upholding your story is the History of Enstone Airfield. It says the following "The Wellingtons were apparently partnered by a secretive unit about which very little is known. This unit comprised six Avro Lancasters which, in addition to being painted gloss black all over, had no squadron markings or serial numbers. They were kept away from the OTU and, unless flying, out of sight of all other personnel. They were heavily modified, with their bomb doors removed, and there is no official record of them being at Enstone. It has been rumored that they were being used for experiments in carrying the British atomic bomb, which was in an advanced stage of development. However, such was the secrecy surrounding the British development (and its inevitable overshadowing by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan by the Americans), that until quite some time later very few people knew of this country’s involvement in such a programme."
So if we accept this source as wholly accurate all we can truly say about this unit of gloss black Lancasters is that little is known, there were 6 aircraft, unmarked, and had bomb doors removed. They say it was rumored that they were involved in tests around the British atomic bomb. Rumors of involvement in tests are a long way from a squadron that is ready to deploy and conduct a mission requiring a very unusual bomb delivery profile. I see nothing here that remotely supports your argument in this regard.
There are other issues like range. You suggest inflight refueling would have solved this issue and while its true that such tests had been conducted that isn't the same thing as an operational capability. Royal Air Force Historical Society Journal 44 addresses inflight refueling plans with regard to the Tiger Force plans and it's clear that not only was this capability not yet ready for deployment on such a critical mission but the needed aircraft hadn't been modified and the RAF came to prefer operating Lincolns at Overload weights over inflight refueling. And note that you specially say the mission would have been flown from Tinian.
I will make additional comments on this in the near future but its also worthy of note that you admit at the end of the video that the differences in speed and release height between the Lancaster and the B-29 would have placed the Lancaster in extreme danger. That hardly sounds like an argument in support of your contention that "national prestige won the day" Ski206 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person is not an independent or impartial editor judging by these long and involved comments that are highly critical of my work - surely this is in violation of Wikipedia's rules? 92.29.224.226 (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If your going to continue to defend historical fiction based on dubious sources (a one page airfield history that cites rumors is a good example) then that creates motivation to do detailed research on what exactly you said and whether or not it’s factual.
The comment below is essentially notes on your video not an organized systemic analysis. But the fact you simply attacked the length of my previous comments as opposed to looking at the substance is telling.
Us AirForce history of Atomic Energy 1943-1953 mentions the Lancaster only once and makes clear that Ramsey did consider the Lancaster but felt the B-29 was the better choice for non political reasons. This hardly aligns with your argument that it was his preferred choice. Groves book which you list among your sources mentions the Lancaster only once as a possible alternative should the B-29 fail but that this option wasn’t preferred because of the difficulties and delays that would entail. It also worthy of note that if the British had a squadron that was trained and ready to deliver an Atomic bomb at short notice Groves would certainly have been aware of it and it seems exceedingly unlikely that he would not have mentioned this in his book.
Leo McKinstry’s book “Lancaster The Second World Wars Greatest Bomber” says that in November of 1943 after work started on a modified B-29 “the question of using the Lancaster never arose again”.
Another factor that has to be considered is the scarcity of atomic bombs in 1945. Well known author Richard Frank in a recent appearance on the Unathorized History of the Pacific War talked about how critical the 1-2 punch of dripping two bombs in short succession was going to be to getting Japan to surrender. So a deployment method with a high degree of risk associated with it is going to be a non starter. Use of the Lancaster compared to the B-29 adds enourmous risk.
There is the required and still unproven inflight refueling. The Lancaster was far more vulnerable than the B-29 given its lower altitude and speed. This has to be a daylight drop by visual means not radar which makes the use of the Lancaster more risky. Which means if the weather is poor the Lancaster has to turn around. Also worth noting is that according to McKinstry the British anticipated loss rates as high as 80-85% employing the Lancaster against Japan.
Next without significant modifications, of which we have no record, the bomb bay cannot be accessed in flight on the Lancaster. This was an absolute requirement for the atomic missions. The US was not about to risk the conventional B-29 force to a takeoff accident with an armed atomic bomb.
A few other points. Why are the airplanes painted gloss black? They are dropping in daylight and will be dangerously close to the shockwave and thermal pulse. That black paint is going to make this much worse.
If the RAF had a squadron of Lancasters ready to drop atomic bombs why did they borrow B-29’s post war as a stop gap atomic bomber before the British Jets came into service?
Where are the records of this squadron? Militaries are famous record keepers even with highly classified projects. The Manhattan project itself is a good example. Are you really saying the British trained a squadron to drop Atomic bombs that were ready to deploy into combat on a moments notice with zero records? What about American records of this British effort? The Brits were exceedingly unlikely to have made such a commitment of men and resources totally on their own. Which means you’d have American records of this effort. Certainly the principles in the Manhattan project would have been aware of it.
Do you have any evidence that the British conducted the kinds of drop tests and training that were done by the B-29s? There is no way a squadron is going to be deployed to drop a weapon like this that hasn’t even conducted tests with the dummy bombs to ensure that the bomb will drop cleanly etc. that means shipping a “Pumpkin” (the name for the dummy bomb) to England. Where is the evidence that happened?
Also by the time production begins of the Silverplate B-29s that program is going reasonably well. Unquestionably in the months leading up to the 509th deploying there was no reason to think a back up plan was needed. So why keep this secret squadron that the Americans didn’t want anyway on standby? There was zero reason by that point to think the B-29 couldn’t do the job.
I’d also note that I’ve seen it said that FatMan would have required the removal of the Lancaster’s bomb bay doors to fit. I don’t have a source I trust on this but if true it would only have served to further degrade the aircraft’s performance in range, speed and drop altitude.
Some other points worth making. You claim in your video that “the initial test with mocked up atomic bombs were failures with several aircraft badly damaged” and “that at this point national politics intervened when Dr. Ramsey formally recommended a modified Lancaster bomber to Major General Leslie Groves the American commander of the Manhattan project Groves was apparently furious that a British airplane was even being considered to deliver an American Atomic bomb.”
We’ve already seen that both of these points are false. Ramsey wanted the B-29 and Groves book also fails to substantiate this story. We’ve also seen in these same sources that when the Lancaster was considers it was with the understanding that the aircraft would be operated by an American squadron.
You say that the scenario that you outlined at the start of the video never happened because “national prestige won the day”.
There is a very clear implication in this statement that the better airplane and crew was not chosen for the mission. But we’ve already seen the outright superiority of the B-29 over the Lancaster in this role and you yourself even admit this to a degree. That hardly sounds like national prestige being the driving factor. You even state that the Lancaster mission would have been more dangerous than the one flown by the B-29. You also state “But it so nearly wasn’t an American operation. In fact an extremely secret Royal AirForce unit was founded near the end of the war to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan. Why? Because the Americans couldn’t do it….. If politics hadn’t overruled military practicality the Atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been made by the mysterious Black Lancasters.” It’s clear that this is an utterly massive misrepresentation of the facts. The B-29 was able to do it and was even capable of being modified to drop the longer initial atomic bomb. Your statement that politics overruled military practicality is obvious nonsense which your own statements in the video help prove. The British unit even if it existed (which I see no true evidence of) never got close to dropping an atomic bomb. Clearly “it so nearly wasn’t an American operation” is utter bunk.
You also make an interesting further statement. “The Black Lancasters if modified for inflight refueling…”. Wait I thought the British aircraft were ready, willing and able to conduct the misson on a moments notice?
It looks like they picked the aircraft that best met ALL of the required mission parameters. And again if the Lancaster/Lincoln was a better atomic bomber why did the British employ the B-29 in this role post war?
Something else you’d said struck me. “While the B-29 struggled through testing in America the British had committed to providing a large force of Lancasters to begin a concerted aerial assault on Japan flying from bases in Burma.” This is also demonstrably false. The B-29 was operating from China in June of 1944 but it’s not until Sept that Churchill even proposes British bombers for the Pacific and that not until Germany was defeated. I’m sure there were British officers thinking along these lines before this but that’s from from a full commitment to deploy a bomber force. Ski206 (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 20 November 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: There has been additional controversy regarding his YouTube content. In 2020 he published a video titled Hiroshima 1945 -The British Atomic Attack in which he claimed the RAF had a secret unit of Lancasters ready and able to drop the atomic bomb if the B-29 proved unable to do so. [31]. In his video no source material was cited or provided to support this incredible claim. However in March of 2022 another YouTube Historian provided a very clear rebuttal of the claims Mark made in his video [32]*

Why it should be changed: This video does have references. The current paragraph is also accusatory and presents the rebuttal video as holy writ, without providing evidence for this supposed 'historians' qualifications to claim to be such an authority. It is inaccurate and biased as my references are cited under the section 'Sources' in the description box. References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):"https://studio.youtube.com/video/5XX9ptCNpik/edit"


92.29.224.226 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The qualifications of the person questioning the video produced are irrelevant. Can only a PHD call out inaccuracies? The key question is are the rebuttal arguments made accurate and well supported with documentation. It’s clear if you watch the video that they are with multiple screen shots of source material providing direct quotes. Ski206 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifications are important, since on this site you can't just use anyone's YouTube video or a bunch of Reddit comments as your only source, especially if it's making serious accusations of plagiarism or historical inaccuracy. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - so will the inaccurate and biased paragraph now be deleted? 92.29.224.226 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the video in question was just someone providing an unsourced option then yes that would be true. But that’s not the case here. In the video a point by point rebuttal is offered with screen shots and direct quotes from primary and secondary source reference material being provided. In some cases using the same source material that Felton cites in the description of his video.
It should also be noted that while Felton is seeking to have the edit of his profile deleted he has yet to provide any response to the numerous questions of historical fact raised in the talk section. Ski206 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should also address the claim that he does provide sources for his video. Yes it’s true he lists some sources. But none of those sources come remotely close to verifying the central claim in his video the the RAF had a squadron of Lancasters that were ready and able to drop the atomic bombs from Tinian on short notice if required. Since he provides no sources to support the central narrative of his video it can be said to be unsourced. Ski206 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube video is still your only source for this, and again the qualifications of the person in question still matters. You can't just rely on this one video for such strong claims. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, said concerning misleading information: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." The editor 'Ski206' is clearly on some kind of personal vendetta against me and my reputation - read his long comments concerning my work if you require evidence. Hardly neutral or impartial and he is relying on someone else's Youtube video and Reddit comments to slander my reputation, which other editors have shown to be inadequate referencing when making accusations of such a grave nature. Wikipedia is not a forum for the public debate of one Youtube video versus another, and Reddit is most certainly not an acknowledged source for Wikipedia entries, as noted in the discussion by the other editors. I urge Wikipedia to remove this paragraph forthwith. 92.29.224.226 (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The video isn’t my only source for this. In the talk thread I’ve detailed numerous inaccuracies in his video in many cases citing the documents that show this.
Go watch both videos. The rebuttal video is full of screen shots of source material both primary and secondary directly quoted that show the errors of the original. This isn’t just some guy giving an opinion without sources. Ski206 (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that a quick Google search would reveal numerous historical web boards where the accuracy of this video and others are called into question. Noting that controversy in an existing section is entirely appropriate. Ski206 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, "just Google it" and "check out this one video's sources" are dubious suggestions for a source. "What random people are saying online" isn't a reliable source, that's not how this site works.Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you consider these suggestions dubious what would you suggest. The paragraph in question is in a subsection of the entry about controversy around his YouTube content. The original which cited his video and the response of a museum which was compelled to publicly call out his inaccuracies because of the impact they had on it. Now with the second video in question here we have his original video with numerous comments noting its inaccuracies. We have a respected historical youtube channel with an aviation focus and a demonstrated history of using primary source documentation for its analysis and showing and crediting those documents to support its conclusions. We have several threads on WWII message boards discussing this video (and others) calling its accuracy into question.
Now I don’t think this particular page is the right place to lay out the many ways in which this video is inaccurate and amounts to essentially historical fiction. But it is entirely proper given his qualifications and standing to note that his YouTube channel has been called out for its lack of accuracy and to note the controversy in the community around that.
And again it must be noted that while in the talk section I have laid out a case for those inaccuracies Mr. Felton’s only response has been to attack me personally and question my motives. He has yet to respond to a single question of historical fact raised.
If your going to say I’ve not adequately sourced that controversy exists around his YouTube work then please tell me what would qualify. Ski206 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles and coverage from reliable third-party sources would quality, which has been lacking since you've been relying on this one video as your source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So let’s be clear. Are you saying I need better sources that Felton’s claims in the video in question are inaccurate or do I need better sources around the fact that his video is controversial? Ski206 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 21 November 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: In a 2022 YouTube video, Felton claimed that the German Tank Museum "sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model". The museum responded in an open letter, denying Felton's claims and criticising him for "sensationalism". According to the Museum, "the Tiger was a loan and...the owner took the Tiger back after the agreed time was over."[29] The museum then replaced the Tiger with the aforementioned 1:1 plastic model. Felton has since removed the video in question.[30]
  • Why it should be changed: As the video no longer exists, and this paragraph only cites one source (the Panzer Museum) no fair comparison can be made between what the video said and what the Panzer Museum alleges. In the interests of fairness and transparency, this paragraph should be deleted, as the 'open letter' from the Panzer Museum is the only source provided, and that institution is treated as the only viable point-of-view. Wikipedia accepts the letter without any other source provided, and ignores that the Panzer Museum may be biased or wrong.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): N/A


92.29.224.226 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was debated when the initial change to the profile citing this controversy was made and Felton’s attempts to have it removed were rejected. The existing entry does note that the video has been deleted. Ski206 (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 21 November 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Bibliography is missing one of my published books
  • Why it should be changed: Slaughter At Sea: The Story of Japan's Naval War Crimes, (Barnsley, Pen & Sword: 2007)
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Slaughter-at-Sea-Hardback/p/1477

92.29.224.226 (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a further source if required: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491548/Alive-safe-brutal-Japanese-soldiers-butchered-20-000-Allied-seamen-cold-blood.html 92.29.224.226 (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

no Declined Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards,  Spintendo  02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Dailymail is on the list of deprecated sources. Shadow311 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 21 November 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Bibliography is missing one of my published books
  • Why it should be changed: The Bridge Busters: The First Dambusters and the Race to Save Britain, (Independent: 2019) It was nationally reviewed by reputable newspapers - reference below from The Daily Mirror, which ran a large article on it, indicating the importance of, and interest in, the work.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/forgotten-raid-nazi-bridge-risked-16183517

92.29.224.226 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

no Declined Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards,  Spintendo  02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Shadow311 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

I have made an edit to this section which a single person is reverting on a false pretense.

First they are claiming that I’m using a YouTube video as a primary source. This is patently false. The only use of a video in my edit is to quote from the video that Felton published on the subject in question. All of what I say about that video is referenced to other accepted works some of which Felton himself says he used in the preparation of his video.

Second the claim has been made that I’m making malicious edits. A fair and unbiased reading of what I’ve written will show that my only concern is historical accuracy. Felton is a historian with an impressive CV, a long list of works cited in this wiki entry, and a popular YouTube channel. This wiki entry isn’t only biographical it’s also essentially an endorsement of his credentials. Thus if there are serious questions about the accuracy of his work it’s entirely fair to note that.

Third the existing and upheld entry regarding the tank video is evidence that calling out significant and substantiated errors in his videos is acceptable.

Finally there is significant controversy around this video and others he has published. I’m not discussing that because it comes from what have been labeled unacceptable sources but it is out there. Felton has made a video that seriously distorts history claiming that the British had a squadron of Lancasters ready to drop the atomic bomb and were only prevented from doing so by nationalism overruling sound military sense. This claim as I’ve shown is based on a very dubious source and firmly refuted by a multitude of other time tested and highly respected historical sources.

I therefore request that my edit stand and reversion of it without good cause be prevented. Ski206 (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked into how Wikipedia's sourcing policies work? If you want to source that there is a notable controversy surrounding his videos, you have to cite reliable sources that aren't just YouTube videos or comments sections. Wikipedia:Video links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are good starting points here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ski206 your editing (which is close to edit warring by both parties), is original reserch which is absolutely not allowed. You cannot reference a youtube video and then in wikipedia's voice say things like "The source for this story ... seems to be ..." nor list what you think are the "numerous problems" with someone's claim. You can only include what reliable sources say about it. Note the definition of WP:OR which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Melcous (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-added a couple of sentence attempting to refer to the controversy with the Panzermusuem as neutrally as possible based on the source provided. If there are other sources that discuss it from other perspectives, it would be great to point them out. Ski206 a "Criticism" section is rarely warranted, and certainly not here. On the other hand, IP user you have made your conflict of interest clear. I'd ask both of you to stop edit warring over this and try to discuss it here instead. Melcous (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of attempts to engage Felton on this subject and he just reverts to personal attacks.
The Fact is that this wiki page is essentially a full fledged endorsement of his work and credentials as a historian. But he's making up history. I we are going to cite one example of the problems with his work we should be willing to examine others especially when they are beyond question. Look at the sources he cites for his video in question. NONE of them remotely come close to documenting that the RAF had a unit ready willing and able to fly from Tinian on Aug 6 1945 and make the atomic bomb drop. And that only nationalistic pride which overrode good military common sense prevented this. Its beyond nonsense. If he actually has sources that can document this then I'd love to see them. Because it truly would be ground breaking research.
A historian who makes up history for profit is no historian. Its an utterly vile and shameful act. Look how much Mitso Fuchida warped our understanding of the Battle of Midway for decades. IN my view if your not going to note that there are serious questions around some of his work the whole page should just be deleted. Because as is its just an advertisement for him. Is that what wiki does? Advertise and promote people? Ski206 (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the right idea pointing out flaw's with Felton's work, it just doesn't warrant an entire section and may need some better sourcing. Adachi1939 (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 1 December 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: In January 2022, the German Tank Museum issued a statement responding to a YouTube video Felton had posted, refuting a claim that they had "recently sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model." The Museum accused Felton of "...just want[ing] a maximum degree of sensation and emotion in his video, regardless of facts and with minimum workload."[29]
  • Why it should be changed: As the video no longer exists, and this paragraph only cites one source (the Panzer Museum) no fair comparison can be made between what the video said and what the Panzer Museum alleges. In the interests of fairness and transparency, this paragraph should be deleted, as the 'open letter' from the Panzer Museum is the only source provided, and that institution is treated as the only viable and 'correct' point-of-view. The paragraph is biased.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): N/A


92.29.224.226 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not biased to include what is in the source. It is not presented as the "correct" point of view, but rather as the point of view that was expressed by the museum. If you have suggestions for adapting the wording to clarify that, by all means make them, but simply asking for this to be removed in total is, I would argue, censorship. One of the downsides to having a wikipedia article about you is that things you don't like that have been published about you (by reliable sources) can be included here as well. As I said above, if there are other sources that present a different or additional perspective, please point them out and they can be included as well. Or I guess, if you want to argue that the Museum is not a reliable source you could explain why you think that. Melcous (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the IP editor with the clear conflict of interest is asked not to edit the article directly but to use the talk page. You are not helping yourself. Melcous (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 1 December 2023

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: My post nominals FRSA should be restored to my name after FRHistS, as I am a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
  • Why it should be changed: It was previously listed but for some unknown reason has been removed. I have a legal right to use these post nominals.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Arts

92.29.224.226 (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference at List of fellows of the Royal Society of Arts to support his inclusion on the list there. What independent source supports this? —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because it was unsourced. Saying "I have a legal right to use these" is not going to get you far here - this is not your article, it is an article about you based on what independent sources say, not what you say (or want to say) about yourself. You might also like to see WP:NLT. Thank you Melcous (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of an independent source, I am declining the request. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 3 December 2023

[edit]

92.29.224.226 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 3-DEC-2023

[edit]

 Discussion needed

  1. An award very similar to the one being requested now was already added to the article on August 28, 2023 (Honorary Companion of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, as opposed to an "associate" companion).
  2. As this award no longer appears in the article, it must have been reverted. If an edit is reverted by one editor, that edit is, by definition, controversial.
  3. Controversial issues ought not to be resolved through the COI edit request feature, a feature which is primarily meant for COI editors to propose nominally controversial edits to be reviewed by a neutral third party editor. Edit requests involving overtly controversial proposals such as the ones proposed here are not recommended for use with the {{Edit COI}} template.
  4. The process of content dispute resolution needed here should begin with a discussion of the issues with local editors here on this talk page. To that end, the COI editor is invited to continue the discussion below.
  5. If consensus is achieved, and that consensus is that the information ought to be removed and/or clarified in the article, the COI editor may then invoke the {{Edit COI}} template to have a neutral editor make those changes. If no consensus is found here on the talk page alone, the COI editor may then follow up by using any of the subsequent dispute resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this from the "awards" parameter in the infobox, because it is not in any way an award. While it might sound impressive, from what I can see, Associate Companion of the MOLLUS appears to simply be a membership level that a person applies for because they support the objects of the association and pay their dues. That to my mind is not notable or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia biography, and is yet another of numerous examples I have found where this article has been "puffed up" by the subject. Melcous (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 24 January 2024

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Section subtitled 'Criticism'
  • Why it should be changed: Several editors have stated in the talk page that such a sub-heading is "not warranted" in this case. It was previously removed by an editor for this reason, and the general consensus was that it should not be reinstated.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): N/A


92.29.224.226 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Shadow311 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a sub-heading called ‘Criticism’ has already been removed before by other editors. It should be removed again. 92.29.224.226 (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to this party, but I integrated the brief "criticism" section into the "career" section per WP:CSECTION:
Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.
The single criticism given, which has not been subject to discussion by independent secondary sources, seems insufficient to warrant an entire section. Rift (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 13 February 2024

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: The post nominal letters FRHistS have been removed from after my name - can they be restored?
  • Why it should be changed: These post nominals are legally mine to use, granted to me by the Royal Historical Society (which is clearly referenced on my Wiki entry) and according to Debrett's are termed 'an honorific fellowship'. They rank the same as a national honour that carries post nominal letters and must be displayed.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): N/A


92.29.224.226 (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Not done: MOS:POSTNOM: "Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article...but should be omitted from the lead..." Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 12:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Fellowship is not an honorary degree or a professional qualification. You are incorrect on both counts. Honorific fellowships are honours and are always shown after names the same way as national honours like MBE or CMG. Academic post nominals are not shown. I can give you examples ad nauseum of this British practice and I refer you to Debretts, which Wikipedia uses as a source on the page dealing with this question. 92.29.224.226 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until a consensus is established that reliable sources regularly associate you with your fellowship, the standard practice is to not include it, as per the same section. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source is already listed as a footnote of this page! the Royal Historical Society announcement of newly elected fellows including my name etc. What more reliable source is required than the famous institution awarding the fellowship? This is getting a little ridiculous. 92.29.224.226 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 24 February 2024

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: The post-nominals FRHistS have been removed from after my name - they should be restored forthwith
  • Why it should be changed: These post nominals are legally mine to use, granted to me by the Royal Historical Society (which is clearly referenced on my Wiki entry) and according to Debrett's are termed 'an honorific fellowship'. They rank the same as a national honour that carries post nominal letters and must be displayed. My name is clearly listed by the RHS in the below reference, and no further referencing should be required. I should also point out that other of my contemporary historians who have received this honour have their post-nominals clearly shown on their Wiki page, for example Andrew Lownie and Peter Caddick-Adams.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://royalhistsoc.org/society-elects-333-new-fellows-associate-fellows-members-and-postgraduate-members/

92.29.224.226 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

    •  Not done: The editor who removed those post-nominals from the lead cited MOS:POSTNOM, which states that while post-nominals may be mentioned in the body of an article (as the source of yours are, in the Career section), they should be omitted from the article's lead. As for your fellow historians' articles, WP:OTHERSTUFF existing is not a reason to go against the manual of style. Those articles will likely have the post-nominals removed from their leads eventually. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit on 3 March 2024

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: Section called 'Personal Life' has been vandalised - currently reads "Felton lives in Norwich with his wife, Francis-Esmi and son, Garth.
  • Why it should be changed: These are not my wife and son's names. The reference, if checked, doesn't list my family's names, just that I'm married with a son and live in Norwich. It should be changed back to what it originally said: "Felton lives in Norwich with his wife and son."
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): N/A

92.29.224.226 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Melcous (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. 92.29.224.226 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Request edit on 24 July 2024

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed: In January 2022, the German Tank Museum issued a statement responding to a YouTube video Felton had posted, refuting a claim that they had "recently sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model." The Museum accused Felton of "...just want[ing] a maximum degree of sensation and emotion in his video, regardless of facts and with minimum workload."
  • Why it should be changed: I suggest the following paragraph be substituted, which is more accurate, fair and also fully supported by the Panzer Museum's own letter: In January 2022, the German Tank Museum issued a statement responding to a YouTube video Felton had posted, refuting a claim that they had "recently sold a Tiger I to a private collector and replaced it with a 1:1 plastic model." The Museum accused Felton of "...just want[ing] a maximum degree of sensation and emotion in his video, regardless of facts and with minimum workload." The Panzer Museum had in fact returned the Tiger tank to its owner and then replaced it with the aforementioned plastic model. Felton later removed the video.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]

92.12.33.9 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This general issue has been raised here three times before and I see no general feeling that the present wording is unsatisfactory.
The wording that you've suggested above seems to infer that you were right that the tank had been replaced, and the museum were wrong to say that it not been replaced. But the central issue re: this story seems to relate not to that point but to the museum's objection that you had said that the tank had been sold, which was incorrect. They do not seem to dispute that it had been replaced.
If the point that you are hoping to introduce to the article is that you were mistaken to say that the tank had been sold, when it was actually on loan, then I think that the revised wording should make that clear.
Happy to wait for a third opinion on this question however. Axad12 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken, and therefore removed the video when I discovered my source was incorrect, as I mention in the revised paragraph I asked to be published on this page. However, the current paragraph does not mention that the only incorrect part of my video was saying the tank had been 'sold' when it had been 'returned to its owner'. The Museum DID replace it with a plastic model, something they don't mention in the paragraph, but do acknowledge in the source letter! The current paragraph makes it sound as though I made up the plastic replacement tank as well! They did replace it with a plastic tank - and that FACT should be noted as well as the FACT that when I realised my source was incorrect on this point, I removed the video! The paragraph should note these two points. 92.12.47.176 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, I think the main fact here is that you were mistaken. I'm glad that you agree on that score. Thus I think that if there is going to be a change to the article it is going to have to record that fact.
Have you publicly acknowledged that mistake or apologised for it? If so I think a mention of that would go very well in the article. E.g. if it said "Felton later admitted that he had been mistaken, apologised to the museum and deleted the video" and then a source to that effect.
What do you think? Axad12 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not Done: The subject is apparently not prepared to enter into reasonable discussion and is only interested in suggesting edits that present a one-sided view of events. Axad12 (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dear Tank Community". Deutsches PanzerMuseum Munster. January 2022. Retrieved 30 November 2023.

Find the Führer

[edit]

Why is there a whole puffy paragraph about a YouTube series Felton made? This is hardly encyclopedic. The sources are mostly to his YouTube videos, and those that aren't are a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. 85.255.234.66 (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UpdateNerd Can you address these concerns? Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another IP. There's nothing to address other than potentially improving the content. The paragraph could be compressed (e.g. with footnotes) to fit the current shape of the article, but the rest of it generally needs work as well. The paragraph details the arguments of a historian, which is the subject's profession; his contributions are both unique and explained transparently. More of his work should be covered including other WWII documentaries. Give it some time for the next scholar to write about him in the next 'final' book about Hitler's death. 'Puffery' and 'synthesis' are serious allegations but aren't the case here, simply cross-checking and analysis from others who discuss the same topics. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant to Felton's biography. Felton has made dozens of YouTube series so I don't know why you feel the need to write a whole paragraph on this one. You also know that YouTube is not at all a RS, which is probably why you've cited the videos in such a manner. If you want to write about his work, use his actual published work, not a bunch of videos that have been made merely for entertainment purposes. No other article on YouTubers has paragraphs on their YouTube videos if they haven't been mentioned in any RS. And yes, if you're using other sources that don't even mention Felton, that IS synthesis. This article is about Felton's career, not Hitler's death. 85.255.235.93 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that explanation makes more sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does engage in speculation and conjecture and his theories on Hitler's death are fringe, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Felton&oldid=1253218743"