Talk:National Maritime Museum

message: Paragraphs about the National Maritime Museum, especially about several pictures looted from Germany after WWII, have been deleted several times. The vandals generally do not provide reasons, references nor arguments. The section has proper references from The Telegraph, Bloomberg, and The Art Newspaper. If you have proper sources that contradict the references given above, then please provide them. I will put the article on my watchlist, revert vandalism and inform admin. The vandalism involves three acounts, all fresh and without further contributions to wikipedia. Okinawasan 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Alert

message: It has come to my attention that a paragraph of text relating to ‘looted art’ on the Wikipedia page about the National Maritime Museum is in dispute. As the Head of Digital Media at the National Maritime Museum, I have reviewed the content of this paragraph and would say that it does not conform to Wikipedia’s requirement for a neutral point of view. Within Wikipedia’s terms of reference, it is an attack on the National Maritime Museum, in the following ways:	
* The section on ‘looted art’ has undue prominence on the entry for the National Maritime Museum, in terms of the relative word count, the use of a sub-head to create a whole section, and the position on the page.
* The final sentence of the section reads: 'The National Maritime Museum admitted in January 2007, that "the documentation at the NMM and the National Archives is not complete", according to spoliation guidelines, the pictures should be regarded as having been "wrongly taken".' It appears constructed to misquote the National Maritime Museum. The first phrase (“the documentation… is not complete”) does come from a statement issued by the National Maritime Museum and is a simple statement of ascertainable facts. The second – that ‘the pictures should be regarded as “wrongly taken”’ - does not come from the National Maritime Museum. By bringing these two quotations (the second being un-attributed in the body of the text) together into a single sentence, the author misrepresents the National Maritime Museum’s position and misleads the reader. Here Okinawasan is making an argument about what 'should' be done, rather than just presenting the facts. 	
* Okinawasan uses emotionally-loaded language, such as the word ‘loot’, which has a range of meanings and is here used to suggest wrong-doing on the part of the National Maritime Museum. The manner in which these paintings were acquired by the National Maritime Museum, from the Naval War Trophies Committee, was considered appropriate at the time, which was the immediate post World War Two period.
* All of the ‘looted art’ citations relate to a single article in the Art Newspaper and subsequent reporting of that article. No balancing information or opinions are offered. The National Maritime Museum is committed to the integrity of its collections, and has an active programme of research into the history and provenance of the collections. The Museum has also been an active participant in the National Museum Director’s Conference initiative to research the 1933-45 provenance of items in UK public collections. See: http://www.culturalpropertyadvice.gov.uk/spoliation_reports 
Members of NMM staff have independently found and edited this entry, sometimes deleting the disputed section. I understand that this is not the correct Wikipedia process for handling disputes and so have outlined the Museum’s concerns above.
Fiona Romeo, Head of Digital Media at the National Maritime Museum
Foe 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral point of view

message: A request for opinion was entered at the Third opinion page.  In response I looked at the issue.  I agree that the detailed mention in this article is out of scale to the topic; however, I see this controvery as a reasonable topic for a separate article.  Although, I would say the at the scope of such an article should not be specifically limited to this institution. --Kevin Murray 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Kevin, Thank you for interfering. Lets try to summarize and "find a path" to an equilibrium, agreement or consensus with the other editors. Allow me to start and please add your points/comments/critiques: (1) the paragraph fulfills all the relevant guidelines of notability/verifiability/reliable sources and should be featured in wikipedia; (2) the track record of the sockpuppets and vandals - according to Foe from the National Maritime Museum is a violation of wikipedia protocols; (3) until now there are -no- verifiable/reliable  sources given that would indicate that there is a dispute/wrongdoing; (4) the only statement i see is from a fresh account Foe who claims to represent the NMM which is not confirmed through reliable/verifiable sources and therefore irrelevant; (5) that account spread false accusations and failed to provide supporting arguments ... those are the things which are clear - at least according to wikipedia guidelines. allow me to continue: (5) one article includes a reference to a "Dr. Barnartz Historical Marine Institute in Cologne" which we can not identify - we assume its a mistake of the original author and he refers to Dr. Hans Willy Bernartz, an attorney from Cologne and founder of the Deutschen Schiffahrtsmuseums Bremerhaven. he published about marine painters (http://www.amazon.de/Marinemaler-Bernartz-Sammlung-Deutschen-Schiffahrtsmuseums-Bremerhaven/dp/3782203526/); i suggested - following the wikipedia guidelines and practice to keep the source but add a note to it, stating the concerns mentioned above; (6) in the context of the current article the paragraph appears to be "out of scale" (your words) and i agree - especially because the -entire- article lacks content and references (i started and added/edited other content when i added the looted art paragraph). (6a) i suggest, that instead of simply hiding the dark spot of the museum we add more content about the "brighter sides", exhibitions, features, staff, achievements; (6b) personally i can understand an argument to eliminate the names of the pictures if they are included in corresponding articles of the painters. i believe, that the names do not provide information that is absolute necessary (in the nmm article), i would include them though if the artworks would have a significant iconic value like the mona lisa(which they dont have); (7) the name of the paragraph is consistent with several 54000 controversy paragraphs/articles in wikipedia (http://www.google.com/search?hl=es&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=+site:en.wikipedia.org+wikipedia+controversy ); the term "looted" is used often in the reliable sources mentioned above; (8) i believe it is only logical to include that paragraph in the proximity of the "collection" paragraph but i am open for other "more logical" explainations; (9) the paragraph should stay inside the nmm article or be expanded to a separate article. personally i do not see a better place for the paragraph - but i will consider your convincing arguments. as for mixing the article with other institutions - we already have looted art; i will add a minor reference there, but looted art can simply not feature all looted art extensively. personally i can only see two solutions: keeping it as it is or expaning it to an entire article; (10) i would appriciate it, if we could refrain from broad changes or paragraph kills, especially because we still have the "request for comment" - at least until we have sorted out most of the (starting) points i have listed above. thank you. please add your own/comment - and much better: add good content about the National Maritime Museum and add reliable sources/references to the article - this includes editors from the NMM. thank you.Okinawasan 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The article says "The Cultural Property Advice report of the National Maritime Museum states, that out of 394 oil paintings investigated, only 180 have proper provenance, 7 are war trophies, 16 are of possibly suspect origin, 143 have gaps in provenance and 44 paintings have no provenance information at all.". The manner in which the NMM's collections were assembled by Caird, the major donor, inevitably means there are provenance gaps. Doesn't the article earlier imply criticism only of the Museum's position on the paintings that it regards as "War trophies"?. What more does The Art Newspaper and the editor of the Looted Art controvery section expect the NMM to do about the absence of required papers to demonstrate provenance? Vernon White . . . Talk  22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-reported provenance gaps

message: The artist mentioned does not appear to be very well known. If this part of the article is to have credibility, a better citation is needed for this person. Vernon White . . . Talk  22:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ehrhard ? Who ?

message: Thank you for your contributions. I can help resolve the following questions that have been raised. Each comment is in the order it appears on this Discussion page: 
1. Vernon White, 20 September (19:20) about whether a 'formal dispute is in progress'. 
The National Maritime Museum has no active or recent claims for any of these objects. If the Museum were to receive a request of this nature it would be rigorously investigated with reference to relevant UK sectoral bodies, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Museums Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) and the Museums Association. 
2. Okinawasan, 23 September (08.40), 'we have no proof that Foe is truly Fiona Romeo'. 
I would like to reconfirm that as the Head of Digital Media at the National Maritime Museum, the comments I have added to the Discussion page represent the views of the Museum. I will send an email to Okinawasan from my official Museum email account to verify my identity. 
Update: I tried to email Okinawasan but received this error message from Wikipedia: 'this user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.' I have verified my National Maritime Museum email address with Wikipedia and have opted in to receive email from other users, so Okinawasan is free to contact me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foeromeo (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment - follow up 

message: Kevin just now asked me to comment. Really, there's not much more to say.  I agree that the treatment of the material at present shows undue weight, and should be a separate article, so it can get a fuller and more even-handed discussion. (As an alternative, this article could be considerably expanded in other respects--it's a wonderful museum, and there's lots more that could be added.) FR is correct that the presentation of the material needs to be improved--as explained above, problems with provenance affect more than this museum.  And there's a sharp difference between materials with unknown or incomplete provenance, and those known to be problematic.  And we don't cite other articles in WP--we just link them. Citing is good, but excessive cites add to the impression of undue weight. Further, the red-linked title of the last item can be given less provocatively.  WP is an encyclopedia, not a place for even the most righteous crusades. DGG (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: another comment

message: Based on the recent feedback, I've been bold in trimming the section in question, but I've left all of the references so our readers can go further into the matter.  Fiona has contacted me by email, from an account which ties to the museum's website.  I have also taken the further step to write to the link at the museum site asking for confirmation of her credentials to further refute the assertions above.  I hope that she may lead us to more information to expand the article.  Thanks for the comments above.  --Kevin Murray 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold

message: I have reduced the section to a para and cut the refs to include only those in The Art Newspaper. The para now links to "War trophy" and "Looted art" articles. Vernon White . . . Talk  22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War trophy/Looted art

message: I received the following response from my inquiry regarding the status of Fiona Romeo.
Dear Kevin
 
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you - I have been on leave for the past week.
 
I can confirm that Fiona Romeo is the Head of Digital Media at the National Maritime Museum.
 
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
 
Best wishes,
Sheryl
Sheryl Twigg 
Press & PR Manager 
National Maritime Museum, Queen's House 
and Royal Observatory, Greenwich 
Tel:  +44 (0)20 8312 6790 
Mob: 07903 547 284 
Email: stwigg@nmm.ac.uk 
Sheryl Twigg's position can be confirmed directly at the museum's website.  I think this firmly establishes Fiona's credentials.  --Kevin Murray 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confirmation

message: Employees of NMM should note Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. --Vernon White . . . Talk  19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I note that the article now claims an area of 200 acres for the museum. The museum site is separated by a wall and a railway track from :Greenwich Park, and are not a part of it. Kbthompson (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: Hello -
The NMM claim as the "most famous museum in the United Kingdom" would relegate the British Museum to second place at best.  This would clearly seem to need a citation.  Is it perhaps "most famous nautical museum in the United Kingdom"?  JMOprof (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the sole contribution of an IP editor, and being uncited and arguably unconstructive, I think this addition can probably be reverted.  --IxK85 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'll remove it, and we'll see if it comes back ☺ JMOprof (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "most famous museum in the United Kingdom" claim 

message: The NMM 'may be the largest museum of its kind in the world' - is it or isn't it, or should it be 'is one of the largest museums of its kind...' ? Jackiespeel (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrasing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on National Maritime Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429102826/http://www.alva.org.uk/visitor_statistics/ to http://www.alva.org.uk/visitor_statistics/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204230417/http://www.erithyachtclub.org.uk/mrobituary.htm to http://www.erithyachtclub.org.uk/mrobituary.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520042531/http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,1000047878,00.html to http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,1000047878,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029034825/http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conJmrArticle.15 to http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conJmrArticle.15
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321123536/http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conJmrArticle.30 to http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conJmrArticle.30
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410025350/http://www.history.ac.uk/friends/PastandFuture2005.pdf to http://www.history.ac.uk/friends/PastandFuture2005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026064054/http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConJmrArticle.227 to http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConJmrArticle.227
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Maritime Museum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526132548/http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=562 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=562
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526132553/http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=563 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=563
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article doesn't mention Queen's House, which is odd as that article states part of the NMM is based in the building.John a s (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen's House